
The necessity of eye creams has long been debated in the skincare world. While some claim they are essential for addressing the unique needs of the delicate under-eye area, others argue they are little more than a marketing gimmick. This article explores the scientific evidence, regulatory distinctions, and industry practices to determine whether eye creams are truly necessary or just redundant.

---

### Is the eye area even different from the rest of the face?


Yes, the periorbital region has distinct anatomical and physiological characteristics that make it more prone to dryness, wrinkles, dark circles, and puffiness. These differences include:

- **Thinner Epidermis & Dermis** – The periorbital skin is notably thinner compared to other facial regions **(1)** - which makes underlying blood vessels more visible (dark circles).
- **Frequent Movement & Mechanical Stress** – blinking, plus squinting and rubbing maske the eye area more susceptible to fine line formation since repeated skin flexure causes wrinkles **(2)**.
- **Higher Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL)** – The eye area **loses moisture faster** than other parts of the face **(3)**.

These factors **theoretically** justify specialized skincare—but do eye creams actually contain unique formulations?

---

### Do eye creams have to be formulated differently than facial creams and serums?


According to cosmetic regulations, the answer is **no**. Cosmetic regulations do not require eye creams to have specific formulations - and therefore, they don't. Ingredients in eye creams are the same found in moisturizers and serums that are marketed towards the rest of the face.

In both the U.S. (FDA) and European Union, eye creams are regulated as cosmetics under the same category as moisturizers and serums. There is no regulatory requirement that distinguishes eye creams from other skincare products in terms of formulation, safety testing, or efficacy standards. The **only regulatory constraint** is that **products intended for use around the eyes must be tested for ocular irritation (4)**, but this does not affect ingredient selection. 

So, eye creams don't *have* to be different... but are they?

---

### In practice, are eye creams different/more targeted?


Some brands choose to make certain adjustments for the periorbital area, the most common being removing fragrance and lowering active ingredient concentrations to reduce the risk of irritation. However, these changes are not universal, and again, there is no legal requirement ensuring that eye creams are gentler or more effective. Simply choosing an "eye cream" does not ensure a gentler formulation.

Eye creams often claim to target dark circles, puffiness, and wrinkles, but the active ingredients they use are the same ones found in serums and face moisturizers.For hydration, eye creams rely on humectants (hyaluronic acid, [glycerin](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/glycerin)), emollients ([squalane](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/squalane), fatty acids), and occlusives (ceramides, petrolatum)—all of which are already present in well-formulated face moisturizers.

For **anti-aging**, they often contain retinol, peptides, [niacinamide](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/niacinamide), and [vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c), just like face serums. Some eye creams dilute these actives, but others use the same concentrations or higher, making them **functionally no different** from serums or night creams.

For **dark circles and puffiness**, [caffeine](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/caffeine) is a commonly used ingredient. However, clinical studies show that **[caffeine](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/caffeine)’s decongestant effect is temporary** and does not address structural causes of under-eye bags. Moreover, face serums containing [caffeine](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/caffeine) often have equal or higher concentrations than eye creams, meaning they may be just as or more effective.

The best approach is not to assume an eye cream is necessary, but rather to **identify the concern** (hydration, wrinkles, dark circles) and **select a product that effectively addresses it**—whether that is an eye cream, a serum, or a moisturizer.

---
 
### Conclusion

From a regulatory and formulation perspective, eye creams and face creams are interchangeable. A brand can legally sell the same formula under both labels or switch them without consequence, underscoring the lack of meaningful distinctions between these products. 

The perceived necessity of eye creams is largely a result of marketing strategies aimed at encouraging consumers to purchase a separate product for the under-eye area. That being said, that doesn't mean that there aren't good products out there that happen to be labeled "eye cream". It just means the "eye cream" labelling alone holds no meaning (unlike "[SPF](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/is-spf-100-a-scam-the-truth-behind-high-spf-sunscreens)", for example, which is highly regulated). As consumers, we shouldn't assume a product addresses our eye area skin concerns just because it's named an eye cream. We should look at ingredients (and compare price per ml) before making a decision.

---


### References

1.**Tagami, H.** *Location-related differences in structure and function of the [stratum corneum](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/stratum-corneum) with special emphasis on those of the facial skin.* *International Journal of Cosmetic Science.* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2008.00459.x

2.**Hillebrand, G. G., Liang, Z., Yan, X., & Yoshii, T.** *New wrinkles on wrinkling: an 8-year longitudinal study on the progression of expression lines into persistent wrinkles.* *British Journal of Dermatology.* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20184587/

3.**Voegeli, R., Rawlings, A. V., Seroul, P., & Summers, B. (2015).** A novel continuous colour mapping approach for visualization of facial skin hydration and transepidermal water loss for four ethnic groups. *International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 37*(6), 595–605. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12265](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12265)

4.**European Parliament and Council.** *Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products.* *Official Journal of the European Union.* [EUR-Lex - Official Journal of the European Union](https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/cosmetic_1223_2009_regulation_en_0.pdf)


Touted as skincare essentials, eye creams often boast ‘specialized’ formulas—but look closer, and you might just find a regular face cream with a higher price tag.

