Deodorant effects of a sage extract stick:
`Antibacterial activity and sensory evaluation
`of axillary deodorancy
`
`Mohammad Ali Shahtalebi1, Mustafa Ghanadian1,3, Ali Farzan2, Niloufar Shiri3, Dariush Shokri4, Syed Ali Fatemi5
`Department of Pharmacognosy, 1Department of Pharmaceutics, Isfahan Faculty of Pharmacy, 2Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology,
`School of Health, 3Isfahan Pharmaceutical Sciences Research center, 4Nosocomial Infection Research Center, 5Department of Pharmacology,
`Isfahan Faculty of Pharmacy, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
`
`Background: Deodorant products prevent the growth and activity of the degrading apocrine gland bacteria living in the armpit.
`Common antibacterial agents in the market like triclosan and aluminum salts, in spite of their suitable antibacterial effects, increase the
`risk of Alzheimer’s disease, breast and prostate cancers or induce contact dermatitis. Therefore, plant extracts possessing antibacterial
`effects are of interest. The aim of the present study was to verify the in vitro antimicrobial effects of different sage extracts against
`two major bacteria responsible for axillary odor, and to evaluate the deodorant effect of a silicon-based stick containing sage extracts
`in different densities in humans. Materials and Methods: Different fractions of methanolic extract of Salvia officinalis (sage) were
`evaluated on a culture of armpit skin surface of volunteers through agar microdilution antimicrobial assay. Then, randomized, double-
`blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with the best antibacterial fraction was conducted on 45 female healthy volunteers. Participants
`were treated with a single dose in four groups, each containing 15 individuals: Group 1 (200 µg/mL), 2 (400 µg/mL), 3 (600 µg/
`mL) of dichloromethane sage extract, and placebo (without extract). A standard sensory evaluation method for the evaluation of
`deodorant efficacy was used before, and two hours, four hours, and eight hours after single application of a deodorant or placebo
`(ASTM method E 1207-87 Standard Practice for the Sensory Evaluation of Axillary Deodorancy). Results: The data were analyzed
`with two factors relating to densities and time. In 45 participants with a mean [± standard deviation (SD)] age of 61.5±11.8 years,
`statistically significant within-group differences were observed before and two, four, and eight hours after deodorant treatment for
`groups 1, 2, and 3. Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a significantly smaller odor score than placebo after two, four, and eight hours (P < 0.001).
`In a comparison of different deodorant densities, the interaction effect was not significant between deodorant 200 and 400 µg/mL,
`but was significant between 200 and 600 and between 400 and 600 µg/mL sage extract sticks (P < 0.001). Before running the sensory
`evaluation of the deodorant sticks on the subjects, a rabbit skin patch test was used to demonstrate that the formulation had no
`irritants. Conclusion: A single treatment with a stick deodorant containing dichloromethane sage extract of 200, 400, or 600 µg/mL
`concentrations was effective in reducing the axillary malodor level compared with the control, in healthy subjects.
`Key words: Antibacterial activity, axillary deodorant, sage extract, stick
`
`How to cite this article: Shahtalebi MA, Ghanadian M, Farzan A, Shiri N, Shokri D, Fatemi SA. Deodorant effects of a sage extract stick: Antibacterial
`activity and sensory evaluation of axillary deodorancy. J Res Med Sci 2013;18:833-9.
