




































 

 

 
169 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

VEGETABLE FARMERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY PRACTICES TOWARDS 
PESTICIDES: RESULTS FROM FIELD OBSERVATION IN SOUTHEASTERN DR CONGO   

 

 

 Arsene Mushagalusa 
Balasha1+  
Joseph Seveno Houndehin2 
Maurice Kesonga Nsele3 
Nathan Kasanda Mukendi4 
Jules Nkulu Mwine Fyama5 
Diakalia Son6   

1,3,4,5Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Lubumbashi, 
Lubumbashi, DR Congo. 

 
2Faculty of Agronomy, University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin. 
6Agrosystemes et Ingenierie de l’Environnement (Sy.N.A.I.E), Unite Sante des Plantes du 

Laboratoire Systemes Naturels, Institut du Developpement Rural (IDR), Universite Nazi Boni 
(UNB), Burkina Faso. 
 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 13 September 2019 
Revised: 16 October 2019 
Accepted: 18 November 2019 
Published: 30 December 2019 
 
 

Keywords 
Lubumbashi 
Farmers’ knowledge  
Pesticides 
Protective equipment  
Safety  
Practices. 

 
Plant protection products can cause serious health issues especially for farmers who are 
exposed to all steps of their use. We used field observation to assess farmers’ knowledge 
of pesticides as well as their behavior while preparing mixtures, spraying and rinsing 
equipment used. Results showed that most of the farmers (97.6%) used pesticides 
(organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides) and reported having both positive and 
negative perception of pesticides apprehended respectively in terms of benefits (improve 
crop quality) and hazards (source of diseases, poison for human). Farmers’ knowledge of 
meteorological parameters and personal protective equipment for successful and safe 
use of pesticides was still limited. Farmers observed (98%) did not wear personal 
protective equipment (gloves, mask, coverall) during all steps of pesticide use (mixing, 
spraying, rinsing equipment). Hygienic practices were also very poor since 100% of 
farmers monitored could not change the clothes worn during the crop treatment. 
Furthermore, 88% of the farmers observed did not wash hands, feet and legs 
immediately after pesticide application whereas those parts of the body were 
particularly exposed during the treatment. This study provides reliable evidence related 
to the hazardous use of pesticides in Lubumbashi. A program of awareness and 
information will help to relieve farmers from pesticides health risks.  
 

Contribution/Originality: This study is one of the very few studies which have investigated the misuse of 

pesticides in Lubumbashi. Results highlighted poor handling practices of pesticides by farmers and limited 

knowledge of protective equipment and weather conditions while using plant protection products. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, 16,000 small farmers are involved in urban and periurban horticulture 

and grow 150 000 tons of fresh vegetables per year for 11.5 million urban residents [1]. Parallel to that production, 

there is simultaneously a development of the informal market of agricultural inputs including synthetic pesticides. 

Pesticides are widely used in agricultural production to control pests, diseases, weeds in an effort to reduce yield 

losses and maintain high product quality [2, 3]. A recent survey conducted in Lubumbashi reported that 97.6% of 

vegetable famers spray pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides because of their effectiveness and immediate 

action on pests [4]. Despite their perceived benefits, misuse and poor handling practices of pesticides can lead to 

serious health issues arising from the exposure while mixing, spraying pesticides and working in treated fields [5-

8]. For many farmers, the situation has been exacerbated because of the lack of protective equipment, the use of 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 169-179. 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.169.179 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-8462
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.169.179


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
170 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

inappropriate spraying equipment, pesticide application during bad weather conditions ( strong winds or high 

temperature, low humidity) [9, 10] and the improper combination of several chemicals [11-13]. In many countries 

like DR Congo, sale agents who are the main source of information for farmers on pesticide choice and use [5, 14] 

have also limited knowledge of plant protection products and are not trained to handle safely chemicals [15]. 

Furthermore, the language barrier is another challenge for farmers and pesticide retailers since they cannot 

understand pesticide label instructions written generally in foreign languages (English, Chinese) [15]. Research 

conducted in Tanzania showed that pesticide distribution accompanied by unsafe practices can contribute to the 

burden from acute pesticide poisoning, not only affecting the distributors but also farmers who buy and use these 

products [16]. Farmers knowledge and safety practices have been studied in many countries like Ghana, Indonesia 

and Nepal where it has been proved that farmers know the importance of using personal protective equipment such 

as hats, masks, glasses, boots, and gloves [11, 17, 18]. However, poverty, strong heat and negligence (low 

perception of the risks) are cited among the factors preventing farmers to use protective equipment [19, 20]. 

