Region — International. Neutral scientific reference — not offered for sale here.
Cart · 0
Set region
Vallydia
ExploreShopToolsJournalTrust
Explore  /  Titanium Dioxide
Research reference — not for sale

Titanium Dioxide

B
lead outcome
Broad-spectrum UV protection (as a single…
grades vary by outcome ↓
Small molecule (non-peptide)
also called — TiO2 · CI 77891 · mineral sunscreen filter · inorganic UV filter · physical sunscreen · non-nano titanium dioxide
UV filter (inorganic)UVB protectionphotostablesun protection

Status: reference entry — not for sale. Neutral scientific reference only. No application instructions are published here; concentration figures are regulatory ceilings and typical formulation ranges reported in the literature, not usage advice.

In brief

Titanium dioxide is the second mineral UV filter, the pair to zinc oxide, and it attenuates UV the same way — a mix of absorption, reflection and scattering, sitting on the skin surface rather than being absorbed. Where it differs is spectrum: it is strong across UVB and short-wave UVA-II but weaker in the long UVA-I range than zinc oxide, so it is not genuinely broad-spectrum on its own and is usually combined. That is why it earns B overall to zinc oxide's A, while scoring A on the wavelengths it does cover, on photostability, on negligible skin penetration, and on regulatory standing — GRASE Category I at up to 25%, the strongest status available. Two honest points round it out. Titanium dioxide dust is IARC Group 2B by inhalation — a hazard for the airborne powder in occupational settings, not for cream on intact skin, which is why SCCS cautions only against nano mineral filters in sprays and powders. And on reefs, controlled work found TiO2 nanoparticles did not cause the coral bleaching that zinc oxide nanoparticles did — a specific point of difference, though "reef-safe" remains a marketing label and warming is the dominant driver.

Legal standing, by region
European Union
Permitted cosmetic UV filter, up to 25%

Listed in Annex VI of the EU Cosmetics Regulation, up to 25%; the nano form is permitted under SCCS-assessed conditions, with the caveat that nano mineral filters are not recommended in inhalable products (sprays, powders).

United Kingdom
Permitted cosmetic UV filter

Retained EU cosmetics framework; equivalent to the EU position.

United States
OTC drug — GRASE Category I, up to 25%

Sunscreens are OTC drugs in the US (they make a UV-protection drug claim). Titanium dioxide is one of only two filters (with zinc oxide) classified GRASE Category I in the FDA's 2019 proposed order, up to 25%; all other filters remain Category III pending data.

International
Widely permitted

One of the most universally accepted sunscreen actives; permitted up to ~25% across major frameworks. Also used, as CI 77891, as a white pigment.

Evidence, by outcome
How we grade →

An honest grade per outcome — drawn from the evidence, not any catalogue. Hype and undemonstrated marketing claims grade low.

