Only a handful of places left for our September 2026 cohort. Applications close soonApply now →

MSTA
Your future
starts here.

Dermaceutic

Also known as: dermaceutic, dermaceutic laboratoire

Dermaceutic is a French professional skincare and chemical-peel brand operated by Lumiderme SASU. Its professional-only peels are marketed as Class IIa medical devices rather than cosmetics and reach the UK through third-party distributors. The range includes multi-acid, TCA and phenol-containing systems.

Evidence status

Manufacturer-supported

Dermaceutic publishes product percentages from an unnamed 63-person study, while no indexed or registered clinical trial of a named Dermaceutic peel or cream was located. Generic peel evidence supports treatment classes but does not validate a branded formulation; the manufacturer's Class IIa claims also lack a public certificate or registration record in the cited material. Evidence is therefore manufacturer-led with limited independent product-level support.

What Dermaceutic is, and the ranges available#

Dermaceutic describes itself as a French professional skincare and chemical-peel brand founded in 2002 through collaboration with dermatologists. It states that products are developed and made in France and that the brand works with more than 30,000 professionals in more than 80 countries. These are company-supplied, unaudited figures.[1]

The operating legal entity is Lumiderme SASU, SIREN 914 341 433, incorporated on 7 April 2022 with €100,000 share capital and a registered office in Cagnes-sur-Mer. The French national register contains no legal entity named Dermaceutic; “Dermaceutic Laboratoire” is therefore a trading identity, while 2002 is brand history rather than the incorporation date of the present operator.[16]

No Dermaceutic-named UK company was located at Companies House. The range reaches Britain through third-party suppliers. Unique Skin in Hitchin carries Dermaceutic among several brands; the link to Unique Skin Limited, company 09713343, is inferred from location and telephone code because the website does not publish a company number or claim exclusive distributorship.[6][6, 17]i

In August 2026 the professional peel collection listed Activa and Mela Peel Forte together, Mask Peel, Milk Peel, Crystal Peel, Cosmo Peel at 12%, 15%, 18% and 20%, Cosmo Peel Forte and Exo Peel. Product pages publish acid families and approximate pH for some systems, but not complete ingredient lists or acid concentrations across the range.[4][3]

Use of Dermaceutic in aesthetic practice#

Dermaceutic states that its professional peels are Class IIa medical devices for professional use, rather than cosmetic products. That classification brings the devices within the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 for the GB market. It is a route to market, not a regulator's comparative efficacy judgement.[7][2, 4]

The distinction is especially important for Cosmo Peel Forte. Dermaceutic lists phenol, TCA and glycolic acid at approximately pH 0.5. Phenol is prohibited in GB cosmetic products under Annex II entry 1175 of assimilated Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. A phenol-containing formulation could not be lawfully marketed as a cosmetic; medical-device status is therefore not evidence that the peel is intrinsically “more medical” or better.[4][8]

A Class IIa device placed on the GB market must be registered with the MHRA. A manufacturer based in France requires a UK Responsible Person. CE-marked MDD or AIMDD devices may be accepted until the sooner of certificate expiry or 30 June 2028; EU MDR devices may be accepted until 30 June 2030, with UKCA the enduring route. The located Dermaceutic pages did not state a certificate, approved or notified body, MHRA reference or UK Responsible Person, so the current supplier documents are the operative evidence of lawful supply.[7, 1]

“Professional only” is a supply policy rather than a statutory English purchasing licence. No English law restricting purchase or application to one professional group was located, but that absence is not a positive legal opinion and does not remove competence, insurance, premises or jurisdictional requirements. Scotland, Wales and London premises rules differ.[18]i

England's green, amber and red peel tiers remain a 2023 proposal. The consultation placed epidermal-depth peels in green, medium-depth peels reaching upper dermis in amber with healthcare-professional oversight for non-healthcare practitioners, and phenol or reticular-dermis peels in red. The 2025 response did not allocate named procedures and no scheme is in force.[9][10]

Contraindications and cautions#

The instructions for the exact Dermaceutic product govern contraindications, preparation, exposure and aftercare. The brand publishes materially different systems: Milk Peel contains glycolic, lactic and salicylic acids at approximately pH 1.9; Mask Peel contains glycolic and salicylic acids with bentonite at approximately pH 2; Cosmo Peel Forte contains phenol, TCA and glycolic acid at approximately pH 0.5. They cannot share one generic safety profile.[3, 4]

Cosmo Peel Forte is restricted by the manufacturer to Fitzpatrick I–III and described on its page as a medium-depth peel. The presence of phenol, low stated pH, undisclosed acid concentrations and a disease indication place it outside an uncomplicated superficial-peel decision.[4]

The manufacturer also markets Cosmo Peel Forte for actinic keratosis. Actinic keratosis is a sun-induced lesion with a small but incompletely quantified risk of progression to squamous-cell carcinoma. A systematic review found estimates from 0 to 0.075% per lesion-year, reaching 0.53% per lesion in people with previous non-melanoma skin cancer, and concluded that no reliable overall progression estimate could be given.[4, 15]