According to Maria, et al. [17]; Vaidya, et al. [21] the possible strategy of relieving farmers from the health risks 

associated with pesticide exposure is to deploy a program of awareness and information. In Lubumbashi, last decade 

a large project of urban and periurban horticulture has promoted a couple of Integrated Pest Management 

techniques to minimize the use of chemical inputs by the farmers but its adoption has been low [4]. This study was 

initiated to assess farmers’ knowledge of pesticides as well as their safety practices while spraying pesticides on 

vegetable crops in periurban areas of Lubumbashi, DR Congo. This research focused on the meteorological factors, 

the use personal protective equipment as well as the farmers ‘behaviour while and after pesticide application. 

Information gained in this study is valuable and can be used by policy makers, agricultural extension officers as well 

as scientists to design a suitable program of information on safe use, storing and handling of pesticides.  

 

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS 

2.1. Study Area 

   This study was conducted in the city of Lubumbashi located between 11° 27‘and 11° 47’ S and between 27° 

19’ and 27° 40’ E in the southeastern Democratic Republic of Congo [22]. It is the second largest city in DR Congo 

and one of the fastest growing African cities with annual population growth rate of 5% [23]. The Department of 

Economic and Social Affairs of United Nations [24] estimated 2 097 000 habitants in Lubumbashi. Human pressure 

and competition on resources (land, forest) have been reported [23, 25]. Periurban agriculture is an important 

activity for many poor dwellers in that city where the rate of unemployment is important [26, 27]. Between 2002 

and 2010, the area dedicated to urban and periurban agriculture has passed from 100 up to 725 hectares and that 

situation has led to the creation of several production sites [1]. The vegetable production sites investigated were 

Kimilolo (11° 43'007 '' S , 27 ° 25'66''E) ; Kilobelobe ( 11 ° 40'306 '' S, 27 ° 30'974 '' E) , Maendeleo( 11° 42'615 '' S, 

27 ° 27'976 '' E), Naviundu (11 ° 37 '825' S, 27 ° 31'266 '' E) and Tingi-Tingi ( 11° 36'540 '' S, 27 ° 28'433 ''E).The 

study area benefit of humid subtropical climate (Cw type of the Köppen classification system with one rainy season 

(November-March) and one dry season (May-September), separated by October and April as transitional months 

[22]. The mean annual temperature is 20 °C; the warmest month is October (23 °C) and the coolest is July with 

15.6 °C [28]. 

 

2.2. Data Collection  

To assess farmers’ knowledge and safety practices towards pesticides, data were collected in two rounds. First, 

246 vegetable farmers were randomly interviewed using a questionnaire. Data collected at the first round were 

relative to the gender, education, land access, farm sizes, training, and perception of pesticide, use pattern, re-entry 

and pre-harvest periods). Secondly, from March to June 2017, a random sample of 50 vegetable farmers was drawn 

from the list of 246 vegetable farmers previously interviewed. Selected farmers were monitored in order to obtain 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
171 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

comprehensive information on their attitudes and safety practices while mixing, spraying and after working. Field 

observations are important while monitoring farmers’ practices and use of protective equipment [3, 29].  In 

addition, observations help to understand farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and their safety practices. [11, 18, 30]. To 

assess hygienic practices, we observed whether farmers washed hands and feet, changed the clothes worn during 

spraying or took bath immediately after pesticide application [31]. We focused also on negligent behavior like 

eating and smoking during the application as well as the presence of people without personal protection equipment 

around the treated farms.  

 

2.3. Data Analysis 

Data analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages for the variables examined. The means and 

standard deviations were also calculated (farmer’s age and farming experience). The Chi-square test (χ2-test) was 

used to investigate the significant associations or difference between farmers’ profile (Gender, age, experience in 

farming, land size, training) and pesticide use practices. The criterion for statistical significance used in this study 

was α <0.05. 

 

3. RESULTS 

3.1. Farmers’ Socioeconomic Characteristics 

The socioeconomic characteristics of the sample of farmers are given in Table 1. More than half (52%) of 

vegetable farmers were young male who were considering the vegetable production as part of their employment. 

The average age of the respondents was 40±12 years with an experience of 9 years in vegetable production. A large 

part of farmers (63%) attended high school and cultivated small plots of 3.6 ares to grow vegetables (Chinese 

cabbage, amaranth). Almost of the farmers(97.6%) used insecticides to control pests.  

 
Table-1. Vegetable farmers' socioeconomic characteristics( n=246). 

