New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Antiperspirant Boosts Armpit and Toe-Web Microbial Diversity

Rather than wiping microbes out, antiperspirants and foot powders increased the diversity of microbial flora in armpits and between toes. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You hear a lot about how what you eat will affect your microbiome. Probiotics. Prebiotics. Stuff like that. But your skin is swarming with microbes too—and the grooming products you use might affect what’s's living there. That's according to a study in the journal BMC Biology. [Amina Bouslimani et al., The impact of skin care products on skin chemistry and microbiome dynamics]

For their tests, researchers recruited six men and six women. The volunteers left their skin alone for the first three weeks except for a light body wash. Then, for the next three weeks, the participants applied a modern skincare arsenal: sunscreen and skin lotion, antiperspirant and foot powder. Finally, the volunteers returned to their usual routine, whatever it was for each person, for another three weeks. 

Throughout that time the scientists swabbed the volunteers' faces and forearms, armpits and feet. Then they did chemical and genetic analyses of the samples. The lotion and sunscreen didn't appear to alter the microbiome. But they found, counterintuitively, that the antiperspirant and foot powder actually boosted the diversity of microbes in the armpits and in between the toes—perhaps because those products change nutrient and moisture levels and thus create conditions that foster a wider variety of tiny occupants. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers also found that different skin care routines altered the types of hormones and pheromones present on the subjects' skin. And they hypothesize that someday, personalized skin-care recipes could be tailored to individuals to alter our pheromones in a systematic way, thus making us more attractive to others. Or less attractive, should anyone need to lessen their kavorka. [Seinfeld clip: “I have this power.” “Yes, kavorka." "Kavorka?" "It is a Latvian word which means 'the lure of the animal.'”]

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe