Ioni Microfilling Brow Tattoo Pen

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.

You'll most likely see it paired with steareth-2 because the two work together to create stable formulations.

1,4-dioxane is often brought up as a concern but this is usually removed through purification.

The CIR Expert Panel has evaluated the scientific data and found this ingredient to be safe, non-irritating, and non-sensitizing at concentrations up to 5% (it's even approved by the FDA as an OTC eye drop ingredient).

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.

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.

It is less effective in high-humidity. It tends to draw moisture, but this moisture dismantles the structure and "hold".

PVP is generally well tolerated on skin and toxicity studies are negative for dermal irritation.

Industry-reported use ranges from 8% in rinse-off products and 2% in leave-on formulations.

It is typically used at very low levels in cosmetics, with most formulations using 0.0125% or less (well below its approved maximum).

In the EU, IPBC concentration limits are set at 0.02% in rinse-off products and 0.01% in leave-on products.

Though IPBC is a relatively uncommon contact allergen, patch testing studies show positive reaction rates ranging from 0.3%-0.9% of patients tested. This is still quite low compared to preservatives like methylisothiazolinone which sits at around 4-5%.

Researchers note that existing iodine sensitives or rubber allergies may be the cause of this as IPBC shares a structure with both thiuram (used in rubber) and iodine.

Be sure to patch test if you are unsure and speak with a medical professional about using this ingredient.

In the US, this ingredient can only be used if it meets strict FDA specifications. Certain versions even require batch-by-batch certification after extensive safety evaluation.

In the European Union, this ingredient is permitted as a colorant and classified as a "nanomaterial" based on its particle size (meaning it requires deeper assessment).

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed nano-sized carbon black specifically and concluded that it does not pose a risk to human health when used in cosmetic products applied to healthy, intact skin and formulated to avoid inhalation.

Studies support this regulatory stance. Laboratory studies on nano-carbon black show potential for cytotoxicity and inflammatory effects in immune cells; it is important to highlight these findings are based on in vitro (not done on a living organism) testing or inhalation scenarios rather than normal topical cosmetic use.

Occupational studies involving industrial workers exposed to airborne carbon black have not shown a clear link between cumulative exposure and cancer risk. These findings are not directly applicable to cosmetics; cosmetic formulations bind pigments within creams, gels, and liquids that are not inhaled.

Overall, evidence shows that this ingredient is safe under regulatory guidelines and purity standards, especially when formulated to avoid airborne exposure.

Even with regulatory approval and a long history of use, some consumers might prefer to avoid ingredients that are petroleum-derived or that fall under the “nanomaterial” category.

Choosing whether to use CI 77266 isn’t necessarily about safety alone; it can also be about personal philosophy, comfort level with synthetic versus natural ingredients, and how much weight you place on ongoing research and regulatory oversight.

Makeup is highly individual, and personal preference plays an important role in deciding what feels right for you.

This dye is commonly used in foods, approved by both the FDA and EFSA.