Mineral Oil
Mineral oil is rated 1 to 3 on our list, a range whose top puts it in the moderate band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 0 to 2.
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 mineral oil comedogenic?
Mineral Oil is rated 1–3 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 1 to 3, and the band follows the 3 at the top. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0 to 2. Our list's 3 is above all of them.
A purified oil from petroleum used to slow water loss from the skin. Fulton 1989 graded its irritancy 0.
- Comedogenic rating
- 1–3 out of 5 (a range on our list)
- 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
- Hydrocarbon
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 1–3 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 mineral oil near the top of a label matters far more than mineral oil 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 a little higher than the research, in the same band. Our list gives mineral oil 1–3. Fulton 1989 gave it 0 to 2. We report the list as it stands and show the papers beside it. Where the list and the research disagree.
Our list gives mineral oil 1–3. 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 0 to 2 | Tested as Mineral oil |
Kligman 1996 says the 1972 rabbit-ear finding that mineral oils and petrolatums were comedogenic turned out to be false positives once the method was revised; the re-test he reports is of petrolatum, and he gives no grade.
Our list's top figure, 3, is higher than anything in these papers.
Others in the same family
Where mineral oil comes up on this site
Common questions
- Is mineral oil comedogenic?
- Mineral Oil is rated 1–3 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 1 to 3, and the band follows the 3 at the top. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0 to 2. Our list's 3 is above all of them.
- Is mineral oil non comedogenic?
- No. Mineral Oil is rated 1–3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band. That is the number on our list; the papers we read grade it lower (see Who rated it).
- What is mineral oil's comedogenic rating?
- 1–3 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Hydrocarbon. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 0 to 2. Our list's 3 is above all of them.
Related guides
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.
- Kligman AM. “Petrolatum is not comedogenic in rabbits or humans: a critical reappraisal of the rabbit ear assay and the concept of acne cosmetica.” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, January/February 1996;47(1):41–48. (opens in a new tab) Petrolatum on the faces of twenty acne patients for eight weeks, plus remarks on the revised rabbit-ear assay. No 0 to 5 grades; several statements rest on what the paper calls unpublished observations.
- 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.”