Research Article

Association of Precautionary Measures of Pesticides Use with Health Concerns

Rehmat Ullah* and Khalid Nawab

Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Received | January 08, 2019; Accepted | February 14, 2019; Published | March 07, 2019

*Correspondence | Rehmat Ullah, Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Ullah, R. and K. Nawab. 2019. Association of precautionary measures of pesticides use with health concerns. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 32(2): 287-292.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2019/32.2.287.292

Keywords | PPE, Pesticides, Precautionary measures, Acute poisoning, Regression

Introduction

Pesticides are poisonous by nature and constitute one of the most hazardous groups of toxins to the ecosystem and human health (Hoi et al., 2009; Ahouangninou et al., 2012). The hazardous effects of pesticides use are increasing day by day particularly in the developing countries on account of its abrupt usage (Hoi et al., 2013; Jansen and Dubois, 2014) and are definitely a public health concern globally (Wesseling et al., 2001). This public health concern has more risks in the developing countries in comparison to the developed ones.

Pesticides on one hand fights against the agricultural pests but on the other hand has an antagonistic effect both on the health of the human beings and the environment. Agricultural pests can cause considerable reductions in farm yields and income. As a result, pesticides are profoundly used to alleviate this problem. But unfortunately, some pesticides even not arrive at the intended pests and according to an estimate, 85-90% of pesticides never even arrive at their intented organisms (Repetto and Baliga, 1996). It is very likely that many non-target organisms are exposed to multiple pesticides throughout their lifetimes.

According to WHO estimates in 1973 the human poisoning cases reported annually were 0.50 million whereas in 1986 it was more than one million plus 20,000 deaths. Similarly, a joint study by United Nation Environmental Program and WHO in 1990 reported three million cases whereas 2.20 million results in fatalities (WHO, 1990). The situation is more alarming in developing countries where the people death rate is high instead of infections. As farmers use increasing quantity of pesticides, poisonings will continue to increase (WHO, 1990). Unsafe use of pesticides is damaging the health of the farmers and the community in Pakistan as well and thus resulting in annual deaths of 10,000 whereas 500000 suffered from poisoning (Dawn, 2004).

Furthermore, potential acute health effects of pesticide exposure include skin irritation, eye irritation, shortness of breath, salivation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, excessive fatigue, headache, muscle twitching, and numbness. Extreme cases of acute pesticide exposure or pesticide poisoning can result in death. Health outcomes such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and Parkinson’s disease have also been linked to exposure to certain classes of pesticides (Risk, 1990).

Keeping in view the importance of health effects of pesticides the present study was designed in order to find out the effect of PPE and precautionary measures taken while using pesticides on the acute poisoning cases.

Materials and Methods

The cross-sectional survey was carried out in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) which is divided into 4 Agro Ecological Zones Viz. Northern Mountainous Zone, Eastern Mountainous Zone, Central Plain Valley and Southern Piedmont Plain. Therefore, a Multistage Sampling technique was utilized for selection of respondents.

First, District Dera Ismail Khan (D. I. Khan) from Southern Piedmont Plain, Charsadda from Central Plain Valley, Mansehra from Eastren Mountainous Zone and Swat was selected from Northern Mountainous Zone respectively. In second step Tehsil Paharpur from district D. I. Khan, Charsada from district Charsada, Mansehra from district Mansehra and Matta was selected from Swat district respectively. These Tehsils were selected in collaboration of Agriculture Extension Department Govt. of KP. From each tehsil union council was selected in next step. Thus, Union council Band Kurai, Baidara, Khanmai, Baffa was selected from tehsil Paharpur, Matta, Charsadda and Mansehra respectively. From each union council farmers were included in the study according to the formula for unknown population as suggested by Kasely and Kumar (1989).

Where;

Z= Reliability coefficient (Constant)= 1.96; n= Sample size; V= 50% this is because similar studies were difficult to find and taking the assumption that 50% of the farmers will be using pesticides in their fields; d= assumed marginal error (5%).

Therefore, through equal allocation formulae, 96 respondents were selected from each union council.

The selected farmers were inquired through interview schedule having open, close and partially open-ended questions regarding the precautionary measures and PPE used while using pesticides and self-reported acute poisoning cases. Before the collection of actual data, 30 farmers were investigated and Cronbach’s alpha test was applied to check the reliability of the questionnaire. The Cronbach alpha value obtained was 0.831 representing good internal consistency.

Data collection

After the Cronbach alpha test, the primary data was collected from the selected farmers through interview schedule whereas secondary data was obtained from various published and unpublished sources.

