3.9 Article

Personal use of Hair Dyes and Temporary Black Tattoos in Copenhagen Hairdressers

Journal

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 453-458

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mep096

Keywords

adverse reaction; hairdresser; hair dye; questionnaire; semi-permanent tattoo; temporary tattoo

Funding

  1. Copenhagen municipality [MFU 251/2005]
  2. Aage Bang's Foundation [10-06/07]
  3. Danish Hairdressers'
  4. Beauticians' Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate hairdressers' professional and personal risk exposures and to compare the frequency of temporary tattoos among hairdressers and subjects from the general population. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 1679 Copenhagen hairdressers and 1063 (63.3%) responded; 3471 subjects from the general population in Copenhagen were asked about temporary black tattoos. Results: Of the female hairdressers, 38.3% had coloured hair within the previous week. Adverse skin reactions to own hair dye were reported in 29.5%. In the hairdresser population, no significant association was observed between self-reported adverse skin reactions to hair dye and having had a temporary black tattoo when adjusted for sex, age, and atopy. A total of 19.0% of hairdressers (43.5% of apprentices) and 6.3% of participants from the general population had ever had a temporary black tattoo performed at one point. There were no differences in frequency of eczema after temporary tattooing between hairdressers and subjects in the general population. Almost all hairdressers (99.2%) used gloves for hair colouring, 51% for high/low lighting, 39.6% for perming and 21.1% used gloves for shampooing. Conclusions: In conclusion, skin reactions to hair colour are frequent among Copenhagen hairdressers. Temporary black tattoos were more frequent among hairdressers than in a sample of the general population and increased with decreasing age.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available