TY - JOUR
T1 - Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients
T2 - A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
AU - Symanzik, Cara
AU - Weinert, Patricia
AU - Babić, Željka
AU - Hallmann, Sarah
AU - Havmose, Martin Stibius
AU - Johansen, Jeanne Duus
AU - Kezic, Sanja
AU - Macan, Marija
AU - Macan, Jelena
AU - Strahwald, Julia
AU - Turk, Rajka
AU - van der Molen, Henk F
AU - John, Swen Malte
AU - Uter, Wolfgang
PY - 2022/6/21
Y1 - 2022/6/21
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Allergens/adverse effects
KW - Cysteamine
KW - Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology
KW - Hair Preparations/toxicity
KW - Humans
KW - Irritants
KW - Occupational Exposure/adverse effects
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132278883&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph19137588
DO - 10.3390/ijerph19137588
M3 - Review
C2 - 35805241
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 19
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 13
M1 - 7588
ER -