Advertisement

Materials Used in Body Art

  • Christa De Cuyper
  • Davy D’hollander
Chapter

Abstract

Body art has become increasingly popular resulting in the rising occurrence of adverse reactions; some of them are related to the procedures; other side effects are caused by the chemical substances. Nickel allergy is the most common complication of body piercing. The composition of tattoo and permanent Make-Up inks is complex. Besides a variety of inorganic and organic colorants, they contain impurities resulting from the production process of the pigments and a wide range of auxiliary ingredients. In order to identify the harmful agents, it is essential to know the exact composition of the materials. There is still a lack of knowledge about the biokinetics and metabolism of these substances and their impact on human health. More in particular there is a lot of concern about the safety of the pigments because their degradation in the skin leads to the formation of hazardous decomposition products. Although much work has been done to improve ink quality and safety, more research and epidemiological surveys are required. There is still a need of uniform worldwide regulation on the procedures and materials.

This chapter will give an overview of materials used nowadays in the different forms of body art and new initiatives to reduce potential side effects.

Keywords

Tattoo pigments Tattoo inks Permanent Make-Up inks Auxiliary ingredients Carbon black Carcinogenic aromatic amines Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Nickel Heavy metals Biokinetics Biodegradation 

References

  1. 1.
    International Organization for Standardization. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  2. 2.
    ASTM International, Standards Worldwide. http://www.astm.org/. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    WHO Hand Hygiene. http://who.int.infection-prevention/en/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017
  6. 6.
    Gawkrodger DJ (1996) Nickel dermatitis: how much nickel is safe? Contact Dermatitis 35:267–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaatz M (2001) A trend and its complications: piercing. Kosmetische Medizin 24:188–193Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lidén C, Norberg K (2005) Nickel on the Swedish market. Follow-up after implementation of the nickel directive. Contact Dermatitis 52:29–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garg S, Thyssen JP, Uter W et al (2013) Nickel allergy following European Union regulation in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the U.K. Br J Dermatol 169(4):854–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thyssen JP (2011) Nickel and cobalt allergy before and after nickel regulation – evaluation of a public health intervention. Contact Dermatitis 65(issue S1):1–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnuch A, Schwitulla J (2013) Decrease in nickel allergy in women after the second EU nickel directive. Contact Dermatitis 69(4):253–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldenberg A, Vassantachart J, Lin E et al (2015) Nickel allergy in US adults – a 53-year review of indexed cases. Dermatitis 26(5):216–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    www.nickelinstitute.org. Accessed 08 Nov 2017
  14. 14.
    Thyssen JP, Maibach HI (2008) Nickel release from earrings purchased in the United States: the San Francisco earring study. J Am Acad Dermatol 58(6):1000–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Purim KSM, Rosario BA, Rosario CS, Guimarães ATB (2014) Piercings in medical students and their effects on the skin. An Bras Dermatol 89(6):905–910CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thyssen JP, Skare L, Lundgren L et al (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis 62(5):279–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uter W, Schmid M, Schmidt O et al (2014) Cobalt release from earrings and piercing jewelry – analytical results of a German survey. Contact Dermatitis 70(6):369–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Midander K, Julander A, Skare L et al (2013) The cobalt spot test–further insights into its performance and use. Contact Dermatitis 69(5):280–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruze M, Hamada H, Dahlin J et al (2013) A positive cobalt spot test falsely indicating an occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by cobalt. Contact Dermatitis 69(3):172–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    EC, European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency. OJ L 396, 30.12.2006: p. 1-849. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/
  23. 23.
    Katz L (2017) Communication at ECTP congress Regensburg 2017 abstract 07. www.ESTPesearch.org
  24. 24.
    EC, European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2001/95/EC on General Product Safety of 3 December 2001. OJ L 11, 15.1.2002,, 2001: p. 4-17. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0095
  25. 25.
    Papameletiou D, Schwela D, Zenie A et al (2003) Risks and health effects from tattoos, body piercing and related practices. In: Workshop on the technical/scientific and regulatory issues on the safety of tattoos, body piercing and related practices. European Commission, Ispra, pp 8–36Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Res AP 2003 CoE Council of Europe, Resolution (2003)2 on tattoos and permanent make-up, pp 1–8. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805df8e
  27. 27.
    Res AP (2008)1. CoE Council of Europe, Resolution (2008)1 on requirements and criteria for the safety of tattoos and permanent make-up up (superseding Resolution ResAP (2003) 2 on tattoos and permanent make-up), 2008, pp 1–10. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d3dc
