title: Ecological effects of a deodorant and a plain soap upon human skin bacteria.
abstract: The effects of a commercial trichlorocarbanilide-containing deodorant soap and a commercial plain soap upon the cutaneous flora of individuals were compared. Using a cross-over design, 21 volunteers (10 women and 11 men) washed their forearms at least once a day with one soap for 3 weeks and then switched soaps for another 4 weeks use. By analysis of variance no significant difference in total colony counts was noted among individuals in their use of the two soaps. With the exception of individual variation, neither sequence of use, sex, nor any combination was influential. However, in 20 of 21 subjects an alteration in the composition of skin flora was observed. The deodorant soap, which in six cases increased total flora, tended to reduce or eliminate diphtheroids in 12 to 17 carriers (71%). Fewer kinds of bacteria were also noted. More Staphylococcus epidermidis was seen with the plain soap, but washing with the deodorant soap seemed to favour Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and Micrococcus luteus. The impact of this alteration and the use of total counts to measure effectiveness of deodorant soaps were brought into question.
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002224:Carbanilides / Q000494:pharmacology; D003352:Corynebacterium / Q000187:drug effects; D003836:Deodorants / Q000494:pharmacology*; D004463:Ecology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008837:Micrococcus / Q000187:drug effects; D012867:Skin / Q000382:microbiology*; D012915:Soaps / Q000494:pharmacology*; D013210:Staphylococcus / Q000187:drug effects
chemical_list: D002224:Carbanilides; D003836:Deodorants; D012915:Soaps
references.citation: Appl Microbiol. 1975 Oct;30(4):551-6
references.pmid: 1103729
references.citation: Can J Microbiol. 1975 Nov;21(11):1676-80
references.pmid: 1104117
references.citation: Can J Microbiol. 1975 Apr;21(4):496-500
references.pmid: 1122426
references.citation: J Invest Dermatol. 1973 Apr;60(4):207-14
references.pmid: 4572929
references.citation: Arch Dermatol. 1969 Apr;99(4):465-8
references.pmid: 4889997
references.citation: J Invest Dermatol. 1970 Feb;54(2):160-3
references.pmid: 4904886
references.citation: J Hyg (Lond). 1960 Jun;58:159-76
references.pmid: 14405533
references.citation: JAMA. 1970 Feb 9;211(6):973-6
references.pmid: 4985504
references.citation: J Appl Bacteriol. 1970 Sep;33(3):574-81
references.pmid: 5491627
references.citation: J Invest Dermatol. 1965 Oct;45(4):257-62
references.pmid: 5837896
references.citation: Arch Dermatol. 1966 Nov;94(5):646-8
references.pmid: 5960371
references.citation: J Invest Dermatol. 1963 Jan;40:61-71
references.pmid: 13977054
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda). 1966;6:255-64
references.pmid: 4964452