Content uploaded by Dalia Elhefny
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dalia Elhefny on Mar 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) 2022, 7(2):218-230
ISSN 2357-0725
https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
JSAS 2022; 7(2):218-230
Received: 29-11-2022
Accepted: 27-12-2022
Ahmed A. A. Sallam
Ashraf Okasha
Ashraf M. Hassanein
Plant protection Department
Faculty of Agriculture
Sohag University
Sohag
Egypt
Dalia El Hefny
Pesticides Residues and
Environmental Pollution
Department
Central Agriculture Pesticide
Laboratory
Agriculture Research Center
Egypt
Corresponding author:
Ashraf M. Hassanein
ashrafhassanien2@gmail.com
Survey of Pesticides use practices and
perceptions of Sohag governorate, Egypt.
A case study
Abdel Ahmed A. A. Sallam, Dalia El Hefny, Ashraf Okasha,
Ashraf M. Hassanein
Abstract
Pesticides are playing a pivotal role in meeting the increase in food
consumption and cotton fiber demand for escalating population and
control of vector-borne diseases. However, most of the applied
pesticides get dispersed in the environment and affect the health
of unprotected pesticide occupational workers. So, this study was
designed to assess the understanding level of pesticide labels, their
field application practices, and observance of safety procedures
among farmers and pesticide applicators at Sohag Governorate,
Egypt. In-depth field surveys were undertaken with 550 workers and
complemented by focus group discussions, interviews, questionnaires,
and field observation. Obtained data revealed that 65 % of farmers
follow agriculture rotation, while majority of participants are reading
the pesticide labels. Also, results showed that the insecticides were
the highest used (41.7%) followed by herbicides (38.6%) and
fungicides (19.7%) Organophosphates were the most frequently used
pesticides followed by neonicotinoid and pyrothrid then carbamates.
According to WHO pesticides toxicity classification, slightly
hazardous compounds belonged to class U (unlikely to pose an acute
hazard in normal use) were the most frequently used in study region
followed by the moderately hazardous compounds (class II). 49.8% of
the respondents claimed immediate health hazards after pesticide
application. Also, about two third of participants referred they did not
wear the personal protective equipments (PPE) because its high cost,
The awareness
of farm workers and authorities needs to be increased regarding
the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and correct
storage procedures, handling, disposing of pesticides and empty
containers.
Keywords:
Pesticides, farmers, pesticide retailers, pesticide applicators, labels,
precautions safety.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides are playing a pivotal role in
meeting the increase in food consumption and
cotton fiber demand for escalating population and
control of vector-borne diseases. However, most of
the applied pesticides get dispersed in the
environment and affect the health of unprotected
farmers and pesticide applicators. During 2018,
approximately 11,000 tons (active ingredient) of
pesticides (2200, 4510, and 4290 tons of
fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides,
respectively) in Egypt were utilized according to
Egypt's Agricultural Pesticides Committee (APC,
Egypt 2019 and Shalaby, et al., 2022). The
pesticide term is a complex word that includes all
compounds that are applied to destroy or control
pests; this includes insecticides (insects),
herbicides (weeds), fungicides (fungi), acaricides
(mites) …etc (Hassan and El Nemr, 2020).
Questionnaires are an effective tools, a valuable
method of collecting a wide range of information
from a large number of individuals; also, it’s are a
series of questions to obtain statistically useful
information about a given topic (Roopa and Rani,
2012). Through questionnaires, (Stimamiglio, et
al., 1998) reported that the information about
pesticides, storage, dose and application and also
the safety precautions taken by farmers during
mixing and spraying pesticides. This survey
achieved in assessing implementing appropriate
safe use trainings in the context of farmer's
perceptions and knowledge. Also, (Shalaby, et al.,
2012) reported that the level of awareness or
knowledge has also been evaluated about the
protective measures of the safety of pesticides. The
field survey indicated that 40.0, 6.7 and 12.0 % of
farmers, pesticide market and spraying workers,
respectively, did not wear protective clothes.
However, most of them (83.3%, 93.3% and 88.0
%) have knowledge of safety precautions that must
be taken during the formulation of pesticides and
application. In Malaysia, by using questionnaire,
evaluation of the perception of the workers
towards pesticide use and awareness regarding the
health effects post-pesticide exposure. The survey
questionnaire had five parts, namely, demographic
profile of the workers, methods of applying
pesticides, use of safety measures while applying
pesticides, health profile, and perception about the
environmental effects of pesticide usage
(Sulaiman, et al., 2019). The collected data were
about the pesticide usage practices by two methods
questionnaires and personal observation of the
agricultural practices (Pesticide handling, spraying
techniques, and waste disposal) in the farms, shops
and dealers of pesticides. The results are about The
classification of the pesticides based on the type of
pests they control revealed that, insecticides are the
most used group (57%), followed by fungicides
(15%), acaricides (9%), and herbicides (6%)
Philbert et al., 2019). The wrong application of
pesticides has negative effects on human health,
and adoption safety measures are necessary to
avoid the harmful effects of pesticides and bicycles
on the use of safe pesticides that greatly affect the
level of knowledge of farmers on the safe use of
insecticide (Mubushar, et al., 2019). The
perception of the levels and the behavior of
farmers on the uses of pesticide pesticides and their
related risks to the environment and human health
among the Bangladesh farmers, and it have been
observed a difference in the knowledge of farmers
and their behavior towards the of pesticides. The
survey study confirmed that revealed all the
background variables (education, age, farming
experience, and farm ownership) had a similar
contribution towards understanding the danger of
pesticides impact of health and environment
(Shammi, et al., 2020). Therefore, this study aimed
to: 1) Screen the common pesticide types that
workers use; 2) Evaluate the perceptions of
farmers about pesticides handling, pesticides safety
label and spraying field practices that could expose
them to chemical risk; 3) Explore storage and
disposal of old (expired) pesticide stocks and
empty containers; 4) Survey the protective measure
which is taken by participants in farms, inside
shops, including using personal protective
equipment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Study area
Sohag governorate is in the middle of the South
Egypt between 26" 36" 26 N latitudes and 31" 47"
80 E longitudes Fig. (1) (Alsheikh, et al., 2011)
with an estimated 5.7 million inhabitants (C. A. P.
M. A. S.). Agriculture is the main profession of the
majority of the population of the selected location.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
It is famous for the dense traditional cultivation of
a large number of crops (rice, wheat, onion, sugar
beets, potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, alfalfa, corn ...
etc.). Large amounts of pesticides are used
annually to control pests attacking these crops.
Fig. (1). Map of Sohag governorate
2. The basic design and sample size
550 healthy male individuals in the age
group of 35-60 years comprising of 370 farmers,
120 pesticide applicators, and 60 pesticide retailers
were selected for the present study. The
participants chosen had a history of exposure to
pesticides during a period ranging from 10 to 20
years at least.
3. Field survey
Face-to-face interviews were used to collect
data using a questionnaire, the questionnaire
contained four sections: 1st) was designed to collect
information about pesticides mostly used in the
study area, crops were cultivated by study subjects;
2nd) was focused on workers knowledge and
understanding pesticide labels; 3rd) was assess the
worker's pesticides handling, dispose of empty
containers, pre-harvest period; 4th) was evaluating
the safety practices during pesticide application
such as: eat or smoke during work; protective
cloths or equipment. The participants were
interviewed in their fields, each interview was
taking about 20 -30 min to complete and all were
conducted from 2019 - 2020. The study subjects
were asked to report the pesticides by trade names
or local names. Data collectors checked the
pesticide names from the containers or labels when
participants failed to do so.
4. Ethical statement
Permission for the study to be conducted
was also obtained from the mother villages at
Sohag governorate. Participants received
explanations of the purpose of the study in the
Arabic language (their mother tongue). Informed
approval was obtained from study individuals
before starting each interview, and no personal
identification was registered. We prepared an
informed verbal consent that involved the purpose
of the research, the expected duration of the
interview, and a description that the individuals
could withdraw at any time from the interview
without any risk and no payment for their
recruitment. We read this statement to each study
participant before starting the interview and
requested their permission to be involved in the
study.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The obtained data were collected from
questionnaire forms after interviews with the target
workers and all data and results were recorded on
copies of the questionnaire during interviews
(Tables 1 - 4).
1. Pesticides used in the study region
Obtained data were collected on the type of
pesticides used (insecticides, herbicides and
fungicides), sources of information about
pesticides, training in the proper use of pesticides.
The questionnaire focused on identify types of
consumed pesticides, assessing knowledge,
attitudes and practices of these farm workers with
regard to safe use of insecticides, safety and health
factors. Table (1) showed the most frequently used
pesticides, their trade and common names;
chemical groups and their toxicity classification
according to World Health Organization (WHO,
2019). The present study revealed that the farmer
uses 125 of pesticides under different trade names
belonging to different chemical groups. About 53.2
% of the used pesticides are classified by the
World Health Organization as toxicity class U
(unlikely to pose an acute hazard in normal use)
were the most frequently used in study region
(WHO, 2019), followed by the moderately
hazardous (25.4 %) compounds (class II), while
(16.7 %) belong to class III and (4.8 %) of the used
pesticides are under toxicity class IB (highly
hazardous). Insecticides is the main pesticides used
(42%), followed by herbicides (38%) then
fungicides (20%) Fig. (2). The obtained results
revealed that Organophosphate and glyphosate-
diammonium were the most frequently used
pesticides followed by Neonicotinoid and
Sulfonylurea then parathyroid and carbamate. In
the same respect, data obtained by (Ngowi, et al.,
2007) showed those farmers’ practices (Northern
Tanzania), perceptions and related cost and health
effects on vegetable pest management using
pesticides. The types of pesticides used by the
farmers in these areas were insecticides (59%),
fungicides (29%) and herbicides (10%) with the
remaining (2%) being rodenticides. Pesticides were
bought from pesticides shops (60%), general shops
(30%) and cooperative shops (10%). Also, data
obtained by (Mahob, et al., 2014) revealed that the
safe use of pesticides in the cocoa sector in
Cameroon, the data showed that 35 different
chemical pesticides were marketed in Cameroon
for use in cocoa: 4 herbicides, 11 fungicides and 20
pesticides. 96.8 % of farmers said that they used
pesticides on their farms while 3.2 % didn't use
pesticides. Fungicides were the most used (61.8
%), followed by insecticides (38.2%) by farmers.
