Are gel nails unhealthy for you? UV, pores and skin most cancers and allergy symptoms

For those who’ve ever tried gel nails, you’ll know it’s a must to bake your fingers below a UV lamp. And for those who’re like me, you may’ve thought: I do know UV from the solar is unhealthy and causes pores and skin most cancers, tanning beds are additional unhealthy, they trigger additional pores and skin most cancers… is that this factor that appears like a tanning mattress (for ants) really protected?

We’re attending to the underside of this right this moment.

The video model is right here, hold scrolling for the article…

UV wavelength and dose

First, a fast refresher on UV. UV is a type of gentle that’s extra energetic than the seen gentle that we will see, and our foremost supply of publicity is the solar. It’s the a part of daylight that causes pores and skin most cancers, sunburn, untimely pores and skin ageing, and uneven pigment.

In relation to the hazards of UV, we’d like to consider 2 issues: wavelength and dose.

Wavelength

Daylight has two forms of UV. UVA has longer wavelengths, and UVB has shorter wavelengths, however we’re going to think about these as tiny particles known as photons.

UVB photons have greater power. They smash into issues tougher, however they don’t get as deep into pores and skin. UVA photons are decrease power and trigger much less direct harm.

So which one is extra damaging? That’s not a trick query – it’s UVB.

It’s like getting punched. UVB is a very arduous punch, with extra power, UVA is … much less arduous, with much less power. They each contribute to pores and skin most cancers and untimely pores and skin ageing, however totally different quantities and in several methods.

Inside every class, there’s nonetheless a spread of results. Some UVA is greater power and nearly UVB (it contributes to sunburn), however some UVA is decrease power and is principally simply purple gentle.

Dose

The opposite massive factor that issues is dose. That is how a lot UV your palms are getting, which will depend on the depth of UV from the lamp (irradiance), and the way lengthy your palms are in there (publicity time).

For those who’ve seen my posts earlier than, you’ll know “the dose makes the poison” comes up loads with ingredient security, and it’s vital for UV security too. One punch may not do a lot, however 1000 punches may be very totally different – extra means extra harm.

So what wavelengths and doses are we from these lamps? Nicely, we have to discuss why we’ve got UV within the first place…

How gel polish works

Gel polish makes use of UV in a cool and intelligent means.

Common nail polish incorporates polymers like nitrocellulose, that are long-chained molecules. These come collectively to type a stable layer in your nails because the solvent evaporates and the polish dries. 

However in some unspecified time in the future, nail scientists realised creating the polymers in your nails – placing the little constructing blocks on the nail, and becoming a member of them into a sequence afterwards – helps it final loads longer.

There are three foremost classes of those longer-wearing nail merchandise: acrylics, gels, and dips (my e book The Science of Magnificence talks extra about how these merchandise work, in addition to about 100 different matters!).

Associated: The Science of Magnificence

Among the constructing blocks (monomers) inside a typical gel polish embody”

• HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)
• Isobornyl methacrylate
• Di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate
• Bis-HEMA IPDI

They’ve double bonds (proven in pink), which implies a sequence response can be part of them collectively, like a row of dominoes falling. 

When the primary monomer is triggered, one of many bonds in its double bond can transfer to affix to a different monomer. This triggers Monomer 2, and its bond strikes to affix to Monomer 3, and so forth till you get a protracted chain (the polymer).

It’s a sequence response that really makes a sequence!

However how do you ensure that the monomers don’t be part of up too early within the bottle and make a large clump, however do be part of up shortly after you set it in your nails?

The reply is totally different for every kind of longwear product – for gels, it’s UV.

In addition to constructing blocks, gel polishes include initiators, akin to:

• Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone
• Ethyl trimethylbenzoyl phenylphosphinate
• Trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide

They break up in UV, and switch into little triggering molecules with unpaired electrons (free radicals). These can assault a constructing block and begin off the polymerisation chain response, like your finger pushing over the primary domino. With out UV, gel merchandise wouldn’t harden and “dry”.

However there’s an added complication with UV danger. Gel merchandise have totally different mixtures of constructing blocks and initiators, which activate otherwise relying on UV wavelength and dose. The mix of all these is rigorously optimised so the product reacts on the proper pace.

If the gel reacts too shortly, the response produces an excessive amount of warmth which is painful, and may make your nails to separate from the nail mattress (actually painful and may result in infections).

