MILDNESS OF LAUNDRY DETERGENTS DIFFERING IN pH 95 AW detergent was signifi cantly harsher than water, TFG, and AFC in four of the fi ve measures at all four posttreatment time points: lower corneometer reading (less hydra- tion) (p 0.0001), higher dryness score (p 0.0001), higher erythema score (p 0.01), and increase in skin surface pH (p 0.0001) (data not shown). AW was also signifi cantly less mild than both concentrations of SLS at all time points in dryness grade (p  0.0003) and increased skin surface pH (p 0.0001). Yet, AW was milder than both concentra- tions of SLS at all time points in the corneometer reading (p 0.0001). For TEWL (data not shown), average baseline values for all treatments were approximately 6.0–6.5 g/m2 h. There was substantial variation in the values within each of the treat- ment groups, making treatment differentiation diffi cult. Thus, there were no signifi cant differences among water, AFC, or TFG at any of the measurement time points. SLS (0.05%) signifi cantly (p  0.02) increased TEWL at only the fi rst and third posttreatment time points versus the water control. Yet, neither 1% SLS nor AW signifi cantly altered TEWL at any time point. Although numerically the 0.5% and 1% SLS treatments were nearly equivalent in their effects on skin (data not shown), there were some small but signifi cant differences. Com- pared with 0.5% SLS, the 1% SLS treatment led to less skin hydration (based on corne- ometer readings) at the last three of the four posttreatment time points (p  0.03), and higher skin surface pH at the last three of the four posttreatment time points (p  0.02). For simplicity in presenting the data, only the 1% SLS data are presented as the positive control in the fi gures. Figure 1. For earm corneometer measurements for hydration after each of the four exposures to the test materials in the 1-d RIFT study.

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 96 Data from the four postexposure time points in this test revealed that whereas AFC and TFG are overall milder than the 1% SLS positive control, TFG was signifi cantly milder on the skin than AFC, based on corneometer measures (Figure 1) and visual grading of dryness and erythema (Figures 2 and 3). For corneometer (a measure of skin hydration), average baseline values for all treatment groups were approximately 30 (a unit-less capacitance measure that can range from 0 for no water to 120 for on water, according to the manufacturer’s description). One percent SLS signifi cantly (p 0.0001) reduced skin hydration at all four postexposure measure- ments (Figure 1) versus the other treatments, an expected effect for this positive control. By contrast, although neither AFC nor TFG was shown to be harsh in terms of an effect on corneometer values, there were signifi cant differences. Corneometer readings for TFG were signifi cantly higher (greater hydration) versus the water control (p 0.0006 to p 0.0001) for the last three time points, and signifi cantly higher versus AFC (p 0.0001) at all four posttreatment time points. These results indicate a mildness advantage for TFG versus AFC. For visual grading of skin dryness (Figure 2), average baseline values for all treatment groups were approximately 0.4 (on a 0–5 grading scale). SLS was numerically the most drying of the treatments, although it reached signifi cance from the water control only at two of the four (the fi rst and the last) posttreatment measurements (p = 0.018 and p = 0.038, respectively). Whereas AFC was equivalent to the water control, TFG was signifi - cantly less drying at the last three time points (p 0.0001) versus both AFC and water. Figure 2. Fore arm dryness grades after each of the four exposures to the test materials in the 1-d RIFT study.