• Harma StenveldEmail author
Reference work entry


Hairdressers have a lot of contact with their hands with water, irritants, and allergens. An irritative dermatitis, and even an allergic contact dermatitis, can easily occur.

Hand eczema is a potentially severe drawback to the hairdressing profession, and an important factor on the quality of life.

To achieve a long-lasting secondary prevention in cases of hand dermatitis the approach should focus on reduction of skin damaging factors, rather than on medical treatments. This time consuming intervention needs the combined expertise of occupational health and safety as well as dermatology.

Patch testing is obligatory in all cases of dermatitis, but the interpretation of the results should be done carefully with respect to the relevancy and false positive or negative results.

Patch testing with “own materials” from the hairdressers’ saloon is imperative. Knowlegde of test concentrations is a prerequisite.

Primary prevention by means of education in how to wear the right glove the right way and how to take care of their hands should be an major issue not only in the individual, but in the whole occupational group.


Hairdressers Contactdermatitis Primary prevention Secondary prevention Patch-testing Permanent waving Hair coloring Gloves Contactallergens Hairdressing procedures Nail changes 


  1. Borelli S et al (1965) Ergebnisse einer vierjährige Untersuchungsreihe bei Berufsanfängern des Friseurgewerbes. Berufsdermatosen 13:216–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Conde-Salazar L et al (1995) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers: patch test results in 379 hairdressers (1980–1993). Am J Contact Dermat 6:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett JF (1991) Hair coloring processes. Cosmet Toiletries 106:53–57Google Scholar
  4. Cronin E (1979) Immediate-type hypersensitivity to henna. Contact Dermatitis 5:198–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Groot AC et al (1995) Contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine. Contact Dermatitis 33:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Draelos ZD (1995) Cosmetics in dermatology. Churchill Livingstone, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Frosch PJ et al (1993) Allergic reactions to a hairdressers’ series: results from 9 European centres. Contact Dermatitis 28:180–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gershon SD et al (1972) Permanent waving. In: Balsam MS, Sagarin E (eds) Cosmetics science and technology, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 167–233Google Scholar
  9. Guerra L et al (1992) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers: the Italian experience. Contact Dermatitis 26:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holm JØ (1994) An epidemiological study of hand eczema. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 187:23–25Google Scholar
  11. Kellett JK, Beck MH (1985) Ammonium persulphate sensitivity in hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 13:26–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kligman AM (1996) Hydration injury to human skin. In: van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI (eds) The irritant contact dermatitis syndrome. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 187–194Google Scholar
  13. Lee AE et al (1988) Permanent waves: an overview. Cosmet Toiletries 103:37–56Google Scholar
  14. Leino T et al (1998) Occupational allergic dermatoses in hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 38:166–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Löffler H, Becker D, Brasch J, Geier J, German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) (2005) Simultaneous sodium lauryl sulphate testing improves the diagnostic validity of allergic patch tests. Results from a prospective multicentre study of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (Deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe, DKG). Br J Dermatol 152(4):709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Niinimäki A et al (1994) Protein hydrolysates of hair cosmetic products as causes of contact urticaria in hair dressers. In: Abstracts of second congress of the European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, Barcelona, p 57Google Scholar
  17. Pasche-Koo F et al (1996) Contact urticaria with systemic symptoms caused by bovine collagen in a hair conditioner. Am J Contact Dermat 7(1):56–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peters KP et al (1994) Typ IV-Allergien auf Friseurberufstoffe. Dermatosen 42:50–57Google Scholar
  19. Pilz B, Frosch PJ (1994) Hairdressers’ eczema. In: Menné T, Maibach HI (eds) Hand eczema. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  20. Pilz B et al (1994) Lack of occupational exposure to nickel in hairdressers. In: Abstracts of second congress of the European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, Barcelona, p 47Google Scholar
  21. Schaad J, de Jonge JFM (1992) Te vroeg uit de kappersopleiding. TNO, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt U, Schwanitz HJ (1997) Dermatosen bei Auszubildenden des Friseurhandwerks in Niedersachsen. Ein Vergleich zwischen 1989 und 1994. Dermatosen 45:121–125Google Scholar
  23. Schopman C et al (1992) De handen in het haar. Een onderzoek naar kapperseczeem, DetamGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwanitz HJ, Uter W (1997) Interdigital eczema – sentinel skin damage in wet work occupations. Exp Dermatol 6(5):255Google Scholar
  25. Smit HA et al (1994) Susceptibility to and incidence of hand dermatitis in a cohort of apprentice hairdressers and nurses. Scand J Work Environ Health 20:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Storrs FJ (1984) Permanent wave contact dermatitis: contact allergy to glyceryl monothioglycolate. J Am Acad Dermatol 11:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Straube M et al (1996) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from thiolactic acid contained in ‘ester-free’ permanent-waving solutions. Contact Dermatitis 34:229–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Umbach W (1995) Kosmetik Entwicklung, Herstellung und Anwendung kosmetischer Mittel. Georg Thieme Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  29. Uter W et al (1997) Anamnese-Auxilium für das Friseurgewerbe – Dermatologisches Risikoprofil. Dermatosen 45:165–169Google Scholar
  30. Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A (2000) Downward trend of sensitization to glyceryl monothioglycolate in German hairdressers. IVDK study group. Informatiol network of departments of dermatology. Dermatology 200(2):132–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Scnuch A (2006) Is contact allergy to glyceryl monothioglycolate still a problem in Germany? Contact Dermatitis 55(1):54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Valks R, Conde-Salazar L, Malfeito J, Ledo S (2005) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers, 10 years later: patch-test results in 300 hairdressers (1994–2003) and comparison with previous study. Dermatitis 16(1):28–31Google Scholar
  33. van der Burg CKH et al (1986) Hand eczema in hairdressers and nurses: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 14:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van der Walle HB (1994a) Hairdressing and hand eczema part 1. Current problems and causes. Cosmet Toiletries 109:35–36Google Scholar
  35. van der Walle HB (1994b) Hairdressing and hand eczema part 2: tips to minimize sensitizing exposure. Cosmet Toiletries 109:27–28Google Scholar
  36. van der Walle HB (1994c) Dermatitis in hairdressers (II) management and prevention. Contact Dermatitis 30:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van der Walle HB (1997) De Kapperspoli: een andere aanpak van handeczeem bij kapsters. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Dermatologie & Venereologie 7:42–46Google Scholar
  38. van der Walle HB, Brunsveld VM (1995) Latex allergy among hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 32:177–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Wijck HJH (1996) Kapperseczeem & Kapperspoli Een effectmeting. TNO Preventie en Gezondheid divisie Arbeid en Gezondheid sector Opleidingen, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  40. von Budde U, Schwanitz HJ (1991) Kontaktdermatiden bei Auszubildenden des Friseurhandwerks in Niedersachsen. Dermatosen 39:41–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centrum voor Huid en ArbeidVelpThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations