```html PFAS in Eyeliner: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst | PFAS Database

PFAS in Eyeliner: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Eyeliner ranks among the most frequently applied cosmetics, yet PFAS contamination in this category remains poorly disclosed. After reviewing formulation data, ingredient transparency, and third-party testing where available, Ere Perez JOJOBA EYE PENCIL Natural Black emerges as the category leader—earning a D grade (65/100 safety score) based on our model-based analysis of materials and public disclosure. While no eyeliner in our database carries an A or B rating, Ere Perez distinguishes itself through transparent ingredient sourcing and a plant-forward formulation that reduces reliance on synthetic polymers commonly associated with PFAS. This is not a claim of PFAS-free status; rather, it reflects lower concern based on available materials data and the absence of PFAS-linked compounds in reviewed sources.

In stark contrast, Urban Decay 24/7 Glide On Waterproof Eye Pencil and MAC Eye Kohl both receive failing F grades (30/100 safety score), our model-based estimate indicating higher concern. Both products employ formulations engineered for extreme wear and water resistance—properties often achieved through fluorinated compounds or silicone matrices that may incorporate PFAS. Urban Decay and MAC have not publicly disclosed PFAS testing or mitigation strategies. Consumers seeking eyeliners with lower concern profiles should prioritize transparent brands and pencil formats over long-wear gel formulations.

PFAS in Eyeliner: Quick Comparison

Product	PFAS Grade	Safety Score	Verdict
Ere Perez JOJOBA EYE PENCIL Natural Black	D	65/100	Lower concern; plant-based pencil format
Ere Perez Jojoba Eye Pencil Gem (lilac haze)	D	65/100	Lower concern; similar profile to Natural Black
Charlotte Tilbury The Classic Pencil	D	65/100	Lower concern; pencil format reduces risk
NARS Soft Touch Shadow Pencil	D	65/100	Lower concern; minimal synthetic polymers
NYX Professional Makeup Vivid Rich Mechanical Pencil	D	65/100	Lower concern; budget-friendly pencil option
Urban Decay 24/7 Glide On Waterproof Eye Pencil	F	30/100	Higher concern; waterproof gel formulation
MAC Eye Kohl	F	30/100	Higher concern; long-wear synthetic matrix
Urban Decay 24/7 Waterline Eye Pencil	F	30/100	Higher concern; waterline application increases exposure
Bobbi Brown Ultra Fine Eyeliner Brush	D	65/100	Lower concern; liquid format with disclosed ingredients

Why PFAS in Eyeliner Matters

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals engineered for water and stain resistance. In eyeliner, they appear in two primary contexts: as components of long-wear gel matrices and as slip agents in pencil formulations. Because eyeliner sits on the delicate eye area and mucous membranes, dermal absorption and potential systemic exposure are concerns flagged in peer-reviewed literature. The European Chemical Agency and U.S. EPA have identified associations between certain PFAS and adverse health outcomes in animal and occupational studies; notably, association is not causation in human cosmetic use, and risk depends on dose, frequency, and individual factors.

The cosmetics industry has been slow to disclose PFAS presence. Unlike food packaging or firefighting foam, eyeliner is not regulated for PFAS content in the United States under FDA authority. Brands rarely test for or publicly report PFAS levels. This information vacuum drives demand for transparent sourcing and formulation simplicity—hallmarks of lower-concern products.

The Top Performers: D-Grade (65/100) Products

Ere Perez JOJOBA EYE PENCIL Natural Black

Materials & Format: Ere Perez's Jojoba Eye Pencil is a solid pencil formulation built on jojoba oil and plant waxes rather than synthetic polymers. This format inherently reduces the need for fluorinated slip agents or durability boosters. The brand publicly emphasizes certified organic and natural ingredients on its packaging and website.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Ere Perez has not published third-party lab testing for PFAS; however, the brand's stated commitment to clean beauty and transparent ingredient lists on EWG (Environmental Working Group) provide indirect assurance. No PFAS-linked compounds appear in the ingredient deck based on available materials.

Pros: Pencil format, water-resistant without synthetic gel matrix, simple ingredient list, brand transparency, suitable for sensitive eyes. Cons: Limited color range, slightly higher price point than drugstore options, pencil may require frequent sharpening.

Charlotte Tilbury The Classic Pencil

Materials & Format: A traditional pencil eyeliner with a soft, blendable texture. The formulation relies on waxes and pigments rather than long-wear silicone gels. Charlotte Tilbury markets this as a durable pencil without emphasizing extreme waterproofing—a signal that the formula does not employ enhanced synthetic polymers.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Charlotte Tilbury has not published PFAS testing. The brand does disclose ingredients and maintains relationships with regulatory bodies; however, no third-party verification of PFAS absence exists.

Pros: Blendable, versatile application, widely available, trusted luxury brand, pencil format reduces PFAS risk. Cons: Premium pricing, may smudge more readily than gel formulations (which is actually a sign of lower synthetic polymer content).

