Wet n Wild Breakup Proof Waterproof Liquid Eyeliner

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.

On the safety side, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel has concluded this ingredient to be safe as used in current cosmetic practices + concentrations.

Typical use levels in a formula run about 1-5%.

Due to its large molecule size, it doesn't penetrate beyond the skin's surface.

This ingredient has a solid regulatory track record; the CIR Expert Panel first concluded it was safe for use in cosmetics at concentrations up to 100% in 1997. A 2012 reassessment reaffirmed that finding. Safety studies have also found no irritation or evidence of toxicity.

A 2019 study did find this ingredient to grow Malassezia, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.

Because it is not a free-fatty acid, this ingredient is fungal acne safe (there's nothing for Malassezia to feed on).

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.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel has assessed it in 1983, 2002, and 2005 and found it to be safe in formulations at low concentrations.

SLS is a well-documented skin irritant at higher concentrations or with prolonged exposure. It's actually the gold standard positive control used in dermatological patch testing, meaning doctors use it because they know it will cause a reaction in people.

In one large study of 43,000 patiences tested with 0.25% SLS, about 22% showed some level of reactivity. It increases transepidermal water loss that disrupts your outermost layer of skin.

Face cleansers often pair this ingredient with mild co-surfactants like Cocamidopropyl Betaine to buffer its harshness.

Just so you know, SLS does not trigger true allergic contact dermatitis. This just means it can irritate your skin but doesn't cause your immune system to develop a lasting allergy to it.

Despite internet rumors, SLS is not considered a carcinogen by any major regulatory body.

In the US, this ingredient can only be used if it meets strict FDA specifications. Certain versions even require batch-by-batch certification after extensive safety evaluation.

In the European Union, this ingredient is permitted as a colorant and classified as a "nanomaterial" based on its particle size (meaning it requires deeper assessment).

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed nano-sized carbon black specifically and concluded that it does not pose a risk to human health when used in cosmetic products applied to healthy, intact skin and formulated to avoid inhalation.

Studies support this regulatory stance. Laboratory studies on nano-carbon black show potential for cytotoxicity and inflammatory effects in immune cells; it is important to highlight these findings are based on in vitro (not done on a living organism) testing or inhalation scenarios rather than normal topical cosmetic use.

Occupational studies involving industrial workers exposed to airborne carbon black have not shown a clear link between cumulative exposure and cancer risk. These findings are not directly applicable to cosmetics; cosmetic formulations bind pigments within creams, gels, and liquids that are not inhaled.

Overall, evidence shows that this ingredient is safe under regulatory guidelines and purity standards, especially when formulated to avoid airborne exposure.

Even with regulatory approval and a long history of use, some consumers might prefer to avoid ingredients that are petroleum-derived or that fall under the “nanomaterial” category.

Choosing whether to use CI 77266 isn’t necessarily about safety alone; it can also be about personal philosophy, comfort level with synthetic versus natural ingredients, and how much weight you place on ongoing research and regulatory oversight.

Makeup is highly individual, and personal preference plays an important role in deciding what feels right for you.