Hubbry Logo
MascaraMascaraMain
Open search
Mascara
Community hub
Mascara
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mascara
Mascara
Mascara
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A mascara tube and a wand applicator

Mascara (UK: /məˈskɑːrə/, US: /mæˈskærə/)[1][2] is a cosmetic commonly used to enhance the upper and lower eyelashes. It is used to darken, thicken, lengthen, and/or define the eyelashes. Normally in one of three forms—liquid, powder, or cream—the modern mascara product has various formulas; however, most contain the same basic components of pigments, oils, waxes, and preservatives. The most common form of mascara is a liquid in a tube with an application brush.

Definition

[edit]

The Collins English Dictionary defines mascara as "a cosmetic substance for darkening, lengthening, curling, coloring, and thickening the eyelashes, applied with a brush or rod." The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) adds that mascara is occasionally used on the eyebrows as well.

The OED also references mascaro from works published in the late 19th century. In 1886, the Peck & Snyder Catalogue advertises, "Mascaro or Water Cosmetique... For darkening the eyebrow and moustaches without greasing them and making them prominent." In 1890, the Century Dictionary defined mascara as "a kind of paint used for the eyebrows and eyelashes by actors." In 1894, N. Lynn advises in Lynn's Practical Hints for Making-up, "to darken eyelashes, paint with mascara, or black paint, with a small brush."

Etymology

[edit]
See also: Mask § Etymology

The source of the word mascara is unclear. It was possibly derived from the Spanish word máscara meaning 'mask' or 'stain', and the Italian word maschera meaning 'mask' is a possible origin.[3] A related Catalan word describes soot or a black smear, and the Portuguese word máscara means 'mask' and mascarra means dark stain or smut.[4] There is even some support for a possible source from the Arabic word maskharah or 'buffoon'.[5][6] The Hebrew word משקרות (in the phrase mesaqqeroth `eynayim) relating to women's eyes is found in Isaiah 3:16.[7] It may mean flirting or ogling with the eyes, or painting them with red pigment.[8]

Latin treatises sometimes used the word mascara when referring to witches.[9]

History

[edit]
Woman applying mascara.

The name Mascara was likely given in reference to the city which bears the same name, since in the mid-19th century the French discovered antimony powder during their conquest in the old city of Mascara in Algeria.[10] The nomadic tribes used it as a beauty product but also to protect themselves from various trachomas and eye diseases.[citation needed]

Aesthetic adornment is a cultural universal, and mascara can be documented in ancient Egypt. Records from around 4000 BC refer to a substance called kohl that was used to darken eyelashes, eyelids, and eyebrows.[11] Kohl was used to mask the eyes, believed to ward off evil spirits and protect the soul, by both men and women. Often composed of galena; malachite; and charcoal or soot, crocodile stool; honey; and water was added to keep the kohl from running.[12] Through Egypt's influence, kohl usage persisted in the subsequent Babylonian, Greek and Roman empires. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, kohl fell into disuse on the European continent, where it had been considered solely a cosmetic; conversely, it continued to be widely used in the Middle East for religious purposes.[11]

During the Victorian era, social opinion shifted radically towards the promotion of cosmetics, and women were known to spend the majority of their day occupied with beauty regimens. Great efforts were made to create the illusion of long, dark eyelashes.[citation needed] Attempting this, Victorian women made a type of mascara in their own homes.[12] They would heat a mixture of ash or lampblack and elderberry juice on a plate and apply the heated mixture to their eyelashes.[13]

The product that people would recognize as mascara today did not develop until the 19th century. A chemist named Eugène Rimmel developed a cosmetic using the newly invented petroleum jelly. The name Rimmel became synonymous with the substance and still translates to "mascara" in the Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Turkish, Romanian, and Persian languages today.[14]

Across the Atlantic Ocean and at roughly the same time, in 1915, Thomas Lyle Williams created a remarkably similar substance for his sister Mabel.[14] In 1917 he started a mail-order business from the product that grew to become the company Maybelline.[12]

Max Factor cake mascara with brush, 1960

The mascara developed by these two men consisted of petroleum jelly and coal in a set ratio.[14] It was undeniably messy, and a better alternative was soon developed. A dampened brush was rubbed against a cake containing soap and black dye in equal proportions and applied to the lashes.[11] Still it was extremely messy. No significant improvement occurred until 1957 with an innovation by Helena Rubinstein.

The events leading to Rubinstein's improvement began in Paris in the early 20th century. There, at the fashion capital of the world, mascara was quickly gaining popularity and common usage.[15] Elizabeth Arden and Helena Rubinstein, two giants in the American beauty industry, watched and kept abreast of its development. After the First World War, American consumers became eager for new products.[16] Sensing an opportunity, both Rubinstein and Arden launched their own brands of cosmetics that included mascara. Through the efforts of these two rivals and public temperament, mascara finally gained respectability and favor in American society.[17]

The invention of the photograph and motion picture launched mascara's popularity and usage further forward in America. Motion pictures especially advertised a new standard of beauty and sex appeal.[18] Famous actresses of the classic cinema era, such as Theda Bara, Pola Negri, Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Bette Davis, and Jean Harlow, depended heavily upon mascara for their glamorized appearances, which the average woman sought to mimic.[19]: 8–9, 11–12 

In 1933, a woman known on court records as Mrs. Brown consented to have her eyelashes permanently dyed.[19]: 20  Unfortunately, the product, Lash Lure, used para-phenylenediamine, a chemical extremely toxic to the body, as the dyeing agent.[19]: 23  At the time, cosmetics were unregulated by the Federal Drug Administration, and the dangers of paraphenylenediamine were unknown.[20] Within hours of the treatment, Mrs. Brown began experiencing severe symptoms of stinging and burning eyes. By the next morning, Mrs. Brown's eyes had developed ulcers which oozed and had swollen shut.[19]: 22  Use of Lash Lure resulted in blindness in Mrs. Brown and fifteen other women and also caused the death of another through a bacterial infection.[21] It was only after the Lash Lure incident and several others like it, documented in Ruth deForest Lamb's book entitled American Chamber of Horrors, that Congress granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the right to regulate cosmetics in 1938.[19]: 24 

Max Factor waterproof mascara creme in a tube with a brush, 1960

Years later, in 1957, Rubinstein created a formula that evolved mascara from a hard cake into a lotion-based cream. She packaged the new mascara in a tube to be sold with a brush. For use, the cream was squeezed onto the brush and applied to lashes.[16] Although still messy, it was a step towards the modern mascara product.

Refill tube with Max Factor Mascara Wand cream, 1961, for containers with a grooved rod.

Soon, a grooved rod was patented. This device picked up the same amount of mascara for each use. Then the grooved rod was altered to the brush similar to the ones used today. The change in applicator led to mascara being even easier to use, and its popularity increased.[11]

Mascara is now[when?] trending towards multi-functional usage, with many mascaras including lash-boosting serums, botanicals, and pro-vitamin-enriched formulas. Korean technology is at the forefront of the development,[citation needed] and a number of brands use tubing formulas to coat the lash.

Ingredients and manufacture

[edit]

All formulations contain pigments, oils, and waxes.

Cosmetic pigments

[edit]

The pigmentation for black mascara is similar to that used by the Egyptians and Victorian women. Black and brown mascaras are typically colored by the use of iron oxides.[22] Some mascaras contain ultramarine blue.[11]

Mascara is composed of a base mixture of pigments, waxes, and oils with varying supporting components. Mascara pigments most commonly include iron oxides and titanium dioxide, which provide mascara with its desired color.[23] Titanium dioxide (TiO2) accounts for over 65% of inorganic pigment sales volume.[24] TiO2 gives the pigment a white color while different iron oxides provide a variety of colors such as red, yellow, brown, and black.[23] The particle size of opaque pigments ranges from 0.2 to 0.3 μm.[23]

Oils, waxes, etc.

[edit]

Among the many oils used, linseed oil, castor oil, eucalyptus oil, lanolin, and oil of turpentine are found frequently. Sesame oil is also commonly used.[11] Waxes usually found in mascara are paraffin wax, carnauba wax, and beeswax.[11]

The desired effects of the mascara account for most variations of ingredients. Water-resistant mascaras require hydrophobic ingredients, like dodecane. Non-water-resistant mascaras have water-soluble base ingredients.[25] Mascaras designed to lengthen or curl the eyelashes often contain nylon or rayon microfibers.[26] Additionally, ceresin, gum tragacanth, and methyl cellulose are regular ingredients and serve as stiffeners.[11]

Manufacture

[edit]

Mascara is often used daily around the world. In 2016 alone, U.S. consumers spent US$335.6 million on the top 10 leading mascara brands.[27]

In one method of production, referred to as anhydrous, all waxes, oils, and pigments are mixed, heated, and agitated simultaneously. The alternative method, termed emulsion, starts by combining water and thickeners. Separately, waxes and emulsifiers are combined. Pigment is then added individually to both mixtures. Finally, all is combined in a homogenizer, which acts as a high-speed agitator in order to thoroughly mix the oils, water, waxes, and emulsifiers—ingredients that naturally repulse each other.[11]

Mascara has a shelf life of two to four months.[28]

Safety

[edit]

Eye cosmetics containing kohl, kajal, al-kahal, surma, tiro, tozali, or kwalli often pose a lead poisoning risk.[29] Products containing kohl, kajal, surma, and similar materials are illegal color additives in the United States as defined by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, section 201(t).

Mercury, as thiomersal, is widely used in the manufacture of mascara. In 2008, Minnesota became the first state in the United States to ban intentionally added mercury in cosmetics, giving it a tougher standard than the federal government.[30]

Mascara-coated eyelashes

It is more common to develop a stye, or commoner still, swollen eyelids.[25] Stytes and swollen eyelids are better classified as allergic reactions. The allergic reactions can be stimulated by any of the components of mascara but is usually attributed to methylparaben, aluminum powder, ceteareth-20, butylparaben, or benzyl alcohol.[25]

If not cleaned properly, mascara can deposit itself under the conjunctiva in the form of black lumps.[31] Eyelashes naturally have microbial organisms; applying mascara may expose microbes to incubate in the mascara.[32]

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

[edit]

A 2021 study tested 231 makeup and personal care products and found organic fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, in more than half of the samples. High levels of fluorine were most commonly identified in waterproof mascara (82% of brands tested), foundations (63%), and liquid lipstick (62%).[33][34] As many as 13 types of individual PFAS compounds were found in each product.[33] Since PFAS compounds are highly mobile, they are readily absorbed through human skin and through tear ducts, and such products on lips are often unwittingly ingested. Manufacturers often fail to label their products as containing PFAS, which makes it difficult for cosmetics consumers to avoid products containing PFAS.[35]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mascara

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Mascara is a cosmetic formulation applied to the eyelashes to darken, thicken, lengthen, and define them, thereby enhancing eye appearance. Its origins trace to ancient Egypt circa 4000 BCE, where both men and women used kohl—a blend of soot, animal fats, and minerals—to outline eyes and lashes for aesthetic enhancement and ritual protection. The transition to modern mascara occurred in the 19th century, with French perfumer Eugène Rimmel creating the first commercial version in the 1830s—a paste of and coal dust applied via . Early 20th-century innovations included cake mascara, which required wetting a with water or saliva to activate the solid pigment-soap mix, evolving into tube-dispensed liquids with built-in wands by the 1950s courtesy of brands like . Today, mascara varieties encompass lengthening (with fibers or polymers for extension), volumizing (using waxes for thickness), waterproof (oil-resistant emulsions), and tubing types (film-forming polymers that seal lashes individually), tailored to consumer preferences for durability and effect. While effective for cosmetic enhancement, mascara carries risks from ingredients like preservatives (e.g., parabens, releasers) and waxes that can trigger , inflammation, or infections if bacteria contaminate the product through repeated brush dipping. Waterproof variants often include per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), linked to environmental persistence and potential health concerns including skin irritation and lash damage over time. Empirical data from consumer testing reveals frequent allergens and irritants in formulations, underscoring the need for patch testing and hygienic application to mitigate adverse reactions.

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

Mascara is a cosmetic product formulated to darken, lengthen, thicken, and define the eyelashes, thereby enhancing their prominence. Typically dispensed from a tube via a applicator, it coats lash hairs with pigments and conditioning agents to achieve these effects, often in shades such as black, brown, or navy for contrast against the skin and iris. The formulation adheres temporarily to the structure of the lashes without permanent alteration, distinguishing it from lash extension or tinting procedures. Its core purpose lies in augmenting facial aesthetics by emphasizing the eye area, creating an of larger or more alert eyes through amplified lash and separation. This optical enhancement serves both everyday and performative roles, with users applying it to achieve varied looks ranging from subtle definition to bold dramatization, often as part of broader eye makeup routines involving liners or shadows. While primarily associated with cosmetic vanity, mascara's use traces functional roots to practices aimed at or cultural signaling, though modern iterations prioritize visual amplification over utility.

