PibooAll postsIngredients
Englishko

Sungboon Editor

Sungboon Editor Green Tomato NMN Pore Lifting Ampoule

Ingredient analysis and how the ad lines read

Product photo of Sungboon Editor Green Tomato NMN Pore Lifting Ampoule

Read on 2026-09-11

What is this product?

A seventy-eight item pore ampoule whose base is not water. 토마토수 is the first item at a printed 680,000 ppm, or 68 percent, with 정제수 second, and that inversion is the formula's defining fact. NMN follows at position 9 with a printed 10,000 ppm, and 나이아신아마이드 sits immediately before it at 8. Five concentrations are disclosed on the regulated panel in total, at positions 1, 9, 27, 54 and 55, which is unusual voluntary disclosure. Five hyaluronic derivatives of differing molecular form cluster at 38 and 41 through 44. Fragrance is present but listed as seven individual aroma materials in the tail rather than as a single 향료 entry, which is more informative than the norm. The comedogenicity screen returns one entry, oleic acid at position 62. The marketing copy is the weak half of the record: clinically proven pore lifting has no trial, no subject count and no institution anywhere in the archive, and a green tomato protein smaller than a pore is not on the panel at all.

What makes it different?

The label and the marketing copy pull in opposite directions for this product, so they are graded separately here. On the label side the disclosure is genuinely above average: a tomato fruit water base printed at 68 percent ahead of purified water, NMN printed at 1 percent, three further tomato fractions with figures at positions 27, 54 and 55, and fragrance broken out into seven named aroma chemicals instead of hidden behind one 향료 line. Those are checkable facts on a regulated panel and they are graded supported here. On the copy side the same brand asserts clinically proven pore lifting with no study of any kind in the archive, and asserts a green-tomato protein smaller than a pore when the panel carries no tomato protein at all, only water, juice and extract fractions plus unrelated collagen, elastin and unspecified vegetable protein. A reader should buy this for the panel, not for the page. One sourcing caveat bounds the panel itself: the brand's own product page stores its detail section as unrendered template placeholders, so the Korean list comes from a retailer notice, and four Olive Young bundle listings of the same product disagree on one figure, the tomato extract at 200 versus 400 ppm.

What is in it?

The full ingredient list as the brand publishes it, in the printed order. Each name links to what we know about that ingredient.

Key ingredient

Ingredients with no mark are ones we found nothing notable about, and when marks overlap on one ingredient we show the caution first.

We could not place these in the list above: 하이드로제네이티드레시틴, 라이소레시틴, 폴리글리세릴-10라우레이트, 올레익애씨드

Did the ad claims hold up?

We checked 6 lines this product advertises against the ingredient list and public documents. 2 of them hold up. The rest are only partly right or have nothing behind them.

backed by evidence2

  • 토마토수(680,000 ppm)
  • 니코틴아마이드모노뉴클레오타이드(10,000 ppm)

likely, not proven1

  • 성분제일주의, '성분에디터'

no evidence2

  • Provides clinically proven pore lifting, and provides fundamental improvement of pore issues.
  • The green tomato protein that is smaller than a pore improves droopy pores.

says nothing1

  • Made with special technology of sungboon editor for better absorption and penetration of active ingredients into skin and help with deep absorption inside skin.

Each line is quoted as the brand published it, and each one was read on its own against the ingredient list and the documents the brand publishes.

How we read these lines