1-Hexadecanol Acetate
1-hexadecanol acetate is rated 3 on our list, in the moderate band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 4.
Like every rating here, it is for the raw ingredient tested alone, and a label does not print how much of it a product holds.
Cetyl acetate, hexadecanol acetate, 1-hexadecanol acetate and 1-acetoxyhexadecane are four names for one ester, hexadecyl acetate. Our list carries these names as separate rows. It rates 1-hexadecanol acetate 3 and cetyl acetate 4, hexadecanol acetate 3 and 1-acetoxyhexadecane 3. The numbers do not overlap, so at least one of them is wrong.
The papers we read grade it 4 in Fulton 1989. No paper we read gives the 3 for 1-hexadecanol acetate. The 4 for cetyl acetate matches the grade in Fulton 1989. No paper we read gives the 3 for hexadecanol acetate. No paper we read gives the 3 for 1-acetoxyhexadecane. The list records no source for any of these numbers.
Is 1-hexadecanol acetate comedogenic?
1-Hexadecanol Acetate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band.
A fatty acid ester that acts as a skin-conditioning agent and thickener.
- Comedogenic rating
- 3 out of 5
- Band
- Moderate: Borderline plugging in the rabbit-ear test. Worth a look in a leave-on product.
- Where the number comes from
- Traced to Fulton 1989. The section on who rated it prints each grade.
- Composition
- Ester
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 3 means in practice
Three is the middle of the scale. Fulton 1989 counted 2 to 3 as borderline in the rabbit-ear test: some plugging of the follicles, short of a clear positive. Whether it matters depends on how high it sits on the label and whether the product stays on your skin.
Two things change what this number is worth. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, so 1-hexadecanol acetate near the top of a label matters far more than 1-hexadecanol acetate at the bottom. And the rating describes the raw ingredient on its own. A 2006 review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that a rating for a single ingredient does not reliably predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin. The full story of the scale is here.
Who rated it
Our list gives 1-hexadecanol acetate 3. These are the figures the published rabbit-ear studies we have read give it, as printed in each paper's table.
| Paper | Grade | Tested as |
|---|---|---|
| Fulton 1989 | Grade 4 | Tested as Cetyl acetate (the same substance) |
Our list's lowest figure, 3, is lower than anything in these papers.
Similar names, rated separately
These share a source with 1-hexadecanol acetate or carry it in their name, and each has its own rating on our list. The 3 on this page does not carry over to them, so check the exact name on the label.
Common questions
- Is 1-hexadecanol acetate comedogenic?
- 1-Hexadecanol Acetate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band.
- Is 1-hexadecanol acetate non comedogenic?
- No. 1-Hexadecanol Acetate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band. That is a published rating for the ingredient rather than a verdict on any product containing it.
- What is 1-hexadecanol acetate's comedogenic rating?
- 3 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Ester.
Sources we checked this rating against
- Kligman AM, Kwong T. “An improved rabbit ear model for assessing comedogenic substances.” British Journal of Dermatology, June 1979;100(6):699–702. (opens in a new tab) The rabbit-ear assay behind published 0 to 5 comedogenicity grades.
- Fulton JE Jr. “Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products.” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, November/December 1989;40(6):321–333. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear. Each ingredient at 10 percent in propylene glycol unless stated, applied five days a week for two weeks, and graded 0 to 5 from the width of the follicles, measured by micrometer and under the microscope. The paper counts 0 to 1 as not significant, 2 to 3 as borderline and 4 to 5 as positive. Some grades depended on the supplier of the raw material, and some oils were also tested refined.
- Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. “A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, March 2006;54(3):507–512. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.11.1058 (opens in a new tab) Tested finished products on the backs of six people and concluded that “Finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic.”