Assessing Occupational Chemical Risk Perception in Construction Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Safety in workplaces is a requirement for work sustainability. Construction workers are frequently exposed to dangerous airborne substances. While previous studies examined chemical risks in other sectors, there is limited research on occupational chemical risk perception (OCRP) among construction workers. This study focuses on evaluating OCRP in construction workers and identifying its association with socio-demographic, occupational, and training variables. In L’Aquila, Italy, a sample of male construction workers involved in post-earthquake reconstruction were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Chemical hazard perception, occupational exposure, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and training were all covered by our questionnaire. Although the involved 117 workers appear to be aware of dust-related risks and asbestos-related diseases, 53% think that there is no asbestos at their worksite. Respiratory protection equipment was used by 36% of the respondents. OCRP was associated with refresher training (OR = 2.56; p = 0.025); perception of noise (OR = 10.03; p = 0.027); and solar radiation (OR = 26.07; p = 0.001). Although we observed an appropriate awareness of some occupational hazards, gaps between awareness, hazard perception, and protective behavior were evident. Comprehensive site inspections and improved risk communication are necessary to assess chemical hazards and enhance work sustainability.

1. Introduction

Occupational safety and health are essential issues for a sustainable society in developed nations. The Council Directive of 1989 requires European countries to legislate to ensure the safety of workers and their health in workplaces [1]. The Italian regulation specifically is based on Decree n. 81 [2] and all subsequent amendments; this legislative text laid a foundation for injury prevention and health protection in occupational settings.

The scientific literature provides a large amount of evidence showing that chemical product handling in workplaces may pose numerous safety and health risks to employees. Occupational exposure to chemical pollutants is associated, among others, with asthma and poor respiratory health [3]; with acute and chronic dermal effects, such as skin sensitivity, inflammation, or cancer [4]; and with many genotoxic effects on humans [5,6]. When employees are exposed to chemical agents, a chemical risk assessment is required [7].

The construction industry is both hazardous and productive, and the workers involved face a variety of health and safety hazards. Both severe and minor accidents are prevalent, often attributed to unsustainable environmental conditions, subcontractor practices, and the size of the employing company [8]. Beyond injuries, this sector is associated with a range of work-related diseases, including respiratory issues, musculoskeletal disorders, hearing loss, and overall diminished worker well-being [9,10,11,12]. Chemical risk is a well-known problem in the construction industry, and it can be linked to exposure to dangerous compounds, like endocrine disruptors [13]; respirable, inhalable, and silica dusts [14]; and asbestos [15]. These hazards undermine the work sustainability of the construction sector. While there is a substantial body of research on occupational chemical risk perception (OCRP) across various settings—such as research laboratories [16], the chemical industry [17], healthcare facilities [18], and gas stations [19]—studies that specifically address OCRP within the construction sector remain scarce. Earlier research showed that although workers have some understanding of chemical hazards, they frequently consider the information provided about these risks as inadequate or lacking [16,18].

The geographical context of this study is the province of L’Aquila, central Italy, which was hit by a destructive earthquake in 2009. This calamity heavily affected the inhabitants’ safety and health. As a result of the earthquake, hundreds of people lost their lives and thousands were injured [20,21]; moreover, a huge number of building sites and building companies typify the whole area to date [22]. The workers included in this study belong to a population of male construction workers involved in post-earthquake reconstruction. Given such context, the present study aimed to assess occupational risk perception of construction workers, with a focus on chemical-related risks. More specifically, we sought to highlight possible associations between the post-earthquake construction workers’ OCRP and several occupational, expository, and perceptual variables.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study was authorized by the Ethical Committee (EC) of the Local Health Authority Avezzano-Sulmona-L’Aquila, Abruzzo Region, Italy (minutes number 21; dated 23 June 2021). Data were collected between December 2021 and June 2022. All participants gave their informed consent, and confidentiality and anonymity were ensured.

This is a cross-sectional study of construction workers involved in the post-earthquake reconstruction of the city of L’Aquila; the focus of the investigation was the workers’ OCRP. The data were gathered from a self-administered questionnaire that is available as supplementary material. The workers belonged to a wider population: six construction companies voluntarily participated in a risk and exposure assessment project. The project highlighted the presence of health hazards related to occupational chemical exposure [6,14] and a low perception of a multitude of occupational risks [22]. The study was verbally presented by the researchers involved, and the participation was voluntary. The survey was administered during in-person meetings. The voluntarily interviewed workers were all hired by the six participating companies. No workers were excluded on the basis of their job role, time of employment, or type of contract. All workers had sufficient knowledge of the language, so no one was excluded from the study.

In addition to collecting the socio-demographic data of the sample, our survey investigated the workers’ perception of chemical risks at the workplace, perceived occupational exposure, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and attendance at training courses and their perceived effectiveness.

