Zeroid Dermanewal Sun Block SPF 50+

The Cosmetic Review Expert Panel has concluded the alkyl benzoate group to be safe as used in cosmetics; it wasn't found to be a skin irritant and unlikely to be absorbed due to its low water solubility.

This report recorded almost 1000 reported uses with concentrations up to 59% in leave-on products but your cosmetics will typically use 0.5-15% depending on the product.

It's often called a "SPF booster": this is because it keeps UV filters properly dissolved and evenly distributed to support a sunscreen's performance. It doesn't actually raise SPF on its own.

Overall, this ingredient is well tolerated.

This ingredient is fungal acne safe because it is an ester of benzoic acid.

Think of this ingredient as two parts stuck together: an oily part and an acid part. Malassezia only gets a meal when it can snip off a fatty acid to eat. With C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, the acid part is benzoic acid, which isn't a fatty acid and which the yeast can't use as food.

Benzoic acid is actually used as a preservative to stop yeast from growing.

The oily part is a blend of C12-15 fatty alcohols but fatty alcohols in this size range can support only a little Malassezia growth (mostly for one species of Malassezia as well).

In the ingredient, those alcohols stay locked inside the molecule. The yeast can only reach them by snipping the benzoate bond, and that type of bond is harder for it to cut than a normal fatty bond.

So not much gets released. And whatever does get snipped comes packaged with benzoic acid, which discourages yeast growth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This ingredient is volatile which means it will mostly evaporate (but it evaporates slower than older cyclomethicones, like Cyclotetrasiloxane).

Typical concentration ranges from 1-30% depending on if it's being used to tweak the feel of a product or acting as the main emollient.

Ensulizole primarily protects against UVB radiation (~290-320 nm) but offers some minimal UVA protection. You'll see it often paired with UVA filters to ensure broad-spectrum coverage.

Interestingly, it can help boost SPF and stabilize finicky filters when combined with other UVB absorbers.

The FDA has approved this ingredient for OTC sunscreens up to 4% and the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Products concluded that up to 8% is allowed in cosmetics.

In practice, you'll most likely see it formulated around 1-4%.

Safety-wise, it is neither irritating nor sensitizing, shows no photoallergenic potential, and in vivo tests show no mutagenic potential.

You might see discussion about the "double-edged sword" effect of this ingredient. This is because lab tests done on cells in a dish (not on humans) showed Ensulizole can create small amounts of unstable molecules called free radicals that can damage DNA when exposed to UV light. It sounds scary but this is just test-tube research. There hasn't been proof that this can happen when used in a sunscreen on skin.

Another pro?

It's exceptionally photostable, barely degrades in sunlight, and acts as a "bodyguard" for less stable filters.

That's why you'll see it paired with avobenzone or octinoxate; this team up ensures they keep working through sun exposure.

Safety reviews have been reassuring across the board. This ingredient shows low absorption through the skin, rarely irritates, and lab studies found it doesn't act like a hormone in the body (a concern that's been raised about some older sunscreen filters).

On maximum concentrations:

In 2026, the US F.D.A finally added it as an OTC sunscreen ingredient at concentrations up to 6% for adults / children 6 months and older

Your skin makes glycerin on its own (mostly from sebaceous oil breakdown) and shuttles it to your outermost layer of skin, or your epidermis, via aquaporin-3.

Aquaporin-3 is a transporter that is essential for normal skin hydration, elasticity, and repair. Interestingly, mice lacking in AQP3 have dry and less elastic skin that can be fully corrected with glycerin.

This ingredient is non-irritating, plays well with almost every ingredient, and works across all skin types. Typical use is anywhere between 3-10% but can go up to 79% in some leave-on products.

Just know very high concentrations (>40%) can feel tacky in low humidity.

Glycerin is the name for this ingredient in American English. British English uses Glycerol/Glycerine.

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.

Here's an interesting thing about Arginine: your skin converts it into urea through the Krebs-Henseleit urea cycle. Urea is one of the most effective humectants your skin naturally produces.

A clinical study showed applying 2.5% arginine hydrochloride to atopic dermatitis skin showed significant urea levels in the stratum corneum and improved moisture in just four weeks.

Arginine is also a precursor to nitric oxide; nitric oxide improves microcirculation and supports wound healing and collagen synthesis.

One study found that an amino acid complex containing Arginine reduced skin irritation, improved hydration, and accelerated skin repair in clinical / in-vivo studies.

Arginine itself is an amino acid and not a fatty acid, oil, or ester. On its own, it's not a direct food source for Malassezia, or the yeast that causes fungal acne.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You'll typically find this ingredient in amounts between 0.1-20%.

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.

Although “aluminum” in an ingredient name can raise red flags for some consumers, the form and usage context matter significantly.

For typical topical applications, there is no substantial evidence of health risks - such as cancer, neurotoxicity, or systemic “aluminum overload.”

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%.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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%.