Likewise, eight active ingredients, despite their
official ban, were still used on cocoa plantations.
Fig. 2: Mostly used pesticides classification
according to the type of pest in the study region.
Obtained results are accordance with those
obtained by (Yadav and Dutta, 2019), who
reported that organophosphate was the most
frequently used pesticides followed by
neonicotinoid and Pyrothrid, and the insecticides
are consumed higher than that of herbicides,
followed by fungicides.
2. Safety practices, protective clothes, and
precautions against pesticide exposure
Pesticide labels serve as the primary point of
interaction between the manufacturer and the
product's end-user, which is conveying vital safety
information and using guidelines (FAO and WHO,
2015). Results of the assessment of workers
knowledge on pesticide labels indicated that, the
majority of them read the pesticide labels (74.1 %),
while (25.9 %) did not read it (Table 2), because
they may be incapable to read and comprehend
meanings of the label, the long list of instructions
and guidelines were unclear and the font sizes on
the labels were hard to read as they were tiny.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Table 1. Frequently used Insecticides in Sohag Governorate
Chemical group
WHO classification
Type of formulation
Common name
Trade name
No.
Avermectin
II
EC
Abamectin
Abantin 1.8%
1.
Carbamate
III
SC
Fenpyroximate
Abroch 5 %
2.
Neonicotinoid
II
SP
Acetamprid
Aceta 20%
3.
Neonicotinoid
U
WG
Thiamethoxam
Actara 25 %
4.
Organophosphorus
III
EC
Pirimiphos methyl
Actellic 50%
5.
Neonicotinoid
U
EW
Pyriproxyfen
Admiral 10%
6.
Benzimidazole
II
SG
Emamectin benzoate
Amazon 5.7%
7.
Carbamate
II
DG
Pirimicarb
Aphox 50%
8.
Thiadiazin
U
EC
Buprofezin
Applaud 25%
9.
Pyrethroid
II
EC
Indoxacarb
Avaunt 15%
10.
Neonicotinoids
II
WG
Imidacloprid
Avenue 70%
11.
Pyrethroid
II
EC
LambdaCyhalothrin
Axon 5%
12.
Neonicotinoide
II
SC
Thiacloprid
Blanch 48%
13.
Neonicotinoide
II
SC
Chlorfenapyr
Capitol 24%
14.
Neonicotinoid
II
SC
Chlorfenabyr
Challenger Super
24%
15.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorzane 48%
16.
Organochlorine
II
EC
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorzed 48%
17.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Profenofos
Cord 72%
18.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Diazinon
Diazomax 60%
19.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Dimthoate
Dimetox 40%
20.
Pyrethroid
II
EC
Lambda cyhalothrin
Dolf X 5%
21.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Chloropyrifos
DursbanH 48%
22.
Avermectin
III
EC
Emamectin benzoate
Excellent 1.9%
23.
Organophosphorous
IB
EC
Triazofos
Hostathion H
40%
24.
Neonicotinoid
II
WG
Imidacloprid
Imidamex 70%
25.
Carbamate
IB
Sp
Methomyl
Kuik 90%
26.
Mineral oil
U
EC
Mineral oil
KZ oil 95%
27.
Pyrethroid +
Organophosphorous
II
EC
Lambdacyhalothrin +
chloropyrofos
Lambdaphos 50%
28.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
LambdaCyhalothrin
Lamdathrin 5%
29.
Carbamate
Ib
SP
Methomyl
Lannat 90%
30.
Organophosphorus
III
EC
Malathion
Malason/Extra
57%
31.
Organophosphorus
III
EC
Malthion
Malathin 57%
32.
Organophosphorus
III
DP
Malthion
Malatox 1%
33.
Inorganic
U
WP
Sulfur
Micronite 80%
34.
Neonicotinoid
II
SP
Acetamprid
Mospilan 20%
35.
Carbamate
IB
SP
Methomyl
Neomyl 90%
36.
benzoylurea
U
SC
Teflubenzuron
Nomolt 15%
37.
Oxim Carbamate
III
SC
Fenpyroximate
Ortus 5%
38.
Neonicotinoid
U
SG
Dinotefuran
Oshin 20%
39.
Imidazolinone
III
EC
Emamectinbenzoate
Pasha 1.9%
40.
Pyrethroid
II
EC
Chlorpyrifos
Pestiban 48%
41.
Oxim Carbamate
U
EC
Hexythiazox
Prince 10 %
42.
Triazine
U
WP
Bacillus thringiensis
Kursaki
Protecto 9.4%
43.
Neonicotinoid
II
EC
Profenofos
Selecron 72 %
44.
Ketoenol
U
SC
Spirodiclofin
Spiro 24%
45.
Ketoenol
U
SC
Spirodiclofin
Spirotex 24%
46.
Organophosphorus
II
EC
Chlorpyrifos
Tafaban 48%
47.
