Patrick Ta Major Brow Shaping Wax

As a humectant, Sorbitol helps draw water to the skin. This helps keep the skin hydrated. Sorbitol also helps create a thicker texture in products. You might find sorbitol in your toothpaste and other gels.

It is a non-irritating ingredient that is great for those with dry skin.

Sorbitol is a prebiotic. It helps promote the growth of healthy bacteria on your skin. The bacteria on your skin form a microbiome. This microbiome helps protect your skin from infection and harmful bacteria.

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.

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.

Lab studies have found that lauric acid is surprisingly good at killing acne-causing bacteria. However, these tests were done on bacteria in a petri dish and not on real skin, so we can't say for certain it works the same in a formulation on a real face.

The comedogenic rating of 4 comes from the 1972 rabbit ear model using undiluted ingredients. Comedogenicity is highly individual and one comedogenic ingredient cannot predict how a formula will behave on skin.

This ingredient is not fungal acne safe and research has confirmed Malassezia can use it as a food source. Even though "fungal acne" has the word "acne" in it, they are completely different. Regular acne is driven by a bacteria called Cutibacterium acnes, clogged pores, and excess oil. Fungal acne isn't really acne; it's caused by an overgrowth of a yeast called Malassezia that already lives on everyone's skin. Because one is bacterial and the other is fungal, they respond to different ingredients.

In your eyelash follicles, it activates the keratin gene and promotes nutrient absorption into the follicle. This translates to thicker and longer eyelashes over time.

Besides stimulating keratin production for lash growth, this ingredient enhances the delivery of other active ingredients in a formula.

The clinical evidence is still pretty early-stage at this point. A 90 day study in 29 participants found improvements in lash length (10.52%), volume (9.3%), thickness (35%), and curl (50.83%) with no adverse reactions reported.

You might have heard that eyelash serums can cause pigmentation change in eye color to turn eyes brown. This is associated with a different class of lash serum ingredients: prostaglandin analogs.

Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17 is a different thing entirely and has no known association with iris pigmentation changes. The 90 day study noted no adverse effects around the eye area at all.

A double-blind study confirmed that extra virgin coconut oil is as effective as mineral oil for treating very dry skin. Another study found it outperformed mineral oil for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children.

Another study from 2018 found that virgin coconut oil can soothe inflammation and boost key skin barrier proteins. Just know this evidence is still only from lab settings and not human trials.

It has also been shown to reduce Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that commonly overgrows in people with eczema.

Clinical testing shows very minimal skin irritation and no evidence of sensitization or phototoxicity.

Coconut oil gets flagged as a "fragrance" because it has a natural mild scent (not because it's a synthetic perfume). The European Cosmetic ingredient database also lists "perfuming" as a function of this ingredient.

Just so you know, the term "fragrance" is completely unregulated. Some brands still use botanical extracts or essential oils in their "fragrance-free" formulas, but regulatory databases technically classify these under "fragrance".

Coconut oil has a tiny and useless bit of natural SPF. Early lab studies clocked it around SPF 7-8 but a more recent study found the real number closer to SPF 1.2. It also offers no meaningful UVA protection (SPF only overs UVB rays).

The comedogenic rating of 4/5 means it has a high potential to clog pores; but it's worth noting that comedogenicity is highly individual and ratings cannot predict how an overall formula will behave on skin.

Since lauric acid is the dominant fatty acid, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe. The Malassezia yeast feeds on fatty acids with carbon chain lengths between 11-24, and lauric acid falls within these lengths (C12).

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.

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.