Eye Creams: Useful or Redundant? A Scientific Perspective


When it comes to skincare, packaging is often dominated by glossy promises of “glowing skin” or “anti-aging miracles.” Marketing appeal takes over and technicalities take back seat, but no matter how groundbreaking the formulation inside, if the packaging fails, your expensive serum might as well be a $20 bottle of tap water. Let’s dive deeper into why packaging isn’t just an aesthetic choice but a scientific necessity for maintaining the efficacy and safety of skincare products.

---

## **1. Protection from the Elements: Keeping Your Actives Active**

Some of the most popular skincare ingredients are highly sensitive to environmental factors such as light, air, and humidity. These actives degrade when exposed to those elements, reducing their effectiveness or altering their chemical composition. Proper packaging can significantly extend the shelf life and potency of these actives.

### **Some great ingredients that are affected by air and light are:**

#### **[Vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c)**
[Vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c) ([ascorbic acid](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/ascorbic-acid)) is widely used in skincare for its antioxidant properties and ability to brighten skin. However, it is highly unstable and undergoes oxidative degradation when exposed to air and light, leading to reduced potency. Studies have shown that unprotected [vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c) formulations can lose significant efficacy within a short period. (1)  
Stabilized forms of [vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c), such as [ascorbyl palmitate](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/ascorbyl-palmitate) or [magnesium ascorbyl phosphate](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/magnesium-ascorbyl-phosphate), are more resistant but still require light-protective and airtight packaging.

#### **Retinoids**
Retinoids, including retinol and tretinoin, are effective for improving skin texture, reducing wrinkles, and treating acne. However, they degrade rapidly when exposed to light and oxygen. Research indicates that retinol loses a significant portion of its activity within weeks of exposure to air and light, especially if stored in transparent containers. (2)  
Opaque, air-restrictive packaging is essential to maintain their efficacy.

#### **Other Antioxidants and Plant Extracts**
Antioxidants such as vitamin E ([tocopherol](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/tocopherol)), ferulic acid, and most plant extracts are sensitive to air and light. These compounds, while effective at combating oxidative stress, become unstable when exposed to environmental factors. Studies show that certain plant extracts lose their antioxidant activity significantly under poor storage conditions. (3)

---

## **2. Hygienic Packaging: Preventing Contamination**

Each time a product is exposed to air or touched, its safety and efficacy can be compromised. Contaminated skincare products not only lose effectiveness but can also pose risks to skin health.

### **Why Contamination Matters**
- **Microbial Growth:** Water-based formulations are especially susceptible to bacterial and fungal contamination. While preservatives help control microbial growth, they cannot compensate for repeated contamination. (4)
- **Degradation of Ingredients:** Exposure to bacteria can also destabilize sensitive ingredients, leading to reduced efficacy or altered chemical properties.

---

## **Best Packaging Practices**
Not all products require air-tight and light-blocking packaging, but chances are that comprehensive, well rounded and effective formulations contain some air and /or light sensitive ingredients. To ensure the longevity of those products, reduce the risk of contamination, and make sure you get your money’s worth out of them, opt for:
- **Airless Pumps or Squeeze Tubes:** Minimize air and microbial exposure.
- **Opaque or Dark Glass Containers:** Shield contents from light.
- **Single-Use Capsules:** Provide optimal protection for sensitive ingredients, ensuring the product remains sealed until use.
- **Avoid Clear Jars:** These allow UV and oxygen exposure, as well as a lot of direct contact with the product, increasing the risk of contamination.

---

## **Conclusion**
Skincare packaging is more than a superficial detail—it plays a critical role in preserving the potency, stability, and hygiene of products. Ingredients like [vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c), retinoids, and various antioxidants are highly effective but also sensitive to environmental factors. Without proper packaging, these actives can lose their benefits long before the product is finished.
When choosing skincare, consider the packaging as carefully as the ingredient list. A beautifully designed jar might be tempting, but if it compromises the formula inside, it’s not worth the price. Packaging should ensure your skincare delivers on its promises—from the first pump to the last.

---

### References
1. **Pinnell, S. R., Yang, H., Omar, M., Monteiro-Riviere, N. A., DeBuys, H. V., Walker, L. C., Wang, Y., & Levine, M. (2001).** Topical L-[ascorbic acid](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/ascorbic-acid): percutaneous absorption studies. *Dermatologic Surgery, 27*(2), 137–142. [https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2001.00264.x](https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2001.00264.x)  
2. **Temova Rakuša, Ž., Škufca, P., Kristl, A., & Roškar, R. (2021).** Retinoid stability and degradation kinetics in commercial cosmetic products. *Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 20*(7), 2350–2358. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33206444/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33206444/)
3. **Wang, Y. J., Pan, M. H., Cheng, A. L., Lin, L. I., Ho, Y. S., Hsieh, C. Y., & Lin, J. K. (1997).** Stability of curcumin in buffer solutions and characterization of its degradation products. *Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 15*(12), 1867–1876. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0731708596020249](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0731708596020249)
4. **Lee, J. M., Ryu, S. I., Kim, J. I., Park, S., Kim, I. H., Park, M. S., & Ryu, H. J. (2019).** Contribution of container types on cosmetics contamination. *Annals of Dermatology, 31*(5), 588–590. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992568](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992568)    


Discover why skincare packaging is more than just aesthetics—it’s key to product effectiveness.

The Importance of Skincare Packaging: More Than Just a Pretty Bottle

Hyped, cutting-edge, and possibly banned: the truth behind exosomes in cosmetics.

Think You’re Using Exosomes? Why the EU Banned Them (and What You’re Actually Getting)


### In this article

- [What “Comedogenic” Actually Means](#what-comedogenic-actually-means)
- [The Problem with the Comedogenic Scale](#the-problem-with-the-comedogenic-scale)
- [Why Labels Can't be Trusted](#why-labels-cant-be-trusted)
  - [Context Matters](#context-matters)
- [So when it comes to choosing a skincare routine, how can we avoid triggering acne?](#so-when-it-comes-to-choosing-a-skincare-routine-how-can-we-avoid-triggering-acne)
- [References](#references)

## What “Comedogenic” Actually Means

The term *comedogenic* refers to a substance’s potential to contribute to the formation of comedones — clogged pores that appear as blackheads (open comedones) or whiteheads (closed comedones). These form when the pilosebaceous unit becomes blocked by sebum and keratin, disrupting normal follicular shedding and oil flow [1].

While comedones are the starting point of all acne lesions [1], not all breakouts are simply the result of pore blockage. Other factors — like inflammation within the follicular wall, skin barrier dysfunction, or microbial triggers — can worsen or prolong acne beyond the initial comedone stage [2,3].

![pores schematic](https://skinclass-production.up.railway.app/images/articles/comedogenicity/pores_schematic.png)

That's why even if a product is labeled *non-comedogenic*, it can still trigger acne by disrupting the skin barrier or altering the microbiome — pathways that worsen inflammation without necessarily clogging pores [2,3].

For those dealing with acne, it's understandable to seek out products labeled “non-comedogenic” — a term that implies safety from clogged pores. The term traces back to the concept of **comedogenic ratings**. In an attempt to quantify which ingredients are more likely to clog pores, researchers developed a numerical scale — the so-called *comedogenicity scale* — assigning scores to ingredients based on how likely they are to cause comedones. But while the idea sounds scientific and reassuring, the reality is far more complicated.

---

## The Problem with the Comedogenic Scale

The comedogenicity scale originated from *rabbit ear assays*. In these tests, ingredients — often neat or highly concentrated — are applied to rabbit ears to see if comedones form [4]. But the rabbit model is *highly sensitive* and prone to false positives; many substances flagged in rabbits don’t reliably cause comedones in humans [4,5].

Even human testing of comedogenicity remains imperfect. For example, Mills & Kligman (1982) demonstrated that ingredients flagged as comedogenic in rabbit ears can indeed cause comedones in humans—but **when applied under occlusion and in concentrated form** using an upper-back patch method [5]. This controlled setting differs dramatically from real-world use, making it questionable whether those results translate to everyday product application on exposed facial skin.

Moreover, comedogenicity isn’t intrinsic to individual ingredients — it depends heavily on **formulation**. Draelos & DiNardo’s reevaluation found that *finished products* containing comedogenic ingredients don’t necessarily produce comedones, showing that dose, vehicle, and interactions matter more than a single ingredient [6].

Some critics even question the relevance of the rabbit model entirely. Frank noted that rabbit results often don't correlate to acne development in humans, emphasizing the need for human-based validation [7].

---

## Why Labels Can't be Trusted

“Non-comedogenic” gives the impression of scientific credibility — as if the product has passed a defined test and is guaranteed not to clog pores. But there is **no standardized test, no regulatory definition**, and no independent verification behind the label.
Brands can use the term based on old ingredient ratings, internal evaluations, or simply marketing strategy. No authority oversees how the claim is applied — and no consistency is guaranteed in what it actually means.

Comedogenicity isn’t a fixed trait — it depends on how a product is formulated, who’s using it, and under what conditions.

### Context Matters:

- **Concentration matters.** Classic comedogenicity assays often applied undiluted or highly concentrated ingredients. Results at those doses/conditions don’t necessarily predict what happens at lower, in-product use levels [8].
  
