Cargando…

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

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; CA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9265752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35805241
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137588
_version_ 1784743292131344384
author 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
author_facet 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
author_sort Symanzik, Cara
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9265752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92657522022-07-09 Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers 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 Int J Environ Res Public Health Review 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. MDPI 2022-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9265752/ /pubmed/35805241 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137588 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
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
Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title_full Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title_fullStr Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title_full_unstemmed Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title_short Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
title_sort skin toxicity of selected hair cosmetic ingredients: a review focusing on hairdressers
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9265752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35805241
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137588
work_keys_str_mv AT symanzikcara skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT weinertpatricia skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT babiczeljka skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT hallmannsarah skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT havmosemartinstibius skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT johansenjeanneduus skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT kezicsanja skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT macanmarija skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT macanjelena skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT strahwaldjulia skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT turkrajka skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT vandermolenhenkf skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT johnswenmalte skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers
AT uterwolfgang skintoxicityofselectedhaircosmeticingredientsareviewfocusingonhairdressers