Benzoylurea
IB
SL
Methamidophos
Tamaron 600
48.
Pyrethroid
U
WG
Pymetrozine
Tedo 50%
49.
Dithiocarbamate
II
EC
Abamectin
Vermex 1.8%
50.
Neonicotinoid
II
EC
Abamectin
Vertimec 1.8%
51.
Inorganic pesticide
IB
DP
Zinc phosphide
Zincphosphide
80%
52.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Table 1. Cont. frequently used Herbicides in Sohag Governorate
chemical group
WHO classification
Type of formulation
Common name
Trade name
No
Thiadiazole
U
WP
Clodinafop-propargyl
Action 15 %
54.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Agrisate 48%
55.
Dinitroaniline
U
EC
Butralin
Amex 48 %
56.
Sulfonylurea
U
OD
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium-
M-sosulfuron-sosulfuron-
methyl-sodium
Atlantis 1.25%
57.
Atrazine
U
SC
Atrazine
Atrazine 50%
58.
Sulfonylurea
U
EC
Pinoxadin
Axial 4.5 %
59.
Carbamate
U
OD
Pyroxsulam
Ballas 4.5 %
60.
Benzothiadiazinone
III
AS
Bentazone
Basagran 48 %
61.
Hydroxybenzonitrile
III
EC
Bromoxynil octanoate
Brominal W
24%
62.
Sulfonylurea
U
EC
Rimsulfuron
Brond 25 %
63.
Glyphosate-diammonium
III
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammoniu
Bround X 48
%
64.
Sulfonylurea
U
WG
Tribenuron-methyl
Cash cool 75%
65.
Thiadiazole
III
WP
Clodinafop-propargyl
Columbus15%
66.
Triazolopyrimidines
U
SC
Flumetsulam+Florasulam
Derby 17.5 %
67.
Oxadiazole
U
EC
Oxadiazon
Doxar 12 %
68.
Aryloxyphenoxypropionate
U
EC
Fluazifop-p-butyl
Fusilade Forte
15 %
69.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Glypho Elnasr
48 %
70.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
WSC
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Glyphon 24 %
71.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Glyphoup 48
%
72.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Glysate 48 %
73.
Diphenylether
U
SC
Oxyfluorfen
Goal 4F 48 %
74.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Ground Up 48
%
75.
Sulfonylurea
U
DF
Tribenuron-methyl
Granestar 75%
76.
Chloroacetamide
III
EC
Acetochlor
Harness 84%
77.
Thiadiazle
U
EC
Coldinafop-propargyl
Herbeno 24%
78.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Herbazed 48%
79.
Atrazine
U
WP
chlortriazine
Gesaprim80 %
80.
Sulfonylurea
U
WG
Bensulfuron
Londax
81.
Thiadiazle
U
WP
Clodinafop-propargyl
Maxtop15%
82.
Sulfonylurea
U
DF
tribenuron-methyl
Ownstar 75 %
83.
Axyloxyphenoxypropionate
III
EC
Quizalofop-P-teffuryl
Pantera 4%
84.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SC
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Round up 48%
85.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SG
Glyphosate mono-ammonium
salt
Round up Max
75%
86.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
EC
Oxadizon
Ronstar 25%
87.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Satup 48%
88.
Thiocarbamate
III
EC
Thiobencarb
Saturn 50%
89.
Pyridinecarboxylic acids
U
EC
Fluroxpyr
Starane 20%
90.
Cyclohexanedione
U
EC
Clethodim
Select supper
12.5%
91.
Cyclohexanedione
U
EC
Clethodim
Select Ultra
24%
92.
Triazinone
II
SC
Metribuzin
Sencor 60%
93.
Cyclohexanedione
U
EC
Clethodium
Sino Super
12%
94.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Sino Up 48%
95.
Dinitroaniline
U
EC
pendimethalin
Stolin 50%
96.
Dinitroaniline
III
CS
pendimethalin
Stomp Extra
45.5%
97.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SL
Glyphosate
Isopropylammonium
Sun Up 48%
98.
Thiadiazole
U
WP
Clodinafop-propargyl
Topik 15%
99.
Glyphosate-diammonium
U
SC
Glyphosate monopotassium
Touchdown
Hitec 50%
100.
Axyloxyphenoxypropionate
U
EW
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl
Whip-super
7.5%
101.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Table 1. Cont. Frequently used Fungicides in Sohag Governorate
Chemical group
WHO classification
Type offormulation
formulation
Common name
Trade name
No.
Inorganic group
U
WP
Copper oxychloride
Dimthomorph
Acrobat copper
73%
102.
acylamino acid fungicides
II
MZ
Metalaxyl M -
Mancozeb
Ridomil Gold
103.
Carboxamide
U
EG
Pyraclostrobin-
Boscalid
Bellis 38%
104.
Sulfur
III
WG
Sulfur
Cabritol 80%
105.
Methoxycarbamate
U
WG
Pyraclostrobn-
Metiram
Cabrio Top
60%
106.
Dithiocarbamate
U
WP
Mancozeb
Dithane M-45-
80%
107.
