Comparing the Irritation Potential of Lye and No-Lye Relaxers

1. Comparing the Irritation Potential of
Lye and No-Lye Relaxers
Ali N. Syed and Ali R. Naqvi, M.D.
Avlon Induslries, Incquot; Bedford Park, IL. USA
ompared to Caucasian hair, AfriC<IO-Amcrical1 hair is The Development of Relaxers K~Vllxm/s
C extremely curly and it'S physical configur.uion resembles In the early 19005, an African-Ameri- /x'{I'll'!II.W'IS. {It'. 110-
{It', SixJlIIquot;, !J.lY/m'fdf!.
ittwisted rihbon. It is highly unmanagcclblc. very dimcult to C:.1n domesric worker, later known as R/uwfd/llf! !J.rdllJ.'/cw
comb--bolh wet and dry-and hard [() style. More fragile than lo!;ubm C. J. Walker, invented pomade Abslract
Caucasian hair, this excessively curly hair breaks more easily using a combination of oils (sec sidehar).
III Sfllcmlt'Sls OIl 1103
when strc«.::hcd or Vigorously brushed and combed. l Thus, This pomade revolutionized the hair- Aji'fcClII-AJlwr/CelIL....
African-American hair requires both special handling and hair- bellI' 1l!IILl'l'S IIt/1b CI
styling practices of African-American
RlIIlllltlflle b.I~/m·rde
cafCproducts that ilfC differently formulated than those for women and made excessively curly hair flclln! 11I,~llquot;lfelllll'f!ll!
Caucasian hair. soflCr, shinier and somcwhat easier to I('S.... II1quot;/1C1IiIlR 1/)(1/1
Il'/a.v/x /lllIb (I SOtlill1ll
comb,l Ilowever, the pomade did not 1~IYlllHquot;ftle (lclI/'e
straighten the hair. African-American IIIRIt'flfelll.
women still could not achieve slyies like Ulllel'Sl/cblll/8elltlll
Madam C. J. Walker: A Beauty Product Pioneer I 103 ItjilJ-ItIlWliktlllt'l'1I
those worn by Caucasian women.
III quot;'iSl,'/f/'S(IIolIs 1I'W1'1I
lquot;ladam C. J. Walker was an early In 1905, Madam Walker invenled a IIUt/r-Hc'!ll.l'quot; IIIlIek>fll
stlClightening (:omh to address this need. 'fIirksJqfJ
20lh cenrury beauty product piO-
(i/ltllllt/(II!J.IYI/nid
neer. She was born under the name This lquot;Omb muld be hC<ltl.'d on the stove /l1'1I/J..*t'r n'iZ('l/(llIls
5amh Breedlove lOcx-slavcs in 1867. and usc..'<1 in conjul1<..:tion wilh her pomade, Ntquot;'quot;''''''mil dem
l'fIlrl!sloJ!
In her early Iifc, she worked in born Such tfC<ltment left the h<lir shiny, silky, Nelllillmb,ltlrmi,l.
the conon t1elds and the kitchen. In and temporarily straight. This method
All CO/II)' de c;ollfrrNC'S
1905, aftermanying ncwspapersales became known as the Walker Method and ell Silloll Sill' 1103 Norrs
was huer referred to as whair pressing,quot; AlI/irlClIlllS, les
agent Charles Joseph Walker, she
Ilt.lc.:lilj)('III'SlIIt.'C
adopted his name and developed expertise in manufac- Lye relaxers: LJntil the 1950s, theprob- I'b.lt/roxle/e de
turing hair goods and preparations, [em') of extremely curly hair were not fully Rllllllf,lIl1e, COli/IIII.'
