Screening survey of ocular, nasal, respiratory and skin symptoms in manicurists in Poland

Objectives Manicurists are exposed to various chemicals in nail and skin care products and may develop ocular, nasal, respiratory or skin adverse reactions to them. To investigate the occurrence of ocular, nasal, respiratory and skin problems among manicurists and to identify their causal factors, particularly allergic etiology and occupational origin. Material and Methods Manicurists employed in beauty salons in the central region of Poland were invited to fill in the questionnaire and undergo medical examination, skin prick tests with common aeroallergens, patch tests with European Baseline Series and (Meth)Acrylates Series-Nails and spirometry. Results In the questionnaire adverse nasal symptoms were reported by 70%, ocular – by 58%, respiratory – by 42%, hand eczema – by 43% of manicurists. In the medical interview, the frequency of those complaints was lower: nasal ones – 41%, ocular – 24%, cough – 18%, hand skin dryness – 20%, hand eczema – 6%. Cough and hand skin dryness occurred significantly more frequently than in the case of controls. Contact allergy was found for 41% of manicurists and 35% of controls. The prevalence of nickel sensitization was high in both groups (38% and 27%, respectively). Only 3 manicurists reacted to (meth)acrylates. The frequency of atopic diseases was similar in compared groups. Irritant nasal and respiratory reactions were significantly more prevalent among manicurists (nasal – 18% vs. 2%, p < 0.01; respiratory – 18% vs. 1%, p < 0.001). Work-related nasal irritant reactions were finally diagnosed for 19%, ocular ones – for 13%, respiratory – for 18% and within hand skin – for 23% of manicurists. Conclusions The frequency of workattributed irritant mucosal and skin symptoms among manicurists is high. Exposure to acrylates is an important source of mucosal irritant reactions while occlusive gloves cause irritation of hand skin. The prevalence of nickel allergy among Polish females is high. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(6):887–896