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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |