Personal safety issues related to the use of pesticides in agricultural production
in the Al-Batinah region of Northern Oman
Said Al Zadjalia,b, Stephen Morseb, Jonathan Chenowethb and Mike Deadmanc*
a
Ministry of Environment and Climate Affairs, P O Box 321 Muscat 100, Sultanate of
Oman.
b
Centre for Environmental Strategy, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7JH, UK.
c
Department of Crop Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan
Qaboos University, P O Box 34, Al Khod 123, Sultanate of Oman.
HIGHLIGHTS

Pesticide-related safety standards are frequently poor on many farms in
Northern Oman

Pesticides are frequently stored within the living accommodation of farm
workers

Safety standards generally increase with the education status of farm workers

A local farmers’ association (FA) has the effect of raising safety standards on
member’s farms

Farm workers appear more likely to conform to the behaviour shown by
owners of FA farms, with increased safety awareness aligned to national
standards
ABSTRACT
The level of uptake and use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by farm workers
in Oman is low; the conditions under which pesticides are stored are frequently below
acceptable international standards. Research was undertaken to explore the drivers
working against safe storage of agrochemicals and effective personal protection usage
by pesticide application personnel. Results from a survey of over 200 respondents,
representing workers on, and owners of, farms either within or outside a local
farmer’s association (FA), suggest that FA membership raises standards of behaviour
both in terms of safe pesticide storage and use of PPE. Age of respondents had no
apparent effect on the likelihood of PPE (gloves and masks) use. PPE use was,
however, highest among respondents with more advanced educational backgrounds.
Positive responses for glove and mask use, when applying pesticides, were higher for
owners and workers on FA farms compared to non-FA farms. Lowest reported use of
PPE was amongst workers on non-FA farms. Analysis of responses appears to
indicate that behaviour patterns of workers on FA farms mirror that of the farm
owners. This was not the case on non-FA farms. The results suggest that conformity
to social norms, in this case acceptable work-environment behaviour, is a powerful
driver behind raised usage levels of PPE on farms in Oman.
*Corresponding author: mikedead@squ.edu.om
Keywords: pesticides, pesticide storage, personal protective equipment, socioeconomic aspects, safety, Oman
1. Introduction
Previous research in Oman has suggested that membership of a local farmers’
association can bring about an apparent increase in the level of adoption of safepractice procedures related to pesticide use at the farm level (Al Zadjali et al., 2013;
2014). This appears to affect the choice of pesticide products with fewer prohibited
pesticides encountered on farms that belong to a local association (Al Zadjali et al.,
2014).
For example, on farms within the local association 1.3% of products
encountered were prohibited under local legislation compared to 4.9% on farms not in
the local association (Al Zadjali et al., 2014).
Similarly farms outside of the
association were more likely to be using older pesticide types, especially organophosphates and pyrethroids, whilst farms within the association were more likely to
be using neonicotinoid (not currently restricted in Oman) and strobin containing
products (Al Zadjali et al., 2014). Membership of an association also appears to raise
the level of awareness with regard to methods used for the safe disposal of pesticide
waste (Al Zadjali et al., 2013). These papers by Al Zadjali et al (2013; 2014) appear
to be the first, not just from Oman, but also elsewhere, to report an effect of farmers’
association membership on improved safe use of pesticides at the farm level.
However, even if membership of a local association decreases the use of prohibited
pesticides and improves the procedures adopted for the safe disposal of pesticide
waste, changes in other aspects of pesticide use remain to be determined – in
particular the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the safe storage of
pesticide products before and after use. These are important issues given the
increasing political emphasis being placed on encouraging the establishment of more
local associations across the country and given that local legislation places the onus of
PPE purchase on the farm owner. Previous work (Al Zadjali et al, 2013, 2014; Al
Zadjali, 2014) has described in general the economic and social benefits that accrue to
members of the local association.
In a multi-year survey covering more than 8500 smallholder farmers in 26
countries, Matthews (2008) found that the highest proportion of those applying
pesticides but declining to use some elements of PPE was in Asian countries, with
Bangladesh being the highest.
