Sweet Almond Oil

Sweet almond oil is rated Caution on thin legacy evidence: Morris and Kwan's 1983 rabbit-ear assay scored "Sweet Almond Oil" 3 on their 0-to-5 scale, Fulton's 1989 table scores an unspecified "almond oil" 2, falling to 1 for the refined grade, on his own 0-to-5 scale, and we identified no study that read the oil on a human face.

What it is

Sweet almond oil is the oil pressed from the kernel of the sweet almond, Prunus dulcis (also written Prunus amygdalus var. dulcis) — the edible almond, distinct from the bitter almond grown for its aroma. It is a triglyceride oil, and the feature that matters most on this page is that it is dominated by a single fatty acid. Across sweet-almond genotypes grown at one location, Özcan and colleagues (2020) measured oleic acid — a monounsaturated C18:1 fat — at 62 to 76 percent, linoleic acid at 14 to 30 percent, and palmitic acid at about 5 to 7.5 percent, and found the profile is driven mainly by genotype even when growing conditions are held constant. That variability is the practical form of Fulton's own footnote on oils: results "depend on source of raw material." In cosmetics it is used as an emollient and skin-conditioning oil and as a carrier oil for diluting other ingredients; it is also a kitchen and massage oil that people apply to skin straight from the bottle. Refined and virgin (cold-pressed) grades differ in colour and processing. On a label it appears as Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet Almond) Oil.

Why we rate it Caution

We rate sweet almond oil Caution, at Low confidence — Low because the comedogenicity evidence we can find is one legacy reading of sweet almond oil itself, with a lower reading of an unspecified almond oil beside it. The number the rating rests on is Morris and Kwan's. In their 1983 assay they tested "Sweet Almond Oil" by name and scored it 3 on a 0-to-5 scale — rabbit ear canal, three rabbits, oil applied undiluted, fourteen applications, follicles graded microscopically. We do not hold their key for what those grades meant, so the number is reported here with its scale and its paper and no band label attached to it; Fulton's bands belong to Fulton's tables. Morris and Kwan are an independent primary paper, not a republisher of Fulton — theirs predates his by six years and openly contradicts him in print on several materials. Fulton's 1989 table has an almond row too, and it reads lower. He printed "Almond oil 2(1)" — a 2 for the oil and, in his notation, a 1 in parentheses for the refined grade; on his own key a 2 is "borderline" and a 1 is "not significant". But Fulton wrote only "Almond oil": no species, no sweet-versus-bitter designation, no supplier and no grade. He did not write "sweet." So his 2 and Morris and Kwan's 3 are two differently-named entries, and whether the two laboratories put the same material on a rabbit's ear cannot be established from the papers themselves. The row also sits in Fulton's Section VI, "Oils," which carries a single footnote: "Results depend on source of raw material." So the Caution does not rest on a strong or agreed signal. It rests on one legacy reading of sweet almond oil specifically — Morris and Kwan's 3 on a 0-to-5 scale — with a lower reading of an unspecified "almond oil" beside it, plus the fact that the oil is mostly oleic acid, which carries a comedogenic reputation of its own. That reputation is real and also easily overstated; the limits section is where it has to be handled carefully.

What the evidence doesn’t tell you

We identified no study that counted comedones on a human face after sweet almond oil — no comedone counts and no follicular biopsies on human skin. The rating is built on one 1980s rabbit-ear reading of sweet almond oil under that name, with a second 1980s rabbit row for an unspecified "almond oil" beside it: a model that scores follicular keratosis in a rabbit's ear, not acne on a person, and one its own originator called "not at all definitive." The two rows land a scale point apart (Morris and Kwan's 3, Fulton's 2), and because Fulton names no species or grade, they may not be readings of the same material. Fulton's own 1984 rabbit paper has no almond row at all, and Nguyen, Dang and Maibach's 2007 rabbit-ear study names its fourteen test materials in its abstract, with no almond oil among them. The oleic-acid argument needs discipline. Sweet almond oil is roughly two-thirds oleic acid, and oleic acid is genuinely implicated in follicular trouble: Motoyoshi (1983) showed that free oleic acid — and, more strongly, its oxidation peroxides — induced sizeable comedones in rabbit-ear skin. But that experiment tested free oleic acid, not sweet almond oil. In the oil the oleic acid is bound into triglycerides, not free, and "the fatty acid is comedogenic in isolation" is not the same claim as "the oil is comedogenic." A property of a component is not automatically a property of the material that carries it — the distinction this site exists to keep. We note the mechanism because it is real and because it is why the oil is often cautioned against; we do not treat it as a measurement of what sweet almond oil itself does. Finally, "sweet almond oil" is not one fixed material. Özcan and colleagues found its fatty-acid profile moves with genotype even at a single growing site, and refining changes it again — Fulton's own 2 for the oil dropping to 1 for the refined grade shows the grade alone can move the number. A rating given across "sweet almond oil" is a rating given across a range, and the label rarely tells you which grade, cultivar or age is in the bottle.

Where you’ll see it

On an ingredient list it is Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet Almond) Oil. It is used as a carrier oil, so it turns up in facial and body oils, cleansing and massage oils, baby oils, balms, soaps and creams — often those aimed at dry or sensitive skin — and as the base that dilutes essential oils and other actives. It is also a kitchen oil people apply to skin neat. We have not audited how widely it is used. Where it sits on an ingredient list tells you little on its own: grade and freshness — virgin versus refined, fresh versus oxidised — matter more to this page's question than label position does, and neither is printed on the label.

Sources

Each source says what it actually is. Several widely-cited “sources” for comedogenic ratings are republishing the same 1989 assay, and counting them as independent agreement is how a thin evidence base gets made to look thick.

1. Morris WE, Kwan SC. "Use of the rabbit ear model in evaluating the comedogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients." J Soc Cosmet Chem 34:215–225 (1983) The primary source the rating's number comes from, and an independent rabbit-ear assay on the same 0-to-5 scale as Fulton's, predating him by six years and openly contradicting him in print on several materials — not a republisher of Fulton. Method: rabbit ear canal, three rabbits, test material applied undiluted unless otherwise stated, fourteen applications, microscopic grading only. It scored "Sweet Almond Oil" — named as such — 3. The score is read from our verbatim transcription of the paper's oils table, which is printed rotated and returns nothing to OCR. Cited as the one legacy reading of sweet almond oil under that name, reported with its scale and its paper and no band label: we do not hold this paper's own key for what a 3 meant to its authors.
2. Fulton JE. "Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products." J Soc Cosmet Chem 40:321–333 (1989) The rabbit-ear assay nearly every online comedogenic score descends from, read here off a render of the journal scan rather than from a list quoting it. Method: ingredient at roughly 10% in propylene glycol, applied to the inner ear of three New Zealand albino rabbits, follicles scored for keratosis on a 0-to-5 scale with the key 0-1 "not significant," 2-3 "borderline," 4-5 "positive." Its almond row reads "Almond oil 2(1)" — a 2 for the oil, the parenthetical 1 for the refined grade — inside Section VI "Oils," whose footnote reads "Results depend on source of raw material." Cited for that lower reading and for what it withholds: Fulton gives the material no species, grade or supplier and does not call it sweet, so it cannot be assumed to be the same oil Morris and Kwan tested.
3. Özcan MM, Matthäus B, Aljuhaimi F, et al. "Effect of almond genotypes on fatty acid composition, tocopherols and mineral contents and bioactive properties of sweet almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch spp. dulce) kernel and oils." J Food Sci Technol 57(11):4182–4192 (2020) A peer-reviewed compositional study of sweet-almond kernels and oils across genotypes, read here directly. Cited only for the fatty-acid figures on this page — oleic roughly 62-76%, linoleic 14-30%, palmitic about 5-7.5% — and for its finding that the profile is driven mainly by genotype even when growing site is held constant. It is a food-science composition paper, not a skin or comedogenicity source; it counts no comedones and says nothing about pores. Used to establish that the oil is oleic-acid-dominant and that its make-up is a range, not a constant.
4. Motoyoshi K. "Enhanced comedo formation in rabbit ear skin by squalene and oleic acid peroxides." Br J Dermatol 109(2):191–198 (1983) A rabbit-ear study of free oleic acid, squalene and others together with their oxidation peroxides. Free oleic acid, and more strongly its peroxides, induced sizeable comedones, with comedone size tracking peroxide level. Cited for the oleic-acid mechanism behind sweet almond oil's reputation — and cited with its material-identity caveat stated: it tested free oleic acid, not sweet almond oil, in which the oleic acid is bound into triglycerides. Evidence about the component, not about the material.

Others in the same family

Oils behave similarly enough that the evidence for one is often wrongly read across to the others. These are its structural relatives, not a guess. What the evidence says about oils as a family ›

• Argan Oil Clear Low
• Avocado Oil Caution Low
• Castor Oil Clear Moderate
• Coconut Oil Clogging Moderate
• Corn Oil Caution Low
• Cottonseed Oil Caution Low
• Evening Primrose Oil Caution Low
• Flaxseed Oil Caution Low

Last reviewed 2026-08-12 · How we decide

‹ Check a full ingredient list