- **The vehicle changes everything.** Comedogenicity of an ingredient can vary depending on the solvent of the formulation. It might vary drastically depending of it is in an oil, cream, gel, etc. [4]
  
- **Skin type and environment play a role.** Higher sebum output (oily/combination skin) and hot, humid environments are associated with greater acne prevalence and flares; heat also increases sebum excretion [9].
  
- **Formulation synergy matters.** Some ingredient combinations amplify the pore-blocking effect of certain ingredients, becoming more comedogenic than each of the individual ingredients [4].
  

And last but not least, ingredient lists are only part of the picture - personal sensitivity is unpredictable.

### Pin it!
![comedogenicity infographic](https://skinclass-production.up.railway.app/images/articles/comedogenicity/comedogenicity_context_matters_infographic.png)

---

## So when it comes to choosing a skincare routine, how can we avoid triggering acne?

- **Cleanse twice daily.**  
  Twice-daily washing improved non-inflammatory lesions vs once daily in an randomized controlled trial; **overwashing (4×/day) wasn’t better**. [10]
  
- **Use proven anti-acne actives.**  
  **Retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, and salicylic acid (BHA 0.5–2%)** are evidence-based options for comedonal/mild acne; build tolerance slowly and pair with barrier care [11].
  
- **Prioritize barrier care.**  
  Use products that support barrier function instead of stripping it; barrier repair is part of acne management. [2]
  
- **Introduce one change at a time.** Add/adjust products no more than every 2–3 weeks so you can spot culprits.
  
- **Log what you use and the context.**  
  Note product, date, weather, sweat/occlusion, and breakouts. Patterns often track with environment and oiliness. [9]
  

### Pin it!
![tips to avoid acne](https://skinclass-production.up.railway.app/images/articles/comedogenicity/how_to_avoid_triggering_acne.png)

---

## References

1. **Sutaria, A. H., Masood, S., Saleh, H. M., et al.** **(2023).** Acne vulgaris. *In StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Updated August 17, 2023.*  
  [Acne Vulgaris - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459173/)
  
2. **Deng, Y. et al** **(2024).** Skin Barrier Dysfunction in Acne Vulgaris: Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Approaches. *Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 30*, e945336. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11650898/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11650898/)
  
3. **Kemény, L., Degovics, D., Szabó, K. (2025).** Is there a place for biologics in acne? *American Journal of Clinical Dermatology*. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40257-025-00954-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40257-025-00954-8)
  
4. **Fulton, J. E. Jr. (1989).** Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. *Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40*(6), 321–333. https://insolitbeauty.com/documentacion/Comedogenicidad%20e%20irritacion%20de%20los%20ingredientes%20de%20uso%20comun%20en%20productos%20para%20el%20cuidado%20de%20la%20piel.pdf
  
5. **Mills, O. H. Jr., Kligman, A. M.(1982).** A human model for assessing comedogenic substances. *Archives of Dermatology, 118*(11), 903–905.  
  [A human model for assessing comedogenic substances - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7138047/)
  
6. **Draelos, Z.D., & DiNardo, J.C. (2006).** A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept. *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 54*(3), 507–512. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190962205046001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190962205046001)
  
7. **Frank, S.B. (1982).** Is the rabbit ear model, in its present state, prophetic of acnegenicity? *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 6(3), 373–377. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190962282700325](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190962282700325)
  
8. **Waranuch, N., Wisutthathum, S., Tuanthai, S., et al. (2021).** Safety assessment on comedogenicity of dermatological products containing d-alpha tocopheryl acetate in Asian subjects: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. *Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 23*, 100834 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8387765](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8387765/)
  
9. **Dréno, B., Bettoli, V., Araviiskaia, E., et al. (2018).** The influence of exposome on acne. *Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32*(5), 812–819. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5947266/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5947266/)
  
10. **Choi, J. M., Lew, V. K., Kimball, A. B. (2006).** A single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect of face washing on acne vulgaris. *Pediatric Dermatology, 23*(5), 421–427. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17014635/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17014635/)
  
11. **Reynolds, R. V., Yeung, H., Cheng, C. E., et al. (2024).** Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris. *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 90*(5), 1006.e1–1006.e30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38300170/


From rabbit ears to bathroom shelves — decoding “non-comedogenic” and the gap between tests and real skin.

Is It Really Non-Comedogenic? What the Label Doesn’t Tell You


If you’ve ever shopped for sunscreen, you’ve probably seen bottles labeled SPF 30, SPF 50, at most SPF 50++. But in some countries, you’ll find sunscreens boasting SPF 100, 110, or even 130 - numbers that seem to promise unbeatable protection from the sun.

It sounds great, right? After all, SPF 100 must be **twice as protective** as SPF 50, right?

