4.4 Article

Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment for occupational exposure of hairdressers to hair dye ingredients

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue -, Pages 124-132

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.03.006

Keywords

Hair dye allergy; Allergic contact dermatitis; Skin sensitization; Quantitative risk assessment; Hairdresser; Occupational exposure; p-Phenylenediamine; Resorcinol; Toluene-2,5-diamine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Occupational exposure of hairdressers to hair dyes has been associated with the development of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) involving the hands. p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) and toluene-2,5-diamine (PTD) have been implicated as important occupational contact allergens. To conduct a quantitative risk assessment for the induction of contact sensitization to hair dyes in hairdressers, available data from hand rinsing studies following typical occupational exposure conditions to PPD, PTD and resorcinol were assessed. By accounting for wet work, uneven exposure and inter-individual variability for professionals, daily hand exposure concentrations were derived. Secondly, daily hand exposure was compared with the sensitization induction potency of the individual hair dye defined as the No Expected Sensitization Induction Levels (NESIL). For PPD and PTD hairdresser hand exposure levels were 2.7 and 5.9 fold below the individual NESIL. In contrast, hand exposure to resorcinol was 50 fold below the NESIL. Correspondingly, the risk assessment for PPD and PTD indicates that contact sensitization may occur, when skin protection and skin care are not rigorously applied. We conclude that awareness of health risks associated with occupational exposure to hair dyes, and of the importance of adequate protective measures, should be emphasized more fully during hairdresser education and training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available