That indication conflicts with the aesthetic practitioner boundary. JCCP competencies require recognition and referral of lesions needing further assessment; they do not turn a branded peel indication into authority to diagnose or treat a potentially premalignant lesion.[11, 4]i

Clinical uses and the evidence behind them#

Dermaceutic product evidence

No indexed or registered clinical study of a Dermaceutic-branded peel or cream was identified. The only database records containing the word were an unrelated conflict disclosure and a paper using “dermaceutics” generically.[5]

The manufacturer nevertheless publishes numerical outcomes. Product pages state that 94% of patients had fewer wrinkles after one Cosmo Peel Forte and give 92%, 83% and 100% outcomes for Milk Peel, footnoted to an “in vivo efficacy study on 63 patients” by an unnamed “European independent clinical research organization”. No study title, registration, protocol, comparator, endpoint definition or paper is provided. The data may exist, but they cannot be independently appraised.[3, 4, 1, 5]

Acne evidence for peel classes

NICE's network meta-analysis covered 179 acne trials. Salicylic- or mandelic-acid peels reduced total lesion count in mild-to-moderate acne by a mean 39.70% versus placebo, with a 95% credible interval from 12.54% to 66.78%. The estimate came from only 101 observations among approximately 35,000 across the network, and the reviewers rated chemical-peel evidence moderate to very low quality with high uncertainty.[12]

That finding supports selected acid peels as a class. It does not validate a Dermaceutic blend whose active concentrations and complete formula are undisclosed.

Melasma evidence for peel classes

A systematic review of 24 studies and 1,075 patients concluded that chemical peels can improve melasma and described glycolic acid as the safest and most effective agent. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis and the search used PubMed alone.[13]

A darker-phototype sequential-peel series also illustrates why outcomes and harms must remain phase-specific. In Fitzpatrick IV–VI skin, the TCA phase produced irritation in 95%, burning in 97.5%, cracking in 62.5% and pigmentation change in 32.5%; melasma recurred in 70% within three months after treatment ended, while participants also used prescription-strength depigmenting treatment and SPF.[14]

Class-level evidence is useful for ingredient context. It cannot be transferred automatically to Dermaceutic's multi-acid systems, and no head-to-head study compares a Dermaceutic peel with its component acids.[12, 13, 3, 5]i

Selecting a Dermaceutic product#

Selection begins with the regulatory and technical file for the exact product: current certificate, route and expiry; notified or approved body; MHRA registration; UK Responsible Person; intended purpose; complete ingredients or composition; acid concentrations; pH; phototype limits; and the current instructions for use.

The published range information is incomplete for clinical comparison. Dermaceutic gives approximate pH and acid families for selected peels but no full INCI or concentration for its professional blends. A practitioner therefore cannot map a product reliably to the concentrations used in trials or to England's proposed 35–50% TCA description of medium-depth peeling.[3, 4, 9]

Competence must be matched to intended depth rather than the brand certificate. The JCCP framework describes Level 4 very-superficial peels to stratum corneum, Level 5 superficial peels to mid-epidermis and Level 6 superficial peels to the Grenz zone. It gives no level for medium or deep peels. A manufacturer testimonial calling Cosmo Peel Forte medium-depth therefore sits outside that published ladder.[11][11, 4]i

The exact Dermaceutic protocol may be followed as manufacturer guidance after these gates are met. Skinipedia does not publish a generic peel protocol or infer missing concentrations.

Adverse effects and their management#

Expected peel responses

Erythema, burning, desquamation and temporary barrier disruption vary with acid, concentration, pH, vehicle, exposure and skin site. A brand-wide list cannot predict the response to every Dermaceutic system.

Pigmentary complications

Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation risk is especially relevant in darker skin and with deeper injury. The sequential glycolic/TCA series recorded pigmentation changes in 32.5% during the TCA phase, not the 12.5% headline attached to the glycolic phase.[14]

Device incidents and serious reactions

Because the professional peels are placed on the market as medical devices, a suspected product malfunction or device-related adverse incident belongs in the manufacturer's and MHRA vigilance routes as well as the clinical record. Persistent pain, extensive blistering or erosion, infection, delayed healing, scarring, systemic symptoms or progressive pigment change requires cessation and appropriate medical assessment.

Referral and scope boundaries#

A suspected actinic keratosis, changing keratotic lesion or any lesion of uncertain diagnosis is referred for medical assessment rather than treated on the strength of the Cosmo Peel Forte product indication. The product page cannot replace diagnosis, and progression risk cannot be judged reliably from appearance alone.[4, 11, 15]

Medium-depth and phenol-containing peels exceed the published JCCP superficial-peel competence ladder. A non-healthcare practitioner's access to a professional account does not demonstrate competence, legal authority in every jurisdiction or insurance cover for that depth.[9, 10, 11, 18]

Complications involving systemic symptoms, deep tissue injury, infection, scarring or a medical diagnosis require referral to an appropriately qualified clinician. The referral should preserve the exact product, lot, listed acids, stated pH, exposure, endpoint, site and timing because the brand name alone does not identify the chemical exposure.

