CA1192841A - Inhibition of body odor - Google Patents

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Inhibition of body odor is obtained by applying polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride to the skin in a dermatologically acceptable carrier.

Description

~ 2~
.

INHI~ITION OF BOPY ODOR
Back~round of the Invention 1. Field of the Invention Thi~ invention relates to lnhibition Or body odor, and more particularly to a method involving toplcal application Or a deodorant-active material for bringing about such inhibition.

2. DescriP~ion of the Prior hr~ -A~ is well known, the mechanlsm of formation o~ the most common type of body odor is based upon the aotion of microorganisms on apocrine sweat. A~ a con3equence Or thi~
rr!echanism there are in wide commercial u~e today ln the over-the-cQunter toiletrie~ and cosmetics category two type~ o~
product3 that inhibit body odor, deodorants and antlperspirants, the latter group also occasio~ally referred to as i5 antiperQpirant/daodoraDt3. The former group is meant to lnclude product~ containing an active r~aterial which inhibits the growth o~ microorganism~ present on the skin and thereby prevents their action on sweat to produce odoriferous sub~tances. The latter group is meant to include products which contain material that inhibit ~weating in the ~irst place. For variou~ reasons, 3uch as aesthetic preference, sensltivity t9 certain astringent antiperspirant~ salts, etc., individual cons~mers who wiqh to u~e a produot in thi~ broad category may prefer one or the other type. The present invention has to do with improvement~ in deodorants.
Although a number Or deodorant-active mater~als have been used in the pa3t in the formulation Or per30nal deodorant . . .
products, for many year-s the most widely u3ed 3uch material ~a3 hexachlorophene, posslbly the mo3t efficaciou~ topical deodorant then available.
~ 2 1 , However, a~ i9 well known, about a decade ago a previou~ly unrecognized toxicity problem with hexachlorophene wa~
identified, and non-prescription u~e Or thl~ materlal had to be severely restricted. Fortunately other deodorant-actlve materlals were available, among whlch mention may be mads Or benzethonium chloride, trlclosan, etG. ~ and lndustry has adapted by substitutine the~e and other~ in ~arious products whioh formerly used hexachlorophene. However it ~as perceived by many that the substitute material~ did not nece~sarily provide parity perfor~ance. Consequently the search for ~afe and e~rectivo .. . .. . .
materials wlth lmproved deodorant activlty has co~tlnued.
Since, as has been mentioned previously, the deodorant-active materials under consideration act by inhibiting the growth oP microorgani~ms on the skin, it would initially appear that any good antimicrobial should be effecti~e ar a deodorant. In fact, however, no correlation has been observed, i.e., while known deodorantq also ha~e good antimicrobial properties, it does not follow that good antimicrobials will be e~fective as deodorants. For example the following material~, all antimicrobials, were tested ~or deodorant activity according to the test procedures reported hereinafter for the prese~t lnvention, and no improvement over currently available materials was observed and in ~ome ca~es no deodorant activity at all:
hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine, triaoetin, and

3-~trimethoxysilyl)-propyloctadecyldimethyl ammonium chloride tDow-Corning, Q9-5700~. The unpredictability of deodorant ~- a¢tivity ia e~pecially to be noted in the case of chlorhexidin~, which contain~ bi~uanide function similar to the improved deodorant of the present inventlon.

~, f~ 4R~ 3 Other workers have al~o noted thls poor correlation between antimicrobial activity and deodorant activity; see, for exa~plc, Dravniek3, ~roto~ynski, Lieb, and Jungermann, "Influence o~ an Antibacterlal Soap on Various E~fluent~ fr~m Axillae," J. Soc.
Co~mçtlc Chemist~s. 1~ 611-626 (1968) and Cowen, "Relatlve Merits of 'In Use' and Laboratory Methoda for the Ealuation of Anti~icrobial Product~,~ J. Soc. Cosmet:1c Che~ists. ~ 307-323 ,~19?~
. SV~MA~Y OF THE INVENTION
It is an ob~ect of the present invention to proYide lmproved inhibition oP body odor. With this object in view a ~eature of the present invention is the inhibltion of body odor by applying to tha skir, in a carrier which is dermatologically ac~eptable, an erfectivP amount o~ polyhexamethylene biguanld~
hydrochla~ide. Good odor inhi~ition i3 obtained, which is ~ee~
to be as good as or superior to that obtained from the use o~
typical deodorant materials in wide commercial use.
For the purpo~eq of the pre~ent lnventio~
polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride is defined a~ the ~o compound having the following formula:
2 2 3 [ (CH2)3-~H-lcl-N~ -NH_(cH2)3- -(C~2) -NH-C ~H CN
NH NH-HCL n NH
where n averages 4.5 to 6.5. Polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride is commercially a~ailable from ICI Amerioa~ Inc., ~r~e ~r/~
Wilmington, Delaware, under the ~ ~Cosmocil CQ.n It~
stability, compatability, and low toxicity make it sultable ror use ln a ~ide variety of product~ in the cosmetic~ and toiletrie3 rield ~ , .. . . . . . .
,, . , 'I ! , . .