Etymology

The term mascara derives from the Spanish máscara, meaning "" or "," which traces back to the Italian maschera (""). This etymology underscores the cosmetic's purpose of concealing or enhancing the natural appearance of eyelashes to create a dramatic, masked effect. The word entered English usage in , initially referring to a or cosmetic preparation employed by for darkening lashes and brows on , evoking the transformative associated with masks in . Earlier roots of maschera may link to maskhara ("buffoon" or "mockery"), suggesting connotations of facial exaggeration or jest, though the direct cosmetic application stems from European theatrical contexts rather than ancient practices. By the early , mascara had standardized as the designation for eyelash-darkening formulations in commercial products.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Uses

The earliest documented use of mascara-like substances to darken and lengthen eyelashes originated in around 4000–3000 BCE, where both men and women across social classes applied kohl—a black paste derived from (), , and minerals such as —directly to the lashes, upper and lower eyelids, and eyebrows for cosmetic enhancement. This practice extended to , where similar galena-based eye paints, precursors to kohl, were used for defining eye features including lashes, as evidenced by archaeological finds and textual references from Akkadian sources. Egyptians mixed kohl with animal fats, oils, or to create an adhesive consistency, applying it via thin wooden or sticks that functioned as rudimentary applicators, often after grinding minerals with friction stones. Beyond aesthetics, kohl served practical purposes: its reflective properties offered sun protection in the , while cultural beliefs attributed magical wards against the and infections to its lead content, though modern analysis confirms lead's toxicity posed health risks. In and (circa 800 BCE–500 CE), lash enhancement persisted using soot, ash, or antimony-based mixtures applied with spatulas or fingers, though emphasis shifted toward overall eye contouring rather than isolated lash thickening; Roman texts describe these as status symbols among elites. Similar kohl variants, known as surma or ithmid, continued in pre-modern Islamic and South Asian societies through the medieval period, applied by both genders for beauty, ritual purity, and purported eye health benefits, as documented in pharmacopeias like those of (circa 1025 CE). In medieval and early modern Europe (500–1800 CE), eyelash darkening largely declined due to Christian doctrines condemning cosmetics as vain or immoral, with sporadic use of homemade soot or berry stains among nobility during the Renaissance; church edicts, such as those from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), reinforced this suppression, limiting practices to private or theatrical contexts. Continuity in non-European regions, particularly the and , maintained kohl application for lashes into the , often via reusable metal applicators, preserving techniques akin to ancient methods amid evolving trade in mineral pigments.

19th and 20th Century Commercialization

The commercialization of mascara began in the mid-19th century when Eugène Rimmel, a French-born perfumer based in London, developed the first non-toxic, widely available product using a mixture of petroleum jelly and coal dust. This formulation marked a shift from earlier hazardous mixtures like lead-based kohl, enabling safer application via a simple brush. Rimmel's mascara gained popularity in Europe, and his company expanded to produce various cosmetics, with "rimmel" becoming a generic term for mascara in French and other languages. In the early , commercialization accelerated in the United States through , who in 1915 launched Lash-Brow-Ine, a cake mascara inspired by his sister Mabel's homemade blend of and coal dust. Marketed initially via mail-order and advertisements featuring model Phyllis Adelle, the product evolved into the brand by 1917, achieving mass-market success with sales exceeding one million units annually by the 1920s. Concurrently, introduced "Mascaro" around 1914, sold in small pots with an accompanying brush, targeting the growing film industry where enhanced eyelashes were essential for on-screen visibility. Mid-20th-century innovations included the transition from cake to cream and liquid formulations. In 1932, expanded retail distribution of its cake mascara, which required wetting a to activate the . pioneered waterproof mascara in 1938, using advanced emulsions to resist moisture. By the , tube-packaged liquid mascara with integrated wand applicators emerged, exemplified by Revlon's 1958 Fabulash, facilitating precise, hygienic application and driving further market growth. These developments reflected industrial advancements in emulsification and packaging, transforming mascara from a niche cosmetic to a staple in women's beauty routines.

Post-2000 Innovations

In the , mascara formulations advanced by incorporating active conditioning ingredients, such as vitamins, oils, and emollients, to nourish and strengthen eyelashes while providing cosmetic enhancement, addressing consumer demand for products that minimized lash damage from repeated use. These developments marked a shift toward multifunctional formulas that combined lengthening, volumizing, and protective properties, with refined polymers and waxes enabling longer wear without flaking. A significant applicator emerged in 2008 with the launch of vibrating mascara wands, exemplified by Lancôme's Ôscillation Power Mascara and Estée Lauder's TurboLash, which utilized battery-powered —typically at rates exceeding 200 movements per second—to distribute product evenly, separate lashes, and reduce clumping for superior volume and definition compared to static brushes. Brush designs also evolved, incorporating curved and cone-shaped profiles to conform to contours and target hard-to-reach lashes, improving precision and coverage. Tubing mascara technology, involving water-resistant films that encase individual lashes for smudge-proof hold removable solely with warm water, gained broader and refinements in the 2000s and 2010s, offering an alternative to traditional waterproof coatings that often required harsh removers. In 2013, Avon introduced Mega Effects Mascara with a multi-dimensional molded , designed to maximize lash fanning and minimize excess product pickup. Further, a 2012 U.S. detailed semi-permanent compositions relying on 17-30% film formers like acrylates for lasting multiple days, targeting users seeking reduced reapplication. These innovations prioritized empirical performance metrics, such as wear duration and lash integrity, over unsubstantiated claims.

Composition and Formulation

Core Ingredients

Mascara formulations are predominantly oil-in-water emulsions, with comprising 30-50% of the total composition to serve as the continuous phase, enabling smooth application and to eyelashes. Waxes form the structural backbone, typically accounting for 15-20% by weight, providing the necessary , film-forming properties, and resistance to flaking upon drying. These waxes, often a blend of natural (e.g., , carnauba) and synthetic types, are melted and dispersed in the oil phase before emulsification to ensure stability and lash-lengthening effects. Pigments constitute 5-10% of the formula, primarily iron oxides and carbon black for black shades, or other metal oxides for color variants, milled into the wax-oil mixture to achieve uniform dispersion and opacity without clumping. Preservatives, such as parabens or phenoxyethanol at 0.1-1%, are essential to prevent microbial growth in the aqueous base, given the product's proximity to the eyes. Thickeners like cellulose derivatives (1-5%) further enhance rheological properties, controlling flow and preventing separation during storage. Waterproof variants deviate by minimizing water content (often below 10%) and incorporating volatile solvents or oils, relying more heavily on hydrophobic waxes (up to 25%) for against . Overall, these core components must balance , wear resistance, and ease of removal, with formulations adjusted via control (typically 7-8) to minimize irritation. Empirical testing in cosmetic confirms that wax-pigment ratios directly influence lash and , with higher wax levels correlating to thicker application but potential for if exceeding 20%.

Pigments and Colorants

Pigments and colorants in mascara formulations serve to deposit color onto eyelashes, typically comprising 1-12% of the product by weight to achieve desired opacity and intensity without compromising application properties. The primary black pigment is (CI 77266), an amorphous form of carbon produced via incomplete of hydrocarbons or other organic materials, which provides deep pigmentation due to its high tinting strength and light-absorbing properties. Iron oxides, such as black (CI 77499), red (CI 77491), and yellow (CI 77492), are mineral-derived pigments commonly used for black, brown, and reddish hues, offering stability and adherence to lashes in water-resistant formulas. In the United States, colorants for eye-area like mascara must be specifically approved by the (FDA) for such use, with options limited to certified batches of D&C Black No. 2, iron oxides, ultramarine blue (CI 77007), and greens, among others, to minimize risks of irritation or migration into the eye. Synthetic colorants, including , dominate black mascara due to their consistent particle size (often nanoscale for dispersion) and superior jet-black effect compared to natural alternatives like vegetable charcoals, which may lack intensity or uniformity. Natural mineral pigments like iron oxides are favored in "clean" formulations for their lower processing requirements and perceived purity, though both synthetic and natural variants require FDA certification to ensure absence of heavy metal contaminants exceeding 10-20 ppm limits. Concerns over synthetic pigments include potential nanoparticle inhalation or absorption, as particles below 100 nm can penetrate biological barriers, prompting some manufacturers to opt for larger-particle iron oxides despite slightly reduced color payoff. Empirical testing under FDA guidelines confirms approved pigments' safety for topical ocular use when formulated below 20% concentration, with no causal link established to chronic eye damage in compliant products, though individual sensitivities to impurities persist.

