**3.4 Farmers' field practices including storage, disposal, transportation and pesticide preparation**

The study evaluated farmers' field practices by assessing the way they disposed of empty pesticide containers, the way they transported pesticides from the vendors' shop to the field, the way they stored pesticides and their spraying equipment, and their methods of pesticide preparation.

### *3.4.1 Disposing empty chemical containers by farmers*

About 12.33% of the participants reported burning empty pesticide containers as a method of disposal. The guidelines on the management options for emptying pesticide containers by [34] warned against and manifested on the prohibition of such practice. Open burning of pesticide containers generates environmentallypersistent toxic fumes resulting from chemical traces lining the container,

**103**

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

chemicals which are used to make the body of the container, or emissions of incomplete combustion. Such toxic fumes might be inhaled by animals or humans

for other purposes, like water or food storage. Reusing empty pesticide containers might increase the risk of non-occupational exposure via pesticide residuals ingestion as it is impossible to remove all traces of pesticide chemicals' residue from empty plastic or metal pesticide containers [35]. According to [36], empty pesticide containers should be shaken clean and triple-rinsed before disposing them in an

The fact that the majority of the farmers reuse empty pesticide contains for food and water storage is worrisome, and might be a result of a wrong perception that once the container is washed, it becomes pesticide-free and poses a zero negative health effect on them. This perception might be acquired from their daily observations as they did not suffer or saw anyone complain of any negative health effects on the short-term of ingestion. Hence, it is very obvious that farmers are unaware of the long-term risks of pesticide exposure and the adverse health effects these residuals might pose when they accumulate in body tissue. Reusing empty pesticide containers by majority of the participants was also reported by

About 10.96% of the participants disposed their empty pesticide containers anywhere on the farm. Such improper disposal method contaminates the soil with chemicals that might leach to both ground and surface water, or reach the latter via surface runoffs, posing a threat to aquatic organisms, as well as humans that use

Dropping pesticide containers in a public dump was reported by 5.4% of the sample participants. Such practice might expose solid waste collectors in the formal and informal sector to unintentional exposure via skin contact, inhalation or ingestion, especially those workers do not use any means of protection measures to avoid several safety issues they experience on a daily basis. Moreover, a considerable proportion of the workers in the informal sector are children who might take the containers, wash them improperly, and reuse them for water drinking or sell them

In Finchawa, reusing pesticide containers was not limited to illiterate people. The official from the agriculture office who had 7 years of work experience in agriculture, a university degree and a robust background in farming, recommended and instructed farmers to reuse empty pesticide containers. Further, officials in Tullo kebele instructed farmers to dispose empty pesticide containers in pit latrines.

Encouraging farmers to reuse empty pesticide containers, or throw them in latrines by officials, might be a part of the kebeles' waste management strategy to reduce environmental contamination and save water sources due to the lack of availability of proper disposal facilities in Hawassa. Yet, it is strong evidence of poor understanding and a lack of awareness about the effects of pesticide residues that come in contact with food and drinking water, the long-term health effects on

Throwing empty pesticide containers in the lake by 6.85% of the participants is presented in item 5 of **Table 4**. According to [38], once pesticides reach water

When the latrines are full, they are backfilled and new pits are dug again. Pit latrines usually lack a physical barrier that separate human's excreta or chemicals thrown in the pit and soil or ground water. Therefore, contaminants from latrines potentially leach into ground water and seeps into other water surfaces, like lakes or rivers, posing a threat to humans using ground water or aquatic organisms

humans, and the negative impacts of pesticides on the environment.

The majority 64.38% of the farmers reported reusing empty pesticide containers

that exist in the burning area, causing irreversible damage to health.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

environmental-friendly manner.

the study of [12].

ground water for drinking.

to people in the local market.

living in water bodies [37].

#### *Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

chemicals which are used to make the body of the container, or emissions of incomplete combustion. Such toxic fumes might be inhaled by animals or humans that exist in the burning area, causing irreversible damage to health.

