Skinredientspore-clogging ingredient checker

Ingredient ratings / Ethylhexyl Palmitate

Is ethylhexyl palmitate comedogenic? What the rabbit-ear tests found

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

Ethylhexyl palmitate graded 4/5 for pore-clogging in Fulton's 1989 rabbit-ear survey at 10% in propylene glycol, with no surface irritation. Revlon's lab graded the undiluted material only 2-3/5 (Morris & Kwan, 1983). It is often listed under its older name, octyl palmitate, and the related ester cetyl palmitate scored 0.

Label name
Ethylhexyl Palmitate
Also listed as
octyl palmitate, 2-ethylhexyl palmitate
Comedogenic grade
2–4 / 5 · Positive in the test (4–5)
Tests

What the tests found

Ethylhexyl palmitate is the ester of palmitic acid (C16) and 2-ethylhexanol, a branched eight-carbon alcohol. Older papers call it octyl palmitate. It has been tested in the rabbit-ear assay by two labs.

  • Fulton (1989): 4/5. Fulton’s lab tested it as a 10% solution in propylene glycol and measured follicle plugging with a micrometer [1]. That is inside the 4-5 band Fulton calls positive, the only band he describes as consistently reproducible. Surface irritation scored 0, so the follicular reaction was not accompanied by visible scaling or redness.
  • Morris & Kwan (1983): 2-3/5. This Revlon lab tested a commercial grade (Ceraphyl-368) undiluted and scored it by microscopy alone after 14 applications [2]. Most of the fatty-acid esters in their study produced “moderate to severe grades,” and this one fell at the moderate end.
  • Fulton, Pay & Fulton (1984). The abstract of this follow-up paper names “octyl palmitate” in its list of problem ingredients related to isopropyl myristate [3].

Fulton’s 1989 discussion offers a reason the ester scores higher than its parent acid. In his view, attaching a fatty acid to a small or medium alcohol makes the resulting ester more potent than the acid alone [1]. His table fits that pattern. Palmitic acid graded 2/5, while ethylhexyl palmitate graded 4/5.

The same palmitic acid gives a very different result when it is joined to a long alcohol instead. Cetyl palmitate (palmitic acid plus a C16 alcohol) graded 0/5, and Fulton names it among the “large molecular weight esters” that “are not a problem” [1]. So it is not palmitic acid alone that sets the grade. The size of the alcohol attached to it matters too.

Where the evidence is weaker (or disagrees)

The two labs disagree in a direction that is hard to explain by dose alone. Fulton’s 10% solution scored higher (4) than Morris and Kwan’s undiluted material (2-3). Several things differ between the two studies:

  • Scoring. Fulton combined naked-eye and microscope measurements. Morris and Kwan found naked-eye assessment “unreliable” and used only microscopy [1, 2].
  • Raw material. Morris and Kwan tested one supplier’s grade. Fulton does not name a supplier for this ingredient.
  • Vehicle. Fulton’s propylene glycol carrier evaporates over the day, concentrating whatever was dissolved in it, so his nominal 10% may not stay 10% on the ear [1].

Morris and Kwan put such conflicts down to “differences in techniques, purity of test samples, biological variations, interpretation criteria” [2].

Neither lab tested this ingredient on human skin. The CIR safety summary for ethylhexyl palmitate covers toxicity, irritation and eye data but lists no comedogenicity results [4]. The irritation data it does include are mixed. In a 21-day patch test, a formulation with 42.25% ethylhexyl palmitate produced signs of irritation in 7 of 24 subjects. Formulations at 1-5% and around 46% were not irritants in other tests [4]. The broader caveat also applies: in Draelos and DiNardo’s 2006 human test, finished products made with flagged ingredients did not automatically clog pores [5].

Where it shows up, and how much

Of the 237 esters in the Cosmetic Ingredient Review’s (CIR’s) 2013 amended alkyl esters assessment, ethylhexyl palmitate had the most reported uses: 1,525 uses, 1,475 of them in leave-on products [4]. It also had the highest reported use concentration in the group: 78%, in body and hand preparations. Other reported figures:

  • 424 eye-area products, at 0.01-50%
  • up to 45% in indoor tanning sprays
  • 221 lip products and others that may be incidentally swallowed

A body oil containing 77.9% ethylhexyl palmitate was patch-tested and did not cause allergic sensitization [4]. The Panel concluded the alkyl esters are safe in present practices of use “when formulated to be non-irritating” [4].

At those levels it may be a main ingredient of an oil or balm rather than a minor emollient. Its position on the label is a useful clue.

If you want to avoid it

The cetyl palmitate contrast above is the practical lesson. Ethylhexyl palmitate’s 4 comes from pairing palmitic acid with a mid-size alcohol, so the lower-graded options are esters built on much longer alcohols or larger molecules. Fulton’s table gives these grades, all from the same 10% test [1]:

  • Cetyl palmitate: 0, irritation 0. Same acid, C16 alcohol.
  • Octyldodecyl stearoyl stearate: 0, irritation 0, a large branched ester Fulton pictured as a substitute for isopropyl myristate
  • Diisopropyl dimer dilinoleate (printed as “diisopropyl dimerate”): 0, irritation 0
  • Polypentaerythrital tetralaurate: 0, irritation 0

Ethylhexyl stearate (octyl stearate) is not a lower-graded swap. The 1984 abstract names it as an offender alongside octyl palmitate [3]. All of these grades are rabbit results (caveats) [6].

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. 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. https://library.scconline.org/v034n05/1
  3. 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/
  4. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics (Final Amended Report, April 12, 2013). https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/alkyle032013rep.pdf
  5. Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(3):507-512. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16488305/
  6. 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/

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.