01 · Evidence context
What the rating actually records
The study’s discussion treats medium-chain fatty acids as a class worth examining, but it also demonstrates that delivery conditions matter. The reported grade is a controlled rabbit-ear observation rather than an acne diagnosis.
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
Lauric acid can appear as a free fatty acid or as part of derivatives and oils. This checker matches only the exact reviewed name; it does not infer lauric acid from every related compound or botanical source.
03 · Practical takeaway
How to use this result proportionately
Read the match alongside the complete label and your own exposure pattern. Repeated irritation, inflamed lesions, or scarring deserves clinical advice rather than further ingredient-list experimentation.
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 ↗