Petrol station attendants are at heightened risk of occupational hazards due to prolonged exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are known carcinogens. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that benzene exposure at concentrations as low as 1 mg/m³ increases the risk of leukaemia significantly.[1] In addition to chemical exposure, these workers face physical and psychosocial risks, including stress, fatigue, and ergonomic challenges.

[2] Despite the availability of safety guidelines, adherence to protective measures remains suboptimal in many developing countries, often due to inadequate training and lack of resources.[3] In India, the fast-paced urbanization of regions like PCMC, Pimpri, Pune, has amplified the need for targeted occupational health interventions. This study was aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and safety practices of petrol station workers, providing insights to improve health outcomes and workplace safety.

This study was designed as a cross-sectional design to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and safety practices of petrol station workers in Pune, Maharashtra. The study was conducted from 28 October 2024 to 28 November 2024.

This study included 87 petrol station attendants employed. The sample size was determined from Afolabi OT et al study considering 94% were aware of safety measures, using the formula (n = Z²Pq/d²), where Z is the standard normal deviate at 94% confidence, P is the proportion of attendants likely to be exposed to occupational hazards, q is 1 – P, and d is the precision required for the study. A simple random sampling technique was used to select participants, ensuring that each attendant had an equal chance of inclusion in the study.

The data collected tool included basic demographic information (age, gender, education level, marital status), awareness of occupational hazards, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), frequency of medical check-ups, and the presence of health symptoms such as stress or headaches, which could be indicative of prolonged exposure to harmful substances. The attendants were also asked about their hygiene practices and the measures they took to minimize exposure to hazardous substances.

The data was analysed using appropriate statistical software for descriptive statistics, frequency distributions and percentages, were used to summarize the demographic characteristics of the study population and their responses to the questionnaire.  Continuous variables, such as age, were presented as means with standard deviations. The chi-square test was employed to assess associations between categorical variables, such as education level and awareness of safety practices. A significance level of 0.05 was set for all statistical tests.

Distributions of Demographic Characteristics of Participants

The participants' mean age was 35.05, outlines the demographic distribution. The majority of participants were between 25–34 years (41.4%), followed by 35–44 years (21.8%). The male population (77%) significantly outnumbered females (23%). Most participants were married (74.7%), and educational levels varied, with secondary education being most common (58.6%). A smaller proportion were illiterate (8%) or had primary education (3.4%), while 29.9% were graduates.  This distribution highlights a predominantly young to middle-aged, male, and married cohort with varying educational backgrounds.

Table 1: Respondents’ knowledge of occupational hazards

[Table 1] shows the knowledge levels of respondents regarding occupational hazards. Out of 87 participants, 32 (41.56%) had poor knowledge, scoring 50% or below, while 45 (58.44%) had good knowledge, scoring above 50%. The average score was 55.70, with a standard deviation of 24.93, indicating some variation in how well respondents understood occupational hazards.

Respondents’ attitude to workplace hazards

Highlights respondents' awareness and experiences regarding petroleum product exposure and workplace safety. Among the 87 participants, none reported exposure to petroleum products, leakage, spillage on the body, slipping, or swelling. All respondents (100%) recognized the importance of using personal protective equipment (PPE), knowing emergency contact numbers during working hours, and understanding the health risks of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Everyone agreed that workers should follow protective guidelines for VOC exposure, wear PPE during shifts, receive proper training, wash hands regularly, and avoid eating or drinking in the workplace. This suggests a strong awareness of safety protocols, even though no direct exposure to petroleum-related hazards was reported.

Table 2: Respondents’ work safety practices

The [Table 2] provides insights into workplace safety practices followed by 87 respondents. It shows that all participants (100%) follow essential safety measures such as washing hands before eating or drinking, avoiding food and drinks while working, not smoking or lighting matches near VOCs, ensuring car engines are off while dispensing VOCs, handling nozzles properly, avoiding cell phone use during VOC dispensing, and wearing PPE, only 31 respondents (35.6%) reported washing, bathing, and changing clothes after work, while 56 (64.4%) did not. This indicates that while workers strictly follow on-the-job safety protocols, post-work hygiene practices are not as widely observed.

Health Behaviours and Perceptions of Petroleum Exposure

Periodic medical examination behaviours and health-related impacts are presented in [Table 3]. Only 26.4% of participants reported regular medical check-ups, while 73.5% never underwent such assessments, indicating a lack of proactive health monitoring.  Stress was reported as absent by 59.8%, though 40.2% experienced it occasionally. Similarly, headaches were reported by 47.1% of participants as occasional, while an equal proportion denied experiencing them. The majority (59.8%) agreed that exposure to petroleum products leads to adverse health effects, and 40.2% totally agreed. Additionally, 55.2% agreed, and 44.8% totally agreed, that continuous exposure to petroleum products occurred in their work environment.

Workplace Exposure and Hygiene Practices

In the [Text 4] examines workplace exposure and related practices. A significant proportion, 55.2%, agreed that petroleum product exposure adversely affects the environment, with 39.1% totally agreeing. Regarding hygiene practices, only 35.6% of participants regularly washed, bathed, and changed clothes after work, while 64.4% did not, reflecting inadequate preventive measures. When assessing working hours, 34.5% agreed that long hours contributed to health issues, but a slightly higher percentage (42.5%) disagreed

he present study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of petrol station workers in PCMC regarding occupational health risks and exposure to petroleum products. The findings were analysed in relation to previous studies to contextualize the observed health practices, exposure levels, and associated health outcomes.

