01 · Evidence context
What the rating actually records
Fulton tested raw materials at a typical 10% dilution in propylene glycol on rabbit ears for two weeks. That model was intentionally sensitive, and the paper does not establish the response of every human user or finished cosmetic.
The number is retained as a historical observation. The site does not convert it into a current clinical probability or a complete-product grade.
02 · Formulation context
Why the complete formula can differ
A label match confirms only that this reviewed INCI name appears in the pasted list. Concentration, the delivery vehicle, contact time, rinse-off use, purity, and interactions across the complete formula remain unknown to this checker.
03 · Practical takeaway
How to use this result proportionately
Treat the result as a prompt to compare the full formula with your own product history. If breakouts persist or are painful, a board-certified dermatologist can assess causes beyond cosmetic ingredients.
If you compare products, change one routine variable at a time and use the label from the product currently in hand.
04 · Primary source
Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products
Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40, 321-333 · Primary rabbit-ear screening study
Ingredients were generally tested at 10% in a rabbit-ear model. The paper calls the assay extremely sensitive, reports source and vehicle effects, and says the survey is not definitive or a substitute for finished-formula and human evidence.
Open source record ↗