An eye product is usually the smallest pack in a skincare range and the one that carries the highest complaint risk per unit sold. The eyelid and the skin immediately beneath the eye are roughly half a millimetre thick in places, contain few sebaceous glands, and sit next to a tear film that will carry anything you apply into the eye itself.
That geometry explains why a formula that performs beautifully on the cheek can produce stinging, milia or swollen lids when the same liquid is applied two centimetres higher. It also explains why regulators and retailers treat eye-area claims with more scrutiny than almost any other cosmetic claim.
This guide is for brand owners and product developers commissioning an eye serum, eye gel or under-eye patch. It covers format selection, realistic active choices, the testing that supports an eye-area claim, and how to write a brief that produces an approvable sample.
Why the eye area needs its own formulation logic
Four characteristics separate the eye area from the rest of the face. The stratum corneum is thin, so penetration is faster and irritants act more quickly. The region has limited barrier recovery capacity, which means repeated low-grade irritation accumulates. There is constant mechanical movement from blinking, so a film that feels comfortable on the cheek can migrate. And the tear film provides a direct route into the eye, so anything volatile, particulate or strongly surface-active will be noticed.
The practical translation into formulation terms is that an eye product should use fewer ingredients at lower active levels, avoid known sensitisers and irritants, and be validated for ocular tolerance rather than only for skin tolerance. A brand that asks for the same formula strength as a face serum will get a product that fails on the first consumer complaint.
Eye serum, eye gel, eye cream and under-eye patch: how they differ
Four formats dominate the category, and each carries a different technical burden.
| Format | Base | Typical use | Main technical risk | Packaging |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eye serum | Light aqueous gel or low-oil emulsion | Layered under a cream, targeted actives | Migration into the eye, preservative selection | Airless pump, dropper, rollerball |
| Eye gel | Aqueous with gelling polymer | Cooling, depuffing, daytime | Polymer residue, tackiness, drying | Tube, pump, rollerball |
| Eye cream | Emulsion with a defined oil phase | Night care, richer texture | Over-loading occlusive ingredients, millia perception | Jar, tube, airless pump |
| Under-eye patch | Hydrogel, non-woven or silicone substrate | Masque-style treatment, single use | Adhesion, drying out, migration of actives from the patch | Single-use sachet, jar of patches |
The patch format deserves special attention because it is not a cosmetic formula poured into a different pack. The substrate, the gel matrix, the adhesion profile and the evaporation rate all interact, and the manufacturing route is closer to a medical dressing line than to a cream tank.
Which actives are worth putting in an eye product?
Active selection in this category is a trade-off between plausible benefit and irritation risk. The following reflects what we see used successfully, and where the constraints lie.
Caffeine is one of the most common eye-area actives because it is well tolerated at cosmetic levels and is associated with a fresh, depuffed perception. It is water-soluble, easy to work with, and compatible with most preservation systems.
Peptides are widely used for firmness and texture positioning. They are generally well tolerated, but each peptide has its own pH window and some interact with preservatives, so the compatibility check has to happen before the brief is frozen.
Niacinamide works well in an eye product at modest levels and supports barrier-related positioning. At low pH it can hydrolyse, so it belongs in a mid-range pH formula.
Hyaluronic acid and other humectants improve comfort and immediate appearance. Because the eye area is prone to dryness, a humectant with a balanced emollient is usually more comfortable than a pure humectant gel.
Vitamin C derivatives are feasible, but the stable derivatives behave differently from L-ascorbic acid, and the strong low-pH systems used in face serums are usually a poor fit for the eye area.
Retinol and strong acids are the two families we recommend treating with caution. Retinol is associated with dryness and flaking during the adjustment period, and both retinol and exfoliating acids significantly raise the irritation risk in a region that cannot tolerate it well. If a brand insists on a retinol eye product, encapsulated and low-dose systems are the sensible route, and the panel test plan needs to be more conservative.
What does ophthalmologist testing actually require?
An ophthalmologist tested claim is a specific claim, not a marketing flourish, and it has to be supported by a study where an ophthalmologist is involved in the design and evaluation rather than only in a signature at the end.
In practice, eye-area projects use a combination of three types of evidence. In-vitro ocular irritation testing, using reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium models, gives an animal-free read on irritation potential and is the usual first screen. A human use test under ophthalmological supervision, with defined assessment criteria for lid tolerance, conjunctival reaction and participant-reported stinging, supports the consumer-facing claim. And where the product is intended for contact lens wearers or for use on the lid margin, the panel and the protocol need to be designed for that use case specifically.
Our position for brands is straightforward: decide the claim you intend to make, then commission the study that supports it. A claim written first and tested second usually ends up either softer than the brand wanted or unsupported.
Under-eye patches: hydrogel, non-woven or silicone?
Each substrate produces a different product with a different cost and a different set of manufacturing risks.
Hydrogel patches are cast from a water-based gel, usually based on a polymer such as a polyacrylic or a natural gum, with humectants and actives dissolved in the matrix. They are the most common format, can be made in a range of thicknesses and shapes, and give a strong immediate cooling sensation. Their manufacturing risk is water loss during storage: if the sachet seal is imperfect, the patch dries and the product is dead.
Non-woven or fibre patches are impregnated with a serum rather than cast, which makes them cheaper and lets a brand carry a richer actives story, but the loading uniformity across the sheet is harder to control and the patch can feel more like a wet wipe than a treatment.
