G.M. Collin Exfozyme Exfoliant

Sunscreens containing bentonite display higher water resistance and stay on the skin for much longer. The sunscreens containing bentonite also show higher potency and UV light absorbtion.

Bentonite is naturally created from volcanic ash and several natural weathering/hydrothermal processes.

A common usage of bentonite is removing excess protein from white wines. Bentonite contains a property of being able to absorb large amounts of protein from aqueous solutions.

Phyllosilicate clay has a structure formed by sheets.

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.

This is why "gentle" and "moisturizing" cleansers feel less stripping than basic ones.

Typical concentrations range from 1-10% and it has a solid safety record. The CIR Expert Panel has concluded this ingredient to be safe at concentrations up to 10% in leave-on products.

Dermal application tests at 50% also did not produce irritation in two studies.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe and in vitro studies have shown Malassezia can metabolize it.

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.

Typical use ranges from 0.5-30%. Most leave-on products are in the 1-10% zone.

The 20 ethylene oxide units is well above the PEG-10 threshold and therefore not a food source for Malassezia (it's fungal acne safe).

This ingredient has a comedogenic rating of 2 and an irritancy rating of 3. These numbers come from testing the raw ingredient on rabbit ears and doesn't reflect how it will behave in a finished product.

In practice, this ingredient is a well-tolerated ingredient. The ratings reflect cautious lab conditions and not real-world use. Just be sure to patch test any formulas you feel unsure about.

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.

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.

Your skin makes glycerin on its own (mostly from sebaceous oil breakdown) and shuttles it to your outermost layer of skin, or your epidermis, via aquaporin-3.

Aquaporin-3 is a transporter that is essential for normal skin hydration, elasticity, and repair. Interestingly, mice lacking in AQP3 have dry and less elastic skin that can be fully corrected with glycerin.

This ingredient is non-irritating, plays well with almost every ingredient, and works across all skin types. Typical use is anywhere between 3-10% but can go up to 79% in some leave-on products.

Just know very high concentrations (>40%) can feel tacky in low humidity.

Glycerin is the name for this ingredient in American English. British English uses Glycerol/Glycerine.

Unlike other plant oils, jojoba wax doesn't easily penetrate skin. It mostly works in the uppermost layers as an emollient. This just means it forms a light barrier on the skin to help retain moisture.

Formulations with jojoba esters up to 90% reduced transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and increased barrier recovery by 81% (outperforming bisabolol at 47%).

Besides barrier support, the science also suggests jojoba to have anti-inflammatory effects and potential applications for skin infections, aging, and wound healing.

Fun fact: Indigenous cultures have used jojoba as a moisturizer and to help treat burns for centuries.

Fungal acne: The Malassezia yeast is known to metabolize fatty acids in the C11-24 range and jojoba's dominant fatty acid components fall into this range. This ingredient may not be 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.

Furanocoumarins bind and destabilize your DNA to increase the rate of sunburn.

Most reputable companies will remove furanocoumarins from their formulations.

The "cooling" sensation from mint isn't a real temperature change; menthol actives a nerve receptor in skin that gets triggered by cold. Your brain essentially gets a "cool" signal from it.

Just so you know, allergic contact dermatitis to menthol is documented in literature (but it's kind of uncommon). This is why the percentages allowed in leave-on products are quite low (0.2%). Be sure to patch test if you have sensitive skin.

Though this ingredient is not listed as an EU allergen, it's cousins (Mentha Piperita Oil, menthol and Mentha Viridis Leaf Oil) are.

Due to the high Menthol content of this ingredient, brands are required to label "menthol" as a separate ingredient on the list. The EU regulation labels the allergenic substance, not just the source ingredient, so the menthol carried in this ingredient still has to be declared.

The unique structure of silica enhances the spreadability and adds smoothness, making it a great texture enhancer.

It is also used as an active carrier, emulsifier, and mattifier due to its ability to absorb excess oil.

In some products, tiny microneedles called spicules are made from silica or hydrolyzed sponge. When you rub them in, they lightly polish away dead skin layers and enhance the penetration of active ingredients.