Mechanism of action#

Dermaceutic's peel systems use controlled chemical injury from hydroxy acids, TCA and, in Cosmo Peel Forte, phenol. Penetration and tissue effect depend on the complete formulation, acid strength, pH, buffering, vehicle, application and skin condition. Approximate pH without concentration does not determine peel depth.[3, 4]

Mechanisms and class evidence belong in chemical peels, glycolic acid, salicylic acid, lactic acid and TCA peel. A class mechanism does not establish the outcome of an undisclosed proprietary blend.

Commonly misstated claims#

“Dermaceutic peels are clinically proven”

No indexed or registered Dermaceutic product trial was located. The brand's 63-person study is not named or publicly appraisable.[1, 3, 4, 5]

Supported statement: Dermaceutic publishes outcomes from an unpublished manufacturer-cited study, while independent product-level clinical evidence was not located.

“Class IIa status proves the peel works”

Class IIa is a device classification and market-access route. It is not a comparative efficacy award.[2, 7]

Supported statement: Dermaceutic professional peels are marketed as Class IIa devices and should carry the required conformity and MHRA documentation.

“Medical-device classification means a stronger or superior peel”

For Cosmo Peel Forte, phenol could not lawfully be included in a GB cosmetic, making the device route necessary rather than prestigious.[8, 4]i

Supported statement: product classification follows intended purpose, composition and regulatory rules; it does not rank performance.

“All Dermaceutic peels are superficial”

The range includes a phenol/TCA/glycolic system at approximately pH 0.5, described by a manufacturer testimonial as medium-depth and limited to Fitzpatrick I–III.[4]

Supported statement: depth and risk are product-specific, and Cosmo Peel Forte cannot be treated as an ordinary superficial acid peel.

Areas of remaining uncertainty#

  • The current UKCA or CE route, certificate, approved or notified body, MHRA registration and UK Responsible Person were not publicly verified; this means the supplier documentation determines whether each product is lawfully supplied in GB.
  • Acid concentrations and the complete formula for Cosmo Peel Forte and other blends remain undisclosed; this prevents comparison with trial concentrations and firm mapping to proposed licensing tiers.
  • The unnamed 63-person study has no accessible protocol, comparator or endpoints; this prevents independent use of its percentages as clinical evidence.
  • No public dossier explains the Class IIa efficacy case; absence from PubMed does not prove that a conformity-assessment file does not exist, but practitioners cannot cite what they cannot inspect.
  • The precise contracting UK distributor and current JCCP framework status remain uncertain; this requires confirmation before relying on exclusivity or competence claims.

Frequently asked questions#

Are Dermaceutic professional peels cosmetics?

The brand places them on the market as Class IIa medical devices. Its home-care skincare may remain cosmetic; the exact product category governs.[2, 4]

Does a Class IIa mark prove clinical effectiveness?

No. It establishes a risk-based regulatory route and conformity obligations, not superiority or an independently published product trial.[7]

Can an aesthetic practitioner treat actinic keratosis with Cosmo Peel Forte?

A suspected actinic keratosis requires medical diagnosis and assessment. The manufacturer's indication does not remove that referral boundary.[4, 11, 15]

Are the acid concentrations published?

Not across the professional range. The brand publishes acid families and approximate pH for selected systems but withholds the concentrations and full INCI.[3, 4]

What protocol should a clinic use?

The current instructions and training for the exact Dermaceutic product govern. Skinipedia does not publish a generic substitute.

References#

Each source is graded by evidence tier. Tier 4 material (manufacturer documents, expert consensus, practitioner experience) is useful for protocol and context, and is never presented as equivalent to independent clinical evidence.

