Tag Archives: Comedogenic

Why I Formulate With Chondrus Crispus Extract, and Why It’s Not Comedogenic

Chondrus crispus extract is a polysachharide, which are not comedogenic, and is known for its anti-inflammatory, moisturizing, and wound-healing properties on human skin.

NeoGenesis is a biotech company that has the most advanced skin care products on the market, utilizing, for example, our S2RM – stem cell released molecules technology (exosomes, ectosomes, and soluble fraction) that is the most advanced penetration technology in the skin care marketplace. At NeoGenesis we feature science-to-market ingredients that work and are backed by scientific and clinical studies. Chondrus crispus extract is one the science-to-market ingredients used by NeoGenesis. I’ll dig into the science of Chondrus crispus extract (CCE) in the next paragraph, but even a cursory online search of the ingredient gives you an outline of how good this extract is for the skin. Whether it’s SpecialChem, EWG, or Paula’s Choice, scientists reviewing the studies of Chondrus crispus extract all extole its virtues in skin care. Little wonder the ingredient is widely used in skin care products.

Recent studies have found CCE mitigated inflammation and improved scratch-wound healing, and reduce environmental stress. A number of beneficial metabolites can be obtained from algae, including antioxidants, mycosporine-like amino acids, carotenoids, pigments, flavanoids, and polysaccharides. Further, CCE is sustainably sourced unlike a number of competing ingredients.

CCE also contains 15 of the 18 essential elements that make up the human body. This includes calcium, sulfur, magnesium, potassium, vitamin A, and vitamin K. Further, because CCE contains sulfur, it may help to reduce sebum production. CCE also contains omega-3 fatty acids, good for the skin, including acneic skin, whether topical or oral.

You can also read what other scientists and physicians say about the benefits CCE when topically applied to the skin in the popular press here, and here.

The Spread of Misinformation About Comedogenicity

Formulating a product with isopropyl myristate is non-comedogenic, especially as a wash-off product

The term comedogenicity refers to the potential of various chemicals to promote the abnormal keratinization (hyperkeratinization) and desquamation of follicular epithelium. These comedogenic chemicals lead to a partial (open comedone or blackhead) or complete obstruction of the pilosebaceous (closed comedone or whitehead) and accumulation of sebum. Basically the skin pores become blocked. FYI, The hair follicle, hair shaft, and sebaceous gland are known as the pilosebaceous unit. The comedogenicity of dermatological products was first demonstrated by Kligman AM and Mills OH in 1972 The comedogenicity of the ingredients, for example, apricot kernel seed oil, cocoa butter, corn oil, isopropyl myristate, mineral oil, acetylated lanolin, octyl palmitate, sunflower oil, sodium lauryl sulfate, tocopherol etc. has been described. However, how these data were acquired, and their meaning has been highly misconstrued by practitioners and lay people alike. The propagation of these misconceptions in the media, including social media, is ubiquitous.

To clarify, first, these results were conducted from testing of 100% concentration of the tested ingredients in animal models, namely on rabbit ears. However, the comedogenicity of ingredients should not be taken to be the same as finished products, given the mixtures of ingredients and application to human skin will alter the final comedogenicity of each product. 

I recently formulated a new product for the easy removal of makeup, without having to scrub the skin and without toxic, inflammatory ingredients. The product contains an ingredient called isopropyl myristate. Isopropyl Myristate has been given a ranking of “1” by the Environmental Work Group, their safest rating. It is a synthetic oil and is highly regarded as an emollient. I was asked after we introduced the product to the market if the Makeup Remover is comedogenic because of the inclusion of isopropyl myristate in the formula. Let’s look at this.

Neogenesis Makeup Remover is not comedogenic, and one of the ingredients it contains that has been mistakenly said to be comedogenic, Isopropyl Myristate, has been found by scientists in peer-reviewed publications to be non-comedogenic (Lee et al, 2015). Neogenesis Makeup Remover is a safe and effective makeup remover that features carefully chosen ingredients that are all ranked low in the Environmental Workgroup’s (EWG) analysis of an ingredient’s induction of, 1. Cancer, 2. Allergies & Immunotoxicity, and 3. Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. The EWG’s analysis of Isopropyl Myristate gave it a “1,” the lowest ranking on a 10-point scale for causing all these 3 concerns and included no use restrictions.