The reasons for low uptake of PPE adoption in
countries such as Bangladesh are unclear but could have important ramifications for
Oman where nationals from this country make up the overwhelming majority of farm
workers (Al Zadjali et al., 2013). The likely reasons for low use of PPE have been
classified into four main strands by Feola and Binder (2010).
First, socio-
demographic factors such as age, education and gender and/or socio-economic factors
such as income and education status (Salameh et al., 2004; Mekonnen and Agonafir,
2002) may be disincentives to PPE use. Second, the significant cost may limit
farmers’ access to equipment, especially for smaller scale farmers (Yassin et al, 2002;
Matthews, 2008). Feola & Binder’s (2010) third strand suggests the importance of
contingent and/or external factors such as pesticide label information accessibility
(Gomes et al., 1999; Waichmann et al., 2007) and discomfort felt by those working in
the field (Cole, et al., 2002); this may be important in Oman where temperatures
during the growing season can reach 40oC. The fourth strand identified by Feola and
Binder (2010) include personal values and cultural orientation influencing risk
perception (Palis et al., 2006). Feola and Binder (2010) raise a further category of
factors influencing PPE use – social norms including peer pressure. Citing influences
such as symbolic sanction (including mockery) it has been suggested that these factors
might, through social conformity, work against the use of protective equipment (Feola
and Binder, 2010).
In the current study the presence of a recently constituted local farmers’
association in the northern part of Oman (Al Zadjali et al., 2013) provides the
opportunity to examine a further factor related to social norms, namely employer
pressure or expected behaviour norms applied to workers. The extent to which
workers on farms conform to behaviour patterns prescribed by farm owners could
provide insights into further mechanisms by which PPE use could be increased. In
effect, is there evidence to suggest that membership of a farmers association, and the
various factors that may be associated with that such as exposure to information,
training and 'peer' pressure, results in enhanced use of PPE amongst farm workers
employed by farm owners? While at first glance this covers similar drivers to those
noted by Feola and Binder (2010) it raises the important issue of targeting. If farm
owners become convinced over the need for PPE then can they not override the
constraints to PPE adoption that one may see amongst farm workers? To date this
potentially important contribution has not been explored in the literature.
2. Materials and methods
A detailed description of the study area has been given by Al Zadjali et al.
(2013; 2014). The study was based within the Al-Batinah region since it represents
the most important agricultural region of Oman and has similarities in terms of crop
production methods to much of the region (Al Zadjali, 2014). From 171 farms
randomly selected from those listed in the agricultural census database in Al-Batinah
North and South governorates, face to face interviews were carried out between
January and November 2012 (but excluding the May – September summer months
when agricultural activities are minimal).
A structured questionnaire was
implemented with 213 farm worker and farm owner respondents. Respondents were
divided into those from farms belonging to the recently constituted FA and those from
non-FA farms. Within each group the respondents were divided into workers and
owners in roughly equal proportion. 'Owners' here are defined as those who actually
own the farm and derive the benefits from selling produce. They may not necessarily
be resident on the farm, but they are the ones who may become members of a farmers
association. 'Workers' are in essence the labourers who work and, in most cases, live
on the farm. The worker respondents were represented by the ‘foreman’ or senior-
most labourer present (Al Zadjali et al., 2013; 2014). The workers cannot become
members of a farmers association, only the owners. Thus there were four categories of
respondent in total:
(a) FA - farm owner
(b) FA - farm worker
(c) Non-FA - farm owner
(d) Non-FA - farm worker
The emphasis of the survey was to determine the level of adherence to safety
procedures related to pesticide storage, pesticide application and the use of personal
protective equipment. Exploring differences in attitude between the owners of the
farm – those with the responsibility it might be thought to supply guidelines for safe
pesticide use and provision of personal protective equipment, and those employed as
essentially migrant workers – those with the responsibility for pesticide application
procedures and ultimately for deciding whether or not to implement safety procedures
including the use of protective equipment, was a key objective of the survey. General
questions about farm size and labourer’s nationality were included.
