Korean Hybrid Sunscreen: 234 of 1,067 Lists Mix Filters

Affiliate links below, but they cost you nothing extra. We only point you to what the ingredient lists actually back up.

The American Academy of Dermatology answers this in two sentences. One says what a hybrid sunscreen is. The next says how to check whether you own one, by reading the panel on the container labeled “Active Ingredients.”^[1] That second sentence is the useful one, and it’s also the one that stops working the moment the tube is Korean, because a Korean-market sunscreen isn’t a US over-the-counter drug and doesn’t carry that panel at all. Checking a Korean hybrid sunscreen therefore turns into counting, so we went and counted: 1,067 ingredient listings opened by hand on INCIDecoder on July 29, 2026. If you want the two underlying categories defined first, our piece on organic versus inorganic filters does that job and this one won’t repeat it.

The AAD defines hybrid by active ingredients

Start with the definition, because there is one and it’s short. The AAD’s Sunscreen FAQs page sorts sunscreens by what their actives are, in three steps:^[1]

• “If the active ingredient in your sunscreen is titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or both, you have a physical sunscreen.”
• “If your sunscreen doesn’t contain titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, you have a chemical sunscreen.”
• “Some sunscreens are called hybrids because they contain one or more active ingredients found in chemical and physical sunscreens.”

Then the instruction: “To see what active ingredients your sunscreen has, look at the section on the container labeled ‘Active Ingredients.'”^[1] On a US bottle that panel is there because the rules make it be there. 21 CFR 201.66 sets the format for the labeling of all over-the-counter drug products, and its Drug Facts panel requires an “Active ingredient” heading followed by the established name of each active, with topicals required to state the proportion of each one.^[4] Sunscreen is an over-the-counter drug in the US, so the check takes five seconds there.

A Korean-market sunscreen isn’t a US over-the-counter drug. It’s a cosmetic, governed by the notice above, which applies to every cosmetic manufactured, imported or distributed in Korea.^[2] So no Drug Facts panel is required on it, and what the listings show instead is one continuous ingredient list with the filters scattered through it under names most people can’t pick out. The definition transfers to a Korean sunscreen. The method doesn’t.

Here’s the size of the gap, measured rather than asserted. Of the 1,022 listings we opened that name a filter at all, 82 print a percentage beside one, and only 14 of the 234 hybrids do.^[5] I expected those 82 to be export versions and they’re only half that. Forty-eight of them name at least one filter by its US monograph name, avobenzone or homosalate or octisalate, which is what an export reformulation looks like and a pattern we mapped in our piece on Korean sunscreens sold in US formulations. The other 34 print percentages next to a Korean filter set instead, and I can’t tell you why they do. The split is what I can report. For the remaining 940 listings, the page gives you a list and nothing marking which entries are the sunscreen part.

What the two rulebooks we opened do instead

Neither of them works in these three buckets, and it’s worth being exact about that rather than sweeping.

Korean sunscreens are governed by an MFDS notice whose Article 4 is one sentence long: ingredients needing restricted use, and their standards of use, are as set out in Annex 2, and preservatives, UV filters and the like other than the ingredients in Annex 2 may not be used.^[2] So the permission runs through a list. Annex 2’s UV filter table has 32 rows on the version in force since March 18, 2026, and every row is one substance with its own ceiling. Zinc oxide 25%. Titanium dioxide 25%. Bemotrizinol, the long one printed on boxes as Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, 10%. DHHB, printed as Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, 10%. Ethylhexyl triazone 5%. Octinoxate 7.5%.^[2] If those names are new to you, our filter guide goes through what each one blocks. A formula using two of those rows is using two rows, and each of the two is capped on its own terms.

The US labeling rule is written differently and lands in the same place. 21 CFR 201.327, the section telling a sunscreen sold in the US what to print on itself, opens like this:^[3]

“The following provisions apply to sunscreen products containing aminobenzoic acid, avobenzone, cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, homosalate, meradimate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, padimate O, sulisobenzone, titanium dioxide, trolamine salicylate, or zinc oxide, alone or in combination.”

