Mineral Oil

Mineral oil is a bit of a boring chemical. It is only made of two atoms, carbon and hydrogen.  And they aren’t even combined in an interesting way – they are simply long chains of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms attached to them.

Most chemical reactions take place via what we call functional groups – parts of molecules that can interact with functional groups on other molecules.  Mineral oil doesn’t have any and so is not very reactive.  It doesn’t even dissolve in water.

But being unreactive doesn’t make it useless.  One thing for which mineral oil is excellent is forming thin layers with good barrier properties.  And this is what makes it interesting for cosmetic scientists and dermatologists.  If you have dry skin, the chances are that it is due to the outer layer of your skin letting too much moisture escape.  A thin layer of mineral oil will slow down the loss of moisture and rehydrate your skin very quickly.  The lack of reactivity is a huge advantage here – skin reactions to mineral oil are almost unknown.

Mineral oil either on its own or as part of a formulation has been a mainstay of dry skin treatments since it first started becoming generally available around the time of the first world war.  It has also been found to be very helpful as a protective layer for the skin.  Baby’s bottoms exposed to nasty substances in their nappies (diapers) springs to mind.  But it is also handy for people whose occupations bring them into contact with skin damaging substances like for instance detergent in water.  If  you have a lot of washing up to do then gloves are the best option, but covering you hands with mineral oil will certainly help..

So are there any problems with mineral oil?  There are a few.  For a start the naming of the different grades could have been designed to confuse people.  The most familiar form of mineral oil is Vaseline.  Vaseline is a trademark for a particular brand, but a lot of people use it generically.  That particular grade of mineral oil is also known as petroleum jelly and petrolatum.  Lighter grades of mineral oil are usually referred to as liquid paraffin or light liquid paraffin.  Many baby oils are mainly light liquid paraffin.  The paraffin that used to be commonly sold in hardware shops to power paraffin heaters is a different chemical altogether.

The names of the various grades give away the origin of mineral oil as a  product of the petroleum industry.  It is one of many hundreds of materials distilled from crude oil.  I am not an expert on the petrochemical industry but the oil refining process is one that is capable of producing a huge range of materials.  I sometimes wonder if future generations will curse us for using so much of what came out of the ground as a fuel rather than finding more creative and valuable uses for it.

Some people don’t like mineral oil because it is a petrochemical.  This is perfectly true.  As an industry petrochemicals is about as non-environmentally sound as they come.   It is based on non-renewable resources and is effectively the root cause of global warming.   If we carry on the way we are going the petrochemical business is going to either ruin the planet’s climate, or if we run out of the stuff first, cause huge economic dislocation.

Globalisation is built on the back of cheap transport that opens up the most inaccessible places for economic exploitation. The mineral oil you apply to your skin is one small part of the damage the oil industry is doing to the planet.  It will, sooner or later,  be broken down by micro-organisms and will contribute to global warming.  The only counter-argument is that the scale of use of petrochemicals by the personal care industry is a microscopic fraction of what other industries, especially transport, use.   If you are driving a car then you are already funding the petrochemical industry directly by way way more than in your choice of what you put on your skin. But the plain fact is, mineral oil is definitely not a green material by any stretch of the imagination.

But there are many other objections raised to mineral oil.  I have pointed out in previous posts that Arbonne reps make criticism of mineral oil a key part of their sales pitch.  I have never fully understood what their problem with it is – it doesn’t seem to be the environmental one.  It seems to revolve around the idea that it blocks the skin and prevents it from breathing and carrying out its detox function.  The breathing issue is easily dealt with.  We don’t breathe through our skins.  The skin only has a limited role in detoxifying as well.  Most of our detoxification is carried out in the liver and toxins are generally disposed of in the urine.  Some toxins are removed in the sweat or sloughed off along with dead skin cells.  But you would have to absolutely smother yourself with mineral oil to seriously affect sweating.  And applying mineral oil is not going to stop dead skin cells being shed.  There is not the slightest suspicion in my mind that mineral oil has any direct harmful effect on the skin at all.