Farms were
grouped into sizes classes as very small (<2.5 ha), small (2.6 - 5.0 ha), small –
medium (5.1 – 10.0 ha), medium (10.1 – 15.0 ha), medium - large (15.1 – 30.0 ha) and
large (> 30.0 ha). Information on respondents’ age and education status were also
included so as to explore differences between the FA and non-FA categories and how
this might explain any differences in knowledge and practice. The questionnaire was
semi-structured in nature.
For question on pesticide storage, responsibility for pesticide application and
types of clothing worn during application respondents were given prepared lists of
key words (see Table 1) and asked to indicate their response. Two additional Likert
scale questions were also included to determine the supply/use of specific pieces of
personal protective equipment, namely facemasks and gloves. No attempt was made
to distinguish types of gloves or masks at this stage.
Data were analysed for
significant differences in response to Likert scale questions using the Kruskal-Wallis
test for mean rank separation with P<0.05 taken to indicate a significant difference
between mean ranks. Where significant differences in respondent group mean rank
were indicated (P<0.05), individual mean rank values were separated by calculating
the z-value for the threshold of significance using the method of Gwet (2011)
implemented for Microsft Excel 2010.
3. Results
3.1 Sample description
The profile of the sample, average farm size and average respondent age has
been described elsewhere (Al Zadjali et al., 2013; 2014). Briefly, the 213 respondents
were distributed between FA farm workers (52), FA Farm owners (54), non-FA farm
workers (51) and non-FA farm owners (56). All respondents were male. Among the
farm workers, Bangladeshi nationals represented the largest group in both FA and
non-FA farms (87 in total, 87% of workers and 40.8% of all respondents). All owners
of FA and non-FA farms were Omani nationals. Farm size varied from less than 1 ha
to over 500 ha, with an average of 16.8 ha. There were generally more very small and
small farms within the non-FA group, whilst the FA group had more farms within the
medium – large and large size classes (Supplementary Table 1).
The age profile of the respondents is shown in Supplementary Table 1.
Respondent were aged between 23 and 72 years with an average of 44.1. Workers
(mean 39.7) and owners (45.5) on FA farms were generally younger than those on
non-FA farms (40.1 and 50.1 respectively for workers and owners) and workers
(39.9) were generally younger than owners (47.9). The educational background of the
respondents is shown in Supplementary Table 1. A considerable proportion of the
respondents had no formal education (44, 20.7%) or had just elementary education
(70, 32.9%).
Thirty one respondents (14.6%) were educated to a tertiary level.
Workers from FA farms generally had higher levels of education than those from nonFA farms, and owners of farms belonging to the FA generally had a higher level of
education than owners of non-FA farms.
3.2 Safety issues related to pesticide use
When respondents were asked about the place of storage of pesticides prior to
use all workers and owners from FA farms who responded reported that
agrochemicals were stored in a dedicated area on the farm (Table 1). In contrast, on
non-FA farms 60.8% of workers and 23.2% of owners reported that pesticides were
stored within the building used for accommodation by the workers themselves. The
discrepancy between the information provided by workers and owners might suggest
either that owners are unaware of the location of pesticide storage, or that they are
reporting that pesticides are stored in a separate place whilst the reality might be
different. For non-FA farms as farm size increased the proportion of farms using
dedicated pesticide storage facilities increased from 40.0% (very small size class) to
58.0% (medium size class) and 100% (large size class).
<< TABLE 1 NEAR HERE >>
When asked who applies pesticides on the farm, 63.5% of workers on FA
farms reported that identifiable key workers were assigned this duty. This is lower
than the result obtained from FA farm owners where 81.5% of owner respondents
indicated that only key workers apply pesticides. This time it is possible that owner
respondents were inflating the apparent likelihood of pesticide application
responsibilities being assigned to specific individuals (Table 1). On non-FA farms,
the reported level of pesticide application duties being assigned to specific individuals
was broadly similar for workers (31.4% of respondents) and owners (33.9%).
Workers on FA farms were more likely to wear specified items of protective
clothing (Table 1). In each case, workers on FA farms reported a greater use of
overalls, hats and boots; goggles or glasses appeared to be more widely used by
workers on non-FA farms than by those on FA farms. Amongst the farm owner
respondents, the reported use of personal protective clothing was, in all cases, higher
for FA farm owners than for non-FA farm owners (Table 1).
