The results indicate the need for the continuation of efforts to establish effective primary preventive programmes for OSDs at national and EU levels.

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.

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.

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.

Background Apprentice nurses are considered at high risk to developing occupational skin diseases. Objectives This study assessed the frequency and origin of hand eczema, and work‐related risk factors in apprentice nurses. Methods The study involved 240 final‐year apprentice nurses (females 75%, median age 19 years) from vocational schools in Zagreb, Croatia. The study was performed in 2020/2021 and included a questionnaire and clinical examination by means of the Osnabrück Hand Eczema Severity Index (OHSI). Skin prick test (SPT) with natural rubber latex (NRL) allergen, and patch test with the basic series of allergens, and disinfectants, were performed in 42 apprentice nurses with hand eczema that lasted more than 3 months. Results Clinically observed and self‐reported hand eczema were found in 49% and 46% of apprentice nurses, respectively. Those with observed changes were older and reported more days per month spent on practical work than those with healthy skin ( P = .001). Median OHSI was 4 (interquartile range 2‐6). There were no positive SPTs to latex, and 11 (26%) apprentice nurses had positive patch test reactions to one or more tested allergens, mostly nickel. Conclusions Hand eczema was common in final‐year apprentice nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic. It was mostly of irritative origin, associated with the duration of practical training, confirming cumulative effect of hazards on skin barrier.