NARS Soft Touch Shadow Pencil

Materials & Format: A dual-purpose pencil marketed as an eyeliner and eyeshadow. The soft, creamy texture derives from wax and oil bases. NARS does not advertise extreme waterproofing, suggesting lower reliance on fluorinated durability agents.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: NARS provides ingredient transparency but has not conducted public PFAS testing. The brand complies with EU cosmetics regulations, which indirectly restrict certain PFAS precursors.

Pros: Multitasking product, creamy application, no apparent PFAS-linked ingredients, reasonable pricing. Cons: May transfer or smudge, limited waterresistance compared to gel formulations.

The Worst Performers: F-Grade (30/100) Products

Urban Decay 24/7 Glide On Waterproof Eye Pencil

Materials & Format: Urban Decay's 24/7 line is engineered for extreme durability and waterproof wear—properties that typically require synthetic polymer matrices and slip agents. The formulation employs gel-based technology with added silicones and potential fluorinated compounds to achieve 24-hour staying power. The brand does not disclose PFAS testing or mitigation.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Urban Decay markets waterproof performance but provides no public data on PFAS presence or absence. Our model-based analysis of the formulation type—long-wear waterproof gel—suggests elevated risk relative to simpler pencil formats.

Pros: Excellent staying power, waterproof reliability, bold colors. Cons: Synthetic formulation increases PFAS concern, requires specific remover for complete cleansing, not recommended for sensitive eyes based on ingredient complexity.

MAC Eye Kohl

Materials & Format: A classic long-wear gel-based eye kohl with a thick, creamy application. The formulation likely incorporates synthetic waxes, silicones, and durability agents to maintain color on the waterline—an area of higher mucosal permeability. MAC does not disclose PFAS testing.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: MAC emphasizes professional-grade performance and color intensity but does not address PFAS or fluorinated additives. No third-party testing data is publicly available.

Pros: Iconic product, rich color payoff, high staying power. Cons: Synthetic gel formulation raises PFAS concern, particularly for waterline application; difficult to remove without makeup remover; associated with higher cumulative exposure due to frequent application and waterline contact.

Urban Decay 24/7 Waterline Eye Pencil

Materials & Format: Specifically formulated for waterline application, this pencil carries a higher concern profile than standard eyeliners. Waterline products must resist moisture and stay put on the most permeable ocular mucosa; this typically necessitates enhanced synthetic polymers and potential PFAS. Urban Decay has not disclosed PFAS testing.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: The brand markets extreme durability for waterline use but provides no data on chemical composition or PFAS mitigation. Application directly to waterline increases potential for systemic absorption compared to lash line application.

Pros: Long-lasting waterline wear, available in multiple shades. Cons: Highest exposure route (waterline mucosal contact), synthetic formulation, no transparency on PFAS, difficult removal may increase irritation and absorption risk.

Mid-Range Performers: D-Grade Options Worth Knowing

Bobbi Brown Ultra Fine Eyeliner Brush, Clinique Ultimate Eye Line-Up Makeup Set, and Fenty Beauty Trace'd Out Pencil Lip Liner all receive D grades (65/100). These products occupy the middle ground: they employ more complex formulations than simple pencils but avoid the extreme waterproofing technology of the F-grade gel formulations. Liquid and pencil options in this tier provide reasonable balance between performance and lower concern.

What to Avoid

Waterproof gel eyeliners. Waterproofing is almost always achieved through synthetic polymers and silicones that may incorporate PFAS. If you must use waterproof products, apply sparingly and remove thoroughly each night.
Waterline-specific formulations. Products marketed for waterline application inherently increase mucosal exposure. The eyes' mucous membranes absorb chemicals more readily than skin; avoid waterline application of non-transparent formulations.
Brands with zero transparency on ingredients or testing. Companies that do not disclose ingredient lists or have never addressed PFAS represent unknown risk.
Ultra-matte or long-wear liquid liners. These formulations often employ acrylates, siloxanes, and durability agents associated with PFAS or PFAS precursors.
Products with undisclosed "film-forming agents" or "polymers." Vague ingredient terminology may mask fluorinated compounds. Brands should specify polymer type (e.g., acrylic vs. silicone) or avoid the category altogether.

Explore Related Product Categories

PFAS extends far beyond eyeliner. If you're concerned about fluorinated chemicals in personal care, explore our guides to makeup products more broadly, waterproof mascara, sunscreen, and shampoo. For household exposure, see our water filters and food packaging guides.

Our Pick: The Best Lower-Concern Eyeliner

Ere Perez JOJOBA EYE PENCIL Natural Black stands out as our recommendation for consumers prioritizing lower concern. Based on available materials data and public disclosure, this product earns a D grade (65/100 safety score)—our model-based estimate, not a lab test result. The pencil format, transparent ingredient sourcing, and absence of PFAS-linked compounds in the disclosed list all contribute to lower concern relative to long-wear gel competitors. Ere Perez does not claim PFAS-free status, nor does third-party lab verification exist; however, the formulation strategy and brand transparency provide reasonable assurance within the current market landscape.

If Ere Perez is unavailable or over budget, Charlotte Tilbury The Classic Pencil and NARS Soft Touch Shadow Pencil offer similarly lower-concern profiles at different price points. All three prioritize traditional pencil formats and transparent ingredient sourcing over cutting-edge durability.