But when it reacts too slowly, it may not treatment fully. Some constructing blocks can keep unreacted on the nail, which can also be a nasty end result (foreshadowing).

In each instances, the cured product is much less optimum, and may crack or chip extra simply. That’s why you’re meant to make use of the lamp particularly designed for a selected model of gels, and why there are such a lot of totally different nail lamps with various UV outputs.

UV lamp research

Gel polishes surged in reputation round 2010, which is when individuals actually began questioning in regards to the security of tiny-tanning-bed-looking-things. There at the moment are fairly a couple of research measuring the wavelengths and doses of UV your palms get from a spread of nail lamps (see backside of article for abstract desk).

The researchers come from a spread of backgrounds, together with:

• Nail business scientists, who do have an apparent battle of curiosity (Schoon, Bryson and McConnell are from the manufacturers CND, OPI and Gentle Class)
• Scientists with a protracted and spectacular monitor document of solar safety analysis (Diffey created the Boots Star UVA ranking system, and Dowdy and Sayre did quite a lot of work on testing sunscreens with UV lamps, so that they know UV lamps very nicely)
• Tutorial scientists with no ties to the nail business (Baeza et al. really examined essentially the most lamps)
• Dermatologists (Markova & Weinstock, Curtis et al., Shipp et al.)
• Authorities scientists from the Australian Radiation Safety and Nuclear Security Company (ARPANSA) (Ford et al.)

Their conclusions are all fairly comparable.

Which wavelengths?

There are two foremost forms of gel nail lamps:

• “UV lamps” have fluorescent bulbs which look tubes
• “LED lamps” have LED bulbs that appear to be flat little squares or dots, and have been launched extra just lately 

Each varieties produce UV, despite the fact that it form of seems like LED lamps don’t (I wish to know who picked these names – I simply wish to speak). I’ll be referring to “UV lamps” as “fluorescent lamps”, as a result of that really is sensible.

To make it extra complicated, some lamps include each fluorescent and LED bulbs – I’m calling these “combo lamps”.

Fluorescent bulbs have a tendency to supply a wider vary of wavelengths (largely UVA, but in addition a tiny little bit of UVB, and a few seen gentle), whereas LED bulbs produce a narrower vary of wavelengths, largely at an extended wavelength (nearly completely UVA, and quite a lot of seen gentle).

This graph from Dowdy and Sayre illustrates this properly – the next peak means extra of that wavelength. From left to proper:

• There’s nearly nothing within the UVB area (you’ll be able to solely see it within the expanded log-scale model of the graph, which can also be within the paper)
• The three fluorescent lamps have their largest peak at about 370 nm
• The three LED lamps have a much bigger hump but it surely’s at about 400 nm, so the height is straddling UVA and visual gentle

What doses?

Now let’s have a look at the doses of those wavelengths.

All the research discovered minimal UVB, which is reassuring as a result of UVB straight damages DNA, and is extra strongly linked to pores and skin most cancers.

A more moderen 2018 research by Baeza and coworkers examined essentially the most lamps – most lamps had irradiances beneath 0.025 W/m², and so they all produced far much less intense UVB than you’d get from the solar in winter in Barcelona (0.10 W/m²).

However UVA is a distinct story. UVA is much less straight damaging, but it surely knocks electrons off issues to type free radicals. We wish this to occur in gel polish, however chain reactions in pores and skin contribute to pores and skin most cancers and accelerated pores and skin ageing.

A couple of third of the lamps examined by Baeza produced extra intense UVA than the noon summer time solar in Barcelona (UV index 9, darkish gray line), and a few have been greater than twice as sturdy (inexperienced line) (every dot is a lamp):

This chart additionally exhibits the various kinds of lamps. The LED lamps they examined (blue outlines) are a safer choice when it comes to complete UV depth. That’s in all probability as a result of they largely produce longer wavelengths, that are much less energetic to start with – quite a lot of the power they produce is within the seen area.

At this level you is likely to be considering LED lamps appear to be the right answer – I can get much less UVA if I simply use the lamps with the knobby dotty lights, proper? 

I believed this at first too, however sadly, not essentially. There’s a more recent research from ARPANSA that checked out 7 LED lamps and 1 fluorescent one. Right here’s what they appear to be on the identical graph, assuming the measurements are roughly comparable – LED UVA irradiances can get fairly excessive:

Conflicts of curiosity, acceptable research designs

This brings me to a bit tangent about conflicts of curiosity that’s essential to deciphering magnificence science research, and it took me some time to determine.

