Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Saudi Journal of Medicine & Medical Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Medicine & Medical Sciences
. 2026 Jan 19;14(1):80–90. doi: 10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_684_24

Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Toxicity of Household Cleaning Products in the Saudi Population: A Cross-sectional Study

Mohammed Abdullah Aljumaan 1,✉, Farah M Althikrallah 2, Mohammed H Alameer 1, Fahad B Alsaqer 2, Reem A Alsulayem 2, Khadija A Alsunaikh 2, Wafa Y Alqahtani 2
PMCID: PMC12890230  PMID: 41675956

Abstract

Background:

Household cleaning products, when misused, are a common cause of acute poisoning and can lead to severe health issues.

Objective:

To assess the levels of awareness, knowledge, and attitude in the population of Saudi Arabia regarding the safe use and potential dangers of household cleaning products.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, adults (aged 18–60 years) from Saudi Arabia were invited through various social media networks between September and October 2024, to complete an online survey. The questionnaire elicited information regarding demographics, real-life experiences, knowledge, attitudes, and safe handling practices.

Results:

A total of 791 participants completed the survey, of which most were females (64.5%), aged 18–25 years (73.2%), Saudi nationals (89.4%), single (79.3%), and had a Bachelor’s degree as their highest education (65.1%). Almost all participants (97.3%) recognized that household cleaners may contain harmful chemicals; however, only 19.0% and 20.6% of the participants recognized sterilizers and disinfectants, respectively, as potentially harmful. In addition, 87% mistakenly believed it was safe to use cleaning products in unventilated spaces, and 77.7% incorrectly believed that inducing vomiting was necessary if these products are ingested. The level of awareness did not vary based on any studied variables. In terms of knowledge, non-Saudis and married participants had significantly higher knowledge (P = 0.002 and 0.029, respectively), while those from the Northern region had significantly positive attitude (P = 0.038).

Conclusion:

This study found that in Saudi Arabia, there is a high level of general awareness regarding toxicity of household cleaning products, yet significant knowledge gaps and misconceptions exist regarding its safe use and emergency responses in case of poisoning. These findings indicate the need for targeted educational interventions and public health campaigns to improve actionable knowledge.

Keywords: Acute poisoning, chemical toxicity, health education, household cleaning products, poison control, Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Household chemical cleaning products are among the most prevalent reasons for acute poisoning, constituting a major public health concern due to their widespread availability and usage.[1,2,3] Acute poisoning resulting from exposure to harmful chemicals within a 24-hour time frame at doses capable of generating health risks frequently arises due to multi-chemical mixtures and combinations possessing varying toxic potential. Exposure to household cleaning substances is common, and typically produces minimal symptoms, though significant toxicity can result from exposure to large amounts or concentrations. These products, including detergents, bleaches, disinfectants, and air fresheners, yield varied symptoms, depending on the route of exposure (oral, dermal, ocular, or inhalational), including vomiting, skin burns, or respiratory distress.[4,5,6,7]

Though their role in disease prevention and hygiene is not in question when utilized appropriately, improper use or handling can lead to indoor air pollution, skin disorders, allergic reactions, respiratory ailments, and a heightened risk of asthma. Significantly, cross-contamination or accidental ingestion of such chemicals can lead to fatal poisoning and even death.[8] The danger of an inadvertent exposure increases when the products are kept in convenient locations such as under sinks or on floors, within reach of children. Furthermore, ignorance regarding toxicity labels or the transfer of such products to unnamed containers by caregivers can also increase this risk.[9]

In 2018, the poison centers in the United States received about 2.1 million calls for suspected poisonings, of which about 11% were due to household cleaning products.[10] In addition, a study from Saudi Arabia reported that the number of chemical poisoning cases increased across years, with lifestyle and behavior suggested as contributing factors.[11] The World Health Organization has implicated acute poisoning as the cause for about 45,000 deaths each year in children and young adults.[12]

In a study from Saudi Arabia, which included patients who presented to the emergency departments of three major hospitals of Saudi Arabia with suspected acute poisoning, 28.6% of the patients reported having experienced poisoning or toxic exposure, with household cleaning products (5.7%) being a leading source of exposure.[4] However, no large-scale study from Saudi Arabia has specifically examined public awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward the toxicity of household cleaning products, despite their common use and widely recognized toxicity. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by assessing the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of individuals in Saudi Arabia regarding the dangers posed by household cleaning products, with the goal of contributing to enhanced public health strategies and prevention efforts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used a convenience sampling method to include adult population (aged 18–60 years) from Saudi Arabia between September 29 and October 25, 2024. The survey was conducted using QuestionPro, with links distributed through social media networks such as X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and WhatsApp. These media were selected because of their extensive coverage and capability to reach different demographic segments from various regions in Saudi Arabia.