`
`Original article
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Sweat glands secretion is by itself odorless, and armpit
`malodor is caused by the microbial biotransformation of
`the odorless secretion into volatile odorous molecules. [1]
`Therefore, a satisfactory deodorant product could
`prevent the growth and activity of the degrading
`apocrine gland secretion bacteria like Staphylococcus
`epidermidis and Corynebacterium species.[2] Nowadays,
`in most deodorant products, antibacterial agents such
`as quaternary ammonium compounds like triclosan,
`aluminum salts, and aromatic odor-masking agents
`are used.[2] Aluminum salts, in spite of their suitable
`antibacterial effect, increase the risk of Alzheimer’s
`disease and breast and prostate cancers.[3-6] Many of
`
`other antibacterial agents found to be effective against
`skin organisms are irritating or sensitizing.[6] There is also
`the risk of resistance to ordinary antibiotics. Therefore,
`herbal extracts possessing antibacterial effects against
`staphylococci and aerobic coryneforms are alternatively
`available for the treatment of armpit odor [7-9] Among
`plants, sage is a good candidate due to the presence of
`ursolic acid and carnosic acid with suitable antibacterial
`effects against the Corynebacterium species responsible
`for the sweat odor.[10] It is further known from US Patent
`number 6139825 that supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2)
`extracts of sage as an active ingredient between 0.5 and
`5% is used for producing gel or roll-on deodorants.
`In this study, the impact of sage extract on sweat-
`decomposing bacteria was evaluated through agar well
`
`Address for correspondence: Dr. Mustafa Ghanadian, Department of Pharmacognosy, Isfahan Faculty of Pharmacy, Isfahan University of Medical
`Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. E-mail: ghanadian@pharm.mui.ac.ir
`Received: 28-05-2013; Revised: 07-07-2013; Accepted: 12-08-2013
`
`833
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`Petitioner Dr. Squatch
` Ex. 1024
`
`

`

`diffusion method. It showed that 1% CO2 sage extract has a
`significant inhibiting effect on Corynebacterium strains and
`S. epidermidis.[11] To the best of our knowledge, this is the
`first report of sensory evaluation of axillary deodorancy
`of dichloromethane sage extract in a silicone-based stick
`formulation in humans to verify the in vitro antimicrobial
`effects of different sage extracts against two major bacteria
`responsible for axillary odor.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Plant materials
`Aerial parts of Salvia officinalis (sage) were collected in July
`2012 from the Isfahan province (Iran). The plant material was
`identified by the Pharmacognosy Department,department,
`Pharmacy Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences,
`Iran, and a voucher specimen was deposited. Shade-dried
`plant material (200 g) was macerated with aqueous ethanol
`(4:6) at room temperature for five days. Filtration and under
`vacuum concentration of total hydroalcoholic extract resulted
`in a green gum which was partitioned between aqueous
`methanol and hexane. The defatted methanolic extract was
`concentrated, dissolved in water, and extracted sequentially
`with dichloromethane and n-butanol. The obtained fractions
`were vacuum-concentrated and kept in a refrigerator at –20°C.
`
`HPTLC standardization of the sage hydroalcoholic extract
`Rosmarinic acid is one of the major components of
`S. officinalis responsible for the observed biological
`activities.[12] An accurate and repeatable high-performance
`thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) method with the
`help of a TLC scanner was done on the sage extract for
`the quantification of rosmarinic acid.[13] Briefly, 100 mg of
`the concentrated hydroalcoholic extract of the S. officinalis
`was mixed thoroughly with 1 mL methanol: Water (70:30)
`repeatedly three times. The combined extract containing
`rosmarinic acid material was filtered to 3 mL. The sample
`was spotted in the form of 1 µL spot width on a prewashed
`silica gel TLC aluminium foil 60 (20×10 cm with 0.2 mm
`thickness; E. Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) using a Camag
`nanomat (CAMAG, Muttenz, Switzerland). A constant
`application rate of 150 nL/s was employed, slit dimension
`was kept at 4×0.1 mm, and 20 mm/s scanning speed was
`employed. The mobile phase consisted of toluene-ethyl
`acetate-formic acid (5-4-1). Determination was done
`at 329 nm using a TLC Scanner 3 (CAMAG, Muttenz,
`Switzerland). A standard calibration curve in the range
`of 50 to 400 µg/mL for quantitative analysis was prepared
`using different concentrations of rosmarinic acid (Sigma
`Aldrich, USA) as standard material (50, 100, 200, and 400
`µg/mL). The relationship between the concentration and
`peak height was measured using the minimum square
`method (R2 value). Validation of the HPTLC method was
`calculated as the percent recovery of spiked extract sample
`
`with standard rosmarinic acid at 100 µg/mL concentration.
`Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ)
`were determined by using the formula based on the
`signal-to-noise ratio. LOD and LOQ were calculated by
`using equations, LOD=3 × S/N’ and LOQ=10 × S/N’, where
`S = signal height, and N’= noise height.[13]
`
`Bacteria preparation
`The sage extract was tested in vitro on the cultures of
`S. epidermidis PTCC 1114 (Industrial Bacteria and Fungi
`Collection, Iran) and Corynebacterium strain isolated from
`the armpit skin surface of a volunteer to confirm that
`the extract was able to reduce the population of axillary
`bacteria.[14]
`
`Agar microdilution antimicrobial assay
`Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum
`bactericidal concentration (MBC) for Corynebacterium strains
`and S. epidermidis were determined using agar microdilution
`assay.[14] The culture of both bacteria was diluted with sterile
`tryptic soy broth (TSB) to match a McFarland 0.5 turbidity
`standard, and then further diluted to give a concentration
`of approximately 1.5×106 cfu/mL. Then, 500 µL of bacterial
`suspensions were added to 10 tubes containing 9 mL of
`Mueller-Hinton broth media; 500 µL of sage extract with
`density of 12.8 mg/mL was added to the first tube and serial
`dilution process was done producing the concentrations
`of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2,0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.4, and 12.8 mg/mL.
`A ciprofloxacin disc (4 mg/mL) was used as a standard drug
`for comparing the antibiotic activity and a medium with
`micro-organisms was used as positive control.[14]
`
`Sensory evaluation of human axillary deodorancy
`A standard method for substantiating deodorant efficacy
`of personal care products using trained odor judges for the
`assessment of axillary malodor and indirect sniff method
`instead of direct sniffing were used.[15-17]
`
`SUBJECTS
`
`This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical
`trial was conducted among 45 healthy female volunteers
`between 20 and 68 years of age. The subjects were screened
`for axillary irritation prior to acceptance in the study by an
`expert in cosmetic pharmacology. The study was approved
`by the Ethics Committee of the Isfahan University of Medical
`Sciences. Healthy subjects who were able to generate a
`moderate axillary odor (odor intensity score ≥4.0 and ≤8 with
`right-left odor difference ≤1.0) with no medical history of
`allergy to deodorants and/or antiperspirants, no axillary
`irritation, no disease, and no medication use prior to and
`following the intervention were included in the study. None
`of the subjects showed signs of axillary irritation during
`the test period, and all of the enrolled subjects completed
`
`834
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`

`

`the study. The participants were treated with a single
`dose of three sticks with different dosages of 600, 400, and
`200 µg/mL dichloromethane sage extract in a silicone-based
`stick containing propylene glycol and cyclopentasiloxane
`or placebo (silicone-based stick containing propylene glycol
`and cyclopentasiloxane without sage extract; Pharmacy
`School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran).
`Forty-five subjects were randomized using permuted block
`randomization to one of the three groups, each containing
`15 individuals, for deodorant or placebo treatment on the
`right or left axilla. The deodorant or placebo application was
`done on the right or left hand but assignment to the right or
`left remained the same during the study. The subjects and
`judges were not aware of the treatment assignment so as to
`blind the study. Written informed consent was obtained from
`each subject. During the study, the subjects agreed to avoid
`the use of antiperspirant products for a period of three weeks
`and deodorant products for two weeks prior to the start of
`the study and continue this for the entire test duration. They
`shaved their underarms 24 hours prior to the start of the test
`and abstained from any underarm shaving during the entire
`test period. They used only one type of soap without flavor
`for 14 days before the test and abstained from chewing gum,
`or using sprays or any odorous materials which might have
`interfered with the assessment.