Waxes, Oils, and Emulsifiers

Waxes constitute a primary structural component in mascara formulations, typically comprising 10-30% of the composition to impart , to eyelashes, and film-forming durability upon drying. These solidify at , enabling the product to coat lashes without dripping while allowing brush application; their melting points, often between 60-85°C, influence buildup and smudge resistance. , derived from Apis mellifera, provides flexibility and conditioning due to its content, while from Copernicia cerifera adds hardness and gloss via long-chain fatty acids and alcohols. Synthetic waxes like or microcrystalline variants offer tunable for volumizing effects, with formulations adjusting ratios to balance clumping versus separation. Oils, integrated into the oil phase at 5-15%, enhance spreadability, lubricity during application, and lash conditioning by reducing dryness and improving pigment dispersion. (Ricinus communis), rich in , promotes emulsification and moisturization, comprising up to 10% in some recipes for its viscosity-modifying properties. or derivatives like octyldodecyl myristate provide lightweight emolliency without greasiness, while mimics sebum for non-comedogenic hydration. These hydrocarbons or triglycerides lower , facilitating even coating, though excess can lead to migration or reduced longevity on lashes. Emulsifiers, at 2-8% concentration, stabilize the oil-in-water emulsions predominant in modern mascaras (25-35% oil-wax phase), preventing by reducing interfacial tension between hydrophobic waxes/oils and aqueous components. Anionic systems based on stearic or soaps form micelles that encapsulate oils, yielding creamy textures suitable for wand application; glyceryl stearate often pairs with these for enhanced stability. stearate combined with glyceryl stearate exemplifies non-ionic alternatives, offering milder compatibility and reduced irritation potential in sensitive formulations. Proper emulsifier selection correlates with rheological profiles, as mismatched HLB values can cause instability, evidenced by creaming or in storage tests.

Manufacturing Processes

Mascara production primarily involves formulating emulsions or mixtures, with modern liquid mascaras typically produced as oil-in-water emulsions to achieve desired , , and pigmentation. The process begins with preparing distinct phases: the oil phase, consisting of waxes such as or heated to 70-85°C for melting, combined with oils and emulsifiers like derivatives; and the aqueous phase, including water, humectants like glycerin, and preservatives. These phases are then emulsified under high-shear mixing to form a stable , often using homogenizers or inline mixers operating at speeds up to 3,000 rpm to prevent . Pigments, such as iron oxides for black or brown shades, are dispersed separately via three-roll milling or bead milling to achieve particle sizes below 5 microns, ensuring uniform color without agglomeration that could cause lash clumping. The pigment dispersion is incorporated into the emulsion batch, followed by cooling under agitation to 40-50°C while adding heat-sensitive components like polymers for film-forming properties. Final homogenization refines the texture, targeting viscosities of 50,000-150,000 cP for brush application, with pH adjusted to 6.5-7.5 for ocular safety. Filling occurs on automated lines where the warm emulsion (around 50°C) is pumped into plastic or metal tubes via piston or peristaltic fillers, with volumes precisely metered at 8-10 grams per unit to minimize air entrapment. Brushes or wands are inserted, often molded integrally or attached via ultrasonic welding, before capping and crimping under vacuum to extend shelf life beyond 30 months. Packaging includes labeling and secondary boxing, with throughput rates on high-speed lines reaching 100-200 units per minute. Quality control integrates in-line checks for viscosity via rheometers, microbial contamination through plate counts limited to under 100 CFU/g per FDA guidelines, and stability testing under accelerated conditions (40°C, 75% RH for 3 months) to verify no separation or color shift. Heavy metal content in pigments is assayed to below 10 ppm, ensuring compliance with EU Regulation 1223/2009 limits. Deviations trigger batch rejection, with traceability maintained via ERP systems from raw material lots to finished goods.

Types and Application

Major Varieties

Mascara products are classified primarily by their functional effects on eyelashes, including lengthening, volumizing, , and water resistance, with formulations tailored to achieve these outcomes through specific polymers, waxes, and brush designs. Lengthening mascaras incorporate synthetic fibers or elongating polymers that coat individual lashes to extend their appearance, often paired with thin, comb-like wands for precise application without clumping. Volumizing mascaras, by contrast, feature thicker, wax-heavy formulas and oversized, dense brushes that deposit product to build lash diameter and fullness, ideal for sparse or thin lashes. Curling varieties emphasize lash lift through curved or ball-shaped applicators and holding agents like or flexible polymers, which set the lashes in an upward position post-application. Waterproof mascaras employ hydrophobic ingredients such as silicones, volatile solvents, or film-forming agents to resist moisture, sweat, and tears, though they require oil-based removers for safe removal to avoid lash damage. Tubing mascaras represent a distinct category, utilizing water-soluble polymers that create flexible, tube-like sheaths around each lash for smudge-proof, flake-free wear; these slide off intact with warm , minimizing compared to traditional formulas. Additional specialized types include fiber-infused mascaras, which blend natural lashes with micro-fibers for hybrid and volume, and clear or colorless variants used primarily to enhance curl or separate lashes without pigmentation. Formulas may overlap functions—such as waterproof lengthening—but selection depends on lash type, environmental factors, and desired longevity, with empirical testing in cosmetic evaluations confirming efficacy variations by user. Conditioning or serum-infused mascaras incorporate nourishing ingredients such as peptides, biotin, castor oil, panthenol, and plant extracts to condition, strengthen, and reduce breakage in eyelashes, promoting the appearance of longer and fuller lashes over time. Examples include bareMinerals Strength & Length Serum-Infused Mascara (with red clover peptides, based on an 8-week clinical study where 100% of participants felt lashes were dramatically longer), Wander Beauty Upgraded Lashes Thickening Mascara (with castor oil and provitamin B5), Grande Cosmetics GrandeMASCARA (with peptides and vitamin B5), Agent Nateur Holi (Lash) (with Redensyl and jojoba oil), and RMS Beauty Straight Up (with peptides). Such products provide immediate cosmetic effects alongside gradual conditioning benefits, though significant growth typically requires specialized serums.

