j. Soc.Cosmet.

Chem.,44, 13-21 (January/February

1993)

A comparisonof antiperspirant
data analysismethods

FRANK H. DIETRICH II, JAMES P. BOWMAN,

BARBARA M. FATH, andJOHN E. WILD, Hill TopResearch,
Inc., Cincinnati,OH 45147 (F.H.D., J.P.B., B.M.F., J.E.W.),
andNorthernKentucky University,
HighlandHeights,KY 41076
(F.H.D.).

Received
January22, 1992.

Synopsis
The purpose of anantiperspirant
studymaybeto estimatethe efficacy of a product,to compare two or more
products,or to providesupportfor an advertisingclaim. In anyof thesecases,variousstatisticalmethods
areavailableto analyzethe data.In thispaper,we will compare threemethodsof estimatingthe efficacy
of a singleantiperspirant
product.Over the yearsHill Top Research, Inc. hascollectedvastamountsof
antiperspirant
data,andthislargebaseof historicalinformation will beutilizedforcomparing thestatistical
methodsof interest.This investigationsuggeststhat oneof the methodsis preferable to the others.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluationof humanperspirationevolvedfrom simplyviewing the amountof sweat

producedduring a set time period to collectingand weighing the actual sweatin the
axillae.Collectingandweighingaxillaryperspirationthroughthe useof absorbent pads
hasbeenusedsincethe early 1950sand with minor modifications hasremainedfairly
consistentfor over40 years.Analyseshavealsoevolvedovertime.
The analysisof the earlyvisualdataestimatedreductionin the amountof perspiration
seen.Oneformof analysis of the datacollectedwith absorbent padsis doneusingtreated
axilla overuntreatedaxillaratios,adiustingthe posttreatment ratiosby a pretreatment
ratio (1). As earlyas 1964 the useof analysisof varianceto testfor differences
between
treatmentswas employed(2). Adaptationof the analysisof variance(i.e., analysisof
covariance, etc.) andothermethodshavealsobeenusedto analyzeantiperspirant data.
In this paper,we will considerexperimentswith the obiectiveof estimatingthe percent
reductionobtainedfollowing useof an antiperspiranttest product. That is, we will
consider experiments designedto estimatethe averagepercentreductionin perspiration
that couldbe achievedby consumers usingan antiperspirant.

ANTIPERSPIRANT TERMINOLOGY

Terminologythat is typicallyusedto definethevariousstagesof an antiperspirant

study
is as follows:

13
14 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

CONDITIONING

Eachsubjectabstainsfrom the useof axillaryantiperspirants

andusesonly a deodorant
productin the axillaefor a periodof 17 or moredays(3) to effectwashoutof any
previouslyusedantiperspirantformulations.

BASELINE

Baselinesweatvolumesand baselineaxillaryratiosare determinedby sweatcollections

takenafterthe conditioningperiod,but beforeapplyingthe antiperspirant
testproduct.

TREATMENT

A seriesof supervised applications of the testformulationto the axillaryareasis made

during this period. The effectof treatmenton axillarysweatingis evaluatedby sweat
collectionsmadeat specificintervalsfollowingsupervised applications.
All antiperspirant
studieshaveconditioningandtreatmentstages;however,somedo not
utilize a baseline evaluation.

Sweatingof the testpanelistsis inducedby havingthe panelistssit in a roommaintained

at 100øF--- 2øFandat a relativehumidityof 35% --- 5%. During the first40 minutes
of the sweatstimulationperiod,the panelistshold unweighedpadsof Webril (nonwoven
cottonpaddingfabric)in their axillae.This preliminarywarm-upperiodis followedby
two successive 20-minute collectionperiods,duringwhichthe panelistshold weighed
Webril padsin the axillae.Thesepadsareplacedin tightly cappedpolystyrene vialsand
weighedbeforeand after use.

STATISTICAL METHODS

For eachof the followingmethods,the sourcedatafor the statisticalanalysisconsistof

milligramsof sweatcollectedfrom right and left axillaeof panelistswho havepartici-
patedin antiperspirant studies.Treatmentsconsistof onehalf of the panelistsreceiving
a placebo,SampleX, on the right and the antiperspirant of interest,SampleY, on the
left, andonehalfof the panelistsreceivingthe treatmentin the oppositeright-left order.
The axilla that hasbeenidentifiedto receivethe antiperspirantof interest,SampleY,
is designatedas Axilla Y, and the other axilla asAxilla X.

ADJUSTED RATIO METHOD

For this methodof analysis,pretreatmentY-to-X ratiosaredeterminedfor eachsubject

usingbaselinesweatcollections.This ratio is calculatedfor eachsubjectby
Baselinemilligramsof sweatfrom Axilla Y
Pretreatment ratio =
Baselinemilligramsof sweatfrom Axilla X

Posttreatmentratiosare similarly calculatedby

 ANTIPERSPIRANT DATA ANALYSIS 15

Milligrams of sweatafter treatmentfrom Axilla Y

Posttreatment ratio =
Milligrams of sweatafter treatmentfrom Axilla X

The data that is actuallyanalyzedis calledthe adjustedtreatmentratio, and is calculat-

ed by
Posttreatment ratio
Adjusted treatment ratio = Pretreatment ratio

The meanof the adjustedtreatmentratiosis employedto find a point estimateof the

meanpercentreductionin sweatingachievedby consumers. This valueis given by
Estimateof meanpercentreductionin sweating=
(1 - mean of adjustedratio) x 100.

To obtain an interval estimateof the mean percentreductionin sweating,first the

adjustedtreatmentratiosare usedto calculatea small sample(Student'st) confidence
interval.Thesevaluesarethen subtracted from oneand multipliedby 100 (4).

WOODING-FINKELSTEIN METHOD

For this analysis,no baselinemeasurementsare used.For eachsubject,the posttreat-

ment milligramsof sweatfor Axilla Y andAxilla X aretransformed by calculatingthe
naturallogarithmof each.The meansof the transformed datafor Axilla Y andAxilla X
arecalculated
anddenoted
by YlogandX•og,respectively.
A pointestimate
of the
percentreductionis calculatedusingthe antilogsof thesevaluesas follows'
-- --

Estimate
of meanpercent
reduction
= [1 - Antilog(Y•og)/Antilog
(X•og)]x 100.
To find an intervalestimateof the meanpercentreduction,two stepsarerequired.First,
followingan analysisof varianceusingthe transformed data, a confidenceinterval is
calculatedusinga smallsample(Student'st) method.The endpointsof this intervalare
then exponentiatedto transformthem backto the percentreductionscale(5).

DIRECT METHOD

Again, no baselinemeasurements are usedin this analysis.Posttreatmentindividual

percentreductionsare determinedfor eachsubjectby employingthe posttreatment
ratios(definedfor the ratio method).This is accomplished
by

Individual percentreductions= (1 - posttreatmentratio) x 100 =

(posttreatmentAxilla X milligrams) - (posttreatmentAxilla Y milligrams)

x 100.
(posttreatmentAxilla X milligrams)

The meanof the individualpercentreductionsis usedas a point estimateof the mean

percentreductionin sweatingfor all consumers. To obtain an interval estimateof the
meanpercentreduction,a confidenceinterval is calculatedfrom the individual percent
16 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

Table I
Estimates of Mean Percent Reductions

Method

Study No. of panelists ARM WFM DM

1 29 - 1.16 3.21 -3.67

2 30 9.65 14.59 8.81
3 30 19.49 20.60 18.04
4 30 19.98 19.54 15.95
5 10 22.72 21.72 19.16
6 30 22.77 21.77 18.34
7 52 27.68 29.65 26.64
8 29 32.96 35.51 32.24
9 30 41.96 48.70 44.30
10 30 42.05 42.93 38.92
11 30 43.56 45.72 42.65
12 33 45.28 47.13 43.99
13 32 50.30 55.42 53.31
14 15 56.55 58.10 54.17
15 15 59.92 65.96 62.49

ß 1
reducuons. The calculationof this intervalis obtainedby a methodusedin deodorant
efficacystudies(6).

