Double cleansing gets marketed as a K-beauty innovation and dismissed by its critics as an unnecessary extra step sold to people who already wash their face perfectly well. Neither position holds up especially well against the actual evidence, which is more specific, and more genuinely useful for some people than others, than either camp suggests.
What double cleansing actually is
The method itself is simple: an oil-based cleanser or cleansing balm first, massaged into completely dry skin and rinsed or wiped away, followed immediately by a conventional water-based cleanser. The idea is straightforward chemistry rather than a wellness abstraction: oil dissolves oil-soluble material, including sunscreen, long-wear makeup and the skin’s own sebum, considerably more effectively than water alone, and the second, water-based cleanse then removes what the oil step could not, sweat, water-soluble debris and the emulsified residue of the first cleanse itself. We look at where this method actually comes from, and how it fits into the wider culture around it, in a dedicated piece on Japanese skincare.
Journal · Skincare
Japanese Skincare: The Cultural Norms and the Evidence Behind Them
Double cleansing sits alongside sun avoidance, a regulated whitening category, and the honest evidence for rice bran and camellia oil.
A Japanese invention, not a Korean one
Double cleansing is routinely credited to Korean skincare culture, and while Korean beauty brands did an enormous amount to popularise it internationally, the format itself is Japanese in origin. Shu Uemura, working as a Hollywood makeup artist in the 1950s before returning to Japan, developed and launched the first dedicated cleansing oil in 1967, and double cleansing had already become the unquestioned norm in Japanese skincare culture well before Korean beauty brands adopted and exported the same principle more widely from the 2010s onward. It is a small correction, but a genuine one, and worth making rather than repeating the more familiar but less accurate K-beauty origin story.
Why the oil step actually earns its place
This is where double cleansing has real, specific evidence behind it rather than resting on tradition alone. A 2020 study published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology applied waterproof and non-waterproof sunscreen to participants’ faces, then measured residual sunscreen under UV imaging after cleansing with water alone, a standard foaming cleanser, or a cleansing oil. For non-waterproof sunscreen, water left 54% of sunscreen behind, a standard cleanser left 15.6%, and cleansing oil left 13.4%, a real but modest advantage. For waterproof sunscreen, the gap became dramatic: water left 59.3% behind, a standard cleanser left 36.8%, and cleansing oil left just 5.8%. That is a genuinely large, clinically meaningful difference, and it is specifically the water-resistant, film-forming property built into modern SPF formulations that a water-based cleanser alone struggles to break through, which an oil-based first cleanse solves at the level of basic chemistry rather than marketing.
What the second cleanse is actually doing
The oil step is not designed to be rinsed away with water alone, since oil and water do not mix without help, which is precisely why a second, water-based, surfactant-containing cleanser follows immediately. That second cleanse emulsifies and removes the oil left behind by the first step, along with sweat and water-soluble debris the oil step was never going to touch, leaving skin genuinely clean rather than simply oiled and then rinsed. Skipping the second step and relying on an oil cleanse alone tends to leave a residue that behaves more like an incompletely removed product than clean skin, particularly for anyone using a heavier oil or balm formulation.
The honest caution: this can be overdone
Cleansing, of any kind, is not free of cost to the skin barrier, and this is the part double cleansing’s enthusiasts tend to skip over. A frequently cited study exposing skin to repeated surfactant application over three weeks found a measurable, cumulative increase in transepidermal water loss, a direct marker of skin barrier disruption, alongside visible irritation, building up gradually rather than appearing after a single wash. Two cleansing steps, particularly if either uses a harsher surfactant system, is a genuinely larger cumulative surfactant exposure than one, and for skin that is already dry, sensitive or barrier-compromised, twice-daily double cleansing is a plausible contributor to exactly the irritation and dryness it is often marketed as solving. This is not an argument against the method; it is an argument for choosing a gentle second cleanser and being honest about whether a given day, no sunscreen, no makeup, actually calls for two steps at all.
