Pesticide Safety Awareness among Rural Farmers in Dadinkowa, Gombe State, Nigeria

Abstract

Introduction: Because of the longer growing season and warmer climate, weeds and insect pests spread are on the rise, thereby increasing the demand for pesticide use and consequently harmful emissions that further exacerbate climate change. Unsafe occupational exposure to pesticide residue is associated with a lack of product knowledge and safety awareness among farmers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study design was adopted for this study in which a face-to-face administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 285 respondents who were selected using convenient snowball sampling technique. Knowledge, awareness, and practices related to pesticide storage, handling, application, and containers disposal among the farmers were measured. Categorical variables were analysed and presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequency count and percentage, while numeric items were summarized using mean and standard deviation. Results: Dichlorvos and Perfekthion 2.5 EC listed in the WHO Group I pesticide classification were among the most frequently used pesticides. Symptoms of pesticide intoxication reported include headaches (56.1%), dizziness (56.5%), skin irritation (53.3%), and fatigue (45.6%), respectively. Farmers’ behaviour during pesticide application include blowing clogged nozzle with mouth (42.7%), talking while spraying (59.8%), and mixing pesticide with bare hands (31.1%). Furthermore, 38.5% of them use pesticide containers for other domestic purposes. Conclusions: Socioeconomic factors, i.e., educational level, age, and years of farm practice, influenced farmers safety behaviour. Based on these findings, an approach that will help strengthen capacity building programmes and the enhancement of knowledge-based initiatives around the adoption of non-synthetic pest-control methods should be encouraged.

Understanding determinants related to farmers’ protective measures towards pesticide exposure: A systematic review

“…The articles included in the analysis were based on studies conducted in the Australia (n = 1) [ 19 ], Iran (n = 4) [ 12 , 14 , 20 , 21 ], Canada (n = 1) [ 22 ], China (n = 1) [ 23 ], Uganda (n = 3) [ 24 – 26 ], Thailand (n = 3) [ 27 – 29 ], Egypt (n = 1) [ 30 ], Brazil (n = 2) [ 31 , 32 ] Nepal (n = 3) [ 33 – 35 ], Pakistan (n = 3) [ 36 – 38 ], Italy (n = 1) [ 39 ], Turkey (n = 1) [ 40 ], India (n = 1) [ 41 ], Malaysia (n = 1) [ 42 ], Ghana (n = 1) [ 43 ], Morocco (n = 2) [ 44 , 45 ], Nigeria (n = 2) [ 46 , 47 ], Vietnam (n = 1) [ 48 ], Philippine (n = 1) [ 49 ], Costa Rica and Uganda (n = 1) [ 50 ], and Ethiopia (n = 5) [ 51 – 55 ]. Among the 39 articles obtained in this study, sampling techniques included simple random sampling (n = 12) [ 19 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 55 ], quota sampling (n = 3) [ 34 , 36 , 44 ], systematic random sampling (n = 2) [ …”

“…The total number of samples was low. Less than 350 samples were used in twenty three studies [ 12 , 20 , 21 , 24 – 28 , 30 – 34 , 36 – 39 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 47 , 53 ].…”

“…Individual level: Out of 36 studies that examined knowledge, it was found that 35 studies had a statistically significant association with protective measures [ 14 , 20 , 21 , 23 – 37 , 39 – 55 ]. Out of 25 studies that worked on attitude, it was found that in three studies, no statistically significant association with protective measures was reported [ 12 , 20 , 21 , 24 – 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 – 53 ]. All five studies that used risk perception/ perceived risk reported that this construct could have a positive effect on protective measures [ 22 , 28 , 35 , 45 , 55 ].…”

“…The articles included in the analysis were based on studies conducted in the Australia (n = 1) [19], Iran (n = 4) [12,14,20,21], Canada (n = 1) [22], China (n = 1) [23], Uganda (n = 3) [24][25][26], Thailand (n = 3) [27][28][29], Egypt (n = 1) [30], Brazil (n = 2) [31,32] Nepal (n = 3) [33][34][35], Pakistan (n = 3) [36][37][38], Italy (n = 1) [39], Turkey (n = 1) [40], India (n = 1) [41], Malaysia (n = 1) [42], Ghana (n = 1) [43], Morocco (n = 2) [44,45], Nigeria (n = 2) [46,47], Vietnam (n = 1) [48], Philippine (n = 1) [49], Costa Rica and Uganda (n = 1) [50], and Ethiopia (n = 5)…”

“…PLOS ONE [51][52][53][54][55]. Among the 39 articles obtained in this study, sampling techniques included simple random sampling (n = 12) [19,22,25,26,28,30,38,41,48,52,53,55], quota sampling (n = 3) [34,36,44], systematic random sampling (n = 2) [29,35], stratified random sampling (n = 1) [54], convenience sampling (n = 3) [21,31,39], purposive sampling (n = 1) [42], snowball sampling (n = 4) [32,46,47,50], not clear (n = 1) [44], and some were multi stage sampling (n = 12) [12,14,20,23,24,27,33,37,40,43,49,51]. The total number of samples was low.…”