`
`Collection and handling of samples
`Cotton sterile pads were placed in the volunteers’ armpits,
`displaced after two minutes, and then put away in small
`capped boxes with the subject’s name and right or left armpit
`marked on them. The odor evaluations were done by three
`judges on a 10-point scoring model, based on a range of
`armpit odor from none (0) through moderate malodor (5) to
`strong malodor (10).[16-18] After the initial evaluation, no (0),
`5-10 (none, or strong odor), and those with a significant
`difference between right and left armpit were excluded.
`Before the trial, the volunteers were asked to wash their
`underarms with an odorless soaked pad in 2% simple
`aqueous soap solution for 10 seconds, clean it with a water-
`dipped pad, and then dry with a clean towel. Finally, they
`were instructed to use the deodorant sticks and placebo on
`their armpits. Randomly, half of the subjects used the sticks
`on the right side and others on the left, although none could
`identify the deodorant or the placebo. After two minutes,
`odorless cotton sterile pads were placed in the underarms
`and were held by antiallergic tapes. After intervals of two,
`four, and eight hours of a single application of the deodorant
`or placebo, the pads were replaced.[16-18]
`
`Rabbit patch test
`Before running the sensory evaluation of the sticks on
`the subjects, a rabbit skin patch test as a primary dermal
`irritation study was done to ensure that the formulation did
`not cause any irritation. Albino rabbit species with 2.5 kg
`
`835
`
`weight and aged 1.5 years were selected. The rabbits were
`shaved with a modernized machine and then depilatory
`powder placed on the skin. Fifteen minutes later, the skin
`was washed and dried; 100 µL of the stick sample was
`applied on the shaved part of the rabbit skin. One, 24, 48,
`and 72 hours later, the size of red irritated areas were scored
`according to the following scale: 0-1.5 mm: No irritation;
`1.5-2.3 mm: Mild erythema; >2.3: Strong erythema.[19]
`
`Statistical analysis
`The results are presented as mean ± standard error.
`One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by
`Dunnett’s posthoc comparison was used for multiple
`between-group comparisons. Within-group comparisons
`were done using paired sample t-test. The data analyzed
`by repeated-measure design test with two factors relating
`to method and time. In another repeated-measure
`design with one factor as the function of time, we also
`compared the mean of deodorant scores after treatment
`with the control scores (before treatment). Analyses were
`performed with the statistical package SPSS version 18
`(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
`
`RESULTS
`
`HPLC standardization of the sage hydroalcoholic extract
`The retention factor (Rf value) for rosmarinic acid was
`found to be 0.43 ± 0.018. With the help of the Camag TLC
`scanner and winCATS software, the calibration curve was
`determined by linear regression in the range of 50-400 µg/mL.
`The regression equation was y = 0.4738x – 3.8635, where X is
`the concentration of rosmarinic acid in sample (µg/mL) with
`the correlation cofactor R² = 0.9993. The percent recovery
`was 95%, indicating accuracy of the method. The sage
`extract was standardized to contain 0.52% ± 0.01 (g/100 g)
`rosmarinic acids. LOD and LOQ were 15 and 50 µg/mL
`determined by using the formula based on the signal-to-
`noise ratio [Figure 1].
`
`Figure 1: Calibration curve of rosmarinic acid using HPTLC method; using Camag
`TLC scanner and winCATS software, the calibration curve was determined by
`linear regression in the range of 50-400 µg/mL; the regression equation was
`0.4738x – 3.8635, where X is the concentration of rosmarinic acid in sample
`(µg/mL) with the correlation cofactor (R2) of 0.9993.
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`

`

`200, 400, and 600 mg/mL helped to reduce the odor level
`in comparison with the control (P = 0.000) [Figures 3a-c].
`
`In between-group analysis, there was a significant difference
`between the mean of placebo and deodorant scores after
`two, four, and eight hours of using the deodorant (P > 0.001),
`which means that the deodorant with various densities
`was significantly more effective in reducing the odor level
`than placebo.