There’s a common notion {that a} battle of curiosity mechanically means a research is unreliable. However there’s a much less apparent draw back to quite a lot of beauty science research by unbiased researchers, with no conflicts of curiosity.

Their research are sometimes not designed nicely, or not interpreted nicely, as a result of the researchers solely seemed on the peer-reviewed literature when making an attempt to grasp the realm. This can be a drawback as a result of there isn’t a lot incentive to publish beauty science in peer-reviewed journals (I talked about this in my put up about retinol). There additionally isn’t that a lot public funding, so that you additionally see quite a lot of unbiased research with tiny pattern sizes, as an example.

Associated put up: Is Retinol a Rip-off? The Science

This development turns into actually obvious when you’ve learn sufficient papers, and I’ve talked about a couple of not-great research by unbiased scientists earlier than: rosemary oil and hair loss, chemical sunscreens killing coral, zinc oxide inactivating chemical sunscreens, and an entire bunch of tranexamic acid research.

There are some right here as nicely. Two of the research by dermatologists used the unsuitable kind of spectrometer (an instrument for measuring gentle). Two of the very skilled solar publicity scientists level this out of their papers – they work in a lightweight testing lab, and so they do have patents on UVA lamps used for medical therapies, which is a battle of curiosity.

However this error meant that the dermatologists have been underestimating UV, so the scientists’ outcomes have been going in opposition to their battle of curiosity.

This isn’t a blanket rule. The latest two research didn’t have conflicts of curiosity and used the correct kind of spectrometer (from what I can inform anyway, as a chemist who used spectrometers a bit, however to not the purpose the place I can spot this form of situation simply in a paper). One research despatched the lamps to an accredited measurement lab, and the opposite has authors from the official Australian radiation company, so that they’re in all probability dependable.

And naturally, there are questionable papers by researchers with conflicts of curiosity too: the Valisure benzene research, the Colorescience powder sunscreen research, and the bakuchiol research.

Principally, there aren’t any blanket guidelines in the case of conflicts of curiosity and the way sus a research is, particularly in an space with out a lot public funding like beauty science.

Lamps and pores and skin most cancers

To this point, we’ve got a bunch of lamps placing out extra intense UVA than the solar at UV index 9. And whereas many years of publicity to very brief, intense bursts of UVA might have results we don’t know a lot about but, there’s quite a lot of proof that factors in the direction of this not being a large concern.

Publicity occasions are brief – normally lower than 10 minutes each few weeks, so the full UVA power hitting your pores and skin is possibly most 20 minutes of noon solar in summer time in Barcelona (UV index 9).

That is really safer than it sounds, as a result of we have to bear in mind the harm from particular wavelengths. UVA is a spread, with tougher and softer “punches”. One arduous punch may break your nostril, however two punches half as arduous may not, even when the full power is identical. Longer UV wavelengths are usually a lot, a lot much less dangerous, and that’s what nail lamps use.

Some research estimated the organic affect utilizing an motion spectrum. This primarily means they weighted totally different wavelengths primarily based on how a lot they contribute to break. For instance, on this spectrum, 300 nm (relative affect of 1) punches a few thousand occasions tougher than 350 nm (affect of <0.001):

Completely different research have calculated non-melanoma pores and skin most cancers danger in varied methods, and so they’re all very low:

Diffey (2012), 1 fluorescent lamp (2 x 9W bulbs):

• Daylight is 1.7 occasions extra carcinogenic
• 1 further SCC case in 44,000 to 396,000 individuals, after 5 to 40 years of manicures each 3 weeks (8 minutes complete publicity)

Dowdy and Sayre (2013), 3 fluorescent and three LED lamps:

• Non-melanoma pores and skin most cancers danger is 11 to 46 occasions lower than overhead daylight, and three to 12 occasions lower than mid-angle daylight
• It will take 2.4 to 22.4 hours to achieve the FDA’s most every day publicity time for tanning beds (versus <10 minutes of publicity for a manicure)

Baeza and coworkers (2018), 22 fluorescent, 3 combo and three LED lamps:

• UV index (displays erythemal UV, largely UVB) is lower than 2, which is midday in winter in Barcelona

Ford and coworkers (2021), 7 LED and 1 fluorescent dwelling lamps:

• It will take 38 to 197 minutes to achieve the IRPA/ICNIRP occupational publicity limits for UV 

On prime of that, the backs of your palms are much less delicate to UV – one research measured that they wanted about 4 occasions extra UV to burn than the cheek.

