skinsafecheck Ingredient Checker

Ethylhexyl Palmitate

Ethylhexyl palmitate (INCI name Ethylhexyl Palmitate) is rated 4 on our list, in the high band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 4 and Morris and Kwan 1983 graded it 2 to 3.

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 ethylhexyl palmitate comedogenic?

4 High

Ethylhexyl Palmitate is rated 4 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band.

A palm-oil derivative used as a silicone alternative to give products a "dry slip" feel.

Comedogenic rating
4 out of 5
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
Ester / Emollient / Fatty Acids & Derivatives
Also written as
No common variants recorded
Where Ethylhexyl Palmitate sits on the 0 to 5 comedogenic scale. A single rating on our list, so the scale carries one mark. The papers we checked it against are under Sources we checked this rating against further down this page.

What a 4 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 ethylhexyl palmitate near the top of a label matters far more than ethylhexyl palmitate 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.

Check a whole ingredient list

Who rated it

Our list gives ethylhexyl palmitate 4. 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
rabbit ear, 10% in propylene glycol unless stated, two weeks
Grade 4 Tested as Ethylhexyl palmitate
Morris and Kwan 1983
rabbit ear, undiluted unless stated, 14 applications
Grade 2 to 3 Tested as Octyl Palmitate (the older name)

Our list's figure is within what these papers report.

A grade is for the raw ingredient tested alone on a rabbit's ear, which reacts more readily than human skin. It says nothing about how much of it a product holds or what the rest of the formula does.

Fungal acne

Ethylhexyl Palmitate matches rule 2, ester of a C12 to C24 fatty acid , on the fungal acne checker. An ester of palmitic acid, C16. The rule comes from lab studies of what Malassezia yeast can feed on, and it is not a verdict on any product.

What safety reviewers say

The rating above is about pore plugging in a rabbit-ear test. Whether ethylhexyl palmitate is safe to use in cosmetics is a separate question. Below is the conclusion of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a US expert panel, and what the EU ingredient database, CosIng, lists for it. We quote CIR's conclusion as written, read on 31 October 2026.

Cosmetic Ingredient Review (US)
In a 2015 review of 237 alkyl esters, ethylhexyl palmitate among them, the panel concluded they are “safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment when formulated to be nonirritating”. Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics, 2015 (opens in a new tab)
What it does in a product (EU CosIng)
Listed as ETHYLHEXYL PALMITATE: skin conditioning (emollient), perfuming. CosIng entry (opens in a new tab)
EU restrictions
None. CosIng shows no entry for it in the annexes of the EU Cosmetics Regulation.

CIR was set up in 1976 by the US cosmetics trade association, now the Personal Care Products Council, and the Council funds it. CIR states that its panel and review process are independent of the Council and the cosmetics industry. CIR's statement (opens in a new tab). The FDA does not approve cosmetic ingredients before they go on sale, except colour additives, and the companies that make and sell cosmetics are legally responsible for their safety. FDA's page (opens in a new tab).

What we make of this. CIR's conclusion does not grade pore plugging, so on its own it neither confirms nor contradicts the 4 on our list. A safety review looks at things like irritation, allergy and toxicity at the amounts products use, and the rating is only about pores, so read them side by side.

Common questions

Is ethylhexyl palmitate comedogenic?
Ethylhexyl Palmitate is rated 4 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band.
Is ethylhexyl palmitate non comedogenic?
No. Ethylhexyl Palmitate is rated 4 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 ethylhexyl palmitate's comedogenic rating?
4 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Ester / Emollient / Fatty Acids & Derivatives.

Sources we checked this rating against

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.”

The rating and description above are the ones this site publishes on its A–Z list. The papers above are the ones we checked it against, and the section on who rated it says whether any of them graded this ingredient.