To promote general participation, the questionnaire was re-posted at various times of the day to capture individuals with varying routines and lifestyles. It was also provided in both Arabic and English to cater to language needs and promote ease of facilitation. Individual invitations were specifically avoided, as the objective was to obtain a heterogeneous and varied sample. The study was conducted after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

A sample size of 385 participants was calculated using the Richard Geiger equation based on a population size of about 37.5 million, a 50% response distribution, a 5% margin of error, and a 95% confidence level.

Study tool

A questionnaire with four sections (available in both English and Arabic) was used for data collection [Appendix]. The first section gathered data pertaining to the gender, nationality, age, marital status, level of education, and residence of the respondents. The second section measured participants’ familiarity with cleaning product use throughout the household, including accidents or negative health consequences, adherence to proper storage, and adherence to reading instructions prior to use.

The third section assessed the participants’ knowledge about home cleaning products, including understanding of health risks, ability to identify emergencies, responses in suspected exposure to toxic products, and safe usage habits. Further, an additional five true-or-false statements were used to assess knowledge. Finally, the fourth section tested participants’ willingness to pay a premium price for non-toxic products and consumer satisfaction with available toxicity information of the products provided.

All participants provided digital consent before proceeding to answer the questionnaire. The participants were informed that participation was voluntary and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. All obtained data were stored anonymously, with responses detached from personal identifiers.

Validity and reliability analysis

A panel of three experts reviewed the questionnaire items in relation to the study objectives to assess content validity across all domains. The assessment was conducted independently, followed by discussions to reach a consensus. Suggested changes were incorporated to finalize the questionnaire.

The questionnaire demonstrated high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84 for scale data.[13,14] Removing any items did not improve reliability, confirming that all items were retained.

Statistical analysis

A comprehensive statistical analysis was conducted on the dataset, encompassing both descriptive and inferential methodologies. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize the demographic characteristics of the participants, which include age, gender, and other features. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to the association between categorical variables. All statistical analyses are conducted using SPSS version 29.0.0.

RESULTS

A total of 791 participants were included. Most of the participants were females (64.5%), aged 18–25 years (73.2%), Saudi nationals (89.4%), single (79.3%), and had a Bachelor’s degree as their highest education (65.1%). Geographically, most participants were from the Central (31.6%) and Eastern (29.1%) regions [Table 1]. The most common source of information was instructions on packages (71.7%), followed by internet (62.8%), family and friends (49.4%), doctors and nurses (33.8%), and poison control centers (14.4%).

Table 1.

Participant’s demographics

Variables Frequency, n (%)
Age (years)
 18–25 579 (73.2)
 26–35 119 (15.0)
 36–45 58 (7.3)
 46–55 25 (3.2)
 56+ 10 (1.3)
Sex
 Male 281 (35.5)
 Female 510 (64.5)
Nationality
 Saudi 707 (89.4)
 Non-Saudi 84 (10.6)
Marital status
 Single 627 (79.3)
 Married 151 (19.1)
 Divorced 13 (1.6)
Education
 Primary 7 (0.9)
 Secondary 217 (27.4)
 Bachelor’s 515 (65.1)
 Master’s 41 (5.2)
 Doctoral 11 (1.4)
Residence area
 Eastern 230 (29.1)
 Central 250 (31.6)
 Western 151 (19.1)
 Northern 67 (8.5)
 Southern 93 (11.8)
Open in a new tab

In terms of awareness, most participants (97.3%) were aware that household cleaners can contain harmful chemicals, with 32.2% reported having witnessed poisoning incidents caused by these cleaners. The reported health problems included difficulty in breathing (24.1%), skin irritation (13.0%), nausea and vomiting (12.9%), eye irritation (12.0%), and headache (8.8%). Most people (65.1%) stored their cleaning products in locked cabinets. Surprisingly, 12.0% and 8.2% of the participants placed them in places that were easily accessible to children or mixed with other household items, respectively. With regards to reading product labels, 14.8% stated that they always read them (14.8%), whereas 11.6% never read them [Table 2].

