Close
today i learned (til)

Is My Nail Kit Causing an Allergic Reaction?

April 16, 2026

Introduction

DIY nail-art kits have skyrocketed in popularity since the Covid-19 pandemic, but what happens when your beloved nails and hobby turn into an allergy? Nail artists and people doing their nails for fun have started noticing their fingers becoming dry, red, and itchy after continuous use of gel-nail polish. Gel-nail polish, especially when left undercured, can lead to contact dermatitis, an allergic reaction causing itchy skin and a rash (Contact Dermatitis – Symptoms and Causes, 2024). Recent studies have shown that the materials used in gel-nail polish, specifically acrylates, have led to an uptick in contact dermatitis.

What is in my nail kit?

Gel nail-polish is a thin polish that is applied to the nail and then cured under UV-light. The main materials in gel-nail polish are acrylates (Baek & Adler, 2024). Acrylates are the salt form of acrylic acid, which is a type of carboxylic acid with a conjugated pi system, meaning there are alternating double bonds within the molecule (Acrylates, n.d.).

Acrylates are known to cause allergic reactions when left uncured, partially uncured, and over multiple uses even if cured (Home of Nail Organization, n.d.). However, cases of contact dermatitis resulting from gel-nail polish use typically involve polishes that include isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) (Baek & Adler, 2024). Despite being present in just 1.5% of gel-nail polish, many polishes don’t list IBOA as an ingredient despite studies proving IBOA is in the polish (Baek & Adler, 2024). As stated previously, acrylates in general are known to cause allergic reactions, but the prevalence of allergic reactions to gel-nail polishes containing IBOA and the lack of proper ingredient reporting may be causing more people to develop contact dermatitis (Baek & Adler, 2024).

What is the solution?

There may be another solution to avoiding this allergy other than giving up on gel-polish. Methacrylates, which is the salt form of methacrylic acid, are similar to acrylates except for the additional methanol group in place of a hydrogen (Acrylates, n.d.). 

Although methacrylate-base gel-polish cures more slowly, it causes less allergic reactions, and is being used in more polishes as an alternative to acrylates (Home of Nail Organization, n.d.). A dermatological study from Sweden has shown that gel-polishes made with methacrylates led to less positive patch tests than gel-polishes made from acrylates (Dahlin et al., 2016). A patch-test is a test for a skin-based allergic reaction. A patch with a small amount of a potential allergen is applied to the skin for a period of time and then removed to see if the patch contained an allergen (Patch Testing for Skin Allergies: Procedure & Results, 2025). 

There were still cases of contact dermatitis occurring from methacrylate-based gel-nail polish. While some of these cases were tied to small methacrylates, many of them were caused by polymerized methacrylates, which is a larger chain of methacrylates, specifically di-hydroxyethylmethacrylates (HEMA). Despite these cases, acrylates may still be the culprit to contact dermatitis in gel-olish as the study did not investigate the purity of these polishes, especially for the containment of acrylates in the polish (Dahlin et al., 2016). 

Conclusion:

Gel-nail polish usage has caused contact dermatitis in nail artists and non-professionals alike. Acrylates and methacrylates can both cause these unwanted allergic reactions, but research has shown a stronger correlation between acrylates and contact dermatitis. Additionally, specific acrylates, ones known to cause higher rates of contact dermatitis, have been left unreported by manufacturers. Manufacturers don’t report the purity of the ingredients used in home-nail kits either, making you wonder what’s really in your nail polish and how you can protect your skin from allergies. 

References:

Acrylates. (n.d.). Safe Cosmetics. Retrieved April 10, 2026, from https://www.safecosmetics.org/chemicals/acrylates/

Baek, P., & Adler, B. L. (2024, July). Allergic contact dermatitis to isobornyl acrylate in a home nail glue. Contact Dermitis, 91(1), 64-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14541

Contact dermatitis – Symptoms and causes. (2024, May 2). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved April 9, 2026, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/contact-dermatitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352742

Dahlin, J., Berne, B., Duner, K., Hosseiny, S., Matura, M., Nyman, G., Tammela, M., & Isaksson, M. (2016, September). Several cases of undesirable effects caused by methacrylate ultraviolet-curing nail polish for non-professional use. Contact Dermatitis, 75(3), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12608

Home of Nail Organization. (n.d.). The Difference Between Acrylates & Methacrylates in the Nail Formulas. Home of Nail Organization. https://www.homeofnailart.com/blogs/knowledge-hub/understanding-acrylates-and-methacrylates-in-the-nail-industry-more-than-just-a-name?srsltid=AfmBOoq1e_vC7XlGEZpMAGF27cLzBMSHEsosthYFAWRRzrgMu6EICJS0

Patch Testing for Skin Allergies: Procedure & Results. (2025, April 21). Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved April 10, 2026, from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/patch-test

0Likes
About Author

I'm a second year chemistry major minoring in material science and engineering. I enjoy connecting what I learn in academic classes to the real world.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Our Science Fashion Show, and My Part In It!
today i learned (til)
Secrets Of The Skin: A Hidden Ecosystem
Articles, DIY, today i learned (til)
Escape the Elements: How to Create a Science-Themed Escape Room
today i learned (til)
Why do we forget our dreams?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.