Variables  Category  Number of farmers Percentage (%) Mean ±SD 

Gender% Male 128 52 --- 
Female  118 48 --- 

Age (years) 246 --- 40±12 
Education Primary  54 21 --- 

High school 155 63 --- 
University  34 14 --- 

Farmer’s experience(years) 246 --- 9±7 
Farms’ size (ares) 246 --- 3.6±2.4 
Pesticide use (yes)% 240 97.6 ---- 

                         Note: SD represents Standard deviation. 

 

3.2. Pesticide Use Pattern and Farmers’ Perceptions 

Results indicated that a good part of famers mixed two insecticides in belief that the effect will be great. 

However, the chi-square test did not show significant association between farmers (female and male) regarding the 

use pattern of pesticides (p ˃ 0.05) as reported in Table 2. Most of the farmers (72.2%) used only one pesticide 

whereas 22.8% combined two different products. In fact, farmers had both positive and negative perception of 

pesticides that can be apprehended in terms of the benefits and hazards Table 3.  

 
Table-2. Gender and use pattern of pesticides. 

Gender Use only one Mixing two pesticides p-value 

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage  

Male 96 75.0 32 25.0 0.384 ns 
Female 94 79.7 24 20.3  
Total 190 72.2 56 22.8  

Note: ns means no significant. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
172 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-3. Farmer’s perception of synthetic pesticides. 

 Positive perceptions Negative perceptions 

Gender Effective to 
control pests 

Improve crop 
quality 

Destroy 
non target 

Source of 
diseases 

Poison Don’t 
know 

 n* % n % n % n % n % n % 
Female 114 96.6 105 89.0 6 5.1 38 32.2 65 55.1 9 7.6 
Male 124 97.0 116 90.6 4 3.0 46 36.0 74 58.7 4 3.1 

p-value 0.407 ns 0.352 ns   
Note: *: Number of farmers, ns: no significant. 
Source: Survey, 2016. 

 

3.3. Farmers’ Knowledge of Critical Stage of Pesticides Use 

Farmers were asked to indicate the most dangerous step during pesticide application process. Result show that 

there were no significant differences (p>0.05) between farmers’ profile and the three steps of using pesticide 

including the preparation of mixture, spraying and rinsing the equipment used Table 4.  

 
Table-4. Farmers’ profile and knowledge of critical step while handling pesticide. 

Variables All stages Mixture Spraying Rinsing P-value 
n* % n % n % n %  

Gender Male 8 27.6 7 24.1 14 48.3 0 0.0  
0.627ns Female 4 19.0 4 19.0 13 61.9 0 0.0 

 
Age (years) 

17-30 5 29.4 2 11.8 10 58.8 0 0.0  
0.595 ns 31-49 5 22.7 7 31.8 10 45.5 0 0.0 

>50 2 18.2 2 18.2 7 63.6 0 0.0 
Experience (years) 1-5 11 32.4 8 23.5 15 44.1 0 0.0  

0.461ns 6-10 1 12.5 1 12.5 6 75.0 0 0.0 

11-19 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 

˃20 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 

Training Yes 3 15.8 4 21.1 12 63.2 0 0.0  
No 9 29.0 7 22.6 15 48.4 0 0.0 0.
09ns 

Note: *n= number of farmers, ns: no significant. 
Source: Survey, 2017. 

 

A good part among respondent male (48.3%) and female (61.9%), young (58.8%) and aged farmers (63.6%) 

either those who attended previously farming trainings (63.2%), all attested that pesticides were more risky and 

hazardous while spraying. Few among male (24.1%) as well as female (19%) knew that the most dangerous 

operation was the preparation of the mixture because the product handled is still concentrated and can be more 

hazardous. None among farmers knew that while rinsing the equipment (knapsack sprayers, buckets) the risk of 

contamination was still important. The Figure 1 illustrates the way farmers handle chemical pesticides when they 

estimate the dose and prepare the mixtures. 

 

 
Figure-1. Photos illustrating unsafe practices among farmers during dose determination (left) and mixing (right) without protective equipment,  site Kimilolo, 

Lubumbashi May, 2017.  
 Source: Field observation, 2017. 
 
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
173 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.4. Farmers’ Knowledge of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 

The informations about farmers’ knowledge of personal protective equipment are presented in Table 5. The 

majority of farmers (62%) cited long clothes (pants and shirt long sleeve) and hate as the necessary PPE during 

pesticide application and 30% mentioned mask and gloves. Only few of farmers (10%) have good knowledge of the 

complete PPE (mask, gloves, hate, coverall, boots and glasses). However, 22% of farmers did not know any 

protective equipment and reported not paying attention on PPE. 