Sixteen substances, and the phrase to notice is the last one. Combining them isn’t a special event in that sentence, it’s one of the two ways the section expects to find them. What the rest of the section requires is about test results rather than about which substances you picked: the SPF figure comes from the test in paragraph (i), the words “Broad Spectrum” come from the test in paragraph (j), and the warnings and directions follow from those two numbers.^[3]

We searched both documents for the vocabulary, and here are the searches rather than my impression of them. In the 31,004 characters of 201.327: hybrid, mineral, inorganic, organic and chemical appear zero times each, and physical appears twice, both inside the phrase “physical examination”, which is a check performed on the people in an SPF test panel.^[3] In the 118,172 characters of the MFDS notice: 하이브리드, 혼합자차, 유기자차 and 무기자차 appear zero times each, while 징크옥사이드 and 티타늄디옥사이드 each appear exactly once, in their own row of that table.^[2]

Read those two results narrowly, because narrow is all they support. They are searches of one US labeling rule and one Korean notice, which are the two documents we opened. They say nothing about the EU, nothing about Korea’s other cosmetic notices, and nothing about what any regulator thinks of the word. What they do show is that the unit both of these documents work in is the substance. The AAD’s three buckets are a layer sitting on top of that, put there by clinicians and by the market rather than by either rulebook. Scope, plainly: the MFDS notice governs cosmetics made, imported or distributed in Korea, 201.327 governs over-the-counter sunscreen sold in the US including Korean brands on American shelves, and Europe writes its own rules which I did not open.

The same three buckets, in three other places

The word is ordinary vocabulary on the manufacturing side too. Premium Beauty News, reporting a new formulation technology from the Korean manufacturer Kolmar Korea, uses it without stopping to explain it: “The idea of combining organic and inorganic filters in a single formula is not new”, and “Hybrid sunscreens combine these mechanisms to maximize benefits, though technical challenges such as ingredient aggregation have hindered achieving optimal performance.”^[12] Read that second half twice. Mixing the two types is a problem someone has to solve, not a free upgrade you get by having both on the list.

Korean shoppers have their own word for it, and a Kyunghyang Shinmun explainer describes exactly how it arrived: 최근에는 두 차단제의 단점을 완화한 복합 자외선 차단제가 출시되고 있는데 이를 혼합자차라고 부른다, which is to say that products softening the drawbacks of the two types have been coming out and these are called 혼합자차.^[13] So the same three-way split turns up in a dermatology FAQ, in a manufacturer’s announcement and in a Korean newspaper. What none of the three hands you is a way to apply it to a bottle whose label doesn’t separate the actives out. That’s the rest of this article.

How did I get to 1,067 ingredient lists?

Three rules, written out before the numbers, because the numbers are only worth what the rules are worth.

• Which listings. We ran 99 brand names through INCIDecoder’s search, twice each, once with “sun” and once with “sunscreen”, and took the union of every product page those 198 searches returned. That gave 1,074 pages, of which 1,067 had sun, uv or spf in the title, and we opened all 1,067. The search also returned brands I never asked for, and the final set carries 222 brand names. I did not remove the ones that aren’t Korean. Filtering by nationality would have been my judgment rather than the database’s, so treat these counts as a description of 1,067 listings and not as a survey of Korean sunscreens.
• How we counted ingredients. By counting the linked ingredient entries on each page, read from the page source, rather than by splitting the printed list on commas. That choice changes answers on most pages. Splitting on commas agreed with the linked count on 196 of the 1,067, ran higher on 825 and lower on 46. The reason it runs high is that 821 of the lists print a comma inside an ingredient name, which is nearly always 1,2-Hexanediol getting cut in half. Separately, 929 of the lists carry at least one zero-width space, an invisible character sitting after the slashes in names like Water/Aqua/Eau.^[5]
• Where that method fails, since it does. Counting links undercounts whenever a page prints a name the database doesn’t recognize, because an unrecognized name isn’t a link. One of the innisfree listings below prints “Vinyldimethicone, methiconyl Sesquioxane Crosspolymer” and only the first half is linked.^[8] That’s 46 of the 1,067. I’m reporting the method that was right more often, not a method that was right always.

And the rule that produced the headline number, which is the AAD’s test moved onto an ingredient list: we counted a listing as physical when its Sunscreen heading holds only zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, chemical when it holds neither of them, and hybrid when it holds at least one of them alongside at least one carbon-based filter. Translating the test is my step, not the AAD’s. Theirs uses a declared actives panel and mine uses a database’s grouping of a full ingredient list, which is a weaker input in the two specific ways the next two sections set out.

