makeupally cbd oil for face

100 MG CBD Facial Oil

We had high hopes for e.l.f.’s 100 MG CBD Facial Oil, but the potent fragrance throws off what could have been a great, budget-friendly CBD product.

To start, the fact that this CBD oil is packaged in a clear glass bottle puts the formula at risk of degradation due to light exposure. This means it needs to be stored somewhere dark (i.e. tucked away in a drawer), to limit light exposure that would otherwise weaken the CBD and other plant ingredients this contains. That’s not a deal-breaker, but it is an important factor to take to note of.

The bigger issue is that this CBD oil is strongly fragranced, which e.l.f. claims “helps reinvigorate the complexion with notes of Japanese citrus and chamomile.” Considering the scent is strong enough to linger, that’s a red flag for skin irritation that can pro-age skin in the long run (see More Info for an in-depth explanation of the repercussions).

That aside, this CBD oil offers some great benefits… but there’s aspects to the formula that differ from the brand’s other (better) CBD products we’ve reviewed. Cannabidiol (CBD) isn’t listed; rather, this contains PCR hemp oil. PCR stands for “Phyto Cannabinoid Rich” hemp oil, which is said to offer a range of cannabinoids, CBD being the dominant strain. e.l.f. provides an official certificate of analysis verifying this product’s CBD content on their website, showing it meets the claimed amount of 100 milligrams, so despite “cannabidiol” not being specified on the ingredient list , this does appear to be a legitimate source of CBD.

This is good news considering CBD delivers a powerful anti-inflammatory effect that can help keep skin looking healthy and young, while providing immediate soothing relief. Those benefits are complemented by other plant oils in the formula, including sunflower, sweet almond, marula and grape seed as beneficial sources of antioxidants and replenishing moisture for dry skin. This oil does a nice job of sinking into skin without feeling overly heavy or greasy.

The bottom line: Without the fragrance issue, we’d rate this CBD oil higher, but as is, that’s a major drawback. Peruse our list our top-rated CBD products for fragrance-free options.

  • Contains inflammation-reducing CBD to soothe skin and halt signs of aging.
  • Non-fragrant plant oils add antioxidants and moisture replenishment for dry skin.
  • Highly fragrant formula poses a risk of irritation.
  • Clear glass bottle packaging must be stored away from light.

Why Fragrance I s a Problem for Skin: Daily use of products that contain a high amount of fragrance, whether the fragrant ingredients are synthetic or natural, causes a chronic sensitizing reaction on skin.

This reaction in turn leads to all kinds of problems, including disrupti ng skin ’ s barrier , worsening dryness, increasing or triggering redness, depleti ng vital substances in skin ’ s surface, and generally preventing skin from looking healthy, smooth, and hydrated. Fragrance free is always the best way to go for all skin types.

A surprising fact: Even though you can ’ t always see or feel the negative effects of fragrant ingredients on skin , the damage will still be taking place , even if it ’ s not evident on the surface. Research has demonstrated that you don ’ t need to see or feel the effects of irritation for your skin to be suffering. Much like the effects from cumulative sun damage, the negative impact and the visible damage from fragrance may not become apparent for a long time.

References for this information :
oxicology In V itro , February 2018, pages 237-245
Toxicological Sciences , January 2018, pages 139-148
Biochimica and Biophysica Acta , May 2012, pages 1410 – 1419
Aging , March 2012, pages 166 – 175
Chemical Immunology and Allergy , March 2012, pages 77 – 80
Experimental Dermatology , October 2009, pages 821 – 832
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology , 2008, pages 191 – 202
International Journal of Toxicology , Volume 27, 2008, Supplement , pages 1 – 43
Food and Chemical Toxicology , February 2008, pages 446 – 475
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology , 2003 , pages 789 – 798