SHEGLAM Bold Booster Plumping Lip Liner

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.

According to a manufacturer, it can blend seamlessly with silicone oils, such as Cyclopentasiloxane.

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.

Depending on the concentration, it can drastically change the texture of a product from pasty solid (like lipstick) to sprayable liquid.

The CIR Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety has concluded this ingredient to be safe in cosmetics. The highest reported use concentration is 14.2% in lipsticks.

Hectorite is a rare, white clay mineral.

According to perfume manufacturers, this ingredient is almost odorless but has a mild fruity, wine and plum scent. It can be used to mask the scent of other ingredients.

This ingredient can be plant-sourced or synthetic; it can naturally be found in cabbage and white wine.

It's actually inactive on its own and works like a slow-release "storage" form; the enzymes in your skin called esterases gradually convert it into active vitamin E over time.

One in vivo study showed 5% of the acetate in the living layer of the epidermis converted to vitamin E after 5 days of application. This study also found the skin gained protection against UV damage even though the conversion was slow and small.

Once converted, vitamin E acts as a skin's main fat-soluble antioxidant that fights free radicals to protect skin from damage.

Topical vitamin E generally boosts the skin's photoprotection, and it reduced UV-damage in animal models.

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.

Overall, it has a pretty solid safety profile and has been found to be non-irritating and non-comedogenic. Allergic reactions may happen but stay rare due to how widely the ingredient gets used.

The concentration will vary depending on the formula; industry data shows 0.1% in baby lotions, 3% in lipsticks, and 5% in foot powders. You can also find this ingredient at 100% in a pure vitamin E oil.

Most leave-on skincare keeps it at the lower end, often between 0.5-1%.

As an antioxidant, it helps fight free-radical molecules. Free-radical molecules are capable of damaging our cells and other genetic material. Thus, antioxidants may reduce the signs of aging.

This ingredient is oil-soluble.

Unlike other plant oils, jojoba wax doesn't easily penetrate skin. It mostly works in the uppermost layers as an emollient. This just means it forms a light barrier on the skin to help retain moisture.

Formulations with jojoba esters up to 90% reduced transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and increased barrier recovery by 81% (outperforming bisabolol at 47%).

Besides barrier support, the science also suggests jojoba to have anti-inflammatory effects and potential applications for skin infections, aging, and wound healing.

Fun fact: Indigenous cultures have used jojoba as a moisturizer and to help treat burns for centuries.

Fungal acne: The Malassezia yeast is known to metabolize fatty acids in the C11-24 range and jojoba's dominant fatty acid components fall into this range. This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.

One thing worth noting: a controlled study found this ingredient applied under occlusion to acne-prone subjects increased microcomedones. Just keep in mind this was under occlusive conditions and don't reflect how most products are used day-to-day.

For most people, this is a well-tolerated and lightweight ingredient.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because it is an ester of palmitic acid, a C16 fatty acid that falls within the C11-24 range that Malassezia can metabolize.

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 may not be fungal acne safe because behenic acid falls into the chain-length range that Malassezia yeasts can feed on.

According to EU CosIng, this ingredient helps soften skin, keep oil and water stay mixed, and thickens products.

Hydrogenated castor oil at 30% did not trigger a positive patch-test reaction and is well-tolerated.

Since this ingredient is based on an 18-carbon fatty acid, it falls into the chain-length range that Malassezia can feed on and may not be fungal acne safe.

In a 24 hour occlusive patch test on 56 subjects, 10% sorbitan isostearate was completely non-irritating. Most formulas use less than 10%.

Because it's a fatty acid ester, it may not be fungal acne safe since the Malassezia yeast can utilize it as a nutrient source.

They work by fitting perfectly into your stratum corneum's lipid matrix since they're structurally similar to cholesterol. Here, they reinforce your skin's barrier.

One small in vivo human study showed topical soybean phytosterols sped up barrier recovery within three days on tape-stripped skin.

Broader research credits them with:

Formulation use typically sit under 5%.

Testing in soy-allergic subjects found no sensitization signals, but be sure to patch test if you are unsure or have existing allergies.

Once there, it acts as a matrikine, a signaling peptide that prompts fibroblasts to produce more collagen, fibronectin, and hyaluronic acid.

In vitro studies show it can boost collagen production in skin cells even when UV-damaged skin samples were treated with it at a tiny concentration (it almost fully restored dermal collagen at 5ppm). It achieved this at 100x lower concentration than retinoic acid, which needed 500 ppm to do the same thing.

Human clinical data is promising, but modest:

A study of 23 female volunteers found a small but statistically significant increase (~4%) in skin thickness after treatment at 4 ppm.

A separate small trial of 15 women showed statistically significant reductions in wrinkle length, depth, and skin roughness after applying it twice daily for four weeks.

You'll likely see Pal-GHK paired with Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7 as part of the Matrixyl 3000 complex.

Fungal acne note:
Usually a palmitic acid component can feed Malassezia in unbound form, but here is is covalently bonded to the peptide. This means it is very difficult for Malassezia to access, and therefore very unlikely to cause fungal acne.

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.

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.

This ingredient is common in foundations, lipsticks, and blushes. This color is described as brown/orangey red.

It has many secondary names such as Red 6 and Red 7. According to a manufacturer, Red 6 usually contains aluminum.