Of the 1,067 listings opened	Count
Have a Sunscreen heading at all	1,022
Carbon-based filters only, so chemical	498
Zinc oxide or titanium dioxide only, so physical	290
Both, so hybrid	234

One more thing worth knowing before you go looking yourself. Across all 1,067 pages, exactly three tags appear, and here they are in full: #alcohol-free on 785, #fragrance & essentialoil-free on 409, and #knownamountofactive on 7. None of the three sorts a product into one of the AAD’s buckets. Whether something is a hybrid is a thing you work out from the filter list, which is also true of the alcohol-free tag we took apart separately.

One sunscreen name, two completely different formulas

Here’s the case that convinced me the question is harder than it looks.

Pyunkang Yul’s Ato Mild Sun Cream has five listings on INCIDecoder, found by running five different forms of the name through search and pooling the results. Three of them are mixed. Two of them are titanium dioxide alone.^[6]

Listing	Ingredients	Under the Sunscreen heading
ato-mild-sun-cream-2	40	Zinc Oxide 2, Homosalate 4, Ethylhexyl Salicylate 7, Titanium Dioxide 10
ato-mild-sun-cream-2022	40	the same four
ato-mild-sun-cream-2023	39	the same four
pyungkang-yul-ato-mild-sun-cream	40	Titanium Dioxide 4, alone
pyunkang-yul-pyunkang-yul-…	39	Titanium Dioxide 4, alone

My first guess was a transcription difference, the way one listing writes Aqua and another writes Water. It isn’t. The two lists diverge at position two and never converge: one goes Water, Zinc Oxide, Cyclopentasiloxane, Homosalate, and the other goes Water, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Propanediol, Titanium Dioxide. Zinc oxide, homosalate and ethylhexyl salicylate appear nowhere on the titanium-only lists, which carry T-Butyl Alcohol at 24 and Alumina at 18 instead. These are two formulas wearing one name.

Which means the honest answer to “is the Ato Mild a hybrid” is that it depends on which tube reached you, and no database page can tell you which one that is. Your own box can. I left one listing out of that count on purpose, a 25-ingredient entry with zinc oxide alone filed under a different brand name, Cera Bera, and the footnote links it so you can disagree with me.^[6]

Why can’t titanium dioxide settle this for me?

Because the same page calls it two things at once, every single time.

458 of the listings we opened print titanium dioxide somewhere on the ingredient list. 356 of those file it under the Sunscreen heading. 457 file it under Colorant. The number that files it under Sunscreen without also filing it under Colorant is zero.^[7]

Zinc oxide behaves nothing like that. 349 listings print it, 349 file it under Sunscreen, and none files it under Colorant.^[7] So zinc oxide on a list is a clean signal and titanium dioxide is a double one.

What decides the split is how the label was transcribed. Where a listing prints “Titanium Dioxide”, the page files it under both headings. Where it prints “Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891)”, using the color index number, the page files it under Colorant only, and that happened on 101 listings.^[7] I can tell you which spelling produced which filing, because we counted. I can’t tell you from the database whether that spelling reflects a decision the brand made about what the ingredient is doing in the bottle.

Korea’s own rule already contains this distinction, which is the part we found most reassuring about the whole exercise. Directly beneath the UV filter table sits a note: 다만, 제품의 변색방지를 목적으로 그 사용농도가 0.5% 미만인 것은 자외선 차단 제품으로 인정하지 아니한다, meaning that where the use concentration is under 0.5% for the purpose of preventing discoloration of the product, it is not recognized as a UV protection product.^[2] The regulator wrote that sentence because a listed filter can be in a formula for a reason that has nothing to do with filtering. A database heading can’t see that reason, and neither can I.

So the practical version, and it’s a downgrade rather than a rule: a listing whose only mineral is titanium dioxide is a soft hybrid call, and one carrying zinc oxide is a firm one. We’ve used the word ourselves twice on this site, in our Celimax review and in our AESTURA review, where the Red Calming Tone-Up is called a hybrid. The Celimax has zinc oxide second on the list, so that one holds up. The AESTURA tone-up’s only mineral is titanium dioxide, filed as a colorant on the same page, and I’d rather flag it here than let it stand unqualified. If you want the mineral side on its own terms, the nano and non-nano zinc question and the reef-safe claim are both handled separately.

