As formulators of skincare products, we often encounter the question, "Will this be non-comedogenic?" It's an important question, especially in formulating for acne and reactive skin. Before we delve in, it's good to clarify what comedogenic actually means.
"Comedogenic" stems from "comedones," which are essentially clogged pores. These can manifest as open comedones, known as blackheads, or closed comedones, termed whiteheads. Blackheads occur when trapped keratinous content oxidises upon exposure to air, causing it to darken. While whiteheads form when sebum and bacteria are trapped beneath the skin's surface.
Comedogenicity is a recognised concept in the skincare industry, indicating how likely an ingredient or product is to clog pores. Substances labeled as comedogenic are believed to obstruct pores, leading to congestion and breakouts, while non-comedogenic ones are thought to be less pore-blocking.
Non-comedogenic products and lipids are sought after because they are presumed to help consumers avoid issues like acne associated with clogged pores. We're conditioned to seek out these products and to steer clear of ingredients presumed to be comedogenic. But is this mindset really accurate? Should we automatically avoid anything not labeled as non-comedogenic?
We don't believe it is. Firstly, comedogenicity lacks strict regulation, and there's no standardized scientific measure for it. There is a comedogenicity scale, rating ingredients from 0 (non-comedogenic) to 5 (highly comedogenic), has largely been established through animal testing, mainly on rabbits in the 1970s-80s (Poor bunnys! - Note the testing was done by applying lipids to their ears, so we hope none were harmed beyond some comedones!) and later human testing via patches on the back with specific lipids and products. We can't assume these tests on rabbits directly correlate with human reactions, as our skin differs significantly from that of rabbits and how our facial skin reacts, may differ from back skin which is significantly thicker.
Moreover, concentration plays a crucial role. An ingredient may be highly comedogenic at full strength but far less so when diluted. In many skincare products the total lipid content may only be 5-15% and will usually be a range of lipids. Hence, the comedogenicity scale loses relevance in formulations. For instance, while applying pure coconut oil may trigger breakouts for some, a small concentration in a moisturiser might not have the same effect. Additionally, product formulations are more complex than individual ingredients. Just because a product contains a comedogenic ingredient doesn't guarantee it will clog pores.
Comedogenicity is a broad term. Different oils affect individuals differently, and there's no universal scale. While cocoa butter or olive oil may cause congestion for some, others experience no adverse effects. Individual sensitivities and skin types heavily influence reactions.
We totally recommend testing new product formulations on range of real people, to gauge the differin reactions to oil and lipid profiles, especially if we are using a lipid that is high on the scale. A sample of size of at least 12 people, who represent your target audience, will statistically identify over 90% of problems with product experience, including comedones. Talk more to our team about custom formulation and product design.
Further reading and research
Acne.org has a fantastic article on the comedogenicity research and scaling done in the past to the present day, with tables of test results. The simply table below shows a good summary and some key lipids to look out for including squalane and cocoa butter.
OUR JOURNAL - Your resource for skincare private label, formulation and brand development.
Supporting the brands creating the future in skincare, homecare and wellbeing with our free catalogues, resources and articles.