`
`Agar microdilution antimicrobial assay
`Results of MIC and MBC for sage extracts against
`S. epidermidis and Corynebacterium using microdilution
`assay are showed in Table 1. On comparison of total extract
`and different fractions, MIC values of dichloromethane
`fraction on S.epidermidis and Corynebacterium strain with
`100 and 200 µg/mL, respectively, were lesser than other
`fractions. Therefore, dichloromethane fraction with MIC
`of 200 µg/mL was selected as the antibacterial agent in the
`deodorant stick formulation.
`
`The reported size of redness on rabbit skin 1, 24, 48, and
`72 hours after the patch test was in the range of 0-1.5 mm,
`indicating no irritation of the prepared stick [Figure 2].
`
`Sensory evaluation of human axillary deodorancy
`General mean ± standard deviation (SD) for all study
`samples for age (years) and weight (kg) was (41.0 ± 11.6)
`and (61.5 ± 11.8), respectively. There were no statistically
`significant differences between the groups in terms of basic
`characteristics.
`
`Placebo and deodorant armpit odor scores after sensory
`evaluation of deodorant sticks with 200,400, and 600 µg/
`mL sage extracts are demonstrated in Table 2.
`
`a
`
`The data were analyzed with two factors relating to densities
`and time. In within-group analysis, pre and post scores two,
`four, and eight hours after deodorant treatment for groups
`1, 2, and 3 were statistically significant at P < 0.001. It means
`that the deodorant in all three sage concentrations, namely,
`
`Table 1: MIC and MBC values (µg⁄mL) of sage total
`extract and fractions against Staphylococcus
`epidermidis and isolated Corynebacterium strain from
`volunteers’ armpits
`
`Staphylococcus
`Corynebacterium
`epidermidis
`strains
`MBC
`MIC
`MBC
`MIC
`6400
`1600
`12,800
`3200
`Total extract
`>1600
`100
`800
`200
`Dichloromethane fraction
`>3200
`400
`>12,800
`6400
`Aqueous fraction
`>12,800
`1600
`6400
`3200
`Butanol fraction
` MBC= Minimum bactericidal concentration; MIC= Minimum inhibitory concentration
`
`b
`
`Figure 2: Areas of application of patch sites on backs of rabbits: 1) sage extract
`sticks, 2) untreated gauze patch as negative control, 3) 1% sodium lauryl sulfate
`as positive control, 4) placebo or vehicle control
`
`c
`Figure 3: Sensory armpit odor evaluation of placebo or deodorant sticks with
`(a) 200 µg/mL sage extract, (b) 400 µg/mL sage extract, and (c) 600 µg/mL
`sage extract
`
`836
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`

`

`Table 2: Placebo and deodorant armpit odor scores after sensory evaluation of deodorant sticks with 200, 400, and
`600 µg/mL sage extracts
`Group
`
`Deodorant
`(mean±SD)
`4.53±0.74
`1.40±0.63
`1.03±0.80
`3.07±1.03
`5.20±1.01
`1.67±0.98
`2.33±1.05
`2.87±1.19
`5.00±1.07
`1.13±0.35
`1.27±0.46
`1.93±0.46
`
`Placebo
`(mean±SD)
`4.51± 0.71
`2.60±0.99
`3.33±1.05
`4.27±0.59
`5.20±1.01
`4.27±1.22
`4.93±1.03
`5.30±1.12
`5.00±1.07
`3.87±0.84
`5.07±0.70
`6.07±1.03
`
`Paired differences
`
`P valuea
`
`1.2±0.68
`1.4±0.83
`1.2±0.86
`
`2.73±0.88
`0.38±0.78
`4.13±0.83
`
`2.73±0.88
`3.80±0.78
`4.13±0.83
`
`0.000**
`0.000**
`0.001*
`
`0.000**
`0.000**
`0.000**
`
`0.000**
`0.000**
`0.000**
`
`Time
`
`Deodorant 200
`
`Deodorant 400
`
`Deodorant 600
`
`Before
`After 2 hours (t=14.55, P <0.001)**
`After 4 hours (t=10.22, P <0.001)**
`After 8 hours (t=4.56, P <0.001) **
`Before
`After 2 hours (t=13.82, P <0.001) **
`After 4 hours (t=13.32, P <0.001) **
`After 8 hours (t=8.64, P <0.001) **
`Before
`After 2 hours (t=14.13, P <0.001) **
`After 4 hours (t=15.04, P <0.001) **
`After 8 hours (t=13.44, P <0.001) **
`aBetween-group comparisons significant at: *P <0.01, **P <0.001 versus placebo
`bWithin-group comparisons significant at: *P <0.01, **P<0.001 versus before treatment
`
`ANOVA results showed that there were statistically
`significant between-group differences after two hours
`(F = 9.99; P < 0.001), after four hours (F = 4.77; P < 0.001),
`and after eight hours (F = 18.17; P < 0.001) versus placebo.
