The Pink Foundry Dewy Hydrating Hybrid Sunscreen SPF 50+

Because it has a neutral charge, it is compatible with a wide range of ingredients and stays stable across a broad pH range/water hardiness conditions.

Patch testing has shown it to have the lowest irritation potential among common cleansing surfactants (like SLS).

Typical use levels range from 5-20% in rinse-off cleansers.

One thing worth knowing: The American Contact Dermatitis Society named the parent family, alkyl glucosides, "Allergen of the Year" in 2017. The prevalence of allergy is pretty low but be sure to patch test if you've reacted to "gentle" or sulfate-free cleansers before.

This ingredient is fungal acne safe because the fatty alcohol portion of this ingredient is not within the C11-24 chain length that Malassezia can metabolize.

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.

Xanthan gum is a pretty common and great ingredient. It is a natural, non-toxic, non-irritating ingredient that is also commonly used in food products.

You'll often see it paired with other UV filters to boost overall SPF because octisalate is a fairly week filter on its own.

The reason you'll see it so often is because it can help solubilize and stabilize the trickier filters like oxybenzone and avobenzone.

Unlike these filters, octisalate has pretty good photostability and doesn't create skin-damaging free radicals when exposed to sunlight.

The fatty-alcohol part of the molecule also gives it a light, emollient feel so it doubles as a nice texture enhancer.

Usage levels vary around the world:

Safety-wise, this ingredient has a pretty reassuring track record. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) found very low skin penetration in human skin tests and negative results for irritation, phototoxicity, and photoallergy.

The real-world allergy risk is pretty low too; a 2012 European study of 1,031 people recorded only 2 reactions to it (a rate of 0.19%).

You might have seen scary headlines about sunscreen getting into your blood.

In 2019, the FDA found that several chemical filters can absorb through the skin and show up in the bloodstream at small but measurable levels.

Here's the important part: these tiny levels are just a cutoff the FDA uses to decide which ingredients need more testing and doesn't mean anything harmful was found.

The researchers were clear that the results are no reason to stop wearing sunscreen.

This ingredient can be derived from palm oil, or coconut oil. It is also naturally found in certain species of organisms.

According to the NOAA, this ingredient can cause skin sensitivity with prolonged use. However, this warning is taken from the Coast Guard and no studies have been done on this in relation to cosmetics.

Tridecane is not water soluble.

You'll most likely see it paired with steareth-2 because the two work together to create stable formulations.

1,4-dioxane is often brought up as a concern but this is usually removed through purification.

The safety profile of this ingredient is reassuring; the US CIR Expert Panel concluded D5 is safe as used in cosmetics and Health Canada concluded that D5 is not harmful to human health or the environment as currently used in cosmetics

There's a study that people mention about D5 in a rat study showing tumors. This study is related to long-term inhalation of high D5 levels.

Regulatory bodies have judged this study to be not applicable in topical skincare since skin absorption of D5 is very low and we're not really inhaling huge amounts of D5.

The only restriction for this ingredient is environmental. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) restricted D5 in wash-off cosmetics at or above 0.1% due to their persistence in water.

Human patch tests with a facial lotion containing 1% of this ingredient found no sensitization.

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.

DHHB has been approved by the EU, Japan, Taiwan, and South America for use up to 10%. Unfortunately, it has not been approved for use in the US or Canada due to slow regulatory processes.

This ingredient is soluble in oils, fats, and lipids.

This ingredient has been found to be safe as used in cosmetics, wasn't a skin or eye irritant in clinical patch testing, and wasn't phototoxic.

In a clinical comedogenicity test, this ingredient tested negative so it isn't likely to clog pores.

Typical use levels are about 5-8% for sunscreens + nail products, but can range from 0.005%-8% depending on the product.

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.

Here's a myth worth busting: mineral filters are usually described as working by "reflecting" or "bouncing" UV off your skin.

That's mostly not true: when researchers actually measured it, ZO and Titanium Dioxide reflect only about 4-5% of UV (less than SPF 2 worth of protection).

The vast majority of the work (~95%) is done by absorption, similar to chemical UV filters. ZO is a semiconductor that absorbs UV photos through its energy band gap.

So the old "physical blocker vs. chemical absorber" framing is really an oversimplification.

Zinc Oxide is one of the most effective broad-spectrum UV filters out there. It protects across UVB, UVA2, and UVA1 with a flat, even absorption curve across the whole UVA-UVB range.

That uniform UVA coverage is its standout feature; titanium dioxide skews more toward UVB as its particle size drops so ZO gives more consistent and extended UVA protection.

It's also very photostable. As an inorganic oxide, ZO doesn't break down in sunlight the way some organic filters can, so it holds up over a day of wear.

This ingredient is gentle and soothing, making it go-to for sunscreens aimed at sensitive skin, rosacea, or ecezma-prone skin, babies, and children.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" that some sunscreen ingredients are known for, and regulatory agencies broadly consider it non-toxic and safe for topical use.