The socio-demographic data include personal information, such as age (18–20; 21–30; 31–40; 41–50; 51–60; or >60); sex (male or female); marital status (married; unmarried; widow; divorced; or cohabitant); educational attainment (elementary school; junior high school; high school; or university); nationality (European or extra-European); individual behaviors, such as coffee, tobacco, and alcohol consumption; job characteristics, such as seniority, job task, and work environment dustiness; and breathing issues, such as cough and shortness of breath. Workers were thus asked to assess their perceived level of chemical risks at the workplace. This dimension was investigated through 14 items with three possible answers (At all/Moderately/Highly); the questions deal with task-specific hazards, airborne dusts, and asbestos. The questionnaire examines occupational exposure, including pre-existing exposure to dust, asbestos, coal dust, pesticides, solar radiation, petroleum, coloring, and solvents. Workers could choose two answers from a list (“yes” or “no”). Lastly, the survey focuses on the use of PPE (personal protective equipment) and on their availability at the workplace (two items with a double-choice answer, “yes” or “no”); attendance at safety training courses (six items with a double-choice answer, “yes” or “no”); and the perceived effectiveness of training courses (three items allowing three possible answers, At all/Moderately/Highly).

To assess the primary outcome of the study, a dichotomous variable called OCRP (yes/no) was constructed by the participants’ positive responses to the questions “How harmful do you consider dust in your current job?” and “How harmful do you consider asbestos in your current job?”

Each variable in the data analysis was reported as a mean with standard deviations (SDs) or frequency distributions.

In order to highlight possible associations among the new OCRP dichotomous variable and the other investigated factors, we dichotomized all the independent variables, which originally allowed a multiple choice. More specifically, we compared the OCRP dichotomous variable with age (older than 51 years); high educational attainment (high school or graduation were considered high educational attainment); being a cohabitant (if married or a cohabitant); being European (European citizenship); and being a former smoker or consuming alcohol (for beer, wine, or liqueur consumers). All variables concerning the workers’ perception of chemical risks at work and training were dichotomized as “no” if the answer was At all and “yes” if the answer was Moderately or Highly.

To analyze the associations between the dependent variable (OCRP) and the other independent variables, Student’s t test or the Wilcoxon test (for continuous variables) and the Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test (for categorical variables) were used.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted using the stepwise procedure, based on Wald test p-values, with a removal criterion of p > 0.20, progressively excluding non-significant predictors from the model. Alpha was set at 0.05, and crude Odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (adjORs) were reported with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All the statistical analyses were performed using STATA 18.0 software.

3. Results

The studied population consisted of 117 male construction workers. As shown in

Table 1. Descriptive data analysis.

Variables	Characteristic	n (%) or Mean (SD)
Age (classes)	18–20	3 (2.56)
	21–30	24 (20.51)
	31–40	23 (19.66)
	41–50	24 (20.51)
	51–60	33 (28.2)
	>60	7 (5.98)
Sex	Male	117 (100)
	Female	0 (0)
Marital status	Married	52 (44.44)
	Unmarried	36 (30.77)
	Widow	1 (0.85)
	Divorced	8 (6.84)
	Cohabitant	8 (6.84)
Educational attainment	Elementary school	9 (7.7)
	Junior high school	30 (25.64)
	High school	47 (40.17)
	University	9 (7.7)
Nationality	European	87 (74.35)
	Extra-European	9 (7.7)
Smoker	No	52 (44.4%)
	Yes	65 (55.6%)
Seniority (years)	(free filling)	22.667 (13.53)
Have you ever worked in dusty environments?	No	13 (11.1%)
	Yes	104 (88.9%)
Job Task	Specialized laborer	30 (28.3%)
	Laborer	29 (27.4%)
	Driver	16 (15.1%)
	Manager	10 (9.4%)
	Unemployed	21 (19.8%)
Do you usually cough when you get up in the morning?	No	105 (92.1%)
	Yes	9 (7.9%)
Do you need to catch your breath while walking?	No	110 (95.7%)
	Yes	5 (4.3%)
Do you have shortness of breath while you are resting?	No	111 (97.4%)
	Yes	3 (2.6%)
How many coffees do you drink a day?	(free filling)	3.092 (2.05)
Do you usually drink beer?	No	48 (42.5%)
	Yes	65 (57.5%)
Do you usually drink wine?	No	61 (53.0%)
	Yes	54 (47.0%)
Do you usually drink liqueurs?	No	88 (78.6%)
	Yes	24 (21.4%)

, about half of them were 41–60 years old, were mainly cohabitants (married or cohabitant; 51.28%), have a middle or high school education (65.81%), and belong to the European Union (74.35%). About half of the sample reported being a smoker (55.6%) and drinking beer (57.5%) and wine (47%). A lower percentage reported drinking liqueurs (21.4%). The mean seniority is 22.67 years (SD: 13.53). The most represented job tasks are specialized laborer (28.3%) and laborer (27.4%), and a huge percentage reported working in dusty environments (88.9%). A small portion of the sample reported breathing issues, such as cough in the morning (7.9%), needing to “catch a breath” while walking (4.3%), and shortness of breath while resting (2.6%).

With the goal of evaluating risk perception, we asked the workers to assess their occupational exposure to physical and chemical risk factors that could be expressed as “At all”, “Moderately”, and “Highly” (

Table 2. Workers’ assessment of their occupational exposure to chemical and physical hazards.

