Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Farmers on Pesticide Use and Their Impacts on the Environment and Human Health From Small Scale Vegetable Farming Along the Littoral of Lake Ziway, Ethiopia

Background: The insecure utilization and misapplication of pesticides in Ethiopia are major fears to farmers' wellbeing and the ecosystem. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge, attitude, and practices of the small-scale vegetable farmers towards the use of pesticides in Ethiopia along the littoral of Lake Ziway. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study involving a total of 210 farmers randomly selected during pesticide application from a purposively selected irrigation-using village located in the immediate vicinity of Lake Ziway. Data were generated through structured in-depth interviews and observations on-farms. A chi-square test was applied to evaluate whether the collected data and their probable association were signicant. Results: The results show that WHO class II pesticides (moderately toxic) are the most frequently used pesticides in the study area. The use of WHO classes 1a and 1b and banned or restricted pesticides such as DDT and Endosulfan were not reported. A great portion (92%) of farmers indiscriminately disposed of empty containers in the eld while 86.7% apply the leftover pesticides to other crops. More than 90% of small-scale farmers did not use any personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling pesticides. About 95% of farmers had poor knowledge regarding pesticides. A signicant association (p < 0.001) was observed between the knowledge of the farmers and their practices related to the pesticide. Conclusion: Generally, the Knowledge of small-scale farmers on pesticides was poor. Moreover inappropriate disposal of pesticides and its container will damage the environment. The nding of the study underlines the need to train framers concerning the safe and proper use of pesticides to prevent health and environmental hazards.


Introduction
Pesticides are essential chemicals that are used to protect against crop damage and advance agricultural output. However negative effects of pesticide use in vegetable cultivations have been reported throughout the universe [1]. A great majority of pesticides are utilized for pest and vector control in farming areas, but many farming societies around Lake Ziway Ethiopia are not adequately abreast of concerning the hazards related to the pesticide [2]. Consequently, farmers use pesticides without knowledge of their impact on human well-being and the environment. Even though many vegetable farms along the Lake Ziway shore depend on irrigation [3]. their closeness to water bodies could make the use of pesticides problematic. Pesticide use in vegetable growth negatively affects both the surrounding environment and human health and farmers' productivity [2]. Numerous studies in Africa have shown that misuse and improper handling of pesticides and poor knowledge of pesticides among farmers in genera [4,5,6,7]. This innocent of pesticide management could be severe damage to the well-being of society and may produce ecological issues.
Fortifying environmental protection and sustainability of pesticide supply and use is commonly seen as a fundamental challenge for pesticide administration [8]. Likewise, the recent use of pesticides and their poor management in Ethiopia increasing due to the fast growth of large-scale farm companies [9,10].
Currently, Ethiopia is the 2nd largest ower exporting country in Africa showing that the sector is rapidly growing. Regardless of the huge economic advantages, the state of ower production has made the sector susceptible to criticism about its working conditions and environmental impact [9,10,11]. Besides because of the rapid growth of agricultural activities in the watershed of Lake Ziway it is currently exposed to various anthropogenic burdens [3,12]. The expansion of these agricultural activities around the Lake caused a growth in the intensive and unplanned uses of pesticides and fertilizers and therefore added to the increasing degradation of the lake's water quality [9]. This misuse of pesticides also has undesirable effects on human wellbeing. They can be severely shown as headache, rashes, disorientation, shock, nausea, vomiting, respiratory failure, and even death. Since there are no formerly available studies on the investigation of the level of knowledge, the practice of pesticide use, and their association, among small-scale farmers near Lake Ziway in Ethiopia, this study was carried out. Therefore to assess some of these problems this study investigates how pesticides are utilized in practice in small-scale vegetable farm elds along the littoral zone of Lake Ziway and how these uses impact the well-being of vegetable farmers and the environment. In speci c, this study focused on the Lake adjacent to the vegetable growing areas that are used intensively for food production, showing the possibility that biological effects due to pesticide use may exist.

Study area.
The study was designed purposely along the littoral of Lake Ziway located in the Rift Valley Region in Ethiopia. It is the region of a major vegetable growing area. Tomato, cabbage, and onion production is the major business utilizing the dominant cultivated land of the area. The farm activities have considerably transformed the area operationally and economically. Water from Lake Ziway has been of countless importance in farming vegetables (Tomato onion, cabbage, etc.) in the region. Due to the current growing production of different kinds of vegetable crops, small-scale farmer's expected the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides. Vegetables produced in this cultivated framework are for export purposes and neighborhood utilization basically within Addis Ababa (the capital city of Ethiopia) [8].
Site selection was based on the representation the most small-scale farmers use their land for vegetable cultivation by irrigation whereas the farms are located in the vicinity of Lake Ziway. Village leaders and agricultural expertise were consulted when the study group was selected on the ground that they cultivate vegetables that require the use of pesticides. Before the start of the interview oral informed consent was pursued from the respondents. Respondents knew their right to decline involvement and to resign participation from the study at any time. The privacy of the sampled data was also guaranteed. The instrument used was a structured and semi-structured questionnaire that was established according to the WHO eld survey of exposure to pesticides code of behavior (WHO, 1982) and from similar published studies [2].

Sampling procedures.
A total of 210 randomly selected small-scale farmers were interviewed from purposively selected vegetable growing villages located along the littoral of Lake Ziway. Respondents were household members who grow vegetable crops. The sample size was according to Leslie [13]. formula and uniformly designated from irrigation using villages. Primary sample gathering was done by eldwork for all three observed studies. Farmers' interviews, key informant interviews, and eld observations were performed. This mixed-method approach aids triangulation and increases the rationality and dependability of the results [14]. Face-to-face interviews were piloted to collect samples from farmers.
The questionnaire was prepared in English and directed in Amharic and local languages (Oromifa) by the researcher and eld assistants (under the command of the researcher). The sample size was obtained using the formula:-Where: n = required sample size z = 1.96 for 95% con dence level p = percentage selecting a choice e = the percentage maximum error required (margin of error) N = population size (930) The questionnaire was aimed to collect data under the following categories 1. General information: this was adapted to take data on farmers' biography such as sex, age, and land hold magnitude, level of education, Vegetable grew experience, trend pesticide use past 5 years, and land tenure situation.
2. The 2nd part consisted of eight questions to evaluate the knowledge of small-scale farmers about pesticides. The answers were documented as 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know'. For every 'correct' answer, a mark of '+1' was given. For the 'wrong' answer, a mark of '-1' and for 'don't know', a mark of '0' was agreed. A tally of four or more was re ected pretty much as good knowledge and fewer than four as poor knowledge [15].
3. Pesticide use and practices: this part was wont to get information on the kinds of pesticides used, source of pesticides used, ability to read the information available on the pesticide label, pesticide use practices such as the method of mixing, rates, and amounts of pesticides sprayed, personal protective equipment, disposal of pesticide cans and application methods [2].
4. Social and ecological effect: This part was used to get data about the negative effect of pesticides exposure, for example, the symptoms of illness frequently faced pre or post pesticide spraying procedures and altering trends in biodiversity, e.g. changes in pests, birds, and insects (whether increasing, decreasing or constant). For the social health problems, we deliberated intense side effects (symptoms) that showed up inside forty-eight hours of pesticide sprays. Long-term and chronic well-being disabilities were not taken due to methodological problems.
Data regarding training and support to farmers were obtained by interviewed either retailers or agriculture extension workers. 10 retailers, 5 government extension workers, and 4 plant protection workers were interviewed to collect additional information. We conducted extra interviews with environmental expertise.
Photographs of crucial observations were incorporated as supportive data. Checklists were used as an aid during eld observation. Photos were frequently taken of how farmers store, mix, and spray pesticides.

Statistical analysis
The data were prearranged and entered in the MS-Excel spreadsheet and then analyzed by using a statistical package SPSS version 20. A chi-square test was applied to evaluate whether the collected data and their probable association were signi cant or whether variables were related to each other. The results were showed in frequencies, and percentages for speci c variables, and as mean ± SD for continuous variables. The signi cant levels were set at ≤ 0.01 and ≤ 0.05.

Demographic characteristics and pro le of the farmers
The demographic characteristics of small-scale farmers are shown in Table 1S. More than 98% of smallscale farmers interviewed in the study were men, as farm accomplishments mainly those related to pesticide spray are done by men in the study area. The age of half of the small-scale vegetable farmers (50.5%) was ranged between 31 and 54 years old, with a mean of 35.2 years. Nearly 8% of the farmers were 55 years and beyond. A substantial number of the farmers (41.4%) were illiterate, while 51.4% had joined the elementary school (grade1-8), and few (5.7%) farmers had completed secondary school, while the remaining (1%) had completed college/university education. 45.7% of farmers had ve to ten years of farming experience, while 41.9% had greater than ten years of farming experience. The respondents were typically smallholders with farm sizes ranged from less than one hectare to over ten hectares with an average of 1 ha. Nearly 60% of the farmers had land possessions less than 1.1 ha and 40% of the frames had above 1.0 ha. The land used by 61.9% of the small-scale farmers was rented from local farmers for 3 to 5-year contracts. 81.9% of the farmers stated an increasing trend in pesticide use during the past ve years, while 18% re ected the situation as constant and no one stated that pesticide use is decreasing.

Types of pesticides used by small scale vegetable farmers
Results indicate that a wide range of pesticides is used by small-scale farmers along the litoral Lake Ziway. In the study area, a total of 28 pesticides (active ingredients) were reported. These pesticides are shown based on the WHO classi cation, and chemical class in Table 1. The great majority of the pesticides (90%) used belonged to the WHO toxicity class II (moderately hazardous), followed by Class-U (unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use and class III (slightly hazardous). Extremely hazardous (Ia) or highly hazardous (Ib) was not reported by any of the farmers. WHO Class II pesticides mainly metalaxyl (98%), profenofos (98%), dimethoate (95%), cypermethrin (93%), lambada-cyhalothrin (72%), and imidacloprid (52%) were reported by small-scale farmers. Among Class-U pesticides, Mancozeb (100%) was the most reported pesticide. Herbicides like propanil and 2, 4-D are in utilize but not exceptionally common. The Majority of the farmers along the littoral of Lake Ziway used insecticides and fungicides on vegetables (Table 1). Insecticides and fungicides were utilized by 98% and 90% of the farmers respectively while herbicides were used by only 3.8% of the farmers. In general, limited herbicide use was reported by small-scale farmers.

Knowledge and attitudes towards pesticides among small scale farmers
The small-scale farmers' level of knowledge of pesticides, comprising routes of exposure, impact on the ecology, and human wellbeing, and their consciousness of pesticide policy and code of practice was summarized (Table 2S). Only 4.2% of small scale farmers did get training on the proper use and safe handling of pesticides. However, 94% of the farmers had not got any training. Likewise, 69% of the farmers did not read and obey directions on pesticide labels. The vast majority of the farms (95%) did not aware of the toxicity color codes present on the pesticide containers.
In the present study, the most frequent routes of exposure to pesticides reported by farmers were dermal (17%), inhalation (50%), and oral (46%). About 17% of the farmers reported a lack of knowledge of any route of exposure to pesticides. The vast majority of the small-scale farmers (92.4%) are not aware that some pesticides have been banned or are restricted for use. Merely 7.6% of the respondents knew the names of some of the pesticides that are prohibited or limited for use. Of the farmers who are conscious that some pesticides have been prohibited or limited for use reported that 56% of framers stated the high toxicity of the pesticides, 19% farmers described as not effective, 13% stated because they are expensive, and other 13% mentioned don't know as main reasons for the prohibition or limit use. Overall, solely 10 farmers have good knowledge, and the rest 200 had poor knowledge. Signi cant association (X 2 = 77.82, p < 0.01) was observed between good knowledge and level of education (Table 2). Table 2 shows the association between knowledge and farmers' sources of information concerning pest control and pesticide spray technique. 46% of small-scale farmers get relevant information source regarding pest control and how to apply pesticides is oral communication with other farmers followed by previous long years experience (34%). About 4.3% of the farmers stated that they had learned the information on pest control and pesticide application from government extension services. There was a signi cant association between the source of information for the proper use of pesticides and the knowledge of the farmers(X 2 , 23.48, P < 0.001). Regarding the doses of pesticides to use, irrespective of category small-scale farmers relied mostly on agrochemical retailers (41%), owed by other farmers (30.5%). The majority of the farmers with good knowledge (90%) reported that read the instruction from the containers and used their previous experience. There was a signi cant association between the source of information for the dose of pesticide to apply and knowledge of the small scale farmers(X 2 = 26.21, P < 0.001). When inquired where they purchased pesticides, nearly half of respondents (49%) said they bought pesticides from agrochemical retailers' stores which is the principal source of pesticides in the study area, followed by other farmers (41%). Few farmers (10%) were purchased pesticides from general household shops. The majority of farmers with good knowledge (90%) bought pesticides from agricultural chemical retailers. There was a signi cant association between the source of pesticide from which the pesticides were bought and the knowledge of the farmers(X 2 , 7.89, P = 0.019) ( Table 2). The general household's shops did regularly repackaged products, without labeling the container. According to the key informant (agricultural extension workers) reported that informal traders decanted pesticides into empty plastic bottles (highland water bottles) or scraps of plastic, without labeling.