RESULTS

For any particularantiperspirantstudyof interest,the adjustedratio method(ARM),

the Wooding-Finkelstein method(WFM), and the directmethod(DM) will generally
produceslightlydifferentpoint estimatesof the percentreductionin sweatingfor that
study. To demonstratehow much differentthe estimatestypically are for the three
methods,we appliedthe methodsto fifteen recentantiperspirantstudiesconductedat
Hill TopResearch
2.Theposttreatment dataanalyzed
weretheone-hour
collection
taken
afterthethirdapplication
3. In TableI wepresentthethreepointestimates
ofpercent
reductionfor eachof the fifteen antiperspirantstudies.
If youexaminethe resultsof Study8, whichincluded29 subjects,youwill seethat the
WFM producedthe largestestimateof percentreduction,35.51%. The ARM is next
at 32.96%, and the DM is smallestat 32.24%. Althoughthis exactpatterndoesnot
existfor everystudy,the overalltrend is similar. In fact, in all 15 studiesthe percent
reductionproducedby the WFM is largerthan the corresponding estimateproducedby

t Depending
onthenumber
ofsubjects
sampled,
eithera Student's
t ora largesample
Z intervalmightbe
found. To assurevalidity, we would recommendsamplingoverthirty subjectsand usingthe largesample
procedure.
2 Whenselecting
thefifteenantiperspirant
studies
to beanalyzed,
wemadesuretheycovered
a widerange
of efficacies.This wasthe only criterionusedto selectthe studies,and no studieswere eliminatedbecause
of lack of supportfor our conclusions.
3 Thiscollection
is accepted
asonethatis appropriate
to usewhenestimating
theefficacy
of anantiper-
spirant.
 ANTIPERSPIRANT DATA ANALYSIS 17

the DM. The averageof the estimatesof percentreductionusing the WFM are 3.68
larger than the averageof the estimatesusing the DM. In 12 of the 15 studies,the
percentreductionproducedby the ARM is larger than the corresponding estimate
producedby the DM. The ARM producedestimatesthat averaged1.22 morethan those
producedby the DM. There are theoreticalreasonsthat explain the differencesin the
estimatesshownby theseempiricalresults.
A basicstatisticalresultis that the arithmeticmeanof a sampleis an unbiasedestima-
tor4. Since
theDM uses
themeanofthesample
ofpercent
reductions
in sweating
asan
estimator, this method will providean unbiasedestimator,one that tends (on the
average)to be neitherlargernorsmallerthanthe true efficacyof the antiperspirantbeing
tested. It can be mathematicallyshownthat for any given antiperspirantstudy, the
estimatedpercentreductionproducedby the WFM will alwaysbe larger than the
corresponding
estimate
produced
bytheDM5.ThustheWFMwilltendtooverestimate
the efficacyof an antiperspirant.
The estimateproducedby the ARM usesthe averageof ratios.It is for this reasonthat
in Table I the estimatesfor percentreductionfor the ARM tend to be slightly larger
thanthose
produced
bytheDM6.
When comparingestimators,an unbiasedestimatoris generallypreferredto onethat is
biased.For this reason,the DM is preferableto both the ARM andthe WFM. A second
point that is oftenconsideredwhencomparingmethodsof estimationis the variability
associated
withtheestimators
7. Thiscanbethought
of asa measure
of precision,
and
may be assessed
by examiningthe widthsof the confidence
intervalsestimates.
In Table II we present95% confidenceintervalscalculatedby the WFM, ARM, and
DM for the fifteen antiperspirantstudiesintroducedin Table I.
The averagewidth of the ARM confidence intervalsis 2.52 lessthan the averagewidth
of the DM confidenceintervals.Thus it appearsthat the ARM estimatesare lessvariable
than the DM estimates,and for the samesamplesizes,this tendsto be true. However,
baselinemeasurementsmust be collectedto obtain the ARM estimates,while this is not
necessary
for the DM to be used.If baselinemeasurements
were not collected,these
resources
couldbe usedto collectmoreposttreatmentmeasurements.
Thus, for similar
expenditures,the ARM and DM would produceconfidenceintervalsof comparable
widths.