Statistical analysis of data

Binary Logistic regression was utilized to find out the extent of dependency of the acute poisoning cases with the precautionary measures.

Results and Discussion

Binary regression of diseases associated with precautionary measures

The results of binary logistic regression analysis of

Table 1: Binary Logistic Regression of Diseases associated with Precautionary Measures.

diseases associated with precautionary measures are presented in Table 1. The regression analysis revealed that taking bath after pesticide use can highly significantly (P≤0.01) reduces the headache (-2.286), dizziness (-5.643), feeling weak (-1.819), difficulty in seeing (-3.058), chest pain (-1.215), burning sensation (-0.963), and fever (-1.059). This might be due to the fact that the pesticides content which might absorbed by the clothes came in contact with the body. Therefore, taking bath after the pesticides practices can significantly minimize the poisoning cases.

Similarly, the precautionary measures were also associated with the factor of smoking while spraying (Table 1). It was found that those who are smoking while spraying, highly significantly (P≤0.01) influenced and found victim of headache, nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, chest pain and fever whereas others were significantly found victims of sneezing. During the application of pesticides, more specifically with the power sprayer the pesticides take the form of mist when sprayed. This mist easily enters the body of the pesticides applicator personnel/farmer. During the smoking, the applicator regularly inhales the chemical mist due to the fact that he is not covering his mouth or nose. Our results are in in conformity with that of Manyilizu et al. (2017) who also reported that Smoking was associated with an increased incidence of chest pain, while eating and chewing gum during pesticide use was associated with increased levels of diarrhea.

Change clothes after application of pesticides (CCAPP) also highly significant reduces the adverse effects like headache (-0.221), excessive sweating (-1.210), feeling weak (-0.934), blisters (-3.612), body pain (-5.171) and fever (-3.902) whereas significantly reduces the nausea (-2.217), diarrhea (-1.542), shortness of breath (-5.769) and chest pain (-3.604) as shown in Table 1. Changing clothes was also found to be important factor in order to minimize the acute poising cases which might be due to the fact that the clothes after application of pesticides might accumulate the pesticides contents and thus results in blisters etc.

Covering nose and mouth is also considered as one of the most important precautionary measures and this covering response in relation to health concerns are given in Table 1. It was observed that covering nose and mouth had highly significantly (P≤0.01) reduces the dizziness (-2.902), feeling weak (-1.110), diarrhea (-1.896), shortness of breath (-0.847), chest pain (-1.583), burning sensation (-2.946), fever (-2.690) and difficulty in seeing (-0.626) in comparison to those who not covers the nose and mouth.

Eating and drinking in the field is common phenomena in the field by the farming community. Since they use pesticides and eat and drink as well in the field. Thus, they were investigated regarding the eating and drinking habit while they use pesticides and it was found that Eating and Drinking while spraying (EDWS) had negative highly significant (P≤0.01) contribution towards chest pain 1.838) and fever (3.316) however significant (P≤0.01) negative contribution towards nausea (-0.055), difficulty in seeing (3.532) and diarrhea (1.555) was found (Table 1). This showed that after the application of pesticides those respondents who use to eat or drink significantly affected from the chest pain, fever, nausea, diarrhea etc.

Use face shield (UFS) had also highly significant (P≤0.01) negative contribution towards nausea (-20.690), shortness of breath (-0.934), burning sensation (-4.947) whereas significant negative contribution towards fever (-1.793) was found. Moreover, UR had highly significant (P≤0.01) negative contribution towards sneezing (-4.234), cough (-2.726), nausea (-1.449), dizziness (-20.704), difficulty in seeing (-19.908) and fever (-3.097) was also found in the present study (Table 1). Using face shield and respirator is important PPE while doing pesticides practices. The instant results showed that the chances of nausea, shortness of breath, burning sensation and fever can be significantly minimized with the use of the face shield.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The instant results depicts that farmers are not cautious to the health concerns and they apply the pesticides without any precautionary measures. The poor handling includes the irregular use of PPE and other precautionary measures which significantly contribute towards the acute poisoning cases. Therefore, it is suggested that in order to minimize the poor handling practices of the farming community and increasing the farmer’s knowledge about pesticides hazards, a safety educational trainings and certification programs should be developed. The trainings must include the health hazards of pesticides, safe handling, application and use of PPE. Moreover, agriculture extension department and private pesticides companies should take initiatives in order to promote safe pesticides use.