What does a Korean hybrid sunscreen actually get me?

A specific ratio of filters, and almost never a number telling you what that ratio is. One listing gave me numbers, so start there.

Five searches for innisfree’s Intensive Long-lasting Sunscreen EX returned four listings we read as this product, three of them titled with the EX and one without it. That last inclusion is my call rather than the database’s, and the footnote says so. One of the four, at 31 ingredients, prints concentrations.^[8]

Filter	Position	Printed on the listing	Korean maximum for that substance
Zinc Oxide (Nano)	2	12%	25%
Bemotrizinol	11	1%	10%
DHHB	14	1%	10%
Ethylhexyl Triazone	15	1%	5%
Titanium Dioxide (Nano)	16	none printed	25%

Setting the middle column against the right-hand one is my arithmetic and not either source’s, so I’m labeling it as mine: the two columns come from two different documents, the listing^[8] and the MFDS annex^[2], and joining them is a step we took. What it shows is that this particular mix is mostly zinc by weight, with three carbon-based filters at a tenth, a tenth and a fifth of what Korea allows each of them. That’s one shape a hybrid can have. The listing without the EX in its title prints octinoxate 6.8%, octisalate 4.5% and zinc oxide 12.6616% instead, which is a different shape entirely.^[8]

What none of that tells you is whether a hybrid formula protects you better. We looked for a number I could stand behind and didn’t find one I could check, so this article doesn’t have one. What I can report is that the industry treats mixing as a difficulty: the aggregation problem in the Kolmar description is about mineral particles clumping in a formula that also contains organic filters.^[12] Whether a given bottle solved that is not visible from an ingredient list.

Three hybrid listings you can check yourself

Celimax Oil Control Light Sunscreen. One listing, 38 ingredients, and the cleanest example in this piece because the zinc comes early: Zinc Oxide 2, DHHB 13, Bemotrizinol 14, Ethylhexyl Triazone 15, Titanium Dioxide 19.^[9] Five searches turned up no second listing under that product name, which after Pyunkang Yul’s five and COSRX’s four makes this an easy one to check. Our full review of it reads the same listing position for position. It is on YesStyle here, as the 40ml single rather than a set.

Klairs Mid-Day Blue Sun Lotion. 35 ingredients, six filters, and both minerals present: octinoxate 3, Titanium Dioxide 5, Zinc Oxide 11, isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate 12, DHHB 13, Bemotrizinol 14.^[10] Six is a lot of filters for one face, and if the names mean nothing to you our filter guide covers what each one blocks.

COSRX Aloe Soothing Sun Cream. Four listings at 36, 36, 37 and 45 ingredients, agreeing on four carbon-based filters plus titanium dioxide, which is the only mineral on any of them.^[11] By my rule this is a hybrid. By the caveat in the section above it’s the soft kind, because all four listings also file that titanium dioxide as a colorant. I’m giving you both readings rather than the one that makes a tidier table.

For a mineral-only reference point in the same database, AESTURA’s Derma UV365 Barrier Hydro Mineral runs 26 ingredients with zinc oxide second and nothing else under the heading.^[11] And if a product appears twice with wildly different filter sets, that is often the export version rather than an error, a pattern we mapped in our piece on Korean sunscreens sold in US formulations.

Four steps that work on a Korean box

You don’t need any of my counting to run the AAD’s test on the bottle in your bathroom. You just need a step it doesn’t have to include, because it was written for a label that separates the actives out for you.

1. Find the filters yourself, since the list usually won’t flag them. On a Korean list they’re usually near the top, and there are rarely more than six. This is the step the AAD’s version replaces with one glance at a panel.
2. Look for exactly two words. Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide. Those are the only two minerals Korea’s table contains.^[2] Everything else on the filter list is carbon-based.
3. Trust zinc more than titanium. Zinc oxide on a Korean sunscreen list is doing the filtering job. Titanium dioxide might be doing that or might be making the product opaque or tinted, and the list alone won’t separate those.
4. If you use a database, match the listing to your box first. Count your own ingredients and compare. The Pyunkang Yul case above is what happens when you skip that step.

FAQ

Am I getting better sun protection if I choose a hybrid?

The AAD puts the three types on the same footing: “Whether you have a chemical, physical, or hybrid sunscreen, they all form a protective layer on your skin that absorbs the sun’s rays.” The sentence right after that says any of the three can effectively protect you provided you choose for broad spectrum coverage, water resistance and SPF 30 or higher, and our organic versus inorganic piece already carries that sentence word for word, so we’re pointing you there rather than printing it twice. The same passage also notes that physical sunscreens reflect the sun’s rays as well as absorbing them, and how much of the work that reflecting does is covered in the same piece. So the bucket isn’t the lever. The three criteria in that sentence are, along with actually reapplying.

How do I know whether the sunscreen I already own is a hybrid?

The AAD’s instruction is to read the container’s Active Ingredients panel, which settles it in one glance if your bottle has one. Korean-market bottles usually don’t, so read the filter names off the full ingredient list instead. If you see Zinc Oxide or Titanium Dioxide alongside longer carbon-based names like Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine or Ethylhexyl Triazone, you have a mix. If you see only the two mineral names, it’s mineral. If you see neither, it’s all carbon-based. That’s the entire test, and it beats any database because the box in your hand is the version you bought.

Why does a database say my sunscreen’s titanium dioxide is a colorant?

Because titanium dioxide genuinely does both jobs, and INCIDecoder files it under both headings whenever a list prints it by name. We counted 356 listings that call it a sunscreen ingredient, and all 356 also call it a colorant. Korea’s own notice anticipates the same overlap, ruling that a UV filter present below 0.5% for the purpose of preventing discoloration doesn’t make something a UV protection product. So a hybrid call resting on titanium dioxide alone is a weaker call than one resting on zinc oxide.

Should I trust a brand that calls its sunscreen a hybrid?

The word isn’t something brands made up. The AAD uses it, in its own patient-facing FAQ, for a sunscreen carrying active ingredients from both of the other two types, so a brand using it is using established vocabulary. It also isn’t a claim anyone audits, which makes the useful move the same either way: treat it as a description of the ingredient list, then go and check the ingredient list. If the filters are what the word implies, the brand told you something true in shorthand. If the only mineral is titanium dioxide sitting low on the list next to iron oxides, you’ve learned something too.

Is 혼합자차 the same thing as what I’m calling a hybrid?

Yes, as far as I can tell from how Korean writing uses it. A Kyunghyang Shinmun explainer introduces 혼합자차 as the name given to products that soften the drawbacks of the two other types, which is the same idea arriving from the same direction: products first, category name afterwards. The Korean terms for the other two, 유기자차 and 무기자차, are the ones our label-trap piece pulls apart, and it’s worth knowing that 유기 translates as organic while meaning the chemical-filter type.

Sources

The definition:
[1] Sunscreen FAQs, American Academy of Dermatology, read in full on 2026-07-29. URL note, because it matters for anyone checking: the address we had, aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/shade-clothing-sunscreen/sunscreen-faqs, returns HTTP 302 to aad.org/media/stats-sunscreen, and that is where the page now serves. The page’s own H1 is still Sunscreen FAQs, which is the title we cite it under here and elsewhere on this site. Every quotation above comes from the section headed “What is the difference between chemical and physical sunscreens?”. The sentence closing that section, the one setting broad spectrum, water resistance and SPF 30 or higher as the criteria, is quoted in full in our organic versus inorganic article rather than here, so that the two pages don’t print the same AAD sentence twice. link

