Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.48693/146
Open Access logo originally created by the Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Title: Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
Authors: Symanzik, Cara
Weinert, Patricia
Babić, Željka
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
ORCID of the author: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4498-3710
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4090-6726
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3537-8463
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5335-9522
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2147-016X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1063-4547
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8415-7571
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6269-5475
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5876-8923
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0719-2020
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5406-9458
Abstract: 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.
Citations: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 13, MDPI, 2022, 28
URL: https://doi.org/10.48693/146
https://osnadocs.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/ds-202206237142
Subject Keywords: cysteamine hydrochloride; cocamide diethanolamine; cocamidopropyl betaine; cosmetics; hairdresser; hairdressing; hand eczema; polyvinylpyrrolidone; polyvinylpyrrolidone copolymers; sodium laureth sulfate
Issue Date: 21-Jun-2022
Type of publication: Einzelbeitrag in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift [article]
Appears in Collections:FB08 - Hochschulschriften
Open-Access-Publikationsfonds

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ijerph-19-07588.pdf893,43 kBAdobe PDF
ijerph-19-07588.pdf
Thumbnail
View/Open


Items in osnaDocs repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. rightsstatements.org