Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Implementing a suspect screening method to assess occupational chemical exposures among US-based hairdressers serving an ethnically diverse clientele: a pilot study

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 33, pages 566–574 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There are over 700,000 hairdressers in the United States, and it is estimated that >90% are female and 31% are Black or Hispanic/Latina. Racial and ethnic minorities in this workforce may be exposed to a unique mixture of potentially hazardous chemicals from products used and services provided. However, previous biomonitoring studies of hairdressers target a narrow list of compounds and few studies have investigated exposures among minority hairdressers.

Objective

To assess occupational chemical exposures in a sample of US-based Black and Latina hairdressers serving an ethnically diverse clientele by analyzing urine specimens with a suspect screening method.

Methods

Post-shift urine samples were collected from a sample of US female hairdressers (n = 23) and office workers (n = 17) and analyzed via reverse-phase liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry. Detected compounds were filtered based on peak area differences between groups and matching with a suspect screening list. When possible, compound identities were confirmed with reference standards. Possible exposure sources were evaluated for detected compounds.

Results

The developed workflow allowed for the detection of 24 compounds with median peak areas ≥2x greater among hairdressers compared to office workers. Product use categories (PUCs) and harmonized functional uses were searched for these compounds, including confirmed compounds methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and 2-naphthol. Most product use categories were associated with “personal use” and included 11 different “hair styling and care” product types (e.g., hair conditioner, hair relaxer). Functional uses for compounds without associated PUCs included fragrance, hair and skin conditioning, hair dyeing, and UV stabilizer.

Significance

Our suspect screening approach detected several compounds not previously reported in biomonitoring studies of hairdressers. These results will help guide future studies to improve characterization of occupational chemical exposures in this workforce and inform exposure and risk mitigation strategies to reduce potential associated work-related health disparities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Principal component analysis score plots showing the distribution of hairdressers (n = 23), office worker controls (n = 17), and pooled QC specimens (n = 18).
Fig. 2: Product use categories mapped to 13 detected compounds with median peak areas ≥2 in hairdressers compared to office workers.
Fig. 3: Number of compounds associated with specific Harmonized Functional Uses.

Data availability

Data will be made available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Helm JS, Nishioka M, Brody JG, Rudel RA, Dodson RE. Measurement of endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals in hair products used by Black women. Environ Res. 2018;165:448–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. James-Todd T, Senie R, Terry MB. Racial/ethnic differences in hormonally-active hair product use: A plausible risk factor for health disparities. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14:506–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wise LA, Palmer JR, Reich D, Cozier YC, Rosenberg L. Hair relaxer use and risk of uterine leiomyomata in African-American women. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:432–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stiel L, Adkins-Jackson PB, Clark P, Mitchell E, Montgomery S. A review of hair product use on breast cancer risk in African American women. Cancer Med. 2016;5:597–604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS Data Finder. https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?st=0&r=20&q=hairdressers&more=0&fq=survey. Accessed 25 Aug 2022.