The averagewidth of the WFM intervalsis 0.22 lessthan the averagewidth of the DM
intervals.Theseempiricalresultssuggestthereis little differencein the variabilityof the
two estimators.

Finally, for any statisticalprocedureto be used,it shouldbe statisticallyvalid. By the

validityof the procedure we meancertainconditions(assumptions) mustbe met for any

4 In thiscontext,
anunbiased
estimator
will ontheaverage
beequalto thevalueit isestimating.
5 Thisisdueto therelationship
between
thegeometric
mean(calculated
fortheWFM) andthearithmetic
mean (calculated for the DM).
6 Whenthesample
average
ratiooftwovariables
isusedtoestimate
theratioofthetrueaverages
ofthe
two variables,the estimateis generallynot unbiased.
7 A comparison
of the variabilityof differentestimators
is of mostinterestwhencomparing
different
unbiased estimators.
18 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

Table II
95% Confidence Intervals for Mean Percent Reductions

Method

ARM WFM DM

Study Interval Width Interval Width Interval Width

1 - 12.78 10.46 23.24 - 12.96 17.06 30.02 - 17.55, 10.21 27.76
2 -0.35 19.65 20.00 1.94 25.60 23.66 -3.04, 20.66 23.70
3 12.48 26.50 14.02 12.29 28.13 15.84 10.39, 25.69 15.30
4 13.62 26.34 12.72 10.38 27.76 17.38 6.57, 25.33 18.76
5 10.80 34.64 23.84 5.05. 35.46 30.41 4.81, 33.51 28.70
6 15.11 30.43 15.32 13.37 29.36 15.99 10.63, 26.05 15.42
7 20.87 34.49 13.62 23.58 35.24 11.66 20.54, 32.74 12.20
8 25.58 40.34 14.76 27.85. 42.35 14.50 24.60, 39.88 15.28
9 33.94 49.98 16.04 40.32 55.90 15.58 35.38, 53.22 17.84
10 35.72 48.38 12.66 34.43 50.32 15.89 30.29, 47.55 17.26
11 38.11 49.01 10.90 37.83 52.61 14.78 36.13, 49.17 13.04
12 39.83 50.73 10.90 40.19. 53.27 13.08 37.24, 50.74 13.50
13 44.19 56.41 12.22 50.47. 59.89 9.42 48.48, 58.14 9.66
14 49.17 63.93 14.76 45.97 67.51 21.54 44.04, 64.30 20.26
15 50.96 68.88 17.92 56.04. 73.65 17.61 51.47, 73.51 22.04

statisticalmethod to "work properly." These conditionsinvolve how the data are

collected,the typeof data, the distributionof the data, etc. If the appropriateconditions
are not met, a statisticalmethodmay yield unreliableresults.
It has been noted that the distribution of adjustedratiosshouldhave a normal distri-
bution for the ARM to be valid. An examinationof the distributionof approximately
5000 adjustedratioscalculatedfrom vast amountsof historicaldata (Figure 1) shows
that this distributionis definitelynot symmetric.Thus the distributionis not normal.
This meansthat for small samplesthe ARM is not appropriate.However, when more
than thirty subjectsare usedin antiperspirantstudies,the t-statisticis approximately
valid and the mentionedcriticism is no longera worry.
The WFM performsan analysisof varianceto analyzeantiperspirantstudies,and the
datamustagainbe normallydistributed.Sincethe milligramsof sweatcollectedarenot
normally distributed (Figure 2), the WFM analyzeslog-transformeddata. While the
transformeddata are more nearlynormallydistributedthan the originalmilligramsof
sweatcollected,the transformeddata are not exactlynormal;it is somewhatnonsym-
metric (Figure 3). Thus the WFM is approximatelytheoreticallyvalid.
The DM analyzesthe collectionof individualpercentreductionsin sweatingfor each
subject.The distributionof percentreductionsis not normal(Figure4). Due to the
nonsymmetryof this distribution,we recommendthat overthirty panelistsbe usedto
providepercentreductions;in this mannerthe DM would be approximatelytheoreti-
cally valid.

