Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on August 4, 2005
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2005 49(6):473-480; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mei030
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press
Original Article |
Occupational Dermal Exposure to Permanent Hair Dyes Among Hairdressers
1 Occupational Dermatology, National Institute for Working Life, SE-113 91 Stockholm, Sweden; 2 Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel: +46-8-619-6995; fax: +46-8-619-6896; e-mail: marie-louise.lind{at}niwl.se
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Skin exposure to permanent hair dye compounds was assessed in 33 hairdressers using a previously evaluated hand rinse method. Hand rinse samples were collected from each hand before the start of hair dyeing, after application of the dye and after cutting the newly-dyed hair. Sixteen of the hairdressers did not use gloves during dye application, and none used gloves while cutting the dyed hair. The samples were analysed for pertinent aromatic amines and resorcinol (RES) using an HPLC method. 10 of 54 hair dye mixtures contained 1,4-phenylenediamine (PPD), 40 toluene-2,5-diaminesulphate (TDS), and 44 RES. After application of the hair dye, PPD was found in samples from 4 hairdressers, TDS in 12 and RES in 21. PPD was found in samples from 3 of the 17 hairdressers that used gloves during application of the hair dye, TDS in 5 and RES in 11. In the group that did not use gloves during the application of hair dye (n = 16) PPD was found in samples from 1 hairdresser, TDS in 7 and RES in 11. After cutting the dyed hair, PPD was found in samples from 5 hairdressers, TDS in 14 and RES in 20. Analysis of samples of newly-dyed hair cuttings revealed the presence of aromatic amines and/or RES in 11/12 samples. Our conclusion is that hairdressers' skin is exposed to allergenic compounds during hair dyeing. Exposure occurs from dye application, from cutting newly-dyed hair and from background exposure. The exposure loadings are in the level, where there is a risk of sensitization and/or elicitation of contact allergy (i.e. for PPD 22–939 nmol per hand). The glove use observed in this study was often improper, and was insufficient to prevent exposure. To reduce exposure, improved skin protection and work routines are important.
Keywords: aromatic amines • hair colours • hair cutting • hand rinse sampling • protective gloves • skin
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Hairdressing has a very long history. Among the Egyptians there were hairdressers as early as 5000 years BC and the art of dyeing hair with vegetable dyes was known already at that time (Lindsköld, 1987
). The first artificial dye was synthesized in the laboratory in 1856 and permanent hair colorants have been in commercial use for over 100 years (Wall, 1957; Corbett, 1991). Shortly after their introduction, and for many years thereafter, the permanent hair colorants developed a reputation for producing allergic reactions.
Hairdressers today have an increased risk of developing occupational skin diseases due to exposure to skin irritants and sensitizers (van der Walle, 2000; Uter et al., 2003). Hair cosmetic products such as hair colours, permanent wave solutions and bleaches can cause contact allergy and the extensive wet work itself can cause irritant contact dermatitis. Hair dyes can be divided into five categories, each with a specific composition and action mechanism: gradual hair colouring (using metallic dyes such as salts of lead, bismuth or silver), vegetable hair dyes (such as henna), temporary dyes (water-soluble dyes that withstand only one shampooing), semi-permanent dyes (which will withstand 4–5 shampooings) and permanent or oxidation hair colours, the most important category (Nater et al., 1983; Boldoc and Shapiro, 2001). Permanent hair colorants currently represent the largest proportion of the world hair dye market (Corbett, 1991; Dressler, 1998).
Permanent hair dye compounds (i.e. aromatic amines) can cause contact allergy among hairdressers, their clients and home users (Leino and Kanerva, 1997; van der Walle, 2000; Søsted et al., 2002). 1,4-phenylenediamine (PPD), 3-aminophenol (MAP), toluene-2,5-diaminesulphate (TDS) and resorcinol (RES) are contact allergens and are included in hairdressing patch test series (van der Walle, 2000).
The occupational skin exposure loadings of permanent hair dyes among hairdressers have so far been unknown, as no methods for assessing skin exposure have been evaluated for hair dyes. Accordingly, our research group has recently developed and evaluated a method of assessing dermal exposure to permanent hair dyes using hand rinsing (Lind et al., 2004).