For example, the d~odorant benefitQ Or utilizing polyhexamethylene biguanlde hydrochloride may be reali~ed by incorporating thi~ material in aqueou~q-alcoholic 901utlon3>
lotions, crea~3~ ointments, powder~, su~pen~ions, 90apa, WaXe3 S and gels in stick Form, and compositiona ror preaqurized di~pen~ing in the form of an aerosol~ all Or oonventional rormulation. The mirimum effectlv~ concentration Or polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochlorlde may be determlne~ by routine trial-and-error. At high concentrationri the material c~n be a skin irritant, and cost con~ide~ation3 militate again~t u~ing too much. T prefer to u~e from about 0.05% to about 2~. A
concentration o~ about o.ll~ of the total composition ha gl~en .. .. .
particularly good resultq; thi~ mearcu uqing 2~ Or the acti~e material, which in it~ commercial form is ~upplied aq a ~0S
aqueous 90iution .
Teqt Proeedure Material~ under conqidera~ion for deodorant efficacy were evaluated in direct comparison tests on human axillae, one axilla treated with the test product and the other with a control product. In order to eli~inate any Qide bia~, about half the panel in each study received the teat product on the right axilla and about half on the left. Each study involved about 50 male test panelists at the out~et~ usually a cilightly smaller number at the conlusion due to minor attrition. The test period covered two week~q, the ~irst a "wa~hout" period and the ciecond for the actual te~t. Panelista were lnatructed to abstain from the use o~ all deodorantq, antiper3pirantq, and medicated produoti OA
their underarm~ during the entire two weeks o~ the atudy, and a non-deodorant aoap ~as provided ~or bathlng.

. . .

'. 1" , ,' ,"" , i" , ~ ''' During the seoond week panelist~ were instruc~ed to avsid their underarms while ~athin~/showering (Sunday noon through Friday ~orning). The only deodorant or antiper~pirant products applied during the test (second) week were the test and control prod~ots.
Control o~or evaluation~ were gen~rally madc on Monday and Tuesday of the te~t week, with applical;ions of the test materLals after the odor evaluations on ruesday throu~h Friday. Since deodorants are typically used once daily, twenty-four hour post-treatment evalua~ions were made on Wednesday throu~h Friday, lo prior to rurther treatmert. Odor evaluations at ~horter post-application intervals are ~requently made, buS the 24-hcur mea~urement~ are considered the most important. All 24-hour odor evaluations were rollowed by a ~uperYi~ed wash, after which the panelists' axillae were checked by an experieneed odor judge for cleanline~s and complete soap ~emoval. Product applioation followed the ~ash.
Axillary odor was scored on a zero (no odor) to ~en - (very in~ense, disagreeable odor) scale by a panel of four experienced odor judge~ for each axilla. Judge~ were blinded as to treatment assign~ents, other ~udges' 3coring, and previous evaluations for panelists. In order to limit each study to panelists who, without treatment, are hiBh odor producer3, any panelists whose average odor ~core was le39 thaD 3.0 on Monday wa~ eliminated from the test. The odor evaluation procedure had each panelist remove all clothing to the waist, stand be~ore each odor ~udge in seguence and present the right axilla rirst, the left axilla ~econd. Panelists were in tructed to keep arm~ down to sides until the judee~ ~ere ready to make their evaluation~.

`~ ? ;
, ... I , .. . . ~. ~

Application consisted of about eight to ten strokes o~
the appropriate rormulation applied by a technician to the designated axilla, the exact number Or strokes being appropriate, as deter~ined by the technician'~ experlence, to apply about 0~5 gram Or ~ormulation. Product appllcatlon~ were made by th~ ~ama technician throughout the test. Each panelist was assigned his own ~ndividual test unit Or each produot. Product container~
wer~ weighed at the beginning and at ~hc end o~ the test to veri~y the amcunt oP prod~ct used~
The odor ~core~ giYen by the four odor ~udge~ were averaged and sub~ected to 3tatlstical analysl~ to determlne whe'ther a particular test product or its control wa3 more effective at reducing axillary door. Scor~ differences ~re oonsidered signi~lcant only at the 95~ con~idence level or highe~.
EXAMPL~ I
This st~dy compared the deodorant erficacy o~ polyhexa-methylene biguanide hydrochloride at 0.4~ absolute concentration in 75/25 SD ~0 alcohol~water wt/wt, with beDzethonium chloride (Rohm & Haas Co., Hyamine 1622) a3 a 0.2~ 301ution (typical conoentration in co~ercially-available deodorants) in the ~a~e vehiole. The study began with 47 panelists and concluded with 43. The test procedure described above waq ~ollowed with the exception that applicatlons began on Monday, 90 that base lin~
readings ~no treatment) were obtained for only one da~ and 24-hour po-~t-application readings ror ~our day3, Tuesday through Friday. The average odor ratirg~ are given in the following table:
.. .... . .. . . ... . . .
. - ' .