Table 2.

Knowledge and attitude of participants on household cleaning products and their toxicity

Questions Frequency, n (%)
Awareness of harmful chemicals in household cleaning products
 No 21 (2.7)
 Yes 770 (97.3)
Witnessed poisoning through household cleaners
 No 536 (67.8)
 Yes 255 (32.2)
If yes, type of adverse health effects experienced
 Breathing problems 191 (24.1)
 Skin irritation 103 (13.0)
 Eye irritation 95 (12.0)
 Headache 70 (8.8)
 Nausea/vomiting 102 (12.9)
Storage of household cleaners
 Locked cabinet 515 (65.1)
 High shelves 115 (14.5)
 Easily accessible 95 (12.0)
 Mixed with items 65 (8.2)
Reading labels before using cleaners
 Always 117 (14.8)
 Most of the times 168 (21.2)
 Occasionally 247 (31.2)
 Rarely 167 (21.1)
 Never 92 (11.6)
Open in a new tab

The majority recognized Clorox (77.0%) and Flash (83.1%) as potentially harmful, while fewer participants identified sterilizers (19.0%) and disinfectants (20.6%) as such. Most participants chose swallowing household products (88.7%), exposure to toxic fumes (69.7%), and skin or eye contact with chemicals (71.2%) as the most common events they considered to constitute a poison emergency. In terms of source of knowledge, 71.7% relied on instructions on packages, 62.8% on the internet, and 49.4% on family or friends [Table 3].

Table 3.

Awareness of participants on household cleaning products and toxicity

Questions Frequency, n (%)
Which household cleaning products are harmful to health
 Clorox 609 (77.0)
 Flash 657 (83.1)
 Pesticide 507 (64.1)
 Disinfectants 163 (20.6)
 Sterilizers 150 (19.0)
What events do you believe would constitute a poison emergency?
 Swallowing household cleaning products 702 (88.7)
 Skin or eye contact with chemicals 563 (71.2)
 Exposure to toxic fumes 551 (69.7)
 Insect or snake bites 457 (57.8)
 Accidental overdose 386 (48.8)
Source of information about the toxicity of household hazardous materials?
 From instructions on packages 567 (71.7)
 From the internet 497 (62.8)
 From family or friends 391 (49.4)
 From doctors and nurses 267 (33.8)
 From poison control centers 114 (14.4)
Which of the following safety practices do you follow while using household cleaning products?
 Household cleaning products out of reach children 611 (77.2)
 Wash hands after using products 592 (74.8)
 Use gloves 489 (61.8)
 Use good ventilation 415 (52.5)
 Dilute chlorine solution with water 349 (44.1)
 Use eye protection 193 (24.4)
What actions would you take if you suspected a poisoning incident involving household cleaning products?
 Seek medical help 643 (81.3)
 Wash affected area 454 (57.4)
 Contact poison control center 275 (34.8)
 Read instructions on packages 250 (31.6)
 If drinks/eats poison, he must vomit immediately (true) 610 (77.7)
 Is it safe to use cleaning products in unventilated areas? (True) 688 (87.0)
 Mixing cleaning products enhances cleaning power (True) 509 (64.3)
 Eco-friendly products are nontoxic (True) 419 (53.0)
 Diluting reduces effectiveness (True) 631 (79.8)
 If chemical does not strong smell, it is not harmful (True) 134 (16.9)
Would you be willing to pay a higher price for nontoxic or environmentally friendly cleaning products?
 Yes 253 (32.0)
 No 114 (14.4)
 Depends on price difference 424 (53.6)
Are you satisfied with the information available to consumers about the toxicity of household cleaning products?
 Very satisfied 151 (19.1)
 Somewhat satisfied 218 (27.6)
 Neutral 287 (36.3)
 Somewhat dissatisfied 108 (13.7)
 Very dissatisfied 27 (3.4)
Open in a new tab

