Search

Teledermatology has become very popular, and not only due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients with occupational skin diseases (OSDs) could also benefit from teledermatology services as part of their follow-up care, but the opportunities and challenges for patients and dermatologists, especially regarding quality and satisfaction, need exploration. In this single-center feasibility study, 215 patients taking part in a tertiary prevention program for OSD were invited to participate. After obtaining consent, a follow-up video consultation appointment with the center's dermatologists was made. Quality and satisfaction with the consultations were evaluated by fully standardized online questionnaires filled in by the patients and dermatologists. A total of 68 teledermatological follow-up consultations were conducted by 10 dermatologists on 42 patients. Half of the dermatologists (50.0%) and 87.6% of the patients were satisfied with the video consultations. However, the lack of physical examination seems to be a problem, especially from the physicians' point of view (75.8%). A total of 66.1% of the dermatologists and 87.5% of the patients saw video consultations as useful supplements to face-to-face consultations. The results of our feasibility study indicate general satisfaction of patients and physicians with teledermatological sessions in occupational dermatology, especially as a useful supplement to face-to-face consultation.

The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.

Introduction: Exposure to hazardous chemicals released during hairdressing activities from hair care products puts hairdressers at risk of adverse health effects. Safety assessments of hair products are mainly focused on consumers, but exposure for professional hairdressers might be substantially higher., Objective: To identify and assess available research data on inhalation exposures of professional hairdressers., Methods: A systematic search of studies between 1 January 2000 and 30 April 2021 was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and in Cochrane registry, toxicological dossiers of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Commission as well as the German MAK Commission. Studies reporting quantitative data on airborne concentrations of chemicals in the hairdresser's workplace were considered. The outcome was an airborne concentration of chemicals in the working environment, which was compared, when possible, with current occupational exposure limits (OEL) or guidance levels., Results: In total, 23 studies performed in 14 countries were included. The average number of hairdressing salons per study was 22 (range 1-62). Chemicals most frequently measured were formaldehyde ( n = 8), ammonia ( n = 5), total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) ( n = 5), and toluene ( n = 4). More than fifty other chemicals were measured in one to three studies, including various aromatic and aliphatic organic solvents, hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, and particulate matter. Most studies reported environmental air concentrations, while personal exposure was measured only in seven studies. The measured air concentrations of formaldehyde, ammonia, and TVOC exceeded OEL or guidance values in some studies. There was large variability in measuring conditions and reported air concentrations differed strongly within and between studies., Conclusion: Hairdressers are exposed to a wide spectrum of hazardous chemicals, often simultaneously. Airborne concentrations of pollutants depend on salon characteristics such as ventilation and the number of customers but also on used products that are often country- or client-specific. For exposure to formaldehyde, ammonia, and TVOC exceeding OELs or guidance values for indoor air was observed. Therefore, occupational exposure should be taken into account by safety regulations for hair care products.