  6. Quiros-Alcala L, Pollack AZ, Tchangalova N, DeSantiago M, Kavi LKA. Occupational exposures among hair and nail salon workers: a scoping review. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6:269–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Gennaro G, de Gennaro L, Mazzone A, Porcelli F, Tutino M. Indoor air quality in hair salons: Screening of volatile organic compounds and indicators based on health risk assessment. Atmos Environ. 2014;83:119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Louis LM, Kavi LK, Boyle M, Pool W, Bhandari D, De Jesús VR, et al. Biomonitoring of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) among hairdressers in salons primarily serving women of color: a pilot study. Environ Int. 2021;154:106655–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaikiti C, Stylianou M, Agapiou A. TD-GC/MS analysis of indoor air pollutants (VOCs, PM) in hair salons. Chemosphere 2022;294:133691–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang LH, Tsai SJ. Simultaneous determination of oxidative hair dye p-phenylenediamine and its metabolites in human and rabbit biological fluids. Anal Biochem. 2003;312:201–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hueber-Becker F, Nohynek GJ, Dufour EK, Meuling WJA, de Bie ATHHJ, Toutain H, et al. Occupational exposure of hairdressers to [14C]-para-phenylenediamine-containing oxidative hair dyes: a mass balance study. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:160–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schettgen T, Heinrich K, Kraus T, Gube M. Determination of 2,5-toluylenediamine (2,5-TDA) and aromatic amines in urine after personal application of hair dyes: kinetics and doses. Arch Toxicol. 2011;85:127–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gube M, Heinrich K, Dewes P, Brand P, Kraus T, Schettgen T. Internal exposure of hairdressers to permanent hair dyes: a biomonitoring study using urinary aromatic diamines as biomarkers of exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84:287–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hooff GP, Huizen NA, van, Meesters RJW, Zijlstra EE, Abdelraheem M, Abdelraheem W, et al. Analytical investigations of toxic p-phenylenediamine (PPD) levels in clinical urine samples with special focus on MALDI-MS/MS. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e22191–e22198.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolena B, Petrovičová I, Šidlovská M, Pilka T, Neuschlová M, Valentová I, et al. Occupational phthalate exposure and health outcomes among hairdressing apprentices. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017;36:1100–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kolena B, Petrovicova I, Sidlovska M, Hlisnikova H, Tomasovova E, Zoldakova V, et al. Phthalates exposure and occupational symptoms among Slovakian hairdressing apprentices. Appl Sci. 2019;9:3321–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arfaeinia H, Ramavandi B, Yousefzadeh S, Dobaradaran S, Ziaei M, Rashidi N, et al. Urinary level of un-metabolized parabens in women working in beauty salons. Environ Res. 2021;200:111771–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Andra SS, Austin C, Patel D, Dolios G, Awawda M, Arora M. Trends in the application of high-resolution mass spectrometry for human biomonitoring: an analytical primer to studying the environmental chemical space of the human exposome. Environ Int. 2017;100:32–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pourchet M, Debrauwer L, Klanova J, Price EJ, Covaci A, Caballero-Casero N, et al. Suspect and non-targeted screening of chemicals of emerging concern for human biomonitoring, environmental health studies and support to risk assessment - From promises to challenges and harmonisation issues. Environ Int. 2020;139:105545–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo Z, Huang S, Wang J, Feng YL. Recent advances in non-targeted screening analysis using liquid chromatography - high resolution mass spectrometry to explore new biomarkers for human exposure. Talanta 2020;219:121339–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boyle MD, Kavi LK, Louis LM, Pool W, Sapkota A, Zhu L, et al. Occupational exposures to phthalates among Black and Latina U.S. hairdressers serving an ethnically diverse clientele: a pilot study. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:8128–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dunn WB, Wilson ID, Nicholls AW, Broadhurst D. The importance of experimental design and QC samples in large-scale and MS-driven untargeted metabolomic studies of humans. Bioanalysis. 2012;4:2249–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Broadhurst D, Goodacre R, Reinke SN, Kuligowski J, Wilson ID, Lewis MR, et al. Guidelines and considerations for the use of system suitability and quality control samples in mass spectrometry assays applied in untargeted clinical metabolomic studies. Metabolomics. 2018;14:72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Caballero-Casero N, Belova L, Vervliet P, Antignac JP, Castaño A, Debrauwer L, et al. Towards harmonized criteria in quality assurance and quality control of suspect and non-target LC-HRMS analytical workflows for screening of emerging contaminants in human biomonitoring. Trend Anal Chem. 2021;136:116201–14.

  25. Frigerio G, Moruzzi C, Mercadante R, Schymanski EL, Fustinoni S. Development and application of an LC-MS/MS untargeted exposomics method with a separated pooled quality control strategy. Molecules. 2022;27:2580–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams AJ, Grulke CM, Edwards J, McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Baker NC, et al. The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: A community data resource for environmental chemistry. J Cheminform. 2017;9:61–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lowe CN, Williams AJ. Enabling high-throughput searches for multiple chemical data using the U.S.-EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. J Chem Inf Model. 2021;61:565–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Grulke C, Schymanski EL, Ruttkies C, Williams AJ. “MS-Ready” structures for non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry screening studies. J Cheminform. 2018;10:45–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Knolhoff AM, Premo JH, Fisher CM. A proposed quality control standard mixture and its uses for evaluating nontargeted and suspect screening LC/HR-MS method performance. Anal Chem. 2021;93:1596–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sobus JR, Grossman JN, Chao A, Singh R, Williams AJ, Grulke CM, et al. Using prepared mixtures of ToxCast chemicals to evaluate non-targeted analysis (NTA) method performance. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2019;411:835–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, et al. Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: Communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:2097–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ruttkies C, Schymanski EL, Wolf S, Hollender J, Neumann S. MetFrag relaunched: incorporating strategies beyond in silico fragmentation. J Cheminform. 2016;8:3–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schymanski EL, Kondić T, Neumann S, Thiessen PA, Zhang J, Bolton EE. Empowering large chemical knowledge bases for exposomics: PubChemLite meets MetFrag. J Cheminform. 2021;13:19–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Dionisio KL, Phillips K, Price PS, Grulke CM, Williams A, Biryol D, et al. The Chemical and Products Database, a resource for exposure-relevant data on chemicals in consumer products. Sci Data. 2018;5:180125–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Williams A. The Chemical and Products Database (CPDat) MySQL Data File. 2017. https://doi.org/10.23645/epacomptox.5352997.