 
Table-5. Farmers’ knowledge of personal protective equipment. 

Protective Equipment Frequency Percentage (%) 

Mask and gloves 15 30 
Coverall and gloves 7 14 
Gloves and boots 4 8 
Glasses and gloves 4 8 
Long clothes and hate 31 62 
All PPE 5 10 
Do not know 11 22 

Source: Field observation, 2017. 

 

3.5. Assessment of Farmers’ Safety Practices  

Safe practices during pesticide application are important to minimize farmers’ vulnerability to pesticides. 

However, only 2% of vegetable farmers observed put on gloves, masks, glasses and coverall while preparing 

mixture and spraying pesticides. More than half of farmers (54%) put on long clothes (pant and shirt with long 

sleeves) during mixture and 70% while spraying and rinsing the material used Table 6.  

 
Table-6. Personal protective equipment used while using pesticides. 

Operations Personal protective equipment 

Gloves 
n* (%) 

Masks 
n (%) 

Boots 
n (%) 

Coverall 
N (%) 

Hate n 
(%) 

Glasses 
n (%) 

Long clothes 
n (%) 

Mixture 1(2) 1(2) 11(22) 1(2) 4(8) 1(2) 27(54) 

Spraying 1(2) 1(2) 11(22) 1(2) 4(8) 1(2) 35(70) 

Rinsing 0(0) 0(0) 11(22) 1(2) 4(8) 0(0) 35(70) 
Note: *number of farmers. 
Source: Field observation, 2017. 

 

3.6. Farmers’ Knowledge of Meteorological Parameters  

The weather conditions observed by farmers before spraying pesticide on vegetable crops are shown in Table 7. 

Results reveal that only 40% of farmers could not spray during windy or rainy time or when the temperature was 

high. A high portion of farmers (30%) did not know any meteorological factor. 

 
Table-7. Meteorological parameters observed by farmers before applying pesticide. 

Parameters Frequency Percentage (%) 

None 15 30 
Temperature and sunlight 8 16 
Wind and rain 5 10 
Wind only  17 34 
Rain only 5 10 
All parameters 20 40 

                        Source: Survey, 2017. 

 

3.7. Farmers’ Attitudes during and after Applying Pesticides 

All Farmers observed have demonstrated some inappropriate and unsafe practices either during or after 

pesticide use Table 8.  

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
174 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-8. Farmers’ attitudes during and after applying pesticides. 

Observations (n=50) Frequency Percentage 

Applicator does not change clothes after pesticide application 50 100.0 
Applicator does not wash hands and feet 44 88.0 
Applicator smokes while spraying 1 2.0 
People are around the field being sprayed 45 90.0 
Applicator keeps working in the treated field 28 56.0 
Applicator is being assisted by a fellow without PPE 16 32.0 
Applicator fixes sprayer full of mixture while spraying 3 6.0 
Applicator rinses the spraying material in the water point 6 12.0 
Applicator leaves the empty pesticide containers on field 43 86.4 

Source: Field observation, 2017. 

 

All farmers observed (100%) did not change the clothes worn during pesticide application and 88% did not 

wash their hands and legs just after spraying. Two (2%) were smoking while spraying and surprisingly 56% kept 

working and walking in the treated field. Most of the farmers (90%) sprayed pesticides while people (family 

members, fellow famers) were around the farms and some of them could be asked to assist the applicator (32%) to 

lift, load knapsack sprayers or provide any assistance. After spraying, 12% applicators were rinsing equipment 

(knapsack sprayers, bucket) in any water point or river closer to the farms whereby generally harvested vegetables 

were also washed before they were taken to the local markets.  We noticed that 86.4% of farmers left empty 

containers of pesticide in their fields.  

 

3.8. Re-Entry Interval Observed by Vegetable Farmers 

The re-entry interval is shown in Table 9.  Results show that a high proportion of farmers interrogated (65%) 

returned back to work in their farms 24 hours (next day) after spraying ,8% reentered in earlier( less than 24 hours) 

whereas 5% of farmers observed 72 hours.  

 
Table-9. Re-entry interval. 

< 24 hours 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 

n % n % n % n % 

20 8 161 65 53 22 12 5 
                       Note: n represents number of farmers. 

 

3.9. Pre-Harvest Interval Observed by Farmers 

The Figure 2 presents the pre-harvest period observed by the sample of vegetable farmers. 

 

 
Figure-2. Pre-harvesting interval observed by vegetable farmers (n=246). 