OutcomeEvidence base · effectGrade
Broad-spectrum UV protection (as a single mineral filter)
This is the honest split from zinc oxide (graded A here as the one single filter covering the *full* range). Titanium dioxide earns B overall because its long-UVA-I coverage is the family's weak point — excellent as far as it reaches, incomplete alone. Protection still depends on amount applied and reapplication far more than on filter choice.
Titanium dioxide attenuates UV through a mix of absorption, reflection and scattering, like zinc oxide. But its coverage is not symmetrical: it is strong across UVB and short-wave UVA (UVA-II) and **weaker in the long UVA-I** wavelengths than zinc oxide. So while it is a mineral filter, it is not genuinely broad-spectrum on its own the way zinc oxide is. · Reliable mineral protection weighted toward UVB and UVA-II; typically combined with zinc oxide or an organic UVA filter to close the long-UVA gap.
B
UVB & short-UVA (UVA-II) filtering
Graded on the wavelengths it actually covers well. The ceiling of the overall grade is set by the long-UVA-I shortfall, not by any weakness here.
Within its band it is one of the strongest mineral filters — high UVB attenuation with solid UVA-II coverage, and a long history as a core sunscreen active worldwide. · Excellent UVB and short-UVA protection, the range it is chosen for.
A
Photostability
Photostability is not durability in wear — sweat, water, towelling and rubbing remove any filter's film, which is why reapplication guidance exists.
An inorganic oxide, titanium dioxide does not photodegrade the way several organic filters do; it is consistently described as photostable across the regulatory and review literature. · Protection does not decline through photodegradation over a wear period.
A
Skin penetration & systemic absorption (safety-relevant)
The clearest point of difference from several organic filters, which FDA studies found measurably absorbed. As always: measurable absorption is not itself harm — the mineral filters simply avoid the question. (Inhalation of the powder is a separate matter — see the nano row.)
Studies of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles report that they do not meaningfully penetrate the stratum corneum of intact skin, indicating systemic absorption is unlikely. The FDA has stated available evidence supports a GRASE classification for both mineral filters. · Stays on the skin surface; not meaningfully absorbed into the body.
A
Regulatory status — the strongest available
Category III for other filters reflects **missing data, not demonstrated harm** — a distinction routinely lost in marketing that frames chemical filters as unsafe. Titanium dioxide's standing is genuinely strong; that does not make the alternatives dangerous.
In the FDA's 2019 proposed order, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were maintained as **GRASE Category I** at up to 25% — the only two filters with that status; every other UV filter sits in Category III pending data. The EU (Annex VI) likewise permits titanium dioxide, including the nano form under SCCS-assessed conditions. · Approved at high concentration on both sides of the Atlantic, with the strongest regulatory standing of any UV filter.
A
Nano vs non-nano, and the inhalation/IARC question
Precision matters here, the way it does for oxybenzone's absorption data. The IARC 2B classification is an **inhalation** hazard for the dust — which is why SCCS does not recommend nano mineral filters in **sprayable or powder** formats. It says nothing about a cream or lotion applied to intact skin, where the exposure route is entirely different. Not minimised, not inflated: right hazard, wrong route for a topical product.
Nano titanium dioxide is widely used because it reduces the white cast of the non-nano form. On skin, the penetration worry behind "non-nano" marketing is largely unsupported for intact skin. Separately, titanium dioxide **dust** is classified by IARC as **Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) by inhalation** — a finding about inhaling the airborne powder, in occupational settings, not about topical use. · Both forms are permitted; nano reduces white cast. The inhalation flag concerns airborne powder, not cream on skin.
—
Environmental / coral effects
A nuance, not a slogan. It does not make titanium dioxide "reef-safe" — the label remains a marketing category — but it is a genuine, specific point of difference from zinc oxide worth recording accurately. And as the dermatology literature stresses, **climate change is the dominant driver of coral decline**, with sunscreen a local-scale contributor at most.
"Mineral means reef-safe" is a marketing category, not a scientific one. Controlled work found that **zinc oxide nanoparticles caused coral bleaching while titanium dioxide nanoparticles did not** — so among the two mineral filters, the coral signal specifically implicates zinc oxide nano, not titanium dioxide nano. · No coral-bleaching signal for TiO2 nanoparticles in the controlled work that flagged ZnO nanoparticles.
—
Disclosure

Vallydia sells its own cosmetic serums, and some ingredients graded here belong to the same categories as those products. Grades are drawn from the published evidence by the method we publish, and applied to our own ingredients on the same terms — our copper-peptide serum is graded no more kindly than the peptides it competes with. We disclose the interest so you can weigh it.

Trade names shown here (for example Matrixyl, Argireline, Syn-Ake) are the property of their respective owners and are used only to identify the ingredient under discussion. Their appearance implies no affiliation with, or endorsement by, the proprietor.

Evidence changes

Get notified if this changes

We track new research and update these grades as the evidence moves. Leave your email and we'll tell you if the evidence for Titanium Dioxide changes - nothing else.

One ingredient, one purpose. No marketing, no sharing. Unsubscribe anytime. See our privacy policy.

Identity

Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) is an inorganic compound used as a UV filter — one of the two "mineral" or "inorganic" filters, the pair to zinc oxide. As a UV filter it is listed on labels as Titanium Dioxide; the same molecule, used as a white pigment, carries the Colour Index name CI 77891, which is why both appear on ingredient lists.

A note on how sunscreen is regulated, because it shapes what follows: in the US, sunscreens are over-the-counter drugs (they make a UV-protection claim); in the EU and UK they are cosmetics with an approved filter list in Annex VI. This is why the same ingredient carries a "GRASE" designation in one jurisdiction and an Annex listing in the other.

How it works

Titanium dioxide attenuates ultraviolet radiation through a combination of absorption, reflection and scattering — the same mechanism as zinc oxide, and the same practical consequence: the filter sits on the skin surface rather than being taken up by it.

Where it differs from zinc oxide is spectral reach. Titanium dioxide is strong in UVB and short-wave UVA (UVA-II) but tails off in the long UVA-I wavelengths — the deep-penetrating range most associated with photoageing and pigmentation — which zinc oxide covers better. So titanium dioxide is an excellent mineral UVB filter, but not a genuinely broad-spectrum one on its own; formulators pair it with zinc oxide or an organic UVA filter to close that gap. That single spectral shortfall is the reason this entry lands at B where zinc oxide lands at A.