`Groups 1, 2, and 3 had significantly lower odor scores than
`placebo after two, four, and eight hours (P < 0.001).
`
`two major bacteria responsible for underarm malodors.
`These results were confirmed through another report of
`the in vitro growth-inhibiting properties of sage extract
`against underarm bacteria, such as S. epidermidis and
`Corynebacterium xerosis which have been reported to reduce
`armpit odors.[20]
`
`In a comparison of different deodorant densities, the
`interaction effect was not significant between 200 and
`400 µg/mL. It means the change between the mean
`deodorant scores were the same at various times of
`observation, but the interaction effect between 200 and
`600 (t = 4.75, P = 0.000) and between 400 and 600 (t = 5.22,
`P = 0.000) were significant. It means that the change between
`the mean of deodorant scores of 200 and 400 versus 600 were
`different in relation to time.
`
`Comparison between pre and postplacebo treatment
`has shown significant deodorancy effect after two hours
`(P = 0.01), but the deodorancy effect was not significant
`after four and eight hours of treatment. So, the observed
`sniff test results should be taken as a combination of the
`antibacterial effects exerted by the stick constituents and
`the sage extract. It is also important to note that the product
`contained not only sage extract as an active ingredient,
`but that some ingredients of the stick formulation also
`had antibacterial properties. Propylene glycol, which
`acts as carrier in the formulation, can contribute to the
`deodorancy effects.[17]
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The results of the MIC for sage extract against S. epidermidis
`and Corynebacterium species based on microdilution
`assay showed that dichloromethane fraction with MIC of
`200 µg/mL could be used as an antibacterial agent against
`
`The results of the sensory evaluation panel showed
`significant reduction in malodor scores from 4.53 ± 0.74
`to 3.07 ± 1.03, 5.20 ± 1.01 to 2.87 ± 1.19, and 5.00 ± 1.07 to
`1.93 ± 0.46 after eight hours of deodorant 200, 400, and
`600 treatments, respectively. In comparison with the
`literature, the results observed with deodorant 600 were
`more consistent with regular deodorants in the market.[21]
`The results were also comparable with a similar study with
`hops extract in trials on humans, in which malodor scores
`dropped from 6.28 to 1.80 after eight hours of deodorant
`application.[17]
`
`On comparing the safety of market deodorants and
`sage extract, aluminum-containing deodorants were
`reported to induce contact dermatitis due to denaturing
`epidermal keratin.[22] Hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
`carboxaldehyde (HICC) known as Lyral used in more
`than 50% of the marketed deodorants is also a frequent
`allergen, but the sage stick deodorant in all densities was
`well tolerated without any irritation report.[23] In one study
`on 14 patients using HICC-containing deodorants, all
`of them developed unilateral eczema, whereas controls
`were all negative.[24] Moreover, permeability of armpit
`membranes to deodorants containing aluminum ions causes
`reactive oxygen species (ROS). Increased levels of ROS
`promote cerebral accumulation of extracellular amyloid
`ß-plaques. Amyloid ß in the brain plays an important role
`in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and mediated
`neurodegeneration.[5,25] A preliminary study on the dermal
`
`837
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`

`

`absorption of aluminium from deodorants showed that
`a small quantity of the applied aluminium was absorbed
`through the armpit skin.[24] Even though this amount is not
`significant in a single application, there is an increasing
`risk of Alzheimer’s disease or breast cancer following
`the absorption of aluminium ions after the extended use
`of aluminium-containing deodorants.[24-26] There are also
`reports of ventricular fibrillation or fatal reports following
`inhalation of deodorant sprays.[27,28] So, replacement by
`herbal extracts with acceptable antibacterial effects like sage
`extract could reduce the risk of side effects or toxicities due
`to the extended use of marketed deodorants.