The present aim was, applying this newly evaluated method, to assess hairdressers' occupational dermal exposure to permanent hair dyes in relation to given work tasks.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Subjects
Thirty-three hairdressers working at nine different hairdressing salons in Stockholm, Sweden, participated in the study that was undertaken during April–June 2003. The subjects were recruited as volunteers at personal visits at randomly selected salons in the centre of Stockholm. No information was obtained regarding possible skin problems. The mean age was 37 years (range 23–54) and 20 (61%) were females. They had worked as hairdressers for 4–35 years (mean 16 years). Thirty were self-employed and rented space in a larger salon, two were part-owners and one was employed. The salons varied in size and had between 2 and 50 hairdressers. The hairdressers who rented space had their own products and gloves and individual work routines.
Hair dyeing procedure
All the hairdressers did hair dyeing in a similar manner. The hair dye cream was first mixed with an oxidizing cream containing hydrogen peroxide, in a small container, using the application tool, usually a brush. This mixture was then brushed onto the client's hair. The means of application differed somewhat depending on different colouring techniques or the proportion of hair to be coloured. If only strands were to be coloured, they were separated out with aluminium foil or by using a plastic or rubber hood with small holes through which strands could be pulled out. The hair colour mix was left on the hair for 20–30 min. Then the hair was rinsed and washed with shampoo; thereafter, the hair was cut while still wet. The hand—usually the right hand—holding the application tool, scissors and comb etc. is, in the text, referred to as the dominant hand, and the other hand as the serving hand.
In total 54 hair dye mixtures were used. Immediately after the hair dye cream and hydrogen peroxide were mixed samples of the hair dye mixtures were collected and dissolved in rinsing solution with a magnetic stirrer for chemical analysis. Most of the hair dye mixtures contained only one cream; others contained two or more different creams. The hairdresser often used more than one mixture when colouring a client's hair. According to the declarations of contents of the hair dye creams PPD was present in five of the mixtures, MAP in 33, TDS in 40, RES in 44 and 2-methylrecorcinol (MRE) in 18. Five hair dye creams had no declaration of content. Chemical analysis using the method described below showed that these contained PPD. The contents of hair dye compounds in 22 of the analysed mixtures were 0.004–0.250% PPD, 0.001–0.051% MAP, 0.019–0.447% TDS, 0.001–0.271% RES and 0.007–0.147% MRE (w/w). The hair dye cream formulations included other components such as fatty alcohols, surfactants and solvents.
Protective gloves
The majority of the hairdressers, 29/33, did not wear gloves while mixing the hair dye cream with the oxidizing cream. When colouring to hide the outgrowth of grey hair, a larger part of the hair is coloured, and during this treatment most of the hairdressers (11/12) used gloves. For colouring strands only, 4/16 hairdressers used gloves. Five hairdressers did both grey hair covering and coloured strands. Among the latter, three used gloves only for the grey hair colouring and two used gloves for both. For rinsing and washing eight of 31 used gloves (for two hairdressers we have no information). Six hairdressers used natural rubber latex (NRL) gloves, four used disposable vinyl gloves, three used disposable polyethene gloves and one used nitril gloves. (For three we have no information). Gloves were commonly re-used, except for the polyethene gloves.
Exposure assessment
The hairdressers' dermal exposure was assessed using a previously evaluated hand rinse method (Lind et al., 2004). Samples were taken in the hairdressing salons during normal working hours. The hairdressers were instructed to follow their normal work routines. Nine of the hairdressers had performed hair dyeing previously during the same day. Each hairdresser participated in the study during hair dyeing of only one costumer. Hand rinse sampling was performed prior to the hair dye procedure, after application of the hair dye and after cutting of the newly dyed hair. The hands were rinsed in a polyethene bag containing 50 ml rinsing solution (0.2 M ascorbic acid in borate buffer with 10% ethanol). Samples from the right and left hand were taken simultaneously. The hairdresser was instructed to shake her/his hands vigorously for 2 min. The rinse liquids from the right hand and the left hand were then collected in different bottles. Aliquots of these solutions were immediately transferred to 20 ml glass vials and stored in a cold box during transport to the laboratory freezer (–18°C). Samples of the hair dye mixtures were also collected and dissolved in rinsing solution with a magnetic stirrer. All samples were analysed within 14 days.
A total of 190 hand rinse samples were collected. From all, except 4 of the hairdressers, samples were also taken after they had cut newly-dyed hair. Of these 4, 3 did not cut their clients' hair and one cut the hair before dyeing. Twelve samples were collected from newly-dyed-hair cuttings. The cuttings were put in 20 ml glass vials with 5 ml rinsing solution and treated like the hand rinse samples.
Chemical analysis
All samples were analysed within 14 days using an HPLC instrument, the Merck Hitachi LaChrome D-7000 HPLC System (consisting of pump, solvent degasser, autosampler, column oven and diode array detector) from Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany). The column was a Merck Lichrospher RP 60 Select B, 250 x 4 mm, 5 µm particle size. Sample volume was 10 µl. The column temperature was 30°C. Analyte identification was confirmed using standard addition and spectra comparison with reference substances. External standards were used for calculating the concentration. The HPLC-analysis method has previously been described in detail (Lind et al., 2004). The wavelength used for detection was 201 nm. The detection-limit was 0.2 nmol ml–1, which corresponds to 10 nmol per hand. Studies of sample stability at different temperatures showed that the hand wash samples remained stable for 14 days when stored in a freezer (–18°C). The samples were filtered with a syringe filter prior to analysis (Titan syringe filters PTFE, 0.45 µm pore size and 25 mm filter size. SUN-Sri, Duluth, MN).
Chemicals
Buffer solution, pH 8.0, was prepared by mixing 440 ml 0.1 M hydrochloric acid and 560 ml 0.05 M sodium tetraborate. Standard solutions of PPD, TDS, MAP, RES and MRE were made in buffer containing 10% ethanol and ascorbic acid was added as an antioxidant, to a final concentration of 0.2 M. The chemicals used were PPD (CAS No. 106-50-3, 97% pure), TDS (CAS No. 615-50-9, 97% pure), MAP (CAS No. 591-27-5, 98% pure) and RES (CAS No. 108-46-3, 99% pure) obtained from Lancaster Synthesis, (Lancaster, UK). MRE (CAS No. 608-25-3, >98% pure) was from Tokyo Kasei, Kogyo Co. Ltd, (Tokyo, Japan). L(+)-Ascorbic acid p.a. (CAS No. 50-81-7, >99.7% pure), sodium tetraborate decahydrate (CAS No. 1303-96-4, >99% pure), methanol (Lichrosolv, HPLC-grade >99.8% pure) and hydrochloric acid (37%) were obtained from Merck KGaA, (Darmstadt, Germany). Ethanol (99.5%) was obtained from Kemetyl AB (Haninge, Sweden). Pure water (>18 M
cm–1 quality) was obtained from a MilliQ system with Q-PAK® Purification Paks®, Millipore Corporation (Bedford, MA, USA).
Statistical methods
For comparison of exposure loading on the dominant hand and the serving hand, Student's t-test (2-sided distribution, paired observations) was used. For comparing glove users with non-glove users, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests (unpaired observations) were used.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (KI 02-009).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
The results of analysing the hand rinse samples are summarized in Tables 1
–4. Hand rinse samples taken before mixing the hair dye cream with oxidizing cream were positive in 21 hairdressers and negative in 12. The amounts of the different dye compounds on the hands are shown in Table 1. In total, PPD was found in samples from 3 hairdressers, MAP in 20, TDS in 7, RES in 7 and MRE in 3.
|
|
|
|
Table 2 shows the amount of hair dye compounds found in the hand rinse samples after application of the hair dye on the client's hair. Twenty-six hairdressers had measurable amounts of hair dyes on their hands. PPD was found in samples from 4 hairdressers, MAP in 22, TDS in 12, RES in 21 and MRE in 5.
Out of the 17 hairdressers who used gloves during application, 14 had positive rinse samples. Among those who did not use gloves 13/16 samples were positive. There were no statistically significant differences between the dominant hand and the serving hand in the amounts of hair dye compounds found in the samples, or between glove users and non-glove users.
In hand rinse samples from 23/29 hairdressers, measurable amounts of hair dyes were found after cutting newly dyed hair (Table 3). There was a tendency that the serving hand was most exposed. The difference in exposure loadings between the dominant hand and the serving hand was statistically significant for RES (P < 0.05) and for TDS, P = 0.06. Figure 1 shows the amount of TDS found in hand rinse samples from individual hairdressers at different work tasks.
|
Table 4 shows the qualitative results of the analysis of samples from hair dye mixtures, newly cut hair and rinse samples from the hands of hairdressers who cut clients' hair. Measurable amounts of hair dye compounds were found in 11/12 samples from newly dyed hair.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
A new method for assessing dermal exposure to permanent hair dyes (Lind et al., 2004
) was used during field measurements in hairdressing salons. It was found to be an appropriate method for this kind of assessment.