  1. Dermaceutic. 'About us' and 'Research & Innovation' pages, dermaceutic.com.Tier 4Supports: Corporate self-description, re-fetched and verified verbatim 2 August 2026: 'Dermaceutic was founded in 2002 on the strong belief that science is the skin's natural ally'; 'Born from a collaboration between French dermatologists, Dermaceutic is now the number one chemical peel brand in France'; 'Today, we partner with more than 30,000 skin professionals in more than 80 countries around the world'; and, in the formulation charter, 'Proven safe and effective through extensive clinical testing under dermatological control' and 'Developed and produced in France'. A statistics block on the same page reads '80 We are selling our products across 80 countries', '30,000 Dermaceutic is partner with 30,000 skin professionals' and '22 Founded in 2002, Dermaceutic is 22 years old' — the last of which dates the page copy to roughly 2024. The Research & Innovation page (https://www.dermaceutic.com/en/pages/research-and-innovation) states verbatim: 'Efficacy: we rely on solid, verified scientific evidence from bibliographic studies and robust clinical data (in vitro and in vivo). Before launching, preliminary tests are conducted with our KOLs on the target population to ensure feasibility and performance efficacy'. It names no study, no publication, no trial registration and no ISO certificate. Every product page carries a rotating badge strip reading 'Skintelligent science / Clinically tested / Expert in aesthetic dermatology / Made in France / Unique formulas / 30,000 skin professionals'. Scope limit: this is unaudited marketing copy from the company that sells the products. No third party has verified the 80-country, 30,000-professional or 'number one chemical peel brand in France' figures.Funding / interest: Dermaceutic's own commercial website, operated by LUMIDERME SASU. The company sells every product described.
  2. Dermaceutic. 'Pro access — For skin professionals, medical devices' page, dermaceutic.com.Tier 4Supports: The manufacturer's own statement of classification and access control. Verbatim: 'Our professional peels registered as class IIa (Medical Device) are for professional use only (dermatologists, aesthetic physicians, skin therapists, etc.)' and a marketing claim to be 'the only French based company offering class IIa medical-grade peels'. Scope limits: the page names no notified or approved body, no certificate number, no UKCA or CE marking statement and no MHRA registration — re-checked 2 August 2026. 'Skin therapists' is the company's own eligibility category, not a legal one. Note the inconsistency with the product pages: Milk Peel, Mask Peel and Cosmo Peel Forte all carry the line 'You can't buy this product online because it's a medical device and its use must be supervised by a healthcare professional' — a narrower category than 'skin therapists'. The inconsistency is systematic across the range, not confined to one page.Funding / interest: Dermaceutic's own commercial website; the classification claim is self-declared by the manufacturer.
  3. Dermaceutic. 'Professional peels' collection page, plus the Milk Peel and Mask Peel product pages, dermaceutic.com.Tier 4Supports: The collection page reads '10 products' and lists them as: ACTIVA & MELA PEEL FORTE (a single listing), MASK PEEL, MILK PEEL, CRYSTAL PEEL, COSMO PEEL 12%, COSMO PEEL 15%, COSMO PEEL 18%, COSMO PEEL 20%, COSMO PEEL FORTE and EXO PEEL. Verbatim: 'Chemical peels must be used by an experienced skin professional.' Indications listed on the page span 'Reduce acne lesions / Treat mild and moderate acne'; 'Reduce pigmented lesions / Treat solar and senile lentigines'; 'Treat actinic keratosis / Prevent pre-cancerous lesions / Improve keratosis pilaris skin condition'; and 'Renew cell generation / Boost collagen and elastin synthesis'. Compositions come from the individual product pages. Milk Peel (https://www.dermaceutic.com/en/products/milk-peel) — 'Milk Peel: Glycolic, Lactic and Salicylic acids - pH ≈ 1.9', 'Foamer 15: Glycolic acid, Enoxolone - pH ≈ 4.1', 'Medical device - Class IIa', 'For professional use only', 'designed for treating mild acne, keratosis pilaris, and superficial pigmented lesions'; it also advertises '92% of patient's skin was more luminous. 83% of patients said the skin was more even and more radiant. 100% of patients showed a significant improvement in frown line roughness. *In vivo efficacy study on 63 patients. European independent clinical research organization.' Mask Peel (https://www.dermaceutic.com/en/products/mask-peel) — glycolic acid, salicylic acid and 'Bentonite pH ≈ 2', for oily and acne-prone skin, dilated pores and excess sebum; 'For professional use only'. Scope limits, and they are serious: no page in the range publishes an actual concentration for any acid; the Cosmo Peel percentages (12/15/18/20) are not stated on the collection page to refer to any particular acid; no full INCI list is published; and the advertised percentage outcomes are footnoted to a study that is not named, not published and not registered, with no control arm described. The rendered collection page did not display per-product device-class labels for Crystal Peel or Exo Peel, so their classification could not be confirmed from that page.Funding / interest: Dermaceutic's own commercial website.
