Evaluation of Ergonomics, 

Chemical Exposures, and 

Ventilation at Four Nail Salons

HHE Report No. 2015-0139-3338

March 2019 
Authors: Kendra Broadwater, MPH, CIH

Sophia Chiu, MD, MPH

Analytical Support: Maxxam Laboratories

Desktop Publisher: Jennifer Tyrawski

Editor: Cheryl Hamilton

Industrial Hygiene Field Assistance: Michael Grant, Jessica Ramsey, Dylan Neu

Logistics: Donnie Booher, Kevin Moore

Medical Field Assistance: Kerton Victory

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 812113 (Nail Salons), New 

York, Nail Salons, Cosmetology, Methacrylates, Acrylates, Volatile Organic Compounds, 

Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal

Disclaimer

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace under 

the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)(6)). The Health 

Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent occupational disease or 

injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employers and employees at the nail salons. The state 

and local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regional

Office have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced.

Recommended Citation

NIOSH [2019]. Evaluation of ergonomics, chemical exposures, and ventilation at four nail salons. 

By Broadwater K, Chiu S. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0139-3338, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0139-3338.pdf. 
Table of Contents

Main Report

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Our Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Our Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Our Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 5

Supporting Technical Information 

Section A: Workplace Information............................................................................................................ A-1

Building and Business Information ....................................................................................................... A-1

Employee Information ............................................................................................................................ A-1

Background about the Request .............................................................................................................. A-2

Process Description ................................................................................................................................. A-2

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion .......................................................................................... B-1

Methods: Ergonomics Assessment........................................................................................................ B-1

Results: Ergonomics Assessment........................................................................................................... B-1

Methods: Chemical and Particulate Exposure ..................................................................................... B-2

Results: Chemical and Particulate Exposure ........................................................................................ B-4

Methods: Ventilation, Personal Protective Equipment, and Other Controls.................................. B-6

Results: Ventilation, Personal Protective Equipment, and Other Controls..................................... B-6

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. B-8

Limitations............................................................................................................................................... B-12

Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. B-13

Section C: Tables.......................................................................................................................................... C-1

Summary and Other Tables.................................................................................................................... C-1

Individual Full-shift Personal Exposure Sampling Results................................................................ C-7

Section D: Occupational Exposure Limits............................................................................................... D-1

Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................................................... D-2

Methyl Methacrylate and Ethyl Methacrylate...................................................................................... D-2

Ethyl Acetate and n-Butyl Acetate........................................................................................................ D-3

Toluene ..................................................................................................................................................... D-3

Acetone..................................................................................................................................................... D-3

Section E: References.................................................................................................................................. E-1
This page left intentionally blank
1

Introduction

Request

A state health department requested help from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) because of concerns about chemical exposures and musculoskeletal disorders among 

nail salon employees.

Workplace

Nail salon technicians provided nail services, including applying, removing, filling, and polishing acrylic 

nails and providing standard polish, gel and shellac polish manicures and pedicures. Gel and shellac 

manicures and pedicures involve polishes that are cured using ultraviolet lamps. Some technicians also 

provided hair removal waxing services. From 3 to 11 employees worked at each of the four salons.

To learn more about the workplace, go to Section A in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Approach

We visited four nail salons to learn more about chemical and particulate exposures and the work-related 

health concerns of their technicians. We visited Salons A and B in August 2015. We visited Salon B 

again in March 2016. We visited Salon C in October 2016 and Salon D in November 2016.

On the visits, we

• Observed work practices and conditions

• Inspected shop ventilation

• Measured employee exposures to volatile organic compounds in the air such as acetone, toluene, 

n-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, formaldehyde, methyl methacrylate, and ethyl methacrylate

• Interviewed employees about their work and health

To learn more about our methods, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Key Findings

Employees worked in positions that posed risks for developing musculoskeletal 

disorders. 

• We observed employees repeatedly bending their necks and shoulders during nail services in 

ways that might cause injury or pain (Figure 1). 
2

Figure 1. Two employees providing pedicures to clients. The left employee’s shoulders are 

hunched forward and her back rounded. The right employee’s back is unsupported by the low 

chair back and her neck is bent forward and straining at the shoulder. Photos by NIOSH.

• We observed seated employees repeatedly lift and hold clients’ feet during pedicures to 

shoulder height during callus removal. This practice can put stress on employees’ upper back 

and shoulders. 

• We found 4 of the 19 employees (21%) who had worked in the nail salon for ≥ 2 months 

reported musculoskeletal pain (neck, shoulder, and upper back pain) that got better away 

from work.

Work practices and conditions contributed to chemical exposures from nail polish 

remover, nail polish, acrylic polymers, and powders. 

• Chemical storage was inappropriate. For example, we saw chemicals stored in unlabeled 

containers, open containers, and areas that were also used as employee break and lunch rooms 

(Figures 2 and 3). One salon employee stored bulk chemicals for the salon in a personal 

residence.

Figure 2. Nail salon products 

stored under a sink in Salon A. 

Most of the containers were not 

properly labeled with their 

contents. Powder was stored in a 

mislabeled container in the bottom 

right corner. Photo by NIOSH.
3

• Ten of 24 interviewed employees reported receiving 

training on chemical hazards since they began working at 

the salon. 

• Nine of 10 nail salon technicians observed (Salons B–D) 

performing pedicures wore gloves while providing the 

service, but several technicians took gloves off for nail 

polish application. We observed all nail salon technicians 

remove nail polish from clients’ skin using bare fingers.

• Five of 14 nail salon technicians observed (Salons B–D) 

performing manicures (acrylic, dip acrylic, gel, or 

standard) wore nitrile or latex gloves at some point while 

providing the service. Some of these employees only wore 

gloves during nail polish removal or while shaping the 

acrylic nail using a powered rotary filing tool. 

• Employees we observed wore N95 respirators 

incorrectly. Employees also wore other masks that 

would not adequately protect against respiratory hazards 

in the salons, like acrylic particulate. 

• Personal exposures to formaldehyde in air exceeded the 

NIOSH occupational exposure limit in each of the 

salons where we took personal measurements. However, 

overexposures to formaldehyde can occur in many common indoor environments and may not 

necessarily be due to salon product exposure.

• Personal exposures to acetone in the air at Salon C were much higher than exposures measured 

in the other salons we assessed and in other nail salon studies. 

• Total particulate concentrations at Salons C and D were higher near acrylic nail stations where 

employees used powered rotary filing tools to shape acrylic nails, as opposed to locations located 

3 or more meters away from the stations (Figure 4). 

Figure 3. New and used 

chemical bottles (acetone, 

isopropyl alcohol, and cuticle 

softener) stored in the break 

room in Salon C. Above these 

bottles was a shelf where bowls 

containing acetone were put to 

dry. Photo by NIOSH.
4

Figure 4. The orange line shows total area air particulate concentrations near the acrylic nail 

application station in Salon C. The blue line shows total area air particulate concentrations at 

least 3 meters from the acrylic nail application station. The boxed area indicates peaks of 

particulate concentrations near a powder acrylic nail application (called the dip system) at the 

acrylic nail station.

Ventilation systems at the salons did not meet ventilation guidelines. 

• Salon A did not have mechanical ventilation, relying on an open door for outdoor air 

introduction. A mini split ductless unit was used for heating and cooling. 

• Salons B and C each had one roof fan that exhausted indoor air from vents located in the shop 

ceiling. Supply air came from doors and windows. Salon B had two in-wall air cooling units. 

Salon C had one in-wall air cooling unit. 

• Salon D appeared to have a general ventilation system and a small direct exhaust system, but the 

systems were not operating at the time of our visit.

• None of the salons had local exhaust ventilation at acrylic nail or manicure stations.

To learn more about our results, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information
5

Our Recommendations

The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a safe workplace.

Benefits of Improving Workplace Health and Safety:

 Improved worker health and well-being  Improved image and reputation 

 Better workplace morale  Better products, processes, and services

 Better employee recruiting and retention  Could increase overall cost savings

The recommendations below are based on the findings of our evaluation. For each recommendation, 

we list a series of actions you can take to address the issue at your workplace. The actions at the 

beginning of each list are preferable to the ones listed later. The list order is based on a well-accepted 

approach called the “hierarchy of controls.” The hierarchy of controls groups actions by their likely 

effectiveness in reducing or removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate 

hazardous materials or processes and install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield 

employees. Until such controls are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, administrative 

measures and personal protective equipment might be needed. Read more about the hierarchy of 

controls: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/. 

We encourage the company to use a health and safety committee to discuss our 

recommendations and develop an action plan. Both employee representatives and 

management representatives should be included on the committee. Helpful guidance can be 

found in Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs: 

https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/index.html. 

Recommendation 1: Improve ergonomics during work tasks. 

Why? Awkward work postures, repetitive or fast work, and high force can result in musculoskeletal 

pain and disorders. These conditions can worsen over time and are associated with

• Increased use of sick leave

• Lower productivity 

• Lower employee morale

• Lower quality of life

Studies have found that musculoskeletal symptoms are more common among nail salon workers than 

office workers. At all four salons, we observed employees working in awkward postures. Some 

employees reported musculoskeletal pain that got better away from work.
6

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Raise the existing client pedicure chairs. When buying new chairs, choose 

client pedicure chairs that are tall enough for employees to comfortably 

work on clients’ feet.

• Reduce the distance that employees need to lift clients’ legs when removing 

callused skin. 

• Reduce the amount of employee neck and back bending needed to see clients’ feet 

and toenails. 

Provide stationary magnifying glasses at work stations or safety glasses 

with magnifying lenses to employees to reduce the need to bend at the 

shoulders and neck to see the client’s toenails or fingernails.

Provide adjustable manicure and pedicure chairs to employees so they 

can change their workstations to be more comfortable.

