Search

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]

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]

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]

This study examined trends in prevalence of HEMA allergy as well as the characteristics of patients with contact allergy to HEMA. Because there was only one male patient with contact allergy to HEMA during the study period, we studied all female patients who were patch tested with HEMA between January 1, 2017 and July 1, 2019. GLO:FQV/01apr20:cod13439-fig-0001.jpg PHOTO (COLOR): A history of using UV nail polish in patch test HEMA-positive and HEMA-negative patients. [Extracted from the article]