The majority 64.38% of the farmers reported reusing empty pesticide containers for other purposes, like water or food storage. Reusing empty pesticide containers might increase the risk of non-occupational exposure via pesticide residuals ingestion as it is impossible to remove all traces of pesticide chemicals' residue from empty plastic or metal pesticide containers [35]. According to [36], empty pesticide containers should be shaken clean and triple-rinsed before disposing them in an environmental-friendly manner.

The fact that the majority of the farmers reuse empty pesticide contains for food and water storage is worrisome, and might be a result of a wrong perception that once the container is washed, it becomes pesticide-free and poses a zero negative health effect on them. This perception might be acquired from their daily observations as they did not suffer or saw anyone complain of any negative health effects on the short-term of ingestion. Hence, it is very obvious that farmers are unaware of the long-term risks of pesticide exposure and the adverse health effects these residuals might pose when they accumulate in body tissue. Reusing empty pesticide containers by majority of the participants was also reported by the study of [12].

About 10.96% of the participants disposed their empty pesticide containers anywhere on the farm. Such improper disposal method contaminates the soil with chemicals that might leach to both ground and surface water, or reach the latter via surface runoffs, posing a threat to aquatic organisms, as well as humans that use ground water for drinking.

Dropping pesticide containers in a public dump was reported by 5.4% of the sample participants. Such practice might expose solid waste collectors in the formal and informal sector to unintentional exposure via skin contact, inhalation or ingestion, especially those workers do not use any means of protection measures to avoid several safety issues they experience on a daily basis. Moreover, a considerable proportion of the workers in the informal sector are children who might take the containers, wash them improperly, and reuse them for water drinking or sell them to people in the local market.

In Finchawa, reusing pesticide containers was not limited to illiterate people. The official from the agriculture office who had 7 years of work experience in agriculture, a university degree and a robust background in farming, recommended and instructed farmers to reuse empty pesticide containers. Further, officials in Tullo kebele instructed farmers to dispose empty pesticide containers in pit latrines. When the latrines are full, they are backfilled and new pits are dug again.

Pit latrines usually lack a physical barrier that separate human's excreta or chemicals thrown in the pit and soil or ground water. Therefore, contaminants from latrines potentially leach into ground water and seeps into other water surfaces, like lakes or rivers, posing a threat to humans using ground water or aquatic organisms living in water bodies [37].

Encouraging farmers to reuse empty pesticide containers, or throw them in latrines by officials, might be a part of the kebeles' waste management strategy to reduce environmental contamination and save water sources due to the lack of availability of proper disposal facilities in Hawassa. Yet, it is strong evidence of poor understanding and a lack of awareness about the effects of pesticide residues that come in contact with food and drinking water, the long-term health effects on humans, and the negative impacts of pesticides on the environment.

Throwing empty pesticide containers in the lake by 6.85% of the participants is presented in item 5 of **Table 4**. According to [38], once pesticides reach water

*Emerging Contaminants*

CI = 1.476–183.046).

(OR = 12.799, CI = 1.124–145.789).

significant predictors under the given conditions.

and their methods of pesticide preparation.

*3.4.1 Disposing empty chemical containers by farmers*

**pesticide preparation**

According to item 3, **Table 3**, the odds of knowledge is also positively influenced by farmers' educational level, especially with the second cycle primary (grade 5–8) and secondary level (grade 9–10) of education. Hence, farmers who achieved second cycle primary (grade 5–8) education level are (12.222) times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity, than those who did not achieve this level of education since (p = 0.037) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 12.222, CI = 1.157–129.162). A similar analysis showed that farmers who attended secondary level (grade 9–10) of formal education are 16.436 times more likely to have good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who did not achieve this level of education since (p = 0.023) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 16.436,

Regarding farmers' access to training which is presented in item 4 of **Table 3**, the odds of knowledge status is positively influenced by the training factor since (p = 0.040) which indicates that (p < 0.05). Thus, farmers who attended field training are 12.799 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who did not take any training. The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within 95% confidence interval