Silicone patches are reusable, hold a treatment layer against the skin, and are usually positioned as a premium tool rather than as a consumable cosmetic. They are durable and stable, but the claim universe is limited because the patch itself is not delivering a formula in the same way.
For all three, the shape matters more than brands expect: an under-eye patch has to sit on the orbital bone without covering the lash line, and the die-cut tolerance becomes a consumer complaint at surprisingly small deviations.
How do you formulate a serum that does not migrate into the eye?
Migration is the most common sensorial complaint in the category and it is driven by three variables: viscosity behaviour under shear, the volatility of the carrier, and the surface tension of the film left behind.
Raising viscosity with a gelling polymer reduces flow but adds tackiness. Reducing the level of volatile components lowers the amount of material that can travel. Matching the surface tension to the skin rather than to the glass of a dropper reduces creep along the orbital bone. In practice the fix is usually a light gel structure combined with a lower volatile load, validated with a panel test that asks participants specifically about eye discomfort during the first hour of wear.
Preservation and packaging for a small-dose eye product
Eye products are filled in small volumes, used with a finger or an applicator, and stored near moisture, which is a difficult combination for preservation. A rollerball or an applicator tip that contacts the skin introduces contamination on every use, and the small reservoir means any contamination has a proportionally larger effect.
Two design decisions reduce the risk. First, an airless or a pump pack removes finger contact entirely and lets you use a lighter preservative system. Second, when a dropper or rollerball is required for the brand's visual language, the preservative system has to be validated with a challenge test that simulates use, not just a standard inoculation protocol.
Where a brand wants a preservative-free or phenoxyethanol-free positioning, we assess feasibility against the water activity of the formula and the pack, and we advise honestly when the answer is that the pack has to change.
Claims that must not appear on an eye product
The eye area is where cosmetic claims most often drift into medicinal territory. Words implying treatment of a medical condition, reduction of a diagnosed problem, or a permanent structural change are not available to a cosmetic product in the EU, the US or China, and using them can reclassify the product entirely.
Safer directions are descriptive and appearance-based: helps the eye area look smoother, supports the appearance of a rested look, provides a cooling sensation on application. Each of these still needs a reasonable basis, and for the stronger performance claims that basis is a documented use test.
One further caution concerns comparison and superlative language. Claims such as better than a leading brand, or the fastest-acting formula, generally require substantiation that a private label brand is not in a position to hold, and are best avoided at the artwork stage.
What should an eye product brief contain?
Include the format, the primary consumer benefit, the actives the brand wants and any it wants to avoid, the pH and viscosity expectations if the brand has any, the claim set the brand intends to publish, the pack type, the target markets, the first order quantity, and the target cost. If the product will carry an ophthalmologist tested or contact-lens-friendly claim, state that at brief stage because it determines the testing plan and, in some cases, the formulation route.
Compliance: what the EU, US and China require
In the European Union an eye product is a standard cosmetic under Regulation 1223/2009, but the safety assessment pays particular attention to the application area, and the Product Information File should document the rationale for the actives chosen and the exposure assumptions for the eye region. Notification goes to CPNP through the Responsible Person.
In the United States the product falls under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, which places facility registration, product listing, safety substantiation and adverse event reporting obligations on the brand or importer. Because eye-area products commonly generate adverse event reports when they sting, a working complaint handling process matters here more than in most categories.
In China, cosmetics are managed under the Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation. An eye product making only ordinary cosmetic claims follows the filing route, while any claim that pushes the product into the special cosmetics category changes the pathway and the testing burden.
Frequently asked questions about eye product OEM
What is the minimum order quantity for an eye serum or patch?
For a serum in a stock pack, the MOQ is usually modest and driven by the pump or bottle. For patches, the MOQ is driven by the die-cut tooling and the sachet format, so it is materially higher and is quoted per project.
Can you make an eye product with no fragrance?
Yes, and we recommend it for this category. Fragrance is one of the most common sensitisers, and removing it simplifies both the safety assessment and the claim set.
Can you match an eye product we already sell or that a competitor sells?
We can benchmark an existing product and develop a formula to the same brief. We do not copy a third party formula, and we ask for confirmation that the brand owns the rights to any formula it asks us to reproduce.
How long does development take?
A first sample typically takes two to three weeks after the brief is frozen. Eye-area testing and stability work add time in parallel and are usually the critical path for the launch date rather than the formulation itself.
Do you supply the reports needed for regulatory filing?
Yes. Stability, pack compatibility, microbiological challenge and the ocular tolerance and patch testing we arrange through accredited laboratories are documented for inclusion in your technical dossier.
Next step: send us your eye care brief
Whether you are building an eye serum, an eye gel, a cream or an under-eye patch, send us the format, the target market and the volume you have in mind and we will propose a formulation route, an active set with a realistic irritation profile, packaging options and a costed quote. Write to capsulebiotech@163.com, message the right team on WhatsApp: Capsule Series (capsules only) +86 158-7655-5319, Cosmetics Series (serum, hair care, body care, fragrance) +86 158-7655-5319, or use the inquiry form and we will reply within one working day.
Related programmes you may want to review: blue copper peptide repair serum, copper peptide and hyaluronic acid serum, and blue copper peptide and squalane single-use essence.