                                       Source: Survey, 2016. 

 

A higher proportion of farmers (49.9%) harvested over two weeks after the last pesticide application while more 

than 11% harvested less than 7 days after the last spray. Results also show that 2.8% did not pay attention on the 

pre-harvest interval even if they had applied pesticides.  

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
175 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. DISCUSSION  

This study assessed farmers’ knowledge as well as their safety practices while applying pesticides to control 

pest in vegetable crops in Lubumbashi. Understanding the actual farmers perception, attitudes and their safety 

practices can help to deploy or to re-enforce the program of awareness to relieve farmers from pesticide hazards 

[17, 21]. 

 

4.1. Farmers’ Perception of Pesticides 

Vegetable farmers (97.6%) in Lubumbashi used pesticides, especially insecticides because they helped to control 

pests and improved vegetable quality. That point of view is consistent with many studies conducted in many 

countries stating that pesticides boost crop productivity and reduce yield losses [2, 3, 6, 18, 19, 32]. Inspite of the 

perceived benefits, farmers had also a negative perception of pesticides. A good part among farmers considered 

respectively the pesticides as a poison (58.7%) and source of deseases for human (36%). That farmers ‘concern is 

likely normal and true because pesticide applicators in many countries reported self-poisoning and discomfort cases 

(headache, skin itching, fatigue and cancer) after a short or long period of using pesticides [5, 11, 12, 14]. Few 

farmers mentioned that pesticides destroy also non target insects such as bees. Bommarco, et al. [33] highlighted 

also the loss of beneficial natural enemies of crops after spraying insecticides. 

 

4.2. Farmers’ Knowledge and Pesticide Handling Practices  

Farmers attested that pesticides were more risky and dangerous during spraying. This situation can be 

explained by the fact that using poor spraying equipment such as buckets and brooms, farmers got contaminated 

with the pesticides during application [15]. However, many farmers were still ignoring the danger of pesticide 

while measuring the dose and preparing mixtures Figure 1. Concentrated product is more hazardous but also toxic. 

The preparation of mixtures is a critical operation for pesticide applicators [7, 13]. This step requires more 

attention and caution in term of safety (personal protective equipment: gloves are a mandatory). Unfortunately, 

farmers observed were likely minimizing the hazard at this step and did not take appropriate safety measures. The 

same situation has been observed in Cote d’Ivoire, Togo and Burkina Faso where Ajayi and Akinnifesi [19]; Kanda, 

et al. [20]; Son, et al. [34] observed respectively that 53% , 87% and 70% of pesticide applicators did not wear any 

protective equipment from the preparation of the mixture until the end of the treatments. Using complete personal 

protective equipment (mask, gloves and protective clothing) is encouraged because it helps farmers reduce the risk 

of exposure to pesticide more than 800 times [34]. Farmers do not use personal protective equipment (PPE) in 

countries for different raisons: high cost of protective equipment, poverty, high temperature (make farmers 

uncomfortable), luck of information on PPE, low perception of the risks [13, 19, 20].  

 

4.3. Attitudes and Hygienic Practices 

Farmers demonstrated unsafe and poor hygienic practices after spraying the pesticides. All farmers (100%) did 

not change the clothes and 88% did not wash their hands and feet, mostly contaminated just after spraying. Hands 

and feet as well as legs are the most exposed to pesticide deposition from mixing, handling contaminated objects, 

spraying and walking in treated crops [29, 35, 36]. Poor hygienic practices have been reported also among farmers 

in Burkina Faso where 43% of farmers did not wash their hands after pesticide application [31]. A study conducted 

in Iran by Seyyed, et al. [37] indicates that most of the farmers do not follow basic pesticide safety measures 

because they have the lowest perceived risk and believe that the pesticides are not so much dangerous. After 

spraying, 12% applicators rinsed the material used in flowing river closer to the farm. The same behavior has been 

observed among farmers in Côte d’Ivoire where pesticide applicators washed their equipment and took bath in 

rivers near their fields [19].  That practice can lead to the water contamination and affect aquatic biodiversity. In 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
176 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Lubumbashi the situation seems likely to be critical since the same rivers and water points help wash harvested 

vegetables before being taken to the city markets. 