Item 5 of **Table 3** also showed that the odds of the knowledge were positively influenced by the experience factor, Accordingly, farmers who had 5–10 years of work experience are 31.64 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who had less years of work experience since (p = 0.016) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant with 95% confidence interval (OR = 31.64, CI = 1.903–526.455). In addition, farmers who had 10–20 years of work experience are 15.278 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who had less years of work experience since (p = 0.041) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant with 95% confidence interval (OR = 15.278, CI = 1.121–208.284). The result also indicated that farmers who have 20 years of work experience and above are 150.681 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity, compared with the reference category (Ref. < 5 years) since (P = 0.015) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within 95% confidence interval (OR = 150.681, CI = 2.666–516.792), while gender and first cycle primary (grade 1–4) failed to be

**3.4 Farmers' field practices including storage, disposal, transportation and** 

The study evaluated farmers' field practices by assessing the way they disposed of empty pesticide containers, the way they transported pesticides from the vendors' shop to the field, the way they stored pesticides and their spraying equipment,

About 12.33% of the participants reported burning empty pesticide containers as a method of disposal. The guidelines on the management options for emptying pesticide containers by [34] warned against and manifested on the prohibition of such practice. Open burning of pesticide containers generates environmentallypersistent toxic fumes resulting from chemical traces lining the container,

**102**


#### **Table 4.**

*Disposal methods of empty pesticide containers by farmers.*

bodies, they can impact the whole ecological food chain, since other animals, including humans, feed on aquatic animals that may be contaminated.

Back to the literature review, recalling the Lake Michigan incident about children who had an intellectual impairment due to their in-utero exposure to organochlorines [39], in addition to the finding of [40], several cases of learning disabilities, autism, ADHD, child cancer and juvenile diabetes among the generation living around the lake, and consuming food and water contaminated with highly toxic pesticides in the 30–40 coming years, is expected by this study. The increment in the rate of suicide incidents among teenagers that was reported by [40] was also reported and manifested by the physician of the emergency room in the Referral Hospital.

#### *3.4.2 The way farmers transport pesticides from the shop to the farm*

Respondents were asked about the way they transported pesticides from the store to the farm. Accordingly, the majority 42% of respondents indicated that they carry it and walk, while the rest used the bed of a truck alone with no other items 22%, the backs of donkeys 18% and bajaj with other passengers 18% (**Figure 2**).

Using the backs of donkeys, public transport or self-carrying methods to deliver pesticides from shop to field are inappropriate pesticide transport practices that might expose human beings, animals and the environment to danger, in the case of unexpected accidents during trips. Such accidents might cause a container puncture, break or torn which increase the risk of spillage. However, spillage or leakage of highly toxic pesticides might be absorbed through inhalation or directly through unbroken or broken skin. Unfortunately, delivering pesticide containers using the bed of the truck alone with no other items was reported only by 22% of the participants.

#### *3.4.3 Storage of pesticides and spraying equipment by farmers*

Farmers' practices on storing pesticides and spraying equipment were assessed through 5 items. Almost all of the farmers 98.63% reported that they frequently take the spraying equipment after the field work to their home. A considerable proportion of farmers 79.45% reported storing pesticides in the bedrooms, 60.27% in the living room, and 63.01% in the kitchen. However, storing pesticides beside food, potable water or seeds may increase the risk of their contamination with vapors, dust or spills, and increase the likelihood of accidental human exposure (**Table 5**).

Frequent intentional suicide incidents among teenagers and youths in their early twenties in both kebeles were reported by the physician in the emergency room at the Referral Hospital during the interview due to the free availability of pesticides

**105**

kebeles.

**Table 5.**

**Figure 2.**

home?

pesticide storage?

exposure [41]**.**

absorption.

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

in farmers' houses. The rate of suicide cases among the mentioned segments is 3–4 cases per month (around one case per week). The physician at the Referral Hospital indicated that organophosphate is the most commonly used insecticide in both

**Items No Yes**

1 1.37%

20.55%

39.73%

36.99%

36 49.32%

72 98.63%

58 79.45%

44 60.27%

46 63.01%

37 50.68%

The official in Finchawa reported that farmers use diazinone and endosulfan to eradicate bed bugs in their homes, which exposes them and their families to a high risk of exposure via direct inhalation, especially that Endosulfan evaporates rapidly after spraying and poses high toxicity if inhaled on the long-term of

Unfortunately, only 50.68% reported that they store pesticides in a locked and

The sample participants were asked about the likelihood of using a measuring cup or measuring tool to add the exact amount of pesticide mentioned on the label.