  4. Dermaceutic. 'Cosmo Peel Forte' product page, dermaceutic.com.Tier 4Supports: The single most consequential product page in the range, re-fetched and verified verbatim 2 August 2026. Composition: 'Cosmo Peel Forte: Phenol, TCA, Glycolic acid - pH ≈ 0.5'. Classified 'Medical device - Class IIa'. Indication: 'Cosmo Peel Forte is intended for the treatment of acne scars, senile lentigines, and actinic keratosis', with benefits listed including 'Eliminates actinic keratosis lesions'. Kit components: 'Cosmo Cream: Dextran sulfate, Allantoin, Hyaluronic acid, Vitamin C, Calendula extract - pH ≈ 4.8' and 'Foamer 15: Glycolic acid, Enoxolone - pH ≈ 4.1'; kit is for 12 applications. 'For professional use only'; 'You can't buy this product online because it's a medical device and its use must be supervised by a healthcare professional'. The page advertises '94% of patients have less wrinkles after 1 Cosmo Peel Forte. *In vivo efficacy study on 63 patients. European independent clinical research organization.' The page's FAQ states the product is 'Suitable for phototypes I, II & III'. Scope limits: no percentage is given for phenol, TCA or glycolic acid, so the actual phenol load cannot be assessed from published material; the 'medium peel depth' descriptor appears ONLY inside a named practitioner testimonial — Dr Jean-Luc Vigneron, 'Its unique formula ensures a visible improvement of the skin texture (medium peel depth) thanks to a controlled penetration' — not in the manufacturer's own specification and not from a depth-measurement study; the two before/after cases shown are both phototype II; and no clinical data at all are offered for the actinic keratosis indication (the 63-patient footnote is attached to a wrinkle outcome).Funding / interest: Dermaceutic's own commercial website; the depth, phototype and indication claims are the manufacturer's.
  5. NCBI PubMed, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov records for 'Dermaceutic'. Accessed 1-2 August 2026.Tier 4Supports: Independently re-run 2 August 2026 with identical results. PubMed all-fields 'Dermaceutic' returns exactly 2 records (count=2; PMIDs 28979659, 27258247), neither of which studies a Dermaceutic product: PMID 28979659 (Chao YYY, Chhabra C, Corduff N, Fabi SG, Kerscher M, Lam SCK, et al., J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2017;10(8):16-27, a Pan-Asian injectables consensus — the word 'Dermaceutic' appears exactly once in the whole article, in the Disclosures section: 'Dr. Pavicic is a speaker and/or advisor for Merz, Galderma, Cynosure, Eucerin, Dermaceutic, and Ipsen') and PMID 27258247 (Iriondo-DeHond A, et al., Molecules 2016;21(6):721, a coffee-silverskin keratinocyte and C. elegans study using the word 'dermaceutics' generically). Europe PMC returns hitCount 2 — the same two records. PubMed reported the quoted phrase 'Cosmo Peel' as not found in its index (quotedphrasesnotfound), likewise 'Milk Peel', 'K Ceutic', 'Sun Ceutic' and 'Tri-Vita'. 'Dermaceutic[Affiliation]' returns count=0 with the phrase reported not found. ClinicalTrials.gov v2 returns totalCount 0 for query.term=Dermaceutic and totalCount 0 for query.spons=Dermaceutic. Scope limits: PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov index abstracts and registrations, not the full text of every paper, so a brand named only in an unindexed methods section would be missed; Europe PMC does search open-access full text, which narrows but does not close that gap. French-language and trade-press publications, the manufacturer's own unnamed 63-patient in-vivo study, and any unpublished internal dossier submitted for CE/UKCA conformity assessment are outside all three databases.
  6. Companies House (UK), Find and update company information records for 'Dermaceutic' and company 09713343. Accessed 2 August 2026.Tier 1Supports: Re-run 2 August 2026. A search of the UK register for 'dermaceutic' returns no company of that name. The nearest name matches are unrelated third parties: DERMACEUTICS LTD (08342188, dissolved 24 March 2015), DERMACEUTICALS LIMITED (03245084, incorporated 3 September 1996), DERMACEUTICA LTD (09469213, dissolved 23 August 2016), LAZURITE DERMACEUTICALS LTD (13469217), NATIONAL DERMACEUTICALS LTD (12555385, dissolved 21 September 2021), THE DERMACEUTICAL CO LIMITED (06356363, dissolved 14 December 2010), and A PERFECT FLOOR LIMITED under the previous name DR ALKAITIS DERMACEUTICALS UK (05987281, dissolved 10 December 2013). There is therefore no UK-incorporated company trading under the Dermaceutic name. Separately, UNIQUE SKIN LIMITED, company number 09713343, incorporated 31 July 2015, status Active, registered office Unit 1 The Cam Centre, Wilbury Way, Hitchin, Herts, SG4 0TW, SIC 86900 (other human health activities). Scope limits: a register search proves only that no company bears that exact name — it does not exclude a UK branch or an establishment registration under a different name.
  7. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). 'Regulating medical devices in the UK' guidance, GOV.UK.Tier 1Supports: Verbatim: 'Devices are regulated under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 618, as amended) (UK MDR 2002)'. On transition, the guidance sets out TWO acceptance routes for CE marked devices on the Great Britain market, both of which matter here: 'general medical devices compliant with the EU MDD or EU AIMDD can be placed on the Great Britain market up until the sooner of expiry of certificate or 30 June 2028', AND 'general medical devices, including custom-made devices, compliant with the EU MDR and IVDs compliant with the EU IVDR can be placed on the Great Britain market up until 30 June 2030'. Registration: 'All medical devices, including IVDs, custom-made devices and systems or procedure packs must be registered with the MHRA before being placed on the Great Britain market.' A manufacturer based outside the UK 'need[s] to appoint a single UK responsible person'. Scope limits: this is market-access and conformity guidance. It says nothing about comparative clinical efficacy, and conformity assessment is not equivalent to an efficacy trial. This particular page does NOT set out the class-by-class approved-body requirements; the requirement for approved-body involvement in Class IIa conformity assessment comes from UK MDR 2002 itself and was not separately verified for this entry. Northern Ireland follows a different route under the Windsor Framework and is not covered by the GB-specific dates above.