Train employees on good ergonomic postures during nail services when 

they are hired and at least every year afterwards.

• Bring clients’ hands or feet up closer toward their faces to prevent increased bending at 

the neck and hunching the shoulders.

• Move the foot pedal for the powered rotary filing tool to a comfortable position in front 

of their bodies. Adjust the position of the foot pedal occasionally to remain comfortable 

and avoid repetitive strain. 

• Adjust their chair/stool each time they move to a new workstation so that they are 

comfortable, have both feet on the ground, and can use the back rest while working. 

Adjust the height as often as necessary to remain comfortable throughout the day.

• Place a pad on their side of the manicure workstation under their elbows or forearms to 

prevent sharp table corners from pressing into their arms. Learn more about reducing 

ergonomic hazards through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) document Stay Healthy and Safe While Giving Manicures and Pedicures: A Guide for 

Nail Salon Workers. It is available at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/nailsalons/. 
7

Recommendation 2: Improve work practices, conditions, and training to reduce 

employee contact with nail salon chemicals.

Why? Some chemicals used in nail salons can be inhaled through the lungs or absorbed through the 

skin. Depending on exposure, some chemicals in nail salon products can cause health problems like 

• Skin rash or contact dermatitis

• Eye, nose, throat irritation 

• Asthma

• Neurological effects

• Reproductive problems

• Cancer

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Make sure products used in the nail salon do not include methyl 

methacrylate monomer.

• Use safety data sheets to find out which ingredients are in products used in the salon.

• Follow local and state rules regarding nail salon products. Methacrylate monomer is not 

allowed to be sold in the state where these salons were located, but one of the salons we 

evaluated used a liquid containing essentially all methyl methacrylate monomer.

Use pressure-activated liquid product dispensers to limit the potential 

for spills.

• Use dispensers that are designed to reduce the risk of spills for common nail salon 

products, such as acetone and isopropyl alcohol. 

• Pressure from a cotton ball or brush is needed to dispense product from these 

containers, which remain closed when not in use. This reduces evaporation of the 

product into the air.

Inform employees of the chemicals they are working with and their 

potential for causing health problems. 

Fulfill the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (CFR 1910.1200): 

• Train employees on the hazards of the chemicals used in the salon.

o Replace outdated material safety data sheets with safety data sheets that meet the

current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. 
8

• Ensure that employees know where safety data sheets for products are kept.

• Label all secondary containers that contain hazardous substances with their contents

(e.g., if moved from the original container). 

• Find more information about specific hazard communication requirements at 

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html. 

Do not store chemicals in employee break areas or at home.

• Use a separate, well-ventilated area to store chemicals away from workers.

• Do not store chemicals in open containers when they are not in use. Keeping containers 

closed prevents chemicals from evaporating and entering the air.

Do not leave acetone in open bowls or containers to evaporate in the 

workplace and do not heat acetone.

• Keeping chemical containers open can lead to higher than expected concentrations of 

volatile chemicals in the air. This is especially true when the storage space is 

unventilated.

• Wrap acetone-moistened cotton around clients’ nails for polish or gel manicure removal, 

rather than having clients soak their fingers in bowls of acetone.

Reduce employees’ skin exposure to chemicals when they provide nail 

services or handle nail salon products.

• Encourage employees to use tools and not bare fingers when applying acrylic nails and 

nail polish and when correcting polish mistakes. For example, a water-moistened cotton 

swab can be used to remove small amounts of wet nail polish from clients’ skin instead 

of bare fingers.

• Train employees to practice good hand hygiene. This includes washing hands often, 

particularly: 

o Whenever chemicals or nail salon products are on their skin

o Before breaks, eating, and leaving work

o After removing gloves and after cleaning their workstation or the salon

• Instruct employees to wear gloves to prevent skin exposure to chemicals. Nitrile gloves 

can protect against many chemicals used in the salon. 

• Provide butyl gloves for employees’ use when they directly handle acetone, such as 

when transferring acetone between bottles, pouring acetone into the waste acetone 

container, and cleaning up acetone spills. Nitrile gloves might not hold up well against 

acetone and wearing natural rubber latex gloves can cause allergies.
9

Encourage employees to report any work-related symptoms to their 

supervisor or the nail salon owner and to their primary health care 

provider. 

Train employees who voluntarily wear N95 respirators about their use.

• Provide training to these employees on how to wear N95 respirators correctly.

• Inform employees that N95 respirators do not protect against exposures to gases or 

vapors. They do protect against dusts created during tasks like shaping acrylic nails with 

the handheld powered rotary filing tool, applying powder during dip acrylic nail 

application, and filing natural nails.

• Review and share this respirator training tool available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-133/pdfs/2010-133.pdf. 

• Give employees who voluntarily wear N95 respirators a copy of the OSHA Respiratory 

Protection Standard 1910.134 Appendix D. It is available at 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARD

S&p_id=9784. 

Provide employees with splash-resistant eye protection, like goggles, to 

use when they refill liquid chemical containers.

Recommendation 3: Improve ventilation to reduce airborne levels of chemicals 

from nail salon products and improve indoor air quality.

Why? Chemicals in nail salon products can get into the body by breathing in their dusts and vapors. 

Although employees’ airborne exposures to most chemicals we measured did not exceed 

occupational exposure limits, improving ventilation will further reduce air levels. Introducing outdoor 

air into the shop can help reduce formaldehyde concentrations. Reducing and preventing exposures 

can reduce health risks associated with these exposures. 

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Make sure that the ventilation system provides a source of filtered outdoor 

air when the salon is occupied. It should meet the ASHRAE standards for 

ventilation and thermal comfort.

• Work with a ventilation engineer to develop plans for a mechanical ventilation system 

that meets these requirements.
10

• ASHRAE recommends supplying at least 20 cubic feet per minute of outdoor air to the 

workplace for each occupant, including both employees and customers.

Ensure that the existing ventilation system is on and working during 

business hours. Work with building maintenance staff to do so if the nail 

salon is in a leased space.

Use local exhaust ventilation to reduce acrylic dust and chemical 

exposures in air.

• Local exhaust ventilation can reduce chemical and dust exposures in the air during nail 

services. It comes in many forms: portable units that filter or exhaust air to the 

outdoors, manicure tables with integrated ventilation, and more.

• Use local exhaust ventilation that was designed for use in nail salons and evaluated for 

effectiveness. Small tabletop filters or fans are not designed to reduce employees’ 

chemical and dust exposures.

• Reduce the impact of the noise generated by the fan motors by housing the fans farther 

from the workstation and insulating the fan and motor. 

• Establish a maintenance plan to ensure that ventilation systems remain effective.
Supporting Technical Information

Evaluation of Ergonomics, Chemical Exposures, and 

Ventilation at Four Nail Salons

HHE Report No. 2015-0139-3338

March 2019
A-1

Section A: Workplace Information

Building and Business Information

Salon A:

• Shop at the ground floor of a six-story building in a dense urban neighborhood

• No ducted ventilation system 

• A mini split ductless unit for heating and cooling

• One exterior door at the front of the shop

Salon B:

• Single-story, multi-tenant building with one main salon room in a dense urban neighborhood

• Exhaust vents along the salon ceiling centerline served by one roof exhaust fan

• Air conditioning units on the exterior wall without outdoor air introduction 

Salon C:

• Standalone building with the nail salon as the single business occupant in an urban 

neighborhood

• Exhaust vents throughout the salon floor centerline served by one roof exhaust fan

• Baseboard radiant heating system and air conditioning units located on exterior wall without 

outdoor air introduction

Salon D: 

• Shop on the second floor of an indoor shopping mall

• Front entrance was open to the common walkway of the mall during working hours

• Shop served by the mall’s air handling units with supply and return grilles on or near the ceiling. 

The shop also had two exhaust vents on or near ceiling.

Employee Information

• Number of employees at time of evaluation: 24 (total)

o Salon A: 5 employees

o Salon B: 11 employees

o Salon C: 3 employees

o Salon D: 5 employees 
A-2

• Reported length of shift: varies, 2–8 hours

• Median number of hours worked per week: 30 hours (range: 12–60 hours) 

• Median job tenure: 9 months (range: 1 week–21 years). Six employees at one salon reported 

working there for only 1 week. 

• Median age of employees: 36.5 years (range: 22–56 years)

• Sex: 88% female

• Race/ethnicity: 15 employees identified as Asian (Vietnamese); 9 employees identified as 

Hispanic

• Additional information: All 24 employees participated in confidential interviews: 23 in person 

during site visits and 1 by phone. One employee communicated solely in English during the 

site visit. Interpreters in Spanish and Vietnamese allowed us to communicate with the other 

employees.

Background about the Request

A state health department was asked to provide feedback to elected state officials about health effects

and possible exposures associated with nail salon work. The state health department requested help 

from NIOSH in their evaluation of the health implications of working as a nail salon technician. The

specific concerns were chemical and particulate exposures in the air and on the skin, and ergonomics 

during nail salon work. The state health department and NIOSH reached out to salons to participate in 

the evaluations. No specific health issues were identified at any salon before the evaluations.

Process Description

The nail salon technicians at these salons provided a variety of services: 

Acrylic nails: application, fill, and removal. Standard acrylic nails were created when acrylic monomer 

liquid was mixed with acrylic polymer powders and applied to the natural nail (with or without a nail 

extension). The acrylic was shaped using a small brush when still curing and shaped further using a 

handheld powered rotary filing tool to make the final nail shape after the acrylic had hardened. Then the 

nail was cleaned and painted using standard or gel polish. The dip acrylic nail manicure involved 

alternating layers of cyanoacrylate nail glue and finely milled methacrylate polymer powder on the 

natural nail with an extension. The nail was either dipped into or sprinkled with the powder. These 

layers were repeated several times to create a strong acrylic nail. The copolymer typically was pigmented 

and the nail did not need further colored polish. 

