Abstract
Objective
This study was designed to determine whether licensed female cosmetologists with a low birthweight child were more likely to perform specific occupational tasks during pregnancy than cosmetologists who had a normal weight child. We also investigated certain salon characteristics in relation to low birthweight status.
Methods
This nested case–control study followed-up a positive association of low birthweight children among cosmetologists found in a retrospective cohort study previously reported. Cases were cosmetologists with children born between 1997 and 2003 weighing <2,500 g, selected from the retrospective cohort study. Controls were cosmetologists with full-term children who weighed >2,500 grams at birth, frequency matched on year of birth of the child. A mailed questionnaire gathered information on potential confounders and detailed exposure information about work environment and occupational tasks of cosmetologists. Frequency of product use was dichotomized into daily/less than daily for each task. Number of hours worked per week was also considered. Birth certificate data were used for information on some potential confounders and birthweight. Using logistic regression, adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were obtained.
Results
A total of 125 (30%) cases and 158 (35%) controls agreed to participate. Responders and non-responders were similar on birthweight and most demographic characteristics. None of the specific cosmetology tasks studied were associated with low birthweight. Working in a salon located in a house/building with other businesses was associated with having a low birthweight child [OR = 2.20, 95% CI (1.21, 4.02)].
Conclusions
We did not find any associations between specific tasks of cosmetologists and low birthweight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA (1997) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1129–1136
Axmon A, Rylander L, Lillienberg L, Albin M, Hagmar L (2006) Fertility among female hairdressers. Scand J Work Environ Health 32:51–60
Blackmore-Prince C, Harlow SD, Gargiullo P, Lee MA, Savitz DA (1999) Chemical hair treatments and adverse pregnancy outcome among black women in central North Carolina. Am J Epidemiol 149:712–716
Blatter BM, Zielhuis GA (1993) Menstrual disorders due to chemical exposure among hairdressers. Occup Med 43:105–106
Buescher PA, Taylor KP, Davis MH, Bowling JM (1993) The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health 83:1163–1165
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) Public-Use Data File. National Center for Health Statistics 1 Nov 2007
Gallicchio L, Miller S, Greene T, Zacur H, Flaws JA (2009) Cosmetologists and reproductive outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 113:1018–1026
Halliday-Bell JA, Gissler M, Jaakkola JJ (2009) Work as a hairdresser and cosmetologist and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Occup Med 59:180–184
Herdt-Losavio ML, Lin S, Druschel C, Hwang S-A, Mauer MP, Carlson GA (2008) The risk of having a low birthweight or preterm infant among cosmetologists in New York State. Mat Child Health J 13:90–97
Hollund BE, Moen BE (1998) Chemical exposure in hairdresser salons: effect of local exhaust ventilation. Ann Occup Hyg 42:277–281
Houlihan J, Brody C, Schwan B (2002) Not too pretty-phthalates, beauty products and the FDA. Environmental working group
John EM, Savitz DA, Shy CM (1993) Spontaneous abortions among cosmetologists. Epidemiology 5:147–155
Kersemaekers WM, Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA (1997) Reproductive disorders among hairdressers. Epidemiology 8:396–401
Marks TA, Gupta BN, Ledoux TA, Staples RE (1981) Teratogenic evaluation of 2-nitro-p-phenylenediamine, 4-nitro-o-phenylenediamine, and 2,5-toluenediamine sulfate in the mouse. Teratology 24:253–265
New York State Department of Health (2007) Vital statistics of New York State 2000 tables. http://www.nyhealth.gov/nysdoh/vital_statistics/2000/toc.htm. Accessed Oct 2010
Peretz J, Gallicchio L, Miller S, Greene T, Zacur H, Flaws JA (2009) Infertility among cosmetologists. Repro Tox. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.05.068
Reichman NE, Hade EM (2001) Validation of birth certificate data: a study of women in New Jersey’s HealthStart program. Ann Epidemiol 11:186–193
Ronda E, Hollund BE, Moen BE (2009) Airborne exposure to chemical substances in hairdresser salons. Environ Monit Assess 153:83–93
Roohan PJ, Josberger RE, Acar J, Dabir P, Feder HM, Gagliano PJ (2003) Validation of birth certificate data in New York State. J Comm Health 28:335–346
Rylander L, Axmon A, Toren K, Albin M (2002) Reproductive outcome among female hairdressers. Occup Environ Med 59:517–522
United States Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration (accessed 2004) Data collection program—hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists. https://onet.rti.org
United States Food and Drug Administration (1997) Hair dye products. http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productandingredientsafety/productinformation/ucm143066.htm. Accessed Oct 2010
Williams LM, Morrow B, Lansky A et al (2003) Surveillance for selected maternal behaviors and experiences before, during and after pregnancy: Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS), 2000. Morbid Mort Wkly Rep Surv Summ 52:1–14
Zhu JL, Vestergaard M, Hjollund NH, Olsen J (2006) Pregnancy outcomes among female hairdressers who participated in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Scand J Work Environ Health 32:61–66
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the National Birth Defects Prevention Study for their support of this project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herdt-Losavio, M.L., Lin, S., Druschel, C.M. et al. A nested case–control study of low birthweight among cosmetologists. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 84, 601–608 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0585-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0585-4