**Not exactly.**

---

### What Does SPF Actually Measure?

SPF, or Sun Protection Factor, is one of the most misunderstood numbers in skincare. Many people assume that higher SPF means dramatically better protection, but that’s not how it works.

**SPF is a multiplier of UVB exposure, not a time extension (1).** I wrongly assumed that if your skin could tolerate sun for 5 minutes before starting to burn, then with SPF 15 it could withstand 5x15=75 minutes, and with SPF 30 it could withstand 5x30=150 minutes. Well, that's not exactly right.

The SPF number tells you **how much more UVB exposure your skin can tolerate before burning, compared to bare skin**. It does not mean you can stay in the sun 100 times longer with SPF 100. Here is how SPF is measured **(2)**:

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center; justify-content: center; font-size: 1.2em;">
  <span style="white-space: nowrap; margin-right: 10px;">SPF =</span>
  <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center;">
    <div>Minimal Erythemal Dose (MED) on protected skin</div>
    <hr style="width: 100%; margin: 4px 0;" />
    <div>Minimal Erythemal Dose (MED) on unprotected skin</div>
  </div>
</div>

- **Minimal Erythemal Dose (MED)** = The amount of UV radiation needed to cause visible redness.
  
- SPF 100 means it takes 100 times more UVB radiation to cause a burn compared to bare skin.
  
- SPF 50 means it takes 50 times more UVB radiation to cause a burn.
  

At first glance, SPF 100 seems like a big improvement over SPF 50—but in reality, it only blocks about 1% more UVB rays. **UVB protection does not increase linearly**—it follows a diminishing returns curve.

| SPF Level | UVB Radiation Blocked | UVB That Still Reaches Skin |
| --- | --- | --- |
| SPF 15 | **93%** | **7%** |
| SPF 30 | **96.7%** | **3.3%** |
| SPF 50 | **98%** | **2%** |
| SPF 100 | **99%** | **1%** |

This happens because SPF measures how much UV radiation reaches the skin, **not how much is blocked**. Here’s the key difference:

- **SPF 50 allows 1/50th (2%) of UVB radiation to reach the skin.**
  
- **SPF 100 allows 1/100th (1%) of UVB radiation to reach the skin.**
  

While SPF 100 reduces UVB exposure by half compared to SPF 50, the difference in absolute UVB blocking is only 1% more protection—because SPF 50 already blocks 98% of UVB rays, leaving very little left to block.

This is why dermatologists and regulatory agencies often say that **SPF 50 is already sufficient**—because the **increase in protection is minimal**, but the risk of misuse (thinking you don’t need to reapply if you have a higher SPF) increases.

### Pin it!

![what does spf actually measure](https://skinclass-production.up.railway.app/images/articles/spf100/spf_infograph.png)

---

### Why Some Countries Allow SPF 100 (and Others Don’t)

SPF 100 sunscreens are available in some countries but banned in others. This isn’t because they don’t work, but because different health agencies have different approaches to sunscreen regulation and consumer protection.

The European Union and Australia **cap SPF labeling at 50+ to prevent misleading claims (3,4)**, since SPF 50 already blocks 98% of UVB rays, while SPF 100 blocks 99%—a negligible difference in real-world protection. Studies show **that people using high-SPF sunscreens tend to stay in the sun longer (5),** leading to greater UV exposure despite the higher SPF. To counteract this, some countries limit SPF claims to 50+ to encourage correct usage rather than relying on high numbers for a false sense of security.

In contrast, countries like the US, China, and some parts of Latin America allow SPF 100+ on labels as long as the sunscreen meets testing standards. The reasoning is that most people don’t apply enough sunscreen, so a **higher SPF may help compensate for under-application - and there are studies that support this (6,7)**.

Even in regions where SPF 100 is "banned," the formulas themselves are not. In the EU and Australia, an SPF 100 sunscreen can still be sold, but it must be labeled SPF 50+ to comply with regulations. This means that if a brand sells SPF 100 in the US and SPF 50+ in Europe, the product may be exactly the same—the only difference is the label. The goal of these regulations isn’t to stop consumers from using high-SPF products but to prevent misleading marketing and ensure people focus on proper application and **reapplication**, which matter far more than chasing higher SPF numbers.

---

### What about UVA (the silent killer)?

SPF (Sun Protection Factor) measures **protection against UVB rays**, the type of ultraviolet radiation responsible for sunburn and direct DNA damage leading to non-melanoma skin cancers.

UVB rays primarily affect the outer layers of the skin, causing visible sunburn. SPF testing is based on [erythema](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/erythema) (redness), which is triggered by UVB exposure, making it a straightforward way to measure **how much UVB protection a sunscreen provides**. It does not account for **UVA protection**. UVA rays, on the other hand, penetrate **deeper into the skin**, damaging collagen and elastin, leading to **wrinkles, sagging, hyperpigmentation, and an increased risk of melanoma (8,9)** (the deadliest type of skin cancer). Unlike UVB, UVA is present all day, year-round, and penetrates through clouds and glass.