Sulfur
III
WP
Sulfur
Z sulfur 80%
108.
methoxyacrylate strobilurin
fungicides
III
SC
Azoxystrobin
Difenoconazole
Amistar
109.
Strobilurea
U
SC
Azoxystrobin
Amistar 25%
110.
Inorganic compounds
III
Copper hydroxide
Index
111.
conazole fungicides
U
EC
Propiconazole
Teliozed 25%
112.
Dithiocarbamate
U
WP
Captan
Captan Ultra
50%
113.
Dithiocarbamate
U
WP
Mancozeb
Manco El Nasr
80%
114.
conazole fungicides
U
EC
Propiconazole
Tilt 25%
115.
anilide fungicides
U
SC
Fenhexamid
Teldor 50%
116.
Sulfur
III
WG
Sulfur
Capido 80%
117.
Dithiocarbamate
U
WP
Manczeb
Mancopan
80%
118.
Imidazoles
U
Hymexazol-
Thiophanatemethyl
Restart 56 %
119.
Triazoles
U
EC
Difenoconazole
Score 25%
120.
Triazoles
U
EC
Penconazole
Topas (100)
10%
121.
Triazoles
II
EC
Flusilazole
Option 40%
122.
Dithiocarbamate
polymeric dithiocarbamate
II
WP
Mancozib-Cymoxanil
Caprosate Gold
72%
123.
Triazoles
U
EC
Myclobutanil
Mydragon 25%
124.
Inorganic compounds
II
WP
Copper oxychloride
Blue copper
50%
125.
Triazoles
U
EC
Propiconazole
Mycosam 25%
126.
*WHO (2009) classification: IB = highly hazardous; II = moderately hazardous; III = slightly hazardous;
U = Unlikely to pose an acute hazard in normal use. **% = Percent of pesticide most frequently used by
the subject.
Table 2: Workers knowledge and understanding the pesticide labels
Question
Answer
No.
%
Do you follow an agriculture rotation?
Yes
No
370
(Farmers)
65.0
35.0
Do you read pesticide label?
Yes
No
550
74.1
25.9
When do you read pesticide label?*
Before buying
Before application
Before storage
550
38.9
41.0
20.0
Do you know the indication of pesticide labels colour?
Yes
No
550
58.0
42.0
Do you use pesticides according to the recommended
rate?
Yes
No
Sometimes
550
68.0
20.0
12.0
Do you check the expiry date?
Yes
No
550
41.9
58.9
Are you bought expired pesticides?
Yes
No
Sometimes
Don’t know
550
24.0
38.0
14.0
24.0
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
3. Safety practices, protective clothes, and
precautions against pesticide exposure
Pesticide labels serve as the primary point of
interaction between the manufacturer and the
product's end-user, which is conveying vital safety
information and using guidelines (FAO and WHO,
2015). Results of the assessment of workers
knowledge on pesticide labels indicated that, the
majority of them read the pesticide labels (74.1 %),
while (25.9 %) did not read it (Table 2), because
they may be incapable to read and comprehend
meanings of the label, the long list of instructions
and guidelines were unclear and the font sizes on
the labels were hard to read as they were tiny.
During the field study, in Table 3, it was found that
(55 and 68 %) of farmers and retailers workers
smoke and eat during work, while (80 %) of
pesticide applicators did not eat and smoke during
work. Also, it was noticed that in Table (4) the
major of farmers and pesticide applicators were
aware of protective equipment that should be used
while dealing with pesticides or during agriculture
operations after pesticide applications. 44 % of
farmers were wearing overall and special boots (25
%), while, 25 % of applicators were wearing
overall, special boots (26 %), masks (18%), and
glasses (10 %), as well, (8 and 13 %) of the
farmers and the pesticide applicators did not follow
any safety precautions during work or spraying
pesticides. In this study, (91% and 72 %) of the
farmers and the pesticide applicators reported
using sticks for mixing pesticides, while (9%) and
(28 %) of them use their bare hands for mixing,
respectively. At the same respect, most of the
pesticide shops contain water supply and had good
ventilation (80 %), (12 %) of shops had a fire
extinguisher, (16 %) of pesticide retailers had
gloves and (4 %) had face masks and glasses,
while (12 %) of pesticide shops and retailers did
not follow safety precautions. On the question of
the reason for not using protective equipment
during pesticide application, the majority of them
answered that, the high cost of protective wear is
the main factor. Also, about (20 %) of the
respondents were reluctant to use protective wear
due to feeling discomfort especially with increase
temperature degrees. In another study was
conducted in Egypt by (Tchounwou, et al., 2002)
displayed that more than 95% of farm workers do
not practice safety precautions during pesticide
formulation and application in Menia El-Kamh,
Egypt. Also, a try to explore knowledge, attitudes
and practices towards safety issues related to
dealing with pesticides between tobacco farmers in
the rural area of Beret, in northern Greece. All
farmers (99%) believed that pesticides could have
serious harmful effects on user health. Despite
awareness of potential health risks by treating
pesticides, a large percentage of farmers (46 %)
have been informed of not using any protective
equipment, especially when spraying pesticides. Of
those who have been informed that they use
protective equipment, most of them mentioned that
they usually use a hat (47%) and shoes (63%).