Manicures and pedicures: during manicures and pedicures, technicians used hand tools to trim and 

shape the natural nail. Products used during this service included nail polish remover, disinfectants, 

rubbing alcohol, lotions and moisturizers, callus remover or softener, colored nail polishes, and clear 

coats. Gel and shellac manicures and pedicures involved polish cured using ultraviolet light into a hard, 

shiny coating. This coating was generally removed by soaking in acetone.

Technicians at three of the salons (B, C, and D) also provided waxing hair removal services.
B-1

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion

Our objectives were to

• Identify and measure personal exposures in the air to chemicals in nail salon products

• Evaluate dermal exposures to nail salon products

• Evaluate job task ergonomics and determine if they could contribute to musculoskeletal 

disorders 

• Understand how the salons are ventilated

• Determine the prevalence of illnesses or health symptoms that might be related to chemical 

exposures or ergonomic issues at each salon

We visited Salons A and B in August 2015. We visited Salon B again in March 2016. We visited Salon C 

in October 2016 and Salon D in November 2016. 

Methods: Ergonomics Assessment

We collected information regarding ergonomics through (1) conducting confidential employee 

interviews, (2) observing employees perform nail services, and (3) assessing workplace design and 

equipment.

For confidential employee interviews, 

• We invited all employees working during our site visits to participate. 

• We asked employees about work history, work processes, and training. 

• We conducted interviews in English or, with assistance from interpreters, in Vietnamese or 

Spanish. 

While observing employees providing nail services, we evaluated employees’ neck, arm, back, and leg 

positions. We assessed work positions to identify awkward positions, repetitive and high force tasks, 

and other characteristics that may contribute to musculoskeletal disorders or pain. We assessed how 

employees hold and work on clients’ hands and feet and determined if those positions could be 

modified to encourage neutral neck, back, and leg positions for the employee.

Results: Ergonomics Assessment

Confidential Employee Interviews

Table C1 shows the services employees reported providing in the 4 weeks before the interview. 

Standard manicures and pedicures were the most commonly reported services, reported by 21 (88%) 

employees. Few employees reported working with customers who had open sores or cuts on their

hands (n = 1) or feet (n = 2).
B-2

Four (21%) of the 19 employees who worked at the salon for at least 2 months reported 

musculoskeletal pain in the past 4 weeks. Two employees reported upper back pain that they stated was 

better away from work. One employee reported upper back and shoulder pain while performing 

pedicures; this pain reportedly improved away from work. One employee reported neck pain that 

worsened when looking down while performing manicures. This employee reported not having neck 

pain prior to working in the nail salon. 

Observations 

Across the salons, we observed good ergonomics practices among only a few employees, primarily at 

Salon C. During manicures, employees at Salon C positioned the customers’ hands higher and closer to 

themselves to reduce bending at the neck and shoulders. Most employees’ practices caused them to 

bend their necks forward excessively and hunch their shoulders during manicures and pedicures 

(Figure 1). We observed seated employees lift and hold clients’ feet during pedicures to shoulder height 

during callus removal, stressing employees’ upper back and shoulders.

Workplace factors contributed to poor ergonomics. These included nonadjustable work tables and 

chairs and a lack of magnification. For example, the low position of customers’ feet when they sit in 

pedicure chairs made practicing good body position and work practices especially challenging.

Employees had to lean over the clients’ feet to view them closely, to scrub the legs and feet, and to 

shape and paint the clients’ toenails. All salon stations were equipped with table lamps that employees 

could use to illuminate their workplace.

Methods: Chemical and Particulate Exposure

We gathered information about workers’ exposure to nail salon chemicals through 

• Measuring personal exposures to volatile organic compounds and other chemicals in air 

(Salons B–D)

• Measuring area air particulate concentrations 

• Measuring chemicals in bulk nail polish and acrylic monomer liquid 

• Observing dermal exposures during work

• Examining employees’ hands for skin rash or irritation during site visits 

• Interviewing employees about their health and work-related symptoms 

We measured employees’ personal air exposures to chemicals that are found in some nail polish and 

acrylic nail products. We compared air concentration sampling results to occupational exposure limits 

(OELs) developed by federal agencies, like NIOSH and OSHA, and safety and health organizations, 

such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). These exposure 

limits are described in Section D. 

• We collected full-shift personal air samples for toluene, acetone, n-butyl acetate, and ethyl 

acetate using charcoal sorbent tubes. Samples were collected and analyzed for toluene using 

NIOSH Method 1501, acetone using NIOSH Method 1300, and n-butyl acetate and ethyl 
B-3

acetate using NIOSH Method 1450 [NIOSH 2019]. Full-shift air samples were collected using 

pumps with a flow rate of 100 cubic centimeters per minute. 

• We collected full-shift personal air samples for methyl methacrylate and ethyl methacrylate using 

XAD-2 solid sorbent tubes. Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with NIOSH 

Method 2537 [NIOSH 2019]. Full-shift air samples were collected using pumps with a flow rate 

of 100 cubic centimeters per minute. 

• We collected full-shift personal air samples for formaldehyde using SKC UMEx 100 passive 

badges. The full-shift air samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with OSHA 

Method 1007 [OSHA 2005]. 

Particulate was generated during acrylic nail application when handheld powered rotary filing tools were

used to shape the nail. We measured particulate concentrations using TSI DustTrak direct reading 

instruments. We took air measurements close to acrylic nail work stations and at least 3 meters from 

acrylic nail work stations in Salons B–D. At Salons C and D, we measured the particulate 

concentrations simultaneously. At Salon B, the samples were taken on consecutive days.

We collected samples of used nail polish from Salons A and B to measure chemicals of interest 

(n = 18). We also sampled unused, new nail polishes that matched the brands and product names we 

collected from Salons A and B (n = 14). Four of the polishes we collected from the salons were not 

available for purchase. 

We had these polishes analyzed for n-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, toluene, formaldehyde, dibutyl 

phthalate, and triphenyl phosphate using the following techniques: 

• Dibutyl phthalate, ethyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, toluene: gas chromatography with flame 

ionization detection

• Formaldehyde: liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection

• Triphenyl phosphate: gas chromatography with flame photometric detection

We compared the concentrations of the analyzed components in used and unused nail polish samples 

using Student’s paired t-test.

At Salons C and D, we collected samples of the methacrylate monomer liquid used to create acrylic 

nails. We analyzed these samples for ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate using gas 

chromatography with flame ionization detection. 

At all four salons, we assessed employee glove use while providing nail services. In Salons C and D, 

we also examined employees’ hands for skin rash or irritation.

During the confidential interviews (n = 24), we asked employees about their medical history and health 

symptoms. Respiratory, irritant, and skin symptoms were defined as work-related if they improved after 

being away from work for more than one day.
B-4

Results: Chemical and Particulate Exposure

Personal Air Exposures for Acetone, Toluene, n-Butyl Acetate, Ethyl Acetate, Formaldehyde, 

Methyl Methacrylate, and Ethyl Methacrylate at Salons B–D 

Summary personal air sampling results for volatile organic compounds and methyl and ethyl 

methacrylates are presented in Table C2. The personal air sampling results, summarized by salon, are 

presented in Table C3. We used the limit of detection divided by the square root of 2 to impute a value 

when the compound was not detected [Hornung and Reed 1990]. We measured personal formaldehyde 

concentrations above the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 0.016 parts per million (ppm) 

in 6 of 24 full shift measurements in Salons B–D. Concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.02 ppm across 

all three salons. Exposures did not exceed the full-shift time-weighted average (TWA) ACGIH 

threshold limit value of 0.1 ppm for formaldehyde. At Salon B, we sampled seven employees for 2 days 

and three employees for 1 day each. At Salon C, we sampled three employees for 1 day each. At Salon 

D, we sampled four employees for 1 day each. 

None of the personal air samples for ethyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, toluene, methyl methacrylate, or 

ethyl methacrylate were above any OELs. Personal air sampling results, summarized by salon, are 

presented in Table C3. Overall, we collected 22 full-shift samples for these chemicals. Ten employees 

participated in personal air sampling across 2 days at Salon B. We sampled three employees for one day 

at Salon C and four employees at Salon D for one day. Individual air sampling results, including 

minimum detectable concentrations (MDCs) and minimum quantifiable concentrations (MQCs), are in 

Section C: Tables C7 through C9. 

Personal acetone concentrations were potentially several times higher among employees at Salon C than 

among employees at Salons B and D (Table C3). We measured substantial acetone breakthrough on the 

backup sorbent material for all three employees sampled in Salon C (> 10% breakthrough). The 

minimum estimated full-shift personal concentrations to acetone were 76 ppm, 84 ppm, and 88 ppm at 

Salon C. Given the breakthrough we observed, acetone air concentrations are likely to be higher than 

the minimum estimated concentrations we reported. At Salons B and D, full-shift personal 

concentrations to acetone ranged from 2.7 to 29 ppm. We did not statistically compare measurements 

across salons due to the small sample size in two of the three salons where we took personal 

measurements. See Section D for more information about OELs. 

Area Air Concentrations of Particulates at Salons B–D 

Summary results for the particulate area air samples are in Table C4. Mean total particulate 

concentrations were higher near the acrylic nail salon stations than simultaneous measurements taken at 

least 3 meters from the stations in Salons C and D. At all three salons (B–D), particulate concentrations 

spiked more frequently and to higher concentrations near the acrylic stations than farther from the 

acrylic stations. 