The majority of the hairdressers had positive hand rinse samples after application of hair dyes (Table 2). Comparison of amounts of hair dye compounds on the hands of hairdressers who used or did not use gloves when applying the hair dyes showed—surprisingly—that glove use did not protect from exposure. Comparison of glove use and work without gloves is in fact also a comparison of the different work tasks, since it is mainly while colouring whole hair/outgrowth of grey hair that gloves are used. During the latter job the hands are more exposed to hair dyes. The hairdressers were interviewed on glove use. The majority stated that they used gloves only when colouring the whole hair or outgrowth of grey hair, which is consistent with our observations during the field study. The majority used the gloves more than once, and the gloves were often turned inside-out after rinsing with water and then reused. NRL gloves were often used for 2–3 months or until they were discarded as damaged or torn. Under these conditions the gloves themselves may be a source of contamination. Permeation through protective gloves may account for dermal exposure. However there are very few studies concerning permeation of oxidative hair dye compounds through protective gloves (Peter et al., 1994; Spagnolini and Profeta, 1999). The breakthrough time and the permeation rate varied substantially between the different hair dye creams and glove materials tested.
The hairdressers had measurable amounts of hair dyes on their hands after cutting newly-dyed hair (Table 3). There was a tendency that the serving hand had higher amounts than the dominant hand, probably because the former holds the hair during cutting. This exposure is most likely caused by the fact that the hair still contains dye compounds after rinsing and shampooing. For practical reasons it was not possible to sample both before and after cutting, which would have given the contribution of exposure for this particular task. The sample taken after cutting is an assessment of exposure occurring somewhere between application and cutting. This also includes hair rinsing, shampooing, combing etc. and exposure can occur during all these steps. Nevertheless it is likely that the newly-dyed hair is the source of exposure (Fig. 1). Analysis of extracts of hair samples shows that hair dye compounds are in fact released from the hair, and the same compounds are also found in the hair dye mixtures and on the hairdressers' hands (Table 4).
There were positive findings in samples taken before mixing the hair dye cream with oxidizing cream (Table 1 and Fig. 1). This exposure may derive from previous hair dyeing on the same day or from ‘background exposure’ from contaminated surfaces such as workbenches, trolleys and telephones or equipment such as scissors, combs or hair dryers. Preliminary wipe samples taken from such surfaces confirmed that many were contaminated with hair dye compounds (data not shown). Due to their formulation hair dye creams easily stick to such surfaces. In future studies we recommend that surface sampling is included in the study. Figure 1 shows that some of the hairdressers were exposed to relatively high amounts of hair dyes before the start of hair colouring. The samples taken after application in some cases contained less hair dye compounds. The sample taken after cutting the hair often contained more TDS, especially for the group that used gloves and performed whole hair/outgrowth of grey hair colouring. These results show that the compounds found on the hands before the start of dyeing are rinsed off by the sampling procedure; and also that exposure from cutting newly-dyed hair can be higher than that from application of hair dyes.
We previously studied the sampling efficiency and the influence of different residence times (the time the compound has been in contact with the skin) and sample loads (the amount of compound on the skin) (Lind et al., 2004). The sampling efficiency studies showed that 70–90% of the compounds on the hand are washed off by the sampling procedure. Residence time affects sampling efficiency. A sampling strategy for permanent hair dye compounds with bag rinsing must, therefore, ensure that sampling is performed as soon as possible after the work task of interest. A sample should also preferably be taken before the work task of interest since background contamination, i.e. indirect exposure, is a source of interference in this assessment. Quantification of the exposure loading over a whole working day is difficult to achieve due to the reactivity of hair dye compounds and contact with hydrogen peroxide enhances the oxidation. Taking several hand rinse samples during the day before and after each work task of interest should nevertheless be a way to provide some information about the whole-day exposure loading. An advantage of the present sampling method is that it allows assessment of exposure from both hands, which can give useful information for undertaking preventive measures.