Only a few farmers using the face mask (3%),
gloves (8%), and fracture (7%) are on a regular
basis (Damalas, et al., 2006). These results agree
with (Yadav and Dutta, 2019), which, they
confirmed that only (19.4%) of respondents use
protection measure (mask, goggles and gloves) to
protect themselves from direct exposure to the
pesticide and (47%) of respondents were using the
mask and the remaining 33.6% were not taking any
safety measure. In the same respect, another study
was conducted in northern Cote d'Ivoire to assess
farmers' understanding of pesticide safety
designations, pesticide processing practices and
spraying that may expose them to chemical risks.
The results showed that 50% of farmers have an
accurate understanding of their pesticide safety
designations, by 17% partially understood but 33
% misunderstand stickers. (53 %), he did not wear
protective clothes while spraying (Ajayi and
Akinnifesi, 2007). Also, (Adjrah, et al., 2013)
reported that Sphinx Plus has been applied for
statistical treatment on the survey forms and
showed vegetable farmers have an acceptable
educational level (36% have more than 7 years of
formal education) to instructions exploitation about
pesticide use, but more than 97% do not use
recommended tools. Only 21% of them received
training for pesticide use. Moreover, 84% of them
did not usually wear gloves, and less than 30%
used masks.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Table 3: Workers Practices on storage of pesticides and disposal of expired compounds and empty
containers.
Question
Answer
No.
%
Where do you store your pesticides?
In the field
In store room
Inside house
370
20.17
72.36
7.27
Did you eat or smoke during work?
Farmers
Pesticide retailers
applicators
Yes
Yes
No
370
120
60
55
68
80
Do you buy pesticides in none original containers?
Yes
No
Sometimes
370
19
48
33
Do you know pre-harvest intervals
(PHI)?
Yes
No
550
60.4
39.6
Where do you disposal of empty containers?
Leave it in the fields
Re-use it
Bury on-farm
Throw it in the canals and drains
Sold it
490
62.0
20.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
Table 4: Safety practices for workers during pesticides application
Question
Answer (Variable)
No.
%
Safety practices for farmers:
1. Wear protective clothes or equipment:
2. How to mix pesticides?
Wear overall
Special boots
Glasses
Mask
Gloves
Nothing
370
44.0
25.0
37.0
14.0
18.0
8.0
Bare hands
Using stick
370
9.0
91.0
Safety practices for pesticide applicators:
1. Wear protective clothes or equipment:
2. How to mix pesticides?
Wear overall
Special boots
Mask
Glasses
Gloves
Nothing
120
25.0
26.0
18.0
10.0
8.0
13.0
Bare hands
Using stick
120
28.0
72.0
Safety practices inside pesticide shops:
1. Safety practices in pesticide shops:
Water
Good ventilation
Gloves
Fire extinguisher
Mask
Glasses
Nothing
60
80.0
80.0
16.0
12.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
Why didn't you wear PPE?
High cost
Discomfortable
Unsuitable
550
70.0
20.0
10.0
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
The most common way to get rid of empty
pesticide containers between farmers (62 %) by
throwing or emptying them away from the field.
7% of farmers follow the burning process to get
rid of the empty container of pesticides. It was
also revealed during the discussion that some
farmers (13%) re-use empty pesticide containers.
Most of farmers (87%) get pesticides from local
merchants; this is because the majority of
farmers are unable to distinguish between the
various pathogens and appropriate pesticides,
whether insecticides or fungicides dependence
on the information and advice provided by
merchants. However, from discussing farmers
and spraying workers, they established that some
pesticides were effective on some vegetables and
crops (75 %), and therefore, we find that some
farmers depend on the advice that merchants
provide to resist pests. During the field study, it
was found that a few of farmers about 35% do
not follow to pre-harvest interval (PHI). It was
found that many of the farmers were smoking
and chewing tobacco while spraying pesticides.
Obtained data revealed also, 87 % of farmers get
their pesticides from local agricultural input
dealers and depend on the information and
advice provided by local agricultural input
dealers to make decisions. This is consistent
with the results described in (Afari-Sefa, et al.,
2015), who found that the Majority of the
farmers (90.8%) obtain their pesticides from
local agrochemical input dealers.
Results shown in Fig. (3) show that the majority
of farmers (72.4%) store pesticides in a safe
store after purchases and use, but a number of
them (7%, 21%) store them at home and in the
field respectively, thus exposing them to the risk
of toxicity through direct inhalation of
insecticides, As the storage of pesticides in open
places can be accessed, it may lead to an acute
and/or chronic toxicity, with harmful health
consequences. These results agree with the
findings of (Afari-Sefa, et al. 2015 and Ngowi,
et al., 2007), which found that a lot of farmers
store pesticides after buying or harvest in closed
places far away from anyone also, storing
pesticides in open accessible places such as
bedrooms may lead to acute and/or chronic
exposures, with adverse health consequences
and Some deaths resulted in the poor storage of
pesticides, which leaked to food stocks (NPAS).
Fig. (3): Where do you store your pesticides?
