Prickly Pear Seed Oil
Prickly pear seed oil is rated 1 to 2 on our list, a range whose top puts it in the low 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 prickly pear seed oil comedogenic?
Prickly Pear Seed Oil is rated 1–2 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 1 to 2, and the band follows the 2 at the top.
A light oil pressed from the seeds of the prickly pear cactus, used as an emollient.
- Comedogenic rating
- 1–2 out of 5 (a range on our list)
- 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
- Unconfirmed. We could not trace this rating to a study we have read; the section on who rated it says what we checked.
- Composition
- Oils (High in linoleic acid)
- Also written as
- No common variants recorded
What a 1–2 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 prickly pear seed oil near the top of a label matters far more than prickly pear seed 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
We could not trace the 1–2 on our list to a paper we have read. Neither paper we could read tests prickly pear seed oil. 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.
Where prickly pear seed oil comes up on this site
Fungal acne
Prickly Pear Seed Oil matches rule 4, plant or animal oil or butter , on the fungal acne checker. A plant or animal oil, mostly triglycerides. 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 prickly pear seed oil comedogenic?
- Prickly Pear Seed Oil is rated 1–2 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 1 to 2, and the band follows the 2 at the top. We have not found a published study that grades it, so treat this number as unconfirmed.
- Is prickly pear seed oil non comedogenic?
- Not exactly. Prickly Pear Seed Oil is rated 1–2, 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 prickly pear seed oil's comedogenic rating?
- 1–2 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Oils (High in linoleic acid). 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.”