Ekel Snail B.B Cream SPF50+, PA+++

Though this ingredient works well with most skin types, some people with sensitive skin may experience a reaction such as allergic rashes, closed comedones, or itchiness.

It plays several roles in a formula:

Typical use levels for this ingredient sit around 1-10% and the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel has affirmed safety at concentrations up to 25% in leave-on products.

Multiple assessments have found it to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing to most people.

However, there have been some cases of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with chronically compromised skin barriers.

Cetearyl alcohol has a comedogenic rating of 2 and irritancy rating of 1. Both of these numbers come from the 1989 study that used rabbit ears; a "2" means mildly comedogenic and a "1" means low irritancy.

Here's the catch: rabbit skin is more sensitive than human skin and throws a lot of false positives. A 1996 reappraisal found that ingredients rated 1-2 in the rabbit ear tests are generally safe for humans.

Remember comedogenic ratings are unable to assess the entire formula of a product or how it will react on your skin. Just be sure to patch test if you are unsure about certain ingredients.

This ingredient is not fungal acne safe. Cetearyl alcohol is a fatty alcohol with chain lengths that fall within the range that Malassezia can metabolize.

A 2019 study has also observed Malassezia growth in the presence of this ingredient, confirming it to be not-fungal acne safe.

However, it is slightly photounstable and loses about 10% of its protective power after 65 minutes (but it can still stabilize the famously unstable avobenzone).

Historically, the maximum permitted usage concentration in the EU was 4% though it was banned in the US, Japan, and Denmark.

As of 2025, the European Commission has placed it on the list of prohibited substances.

This regulation change isn't about skin irritation or allergic reactions; the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has concluded there's enough evidence to suggest it may mess with your hormones. There are also questions about whether it could damage DNA that scientists haven't been able to rule out yet.

At the same time, the UK's Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety (SAG-CS) independently concluded that 4-MBC cannot be considered safe for use in cosmetic products at any concentration due to these same concerns.

The most popular types of cyclomethicones include D5 and D6.

Here's a myth worth busting: mineral filters are usually described as working by "reflecting" or "bouncing" UV off your skin.

That's mostly not true: when researchers actually measured it, ZO and Titanium Dioxide reflect only about 4-5% of UV (less than SPF 2 worth of protection).

The vast majority of the work (~95%) is done by absorption, similar to chemical UV filters. ZO is a semiconductor that absorbs UV photos through its energy band gap.

So the old "physical blocker vs. chemical absorber" framing is really an oversimplification.

Zinc Oxide is one of the most effective broad-spectrum UV filters out there. It protects across UVB, UVA2, and UVA1 with a flat, even absorption curve across the whole UVA-UVB range.

That uniform UVA coverage is its standout feature; titanium dioxide skews more toward UVB as its particle size drops so ZO gives more consistent and extended UVA protection.

It's also very photostable. As an inorganic oxide, ZO doesn't break down in sunlight the way some organic filters can, so it holds up over a day of wear.

This ingredient is gentle and soothing, making it go-to for sunscreens aimed at sensitive skin, rosacea, or ecezma-prone skin, babies, and children.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" that some sunscreen ingredients are known for, and regulatory agencies broadly consider it non-toxic and safe for topical use.

Beyond sun protection, ZO is also a recognized OTC skin protectant. It forms a breathable barrier that shields skin from moisture and irritation while supporting healing. This is why you'll see it as a classic active in diaper rash creams.

The only downside to ZO is that it can leave a visible white cast, especially on deeper skin tones. This is the main reason mineral sunscreens have historically felt less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas.

Zinc Oxide comes in both non-nano and nano forms. The dividing line is 100nm and anything under is classified as a nanomaterial by the EU.

The nano version scatters less visible light which cuts down white case and gives a lighter, more wearable texture.

Another thing worth understanding about formulation:

Uncoated ZO has some inherent photocatalytic activity. This just means it can generate reactive oxygen species under UV. It's exactly why cosmetic-grade ZO is almost always surface-coated; this coating suppresses that reactivity and improves how the powder disperses and feels.

A well-formulated coated ZO largely sidesteps this issue.

Zinc Oxide is commonly used anywhere from 10% up to the regulatory maximum in sunscreens (25%).

Mineral-only broad-spectrum products often land in the 15-25% range to hit higher SPF and UVA values. Keep in mind SPF performance depends heavily on particle size, dispersion, and the rest of the formula, and not just the percentage.

As an OTC skin protectant like diaper creams, ZO typically runs higher at roughly 10-40%.

This ingredient is generally easy to work with and doesn't photodegrade.

The only thing to know is that uncoated ZO can be a bit reactive in a formula.

Under UV, it can break down sensitive ingredients like other actives or UV filters. This is another reason coated versions are standard. ZO can also react with very acidic ingredients or throw off stability of some creams. A good formula will get around this with the right coatings and dispersion.