Case studies

There have been a couple of case studies of individuals creating pores and skin cancers on their palms after numerous gel manicures. Nevertheless, the manicures didn’t essentially trigger the most cancers. Case studies aren’t actually scientific proof, and are simply meant to be a means for medical doctors to flag attention-grabbing instances to encourage additional analysis – it’s a type of anecdotal proof, however properly written up.

Associated put up: Science vs Anecdotal Proof and Opinions

An additional issue was concerned in most of those instances. For instance:

This individual was taking a photosensitising remedy, and had been getting UV manicures for 10 years

This individual had been getting manicures for 18 years, and utilizing a tanning mattress each week

These two instances didn’t have something reported aside from UV manicures, however the first case was utilizing the UV lamp to dry regular nail polish. UV doesn’t pace that up by a lot, so I’m guessing they have been simply utilizing it for the fan, and the polish nonetheless takes ages to dry. So she was in all probability getting a lot greater UV publicity than regular.

Plenty of their publicity was additionally in all probability from older fluorescent lamps that put out extra UVB, and the forms of pores and skin cancers they obtained are those extra related to shorter wavelengths.

Lamps and pores and skin ageing

What about pores and skin ageing, the opposite massive impact of UV?

One research checked out pores and skin sagging and elastosis (when UV from the solar messes up the elastin in your pores and skin, resulting in deep wrinkles and texture). Elastosis is worse with shorter wavelengths, however UVA at 340 nm is definitely the worst for sagging (greater line means worse):

Right here’s what it appears like in comparison with summer time (darkish gray line) and winter (gentle gray line) noon solar. Most lamps are inflicting these results much less intensely than noon summer time solar. A handful are worse, however the highest is barely about double the depth (once more, publicity time is vital, so the worst interprets to about 20 minutes of noon summer time solar each 3 weeks).

Once more, you is likely to be considering – if I simply go for LED lamps, I’m solely getting the longest wavelength, least damaging UVA (the define squares are very low). However sadly, we additionally don’t have a straightforward answer right here.

The older research on salon lamps solely reported a peak at 400 nm, which interprets to decrease results. However, once more, the Australian research with dwelling gadgets bucks the development, and the information is tucked away within the supporting data: 

5 out of seven of the LED lamps examined are placing out shorter wavelength UVA (round 370 nm), which matches the principle fluorescent peaks within the older research. I’d guess this might additionally apply to some salon lamps.

Melanoma instances?

I discussed non-melanoma pores and skin most cancers earlier than, so that you may’ve been considering: what about melanoma?

There aren’t any case studies of melanoma with UV manicures, so not one of the research actually checked out that. Linking UV wavelengths to melanoma can also be extra difficult, so estimates with motion spectra aren’t very helpful.

Nevertheless, this research checked out population-level (epidemiological) knowledge within the US. There’s been no improve in melanoma from 2007 to 2016, and truly a slight lower in 15-39 yr olds from 2006 to 2016. The areas of the melanomas aren’t tracked, however this means that to this point, it isn’t an enormous drawback.

What do you have to do?

That is all fairly reassuring, however the papers do counsel some easy steps you’ll be able to take to decrease your danger much more, for those who get gel manicures recurrently and also you’re nervous:

• You possibly can put on gloves with out fingertips to cowl your pores and skin
• You possibly can put sunscreen in your palms earlier than the gel manicure, then clear the sunscreen simply off your nails
• Don’t have a look at the UV lamp whereas it’s on
• For those who’re taking drugs that improve your gentle sensitivity, or when you have different danger elements (e.g. earlier pores and skin cancers), don’t get gel manicures
• Verify your palms for suspicious spots, particularly if they alter over time, and see a specialist when you discover them

You don’t want to fret a lot about your nail beds – the nail blocks all of the UVB and nearly all UVA, and the gel blocks much more. (It’s nonetheless value checking for spots although, since there will be cancers there that aren’t linked to UV publicity.)

New research?

Occasionally you’ll see nail lamps and most cancers pop up on the information and social media. The previous couple of occasions it was due to scary-sounding research like this one in 2023, which led to information tales about mutations linked to most cancers.

This was an in vitro research, the place cells on plates have been positioned in a nail lamp. The scientists noticed mutations additionally present in some pores and skin cancers.

