PG Monostearate
PG monostearate is rated 3 on our list, in the moderate band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 0 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.
PG is the usual abbreviation for propylene glycol, so PG monostearate and propylene glycol monostearate are the same ester. Our list carries both names as separate rows. It rates PG monostearate 3 and propylene glycol monostearate 4. The numbers do not overlap, so at least one of them is wrong.
The papers we read grade it 0 to 3 in Fulton 1989. No paper we read gives the 3 for PG monostearate. No paper we read gives the 4 for propylene glycol monostearate. The list records no source for either number.
Is PG monostearate comedogenic?
PG Monostearate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band.
Used to stabilize emulsions and opacify formulations, giving them a creamy white look.
- Comedogenic rating
- 3 out of 5
- 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
- Emulsifier / Alcohols & Derivatives
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 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 pg monostearate near the top of a label matters far more than pg monostearate 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 pg monostearate 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 3 | Tested as PG monostearate |
Our list's figure is within what these papers report.
Fungal acne
PG Monostearate matches rule 2, ester of a C12 to C24 fatty acid , on the fungal acne checker. An ester of stearic acid, C18. 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 PG monostearate comedogenic?
- PG Monostearate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band.
- Is PG monostearate non comedogenic?
- No. PG Monostearate is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band. That is a published rating for the ingredient rather than a verdict on any product containing it.
- What is PG monostearate's comedogenic rating?
- 3 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Emulsifier / Alcohols & Derivatives.
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.”