The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that ZO nanoparticles "can be considered to not pose any risk of adverse effects in humans after application on healthy, intact or sunburnt skin".

You might hear that ZO is "toxic"; this is because an in-vitro (test tube) study suggested micronized ZO had potential phototoxicity. In vivo (human) investigations have disputed this and the results have come back reassuring.

So does ZO penetrate skin? The short answer is no, not in any way that matters.

The most relevant evidence comes from real-world human studies: in one, volunteers applied ZO nanoparticle sunscreen hourly for six hours and daily for five days. The advanced imaging showed the particles stayed on the surface and never reached the living epidermis, and no cellular toxicity was found.

Other in-vivo and ex-vivo work agree; ZO nanoparticles don't cross the stratum corneum, even on flexed, massaged, or barrier-impaired skin.

A small amount of solubilized zinc ions can dissolve off the particles and enter the upper skin. But the quantities are tiny compared to the zinc already naturally present in your body, and studies haven't found this to cause local toxicity.

The sunscreen bans you've heard of (like Hawaii's) are aimed at two chemical filters, Oxybenzone and Octinoxate. ZO itself it not banned and is often recommended instead.

So far, there's no solid evidence that any form of ZO harms reefs. It is an ongoing and active area of study, and worth keeping an eye on.

If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.

In practice, that translates to a long shelf life and a consistently elegant skin feel.

While there is an assumption Caprylic Triglyceride can clog pores due to it being derived from coconut oil, there is no research supporting this. Just patch test if you have concerns.

Fractionated coconut oil and MCT Oil are both listed as Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride according to INCI. This is because INCI names are based on the ingredient’s final chemical composition and not its marketing name or source.

This ingredient is treated as the gold standard fungal acne safe oil. Even though it is coconut derived, the problematic lauric acid is stripped out.

This leaves just caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) acid. These chain lengths actually trend antifungal; a 2020 study found caprylic acid was enough to disrupt Malassezia furfur cell membrane, with a caprylic acid derivative damaging membrane structures at concentrations as low as 0.2%.

In this case, the 60 comes from reacting 60 units of ethylene oxide with sorbitan.

Polysorbates are commonly used in medicine and foods.

This ingredient is typically used in concentrations between 1-10%. Studies have found it to be non-sensitizing, non-phototoxic, and non-photoallergenic.

A close cousin of this ingredient is Glyceryl Stearate SE ("self-emulsifying"). This just has a small amount of sodium or potassium stearate added so it can emulsify without a co-emulsifier.

Since this ingredient is an ester of a C18 fatty acid, it may not be fungal acne safe. The Malassezia yeast can potentially metabolize within the C11-C24 range.

Fun fact: The human body also creates Glyceryl Stearate naturally.

As an occlusive, it forms a protective layer on the skin that locks in moisture and prevents transepidermal water loss (TEWL). This makes it especially great for compromised skin barriers.

The "it clogs your pores" myth has been around for decades; a study found that industrial-grade mineral oil may be comedogenic but cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not (these two are very, very different).

A 2017 review concluded that cosmetic use of mineral oils and waxes does not present a risk to consumers due to absorption.

Mineral oil got a bad rap from the old rabbit ear studies. When tested on actual human skin, cosmetic-grade mineral oil showed no comedogenic activity. The rating of 0 is a correction of outdated science.

Mineral oil is an inert substance with no fatty acids so there's nothing to feed Malassezia. This ingredient is fungal acne safe.

A really common myth is that mineral filters work by reflecting UV light off your skin like tiny mirrors.

They don't only do that; modern research shows TD protects mostly by absorbing UV radiation, the same way chemical filters do.

When researchers measured this, reflection accounted for only about 4-5% of the protection (and less than SPF 2 on its own). The other ~95% comes from absorption: the UV photons hit the particle and their energy gets soaked up by its semiconductor band gap rather than bouncing off.

So "reflects vs. absorbs" was never really the right way to split mineral from chemical filters.

TD gives broad-spectrum protection that's strongest in the UVB and UVA-2 range and weaker in the UVA-1 range. Its UVA protection isn't quite as strong as Zinc Oxide's which is why you'll often see the two paired together.

Together, they make a solid broad-spectrum system.

TD is a great pick for sensitive, acne-prone, or redness-prone skin because it's non-irritating and chemically inert. Regulatory reviews classify it as a non-sensitizer and mild-to-non-irritant.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" some chemical filters are known for.

The main trade-off is cosmetic; TD can leave a white cast and has a thicker texture. This is why mineral sunscreens are often less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas (and harder to shade-match on deeper skin tones).

Formulators often use micronized or nano-sized TD to cut down on white case and improve spreadability. Smaller particles scatter less visible light so the formula looks less chalky while still filtering UV.