Figure 4 shows a time history of particulate concentrations near acrylic nail stations and at a location at 

least 3 meters from acrylic nail stations at Salon C. The red box on Figure 4 shows a time period during 

which an employee was applying a dip acrylic nail manicure. This task was noted to be particularly 

dusty, as the powder used was very finely milled and easily aerosolized. Other spikes in particulate 

concentrations can be attributed to using the handheld rotary filing tool during acrylic nail shaping.
B-5

Volatile Organic Compounds in Bulk Nail Polish and Methyl and Ethyl Methacrylate Monomers 

in the Liquid Monomer Used to Create Acrylic Nails

Bulk nail polish concentrations for the chemicals we measured are presented in Table C5. Ethyl acetate, 

n-butyl acetate, and triphenyl phosphate concentrations were significantly lower in the used nail polish 

bulks than in the unused nail polish bulks as determined using Student’s paired t-test (P < 0.005 for 

ethyl and n-butyl acetate; P = 0.02 for triphenyl phosphate). Concentrations of toluene and 

formaldehyde were not significantly different between the used and unused samples (P = 0.17 for 

toluene; P = 0.23 for formaldehyde). 

Due to the difference in the limits of detection for dibutyl phthalate and the low number of detected 

values in the used polishes, we did not compare concentrations between the two sets of samples. The 

limit of detection for dibutyl phthalate was 100 microgram per milliliter (μg/mL) in the used bulk 

polishes, and it was only detected in two used samples. In the more recently purchased, unused 

polishes, the limit of detection was 2 μg/mL, and four samples contained detectable dibutyl phthalate. 

At Salon C, the bulk methacrylate monomer liquid contained 190 μg/mL of methyl methacrylate and 

800,000 μg/mL of ethyl methacrylate. Methyl methacrylate was listed as a “potentially hazardous 

ingredient” on the safety data sheet (SDS) provided by the salon for the acrylic monomer. Neither 

concentration nor ingredient percentages were listed on the SDS. 

At Salon D, the bulk methacrylate monomer liquid contained 850,000 μg/mL of methyl methacrylate. 

Ethyl methacrylate was not found above the limit of detection (0.5 μg/mL). These results were 

consistent with the SDS provided by the salon. Methyl methacrylate was listed as an ingredient 

comprising at least 99.5% of the product. 

Observations about Dermal Exposures and Glove Use

We specifically looked at dermal exposure to nail salon products and personal protective equipment 

(PPE) use in the course of providing nail services.

At Salons B–D, we observed 16 employees (nine at Salon B, three at Salon C, and four at Salon D) 

provide nail services during our visits. All employees who we observed providing acrylic nail services 

used brushes to apply acrylic during manicures at all of the salons, minimizing the potential for dermal 

exposure to acrylic. 

We observed 10 of these 16 employees wearing gloves during nail services at least once (five at Salon B, 

one at Salon C, and four at Salon D). We did not observe glove use by the remaining six employees.

Employees wore gloves more commonly during pedicures than manicures. Of the 10 employees we 

observed giving pedicures, nine wore gloves at some point. Of the 14 employees we observed giving 

manicures, five wore gloves at some point. Some employees only wore gloves during nail polish 

removal or while shaping the acrylic nail using a powered rotary filing tool. We noted that five 

employees removed their gloves to apply nail polish during manicures and pedicures.

We observed eight employees providing both manicures and pedicures during their shift. Of these eight, 

one employee wore gloves during both services while four wore gloves at some point during the 

pedicure and not during the manicure. Two of the three remaining employees did not wear gloves 

during either service. One employee put on gloves to use acetone to remove gel polish.
B-6

We observed 10 employees either with polish on their own skin or using bare fingers to wipe away 

polish mistakes from around clients’ nails. 

At Salon B, of the five employees who wore gloves at least once, four wore nitrile gloves and one wore 

natural rubber latex gloves. One employee at Salon C sometimes wore nitrile gloves and at other times 

wore natural rubber latex gloves. At Salon D, all four employees wore natural rubber latex gloves. At 

Salon A, we did not observe glove use as systematically as we did at Salons B–D, but natural rubber 

latex gloves were available to employees. In general, we observed employees wearing gloves while 

providing pedicures, but not manicures. 

During informal conversations at Salon B, employees noted that liquid callus remover caused irritation 

when it got on their skin. Many liquid callus softeners or removers, including the product at this salon, 

contain potassium hydroxide or other caustic ingredients. We examined the hands of eight employees 

from Salons C and D during our site visits. Two employees, both at Salon D, had dry, cracked skin on 

their thumbs on the day of the site visit. 

We observed some employees wash their hands after providing nail services and before taking breaks, 

but at least one employee ate a meal before handwashing.

Confidential Medical Interviews 

None of the 24 interviewed employees reported ever receiving a diagnosis of asthma, hay fever, or 

dermatitis. None of the employees reported any work-related respiratory, irritant, or skin symptoms 

within the 4 weeks prior to the interview. 

Methods: Ventilation, Personal Protective Equipment, and Other Controls 

We assessed ventilation, PPE, and other controls at the four salons through (1) observations about the 

ventilation system and air flow, (2) document review, and (3) confidential medical interviews. 

We assessed the general ventilation at three salons—the fourth salon did not have any mechanical 

ventilation. We determined what type of ventilation system, if any, served the salon. We also reviewed 

all available SDSs for nail polishes, disinfectants, nail polish remover, and methacrylate monomer liquid 

and polymer products. During our confidential interviews with the 24 employees, we asked them about 

hazard communication, training, and PPE use.

Results: Ventilation, Personal Protective Equipment, and Other Controls

Ventilation 

None of the shops had local exhaust ventilation (LEV) systems. One salon (Salon A) did not have a 

ducted ventilation system. Instead, Salon A had a recirculating air conditioning unit mounted on the 

salon wall. Two of the four salons (Salons B and C) had exhaust only ventilation, which exhausted 

indoor air to the outdoors. Make-up air (replacement air) was supplied through exterior windows 

and doors. 

One salon (Salon D) had supply and return grilles, but we did not observe any airflow at the grilles 

using ventilation smoke. We could not ascertain if the ventilation system had been shut off in 

anticipation of the end of the business day or if the ventilation system was not operational for another 
B-7

purpose, such as to contain odors that had the potential to travel to other businesses. Additionally, 

Salon D had two small exhaust ducts (12 by 12 inches) located in or on the wall near the main shop 

ceiling, which were independent of the shop general ventilation. According to the mall maintenance 

staff, the exhaust system, but not the general ventilation system, was under the control of the shop 

owner, but it was not exhausting air at the time of our visit.

All salons had small desktop fans at nail stations At Salon B, the fan was incorporated into the desk 

light. At Salon C, they used a small tabletop air purifying unit, labeled as a “fume extractor.”

Hazard Communication and Chemical Storage 

As required by OSHA, all salon owners had obtained SDSs for the products that contain hazardous 

chemicals [OSHA 2012]. Some SDSs were outdated versions created before the introduction of the new 

OSHA Hazard Communication Standard in 2012. 

Our interviews revealed that 14 (58%) of 24 interviewed employees reported knowing where to find the 

SDSs for chemicals used in the salon. Of these employees, 13 (93%) reported having read the SDSs. 

Four employees (17%) did not know what an SDS was. Regarding training on chemical hazards, 

10 (42%) employees reported receiving training since beginning to work at the salon. Three employees 

at one salon declined to respond to this question. 

At Salons A and B, bulk chemical containers, some not properly labeled, were stored underneath a sink 

(Figure 2). At Salon C, chemicals and nail products were stored in a room off the main salon floor 

(Figure 3). This unventilated room also served as an employee break area where employees ate meals. At 

Salon D, larger bottles of bulk chemicals were not stored on site, but at the home of the shop owner. 

The shop owner brought the larger bottles of chemicals in to refill the smaller bottles located at the 

technicians’ stations. At Salon D, commonly used products like acetone and isopropyl alcohol were kept 

at technicians’ stations in pressure-activated dispensing bottles (Figure B1). These dispensers were 

different from the containers at the stations in the other salons, which were typically squeeze dispensers 

with both open tip caps and twist open tip caps (Figure B2). 

Figure B1. Pressure-activated product 

dispensers at Salon D. Employees press 

cotton balls or wipes on the top of the bottle 

to dispense product. Photo by NIOSH.

Figure B2. Bottles holding product at Salon 

C. The contents is squeezed out through a 

nozzle that either is twisted open or has a tip 

that remains open. Photo by NIOSH.
B-8

At Salons B and C, we observed bulk transfer of acetone from large containers to smaller containers. 

Employees poured used acetone from bowls into waste bottles. At Salon C, there was residual acetone 

in the used acetone bowls, which were stored on a shelf in the break room. We noted that acetone was 

also heated before being given to the client at Salon C, increasing evaporation. These activities can 

contribute to increased acetone concentrations in the air due to evaporation. Using ventilation smoke 

tubes, we observed that air from the break/storage room was pulled into the main salon area by the 

exhaust system. This pattern of air flow may have also contributed to acetone exposures when workers 

were on the shop floor. 

Personal Protective Equipment Use

We observed employees at the four salons using surgical masks and N95 filtering facepiece respirators. 

Surgical masks are not considered respiratory protection and do not protect against particulate, gas, or 

vapor exposures in the air. Of the 16 employees we observed during visits to Salons B–D providing nail 

services, five wore N95 respirators, and five wore surgical masks. At Salon B, we observed one 

employee wearing a homemade cloth mask during parts of an acrylic nail manicure. This employee 

switched to an N95 filtering facepiece respirator before using a handheld rotary tool to shape the acrylic 

nail, which was the task that generated the most dust.

We observed that almost all employees who wore N95 filtering facepiece respirators wore them 

incorrectly. For example, some technicians wore their respirator using a single strap and some had 

straps incorrectly placed. Some people wore both straps under their ears. One employee wore the 

respirator sideways with the straps looping around the ears. 