In skincare, proteases act as biological catalysts that mimic this natural desquamation process. You can think of it as giving your skin's own renewal system a nudge.

By breaking down the bonds that hold dead skin cells together, proteases help accelerate cell turnover to:

One reason they're becoming a popular AHA alternative is because proteases are considered effective while also being well-tolerated on skin. Because they work at a protein level rather than by lowering the skin pH, they can be a good option for those sensitive to AHAs.

Available in vitro and in vivo studies show positive exfoliant results but clinical (human) trials specifically on enzymatic exfoliation are still limited at this time.

Just one thing worth noting: temperature, pH, and stabilization are important factors that affect enzyme activity. The formulation quality definitely matters with this ingredient.

This ingredient can be either microbial sourced or plant-derived (papain from papaya, bromelain from pineapple).

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.”

This ingredient is considered hypoallergenic and non-toxic. Cellulose Gum can be found in cosmetics, food, and other household goods such as paper products.

The CIR Expert Panel has confirmed this ingredient to be nontoxic and clinical studies show no sensitization at cosmetic use concentrations.

True allergic reactions are quite rare: a 15-year retrospective study of 6,751 patients found only 0.31% had a positive reaction (and less than half were considered clinically relevant).

It seemed that when sensitization does occur, it's most commonly linked to topical medication (like corticosteroids) and not cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis also appears largely limited to individuals with underlying skin conditions.

Overall, propylene glycol is a well-studied ingredient that most people can tolerate without issue.

Some people who are allergic to imidazolidinyl urea also react to diazolidinyl urea. It ranked as the 14th most common allergen in patch tests from 2005–06.

Safety reviews show that at concentrations under 0.5%, the formaldehyde released remains below the accepted safety limit, making it considered safe for cosmetic use.

Ultimately, its safety depends on individual skin sensitivity and personal comfort with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives.

This is also one of the most heavily studied preservatives out there and major regulatory bodies have repeatedly given it the green light.

In 2023, the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) confirmed that this ingredient is safe up to 0.4% on its own, of up to 0.8% when mixed with other paraben esters.

Here's the science behind the noise behind parabens/hormones as well:

Methylparaben shows very weak estrogen-like activity in vitro tests (more than 1,000x weaker than your body's own estradiol). In vivo (live-organism) studies don't support a meaningful endocrine-disrupting effect either.

You get a stronger estrogenic effect from eating tofu, actually.

It's also a low sensitizer and allergic reactions are uncommon; they usually happen on damage or broken skin.

There is a caveat: France has proposed to formally re-examine its endocrine classification in 2025 so the regulatory conversation isn't fully closed as of yet.

But as it stands today, this ingredient is considered safe at permitted levels.

You'll likely see it paired with methylparaben to cover the full range (including gram-negative bacteria).

This ingredient is effective at low concentrations (~0.2-0.5%) and stable across a wide pH range (4.5-7.5 pH). It's effectiveness drops off above pH 8 and it can lose potency when combined with non-ionic surfactants like polysorbate 80 due to micellization.

The regulatory bodies have concluded this ingredient to be safe as used in cosmetics. The EU has capped it at 0.14% and combined parabens are not to exceed 0.8%.

While parabens do cross the stratum corneum, only about 1% remains for absorption into the body. This is because most of it is metabolized within living skin.

However, this exfoliating effect only happens at high concentrations (20%) which can be hard to find in cosmetic products.

Due to this, citric acid is usually included in small amounts as a pH adjuster. This helps keep products slightly more acidic and compatible with skin's natural pH.

In skincare formulas, citric acid can:

While it can provide some skin benefits, research shows lactic acid and glycolic acid are generally more effective and less irritating exfoliants.

Most citric acid used in skincare today is made by fermenting sugars (usually from molasses). This synthetic version is identical to the natural citrus form but easier to stabilize and use in formulations.

Read more about some other popular AHA's here:

It is only considered a carcinogen when ingested.

Butylated Hydroxyanisole is a synthetic and waxy petrochemical. It is used as a preservative in foods and cosmetics.