Regarding safety practices, keeping cleaning products out of reach for children (77.2%) and washing hands after use (74.8%) were predominantly followed. In potential poisoning incidents, most stated that they would seek medical help (81.3%), while few would contact poison control centers (34.8%). Misconceptions exist, as 610 participants (77.7%) incorrectly believed that inducing vomiting is necessary after ingesting poison, and 688 (87.0%) think it is safe to use products in unventilated areas. Regarding purchasing behavior, a significant proportion (53.6%) stated that their willingness to pay extra for non-toxic products would depend on the price difference. Satisfaction with available information on product toxicity varied, with 287 participants (36.3%) neutral and only 151 (19.1%) very satisfied [Table 3]. The most common self-reported level of knowledge by participants was “somewhat knowledgeable” (52.1%), followed by “not very knowledgeable” (27.2%), very knowledgeable (15%), and “not knowledgeable at all” (5.7%).

The level of awareness did not significantly differ based on gender, age, nationality, marital status, education level, or geographical location [Table 4]. In terms of knowledge, Saudis were found to have significantly lower knowledge compared to non-Saudis (P = 0.002). Marital status also significantly influenced knowledge, with married respondents having significantly higher knowledge (P = 0.029). However, gender, age, education level, or geographical location were not significantly associated with the level of knowledge [Table 5]. With regards to attitude, the only significantly associated variable was geographical location, with participants from the Northern region displaying a significantly more positive attitude compared to those from the Western region, who exhibit the most negative attitudes (P = 0.038) [Table 6].

Table 4.

Participant’s Awareness level on household cleaning products and sociodemographic features

Demographics Awareness level Significant value
Low, n (%) High, n (%)
Sex
 Male 104 (37.0) 177 (63.0) 0.693a
 Female 196 (38.4) 314 (61.6)
Age (years)
 18–25 221 (38.2) 358 (61.8) 0.103a
 26–35 38 (31.9) 81 (68.1)
 36–45 27 (46.6) 31 (53.4)
 46–55 11 (44.0) 14 (56.0)
 ≥56 3 (30.0) 7 (70.0)
Nationality
 Saudi 275 (38.9) 432 (61.1) 0.364b
 Non-Saudi 25 (29.8) 59 (70.2)
Marital status
 Single 234 (37.3) 393 (62.7) 0.354b
 Married 63 (41.7) 88 (58.3)
 Divorced 3 (23.1) 10 (76.9)
Education level
 Primary 1 (14.3) 6 (85.7) 0.066b
 Secondary 99 (45.6) 118 (54.4)
 Bachelor’s 181 (35.1) 334 (64.9)
 Master’s 15 (36.6) 26 (63.4)
 Doctoral 4 (36.4) 7 (63.6)
Residence area
 Eastern 94 (40.9) 136 (59.1) 0.437a
 Central 85 (34.0) 165 (66.0)
 Western 63 (41.7) 88 (58.3)
 Northern 23 (34.3) 44 (65.7)
 Southern 35 (37.6) 58 (62.4)
Open in a new tab

aChi-square test; bFisher’s exact test

Table 5.

Participant’s knowledge level on household cleaning products and sociodemographic features

Demographics Knowledge level Significant value
Low, n (%) High, n (%)
Sex
 Male 97 (34.5) 184 (65.5) 0.463a
 Female 163 (32.0) 347 (68.0)
Age (years)
 18–25 208 (35.9) 371 (64.1) 0.692a
 26–35 37 (31.1) 82 (68.9)
 36–45 12 (20.7) 46 (79.3)
 46–55 2 (8.0) 23 (92.0)
 ≥56 1 (10.0) 9 (90.0)
Nationality
 Saudi 234 (33.1) 473 (66.9) 0.002b
 Non-Saudi 26 (31.0) 58 (69.0)
Marital status
 Single 220 (35.1) 407 (64.9) 0.029b
 Married 36 (23.8) 115 (76.2)
 Divorced 4 (30.8) 9 (69.2)
Education level
 Primary 2 (28.6) 5 (71.4) 0.836b
 Secondary 67 (30.9) 150 (69.1)
 Bachelor’s 173 (33.6) 342 (66.4)
 Master’s 13 (31.7) 28 (68.3)
 Doctoral 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5)
Residence area
 Eastern 74 (32.2) 156 (67.8) 0.528a
 Central 87 (34.8) 163 (65.2)
 Western 50 (33.1) 101 (66.9)
 Northern 25 (37.3) 42 (62.7)
 Southern 24 (25.8) 69 (74.2)
Open in a new tab

aChi-square test; bFisher’s exact test

Table 6.

