Search

Introduction: Hairdressers are exposed to wet work and manifold allergens at work, rendering exposure complex and the aetiology of occupational hand eczema (OHE) often multifactorial in this occupational group. Objectives: To identify exposure patterns associated with increased risk of hand eczema in hairdressers. Methods: All hairdressers graduating from 2004 to 2007 and 2015 to 2018 received a questionnaire in 2009 and 2020, respectively. Current exposures (with or without regular glove use) and OHE were self‐reported, and their association examined. Patterns of exposure were identified by latent class analysis (LCA). Results: A total response of 39.9% (668/1675) was obtained. Six exposure profiles (#1–6) were identified by LCA across 11 tasks performed with or without gloves as well as deep conditioning, that is, 23 task items. Compared to profile #1 with the lowest OHE risk (reference) an increased risk of current OHE were seen in profile #4 [adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–44.8 and #6 (aOR 39.4, 95%CI 6.1–362.8)] in logistic regression analysis. Profile #1 and #6 had performed the same tasks, but in profile #6 regular glove use was performed in 9.1% (1/ 11) of tasks compared to 72.7% (8/11) of tasks in profile #1 (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Although occupational exposures in hairdressing are complex, meaningful patterns associated with a wide range of OHE risk can be identified by LCA. The increase of OHE risk seems predominantly to be due to poor compliance with protective gloves. LCA could be applied to further fields of complex (skin) exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The burden of occupational hand eczema in hairdressers is high, and (partly strong) allergens abound in the hair cosmetic products they use. Objectives: To systematically review published evidence concerning contact allergy to an indicative list of active ingredients of hair cosmetics, namely, p‐phenylenediamine (PPD), toluene‐2,5‐diamine (PTD), persulfates, mostly ammonium persulfate (APS), glyceryl thioglycolate (GMTG), and ammonium thioglycolate (ATG), concerning the prevalence of sensitization, particularly in terms of a comparison (relative risk; RR) between hairdressers and non‐hairdressers. Methods: Following a PROSPERO‐registered and published protocol, eligible literature published from 2000 to February 2021 was identified, yielding 322 publications, and extracted in standardized publication record forms, also considering risk of bias. Results: Based on 141 publications, the contact allergy prevalence to PPD was 4.3% (95% CI: 3.8–4.9%) in consecutively patch tested patients. Other ingredients were mostly tested in an aimed fashion, yielding variable, and partly high contact allergy prevalences. Where possible, the RR was calculated, yielding an average increased sensitization risk in hairdressers of between 5.4 (PPD) and 3.4 (ATG). Additional evidence related to immediate‐type hypersensitivity, experimental results, exposures, and information from case reports was qualitatively synthesized. Conclusions: An excess risk of contact allergy is clearly evident from the pooled published evidence from the last 20 years. This should prompt an improvement in working conditions and product safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Compliance with glove use and safe work practices are important factors in primary prevention of occupational hand eczema (OHE) in hairdressers. Objective: To assess the risk OHE and compliance with skin protective measures in hairdressers trained before and after implementation of a nationwide skin protection program in Danish hairdressing vocational schools in 2011. Methods: A repeated cross‐sectional study was performed. A questionnaire was sent in 2009 and 2020. The Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension Scheme provided information on yearly payments from the hairdressing profession. Results: A response rate of 66.6% (305/460) was obtained in the 2009 survey and of 29.9% (363/1215) in the 2020 survey. The career time prevalence of OHE decreased from 42.8% to 29.0% (adjusted odds ratio 0.55 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40‐0.77) and the incidence rate of OHE decreased from 57.5 (95%CI 48.4‐68.4) to 42.0 (95%CI 34.6‐50.9) per 1000 person years (incidence rate ratio 0.73 [95%CI 0.56‐0.95] between the two surveys). A statistically significant (P <.05) increase in glove use when doing wet‐work and when handling hair dyes, permanent wave solutions and bleaching products was observed in the 2020 compared to the 2009 survey. Conclusion: Our data suggest that skin protection training during apprenticeship reduces the risk of OHE in hairdressers. The lack of primary prevention of OHE in hairdressing vocational schools may be a missed opportunity in the prevention of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the literature on respiratory effects of persulfate salts (PS) or hair bleaches in hairdressers and animal models exploring mechanisms behind PS-induced