The current study provides the first report on knowledge, attitude, and practice of Sudanese farmers towards the safe application of pesticides.
In the current study, farmers used different types of pesticides, and the most widely used one was Cypermethrin. According to Ngowi et al. (2007) report, this pesticides is organochlorine in nature World Health Organization (WHO) class II product), and its forbidden in several countries due to its harmful effects on health and the environment.
In experimental animals, organochlorine pesticides (Ops) act on the Central Nervous System (CNS) as cholinesterase inhibitor, pyrethroid insecticides (lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin) impair the function of peripheral nervous system (PNS) (Soderlund and Bloomquist 1989). Moreover, exposure to toxic does of these compounds will cause paralysis, incoordination and convulsions (Soderlund and Bloomquist 1989).
Farmers awareness towards the safe use of pesticides is strongly correlated with their education level (Öztaş et al. 2018). Littered farmers can increase their awareness by accessing published information by using internet (Öztaş et al. 2018).
In the current study, apparently close to the half number of farmers (44%) were primary school graduates. So, it can be said that the farmers in our study were less educated than those who participated in other studies.
In a study conducted by Yassin et al. (2002) among Palestinian farmers aimed to assess their knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxic symptoms related to pesticides exposure. The results indicated that, few number of farmers were illiterate (8.5%), 13.2% were primary school graduates, 22.2% were secondary school graduates, the majority were high school graduates (42.9%,) and 13.2% were university graduates.
The results of a study conducted in in Konya aimed to determine farmers` education status, knowledge and environmental sensitivity to pesticide exposure, indicated that most of farmers (55.8%) were graduated from primary school, quarter of them (26.6%) graduated from secondary school, 11.6% graduated from high school and 5.8% graduated from university (Yassin et al. 2002).
A study conducted by Rostami et al. (2019) among Kaboudarahang farmers in Iran, aimed to evaluate farmers` knowledge, attitude, and practice of using pesticides. The results revealed that half of farmers were graduated from high school. However, studies conducted in some developing countries by Hurtig et al., Mekonnen and Agonafir, in addition to Zyoud et al., showed opposite results (2003; 2002; 2010).
The continues training and education programs encourage farmers to use pesticide correctly (Oluwole and Cheke 2009). Also, insufficient information about the selection of any pesticide type and the proper use of it will lead to overuse and/or misuse of pesticide which results in production of harmful effects (Deng et al. 2019).
In the current study, it was found that none of the farmers had received any training program about the safe application of pesticide. This finding is similar to Kumar et al. (2012) results. In their study, they found that 90% of the farmers did not receive any training program on the proper use of pesticide.
We assume that farmers in our study find out the instruction of any particular pesticide used either from the seller or from neighbours, this assumption is supported by some researchers’ findings. Several studies in developing countries showed that farmers find out relevant pesticide information from other farmers and from pesticide sellers who are not also well-informed about pesticides biohazards (Lekei et al. 2014). Another study conducted by Deng et al. (2019) which aimed to evaluate knowledge and behaviours towards the use of pesticide among caregivers of children in rural China. The results indicated that most of the caregivers had never received any training or education programs regarding the safe use of pesticide, therefore, they seek pesticide information from relatives and neighbours.
Understanding the biohazard sign on any pesticide container and reading the related material data sheet; will guide farmers to use pesticide correctly (Mandel et al. 2000). In our study, although approximately close to the half number of farmers (46.0%) were able to read the material data sheet and the majority of them (94%) understood the safety biohazard sign, however, they handle pesticide unsafely. These findings go in the same direction with other researcher results.
A study carried out by Ejaz et al. (2004) reported that farm workers rarely follow the safety measures during the application of pesticides, because they lack sufficient information about the harmful effects of pesticides.
It has been observed that, the percentage of farmers’ ability to read the uses instructions is much higher in other studies in comparison to our result. In a study conducted by Öztaş et al. (2018) found that 88.6% of the participated farmers read the label or the instructions written in the pesticide container. Similar studies conducted by Gaber and Abdel-Latif (2012) and Zyoud et al. (2010), reported that, 33.0% and 71.4%, of farmers respectively, read the label and the instructions of use on the pesticide container.
We assume that illiteracy and lack of knowledge about the biohazards of pesticides have been considered as the most important factors for the adoption of self-protective behaviors by farmers, this though is supported by (Blanco-Muñoz and Lacasaña 2011; Damalas and Hashemi 2010).
Non-use of PPE and improper application of pesticide are the major factors that lead to several health problems (Damalas et al. 2006). In addition, the quality of PPE is correlated with the level of protection against pesticide exposure such as wrapping or wearing cloths around nose (Oesterlund et al. 2014).
In our study, although, less than the half number of farmers (38%) wore PPE during pesticide application, but, theses PPE were not standardized. Therefore, they did not provide any protection to farmers. This finding goes in the same direction with some researchers.
A study conducted by Oesterlund et al. (2014) in Uganda reported that farmers did not use standard PPE and this was responsible for the toxic poising effect they had due to pesticide exposure (Oesterlund et al. 2014). Also, the same findings were observed among Nakhon Nayok province farmers in Thailand, (Lappharat et al. 2014).
Also, our results match other studies findings where the level of using PPE was also low or zero in some countries.
In some developing countries (Clarke et al. 1997; Yassin et al. 2002), India (Mancini et al. 2005) and in northern Greece (Damalas et al. 2006) farmers did not adopt to use PPE. Furthermore, a study carried out by Oluwole and Cheke (2009) reported that 88.9% of farmers apply pesticide without the use of any PPE, however, 11.1% of them wore boots during the preparation and application of pesticide. Also, in India, Khan (2009) observed that only 6% of the participated farmers wore gloves. Moreover, in Yassin et al. (2002) study, 21.7% of farmers used masks, 19.0% of them wore protective clothing, 14.8% of them wore boots and 19.6% of them wore gloves. In addition, Damalas et al. (2006) reported that 81.0% of farmers did not wear PPE, 2.5% of them did not wear boots, 72.7% of them did not wear gloves and 86.8% of them not did use masks.
On the other hand, in some studies, farmers used different types of standard PPE at variable levels which is considered to be higher to our results.
In the study conducted by Zyoud et al. (2010) it was found that 48.6% of the farmers wore gloves, 63.5% of them used masks, and 63% of them wore protective clothing. Another study conducted by Öztaş et al. (2018) showed variable level of protection. The results indicated that 30.0% of farmers used masks, 51.0% of them wore gloves, 56.2% of them wore glasses, 64.8% of the farmers wore long sleeved shirts, 61.7% of them wore long trousers, 27.9% of them wore hats, 14.3% of them wore all of the above, 4.5% of them wore aprons and 6.9% of them wore boots.
In our study we attributed the non-use of PPE by farmers in our study to their high cost and/or unavailability of them. This assumption goes in the same direction with what has been reported by Lekei et al. (2014). In addition, we think that due to the hot weather in Sudan, farmers did not like wearing standard PPE. This hypothesis, is agreed with Clarke et al. (1997). They found that hot and humid weather conditions provide unfavourable conditions to farmers to wear PPE.
PPE is very important to prevent the body from pesticide poisoning, therefore, bathing immediately after the application of pesticides decreases these poisoning effect (Öztaş et al. 2018). Our results indicated that all of the farmers showed positive attitudes after the application of pesticides such as washing hands, clothes and taking shower. These results matches what has been published by Mubushar et al. (2019). They reported that, following the application of pesticides 41.5% of farmers wash their clothes separately, while, 27.7% wash them occasionally. Also, Weng and Black (2015) reported the same results, where most of Taiwanese farm workers (81.8%) take shower and change their clothes following the application of pesticide.
In our study we observed that all farmers store pesticide in their farms. Hence, we assume that they were aware about the harmful effects of storing pesticide in their house.
Incorrect application of pesticide and unsafe disposal of pesticide containers have damaging effects to agricultural workers, as well as to the environment and the public health, especially in developing countries (Öztaş et al. 2018).
in our study, farmers showed negative attitudes towards the handling of the empty pesticide containers. It was found that most of farmers threw the empty pesticide containers away (92%). In addition, most of them (92%) used the contaminated water with pesticide in their routine daily life.
On the other side, the methods of discharging the empty pesticide containers in some studies were variable ranging between correct and incorrect disposal method.
In Öztaş et al. study (2018) the discharge of the empty pesticide containers took several forms; 4.3% of farmers took the empty containers to special collection bins or centres, 31.0% of them threw them away, 13.6% of them buried them in the ground, 41.2% of the farmers burned them and 10.0% of them washed and reused them for their daily life activities. Also, Gaber and Abdel-Latif (2012) observed that 43.0% of farmers reused the empty pesticide containers in their homes, 4.0% of them burned them and 53.0% of the farmers threw them away. Similar findings reported by Hurting et al. (2003) in their study they found that 16.2% of farmers buried the empty pesticide containers, 18.0% burned them, 68.4% of them threw them away and 38.7% of them used the empty pesticide containers to transport oil.
When pesticides are being used incorrectly; their residues will contaminate air, drinking water, food and soil (Deng et al. 2019). As a result, this will lead to a widespread of health problems (Deng et al. 2019). Also, several studies have reported that exposure to pesticide is associated with different health problems such as acute toxicity (respiratory, ocular, cutaneous, cardiovascular, neurologic and gastrointestinal symptoms) and chronic diseases (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, immune system abnormalities, birth defects, cancer and nervous system disorders) (Council On Environmental Health 2012; Lee et al. 2011; Roberts et al. 2012; Vidi et al. 2017).
In our results, the most reported health problems by farmers following the application of pesticides were skin and eye irritation. These findings match some studies results, such as a study conducted by Zyoud et al. (2010) their results they found that 37.5% of the farmers experienced itchy skin. In addition, in a study conducted by Yassin et al. (2002) it was found that 64.3% of the farmers had irritation in the eyes and face, also, 27.0% of them had skin irritation. Furthermore, Wilaiwan and Siriwong (2014) reported that farmers had eye problems following the application of pesticides. Moreover, Tanzanian farmers had reported that they suffer from neurological and skin problems following the application of pesticide (Ngowi et al. 2007).
We assume that the non-use of PPE or the use of non-standard PPE is associated with the reported health problems. This assumption agrees with what has been mentioned by Lekei et al. (2014).
At the level of our study, we think that farmers age, their education level and the negative attitudes of farmers towards the use of empty pesticide containers are the main predisposing factors to the harmful effect of occupational pesticide exposure.