Methods of pesticides' storage among farmers in both kebeles found to be inappropriate in this study. Moreover, it increased the risk of exposure on farmers and their families through direct and indirect ingestion, inhalation or dermal

separate place that is specified for pesticide storage.

*3.4.4 Preparation of pesticides by farmers*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

*Means of transporting pesticides from the store by farmers.*

*Storage of pesticides and spraying equipment by farmers.*

Do you usually take the spraying equipment after the field work to your

Do you store pesticides in a locked and separate place that is specified for

Have you ever stored pesticides in the bedroom? 15

Have you ever stored pesticides in the living room? 29

Have you ever stored pesticides in the kitchen? 27

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Emerging Contaminants*

Hospital.

**Table 4.**

the participants.

bodies, they can impact the whole ecological food chain, since other animals, including humans, feed on aquatic animals that may be contaminated.

*Disposal methods of empty pesticide containers by farmers.*

*3.4.2 The way farmers transport pesticides from the shop to the farm*

*3.4.3 Storage of pesticides and spraying equipment by farmers*

Back to the literature review, recalling the Lake Michigan incident about children who had an intellectual impairment due to their in-utero exposure to organochlorines [39], in addition to the finding of [40], several cases of learning disabilities, autism, ADHD, child cancer and juvenile diabetes among the generation living around the lake, and consuming food and water contaminated with highly toxic pesticides in the 30–40 coming years, is expected by this study. The increment in the rate of suicide incidents among teenagers that was reported by [40] was also reported and manifested by the physician of the emergency room in the Referral

**No Items Freq. Percent** Burn 9 12.33% Reuse them for food and water storage 47 64.38% Throw them anywhere in the farm 8 10.96% Drop in the public dump 4 5.4% Throw in the lake 5 6.85% **Total** 73 100%

Respondents were asked about the way they transported pesticides from the store to the farm. Accordingly, the majority 42% of respondents indicated that they carry it and walk, while the rest used the bed of a truck alone with no other items 22%, the backs of donkeys 18% and bajaj with other passengers 18% (**Figure 2**). Using the backs of donkeys, public transport or self-carrying methods to deliver pesticides from shop to field are inappropriate pesticide transport practices that might expose human beings, animals and the environment to danger, in the case of unexpected accidents during trips. Such accidents might cause a container puncture, break or torn which increase the risk of spillage. However, spillage or leakage of highly toxic pesticides might be absorbed through inhalation or directly through unbroken or broken skin. Unfortunately, delivering pesticide containers using the bed of the truck alone with no other items was reported only by 22% of

Farmers' practices on storing pesticides and spraying equipment were assessed through 5 items. Almost all of the farmers 98.63% reported that they frequently take the spraying equipment after the field work to their home. A considerable proportion of farmers 79.45% reported storing pesticides in the bedrooms, 60.27% in the living room, and 63.01% in the kitchen. However, storing pesticides beside food, potable water or seeds may increase the risk of their contamination with vapors, dust or spills, and increase the likelihood of accidental human exposure (**Table 5**). Frequent intentional suicide incidents among teenagers and youths in their early twenties in both kebeles were reported by the physician in the emergency room at the Referral Hospital during the interview due to the free availability of pesticides

**104**

*Means of transporting pesticides from the store by farmers.*


#### **Table 5.**

*Storage of pesticides and spraying equipment by farmers.*

in farmers' houses. The rate of suicide cases among the mentioned segments is 3–4 cases per month (around one case per week). The physician at the Referral Hospital indicated that organophosphate is the most commonly used insecticide in both kebeles.

The official in Finchawa reported that farmers use diazinone and endosulfan to eradicate bed bugs in their homes, which exposes them and their families to a high risk of exposure via direct inhalation, especially that Endosulfan evaporates rapidly after spraying and poses high toxicity if inhaled on the long-term of exposure [41]**.**

Unfortunately, only 50.68% reported that they store pesticides in a locked and separate place that is specified for pesticide storage.

