Ingredient ratings / Lanolin

Is lanolin comedogenic? What the pore-clogging tests found

By Skinredients · Checked against the sources 2026-10-16

Label name

Lanolin

Also listed as

anhydrous lanolin, wool fat, adeps lanae, lanolin anhydrous

Comedogenic grade

0–1 / 5 · Not significant (1)

Tests

• Fulton 1989: comedogenic 0–1/5, irritancy 0/5 — rabbit ear, 10% in propylene glycol
• Morris & Kwan 1983: comedogenic 0/5 — rabbit ear, undiluted (Super Corona Lanolin)

What the tests found

Two laboratories graded whole lanolin, and both put it at or near zero.

• Fulton (1989): “anhydrous lanolin” was diluted to 10% in propylene glycol and applied for two weeks to three rabbits’ ears. It graded 0-1 for follicular keratosis (pore clogging) and 0 for irritation [1]. The asterisk on that entry means the result depended on the raw-material source.
• Morris & Kwan (1983, Revlon): they applied undiluted lanolin (Super Corona Lanolin, from Croda) and graded it 0. They describe “little or no changes” in the follicles, “with the exception of a possible slight increase in keratin” compared with the untreated ear [2].

The undiluted result matters because lanolin is often used at far more than 10% (see below).

Both papers find the clogging problem in what is made from lanolin. In Morris & Kwan’s series, isopropyl lanolate graded 3, lanolin acid graded 4 (even diluted to 50% in mineral oil), and acetylated lanolin alcohol graded 4-5. They found that acetylating lanolin alcohol “resulted in a significant increase in comedogenic potency” [2].

Fulton graded acetylated lanolin alcohol 4. He blamed the cetyl acetate it is sold with, not the lanolin part [1]. He graded PEG-16 lanolin (Solulan 16) 4 and suggested its ceteth-16, oleth-16 and steareth-16 additives as the cause. He also argued that moderate ethoxylation raised the grade (laneth-10 scored 2), while heavy ethoxylation lowered it (PEG-75 lanolin scored 0).

Where the evidence is weaker (or disagrees)

The lanolin family is where these labs disagreed most openly:

• Kligman and Mills’s 1972 study, as Morris & Kwan report it, found nine of eleven lanolin samples “mildly to moderately comedogenic” [2].
• Lanolin oil (sold as Lanogene): Fulton’s 1976 work reported significant comedones from it. Morris & Kwan found only minimal activity from the same supplier’s product [2].
• Acetylated lanolin: Fulton graded it 0 in 1989 [1]. Kligman’s revised assay in 1996 called it comedogenic. However, he added that neat acetylated lanolin clogged pores while concentrations below 15% did not, in either rabbits or humans, citing his own unpublished observations [3].
• Fulton’s 1984 abstract puts it bluntly: “Lanolins continue to be a problem, especially derivatives such as acetylated or ethoxylated lanolins” [4].

The only human data on whole lanolin that we found is indirect. CIR’s 2024 assessment summarizes a double-blind controlled trial with 15 subjects. A finished product containing lanolin, at an unreported concentration, was applied three times a week for up to four weeks and found non-comedogenic [5]. One product with an unknown lanolin level shows little about lanolin itself.

Where it shows up, and how much

According to the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) 2024 amended safety assessment [5]:

• Number of products: lanolin was reported in 285 formulations in 2023 FDA voluntary registration data, down from 782 in 2003.
• Maximum use concentrations (2022 industry survey): up to 40% in nail creams and lotions, 32% in eyeliners, 20.7% in lipsticks and 18% in moisturizers. The overall range was 0.0099-40%.
• Change since 2003: the top leave-on concentration then was 37%, in body and hand products.
• Purified grades: the report describes highly purified anhydrous (HPA) lanolin, which is processed to remove free lanolin alcohols and allergenic components.

US OTC rules also allow lanolin as a skin protectant active ingredient at 12.5 to 50 percent [6].

If you want to avoid it

Whole lanolin already sits in the “not significant” band in both studies. On a label, the derivatives are the names to look for. Grades below are from the same two studies:

• Higher: acetylated lanolin alcohol (4 Fulton, 4-5 Morris & Kwan), PEG-16 lanolin (4), lanolin acid (4), isopropyl lanolate (3).
• Low: lanolin oil (0-1 Fulton, 0-1 and 1 Morris & Kwan), lanolin wax (1), PEG-75 lanolin (0).

Where an ingredient sits in the list also gives a rough idea of how much a product contains.

Sources

1. Fulton JE Jr. Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1989;40(6):321-333. Table I and discussion, pp. 323-326. https://library.scconline.org/v040n06/13
2. Morris WE, Kwan SC. Use of the rabbit ear model in evaluating the comedogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1983;34(5):215-225. Table II and discussion. https://library.scconline.org/v034n05/1
3. Kligman AM. Petrolatum is not comedogenic in rabbits or humans: a critical reappraisal of the rabbit ear assay and the concept of “acne cosmetica.” J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1996;47(1):41-48. https://library.scconline.org/v047n01/44
4. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10(1):96-105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6229554/
5. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Amended Safety Assessment of Lanolin and Lanolin-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics. Final amended report, November 21, 2024. https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=f9aeb142-c45d-9f5f-9cd4-df52ec45240d
6. 21 CFR 347.10, Skin protectant active ingredients, paragraph (k) (2025 edition). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title21-vol5/xml/CFR-2025-title21-vol5-sec347-10.xml

Comedogenic grades describe single raw materials tested in a lab, usually on rabbit ears. They are a guide for acne-prone skin, not a prediction for any product or person, and this page is not medical advice. How the scale works.