 

4.4. Re-Entry Period Observed by Vegetable Farmers 

The re-entry interval has been short for a high portion (8%) of farmers regarding to the label instructions of 

pesticide (diclorvos) that states the re-entry interval (REI) to 1 day.  Farmers reentered in their fields earlier to 

water the crops because the amaranths and cruciferous vegetables grown during the dry season require more water 

as well as maintenance. However, the REI claimed by farmers was not consistent with our observation. For 

example, 56% applicators kept working in the treated field.  Our findings are also different from those obtained in 

Ghana where 73.3% of farmers returned to their farm within 48 hours after spraying pesticides [11]. The re-entry 

interval is not always a safe moment for farm workers.  Ngowi, et al. [5]; Aktar, et al. [6]; Toumi, et al. [8] 

revealed that humans come into contact with pesticides during preparing mixtures, spraying and working in a 

treated field. 

 

4.5. Management of Empty Containers of Pesticides 

Observation carried out indicated that over 86% of farmers abandoned the empty containers of pesticides in 

open field. This practice is not good and has been widely reported in many developing countries Kanda, et al. [20]; 

Son, et al. [34]; Gouda, et al. [38]. A survey conducted in Togo by Kanda, et al. [20] reported that the ignorance 

of the danger of empty containers has led farmers to poor disposal and management. We observed also that leaving 

empty containers is dangerous since those containers are collected by children to set up their games and or 

collected for other domestic use (Keeping drinks). The current disposing techniques stand for a triple rinsing with 

water of empty containers to reduce systematically pesticide residues. Empty containers are to return back to the 

manufacturer or recycling agent [39]. However, the challenge in many developing countries like DR Congo is that 

farmers obtain pesticides in different ways including informal market, donation or exchange between fellow 

farmers.  

 

5. CONCLUSION 

This study provides valuable information on farmers’ knowledge of pesticides and reports poor safety practices 

while preparing mixtures, spraying and rinsing equipment. Findings show that a good part of vegetable farmers is 

aware of pesticides hazards and consider them as a poison and source of diseases for human. Most of farmers are 

still ignoring that the preparation of mixture requires more caution in term of safety because the product handled is 

still concentrated and toxic. Farmers’ knowledge of personal protective equipment, hygienic practices and weather 

conditions is still limited and this has led farmers to unsafe practices either during or after pesticide application. The 

re-entry interval is short compared to that reported in West Africa but the good news is that the pre-harvest 

interval claimed by a high part of famers meets the label instructions of two of the main insecticides (Lambda-

cyhalothrin and Diclorvos) mostly used in Lubumbashi. Since farmers’ health and the protection of the environment 

should be an important concern for policymakers, the results from this study can hopefully help to design a suitable 

program of awareness and information for farmers. 

 

Funding: This study was carried out as part of our Master Program in the Integrated Production 
and Preservation of Natural Resources in Urban and Suburban Environment (ULg-Gembloux 
Agro-Bio Tech), funded by ARES (Académie de Recherche et d’Enseignement Supérieur) in 2017. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
177 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

REFERENCES  

[1] FAO, Growing the greener cities in Democratic republic of Congo, program for urban and periurban horticulture. Rome. 

Retrieved: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1901e/i1901e00.pdf, 2010. 

[2] I. G. Eleftherohorinos and C. A. Damalas, "Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators," 

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 8, pp. 1402-1419, 2011.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051402. 

[3] M. M. Mattah, P. A. Mattah, and G. Futagbi, "Pesticide application among farmers in the catchment of Ashaiman 

irrigation scheme of Ghana: Health implications," Journal of Environmental and Public Health, p. 1 to 7, 2015.Available 

at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/547272. 

[4] A. M. Balasha, "Drivers of adoption of integrated pest management among small-scale vegetable farmers in 

Lubumbashi, DR Congo," American Journal of Rural Development, vol. 7, pp. 53-59, 2019. 

[5] A. Ngowi, T. Mbise, A. Ijani, L. London, and O. Ajayi, "Smallholder vegetable farmers in Northern Tanzania: 

Pesticides use practices, perceptions, cost and health effects," Crop Protection, vol. 26, pp. 1617-1624, 2007.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.01.008. 

[6] W. Aktar, D. Sengupta, and A. Chowdhury, "Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards," 

Interdisciplinary Toxicology, vol. 2, pp. 1-12, 2009.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7. 

[7] European Food Safety Authority, "Guidance on the assessment of exposure for operators, workers, residents and 

bystanders in risk assessment for plant protection products," EFSA Journal, vol. 12, p. 55, 2014.Available at: 

10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3874. 

[8] K. Toumi, L. Joly, C. Vleminckx, and B. Schiffers, "Exposure of workers to pesticide residues during re-entry activities: 

A review," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 25, pp. 2193-2215, 2019.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1485092. 