Generally, depending on the limited
participants' number (150 workers), we can’t
assume that the results are representative of
overall Egypt's pesticide occupational workers.
To conduct larger-scale interviews around the
country was not feasible at the current
circumstance, we aimed to highlight relevant
occupational health and pesticide safety issues
for the studied participants. Besides, the
previous researches and findings that reported
the adverse effects of pesticides on workers
carried out in Egypt made this study in demand
(Mahammed, et al., 2018; Gaber and Abdel-
Latif, 2012; Shalaby, et al., 2012; Nassar, et al.,
2016). Farmers, pesticide retailers, and
applicators were all found to be using un-safe
pesticide handling practices.
Despite its limitations, this research adds
information about pesticides practice and
knowledge of safety between pesticide
occupational workers in Egypt and can
contribute to policy recommendations and
educational aims to avoid or minimize the risks
related to pesticides. Consequently, to minimize
the adverse effects of pesticides on occupational
workers and environmental consequences,
educational training programs must be provided
regularly to the farmers, pesticide retailers, and
applicators through strong policy intervention
(Miyttah, et al., 2020 and Shalaby, et al., 2022).
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
CONCLUSION
Creating awareness of safe pesticide handling is
remarkably vital and can be achieved through
establishing and accessing special orientation
programs. The awareness of occupational
workers and authorities should be increased
regarding the use of PPE and proper procedures
for handling, storage, disposal of pesticides, and
empty container disposal. Besides, promoting
alternative pest control strategies, such as the use
of environmentally friendly or "green"
insecticides and integrated pest management
(IPM), could be productive. Also, it is vital that
pesticide retailers receive training to improve
their knowledge of pesticide risk communication
and safety. They should have at least one
technical advisor who is knowledgeable about
pesticide dangers and handling to adequately
advise end-users. Also, a stricter application of
monitoring and pesticide regulation policies
should be established to reduce the threats that
occupational workers' current practices pose to
their environment and health.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I extend my deep thanks and
appreciation to the Academy of Scientific
Research for providing its Water and
Environmental Studies Laboratory in
cooperation with the Agriculture Faculty, Plant
Protection Department, until I could complete
my work.
REFERENCES
Adjrah, Y.; Dovlo, A.; Karou, S. D.; Eklu-
Gadegbeku, K.; Agbonon, A.; de Souza, C.;
and Gbeassor, M. (2013). Survey of pesticide
application on vegetables in the Littoral area
of Togo. Annals of Agricultural and
Environmental Medicine. 20 (4): 715–720.
Afari-Sefa, V.; Asare-Bediako, E.; Kenyon, L.;
and Micah, J. A. (2015). Pesticide use
practices and perceptions of vegetable
farmers in the cocoa belts of the Ashanti and
Western Regions of Ghana. Advances in
Crop Science and Technology. 3:3 (1-10)
Agricultural Pesticides Committee (APC),
Egypt. (2019)
Ajayi, O. C.; and Akinnifesi, F. K.; (2007).
Farmers’ understanding of pesticide safety
labels and field spraying practices: a case
study of cotton farmers in northern Côte
d’Ivoire. Scientific Research and Essays, 2
(6): 204-210.
Alsheikh, S. M.; Elnahas, A.; Gala, S.; Mousa,
E.; and Elshennawy, M. (2011). Strategy
options to improve gross margin in mixed
crop-livestock farming system in Sohag
governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of
Animal Production. 48(2): 147-156.
Central agency for public mobilization and
statistics.
Damalas, C. A.; Georgiou, E. B.; and
Theodorou, M. G.; (2006). Pesticide use and
safety practices among Greek tobacco
farmers: A survey. International journal of
environmental health research, 16(5): 339-
348.
FAO and WHO (2015). Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health
Organization, United Nations. International
Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management.
Guidelines on Good Labelling Practice for
Pesticides, Rome. pp.2.
Gaber, S.; and Abdel-Latif, S. H.; (2012). Effect
of education and health locus of control on
safe use of pesticides: a cross-sectional
random study. Journal of Occupational
Medicine and Toxicology. 7(1): 1-7.
Northern presbyterian agricultural services and
partners (NPAS) (2012). Ghana’s pesticide
crisis; The need for further Government
action.
Hassaan, M. A.; and El Nemr, A.; (2020).
Pesticides pollution: Classifications, human
health impact, extraction and treatment
techniques. The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic
Research. 46, Issue 3, 207-220.
Ibitayo, O. O.; (2006). Egyptian farmers'
attitudes and behaviors regarding agricultural
pesticides: implications for pesticide risk
communication. Risk analysis, 26(4), 989-
995.
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Mahob, R. J.; Ndoumbe-Nkeng, M.; Ten
Hoopen, G. M.; Dibog, L.; Nyassé, S.;
Rutherford, M.; Mbenoun M.; Babin R.;
Amang a mbang J.; Yede and Bilong, C. B.;
(2014). Pesticides use in cocoa sector in
Cameroon: characterization of supply source,
nature of actives ingredients, fashion and
reasons for their utilization. International
Journal of Biological and Chemical
Sciences, 8(5): 1976-1989.