Author’s Contribution

The present study was the part of PhD dissertation, the whole study was conducted under the supervision of the Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab. The study was designed by Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab whereas data collection, analysis and write-up was done by Rehmat ullah. Moreover, final revision before submission was also given by Prof. Dr. Khalid Nawab.

References

Ahouangninou, C., T. Martin and P. Edorh. 2012. Characterization of health and environmental risks of pesticide use in market-gardening in the rural city of Tori-Bossito in Benin, West Africa. J. Environ. Prot. 3: 241–248. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2012.33030

Belmonte, A., A. Vega, F. Garrido and L. Martinez. 2005. Monitoring of pesticides in agriculture water and soil samples from Andulasia by liquid chromatography couple to mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. Acta. 53(8): 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2005.02.003

Cooper, J. and H. Dobson. 2007. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot. 26(9): 1337-1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.022

Dawn. 2004. Deaths from poisoning of Agro-chemicals on the rise. The Daily Dawn, Internet Edition, July 29.

Devine, G.J. and M.J. Furlong. 2007. Insecticide use: Contexts and ecological consequences. Agric. Human Values. 24(3): 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9067-z

Hoi, P.V., A.P.J. Mol, P. Oosterveer and P.V.D. Brink. 2009. Pesticide distribution and use in vegetable production in the red river delta of Vietnam. Renew. Agric. Food Sys. 24(3): 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509002567

Hoi, P.V., A.P.J. Mol and P. Oosterveer. 2013. State governance of pesticides use and trade in Vietnam. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 67. 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.09.001

Jansen, K. and M. Dubois. 2014. Global pesticide governance by disclosure: Prior informed consent and the Rotterdam convention. In A. Gupta and M. Mason (Eds.), Transparency in environmental governance: Critical perspectives (pp. 107–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Karlsson, S. 2004. Institutionalized knowledge challenges in pesticide governance: The end of knowledge and beginning of values in governing globalized environmental issues. Int. Environ. Agreements: Polit. Law Econ. 4. 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INEA.0000040420.61883.7d

Kasely, D.J. and K. Kumar. 1989. The collection, analysis and use of monitoring and evaluation data. The world bank, IFAD, FAO London: John Hophkins Univ. Press.

Maki, J.E., D.M. Hoffman and R.A. Berk. 1978. A time series analysis of the impact of a water conservation campaign. Eval. Q. 2(1): 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X7800200105

Manfo, F.P.T., P.F. Moundipa, H. Dechaud, A.N. Tchana, E.A. Nantia, M.T. Zabot and M. Pugeat. 2010. Effect of agropesticides use on male reproductive function: A study on farmers in Djutitsa (Cameroon). Environ. Toxicol. 27: 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.20656

Manyilizu, W.B., R.H. Mdegela, A. Helleve, E. Skjerve, R. Kazwala, H. Nonga, M.H.B. Muller, E. Lie and J. Lyche. 2017. Self-Reported symptoms and pesticide use among farm workers in Arusha, Northern Tanzania: A cross sectional study. Toxics. 2017. 5: 24: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics5040024

Pimentel, L. 2005. Environmental and economic costs of application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustainability. 7: 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2

Repetto, R. and S. Baliga. 1996. Pesticides and the immune system: The public health risk. World Resour. Inst.

Rı´os-Gonza´lez, A., K. Jansen and H.J. Sa´nchez-Pe´rez. 2013. Pesticide risk perceptions and the differences between farmers and extensionists: Towards a knowledge-in-context model. Environ. Res. 124: 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.03.006

Risk, R. 1990. Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. US Environ. Prot. Agency. Washington, DC. 1990 Sep.

Smith, C. 2001. Pesticides exports from US ports, 1997-2000. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health. 7: 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2001.7.4.266

Travisi, C.M., P. Nijkamp and G. Vindigni. 2006. Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: A comparative approach. Ecol. Econ. 56(4): 455-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.026

UNU (The United Nations University). 2003. East Asian experience in environmental governance: Response in a developing region. Shibuya-ku, Tokyo: U. N. Univ. Press.

Wesseling, C., V. Wendel, B. Joode, C. Ruepert, C. Leon, P. Monge, H. Hermosillo and T. Partanen. 2001. Paraquat in developing countries. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health. 7: 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2001.7.4.275

Woehr, D.J. and T.A. Cavell. 1993. Self-report measure of ability, Effort and nonacademic activity as predictors of introductory psychology test scores. Teach. Psychol. 20: 156-160. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2003_5

WHO. 1990. Public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture, WHO Geneva.