Tanning Equipment Research Articles

Inadvertent Phototoxicity From Home Tanning Equipment

Despite increasing publicity about the harmful effects of UV radiation, outdoor sun exposure and the use of manufactured phototubes for cosmetic purposes remain popular. To help clients achieve their goal of increased pigmentation, ''tanning salons,'' health and fitness clubs, and even hair salons now provide highintensity tanning units that emit substantial fluxes of UV radiation, primarily within the UV-A spectrum (320 to 400 nm). Similar units are also available for home use. These UV-A tanning units are currently promoted as safe with respect to carcinogenesis because they emit relatively small fluxes of UV-B radiation (290 to 320 nm). The point of this communication is not to debate this assertion or the contribution of UV-A radiation to premature skin aging; rather, it is to document an important, disabling, and inevitable toxic effect of high intensity UV-A exposure. Our patient developed a severe phototoxic reaction when a single dose of the relatively

North Carolina tanning operators: Hazard on the horizon?

Previous small studies have demonstrated that operators of commercial tanning equipment may not be adequately trained. Most states have no training requirements for tanning operators. This study was designed to assess the medically relevant knowledge of cosmetic tanning salon operators and relate these to demographic variables. A written, anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 984 attendees of the first required operator training seminars conducted in North Carolina. Between July 1990 and June 1991, proprietors and their employees of the commercial tanning industry who attended these seminars were surveyed. No conference attendee refused to complete the questionnaire. Demographic information and responses to the medical information section of the questionnaire were scored by computer. Important findings included that 71% of surveyed operators had never received any training for their current position. Operators of cosmetic tanning equipment were often unaware of contraindications to tanning such as photosensitizing drugs and specific medical conditions. Few operators recognized methoxsalen (26%) or trisoralen (34%) or their respective proprietary names as contraindications to tanning. Operator knowledge was not related to their educational achievement, previous tanning salon experience, or prior tanning industry-sponsored training. Children younger than 10 years old were tanned by 2.6% of the operators. These data suggest that the public may be at risk for UV light-induced diseases and burns because of operator lack of knowledge.

Tanning salons: An area survey of proprietors' knowledge of risks and precautions

An area survey of tanning salon proprietors was conducted in a medium-sized midwestern city. Proprietors reported they were in compliance with federal safety regulations, but not all had age, frequency, or duration restrictions. Similarly, proprietors were not uniformly informing patrons of potential tanning hazards, including the possibility of skin cancer, and were not knowledgeable about the risk and benefits of tanning. Some establishments reported selling psoralens to patrons to enhance tanning. More explicit guidelines regarding the use of tanning equipment and more accurate consumer information are needed.

UVA hazards in skin associated with the use of tanning equipment — a comment

UVA hazards in skin associated with the use of tanning equipment — a comment

UVA hazards in skin associated with the use of tanning equipment — a comment

UVA hazards in skin associated with the use of tanning equipment — a comment

UVA hazards in skin associated with the use of tanning equipment

This article was commissioned in response to increasing concern in the photobiological/dermatological community about the possible long-term hazards of UVA (315-400 nm) radiation from the human use of tanning equipment. The use of such equipment has increased considerably in Western societies over the last decade

The carcinogenic risks of modern tanning equipment: is UV-A safer than UV-B?

An animal experiment is presented in which three groups of albino hairless mice (Skh-hr 1) were exposed to daily doses of either UV-B or UV-A to study carcinogenesis. The UV-A was filtered carefully so as to eliminate contaminating UV-B. The doses required for acute effects (erythema and edema) were also determined for the two radiation modalities. In order to study the relative carcinogenic risks of exposures to UV-A and to UV-B, for both modalities, the doses causing skin tumors were compared to the doses required for eliciting acute effects in the skin. In the experiment on carcinogenesis all animals developed tumors, the ones exposed to UV-A as well as the ones exposed to UV-B. A striking difference, however, was that the induction times of the first tumors showed a larger spread in the mice exposed to UV-A than in the UV-B groups. Also, the development of successive tumors in each individual mouse was more spread in time in the UV-A group. A second difference between the effects on the skin was that in the animals exposed to UV-B no skin reactions were seen until the tumors developed. However, in most UV-A exposed animals, a marked scratching, probably caused by severe itching, and hyperkeratosis preceded the development of the tumors. Histologically at least 60% of the larger tumors induced by UV-A appeared to be squamous cell carcinomas. This finding is very similar for UV-B induced tumors. The elastic fibers in the UV-A exposed animals were also examined and actinic elastosis was observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)