IIIRltvllc'lIl (lelif, 0111 (l/c's
Walker soon launched her own busincss, designing addressed by the existing hair·care husi- moills Ill'//(IIIIS quot;lie les
cosmetics and hair-care products for black women. nesses beGIUSC of a wchnology void. '['his dtbt~/J('III'S IIIt'C
I'J~IYllm'''/(' de sex/II/III,
rrom this business she became one of the nation's first changed in 1965. when an innov.ltive
C;UJJlIIII' IlIw{quot;lIelll 'Icfli
female millionaires, Using her success for the good of permanent hair straightener for AJrican-
Il'lIlIzlIdm'
1:'11 pllIdJlIS
others, she earned a reputation as a philanthropist to Amerk:'lIl consumers was imroduu:.'. d. Its ell Sflltml'sdl' bt.1lezlI ell
African-American institutions such as the I AACP, .1l1'ive ingredient was sodium hydroxide, I IU3/Jt!IWlIlIS tie mza
I/egm, hlS lac/mImI'S e/e
Tuskegee Institute and l3ethune-Cookman College, She or lye, '111is chemical method for relaxing t'tlbc.'!/o CO/I b/drtixldl/
died in 1919. the hair climinat<..quot;(1 the nCl.'(1 for temporary tie 8/11l11/dflUl ClNIIf)
prlllCfJX' tlCllm
In 1998, the US Postal Service issued a stamp com~ hair straightening hy the W'llker Meth<X1,
IT'Squot;fllllrJII mel/os
memorating her achievement as an African-American The relative advantages of chemical rn'fltmltquot;S 1(111' las
ItlCllidult'S CI~)'O
businesswoman and philanthropiSt. The image on the h'lir straightening over the Walker Meth<X1
prfllCtpo ClcUm C'Ifl
stamp is from a circa 1914 photo that was used exten- were numerous, and the adoption of per~ bft/roxie/quot; e/e sotlio.
sively by Walker's company for publicity purposes, in m:'lIlent hair straightening 'ldvanced rap-
advertising, and on its products, idly, This innovation had social ramifica-
tions as well. For the first time, African-
American women could wear the styles
Vol. 115, No, 2/Fobruary 2000 0361,4387IOOfOO2'OO47$03.00!0--C 2000 Allured Publishing Corp. Allured's Cosmeflcs & ToJlelrl91' magazme/47
J

2. comfort potenlial and better stability between room tempera-
Formula 1. Lye Relaxer
tun,.' and -t5°C. J Formula 1 shows a prototype of this relaxer.
Normal Resistant Over the years, more and more hair stylists started to use
Petrolatum and mineral oil 30.00% 30.00% lexturizing CfCClm relaxers. This product has be<....o me a benclun~lrk
Fatty alcohol 1.00 1.00 in the Mrican-Amelic..-:lIl hair-c...'Clre induslry. A benchmark product
Emulsifying wax 11.00 11.00
is one that is superior in its attributes, quality, cost, and perfor-
Emulsifiers 2.50 2.50
mance and has been used by t:onsumers for a long lime:'
Water (aqua) 51.30 51.15
Propylene glycol 2.00 2.00 NO-Lye reltlxel's: BeGIUSe of the high iniration potential of
Sodium hydroxide z.2Q 2..'l5 lexturizing cream relaxers t:ontaining sodium hydroXide as an
100.00 100.00 .K1ive ingredient, efforts were underway to fonnulate relaxers that
possessed less initcujon potentiallO theM-'llp. In 1978, a patented
rwo-<....o mponent cream relaxer, fonnul<ued with the active ingre-
Formula 2. No·Lye Relaxer
dient guanidine hydroxide, was introduced to the marketplace as
A. Cream relaxer Normal Resistant
a 'no-lye' relaxer with claim') that it was less irritating to the scalp.
Petrolatum and mineret oil 40.0% 40.0% Mixing a neam t:ontaining calcium hydroxide wirh a liquid
Fatly alcohol 7.0 7.0 activator containing guanidine C<llbonate~ produced the guani-
Emulsifiers 2.5 2.5 dine hydroXide. Formula 2 shows a prOlotype of thiS relaxer.
Water (aqua) 43.0 43,0
In 1997, Sycd mentioned that no-lye relaxers havesignilkantly
Propylene glycol 2.0 2.0
less init~Hion potential th.m lye relaxers <..unWining sodium
Calcium hydroxide. anhydrous ii.5 ii.5
100.0 100.0 hydroXide as an a<..tive ingredient.(' Amin et al. (998) have also
B. liquid acllvator mention<..'(! Ihat no-lye relaxers are milder to the SGllp than lye
Waler (aqua) 75.0 73.0 relaxers conlClining sodium hydroxide. 7 Ilowever, none of thc:..'SC
Guanidine carbonatequot; z;.Q 2Z.ll authors cites references on this suhje<..l.