None of the salons had a written respiratory protection program. According to OSHA, employers are 

not required to have a written respiratory program when employees only voluntarily use N95 filtering 

facepiece respirators. These nail salons were located in a state that required them to stock N95 filtering 

facepiece respirators, but not the other components of a respiratory protection program. 

Interview questions about surgical masks and respirators varied by visit. During our visit to Salon A and 

our first visit to Salon B, employees were asked if they wore a surgical mask at work: all 11 reported 

doing so. During our second visit to Salon B and visits to Salons C and D, we asked employees whether 

they used a surgical mask or respirator at work: 11 of 13 (85%) employees reported doing so. Table C6 

shows the tasks associated with the use of respirators and surgical masks. In general, self-reported 

surgical mask or N95 respirator use during interviews was higher than observed use during our site 

visits.

Reported Glove Use

All interviewed employees reported wearing gloves when serving clients. However, as mentioned earlier, 

we observed that some employees removed gloves during some tasks, such as applying nail polish, 

applying acrylic nails, and removing nail polish from client’s skin. 

Discussion 

Based on the interview and observation results, employees are at risk of developing musculoskeletal 

injuries, such as muscle strain and pain. Some employees reported neck, shoulder, and upper back pain. 

Previous studies comparing nail salon workers to office workers show that nail salon workers have a 
B-9

higher prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms, including pain or discomfort in the shoulders and 

neck, and are at increased risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders [Gil Coury et al. 1999; HarrisRoberts et al. 2011; Park et al. 2014; Roelofs et al. 2008]. In this series of evaluations, we found that 4 of 

the 19 employees who had worked for at least 2 months had pain that they got better away from work. 

Providing nail services required close inspection of the hands and feet of clients. Employees needed to 

do this work without straining their necks or backs to get a closer look. In general, we found that most 

employees did not have adjustable chairs and tables in the workplace. Employees with adjustable chairs 

and tables did not adjust them to improve their work positions. 

Some chemicals in nail polish can be absorbed into the body through skin or cause skin conditions. For 

example, skin exposure to acrylic nail ingredients (methyl and ethyl methacrylates) can cause allergies 

and contact dermatitis or skin rash [ACGIH 2018a]. Wearing gloves can prevent dermal exposure to 

many chemicals. Employees reported using natural rubber latex and nitrile gloves while providing nail 

services, which was consistent with our observations. However, we frequently observed employees not 

wearing gloves during the entire service, which can lead to skin exposure. The employees we 

interviewed did not report skin irritation. However, during informal conversations, some employees 

stated that the callus remover used during pedicures caused skin irritation. White et al. [2013] surveyed 

65 manicurists, of whom 80% reported “sometimes or rarely/never” using gloves during acrylic nail 

application and 8% reported “sometimes or rarely/never” using gloves during manicures and pedicures. 

Our observations are consistent with their findings based on self-report. 

Providing nail services without gloves and removing nail polish with bare fingers contribute to dermal 

exposures to chemicals in nail polish, nail polish removers, and methacrylate (acrylic) nail particulate. 

One study found that nail salon technicians who did not wear gloves had higher dibutyl phthalate (a 

chemical in some nail polishes) metabolite levels in their urine at the end of their shifts compared with 

the beginning of their shifts. In contrast, nail salon technicians who wore gloves did not have higher 

metabolite levels in their urine samples at the end of their shifts compared with the beginning of their 

shifts [Kwapniewski et al. 2008]. In a study focused on occupational contributions to phthalate 

exposure, manicurists had about two-fold higher concentrations of a major dibutyl phthalate metabolite 

in their urine than the general population [Hines et al. 2008].

We observed frequent dermal exposure to nail polish among employees. The differences between the 

concentrations of chemicals measured in the used and new nail polishes might be attributed to two 

major influences: the age of the product collected in the field and changes in formulation between when 

the field product was purchased by the salon owners (unknown) and when we purchased the polishes

(2016). As for the age of the product, volatile components evaporate over time, leading to lower 

concentrations of the volatile components and higher concentrations of less volatile components. As 

for reformulation, manufacturers of the polish may remove some components and replace them with 

others. For example, older polishes may contain dibutyl phthalate, a component manufacturers replaced 

with triphenyl phosphate in newer polishes [Nails Magazine 2011; Young et al. 2018]. 

If changing work practices or using tools cannot prevent dermal exposure to nail salon chemicals, 

certain types of gloves can protect against specific types of chemical exposures. For example, nitrile 

gloves protect against most chemicals used in nail salons, except acetone. Natural rubber latex gloves 
B-10

are effective at protecting against acetone exposure but can cause the development of allergies 

[Forsberg et al. 2014]. Vinyl or butyl gloves can be used as an alternative to natural rubber latex gloves 

for protection against unavoidable acetone exposure. 

In addition to assessing dermal exposures, we measured several types of chemicals in the salon air. 

We found that none of the personal air sampling results for ethyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, toluene, 

methyl methacrylate, and ethyl methacrylate exceeded their respective OELs. Personal air sampling 

results for acetone in Salons B and D did not exceed OELs. We also compared the ethyl acetate and 

toluene concentrations we measured with those from an evaluation of several California nail salons 

[Quach et al. 2011]. Our measured concentrations of ethyl acetate (0.04–1.3 ppm) and toluene 

(not detected–0.16 ppm) were at the lower end of the ranges reported for these chemicals 

(0.02–5.5 ppm for ethyl acetate; 0.02–1.0 ppm for toluene). 

Median acetone exposures were several times higher at Salon C than those at Salons B and D. Because 

the air sampling tubes contained acetone in the “backup” sorbent section, employees’ exposures to 

acetone at Salon C were likely even higher than the concentrations we report. These relatively high 

acetone exposures may be due to the use of the unventilated break area that was also used to store bulk 

and waste acetone. The combination of several sources of acetone vapor, no ventilation in the break 

room, and the amount of time employees spent in the break room likely contributed to these 

employees’ acetone exposures. We cannot determine whether employees’ acetone exposures were above 

any OELs because precise concentrations cannot be determined. 

Although none of the interviewed employees reported respiratory problems, exposure to methyl and 

ethyl methacrylates in the air can cause respiratory irritation and asthma. In one large study, salon 

workers were more likely to have asthma if they applied acrylic nails. The authors suggested that this 

may be related to exposure to methyl methacrylate [Kreiss et al. 2006]. Other investigators found that 

working as a nail technician for a longer period and with more hours using acrylic gel (which contains 

methacrylates) was associated with decreased lung function and airway inflammation [Reutman et al. 

2009]. It is unknown what concentrations of methyl and ethyl methacrylates in air can lead to 

sensitization or asthma, but some individuals are more susceptible to developing these illnesses after 

exposure than others [ACGIH 2018a; Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel 2002]. 

Exposure to liquid methacrylate monomers on skin can cause irritation and dermatitis. The United 

States Food and Drug Administration removed products containing 100% methyl methacrylate 

monomer from the market because of health complaints about nail damage and deformity and contact 

dermatitis [FDA 2016; NIOSH 2010]. The sale, purchase, and use of methyl methacrylate monomer 

was banned in the state where the salons are located. However, one of the two monomer products we

tested contained nearly 100% methyl methacrylate. We found that personal air exposures to methyl and 

ethyl methacrylates in this salon were well below OELs. 

We measured formaldehyde at 0.005 to 0.020 ppm in personal air samples. Six of the personal air 

samples we collected were slightly higher than the NIOSH REL for formaldehyde of 0.016 ppm. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a carcinogen 

(cancer-causing agent) [IARC 2012], and the NIOSH formaldehyde REL was developed on that basis. 
B-11

It has become clear since the development of the NIOSH REL, which at the time was meant to be the 

“lowest feasible concentration,” that the REL is commonly exceeded in indoor air. 

In a representative study of 100 office buildings with no known indoor environmental quality problems, 

formaldehyde concentrations ranged from less than 0.003 to 0.042 ppm, with a 75th percentile 

concentration of 0.017 ppm [Environmental Protection Agency 2006]. These results indicate that at 

least 25 percent of the air samples collected in the office buildings studied had indoor formaldehyde 

concentrations above the NIOSH REL. Considering this, the formaldehyde levels measured in the nail 

salon were similar to those found in many other buildings within no known sources of formaldehyde. 

Introducing sufficient conditioned outdoor air, which would be expected to have a lower formaldehyde 

content than that measured in the personal air samples, may reduce formaldehyde concentrations 

indoors [Environmental Protection Agency 2011]. 

Some of the SDSs we reviewed in the salons were outdated. Updated SDSs typically can be found 

through manufacturers or product distributors. All of the SDSs we reviewed were written in English. 

Only 42% of the interviewed employees reported receiving training on the chemical hazards at their 

salon. As part of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, employers must make SDSs available to 

employees and train employees so that they understand the potential chemical hazards and how to use 

the products safely. Although not required by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, employees 

should also receive training conducted in a language that they understand. 

Although personal air concentrations for the chemicals we sampled (other than formaldehyde) did not 

exceed their respective OELs, research suggests that nail salon work involving acrylic nails can 

contribute to worse respiratory health. To prevent work-related illness, it is advisable to reduce 

exposures to the extent possible with currently available engineering controls. LEV is used to remove 

contaminants near the point of generation to prevent occupational exposures. The salons we evaluated 

were not equipped with LEV. 

LEV is not widely used in nail salons, but different LEV types have been evaluated by NIOSH and 

other occupational health researchers for their ability to reduce chemical and particulate exposures 

[Lee et al. 2000; NIOSH 2012; Spencer et al. 1997]. NIOSH tested the efficiency of a (1) downdraft nail 

table and a (2) side draft style LEV system in removing volatile compounds from the air at the table in 

an experimental setup [NIOSH 2012]. The downdraft nail salon table is built into the nail table and nail 

services are provided over the exhaust grate. The side draft LEV system is mobile, and the exhaust is 

placed next to the client’s and employee’s hands. 