Methods of pesticides' storage among farmers in both kebeles found to be inappropriate in this study. Moreover, it increased the risk of exposure on farmers and their families through direct and indirect ingestion, inhalation or dermal absorption.

#### *3.4.4 Preparation of pesticides by farmers*

The sample participants were asked about the likelihood of using a measuring cup or measuring tool to add the exact amount of pesticide mentioned on the label. Accordingly, the majority 97.25% of the farmers reported that they never or rarely use a measuring tool to add the exact amount of pesticide mentioned on the label, while 2.73% responded sometimes.

The failure of using a gauging tool to measure the amount of pesticide needed for the application, results in using a less or more dose of pesticide than the one recommended on the label. The result of frequently low or heavy doses of the application is more resistance, more pest resurgence and more secondary outbreaks. Moreover, heavy doses of the application lead to an unacceptable environmental contamination and high risk of human exposure. One study reported that only 0.0000001% of DDT reach the target pest, while more than 99.99% are dispersed into the environment through volatilization, surface runoff, infiltration and drift [42]. This finding is in line with the result of [11] which indicated that none of the farmers used scaled measuring equipment.


**107**

**Figure 3.**

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

the defect of their PPE before dealing with pesticides because PPE are mostly unavailable, while 2.73% only reported doing such practice sometimes.

by this study. This finding is in line with the result of [13].

*Farmers' sources of information while mixing, applying or loading pesticides.*

Participants were asked if they usually use special tools to mix and apply pesticides. The majority 54.8% reported that they never or rarely used special tools to mix and apply pesticides, rather, they use their hands or any available stick in the farm for the purpose of mixing. About 31.5% indicated that they sometimes used special tools to mix and apply. The rest of the participants reported often 4.1% or always 9.6%. Mixing pesticides with hands increases the risk of exposure via dermal absorption or ingestion as farmers can easily carry traces of pesticides from their hands to their mouth, especially in the case of poor usage of PPE that was reported

Statistically, it is also observed from the results in **Table 6** above that the mean average score of the participants' responses 2.27, 2.25, 2.29, and 1.26 regarding the methods of pesticide preparation is below the average Likert scale 3. This indicates that the farmers are not in a position to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. As depicted in **Figure 3** below, respondents were asked about the source of information before and during mixing, applying or loading pesticides. Accordingly, the majority of the farmers 72% got information from kebeles' agricultural experts, while the minority of the farmers 17% reported that they get such information from their neighbors or 11% vendor. Despite the considerable proportion of the participants receiving information from kebeles' agricultural experts, it is disquieting to have 27% of the respondents seeking information from improper sources. Studies proved that there is a big difference between experts and novices in the way they perceive, remember and express their observations through the language they use [43]. Hence, seeking information from neighbors or vendors about the kind of

Participants also were asked about the likelihood of checking the inadequacy of the spraying equipment before they start applying pesticides. About 43.8% of the farmers reported that they never or rarely checked their spraying equipment before they start applying, while 52.1% responded sometimes, with 4.1% reporting that they often check the inadequacy of the spraying equipment before they start applying. However, punctures, breaks and cracks in the tank of the spraying equipment for liquid formulation results in a high risk of exposure to workers via dermal absorption. Majority 97.72% of the participants reported that they rarely or never checked

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

#### **Table 6.**

*Farmers' pesticides handling and preparation.*

#### *Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

Participants also were asked about the likelihood of checking the inadequacy of the spraying equipment before they start applying pesticides. About 43.8% of the farmers reported that they never or rarely checked their spraying equipment before they start applying, while 52.1% responded sometimes, with 4.1% reporting that they often check the inadequacy of the spraying equipment before they start applying. However, punctures, breaks and cracks in the tank of the spraying equipment for liquid formulation results in a high risk of exposure to workers via dermal absorption.

Majority 97.72% of the participants reported that they rarely or never checked the defect of their PPE before dealing with pesticides because PPE are mostly unavailable, while 2.73% only reported doing such practice sometimes.