Nevertheless, this can be a hazard experiment that exhibits adjustments that might occur. It doesn’t present adjustments which might be probably to occur if we take dose under consideration – these cells are getting a lot greater doses than regular:

• Cells in our palms are below layers of lifeless pores and skin cells which block quite a lot of UV
• Cells don’t behave the identical in our pores and skin versus in a petri dish
• This experiment irradiated the cells for 20 minutes repeatedly, then one other 20 minutes on the identical day, which is loads longer than a typical gel manicure (the producer recommends 60 second cures, which interprets to about 5 minutes per hand – their publicity time could be for 8 manicures in a single day).
• The article makes little reference to the amount of mutations the cells are getting. 

A few of these limitations have been talked about within the research, however they didn’t reference earlier research with extra dependable dose measurements. The authors additionally weren’t clear in regards to the limitations in media interviews – they are saying these outcomes are “alarming”, and that they don’t get gel manicures anymore.

Some journalists requested different scientists to remark, who gave way more context, akin to in this Sydney Morning Herald article (shoutout to the great Hannah English who despatched this to me!):

• “To be trustworthy, the outcomes aren’t stunning,” stated Professor Richard Scolyer, co-medical director of Australia’s Melanoma Institute. “We all know these gadgets emit UVA. And UVA could cause DNA harm. We simply don’t know the way it interprets to people.” [Note: “not knowing” is quite specific in scientific terms – we know quite a lot about UVA in general, just not specifically with UV nail lamp exposures.]
• UVA is understood to pose a most cancers danger. However nail dryers have been extensively used for a while and, regardless of that, most cancers of the finger stays extraordinarily uncommon, stated Professor David Whiteman, a most cancers epidemiologist primarily based at Queensland’s QIMR Berghofer medical analysis institute. “If I went out now within the solar with out sunblock after which took a pores and skin biopsy, in 5 minutes I’d have much more harm than these cells did,” he stated.
• In 2021, the Australian Radiation Safety and Nuclear Security Company (ARPANSA) performed assessments of eight at-home UV nail dryers. Even essentially the most highly effective machine examined would must be used for nearly 40 minutes earlier than it began posing a danger, the company discovered. Most nail dryers are solely used for a couple of minutes at a time.
• Affiliate Professor Ken Karipidis, the company’s spokesman, admitted “the physiological affect of the collected UVA publicity to the palms stays unknown”. “For that motive, the ARPANSA suggestions are suggested akin to opting to make use of fingerless gloves and/or sunscreen, and the availability of security data for shoppers in regards to the attainable dangers.”

(Aspect word: I met Professor David Whiteman at a solar safety convention I spoke at just lately! He’s tremendous good, and he additionally spoke at our BeautySciComm mythbusting camp about sunscreen.)

Associated: BeautySciComm Mythbusting Camp

A scarier danger

There’s an precise scarier danger with gel manicures: allergy symptoms.

Allergy symptoms may sound like a gentle annoyance, however they could be a massive deal, and it’s the factor I really take extra precautions with when utilizing gel or dip. 

Acrylics, gels and dips all use acrylate monomers because the constructing blocks. After the product is cured, the monomers are joined into a big chain which doesn’t get into your pores and skin simply, so it isn’t an enormous drawback. However when the monomers aren’t joined up, they’ll get into your pores and skin.

You possibly can develop an allergy for those who’re uncovered to the monomers sufficient, and additional publicity could cause swelling, blisters, itching, and rashes. These can happen round your nails, in addition to locations you contact together with your nails, like your eyelids and face.

The bigger situation is that acrylates aren’t solely used for nail merchandise. They’re fairly widespread, and are used for sticking bones collectively in orthopedic surgical procedure, and an entire bunch of dental supplies. When you have an allergy, you may find yourself reacting to a filling, for instance, which is fairly horrific.

(Enjoyable reality: OPI stands for Odontorium Merchandise Inc – they really began as a dental acrylics firm earlier than switching to nail acrylics.)

How you can minimise allergy symptoms

There are lots of nail assets that go into extra element, however primarily you wish to minimise any publicity to the uncured gel.

Your nails are usually not the issue, since they’re fairly resistant – you solely actually need to fret in case your nails are actually skinny or cracked.

