ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although the mechanisms of sweating due to thermoregulation vs. stress are distinct, the antiperspirant industry focuses primarily on perspiration due to heat as their method of efficacy testing. To better understand the overall protection afforded by a 'Clinical Strength' over-the-counter antiperspirant product, we compare results from a standard hot-room study with results from two studies using the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). METHODS: For each study, unscented antiperspirant was applied to one axilla, leaving the other untreated for internal control. The hot-room protocol involved a 40-min warm-up period with 2-20 min sweat collections at 100 ± 2 °F (35% RH). The TSST requires naïve subjects to give an impromptu speech and conduct mental arithmetic, with collections of sweat, heart rate and other biomarkers of stress before, during and after the event. RESULTS: During the TSST, heart rate and salivary cortisol data indicate significant emotional stress. Wetness results show that sweat was reduced by 69.4% in the hot-room study, compared with 83.7% and 89.3% reductions in the stress studies. CONCLUSION: We have found added value in investigating antiperspirancy from several causes of sweat production to give a more encompassing picture of the protection afforded by an antiperspirant product, specifically wetness protection from heat, activity and stress-induced sweat.