Pesticide use practices among small-scale farmers
All of the interviewed small-scale farmers (210, 100%) used pesticides on their farms. Whereas none of the vegetable farmers reported using biological methods or other such integrated pest management (IPM). Small-scale farmers in the study area did not use biological methods and safe pesticides as the case in some low-income countries. Besides they depend on the experience of other farmers to identify how active a pesticide is. Nearly 86.6% of respondents reported not eating and 57.7% reported not drinking when blending or spraying pesticides (Table 3). Besides, 93.8% of farmers stated did not take a shower after mixing or spraying pesticides. Only 6.2% reported taking a shower sometimes after mixing or applying pesticides. Likewise, 64.7% of respondents stated that they did not take into account wind direction while spraying pesticides. A lever-operated knapsack sprayer was the only type of sprayer by small scale farmers. There was a signi cant association between farmers considering wind direction and knowledge of pesticide(X 2 = 107.8, p < 0.001). Many small scale farmers (40.5%) mixed directly in the sprayer (knapsack), but most farmers (59.5%) stated mix in a separate blue drum container before transferring it to knapsack sprayer. According to the key informant (agriculture extension workers) the mixing containers are reused by the farmers for other activities, such as holding fruit and vegetables from the farm and storing drinking water. More than half of the interviewed farmers mixed their pesticides in their farm (57.6%) and 31.9% of the farmers mix near water as it was adjacent to their water source (Lake Ziway). The remaining 10.5% formulate at their home. No signi cant association was observed between pesticide formulation trends and knowledge of farmers (P > 0.05). Farmers frequently using an elongated stick and naked hands without a glove (90%) and with bare hands only (7.6%) to mix pesticides (Fig. 1S)

Use of personal protective equipment as reported by farmers
Almost all of the small-scale farmers in the study area did not use personal protective equipment (PPE) when mixing or spraying pesticides. There was a signi cant association between the use of protective equipment and the knowledge of the farmers (P < 0.001) ( all. Farmers with high education levels were more probable to use PPE compared with farmers with low low levels of education (p < 0.05). 92.4% of farmers wore their regular clothes during pesticide application, whereas few (7.1%) wore poor long-sleeved shirts and trousers that did not cover most parts of the body. At the time of our eld visit, all of the farmers did not use PPE (gloves, glasses, masks, or goggles) ( Fig. 1S and Fig. 3S). 3.8 Pesticide storage, container disposal, and sprayer washing Table 5 shows farmers' practice on the storage and disposal of pesticides. The study revealed that smallscale farmers store pesticide containers in the open shed just for pesticides, in animal houses, under the bed, on roofs, in the kitchen, and in toilets. Few farmers (5.7%) reported that they did not store pesticides.
80% of farmers with good knowledge directly used the pesticide after buying it (do not store it). However only 2.1% of farmers with poor knowledge of farmers directly using without storing. Farmers with good knowledge said that they buy their pesticide the same day they anticipate to utilize it. A signi cant number of the respondents (29.5%) kept their pesticides under the bed, on the roof (23.3%), in the kitchen (8.6%), toilet (9.5%) (Fig. 2S). Only 6.2% of farmers store open shed just for pesticides as suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition to storing pesticides, the stores were utilized for storing food, rewood, farming materials, and kitchen utensils which seem to lead to unintentional poisoning. Farmers with good pesticide knowledge signi cantly less probable to store pesticides in their homes (X 2 = 109.6, p < 0.001).
The majority of farmers spray the leftover solutions to another crop listed on the product label (86%) and 7% of small-scale farmers dispose of them in the eld. Few farmers (3%) reported that they mix only requires the number of pesticides. A very few farmers stated that they release the leftover pesticides close to irrigation canals and drains (1%). The vast majority (92%) of the small-scale framers conveyed that they left the empty containers on the farm and 3% of farmers throw them near and into irrigation canals and the lake. No signi cant association was observed between dumping empty containers by farmers and knowledge of pesticides (X 2 = 0.92, P > 0.05of ). only 1.9% of farmers stated that they collect empty containers and bury them on the farm and about 1.5% of farmers collect empty containers for selling while 1.9% of respondents keep the empty containers for domestic uses. The majority of the farmers indicated that they endure using leftover pesticides for spraying (92%), whereas only 1% said that they burn leftover pesticides in their original containers. A small number of respondents claimed that they buy only the amount of pesticides they need (3.5%). Signi cant association (X 2 = 67.69, p < 0.001) was observed between knowledge of pesticide and leftover pesticide handling of small scale farmers (Table 5).

Pesticides and biodiversity in the study area
About 57% of the farmers interviewed mixed pesticides in the farm which can be carried away into the water body (e.g. Lake Ziway) by ood and 31% of farmers mix and sprayed pesticides near water bodies. Likewise, they continuously utilize water from the lake to blend pesticides in the eld and wash spraying tanks after spraying procedures. These poor activities may intensify the exposure of the farmers to pesticide harming (since the farmers on occasion rely on these waters for their drinking water source), as well as affecting the health of the water and having harmful impacts on water life such as snails, insects, sh, and frogs. The greatest of the respondents stated changes in the aquatic life around Lake Ziway following pesticide application. However, the majority of the small-scale farmers depending on their long years of experience instead of paying attention to the concentration rate on pesticide labels, unlimited utilization of pesticides in the study area in a risky routine is likely to pose countless threats to these organisms. The investigation further showed that useful insects, sh, birds, and other animals may be decreasing in the region. When farmers are asked whether they had observed any instantaneous changes in the number of sh, frogs, insects, and birds and animals in the area over the last two years after pesticide application, 79%, 49%, 81.9%, and 29.3% of the farmers described that they had noticed a decrease in the numbers of sh, frogs, insects, and birds and animals, respectively (Fig. 2). Likewise, the farmers stated rare visits to their farms by honeybees and a shortage of honeycombs, which accustomed to be abundant in the study area.

Discussion
In the present study, males do major farming activities (98%). Correspondingly, Waichman et al. [16] and Adjrah et al. [17] conveyed farming was controlled by males in Brazil (97.4%) and Togo (92%) respectively. An investigation by Nguetti et al. [17] also showed 90% of male farmers in Kenya. A large number of the small scale-farmers in the present study were illiterate, had no formal education and similarly, the large numbers of the small-scale farmers did not get training about the proper use of pesticides. Many of the farmers had got informal training from untrained farmers. Besides, another study by Negatu et al. [8] in Rift Valley Region in Ethiopia reported that no consideration by the local government extension workers and farmers cooperatives is given to training small scale farmers on the proper utilization of pesticide and no attention at all by local health extension services or other institutions such as the local labor and social affair or environmental o ce. Accordingly, these farmers could not read and understand pesticide labels about the proper and safe use of pesticides [16]. Accordingly, the application procedures are disorganized and largely by guess. This has signi cant inferences for the ecological and the well-being of the farmers. Farmers with high-level education are wellinformed about pesticide safety, can read, recognize, and obey hazard signs on container labels, and intellectualized the effect of poor pesticide usage practices [18].
Pesticide use, source information in the study area seems to be affected by agrochemical retailers encouraged by pesticide sales, who were working their economical bene t in the farming societies and fascinated by attaining large sales of their pesticides. The in uence of sellers on small-scale farmers' pesticide applications was previously reported in Ethiopia around the Rift valley region [8] and other lowincome countries [4,7]. This result was also in agreement with the study by Mohanty et al. [15]. Other sources of information on pesticides such as colleagues or small informal shops, other farmers reported in the present study agreed to a study by Nalwanga and Ssempebwa [19] in Uganda. A great number of small-scale farmers buy pesticides from agrochemical retailers. However few retailers had a formal education about pesticides [20]. As a result, those pesticide retailers are unable to recommend farmers on appropriate use, supervision, and disposal of pesticide which may lead to improper use and handling of pesticides resulting in increased occupational and ecological hazards.
Our result demonstrates that class II pesticides mostly metalaxyl, cypermethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, profenofos, and Mancozeb (unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use), are the most commonly used pesticides for small-scale farmers in the study area. Fortunately, none of the pesticides reported in the study are in WHO Class I. Unlike the previous studies in Ethiopia by Mengstie et al. [2], it was revealed that farms that used pesticides such as Aldicarb (imported only for the ower industry) which is classi ed as extremely hazardous class1a are found on vegetable farms. In several other developing countries, extremely toxic pesticides are used widely. Contrasting the present study, other studies have revealed extended use of class I pesticides in developing countries. In a survey study by Matthewsa et al. [21], in Cameroon, and Jørs et al. [22], in Bolivia for small-scale farmers, it was presented that one of the regularly used organophosphorus insecticides is called Methamidophos, which is categorized as highly hazardous class Ib [23]. Correspondingly in Vietnam, the use of class I pesticides, and many banned pesticides were reported [24]. Conversely, a survey study conducted by Ngowi et.al. [4] in Tanzania, has described a low magnitude of class I pesticides; while a study conducted in Ghana shows that smallscale farmers mostly used class II pesticides [25]. Similarly, a study by Anna et al. [26] in Uganda appeared that entirely the small-scale farmers used class II and III pesticides. In any case, class II pesticides are still classi ed as moderately hazardous and known to have an extremely negative impact on human wellbeing and the environment, and thus other less dangerous options should still be encouraged [7]. According to key informants(chemical retailer and agricultural expertise), interviews and eld observation conducted concurrently in Ziway and Meki pesticide traders and their store of pesticides support the nding that the pesticides used are predominantly class II (moderate toxicity class) and no class I pesticides were identi ed in the retailers' shops.
Providentially in the present study, small-scale farmers did not report the use of banned or have restricted use globally under the Stockholm Convention such as DDT and Endosulfan. However previous studies by Negatu et al. [8]. in Ethiopia around the Rift Valley Region, DDT and Endosulfan were reported to be used by, 25% and 94% of the small scale irrigation farmers within the one year before the interview and by 87% and 98% of the small-scale irrigated farmers since their connection in pesticide application work, respectively. Similarly, Mengstie et al. [2]. reported the use of banned pesticides (DDT) by the vegetable farmer in Ethiopia around Meki and Ziway. Recent decrease and no use of these banned and restricted pesticides in the present study could be attributed to the effectiveness of the National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the Stockholm Convention in Ethiopia. According to Gubena,[27]. the main aim of the NIP is to get ready comprehensive and practical activities for the effective controlling of POPs chemicals in the Ethiopian situation and to decrease, and eventually avoid, the use and release of POPs after ful lling the requirements of the Stockholm Convention and national sustainable development objectives and strategies such as the Environmental Policy and the Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development [28].
About 45% of the farmers sprayed chemical pesticides up to 12 to15 times. Roughly 12% of the farmers stated applying pesticides more than 15 times per season. Consequently, the rate of pesticide use by small scale vegetable farmers was very high. This intensive use of pesticides may cause everyday contact with pesticides, which can lead to substantial human health problems and possible environmental contamination. Sun et al. [29] revealed that insu cient governmental agricultural extension services are the most central factor in the overdoing and misuse of chemical pesticides. Some countries in Africa reporting substantial use of pesticides, for instance, in Ghana vegetable farmers sprayed more than 12 times per crop cultivation. Moreover in Tanzania, farmers sprayed more than 21 times per crop season [25].
In this study, we assessed the practice of storage and disposal of pesticides by farmers and their association with their level of knowledge. The level of education affects knowledge. This was apparent from the present study in addition to the study in South India by Mohanty et al. [15] where a signi cant association was reported between a good level of knowledge about pesticide disposal and education level. Our study presented that farmers with good knowledge had safe pesticide practices than farmers with poor knowledge. Our study showed some upsetting activities about the storage of pesticides, with 94.5% of the farmers storing pesticides in residential rooms under the bed, on the roof, in the kitchen, in the toilet, and an animal house with other items. While only 5.7% did not store pesticides, buy the required amount, and use it immediately (Table 5). This proves the farmers' shortage of knowledge of pesticides and a suitable methodology for storing pesticides. The study conducted in the West Bank by Sa'ed et al. [30] showed that few farmers (7.3%) buy and use it directly(did not store). Our study revealed that farmers with good knowledge take protective care compared to farmers with poor knowledge. Our results were consistent with the study conducted in Puducherry, South India by Mohanty et al. [15].
Appropriate pesticide waste disposal is also an imperative part of accountable pesticide use. However unplanned release of uncontrolled discharge of pesticide into the environment can impaired society and pollute the ecosystem [31]. A great number of farmers throw away an empty container on the farm (Table 5). Empty pesticide containers may regularly hold an undesirable amount of pesticide solution or powder if not rinsed well. This improper disposal could damage the community and the ecosystem. Even if only 8.1% of farmers reuse empty containers for domestic purposes, the practice is widespread in many low-income countries. Studies by Benjamin et al. [7] in Rwanda, Nadja et al. [32] in Tanzania, and Jallow et al., [33) in Kuwait reported that farmers used empty pesticide containers for domestic use, such as for holding drinking water and storing food ingredients.
In our study, nearly half of the farmers did not dispose of leftover pesticide safe way i.e. disposed of the leftover pesticide by discarding it into the eld and apply on other crops. Very few farmers reported mixing only needed pesticides. Sa'ed et al. [30] reported that 60.9% of framers apply the leftover pesticide solution on the same day they bought it without store it. However, 29.4% of farmers reserved the leftover pesticide in an unlabeled plastic container which usually many poor farmers use the container as a drinking utensil. The culture of discarding the excess solution of pesticide into the farmland in our study can be correlated with the knowledge, where the majority of the farmers were unfamiliar with the excess of pesticides affecting soil and gradually carry away into the surrounding water body (e.g. Lake Ziway).
In the present study, the majority of the small scale farmers (97%) did not rinse or clean empty containers before disposal. This risky activity, disposing of leftover pesticides, and empty pesticide containers seen in our study is a worry because it has an impact on the environment by polluting soil, surface, and groundwater besides cause hazard to non-target creatures. These poor activities were re ected to be one of the major di culties associated with pesticide use and its management and control in low-income countries [34].
In the present study, very few small scale farmers took bath after pesticide mix and spray. Mekonnen and Agona r [35] and Negatu et al. [8] conveyed comparable results in which many of the farmers did not take a shower habitually after the application of pesticides. Only 35% of the small-scale farmers considered the wind direction during spraying. However, 64.8% of the farmers were not considering the direction of the wind while spraying. This is in agreement with the study done in Nepal [36]). According to Khanal and Singh [37] not considering the wind direction cause uncertainties such as bad odor, unable to spray-on targeted crop, trouble in spraying as well as di culty in inhalation by the person spraying the pesticides. The inadequate knowledge of the pesticide use and methods of the application procedure for this study is in agreement with other studies done in low-income countries [17,36,38,39].
When asked small-scale farmers, whether they used biological pesticides or others such as IPM, none of the farmers reported the use of IPM. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has been shown to reduce the use and improper practices during utilizing pesticides. IPM focuses on the signi cance of the production of healthy crops and inspires natural pest control systems [25,40]. Even though most small-scale vegetable farmers had some knowledge of the health effect related to pesticide use, they did not protect themselves effectively from acute pesticide toxicity. In this study, almost all farmers wore poor personal protective equipment leading to unsafe protection when mixing and spraying pesticides. From eld observations, it was noted that none of the farmers used any protective equipment. Likewise, a study by Negatu et al. [8] in the rift valley region in Ethiopia reported that less than 5% of farmers used the mask, or gloves during pesticide application. Three fourth of small-scale vegetable farmers in this study reported that they did not wear the boot and 94% did not wear eye goggles while 94.2% of farmers wearing normal clothes while they are spraying and mixing pesticide. While a study by Mekonnen and Agona r [35] has stated that 18% of small-scale farmers had accid goggles and the other 29% dressed in worn-out gloves.
In our study, nearly 97.5% of farmers with poor pesticide knowledge did not use face masks and gloves while spraying. This is consistent with the results of the study conducted by Williamson et al. [41]. Farmers did not use PPE because of the inadequate knowledge about the safety measures, inaccessibility of protective devices at the local market, PPE being uncomfortable in the local hot and humid climate, and their high cost at the private shops. Warm climate was one of the causes of low use of PPE as mentioned by studies done in the USA [42].
Small-scale farmers tended to use a high amount of pesticides to protect their vegetables from pest alteration for more economic bene ts [5]. Our result indicates that the rate of applications of pesticides is higher. In this study, any farmer did not report the correct knowledge regarding pesticide application interval. Similarly, an extensive amount of pesticide application was reported in other countries: in Benin, many farmers spray pesticides every 3-5 days, [41], in Brazil, the pesticide spraying rate ranged from 3-15 days [16]. Our results have shown that insecticides and fungicides dominated chemical pest management in all vegetable farms, re ecting the serious problems of insect and fungi attacks in the survey zone. However, very limited farmers reported the use of herbicides because most of the time vegetable farmers in the study area use inexpensive human labor to remove the weeds manually. While somewhere else in America and Europe, herbicides, as far as possible, are the most commonly used pesticides followed by insecticides, fungicides, and others. This is probably because it is inexpensive to use this product than renting additional labor during weeding [16].
The most common health problems related to exposure to agrochemicals, reported cases by the smallscale farmers include skin problems, headache, teary and eye irritation, seizure, sore throat, and respiratory disorder, fatigue, nausea, and stomach ache. Burning sensation in the eyes is the most regularly reported symptom. According to USEPA [43], all of the reported cases can be symptoms of pesticide exposure. Most of these signs are deliberated as indicators of acetylcholinesterase inhibition [44]. Many of the reported pesticides in the present study have acute toxicity to humans. For example, Cypermethrin is moderately toxic through skin contact or ingestion. It may also irritate the skin and eyes.
Symptoms of dermal exposure comprise unresponsiveness, stinging, itching, burning sensation, unskillfulness, and possible death. According to Khan et al., [45], exposure to Lambda Cyhalothrin caused up to 20% and 57.1% inhibition in the activity of brain cholinesterase enzyme. Lake Ziway is used as a key water supply for irrigation and domestic purposes such as drinking, food preparation, and cleaning clothes in addition to its ecosystem service. The misuse of pesticide cause possible health risks to the communities around the Lake Ziway as well as the biodiversity of the lake, which may be exposed to water polluted by pesticide carried by ood. Moreover, human exposure to pesticides is probably occurring through work-related exposure [46], (but can also occur through exposure to polluted water sources [47].
Pesticides have been found to contaminate Lake Ziway [12,48,49]. These pesticide residues are highly lethal to sh and amphibians [50]. The present study revealed the insu cient knowledge of small-scale farmers about the fate of pesticide accumulation in surface water and groundwater. Anju et al. [51] examined pesticides that had damaged aquatic organisms including sh. In our study above 86% of the farmers interviewed sprayed pesticides close to Lake Ziways. Similarly, they continuously used water from the lake to blend pesticides in the farm, cleaning, and rinsing the spraying container after spraying tasks. This misuse of pesticides may intensify the susceptibility of the farmers to pesticide poisoning as well as affecting the quality of the water. Likewise, 46% of the respondents get information or advice from other farmers and their long term personal experience instead of paying attention to the concentration rate on pesticide labels, increasing misuse of these pesticides in the study area is apparent to cause a deterioration of aquatic organisms.
The study further revealed that useful insects, birds, and sh get declining in the study area. The farmers reported instantaneous changes in the number of insects and animals in the area over the last two years succeeding pesticide application, 89, 79 and 80 percent of the farmers conveyed that they had noticed a decrease in the numbers of bene cial insects, frogs, and birds and mammals, respectively (Fig. 2). These declines may be due to fortuitous exposure by the organisms with pesticides misused by the farmers [52,53]. Similarly, the farmers reported recently no honeybees have been seen on their farm, which used to be plentiful in the area. The possible explanation could be the use of pesticides such as organochlorine, carbamate, organophosphorus, and parathyroid pesticide exposure [54].

Conclusions
Contrasting the practice in previous studies small-scale vegetable farmers around the littoral zone of Lake Ziway in Ethiopia, do not use the most hazardous pesticides of WHO class 1a and 1b and banded organochlorine pesticides including notorious DDT and Endosulfan. The WHO class II pesticides were the most commonly used agrochemicals in the study area. However, our study reveals farmers lack su cient knowledge of pesticides and practices among the farmers so they regularly adopt risky behaviors when using pesticides. Lack of knowledge included no use of personal protective equipment and the inappropriate storage and disposal of pesticides were common practices. These may result in a danger of acute intoxications, chronic health problems, and environmental degradation. Therefore increase farmers' knowledge about pesticides and creating awareness by giving them training on health-related effects from exposure of pesticides, the impact of pesticides on the ecosystem, proper disposal and storage of pesticides, and teaching of farmers in IPM methods. Training pesticide vendors to improve their awareness of pesticides is also important as they are farmers' key source of information about pesticides.
Declarations Figure 1 Effects of pesticide exposure reported by farmers during and after pesticide application (multiple answers possible)