Participants were asked if they usually use special tools to mix and apply pesticides. The majority 54.8% reported that they never or rarely used special tools to mix and apply pesticides, rather, they use their hands or any available stick in the farm for the purpose of mixing. About 31.5% indicated that they sometimes used special tools to mix and apply. The rest of the participants reported often 4.1% or always 9.6%. Mixing pesticides with hands increases the risk of exposure via dermal absorption or ingestion as farmers can easily carry traces of pesticides from their hands to their mouth, especially in the case of poor usage of PPE that was reported by this study. This finding is in line with the result of [13].

Statistically, it is also observed from the results in **Table 6** above that the mean average score of the participants' responses 2.27, 2.25, 2.29, and 1.26 regarding the methods of pesticide preparation is below the average Likert scale 3. This indicates that the farmers are not in a position to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

As depicted in **Figure 3** below, respondents were asked about the source of information before and during mixing, applying or loading pesticides. Accordingly, the majority of the farmers 72% got information from kebeles' agricultural experts, while the minority of the farmers 17% reported that they get such information from their neighbors or 11% vendor. Despite the considerable proportion of the participants receiving information from kebeles' agricultural experts, it is disquieting to have 27% of the respondents seeking information from improper sources. Studies proved that there is a big difference between experts and novices in the way they perceive, remember and express their observations through the language they use [43]. Hence, seeking information from neighbors or vendors about the kind of

**Figure 3.** *Farmers' sources of information while mixing, applying or loading pesticides.*

*Emerging Contaminants*

Do you usually use a measuring cup or measuring tool to add the exact amount of pesticide mentioned on the label?

How often do you check the defect (inadequacy) of the spraying equipment you are using before you start applying?

Do you usually check the defect (inadequacy) of the PPE before dealing with pesticides?

Do you use special tools (only for pesticide usage) to mix and apply pesticides?

Average 177

while 2.73% responded sometimes.

farmers used scaled measuring equipment.

66 90.41%

23 31.5%

56 76.72%

32 43.8%

60.62%

*Farmers' pesticides handling and preparation.*

**Practices Never Rarely Some**

5 6.84%

9 12.3%

15 20.55%

8 11.0%

37 12.67%

Accordingly, the majority 97.25% of the farmers reported that they never or rarely use a measuring tool to add the exact amount of pesticide mentioned on the label,

The failure of using a gauging tool to measure the amount of pesticide needed for the application, results in using a less or more dose of pesticide than the one recommended on the label. The result of frequently low or heavy doses of the application is more resistance, more pest resurgence and more secondary outbreaks. Moreover, heavy doses of the application lead to an unacceptable environmental contamination and high risk of human exposure. One study reported that only 0.0000001% of DDT reach the target pest, while more than 99.99% are dispersed into the environment through volatilization, surface runoff, infiltration and drift [42]. This finding is in line with the result of [11] which indicated that none of the

**times**

2 2.73%

38 52.1%

2 2.73%

23 31.5%

65 22.26%

0 0%

3 4.1%

> 0 0%

3 4.1%

6 2.05%

**Often Always Mean SD**

1.12 0.41

2.25 1.32

2.29 0.96

1.26 0.50

1.73 0.50

0 0%

0 0.0%

> 0 0%

7 9.6%

7 2.40%

**106**

**Table 6.**

pesticide should be used, or any technical issue regarding pesticide handling results in farmers' information inadequacy.

Officials in the agricultural office in both kebeles assured, during the interview, that farmers resort to them when they observe any pest infestation in their farms to get advice about the right type of pesticide that should be applied in such cases. This implies that participants are somehow on the same page with their authorities. This finding is in line with the result of [44] which reported that 57.2% of the farmers seek information from woreda agricultural extension experts.

As depicted in **Figure 4** below, respondents were also asked about the area they usually use to mix and load pesticides. The majority 56% of the respondents reported that they mix and load pesticides within their residential area in the garden, while 27% reported that they mix and load in the field and 17% reported that they never prepare pesticides and they use the one that is already prepared by someone else. Mixing and loading pesticides within the house garden increases the risk of exposure of farmers' family members via dermal absorption, inhalation or ingestion, especially among small children who spend most of their time outdoors playing with the mud.

The inadequate knowledge of farmers regarding pesticide handling and toxicity was reflected in their field practices and found to be unsatisfactory. Moreover, it implied a high potential of pesticide exposure for them and their families.
