Kiehl's · Moisturizer
Kiehl's Facial Fuel Energizing Moisture Treatment
Lower PFAS concern; typical moisturizer formulation without known PFAS-prone ingredients.
Kiehl's Facial Fuel is a conventional water-based facial moisturizer with no known Teflon-family coating coatings, waterproofing agents, or nonstick treatments that would require PFAS. The brand makes no PFAS claims either way.
Shop Kiehl's on Amazon →Material
Water-based lotion; glycerin, squalane, botanical extracts
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Category baseline
cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Kiehl's Facial Fuel is a water-based lotion built on glycerin (a humectant that draws moisture into skin) and squalane (a lightweight oil derived from olives or sugarcane), plus botanical extracts like ginseng and ivy. This formulation is straightforward cosmetic chemistry with no known problematic thickeners, silicones, or emulsifiers that typically trigger safety concerns. The water base means no anhydrous wax or petrolatum buildup risk, and squalane is non-comedogenic and less likely to harbor bacteria than occlusive oils.
The brand's record and disclosure
Kiehl's, owned by L'Oréal, maintains ingredient disclosure on its website and complies with US FDA cosmetic labeling. The brand has no widely documented product recalls specific to this moisturizer and is transparent about its use of botanical extracts. Kiehl's does not publicly emphasize PFAS avoidance in marketing, reflecting the cosmetics industry's general silence on the issue, but has not faced regulatory action or credible third-party testing identifying PFAS contamination in this product line.
How it compares in its category
This moisturizer sits in the mid-premium segment and uses a conventional water-glycerin-oil formulation shared by most dermatologist-recommended brands. Unlike heavy creams, it avoids thick waxes and silicones, placing it lower-risk for barrier disruption or microplastic shedding. Compared to drugstore moisturizers, Kiehl's ingredient sourcing and manufacturing standards are typically more rigorous, though not markedly different in safety profile from CeraVe or Cetaphil equivalents.
If you buy it
Store in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight; heat can break down botanical extracts and reduce efficacy, though it does not create chemical hazards. Use a clean applicator or fingertips to avoid bacterial contamination in the jar. If you have sensitive skin or fragrance allergies, patch-test first, as botanical extracts and fragrance compounds can trigger irritation in a small percentage of users. Replace if the product separates, smells off, or develops visible mold after 12 months of opening.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
Fragrance allergens (botanical extracts and added fragrance)
Kiehl's Facial Fuel contains ginseng and ivy extracts plus fragrance compounds. While these are not restricted, botanical extracts and fragrance are common contact allergens and can trigger dermatitis or sensitization in individuals with fragrance sensitivity or atopic skin.
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives
No published analysis or recall indicates presence of formaldehyde-releasers such as DMDM hydantoin or imidazolidinyl urea in this product. Standard lotion preservatives in this price tier typically use phenoxyethanol or sorbic acid, which do not release formaldehyde.
Heavy metals in botanical pigments or extracts
Kiehl's sources ingredients from established suppliers and is subject to L'Oréal's quality control; no testing or regulatory action has identified lead, cadmium, or arsenic in this moisturizer. Plant extracts can bioaccumulate metals, but reputable manufacturers test finished products for contaminants.
1,4-dioxane (manufacturing residue)
Water-based emulsions with polyethoxylated ingredients (common in moisturizers) can carry trace 1,4-dioxane as a manufacturing byproduct. The FDA does not require disclosure or removal, but levels in mainstream cosmetics are typically below 10 ppm and considered low-risk from occasional use.
Microbial contamination from jar packaging
Jar-based moisturizers allow repeated finger contact and can support bacterial or fungal growth if the preservative system weakens over time or if the product is left uncapped. This is a handling risk rather than a formulation defect, mitigated by using clean applicators and keeping the lid sealed.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Moisturizer
Tatcha
Starter The Ritual Set Ultra Hydrating For Dry Skin
Water-based cosmetic creams and serums; glass/plastic packaging
Lower PFAS concern for a cosmetic moisturizer set, but Tatcha makes no public PFAS commitment.
⚠Risky category by default
Herbivore Botanicals
Orchid Facial Oil
plant oils, botanical extracts, glass bottle
Lower concern; facial oil with no known PFAS triggers, but brand offers no transparency.
⚠Risky category by default
Herbivore Botanicals
Herbivore Lapis Balancing Facial Oil
plant oils, mineral pigments, glass bottle
Lower concern for PFAS; facial oil in glass, typical formulation poses minimal risk.
⚠Risky category by default
More moisturizer grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.