Laser hair reduction is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Risk assessment of a tertiary referral laser dermatology unit in England identified that there are still unknown hazards related to laser-generated fume from procedures that represent approximately half of all treatments in the unit. This uncertainty in fume hazard analysis was raised in response to significantly increasing awareness of respiratory risks and updated guidance on respiratory protective equipment for medical laser procedures because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presented an analysis of the failure modes for the current control methods for laser-generated fume, which involve room ventilation, local exhaust ventilation, and respiratory protective equipment that rely heavily on administrative procedures to function correctly. The new respiratory risk methods guidance also affects the integrity of existing laser safety personal protective equipment. The identified failure methods were then analysed through the collection of laser-generated fume and provided new evidence of the laser-generated plume concentration hazard during in-vivo laser hair reduction procedures. The air quality of the treatment unit was measured over a typical day of procedures using optical particle sizing to calculate the PM2.5 mass concentration. The results identified a potential failure mechanism with existing control methods, as a maximum concentration of 298 µg/m3 could be observed during the day with all the existing methods in use. This was a single-day and treatment-type study on a laser. However, this analysis provides valuable evidence to laser medical practitioners and medical laser safety officers in any treatment environment of the potential for fume to bypass the current standard existing control methods. The paper presents recommendations for further analysis and the requirement for knowledge of the acute limits of laser-generated fume to understand the hazard potential.

1.
Grand View Research
(
2022
)
Laser Hair Removal Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Laser Type (Diode Laser, Nd:YAG Laser, Alexandrite Laser), By End Use (Beauty Clinics, Dermatology Clinics, Home Use
), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2022 - 2030.
2.
Thomas
M.M.
,
Houreld
N.N.
(
2019
)
The “in's and outs” of laser hair removal: a mini review
.
Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy
21
:
316
322
3.
Eshleman
E.J.
,
LeBlanc
M.
,
Rokoff
L.B.
,
Xu
Y.
,
Hu
R.
,
Lee
K.
,
Chuang
G.S.
,
Adamkiewicz
G.
,
Hart
J.E.
(
2017
)
Occupational exposures and determinants of ultrafine particle concentrations during laser hair removal procedures
.
Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source
16
:
1
7
4.
Jones
L.C.R.
,
Parry
M.
,
Britton
J.
,
Tyrer
J.R.
(
2021
)
Engineering controls for surgical smoke in laser medical handpieces
.
Journal of Laser Applications
33
:
022007
5.
Chuang
G.S.
,
Farinelli
W.
,
Christiani
D.C.
,
Herrick
R.F.
,
Lee
N.C.Y.
,
Avram
M.M.
(
2016
)
Gaseous and particulate content of laser hair removal plume
.
JAMA Dermatology
152
:
1320
1326
6.
Lewin
J.M.
,
Brauer
J.A.
,
Ostad
A.
(
2011
)
Surgical smoke and the dermatologist
.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
65
:
636
641
7.
Madan
V.
(
2020
)
Resumption of laser/IPL skin services post COVID-19 lockdown—British Medical Laser Association (BMLA) guidance document
.
Lasers in Medical Science
35
:
2069
2073
8.
Tyrer
J.
,
Jones
L.C.R.
,
Edwards
J.
,
Beswick
A.
,
Bard
D.
,
Britton
J.
(
2019
)
Viable pathogen aerosols produced during laser dermatology surgery – A quantified analysis. In: International Laser Safety Conference
.
Laser Institute of America
,
Kissimmee, FL, USA
, p MP602
9.
Jones
M.
,
Edwards
J.
,
Tyrer
J.
,
Jones
L.C.R.
,
Beswick
A.
,
Bard
D.
,
Britton
J.
(
2019
)
The design of medical laser surgery dermatology handpieces for radiation control and direct extraction of infectious laser generated plume
. In:
International Laser Safety Conference. Laser Institute of America
,
Kissimmee, FL, USA
, p
303
10.
Hill
D.S.
,
O'Neill
J.K.
,
Powell
R.J.
,
Oliver
D.W.
(
2012
)
Surgical smoke – A health hazard in the operating theatre: A study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units
.
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
65
:
911
916
11.
Barrett
W.L.
,
Garber
S.M.
(
2003
)
Surgical smoke: a review of the literature
.
Surgical Endoscopy
17
:
979
987
12.
Alp
E.
,
Bijl
D.
,
Bleichrodt
R.P.
,
Hansson
B.
,
Voss
A.
(
2006
)
Surgical smoke and infection control
.
Journal of Hospital Infection
62
:
1
5
13.
Tan
E.
,
Russell
K.P.
(
2017
)
Surgical plume and its implications: A review of the risk and barriers to a safe work place
.
Journal of Perioperative Nursing
30
:
33
39
14.
Fan
J.K.-M.
,
Chan
F.S.-Y.
,
Chu
K.-M.
(
2009
)
Surgical Smoke
.
Asian Journal of Surgery
32
:
253
257
15.
Ulmer
B.C.
(
2008
)
The Hazards of Surgical Smoke
.
AORN Journal
87
:
721
738
16.
Liu
Y.
,
Song
Y.
,
Hu
X.
,
Yan
L.
,
Zhu
X.
(
2019
)
Awareness of surgical smoke hazards and enhancement of surgical smoke prevention among the gynecologists
.
J Cancer
10
:
17.
Lewin
J.M.
,
Brauer
J.A.
,
Ostad
A.
(
2011
)
Surgical smoke and the dermatologist
.
J Am Acad Dermatol
18.
The Surgical Plume Alliance
(
2022
)
Occupational Hazards of Surgical Smoke Plume in the Operating Theatre.
19.
Jones
L.C.R.
,
Britton
J.
,
McCartney
A.
,
Kipling-Steels
P.
,
Urwin
R.
,
Lloyd
D.
,
Tyrer
J.R.
(
2022
)
Analysis of laser-generated plume concentration during in vivo laser hair reduction procedures in a tertiary referral laser dermatology unit
.
British Journal of Dermatology
20.
Turpin
B.J.
,
Lim
H.J.
(
2001
)
Species contributions to pm2.5 mass concentrations: Revisiting common assumptions for estimating organic mass
.
Aerosol Science and Technology
35
:
602
610
21.
Orellano
P.
,
Reynoso
J.
,
Quaranta
N.
,
Bardach
A.
,
Ciapponi
A.
(
2020
)
Short-term exposure to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3) and allcause and cause-specific mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Environment International
142
:
105876
22.
World Health Organisation
(
2021
)
WHO global air quality guideline: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide
.
World Health Organization
,
Geneva
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.