`
`In summary, there are few clinical trials on natural
`deodorants to support their efficacy; so, they are
`probably considered as inefficacious. This is also the
`first report with sage extract used as deodorant in
`a stick formulation. Therefore, evaluation of the in
`vitro antibacterial activity of the sage extract and the
`evaluation of its odor-reducing capacity by a sensory
`evaluation panel on human subjects was employed to
`verify its deodorant performance.
`
`The limitation of this study was the sample size. Although
`the data had normal distribution, a larger number of
`participants will increase the statistical precision and reduce
`the standard errors.
`
`Authors’ contributions
`NS carried out the design and co-ordinated the study and
`participated in most of the experiments and in manuscript
`preparation. MS planned, supervised, and conducted the
`experimental procedures. AF assisted in data and statistical
`analysis and participated in manuscript preparation. MG
`contributed in data analysis and writing and finalizing the
`manuscript. DS provided help for antibacterial experiments.
`SF, an expert in cosmetic pharmacology, helped with
`experimental procedures. The authors have read and
`approved the content of the manuscript.
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`
`This paper is part of the thesis of Nilofar Shiri submitted
`in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
`Pharm D. She is also grateful to the Isfahan Pharmaceutical
`Sciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical
`Sciences, Isfahan, Iran for their support.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1.
`
`James AG. Hyliands D, Mycock G. Fatty acid metabolism by
`cutaneous bacteria and its role in axiliary malodor. World
`J Microbiol Biotechnol 2004;20:787-93.
`2. Benohanian A. Antiperspirants and Deodorants. Clin Dermatol
`2001;19:398-405.
`
`3. Darbre PD, Pugazhendhi D, Mannello F. Aluminium and human
`breast diseases. J Inorg Biochem 2011;105:1484-8.
`4. McGrath KG. Apocrine sweat gland obstruction by antiperspirants
`allowing transdermal absorption of cutaneous generated
`hormones and pheromones as a link to the observed incidence rates
`of breast and prostate cancer in the 20th century. Med Hypothese
`2009;72:665-74.
`5. McLachlan DC, Van Berkum MF. Aluminum: A role in degenerative
`brain disease associated with neurofibrillary degeneration. Prog
`Brain Res. 1986;70:399-410.
`6. Bedoux G, Roig B, Thomas O, Dupont V, Le Bot B. Occurrence
`and toxicity of antimicrobial triclosan and by-products in the
`environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2012;19:1044-65.
`7. Weckesser S, Engel K, Simon Haarhaus B, Wittmer A, Plez
`K, Schempp CM. Screening of plant extract for antimicrobial
`activity against bacteria and yeast with dermatological relevance.
`Phytomedicine 2007;14:508-16.
`8. Kanlayavattanakul M, Lourith N. Body malodours and their topical
`treatment agents. Int J Cosmetic Sci 2011;33:298-311.
`9. Debnath S, Babu MN, Kusuma G. Formulation and evaluation
`of herbal antimicrobial deodorant stick. Res J Top Cosmet Sci
`2011;2:21-4.
`10. Reddy PM, Gobinath M, Rao KM, Venugopalaiah P, Reena N.
`A review on importance of herbal drugs in cosmetics. Int J Adv
`Pharm Nanotechnol 2011;1:121-39.
`11. Kamatou GP, Makunga NP, Ramagola WP, Viljoen AM. South
`African salvia species: Overview of biological activities and
`phytochemistry. J Ethopharm 2008;119:664-72.