100.0 100.0
Dc la Guardia compared guanidine relaxer of his invention
• Amount 01 guanidine carbonate in the liquid activator varies depending upon the
desired strength or the relaxer.
to a commercially available relaxer t:ontaining sodium hy~
droxide. ll After applying the two formulations to the skin of
rabbits, he conduded that guanidine hydroxide relaxer did
lhat dominated the American culture. Sale.. not produce irritation. On the other hand, the sodium
of relaxers s<xm I:>CGlIllC viable product.' hydroxide·b<lsed relaxer resulted in minor 10 severe irritation
in the industry. al v'lrious treatment times. 1I Ilowever, 10 Ihe best of our
Competitive forces began to address knowledge, there is no study in existence that compares the
the weaknesses of this nrst-gcncltltion irrilalion potential of lye relaxers against Ihat of no-Iyc
relaxer cre'lln in Ihe late 1960s. The first- relaxers on the scalp of human suhjects.
generation relaxers temk:d to overprocess
hair and diminish its strength. They irri- The Irritation Potential of Relaxers
tated the scalp and were dilTicuh to rinse It is pertinent to discuss what we mc.111 by irritation here.
OUI of the hair. They also had a short Malrcn in 1981 described irritation as irritant contact dermatitis
shelf life because the oil C1nd water phases that is 10t:,Jlizcd, superficial, exudative, nonimmunological
present in the relaxer cream tended 10 inl1ammation of the skin or SGllp due to the direct inl1uence of
separale with time. Upon separation of one or more external factorsY Pietcr, van der Valk and Tupker
Ihe cream, the water-soluble sodium hy- believe that, in generdl, symptoms arrive qUickly clner the
<.Iroxide was present only in the water exposure and heal steadily. 10
phase, resuhing in inconsistent straight- The relaxers arc considered as t:osmelics produt:ts.
ening of the hair. Generally, they may cause a stinging, i(t:hing or burning
Texturtzt1Jg relaxers: In 1971, a sensation during (heir application. If a patron experient:es
relaxer cream called a texturizing relaxer a severe stinging that is unbearable, it is ret:ommelH.!ed that
was illlroduced. It addressed some oflhe a rcl<lxer cream be rinsed off from the st:alp using tepid tap
above-mcnlioned concerns. This cream water followed by an acidic shampoo. Il is known in the
was more slahle in hot and cold tempera- trade that improperly formulated lye relaxers can GIUSe
tures :.and provided sligluly more scalp severe scalp irritation and chemic.1I burns. This type of
comfort by hcing less irritating. This irritation is called sensory irritation or subjective irritation. 7
relaxer crcam straightened hair slightly Although the mechanisms by whkh materials produce
less than the prcvious rehlxer, but it was sensory or subjeclive irritation arc not yet completely
more acceptable to hair stylists and con- known, Maibach and Johnson have presented some pos-
sumers bccause of its relatively greater sible met:hanisms for this type of irritation. II
48/AJlured's CosmetiCs <5 Toilotrior magazine Vol. 115, No. 2!FebrualY 2000
J

3. It is our observation tbatthe application of relaxers may cause their concentration of sodium hydroxide.
sensOlY complaints ofstinging, itching or burning to the scalp, and Similarly, two strengths of no-lye relaxer
that these complaints go away aller rinsing the relaxer. This vith guanidine hydroxide were prepared
in1talion is localized and does not spread to the otherjXII'ts of the <ind laheled. In all comparisons, the two
scalp and skin. Therefore, it is probably safe to say that irritation reh!xertypes were of e<!uiv,l!entstrengtlls;
induced by lye and no-lye relaxers is non immunologicaL 12 that is, hoth were normal strength or
Many attempts have been made to usc colorimeters on hoth were resistant strength.
African-American skin to measure elythema, a principal sign of The individuals who lOok part in this
irritation on white skin. This technique fails to produce reliable study had excessively curly hair and
results on African-American skin due to its darker natural ranged in age from 18 to G'5 years. Each
pigmentation. An alternative method may be the usc of a laser individual was given a treatment or ;1
hlood now measuring device, but so far there is no significant specific strength lye relaxer (n 'quot; '5 -13) or
scientilk work cited in this are;1. I,quot; no-lye relaxer (n = '590) for a specified
Lacking complete knowledge about the mechanism.s by which time of 13 to 18 min depending upon
materials produce sensory irritation, and unable to usc the the texture of the individual's hair. For
erythema test on African-American skin, we decided to usc an individual with medium-textured hair,
corm()r!/(liscom!()]1 evaluations fn)m (lUr s<llon patrons as markers the preferred treatment was a normal-
of relaxer initation potential. strength relaxer for 1'5 min. Iquot;or an
individual with coarse-textured hair, the
Comparing Relaxers' Irritation Potential
preferred treatment was a resistant-
Purpose (if the study: From patrons in our salon, we strength relaxer for 18 min.
