English flagItalian flagKorean flagChinese (Simplified) flagPortuguese flagGerman flagFrench flagSpanish flagJapanese flagRussian flagDutch flagCzech flagDanish flagRomanian flagSlovak flag                                 

Tag Cloud

Nailite Newsletter

Sign up for Nailite's Nail Tech Newsletter Today!

E-mail:

Subscribe
Unsubscribe

RSS Nailite Mag RSS

  • Nailite Files and Buffers
    Did you know that Nailite has a full line of professional files and buffers?  Our nail files are made in the USA and are made from the highest quality materials.  In addition to our files, our buffers consistently receive rave review from our customers on the durability and longevity of each buffer.  For those of […]
    admin
  • Christmas Nails
    These were done with Nailite’s UV Colored Soak Off Gels, Red Glitter, Emerald and Appletini!
    Mare Horak

Do UV Lamps Emit Unsafe Levels of Ultraviolet Light?

August 18, 2010
By

Do UV Nail Lamps Emit Unsafe Levels of Ultraviolet Light?

  • Three Experts Rebut Claims that UV Nail Lamps are Unsafe for Skin
  • Doug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry, Chief Scientific Advisor, CND;

    Paul Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry, Director of R&D, OPI Products;

    Jim McConnell, BA Chemistry, President, McConnell Labs

Introduction

A recent report incorrectly claimed that UV nail lamps are a source of
"high—dose UV—A" and also inaccurately compared UV tanning beds with UV nail
lamps. The report, "/Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After
UV Nail Light Exposure/" (MacFarlane and Alonso) 1 , overestimated the exposure
of client skin to UV light emitted from UV nail lamps and improperly
characterized the effect of these lamps on the hand.

As three of the leading scientists in the professional nail industry, we were
surprised by these claims. To verify the facts, using an independent laboratory
we tested the leading UV nail lamps to determine how much UV—A and UV—B they
emit and then compared that to natural sunlight.

Testing

In preparation for our study, we tested many UV nail lamps to determine which
had the highest UV output and, as expected, found the nail lamp with the highest
output was one designed to utilize four 9-watt UV bulbs. We also decided to test
a popular UV nail lamp designed to utilize two 9-watt UV bulbs. The purpose for
testing both lamps was to determine how exposures vary across the range of UV
nail lamps with the goal of providing information that would apply to the
majority of salons and situations. The selected two bulb UV nail lamp was chosen
and tested because it is a popular brand and representative of other UV nail
lamps within the two 9-watt UV bulb category. The selected four 9-watt UV bulb
nail lamp was chosen because it had the highest measured UV output of any UV
nail lamp tested. No attempt was made to test UV nail lamps utilizing only one
UV bulb, since the overwhelming majority of UV nail lamps use
two, three or four UV bulbs. The UV nail lamps selected for testing are likely
representative of more than 90% of the UV nail lamps used in salons.

/Lighting Science, Inc./, of Phoenix, AZ., is a fully equipped, completely
independent scientific testing laboratory that specializes in the development
and testing of many types of illumination devices, including those that emit UV
light and /Lighting Science /is not in the business of manufacturing or selling UV nail lamps. The two selected UV nail lamps were
submitted to /Lighting Science /in brand—new condition. Highly sensitive UV
detectors were placed where client hands would normally reside while inside a UV
nail lamp. These detectors accurately measured the amount of UV-A and UV-B light
emitted from each UV nail lamp. To ensure a proper comparison, /Lighting Science
/also used the same test equipment to measure the UV-A and UV-B light found in
natural sunlight. A discussion of these measurements and results is presented
below.

Discussion

The MacFarlane and Alonso report made several errors and misstatements
concerning artificial nails products and how they are applied. The most notable
involves the improper estimation of UV exposure to the skin by UV nail lamps,
resulting in a faulty report conclusion. It is incorrect to conclude that
putting a hand into a tanning bed with twelve 100-watt UV bulbs is the same as
putting that hand into a UV nail lamp with four 9-watt bulbs because: 1) tanning
bed users typically use these devices more often and for much longer periods
than seen with nail salon services, 2) the authors mistakenly assumed that UV
bulb "wattage" is a measure of UV exposure to the skin, when wattage is actually
a measure of energy usage, 3) the authors erred significantly by relying solely
on UV bulb wattage to estimate the actual amount of UV exposure to skin, and 4)
they neglected to consider that UV light reflects many times inside the tanning
bed and these internal reflections further increase UV exposure to skin, again
demonstrating that MacFarlane and Alonso approach to estimating UV exposure to
skin is not valid. Their comparisons to UV tanning beds simply doesn’t make sense logically or
scientifically.

The UV testing performed by /Lighting Science /used proper scientific techniques
and equipment to measure both UV-A and UV-B radiation in terms of milliwatts per
centimeter squared (mW/cm2), which is a measure of how much UV light falls upon
each and every square centimeter of skin (about 1/8 square inch). It is
important to understand that UV-B is considered by many to be more potentially
damaging to skin than UV—A, which is why nail lamps rely on special UV bulbs
that contain internal coatings designed to filter out most of the UV-B light.

