Differences between hairdressers and consumers in skin exposure to hair cosmetic products: A review
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Review › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Dokumenter
- Fulltext
Forlagets udgivne version, 1,72 MB, PDF-dokument
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.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Bogserie | Contact Dermatitis |
| Vol/bind | 86 |
| Udgave nummer | 5 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 333-343 |
| Antal sider | 11 |
| ISSN | 0105-1873 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2022 |
Bibliografisk note
Funding Information:
This review is supported by a grant from Uni Europa‐The European Global Services Union (Project VS/2019/0440: “Promoting the autonomous implementation of the European framework agreement on occupational health and safety in the hairdressing sector”). Other than being given the opportunity to provide input in the initial Delphi process to identify relevant substances, the sponsor had no role in the development, nor in the performance of the review and the publication of its results. Funding information
Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank the European Commission, Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (VS/2019/0440) for their financial support. This review is supported by a grant from Uni Europa–The European Global Services Union (Project VS/2019/0440: “Promoting the autonomous implementation of the European framework agreement on occupational health and safety in the hairdressing sector”). Other than being given the opportunity to provide input in the initial Delphi process to identify relevant substances, the sponsor had no role in the development or in the performance of the review and the publication of its results.
Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank the European Commission, Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (VS/2019/0440) for their financial support. This review is supported by a grant from Uni Europa?The European Global Services Union (Project VS/2019/0440: ?Promoting the autonomous implementation of the European framework agreement on occupational health and safety in the hairdressing sector?). Other than being given the opportunity to provide input in the initial Delphi process to identify relevant substances, the sponsor had no role in the development or in the performance of the review and the publication of its results. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
ID: 314065166