Regulation. All three documents were downloaded and read directly on 2026-07-29, not summarized from a secondary source. Each is cited only for the jurisdiction it governs:
[2] 화장품 안전기준 등에 관한 규정, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety notice 2026-19, in force 2026-03-18, consolidated PDF of 185 pages posted on the MFDS notice board. Article 2 sets its scope: 이 규정은 국내에서 제조, 수입 또는 유통되는 모든 화장품에 대하여 적용한다, meaning it applies to every cosmetic manufactured, imported or distributed in Korea. Article 4 reads: 화장품에 사용상의 제한이 필요한 원료 및 그 사용기준은 별표 2와 같으며, 별표 2의 원료 외의 보존제, 자외선 차단제 등은 사용할 수 없다. The UV filter table in Annex 2 runs across pages 107 to 109 with columns for 원료명, 사용한도, 비고, CAS No. and 화학물질명; we counted 32 rows by hand and checked the count a second time against the CAS numbers, which gave 13, 15 and 4 rows on the three pages. Limits cited above are read from that table. The note quoted in the body sits under 유의사항 on page 109. A note on versions: the first PDF we downloaded was the 2024-9 consolidation, whose table had 31 rows, and the arithmetic between the two versions closes as 31 minus one plus two. The row that went is a lawsone and dihydroxyacetone mixture, which the current version no longer carries. The two that arrived are 페닐렌 비스-디페닐트리아진 at 5% and 트리스-바이페닐 트라이아진 at 10%, neither of which returns a hit anywhere in the 2024-9 file. One further change is a limit rather than a row: benzophenone-3 moves from 5% to 2.4%, with 5% kept for products used on the face, hands and lips. Everything above is from the current version only. Word search over the extracted text of the whole notice, 118,172 characters with whitespace removed: 하이브리드, 혼합자차, 유기자차 and 무기자차 return zero hits each, 징크옥사이드 and 티타늄디옥사이드 one each, 자외선차단제 five. That is a search of this notice and of nothing else. Row counts above are from the PDF of that notice, pages 107 to 109; the two Korean ingredient names are quoted from the HWPX of the same notice, table cells read without whitespace normalization, because the PDF extractor drops spaces inside Korean names. link
[3] 21 CFR 201.327, Over-the-counter sunscreen drug products; required labeling based on effectiveness testing. Retrieved as XML from the eCFR versioner API at the 2026-07-27 issue date. The sentence quoted is the section’s opening provision and names 16 substances. Word search over the full section text, 31,004 characters: hybrid, mineral, inorganic, organic and chemical appear zero times each; physical appears twice, both in the phrase physical examination in the screening step for SPF test subjects; titanium appears once and zinc once, both inside that opening list; combination appears twice, once in the opening sentence and once in paragraph (h), which is headed Labeling of products containing a combination of sunscreen and skin protectant active ingredients. This is a search of one US labeling rule. It is not evidence about any other jurisdiction’s documents, and we make no claim about any. We did not use 21 CFR Part 352, because the same API returns it under the heading PART 352, SUNSCREEN DRUG PRODUCTS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE, STAYED INDEFINITELY, and citing a stayed part as current law would be an error. link
[4] 21 CFR 201.66, Format and content requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) drug product labeling. Retrieved as XML from the eCFR versioner API at the 2026-07-27 issue date. Paragraph (a) states that the section “sets forth the content and format requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products”. Paragraph (c)(1) makes the title “Drug Facts”, and paragraph (c)(2) requires the heading “Active ingredient” or “Active ingredients” followed by the established name of each active ingredient and its quantity per dosage unit, with products marketed without discrete dosage units, topicals among them, required to state the proportion of each active ingredient instead. Cited here only to establish where the panel the AAD refers to comes from, and only for US over-the-counter drug labeling. link