Who genuinely benefits
The clearest, evidence-backed case for double cleansing is exactly the scenario the sunscreen study tested: a day wearing sunscreen, particularly a water-resistant formulation, or long-wear makeup, in the evening specifically. Oily or acne-prone skin may also benefit from the more thorough sebum removal an oil-based first step offers, provided the chosen oil itself is appropriately low on the comedogenic scale, since the wrong oil can work against exactly the outcome someone with congestion-prone skin is after. A bare-skinned day with no sunscreen and no makeup is a considerably weaker case for a second cleansing step, and a single, well-chosen cleanser is often entirely sufficient.
What the evidence does not support
Double cleansing is not a mystical “deep pore cleanse,” and pores do not open and close in a way that a second wash specifically exploits; the actual mechanism is straightforward oil-dissolving-oil chemistry, not a deeper physical excavation of the pore itself. It is not a universal daily necessity for every skin type regardless of what has been applied that day, and for dry or reactive skin in particular, twice-daily double cleansing may cause more irritation than the sebum and residue it removes justifies. It is also not a substitute for choosing an appropriately low-comedogenic oil in the first place; a rich, highly comedogenic oil used as a facial cleanser can leave exactly the congestion the method is meant to prevent. Coconut oil is a specific, genuinely popular example worth naming directly: its relatively high comedogenic rating, discussed in full in our monograph, makes it a considerably better choice for hair and body than for a facial oil cleanse on skin already prone to breakouts.
Botanical Library · Monograph No. 008
Coconut Oil
Genuinely excellent for hair and body; its comedogenic rating is the specific reason it is not our first choice for a facial oil cleanse.
Choosing the oil step well
The right oil for a facial cleanse is the same question as choosing any other facial oil: lower-comedogenic options such as jojoba, hemp seed or grapeseed suit oily or acne-prone skin considerably better than richer, higher-comedogenic oils, which are better reserved for hair and body use instead. Our complete guide to carrier oils covers the comedogenic rating of every major option in detail.
Journal · Aromatherapy
Carrier Oils: The Complete Guide
Comedogenic ratings and the genuine evidence for every major carrier oil, useful for choosing an oil-cleanser as much as a massage oil.
Journal · Living Well
Self-Massage While You Moisturise
What to do immediately after cleansing, while skin is still slightly damp, for the most out of whatever you apply next.
Frequently asked questions
Is double cleansing actually necessary every day?
Not universally. The clearest evidence for it applies specifically to days involving sunscreen, particularly water-resistant formulations, or long-wear makeup. On a bare-skinned day with neither, a single, well-chosen cleanser is often entirely sufficient, and adding an unnecessary second surfactant step is more likely to over-strip than meaningfully improve cleansing.
Did double cleansing originate in Korea or Japan?
Japan. Shu Uemura launched the first dedicated cleansing oil in 1967, and double cleansing was already the established norm in Japanese skincare well before Korean beauty brands popularised the same method internationally from the 2010s onward.
Can double cleansing damage your skin barrier?
Potentially, if overdone. Repeated surfactant exposure has been shown to cause a measurable, cumulative increase in transepidermal water loss, a marker of skin barrier disruption, over repeated daily use. Two cleansing steps represent a larger cumulative surfactant exposure than one, which is a genuine reason to choose a gentle second cleanser and to skip the second step on days that do not call for it.
What is the best oil for the first cleansing step?
A lower-comedogenic oil such as jojoba, hemp seed or grapeseed generally suits oily or acne-prone skin better than a richer, higher-comedogenic oil such as coconut oil, which is better reserved for hair and body use where clogged pores are not a concern.
Does double cleansing remove sunscreen better than a single wash?
Yes, and the difference is genuinely large for water-resistant sunscreen specifically. A controlled study found water alone left roughly 59% of waterproof sunscreen behind, a standard cleanser left around 37%, and a cleansing oil left under 6%, a substantial, measured difference rather than a marketing claim.
References
- Chen, W. et al. (2020). The optimal cleansing method for the removal of sunscreen: water, cleanser or cleansing oil? Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 19(1), 180-184. PubMed 31157512
- Tupker, R.A., Pinnagoda, J., Coenraads, P.J. & Nater, J.P. (1989). The influence of repeated exposure to surfactants on the human skin as determined by transepidermal water loss and visual scoring. Contact Dermatitis, 20(2), 108-114. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1989.tb03117.x