  8. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products, Article 14 and Annex II (List of substances prohibited in cosmetic products), as assimilated law published on legislation.gov.uk.Tier 1Supports: Verified against the raw legislation.gov.uk text 2 August 2026. Annex II is titled 'LIST OF SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS'. Entry 1175 reads: Phenol | 108-95-2 | 203-632-7 — sitting between entry 1174 (bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether) and 1176 (Bisphenol A). Article 14(1)(a) provides that 'cosmetic products shall not contain any of the following: (a) prohibited substances listed in Annex II'. This is the text as it applies in Great Britain via assimilated law. Scope limits: the prohibition governs products placed on the market as cosmetic products; it does not apply to products lawfully classified and marketed as medical devices under UK MDR 2002. Post-2020 EU amendments to the Annexes do not flow through to GB automatically, so the GB and EU versions can diverge; the phenol entry itself long predates the divergence point.
  9. Department of Health and Social Care. 'The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England: consultation document'. Consultation opened 2 September 2023, closed 11:59pm on 28 October 2023 (page last updated 7 August 2025).Tier 1Supports: This is the ONLY document that assigns individual procedures to proposed tiers, and it is a PROPOSAL, not law. Tier definitions verbatim: green — 'procedures with the lowest risk of complications. All practitioners are eligible to perform licensed procedures where they meet agreed standards'; amber — 'procedures with medium risk of complications. Non-healthcare professionals must be licensed and have relevant oversight by a named regulated healthcare professional (who has gained an accredited qualification to prescribe, administer and supervise aesthetic procedures)'; red — 'procedures with the highest risk of complications... Can only be carried out by qualified and regulated healthcare professionals working out of CQC registered premises. Such procedures would not be included within the local authority licensing scheme.' Peels by depth: green covers 'chemical peels that involve destruction only into viable epidermis (the outermost layer of the skin)'; amber covers medium depth peels involving 'full thickness destruction of entire epidermis into the upper dermis (the inner layer of the 2 main layers of the skin)'; red covers 'deeper chemical peels such as phenol peels'. The annex describes medium peels as 'usually carried out using trichloroacetic acid (TCA) at concentrations between 35% and 50%. Other acids are sometimes used, including glycolic, pyruvic and salicylic acid. A combination of acids can also be used', and defines the deep category as 'deep chemical peels using phenol or otherwise intended for use at the level of the reticular dermis (the thick bottom layer of the dermis). Deep peels remove the epidermal, upper dermal and can reach the deep dermal layers of skin, the reticular layer. A local anaesthetic and sedative may be needed... Heart and blood pressure monitoring is also required because phenol can affect heart and kidney function'. Note that the deep-peel wording is disjunctive: 'using phenol OR otherwise intended for use at the level of the reticular dermis'. Scope limit: England only, and nothing here is in force.
  10. Department of Health and Social Care. 'The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England: consultation response'. Published 7 August 2025.Tier 1Supports: The response does NOT assign individual procedures to green, amber or red tiers. It states verbatim: 'Based on the views expressed through the responses to this consultation, we are not proposing at this stage to remove any of the procedures currently included within the scope of the licensing scheme or associated regulation, nor are we proposing to add any further procedures.' On sequencing, the government will 'prioritise initial work in this space on the introduction of legislation which will ensure that those procedures deemed to pose the highest level of risk (including procedures aimed at augmenting the breast, buttocks and genitals with dermal fillers) can only be performed by suitably qualified regulated healthcare professionals working for CQC-registered providers'. Chemical peels are mentioned only in passing — in the definition section and in satisfaction analysis — with a note that laser and chemical peel procedures sit across different categories based on depth and strength of application. Scope limit: no licensing scheme is in force as at August 2026; this is a consultation response, not commencement.
  11. Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP). JCCP Non-Surgical Cosmetic Interventions and Hair Restoration Surgery Education and Training Competency Framework, V8, September 2018.Tier 4Supports: PDF downloaded and text-extracted directly (47 pages) and verified 2 August 2026. Covers 'Core Competencies' and 'Modality Specific Competencies for 5 modalities'. The chemical peels and skin rejuvenation (CPSR) modality, at page 40, is set at 'level 4/5/6', verbatim: 'Provide chemical peels and skin rejuvenation interventions at level 4/5/6 within the agreed treatment plan. L4 Deliver very superficial chemical peels to the stratum corneum. L5 Deliver superficial chemical peels to the mid-epidermis. L6 Deliver superficial chemical peels to the Grenz zone in all skin types.' Academic entry requirement: 'minimum level 3 for level 4 courses, level 4 for level 5 courses, level 5 for level 6 courses'. Required knowledge explicitly includes 'the common acids used in peeling and their actions, indications and contraindications: AHA's e.g. glycolic, citric, mandelic; Salycilic; TCA; Phenol; Pyruvic; Cocktails e.g. Jessners' [sic], and the risks of hyperpigmentation, PIH, hypopigmentation, infection, scarring, blistering, allergy and excessive inflammation. Practitioners must 'Recognise common lesions requiring further assessment and know when and how to refer.' Unlike temporary/semi-permanent dermal fillers and botulinum toxin (both Level 7), CPSR has a live column for practitioners not regulated by a PSRB. Scope limits: voluntary consensus standard from a charitable body, not law; the CPSR ladder stops at superficial depth — the framework specifies no competence level for medium-depth or deep peels; and the toxin/filler exclusion is stated as time-limited — 'At present, JCCP are not supporting entry to the register of practitioners not registered with a PSRB, such as beauty therapists, for a period of 3 years, when this will be reviewed' — a 2018 statement whose three-year horizon has long passed. V8 is eight years old and whether it remains JCCP's current published framework could not be confirmed (the JCCP education and training page returned 404).
