IVY AÏA Eye-Patches With Hyaluronic Acid & Antioxidants

Polysaccharides also help our skin stay hydrated.

This ingredient is water-soluble.

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.

Though it can't kill microbes on its own, it works as a good supporting agent when combined with other preservatives like Phenoxyethanol or 1,2-Hexanediol.

This ingredient naturally occurs as piceol in Norwegian spruce needles (~0.4-1.1% dry weight and in cloudberries). Though the cosmetic-grade material is synthesized for purity and consistency.

You'll usually see it used at low levels and suppliers recommend up to 1% added to a water phase.

Safety testing was done at concentrations like 0.05% in SPF products and 0.5% in a Human Repeated Insult Patch Test. The safety evidence is assuring; this ingredient is safe for cosmetics in current use and also holds safety status as a food flavoring as well.

An honest caveat: the "soothing" and "anti-inflammatory" claims come mostly from supplier marketing rather than published clinical trials. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review's own literature search found no useful efficacy studies on this ingredient.

So the antioxidant and preservative-boosting roles are the well supported ones while the calming benefit is plausible but thinly evidenced.

Overall, this is a well-tolerated, low-irritation multitasker that quietly helps a formula stay fresh and stable.

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.

Interestingly, the size of the molecule affects its behavior:

Some clinical evidence links low molecular weight versions to improved wrinkle depth, elasticity, anti-inflammatory effects, and barrier repair.

Many serums use a blend of both weights so you can get surface hydration plus longer-lasting and deeper effects.

You'll typically see concentrations between 0.1-2% for this ingredient.

This ingredient is often coated with metal oxides like titanium dioxide. Trace amounts of heavy metals may be found in mica, but these metals are not harmful in our personal products.

Mica has been used since prehistoric times throughout the world. Ancient Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Roman, Aztec, and Chinese civilizations have used mica.

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.

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.

Due to its large molecule size, it doesn't penetrate beyond the skin's surface.

This ingredient has a solid regulatory track record; the CIR Expert Panel first concluded it was safe for use in cosmetics at concentrations up to 100% in 1997. A 2012 reassessment reaffirmed that finding. Safety studies have also found no irritation or evidence of toxicity.

A 2019 study did find this ingredient to grow Malassezia, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.