In the laboratory, the mean exposure reductions achieved by the LEV systems tested ranged from 51% 

to 62% across the 12 LEV configurations tested. NIOSH developed and tested both a single nail salon 

manicure table and a multistation system that were equipped with LEV [Lee et al. 2000; NIOSH 2012]. 

The ventilated multistation system designed by NIOSH engineers reduced short-term personal ethyl 

methacrylate exposures (not detected to 0.16 ppm across five stations) compared to exposures 

measured without LEV (1.8 to 11 ppm across four stations). 

In a laboratory setting, the capacities of four commercially available, mobile, side-exhaust LEV systems 

to reduce acetone and acrylic particulate levels during nail services were assessed [Shakibaei 2014]. The 

LEV units filtered the exhaust and released it into the salon, rather than exhausting it outdoors. 
B-12

Compared to concentrations at the workstation without LEV, introducing LEV to the nail station 

reduced acetone concentrations by 77% and particulate concentrations by 67% to 90% at the station 

[Shakibaei 2014].

Improving general exhaust ventilation can assist in reducing personal exposure by introducing outdoor 

air into the salon. With the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASHRAE developed a 

consensus standard for general ventilation in nail salons that calls for using a forced-air mechanical 

ventilation system that provides filtered supply air and exhausts indoor air to the outdoors 

[ANSI/ASHRAE 2016]. ANSI/ASHRAE recommends that the ventilation system provide a minimum 

of 20 cubic feet of outdoor air per person per minute in the salon, including employees and clients.

Installing a ventilation system in the salon that meets the ANSI/ASHRAE recommendations would 

help dilute indoor concentrations of all volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde.

In addition to providing sufficient dilution ventilation, good work practices can limit exposures to 

airborne chemicals in nail salons. For example, keeping lids on containers when not in use reduces 

evaporation of volatile chemicals into the air, which reduces odors as well. Additionally, using pressureactivated or spill preventing containers to store volatile chemicals, such as acetone-based nail polish 

remover, reduces evaporation. When removing acrylic nails or gel nail polish, nail salon technicians 

could moisten cotton with nail polish remover and wrap it around the client’s nails with foil rather than 

placing the client’s fingers in an open bowl of acetone nail polish remover. 

While LEV is preferred to control personal exposures to particulate and vapors, NIOSH-approved N95 

filtering facepiece respirators can be effective in protecting against particulate exposures when properly 

worn and fitted. However, they do not provide any protection against gas or vapor exposures like those 

we measured in the nail salons (e.g., formaldehyde, toluene, methacrylates, and acetone). If employees 

choose to wear respiratory protection against inhaling particulates like those produced during nail filing, 

they should wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators and be taught how to put them on properly. They 

should also receive OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard 1910.134 Appendix D, which the employer 

is required to provide to employees who wear N95 respirators voluntarily. 

Limitations 

We conducted all but one confidential medical interview with the assistance of an interpreter. 

Interpretation might have led to some missed communication between the interviewer and the 

employees. For example, interviewees did not report skin problems at Salon B, but during informal 

conversations, employees said that the callus remover had caused skin irritation. We do not know if the 

source of these inconsistencies is a reluctance to report health information or a misinterpretation of the 

interview questions based on language or cultural barriers. Additionally, the personal air exposure 

monitoring was conducted on 1 or 2 days and did not capture the variations that can occur with 

changes in (1) season or weather, (2) level of business activity, and (3) products used at each salon. We 

visited four salons, three of which participated in a full evaluation that included personal air monitoring. 

As such, the results may not be generalizable to all salons in the state.
B-13

Conclusions

In our evaluation of four nail salons, we found that employees worked in positions that pose risks for 

developing musculoskeletal disorders. Some employees reported musculoskeletal pain that improved 

away from work. None of the employees reported respiratory or skin symptoms; however, work 

practices and workplace conditions likely contributed to chemical exposures through the skin and lungs. 

Improving workplace equipment, ventilation, and chemical storage practices; providing training on 

ergonomic postures, chemical hazards, and health risks; and enhancing work practices and PPE use will 

help promote workplace health and safety of employees in the nail salons. 
C-1

Section C: Tables

Summary and Other Tables

Table C1. Frequency of services provided by interviewed employees (n = 24) 

Service Number (%) of employees Frequency, number (%)* of employees

Daily Weekly

Standard polish manicure 21 (88) 19 (90) 2 (10)

Standard polish pedicure 21 (88) 18 (86) 3 (14)

Gel polish 17 (71) 13 (76) 4 (24)

Standard acrylic nails 15 (63) 14 (93) 1 (7)

Shellac polish 13 (54) 13 (100) 0 

Waxing 9 (38) 5 (56) 4 (44)

Acrylic dip system† 7 (88) 4 (57) 3 (43)

*Percentage among employees who reported performing the service. 

†Only employees at Salons C and D (n = 8) were asked about this service. 
C-2

Table C2. Full-shift personal air concentrations of chemicals in air across Salons B–D, in ppm

Compound Geometric mean Concentration range NIOSH REL ACGIH TLV

Acetone* (n = 19) 9.06 2.7–29 250 250

Ethyl acetate (n = 22) 0.24 0.04–1.3 400 400

n-Butyl acetate (n = 22) 0.08 0.01–0.48 150 50

Toluene (n = 22) 0.01 ND–0.16 100 20

Formaldehyde (n = 24) 0.01 0.005–0.020 0.016 0.1

Ethyl methacrylate (n = 23) 0.15 ND–5.4 — — 

Methyl methacrylate (n = 23) 0.08 ND–1.5 100 50

ND = not detected

TLV = threshold limit value

*Three samples had acetone breakthrough into the backup sorbent material and were excluded from 

these calculations.
C-3

Table C3. Full-shift personal air concentrations of chemicals in air (in ppm) by salon

Compound Salon B Salon C Salon D

GM Range No.* GM Range No. GM Range No.

Acetone 7.75 2.7–19 15 — —† 3 13.6 8.9–29 4 

Ethyl acetate 0.210 0.07–0.95 15 0.904 0.73–1.3 3 0.148 0.04–0.56 4 

n-Butyl 

acetate

0.077 0.02–0.31 15 0.330 0.26–0.47 3 0.027 0.01–0.12 4 

Toluene 0.003 ND–0.02 15 0.135 0.12–0.16 3 0.012 0.01–0.03 4 

Formaldehyde 0.011 0.01–0.02 17 0.017 0.017–0.018 3 0.014 0.01–0.02 4 

Methyl 

methacrylate

0.042 ND–1.4 16 1.30 1.1–1.4 3 0.315 0.12–1.5 4

Ethyl 

methacrylate

0.619 0.14–5.4 16 0.010 0.009–0.010 3 ND ND 4

GM = Geometric mean

*At Salon B we sampled on 2 days. Ten employees participated across the 2 days. At the remaining 

salons, the number of samples was also the number of participants.

†Due to breakthrough into the backup sorbent material, the concentration cannot be calculated with 

confidence. The minimum estimated concentrations were 76 ppm, 84 ppm, and 88 ppm. 
C-4

Table C4. Area particulate concentrations in air for Salons B–D, in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

Salon Within 0.5 meter of acrylic nail stations 3 meters or more from acrylic nail stations

Mean 

total

Maximum 

total

Mean

respirable

Maximum

respirable

Mean 

total

Maximum 

total

Mean 

respirable

Maximum 

respirable

Salon B* 0.024 1.4 0.011 0.70 0.082 1.31 0.051 1.0

Salon C 0.058 14 0.01 2.1 0.03 0.67 0.008 0.06

Salon D 0.030 0.71 0.007 0.24 0.018 0.52 0.007 0.37

*Measurements were taken on subsequent business days at Salon B, rather than simultaneously.
C-5

Table C5. Concentrations of selected chemicals in used and unused nail polish, in μg/mL

Compound Used nail polish (n = 18) Unused nail polish (n = 14)

Mean Range Detection 

limit

Mean Range Detection 

limit

Ethyl acetate 45,300 220–89,000 2 387,000 920–620,000 5 

n-Butyl acetate 69,100 960–110,000 2 474,000 1,200–700,000 5 

Toluene 9,780 ND–9,000† 2 159 5.7–410‡ 5 

Formaldehyde (%) 0.128 0.0010–1.2 0.0008 0.0474 0.0004–0.16† 0.0013

Dibutyl phthalate —* ND–14,000† 100 25 ND–160§ 6 

Triphenyl phosphate 812 0.6–3,500† 0.3 17,600 9.7–62,000 2 

*Two of 18 values were above the detection limit. 

†One measurement for this analyte was between the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation. 

The used nail polish limits of quantitation were 6.6 μg/mL for toluene, 330 μg/mL for dibutyl phthalate, and 

0.86 μg/mL for triphenyl phosphate. The unused polish formaldehyde limit of quantitation was 0.0047%. 

For formaldehyde, the mean limit of detection is presented.

‡Two values were between the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation, which was 14 μg/mL for 

toluene in the unused nail polish. 

§Three values were between the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation. The unused nail polish limit 

of quantitation was 17 μg/mL for dibutyl phthalate. 
C-6

Table C6. Surgical mask and N95 respirator use by task among interviewed employees (n = 24) 

Task Number (%) of employees

Surgical mask* N95 respirator Surgical mask or N95 respirator

Standard acrylic nails 3 (13) 3 (13) 0 (0)

Standard manicure or pedicure 3 (13) 0 (0) 1 (4)

Serving customer 3 (13) 0 (0) 1 (4)

Filing nails 3 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Gel polish 3 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Handling chemicals 1 (4) 2 (8) 1 (4)

Acrylic dip system 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)

All job tasks 7 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0)

*Eleven employees at two salons were only asked whether they wore a surgical mask at work. 