DISCUSSION

The adjustedratio methodand directmethodagreequite well, with the adjustedratio

 120-

0.50 0.75 1.00 I .25 I .50 I .75

ADJUSTED RATIOS

Figure l. Graph of approximately5000 adjustedratios.

11o

lOO

4-0-

30-

20-

lO-

54-0 1000 1500

MILLIGRAMS

Figure 2. Graph of approximately5000 milligram values.

 100-

go-

80-

70-

60-

'• ,50-

i,

4.0-

,30-

20-

10-

0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..............................................
:::
.........................................................
::::::::::::::::::
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

LOG(MILLIGRAMS)
Figure 3. Graph of approximately5000 naturallogarithmsof milligram data.

100-

80-

60-

>-

i,i

i,

4.o'

20.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..........................................................................
.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4- 0.6
PERCENT REDUCTION

Figure 4. Graphof approximately

5000 percentreductions.
 ANTIPERSPIRANT DATA ANALYSIS

methodtending to haveslightly higher estimatesthan the direct method. The Wood-

ing-Finkelsteinmethodalwaysproduces higherestimatesof percentreductionthan the
direct method and almost alwaysproduceshigher estimatesthan the adjustedratio
method. These statementsare supportedby empirical results as well as theoretical
considerations.

Sincethe direct methodproducesstatisticallyunbiasedestimates,while the other two

methodsdo not, the direct methodis preferred.Also, there is little in the way of
increasedprecision(width of confidenceintervals)to recommendone of the three
methods over the other two.

Othermethods
of analysis
suchasanalysis
of covariance,
analysis
of log-transformed
adjustedratios,and non-parametric methodshavealsobeenusedby experimenters to
analyzeantiperspirantdata. Sincethe first two of thesemethodsusetransformeddata,
theywill providebiasedestimators,asthe Wooding-Finkelstein methoddoes.Although
a non-parametric techniquemight be valid, it is well known that non-parametric
methodsare lesspowerfulthan parametricmethods.Thus the direct methodwould be
preferred.
Finally, we want to emphasize that the resultsof this paperare in referenceto experi-
mentsin which the objectiveis to estimatethe percentreductionof an antiperspirant.
For studieswith otherobjectives,suchastestingwhich of two or moreantiperspirants
hasthe greater(or greatest)efficacy,it is asyet to bedeterminedwhat, if any, statistical
analysisis most appropriate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authorsgratefullyacknowledge
CindyYablokand SallyBurkhardfor their assis-
tancein the preparationof this manuscript.

REFERENCES

(1) W. G. Fredalland R. R. Read, Antiperspirant-axillary

methodof determiningeffectiveness,
Proc,
Sci. Sect., Toilet Goo& Assoc.,15, 23-27 (1951).
(2) W. M. Wooding et al., Statisticalevaluationof quantitativeanriperspiranrdata. I., J. Soc.Cosmet.
Chem., 15, 579-592 (1964).
(3) F. B. Carabello,Guidelinesfor the clinical study of antiperspirantand deodorantefficacy,Cosmet.
Toilerr., 95, 33 (1980).
(4) P. A. Majors and John E. Wild, The evaluationof anriperspirantefficacy--Influenceof certain
variables,
J. Soc.Cosmet.Chem.,25, 139-152 (1974).
(5) W. M. Wooding and P. Finklestein,A critical comparisonof two procedures for antiperspirant
evaluation,J. Soc.Cosmet.
Chem.,26, 255-275 (1974).
(6) ASTM CommitteeE-18, "StandardPracticefor the SensoryEvaluationof Axillary Deodorancy,"in
AnnualBookof ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.07 (1988).