`12. Reinhard M, Geissler J. Use of extracts from sage for producing a
`deodorizing preparation. U.S. Patent No. 6,139,825. Washington,
`DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 2000.
`13. Ebrahimi SN, Kiyanpour V, Hadian J, Salehi P, Asghari B.
`Determination of rosmarinic acid content in some Iranian Satureja
`species by HPTLC. Planta Med 2008;74:PC101.
`14. Funke G, von Graevenitz A, Clarridge JE 3rd, Bernard KA.
`Clinical microbiology of coryneform bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev
`1997;10:125-59.
`15. Piérard GE, Elsner P, Marks R, Masson P, Paye M; EEMCO
`Group. EEMCO guidance for the efficacy assessment of
`antiperspirants and deodorants. Skin Pharmacol Appl skin
`Physiol 2003;16:324-42.
`16. Maxeiner B, Ennen J, Rützel-Grünberg S, Traupe B, Wittern KP,
`Schmucker R, et al. Design and application of a screening and
`training protocol for odour testers in the field of personal care
`products. Int J Cosmet Sci 2009;31:193-9.
`17. Dumas ER, Michaud AE, Bergeron C, Lafrance JL, Mortillo
`S, Gafner S. Deodorant effect of supercritical hops extract:
`Antibacterial activity against Corynebacterium xerosis and
`Staphylococcus epidermidis and efficacy testing of hops/ zinc
`ricinoleate stick in human through the sensor evaluation of
`auxiliary deodorancy. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009;8:197-204.
`18. Henry SM, Jacobs G, Cotty VF. An alternative to direct panelist-
`judge interaction in evaluating underarm deodorants. J Soc Cosmet
`Chem 1984;35:283.
`19. Gad SC, Chengelis CP. Acute toxicology testing. United States:
`Academic Press; 1997. p. 36-56.
`20. Takenaka H, Mikoshiba S, Ishimaru H, Someya K, Hayashi
`T, Takada K. Analysis of isovaleric acid generation by skin
`resident microorganism in body malodors, and the inhibitory
`effect of Sophora flavescens extract. J Jpn Cosmet Sci Soc
`2004;28:177-82.
`21. Lanzalaco AC, Rocchetta HL, Gordon S, Kolodzik J. Clinical
`effect of a three-day application of a commercial deodorant
`on axilla malodor intensity, microbial population level, and
`
`838
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`

`

`longevity of fragrance expression. J Am Acad Dermatol
`2004;50:73.
`22. Lansdown AB. Production of epidermal damage in mammalian skins
`by some simple aluminium compounds. Br J Dermatol 1973:89;67-76.
`23. Jørgensen PH, Jensen CD, Rastogi S, Andersen KE, Johansen JD.
`Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
`carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants. Contact Dermatitis
`2007;56:146-50.
`24. Flarend R, Bin T, Elmore D, Hem SL. A preliminary study of the
`dermal absorption of aluminium from antiperspirants using
`aluminium-26. Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:163-8.
`25. Yang EY, Guo-Ross SX, Bondy SC. The stabilization of ferrous iron
`by a toxic β-amyloid fragment and by an aluminum salt. Brain Res
`1999;839:221-6.
`
`26. McGrath KG. An earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis related to
`more frequent use of antiperspirants/deodorants and underarm
`shaving. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003;12:479-85.
`27. Ago M, Ago K, Ogata M. A fatal case of n-butane poisoning
`after inhaling anti-perspiration aerosol deodorant. Leg Med
`2002;4:113-8.
`28. Girard F, Le Tacon S, Maria M, Pierrard O, Monin P. Ventricular
`fibrillation following deodorant spray inhalation. Ann Fr Anesth
`Reanim 2003;27:83-5.
`
`Financial Support: This study was financially supported by a grant (no:
`390467) from the Isfahan Sciences Research Center, Isfahan University of
`Medical Sciences, Iran. Conflict of interest: None declared.
`
`839
`
`Shahtalebi, et al.: Sage extract stick: Deodorancy and antibacterial activity
`
`Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
`
`| October 2013 |
`
`