ohtained com!()lquot;[/(llscom!()lt evaluations as indications of the The hair stylists were first trained in
irritation potential of lye and no-lye relaxer creams at two different the application of these relaxers and the
strengths. Xre applied tile creams to the scalps of 1103 Chicago- application technique used in this study
area African-American individuab with excessively curly hair over was very similar for hoth relaxers. A
a rive-year period. p<.'trolatum jelly was applied to the hair-
quot;I'he lye relaxer (Formula 1) contained sodium hydroxide as an line and cars for protection, and the hair
active ingredient. [-quot;or the no-lye re!;lxer (Formula 2), guanidine was parted into four equal parts from
hydroxide -vas the active ingredient. Each relaxer vas formulated the middle of the forehead and then
twice: at a ';normalquot; strength and at a quot;reslstantquot; strength. from ear to car. The cream relaxer was
The comfort-discomfort response vas measured using the applied to the virgin portion of the hair
five-point Uckel'l scale at each relaxer treatment. Simulta- only, first to the back section using a soft
neously, trained salon technicians evalu,lted the scalp hefore small brush or a rattail comh and then
and alter each treatment to ohserve any scalp fiSSUring, scalp worked through the next sections in a
hurns and scalp erythema. clockwise direction.
The purpose of this study was to compare tbe irritation ()nce the ;1 pplication was complete,
potential of the no-lye relaxer against that or a lye relaxer. It which took an average of H m.in, the
was also important to measure the degree of comfort or cream was smoothed with the hack o!
discomfort for each relaxer category for henchmarking pur- the rattail comh, section by section, to
poses. More specilkally, this study attempted to verify the achieve the desired degree or straight-
!quot;<)llowing hypotheses: ening before rinsing the hair thor-
1. The irritation potential of a no-lye cream relaxer contain- oughly with tepid tap water.
ing guanidine hydroxide as an active ingredient is At the end of the tre,ltment time. the
significantly less than th,lt of a lye cream relaxer cOlltain- relaxer was rinsed vith water, and then
ing sodium hydroxide as an active ingredient at a condilloned with ,I standard conditioner
constant degree of straightening. of pI! '5,0 colltaining cationic polymers
2, The no-lye cream relaxer imparts significantly less and quaternary ammonium chlorides
'severe', 'moderate', 'mild', and 'minor' irritation as for '5 min. The hair W<lS then shampooed
compared to the lye relaxer. using standard neutrali/.ing shampoo
The significance of this study is that it serves as the st,lrling and evaluated.
point Or haseline measurement of irritation potential of present Evaluatioll:'('he Jmirw;ls evaluatcc! h)r
relaxer creams and thus serves as a henchmark for the future Vari(HlS attril)lJ!es such ,IS degree of straight-
studies for formulating less irritating relaxer creams. ening and the patron's perception of (On1-
EX1~el'imequot;tal procedure: Two strengths of lye relaxer fort or discomfonlevel. Figure I shows the
were prepared and labeled quot;normalquot; and quot;resistantquot; hased on questionnaire used in evaluating irritation
Vol. 115, No, 2/February 2000 Allured's Cosmetics & ToilelrimF magazlnc!49

4. Relaxer Whole Head Evaluation Form
Patron Name: StyliSt: __. .._. Project No:
Patron's Age: _ Patron's Phone No.: .. .... _~_ Date: _ _ _ Head No. _
Chemist Assigned: . Product (Name, Manufacturer): _
1. Previous hair treatments: (1) Relaxed (2) Tinted (3) Curled (4) Other:
2. Hair condilion: (1) Excellent (2) Good (3) Somewhat damaged (4) Damaged (5) Extremely damaged
3. Hair Texture: (1) Fine (2) Medium (3) Course
4. Scalp Condition: (1) Excellent (2l Good (3) Somewhat sensitive (4) Sensitive (5) Ultra sensitive
5. Type of relaxer: (1) Sodium hydroxide (2) Sensitive scalp (3) Lithium hydroxide
6. Strength of relaxer: (1) Mild (2) Normal (3) Resistant
7. Medication: (1) NO (2) YES If yes. what kind of medication:
Listed below are the statements that represent possible experiences you will have when using this product.