Mispan, M. R.; Haron, S. H.; Ismail, B. S.; Abd
Rahman, N. F.; Khalid, K.; and Rasid, M. A.;
(2015). The use of pesticides in agriculture
area, Cameron Highlands. Age (years), 15(1):
19-22.
Miyittah, M. K.; Kwadzo, M.; Gyamfua, A. P.;
and Dodor, D. E.; (2020). Health risk factors
associated with pesticide use by watermelon
farmers in Central region,
Ghana. Environmental Systems
Research, 9(1): 1-13.
Doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-00170-9.
Mohammed, M.; EL-Din, S. A. B.; Sadek, R.;
and Mohammed, A.; (2018). Knowledge,
Attitude and Practice about the Safe Use of
Pesticides among Farmers at a Village in
Minia City, Egypt. Journal of Nursing and
Health Science, 7 (3): 68-78.
DOI:10.9790/1959-0703096878.
Mourad, T. A.; (2005). Adverse impact of
insecticides on the health of Palestinian farm
workers in the Gaza Strip: a hematologic
biomarker study. International journal of
occupational and environmental health,
11(2): 144-149.
Mubushar, M.; Aldosari, F. O.; Baig, M. B.;
Alotaibi, B. M.; and Khan, A. Q.; (2019).
Assessment of farmers on their knowledge
regarding pesticide usage and
biosafety. Saudi journal of biological
sciences, 26(7): 1903-1910.
Nassar, A. M.; Salim, Y. M.; and Malhat, F. M.;
(2016). Assessment of pesticide residues in
human blood and effects of occupational
exposure on hematological and hormonal
qualities. Pakistan Journal of Biological
Sciences: PJBS, 19(3): 95-105.
Ngowi, A. V. F.; Mbise, T. J.; Ijani, A. S.;
London, L.; and Ajayi, O. C. (2007).
Smallholder vegetable farmers in Northern
Tanzania: Pesticides use practices,
perceptions, cost and health effects. Crop
protection, 26(11):1617-1624.
Philbert, A.; Lyantagaye, S. L.; and
Nkwengulila, G. (2019). Farmers’ pesticide
usage practices in the malaria endemic region
of North-Western Tanzania: implications to
the control of malaria vectors. BMC public
health, 19(1): 1-11.
Roopa, S.; and Rani, M. S.; (2012).
Questionnaire designing for a survey. Journal
of Indian Orthodontic Society, 46(4):273-
277.
Shalaby, S. E. S.; Elmetwally, I.; Abou-elella,
G.; and Abdou, G. Y.; (2022). Occupational
Workers Understanding of Pesticide Labels
and Safety Practices in Egypt. Egyptian
Journal of Chemistry, 65 (6): 367-380.
Shalaby, S. E.; and Abdou, G. Y.; (2020).
Assessment of pesticide residues in blood
samples of agricultural workers in
Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection Research,
60 (4): 369-376.
Shalaby, S. E.; Abdou, G. Y.; and Sallam, A. A.
(2012). Pesticide-residue relationship and its
adverse effects on occupational workers in
Dakahlyia, Egypt. Applied Biological
Research, 14(1): 24-32.
Shammi, M.; Sultana, A.; Hasan, N.; Rahman,
M. M.; Islam, M. S.; Bodrud-Doza, M.; and
Uddin, M. K. (2020). Pesticide exposures
towards health and environmental hazard in
Bangladesh: A case study on farmers’
perception. Journal of the Saudi Society of
Agricultural Sciences, 19(2): 161-173.
Stimamiglio, G.; Schiffers, B.; and Ellis, W.
(1998). A survey on the safe and effective
use of pesticides in cut flower production: the
case of highlands of northern
Thailand. Mededelingen van de Faculteit
Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische
Wetenschappen, 63(2a): 283-292.
Sulaiman, S. K. B.; Ibrahim, Y.; and Jeffree, M.
S. (2019). Evaluating the perception of
farmers towards pesticides and the health
effect of pesticides: A cross-sectional study
in the oil palm plantations of Papar,
Malaysia. Interdisciplinary toxicology, 12(1):
15-25.
Tchounwou, P. B.; Ashour, B. A.; Moreland-
Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS) https://jsasj.journals.ekb.eg
Young, C.; Ragheb, D. A.; Romeh, A. A.;
Goma, E. A.; and Assad, J. C. (2002). Health
risk assessment of pesticide usage in Menia
El-Kamh Province of Sharkia Governorate in
Egypt. International Journal of Molecular
Sciences, 3(10): 1082-1094.
Tyagi, H.; Gautam, T.; and Prashar, P. (2015).
Survey of pesticide use patterns and farmers'
perceptions: a case study from cauliflower
and tomato cultivating areas of district
Faridabad, Haryana, India. International
Journal of MediPharm Research, 1(3): 139-
146.
WHO, 2019. World Health Organization. The
WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard and Guideline to
Classification, pp 6.
Yadav S.; and Dutta S. (2019). A study of
pesticide consumption pattern and farmers
perceptions towards pesticides. A case of
Tijara Tehsil, Alwar
(Rajasthan). International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(4):
96-104.
(U)
(PPE)
(PPE)
.