  28. 28.
    Talberg HJ (2003) The question of positive or negative lists. In: Papameletiou D, Schwela D, Zenie A et al. Workshop on the technical/scientific and regulatory issues on the safety of tattoos, body piercing and related practices. European Commission, Ispra, pp 84–88Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC has been replaced by the Regulation (EC) No.1223/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic productsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Directive 67/548/EEC is now superseded by the new regulation with CMR classification into categories 1A, 1B, and 2 (Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prior G (2015) Tattoo inks: legislation, pigments, metals and chemical analysis. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:152–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Renzoni A et al (2015) Implementation of European Council Resolution Res AP (2008)1 in Italy. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:201–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Piccinini P, et al. (2015) Safety of tattoos and permanent make-up. Compilation of information on legislative framework and analytical methods. JRC Report, EUR 27394 EN, pp 1–446.  https://doi.org/10.2788/542617. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/safety-of-tattoos-and-permanent-make-upcompilation-of-information-on-legislative-framework-and-analytical-methodspbLBNA27394/
  34. 34.
    Piccinini P et al (2015) Safety of tattoos and permanent make-up. State of play and trends in tattoo practices. JRC Report, EUR 27528 EN, 10.2788/924128, pp 1–193. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/safety-of-tattoos-and-permanent-makeup-pbLBNA27528/
  35. 35.
    Piccinini P et al (2016) Safety of tattoos and permanent make-up – Adverse health effects and experience with the Council of Europe Resolution (2008)1, 2016: JRC Report, EUR 27672 EN.  https://doi.org/10.2788/177900
  36. 36.
    Piccinini P et al (2016) Safety of tattoos and permanent make-up: final report JRC Report, EUR 27947 EN (2016). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/safety-tattoos-and-permanent-make-final-report.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    EDQMCoE (2017) Safer tattooing – Overview of current knowledge and challenges of toxicological assessment.pdf, https://www.edqm.eu/en/tattoos-and-permanent-make-up
  39. 39.
    Michel R (2015) Manufacturing of tattoo ink products today and in future: Europe. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:103–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prior G (2014) Tattoo inks: analysis, pigments, legislation. An introduction to tattoo inks, their analysis, pigments in use, their chemical classes, present legislation in Europe, problems arising from incomplete laws, quantification of pigments and metals in the skin. epubli GmbH, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-8442-8611-3Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Serup J (2015) Seamless prevention of adverse events from tattooing: integrated strategy emphasising the customer-tattooist interaction. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:236–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Worp J, Boonstra A, Coutinho RA et al (2006) Tattooing, permanent make-up and piercing in Amsterdam; guidelines, legislation and monitoring. Eur Surveill 11:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Verdier C (2015) Surveillance of tattoo-related adverse events by the EU RAPEX system and by national monitoring. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:210–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miljøstyrelsen. Chemical Substances in Tattoo Ink 2012 [2017-07-26]. Available from: http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2012/03/978-87-92779-87-8.pdf
  45. 45.
    Baumler W, Lundsgaard J, Talberg HJ, Vasold R (2003) Chemical composition of tattooing and permanent makeup products. In: Working paper of the TWG/JRC on the issue of tattooing and piercing, 2003, Joint Research Center (JRC), pp 1–75Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dirks M (2015) Making innovative tattoo ink products with improved safety: possible and impossible ingredients in practical usage. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:118–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Høgsberg T, Loeschner K, Löf D et al (2011) Tattoo inks in general usage contain nanoparticles. Br J Dermatol 165:1210–1218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Høgsberg T, Jacobsen NR, Clausen PA et al (2013) Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content. Exp Dermatol 22(7):464–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sepheri M, Hutton Carlsen K, Serup J (2016) Papulo-nodular reactions in black tattoos as markers of sarcoidosis: study of 92 tattoo reactions from a hospital material. Dermatology 232:679–686.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000453315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Laux P, Tralau T, Tentschert J et al (2016) A medical-toxicological view of tattooing. Lancet 387:395–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Beute TC et al (2008) In vitro spectral analysis of tattoo pigments. Dermatol Surg 34:508–515PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Forte G et al (2009) Market survey on toxic metals contained in tattoo inks. Sci Total Environ 407:5997–6002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    De Cuyper C, D’hollander D (2010) Materials used in body art. In: De Cuyper C, Perez-Cotapos ML (eds) Dermatologic complications with body art, tattoos, piercings and permanent make-up. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lehner K et al (2014) Black tattoos entail substantial uptake of genotoxicpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in human skin and regional lymph nodes. PLoS One 9(3):e92787CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schreiver I, Hesse B, Seim C (2017) Synchrotron-based ν-XRF mapping and μ-FTIR microscopy enable to look into the fate and effects of tattoo pigments in human skin. Nat Sci Rep 7:11395.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11721-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    De Cuyper C, Lodewick E, Schreiver I et al (2017) Are metals involved in tattoo related hypersensitivity reactions? Case report. Contact Dermatitis 30:683–690Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schneider J (2016) Development of an experimental set-up for the in vitro determination of selected photodegradation products from irradiated tattoo pigments (German). Thesis, University of Basel, BaselGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Regensburger J et al (2010) Tattoo inks contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that additionally generate deleterious singlet oxygen. Exp Dermatol 19(8):e275–e281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Petersen H, Lewe D (2015) Chemical purity and toxicology of pigments used in tattoo inks. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:136–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hauri U (2011) Inks for tattoos and PMU (permanent make-up)/organic pigments, preservatives and impurities such as primary aromatic amines and nitrosamines. Available from: www.kantonslabor.bs.ch/dam/jcr:ba246390-48da-406f-aa4e-9e1b24726a31/JB_Tattoo_PMU_2011_EN.pdf+&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de
  61. 61.
    Engel E, Santarelli F, Vassold R et al (2008) Modern tattoos cause high concentrations of hazardous pigments in skin. Contact Dermatitis 58(4):228.33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cui Y, Spann AP, Couch LH et al (2004) Photodecomposition of pigment Yellow 74, a pigment used in tattoo inks. Photochem Photobiol 80:175–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hauri U, Hohl C (2015) Photostability and breakdown products of pigments currently used in tattoo inks. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:164–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sabbioni G, Hauri U (2016) Carcinogenic tattoos. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 13(4).  https://doi.org/10.2427/12018
  65. 65.
    Engel E, Vasold R, Santarelli F, Maisch T, Gopee NV, Howard PC et al (2010) Tattooing of skin results in transportation and light-induced decomposition of tattoo pigments–a first quantification in vivo using a mouse model. Exp Dermatol 19(1):54–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jemec GB (2010) (2010) Comment on: Tattooing of skin results in transportation and light-induced decomposition of tattoo pigments. Exp Dermatol 19(1):61–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Engel E, Spannberger A, Vasold R et al (2007) Photochemical cleavage of tattoo pigment by UV radiation or natural sunlight. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 5:583–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gaugler S (2011) Analysis of bioactive compounds in tattoo inks before and after irradiation with sunlight using HPTLC and In Situ Detection with Vibrio fischeri, 2011. Thesis, University of Hohenheim, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wezel K (2013) Untersuchung des Verhaltens von Tätowiertinten und Pigmenten unter Lichteinfluss, 2013. Thesis, University of GiessenGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Anderson RR, Parish JA (1983) Selective photothermolysis; precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science 220:524–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Baeumler W (2003) Possible risks of tattoo removal using laser therapy. In: Papameletiou D, Schwela D, Zenie A et al (eds) Workshop on the technical/scientific and regulatory issues on the safety of tattoos, body piercing and related practices. European Commission, Ispra, pp 66–69Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bäumler W, Eibler ET, Hohenleutner U et al (2000) Q-switch laser and tattoo pigments: first results of the chemical and photophysical analysis of 41 compounds. Lasers Surg Med 26(1):13–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bäumler W (2009) Laser therapy of tattoos. Kosm Medizin 30:8–11Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Vasold R, Naarmann N, Ulrich H et al (2004) Tattoo pigments are cleaved by laser light-the chemical analysis in vitro provide evidence for hazardous compounds. Photochem Photobiol 80(2):185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Anderson RR, Geronimus R, Kilmer SL et al (1993) Cosmetic tattoo ink darkening. A complication of Q-Switched and pulsed-laser treatment. Arch Dermatol 129:1010–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ross EV, Yashar S, Michaud N et al (2001) Tattoo darkening and nonresponse after laser treatment: a possible role for titanium dioxide. Arch Dermatol 137:33–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Timko AL, Miller CH, Johnson FB et al (2001) In vitro quantitative chemical analysis of tattoo pigments. Arch Dermatol 137:143–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kim JW, Lee JW, Won YH et al (2006) Titanium, a major constituent of blue ink, causes resistance to Nd-YAG (1064 nm) laser: results of animal experiments. Acta Derm Venereol 86:110–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Armstrong ML, Roberts AE, Koch JR et al (2008) Motivation for contemporary tattoo removal: a shift in identity. Arch Dermatol 144:879–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wu C (2007) Disappearing ink: Tattoo technology for modern impermanence. Sci News 172:232–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Klitzman B, Koger KE (2000) Tattoo inks. Option Technologies, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mathiowitz E et al (1981) Photochemical rupture of capsules. J Appl Polym Sci 26:809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Peyratout CS, Dähne L (2004) Tailor-made polyelectrolyte microcapsules: from multilayers to smart containers. Angew Chem Int Ed 43:3762–3783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Dähne L, Schneider J, Lewe D, Petersen H (2015) Tailored surface engineering of pigments by Layer-by-Layer coating. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:128–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bandodkar AJ, Jia W, Ramírez J, Wang J (2015) Biocompatible enzymatic roller pens for direct writing of biocatalytic materials: “do-it-yourself” electrochemical biosensors. Adv Healthcare Mater 8:1215–1225.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201400808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Agnello M, Fontana M (2015) Survey on European studies of the chemical characterisation of tattoo ink products and the measurement of potentially harmful ingredients. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:142–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hauri (2014) Results from the National Market Surveillance Study of the Association of the Cantonal Chemists of Switzerland (VKCS) 2014, Main laboratory: Basel-City: inks for tattooing and permanent make-up/pigments, preservatives, aromatic amines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and nitrosamines. http://www.kantonslabor.bs.ch/dam/jcr:d12e5456-c71d-4e59-8f29-4a7d8c38d15d/Tattoo_PMU_2014_EN(UK).pdf
  88. 88.
    Hohl C, Hauri U (2016) Chemical analysis: an indispensable means for uncovering severe cases of fraud with cosmetics and tattoo inks. Chimia (Aarau) 70(5):357–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Aberer W, Snauwaert JE, Render U-M (2010) Allergic reaction to pigments and metals. In: De Cuyper C, Perez-Cotapos ML (eds) Dermatologic complications with body art, tattoos, piercings and permanent make-up. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–89Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Serup J (2017) Distribution of tattoo pigments to lymph nodes and liver: studies in mice. ECTP congress Regensburg 2017 Abstract 016 at www.ESTPresearch.org
  91. 91.
    Sepehri M, Sejersen T, Qvortrup K, Lerche CM, Serup J (2017) Tattoo pigments are observed in the Kupffer cells of the liver indicating blood-borne distribution of tattoo ink. Dermatology 233(1):86–93.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000468149. Epub 2017 May 10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Baumler W (2015) Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of tattoo colorants and ingredients in mouse and man: the known and the unknown. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:176–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lehner K et al (2011) The decrease of pigment concentration in red tattooed skin years after tattooing. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 25:1340–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cui Y, Churchwell MI, Couch LH, Doerge DR, Howard PC (2005) Metabolism of pigment yellow 74 by rat and human microsomal proteins. Drug Metab Dispos 33(10):1459–1465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Platzek T et al (1999) Formation of a carcinogenic aromatic amine from an azo dye by human skin bacteria in vitro. Hum Exp Toxicol 18(9):552–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ortiz AE, Avram MM (2013) Redistribution of ink after laser tattoo removal. Dermatol Surg 38:1730–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Zelickson BD, Mehregan DA, Zarrin AA et al (1994) Clinical, histologic, and ultrastructural evaluation of tattoos treated with three laser systems. Lasers Surg Med 15:36–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hutton Carlsen K, Kocks M, Sepehri M, Serup J (2016) Allergic reactions in red tattoos: Raman spectroscopy for ‘fingerprint’ detection of chemical risk spectra in tattooed skin and culprit tattoo inks. Skin Res Technol 22(4):460–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Gaudron S, Ferrier-Le Bouedec MC, Franck F, D’Incan M (2015) Azo pigments and quinacridones induce delayed hypersensitivity in red tattoos. Contact Dermatitis 72(2):97–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Schreiver I, Hutzler C, Andree S, Laux P, Luch A (2016) Identification and hazard prediction of tattoo pigments by means of pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Arch Toxicol 90(7):1639–1650CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kluger N, Koljonen V (2012) Tattoos, inks, and cancer. Lancet Oncol 13(4):e161–e168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Paradisi A, Capizzi R, De Simonne C et al (2006) Malignant melanoma in a tattoo: case report and review of the literature. Melanoma Res 16:375–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Blume A, Platzek T, Vieth B, Hutzler C, Luch A (2015) Towards the limiting of health risks associated with tattooing: whitelists for tattoo pigments and preservatives. Curr Probl Dermatol 48:185–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christa De Cuyper
    • 1
    • 2
  • Davy D’hollander
    • 3
  1. 1.DermatologyBlankenbergeBelgium
  2. 2.AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AVBruggeBelgium
  3. 3.Tek TikAartselaarBelgium

Personalised recommendations