Max Factor X Mastertouch Concealer

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.

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.

Dimethicone comes in different viscosities:

Depending on the viscosity, dimethicone has different properties.

Ingredients lists don't always show which type is used, so we recommend reaching out to the brand if you have questions about the viscosity.

This ingredient is unlikely to cause irritation because it does not get absorbed into skin. However, people with silicone allergies should be careful about using this ingredient.

Note: Dimethicone may contribute to pilling. This is because it is not oil or water soluble, so pilling may occur when layered with products. When mixed with heavy oils in a formula, the outcome is also quite greasy.

If you have any concerns about using talc, we recommend checking out the FDA's official page.

This ingredient is considered a modified starch. Starch can also be found naturally in plants.

One study from 1991 found that 5% of this ingredient enhanced titanium dioxide SPF by as much as 40%. The study found 1% titanium dioxide had a 5.6 SPF and adding 5% of aluminum starch octenylsuccinate boosted it to an SPF of 8.1

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.”

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.

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.

Because of its structure, it also acts as a mild skin conditioning emollient that helps soften skin while preventing moisture loss.

Safety studies show it to be safe and non-irritation in clinical tests. It's typically used in concentrations up to 5%.

Since its an ester of a C18 fatty acid, it falls into the C11-24 range that Malassezia can potentially feed on. This makes it not fungal-acne safe.

The cosmetic grade stuff is highly refined with a solid safety record. The CIR Expert Panel has repeatedly reaffirmed this ingredient to be safe in current practices of use and concentration.

The worry about carcinogenic compounds only applies to industrial grades, not the purified version used in skincare.

Despite its reputation, the highly reformed form is non-comedogenic and doesn't penetrate deeply into skin.

The good news for fungal-acne prone folks: the Malassezia yeast feeds on fatty acids and lipids and paraffin doesn't contain any of these (so there's nothing for the yeast to metabolize). This ingredient is considered fungal acne safe.

The highest reported concentration is about 24% in eye makeup but most suppliers recommend a level below 10%.

It has a clean track record for safety and found to be non-irritating.

Because it is an ester of a C18 fatty acid, Malassezia can potentially metabolize it (it sits in the C11-24 range that Malassezia likes). Therefore, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.

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.

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.

It is considered non-comedogenic and vegan-friendly.

This ingredient has a well-established safety record by the CIR Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety.

Synthetic Waxes are straight/branched-chain hydrocarbons with no ester bond or fatty acids. That means there is nothing for the Malassezia yeast to feed on.

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.

According to manufacturers, this ingredient is an emollient and humectant. This means it helps hydrate the skin.

In medicine, this ingredient is used to help relieve heartburn and help heal ulcers.

There is currently no credible scientific evidence linking aluminum hydroxide in cosmetics to increased cancer risk.

Major health organizations allow the use of aluminum hydroxide in personal care products and have not flagged it as a carcinogenic risk at typical usage levels.

There are a very small number of reported cases of contact dermatitis in cases linked to wound-care creams used over compromised skin (rather than skincare).

Overall, this is a well-studied and low-risk preservative just doing its job.

Typical concentrations run up to 0.6%, which is also the maximum amount permitted under both EU CosIng regulations and US FDA guidelines.

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.

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.

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.

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.