". . , . ~

Polyhexamethylene Biguanide Benzethonium p~Y HYdrochlorid~ Chloride Di~fereno~
control 1 4.63 4.80 -0.l7 post-applicatlon 1 3.94 4.1~ -0.18 po~t-app. 2 3.84 4.4B -0.64 post-app. 3 3.67 4.]Z -0-~5 po~t-app. ~ 3.6S 4.08 -0.42 The polyhexa~ethylene biguanid~ hydrochloride per~ormed at parlty with benzethonium chloride on ~he rlrat post-appl.i.cation day and wa~ signi~icantly superior throughout the last Shree day~ o~ the te~t, indicating superior deodorant efficacy of polyhexametbylene biguanide hydrochloride.
. .
EXAMPI.E II
i5 In thi~ study polyhexamethylene bigua~de hydrochloride was again compared with benzethonium chloride, ~ith the deodorant .. . . . . .. .. . . . .
material~ incorporated ln a ~ormulation sultable for a roll-on - deodorant. The compo~itions ~ere as follow~:

Te3t Product Control Magne~ium aluminum silicat~ 22.5~0 22.500 Deionized water 66.575 68.375 Methylparaben 0.200 0.200 Propylparaben 0. 2ao o~ 200 EDTA 0.025 0.025 .25 ~ Polyoxyethy~ne (4) lauryl ether ~Bri; 30P- ICI America~) 0.500 0.500 Glyceryl ~tearate PEG-lO~tearate 7.000 7.003 Di~ethicone 1.000 l.000 Benzethonium chloride (Hya~ine~ 622) ~ 0.200 30 Polyhexamethylene biguanlde Hydrochlorlde 2.000 . .
' lOO.D00~loO.OOOS
.
Th~ rollowlng odor score~ were obtained with 56 paneli~ts throughout:

.. , .. ~ . . .

r . ~ , . S

Polyhexamethylene Bigua~ide Benzethonium Day Hvdroohloride Chloride Difrerenoe control l 4.62 4.~8 0.04 control 2 4.42 4.46 -0.04 post-app. 1 l~.40 4.63 -~.23 post-app. 2 4.29 4.69 -~.40 post~app. 3 4.09 l~.~5 -0.46 The polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride wa~ 31gnifioantly superior to ben~ethonlum chloride on the second and third p~t-appIication days.
EXAMPIE IXI
This study utili~ed as a f`armulation ba~e a representative commerclal sodiu~ stearate-type de~dorant stiak, such a~ i~ well known in ths art, but withouS the ~ragrance. ~h~
control product consisted of SD alcohol 40, 76~43S; water, 11.51~; sodium 3tearate, 7.0%; propylen0 glyco~, 4.0S ~ragrance, 1.0%, and triclosan (Ciba-Geigy Corp.~ Irgasan DP-300),0.06S. In the te~t product the triclosan waq replaced by 2~
polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride, adJusting the concentration of the water only. The test panel Yarie~ between 44 and 47 qubject~. Odor score3 are as follows:
Polyhexamethylene Biguanide D~v Hvdrochloride TriclosanDifferen~e oontrol l 4.61 4.55 0.06 control 2 4.'4 4.81 ~0.27 post-app. 1 3-~ 4.02 -0.32 post~app. 2 3.~8 4.40 -0.62 post-app. 3 3.38 l~.~6 -0.68 Polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride was ~igni~cantly s~perior to tricloaan as a deodorant starting with the second post-application day o~ the study, again showing superior efricacy in regular daily u~e.
35 ~ ~ ol~

9 , I
:

Claims (4)

THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION IN WHICH AN EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OR PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

1. A method of inhibiting body odor by applying to the skin an effective deodorant amount of polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride, in a dermato-logically acceptable carrier.

2. The method of claim 1, in which said carrier is selected from the group consisting of aqueous-alcoholic solutions, lotions, creams, ointments, powders, suspensions, soaps, waxes in stick form, gels in stick form and aerosols.

3. The method of claim 1, in which the polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride is present in an amount of from about 0.05% to about 2%.

4. The method of claim 3, in which the polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride comprises about 0.4% of the total composition.