BackgroundThe use of e-cigarettes has increased during the past few years. Exposure to e-cigarette liquids, whether intentional or accidental, may lead to adverse events our aim was to assess factors associated with e-cigarette exposures across European Union Member States (EU MS).MethodsA retrospective analysis of exposures associated with e-cigarettes reported to national poison centers was performed covering incidents from 2012 to March 2015 from 10 EU MS. De-identified and anonymous raw data was acquired.ResultsIn total, 277 incidents were reported. Unintentional exposure was the most frequently cited type of exposure (71.3%), while e-cigarette refill vials were responsible for the majority of the reported incidents (87.3%). Two-thirds of all exposures (67.5%) occurred as ingestion of e-liquids, which was more frequent among children (≤ 5 years, 6–18 years) compared to adults (87.0% vs. 59.3% vs. 57.6%, p < 0.001 respectively), exposure via the respiratory (5.4% vs. 22.2% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.001) were more frequent among paediatric patients while ocular routes (2.2% vs. 3.7% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.021) were more frequent among adults. Logistic regression analyses indicated that paediatric incidents (≤ 5 years) were more likely to be through ingestion (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 4.36, 95% Confidence Interval [C.I.]: 1.87–10.18), but less likely to have a reported clinical effect (aOR = 0.41, 95% C.I.: 0.21–0.82).ConclusionsOur study highlighted parameters related to e-cigarette exposure incidents in 10 EU MS, the results of which indicate that consideration should be given to the design features which may mitigate risks, thereby protecting users, non-users and especially children.

All COVID-19 prevention strategies include regular use of surface disinfectants and hand sanitisers. As these measures took hold in Croatia, the Croatian Poison Control Centre started receiving phone calls from the general public and healthcare workers, which prompted us to investigate whether the risk of suspected/symptomatic poisonings with disinfectants and sanitisers really increased. To that end we compared their frequency and characteristics in the first half of 2019 and 2020. Cases of exposures to disinfectants doubled in the first half of 2020 (41 vs 21 cases in 2019), and exposure to sanitisers increased about nine times (46 vs 5 cases in 2019). In 2020, the most common ingredients of disinfectants and sanitisers involved in poisoning incidents were hypochlorite/glutaraldehyde, and ethanol/isopropyl alcohol, respectively. Exposures to disinfectants were recorded mostly in adults (56 %) as accidental (78 %) through ingestion or inhalation (86 %). Fortunately, most callers were asymptomatic (people called for advice because they were concerned), but nearly half reported mild gastrointestinal or respiratory irritation, and in one case severe symptoms were reported (gastrointestinal corrosive injury). Reports of exposure to hand sanitisers highlighted preschool children as the most vulnerable group. Accidental exposure through ingestion dominated, but, again, only mild symptoms (gastrointestinal or eye irritation) developed in one third of the cases. These preliminary findings, however limited, confirm that increased availability and use of disinfectants and sanitisers significantly increased the risk of poisoning, particularly in preschool children through accidental ingestion of hand sanitisers. We therefore believe that epidemiological recommendations for COVID-19 prevention should include warnings informing the general public of the risks of poisoning with surface and hand disinfectants in particular.

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, this systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212‐782‐2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085‐85‐0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analysis. In total, six publications from six countries were eligible for this systematic review. A meta‐analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a ninefold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared with controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The results of this systematic review clearly show that—regarding contact allergy to acrylates—it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate‐containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration.

According to these results, exposure to benzene concentration lower than 15 ppm can induce depression of the circulating B-lymphocyte level and therefore this fact could be used to develop a promising method for health surveillance of benzene-exposed workers. However, considerably more effort in the research on benzene immunotoxicity, especially in the search for suitable health surveillance methods, is still required.

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of nonfood consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a “common consumer,” which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As a result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles; 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that—dependent on the task—hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers to a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in their daily working life, ranging from shampoos, conditioners, oxidative and nonoxidative hair colors, to bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for coloring hair with oxidative hair color. Consumer use frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk‐assessment procedures to be reconsidered.