For each statement. please circle the scale vatue, which indicates your level of agreement or disagreement.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
PRODUCT I.D. NUMBER:
STATEMENTS
,. The consislency of this relaxer is just right 2 3 4 5
2. The tolal processing lime (in minutes) including application: -~------_.
3. I like the rinsing ability of lhis product very mUCh. 2 3 4 5
4. Please rale the comfort level of the relaxers.
1 = severe irritation 2 'quot; moderate irritation 3 'quot; mild irritation
4 'quot; minor irritation 5 'quot; very comfortable 2 3 4 5
5. After rinsing relaxer, hair is easy to comb during wet stage. 2 3 4 5
6 After rinsing the relaxer, hair feels very sofl. 2 3 4 5
7. After normalizing the hair, the hair combs very easy in wet slage. 2 3 4 5
8. Please rale Ihe degree of straightening
1 = insufficient 2 =very textured 3quot;, textured
4 'quot; straight 5 'quot; bone straight 1 2 3 4 5
9 Hair combs very easy in dry final siage 1 2 3 4 5
10. Hair has no sialic electricity upon dry combing. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Aller drying, Ihe hair showed no reversion. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I really like Ihis product and will purchase when available in the markel. 1 2 3 4 5
Please make sure alf questions are answered when completing this evaluation.
Don't leave any blank unless instructed otherwise. Thanks.
Hgw'e I, potential and straightening of hair. ThiS highest form of discomfort was severe irritation and the lowest
Questi01111aire used <!lll'stionnaire reC<)H.ls till' patron's impres- form of discomfort was considered to he the minor irritation.
ta evaluate tbe
sion of the comfOlt or discom!()lt (irrita- A patron response indicating that there was no irritation during
cOllifart of applied
tion) impaned hy the relaxer during its the relaxer process vas recorded as very comfortahle.
quot;elaxers
application, 'I'he h)l[()wing nve-point l,ickclt
scale was used by each patron to rate the Results and Discussion
comfort level of the relaxer: Comparing average comfOl·t scores: W'hen the relaxers
1 = Severe irritation were compmed al normal strength ,IS shOvll in Tahle 1, the
2 = iv!oderate irritation average comfort scores were 1,90 for no-lye relaxer and 1,quot;')quot;) for
3 = Mild irritation lye relaxer. The difference in the groups is statistically significant
Ii = Ivlinor irritation at a p value of less than 0.00. '['hercfore, it is evident that at normal
') = VelY comfoltah1e strength, the no-lye relaxer is significantly more comfortahle to
The discomfort was associ,lted with the scalp during relaxer treatment than the lye relaxer.
the irritation potential of the relaxer. The When the relaxers were compared at resistant strength as
50{Allurcd's Cosmetics & Tollotrlesquot; magazine Vol 115. No, 2/Fd)rtlilry 2000

5. shown in Table 2, the avcnlge comfort scores were 4.91 for no- Table 1. Irritation potential of normal
lye relaxer ,md 4.57 for lye relaxers. The dirferent.'C in the strength lye and no~lye relaxers
groups is statistit..llly significant at a p value of less than O.(Xl.
