Acetulan
This is a lanolin derivative, rated separately. Plain lanolin: lanolin. Every lanolin entry is on one table with its rating.
Acetulan is rated 4 to 5 on our list, a range whose top puts it in the high band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 4 and Morris and Kwan 1983 graded it 4 to 5.
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.
Acetulan is the trade name for acetylated lanolin alcohol; Morris and Kwan 1983 list it as such. Our list carries both names as separate rows. It rates Acetulan 4 to 5 and acetylated lanolin alcohol 4. The numbers differ but overlap.
The papers we read grade it 4 in Fulton 1989 and 4 to 5 in Morris and Kwan 1983. The 4 to 5 for Acetulan matches the grade in Morris and Kwan 1983. The 4 for acetylated lanolin alcohol matches the grade in Fulton 1989. The list records no source for either number.
Is Acetulan comedogenic?
Acetulan is rated 4–5 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 4 to 5, and the band follows the 5 at the top.
A commercial lanolin derivative used to give products a smooth, velvety feel.
- Comedogenic rating
- 4–5 out of 5 (a range on our list)
- Band
- High: Clear plugging in the rabbit-ear test. The first band to check in a leave-on product.
- Where the number comes from
- Traced to Fulton 1989 and Morris and Kwan 1983. The section on who rated it prints each grade.
- Composition
- Lanolins
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 4–5 means in practice
A 4 or 5 is the top of the scale. In the rabbit-ear test, Fulton 1989 counted 4 to 5 as a clear positive: the ingredient plugged the follicles, and did so repeatably. A person's skin reacts less readily than a rabbit's ear, and a product holds far less of the ingredient than the test did, so treat this band as the first thing to check in anything that stays on your skin. It does not prove the ingredient will cause a breakout. A rinse-off product is on the skin for seconds.
Two things change what this number is worth. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, so acetulan near the top of a label matters far more than acetulan 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 acetulan 4–5. 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 Acetylated lanolin alcohol (Acetulan is its trade name) |
| Morris and Kwan 1983 | Grade 4 to 5 | Tested as Acetylated Lanolin Alcohol (trade name Acetulan) |
Arquette and colleagues 1998 used it as the positive control on the backs of 25 people: 5.32 microcomedones per 2 square centimetres after 28 days under a patch, against 2.72 for a blank patch.
Our list's figure is within what these papers report.
Common questions
- Is Acetulan comedogenic?
- Acetulan is rated 4–5 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 4 to 5, and the band follows the 5 at the top.
- Is Acetulan non comedogenic?
- No. Acetulan is rated 4–5 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band. That is a published rating for the ingredient rather than a verdict on any product containing it.
- What is Acetulan's comedogenic rating?
- 4–5 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Lanolins.
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.
- Morris WE, Kwan SC. “Use of the rabbit ear model in evaluating the comedogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients.” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, August 1983;34(5):215–225. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear canal, at the Revlon Research Center. Each material applied undiluted unless stated, once a day five days a week for 14 applications, and graded 0 to 5 by microscope only. The authors set out to recheck earlier results because investigators disagreed.
- Arquette DJ, Bailyn EM, Palenske J, Devorn Bergman D, Rheins LA. “Non-comedogenic and hypoallergenic properties of jojoba oil and hydrogenated jojoba oil.” Journal of Cosmetic Science, November/December 1998;49(6):377–383. (opens in a new tab) Human back skin, not the rabbit ear. Twenty-five people wore each oil under a patch for 28 days, and microcomedones were counted by follicular biopsy; there is no 0 to 5 grade. One author is from the American Jojoba Oil Association.
- 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.”