  36. Isaacs KK, Dionisio K, Phillips K, Bevington C, Egeghy P, Price PS. Establishing a system of consumer product use categories to support rapid modeling of human exposure. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020;30:171–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Isaacs KK, Goldsmith MR, Egeghy P, Phillips K, Brooks R, Hong T, et al. Characterization and prediction of chemical functions and weight fractions in consumer products. Toxicol Rep. 2016;3:723–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Knolhoff AM, Kneapler CN, Croley TR. Optimized chemical coverage and data quality for non-targeted screening applications using liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta. 2019;1066:93–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. James-Todd TM, Chiu YH, Zota AR. Racial/ethnic disparities in environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals and women’s reproductive health outcomes: Epidemiological examples across the life course. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2016;3:161–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Preuss R, Angerer J, Drexler H. Naphthalene—an environmental and occupational toxicant. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003;76:556–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Okereke CS, Kadry AM, Abdel-Rahman MS, Davis RA, Friedman MA. Metabolism of benzophenone-3 in rats. Drug Metab Dispos. 1993;21:788–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the hair salon owners, hairdressers, and office staff at the University of Maryland who participated in this study. We would also like to thank Centro de Apoyo Familiar and the UMD H.A.I.R. network for their assistance with our recruitment efforts as well as our student interns (Lucy Aistis, Mireim Alibrahim, Ruth Cachola, Seyrona McLean, Surbhi Sardana, and Angela Sun) who helped with sample processing and data entry. We would like to thank the Johns Hopkins NIOSH-funded Educational Research Center and the Wait Family for their support. We also thank Dr. Kristin Isaacs from the U.S. EPA for assistance with the Product Use Category and Harmonized Functional Use data.

Funding

LQA was supported by an NHLBI Career Development Award (K01HL138124); MNN was supported by NIEHS Training grant (T32 ES 007141). This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center for Occupational Safety and Health (award number T42 OH008428). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or views of the NIH or CDC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Health & Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Matthew N. Newmeyer, Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, Lydia M. Louis & Carsten Prasse

  2. Maryland Institute of Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Lucy K. Kavi

  3. Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Carsten Prasse

Authors
  1. Matthew N. Newmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucy K. Kavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lydia M. Louis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carsten Prasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MNN designed and conducted specimen analysis, processed data, wrote the original manuscript draft, and worked on manuscript revisions; LKK assisted with data collection efforts and securing partial funds for this work, and worked on manuscript revisions; LML assisted with seeking funds to support this work and worked on manuscript revisions; LQA led the field work (PI) that gave rise to this data, including community engagement efforts, production of human subjects protocols, study instrument development, participant recruitment, biospecimen collection, as well as conceptualized and obtained funds for the present untargeted analyses; and worked on manuscript revisions; CP conceptualized and designed the study, obtained funds for the chemical analyses, and worked on manuscript revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carsten Prasse.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All study protocols were reviewed and approved by the University of Maryland’s Institutional Review Board (ref. # 1076658–17). All participants provided written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Newmeyer, M.N., Quirós-Alcalá, L., Kavi, L.K. et al. Implementing a suspect screening method to assess occupational chemical exposures among US-based hairdressers serving an ethnically diverse clientele: a pilot study. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 33, 566–574 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-023-00519-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-023-00519-z

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links