The study revealed that only 26.4% of participants underwent regular medical examinations, while 73.5% never participated in periodic health check-ups. This finding aligns with Afolabi et al. (2011), [4] who reported inadequate safety practices among petrol station workers in Nigeria, emphasizing limited access to medical surveillance and occupational health assessments. Similarly, Cezar-Vaz et al. (2012) [5] found that gas station workers in Brazil exhibited low adherence to health monitoring protocols, reinforcing concerns about the neglect of regular medical evaluations among fuel station employees.

Health Effects of Petroleum Exposure

A significant proportion of participants (59.8%) acknowledged that exposure to petroleum products leads to adverse health effects, with 40.2% totally agreeing. Additionally, 47.1% of participants reported experiencing headaches, consistent with studies demonstrating the harmful effects of prolonged petroleum exposure. Keretetse et al. (2008) [6] reported DNA damage in African petrol attendants, highlighting the genotoxic effects of benzene exposure. Similarly, Wiwanitkit (2006) [23] classified petrol station workers as high-risk due to elevated urinary trans-muconic acid levels, a biomarker for benzene exposure. The high prevalence of stress (40.2%) and headaches (47.1%) in the current study supports these findings, indicating potential benzene-related neurological and systemic effects.

Workplace Hygiene and Safety Practices

In the present study, only 35.6% of workers reported immediate washing, bathing, and changing clothes after work, while 64.4% neglected these hygiene practices. This finding is in line with Cezar-Vaz et al. (2012),[5] who found that many gas station workers in Brazil failed to follow proper hygiene measures, increasing their risk of prolonged dermal and respiratory exposure to petroleum products. Similarly, Afolabi et al. (2011) [4] observed poor compliance with personal protective measures among fuel station workers in Nigeria, emphasizing the need for improved awareness and regulatory enforcement.

Environmental Concerns and Risk Perception

Regarding environmental hazards, 55.2% of participants agreed, and 39.1% totally agreed, that petroleum product exposure adversely affects the surrounding environment. This perception aligns with findings from Chiabhlaem (2011) [7], who reported concerns about air and soil contamination near petrol stations in Thailand. Additionally, the Health and Safety Executive (2002)[8] highlighted fire and explosion risks at petrol dispensing sites, reinforcing the necessity for strict adherence to occupational safety protocols.

Association between Age and Health Monitoring

The study found no statistically significant association between age groups and periodic medical examinations (p=0.269). The highest proportion of regular medical check-ups (39.1%) was observed in the 25–34 age group, whereas younger participants (18–24) had minimal engagement in health monitoring. This trend is comparable to findings from Afolabi et al. (2011),[4] who noted that younger workers were less likely to seek medical evaluations, potentially due to a lack of awareness or perceived invulnerability to occupational hazards.

The present study highlights critical gaps in health monitoring, hygiene practices, and awareness of petroleum exposure risks among petrol station workers in PCMC. Comparisons with previous studies underscore the global nature of these challenges, reinforcing the urgent need for improved occupational health policies, regular medical examinations, and enhanced safety practices to mitigate the adverse effects of petroleum exposure.[8]

This study identifies the overlooked occupational health hazards faced by petrol station attendants, exposed to petroleum without regular medical screening or protection. It demands workplace training, and more robust enforcement of safety protocols. Identification of the health needs of these workers is necessary for the sustainable protection of the workforce. The study calls for an active approach to prevent health problems, requiring that inaction will cost significantly more in the future than investing in preventative actions now.

1. Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants. World Health Organization; 2010.
2. Afolabi OT. Assessment of safety practices in filling stations in Ile-Ife; South-Western Nigeria. J Community Med Prim Health Care. 2011;23(1-2):9-15.
3. Okwaro MJ, Knowledge and practice of occupational safety among fuel station attendants in Nairobi. Kenya Occupational Safety Journal. 2013.
4. Afolabi OT. Assessment of safety practices in filling stations in Ile-Ife; South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care 2011; 23(1-2):9-15
5. Cezar-Vaz MR, Rocha LP, Bonow CA, da Silva MRS, Vaz JC, Cardoso LS. Risk perception and occupational accidents: A study of Gas station workers in Southern Brazil. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012; 9(7):2362-77.
6. Keretetse GS, Laubscher PJ, Du Plessis JL, Pretorius PJ, Van Der Westhuizen FH, Van Deventer E, et al. DNA damage and repair detected by the comet assay in lymphocytes of African petrol attendants:  A pilot study.  Ann Occup Hyg 52(7):653-62.
7. Chiabhlaem T. Occupational Health and Safety (Thailand) [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2016 Dec 3]. Available from: http://thongchai99.wordpress.com
8. Health and Safety Executive. Dispensing Petrol:  Assessing and controlling the risk of fire and explosion at sites where petrol is stored and dispensed [Internet].  2002 [cited 2017 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press.Assessed