Kryolan Cake Eye Liner

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.

You'll also recognize water as that liquid we all need to stay alive. If you see this, drink a glass of water. Remember to stay hydrated!

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 likely see this in many BHA products because this is the go-to solvent for salicylic acid.

This ingredient is typically used at levels between 2-20%.

Regarding fungal acne:
In 2019, this ingredient was tested against multiple Malassezia species (the yeast that causes fungal acne) and showed no growth.

Hydrogenated Polyisobutene is often used as a mineral oil replacement.

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.

In skincare, it is an emollient that dries down to a solid film with water-binding properties. This helps keep skin hydrated and helps reduce transepidermal water loss (TEWL).

A 2026 dermatology review pulls together its broader uses:

Human clinical testing found this ingredient to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing.

Because castor oil contains fatty acids in the C11-24 range, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

At this time, the literature does not support castor oil in regrowing hair. A 2022 systematic review found no strong evidence that it supports hair growth and only weak evidence that it improves hair shine.

Castor oil itself carries "perfuming" and "masking" function tags according to the official CosIng database. This is because of its mild odor and odor-dampening properties.

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.

This ingredient is generally safe for use in cosmetics with one nuance: some grades of candelilla wax can naturally contain benzyl alcohol at concentrations high enough to require declaration under EU labeling rules. This isn't a concern for most people but relevant for those with fragrance sensitivities.

Candelilla wax contains fatty acids (mainly C31) and wax esters that can be used by the Malassezia yeast, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

You might see Euphorbia Cerifera "Wax" instead of "cera". This is because some brands, databases, or labels use it interchangeably; they're the same ingredient.

The CIR Expert Panel has concluded this ingredient to be safe as used in cosmetics.

This ingredient is refined to a cosmetic grade with high purity. It is chemically inert, stable, and doesn't clog pores (petroleum has a comedogenic rating of 0).

Malassezia feeds on fatty acids roughly in the C11-24 range and this ingredient contains none of those. Since there's no plausible food source for it here, this ingredient is fungal acne safe.

Emulsifiers help prevent ingredients from separating. This helps create consistent texture.

The structure of beeswax is mainly long-chain alcohols and the esters of fatty acids.

There are three types of beeswax: yellow, white, and absolute. Yellow is pure beeswax taken from the honeycomb. White beeswax is created by filtering or bleaching yellow beeswax. Absolute beeswax is created by treating beeswax with alcohol. Beeswax used in cosmetics are purified.

Beeswax has been used throughout history and even in prehistoric times. Some common uses for beeswax still used today are making candles, as a waterproofing agent, and polish for leather.

Though it has "alcohol" in the name, it is not related to denatured alcohol or ethyl alcohol.

The FDA allows products labeled "alcohol-free" to have fatty alcohols.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe. It is a primary fatty alcohol with a chain length above 12 carbons. A study from 2019 show Malassezia can feed on fatty alcohols in this range, so it may trigger fungal acne in those prone to it.

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.

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.

It works by disrupting microbial cell membranes and enzymes, and is a broad-spectrum protector that works exceptionally well against molds, yeasts, and gram-positive bacteria.

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.

As a preservative, it is used to stabilize products and prevent them from degrading. Specifically, BHT prevents degradation from oxidation.

The concerns related to BHT come from oral studies; this ingredient is currently allowed for use by both the FDA and EU.

However, it was recently restricted for use in the UK as of April 2024.

Topically applied tocopherol has been shown to protect against UV damage by ramping up the skin's own natural defense enzymes.

It also acts as a skin conditioning agent; some studies show that regular topical use can improve the skin's water-binding capacity over 2-4 weeks.

This ingredient is especially loved for being a team player. When combined with Vitamin C, the photoprotective effect of both ingredients roughly doubles and the combo also helps reduce UV-induced DNA damage.

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.

In formulations, it also serves as a stabilizer that helps protect other oxidation-prone ingredients from degrading.

Concentrations usually range from 0.1-1% in most leave-on products.

Titanium dioxide provides broad-spectrum protection mostly in the UVB and UVAII range, with some protection in the UVAI range.

While its UVA protection isn’t as strong as zinc oxide’s, the difference is minor.

A common myth is that mineral UV filters reflect UV light. However, modern research shows titanium dioxide absorbs UV radiation like chemical filters (~95% absorption & 5% reflection).

Thanks to its non-irritating nature, titanium dioxide is suitable for sensitive, acne-prone, or redness-prone skin. It is unlikely to cause "eye sting" like other sunscreen ingredients.

A major drawback of this ingredient is its white cast and thick texture. This is why mineral sunscreens often leave a white cast and are less cosmetically elegant than chemical/hybrid sunscreens.

To improve white cast and spreadability, micronized or nano-sized titanium dioxide is often used.

There are ongoing concerns surrounding nano-titanium oxide's impact on marine ecosystems.

There is no conclusive evidence that any form of titanium oxide (or any other sunscreen ingredients) will cause harm to marine ecosystems or coral reefs. The science is still developing but many consumers are keeping a close eye on this issue.

Please note, many destinations have reef-safety sunscreen rules. For instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands advises all visitors to use non-nano mineral sunscreens.

Nano mineral sunscreens once raised safety concerns about absorption into skin.

Extensive research has shown that they do not penetrate healthy or damaged skin; they remain safely on the surface and the top layer of dead skin (stratum corneum).

You'll likely find titanium dioxide bundled with alumina, silica, or dimethicone. These ingredients help make titanium dioxide highly photostable; this prevents it from interacting with other formula components under UV light.

Ci 77891 is commonly found in sunscreens due to its ability to block UV rays.

A 2021 paper looked at skincare formulations containing iron oxides and found that they reduced transmission of blue light when measured optically. In simple terms, the pigment particles helped block or scatter part of the visible light spectrum in lab testing and the authors suggest this could translate into better protection against blue-light-related skin effects.

There is also clinical and experimental research showing that tinted products containing iron oxides can reduce visible light-induced pigmentation:

Please note, whether a product reduces visible or blue light depends on things like:

In the EU's CosIng database, iron oxides are only listed as a colorant. CosIng groups ingredients by their main cosmetic role, such as colorant, preservative, or UV filter.

Though studies say iron oxides can "attenuate blue light", they're describing an optical property and not an officially recognized cosmetic function.

So CosIng isn’t contradicting the research. It’s just classifying iron oxides by what they officially are: pigments that add color.

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.

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.

In the EU, both of these colors must be labeled as 'CI 77510'.

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.