2006 ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING 185 AMC! AMC2 AMC3 AMC AMCS Figure 1: Activity of AMC fraction isolated from the skin vs. S. Aureus Fraction 4, the most potent AMC, was further fractionated based on carbon chain length. Figure 2 shows the antibacterial activity dependency on chain length. Arrows to the right indicate the log (CFU)/rnl in the initial inoculum and after 8 hours growth in the absence of added fatty acids. Based on previous MIC analysis, the C16 fraction had MIC values of 0.0078 mg/ vs. S. pyogens, 0.0156 mg/ml vs. a Corynebacterium isolate and 0.0156 against one S. aureus clinical isolate. 7..---------, ......... ,,,.,,_. �fnoculum 2 0 8 .. g N carbon number Figure 2: Antibacterial activity of AMC #4 components as a function of carbon chain length Conclusions The above data demonstrate significant bacterial growth inhibition by different fractions isolated from human skin. Further studies are underway to better identify these compounds, study their activity on Corynebacterium stiatum, Corynehacteriumjeikeium and Corynebacterium bovis and understand their mechanism of action. References 1. McArdle N., Happi Magazine, 3 (2005), Antiperspirants Update: Playing the Gender Card 2. Toyoki H., Akira F., Shunichi A, Hiroshi K., US Patent# 20050100520, Kao Corporation, (2005), Deodorant Composition 3. Natsch A, Gfeller P.O., Schmid J., Intl. J. Cosmet. Sci., 27, 115-122 (2005) Isolation of a Bacterial Enzyme Releasing Auxiliary Malodor and Its Use as a Screening Target for Novel Deodorant Formulations . . 4. Darbre P.O., J. Inorg., Biochem, 99, 1912-1919, (2005), Aluminum, Antiperspirants and Breast Cancer 5. Lambert RJ.W., Pearson J. Applied Microbiology, 88, 784-790, (2000). Susceptibility Testing: Accurate and Reproducible Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Non Inhibitory Concentration (NIC) Values

186 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF ANTIPERSPIRANT TESTING James P. Bowman, Linda P. Oddo and John E. Wild Hill Top Research Introduction Benefiting from a 30 year history of analyzing and reviewing antiperspirant test data, a discussion of data from a historical perspective will be presented. The data will provide a foundation for understanding the myths and factors. affecting antiperspirant testing. Some of the myths include: Heavier people sweat more than lighter people Younger people sweat more than older people People sweat more in the summer than in the winter Materials and Methods Antiperspirant efficacy studies conducted at Hill Top Research utilize the following basic test schedule. Potential test subjects are enrolled into a conditioning phase where they are given a deodorant product that has no antiperspirant efficacy to use in their axilla for a period not shorter than 17 days. Subjects then report to the test facility and are placed in the hot room (I00°F, 35% humidity) where baseline sweat output is measured. Subjects that qualify for the study participate in a supervised axillary wash and are treated with antiperspirant test product according to the study randomization (treatment under one axilla and placebo under the other). Post-treatment sweat collections are then conducted at time points specified in the test protocol. Analyses are conducted and estimates of product efficacy are calculated. Individual baseline sweat outputs are tracked over time as well as the ratio between the output from the right axilla to the left axilla. Individual results (baseline sweat output, percent reduction-treated versus placebo) are utilized to evaluate the following questions: 1. What does the distribution of individual sweat output (in milligrams) look like? 2. Does a subject's sweat output change over time? 3. Does the ratio of sweat output (R/L) change over time? 4. Do subjects sweat differently in the summer versus the winter? 5. Is there a relationship between baseline milligram sweat output and age and body weight? 6. Is there a relationship between efficacy (percent reduction) and age, body weight and the amount of sweat produced at baseline? 7. Is a subject's efficacy (percent reduction) to a particular product consistent from day to day? 8. Is efficacy different between genders? Data are reviewed from three time periods, the 1980's, the 1990's and the 2000's.