Effectiveness of Malodor-Reducing Ostomy Pouch Additives: An Assessment of Odor Intensity, Hedonic Tone, and Odor Character.

Background Ostomy pouch odor can have a negative impact on the quality of life of people living with a stoma. This study assessed the effectiveness of malodor-reducing ostomy pouch additives under simulated conditions. Methodology The following six commercially available products with different odor control technologies plus a control were assessed: soyethyl morpholinium ethosulphate, zinc ricinoleate (ZnR), ZnR with orange terpenes (ZnR-Orange), a proprietary copper-based deodorant, a proprietary ion mix deodorant, and a terpene blend (TB). Each was added to an ostomy pouch with skatole (a substitute for human fecal odor). Professional olfactometrists rated odors according to intensity, hedonic tone (pleasantness), and character. Results The TB and ZnR-Orange had very weak (<1.0) malodor intensity, with mean (standard deviation [SD]) ratings of 0.6 (1.1) and 0.9 (0.9), respectively. All other products (2.7-3.0) and control (3.7) were statistically higher (stronger intensity) compared with the TB(p < 0.001). The mean (SD) hedonic tone for the TB was 0.8 (1.7) (considered slightly pleasant); all other products (-0.8 to 0.1) and control (-0.9) were statistically lower (p < 0.001). Odor character profiles were broadly comparable, but products with scent additives (TB and ZnR-Orange) were predominantly associated with fragrances. Conclusions This information may help nurses and other healthcare providers when educating ostomates about their options. Other factors such as application mode and recommended dosage may also influence the choice of product. Future research on real-world populations (i.e., ostomates), as well as assessment of lubrication properties, is warranted.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024, Meacham et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: This study was conducted by Olfasense UK Ltd. and funded by Convatec Ltd. Medical writing support was funded by Convatec Ltd. Financial relationships: Philip Gowans, Jack Bradley-Clarke, Anne Swearingen, Suzanne Lord declare(s) employment from Convatec Ltd. Andrew Meacham declare(s) employment from Olfasense UK Ltd. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.