Variables	Worker Assessment	n (%)
How harmful do you consider dust in your current job?	At all	37 (31.6%)
	Moderately	36 (30.8%)
	Highly	44 (37.6%)
How harmful do you consider asbestos in your current job?	At all	79 (67.5%)
	Moderately	12 (10.3%)
	Highly	26 (22.2%)
How harmful do you consider noise in your current job?	At all	35 (29.9%)
	Moderately	41 (35.0%)
	Highly	41 (35.0%)
How harmful do you consider vibrations in your current job?	At all	43 (36.8%)
	Moderately	41 (35.0%)
	Highly	33 (28.2%)
How harmful do you consider solar radiation in your current job?	At all	60 (51.3%)
	Moderately	30 (25.6%)
	Highly	27 (23.1%)
How harmful do you consider new materials in your current job?	At all	71 (60.7%)
	Moderately	29 (24.8%)
	Highly	17 (14.5%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can be inhaled	At all	15 (12.8%)
	Moderately	21 (17.9%)
	Highly	81 (69.2%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can settle on the skin	At all	37 (31.6%)
	Moderately	33 (28.2%)
	Highly	47 (40.2%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can contain dangerous chemicals	At all	23 (19.7%)
	Moderately	25 (21.4%)
	Highly	69 (59.0%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can contain asbestos	At all	39 (33.3%)
	Moderately	27 (23.1%)
	Highly	51 (43.6%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it causes respiratory diseases	At all	13 (11.1%)
	Moderately	10 (8.5%)
	Highly	94 (80.3%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it’s more widespread than you think	At all	23 (19.7%)
	Moderately	26 (22.2%)
	Highly	68 (58.1%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it’s hard to detect	At all	27 (23.1%)
	Moderately	35 (29.9%)
	Highly	55 (47.0%)
Do you think there is asbestos in your current workplace?	At all	62 (53.0%)
	Moderately	16 (13.7%)
	Highly	39 (33.3%)

). Exposure to asbestos, solar radiation, and new materials appears to be underestimated: 67.5%, 51.3%, and 60.7% of the workers assessed these risk factors as not harmful at all, respectively. Dust, noise, and vibration in the construction site were assessed as highly harmful by 37.6%, 35%, and 28.2% of the workers, respectively. Workers are aware that airborne dust can cause harm through inhalation (69.2%), and it can hide dangerous chemicals (59%). Overall, 43.6% of the respondents think that dust may contain asbestos, and 40.2% think dust can settle on the skin. We also examined the perceived risk of asbestos. Although more than half of the sample was certain of asbestos absence in their workplace (53%), its role in respiratory disease pathogenesis appears to be undoubted (80.3%). Construction workers also revealed to be aware that asbestos is widespread (58.1%) and that it is challenging to detect (47%).

We investigated the workers’ past and present exposure to chemical threats (

Table 3. Chemical exposure information.

Variables	Answer	n (%)
Do you carry out asbestos removal in your current job?	No	108 (99.1%)
	Yes	1 (0.9%)
Have you ever been exposed to asbestos?	No	111 (95.7%)
	Yes	5 (4.3%)
Have you ever been exposed to coal?	No	108 (93.1%)
	Yes	8 (6.9%)
Have you ever been exposed to dusts?	No	45 (38.8%)
	Yes	71 (61.2%)
Have you ever been exposed to pesticides?	No	103 (88.8%)
	Yes	13 (11.2%)
Have you ever been exposed to petroleum?	No	94 (80.3%)
	Yes	23 (19.7%)
Have you ever been exposed to coloring?	No	95 (81.2%)
	Yes	22 (18.8%)
Have you ever been exposed to solvents?	No	78 (66.7%)
	Yes	39 (33.3%)
Have you ever been exposed to other chemicals?	No	91 (77.8%)
	Yes	26 (22.2%)

). In the first instance, we defined how many workers performed asbestos removal in their current job (0.9%). With regard to past or present threats, although workers reported being exposed to dust (61.2%), the exposure percentage turned out to be low for solvents (33.3%), other chemicals (22.2%), petroleum (19.7%), and coloring (18.8%) and very low for pesticides (11.2%), coal (6.9%), and asbestos (4.3%).

Table 4. Use of protective equipment and attendance of training courses.

Variables	Answer	n (%)
Do you usually use respiratory personal protective equipment?	No	73 (64.0)
	Yes	41 (36.0)
Is collective protective equipment available in your current workplace for dustiness reduction?	No	52 (47.1)
	Yes	55 (52.9)
Did you attend the training courses for construction industry workers?	No	29 (26.1)
	Yes	82 (73.9)
Did you attend the refresher course for construction industry workers?	No	50 (44.2)
	Yes	63 (55.8)
Did you attend any specific training courses for your job task?	No	37 (32.7)
	Yes	76 (67.3)
Did you attend any specific training courses about dust-related risks?	No	46 (40.7)
	Yes	67 (59.3)
Did you attend any specific training courses about asbestos-related risks?	No	55 (49.5)
	Yes	56 (50.5)
Did you attend any training courses about personal and collective protective equipment?	No	15 (12.9)
	Yes	101 (87.1)
How effective do you consider training courses performed by an external company trainer?	At all	9 (7.8)
	Moderately	17 (14.8)
	Highly	89 (77.4)
How effective do you consider training courses performed by an internal company trainer?	At all	14 (12.2)
	Moderately	35 (30.4)
	Highly	66 (57.4)
How effective do you consider e-learning training courses?	At all	37 (32.2)
	Moderately	37 (32.2)
	Highly	41 (35.7)