Again there was a
discrepancy between the reported use of protective clothing by FA farm workers and
the supply of such equipment by FA farm owners. For overalls, hats and
goggles/glasses the reported supply by owners was higher than the actual reported use
by workers. Either equipment is supplied and not used or owners of FA farms are
exaggerating the level of supply to their workers. Interestingly, the discrepancy
between supply and use of protective clothing was lower for non-FA farms (Table 1).
The results of the first of two specific Likert-scale questions concerning
personal protective equipment are shown in Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean
rank showed significant differences between the four groups (H = 70.81, P < 0.0001).
Asked about the use of facemasks by those applying pesticides, similar responses
were obtained from workers and owners on FA farms, with a large majority of
respondents indicating that facemasks are always (13/47 for workers and 24/53 for
owners) or usually (32/47 for workers, 25/53 for owners) worn. In contrast there was
a discrepancy in the responses obtained on non-FA farms (Table 2). The majority of
non-FA farm owners reported that facemasks are usually (22/56) or sometimes
(20/56) worn. Workers on non-FA farms however mostly reported that facemasks are
sometimes (10/51) or never (26/51) worn. Here it appears that owners of non-FA
farms may be inflating the reported supply or usage of personal protective equipment.
It is also possible that facemasks are supplied but workers decline to use them.
<< TABLE 2 NEAR HERE >>
In order to determine whether response to the question about facemask
supply/use was affected by age, each group of respondents was sub-divided into age
class cohorts (Supplementary Table 2). No significant differences in mean rank were
observed in either the farm worker or farm owner groups of FA and non-FA farms
even though in all groups except the FA farm owners, mean rank was higher amongst
the older cohorts suggesting a increasing commitment to protective equipment with
increasing age.
In a similar way respondents from each of the four groups were separated
according to the highest level of education reported (Supplementary Table 3). Except
in the case of the FA farm owners, mean rank was highest with increasing levels of
education, suggesting a greater commitment to personal protective equipment. The
differences in mean rank within the non-FA farm workers and owners were
significant (P < 0.05, Supplementary Table 3) and in both cases those with no
education showed the lowest mean rank (lowest commitment to protective
equipment).
The second Likert-scale question concerned the use/supply of gloves by those
applying pesticides (Table 3). There were significant differences in mean rank of the
Likert-scale responses between the four groups. The lowest mean rank, and thus
lowest level of commitment to the use of gloves was shown by non-FA farm workers;
the highest mean rank was shown by FA farm owners, significantly different from the
other groups (H = 66.00, P < 0.0001); FA farm workers and non-FA owners showed
intermediate responses.
<< TABLE 3 NEAR HERE >>
As with the first Likert-scale question, each of the respondent groups were
divided into age cohorts and each was analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis method for
mean rank separation (Supplementary Table 4). There were no significant differences
in mean rank within increasing cohort age for any of the four groups. Only in the case
of FA farm workers did mean rank appear to increase with age suggesting an
increasing commitment to glove use.
When the four groups of respondents were each divided into education status
cohorts, significant differences were observed within the non-FA farm workers and
owners, but not within the FA farm workers and owners (Supplementary Table 5).
Within both the non-FA farm workers and non-FA farm owners mean rank increased
with education level indicating a greater commitment to the use of gloves. Although
no significant differences were observed for the FA farm groups, in the case of the FA
farm workers mean rank increased with education status, suggesting that those with
higher levels of education showing a greater commitment to the use of gloves.
The effect of farm size on PPE use was not clear. Although Kruskal-Wallis
analyses indicated a significant difference in mean rank of the Likert responses
concerning glove and mask use between different farm size groups, this was only true
for the complete sample, i.e. FA and non-FA farms combined (Hmasks = 18.4, P =
0.002; Hgloves = 13.1, P = 0.02). Identification of specific farm size class, pair-wise
differences using the Gwet (2011) methodology was not possible either for within
whole sample or, naturally given P > 0.05 for both masks and gloves, within the
specific FA/non-FA – worker/owner categories.
