Skinredientspore-clogging ingredient checker

Ingredient ratings / Squalane

Is squalane comedogenic? What the pore-clogging tests found

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

Squalane graded 1 out of 5 for pore clogging, with no irritation, when tested at 10% in Fulton's 1989 rabbit-ear survey. Fulton counted that as not significant. The most important caveat is the name: squalene (with an e) is a different, easily oxidized ingredient, and its peroxides strongly clogged pores in rabbit studies.

Label name
Squalane
Comedogenic grade
1 / 5 · Not significant (1)
Tests
  • Fulton 1989: comedogenic 1/5, irritancy 0/5 — rabbit ear, 10% in propylene glycol

What the tests found

The only published grade for squalane itself comes from James Fulton’s 1989 rabbit-ear survey [1]. Tested on three rabbits as a 10% solution in propylene glycol, the survey’s standard condition (method on the comedogenic scale page), it graded 1 for follicular keratosis (pore clogging) and 0 for irritation. Fulton treats 0-1 as “not significant.”

The same table makes a useful contrast. Shark liver oil, the traditional raw material for squalane, graded 3 for clogging and 2 for irritation under the same method [1]. Squalane is made by fully hydrogenating that oil, squalene or other natural oils, then distilling it [2]. In Fulton’s test, the refined product scored lower than the crude oil it comes from.

Squalane vs. squalene: why the letter matters

Squalene is a polyunsaturated hydrocarbon. Squalane is the saturated form of the same molecule. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) 1982 report describes squalane as “stable to air and oxygen” and “not as easily oxidized as squalene.” Squalene, by contrast, takes up oxygen in air and forms peroxides [2].

That difference shows up in the pore-clogging research:

  • Motoyoshi (1983): in the rabbit ear, squalene itself was “scarcely comedogenic,” but squalene exposed to UVA light formed peroxides that were “highly comedogenic” [3]. That study also tested squalane and liquid paraffin, but its abstract does not give a separate result for them.
  • Chiba and colleagues (2000): they isolated squalene monohydroperoxide, the first oxidation product formed under UVA. It caused stronger comedone formation than “well-known comedogenic cosmetic ingredients” [4].

Squalene is not in our dataset, and it should not be read as having squalane’s 1. On a label, check the spelling.

Where the evidence is weaker

  • One lab, one dilution, three rabbits. No second study graded squalane on the 0-5 scale.
  • Concentration gap. Fulton tested 10%, but squalane is used at up to 96.8% in some products (see below).
  • Source not stated. Fulton’s asterisk (“results depend on source of raw material”) covers his entire oils section. The paper does not say whether his squalane came from shark or plant sources, or how pure it was.
  • Rabbit vs. human. The rabbit ear tends to over-read human skin [5] (why). Squalane also occurs naturally in human sebum, at up to 2.6% of those lipids according to the 1982 CIR report [2], though that says nothing direct about clogging.

Where it shows up, and how much

CIR’s 2023 re-review (Int J Toxicol 42 Suppl 3) reports that squalane use grew from 595 formulations in 2001 to 2,785 in 2019, based on FDA voluntary registration data [6]. In the 2018 industry survey, the maximum concentrations were:

  • 96.8% in leave-on products, the same top level as in 2001
  • 34.9% in rinse-off products
  • 85.4% in products that touch the skin
  • 38% in eye-area products
  • 22.8% in lip products and others that could be swallowed in small amounts

Squalene, by comparison, was used at no more than 1.2% in that survey [6].

If you want to avoid it

Squalane is already in the “not significant” band, so a swap is about texture or sourcing rather than a lower grade. Light, non-greasy emollients with an equal or lower Fulton grade:

  • Cyclomethicone: 0 (Fulton 1989) [1]
  • Caprylic/capric triglyceride: 1, irritation 1 (Fulton 1989) [1]
  • Hydrogenated polyisobutene, a synthetic hydrocarbon: 1, though it scored 2 for irritation (Fulton 1989) [1]

Shark liver oil (3/5) and squalene (no published grade) are the related label names that do not carry squalane’s rating.

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, p. 325. https://library.scconline.org/v040n06/13
  2. Elder RL, ed. Final report on the safety assessment of squalane and squalene. J Am Coll Toxicol. 1982;1(2):37-56. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=a9f0cc9e-8d74-ec11-8943-0022482f06a6
  3. Motoyoshi K. Enhanced comedo formation in rabbit ear skin by squalene and oleic acid peroxides. Br J Dermatol. 1983;109(2):191-198. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6223652/
  4. Chiba K, Yoshizawa K, Makino I, Kawakami K, Onoue M. Comedogenicity of squalene monohydroperoxide in the skin after topical application. J Toxicol Sci. 2000;25(2):77-83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10845185/
  5. Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM. A human model for assessing comedogenic substances. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118(11):903-905. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7138047/
  6. Fiume M, et al. Squalane and Squalene. Int J Toxicol. 2023;42(Suppl 3):107S-109S. doi:10.1177/10915818231204276. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=9b2fba74-5388-2a57-babb-c5938a490b2f

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.