Search

Due to their professional activities, outdoor workers are exposed to an increased risk of developing occupational skin cancer caused by solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation as defined by occupational disease (OD) number 5103. Since the amendment to the Occupational Diseases Ordinance ("Berufskrankheitenverordnung", BKV) in 2015, squamous cell carcinomas or multiple actinic keratoses of the skin caused by natural UV radiation in outdoor workers in Germany can be recognized as occupational disease in the sense of OD number 5103. The main cause of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is solar UV radiation; it is the most relevant occupational carcinogen in terms of the number of exposed workers (i.e., outdoor workers). Circumstances associated with climate change include increased terrestrial UV radiation, an increase in the number of cloudless days and therefore the number of hours of direct sunshine, adverse meteorological effects to the stratospheric ozone layer, and so-called low ozone events and associated more intense UV radiation. In the future, comprehensive considerations will have to be made as to how prevention concepts can be effectively designed to avoid the development of occupational skin cancer in outdoor workers. The treatment of future cases of skin cancer will be a particular challenge due to their high number and only a limited number of dermatologists available. Hopefully, prevention of skin cancer will become even more important in the future., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Skin cancer has become a substantial matter of public health and in the workplace, accounting for a significant share of all reported occupational diseases. The most important external factor in the development of skin cancer is exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation. Outdoor workers have already been identified as a high-risk category. The need for interventions to improve the sun protection behavior of outdoor workers has recently been understood. Outdoor workers' risk perceptions and attitudes toward sun protection methods are likely to influence practical sun protection behavior at work, and despite the fact that many workers have expressed interest in improving their sun protection behavior, outdoor workers' unique needs are still neglected. Occupational dermatology is predicted to become more concerned with photoprotection in the decades ahead. Preventive action against the rapidly increasing number skin cancer cases is in great demand around the globe. In terms of preventive measures, the full range of available options should be used as needed to address the current difficulties in a goal-oriented way. This will almost certainly only be achievable if preventative efforts on a collective and individual level are successfully paired with support from policymakers to inspire long-term change., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose of Review: This study aims to provide an overview on current knowledge on occupational allergic diseases in hairdressers and up-to-date perspectives of prevention., Recent Findings: Hand eczema (dermatitis) is common in hairdressers, often caused by contact allergy to one or multiple small molecules (haptens) used, e.g., for dyeing, bleaching, and waving/relaxing or by ancillary substances such as preservatives. Hairdressers, compared to other patch-tested patients, have an up to fivefold increased risk to be found sensitized, e.g., against p-phenylenediamine, ammonium persulfate, and glyceryl thioglycolate. Some of these small molecules may induce respiratory sensitization causing allergic rhinitis and/or asthma, notably persulfate salts. Occupational hazards in hairdressing are well described. This knowledge needs to be put into use for risk reduction, mainly by substitution of allergenic ingredients by less allergenic ones, education, and use of ventilation and suitable single-use gloves., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The rising incidence of skin cancer over the years has made it a significant public and occupational health issue. However, skin cancer is highly preventable, mainly through reduced exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR), which can be achieved by a variety of individual and collective protective measures and interventions. The relative risk associated with different patterns of exposure to solar UVR differs for the subtypes of keratinocyte cancers (KC). Specifically, whether the exposure is intermittent or continuous, and occurs in an occupational or leisure/recreational setting. The main aim of the study using this protocol is to contribute to raising public and policy awareness on solar UVR-inflicted occupational skin cancers in Lisbon. This will be achieved by performing direct measurements of the solar UVR dose received by outdoor workers using a digital platform. Results will likely contribute to further understanding the risk estimates for keratinocyte cancer estimations in this population., Methods: A prospective observational study will be conducted in Lisbon, Portugal. Personal electronic dosimeters (GENESIS-UV system) integrated with a digital platform will be used to assess occupational solar UVR doses of gardeners, masons, and gravediggers of the municipality of Lisbon. Two hundred and ten outdoor workers will be selected to wear the dosimeter for 1 month each, between April and October during their daily working hours. A digital web-based platform that offers private access to information through dashboard visualization will provide information for the outdoor workers and facilitate communication with the participants., Discussion: The expected results of the overall proposal comprise the occupational solar UVR doses, expressed in standard erythemal dose (SEDs) per day of outdoor work for 7 months. Study data will provide outdoor workers with information on their personal solar UVR exposure during their working hours and an estimate of their risk of developing skin cancer. It is expected that the occupational solar UVR doses of the outdoor workers in Portugal will be above the threshold of 1 to 1.33 SED/day, due to the latitude of Lisbon and the nature of the occupations. The results prospectively should flow into the design of adequate prevention campaigns for skin cancer in outdoor workers., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Paulo, Symanzik, Maia, Lapão, Carvalho, Conneman, Dias, Gobba, John, Loney, Pinho, Rodrigues, Strehl, Tenkate, Wittlich and Modenese.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Various products are available for lightening hair. There are no data on which applications are actually used in hairdressing, impeding proper estimation of actual exposure and necessary preventive measures., Objectives: To assess information about availability, usage and formulation of lightening preparations in the German hairdressing trade., Methods: A market survey was conducted and hairdressers were surveyed by online questionnaires., Results: Of 783 hairdressers clicking the link, 565 hairdressers (91.2% female, mean age of 40.2 ± 11.7 years) from all German states responded (response rate: 72.2%). The questionnaire survey has shown that available hair-lightening preparations in the German hairdressing trade are (multiple selection possible): dust-free (88.5%) and non-dust-free bleaching powders (22.1%), bleaching creams (41.9%), high-lifting hair colour creams (88.8%) and normal hair colour creams (58.4%). Five hundred eighteen (91.7%) hairdressers favour lightening hair with powder. The market survey revealed that bleaching powders and creams contain potassium persulfate, ammonium persulfate and sodium persulfate or combinations of these persulfate salts., Conclusions: Hairdressers are exposed to various hair-lightening applications containing different chemicals. Preventive measures need to address adverse skin and respiratory effects. Implementation of targeted health education already in early career stages (i.e., apprenticeship) seems advisable and can be maintained by refresher trainings., (© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A substantial proportion of all reported occupational illnesses are constituted by skin cancer, making this disease a serious public health issue. Solar ultra-violet radiation (UVR) exposure is the most significant external factor in the development of skin cancer, for which the broad occupational category of outdoor workers has already been identified as high-risk group. Sun protection by deploying adequate technical, organizational, and person-related measures has to be understood as a functional aspect of workplace safety. To prevent skin cancers brought on by-typically cumulative-solar UVR exposure, outdoor workers must considerably lower their occupationally acquired solar UVR doses. Estimating cumulative sun exposure in outdoor workers requires consideration of the level of solar UVR exposure, the tasks to be done in the sun, and the employees' solar UVR preventive measures. Recent studies have highlighted the necessity for measures to enhance outdoor workers' sun protection behavior. In the coming decades, occupational dermatology is expected to pay increasing attention to sun protection at work. Also, the field of dermato-oncology will likely be concerned with sky-rocketing incidences of occupational skin cancers. The complete range of available alternatives should be utilized in terms of preventive actions, which seems pivotal to handle the present and future challenges in a purposeful manner. This will almost definitely only be possible if politicians' support is effectively combined with communal and individual preventive actions in order to spur long-term transformation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Symanzik and John.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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.