The two honest caveats

Inhalation vs topical (IARC 2B). Titanium dioxide dust is classified by IARC as Group 2B — possibly carcinogenic to humans — on the basis of inhalation. This is important to state plainly and just as important to place correctly: it is a finding about breathing the airborne powder, in occupational settings, not about a cream applied to intact skin. The exposure route is different in kind. It is exactly why SCCS declines to recommend nano mineral filters in sprayable and powder formats — where an aerosol could be inhaled — while raising no such concern for creams and lotions. The honest framing is the same one the oxybenzone entry uses for absorption data: state the finding, and don't let a hazard from one exposure route be silently applied to another.

"Mineral means reef-safe" doesn't hold — but the coral data actually favour titanium dioxide here. Controlled work found zinc oxide nanoparticles caused coral bleaching, while titanium dioxide nanoparticles did not. That does not make titanium dioxide "reef-safe" — a marketing category, not a scientific one — but it is a genuine, specific point of difference worth recording rather than flattening into a slogan. And the attribution point stands: dermatology reviews are explicit that climate change is the dominant driver of coral decline, with sunscreen a local-scale contributor at most.

Reading the evidence honestly

What is genuinely strong. Excellent UVB and UVA-II protection, photostability, negligible skin penetration, and the best regulatory standing available — GRASE Category I in the US at up to 25% and the same ceiling in the EU. As a mineral UVB filter, titanium dioxide is first-rate.

Why it is B and not A. Only the long UVA-I shortfall. Zinc oxide is the one single filter that covers the entire UV range alone; titanium dioxide does not, so a titanium-dioxide-only product needs a UVA partner to be truly broad-spectrum. The grade reflects that gap, nothing more — it is not a safety demotion.

What the marketing gets wrong is the same thing it gets wrong for zinc oxide: that mineral filters are safe and chemical filters are not. Category III means missing data, not demonstrated harm. Titanium dioxide's standing is strong on its own terms; it is not evidence against the organic filters.

And the constant that outweighs filter choice. Neither spectrum nor filter class determines real-world protection as much as quantity applied and reapplication frequency. Most people apply well under the amount used to set a product's SPF, which makes the labelled number closer to a ceiling than a description.

Chemical identifiers

Cross-reference identifiers for the authoritative external databases — not a recipe, and nothing about how to use it.

PubChem CID26042
InChIKeyGWEVSGVZZGPLCZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N
SMILESO=[Ti]=O

via PubChem exact-name match (titanium dioxide, CID 26042; O2Ti); CAS 13463-67-7. CI 77891 is its Colour Index number (the same molecule used as a white pigment) — carried here as an INCI form because sunscreen labels print either name. Nano and non-nano share these identifiers; the distinction is particle size, not chemistry. Distinct from zinc oxide. · high confidence

Sources — 5 cited
01US Food and Drug Administration. Proposed order: Sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use (2019) — GRASE Category I classification for zinc oxide and titanium dioxide up to 25%.
02Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinions on titanium dioxide (nano form) in cosmetics — safety assessment underpinning the Annex VI listing; inhalation caveat for sprayable and powder products.
03New perspectives on titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as inorganic UV filters: advances, safety, challenges, and environmental considerations. Cosmetics. 2025;12(2):77.
04Suh S, et al. Sunscreen safety: a review of recent studies on humans and the environment. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2020 — reports ZnO nanoparticles, but not TiO2 nanoparticles, caused coral bleaching under controlled conditions.
05International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Titanium dioxide — Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of inhalation (airborne powder) data.
Updated 2026-07-25 (the moving parts are US filter approvals (bemotrizinol was added to the OTC monograph as GRASE in June 2026) and any EU nano/inhalation revisions — re-check regulatory status.)

Grades reflect the published evidence, not our interest. No dosing, reconstitution, or administration is published for research compounds — that restraint is deliberate.

Related compounds
Zinc OxideA
Small molecule (non-peptide)
Bemotrizinol (Tinosorb S)A
Small molecule (non-peptide)
AvobenzoneB
Small molecule (non-peptide)
Vallydia

A neutral reference and a lawful-lane shop. Information for those who seek it — never promotion.

Region — International
ExploreRegisterThe Register — full indexCategoriesTrust & COAHow we gradeOpen data
ShopCosmetic peptidesJournalQuizzes
TermsPrivacyCookiesReturnsShippingImprint

This site provides neutral scientific reference and sells only products lawful in your region. Nothing here is medical advice, a recommendation, or an offer to supply unapproved medicines. No dosing or administration is published for research compounds. Cosmetic peptides per Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Unapproved injectable peptides are neither sold nor advertised in the EU (Directive 2001/83/EC, Title VIII). © 2026 Vallydia.