Mixed methods study examines cleaning practices and chemical exposure's social and environmental impacts in urban Nigeria, suggesting housing and regulation improvements.
Household cleaning practices are widely promoted as essential for hygiene and disease prevention, yet they also represent a major source of indoor chemical exposure. In low income urban settings, these exposures intersect with structural housing constraints and socially constructed norms of cleanliness, raising concerns about environmental health inequality. This study examines how social expectations surrounding cleanliness shape household cleaning practices and how these practices, mediated by housing conditions and ventilation, contribute to unequal chemical exposure in low income urban neighborhoods in Lagos and Ibadan, Nigeria. A sociological mixed methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected through a cross sectional survey of 1,184 households, complemented by semi structured interviews, focus group discussions, and ethnographic observations. Environmental sampling of indoor air, settled dust, and surface wipes was conducted in a subsample of 48 households. Analysis was guided by an integrated theoretical framework drawing on Social Practice Theory, Environmental Justice, and Exposure Science. Quantitative analyses revealed no significant associations between demographic variables and cleaning frequency, indicating that cleaning practices are not individually determined. Qualitative findings show that cleanliness functions as a moral and symbolic practice tied to respectability and social legitimacy. Environmental analyses detected volatile and semi volatile organic compounds associated with routine cleaning, with higher concentrations in poorly ventilated dwellings. Household chemical exposure in low income urban contexts emerges from socially regulated cleaning practices enacted under structural constraint. Addressing exposure inequalities requires interventions focused on housing quality, product regulation, and culturally sensitive public health strategies rather than individual behavior change alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Itoje-akpokiniovo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: