Squalene (Shark derived)
Squalene, which our list names Squalene (Shark derived), is rated 3 on our list, in the moderate 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 squalene comedogenic?
Squalene is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band.
An unstable, heavy oil used for hydration. Squalane, its hydrogenated form, has no published rating on this list.
- 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
- Unconfirmed. We could not trace this rating to a study we have read; the section on who rated it says what we checked.
- Composition
- Animal Oil / Hydrocarbon / Oils
- Also written as
- Shark derived
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 squalene near the top of a label matters far more than squalene 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 3 on our list to a paper we have read. Neither paper we could read grades squalene. Fulton 1989 grades squalane and shark liver oil, which are different substances. 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.
Ahn and colleagues 1985 reports mild comedogenicity in the rabbit ear canal, in an abstract that gives no 0 to 5 grade.
Others in the same family
Common questions
- Is squalene comedogenic?
- Squalene is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate band. We have not found a published study that grades it, so treat this number as unconfirmed.
- Is squalene non comedogenic?
- No. Squalene is rated 3 on the comedogenic scale, which is the moderate 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 squalene's comedogenic rating?
- 3 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Animal Oil / Hydrocarbon / Oils. We have not found a published study that grades it, so treat this number as unconfirmed.
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.
- Ahn HY, Myung KB, Hahm JH, Kook HI. “An experimental study on comedogenicity of several external contactants.” Korean Journal of Dermatology, October 1985;23(5):620–629. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear canal; in the abstract’s words, the materials were applied to one ear canal of rabbits "for 6 weekdays for 2 weeks". Read at abstract level: the full text is not online. The abstract sorts ingredients into none, mild, moderate and severe with no 0 to 5 grade, and lists propylene glycol under both none and moderate. Kligman 1996 says that putting test materials inside the ear canal gave false positives in his own 1972 study, because loose horny material collects in the follicles there.
- 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.”