shows respiratory PPE use and its availability at work. Half of the workers declared that PPE is usually available in their workplace (52.9%), but only about a third of the respondents reported using it (36%). Table 4 also shows the attendance of training courses. Among the respondents, 73.9% and 55.8 of them, respectively, reported attending training courses and the health and safety refresher courses for the construction industry. Overall, 67.3%, 59.3%, 50.5%, and 87.1% of the workers reported attending specific training courses about job tasks, dust-related risks, asbestos-related risks, and PPE, respectively. Finally, the respondents reported that they considered an external trainer to be more effective (77.4% highly) than an internal one (57.4% highly). We did not find a prevailing opinion about the effectiveness of e-learning training courses.

We sought to identify connections between the workers’ OCRP and the other investigated dimensions (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Eighty-one workers (69.23%) declared a perceived chemical risk. The remaining workers do not perceive any chemical risk: they consider airborne dust and asbestos “not dangerous at all”. A univariate analysis highlighted that OCRP is associated with marital status (OR = 0.35; p = 0.022; 95% CI: 0.14–0.88); past or present dust exposure (OR = 2.32; p = 0.038; 95% CI: 1.04–5.19); attendance of a refresher course (OR = 2.56; p = 0.025; 95% CI: 1.11–5.89); and effectiveness of internal trainers (OR = 5.19; p = 0.003; 95% CI: 1.59–16.91). Positive associations were found among OCRP and physical risk perception, such as noise (OR = 10.17; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 4.07–25.41); vibrations (OR = 7.95; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 3.29–19.21); and solar radiation (OR = 22; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 6.18–78.25). Workers concerned about the hazards of new building materials also have OCRP (OR = 12.45; p < 0.05; 95% CI: 3.53–43.87). Finally, we found several associations between OCRP and dust and the perceived risk of asbestos (

Table 5. Associations among OCRP and danger, exposure, and protection variables.

	OCRP (How Harmful Do You Consider Dust and Asbestos in Your Current Job?)			Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
	No	Yes	p
	n (%)	n (%)
n	36 (30.8)	81 (69.2)
Older than 51 years
No (reference category)	24 (32.43)	50 (67.57)	0.586 *	1.26	0.542–2.95
Yes	11 (27.5)	29 (72.50)
High educational attainment
No (r reference category if)	14 (35.9)	25 (64.1)	0.252 *	1.68	0.69–4.01
Yes	14 (25)	42 (75)
Being cohabitant
No (reference category)	8 (17.78)	37 (82.22)	0.022 *	0.35	0.14–0.88
Yes	23 (38.33)	37 (61.67)
Being European
No (r reference category if)	2 (2.08)	11 (11.46)	0.272 *	0.42	0.09–2.04
Yes	25 (26.04)	58 (60.42)
Being a former smoker
No (reference category)	16 (30.77)	36 (69.23)	1.000 *	1	0.45–2.2
Yes	20 (30.77)	45 (69.23)
Consume alcohol
No (reference category)	11 (28.21)	28 (71.79)	0.671 *	0.83	0.3–1.94
Yes	25 (32.05)	53 (67.95)
Do you usually cough when you get up in the morning?
No (reference category)	34 (32.38)	71 (67.62)	0.184 *	3.83	0.46–31.87
Yes	1 (11.11)	8 (88.89)
Do you need to catch your breath while walking?
No (reference category)	33 (30)	77 (70)	0.157 *	0.28	0.05–1.79
Yes	3 (60)	2 (40)
Do you have shortness of breath while you are resting?
No (reference category)	34 (30.63)	77 (69.37)	0.185 *	0.22	0.02–2.52
Yes	2 (66.67)	1 (33.33)
Do you carry out asbestos removal in your current job?
No (reference category)	34 (31.48)	74 (68.52)	0.499 *
Yes	0 (0)	1 (100)
Do you consider noise harmful in your current job?
No (reference category)	23 (65.71)	12 (34.29)	0.000 *	10.17	4.07–25.41
Yes	13 (15.85)	69 (84.15)
Do you consider vibrations harmful in your current job?
No (reference category)	25 (58.14)	18 (41.86)	0.000 *	7.95	3.29–19.21
Yes	11 (14.86)	63 (85.14)
Do you consider solar radiation harmful in your current job?
No (reference category)	33 (55)	27 (45)	0.000 *	22	6.18–78.25
Yes	3 (5.26)	54 (94.74)
Do you consider new materials harmful in your current job?
No (reference category)	33 (46.48)	38 (53.52)	0.000 *	12.45	3.53–43.87
Yes	3 (6.52)	43 (93.48)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can be inhaled
No (reference category)	12 (80%)	3 (20%)	<0.001 **	13	3.38–49.91
Yes	23 (22.77)	78 (77.23%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can settle on the skin
No (reference category)	19 (51.35%)	18 (48.65%)	0.001 *	3.91	1.69–9.04
Yes	17 (21.25%)	63 (78.75%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can contain dangerous chemicals
No (reference category)	16 (69.56%)	7 (30.44%)	<0.001 *	8.46	3.06–23.37
Yes	20 (21.28%)	74 (78.72%)
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can contain asbestos
No (reference category)	18 (46.15%)	21 (53.85%)	0.011 *	2.86	1.26–6.49
Yes	18 (23.08%)	60 (76.92%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it causes respiratory diseases
No (reference category)	9 (69.23%)	4 (30.77%)	0.003 **	6.42	1.83–22.55
Yes	27 (25.96%)	77 (74.04%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it’s more widespread than you think
No (reference category)	14 (60.87%)	9 (39.13%)	<0.001 *	5.09	1.94–13.35
Yes	22 (23.4%)	72 (76.6%)
Asbestos is dangerous because it’s hard to detect
No (reference category)	15 (55.55%)	12 (44.45%)	0.001 *	4.1	1.66–10.13
Yes	21 (23.33%)	69 (76.66%)
Do you think there is asbestos in your current workplace?
No (reference category)	10 (25.64%)	29 (74.36%)	0.102 *	5.17	0.6–44.32
Yes	1 (6.25%)	15 (93.75%)
Have you ever been exposed to asbestos?
No (reference category)	35 (31.53%)	76 (68.47%)	0.133 *
Yes	0 (0%)	5 (100%)
Have you ever been exposed to radiation?
No (reference category)	35 (30.97%)	78 (69.03)	1.000 **	1.35	0.13–13.4
Yes	1 (25%)	3 (75%)
Have you ever been exposed to coal?
No (reference category)	35 (32.41%)	73 (67.59%)	0.432 **	3.36	0.4–28.34
Yes	1 (12.5%)	7 (87.5%)
Have you ever been exposed to dust?
No (reference category)	19 (42.22%)	26 (57.78%)	0.038 *	2.32	1.04–5.19
Yes	17 (23.94)	54 (76.05%)
Have you ever been exposed to pesticides?
No (reference category)	32 (31.07%)	71 (68.93%)	0.982 *	1.01	0.29–3.54
Yes	4 (30.77%)	9 (69.23%)
Have you ever been exposed to petroleum?
No (reference category)	31 (32.98%)	63 (67.02%)	0.450 **	1.78	0.6–5.22
Yes	5 (21.74%)	18 (78.26%)
Have you ever been exposed to coloring?
No (reference category)	32 (33.68%)	63 (66.32%)	0.203 **	2.28	0.71–7.32
Yes	4 (18.18%)	18 (81.82%)
Have you ever been exposed to solvents?
No (reference category)	26 (33.33%)	52 (66.64%)	0.395 *	1.45	0.61–3.42
Yes	10 (25.64%)	29 (74.36%)
Have you ever been exposed to other chemicals?
No (reference category)	29 (31.87%)	62 (63.13%)	0.630 *	1.27	0.48–3.35
Yes	7 (26.92%)	19 (73.07%)
Do you regularly use respiratory protective equipment?
No (reference category)	22 (30.14%)	51 (69.86%)	0.659 *	0.83	0.37–1.88
Yes	14 (34.15%)	27 (65.85%)
Are collective protective devices for airborne dust abatement present in the environment you work in?
No (reference category)	13 (25%)	39 (75%)	0.496 *	0.74	0.32–1.74
Yes	17 (30.9%)	38 (69.09%)
Did you attend the training course on personal and collective protective equipment?
No (reference category)	3 (20%)	12 (80%)	0.386 **	0.51	0.14–1.95
Yes	33 (32.67%)	68 (67.33%)
Did you attend the training courses for construction industry workers?
No (reference category)	12 (41.38%)	17 (58.62%)	0.083 *	2.19	0.09–5.35
Yes	20 (24.39%)	62 (75.21%)
Did you attend the refresher- course for construction industry workers?
No (reference category)	20 (40%)	30 (60%)	0.025 *	2.56	1.11–5.89
Yes	13 (20.63%)	50 (79.37%)
Did you attend any specific training courses for your job task?
No (reference category)	9 (24.32%)	28 (75.68%)	0.351 *	0.65	0.27–1.59
Yes	25 (32.89%)	51 (67.11%)
Did you attend any specific training courses about dust-related risks?
No (reference category)	15 (32.61%)	31 (67.39%)	0.628 *	1.22	0.54–2.76
Yes	19 (28.36%)	48 (71.64%)
Did you attend any specific training courses about asbestos-related risks?
No (reference category)	15 (27.27%)	40 (72.73%)	0.447 *	0.73	0.32–1.64
Yes	19 (33.93%)	37 (66.07%)
Do you consider training courses performed by an external company trainer effective?
No (reference category)	4 (11.43%)	31 (88.57%)	0.341 *	1.93	0.49–7.69
Yes	5 (6.25%)	75 (93.75%)
Do you consider training courses performed by an internal company trainer effective?
No (reference category)	9 (25.71%)	26 (74.29%)	0.003 *	5.19	1.59–16.91
Yes	5 (6.25%)	75 (93.75%)
Do you consider e-learning training courses effective?
No (reference category)	14 (40%)	21 (60%)	0.235 *	1.65	0.72–3.79
Yes	23 (28.75%)	57 (71.25%)

* Pearson’s chi² test; ** Fisher’s exact test.