Participant’s Attitude on household cleaning products and sociodemographic features

Demographics Attitude level Significant value
Negative, n (%) Positive, n (%)
Sex
 Male 160 (56.9) 121 (43.1) 0.133a
 Female 262 (51.4) 248 (48.6)
Age (years)
 18–25 315 (54.4) 264 (45.6) 0.096a
 26–35 65 (54.6) 54 (45.4)
 36–45 25 (43.1) 33 (56.9)
 46–55 11 (44.0) 14 (56.0)
 ≥56 6 (60.0) 4 (40.0)
Nationality
 Saudi 370 (52.3) 337 (47.7) 0.427b
 Non-Saudi 52 (61.9) 32 (38.1)
Marital status
 Single 347 (55.3) 280 (44.7) 0.077a
 Married 70 (46.4) 81 (53.6)
 Divorced 5 (38.5) 8 (61.5)
Education level
 Primary 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 0.586b
 Secondary 115 (53.0) 102 (47.0)
 Bachelor’s 270 (52.4) 245 (47.6)
 Master’s 27 (65.9) 14 (34.1)
 Doctoral 6 (54.5) 5 (45.5)
Residence area
 Eastern 123 (53.5) 107 (46.5) 0.038a
 Central 137 (54.8) 113 (45.2)
 Western 92 (60.9) 59 (39.1)
 Northern 27 (40.3) 40 (59.7)
 Southern 43 (46.2) 50 (53.8)
Open in a new tab

aChi-square test; bFisher’s exact test

DISCUSSION

This study found that almost all participants (97.3%) had an awareness regarding the presence of harmful chemicals in household cleaning products. This aligns with the findings of similar studies that highlight the growing general awareness of chemical hazards in domestic environments.[15,16] However, in our study, awareness regarding products varied, with only a smaller proportion aware regarding the danger posed by sterilizers and disinfectants, indicating ignorance about the general category of poisonous household chemicals. The observation is consistent with that of Hartmann et al., who found that although people are likely to be highly informed about the general dangers of harmful chemicals in products, there is widespread misconception regarding specific products. For example, most respondents presumed that eco-labeled goods, natural personal care items, and products without hazard symbols would be free of dangerous chemicals.[17] Additionally, a study among 688 caretakers from Switzerland found lower-risk perceptions regarding products with unpleasant odors, dishwashing detergents, and household chemicals perceived as natural, such as essential oils, cleaning vinegar, or disinfectants.[18]

Additionally, there were large gaps in knowledge regarding what is considered an emergency of poisoning. While most correctly considered ingestion and fume inhalation as dangers, about 87% incorrectly felt it was acceptable to use cleaning chemicals in unventilated spaces and 77.7% felt that vomiting should be induced after poison ingestion. Indoor use of household cleaning products in an improper way can expose humans to toxic chemicals and air pollutants, elevating health risks.[19] The toxic effects of acute exposure vary based on the cleaning product and route of exposure; corrosive ingestion mainly damages the stomach and duodenum, and inhalation leads to a range of respiratory issues. Research has established that cleaning product exposure has harmful health effects.[20,21] Common myths and public misconceptions regarding the first-aid management of poisoning most often lead to practices that are harmful.[22]

This study found that knowledge was significantly associated with nationality and marital status, with non-Saudis and married individuals demonstrating higher knowledge levels. These findings align with prior research, suggesting that marital status may influence health behaviors and knowledge, potentially due to shared responsibilities and concerns for family safety.[23] The association between nationality and knowledge may reflect variations in information access or cultural differences in household management practices.

The study also found that within Saudi Arabia, there was a significant difference in attitudes toward cleaning product safety, with participants from the Northern region exhibiting significantly more positive attitudes than those from the Western region. This may be attributable to regional health and safety education campaigns, or to regional cultural beliefs regarding health and safety. However, other sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, and education level showed no significant associations with either knowledge or attitudes. This result is unexpected because research has shown that gender, especially in women, and educational level are strong predictors of awareness and attitude regarding domestic chemical safety.[24,25] The lack of such associations in this research could have been due to the comparatively homogenous sample, where most were young, single, and well-educated.

