USE OF DEOFIX TM IN DEODORANT PRODUCTS 255 6.7___ 6.58 4.85 6.12 5.73 ... 5.63 Baseline 8 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs 48 hrs 130.3% Triclosan ß 1.0% Deofix Baseline 8 Hours 12 Hours Triclosan Deofix TM Triclosan Deofix TM Triclosan Deofix TM Mean Odor Score 6.7 6.58 5.38 4.85 5.73 5.37 Mean Sample Diff. _+CP .... 0.53 + 0.46 -0.37 + 0.62 Signed Rank p-value: --- 0.0379 2 0.2683 Estimates % Differences -- -11.00% -6,83% Panel Size 15 15 15 24 Hours 48 Hours , Triclosan Deofix TM Triclosan Deofix TM Mean Odor Score 6.12 5.63 6.52 6.13 Mean Sample Diff. +CP -0.48 + 0.42 -0.38 + 0.51 Signed Rank p-value: 0.0411 2 0.2435 Estimates % Differences -8.58% -6.25% Panel Size 15 15 Analysis of Variance Results Treatment Effect 0.0366 3 Interaction 0.5000 Overall Treatment Means •Triclosan-5.94 DeofixTM-5.50 • - 95% Confidence Intervals 2 _ Significant Difference Favoring Deofix TM (Signed Rank Test) 3 _ Significant Overall Difference Favoring Deofix TM (Analysis of Variance) Figure 3. Comparison of malodor scores (0.3% Triclosan vs 1.0% DeofixT•4). placed in tubes that contained Deofix TM in 2 ml of ethanol, to a final concentration of 100 ppm antioxidant solution. The tubes were stoppered and placed in a water bath at 50øC. Readings were taken at 20-minute intervals for 130 minutes. Ethanol was used as a negative control and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) as a positive control. Both Deofix TM and BHA exhibited almost comparable levels of antioxidant activity, lasting the full 130 minutes of the study. Results are presented in Figure 5 (11). Cyclic voltametry was used to measure the ease of electrochemical oxidation and reduction of Deof'nc TM. The experiment was designed to demonstrate whether the antioxidant effects of

256 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE •5 .•4 •2 6.33 6.23 5.92 6.13 Baseline 8 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs 48 hrs [] 0.3% Tdclosan ß Placebo Control Baseline 8 Hours 12 Hours Triclosan Control Triclosan Control Triclosan Control Mean Odor Score 6.33 6,23 5.18 5.43 5.37 5.67 Mean Sample Diff. +CI • --- 0,25 + 0.46 0.30 + 0.54 Signed Rank p-value: -- 0.2797 2 0.3513 2 Estimates % Differences --- 4.60% 5,29% Panel Size 15 15 15 24 Hours 48 Hours Triclosan Control Triclosan Control Mean Odor Score 5.52 5.92 6.13 6.45 Mean Sample Diff. +CI • 0.40 + 0.42 0.32 + 0.55 Signed Rank p-value: 0.0706 2 0.3265 2 Estimates % Differences 6.76% 4.91% Panel Size 15 15 , , Analysis of Variance Results Treatment Effect 0.1276 2 Interaction 0.5000 3 Overall Treatment Means ,Triclosan-5.55 Control-5.87 • - 95% Confidence Intervals • - No Significant Difference Between Treatments 3 _ No Significant Interaction of Treatment and Time Figure 4. Comparison of malodor scores (0.3% Triclosan vs placebo control). Deofix TM were related to its acting as an electron donor as do classical antioxidants. Mea- surements were made over the pH range of 3-10 (12). In a typical experiment, a potassium ion-free pH 7 buffer was prepared with 29 ml of 0.1 M NaOH and 50 ml of 0.1 M sodium dihydrogen phosphate. To this buffer was added 0.1 M NaC1 to insure high electrolyte conductivity. Deofix TM was added to a 4-mM concentration. A platinum electrode was used in the cyclic voltametry measurements. The results are presented in Figure 6. As seen in Figure 6, Deofix TM at a 4-mM concentration is electrochemically inactive at pH 7. At the potential scanned of 0.2 to 0.6 V versus Ag/AgCI, no activity is seen other