Background: Nickel is one of the most common contact allergens. Despite EU regulations concerning the maximum permissible release of nickel from metal objects, nickel release at inappropriately high levels from metal objects has been detected in various studies.Objectives: To screen current nickel release from metal tools in the German hairdressing trade.Methods: Two hundred and twenty-nine metal tools from the German hairdressing trade were tested with the dimethylglyoxime (DMG) test for nickel release. Additionally, an employee survey was conducted to collect data about the metal tools. Results:The DMG test showed that 21 of 229 metal tools (9.2%) released nickel. Nickel release was detected in 8 of 45 hair clips (17.8%), 2 of 27 tail combs (7.4%), and 11 of 17 tweezers (64.7%).Conclusion: It must be assumed that hairdressers in Germany have prolonged skin contact with nickel-releasing metal tools. This should prompt further testing for nickel release from metal tools, and the development of regulations to eliminate nickel-releasing metal tools in the (German) hairdressing trade. K E Y W O R D S dimethylglyoxime test, Germany, hairdresser, metal tools, nickel 1 | INTRODUCTION Hairdressers have one of the highest risks of developing occupational dermatoses. 1 The intense occupational exposure in terms of a combination of frequent wet work and skin contact with detergents and chemicals may lead to barrier impairment, and thus-among other factors, for example, a proinflammatory milieu-to a higher risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis. 2,3 Nickel is, according to the German Contact Dermatitis Group and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, among the most frequent contact allergens, with a sensitization prevalence of 15.3%. 4 The risk of developing occupational allergic contact dermatitis in the hairdressing trade is 10.58%. 5 Currently, the REACH Regulation (Entry 27 of Annex XVII to REACH) regulates the allowed maximum quantity of nickel released from metal objects in the EU. 6 According to the REACH Regulation,nickel release from products with direct and prolonged skin contact must not be >0.5 μg/cm 2 /week. 6 The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) defines prolonged skin contact as contact with the skin with "nickel of potentially more than 10 minutes on three or more occasions within two weeks, or 30 minutes on one or more occasions within two weeks". 7 As the REACH Regulation is general, occupational exposure to nickel-containing metal objects is included in it. Moreover, the occupational use of tools in the hairdressing trade can be regarded as prolonged skin contact according to the definition of the ECHA.Although the prevalence of nickel allergy decreased between 1994 and 2012, nickel allergy is still an established health problem in the EU. [8][9][10][11] In addition to individual consequences, occupational nickel contact allergy may pose an economic problem, as it may lead to a change of occupation, precarious work, or unemployment. 12The nickel release from metal objects in the EU ...
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.
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.
Background Occupational hand eczema (HE) is common among healthcare workers (HCWs) and has—in some regions of the world—increased during the COVID‐19 pandemic due to related hygiene measures. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of an intervention for HE prevention in HCWs during the pandemic. Methods A prospective, controlled, unblinded interventional trial was conducted in 302 HCWs. The intervention group (IG) ( n = 135) received online‐based health education and free access to hand cleansing and hand care products. The control group (CG) ( n = 167) did not receive any intervention within the study. At baseline (T0), after 3 (T1) and 6 (T2) months, participants completed standardized questionnaires. The Osnabrueck Hand Eczema Severity Index (OHSI) was assessed at T0 and T2. Results During the observation period, there were no new HE cases in the IG ( n = 115) and 12 cases (8.8%) in the CG ( n = 136). OHSI values at T2 were lower in the IG ( b = −1.44, p < 0.001). Daily use of emollients was higher at work ( b = 1.73, p < 0.001) and at home ( b = 1.62, p < 0.001) in the IG at T2. Conclusions The intervention was effective in HE prevention and improving skin care behaviour during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.