  12. Mavranezouli I, Daly CH, Welton NJ, Deshpande S, Berg L, Bromham N, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(5):639-649. doi:10.1111/bjd.21739. PMID 35789996.Tier 1Supports: Full text verified via Europe PMC (PMC9804728) 2 August 2026. 179 RCTs, approximately 35,000 observations, 49 treatment classes, searched to May 2020; the evidence base underpinning NICE guideline NG198. Outcome was percentage change in total lesion count from baseline; effects are reported only for treatments with at least 50 observations each. For mild-to-moderate acne the best-performing physical option was 'chemical peels, e.g. salicylic or mandelic acid', mean difference versus placebo 39.70% (95% credible interval 12.54-66.78%). DENOMINATOR: the results table shows chemical peels (physical) contributed 101 observations — roughly 0.3% of the ~35,000 — with a mean rank of 9.23 (range 2-28) across all treatments, i.e. best within its treatment type, not best overall. Explicit limitation, verbatim: 'The quality of included RCTs was moderate to very low, with evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Uncertainty in findings was high, in particular for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy', and 'Further research is warranted for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy for which evidence was more limited.' Scope limits: acne only; the peels studied are generic salicylic and mandelic acid preparations (and Jessner's), not any branded formulation; no Dermaceutic product appears anywhere in this review.Funding / interest: Undertaken by the National Guideline Alliance at the RCOG with support from the NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit, University of Bristol, funded by the NICE Centre for Guidelines; Europe PMC additionally records MRC grant MR/M005615/1. 'The funder of the study had no further role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report.' No commercial manufacturer funding. Conflicts of interest, verbatim: 'I.M., L.B., S.D., N.B., S.A., L.F. and K.D. received support from the NGA for the submitted work. C.H.D., N.J.W. and D.M.P. received support from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines Technical Support Unit for the submitted work. J.W., J.H.R., D.W., M.R. and E.H. declared the following interests based on the NICE policy on conflicts of interests' (with a link to the NG198 register of interests). No author has a declared stake in a chemical peel product.
  13. Sarkar R, Lakhani R. Chemical Peels for Melasma: A Systematic Review. Dermatol Surg. 2024;50(7):656-661. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000004167. PMID 38530985.Tier 1Supports: Citation verified against the PubMed record 2 August 2026 — authors, journal, year, volume, issue, pages and DOI all correct. 24 studies (15 RCTs, 9 clinical/comparative trials), total sample size 1,075, study duration 8-36 weeks, only 8 split-face. All studies used self-assessment, physician global assessment and MASI. Verbatim: 'Glycolic acid was found to be the most safe and effective in melasma' and 'Chemical peels were found to be safe and effective in the management of melasma.' Scope limits, stated by the authors: 'A meta-analysis could not be done due to the heterogeneity of data', and the search was PubMed-only — a single-database search for a systematic review. Melasma only; generic acids, no branded product. Nothing here supports a specific Dermaceutic pigment protocol.Funding / interest: No funding statement and no competing-interests statement is present in the indexed PubMed record; the full text is paywalled and was not read for this entry, so author disclosures could not be checked. Treat the absence as unverified, not as a declaration of none.
  14. Maruma F, Dlova N, Mofokeng TRP, Ngwenya E. The effects and safety of sequential high concentration glycolic acid and trichloroacetic acid chemical peels in skin photo-type IV-VI, a retrospective cross-sectional monocentric review. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2025;11(3):e209. doi:10.1097/JW9.0000000000000209. PMID 40620441. PMCID PMC12225990.Tier 3Supports: Full open-access text read in full 2 August 2026. Retrospective, cross-sectional, single-centre record review of 40 melasma patients at an aesthetic clinic in Bloemfontein, South Africa, January 2018 to December 2020. Demographics: 37 female (92.5%); phototype IV 7 (17.5%), V 31 (77.5%), VI 2 (5.0%). PROTOCOL — and this is load-bearing: a 20-week escalating course of 20%, 30% then 40% glycolic acid followed by 15%, 30% then 40% TCA, every 4 weeks; AND every patient used modified Kligman's cream (4% hydroquinone, 0.05% tretinoin, 0.5% hydrocortisone) nightly plus SPF 50 sunscreen from 4 weeks before the first peel and continuously throughout. The study therefore cannot attribute improvement to the peels alone, and hydroquinone at 4% is prescription-only in the UK. EFFECT SIZE: median mMASI 13.4 at baseline, 12.6 at 3 months, 12.55 at 6 months. The improvement from baseline to 3 months was statistically significant (F = 4.7235, P = .032 — the abstract renders this garbled as 'F[4.7235] = 4.72'); baseline versus 6 months was NOT significant (P = .067), nor was 3 versus 6 months (P = .70). ADVERSE EFFECTS ARE REPORTED SEPARATELY FOR EACH PHASE, and the abstract's headline figures mix them. Glycolic phase: pigmentation 12.5%, burning 92.5%, irritation 77.5%, scarring 0%. TCA phase: pigmentation 32.5%, burning 97.5%, irritation 95%, post-peel cracking 62.5%, scarring 0%. Pigmentation changes 'were temporary and resolved within 2 to 4 weeks'. Recurrence: 5% at 3 months, 45% at 6 months, and 70% three months after treatment cessation. Mean VAS pain 3.88 for glycolic, 6.4 for TCA, under 23% lidocaine / 7% tetracaine topical anaesthetic. Authors' own limitations: retrospective, single-centre, small sample, selection bias, 'randomized controlled trials are necessary'; and they state the sequential protocol 'in individuals with darker skin types carries a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and scarring'. Scope limits: not a Dermaceutic product; generic acids; South African single centre; the protocol is peels PLUS a prescription depigmenting regimen; TCA concentrations above 30% in darker phototypes are described by the authors as inadequately studied.Funding / interest: Verbatim from the paper: 'Conflicts of interest None. Funding None.' Checked against the full text, not just the index record.
