Greenlens

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account
Cosmetics only · lead with safetyProduct data from public sources incl. Open Beauty Facts & EWG Skin Deep · their ratings never scraped or shown
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/OGX/Deeply Restoring Pracaxi Recovery Oil Conditioner
Deeply Restoring Pracaxi Recovery Oil Conditioner
OGX

Deeply Restoring Pracaxi Recovery Oil Conditioner

ConditionerGTIN 0052800673779
Bio Therapy Shampoo

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Shampoo

+45 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 5239 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Your composite

44OUT OF 100Poor

range 39–55

55▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
30
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

46-point split

56

Scan

42

Precautionary

88

Tolerance

See why →
Buy on Amazon↗

Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

5239 found

See better →

Flagged

5 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 5239 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

46 pts apart
  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates OGX as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

    Packaging

    • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    6 ratings · 3 of 4 axes

    • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
    • Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

    Weighted by what you care about

    Tune your weights

    composite recomputes live

    +
    1.0×
    Environmentalno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    1.0×
    1.0×
    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    What we know about the packaging

    Unidentified·0 of 1 identified

    Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.

    • Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

    This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

    How we know the packaging

    Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

    The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Robust·22 of 23 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 22 of 23 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (5)

    • Fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Behentrimonium Chloride4/10preservative · antistatic · hair conditioningraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

      Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • Sodium Hydroxide4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (17)

    • Water
    • Cetyl Alcohol
    • Cetearyl Alcohol
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • PPG-3 Benzyl Ether Myristate
    • Steareth-20
    • Pentaclethra Macroloba Seed Oil
    • Astrocaryum Murumuru Seed Butter
    • Amodimethicone
    • Polyquaternium-47
    • Polyquaternium-37
    • PPG-1 Trideceth-6
    • Propylene Glycol Dicaprylate
    • Isopropyl Alcoholcommonly drying
    • Disodium EDTA
    • Sodium Benzoate
    • Aqua

    No data in our sources (1)

    • Dicaprate

    Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.

    What these ingredient tags mean (3)

    These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

    • commonly dryingIsopropyl Alcohol

      • Isopropyl Alcohol: A fast-evaporating solvent with a drying finish, common in toners and hand products. International Chemical Safety Card ICSC 0554, Isopropyl alcohol, prepared by an international group of experts for the ILO and WHO: "Repeated or prolonged contact with skin may cause dryness and cracking." It describes a stronger exposure than a cosmetic formula.
    • undeclared fragrance blendFragrance

      • Fragrance: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.
    • humectantGlycerin

      • Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".