Assessment of dermal exposure loadings also raises the question of whether this exposure loading is sufficient to develop an allergy (sensitization) or to induce an allergic reaction in individuals who are already allergic (elicitation). Only a few sensitizers have been tested in sensitization tests such as the human repeat-insult patch test (HIRPT) or the human maximization test (HMT). Animal data on potency may be a guidance in human risk assessment on sensitization (Basketter et al., 2005). Studies have shown that values from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice can be used as a supporting value for the human NOEL (No Observed Effect Level) in risk assessment (Griem et al., 2003). In LLNA, the sensitizing potency is expressed as the EC3 value, which is the effective concentration of a chemical (percent of chemical in the vehicle) required to produce a threefold increase in the proliferation of lymph node cells compared to vehicle-treated controls (Griem et al., 2003; Schneider and Akkan, 2004). Important work on ranking chemical substances according to their allergic potency has also been done by German experts (Schlede et al., 2003).
In the paper by Griem et al. the sensitization threshold (NOEL) for PPD is estimated to be 9.3 nmol cm–2 calculated from LOEL (lowest observed effect level) 93 nmol cm–2, derived from HIRPT (Marzulli and Maibach, 1974). The elicitation threshold in patch testing is found to be 28 nmol cm–2 (McFadden et al., 1998). An acceptable non-sensitizing area dose and an acceptable non-eliciting area dose are also calculated, with chlormethylisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone as an example. When performing the same calculations for PPD using an LLNA EC3-level of 0.07%, corresponding to an area dose of 170 nmol cm–2, an acceptable non-sensitizing area dose can be calculated to 0.57 nmol cm–2 for PPD. Our measurements have shown exposure loadings between 22 and 939 nmol per hand for PPD. Using the body surface areas given by OECD (OECD, 1997) and US EPA (US EPA, 1987), where a value of 410 cm2 is given for each hand, an area dose of 0.06–2.29 nmol cm–2 can be calculated for our measurements. This of course is valid only if the exposure loading is uniformly distributed over the hand, which is most unlikely in this scenario. We can, therefore, say that the actual area dose is higher than the calculated one. The measured exposure loading for TDS was 13–741 nmol per hand, which corresponds to an area dose of 0.03–1.80 nmol cm–2. We have found no literature data on an LLNA EC3 value for TDS, but the German experts put both PPD and TDS in the most potent allergenic group: Category A. Our overall conclusion is that the hairdressers' exposure loadings from permanent hair dyeing may be sufficient to develop an allergy in non-allergic individuals and to elicit an allergic reaction in persons with an allergy, since the area dose required for elicitation is usually lower. During hairdressing the exposure is repeated several times a day over a fairly long period, which increases the risk of sensitization/elicitation. In a Danish clinical study presented by Søsted et al., where hair-dye contact allergy among consumers was investigated, the concentrations of TDS in the hair dye products that elicited allergic reactions were 10-fold lower than the legal EU limit of 10%. PPD was found in one product in a concentration of 0.27% (EU limit 6%) (Søsted et al., 2004). These results support our assumption that exposure to very low levels of dye compounds during hair dyeing may elicit an allergic reaction.
Our measurements and observations during the field study indicate a need for improved use of personal protective equipment. We strongly recommend that disposable gloves should be used only once and that they should be put on before the mixing of hair dye cream with hydrogen peroxide. To change the working routines so that hair-cutting is done before dyeing could reduce the exposure to hair dyes, since we have shown that newly-dyed-hair cuttings release hair dye compounds. Our results show that background contamination is a source of exposure, and precautions should be taken to avoid contamination of surfaces and equipment such as telephones, hair dryers, scissors and combs. The coverings of working surfaces should be changed frequently and equipment and other surfaces should be cleaned frequently.
Our conclusion is that hairdressers' skin is exposed to allergenic compounds during the hair dyeing process. Exposure occurs while applying hair dyes, while cutting newly-dyed hair and from background contamination. The exposure loadings are large enough to constitute a risk of sensitization and/or elicitation of contact allergy. The glove use observed in this study was often improper, and was insufficient to prevent exposure. It is, therefore, important to reduce exposure, provide improved skin protection and proper work routines.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
We thank Gunborg Lindahl for valuable assistant during manuscript preparation. We also wish to thank the hairdressers who took part in the study. The study was supported by grants from the Vardal Foundation for Health Care Sciences and Allergy Research (2000-074) and from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (2001-2399, 2001-2888).