Beyond sun protection, ZO is also a recognized OTC skin protectant. It forms a breathable barrier that shields skin from moisture and irritation while supporting healing. This is why you'll see it as a classic active in diaper rash creams.

The only downside to ZO is that it can leave a visible white cast, especially on deeper skin tones. This is the main reason mineral sunscreens have historically felt less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas.

Zinc Oxide comes in both non-nano and nano forms. The dividing line is 100nm and anything under is classified as a nanomaterial by the EU.

The nano version scatters less visible light which cuts down white case and gives a lighter, more wearable texture.

Another thing worth understanding about formulation:

Uncoated ZO has some inherent photocatalytic activity. This just means it can generate reactive oxygen species under UV. It's exactly why cosmetic-grade ZO is almost always surface-coated; this coating suppresses that reactivity and improves how the powder disperses and feels.

A well-formulated coated ZO largely sidesteps this issue.

Zinc Oxide is commonly used anywhere from 10% up to the regulatory maximum in sunscreens (25%).

Mineral-only broad-spectrum products often land in the 15-25% range to hit higher SPF and UVA values. Keep in mind SPF performance depends heavily on particle size, dispersion, and the rest of the formula, and not just the percentage.

As an OTC skin protectant like diaper creams, ZO typically runs higher at roughly 10-40%.

This ingredient is generally easy to work with and doesn't photodegrade.

The only thing to know is that uncoated ZO can be a bit reactive in a formula.

Under UV, it can break down sensitive ingredients like other actives or UV filters. This is another reason coated versions are standard. ZO can also react with very acidic ingredients or throw off stability of some creams. A good formula will get around this with the right coatings and dispersion.

The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that ZO nanoparticles "can be considered to not pose any risk of adverse effects in humans after application on healthy, intact or sunburnt skin".

You might hear that ZO is "toxic"; this is because an in-vitro (test tube) study suggested micronized ZO had potential phototoxicity. In vivo (human) investigations have disputed this and the results have come back reassuring.

So does ZO penetrate skin? The short answer is no, not in any way that matters.

The most relevant evidence comes from real-world human studies: in one, volunteers applied ZO nanoparticle sunscreen hourly for six hours and daily for five days. The advanced imaging showed the particles stayed on the surface and never reached the living epidermis, and no cellular toxicity was found.

Other in-vivo and ex-vivo work agree; ZO nanoparticles don't cross the stratum corneum, even on flexed, massaged, or barrier-impaired skin.

A small amount of solubilized zinc ions can dissolve off the particles and enter the upper skin. But the quantities are tiny compared to the zinc already naturally present in your body, and studies haven't found this to cause local toxicity.

The sunscreen bans you've heard of (like Hawaii's) are aimed at two chemical filters, Oxybenzone and Octinoxate. ZO itself it not banned and is often recommended instead.

So far, there's no solid evidence that any form of ZO harms reefs. It is an ongoing and active area of study, and worth keeping an eye on.

If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.

Once applied, this ingredient dries down quickly and leaves a dry, silky finish behind. This also helps improve spreadability and texture.

This ingredient has an excellent safety-record and is non-irritating.

Typical concentrations for cosmetics range from 0.5-62%.

Research on Malassezia growth found no growth on fatty acid esters with chain lengths shorter than 12 carbons (it prefers C11-24).

Since Coco-Caprylate/Caprate is built on C8 and C10 fatty acids, it is out of the range that Malassezia metabolizes, and therefore safe for fungal acne.

Typical concentrations range from 0.1-3%.

This ingredient is mild and non-irritating in nature.

Because it is derived from ricinoleic acid, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe. Ricinoleic acid is an unsaturated fatty acid that the Malassezia yeast can metabolize.

This ingredient is sourced from plant-based oils like soybean or rapeseed.

Clinical studies found no signs of irritation from this ingredient.

Since Isostearic Acid is an 18-carbon fatty acid, it is in the range that Malassezia can feed on. This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

You might have seen sources that this ingredient is comedogenic. The original comedogenic testing on rabbit ear actually tested the ester, Isopropyl Isostearate and not Isostearic acid itself. There has been no comedogenic testing done on this ingredient, but it may be worth patch testing if you have acne-prone skin.

High percentages of Sodium Lactate can have an exfoliating effect.

Fun fact: Sodium Lactate is produced from fermented sugar.

This is due to how structurally similar it is to what your skin already produces.

Though it is mostly an emollient that helps soften and hydrate skin, it also has some humectant and occlusive action. Humectants help the skin retain moisture while occlusives seal it in, making squalane a triple-threat moisturizer.

Research shows it has antioxidant capabilities that help protect against stressors like UV exposure, specifically UVA induced oxidative stress. This study also found that it supports collagen biosynthesis in human dermal fibroblasts.

No clinical study has reported significant adverse effects and irritation reactions are very rare from this ingredient (even at 100% concentration).

Overall, it's a fantastic ingredient for hydration and is suitable for all skin types.

This depends on the source. Squalane can be derived from both plants and animals. Most squalane used in skincare comes from plants.

Please note: the source of squalane is only known if disclosed by the brand. We recommend reaching out to the brand if you have any questions about their squalane.