[9] W. Katinka and R. Srinivasan, "Farmers' management of cabbage and cauliflower pests in India and their approaches 

to crop protection," Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, vol. 12, pp. 253-259, 2009.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2009.08.003. 

[10] T. M. NguyeN, N. T. T. Le, J. Havukainen, and D. B. Hannaway, "Pesticide use in vegetable production: A survey of 

Vietnamese farmers’ knowledge," Plant Protection Science, vol. 54, pp. 203-214, 2018.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.17221/69/2017-pps. 

[11] W. J. Ntow, H. J. Gijzen, P. Kelderman, and P. Drechsel, "Farmer perceptions and pesticide use practices in vegetable 

production in Ghana," Pest Management Science: Formerly Pesticide Science, vol. 62, pp. 356-365, 2006.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1178. 

[12] M. O. Lwin, Y. Mitsuyasu, and K. Huynh Viet, "Farmers‟ perception, knowledge and pesticide usage practices: A case 

study of Tomato production in Inlay Lake, Myanmar," Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, vol. 57, pp. 

327-331, 2012. 

[13] B. Schiffers, "Operator safety and good phytosanitary practices, PIP / COLEACP Program, p. 246. Retrieved: 

https://training.coleacp.org › mod_data › content › coleacp-manuel-4-fr-0," 2011. 

[14] M. F. Jallow, D. G. Awadh, M. S. Albaho, V. Y. Devi, and B. M. Thomas, "Pesticide knowledge and safety practices 

among farm workers in Kuwait: Results of a survey," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 

vol. 14, pp. 1-15, 2017.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040340. 

[15] B. Mushagalusa and N. Kesonga, "Pesticide use practices by Chinese cabbage growers in suburban environment of 

Lubumbashi (DRCongo): Main pests, costs and risks," Journal of Applied Economics and Policy Analysis, vol. 2, pp. 56-64, 

2019. 

[16] E. Lekei, A. Ngowi, and L. Leslie, "Pesticide retailers’ knowledge and handling practices in selected towns of 

Tanzania," Environmental Heath, vol. 13, pp. 2-9, 2014.Available at: 10.1186/s12940-016-0203-3. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
178 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[17] Y. G. Maria, C. A. Van Gestel, N. M. Van Straalen, B. Widianarko, H. R. Sunoko, and M. N. Shobib, "Knowledge, 

attitude, and practice of Indonesian farmers regarding the use of personal protective equipment against pesticide 

exposure," Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 187, pp. 1-7, 2015.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4371-3. 

[18] R. P. Jhalendra, R. Regmi, R. Ghimire, K. D. Puri, S. Gyawaly, and S. Poudel, "Farmers’ knowledge on pesticide safety 

and pest management practices: A case study of vegetable growers in Chitwan, Nepal," Agriculture, vol. 8, pp. 1-11, 

2018.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8010016. 

[19] O. C. Ajayi and F. K. Akinnifesi, "Farmers understanding of pesticide safety labels and field spraying practices: A case 

study of cotton farmers in northern Cte dIvoire," Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 2, pp. 204-210, 2007. 

[20] M. Kanda, G. Djaneye-Boundjou, K. Wala, K. Gnandi, K. Batawila, A. Sanni, and K. Akpagana, "Application des 

pesticides en agriculture maraîchère au Togo," Vertigo-the Electronic Journal in Environmental Sciences, vol. 13, p. 21, 

2013. 

[21] A. Vaidya, D. Gyenwali, S. Tiwari, B. R. Pande, and E. Jørs, "Changes in perceptions and practices of farmers and 

pesticide retailers on safer pesticide use and alternatives: Impacts of a community intervention in Chitwan, Nepal," 

Environmental Health Insights, vol. 11, pp. 1-12, 2017.Available at: 10.1177/117863021771927. 

[22] S. Y. Useni, K. R. Sambiéni, J. Maréchal, w. I. E. Ilunga, F. Malaisse, J. Bogaert, and K. F. Munyemba, "Changes in the 

spatial pattern and ecological functionalities of green spaces in Lubumbashi (the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 

relation with the degree of urbanization," Tropical Conservation Science, vol. 11, pp. 1-17, 2018.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918771325. 

[23] S. Useni, A. Marie, G. Mahy, K. Cabala, F. Malaisse, F. Munyemba, and J. Bogaert, Landscape interpretation of the 

urbanization process in Lubumbashi: Dynamics of the spatial structure and monitoring of indicators ecological between 2002 and 

2008. In Bogaert J., Colinet G., Mahy G., 2018. Anthropization of landscapes Katanges. Gembloux, Belgium: Presses 

University of Liège - Agronomie-Gembloux, 2018. 

