Beyond
HEMA
: Shifts in the (Meth)acrylate Composition of Matched Nail Cosmetics Between 2023 and 2026
Norbertus A. Ipenburg, Anton C. de Groot, Thomas Rustemeyer ABSTRACT
Background
Allergic contact dermatitis from nail cosmetics is common. Most patients are allergic to HEMA. Increasingly, products are labelled ‘HEMA‐free’.
Objectives
To use ingredient lists to assess changes in the use of HEMA, Di‐HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate (Di‐HEMA TMHDC), and other (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetics, and to investigate whether HEMA and Di‐HEMA TMHDC occur in products not marketed for professional use.
Materials and Methods
We searched online for 394 products from 2023 and compared the 2023 and 2026 ingredient lists of products with the same brand and commercial name.
Results
Among 127 matched products, HEMA decreased from 65.4% to 16.5% (−75%) and Di‐HEMA TMHDC from 27.6% to 7.1% (−74%). Trimethylolpropane triacrylate and urethane acrylate decreased by 63% and 54%, respectively. Benzyl methacrylate, urethane methacrylate, and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate increased by 100%–225%. Four of 24 products containing HEMA and/or Di‐HEMA TMHDC (16.7%; 3.1% overall) were apparently marketed directly to consumers without an identifiable online professional‐use restriction.
Conclusions
Among matched nail cosmetics, ingredient lists indicated that the use of HEMA and Di‐HEMA TMHDC decreased by approximately 75% over 3 years, while the use of several other (meth)acrylates changed substantially. Few products containing HEMA and/or Di‐HEMA TMHDC appeared to be marketed directly to consumers.