4. Discussion
The farm-based survey showed some worrying responses about the storage of
pesticides. Although on FA farms all respondents, owners and workers stated that
pesticides are stored in a separate place (with many actually indicating a specific a
pesticides store), and observation tends to support these answers, on non-FA farms
over 60% of workers said that pesticides are stored in their living quarters (Table 1).
Observation suggests that these quarters are both the places where workers prepare
food and eat as well as where they sleep, and the storage of pesticide in this space is
clearly a significant concern. Amongst non-FA farm owners 22% stated that
pesticides are stored within the living quarters. The discrepancy might be the result of
workers taking short-cuts and storing these products close at hand or in the most
secure place on the farm. Alternatively, it could simply be that the owners are
unfamiliar with the practices on their farms or perhaps are trying to give the best 'spin'
they can on what they think is happening.
Farm size does appear to influence
pesticide storage practices, on smaller farms pesticides are more likely to be stored
within farm workers’ accommodation building; this is perhaps because such smaller
farms are unlikely to have either the space or the financial resources to provide
separate storage facilities. Nonetheless, a major concern and common theme for nonFA farms is that owners do not appear to be fully aware of practices being done on
their farms by their employees.
Previous studies have examined the storage of
pesticides. For example, Matthews (2008) reported that in many developing countries
pesticides are stored in the living quarters, perhaps because here they are considered
safe from theft. In India Weinberger and Srinivasan (2009) found that the education
status of farm worker respondents had an effect on the stated storage site of
pesticides; those with primary education were more likely to store pesticides in their
accommodation compared to those with secondary education who were more likely to
use a farm shed for storage.
The importance of education with regard to pesticide use is no surprise. In a
study of the language and literacy barriers to health and safety training of agricultural
workers in the USA, Arcury et al. (2010) state that a lack of education affects work-
related health and safety training in three ways: (1) workers have limited literacy
skills, (2) such workers lack the skills needed for learning and (3) their ability to learn
complex concepts is limited. In the current context one might imagine that a lack of
education would limit their ability to understand pesticide labels (including storage
and PPE use information), follow instructions related to disposal of pesticides (Al
Zadjali et al., 2013) and conceptualize the consequences of poor pesticide usage
practices, including ill-health (Palis et al., 2006). Clearly, this group should be a
particular target for future outreach activities to increase their skills base.
Amongst the questions asked about the use of PPE the responses to questions
about the use of gloves and the use of masks were similar and in both cases showed
clear differences between those on FA farms and those on non-FA farms. Summing
positive responses (always use gloves/masks plus usually wear gloves/masks), Table
2 gave an indication that, amongst FA farm workers, a clear majority use PPE (94%
for masks and 88% for gloves). This was similar for FA farm owners where use was
stated to be 90% and 88% for masks and gloves respectively). Interestingly, about
50% of non-FA farm owners stated that PPE is used by those that apply pesticides; in
contrast, worker responses on these farms indicated PPE uptake of only
approximately 25%. Worryingly, it is possible that respondents are over stating the
use of PPE. In the current report no further examination of glove or mask types is
presented, rather it will be the subject of further detailed studies as will the reasons for
non-use of gloves and masks such as discomfort caused by high prevailing
temperatures (Cole et al., 2002).
Education status was a stronger determinant of the use of personal protective
equipment than age or experience; the effect of farm size is unclear but would warrant
further study. Those with a higher level of education were more likely to use masks
and gloves when mixing and applying pesticides than those with no education or
education only to primary level. Weinberger and Srinivasan (2009) found that, in
India, education to secondary level reduced the apparent spurning of personal
protective equipment relative to those with only primary education.