). In more detail, we observed an association with inhalation (OR = 13; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 3.38–49.91); skin contact (OR = 3.91; p = 0.001; 95% CI:1.69–9.04); asbestos containing dusts (OR = 2.86; p = 0.011; 95% CI: 1.26–6.49); and dangerous chemicals containing dusts (OR = 8.46; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 3.06–23.37) with regard to airborne dust. With regard to asbestos, however, the linked statistically significant factors are respiratory diseases (OR = 6.42; p = 0.003; 95% CI: 1.83–22.55); the widespread nature of asbestos (OR = 5.09; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.94–13.35); and its hard-to-detect feature (OR = 4.1; p = 0.001; 95% CI: 1.66–10.13).

The final model of multivariable logistic regression included seven predictors and demonstrated a good fit, as indicated by a highly significant Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared statistic (χ² (7) = 56.74; p < 0.0001) and a Pseudo-R² of 0.4917, suggesting that approximately 49.17% of the variability in OCRP was explained by the independent variables reported in

Table 6. Multivariable logistic regression, with OCRP as the dependent variable.

Independent Factors	OR	p > z	95% CI
Being cohabitant (yes vs. no)	0.1261133	0.009	0.0268332	0.5927197
Do you consider noise harmful in your current job? (yes vs. no)	10.0321	0.027	1.293375	77.81433
Do you consider vibrations harmful in your current job? (yes vs. no)	0.1669539	0.134	0.0160848	1.732913
Do you consider solar radiation harmful in your current job? (yes vs. no)	26.07116	0.001	3.814039	178.2114
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can be inhaled (yes vs. no)	12.66997	0.107	0.576644	278.3835
Airborne dust is dangerous because it can contain dangerous chemicals (yes vs. no)	7.493376	0.083	0.7683664	73.078
Asbestos is dangerous because it causes respiratory diseases (yes vs. no)	0.0648187	0.103	0.0024063	1.746061

.

As shown in the multivariable logistic regression results, three predictors were significantly associated with OCRP. Being a cohabitant was significantly associated with reduced odds of OCRP. Specifically, the probability of OCRP was lower for cohabitants compared to non-cohabitants (OR = 0.13; p = 0.009; 95% CI: 0.03–0.59). Participants who perceived noise were approximately 10 times more likely to experience the outcome than those who did not (OR = 10.03; p = 0.027; 95% CI: 1.29–77.81), and those who perceived solar radiation were more likely to report the outcome.

4. Discussion

This study evaluated construction workers’ perception of chemical and physical risks (OCRP), offering valuable insights into their awareness of workplace hazards and their responses to these risks. This Discussion Section was structured to systematically address the key findings, focusing on chemical and physical dangerousness perception, occupational exposure information, protective behaviors, training activities, and chemical risk perception.

4.1. Job-Specific Chemical and Physical Dangerousness Perception

We identified an alarming underestimation of solar radiation, asbestos, and new materials related to task-specific hazards. Contrary to these beliefs, we know that solar radiation represents a real health risk in the construction sector. Through long-term personal monitoring, Moldovan et al. [23] found that construction workers’ exposure is two to five times higher than the standard erythema dose from spring to autumn. Moreover, workers in the construction industry show limited compliance with sun protection practices. Regardless of one’s stated sex, age, or ethnicity, skin cancer is more common among outdoor workers than indoor ones [24]. Regarding asbestos-related risks, we found that an Italian study [25] estimated the relative risk for pleural mesothelioma among construction workers. The authors highlighted strong and positive associations of several construction job tasks with pleural mesothelioma. With regard to the hazards of new building materials, it must be said that the construction industry is highly affected by technological innovations, such as the intense use of engineered nanoparticles. It was demonstrated that such particles, including silica nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, and many more, represent a serious health risk. For instance, they can cause carcinogenic reactions in the lungs [26].

Dust hazards, the relevance of inhalation and cutaneous exposure routes, and the presence of hidden dangerous chemicals and asbestos fibers are globally considered by the investigated population. These health issues have been extensively demonstrated by several observational studies [24,27,28,29,30]. Limited to dust-related occupational risks, the investigated population appears to be globally aware.

Physical dangers appear to be perceived by construction workers. We noticed that more than two-thirds of the interviewed workers consider noise and vibrations to be moderately or highly harmful in their current job. The literature [31,32] produces clear evidence of noise and vibration exposure among construction workers. Occupational-related health and safety issues are undoubtedly caused by these widely demonstrated physical risk factors in the building sector.

