Madame Gie Protect Me Sunscreen SPF 50

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.

Besides holding formulas together, it also leaves a silky and lightweight feel on skin without the greasiness. A manufacturer also claims it can help with the controlled release of active ingredients.

The CIR Expert Panel found this ingredient to not be sensitizing in concentrations up to 15% in human maximazation testing and dimethicone-based compounds were not comedogenic.

It has a high molecular weight well above 1,000 g/mol which means it limits meaningful skin penetration.

A 2019 study specifically tested this ingredient and found no observable Malassezia growth in its presence.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because research has shown that the Malassezia species can grow in the presence of fatty acid esters with chain lengths above C12 (and this one is C18).

While it does have a comedogenic rating of 4, the comedogenic rating scale was developed from rabbit ear models which has limited clinical relevance to human skin. Studies also show that comedogenic ingredients cannot predict how the overall formula will behave on human skin.

Safety-wise, the CIR Expert Panel has concluded it to be safe in cosmetics when formulated to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing.

Free stearic acid is a C18 fatty acid that the Malassezia yeast can substrate, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.

You might see people debate whether Sodium Chloride is comedogenic, but there actually haven't been any comedogenic tests done on it. Either way, the overall formulation of a product matters a lot more than any single ingredient.

You might see this ingredient used in scrubs as a primary exfoliating ingredient.

Formulators love it for its stability; its ability to filter UV stays practically unchanged even under intense radiation and it can also help boost the photostability of less stable filters like avobenzone.

It's also a great pick for water resistant products because it's insoluble in water and has a good affinity for keratin.

Because it's a big, heavy molecule, the European Scientific Committee has found to to have very low dermal penetration and negative results for allergenicity.

In vitro testing also showed a low absorption rate and clean results on irritation.

Typical use levels are 1-5% with 5% being the maximum in the EU, Japan, and other markets that allow it. However, this ingredient is not approved yet in the US or Canada.

One of its best party tricks is photostability; it doesn't break down with repeated sun exposure and doesn't generate free radicals in the process either. You'll also see it paired with wobbly filters like avobenzone because it helps stabilize them.

The safety profile is assuring as well. Because it's a large molecule, it doesn't easily absorb into skin and rarely causes irritation.

It's approved in the EU, Asia, and Australia up to 10% and most formulas land somewhere in the 2-10% range.

You won't find it as a sunscreen active in the US, but it can make an appearance as a formula-protecting UV-absorber.

Another pro?

It's exceptionally photostable, barely degrades in sunlight, and acts as a "bodyguard" for less stable filters.

That's why you'll see it paired with avobenzone or octinoxate; this team up ensures they keep working through sun exposure.

Safety reviews have been reassuring across the board. This ingredient shows low absorption through the skin, rarely irritates, and lab studies found it doesn't act like a hormone in the body (a concern that's been raised about some older sunscreen filters).

On maximum concentrations:

In 2026, the US F.D.A finally added it as an OTC sunscreen ingredient at concentrations up to 6% for adults / children 6 months and older

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

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 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.