The remaining employees were asked whether they wore a surgical mask or respirator at work. 
C-7

Individual Full-shift Personal Exposure Sampling Results

Table C7. Full-shift personal exposure measurements to acetone, ethyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, and 

toluene, in ppm

Salon Participant Sample time Acetone* Ethyl acetate n-Butyl acetate Toluene† 

B 1 604 2.7 0.074 0.023 [0.002]

B 2 548 17 0.95 0.31 [0.002]

B 2 564 11 0.44 0.18 ND

B 3 570 19 0.63 0.31 0.024

B 3 540 6.5 0.17 0.10 0.021

B 4 533 10 0.57 0.23 0.009

B 5 588 6.7 0.27 0.10 [0.003]

B 5 519 5.6 0.12 0.041 [0.001]

B 6 372 5.9 0.082 0.033 [0.003]

B 6 389 9.5 0.069 0.028 ND

B 7 524 5.2 0.079 0.032 [0.003]

B 7 472 5.5 0.084 0.029 [0.001]

B 8 427 12 0.72 0.15 [0.003]

B 9 536 8.7 0.38 0.14 [0.001]

B 10 473 5.1 0.11 0.03 ND

C 1 604 — 0.73 0.26 0.12

C 2 575 — 1.3 0.47 0.16

C 3 553 — 0.80 0.29 0.13

D 1 574 8.9 0.041 0.010 0.009

D 2 508 10 0.21 0.018 0.009

D 3 397 13 0.10 0.026 0.010

D 4 321 29 0.56 0.12 0.027

[ ] = Estimated concentration: this concentration was between the minimum detectable and minimum 

quantifiable concentrations. 

*Acetone exposures for employees at Salon C cannot accurately be calculated because of substantial 

breakthrough in the backup sample media. Minimum estimated concentrations were 76 ppm, 88 ppm, and 

84 ppm for participants C1, C2, and C3, respectively. 

†Toluene minimum detectable concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 0.002 ppm and minimum quantifiable 

concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 0.006 ppm. 
C-8

Table C8. Full-shift personal exposures measurements to ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate, 

in ppm

Salon Participant Sample time Ethyl methacrylate* Methyl methacrylate† 

B 1 631 0.55 0.026

B 1 581 0.99 0.029

B 2 547 0.25 0.033

B 2 563 0.22 0.009

B 3 569 0.24 0.021

B 3 541 0.20 0.011

B 4 536 0.14 0.024

B 4 525 0.22 ND

B 5 590 5.4 0.37

B 5 520 5.2 0.32

B 6 534 1.5 0.085

B 6 206 0.30 [0.015]

B 7 526 1.8 0.14

B 7 471 1.7 0.067

B 8 426 0.25 0.027

B 10 474 1.1 0.047

C 1 603 [0.009] 1.4

C 2 574 [0.010] 1.4

C 3 553 [0.010] 1.1

D 1 575 ND 1.5

D 2 215 ND 0.12

D 3 282 ND 0.18

D 4 319 ND 0.33

[ ] = Estimated concentration: this concentration was between the minimum detectable and minimum 

quantifiable concentrations. 

*Ethyl methacrylate minimum detectable concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 0.01 ppm and minimum 

quantifiable concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.03 ppm. 

†Methyl methacrylate minimum detectable concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 0.01 ppm and minimum 

quantifiable concentrations ranged from 0.006 to 0.04 ppm. 
C-9

Table C9. Full-shift personal exposures measurements to 

formaldehyde, in ppm

Salon Participant Sample time Formaldehyde*

B 1 583 0.015

B 1 503 0.009

B 2 544 0.013

B 2 560 0.008

B 3 566 0.013

B 3 533 0.007

B 4 530 0.014

B 4 522 [0.005]

B 5 583 0.020

B 5 517 0.012

B 6 530 0.013

B 6 550 0.006

B 7 521 0.020

B 7 469 0.012

B 8 423 0.011

B 9 532 0.012

B 10 472 0.008

C 1 599 0.018

C 2 569 0.017

C 3 552 0.018

D 1 570 0.012

D 2 507 0.012

D 3 327 0.013

D 4 319 0.018

[ ] = Estimated concentration: this concentration was between 

the minimum detectable and minimum quantifiable 

concentrations.

*Formaldehyde minimum quantifiable concentrations ranged 

from 0.003 to 0.007 ppm. 
D-1

Section D: Occupational Exposure Limits

NIOSH investigators refer to mandatory (legally enforceable) and recommended OELs for chemical, 

physical, and biological agents when evaluating workplace hazards. OELs have been developed by 

federal agencies and safety and health organizations to prevent adverse health effects from workplace 

exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels of exposure that most employees may be exposed to for up 

to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, for a working lifetime, without experiencing adverse health 

effects. However, not all employees will be protected if their exposures are maintained below these 

levels. Some may have adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a pre-existing medical 

condition, or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances act in combination 

with other exposures, with the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of the 

employee to produce adverse health effects. Most OELs address airborne exposures, but some 

substances can be absorbed directly through the skin and mucous membranes.

Most OELs are expressed as a TWA exposure. A TWA refers to the average exposure during a normal 

8- to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have recommended short-term 

exposure limits ceiling values. Unless otherwise noted, the short-term exposure limit is a 15-minute 

TWA exposure. It should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. The ceiling limit should not be 

exceeded at any time.

In the United States, OELs have been established by federal agencies, professional organizations, state 

and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally enforceable limits; others are 

recommendations. 

• The U.S. Department of Labor OSHA permissible exposure limits (29 CFR 1910 [general 

industry]; 29 CFR 1926 [construction industry]; and 29 CFR 1917 [maritime industry]) are legal 

limits. These limits are enforceable in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970. 

• NIOSH RELs are recommendations based on a critical review of the scientific and technical 

information and the adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH RELs are 

published in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2010]. NIOSH also 

recommends risk management practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, 

employee education/training, PPE, and exposure and medical monitoring) to minimize the risk 

of exposure and adverse health effects.

• Another set of OELs commonly used and cited in the United States is the ACGIH TLVs. The 

TLVs are developed by committee members of this professional organization from a review of 

the published, peer-reviewed literature. TLVs are not consensus standards. They are considered 

voluntary exposure guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others trained in this discipline 

“to assist in the control of health hazards” [ACGIH 2018b].

Outside the United States, OELs have been established by various agencies and organizations and 

include legal and recommended limits. The Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen 

Unfallversicherung (Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident 
D-2

Insurance) maintains a database of international OELs from European Union member states, Canada 

(Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The database, available at 

http://www.dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS/GESTIS-Internationale-Grenzwerte-für-chemische-Substanzenlimit-values-for-chemical-agents/index-2.jsp, contains international limits for more than 2,000 

hazardous substances and is updated periodically. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards 

that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm [Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1))]. This is true in the absence of a specific OEL. It also is 

important to keep in mind that OELs may not reflect current health-based information. 

When multiple OELs exist for a substance or agent, NIOSH investigators generally encourage 

employers to use the lowest OEL when making risk assessment and risk management decisions.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is found in nail polish and nail hardener. Formaldehyde is a potential dermal sensitizer 

and respiratory sensitizer [ACGIH 2018a]. NIOSH recognized formaldehyde as a potential occupational 

carcinogen in 1981. The guidance, following the NIOSH carcinogen policy in existence at the time, was 

to reduce formaldehyde exposure to the “lowest feasible limit,” defined as the analytical limit of 

quantification at the time of 0.016 ppm for up to 8 hours [Lemen 1987; NIOSH 1981, 1995]. 

Additional research has shown that sometimes ambient air can have formaldehyde levels as high as or 

higher than the NIOSH REL, even with no obvious source nearby [Environmental Protection Agency 

2006, 2011]. Therefore, NIOSH recommends that employers and employees minimize formaldehyde 

exposures as much as possible. This can be done by removing known sources of formaldehyde and 

improving building ventilation by introducing sufficient outdoor air. The most commonly reported and 

best documented health complaints due to exposure to low concentrations of formaldehyde include 

nasal congestion, headaches, skin rash, asthma, and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. The ACGIH 

TLV for formaldehyde is 0.1 ppm as a full-shift TWA and 0.3 ppm as a ceiling limit. The OSHA PEL is 

0.75 ppm as a TWA and 2 ppm as a short-term exposure limit.

Methyl Methacrylate and Ethyl Methacrylate

Methacrylates are acrylic monomers that react to form polymers in the production of acrylic products; 

printing inks, coatings, and adhesives; and dental and medical restorative materials. Methyl methacrylate 

and ethyl methacrylate are used to form artificial nails by mixing methacrylate monomer liquid with 

methacrylate polymer powder. In the monomer form, methacrylates are skin sensitizers (skin contact 

can lead to an allergic response) and irritants of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract [Borak et al. 2011; 

Sauni et al. 2008]. Methyl methacrylate has also been associated with allergic contact dermatitis, loss of 

smell, and neurological symptoms [Sauni et al. 2008]. 

In one large study, salon workers were more likely to have asthma if they applied acrylic nails; the 

authors suggested this might be related to methacrylates [Kreiss et al. 2006]. The U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration has removed products containing 100% methyl methacrylate monomer from the market 

because it is linked to contact dermatitis and nail damage and deformity. The NIOSH REL and OSHA 
D-3

PEL for methyl methacrylate are 100 ppm as a TWA. The ACGIH TLV for methyl methacrylate is 

50 ppm. There is no NIOSH REL, OSHA PEL, or ACGIH TLV for ethyl methacrylate.

