Zeroid Dermanewal Mineral Sun Block SPF 50+

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.

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.

Though this ingredient works well with most skin types, some people with sensitive skin may experience a reaction such as allergic rashes, closed comedones, or itchiness.

Photostabilizers help stabilize UV-filters and prevents them from degrading quickly.

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.

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.

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.

Due to regulation loopholes, you'll likely see this ingredient in "100% mineral" sunscreens.

These compounds allow centella to dial back inflammation, encourage the skin to build and hold onto collagen, support the barrier and hydration, and bring solid antioxidant activity to protect against signs of aging.

Centella also carries a nice supporting cast of Vitamin A, vitamin C, several B vitamins, and amino acids. Put it all together and you get an ingredient that soothes, hydrates, and protects, all at once.

Most of centella's magic comes from the four big compounds (Asiaticoside, Madecassoside, Asiatic Acid, and Madecassic Acid). These are the actives doing the heavy lifting in almost every centella study.

Here is the short version of what they do in the skin:

So it is not just soothing for the sake of soothing. Centella calms the skin AND helps it rebuild.

Just FYI, not all centella on an ingredient list is the same. What you are getting actually depends on the extract:

Fun fact on the ratios: the leaves tend to be richest in Madecassoside and Asiaticoside, and lower in the two acids. The exact amounts shift with where the plant is grown and how it is processed. This means purity really does vary brand to brand.

Centella is one of the most easygoing actives out there.

It layers well with basically everything: niacinamide, hyaluronic acid, peptides, and vitamin C, and also pairs nicely with stronger actives like retinoids and exfoliating acids where it can help take the edge off irritation.

On the safety side, centella and its triterpenes are classified as weak sensitizers, meaning allergic reactions are possible but uncommon.

Patch tests at 1% and 5% came back negative in test panels, and creams at typical use levels did not cause allergic reactions across large groups of people.

But as with any new active, a patch test is still a smart move for very reactive skin.

Centella is widely used because it is effective at low percentages. For context, human safety testing found no meaningful irritation from creams containing centella extract at everyday use levels (the tested amounts were well under 1%).

The irritancy threshold in animal testing was also above 30% (so real-world formulas sit far below anything concerning).

In collagen lab studies, higher concentrations drove more collagen synthesis, so serums built around centella tend to feature it more prominently.

Bottom line: you will find centella working nicely anywhere from a fraction of a percent up to hero-ingredient levels depending on whether it is a supporting soother or the main event.

Fun fact: Centella has been used as a medicine and in food for many centuries. As a medicine, it is used to treat burns, scratches, and wounds.

This ingredient is also known as part of Olivem 1000, with Cetearyl Olivate being the other part.

According to a manufacturer, this ingredient helps preserve the natural microbiome of skin. Having a healthy microbiome helps keep our skin healthy and protects against harmful bacteria.

Please note, having a healthy microbiome is different from fungal acne; a healthy microbiome includes small amounts of yeast that normally live on your skin without causing problems.

Fungal acne happens when one type of yeast (Malassezia) grows out of control. This is usually because it's feeding on certain oils or fatty acids. Due to the olive oil base, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

Madecassoside pairs well with other hydrating or antioxidant ingredients like Ascorbic Acid or Hyaluronic Acid.

In practice, that translates to a long shelf life and a consistently elegant skin feel.

While there is an assumption Caprylic Triglyceride can clog pores due to it being derived from coconut oil, there is no research supporting this. Just patch test if you have concerns.

Fractionated coconut oil and MCT Oil are both listed as Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride according to INCI. This is because INCI names are based on the ingredient’s final chemical composition and not its marketing name or source.

This ingredient is treated as the gold standard fungal acne safe oil. Even though it is coconut derived, the problematic lauric acid is stripped out.

This leaves just caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) acid. These chain lengths actually trend antifungal; a 2020 study found caprylic acid was enough to disrupt Malassezia furfur cell membrane, with a caprylic acid derivative damaging membrane structures at concentrations as low as 0.2%.

Your skin's outermost layer (stratum corneum) is often described as a "brick wall" where skin cells are bricks and lipids hold everything together. Your lipids are Ceramides, Cholesterol, and free fatty acids.

These fatty acids are not just randomly squished together. They're arranged in very specific layered (lamellar) structures. Your barrier suffers when the layer structure gets disrupted from things like eczema, harsh weather, or over-exfoliating.

M/PO/AM is formulated within MLE technology to closely replicate your skin's natural layers, setting it apart from other ceramides.

The research behind M/PO/AM is pretty solid for eczema, aka atopic dermatitis. A 2003 study on children with eczema found that an MLE cream containing M/PO/AM outperformed a standard urea-based moisturizer. The study also found a 31-35% decrease in severity index compared to smaller improvements from the control cream.

Recently, a 2024 trial found that combining M/PO/AM with topical corticosteroid led to better outcomes than using the steroid alone. The trial noted improvements in skin hydration, dryness, itching, and quality of life scores.

Research has also shown that M/PO/AM can help reduce barrier-damaging side effects of long term topical steroid use.

This ingredient also goes by the trade name PC-9S. No notable allergy concerns have been flagged for this ingredient in the published literature.

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.

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.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review has found 4% of this ingredient in repeat-insult patch tests on humans to be non-sensitizing. There is a caveat that some reactions have shown up in patients with damaged or diseased skin.

Because it is an ester of a C18 fatty acid, it falls into the C11-24 range that the Malassezia yeast can metabolize. This means this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

It plays several roles in a formula:

Typical use levels for this ingredient sit around 1-10% and the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel has affirmed safety at concentrations up to 25% in leave-on products.

Multiple assessments have found it to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing to most people.

However, there have been some cases of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with chronically compromised skin barriers.

Cetearyl alcohol has a comedogenic rating of 2 and irritancy rating of 1. Both of these numbers come from the 1989 study that used rabbit ears; a "2" means mildly comedogenic and a "1" means low irritancy.

Here's the catch: rabbit skin is more sensitive than human skin and throws a lot of false positives. A 1996 reappraisal found that ingredients rated 1-2 in the rabbit ear tests are generally safe for humans.

Remember comedogenic ratings are unable to assess the entire formula of a product or how it will react on your skin. Just be sure to patch test if you are unsure about certain ingredients.

This ingredient is not fungal acne safe. Cetearyl alcohol is a fatty alcohol with chain lengths that fall within the range that Malassezia can metabolize.

A 2019 study has also observed Malassezia growth in the presence of this ingredient, confirming it to be not-fungal acne safe.

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.

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.

It plays well with most ingredients and is typically used at 0.1-1%. However, concentrations up to 50% have been reported in moisturizers.

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.

This ingredient is generally considered non-toxic, non-irritating, and has low absorption potential.

You might have heard that this ingredient clogs pores. This reputation comes from the older rabbit ear studies which are more sensitive than human skin to clogging.

Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos has also confirmed in a peer-reviewed paper that products containing comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic themselves.

A small subset of people (~2%) may experience contact sensitivity so patch testing is a reasonable idea if you have reactive skin.

Since this ingredient is an ester of myristic acid (a C14 fatty acid), it falls within the carbon chain range that is known to feed Malassezia. This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

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.

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.

Polymethylsilsesquioxane has not been shown to clog pores. It has been deemed safe to use up to 55%, but most cosmetics use much less.

If you have concerns about using this ingredient, we recommend speaking with a professional.

This ingredient may not be reef-safe.

High percentages of Sodium Lactate can have an exfoliating effect.

Fun fact: Sodium Lactate is produced from fermented sugar.

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.

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