Other suggestions are that mineral oil contains harmful impurities.  The impurity cited is usually polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, which are carcinogenic.   There may be a reason for the origin of this story.  Mineral oils are used in some industrial applications and these grades can contain PAHs.  There have been occupational health issues with these industrial grades, and if you do a bit of googling you can find details of these.  One case is drilling fluids used on lathes in machine shops.  The levels of PAHs permitted have been reduced and synthetic alternatives have been developed so hopefully this problem is on the way out.  But in any case, it has no relevance to the mineral oil used in cosmetics.

Many people refer to the Skin Deep database for information about the safety of cosmetic ingredients.  This is a shame because it is usually highly misleading.  Lets have a look at what it says about mineral oil.  It describes it as being of low to moderate hazard depending on the usage, getting two scores.  It is either a 2 or a 4.  I can’t see any explanation for how you know which score is relevant.

The risks that are highlighted are cancer, allergies/immunotoxicity and organ system toxicity(non-reproductive)/occupational hazards.  I have no idea what they base these suggestions on.  There are references given but not to actual papers, so it is hard to see what the person assessing the material was thinking when they assigned a score.

The database also notes a 73% data gap.  I have no idea how that data gap is calculated.  73% is a very precise number so I suppose it comes from applying some kind of equation.  I couldn’t find an explanation on the Skin Deep website.  The most I got was ‘ The “data gap” rating is a measure of how much is unknown about an ingredient.’  I had gathered that much from the name.  I think a big part of it might be that whoever carried out this particular assessment was under the impression that mineral oil had not gone through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review process.  This isn’t actually true, it was assessed in 1984 (see References).  This would be an understandable error because the name in the title of the assessment is Paraffin.  This is an easy mistake to make if you have no idea of chemistry or the way scientific information is reported.  Fair enough, but maybe you shouldn’t be compiling a database about the hazards associated with chemicals.

But even so, the 73% data gap suggests that there is a lot we don’t know about mineral oil, no matter how it is calculated.  This is ridiculous because it is a very well known material indeed.  This can be illustrated on the Skin Deep database itself.  In the section called data gap it reads “1,165 studies in PubMed science library may include information on the toxicity of this chemical”.  When you follow the link you find yourself in the PubMed database with a filter applied with all the synonyms for mineral applied.  I have just done exactly that and it gives 1229 results.  The change in the numbers is not surprising – PubMed is continually being updated as new papers are published.

PubMed is a great resource for people who want to keep up with the literature on a particular subject.  Even just looking at the number of results begins to give you a feel about a subject.  For instance, a material referred to in over a thousand papers is obviously pretty well known.  But to get a real idea you do have to actually read the papers.  To say that there are a lot of papers about a material and that some of them may include information on its toxicity doesn’t really mean anything.  In fact I have just looked and not one of the first 20 results has the slightest relevance to the toxicity of mineral oil as used in cosmetics.  I wonder if anyone ever looks at that bit of the Skin Deep database and concludes that there are over a thousand studies showing that mineral oil is toxic.

To be fair, the precise wording used isn’t actually wrong.  There are a lot of papers and some of them might well be relevant to the assessment of toxicity.  But it is just as likely that they show it to be non-toxic as toxic.  A more meaningful wording would be ‘a list of papers that randomly mention mineral oil and which we haven’t read’.  But in any case, the idea that there is any kind of gap in the data available for this material is clearly untrue.   My advice is to ignore the Skin Deep database, although I am grateful to it for giving me some good laughs from time to time.

One persistent story about mineral oil is that it is banned in the European Union.  The origin of this story is elusive.  It is easily disproved simply by looking on the EU’s CosIng database. (see references.)

There are health risks associated with mineral oil in non-personal care uses.  The ability to form a film that effectively stops things crossing it is very helpful on dry skin but is a menace in other parts of the body.  It used to be used in some foodstuffs.  I can remember it being used on raisins.  I haven’t come across any specific studies that have demonstrated it, but in principle it is possible that mineral oil could block the absorbing of nutrients in the digestive system.  I am glad it is no longer used.  Another problem that is well documented is if it gets into the lungs.  This can happen in certain industrial processes and is a cause for concern for people whose business is occupational health.  I think what this illustrates well is that in order to understand the risks something poses you really do need to have some idea of how it is being used and what it can do.  Mineral oil is harmful in the lungs for exactly the same reason that it is beneficial on the skin.