Received October 26, 2004; in final form January 19, 2005
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Basketter DA, Andersen KE, Lidén C et al. (2005) Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis; 52: 34–43.
Boldoc C, Shapiro J. (2001) Hair care products: waving, straightening, conditioning and coloring. Clin Dermatol; 19: 431–6.[Medline]
Corbett JF. (1991) Hair coloring processes. Cosmetics Toiletries; 106: 53–7.
Dressler WE. (1998) Percutaneous absorption of hair dyes. In Roberts MS, Walters KA, editors. Dermal absorption and toxicity assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 489–536. ISBN 0824701542.
Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H. (2003) Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 38: 269–90.[Medline]
Leino T, Kanerva L. (1997) Contact urticaria from hairdressing products. In Amin S, Arto L, Maibach HI, editors. Contact urticaria syndrome. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 157–72. ISBN 0849373522.
Lind M-L, Boman A, Surakka J et al. (2004) A method for assessing occupational dermal exposure to permanent hair dyes. Ann Occup Hyg; 48: 533–9.
Lindsköld A-B. (1987) Frisöryrkets utveckling - från Nefertites slavar till dagens hairdesigners. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Sweden (In Swedish).
Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. (1974) The use of graded concentrations in studying skin sensitizers: experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol; 12: 219–27.[Medline]
McFadden JP, Wakelin SH, Holloway DB et al. (1998) The effect of patch duration on the elicitation of paraphenylenediamine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis; 39:79–81.[Medline]
Nater JP, de Groot AC, Liem DH. (1983) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology. Amsterdam-Oxford-Princeton: Excerpta Medica. ISBN 0444902651.
OECD (1997) Guidance document for the conduct of studies of occupational exposure to pesticides during agricultural application. In OECD Environmental and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment. No. 9 OECD/GD (97) 148. Paris, France: OECD.
Peter VC, Bohne-Matusall R, Hoting E et al. (1994) Materialprüfung von Arbetsschutzhandschuhen für den Friseurberuf. Dermatosen; 42: 10–4.
Schlede E, Aberer W, Fuchs T et al. (2003) Chemical substances and contact allergy - 244 substances ranked according to allergenic potency. Toxicology; 193: 219–59.[Medline]
Schneider K, Akkan Z. (2004) Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 39: 245–55.[Medline]
Søsted H, Agner T, Andersen KE et al. (2002) 55 cases of allergic reactions to hair dye: a descriptive, consumer complaint-based study. Contact Dermatitis; 47: 299–303.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Søsted H, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE et al. (2004) Hair dye contact allergy: quantitative exposure assessment of selected products and clinical cases. Contact Dermatitis; 50: 344–8.[Medline]
Spagnolini GP, Profeta A. (1999) Permeabilità dei guanti di protezione nell'utilizzo professionale delle tinture per capelli. Boll Chim Igien; 50: 109–13.
US EPA. (1987) Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision U, Applicator exposure Monitoring. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J et al. (2003) Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and clients—an 8-year analysis of IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis; 49: 236–40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
van der Walle HB. (2000) Hairdressers. In Kanerva L, Wahlberg JE, Elsner P, Maibach HI, editors. Handbook of occupational dermatology. Berlin: Heidelberg; New York: Springer Verlag. pp. 960–8. ISBN 3540640460.
Wall FE. (1957) Bleaches, hair colorings and dye removers. In Sagarin E, editor. Cosmetics science and technology. New York: Interscience publishers Inc. pp. 479–530.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y.-W. Lin Reply Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 772 - 773. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.-S. Lee and Y.-W. Lin Permeation of Hair Dye Ingredients, p-Phenylenediamine and Aminophenol Isomers, through Protective Gloves Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2009; 53(3): 289 - 296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Galiotte, P. Kohler, G. Mussi, and G. J. Figaro Gattas Assessment of Occupational Genotoxic Risk among Brazilian Hairdressers Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2008; 52(7): 645 - 651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-L. LIND, S. JOHNSSON, B. MEDING, and A. BOMAN Permeability of Hair Dye Compounds p-Phenylenediamine, Toluene-2,5-Diaminesulfate and Resorcinol through Protective Gloves in Hairdressing Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2007; 51(5): 479 - 485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-L. LIND Dermatitis in Hairdressers as a Problem in Chemical Control Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2005; 49(6): 457 - 459. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||