Therefore, it is evident that at resistant strength the no-lye No-lye
relaxer is signific:mtly more c:omfortahle to the scalp during lye ,elaxer relaxer
relaxer treatment than the lye relaxer. Average comfort score 4.55 4.90
ComparllJg the ave,oage straightelJilJg clblltty scores: Standard deviation (SO) 0.98 0.48
As shown in Table 3, at normal strength, rhe relaxers showed Coefficient of variance (G.V.) 0.21 0.10
Sample size 375 241
average straightening ability scores of 1.31 for the no-lye
p < 0.00
relaxer and 1.10 for the lye relaxer. 'I'hercfore, a no-lye relaxer
is significantly hetter in its straightening ability at a p value of
tess than 0.00. Even then, the no-lye relaxer is less irritating Table 2. Irritation potential of
than a lye relaxer. resistant strength lye and no-lye
relaxers
As shown in Table 1, at resistant strength, the relaxers
showed avemge straightening ability s<..:ores of 4.17 for the no-
No-lye
lye relaxer and 4.26 for the lye relaxer. With a p value of less
lye relaxer relaxer
than 0.56, there is no Significant diflquot;erence in the straightening
Average comfort score 4.57 4.94
ability of these two formulas. Although, they arc equal in their
Standard deviation (SO) 1.05 0.34
straightening qualities at resistant strength, the no-lye relaxer Coefficient of variance (G.V.) 0.23 0.07
is les,,'i irritating to the human scalp than the lye relaxer. Sample size 138 349
lrrllclllolJ Imlex: For each relaxer and its irritation P < 0.00
ev.l1uation scores, we c'lkulated an irritation index based on
the follOWing equation:
Table 3. Straightening ability of
Irritation Index - (MPSC - ASC) + MPSC x 100 normal strength lye and no-lye
where MPSC - maximum possible scalp comfort score relaxers
ASC <: average scalp comfort score
The maximum pOSSible scalp comfort score is always 5.0. No-lye
lye relaxer relaxer
The average sollp comfort score is the response of the patron
about a relaxer's comfort or irritation Icvel. From the irritation Average straightening
ability score 4.10 4.31
potcntial scores in Tablcs 1 and 2, wc obtained the irritation
Standard deviation 0.72 0.53
indices shown in Table 5. For example, the avcrage sccllp
Coefficient of variance (G.V.) 0.17 0.12
comfort score for normal strength lye relaxer is 4.55 from Table Sample size 368 237
1 column 1; therefore, the Irritation Index will be G.lkulated as p < 0.00
(5.00-4.55) + 5.(Xl x HX) - 9.00.
Il is obvious from these indices that no-lye normal and
resistant formul<ls have the smallest irritation indices. °l'hey arc Table 4. Straightening ability of
resistant strength lye and no-lye
therefore, least irritating to the scalp and the s.l1on patrons arc
relaxers
more comfortable during the treatment with these two relaxers.
On the other hand, lye relaxers show a very high irritation
No-lye
indcx and arc significantly more pronc to irritate the scalp of lye relaxer relaxer
salon patrons. Ideally, formulating chemists should try to lower
Average straightening
the irritation index of a given formula to ,IS dose to zero as ability score 4.26 4.17
possible. Therefore, this It.'chniquc m,Jy prove to be of some Standard deviation 0.79 0.4 7
help to the formul<lting chemists when testing the irritation Coefficient of variance (G.V.) 0.19 0.11
index of a relaxer in the H&D testing salon. Sample size 136 353
p < 0.56
Irrltatlolllevels!oreacb relaxer type: At nonnal strength,
the lye relaxer tends to impan initation in 20.30% of the p<ltrons
while a no-lye relaxer impans irritation to 5.40% of the patrons Table 5. Irritation Indexes of tested
(quot;I'able 6). Similarly, ,It resistant strcngth the lye relaxer tends to relaxers
impan irritation in 13.60% of patrons while the no-lye relaxer
imparts irritation to 2.90% of the patrons Crable 7). Relaxer type Strength Irritation Index
Severity of irritation in lye relaxers is significantly higher than Lye normal 9.0
in no-lye relaxers, <IS shown in Tables 6 and 7 and in Figures 2 Lye resistant 8.6
and 3. The lye relaxer (normal) imparts severe, moder'lte, mild, No-Lye normal 2.0
No-Lye resistant 1.2
and minor irritation in 1.33%,6.67%,7.2%1, and 5.1% of patrons,
Vol. 115. No. 2jFebruary 2000 Allured's Cosmotics & Toilotrlo1quot; magazine/51

6. 100 120,------------------,
lllO
III
!i: 100+--------------:;:..,.
JE j :+---------
j ::+---------------
4,2 0
....quot;quot;quot;quot;-......- ..... 3.4 0,3
...........- 5.1
_Of_Int_ oom_
Int_
O.j....J....-=-~ ~=
Sever. Moderete Mild Minor Very
-
1quot;,,quot;,1000 -_ MIld _ ....., Irritation Irritation Irritation Irritation Comfortable
Degree of Severity
_l,.__ • Percentage Lye Relaxer • Percentage No-Lye Rel..er
Figure 2. /n-/llll/Oll CQllljUUquot;/SOll betweelllye mul quot;a-lye ,quot;ela.ye,·s FIgm'e 3, It'I·Jtrlllolt com/wI'lsoquot; belwerw lye mul flo-lye relrl.:ers
(tlm'mal) (reslslrUlI)
No·lye relaxers keep the scalp comforlable 95-97% of the
Table 6. Degree of Irritation score for
normal strength relaxers time while lye relaxers arc able to keep the scalp comfortable
only 80-8.1% of the lime. We suggest that these ranges become
lye No-Lye a gUide in testing the relaxers in the laborcuoly or in the
% Score % Score marketplace to gauge a relaxer's acceptance in term') of its
Severe irritation 1.33 0.83 irritation potential to the scalp.