So to sum up, mineral oil is perfectly safe and you will come to no harm using it either neat or in products.  It isn’t at all green, and it is a non-renewable material.  If that is important to you then you should consider avoiding it.  But if you have a patch of itchy dry skin, putting some kind of barrier onto it is a good move.  Are there good alternatives for it?  There certainly are and if you chose not to use mineral oil there are plenty of alternatives.  Indeed, in most cases more natural alternatives to mineral oil can work nearly as well and can often offer other benefits that you can’t get from mineral oil.  But mineral oil does have one unique feature that can be helpful for some people.  Because it is so inert you are very unlikely to have any kind of reaction to it.  If you have very sensitive skin, mineral oil might be the best choice.

References

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20975563

EU CosIng database listing for Mineral Oil
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=35850

CIR Paraffin JACT 3(3):43-99, 1984

___________________

From the UK, Colin Sanders has been a formulator of cosmetic and topical pharmaceuticals for 27 years. Over that time he has formulated nearly every category of product including shampoos, cosmetic skin creams, pharmaceutical skin creams, face masks, lip balms and so on. He has been an active member of the Society of Cosmetic Scientists since 1985 and in 1999 organised the first of the Formulate shows. His degree is in environmental science and he continues to take a keen interest in the impact of human activities on the planet. He regards himself as an environmental activist and all round green. When not in the lab, he writes a blog, Colin’s Beauty Pages with the intention of entertaining and hopefully informing users of cosmetic and personal care products with some insider insights, a bit of science and his own opinions.

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Guest posts are provided through article submissions. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. The Top 5 Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 1
  2. Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 2
  3. Natural or Not: The Story of a Mineral Oil Molecule
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Mineral Oil | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • Anonymous

    Colin, what a great overview of mineral oil, thanks. It interesting that people do think it is banned in Europe. I had a question about terminology – sometimes I see ‘mineral oil’ and sometimes I see ‘paraffin’ on a label. How are they different?

    • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

      Thanks for your kind words. The naming of these materials is a lot more complicated than the chemistry, and they are used by lots of different people for lots of different purposes. But for me, mineral oil is a generic term for all highly refined oils from the oil refining purpose. Paraffin specifically means an oil based on a hydrocarbon chain.

      • Dene Godfrey

        The original definition of paraffin was what is now known as alkanes, so not just hydrocarbon oils, but also methane, ethane, propane, etc. which are all gases.

        • Telesales2

          Dene you are brilliant and I’m sure well respected in your field.
          I believe we have spoken on linked.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    great post Colin, thanks for an awesome contribution to clarity and scientific explanation as to the issues with how the Skin Deep database “evaluates” ingredients!

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    great post Colin, thanks for an awesome contribution to clarity and scientific explanation as to the issues with how the Skin Deep database “evaluates” ingredients!

    • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

      I am pleased that you liked it.

  • Novice Makeup

    Thank you so much for this article. It explains a lot. I’m going to throw out my mineral oil lip gloss that I’ve been using recently. ‘Mineral’ oil is actually quite a misleading name. It makes it seem like it’s a healthy oil with ‘minerals’. Oops.

    • Dene62

      “Mineral oil” is not a misleading name – oil is a mineral! I don’t understand why you wish to waste money by throwing out perfectly good, safe product. I would not consider this to be the best option from an environmental point of view!

      • Piernik

        Actually oil is not a mineral, in order to be one it would have to be solid and have a ordered crystal lattice.
        But anyway thanks for a rational, reasonable and exhaustive post.

        • Piernik

          Thanks are, of course, for the author of the post :P

          • Perry Romanowski

            I think the term ‘mineral oil’ is from the old Linnaean taxonomy system. In this system you something is either an animal, vegetable, or mineral. Mineral oil is not an animal or vegetable oil, so it’s a mineral oil.