The count. Every listing below was fetched as page source and read on 2026-07-29, with ingredients counted by counting linked ingredient entries and tags read by eye after decoding character references:
[5] Method and totals. 99 brand names, two searches each, union of the returned product pages, 1,067 listings opened, 222 distinct brand names in the result. 1,022 carry a Sunscreen heading: 498 with carbon-based filters only, 290 mineral only, 234 with both. Counting-rule checks across the same 1,067: splitting the printed list on commas matched the linked-entry count 196 times, exceeded it 825 times and fell short 46 times; 821 lists contain a digit-comma-digit sequence inside an ingredient name; 929 contain at least one zero-width space. Percentage printing: of the 1,022 listings naming any filter, 82 print a percentage beside at least one filter and 940 do not; among the 234 hybrids the figure is 14. Of those 82, 48 name at least one filter by a US monograph name, taking that list of names from the opening sentence of 21 CFR 201.327, and 34 do not. Tags present across the whole set: alcohol-free on 785, fragrance and essential oil free on 409, knownamountofactive on 7. Exhibit page: link
[6] Pyunkang Yul Ato Mild Sun Cream, five listings found through five separate name forms. Three are mixed at 40, 40 and 39 ingredients, filing Zinc Oxide, Homosalate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate and Titanium Dioxide under Sunscreen. Two, at 40 and 39, file Titanium Dioxide alone and carry no zinc oxide, homosalate or ethylhexyl salicylate anywhere on the list. The two groups differ from position two onward. Listings read: 40, mixed, 40, mixed, 2022, 39, mixed, 2023, 40, titanium only, 39, titanium only. Left out because it is filed under a different brand name: Cera Bera Ato Mild Sun Cream, 25 ingredients, zinc oxide alone
[7] Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide across the same 1,067 listings. Titanium dioxide is printed on 458 ingredient lists; 356 file it under Sunscreen and 457 under Colorant; the count filing it under Sunscreen but not Colorant is 0, and the count filing it under Colorant but not Sunscreen is 101. Those 101 are the listings printing it as Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891). Zinc oxide is printed on 349 lists, filed under Sunscreen on 349 and under Colorant on none. Exhibit pages: both headings, CI form, colorant only

The products named above:
[8] innisfree Intensive Long-lasting Sunscreen EX. Three listings carry that exact product name, and we counted a fourth titled Intensive Longlasting Sunscreen, without the EX, as the same product because the rest of the title matches. Treating it as the same product is my inference and not something the page states. Two run to 31 ingredients with the same filter set, and one of the two prints concentrations: Zinc Oxide (Nano) 12% at position 2, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine 1% at 11, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate 1% at 14, Ethylhexyl Triazone 1% at 15, Titanium Dioxide (Nano) at 16 with no figure. The 31-ingredient listing without concentrations is also the one printing Vinyldimethicone, methiconyl Sesquioxane Crosspolymer, where only the first part is a linked entry. A third listing at 50 ingredients is a different formula with Zinc Oxide (CI 77947) at 24 and Homosalate at 44. The fourth, the one without the EX, runs 50 ingredients and prints Octinoxate 6.8%, Octisalate 4.5% and Zinc Oxide 12.6616%. Listings read: 31, with concentrations, 31, without, 50, 50, no EX in the title
[9] Celimax Oil Control Light Sunscreen. One listing, 38 ingredients. The five filter positions are in the body, and they agree position for position with the footnote in our own review of this sunscreen, which was counted on a different day by a different pass. Five name forms run through search turned up no second listing under this product name; other Celimax products, which carry different product names, were not counted here. link
[10] Klairs Mid-Day Blue Sun Lotion SPF 40 PA++. One listing, 35 ingredients, six filters at positions 3 Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, 5 Titanium Dioxide, 11 Zinc Oxide, 12 Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate, 13 Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate and 14 Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine. A separately titled Klairs Mid Day Blue UV Shield is a different product and is not counted here. link
[11] COSRX Aloe Soothing Sun Cream, four listings at 36, 36, 37 and 45 ingredients. All four file Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate and Titanium Dioxide under Sunscreen, and all four also file Titanium Dioxide under Colorant. Listings read: 36, 36 second, 37, 45. Mineral-only reference point, 26 ingredients with Zinc Oxide at position 2 and nothing else under the heading: AESTURA Derma UV365 Barrier Hydro Mineral

Where the word comes from:
[12] Kolmar Korea develops a new generation of hybrid sunscreen formulation, Premium Beauty News, read in full on 2026-07-29. Trade coverage of a manufacturer’s announcement, quoted here for how the industry uses the word and for the aggregation problem it describes. The article also reports a clinical figure for the technology; we have not cited it, because the comparison group is described only as conventional sunscreens and we could not open the test report. link
[13] 이렇게 발라도 될까? 자외선 차단제 오만가지 궁금증, 김지윤, 경향신문, 2024-03-30, read in full on 2026-07-29. The sentence quoted is the one introducing the term 혼합자차. Other passages in the same article about SPF duration and PA grades are not cited here and do not match what our own SPF pieces report. Open it with your browser’s translation on. link

Topics: AESTURA · Alcohol-Free · Bemotrizinol · Celimax · Hybrid Filters · Ingredient Lists · Regulation & Labels · Water Resistant · All topics