asthma. Methods: A systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Studies published from 2000 to July 2021 that fulfilled predefined eligibility criteria were retrieved. Data were not quantitatively synthesized due to the heterogeneity of study designs, outcomes and methods. Results: Forty-two articles were included. PS are indicated as the main cause of occupational rhinitis and asthma in hairdressers, and one of the leading causes of occupational asthma in some European countries. Bleaching products are indicated as the most important factor for development of respiratory symptoms, lung function decline, and leaving the hairdressing profession. Risk estimates from a good quality prospective study showed up to 3.9 times higher risk for wheezing and breathlessness in hairdressers aged ≥ 40 years than in matched controls, and 20 times higher risk in hairdressers to develop respiratory symptoms from exposure to bleaching powder than controls. Pathophysiological mechanisms of the respiratory response to PS are not yet fully elucidated, but may include non-specific and specific immune responses. Conclusions: Hairdressing is associated with a wide spectrum of respiratory adverse effects, of which bleaching products were indicated as the most hazardous. Preventive measures for reducing inhalatory exposure to PS in hair salons should be re-evaluated, including adopting occupational exposure limits at EU level, and encouraging use of safer bleach formulations. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021238118. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, this systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212-782-2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085-85-0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In total, six publications from six countries were eligible for this systematic review. A meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a ninefold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared with controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The results of this systematic review clearly show that--regarding contact allergy to acrylates--it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate-containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of nonfood consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a "common consumer," which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As a result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles; 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that—dependent on the task—hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers to a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in their daily working life, ranging from shampoos, conditioners, oxidative and nonoxidative hair colors, to bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for coloring hair with oxidative hair color. Consumer use frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk‐assessment procedures to be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hairdressers are commonly affected by hand eczema (HE) due to skin hazardous exposure such as irritants and allergens in the work environment. Objective: To give an overview of the current prevalence, incidence, and severity, as well as the pattern of debut and the contribution of atopic dermatitis on HE in hairdressers. Methods: A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. Studies published from 2000 to April 2021 that fulfilled predefined eligibility criteria were retrieved. Results: A pooled lifetime prevalence of 38.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.6‐43.8), a pooled 1‐year prevalence of 20.3% (95% CI 18.0‐22.6), and a pooled point prevalence of 7.7% (95% CI 5.8‐9.6) of HE was observed in hairdressers. The lifetime prevalence in fully trained hairdressers and hairdressing apprentices was almost identical. The pooled incidence rate of HE was 51.8 cases/1000 person‐years (95% CI 42.6‐61.0) and the pooled prevalence of atopic dermatitis was 18.1% (95% CI 13.6‐22.5). Conclusion: HE is common in hairdressers and most hairdressers have debut during apprenticeship. The prevalence of atopic dermatitis in hairdressers is comparable with estimates in the general population, indicating that occupational exposures are the main factor in the increased prevalence of HE in hairdressers. This warrants a strategic and collective effort to prevent HE in hairdressers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regular and correct glove use is important[3] and it may impair compliance when almost one-third of the hairdressers report gloves as reasons for their hand eczema, as hairdressers may begin to question the overall benefit of gloves. Of these, 93.8% (544/580) had worked in the hairdressing occupation at the onset of hand eczema and 84.1% (487/579) believed their hand eczema were caused or exacerbated by their occupation. Keywords: contact dermatitis; hairdressers; hand eczema; occupational disease EN contact dermatitis hairdressers hand eczema occupational disease 162 164 3 01/13/23 20230201 NES 230201 INTRODUCTION Hairdressers have a high incidence of occupational hand eczema (OHE).[1] The risk of OHE in hairdressers is associated with a high degree of occupational exposure to wet work and allergens in hair cosmetics. [Extracted from the article]