In Mexico
Blanco-Muñoz and Lacasaña (2011) reported that the use of gloves while mixing
pesticides was more frequent among workers who had completed high school
(36.36%) whereas amongst those who had a lower education level glove use was
lower (5.56%). Similarly, the use of a mask was more frequent among those with a
higher education level (27.27% versus 0% for those with lower education status). In
the current study, however, it was also apparent that the education status of workers
on FA farms was higher than those on non-FA farms. Indeed owners of FA farms
appear to preferentially hire workers with better educational backgrounds (Al Zadjali,
2014). Consequently it may be difficult to disentangle the relative importance of
place of work (FA/non-FA farm) and education on PPE uptake. However, it is
considered likely that, as Feola and Binder (2010) point out, social norms were
important given that workers on FA farms were expressing behaviour patterns similar
to the owners of those farms but that this was not the case on non-FA farms where
stated use of PEE was different between workers and owners (Table 1).
From the current study it is not possible to claim per se that membership of an
FA has an impact on pesticide storage practices and uptake of PPE as owners of FA
farms could also be those who had such knowledge in the first place or show a greater
willingness to learn about the consequences of poor pesticide usage practices.
The
FA could act as a magnate to attract farmers who are more environmentally aware
rather than changing farmer behaviour. Thus membership of an FA could be more of
an indicator of such awareness rather than a driver. Nonetheless it is apparent that the
attitudes of more enlightened owners are reflected in the behaviour patterns of those
who work on their farms, and this is an important contribution. It suggests that
extension services should concentrate their PPE awareness raising activities on
owners, especially those that are not members of an FA. Given that the use of living
quarters for storing pesticides, as well as the poor use of protective equipment, poses
such a high level of risk for farm workers these are vital issues that need to be
addressed in Oman.
5. Conclusion
Research was conducted to explore differences among farm types in the safe storage
of pesticides, the identification of key individuals responsible for pesticide applications and
the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by pesticide applicators. Safety standards for
pesticide storage on farms in northern Oman are poor. Pesticides are frequently stored within
the living accommodation of farm workers.
The application of pesticides is frequently
performed by any available worker rather than a dedicated responsible individual. The level
of use of PPE is low. Differences emerged between farms within a local farmer’s association
(FA) and farms not in the association. On FA farms pesticides were seldom stored within the
accommodation of the farm workers, identifiable individuals were frequently assigned
pesticide application duties and the level of PPE use was high. In all cases opposite responses
were most frequent on non-FA farms. Respondent age had little effect on PPE use although a
higher education status appeared to bring a higher level of PPE use. Responses from workers
on FA farms, unlike those on non-FA farms, were similar to those elicited from farm owners.
Responses from workers on FA farms were different from those of workers on non-FA farms.
This would appear to indicate that behaviour is being modified by the social and working
environment where standards set by farm owners become powerful driving forces for
improved safety levels on farms. This provides important evidential support for policy
vectors given the institutional encouragement of nascent farmer associations in additional
regions of the country.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
References
Al Zadjali SAI. Knowledge Diffusion, Pesticide Related Decision-Making and the
Farming Community of Northern Sultanate of Oman. PhD Thesis UK: University of
Surrey; 2014: 271 pp.
Al Zadjali S, Morse S, Chenoweth J, Deadman M. Disposal of pesticide waste from
agricultural production in the Al Batinah region of Northern Oman. Science of the
Total Environment 463-464; 2013: 237–242.
Al Zadjali S, Morse S, Chenoweth J, Deadman M. Factors determining pesticide use
practices by farmers in the Sultanate of Oman. Science of the Total Environment
476–477; 2014: 505–512.
Arcury TA, Estrada JM, Quandt SA. Overcoming language and literacy barriers in
safety and health training of agricultural workers. Journal of Agromedicine 2010; 15:
236–248.
Blanco-Muñoz J, Lacasaña M. Practices in pesticide handling and the use of personal
protective equipment in Mexican agricultural workers. Journal of Agromedicine 2011;
16: 117-26.
Cole DC, Sherwood S, Crissman C, Barrera V, Espinosa P. Pesticides and health in
highland Ecuadorian potato production: Assessing impacts and developing responses.
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2002; 8: 182-190.
Feola G, Binder CR. Why don’t pesticide applicators protect themselves? Exploring
the use of personal protective equipment among Colombian smallholders.
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2010; 16: 11-23.
Gomes J, Lloyd OL, Revitt DM. The influence of personal protection, environmental
hygiene and exposure to pesticides on the health of immigrant farm workers in a
desert country. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
1999; 72: 40-45.