The current study found that participants most commonly relied on instructions on packages and internet as sources of information, similar to findings in of a previous study from Lebanon.[16] This trend aligns with global patterns, where individuals increasingly seek health information online.[26] However, the relatively low use of authoritative sources, such as healthcare professionals and poison control centers, is concerning given the high prevalence of misconceptions observed in the study. Research from other countries has shown that informal information sources may raise awareness but often fail to provide accurate or comprehensive guidance on safety practices.[27] Therefore, public health responses should be targeted at enhancing access to information through medical practitioners and specialist health centers.

The study also found that participants were generally not satisfied with available information on product toxicity, with only 19.1% reporting being very satisfied. This indicates a need for more effective communication and educational interventions to bridge the gap between awareness and actionable knowledge. Educational campaigns should not only provide information but also emphasize practical safety measures for handling and storing cleaning products to prevent accidental poisoning.

While most participants reported safe storage practices and understood the importance of keeping cleaning products out of children’s reach, about 12% and 8% of the participants placed them in places that were easily accessible to children or mixed with other household items. Similar low attitudes toward safe use of household cleaning products have also been reported in several previous studies including a study in United Arab Emirates, wherein the study population recorded a lower mean score of awareness (5.37 of 12) than performance (11.75 of 16).[28] The current study also found that although most participants indicated that they would seek medical help in a poisoning case, only about one-third stated that they would contact poison control centers, highlighting a need to raise public awareness about these critical services.

Limitations

As this is an online questionnaire-based study, participants may not fully represent the diverse population of Saudi Arabia. This is also represented in the fact that participants primarily were young, educated, and single, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. Further, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between sociodemographic factors and knowledge or attitudes about household cleaning product toxicity. Additionally, the self-reported nature of the data could introduce response bias, with participants potentially overestimating their knowledge or underreporting unsafe behaviors. Further research with a more diverse sample and longitudinal design is needed to address these limitations.

CONCLUSION

This study found that in Saudi Arabia, there is a high level of general awareness regarding toxicity of household cleaning products; however, significant knowledge gaps and misconceptions exist regarding safe usage and emergency responses in case of poisoning. Saudis were found to have significantly lower knowledge compared to non-Saudis, while being married was associated with a significantly higher level of knowledge. Further, participants from the Northern region had significantly higher positive attitudes. In addition, participants mostly relied on product labels and the internet as sources of information, and less often sought information from medical professionals or poison control centers, which may contribute to widespread misconceptions. This study highlights the need for targeted educational interventions and public health campaigns to bridge the gap between awareness and actionable knowledge.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (Ref. no.: PGS-2024-01-650; date: September 29, 2024), Dammam, Saudi Arabia. All study participants provided consent before proceeding to answering the survey. The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, 2013.

Peer review

This article was peer-reviewed by two independent and anonymous reviewers.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

APPENDIX

Appendix: Questionnaire

Questionnaire:

Demographical Data:

  1. Gender:

    1. Male

    2. Female

  2. Nationality:

    1. Saudi

    2. Non-Saudi

  3. Age:

    1. 18-25 years

    2. 26-35 years

    3. 36-45 years

    4. 46-55 years

    5. 56 years or above

  4. Marital Status:

    1. Single

    2. Married

    3. Divorced

  5. Educational Background:

    1. Primary School

    2. Secondary School

    3. Bachelor’s Degree

    4. Master’s Degree

    5. Doctoral Degree

  6. Region of Residence:

    1. Eastern region

    2. Central region

    3. Western region

    4. Northern region

    5. Southern region

    Experience and Awareness:

  7. Have you ever experienced or witnessed an accident involving household cleaning products?

    1. Yes

    2. No

  8. Have you ever experienced any adverse health effects after using household cleaning products?

    1. Yes

    2. No

  9. If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, please specify the type of adverse health effects experienced. (Select all that apply)

    1. Skin irritation

    2. Eye irritation

    3. Respiratory problems (e.g. coughing, wheezing)

    4. Headaches

    5. Nausea/vomiting

  10. Are you aware that household cleaning products can contain chemicals that may be harmful to health if used improperly?