The principle supply of publicity is pores and skin:

• Attempt to keep away from getting uncured monomer on the pores and skin round your nails (paint throughout the strains) – don’t be as messy as you is likely to be with common polish
• Treatment the polish correctly – use the lamp matched to the product you’re utilizing, observe the curing occasions, and don’t use too little UV since you’re nervous about extra UV publicity
• Apply skinny layers, so the UV can attain all the gel
• Don’t contact the sticky layer on prime of the gel, which comes from monomers that aren’t surrounded by sufficient different monomers to react correctly
• Be certain your lamp is clear and maintained, since issues like mud can decrease the UV reaching your nails

As a result of it’s tougher to do your personal nails neatly, it’s usually much less dangerous to get gel manicures from a correctly skilled nail tech. There’s been an enormous rise in acrylate allergy symptoms due to dwelling gel kits, particularly after lockdown when everybody was doing their nails at dwelling.

Nail research abstract desk

References

Schoon DD. Beauty Prostheses as Synthetic Nail Enhancements. In: Draelos ZD, ed. Beauty Dermatology: Merchandise and Procedures. third ed. Wiley; 2022:289-298.

Schoon D, Bryson P, McConnell J. Do UV Nail Lamps Emit Unsafe Ranges of Ultraviolet Gentle? November 2012.

Zhivagui M, Hoda A, Valenzuela N, et al. DNA harm and somatic mutations in mammalian cells after irradiation with a nail polish dryer. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):276. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-35876-8

Ford H, Horsham C, City D, Tinker R, Hacker E. Quantifying the ultraviolet radiation emitted by nail curing gadgets: A descriptive research. Australas J Dermatol. 2021;62(2). doi:10.1111/ajd.13539

Schwartz CT, Ezaldein HH, Merati M. Ultraviolet gentle gel manicures: Is there a danger of pores and skin most cancers on the palms and nails of younger adults? J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2020;13(7):45-46.

Ratycz MC, Lender JA, Gottwald LD. A number of dorsal hand actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas: A novel presentation following in depth UV nail lamp use. Case Rep Dermatol. 2019;11(3):286-291. doi:10.1159/000503273

Baeza D, Sola Y, Del Río LA, González R. Nail dryer gadgets: A measured spectral irradiance and labelling evaluation. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2018;17(5):592-598. doi:10.1039/c7pp00388a

Sola Y, Lorente J. Contribution of UVA irradiance to the erythema and photoaging results in photo voltaic and sunbed exposures. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015;143:5-11. doi:10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2014.10.024

Dowdy JC, Sayre RM. Nail curing UV lamps: Trivial publicity not trigger for public alarm. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73(5):e185-e186. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.06.064

Shipp LR, Warner CA, Rueggeberg FA, Davis LS. Additional investigation into the danger of pores and skin most cancers related to using UV nail lamps. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(7):775. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.8740

Markova A, Weinstock MA. Danger of pores and skin most cancers related to using UV nail lamp. J Make investments Dermatol. 2013;133(4):1097-1099. doi:10.1038/jid.2012.440

Dowdy JC, Sayre RM. Photobiological security analysis of UV nail lamps. Photochem Photobiol. 2013;89(4):961-967. doi:10.1111/php.12075

Curtis J, Tanner P, Judd C, Childs B, Hull C, Leachman S. Acrylic nail curing UV lamps: Excessive-intensity publicity warrants additional analysis of pores and skin most cancers danger. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6):1069-1070. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.08.032

Diffey BL. The danger of squamous cell carcinoma in ladies from publicity to UVA lamps utilized in beauty nail remedy: SCC and UVA nail lamps. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(5):1175-1178. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11107.x

MacFarlane DF, Alonso CA. Prevalence of nonmelanoma pores and skin cancers on the palms after UV nail gentle publicity. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(4). doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2008.622

Freeman C, Hull C, Sontheimer R, Curtis J. Squamous cell carcinoma of the dorsal palms and ft after repeated publicity to ultraviolet nail lamps. Dermatol On-line J. 2020;26(3):13030/qt1rd1k82v.

Mannix L. Within the lab, nail dryers harm cells. However what about within the salon? The Sydney Morning Herald. January 27, 2023.

Connor Okay. In cells, UV-emitting nail polish dryers harm DNA and trigger mutations. ScienceDaily. January 17, 2023.

Guenther J, Norman T, Wee CP, Adler BL. A Survey of Pores and skin Reactions Related With Acrylic Nail Cosmetics, With a Deal with Residence Kits: Is There a Want for Regulation? Dermatitis. 2024;35(1):49-54. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0204