Gwet KL. The practical guide to statistic: basic concepts, methods and meaning.
Application with MS Excel, R, and OpenOffice CalcAdvanced Analytics, LLC; 2011.
Matthews G. Attitudes and behaviours regarding use of crop protection products – A
survey of more than 8500 smallholders in 26 countries. Crop Protection 2008; 27:
834–46.
Mekonnen Y, AgonafirT. Pesticide sprayers’ knowledge, attitude and practice of
pesticides use on agricultural farms in Ethiopia. Occupational Medicine 2002; 52:
311–315.
Palis FG, Flor RJ, Warburton H, Hossain M. Our farmers at risk: Behaviour and
belief system in pesticide safety. Journal of Public Health 2006; 28: 43-48.
Salameh PR, Baldi I, Brochard P, Abi Saleh B. Pesticides in Lebanon: A knowledge,
attitude and practice study. Environmental Research 2004; 94: 1-6.
Waichmann AV, Eve E, Celso da Silva Nina N.
Do farmers understand the
information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce
pesticides exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Protection
2007; 26: 576-583.
Weinberger K, Srinivasan R. Farmers' management of cabbage and cauliflower pests
in India and their approaches to crop protection. Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology
2009; 12: 253-259.
Yassin MM, Abu Mourad TA, Safi JM. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxicity
symptoms associated with pesticide use among farm workers in the Gaza Strip.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2002; 59: 387-393.
Table 1
Storage of pesticides, responsibility for pesticide application procedures and use of personal
protective clothing reported by farm workers and farm owners in Al-Batinah region of northern
Oman.
Figures are the percentage of respondents who reported a particular practice (no response figures are
excluded).
Workersa
FA
Ownersa
Non-FA
FA
Non-FA
0.0
60.8
0.0
23.2
96.2
39.2
100.0
69.6
Where are pesticides stored prior to use?
Worker
accommodation
Separate place
Who has responsibility for the application of pesticides?
Identified key
workers
Any available
worker
63.5
31.4
81.5
33.9
36.5
66.7
16.7
57.1
What clothing does the pesticide applicator wear when spraying pesticides?
Normal clothes
88.5
80.4
74.1
80.4
Overalls
23.1
13.7
25.9
3.6
Hat
19.2
2.0
27.8
1.8
Boots
40.4
3.9
33.3
10.7
Glasses/goggles
3.8
15.7
24.1
16.1
a:
Data excludes those who gave no response
Table 2
Answers to the question “Is a facemask used by those applying chemical pesticides?” from respondents on
farms in Al-Batinah Governorates surveyed for pesticide use.
Response frequency workers
Response frequency owners
Response (score)
FA
Non-FA
FA
Non-FA
Always (5)
13
5
24
7
Usually (4)
32
8
25
22
Sometimes (3)
2
10
5
20
Rarely (2)
0
2
0
2
Never (1)
0
26
0
1
No responsea
5
0
1
4
N, excluding no responses
47
128.17a
Mean rank
a:
excluded from Kruskal-Wallis analysis.
b
b:
51
53
56
53.31c
136.48a
92.25b
values with no letter in common are significantly different, see Gwet (2011).
Table 3
Answers to the question “Are gloves used by those applying chemical pesticides?” from respondents on farms
in Al-Batinah Governorates surveyed for pesticide use.
Response frequency workers
Response (score)
Response frequency owners
FA
Non-FA
FA
Non-FA
Always (5)
8
5
23
7
Usually (4)
38
8
25
20
Sometimes (3)
5
10
5
21
Rarely (2)
0
2
1
3
Never (1)
0
26
0
1
No responsea
1
0
1
4
N, excluding no responses
51
124.04bc
Mean rank
a:
excluded from Kruskal-Wallis analysis.
b
b:
51
54
56
56.08a
140.77c
95.16b
values with no letter in common are significantly different, see Gwet (2011).
Supplementary Table 1
Farm size distribution and age and education background of respondents from farms in Al-Batinah Governorates surveyed
for the supply and use of personal protective equipment.