##### Why Isn’t There a Universal UVA Protection Rating?

Unlike UVB protection, which is easy to measure using [erythema](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/erythema) response, UVA exposure does not cause an immediate, visible reaction like sunburn. This makes it harder to quantify its protection factor in a simple, standardized way. However, several methods exist:

- In the **EU, Australia, and Japan**, [broad-spectrum](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/broad-spectrum) sunscreens must provide UVA protection equal to at least one-third of their SPF rating, determined through in vitro tests like critical wavelength assessment (a measure of how much of the UVA spectrum a sunscreen absorbs) **(10,11)**.
  
- Persistent Pigment Darkening (PPD), used in the **PA+ system** (common in Japan and South Korea), evaluates how long it takes for UVA exposure to cause lasting pigmentation. PA+ to PA++++ rankings indicate increasing levels of UVA protection **(12)**.
  
- In the **US**, the FDA only requires a pass/fail “[broad-spectrum](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/broad-spectrum)” designation, with no clear UVA protection scale **(13)**.
  

The **lack of a globally standardized UVA rating** makes it difficult for consumers to assess how much protection a sunscreen provides beyond its SPF value. **While SPF 100 may prevent sunburn better than SPF 50, it does not necessarily mean superior** **UVA protection**, which is why dermatologists recommend **choosing [broad-spectrum](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/broad-spectrum) sunscreens with proven UVA filters instead of focusing solely on SPF numbers**.

---

### So, what's the veredict? Is SPF 100 worth it?

The difference in UVB blocking between SPF 50 and SPF 100 is just **1%**, and the added protection is often outweighed by the risk of **misuse**. SPF 100 might be useful for high risk individuals, or in prolonged outdoor activities, mainly because higher SPF may help offset the fact that most people don't apply enough sunscreen, as indicated by so many studies to even be worth referencing (but I'll reference some anyway: **(14,15)**).

But even in those situations, you shouldn't forget that **UVA exposure remains a concern**: SPF only measures UVB protection. A **[broad-spectrum](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/cosmetic-glossary/broad-spectrum)** sunscreen with strong UVA filters is **more important than just a high SPF number**. SPF 100 **isn’t a scam**, but **correct application and reapplication matter far more than the SPF number**.

---

### References

1.**U.S. Food and Drug Administration.** Sun Protection Factor (SPF). *FDA.* [Sun Protection Factor (SPF) | FDA](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/sun-protection-factor-spf)

2.**Latha, M. S., Martis, J., Shobha, V., Sham Shinde, R., Bangera, S., Krishnankutty, B., Bellary, S., Varughese, S., Rao, P., & Kumar, B. R. (2013).** Sunscreening agents: a review. *Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, 6*(1), 16–26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543289/

3.**European Commission.** Questions and Answers on the Commission Recommendation on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto. *Press Release MEMO/07/282.* [Press corner | European Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_07_282)

4,11.**Therapeutic Goods Administration.** Australian regulatory guidelines for sunscreens. *Australian Government Department of Health.* https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian-regulatory-guidelines-for-sunscreens.pdf

5.**Autier, P., Doré, J. F., Négrier, S., Liénard, D., Panizzon, R., Lejeune, F. J., Guggisberg, D., & Eggermont, A. M. M. (1999).** Sunscreen use and duration of sun exposure: a double-blind, randomized trial. *Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91*(15), 1304–1309. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10433619](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10433619)

6.**Ou-Yang, H., Stanfield, J., Cole, C., Appa, Y., & Rigel, D. (2012).** High-SPF sunscreens (SPF ≥ 70) may provide ultraviolet protection above minimal recommended levels by adequately compensating for lower sunscreen user application amounts. *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 67*(6), 1220–1227. https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(12)00260-5/abstract

7.**Williams, J. D., Maitra, P., Atillasoy, E., Wu, M. M., Farberg, A. S., & Rigel, D. S. (2018).** SPF 100+ sunscreen is more protective against sunburn than SPF 50+ in actual use: Results of a randomized, double-blind, split-face, natural sunlight exposure clinical trial. *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 78*(5), 902–910.e2. https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(17)32908-0/abstract

8.**Cahoon, E. K., Mandal, S., Pfeiffer, R. M., Wheeler, D. C., Sargen, M. R., Alexander, B. H., Kitahara, C. M., Linet, M. S., & Mai, J. Z. (2024).** Ambient ultraviolet A, ultraviolet B, and risk of melanoma in a nationwide United States cohort, 1984–2014. *Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 116*(12), 1928–1933. [https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/116/12/1928/7730113](https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/116/12/1928/7730113)

9.**Jin, S. G., Padron, F., & Pfeifer, G. P. (2022).** UVA radiation, DNA damage, and melanoma. *ACS Omega, 7*(37), 32936–32948. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9494637/

10.**European Commission.** Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto (2006/647/EC). *Official Journal of the European Union.* [EUR-Lex - 32006H0647 - EN - EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006H0647)

12.**Japan Cosmetic Industry Association.** UV Protection Grade (PA) System. *JCIA.* https://www.jcia.org/en/common/download/top/jcia-notifications-spf-pa.pdf

13.**U.S. Food and Drug Administration.** Labeling and effectiveness testing: sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use. *Federal Register, 76*(117), 35620–35665. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/06/17/2011-14766/labeling-and-effectiveness-testing-sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use

14.**Petersen, B., & Wulf, H. C. (2014).** Application of sunscreen—Theory and reality. *Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 30*(2–3), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpp.12099

15.**Kim, S. M., Oh, B. H., Lee, Y. W., Choe, Y. B., & Ahn, K. J. (2010).** The relation between the amount of sunscreen applied and the sun protection factor in Asian skin. *Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 62*(2), 218–222. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.047](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.047)

Does SPF 100 really protect better? This article cuts through the marketing to reveal what high-SPF sunscreens actually do—and what they don’t.

Is SPF 100 a Scam? The Truth Behind High SPF Sunscreens


Water is the most common ingredient in skincare. In traditional emulsions like lotions or creams, it typically makes up **60–85%** of the formula [1]. Water normally acts as a solvent, filler, and emulsifying medium in cosmetics, but it doesn't come without formulation challenges: it enables microbial growth, requiring preservatives [2], and can impose limits on how much of an active ingredient can be included due to low aqueous solubility [3] or their chemical instability in water [4].

**Waterless skincare** — also called anhydrous skincare — refers to products formulated without added water. These are typically concentrated balms, oils, powders, or solid bars. The trend began in Asia a few years ago with the aim to eliminate water from products to **avoid diluting active ingredients** and thus boost potency [5]. Proponents claim they are more potent, longer-lasting, and more sustainable. The reality is more nuanced.

---

## Formulation Implications

### Advantages

Without water as a base, products must rely on alternative formats. Common examples include facial oils and oil-based serums (pure oil blends), balms and sticks (semi-solid mixtures of oils and waxes), and certain cleansers or masks sold as **dry powders or tablets** that are activated by water during use [5]. Formulating without water also means **preservatives** can be reduced or skipped entirely – water-based products need preservatives to prevent microbial growth [5], but anhydrous formulas can be self-preserving, eliminating the need for preservatives [5] - which some consumers view as a source of irritation and allergen exposure. This also contributes to a longer shelf life for many waterless products (dry formulations like powders often last significantly longer than their water-containing counterparts).

### Limitations

The absence of water imposes some formulation challenges. Any active ingredient that normally requires water (for example, a water-soluble vitamin) must be reformulated or **excluded** [6] . Many common skincare actives (like hyaluronic acid or vitamins) are water-soluble, so they must be replaced with oil-soluble equivalents or novel delivery forms.

Certain product types are hard to formulate without water (you won’t find a true “waterless toner” or light gel moisturizer, since some textures simply require water). In general the **range of available waterless products** is growing but remains smaller than traditional offerings in most categories[5].

Creating stable **solid formats** (such as balms or bars) can be tricky – without water to form an emulsion, the texture and melting point have to be managed through waxes and thickeners [7].

A recent study noted that removing water from a product and compressing it into a bar form brings “a range of challenges and limitations,” requiring innovative formulation strategies [7].They also pay close attention to **sensory properties** – ensuring the product spreads easily and feels pleasant, not overly greasy or heavy, despite lacking the lightness that water provides. Also, without water, products may not give the same immediate cooling or hydrating sensation as a water-based lotion. Oils and balms mainly seal in moisture, but obviously, **do not add water** to the skin.

## Sustainability Claims

A key motivation behind waterless beauty is the potential to reduce the industry’s **water footprint**. Water is not only the bulk of many cosmetic formulas, but also heavily used in cultivation of ingredients, in manufacturing processes (e.g. cleaning equipment, heating/cooling), and by consumers (rinsing off products) [8]. By removing water from formulations, companies seek to directly **reduce the water consumption per product** [5].

Waterless or concentrated products can also have secondary environmental benefits. Solid and concentrated formulas generally require **less packaging and lighter shipping**, cutting down on plastic waste and transport emissions [5]. Likewise, production can be more energy-efficient – if there’s no water phase to heat, the manufacturing process uses less energy and generates a smaller carbon footprint [5]. Additionally, using fewer (or no) synthetic preservatives means **fewer chemicals entering wastewater**, which potentially lowers the product’s ecological impact [9].

It’s important to note that “waterless” does not automatically equal “100% sustainable.” Even a product with zero water in its formula still **indirectly uses water** in its life cycle – for example, farming botanical ingredients and producing packaging consume water. Without accounting for **indirect water use**, there is a risk that waterless claims may **oversimplify** a product’s environmental profile and mislead consumers regarding its overall sustainability.

## Consumer Trade-offs

For consumers, waterless skincare offers notable **benefits** but also some **trade-offs**. 

| **Potential Advantages** | **Potential Limitations** |
| --- | --- |
| **Higher concentration of actives**<br/>No water means actives aren’t diluted. | **Some actives must be excluded**<br/>Water-soluble ingredients (e.g. [niacinamide](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/niacinamide), pure [vitamin C](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/vitamin-c), peptides) may not be usable without modification or encapsulation. |
| **No added preservatives**<br/>Lower risk of irritation from common preservative allergens. | **Less instant hydration**<br/>Oils and balms seal moisture but do not provide water-based hydration.    |
| **Longer shelf life**<br/>Low water activity extends product stability. | **Different texture/application**<br/>May feel heavier or greasier than water-based products. |
| **Less packaging & travel-friendly**<br/>Solid formats reduce packaging waste and comply with liquid restrictions. | **Limited product variety**<br/>Certain formats (e.g. toners, light gels) are difficult to create without water. |

## In Summary

![Waterless Skincare Summary Infographic](https://skinclass-production.up.railway.app/images/articles/waterless_skincare_skinclasshub.png)

## **References**

1. **Brito, I., Ferreira, S. M., & Santos, L.** (2023). On the path to sustainable cosmetics: Development of a Value-Added Formulation of Solid Shampoo Incorporating Mango Peel Extract. *Cosmetics, 10*(5), 140. [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/10/5/140](https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/10/5/140)
  
2. **Halla, N.** *et al.* (2018). Cosmetics preservation: A review on present strategies. *Molecules*, 23, 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071571
  
3. **Marques, C.** *et al.* (2024). Mechanistic insights into the multiple functions of [niacinamide](https://www.skinclasshub.com/theknowledgehub/ingredient-dictionary/niacinamide): Therapeutic implications and cosmeceutical applications in functional skincare products. *Antioxidants*, 13(4), 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox13040425
  
4. **Goswami, S.** *et al.* (2025). In vitro, ex vivo, instrumental, and clinical assessment of a novel anti‑aging serum targeting oxidative stress. *Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 24*(4), e16664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.16664
  
5. **Lukić, M.**, & **Krajišnik, D.** (2024). Challenges and advances in waterless cosmetic product development: Raising awareness of water sustainability. *Arhiv za farmaciju, 74*, 735–757. [(PDF) Challenges and advances in waterless cosmetic product development: Raising awareness of water sustainability](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387726313_Challenges_and_advances_in_waterless_cosmetic_product_development_Raising_awareness_of_water_sustainability)
  
6. **Presperse.** (n.d.). Anhydrous formulations 101: A formulator’s guide to waterless skincare. *Let’s Make Beauty*. [Anhydrous Formulations 101: A Formulator’s Guide to Waterless Skincare](https://www.letsmakebeauty.com/blog/post/anhydrous-formulations-101-a-formulators-guide-to-waterless-skincare)
  
7. **Ogorzałek, M.** *et al.* (2024). Research on waterless cosmetics in the form of scrub bars based on natural exfoliants. *Applied Sciences, 14*(23), 11329. [Research on Waterless Cosmetics in the Form of Scrub Bars Based on Natural Exfoliants](https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311329)
  
8. **Aguiar, J. B.**, *et al*. (2022). Water sustainability: A waterless life cycle for cosmetic products. *Sustainable Production and Consumption*. [Water sustainability: A waterless life cycle for cosmetic products | Request PDF](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359847930_Water_sustainability_A_waterless_life_cycle_for_cosmetic_products)
  
9. **Nowak‑Lange, M.** *et al.* (2022). Cosmetic preservatives: Hazardous micropollutants in need of greater attention? *International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23*(22), 14495. [Cosmetic Preservatives: Hazardous Micropollutants in Need of Greater Attention?](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214495)


No water, no waste — or just a well-packaged illusion? A deep dive into the claims of waterless skincare.

The Knowledge Hub

Ingredient Dictionary

Cosmetic Glossary

Eye Creams: Useful or Redundant? A Scientific Perspective

The Importance of Skincare Packaging: More Than Just a Pretty Bottle

Think You’re Using Exosomes? Why the EU Banned Them (and What You’re Actually Getting)

Is It Really Non-Comedogenic? What the Label Doesn’t Tell You

Is SPF 100 a Scam? The Truth Behind High SPF Sunscreens

Waterless Skincare: Innovative or Just a Thirsty Trend?