288 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS LAB I ODOR SCORE 8 UNSCENTEB FORMULATIONS PLACEBO 6 24 TIME (HOURS) AFTER APPLICATION ACTIVE 6 24 Figure 1. Axillary odor scores with unscented lotions. Test tube method (BM) vs direct sniffing (Lab 1). wash just prior to application. The return of malodor in the placebo-treated axilla is more rapid than in the axilla treated with complete formula. Figure 2 compares the data from Laboratory #2 with BM data on the same formula- tions. The contract laboratory had considerable difficulty distinguishing between the active and placebo, tending to score both on the high side. LAB 2 ODOR SCORE 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I UNSCENTED FORMUL^TI ONS PLACEBO 6 24 ACT I VE o 3 6 24 TIME (HOURS) AFTER APPLICATION Figure 2. Axillary odor scores with unscented lotions. Test tube method (BM) vs direct sniffing (Lab 2).

AXILLARY ODOR EVALUATION 289 L^B 3 _ _ ODOR SCORE UNSCENTED FORMULATI ONS PLACEBO o 3 6 24 0 ACTIVE 3 8 TIME (HOURS) AFTER APPLICATION 24 Figure 3. Axillary odor scores with unscenteo lotions. Test tube method (BM) vs direct sniffing (Lab 3). In Figure 3, it is obvious that Laboratory #3 also had difficulty distinguishing between active and placebo. This testing laboratory was unique in that their judges rated odor at 24 hours at a level identical with pretreatment levels. Figure #4 compares the data obtained in the three contract laboratories. Note that L4B 2 LAB 3 ODOR SCORE UNSCENTED FORMULATIONS o 3 6 24 o 3 6 TIME (HOURS),AFTER APPLICATION 24 Figure 4. Axillary odor scores with unscented lotions. Three contract laboratories compared.