Is isopropyl myristate comedogenic?

Short answer

Reported concern

Isopropyl myristate is named directly in the 1984 rabbit ear assay as one of the materials that produced comedones, which makes it one of the few entries on circulating pore-clogging lists that can be traced to a real study. That finding is in rabbit ear skin rather than human skin, and it describes the raw ingredient rather than any product containing it. It is recorded here as a reported concern at animal-model evidence level.

Recorded as Isopropyl Myristate · dataset record isopropyl-myristate · reviewed 2026-08-06

What the evidence actually is

Animal-model evidence

The material was applied to animal skin — in this dataset, a rabbit ear assay. It is a screening model, and the human-assay literature reports that it overreacts to comedogenic materials relative to human testing.

What the sources report

Named explicitly in the cited rabbit ear assay as one of the ingredients that produced comedones, and grouped there with related esters. This is the single most frequently repeated entry on ingredient comedogenicity lists in general circulation.

What this does not cover

This is a finding in rabbit ear skin, not in human skin, and it describes the raw ingredient rather than any finished product. The human assay literature reports that the rabbit ear model overreacts to comedogenic materials, and a later human study of finished products found that products formulated with comedogenic ingredients were not necessarily comedogenic. Concentration, the rest of the formula, and whether the product is rinsed off or left on are all unaccounted for here.

Why people ask about Isopropyl myristate

Isopropyl myristate is the single most repeated entry on ingredient comedogenicity lists in general circulation. It is common in moisturisers, cleansers and makeup because it is an inexpensive emollient that gives a light, fast-absorbing feel, so people who start reading labels after a breakout tend to encounter it early and often.

Where the circulating rating for Isopropyl myristate comes from

Here the circulating rating rests on something real, which makes this page the exception on this site. The 1984 rabbit ear assay names isopropyl myristate explicitly and groups it with related esters, so unlike most entries on those lists the claim has a citable origin. What the lists drop is everything published afterwards: the human-assay literature reports that the rabbit ear model overreacts to comedogenic materials, and a 2006 human study of finished products formulated with ingredients previously identified as comedogenic found that those products were not necessarily comedogenic. A rating repeats the 1984 result and silently discards the two later findings that qualify it.

Names Isopropyl myristate appears under

Declared as Isopropyl Myristate, and also seen as isopropyl tetradecanoate or, in shorthand, IPM. Isopropyl palmitate is a different ester with a separate record in this dataset. The two are frequently discussed together, but a finding about one is not a finding about the other, and this project does not carry results across between them.

Recognised in this dataset as Isopropyl Myristate, and through the recorded aliases ipm, myristic acid isopropyl ester, isopropyl tetradecanoate. Matching is exact: there is no fuzzy matching anywhere in this tool, so a name not listed here is reported as unrecognised rather than guessed at.

Questions about isopropyl myristate

Is isopropyl myristate bad for acne-prone skin?

That is not a question an ingredient lookup can answer. The cited finding is that the raw material produced comedones in rabbit ear skin. It does not describe human skin, it does not describe any concentration, and it does not describe a finished product, all of which stand between that result and what happens on your face.

Why is the evidence level described as animal model?

Because the source is a rabbit ear assay: the material was applied to rabbit ear skin and the resulting comedones counted. It is a screening model, and the human-assay literature reports that it overreacts to comedogenic materials relative to human testing. Labelling the tier is how this site avoids presenting that result as equivalent to a human finding.

Is isopropyl palmitate the same thing?

No. It is a related ester with its own record here, and this project records its evidence as not established rather than carrying the isopropyl myristate finding across to it.

Sources cited on this page

These are the sources attached to this record. Nothing on this page is drawn from anything else.

  • Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear

    Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1984. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80050-x

    Rabbit ear assay. This is the historical origin of most ingredient-level comedogenicity lists in circulation today. The assay is a screening model in animal skin, not a measurement of how a finished cosmetic behaves on a human face. Later work (see src-baek-2016) reports that this model overreacts relative to human testing.

  • Analysis of comedone, sebum and porphyrin on the face and body for comedogenicity assay

    Baek JH, Ahn SM, Choi KM, Jung MK, Shin MK, Koh JS. Skin Research and Technology, 2016. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1111/srt.12244

    Human comedogenicity assay methodology study in 66 volunteers. States that the rabbit ear model can replace human testing for screening purposes but that a number of studies have pointed out its disadvantage of overreacting to comedogenic materials. This is the citation behind every 'animal-model evidence may overstate the result' limitation in this dataset.

  • A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept

    Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2006. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.11.1058

    Applied a modification of the Mills and Kligman human assay to finished cosmetic products formulated with ingredients previously identified as comedogenic. Reported that finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic. This is the single most important source in this dataset: it is the direct evidence that an ingredient-level match cannot be converted into a finished-product conclusion.

Record reviewed 2026-08-06 by pore-checker prototype dataset compilation (not clinically reviewed).