Moderate irritation 6.67 0.00 We believe that this study is the Ilrst salon sllldy that
Mild irritation 7.20 2.10 compares the irritation potential of lye relaxers against no-lye
Minor irritation 5.10 2.50 relaxers. It could become a benchm<ll'k for the industry to
Very comfortable 79.70 94.60
develop newer, low irritation or non-irritation relaxers.
Nt'IJrmlllellml III I:quot;II~fWJ quot;I' till)' quot;101.'1' IImK'/(/I;e quot;/tlfIquot;r 11111'1 (I/IIJls (Irllele Is sl,tell)'
1,1TJ!JlblJe(L
Table 7. Degree of irritation score for
resistant strength relaxers References
Addresscorrespondence loA. N. Syed, cJoEditor, Cosmetics & Toiletries
magaZine, 362 South Schmale Road, Carol Stream, IL 60188-2787 USA.
Lye No·lye
% Score % Score 1. AN Syed et al., Alrican-American hail: Its physical properties and
differences relative to Caucasian hair, Cosmet Toi/110(10) 39-46
Severe irritation 4.2 0.0 (1995)
Moderate irritation 3.4 0.3 2. C Parker, Living legends in cosmetology, Shop Talk12( 1) 14-17 (1993)
3. AN Syed et al., Recent advances in treating excessively curly hair:
Mild irritation 5.1 2.3
Cationic polyamines and starch hydrolysates, Cosme/ Toi/113(9) 47-
Minor irritation 0.9 0.3 55(1998)
Very comfortable 86.4 97.1 4. P Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning. Implementa/ion,
and Con/rol, EngleWOOd Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1994)
5. US Pat 4,304,244, Hair straightening process and hair curling process
rc~pcctivcly. Similarly, the no-lye re- and composition thereol, MJ de la Guardia, assigned 10 Caison
Products Co (Dec 1981)
laxer (normal) imparts severe, modcr-
6. AN Syed, Ethnic hair care products, in Hair and Hair Care, D Johnson,
<ltc, mild, and minor irritation to 0.81%, ed, New York: Marcel Dekker (1997) p 241
7. S Amin, PG Engasser and HI Maibach, Adverse cosmetic reactions, in
0%,2.1%, and 2.5% of the populittion. It
Tex/book of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2nd edition, A Baran and HI
is dear from Figures 2 and 3 Ihal no-lye Maibach, eds, London: Martin Dunitz (1998) p 727
relaxers arc considerably gender 10 the 8. US Pat 4,373,540, Hair straightening process and hair curling process
and composition thereof, MJ de la Guardia, assigned to Carson
scalp compared to lye relaxers. Products Co (Feb 1983)
9. KE Malten, Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis, Cont Derm 7 238-
Conclusion 247 (1981)
10. GM Pieter, van der Valk and AA Tupker, Transepidermal water loss in
No·lyc relaxers show signil1cantly skin disease wilh special reference to irritant contact dermatitis, in
less scalp irrit.lIion than lye relaxers, Bioengineering of the Skin: Waler and the Stratum Corneum, Elsner,
Berardesca and HI Maibach. Boca Raton. FL: CAG Press (1994) p 67
regardless of whether the irritation is 11. HI Maibach and HL Johnson. Contact urticaria syndrome: Contact
rated as severe, moderate, mild or mi· urtica/ia to diethyltoluamide (immediate-type hypersensitivity). Arch
Dermatol111726-3O(1975)
nor. Therefore, the no·lyc relaxer is 12. Avlon Dermatological Research Laboratory, Study of relaxer ingredients
most suitable for individuals of African with respect to NICU and ICU (JulfAug 1999)
13. AR Naqvi, Private Communicatioo with HI Maibach, Department of
descent or for individuals with exces- Dermatology, Universityof California School 01 Medicine, San Francisco,
sively curly hair and sensitive scalp. CA (Sep 1999) or
52/Allured's Cosmetics &. ToJ/Clfie~ magazine Vol. 115, No. 2/Fobfuary 2000