        • Dene62

          Thanks Piernik – you are, of course, correct – I don’t know what I was thinking of when I wrote that comment! :-(

  • Jennifer

    I really appreciate this article! My friend just started selling Arbonne, and the sales pitch is definitely geared to slash and hack the name of mineral oil, and to say how evil it is, and how wonderful and natural (and thus expensive) their products are. So, instead of freaking out and throwing away everything I own with that ingredient, I did some research. People are pretty split, and granted, most organic-promoting sites are going to say that it’s bad, but at least I am making an informed choice.

    I was wondering, in your research, have you found anything that gives other names for mineral oil? Also called liquid paraffin, petrolatum, etc, – are there other names?

    • Dene62

      Arbonne are notorious for mis-selling their products. Their “consultants” always slate mineral oil (with no scientific basis) and they often claim 100% natural, which is simply not true. I am sure the actual products are fine in themselves, but they are one of the worst examples of blatant distortion of the facts that I have ever come across.

      As a general rule, I would suggest you totally ignore any negative claims on organic sites and concentrate on the positive claims. The problem seems to be that most organic sites are uinable to sell their products in a positive way and have to resort to scaring consumers away from synthetic substances (again, in the absence of any real science) rather than explain any provable benefits of organic products. Additional safety is not one of the benefits of organic products – the only real positive is sustainability, and that is debatable in some cases.

    • Char

      I have been making skin care products for about 8 years with all natural ingredients. I was told years ago when I was researching products that mineral oil damages the vitamins A and D in your skin. Thats why it wasn’t good for people with skin problems and so I have never used it in my personal products. I also had a friend (Who makes my labels for my products-so she know what I use in them.) Tell me she went to an Arbonne party. She boughts some things and her skin broke out. I told her to read me the ingredients. I went right over to her house and we compared. I don’t think they use all natural ingedients. I told her a good rule to follow is if you can’t read their ingredients…….look it up and see exactly what it is. You might not want that on your skin either. So about mineral oil, I don’t know…….I just don’t use it for skin care.

  • Sarah

    I love all things unreactive for my skin because I have rosacea.

    • Terry

      I have rosacea or USED to have symptoms of rosacea until I started using Prosacea in a little tube I found at the Drug Store.  Doesn’t cure it, but used daily (very lightly, a little of the stuff goes a long way) completely controls the redness, which is all I care about.  My face used to look awful all the time!  TRY IT!  :)   It’s about $10 a tube, lasts a long long time.  Good luck! :)

  • Pingback: Deceptive Practices inside Marketing Hype and how we get Duped « Gaia Essential’s Weblog

  • Peter

    The British Pharmacopeia has a formula for Liquid Paraffin Oral Emulsion which is taken by mouth as a laxative. It’s been around for years which suggests it has a reasonable safety record (although it’s not recommended for frequent use).

    • Philippe Papadimitriou

      Thank you, Peter.

      Even if this info is true (and welcome), it isn’t really relevant here as this is a totally different route of exposure.

      Topical application is different than ingestion and/or inhalation. Topical application is also different than subcutaneous injection, intramuscular or blood injection.

      Not that I think you confuse these routes, Peter, but it’s important to mention it once again.

      • Peter

        Thanks for the reply Philippe, but I think I didn’t make myself clear.

        My point was that paraffin taken by mouth is likely to have a greater potential for absorption into the blood than paraffin given to the skin, although of course the dose, formulation and exposure time also have to be taken into account when evaluating risk.

        The fact that an oral emulsion of paraffin has been used for many years is an *indirect* indication of its safety. The BP is an official collection of standards which ultimately comes under European law so inclusion of products containing liquid paraffin (aka mineral oil) also helps expose the myth that mineral oil is banned in Europe.

  • Wellspringclinic

    I was with you until you brought up global warming. Do a little more research and you’ll figure it out.

    • Colinsanders

      I am always open to doing some more research and changing my mind in the light of it, but I don’t think this is the place to discuss that particular issue. There are plenty of other forums that cover global warming.

  • Gail

    Thank you for demystifying the mineral oil debate. 