TD is almost always bundled with coatings like Alumina, Silica, Stearic Acid, or Dimethicone. These coatings do two important jobs:

TD can be used at up to 25% in a finished sunscreen; this is the regulatory ceiling in both the US and the EU.

In practice, the amount in any given product varies a lot depending on the target SPF and whether it's paired with other UV filters.

TD is one of the most heavily vetted sunscreen ingredients out there. It is approved as a UV filter in all major markets worldwide, including the US, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, and Canada.

The safety evidence is solid. There was an old worry that nano particles might absorb through skin into the body but multiple studies (including on damaged, sunburned, and UV-irradiated skin) have shown that TD stays on the surface and the layer of dead skin cells on top of everything else.

There's also no evidence of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or reproductive toxicity from dermal exposure of this ingredient.

For those who have seen the headline about a 2022 EU ban on TD, that was on TD as a food additive (a complete separate use from topical sunscreen).

There are ongoing questions about how nano-TD might affect marine ecosystems. As of now, there has been no conclusive evidence that any form of TD (or any other sunscreen filter) harms coral reefs or marine life.

The science is still developing and it's a space worth watching rather than packing over.

However, several destinations have reef-safety sunscreen rules that restrict certain chemical filters and steer visitors toward mineral, non-nano options. If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.

Some studies suggest this ingredient may cause irritation in some people. If you are unsure, it is best to patch test.

This ingredient may not be Malassezia folliculitis, or fungal-acne safe due to the oleic acid. In vitro studies have shown that Oleic Acid is one of the fatty acids that induce rapid Malassezia growth in lab settings.

Like other types of silica, this ingredient can be used to thicken a product. As an absorbent, it may be used to absorb extra water or help prevent clumping.

Although “aluminum” in an ingredient name can raise red flags for some consumers, the form and usage context matter significantly. For typical topical applications, there is no substantial evidence of health risks - such as cancer, neurotoxicity, or systemic “aluminum overload.”

Xanthan gum is a pretty common and great ingredient. It is a natural, non-toxic, non-irritating ingredient that is also commonly used in food products.

Some studies suggest betaine may support making skin tone more even.

Fun fact: Betaine naturally exists in the skin and the body. In cosmetic products, it can be either plant-derived (most commonly from sugar beets) or synthetically produced for consistency and stability.

Betaine is also known as trimethylglycine.

On a cellular level, it disrupts the cell membranes of microbes by poking holes that make the cell leak. This shuts down the chemical reactions the microbe needs to make energy so it can no longer survive.

Another perk of this ingredient is that it stays functional across a wide pH range (3-10).

You'll often see it paired with boosters like Ethylhexylglycerin; one study showed that a 1:9 ratio of Ethylhexylglycerin to Phenoxyethanol damages bacterial membranes as effectively as doubling the Phenoxyethanol concentration on its own.

Typical use concentrations range from 0.3-1% depending on the formula, and this ingredient is capped at 1% int the EU.

Safety-wise, the fear mongering does not hold up to the evidence. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety and FDA consider it safe as a preservative at up to 1%, including for children of all ages.

Adverse systemic effects only showed up in animal studies at exposures roughly 200x higher than what people get from cosmetics. And despite its very widespread use, this ingredient is a rare sensitizer and allergic reactions are uncommon.

It's actually inactive on its own and works like a slow-release "storage" form; the enzymes in your skin called esterases gradually convert it into active vitamin E over time.

One in vivo study showed 5% of the acetate in the living layer of the epidermis converted to vitamin E after 5 days of application. This study also found the skin gained protection against UV damage even though the conversion was slow and small.

Once converted, vitamin E acts as a skin's main fat-soluble antioxidant that fights free radicals to protect skin from damage.

Topical vitamin E generally boosts the skin's photoprotection, and it reduced UV-damage in animal models.

This ingredient has some brightening potential but it's more of a prevention ingredient than spot-fader. Cell studies show it can slow down melanin production but it's worth noting that it's not the most powerful brightener out there.

Overall, it has a pretty solid safety profile and has been found to be non-irritating and non-comedogenic. Allergic reactions may happen but stay rare due to how widely the ingredient gets used.

The concentration will vary depending on the formula; industry data shows 0.1% in baby lotions, 3% in lipsticks, and 5% in foot powders. You can also find this ingredient at 100% in a pure vitamin E oil.

Most leave-on skincare keeps it at the lower end, often between 0.5-1%.

Synthetically created CI 77492 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

Its headline job is hydration.

The star polysaccharide in aloe, acemannan, is a humectant that retains moisture and helps reduce trans-epidermal water loss.

Aloe also has real soothing credentials; it contains anti-inflammatory compounds like bradykinase and C-glucosyl chromone that help calm irritation and redness.