Application Methods and Tools

Mascara is applied primarily with a molded or attached to the product's , which deposits the onto the eyelashes during use. The conventional technique for upper lashes begins by placing the at the of the lash line, followed by a side-to-side wiggling motion to the bases evenly while minimizing clumping, then stroking upward through the tips to build length and separation. Multiple coats can be layered after allowing each to dry partially, starting with a primer or clear base for enhanced adhesion if desired. For lower lashes, the wand is oriented vertically, using its tip to lightly touch and coat the hairs without excess product transfer to the skin. Pre-application steps often include using an to lift the lashes, which can be warmed gently for better results, though care must be taken to avoid burns. Auxiliary tools assist in achieving precise results and . Lash combs or separators remove clumps post-application, while mascara shields—curved plastic guards placed against the —prevent smudges during stroking. In professional or hygienic contexts, disposable mascara wands—often with spiral brush heads for separating lashes and preventing clumping, and green handles—are recommended to reduce bacterial contamination, as repeated use of the same applicator exposes it to microbes from the eye area. These single-use tools are employed for mascara application, lash extensions, or brow grooming and are sold in packs of 100-200 on retail sites. Wand designs influence application outcomes: straight, slim wands elongate lashes by focusing product on tips; curved or ball-shaped variants add volume through fuller bristle coverage; and comb-like or pointed tips separate and define. These variations allow customization based on desired effects, with denser brushes suiting volumizing formulas and sparser ones for lengthening types.

Safety and Efficacy

Health Risks from Use

The application of mascara introduces risks of mechanical to the eye, particularly corneal abrasions from inadvertent contact with the applicator wand. Such incidents occur due to the proximity of the product to the corneal surface during use, where imprecise movements can cause scratches requiring medical evaluation. Flaking or dislodged particles from mascara, including synthetic fibers in lash-extending formulations, can migrate into the eye, leading to acute , redness, or sensation. Products containing microfibers for volume enhancement exacerbate this issue, as loosened fibers may abrade the ocular surface upon detachment. Mascara use facilitates microbial contamination through repeated exposure to the periocular environment, with wands and tubes harboring from , eyelids, or . After three months of consumer use, approximately 35% of tested mascaras show positive microbial growth, stemming from the product's aqueous base and inadequate preservative efficacy against introduced pathogens. Daily application correlates with elevated rates of minor eye discomfort, such as burning or milphosis (lash loss), though severe outcomes remain rare in controlled evaluations. Waterproof variants exhibit higher susceptibility to due to emulsifier compositions that support microbial proliferation under humid conditions.

Allergic Reactions and Infections

Allergic reactions to mascara typically present as (ACD) affecting the s and periocular skin, with symptoms including , , pruritus, and in severe cases, vesiculation or fissuring. These reactions arise from sensitization to ingredients such as preservatives (e.g., , a ; parabens; ), which inhibit microbial growth but can trigger in susceptible individuals. Pigments and colorants, often containing trace metals like or chromates, contribute to ACD, with identified in mascara formulations as a frequent sensitizer due to its presence in certain iron oxides or impurities. Less common triggers include , a used for film-forming properties, documented in case series where patch testing confirmed it as the culprit in eyelid among young women. The incidence of mascara-related ACD remains low overall, comprising 2-4% of cosmetic ACD cases in patch-tested patients, though from eye like mascara accounts for a disproportionate share due to the thin, occlusive barrier and frequent product migration. Differentiating ACD from is critical, as the latter—induced by volatile silicone-based mascaras under occlusion—manifests with similar but lacks immunological memory and resolves upon discontinuation without . Empirical data from patch testing series indicate that fragrance components and emulsifiers exacerbate reactions in atopics, with possible to structurally similar allergens in other . Infections associated with mascara use stem primarily from microbial contamination during application, where the wand introduces ocular bacteria (e.g., Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa) into the tube, fostering proliferation in the anaerobic, nutrient-rich environment. Studies culturing used mascara samples report contamination in 36.4% of tubes after three months, with pathogens viable enough to cause bacterial conjunctivitis, keratitis, or hordeolum upon reapplication. A documented case linked P. aeruginosa keratitis to contaminated mascara, highlighting how initial low-level inoculation escalates with repeated use, particularly in waterproof formulations that resist rinsing and harbor biofilms. Sharing applicators amplifies transmission risk, as evidenced by staphylococcal infections traced to communal makeup, underscoring the causal role of poor hygiene in ocular surface disease. Fungal overgrowth in expired products further compounds vulnerability, with surveys indicating widespread use beyond recommended shelf life (typically six months post-opening).

Empirical Evidence on Long-Term Effects

Empirical studies on the long-term effects of mascara use primarily focus on associations with loss, , and ocular surface irritation rather than decades-long outcomes, with limited longitudinal data available. A study of 100 female participants found a significant positive association between prolonged mascara use and milphosis ( fallout), with 19% of long-term users reporting loss, attributed potentially to mechanical stress from rubbing during removal, especially with waterproof formulations removed using only . This effect was more pronounced in users applying mascara daily for over five years, though causation was not definitively established due to self-reported data and potential confounders like poor . Research on ocular surface health indicates that chronic mascara application can contribute to meibomian gland loss and reduced , key factors in evaporative dry eye disease. In a controlled study of 30 women, mascara use alone decreased by approximately 2 seconds compared to non-use (from 5.5 to 3.5 seconds) and was associated with a 10-15% increase in meibomian gland dropout on meibography imaging after repeated application over weeks. Combined with , these changes persisted but did not worsen further, suggesting a threshold effect from cumulative cosmetic residue obstructing gland orifices. The Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) 2023 lifestyle report corroborates this, noting that pigments and waxes in mascara migrate into the tear film, promoting chronic and gland over months to years of use, particularly in wearers. Case reports document rare but severe long-term sequelae, such as chronic or corneal from persistent mascara debris. A 2009 clinical series described three patients with extended mascara use (over 10 years) developing recurrent conjunctival concretions and margin hyperkeratosis, resolved only after discontinuation and surgical intervention. However, population-level data from a 2024 cross-sectional survey in (n=300) revealed no statistically significant chronic vision impairment from mascara among frequent users, though 25% reported persistent irritation, underscoring hygiene as a mediating factor over inherent product . Overall, while acute risks like infections are well-documented, evidence for irreversible long-term damage remains associative and confounded by variables such as application technique and product expiration; prospective longitudinal trials exceeding five years are scarce, limiting causal inferences.

Controversies

PFAS and Chemical Regulations

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of synthetic fluorinated compounds known for their persistence in the environment and potential , have been detected in various mascara formulations, particularly those designed for water resistance and . A study by researchers at the analyzed 231 cosmetic products and found high levels of —an indicator of PFAS—in 47% of tested mascaras, with waterproof variants showing elevated concentrations due to PFAS's role in creating hydrophobic films that prevent smudging. Similarly, extraction methods developed in a 2025 study enabled quantification of eight anionic PFAS in mascara samples, confirming their presence across multiple brands despite not always being listed as ingredients. These compounds are intentionally added or arise as impurities to enhance product performance, such as oil and water repellency, though short-chain PFAS variants are sometimes used as alternatives to longer-chain ones like PFOA and PFOS, which have been phased out in many regions. Regulatory responses to PFAS in , including mascara, have accelerated globally amid concerns over chronic low-level exposure, though empirical evidence specifically linking dermal application in mascara to adverse outcomes remains limited. The U.S. (FDA) tested PFAS levels in in 2024 and concluded that concentrations in individual products are unlikely to pose significant risks to consumers, given low skin absorption rates and the localized application. Broader epidemiological data associate certain long-chain PFAS with risks like and testicular cancers, , and immunotoxicity, primarily from high occupational or environmental exposures rather than cosmetic use, prompting precautionary measures. In the U.S., federal oversight under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not yet prohibit PFAS in , but state-level actions include California's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (effective January 1, 2025), which bans intentionally added PFAS in cosmetic products, and similar prohibitions in states like and by 2025. In the , regulations are more stringent, with PFOS and its derivatives already banned in under the Cosmetic Products Regulation since 2008, and PFOA restricted since 2020. The (ECHA) proposed a comprehensive PFAS restriction under REACH in 2023, updated in September 2025, aiming to phase out non-essential uses across sectors, including , where alternatives exist for water-resistant properties; this could limit PFAS in mascara by 2027-2030 pending stakeholder consultations. enacted a national ban on PFAS in effective February 20, 2025, reflecting a precautionary approach despite debates over the necessity of PFAS for product efficacy. Industry responses include reformulations toward PFAS-free alternatives, though challenges persist in matching performance without compromising safety or durability, as evidenced by ongoing research into fluorine-free emulsifiers. These regulations prioritize substitution where feasible, driven by environmental persistence and cumulative exposure risks rather than direct causation from mascara alone.

Animal Testing and Ethical Alternatives

The cosmetics industry, including mascara production, has traditionally relied on to assess safety, particularly for ocular irritation due to mascara's application near the eyes. Common tests included the Draize eye irritancy test on rabbits, which involves applying substances to the and scoring damage, though its validity has been questioned for poor correlation with responses—predicting human irritancy with only about 42-65% accuracy across studies. Despite regulatory shifts, persists globally, driven by market access requirements in certain regions and corporate liability concerns; surveys indicate that 78-88% of the top 50 beauty brands funded as of 2024, often through suppliers or for export compliance. Regulatory frameworks vary significantly. The prohibited animal testing on finished cosmetic products in 2004 and on ingredients in 2009, enforcing a full marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics by 2013, with validation of non-animal methods required for alternatives. In the United States, the FDA does not mandate for cosmetics, relying instead on voluntary safety substantiation, though no federal ban exists and some companies test to mitigate lawsuits; over 40 countries worldwide, including recent bans in (July 2025), have implemented prohibitions. , a major market, exempted ordinary imported cosmetics from mandatory animal testing in 2021 if supported by non-animal data, but requirements remain for special-use products like children's cosmetics, prompting some brands to forgo the market entirely. Ethical alternatives have advanced to replace animal models, emphasizing human-relevant data. In vitro methods, such as reconstructed human corneal or epidermal equivalents (e.g., EpiOcular tissue models), simulate eye and skin responses to irritants, offering higher predictive accuracy for mascara-like formulations—up to 80-90% concordance with data in validated assays. Computational approaches like quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling predict toxicity based on chemical properties without biological testing, while volunteer studies, including patch tests and controlled ocular exposure under ethical guidelines, provide direct evidence of safety. These methods are often faster, cheaper, and more reproducible than tests; for instance, ceased in 1989, pioneering 3D models that have supported safety assessments for eye-area products like mascara across 36 markets. Certifications such as Leaping Bunny and International's standards verify cruelty-free status by auditing supply chains to exclude at any stage, contrasting with self-declared claims that may overlook upstream suppliers. The cruelty-free sector, encompassing many mascara brands, grew to USD 14.84 billion in 2023, reflecting consumer demand, though empirical validation of alternative methods' equivalence to animal data remains ongoing via organizations like the , which has approved over 50 non-animal tests since 2017.

Natural vs. Synthetic Performance Debates

The debate over natural versus synthetic mascara formulations centers on their ability to deliver core attributes such as lash volumization, lengthening, and resistance to , flaking, or removal by water and oils, while balancing potential benefits to lash health. mascaras typically rely on plant-derived waxes like carnauba or , mineral pigments, and botanical oils for structure and color, emphasizing minimal processing and avoidance of synthetic polymers or silicones. Synthetic variants, by contrast, incorporate engineered ingredients such as acrylates, dimethicone, and polymers to form flexible, adherent films that enhance and cosmetic effects. Proponents of options argue they reduce irritation risks from chemical additives, potentially supporting lash strength through nourishing elements like , though empirical substantiation for superior long-term lash health remains anecdotal rather than rigorously tested. In terms of and , synthetic ingredients often outperform naturals due to their capacity to create hydrophobic barriers and consistent film-forming properties that resist , sweat, and tears. For instance, resins in synthetic mascaras prevent flaking and maintain hold throughout the day, even in challenging conditions, whereas natural waxes like carnauba provide resistance but can lose midday or under , leading to . Consumer evaluations frequently highlight natural mascaras' tendency to flake or clump more readily, attributing this to the absence of silicones that reduce clumping and ensure smooth application in synthetics. Fully waterproof natural mascaras are formulationally constrained, as achieving such resistance typically requires synthetic film-formers incompatible with strict natural standards. Empirical evidence specific to mascara performance is sparse, with no large-scale, peer-reviewed comparative studies identified; available data draws from principles and limited consumer testing. General studies on organic , such as a 2024 evaluation of anti-aging lotions, found hydration and wrinkle-reduction comparable between organic and non-organic products via corneometry and instrumental wrinkle measurements on small cohorts (11-21 subjects), suggesting ingenuity can bridge gaps in restricted palettes—but these focused on skincare, not mascara's unique demands for lash adhesion and wear. Independent reviews of non-toxic mascaras report mixed results, with some natural brands achieving volume and separation akin to synthetics, yet others underperforming in sweat or water resistance, underscoring variability tied to specific recipes rather than inherent superiority. Critics of natural mascaras note additional limitations in stability, as natural preservatives offer narrower spectra than synthetics, potentially shortening and risking without compromising performance claims. Industry formulations increasingly hybridize approaches, blending natural waxes for with synthetics for reliability, reflecting causal realities of over raw sourcing. While clean beauty marketing emphasizes parity, substantiated wear tests favor synthetics for consistent, quantifiable endurance, though advancing natural innovations continue to narrow the divide in user-perceived effects.