Farmer Association
members
Area (ha)
Farm size class
Very small
Small
Small-medium
Medium
Medium-large
Large
Mean farm area
(ha)
Whole sample
Respondent age
(years)a
Owner
Worker
Highest
education level
gained
Owner
<2.5
2.6 – 5.0
5.1 – 10.0
10.1 – 15.0
15.1 – 30.0
>30.0
Number
Mean
area (ha)
1.7
3.9
7.1
12.0
21.3
54.3
5
15
21
22
29
14
Non-Farmer
Association members
Number
Mean
area (ha)
1.6
3.8
7.4
11.8
21.7
182.6
11
30
34
17
10
5
17.5
16.0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
5
13
15
14
7
0
0
24
22
2
0
0
1
2
24
24
4
1
3
29
13
4
2
0
None
3
6
7
14
19
11
6
33
9
2
2
22
9
8
11
29
8
2
5
7
Elementary
Grade 8
Grade 9
Higher
Worker
None
Elementary
Grade 8
Grade 9
Higher
a: 4 workers from FA farms refused to give or did not know their age.
Supplementary Table 2
Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean rank of responses to the question “Is a facemask used by those
applying chemical pesticides?” based on age classes within each of the respondent groups.
Mean rank workers
Age class
FA
20-29
Mean rank owners
Non-FA
FA
21.00
37.60
Non-FAb
30-39
22.71
23.16
28.88
13.00
40-49
24.93
28.88
23.53
25.14
50-59
29.75
32.75
29.18
27.30
27.50
22.86
23.25
60-69
70-79
Ha
0.99
3.13
4.78
2.25
P
0.608
0.536
0.311
0.522
a:
tie corrected Kruskal-Wallis statistic.
b:
only one respondent for the 20-29 and 70-79 age classes, excluded from Kruskal-Wallis analysis.
Supplementary Table 3
Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean rank of responses to the question “Is a facemask used by those
applying chemical pesticides?” based on education status levels within each of the respondent groups.
Mean rank workers
Mean rank owners
FA
Non-FAb
FA
Non-FAb
None
21.42
16.07a
34.33
20.50a
Elementary
25.12
33.50b
15.86
22.07a
Grade 8
29.69
37.50b
27.43
24.44ab
Grade 9
20.50
39.70b
30.11
30.25ab
Higher education
45.00
45.50b
28.64
39.33bc
Ha
7.47
37.83
6.13
11.36
P
0.113
< 0.001
0.190
0.02
Education class
a:
tie corrected Kruskal-Wallis statistic.
b:
values with no letter in common are significantly different, see Gwet (2011).
Supplementary Table 4
Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean rank of responses to the question “Are gloves used by those applying
chemical pesticides?” based on age classes within each of the respondent groups.
Mean rank workers
Mean rank owners
Age class
FA
20-29
Non-FA
FA
32.83
38.20
Non-FAb
30-39
20.94
23.26
28.23
14.50
40-49
26.64
28.04
22.80
26.05
50-59
33.00
33.13
29.93
26.63
28.00
23.71
21.63
60-69
70-79
Ha
4.61
3.30
4.42
1.83
P
0.100
0.510
0.251
0.609
a:
tie corrected Kruskal-Wallis statistic.
b:
only one respondent for the 20-29 and 70-79 age classes, excluded from Kruskal-Wallis analysis.
Supplementary Table 5
Kruskal-Wallis analysis of mean rank of responses to the question “Are gloves used by those applying
chemical pesticides?” based on education status levels within each of the respondent groups.
Mean rank workers
Mean rank owners
FA
Non-FAb
FA
Non-FAb
None
17.58
16.26a
35.00
18.42a
Elementary
25.24
32.56ab
16.86
21.64a
Grade 8
27.56
38.00ab
26.93
25.44ab
Grade 9
36.00
40.20b
30.84
31.19ab
Higher education
47.50
45.29b
27.18
40.00b
Ha
12.35
37.01
5.79
13.50
P
0.015
< 0.001
0.215
0.009
Education class
a:
tie corrected Kruskal-Wallis statistic.
b:
values with no letter in common are significantly different, see Gwet (2011).