Despite the detected low perception of job-specific asbestos-related harmfulness, the respondents appear to be strongly aware of the risk of asbestos-induced lung diseases. Although more than two-thirds of the sample think that asbestos is widespread and hard to detect, half of the workers declared that in their current workplace, there is no asbestos at all. According to Thieves et al. [33], asbestos in the construction industry still represents a relevant health risk, especially in the renovation or demolition of buildings constructed before the asbestos ban.

The studied population showed an alarming underestimation of risks such as solar radiation, asbestos exposure, and new chemicals. It is recommended to assess if such risks are present in the specific construction sites, despite the literature already providing plenty pieces of evidence for them. The involved enterprises should make an effort to improve workers’ perception about their occupational exposures and related health hazards. Laborers’ perception should be improved in order to enhance their protection in present and future workplaces: enhancements of safety training, information material distribution, and the involvement of safety professionals could be a valid strategy. Sharing the results of occupational risk assessments could also be a useful measure to increase workers’ risk perception in each construction site [34].

4.2. Chemical Exposure Information

The studied population reported never been exposed to asbestos in the past (95.7%) or in the present (99.1%). Respondents were also asked to assess their exposure in the construction site to solvents and dust [35]. We thus observed a self-reported relevant past and present exposure to dust (61%) and a lower exposure to solvents (33%). These self-reported exposures may be supported by national and international scientific data that confirm potentially significant dust and solvent exposures among construction workers [14,36].

With regard to non-construction self-reported exposures, such as petroleum (19.7%), coloring (18.8%), pesticides (11.2%), and coal (6.9%), we can suppose they can be ascribed to previous employments. Leisure-time activities, such as woodworking, artwork, furniture refinishing, and much more [37], may expose one to hazardous chemicals. Lastly, more than one-fifth (22.2%) of the sample reported to be or to have been exposed to other chemicals that have not been listed in our survey.

4.3. Protective Behaviours and Training Activities

Regarding protective equipment, only one-third of the sample reported using respiratory PPE. Such information may highlight a potential health risk because, as already demonstrated [14,35,36], the construction industry often exposes employees to gaseous and solid airborne pollutants. The use of collective protective equipment (CPE) in the current workplace was declared by more than half of the respondents (52.9%). Due to the highly changeable nature of the building site, CPE implementation may be challenging. Thus, this percentage may be considered a positive result. According to Keer et al. [38], the most common CPE for dust control is represented by on-tool extraction and wet-cutting systems.

Concerning safety training courses, workers declared attending the basic (73.9%), refresher (55.8%), and specific ones (67.3%). In addition, as shown in Table 4, most of our sample (87.1%) reported attending personal and collective protective equipment training courses, whereas a lower percentage reported attending dust and asbestos awareness courses.

Considering that Italian regulations [2] establish that safety training courses are mandatory for all risk-exposed workers, the presented data may be interpreted as alarming information that may partially explain the low-risk perception level that we identified. Moreover, Italian regulations commit employers to provide risk-specific training courses to employees. As demonstrated by Chellappa et al. [39], safety training, either traditional or technology-based, may improve several aspects of occupational safety, including hazard identification and equipment operation.

Finally, we asked the workers to evaluate the effectiveness of training based on its delivery method. According to the respondents, the most effective method was the one conducted by an external trainer. Courses provided by internal trainers and e-learning training were considered less effective. Despite the lack of studies on the effectiveness of courses provided by internal or external construction industry trainers are lacking, Ricci et al. found that in most cases, the safety trainer is an expert or a researcher, less frequently a peer or a trade unionist. With regard to occupational safety training effectiveness, they highlighted that interventions about knowledge and attitude are more effective when delivered via e-learning, despite this method seeming to be the least common type of training [40].

Data about behaviors and training activities highlight a low use of protective devices and that more than a quarter of the sample did not attend safety training courses. The low usage of PPEs should be carefully considered by the involved companies, because in a dangerous and changeable workplace, such as a construction site, personal protection represents one of the most effective measures for occupational safety [36,38]. In spite of the compulsoriness of safety training, only three-quarters of the sample reported to have attended the courses. These issues and the results of our survey should be quickly addressed by the companies. Involving executive management or construction site supervisors and organizing informational meetings might shed light on the importance of workers’ protection and safety training, increasing legislative compliance by the workers. Moreover, requesting feedback from the workers on these issues could help improve occupational safety [34].

4.4. Chemical Risk Perception

The results indicate that OCRP is significantly associated with several independent variables. Cohabitant workers seem to have less OCRP than other workers. Such difference seems not to be confirmed by partially comparable studies [22,41].

With regard to job-specific chemical and physical dangerousness perception, we found that workers who perceive chemical risk also think that their job is dangerous because of chemical risks, such as new materials, and because of physical risks, such as noise, vibrations, and solar radiation. A recent study [42] highlighted that construction workers assign a medium importance level to physical risks (a relative importance index of 0.5/1.0), while they assign a similar but lower importance level to chemical risks (a relative importance index of 0.4/1.0). This suggests that although these risks appear to be globally underestimated, they are similarly perceived.

Our questions about the health hazards of airborne dust and asbestos hazards pointed out that workers with OCRP also exhibit a strong hazard awareness. These data are supported by the findings of Li et al. [41], which emphasize that construction workers have a good level of risk perception. Regarding OCRP, Li et al. pointed out that construction workers are aware that building activities generate hazardous substances, that dust and gaseous exposures lead to negative health consequences, and that the use of less-dangerous building materials reduces the probability of diseases. Pertaining to asbestos-related diseases and exposure perception, a French study [43] confirms our findings: construction workers recognize asbestos-related health hazards, but they have a low perception of the exposure level.

An additional significant association was found between OCRP and dust exposure perception. Our interviewees with OCRP also have an undoubtable awareness about past or present occupational dust exposure. In line with our results, a recent New Zealander study [38] on a cohort of construction workers highlighted that dust exposure is a well-recognized risk.

The last two associations with OCRP were found for occupational training courses. Firstly, we found that construction workers who attended the refresher safety course have a higher OCRP. However, a significant association does not exist for safety training or for task- and risk-specific training courses. To date, the literature does not seem to provide any evidence from any study that could support such data. Secondly, our findings suggest that construction workers who perceive chemical risk consider an internal company trainer effective for safety training. Although studies on the effectiveness of internal or external safety trainers seem not to be available, Ricci et al. highlighted that generally, trainers may be classified as researchers, peers, trade unionists, and safety experts. Among these, the expert and the researcher seem to be the most effective, while the others are perceived as less or not very effective. However, according to the cited research and in contrast to our findings, self-learning training proved to be the most effective safety training type [40].

Workers who attended the refresher training showed a higher OCRP. Based on such considerations, construction industries should make an effort in increasing the participation rate of workers in training courses. Improving the transmission of knowledge could increase the perception of chemical risks in construction workplaces [34].

4.5. Strengths and Limitations of This Study

This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, this study used a cross-sectional design, limiting the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. For example, the associations between occupational chemical risk perception (OCRP) and training or protective behaviors cannot be deemed causal. Longitudinal data are needed to assess changes and intervention impacts. The results’ applicability to other groups, such as female workers and those from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, is limited by the focus of this study, which focuses on 117 male construction workers involved in the post-earthquake city of L’Aquila, Italy. Data collected through self-administered questionnaires may have introduced recall or social desirability biases, leading to overreported protective behaviors and underreported risk-taking. This study also lacked objective data on actual exposure levels, hindering comparisons between perceived risks and real hazards. Despite previous studies undoubtedly demonstrating chemical exposure in the construction industry, an objective direct link among real occupational exposure and individual chemical risk perception is missing. Important psychological factors, such as perceived control and risk tolerance, as well as organizational aspects like safety policies, were not examined. Furthermore, the lack of information on building types limited the understanding of responses regarding asbestos and chemical hazards. Future research should incorporate longitudinal designs, diverse samples, objective exposure assessments, and a broader exploration of psychological and organizational factors to enhance our understanding of OCRP.

On the other hand, this study highlights important aspects of occupational health and safety by examining occupational chemical risk perception (OCRP) among construction workers, a group often neglected in perceived chemical risk research. Conducted with workers involved in post-earthquake reconstruction in L’Aquila, Italy, this study addresses the unique challenges faced in disaster recovery, where risks may increase due to damaged infrastructures. By using a detailed questionnaire, this research gathered data on socio-demographics, chemical hazard perception, occupational exposure, PPE use, and training. This study uncovered a disconnect between risk awareness and preventive behavior, thus highlighting the necessity for improved risk communication, training, and PPE use. Ultimately, the results recommend tailored safety interventions to enhance occupational safety and chemical risk perception in construction in order to improve work sustainability for the involved workers.

5. Conclusions

This study uncovered significant gaps in how construction workers perceive and manage chemical risks in their environment. Understanding these shortcomings is essential for improving safety and fostering a more secure and sustainable workplace. While participants recognized the inherent dangers of dust and asbestos, their awareness of actual exposure risks, particularly regarding asbestos, appeared scarce. Even though workers are aware of asbestos-related diseases and know it is a hard-to-detect pollutant, 53% believe it is not present in their current workplaces.

A significant concern is chemical risk mitigation. Although workers identified the harmful effects of dust and solvents and acknowledged considerable exposure, only 36% consistently use respiratory PPE. This discrepancy underscores a gap between hazard awareness and the adoption of protective behaviors, suggesting barriers to effective risk mitigation at the workplace level.

The findings indicate that current training programs, despite being helpful in raising awareness, do not adequately promote effective preventive measures. A clear dissemination of exposure data and risk assessment results, along with improved risk communication strategies, such as on-the-job training, are crucial to closing this gap. Additional measures that could increase workers’ risk perception and enhance occupational safety consist of involving executive management and construction site supervisors; requiring feedback from the workers about protection and training issues; and, last but not least, improving the transmission of knowledge about chemical risks.

Finally, workers with a high OCRP also reported a more comprehensive understanding of physical hazards, such as noise and solar radiation, and greater awareness of the numerous hazards of airborne dust and fibers. These results underscore the need for targeted educational interventions that not only address knowledge gaps but also focus on practical and behavior-oriented training to promote adherence to safety practices in construction environments.