Ethyl Acetate and n-Butyl Acetate

Ethyl acetate and n-butyl acetate are solvents. They are used in glues, varnishes, lacquers, nail polish 

removers, and artificial fruit flavors. n-Butyl acetate is comprised of several isomers that are often 

discussed together as a single class. NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH established OELs for butyl acetates 

as a class. 

The NIOSH REL, OSHA PEL, and ACGIH TLV for ethyl acetate are 400 ppm. The TLV was 

established to prevent irritation of the eyes, nose, and upper airways [ACGIH 2018a]. Ethyl acetate is 

relatively low in toxicity and a fruity odor can be detectable at around 3.9 ppm.

The NIOSH REL and OSHA PEL for n-butyl acetate are 150 ppm. The ACGIH TLV is 50 ppm 

for n-butyl acetate and was set to prevent the risk of eye and nasal irritation that some isomers can 

cause. At levels that are several times above the TLV, other effects like hyperactivity and liver changes 

can occur. 

Toluene

Toluene is a solvent that is used in a variety of industries and products. In particular, it is added to some 

nail salon products, such as nail polish. Toluene easily evaporates into the air at normal indoor and 

outdoor temperatures. Exposure to toluene can cause adverse central nervous system effects. Toluene 

exposure can also cause reproductive problems, like spontaneous abortion or fetal malformation 

[Environmental Protection Agency 2005]. ACGIH recommends that workplace toluene exposure be 

kept below 20 ppm to protect against subclinical effects, like changes in color perception, and to protect 

against spontaneous abortion in pregnant employees [ACGIH 2018a]. The NIOSH REL for toluene is 

100 ppm [NIOSH 2010].

Acetone

Acetone is found in many nail polish removers. Overexposure to acetone in the air can irritate the 

upper respiratory tract and eyes and cause gastrointestinal and central nervous system health effects. 

Workers who are regularly exposed to acetone are less likely to experience irritation effects than 

workers without repeated exposures [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2011; Dalton et 

al. 1997]. Human carcinogenicity for acetone has not been classified by ACGIH, IARC, or the National 

Toxicology Program. Significant acetone exposure (> 500 ppm) can upregulate metabolic enzymes that 

can increase the cancer-causing potential of other chemicals like chloroform and benzene [ACGIH 

2018a]. The NIOSH REL and the ACGIH TLV for acetone are 250 ppm, and the OSHA PEL is 

1,000 ppm.
E-1

Section E: References 

Health and Nail Salons

Gil Coury HJC, Mattar FL, Fernandes LS, Oishi J [1999]. Upper limb symptoms and occupational 

aspects in manicurists. Int J Ind Ergon 23(3):139–147, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00034-

6. 

Harris-Roberts J, Bowen J, Sumner J, Stocks-Greaves M, Bradshaw L, Fishwick D, Barber CM [2011]. 

Work-related symptoms in nail salon technicians. Occup Med 61(5):335–340, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqr096. 

Kreiss K, Esfahani RS, Antao VC, Odencrantz J, Lezotte DC, Hoffman RE [2006]. Risk factors for 

asthma among cosmetology professionals in Colorado. J Occup Environ Med 48(10):1062–1069, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000237348.32645.eb. 

OSHA [2012]. Stay healthy and safe while giving manicures and pedicures: a guide for nail salon 

workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/3542nail-salon-workers-guide.pdf. 

Reutman SR, Rohs AM, Clark JC, Johnson BC, Sammons DL, Toennis CA, Robertson SA, MacKenzie 

BA, Lockey JE [2009]. A pilot respiratory health assessment of nail technicians: symptoms, lung 

function, and airway inflammation. Am J Ind Med 52(11):868–875, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20751. 

Roelofs C, Azaroff LS, Holcroft C, Nguyen H, Doan T [2008]. Results from a community-based 

occupational health survey of Vietnamese-American nail salon workers. J Immigr Minor Health 

10(4):353–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9084-4. 

Sauni R, Kauppi P, Alanko K, Henriks-Eckerman M-L, Tuppurainen M, Hannu T [2008]. Occupational 

asthma caused by sculptured nails containing methacrylates. Am J Ind Med 51(12):968–974, 

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/ajim.20633. 

White H, Khan K, Lau C, Leung H, Montgomery D, Rohlman DS [2015]. Identifying health and safety 

concerns in Southeast Asian immigrant nail salon workers. Arch Environ Occup Health 70(4):196–203, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2013.853644. 

Exposures and Processes in Nail Salons

Borak J, Fields C, Andrews LS, Pemberton MA [2011]. Methyl methacrylate and respiratory 

sensitization: a critical review. Crit Rev Toxicol 41(3):230–268, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2010.532768. 

Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel [2002]. Amended final report on the safety assessment of 

ethyl methacrylate. Int J Toxicol 21(Suppl 1):63–79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10915810290096397. 

FDA [2016]. Cosmetics: nail care products. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productsingredients/products/ucm127068. 
E-2

Hines CJ, Nilsen Hopf NB, Deddens JA, Calafat AM, Silva MJ, Grote AA, Sammons DL [2008]. 

Urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations among workers in selected industries: a pilot biomonitoring 

study. Ann Occup Hyg 53(1):1–17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men066. 

Kwapniewski R, Kozaczka S, Hauser R, Silva MJ, Calafat AM, Duty SM [2008]. Occupational exposure 

to dibutyl phthalate among manicurists. J Occup Environ Med 50(6):705–711, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181651571. 

Nails Magazine [2011]. Secret ingredient: nail polish, May 19, 

http://www.nailsmag.com/article/92314/secret-ingredient-nail-polish. 

Park S, Gwak S, Choi S [2014]. Assessment of occupational symptoms and chemical exposures for nail 

salon technicians in Daegu City, Korea. J Prev Med Public Health 47(3):169–176, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2014.47.3.169. 

Quach T, Gunier R, Tran A, Von Behren J, Doan-Billings P, Nguyen K, Okahara L, Lui BY, Nguyen 

M, Huynh J, Reynolds P [2011]. Characterizing workplace exposures in Vietnamese women working in 

California nail salons. Am J Public Health 101(Suppl 1):S271–S276, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300099. 

Young AS, Allen JG, Kim U, Seller S, Webster TF, Kannan K, Ceballos DM [2018]. Phthalate and 

organophosphate plasticizers in nail polish: evaluation of labels and ingredients. Environ Sci Technol 

52(21):12841–12850, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04495. 

Methods 

Hornung RW, Reed LD [1990]. Estimation of average concentration in the presence of nondetectable 

values. J Appl Occup Environ Hyg 5(1):46–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047322X.1990.10389587. 

NIOSH [2019]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 5th ed. By O’Connor PF, Ashley K, 

eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2014-151, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam. 

OSHA [2005]. Formaldehyde (diffusive samplers). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/mdt/mdt1007/1007.pdf. 

Occupational Exposure Limits and Consensus Standards

ACGIH [2018a]. Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. 7th ed. 

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ACGIH [2018b]. 2018 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical 

agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists.
E-3

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [2011]. Addendum to the toxicological profile for 

acetone. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/acetone_addendum.pdf. 

ANSI/ASHRAE [2016]. Standard 62.1-2016. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American 

National Standards Institute. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register.

Dalton P, Wysocki CJ, Brody MJ, Lawley HJ [1997]. Perceived odor, irritation, and health symptoms 

following short-term exposure to acetone. Am J Ind Med 31(5):558-69, 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199705)31:5<558::AID-AJIM10>3.0.CO;2-Y. 

Environmental Protection Agency [2005]. Toxicological review of toluene. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publication No. 365-R-05-004, 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

03/documents/toluene_toxicology_review_0118tr_3v.pdf. 

Environmental Protection Agency [2006]. Building assessment survey and evaluation (BASE) study; 

data on indoor air quality in public and commercial buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs, 

Indoor Air Division, EPA Publication No. 402-C-06-002, https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-qualityiaq/building-assessment-survey-and-evaluation-study. 

Environmental Protection Agency [2011]. 2011 National air toxics assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nationalair-toxics-assessment. 

IARC [2012]. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. A review of human 

carcinogens: formaldehyde. Vol. 100F. Lyon, France: World Health Organization, International Agency 

for Research on Cancer.

Lemen RA [1987]. Official letter from R.A. Lemen, Division of Standards Development and 

Technology Transfer, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, to Tom Hall, Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, 

February 9.

NIOSH [1981]. Formaldehyde: evidence of carcinogenicity. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-111, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-111/. 

NIOSH [1995]. NIOSH recommended exposure limit policy. In: NIOSH policy statements, September 

1995. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
E-4

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-168c, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/. 

Personal Protective Equipment

Forsberg K, Van den Borre A, Henry N III, Zeigler JP [2014]. Quick selection guide to chemical 

protective clothing. 6th ed. New York: Van Nostrand.

Ventilation in Nail Salons

Lee S, McCammon J, McGlothin C, Phillips J [2000]. A new manicure table for applying artificial 

fingernails. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15(1):1–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104732200301755. 

NIOSH [2012]. An evaluation of local exhaust ventilation systems for controlling hazardous exposures 

in nail salons. By Marlow DA, Looney T, Reutman S. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, EPHB Report No. 005-164, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/005-

164.pdf. 

Shakibaei N [2014]. Reducing workers’ exposures to chemicals and dust in nail salons using local 

exhaust ventilation systems. Thesis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/26348. 

Spencer AB, Estill CF, McCammon JB, Mickelsen RL, Johnston OE [1997]. Control of ethyl 

methacrylate exposures during the application of artificial fingernails. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 58(3):214–

218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15428119791012865. 
This page left intentionally blank
Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Promoting productive workplaces through safety 

and health research

Get More Information

Find NIOSH products and get answers to workplace safety 

and health questions: 

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-888-232-6348

CDC/NIOSH INFO: cdc.gov/info |cdc.gov/niosh

Monthly NIOSH eNews: cdc.gov/niosh/eNews