6 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS water suspension of it. It was hoped that some comparison could be drawn between the pH values and the amount of destruction pro- duced by the perspiration in each case. That this hope was vain is shown all too clearly by the figures in Table 4. There was some fluc- tuation from day to day--mor. e marked in some individuals than others. In five instances, there was a sharp rise in pH on the third day. Unfortunately , none of this seemed to have any direct bearing on the losses in tensile strength produced by the perspiration. These losses were in general considerably higher than We had anticipated. Th• average loss for the right arms of the 15 subjects was 16.52%, ranging from a low of 0.66% to a high of 26.80%. F6r the left arms the average was 17.79%, with a low of 9.37% and a high again of 28.60%. Twenty-seven out of the 30 shields showed losses of over 10%, 21 of over 15% and 8 of over 20%. Many of the actual shields were badly discolored. These results become even more interesting--and vastly more puz- zling-when they are compared with the results on the same group in a routine practical use investigation (Table 5). A powder, which had shown significant destruction in the laboratory procedure was used on the right arms and a cream which had shown negligible destruction under the left. When the powder afforded the subject good to fairly good protection (and by protection I mean the extent to which the flow of perspiration was checked) the fabric destruction dropped significantly below that caused by perspiration alone. Where the protection was poor, the amount of destruction was about the same, or slightly exceeded that caused by perspiration alone. The picture presented by the cream was somewhat similar, except that the increase in destruction (where protection was poor) over perspira- TABLE 4--FABRIC DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY PERSPIRATION ALONE Type of Su: ject Perspiration No. Flow ..... Right Arm • Left Arm-- pH pH pH pH pH pH 1 st 2nd 3rd % I st 2nd 3rd D•y Day Day Destruction Day Day Day Destruction 1 Light 5.21 5.98 2 Heavy 5.14 5.88 3 Normal 4.95 6.12 4 Slight 5.72 5.67 5 Normal 5.31 5.61 6 Slight 5.28 6.28 7 Heavy 5.36 5.71 8 Slight 6.45 5.46 9 Normal 5.52 5.61 10 Normal 6,98 5.95 11 Normal 5.98 5.72 12 Heavy 6.04 6.02 13 Normal 5.91 5.56 14 Normal 6.11 6.61 15 Normal 5.78 5.46 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 52 5 69 5 38 7 76 7 41 8 11 7 88 5 82 7 90 28 32 81 81 42 62 20.74 25.06 14.60 13.73 24.19 21,57 7.63 19 38 16.34 11.12 0.66 19.38 16.34 26.80 10.25 6.11 5.82 5.62 5 30 6.29 5.51 5,02 5.48 5 41 5.28 5.31 5 88 5.89 5,60 6 62 5.21 6.18 5 41 5.42 5.41 5 31 5 91 5.52 5 66 5 02 5.58 5 51 6 52 5.52 7.22 5 71' 5.41 7.58 5 98 5.46 7.42 5 72 5.36 6.95 5 62 5.72 5.52 5 48 5.52 8.31 18.96 18'. 96 16.34 19.38 18.96 17.21 18.08 11.12 26.80 14.60 9.37 24.18 19.38 17.21 16.34

ANTIPERSPIRANTS 7 TABLE 5--CoMPARIS•ON OF AMOUNTS OF DESTRUCTION PRODUCED BY PERSPIRATION ALONE AND TWO ANTIPEKSPIRANTS , ,Right Arm, ,Left Arm, Type of % % % % Perspi- Destruction Destruc- Amt. of Destruction Destruc- Amt. of Subject ration Perspiration tion Protec- Perspiration tion Protec- No. Flow Alone Powder X tion Alone Cream Y tion 1 Light 2 Heavy 3 Normal 4 Slight 5 Normal 6 Slight 7 Heavy 8 Slight 9 Normal 10 Normal 11 Normal 12 Heavy 13 Normal 14 Normal 15 Normal 2O. 74 25.00 14.60 13.73 24.19 21 57 7 63 19 38 16 34 11 12 0 66 19.38 16.34 26.80 10.25 5.24 Good 18.96 8.84 Good 5.19 Poor 18.96 19.78 Poor 1.54 Good 16.34 14.31 Good 1.54 Fair 19.38 36.18 Fair 8.84 Good 18.96 12.48 Good 12.48 Good 17.21 38.01 Good 14.31 Poor 18.08 14.31 Poor 14.31 Good 11.12 17.85 Fair 14.31 Fair 26.80 48.95 Fair 12.48 Poor 14.60 14.31 Good 8.84 Poor 9.37 8.84 Fair 16.13 Fair 24.18 7.93 Fair 10.66 Good 19.38 7.93 Good 12.48 Poor 17.21 48.95 Poor 12.48 Good 16.34 34.36 Fair tion alone was much more marked in several instances--two particularly where the level rose from 26% and 17%, respectively, to almost 50%. And with a product that had shown less than 5% damage in the labora- tory procedure! This indeed, gives pause for thought. Must we consider not only the effect of an antiperspirant alone on fabric, but also that same product in combination with per- spiration? That this is not neces- sary in many cases we know, be- cause of the excellent correlation of laboratory and practical use results. But it seems equally true that in other instances it may be very essential. Obviously, we are not suffering from a dearth of new fields to ex- plore. Which ones to tackle, and how to tackle them are the next questions to be decided.