Cultural and Economic Impact

Influence on Beauty Standards

Mascara has reinforced beauty standards emphasizing long, thick, and darkened eyelashes as indicators of feminine attractiveness and youthfulness across cultures. In around 4000 BCE, both men and women applied kohl—a precursor to mascara—to outline and extend lashes, associating enhanced eyes with protection from evil and elevated status. Similarly, in , women used mixtures of burnt cork and honey to achieve curled, voluminous lashes, which were prized as symbols of and social prestige. The commercialization of mascara in the , beginning with Eugène Rimmel's non-toxic formulations, integrated it into Western ideals of glamour, particularly during the 20th-century rise of Hollywood cinema, where stars like popularized dramatic lash enhancement as essential to seductive . This shift normalized mascara as a daily tool for women to amplify eye expressiveness, aligning with evolutionary preferences for neotenous features like larger-appearing eyes that signal vitality. Empirical research supports mascara's role in elevating perceived attractiveness; a 2022 study found women wearing eye makeup, including mascara, rated higher in competence, dominance, and social prestige compared to bare-faced counterparts. However, this influence has drawn criticism for perpetuating narrow standards, with surveys indicating college women experience pressure from media portrayals linking voluminous lashes to idealized , potentially contributing to issues when natural lashes fall short. Despite such concerns, mascara's enduring popularity—evident in global sales exceeding $5 billion annually by 2020—demonstrates its causal reinforcement of lash-centric beauty norms, driven more by market dynamics and consumer demand than institutional biases alone. The global mascara market was valued at approximately USD 7 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 7.6 billion by the end of 2025, reflecting a (CAGR) of around 6.5% for that period. Broader forecasts indicate steady expansion to USD 10.36 billion by 2034 at a CAGR of 4%, driven by persistent consumer demand for eye-enhancing amid rising expenditures. Alternative estimates place the 2024 value at USD 6.14 billion, growing to USD 7.64 billion by 2031 with a more modest CAGR of 2.6%, highlighting variability in methodologies across firms but consensus on moderate long-term growth. Key growth drivers include innovations in product formulations, such as volumizing and waterproof variants, which dominated revenue shares in with the volumizing segment alone contributing about USD 3.67 billion globally. The surge in has facilitated wider accessibility, enabling virtual try-ons and diverse product availability, which boosts sales particularly among younger demographics. Additionally, heightened demand for and organic mascaras, projected to grow at a faster CAGR of 8.1% from USD 147.1 million in 2024 to USD 320.5 million by 2034, reflects consumer preferences for cleaner ingredients amid health-conscious trends. Regionally, leads due to strong consumer interest in premium and organic products, supported by high disposable incomes and established beauty retail channels. Emerging markets in are experiencing accelerated growth from , rising middle-class populations, and increasing female workforce participation, which correlate with elevated usage. Challenges include regulatory scrutiny on chemical compositions and disruptions, yet overall market resilience stems from the essential role of mascara in daily beauty routines, with regular formulas retaining 70-75% of revenue share.

References

  1. https://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Mascara.html
  2. https://www.revivalabs.com/mascara-from-its-ancient-origins-to-modern-innovations/
  3. https://www.lashstarbeauty.com/blogs/visionaire/mascara-through-the-ages-a-brief-history-of-this-iconic-beauty-product
  4. https://www.ulprospector.com/knowledge/7463/pcc-lashing-contemporary-mascara-formulation/
  5. https://www.ipsy.com/blog/types-of-mascara
  6. https://belovedbyall.com/how-safe-is-your-mascara/
  7. https://savorylotus.com/how-safe-is-your-mascara/
  8. https://millionmarker.com/blogs/blog/is-waterproof-mascara-bad
  9. https://taenk.dk/kemi/visit-our-english-version/test-chemicals-mascara
  10. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mascara
  11. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/mascara
  12. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/mascara-market-A32210
  13. https://westmorebeauty.com/blogs/blog/what-does-mascara-do-and-how-to-apply-it
  14. https://lamelcosmetics.com/blogs/blog/lash-mastery-everything-you-need-to-know-about-mascara-and-how-to-apply-it
  15. https://www.etymonline.com/word/mascara
  16. https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/kohl/
  17. https://kallosgallery.com/blog/55-the-role-of-kohl-in-ancient-egypt/
  18. https://nhmu.utah.edu/articles/2025/06/makeup-ancient-egypt
  19. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/style/eyeliner-kohl-cultural-history
  20. https://redheadrevolution.com/blogs/redhead-approved-makeup/the-history-of-mascara
  21. https://www.maybellinebook.com/2018/07/maybelline-was-first-mascara-in-america.html
  22. https://fashionista.com/2018/08/maybelline-great-lash-mascara-history
  23. https://all-tigers.com/en/blogs/tips/lorigine-du-mascara
  24. https://notoriouslymorbid.com/blog/celebrating-the-history-of-mascara/
  25. https://www.newbeauty.com/history-of-mascara/
  26. https://www.thestar.com/life/vibrating-mascara-aims-to-pump-up-volume/article_addeb80a-6ca5-561d-8e8f-8cddf5ac0a08.html
  27. https://tearandgo.com/blogs/a-journal-dedicated-to-beauty/beauty-game-changers-the-best-innovations-of-the-2000s
  28. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/from-coal-dust-to-tubing-technology-a-look-at-mascara-and-its-history-301261750.html
  29. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120114585A1/en
  30. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/archive/chemmatters-dec-2012-teachers-guide-mascara.doc
  31. https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full_html/2020/01/ocl200042/ocl200042.html
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272369314_A_Review_on_Common_Ingredients_of_Periocular_Cosmetics_and_Their_Hazards
  33. https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/formulas-products/color-cosmetics/blog/21837736/viscosity-dispersion-and-more-in-mascara
  34. https://www.beautylish.com/a/vxjws/anatomy-of-mascara
  35. https://www.makingcosmetics.com/What-Do-I-Need-to-Make-Lotions_ep_54.html?lang=en_US
  36. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2011.00677.x/pdf
  37. https://connect.in-cosmetics.com/formulation/color-cosmetics-an-introduction-to-formulation-and-approaches-for-mascaras/
  38. https://www.safecosmetics.org/chemicals/carbon-black/
  39. https://www.switchnatural.com/home/carbonblack
  40. https://www.honest.com/blog/honest-beauty/makeup/a-guide-to-mascara-ingredients/0610202106.html
  41. https://www.clarins.co.uk/beauty-expert-guide-uk/mascara-ingredients.html
  42. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredient-names/color-additives-permitted-use-cosmetics
  43. https://hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=ColorAdditives&id=DCBlack2
  44. https://www.specialchem.com/cosmetics/inci-ingredients/ci-77266
  45. https://www.aunaturalecosmetics.com/blogs/blog/unpacking-safe-synthetics-in-cosmetic-colorants
  46. https://us.typology.com/library/nanoparticles-of-carbon-black-pigment-ci-77266
  47. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/summary-color-additives-use-united-states-foods-drugs-cosmetics-and-medical-devices
  48. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5599547A/en
  49. https://www.siloran.com/what-is-mascara-made-of/
  50. https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/formulas-products/color-cosmetics/article/21835726/eye-opener-combined-formulation-strategy-ensures-mascara-success
  51. https://patents.google.com/patent/NL2036304B1/en
  52. https://making.com/mascara
  53. https://patents.google.com/patent/KR101253477B1/en
  54. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-eps/chemical/eng-d/projects/abstracts/engd-odeen.pdf
  55. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015143179A1/en
  56. https://apackaginggroup.com/blogs/news/maximizing-efficiency-in-mascara-tube-filling-and-sealing-processes
  57. https://www.micmachinery.com/mascara-filling-machine
  58. https://www.smartpack-eg.com/en/blog/378/Mascara-production-and-packaging-factory-machines--types--components-and-processing-method
  59. http://cosmeticchiller.com/manufacturing/
  60. https://www.pureoilsindia.com/blog/indulging-in-beauty-8-steps-for-cosmetics-manufacturing-process
  61. https://katanamrp.com/blog/cosmetics-manufacturing/
  62. https://www.instyle.com/mascara-types-7505257
  63. https://www.beautybay.com/edited/types-of-mascara-guide/
  64. https://lfactorcosmetics.com/blogs/blogs/types-of-mascara
  65. https://www.westmorebeauty.com/blogs/blog/what-are-the-different-types-of-mascara
  66. https://www.allure.com/gallery/best-tubing-mascaras
  67. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-mascara/
  68. https://www.bareminerals.com/products/strength-length-serum-infused-mascara
  69. https://grandecosmetics.com/products/grandemascara
  70. https://www.spacenk.com/uk/makeup/eyes/mascara/straight-up-volumizing-peptide-mascara-MUK200031008.html
  71. https://www.itcosmetics.com/how-to-apply-mascara.html
  72. https://www.gloskinbeauty.com/blogs/glo-skin-beauty-blog/mascara-guide-how-to-apply-mascara
  73. https://www.ipsy.com/blog/how-to-apply-mascara
  74. https://nanolash.com/blog/post/guide-how-to-apply-mascara-like-a-pro-to-enjoy-long-lasting-makeup-all-day-long
  75. https://tweezerman.com/products/lash-gaurd-and-comb
  76. https://wooshbeauty.com/products/mascara-shield
  77. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/shelf-life-and-expiration-dating-cosmetics
  78. https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/forms_pubs/eyelash_safetytips.pdf
  79. https://www.transdesign.com/products/makeup-disposable-micro-applicators-brush-green-100-pack.html
  80. https://www.byrdie.com/mascara-wand-length-curl-volume
  81. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/eyeliner-bad-eyes-keep-makeup-harming-health
  82. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Risks-Associated-with-Eye-Make-Up.aspx
  83. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/12/4/149
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02713683.2021.1966476
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1119519/
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23384977_Microbial_contamination_associated_with_mascara_use
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3927173/
  88. https://ajjms.com/article/microbiological-contamination-linked-to-the-usage-of-mascara-among-waterproof-and-non-waterproof-brands-and-tear-film-assessment/pdf
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18498521/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7672492/
  91. https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/mascara-allergy
  92. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/allergens-cosmetics
  93. https://www.dovepress.com/seven-common-allergen-groups-causing-eyelid-dermatitis-education-and-a-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3140901/
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12000323/
  96. https://microbiologyjournal.org/allergic-contact-dermatitis-due-to-chemical-agents-and-microbial-contamination-in-cosmetic-products-a-review/
  97. https://core.ac.uk/download/147825961.pdf
  98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18922495/
  99. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001546.htm
  100. https://blepharitiscure.com/staphylococcal-eye-infection-caused-by-makeup/
  101. https://curology.com/blog/beauty-blunders-the-potential-dangers-of-sharing-makeup/
  102. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=724
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9375468/
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542012423001179
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19617808/
  106. https://www.inspirajournals.com/uploads/Issues/1211484567.pdf
  107. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1681656/full
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1542012423000319
  109. https://news.nd.edu/news/use-of-pfas-in-cosmetics-widespread-new-study-finds/
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40411586/
  111. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240
  112. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics
  113. https://coslaw.eu/echa-publishes-updated-eu-pfas-restriction-proposal/
  114. https://ecomundo.eu/en/blog/pfas-cosmetics-global-regulations-health-impacts
  115. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/08/pfas-in-cosmetics-state-led-regulatory-surge
  116. https://sentientmedia.org/makeup-testing-on-animals/
  117. https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing
  118. https://bambii.au/blogs/news/78-of-the-top-50-beauty-brands-still-test-on-animals-in-2024
  119. https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/animal-testing-statistics/
  120. https://www.britannica.com/procon/animal-testing-debate/International-Cosmetics-Animal-Testing-Bans
  121. https://www.registrarcorp.com/blog/cosmetics/clean-beauty/animal-testing-cosmetics/
  122. https://www.cirs-group.com/en/cosmetics/global-cosmetics-regulatory-updates-vol-30-august-2025
  123. https://criticalcatalyst.com/china-is-it-the-end-of-animal-testing-requirement-for-cosmetics/
  124. https://www.eusmecentre.org.cn/publications/update-on-new-regulations-and-animal-testing-exemption-for-cosmetics/
  125. https://www.invitrointl.com/blog/cosmetic-testing-3-non-animal-testing-alternatives/
  126. https://www.treehugger.com/alternatives-to-animal-testing-in-cosmetics-5202649
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2710528/
  128. https://inside-our-products.loreal.com/our-approach/our-alternative-methods-animal-testing
  129. https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/make-change/cosmetics
  130. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/cruelty-free-cosmetics-market-report
  131. https://www.evetincosmetics.com/info/natural-vs-synthetic-ingredients-the-science-103042049.html
  132. https://www.100percentpure.com/blogs/feed/clean-beauty-better-lashes-why-switching-to-natural-mascara-can-benefit-your-health-and-your-look
  133. https://www.beautylish.com/a/vxqmy/natural-mascara-that-works
  134. https://organicallybecca.com/best-clean-non-toxic-mascara-brands/
  135. https://www.cosmebio.org/en/reports/new-study-organic-cosmetics-are-effective/
  136. https://thefiltery.com/non-toxic-mascara/
  137. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336051049_Natural_Does_Not_Mean_Safe-The_Dirt_on_Clean_Beauty_Products
  138. https://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/news/a13574/the-history-of-women-and-their-eyelashes/
  139. https://mrsbertinsjewelrybox.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-brief-history-of-mascara.html
  140. https://www.si.edu/spotlight/health-hygiene-and-beauty/make-up
  141. https://www.regimeskincare.co.uk/post/the-evolution-of-mascara-a-beauty-staple
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8956164/
  143. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=honors
  144. https://www.okkiyo.com/blogs/news/the-fascinating-history-of-mascara-from-ancient-times-to-modern-day
  145. https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/mascara-global-market-report
  146. https://www.thebrainyinsights.com/report/mascara-market-14773
  147. https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/mascara-market/
  148. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/mascara-market-3507
  149. https://www.pristinemarketinsights.com/mascara-market-report
  150. https://market.us/report/herbal-and-organic-mascara-market/
  151. https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/regional-analysis/north-america-mascara-market-report
  152. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mascara-market-size-growth-outlook-20252033-forecast-key-wssof/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.