Artificial nail modelling systems (ANMS), encompassing artificial nails and long-lasting nail polish, are sources of acrylate exposure in beauticians and users of ANMS. Hairdressers' exposure to ANMS from self-use and occupational exposure is currently unknown. In 2020 a questionnaire was sent to all hairdressers graduating during 2008 to 2018 in Denmark (n = 4,830). Selfuse of ANMS was reported by 87.6% of respondents (1,251/1,428), and application of ANMS to others was reported by 22.1% (316/1,428). Of these, application to others was performed in a salon by 37.1% (109/294), privately by 51.0% (150/294) and in both settings by 11.9% (35/294). Compliance with glove use was seen in 23.0% (67/291) among those applying ANMS to others. Among hairdressers exposed to ANMS, 4.3% (52/1,218) reported ANMS-related hand eczema. Being a trained beautician (adjusted odds ratio 3.26, 95% confidence interval 1.06-9.99) and having had a positive patch-test to acrylates (adjusted odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 1.44-41.13) were associated with ANMS-related hand dermatitis. In conclusion, hairdressers have a high prevalence of exposure to ANMS and ANMS-related hand dermatitis. Compliance with glove use when applying ANMS to others is poor. Patch-testing with acrylates is valuable in the diagnostic work-up of hand eczema in hairdressers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To review recent epidemiological studies investigating carcinogenic or reprotoxic effects among hairdressers who seem to be at greater risk for systemic adverse effects of chemicals released from hair care products than consumers. Methods: A systematic review according to the PRISMA‐P guidelines was performed and included studies published from 2000 to August 2021, in which cancer or adverse reproductive effects were diagnosed in 1995 and onward. Data were synthetized qualitatively due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity of study designs, outcomes, and methods. Results: Four studies investigating cancer frequencies and six studies investigating effects on reproduction among hairdressers were identified. All were of good quality and with low risk of bias. Only one of the four studies found an increased risk of cancer reporting nine times higher odds for bladder cancer in hairdressers than the population‐based controls. Three other studies investigating bladder and lung cancer, and non‐Hodgins lymphoma did not find an increased risk in hairdressers. Regarding reprotoxic effects, numerous outcomes were investigated including menstrual disorders, congenital malformations, fetal loss, small‐for‐gestational age newborns, preterm delivery, and infertility. Increased risk was found for ventricular septal defect in newborns of fathers working as hairdressers. Furthermore, several indices of poor neonatal or maternal health were significantly associated with mothers working as hairdresser. Conclusions: Despite the scarce evidence that hairdressers are at increased risk of carcinogenic or reprotoxic effects related to their trade, such health risks cannot be ruled out. Therefore, preventive efforts to diminish occupational exposures to hairdressing chemicals should be targeted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational hand eczema is common among hairdressers, and protective gloves are important in limiting exposure to irritants and allergens. Various glove types may differ in their protective ability, and their use may lead to hand eczema due to skin irritancy and allergy. MEDLINE was searched for studies investigating permeation of gloves to irritants and allergens used in the hairdressing trade, as well as adverse effects of glove use affecting hairdressers. Forty‐four studies were identified; nine reported on permeation. Of those, two in vitro studies found nitrile rubber (NR) gloves to give the best protection when handling hair dyes. Polyethylene (PE) gloves had the lowest reported break‐through time. The prevalence of sensitization to rubber materials in European hairdressers was as follows: thiuram mix, median 2.5% (range 0%‐8.2%), weighted average 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0%‐3.1%); mercapto mix, median 0.4% (range 0%‐3.3%), weighted average 0.5% (95% CI 0.47%‐0.50%), mercaptobenzothiazole, median 0.6% (range 0%‐6.6%), weighted average 0.7% (95% CI 0.6%‐0.7%), NRL‐type I allergy, median 1.3% (range 1%‐16.4%), weighted average 4.0% (95% CI 3.6%‐4.5%). In conclusion, NR gloves provide the best skin protection for hairdressers, although natural rubber latex (NRL) and polyvinylchloride (PVC) gloves may be sufficient in most cases. PE gloves are not recommended. Synthetic rubber gloves with low or no levels of accelerators are preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]