Read more about squalene with an "e".

Though squalane is often called an oil, it’s technically not one. It is a hydrocarbon, meaning it is only made of carbon and hydrogen. True oils are triglycerides and made of fatty acids and glycerol.

The term “oil-free” isn’t regulated so companies can define it however they want. Some exclude all oils, while others just avoid mineral oil or comedogenic oils.

Squalane has a comedogenic rating of 1 from the original 1972 study that tested raw ingredients under occlusion on rabbit ears. This system is not standardized or peer-reviewed, and using the raw ingredients is very different from how diluted cosmetic formulations are used on human skin.

A comedogenic rating of 1 means it is "unlikely to clog pores" according to the original rating system.

The overall formula of a product matters more than the individual ingredients on whether or not it will cause clogged pores.

Licorice Root also contains a flavonoid. Flavonoids are a natural substance from in plants. Flavonoids also have antioxidant properties.

Another component, glycyrrhizin, has been found to have anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial benefits. This may make licorice root extract effective at treating acne. However, more research is needed to support this.

Liquiritin is one of the flavone compounds found in licorice. It has been found to help lighten skin by preventing tyrosinase from reacting with tyrosine. When the two react, protein is converted to melanin. Melanin is the substance in your body that gives your features pigmentation.

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.

Studies show green tea extract and its catechins (like epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)) help your skin cells product energy more efficiently and reducing the number of free-radicals that can damage your skin from the inside.

In lab-grown skin models, this translated to younger, healthier, and stronger skin.

There's also good sun protection data; researchers saw less DNA damage and redness on human skin when green tea was applied before UVB exposure. And the more they applied, the better the protection.

Needless to say, this ingredient shouldn't replace your sunscreen. But it is a great supportive ingredient that you can already find in many sunscreens and antioxidant serums.

A 2009 study found a 2% green tea lotion was effective for mild-to-moderate acne thanks to its anti-inflammatory and mild antimicrobial activity.

The quality of the extract matters a lot here:

Good extracts contain 50-90% catechins while lower quality ones are mostly there for marketing. We recommend reaching out to the brand if you have questions about the quality or source of their ingredients.

Human Repeated Insult Patch Testing showed no irritation or sensitization at use concentrations (0.86% in leave-on products and up to 30% as leaf water).

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.

Because lactic acid molecules are larger than glycolic acid, they don’t penetrate as deeply. This means they’re less likely to sting or irritate, making it a great choice for beginners or those with sensitive skin.

Like glycolic acid, it can:

Lactic acid also acts as a humectant (like hyaluronic acid). It can draw water into the skin to improve hydration and also plays a role in the skin's natural moisturizing factor (NMF) in the form of sodium lactate.

Studies show it can boost ceramide production to strengthen the skin barrier and even help balance the skin’s microbiome.

To get results, choose products with a pH between 3-4.

Lower strengths (5-12%) focus on surface exfoliation; higher strengths (12% and up) can reach deeper in the dermis (deeper, supportive layer) to improve skin texture and firmness over time.

Though it was originally derived from milk, most modern lactic acid used in skincare is vegan. It is made through non-dairy fermentation to create a bio-identical and stable form suitable for all formulations.

When lactic acid shows up near the end of an ingredient list, it usually means the brand added just a tiny amount to adjust the product’s pH.

Legend has it that Cleopatra used to bathe in sour milk to help reduce wrinkles.

Lactic acid is truly a gentle multitasker: it exfoliates, hydrates, strengthens, and brightens. It's a great ingredient for giving your skin a smooth, glowing, and healthy look without the harshness of stronger acids.

Read more about some other popular AHA's here:

Research shows it can encourage your skin cells to turn over and renew by stimulating keratinocyte and fibroblast proliferation.

It also has mild keratolytic properties to help loosen and shed dead skin cells without being harsh.

Studies also suggest allantoin can help calm inflammation by dialing down some of the chemical signals your skin sends out when it is irritated.

This ingredient is typically used in the 0.1-0.5% range, and the FDA recognizes it as a skin protectant in OTC products up to 2%.

Overall, allantoin is a wonderful addition to most routines; it is stable across a wide pH range (~4-8), works well with other ingredients, and is considered non-sensitizing/non-irritating.

Fun fact: Allantoin is naturally occurring in comfrey root, beets, chamomile, and wheat sprouts. Our bodies even produce it as a byproduct of uric acid metabolism.

This ingredient is biodegradable and commonly available in natural/COSMOS-certified grades.

On top of that, this ingredient can counteract the effects of hard water by binding to the minerals in it.

One thing worth knowing is that Disodium EDTA has been shown to be a mild penetration enhancer. It can help other ingredients absorb into skin more effectively which can be a double-edged sword (great for actives, but can also make the active too strong if you have sensitive skin).

Clinical patch testing showed no significant skin irritation at typical use concentrations and minimal dermal absorption.

You'll most likely see this ingredient near the end of an ingredient list. It's typically found in concentrations less than 1%.

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.