NeoGenesis Makeup Remover is not comedogenic for two key reasons, 1. Isopropyl Myristate itself is non-comedogenic (Lee et al, 2015), and 2. Even if Isopropyl Myristate were comedogenic, the way NeoGenesis Makeup Remover is used as a product that is immediately washed-off, would not be comedogenic. As Dr. Zoe Draelos, M.D., a board-certified dermatologist has published in a peer-reviewed journal, “Finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic” (Draelos and DiNardo, 2006). Whether an ingredient is comedogenic depends on many factors, including how the ingredient is used, such as is it left on the skin or washed-off, and the concentration of the ingredient, as well as what is the formulation in which the ingredient is used. In a formulation, some so-called comedogenic ingredients will be rendered non-comedogenic by other ingredients in the formula. Further, comedogenicity is a function of many factors not considered in these studies, including the phosphoprotein content of the lipid droplets in one’s skin and the other ingredients in the formula that may have anti-comedogenic potential.

How was the misinformation about Isopropyl Myristate started and why has it been propagated in the media and social media?  To understand the flaws in the comedogenic scale we need to know how these tests are performed. In 1972, Kligman and Mills developed a rabbit ear model for testing how skin pores can be clogged by ingredients. They would put the ingredient to be tested into the canals of rabbit ears for two weeks. Then they would sacrifice the animals, and measure whether the pores were clogged under a microscope. “Half of 25 facial cosmetic creams were found to be mildly comedogenic when tested in rabbits’ external ear canals” (Kligman and Mills, 1972). This is how the hoopla of comedogenicity started. Ten years later, Mills and Kligman (1982) developed a human model using “young adult, black men who have large follicles,” where the substances were applied under occlusion for one month to the upper part of the backs. Yes, you read it right, the substances were applied for one month using an occlusive dressing. Occlusion can cause many untoward effects including enhanced product absorption and penetration, therefore leading to a higher probability of comedone formation. And then, a “fast-setting cyanoacrylate glue to remove the follicular” was used to remove the follicles from the victim’s back. I say victim, because cyanoacrylates can cause contact dermatitis, i.e. irritation (Bitterman and Sandhu, 2017), and then the procedure involves ripping this set-glue off the backs of the volunteers. Irritation of the skin can change follicle architecture and lead to misleading false-positives. In using this flawed methodology, Mills and Kligman (1982) wrote that, “The rabbit model is more sensitive than the human.” I’ll finish the sentence for them, “The rabbit model is more sensitive than the human [model].” And a poor human model it is.

My take home from these studies is that I will not place Isopropyl Myristate on the ear canal of my pet rabbit for 24 hours straight, every day of the week, for one month because I don’t want my rabbit to have mildly clogged pores in his ears. I will, however, recommend using Neogenesis Makeup Remover to friends and loved ones that is quickly applied to the areas of the skin were makeup needs to be removed, and then using a gentle cleanser, such as NeoGenesis Cleanser, to wash away the Makeup Remover from the skin. As the American academy of Dermatology recommends, “Remove your makeup, including eye makeup, before going to bed. Use an oil-free makeup remover. After removing your makeup, wash your face with a gentle cleanser. Avoid scrubbing your face, even when removing makeup.” Your pores will thank you for having gently unclogged them of that makeup you applied in the morning.

References

Bitterman A, Sandhu K. Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate after surgical repair: Humidity as a potential factor. JAAD Case Rep. 2017 Sep 23;3(6):480-481.

Draelos ZD and DiNardi JC (2006) A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept. JAAD, 54, ISSUE 3, P507-512.

Kligman AM, Mills OH. “Acne Cosmetica”. Arch Dermatol. 1972;106(6):843–850. doi:10.1001/archderm.1972.01620150029011

Lee E. et al (2015) Isopropyl Myristate and Cocoa Butter are not Appropriate Positive Controls for Comedogenicity Assay in Asian Subjects. J Cosmo Trichol 2015, 2:1.

Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM. A human model for assessing comedogenic substances. Arch Dermatol. 1982 Nov;118(11):903-5. PMID: 7138047.

Sorg O, Nocera T, Fontao F, Castex-Rizzi N, Garidou L, Lauze C, Le Digabel J, Josse G, Saurat JH. Lipid Droplet Proteins in Acne Skin: A Sound Target for the Maintenance of Low Comedogenic Sebum and Acne-Prone Skin Health. JID Innov. 2021 Sep 17;1(4):100057.