  15. Werner RN, Sammain A, Erdmann R, Hartmann V, Stockfleth E, Nast A. The natural history of actinic keratosis: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(3):502-518. PMID 23647091.Tier 1Supports: Citation and figures verified against the indexed record 2 August 2026 — authors, journal, volume, issue, pages all correct. Systematic search of Medline, Medline in Process, Embase and Cochrane; 24 eligible studies. Verbatim: 'Progression rates of AK to SCC ranged from 0% to 0·075% per lesion-year, with a risk of up to 0·53% per lesion in patients with prior history of nonmelanoma skin cancer.' Regression of single lesions 15-63% after 1 year; recurrence after regression 15-53%; spontaneous complete field regression 0-21% with recurrences in 57%. Authors' explicit caveat: 'In general, the available data are limited. Important methodological limitations apply. Currently, no reliable estimates concerning the frequency of AK developing into invasive carcinoma can be given, and further studies are needed.' Scope limits: 0.53% is an UPPER BOUND in a higher-risk subgroup, not a point estimate; this source establishes AK as a lesion with real but low and poorly quantified malignant potential, and says nothing about chemical peels as a treatment for AK.
  16. Dermaceutic legal notice (dermaceutic.com/en/policies/legal-notice, published 9 August 2024), cross-checked against the French national business register (recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr).Tier 1Supports: The site's legal notice states verbatim: 'LUMIDERME, a Simplified Single-Member Company (SASU) with a share capital of €100.000, headquartered at 15 Chemin des Presses – 06800 CAGNES-SUR-MER, registered with the Antibes Trade and Companies Register under number 914 341 433', and 'Publication Manager: Dermaceutic a brand operated by Lumiderme.' The French national register confirms SIREN 914341433, LUMIDERME, siege at 15 Chemin des Presses, 06800 Cagnes-sur-Mer, date_creation 2022-04-07, administrative state Active, one establishment, principal activity code 46.45Z (wholesale of perfumery and cosmetics), employer flag 'N'. A register search for 'dermaceutic' or 'dermaceutic laboratoire' returns 0 results. Scope limits: this establishes who operates the brand and the website, not who legally manufactures the devices or holds any conformity certificate — those may sit with a different entity. Note the tension between a 2022-incorporated, single-site wholesaler with no employees recorded and the brand's 'Developed and produced in France' claim; the register does not resolve it either way. This source corrects an earlier draft of this entry, which searched the wrong URL (/en/pages/legal-notice, a 404) and the wrong company name and wrongly recorded the legal notice as absent.
  17. Unique Skin (uniqueskin.co.uk), homepage and 'Our Story' page.Tier 4Supports: Unique Skin describes itself verbatim as 'UNIQUE SKIN Leading UK Dermatology Supplier bringing World Class Products to the UK' and 'a privately owned company dedicated to supporting and elevating aesthetic professionals'; on Our Story, 'We are proud to be more than a distributor.' Dermaceutic Laboratoire is one of three brands in its portfolio (alongside AnteAGE and Hydrinity), described as 'a pioneer in professional cosmeceuticals... Their professional chemical peels are Class IIa Medical, intended for professional use only by dermatologists, aesthetic physicians, and qualified skin [professionals].' Telephone 01462 481 500 (Hitchin dialling code), matching the Hitchin registered office of UNIQUE SKIN LIMITED (09713343). Scope limits, and they matter: the site does NOT claim to be the UK and Ireland distributor, does not claim exclusivity for Dermaceutic, does not mention Ireland at all, and publishes no company number, VAT number or registered address. It states no UKCA or CE marking, no MHRA device registration and no UK Responsible Person. The link between the website and UNIQUE SKIN LIMITED rests on the matching town and dialling code, not on a filing or a published company number.Funding / interest: A commercial reseller of the products described.
  18. Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Act 2026 (2026 asp 13).Tier 1Supports: Verified on legislation.gov.uk 2 August 2026. Verbatim: 'The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 17th March 2026 and received Royal Assent on 12th May 2026'. Long title: 'An Act of the Scottish Parliament to prohibit the provision of non-surgical procedures to persons under the age of 18 or to any person outwith certain specified premises; to confer on the Scottish Ministers power to impose further restrictions and requirements relating to the provision of these procedures; to make provision in relation to certification of death and authorisation of cremation; and for connected purposes.' Scope limits: Scotland only; the Act works largely by conferring powers on Scottish Ministers, so what counts as a 'non-surgical procedure' and which premises qualify depend on regulations not examined for this entry; legislation.gov.uk records outstanding changes not yet applied, and commencement of individual provisions was not verified.