    1. Yes

    2. No

  11. How do you typically store your household cleaning products?

    1. In a locked cabinet out of reach of children

    2. On high shelves

    3. In an easily accessible area

    4. Mixed with other household items

  12. How often do you read the labels or instructions on household cleaning products before using them?

    1. Always

    2. Most of the time

    3. Occasionally

    4. Rarely

    5. Never

    Knowledge

  13. Which of the following chemicals commonly found in household cleaning products do you think can be harmful to health?

    1. Clorox

    2. Detergents

    3. Flash

    4. Disinfectants

    5. Insecticides

  14. What events do you believe would constitute a poison emergency? (Select all that apply)

    1. Accidental ingestion of household cleaning products

    2. Exposure to toxic fumes from household products

    3. Skin or eye contact with corrosive chemicals

    4. Accidental medication overdose

    5. Insect or snake bites

  15. How do you typically receive information about the toxicity of household hazardous materials? (Select all that apply)

    1. Product labels

    2. Internet research

    3. Healthcare professionals

    4. Poison Control Centers

    5. Family or friends

  16. Which of the following safety practices do you follow while using household cleaning products? (Select all that apply)

    1. Household cleaning products should be kept out of reach of children.

    2. Gloves should be used during use of some household cleaning products.

    3. Eye protection should be used during use of some household cleaning products.

    4. Hands should be washed with soap and water after using household cleaning products.

    5. Good ventilation (airflow) is needed when using cleaning chemicals.

    6. Diluting bleach solution only with room temperature water.

  17. What actions would you take if you suspected a poisoning incident involving household cleaning products?

    1. Contact Poison Control Center immediately

    2. Seek medical attention

    3. Read product labels for instructions

    4. Rinse affected area with water

  18. How would you rate your knowledge about the potential health risks associated with using toxic household cleaning products?

