“…The authors determined that, depending on the light and the time spent under it, anywhere between 8 and 208 UV nail light visits would be needed to reach the 600 kJ/m 2 threshold energy density to cause DNA damage [65]. Yet another study determined that the total energy nails were exposed to during the recommended curing time for UV light was between 285 and 386 J/m 2 which is equal to the day-long recommended irradiation limit for outdoor workers [66]. These studies suggest that, over time, UV nail light exposure has the potential for harm.…”
“…The authors determined that, depending on the light and the time spent under it, anywhere between 8 and 208 UV nail light visits would be needed to reach the 600 kJ/m 2 threshold energy density to cause DNA damage [65]. Yet another study determined that the total energy nails were exposed to during the recommended curing time for UV light was between 285 and 386 J/m 2 which is equal to the day-long recommended irradiation limit for outdoor workers [66]. These studies suggest that, over time, UV nail light exposure has the potential for harm.…”
“…A different conclusion was reached in a study published by Curtis et al in 2013. They studied 2 UV nail lamps irradiation using 2 instruments: a dosimeter and a spectrometer . The authors demonstrated that the UV lamp emitted 4.2 times more energy between 355 and 385 nm than the sun (at UV index = 6).…”
Section: Debate On the Potential Carcinogenic Risk Of Uv Nail Lampsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors demonstrated that the UV lamp emitted 4.2 times more energy between 355 and 385 nm than the sun (at UV index = 6). They concluded that the dose of a 10‐minutes UV nail lamp exposure on a person's hands is equal to the day‐light recommended limit for outdoor workers, which is 30 J/m 2 for 8 hours . Therefore, they recommended applying broad spectrum sunscreen 30 minutes before acrylic nails treatment.…”
Section: Debate On the Potential Carcinogenic Risk Of Uv Nail Lampsmentioning
Summary
The increased use of ultraviolet (UV) nail lamps in recent years has generated safety concerns of this device. A UV nail lamp is a source of artificial UVA radiation, often used to dry, harden, and cure the nails at home and in the salon. UVA radiation is known to be mutagenic and can cause damage to the DNA, resulting in cutaneous malignancy. Currently, there are only a few studies that have evaluated UV nail lamp irradiation and its potential carcinogenic risk. We review the literature on UV nail lamps, its safety, effect on nails and hands, and the potential role in increasing the risk of cutaneous malignancy. Based on available data, the carcinogenic risk is low; nonetheless, the use of a broad spectrum sunscreen with SPF >30 before UV nail lamp exposure is recommended.
“…Tanning behavior may also involve spa treatments such as hair removal and gel nail polish, in addition to skincare and hair coloring, as well as the use of products designed to manage body odor and other aspects of appearance (Hillhouse et al., ). A recent study found that the cumulative damage from the light frequencies that nail lamps emit can cause DNA damage to the skin, resulting in premature aging and possibly cancer (Curtis et al., ). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.H4a: Frequent tanners, whether they use UV‐ or non‐UV‐induced tanning methods, are likely to exhibit higher levels of intention to engage in spa treatments, compared to infrequent tanners.H4b: Frequent tanners who use UV‐induced methods are likely to exhibit higher levels of intention to engage in spa treatments, compared to those who use non‐UV‐induced methods.…”
Section: Review Of Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tanning behavior may also involve spa treatments such as hair removal and gel nail polish, in addition to skincare and hair coloring, as well as the use of products designed to manage body odor and other aspects of appearance (Hillhouse et al, 2012). A recent study found that the cumulative damage from the light frequencies that nail lamps emit can cause DNA damage to the skin, resulting in premature aging and possibly cancer (Curtis et al, 2013). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.…”
The goal was to identify overall intentions to engage in risky appearance‐related behaviors and to determine whether tanning methods (UV‐induced vs. non‐UV‐induced) were significant in relationship to female college students’ intentions to engage in risky appearance management behaviors. A total of 395 female college students at one university in southwestern United States answered an online survey. In general, the participants did not intend to engage in appearance management behaviors that are deemed as highly risky. An independent t‐test revealed that both frequent ultra violet‐induced and non‐ultra violet‐induced frequent tanners’ behavioral intentions to engage in risky weight management behaviors, plastic surgery procedures, and spa treatments were higher than infrequent tanners. Infrequent UV‐induced tanners were less likely to have body piercing and tattooing, compared to UV‐induced tanners. Safer tanners were more concerned about stigmatized body modification, in particular.
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.
