Emulsión Reparadora y Refrescante safety rating

Emulsión Reparadora y Refrescante safety rating | Greenlens

All 1040 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

raters agree

A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

Environmental

A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Packaging

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

6 ratings · 3 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmental1.0×

Laborno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Packaging1.0×

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

What we know about the packaging

Unidentified0 of 1 identified

Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.

Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

How we know the packaging

Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Good25 of 32 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 25 of 32 listed ingredients; 7 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Where this came from

Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against farmaciaciudadlinealdoloresropa.es ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.

What these ingredient tags mean (4)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

comedogenic in testingisopropyl palmitate
- isopropyl palmitate: A light emollient named among the pore-clogging materials in the rabbit-ear assay. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
common irritantPropylene Glycol
- Propylene Glycol: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).
rich occlusiveparaffinum liquidum, Dimethicone
- paraffinum liquidum: A refined oil that sits on the surface of the skin; it has a heavy finish. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(l): "Mineral oil, 50 to 100 percent; 30 to 35 percent in combination with colloidal oatmeal in accordance with 347.20(a)(4)."
- Dimethicone: A silicone that forms a film on the surface of the skin without an oily feel. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(g), lists dimethicone as a skin protectant at 1 to 30%.
humectantGlycerin
- Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".