Cleaner pick · Safest toners & mists we have rated
SPALIFE
Deep Collagen Pore-perfecting Toner Pads+27 on ingredient safety
$15
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Cleaner options
1012 found
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 1012 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 65% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
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
5 ratings · 2 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
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.
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.
Data availability
Robust16 of 17 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 16 of 17 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (12)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantPropylene Glycol, Cocamidopropyl Betaine
humectantGlycerin