    1. Very knowledgeable

    2. Somewhat knowledgeable

    3. Not very knowledgeable

    4. Not knowledgeable at all

  19. True or False: It’s safe to use household cleaning products in unventilated areas.

    1. True

    2. False

  20. True or False: Mixing different household cleaning products together can enhance their cleaning power.

    1. True

    2. False

  21. True or False: Natural or organic cleaning products are always safer than conventional cleaning products.

    1. True

    2. False

  22. True or False: Diluting a cleaning product with water reduces its potency and potential harm.

    1. True

    2. False

  23. True or False: If a cleaning product doesn’t have a strong odor, it’s not harmful.

    1. True

    2. False

    Attitude

  24. Would you be willing to pay a higher price for non-toxic or environmentally friendly cleaning products?

    1. Yes

    2. No

    3. Depends on the price difference

  25. Are you satisfied with the information available to consumers about the toxicity of household cleaning products?

    1. Yes, very satisfied

    2. Somewhat satisfied

    3. Neutral

    4. Somewhat dissatisfied

    5. Very dissatisfied

Funding Statement

None

REFERENCES

  • 1.Aleid A, ALjayyar MW, Algrafi MB, Kateb HM, Alenazi SF, Almousa M, et al. Epidemiology and management of poisoning cases in the emergency room: A cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15:e46708. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang Z, Dinh D, Scott WC, Williams ES, Ciarlo M, DeLeo P, et al. Critical review and probabilistic health hazard assessment of cleaning product ingredients in all-purpose cleaners, dish care products, and laundry care products. Environ Int. 2019;125:399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pacini A, Tsutaoka B, Lai L, Durrani TS. Unintentional pediatric exposures to household cleaning products:a cross-sectional analysis of the National Poison Data System (2000–2015) J Occup Med Toxicol. 2023;18:16. doi: 10.1186/s12995-023-00384-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Aleid A, ALjayyar MW, Algrafi MB, Kateb HM, Alenazi SF, et al. Epidemiology and management of poisoning cases in the emergency room: A cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15:e46708. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu X, Tan L, Yu ITS, Zhang Z, Wong CC, Guo C. Household cleaning products and the risk of allergic dermatitis: A prospective cohort study with primary-school children. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:624–31. doi: 10.1111/jdv.14680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kore AM, Kiesche-Nesselrodt A. Toxicology of household cleaning products and disinfectants. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1990;20:525–37. doi: 10.1016/s0195-5616(90)50043-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Elamin ME. Poisoning by household products. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;48:203–04. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koksoy Vayisoglu S, Oncu E. The use of cleaning products and its relationship with the increasing health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75:e14534. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Barghash S, El Tlt A, Al-Jemily HA. Knowledge, attitude and practice about household poisoning in Saudi Arabia. J Adv Med Pharm Sci. 2016;6:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Poison Statistics. National Data. 2018. [[Last accessed October 17, 2025]]. Available from: https://www.poison.org/poison-statistics-national-data-from-2018 .
  • 11.Alzahrani SH, Ibrahim NK, Elnour MA, Alqahtani AH. Five-year epidemiological trends for chemical poisoning in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2017;37:282–9. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2017.282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Peden M, Oyegbite K, Ozanne-Smith J, Peden M, Oyegbite K, Ozanne-Smith J, Hyder AA, Branche C, Rahman AKMF, et al. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. eds. World Report on Child Injury Prevention. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Foster RC. KR20 and KR21 for some nondichotomous data (it's not just Cronbach's alpha) Educ Psychol Meas. 2021;81:1172–202. doi: 10.1177/0013164421992535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Buchmüller K, Bearth A, Siegrist M. Consumers’ perceptions of chemical household products and the associated risks. Food Chem Toxicol. 2020;143:111511. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2020.111511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mostafa H, Rizk J, Kanaan E, Hamade H, Kaddoura R, Tamim H, et al. Consumer knowledge and awareness of the toxicity and handling of household products at a tertiary care center in Beirut, Lebanon. Toxicol Ind Health. 2022;38:408–16. doi: 10.1177/07482337221106421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hartmann S, Klaschka U. Interested consumers’ awareness of harmful chemicals in everyday products. Environ Sci Eur. 2017;29:29. doi: 10.1186/s12302-017-0127-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bearth A, Bosshart N, Wermelinger S, Daum M, Siegrist M. Household chemicals and pre-schoolers: Caretakers’ beliefs and perspectives on risks and responsibilities. Saf Sci. 2022;154:105864. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nazaroff WW, Coleman BK, Destaillats H, Hodgson AT, Liu D-L, Lunden MM. 2006. Indoor Air Chemistry: Cleaning Agents, Ozone and Toxic Air Contaminants. Report 01-336. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board, 145–156. [[Last accessed October 25, 2024]]. Available from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/01-336.pdf .
  • 20.Litovitz TL, Klein-Schwartz W, Dyer KS, Shannon M, Lee S, Powers M. 1997 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1998;16:443–97. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90000-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saddique A. Poisoning in Saudi Arabia:ten-year experience in King Khaled University Hospital. Ann Saudi Med. 2001;21:88–91. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2001.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Goktas S, Yildirim G, Kose S, Yildirim S, Ozhan F, Senturan L. First aid knowledge of university students in poisoning cases. Turk J Emerg Med. 2016;14:153–9. doi: 10.5505/1304.7361.2014.15428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pandey KR, Yang F, Cagney KA, Smieliauskas F, Meltzer DO, Ruhnke GW. The impact of marital status on health care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e14871. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ricke IJ, Oglesby A, Lyden GR, Barrett ES, Moe S, Nguyen RH. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding chemical exposure among a population sample of reproductive-aged women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:3015. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19053015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Akello T, Nakalembe D, Galiwango J, Nalugya A, Wejuli JM, Tamale BN, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and factors associated with household chemical safety practices among caregivers of children in Kampala:a mixed methods study. Sci Rep. 2025;15:31475. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00718-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.AlMuammar SA, Noorsaeed AS, Alafif RA, Kamal YF, Daghistani GM. The use of internet and social media for health information and its consequences among the population in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2021;13:e18338. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sanders RA, Crozier K. How do informal information sources influence women's decision-making for birth?A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:21. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1648-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alwan N, Almazrouei S, Almazrouei M, Aldhaheri J, Alismaili F, Ghach W. Evaluation of public awareness and performance toward the safe use of household disinfectants-cleaners to prevent COVID-19 in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1214240. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1214240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Saudi Journal of Medicine & Medical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications

RESOURCES