Skin Exposure to Acrylates in Nail Salons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The nail salon industry has seen significant growth in recent years. Nail technicians provide manicures, pedicures and apply artificial nails; tasks that expose them to chemicals, including acrylates that are known skin and respiratory sensitizers. This paper reports on potential skin exposure to acrylates among nail technicians in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Hand skin wipes were collected after (i) the application of artificial nails, (ii) the application of ultraviolet cured gel nail polish, and (iii) deliberate contact with nail polish. Surface wipes were collected from work areas and surfaces contaminated with known products. Wipe samples were analysed for eight acrylates: methyl acrylate (MA), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl methacrylate (MMA), ethyl methacrylate (EMA), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA), and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Thirty-five wipe samples were collected. No acrylates were detected in skin samples (n = 8) or work surfaces (n = 6). However, MMA, EMA, EA, HEMA, and HPMA were detected in the samples of surfaces contaminated with known products. MMA was detected in 28% of products tested. HEMA and HPMA were detected where deliberate contact with nail polish occurred. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that acrylates are present in nail products. However, no acrylates were detected in skin wipes. MMA, a chemical prohibited for use in cosmetics in Canada, was detected in nail polishes. Nail technicians should continue to employ safe work practices that reduce the probability of skin contact with acrylates and other chemicals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".