Enhancing Patient Compliance for Usage of Laundry Detergents Free of Dyes and Perfumes: Potential Impact of Better Cleaning Performance
Main Article Content
Keywords
laundry detergent, dyes, perfumes, sensitive skin
Abstract
Sensitive skin, an often self-reported condition, is characterized by an unpleasant sensory experience to a variety of consumer products. Certain ingredients in consumer products, such fragrances and dyes, are believed to exacerbate skin sensitivities. Due to an increased prevalence of people reporting sensitive skin, a variety of consumer products are formulated for people with this condition. A segment of commercially marketed laundry detergents, commonly known as free detergents, have been formulated without dyes and perfumes to accommodate skin sensitivities. In the US and Canada respectively, 80% and 97% of dermatologist recommend the use of free detergents for their patients with sensitive skin. However, consumers have expressed dissatisfaction with free detergents, with 39% reporting they are not satisfied with their free detergent’s cleaning performance. When people switch from the leading free laundry detergent, they will switch to a non-free detergent 60% of the time, going against dermatologist recommendations and potentially further aggravating their skin sensitivities. Recently, a survey of US households with sensitive skin showed that 98.8% said that they would be more likely to consistently use a detergent that cleans better. Herein are reported data showing Tide Pods Free & Gentle outperformed other free detergents in cleaning across a wide variety of laundry stains and in SEM visual analysis of soil residues on fibers. It is postulated that the better cleaning detergent may help drive patient compliance with dermatologist recommendations for usage of a free detergent for their patients with sensitive skin.
References
2. Misery, L., Sibaud, V., Merial-Kieny, C., & Taieb, C. (2011). Sensitive skin in the American population: prevalence, clinical data, and role of the dermatologist: Sensitive skin in USA. International Journal of Dermatology, 50(8), 961–967.
3. Farage, M. A., & Robinson, M. K. (2012). Sensitive Skin: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Contributors. In M. Lodén & H. I. Maibach (Eds.), Treatment of Dry Skin Syndrome (pp. 95–109). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
4. Mohamoud, A. A., & Andersen, F. (2017). Allergic contact dermatitis caused by textile dyes mimicking atopic dermatitis: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by textile dyes. Contact Dermatitis, 76(2), 119–120.
5. Belsito, D. V., Fransway, A. F., Fowler, J. F., Sherertz, E. F., Maibach, H. I., Mark, J. G., Nethercott, J. R. (2002). Allergic contact dermatitis to detergents: A multicenter study to assess prevalence. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 46(2), 200–206.
6. Krakowski, A., & Eichenfield, L.F. (2010). Atopic Dermatitis Basics: Three Common Myths Debunked. Practical Dermatology for Pediatrics. May/June, 39-42.
7. P&G data on file. US data is based on IQVIA ™ ProVoice January 2018 cumulative 12-month data. Canadian data is based on an internet survey of 150 dermatologists licensed to practice in Canada conducted in January 2018.
8. Ertel, K. (2000). Modern skin cleansers. Dermatologic Clinics, 18(4), 561–575.
9. Yamaguchi, F. Watanabe, S., Harada, F., Miyake, M., Yoshida, M. & Okano, T. (2014). In Vitro Analysis of the Effect of Alkyl-Chain Length of Anionic Surfactants on the Skin by Using a Reconstructed Human Epidermal Model. Journal of Olea Science, 63(10), 995-1004.
10. Mukhopadhyay, P. (2011). Cleansers and their role in various dermatological disorders. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 56(1), 2.
11. Crawford, C., & Zirwas, M.J. (2014). Laundry Detergents and Skin Irritancy- A Comprehensive Review, 12(1), 23-31.
12. Adrio, J., & Demain, A. (2014). Microbial Enzymes: Tools for Biotechnological Processes. Biomolecules, 4(1), 117–139.
13. Basketter, D. A., English, J. S. C., Wakelin, S. H., & White, I. R. (2008). Enzymes, detergents and skin: facts and fantasies. British Journal of Dermatology, 158(6), 1177–1181.
14. Bowman, J.P., Berger, R.S., Mills, O.H. (2003). The 21-day human cumulative irritation test can be reduced to 14 days without loss of sensitivity. J. Cosmet. Sci., 54, 443-449.
15. McNamee, P. M., Api, A. M., Basketter, D. A., Frank Gerberick, G., Gilpin, D. A., Hall, B. M., Robinson, M. K. (2008). A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 52(1), 24–34.
16. Marzulli, F. N., & Maibach, H. I. (1980). Further studies of effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis, 6(2), 131–133.
17. Basketter, D. A. (2009). The human repeated insult patch test in the 21st century: A commentary. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 28(2), 49–53.
18. Fowler, J.F., Zirwas, M.J., Napolitano, L., Coope-Epstein, J. and Russell, M. (2017). A new approach to formulating a milder laundry detergent for patients with sensitive skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 76S, 17.
19. Demetrulias, J., Donnelly, T., Morhenn, V., Jessee, B., Hainsworth, S., Casterton, P., Bernhofer, L., Martin, K. and Decker, D. (1998). Skin2 -- an in vitro human skin model: the correlation between in vivo and in vitro testing of surfactants. Exp Dermatol. 7, 18-26.
20. Fujimura, T., Shimotoyodome, Y., Nishijima, T., Sugata, K., Taguchi, H. and Moriwaki, S. (2017). Changes in hydration of the stratum corneum are the most suitable indicator to evaluate the irritation of surfactants on the skin. Skin Res Technol. 23, 97-103.
21. Gabard, B., Chatelain, E., Bieli, E. and Haas, S. (2001). Surfactant irritation: in vitro corneosurfametry and in vivo bioengineering. Skin Res Technol. 7, 49-55.
22. Ferri, A., Osset, M., Abeliotis, K., Amberg, C., Candan, C., Owens, J., & Stamminger, R. (2016). Laundry performance: Effect of detergent and additives on consumer satisfaction. Tenside Surfactants Detergents, 53(4), 375–386.
23. P&G data on file
24. Neilsen 2017 laundry detergent retail sales data; www.Nielsen.com
25. ASTM D4265-14. Standard Guide for Evaluation Stain Removal Performance in Home Laundering. Accessed from: https://www.astm.org/Standards/D4265.htm
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.