[24] United Nations, "Department of economic and social affairs, population division, The world’s cities in 2016-data 

booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/392)." Retrieved: https://www.un.org › publications › pdf › urbanization, 2016. 

[25] A. Nyumbaiza, Urban agriculture, land and sustainability. The case of Lubumbashi in: Bogaert J. and Halleux (Eds). Peri-

urban territories: Development, challenges and prospects in the countries of the South: Gembloux Agronomic Presses, 2015. 

[26] N. Tambwe, M. Rudolph, and R. Greenstein, "Instead of begging, I farm to feed my children: Urban agriculture–an 

alternative to copper and cobalt in Lubumbashi," Africa, vol. 81, pp. 391-412, 2011.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1017/s000197201100043x. 

[27] B. Mushagalusa and N. Kesonga, "Evaluation of the economic performance of Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.) 

farms in market gardening in Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of Congo," African Journal of Environment and 

Agriculture, vol. 2, pp. 11-19, 2019. 

[28] H. Erens, M. Boudin, F. Mees, B. B. Mujinya, G. Baert, M. Van Strydonck, P. Boeckx, and E. Van Ranst, "The age of 

large termite mounds—radiocarbon dating of Macrotermes falciger mounds of the Miombo woodland of Katanga, DR 

Congo," Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 435, pp. 265-271, 2015.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.06.017. 

[29] A. J. Lawson, H. Akohou, S. Lorge, and B. Schiffers, "Three methods to assess levels of farmers’ exposure to pesticides 

in the urban and peri-urban areas of Northern Benin," Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection, vol. 12, pp. 91-108, 2017. 

[30] T. Munyuli, K. Cihire, D. Rubabura, K. Mitima, Y. Kalimba, N. Tchombe, E. K. Mulangane, O. Birhashwira, M. Umoja, 

and E. Cinyabuguma, "Farmers′ perceptions, believes, knowledge and management practices of potato pests in South-

Kivu Province, Eastern of Democratic Republic of Congo," Open Agriculture, vol. 2, pp. 362-385, 2017.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0040. 

[31] S. Diakalia, F. K. Zerbo, S. Bonzi, A. Legrève, I. Somda, and B. Schiffers, "Assessment of tomato (Solanum 

lycopersicum L.) producers' exposure level to pesticides, in Kouka and Toussiana (Burkina Faso)," International Journal 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 169-179 

 

 
179 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, pp. 1-17, 2018.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020204. 

[32] G. Abdollahzadeh, M. S. Sharifzadeh, and C. A. Damalas, "Perceptions of the beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides 

among Iranian rice farmers influence the adoption of biological control," Crop Protection, vol. 75, pp. 124-131, 

2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.018. 

[33] R. Bommarco, F. Miranda, H. Bylund, and C. Björkman, "Insecticides suppress natural enemies and increase pest 

damage in cabbage," Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 104, pp. 782-791, 2011.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1603/ec10444. 

[34] D. Son, I. Somda, A. Legreve, and B. Schiffers, "Phytosanitary practices of tomato producers in Burkina Faso and risks 

to health and the environment," Cahiers Agricultures, vol. 26, pp. 1-6, 2017.Available at: 10.1051/cagri/2017010. 

[35] D. Snelder, M. Masipiqueña, and G. De Snoo, "Risk assessment of pesticide usage by smallholder farmers in the 

Cagayan Valley (Philippines)," Crop Protection, vol. 27, pp. 747-762, 2008.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.10.011. 

[36] K. Toumi, L. Joly, C. Vleminckx, and B. Schiffers, "Potential demal exposure of florists to fungicide residues on flowers 

and risk assessment," Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, vol. 82, p. 11, 2017. 

[37] M. Seyyed, R. Reza, K. Mohammad, and C. Damalas, "Pesticide use and risk perceptions among farmers in Southwest 

Iran," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 18, pp. 456-470, 2012. 

[38] A. I. Gouda, I. I. Toko, S. D. Salami, M. Richert, M. L. Scippo, P. Kestemont, and B. Schiffers, "Phytosanitary practices 

and level of pesticide exposure of cotton producers in the North of Benin," Cahiers Agricultures, vol. 27, p. 65002, 2018. 

[39] B. Huyghebaert, O. Mostade, and J. Sawa, "Management of empty pesticide containers," Teka Commission for 

Motorization and Power Industry in Agriculture, vol. 3, pp. 117-126, 2004. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