It is important to note that clients visit a salon for UV gel nail application
or maintenance twice each month and that each of their hands are placed into the
UV lamp for intervals of two minute or less, for a total of 6-10 minutes. In
this report, we will always assume the highest level of exposure: 10 minutes per
hand, twice per month.

Results

Testing by /Lighting Sciences /produced the following information:

  1. /UV–//-//B output for both UV nail lamps was less than what was found in
    natural sunlight. The bulbs used in UV nail lamps contain special internal filters which remove
    almost all UV-B, so this result is not surprising. The test results show that
    the amount of UV—B to which client skin is exposed is equal to what they could
    expect from spending an extra 17 to 26 seconds in sunlight each day of the two
    weeks between nail salon appointments.
  2. /UV–//-//A exposure is much lower than suggested by MacFarlane and Alonso.
  3. Test results show that UV-A exposure for client skin is equivalent to spending
    an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in sunlight each day between salon visits, depending
    on the type of UV nail lamp used. A nail lamp with two UV bulbs corresponds to
    1.5 minutes and a nail lamp with four UV bulbs corresponds to about 2.7 minutes
    each day between salon visits.

MacFarlane and Alonso claimed to find two cases of skin cancer that they suggest
were caused by UV nail lamps. Both of their patients live in Texas, a climate
where significant incidental UV exposure from sunlight is inevitable even in the
absence of deliberate recreational exposure. One patient had been exposed to a
UV nail lamp only eight times during the same year (we assume every two weeks
for 4 months). During this same period, the patient would have been exposed to
more UV—A and UV—B /simply by spending 10 to 20 minutes eating her lunch
outdoors in natural sunlight once per week./

Oddly, the authors described this patient as a 48-year-old white woman who
claimed to have "moderate recreational UV exposure". We fail to understand how,
under the circumstances, it could be concluded that this case of nonmelanoma
skin cancer is caused by these eight exposures to a UV nail lamp, especially in
light of the low levels of UV exposure expected during these few visits to a
salon. We respectfully disagree and believe the results of /Light Science’s
/independent testing are in agreement with our own laboratory findings
supporting the safety of UV nail lamps.

Conclusion

McFarlane and Alonso’s report has a faulty conclusion because it is based on
incorrect information. Our testing shows that UV nail lamps emit relatively low levels of UV light
and these exposure levels are considered well within safe levels when they are used to
perform UV artificial nail services in nail salons.

Unfortunately, inaccurate information can have a long-term damaging effect, even
when later disproved. Already, some are unfairly distorting the risks of cancer
on Internet blogs, YouTube and other media outlets, even to the extent of
offering the exceptionally unwise advice of forgoing the UV curing of products
that will not cure otherwise. We believe a fair examination of the facts
supports the conclusion that UV nail lamps are safe when used as directed and
brief client exposures are as safe as brief exposures to natural sunlight.
Client hands are likely to be exposed to more UV light while driving their cars
than they will receive from UV gel nail services.

Nail UV lamps are safe when used as directed. Nevertheless, we recognize the
Nail Technician’s need to address client concerns. For those clients who express
anxiety, a Nail Technician can consider doing the following to make the service
more reassuring:

  • Place a small piece of white cloth over the hands when placing them in the UV
    nail lamp.
  • If a client insists on wearing sunscreen, they should still be asked to wash
    their hands before any salon service begins. In this case, the Nail Technician should take
    special care to ensure nail plates are properly cleansed and dehydrated in order to
    prevent service breakdown (e.g. product lifting, discoloration or mottling) from the
    film sunscreen products can leave behind. Also, it is crucial to keep sunscreen
    lotions and sprays away from implements and supplies used during the nail service to avoid contamination.

Reference:

1. Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light
Exposure,

/MacFarlane, D.F., Alonso, C.A., Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(4):447–//-//449/

Author’s Biographies:

Doug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry, UC Irvine, is an internationally known scientist
and lecturer with 20 years experience as a scientific researcher in the
professional nail industry and has many years experience developing UV cure nail
products. Schoon is author of /Nail Structure and Product Chemistry/, 1st & 2nd
editions, many dozens of trade magazine articles and chapters in the textbook
Milady’s Standard Nail Technology, as well as chapters on cosmetics in a variety
of different reference books for Dermatologists.

Paul Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry, U.S.C., Director of Research and Development of
OPI Products Inc. for the past 12 years. His experience includes formulating
both UV cured and 2-component acrylic systems for nail cosmetics, dental
restorations, and electronic—part fabrication. He is a regular contributor to
trade magazines, has written a chapter on nail cosmetics for a medical
dermatology text, and has advised the California Board of Barbering and
Cosmetology on improving salon safety regulations.

Jim McConnell, B.A. Chemistry, University of Oregon, President of McConnell
Labs, manufacturers of Light Elegance Nail Products. A formulating chemist of UV cured
systems for 12 years in the beauty industry. Jim is a contributing author for
Milady’s Standard Nail Technology as well as articles in many manicuring trade
magazines.

Media Inquiries: Doug Schoon, DSchoon@SchoonScientific.com <mailto:DSchoon@SchoonScientific.com>


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply