Emulsifying Wax NF
Emulsifying wax NF is rated 2 on our list, in the low band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 0.
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.
Is emulsifying wax NF comedogenic?
Emulsifying Wax NF is rated 2 on the comedogenic scale, which is the low band. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0. Our list's 2 is above all of them.
A standard chemical wax blend used to seamlessly bind water and oil together in creams.
- Comedogenic rating
- 2 out of 5
- Band
- Low: Little plugging in the rabbit-ear test. Fulton 1989 counts 0 to 1 as not significant and 2 as borderline.
- Where the number comes from
- Traced to Fulton 1989. The section on who rated it prints each grade.
- Composition
- Emulsifier / Waxes
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 2 means in practice
One and two are the low band. In the rabbit-ear test, Fulton 1989 counted 0 to 1 as not significant and 2 as borderline. A low grade on a rabbit's ear, which reacts more readily than human skin, is weak evidence of a problem on a person.
Two things change what this number is worth. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, so emulsifying wax nf near the top of a label matters far more than emulsifying wax nf 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 is one band above the research. Our list gives emulsifying wax nf 2. Fulton 1989 gave it 0. We report the list as it stands and show the papers beside it. Where the list and the research disagree.
Our list gives emulsifying wax nf 2. 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 0 | Tested as Emulsifying wax NF |
Our list's top figure, 2, is higher than anything in these papers.
Others in the same family
Common questions
- Is emulsifying wax NF comedogenic?
- Emulsifying Wax NF is rated 2 on the comedogenic scale, which is the low band. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0. Our list's 2 is above all of them.
- Is emulsifying wax NF non comedogenic?
- Not exactly. Emulsifying Wax NF is rated 2, which is the low band rather than 0. Low and non-comedogenic are different things, and only a 0 means the second one.
- What is emulsifying wax NF's comedogenic rating?
- 2 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Emulsifier / Waxes. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0. Our list's 2 is above all of them.
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.”