Myreth-3 Myristate
Myreth-3 myristate is rated 5 on our list, in the high band, and that number is unconfirmed: we have not traced it to a published study (what unconfirmed means).
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 myreth-3 myristate comedogenic?
Myreth-3 Myristate is rated 5 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band.
A synthetic ester used to condition the skin and improve slip.
- Comedogenic rating
- 5 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
- Unconfirmed. We could not trace this rating to a study we have read; the section on who rated it says what we checked.
- Composition
- Ester / Alcohols & Derivatives
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 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 myreth-3 myristate near the top of a label matters far more than myreth-3 myristate 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
We could not trace the 5 on our list to a paper we have read. Neither paper we could read tests myreth-3 myristate. The list does not say where its numbers came from, so treat this number as unconfirmed rather than as one we can tie to a table.
Fungal acne
Myreth-3 Myristate matches rule 2, ester of a C12 to C24 fatty acid , on the fungal acne checker. An ester of myristic acid, C14. The rule comes from lab studies of what Malassezia yeast can feed on, and it is not a verdict on any product.
Common questions
- Is myreth-3 myristate comedogenic?
- Myreth-3 Myristate is rated 5 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band. We have not found a published study that grades it, so treat this number as unconfirmed.
- Is myreth-3 myristate non comedogenic?
- No. Myreth-3 Myristate is rated 5 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band. That is the number on our list rather than a verdict on any product. We have not traced it to a published study, so treat it as unconfirmed.
- What is myreth-3 myristate's comedogenic rating?
- 5 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Ester / Alcohols & Derivatives. We have not found a published study that grades it, so treat this number as unconfirmed.
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.”