On the repair side, lab work shows that acemannan wakes up your skin's repair cells (fibroblasts), prompting them to multiply and speed up healing.

There's some human data for cosmetic benefit too: a cream containing 10% Aloe Barbadensis leaf extract improved skin hydration and elasticity in a real-use study.

Safety-wise, this ingredient is well-regarded with just one rare downside; there have been some case reports of acute eczema, contact urticaria, and dermatitis in people who applied aloe-derived ingredients topically. Those with a known aloe or Liliaceae sensitivity should patch test.

Typical use levels range widely, from under 1% up to 90%+ depending on the format and the effect you are after.

Synthetically created Ci 77491 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

On top of that, this ingredient can counteract the effects of hard water by binding to the minerals in it.

One thing worth knowing is that Disodium EDTA has been shown to be a mild penetration enhancer. It can help other ingredients absorb into skin more effectively which can be a double-edged sword (great for actives, but can also make the active too strong if you have sensitive skin).

Clinical patch testing showed no significant skin irritation at typical use concentrations and minimal dermal absorption.

You'll most likely see this ingredient near the end of an ingredient list. It's typically found in concentrations less than 1%.

In a formula, it acts as a humectant and barrier-supporting soother and the research backs this up as well.

A 2025 systematic review of human clinical trials found that snail-derived ingredients improved signs of aging, increased skin hydration, decreased transepidermal water loss, and improved healing after radiation therapy/fractional laser treatment.

Lab studies have also shown the secretion promotes the proliferation, migration, and survival of the cells that rebuild skin (keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts).

There's also a placebo-controlled study where a serum containing it helped with mask-related acne.

Overall, this is a gentle, water-based multitasker that works great for hydrating and supporting the skin barrier. However, please see the section below if you have dust mite or shellfish allergies.

You'll see snail filtrate listed at very different percentages depending on the product. Some Korean serums list it near the top of the ingredients at 90% or more while other products use just a few percent.

This doesn't mean the high-percentage ones are far stronger. Raw snail filtrate is mostly water to begin with so using a lot of it isn't the same thing as using a lot of the active ingredients.

Other products use a concentrated version so a small amount goes a long way. Either approach can work well. Just know the percentage on the label isn't a reliable way to judge how effective a snail product will be.

Being cruelty-free means a brand does not experiment on animals. If you're worried about the well-being of the snails, we recommend looking more into the company of the product. Many brands claim to have developed humane methods to collect snail mucin.

There is much debate on this subject. On one hand, this ingredient comes from an animal. On the other hand, many will argue the ingredient is naturally secreted (like a natural by-product) and therefore vegan. If you have reservations, you can look into Galactomyces Ferment Filtrate or Centella Asiatica Extract as alternatives.

This ingredient is fungal acne safe. Its core composition lacks the fatty acid/ester triggers that Malassezia depends on.

True allergy to Snail Secretion Filtrate is uncommon and most documented cases are linked to a dust mite allergy.

Snail proteins (including Tropomyosin) are similar enough to dust mite proteins that the immune system can confuse them.

In most documented cases, the dust mite was the original trigger and tropomyosin turned out to be only a minor player in some studies (so this has not been fully confirmed).

Another thing to know is that nearly all the evidence comes from eating snails or inhaling the protein and not from cosmetics.

However, the allergenic proteins can survive filtration into a finished product; a topical reaction is biologically plausible but there's little published evidence of it actually happening.

People who are allergic to dust mites (or sometimes shellfish) are the most likely to react.

Studies show green tea extract and its catechins (like epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)) help your skin cells product energy more efficiently and reducing the number of free-radicals that can damage your skin from the inside.

In lab-grown skin models, this translated to younger, healthier, and stronger skin.

There's also good sun protection data; researchers saw less DNA damage and redness on human skin when green tea was applied before UVB exposure. And the more they applied, the better the protection.

Needless to say, this ingredient shouldn't replace your sunscreen. But it is a great supportive ingredient that you can already find in many sunscreens and antioxidant serums.

A 2009 study found a 2% green tea lotion was effective for mild-to-moderate acne thanks to its anti-inflammatory and mild antimicrobial activity.

The quality of the extract matters a lot here:

Good extracts contain 50-90% catechins while lower quality ones are mostly there for marketing. We recommend reaching out to the brand if you have questions about the quality or source of their ingredients.

Human Repeated Insult Patch Testing showed no irritation or sensitization at use concentrations (0.86% in leave-on products and up to 30% as leaf water).

Here is the official definition from the The International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook:

“Aroma is a term for ingredient labeling used to identify that a product contains a material or combination of materials normally added to a cosmetic to produce or to mask a particular flavor.”

INCI shows the only purpose of aroma to be "flavouring".

However, due to regulation differences, some companies may use aroma in place of parfum.

In Canada, this ingredient only has to be listed in concentrations above 1%.