Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
Autor(en): | Symanzik, Cara Weinert, Patricia Babic, Zeljka Hallmann, Sarah Havmose, Martin Stibius Johansen, Jeanne Duus Kezic, Sanja Macan, Marija Macan, Jelena Strahwald, Julia Turk, Rajka van der Molen, Henk F. John, Swen Malte Uter, Wolfgang |
Stichwörter: | BASE-LINE SERIES; cocamide diethanolamine; COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE; CONTACT-DERMATITIS GROUP; cosmetics; CYSTEAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE; Environmental Sciences; Environmental Sciences & Ecology; EYELID DERMATITIS; FEMALE HAIRDRESSERS; hairdresser; hairdressing; hand eczema; OCCUPATIONAL HAND ECZEMA; PATCH TEST REACTIONS; polyvinylpyrrolidone; polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymers; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE; STANDARD SCREENING TRAY | Erscheinungsdatum: | 2022 | Herausgeber: | MDPI | Journal: | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH | Volumen: | 19 | Ausgabe: | 13 | Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
DOI: | 10.3390/ijerph19137588 |
Zur Langanzeige
Seitenaufrufe
6
Letzte Woche
0
0
Letzter Monat
0
0
geprüft am 18.05.2024