Premium
Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Symanzik Cara,
Weinert Patricia,
Babić Željka,
Hallmann Sarah,
Havmose Martin S.,
Johansen Jeanne D.,
Kezic Sanja,
Macan Marija,
Macan Jelena,
Strahwald Julia,
Turk Rajka,
Molen Henk F.,
John Swen M.,
Uter Wolfgang
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/cod.14056
Subject(s) - eyelash , cyanoacrylate , allergic contact dermatitis , medicine , dermatology , systematic review , cyanoacrylates , contact dermatitis , surgery , allergy , medline , chemistry , adhesive , biochemistry , genetics , organic chemistry , layer (electronics) , immunology , biology
Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, this systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212‐782‐2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085‐85‐0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analysis. In total, six publications from six countries were eligible for this systematic review. A meta‐analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a ninefold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared with controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The results of this systematic review clearly show that—regarding contact allergy to acrylates—it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate‐containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration.