274 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS by Dr. Shelley were no odor, faint, strong and very strong. Dr. Gee in an article in Soap and Sanitary Chemicals had a greater number of odor levels. We had four levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 that would agree with Dr. Shelley's levels, 1 being the no odor level. Preliminary work on untreated axilla indicated that odor levels left and right were the same. Thus, one axilla could be used as a control when the other was treated. Our data covering a six hour test period showed effec- tiveness of commercial deodorants. For longer periods our subjects were not under our control. Controlled conditions are essential for the collec- tion of valid data. With respect to immediate deodorization of an odorous axilla, both per- fumed and unperfumed products of aluminum sulfate were tried. In the majority of cases, the area was deodorized in five minutes and in all cases in fifteen minutes. The third point of discussion is the effect of axillary bacteria in producing odors. As stated before, we have not found all axilla to be odorous if not treated with a deodorant. In a number of cases the odor returns to an axilla within fifteen minutes after washing with soap and water. Bacterial counts obtained by swabbing the axilla according to a routine procedure varied from 5000 to over a million. Odor could not be correlated with bac- terial count. In a few cases, a subject would not bathe the axillary area for five days. The bacterial count in one case rose to 1,200,000 but no axillary odor was present. This same subject, however, has appeared on tests and pronounced odors have been found. From a cosmetic standpoint, the use of a deodorant is indicated since we do not know when we may offend. W. S. Gu•4p (The Givaudan Corporation, Delawanna, N.J.) We have heard so much from Klarmann and Shelley about axillary deodoran% including hexachlorophene, that I can restrict my comments to a few remarks. First, I would like to ask Shelley a question. He has shown the presence of eccrine and apocrine glands in the axilla, and also of sebaceous glands. A number Of investigators have stated that the secretions of the sebaceous glands might contribute to axillary odor. In one of his earlier papers, Shelley has expressed a similar opinion and I wonder whether he still believes that some of the axillary odor might come from the sebaceous gland or whether he thinks now that this odor must be attributed more or less exclusively to bacterial degradation of apocrine sweat. Concerning the action of aluminum salts, I recently had a chance to talk with Hopf and his chief associate in Hamburg, Germany, where they are in

1955 SEMINAR DISCUSSION 275 charge of a large dermatological clinic in one of the city hospitals. They prefer to use an aqueous solution of 15 per cent aluminum chloride and of a wetting agent, buffered to a pH between 3.0 and 3.5 in cases of hyperhidrosis and osmidrosis, and definitely stated that this solution greatly reduces the secretion of sweat. On the other hand, they did not observe a signifi- cant antibacterial action of the aluminum chloride. This would be in contrast to the findings of Shelley and others. We have not heard much about techniques for determining whether a material, for instance a soap, has an effect on body odor. Probably, the reason is that we lack good reproducible methods, and often suitable test subjects with sufficiently disagreeable odor. We also must consider that as much as the odor of the skin that of clothing having absorbed the sweat would be objectionable. In some of our experimental studies, the test subjects have worn T-shirts and two different soaps were used for washing the skin over a period of time, one in the right and the other one in the left axilla. The difference of odors determined daily on the shirts after having been worn for twenty-four hours was considered to be a criterion of the superiority of one soap as a body deodorant over the other. This difference is quite marked if we compare ordinary soap with a soap which contains an antibacterial agent, e.g., 2 per cent hexachlorophene, and therefore, it is fairly easy to show that an anti- septic soap has better deodorant properties than a plain soap. But if one has two soaps, each one with an antibacterial substance of similar skin- degerming activity, then it becomes quite difficult to establish whether the first soap is significantly more effective as a deodorant than the second one. What we need are more accurate methods for close comparison of body deodorants. KIMIO IKAI, M.D. (Dept. of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa.) The lower fatty acids were adsorbed and deodorized by anion exchange resins. Ammonia was adsorbed and deodorized with cation exchange resins, and indole by cation or anion exchangers. Odor of feces was removed by anion exchangers, but more completely by mixtures of cation and anion exchangers. Odor from the secretions of the axillae was adsorbed well by any ex- changers, but here too, the mixtures of cation and artion exchangers were more powerful. Powders and oily or liquid preparations containing mixtures of cation and artion exchangers, when applied to osmidrotic subjects, showed good deodorizing power.