Body odour aldehyde reduction by acetic acid bacterial extract including enzymes: alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase

Deodorants and antiperspirants: New trends in their active agents and testing methods

Sweating is the human body's thermoregulation system but also results in unpleasant body odour which can diminish the self-confidence of people. There has been continued research in finding solutions to reduce both sweating and body odour. Sweating is a result of increased sweat flow and malodour results from certain bacteria and ecological factors such as eating habits. Research on deodorant development focuses on inhibiting the growth of malodour-forming bacteria using antimicrobial agents, whereas research on antiperspirant synthesis focuses on technologies reducing the sweat flow, which not only reduces body odour but also improves people's appearance. Antiperspirant's technology is based on the use of aluminium salts which can form a gel plug at sweat pores, obstructing the sweat fluid from arising onto the skin surface. In this paper, we perform a systematic review on the recent progress in the development of novel antiperspirant and deodorant active ingredients that are alcohol-free, paraben-free, and naturally derived. Several studies have been reported on the alternative class of actives that can potentially be used for antiperspirant and body odour treatment including deodorizing fabric, bacterial, and plant extracts. However, a significant challenge is to understand how the gel-plugs of antiperspirant actives are formed in sweat pores and how to deliver long-lasting antiperspirant and deodorant benefits.

Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico

Context

Molecular tests are useful in detecting COVID-19, but they are expensive in developing countries. COVID-19-sniffing dogs are an alternative due to their reported sensitivity (>80%) and specificity (>90%). However, most of the published evidence is experimental, and there is a need to determine the performance of the dogs in field conditions. Hence, we aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19-sniffing dogs in the field.

Methods

We trained four dogs with sweat and three dogs with saliva of COVID-19-positive patients, respectively, for 4.5 months. The samples were obtained from a health center in Hermosillo, Sonora, with the restriction to spend 5 min per patient. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Two sweat-sniffing dogs reached 76 and 80% sensitivity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the random value of 50%, and 75 and 88% specificity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the 50% value. The 95% CI of the sensitivity and specificity of the other two sweat dogs overlapped the 50% value. Two saliva-sniffing dogs had 70 and 78% sensitivity, and the 95% CI of their sensitivity and specificity did not overlap the 50% value. The 95% CI of the third dog's sensitivity and specificity overlapped the 50% value.

Conclusion

Four of the six dogs were able to detect positive samples of patients with COVID-19, with sensitivity and specificity values significantly different from random in the field. We considered the performance of the dogs promising because it is reasonable to expect that with gauze exposed for a longer time to sweat and saliva of people with COVID-19, their detection capacity would improve. The target is to reach the sensitivity range requested by the World Health Organization for the performance of an antigen test (≥80% sensitivity, ≥97% specificity). If so, dogs could become important allies for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in developing countries.