  • Ro

    Do not use mineral oil, sold as Refresh PM, to instill into your eyes for relief of dry eye.  An ophthalmologist told me to try it.  It caused intense inflammation; I had to wash it out as best as I could. It is dangerous. He then gave me a prescription for antibiotic ointment.  It contained the same carrier substance–mineral oil!  I very carefully put it around the outside of my lower lid with the same results–intense painful inflammation.  Never again will I use mineral oil anywhere.  From what I have researched, some people are allergic to mineral oil.  So buyer beware.

    • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

      That is unfortunate you experienced a reaction, that could not have been any fun.  However, I use Refresh PM and it has been a life saver to my dry eye syndrome that I have suffered from for the last 10 years. 

      A broad statement such as “do not use mineral oil, sold as Refresh PM, to instill into your eyes for relief of dry eye”, because you had a reaction, is not practical.  As in all things, whether natural or synthetic, or ingredients in combination of others, can and will cause some people to have a reaction, yet still does not make them dangerous.  It is a matter of opinion of course, but if this carrier ingredient created a high number of reactions, then it of course would be monitored and pulled from the market, as in the case of the prescription using the same, the FDA would have it recalled if the numbers to reaction were there, as is the case of other drugs being used today.  There are no guarantees with anything we use in and on our bodies, and unfortunately, it is a trial and error that determines efficacy and performance in the market place.

      There is not a single ingredient on this planet that can make the claim it is “SAFE” no matter what it’s source.  I have customers that can’t use anything on their skin but “mineral oil” for their skincare, even organics cause them horrific reactions.  So it is a miracle ingredient for many also that cannot touch organics or natural ingredients to their skin….so as you can determine here, this ingredient is far from dangerous, but may require caution for those that could have a reaction such as in your case, since there are major differences between dangerous and allergic reaction.

    • Jeff

      Ro, I would be interested to know what other properties or ingredients were contained in this product.  Are you saying that Refresh ONLY contains mineral oil?

  • http://twitter.com/futurederm Nicki Zevola

    One of the best articles I’ve read on the topic; thank you!  If you ever want to write for FutureDerm.com, I’d be honored to have you contribute!

  • jo

    thanks so much for this post :)

  • http://www.keelywatson.co.nz/ Keely Watson

    Thanks for a great article. I definitely lean towards plant oils over mineral oil, but am interested to know is there any benefit to using mineral oil over a plant oil (eg Jojoba), apart from it being a cheaper option. 

    • http://personalcaretruth.com Lisa M. Rodgers

      Thanks for your comments, Keely!

  • Pingback: 3 Surprising Multi-Tasking Beauty Products: Neosporin, Kiehl’s Lip Balm, Baby Oil! | FutureDerm

  • Tes

    Bottom line is that mineral oil is the excessive run-off after crude oil is processed for gasoline.  I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but just the idea of applying such an ingredient onto my skin is quite unnerving.  Who in their right mind would be okay with knowingly applying such an ingredient like mineral oil onto their skin that does nothing to heal the skin:  especially when there are plenty of great lotions/products that don’t include this ingredient and actually work?  To justify such a nasty ingredient like mineral oil because you are displeased with the sales pitch of a company representative is quite juvenile.  The fact that a company rep speaks negatively about a cheap filler ingredient, such as mineral oil, does not mean that their claims about the ingredient not being a beneficial to the user when used in lotions & cosmetics are not valid.  I personally have never found a product/lotion that has some form of mineral oil in it that has improved my dry skin.  If anything, the heavy greasy feel that is left from applying lotions with mineral oil as an ingredient is quite unpleasant.  I thought the whole purpose of using skincare lotions/products is to actually improve & heal the skin?  If the skin is not healing from the use of a product, then if anything you’re just wasting your money, regardless of whether the product has mineral oil in it or not.  It’s all in the healing.  The rest of the debate is pointless otherwise.

    • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/ Colin

      If you don’t like the idea of using mineral oil and don’t find it helps you very much, there are plenty of alternatives.  I rarely use it myself, I prefer other approaches.  But I can assure you that lots of people do find it helpful.  Arbonne’s negative attitude to mineral oil displeases me because it is silly, but that hasn’t affected my opinion of mineral oil, only of Arbonne..