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Occupational Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Society for Occupational Health.)

Background: Solar UltraViolet Radiation (UVR) is considered the most relevant occupational carcinogenic exposure in terms of the number of workers exposed (i.e., outdoor workers) and UVR-induced skin cancers are among the most frequent types of occupational cancers worldwide. This review aims to collect and evaluate all the available preventive interventions conducted on outdoor workers to reduce their solar UVR related risk, with the final purpose of reducing the burden of occupational skin cancers for outdoor workers. Methods: We will search the following databases for peer-reviewed original research published: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, and EMBASE. We will include only interventional studies, both randomized and non-randomized, with an adequate comparison group, therefore excluding cross-sectional studies, as well as case-reports/series, reviews, and letters/comments. The systematic review will adhere to the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. After the literature search, studies to be included will be independently reviewed by two Authors, first based on title and abstract, then based on the full text, according to the inclusion criteria. Conflicts will be solved by a third Author. Two authors will independently extract the required data from included studies and perform quality assessment according to the relevant domain for Risk of Bias assessment proposed by the Cochrane collaboration group. In case of sufficient homogeneity of interventions and outcomes evaluated, results from subgroups of studies will be pooled together in a meta-analysis. Discussion: Following the principles for the evaluation of interventions for cancer prevention established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, this systematic review will investigate the effectiveness of the interventions, and consequently it will provide reliable indications for the actual reduction of skin cancer incidence in outdoor workers., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Modenese, Loney, Rocholl, Symanzik, Gobba, John, Straif and Silva Paulo.)

Background: Nickel release from some metal tools in the hairdressing trade has been sporadically evidenced, whereas data about cobalt release from metal tools in the hairdressing trade are lacking. Objectives: To screen metal tools for nickel and cobalt release and to estimate the prevalence of nickel allergy and cobalt allergy in the German hairdressing trade. Methods: Four hundred seventy‐five metal tools in the hairdressing trade were tested in three North German states with a nickel spot test for nickel release and with a cobalt spot test for cobalt release. Seventy hairdressers were surveyed with a standardized questionnaire to collect data about the tested metal tools as well as the prevalence of nickel allergy and cobalt allergy. Results: One hundred thirty‐one of 475 metal tools (27.6%) – 60 of 60 hair clips (100%), five of five crochet hooks (100%), 24 of 40 tweezers (60.0%), 33 of 75 sectioning clips (44.0%), five of 32 straight razors (15.6%), and four of 45 tail combs (8.9%) – released nickel and 10 of 475 metal tools (2.1%) – three of 40 tweezers (7.5%), four of 60 hair clips (6.7%), one of 32 straight razors (3.1%), and two of 75 sectioning clips (2.7%) – released cobalt. Eight of 63 female hairdressers (12.7%) suffered from nickel allergy and two of 63 female hairdressers (3.2%) suffered from cobalt allergy. Conclusions: Metal tools in the German hairdressing trade – with which a prolonged skin contact is intended – release nickel and cobalt in allergologically relevant amounts and thus should be taken into account as occupational sources of exposure to nickel and cobalt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]