654 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T In Brazil, the access and development of technologies for application in agriculture is a fact, highlighting the use of pesticides in crops, including family farming. However, some factors aggravate the risks related to the use of pesticides in family farming, such as the low educational level, the lack of knowledge about the risks, and the failure to follow safety instructions. Thus, the present work aimed to identify the pesticides used by family farmers in the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley (União das Associações do Vale do Salitre – UAVS), analyzing the method of use employed and the possible risks that pesticides offer to the health of farmers. The work was carried out with 31 family farmers from the district of Junco (Juazeiro-BA) who use pesticides in their crops. The information was obtained from the application of semi-structured questionnaires. As a result, it was observed that 100% of the farmers are male, with an average age between 34–41 years, and that, despite the low educational level, no illiterate farmers were identified among the participants. Most of the pesticides used are toxicologically classified as extremely toxic, and are used by 68% of the interviewees. Furthermore, the practice of mixing pesticides was identified. It was also found that a large part of the pesticides used were applied on plants not indicated on the package leaflets. The findings of this study serve as guidance for actions of the society and the government, in order to provide a safer and more productive activity for family farmers. Keywords: technical assistance; farmers; occupational exposure; health; intoxication. R E S U M O No Brasil, o acesso e desenvolvimento de tecnologias para aplicação na agricultura é um fato, destacando-se o uso de agrotóxicos nas lavouras, mesmo na agricultura familiar. No entanto, alguns fatores agravam os riscos relativos ao uso de agrotóxicos nesta última, como baixo nível escolar, falta de conhecimento sobre os riscos e não seguimento de instruções de segurança. Assim, o presente trabalho visou identificar os agrotóxicos utilizados pelos agricultores familiares da União das Associações do Vale do Salitre (UAVS), analisando o método de uso empregado e os possíveis riscos que essas substâncias oferecem à saúde dos agricultores. O trabalho foi realizado com 31 agricultores familiares do distrito do Junco (Juazeiro/BA) que utilizam agrotóxicos em suas plantações. As informações foram obtidas com a aplicação de questionários semiestruturados. Como resultados, identificou- se que 100% dos agricultores são do sexo masculino, com média de idade entre 34 e 41 anos, e, que apesar da baixa escolaridade, não foram identificados agricultores analfabetos entre os participantes. A maior parte dos agrotóxicos (utilizados por 68% dos entrevistados) é classificada toxicologicamente como extremamente tóxica; além disso, foi identificada a prática da realização de misturas de agrotóxicos. Verificou- se também que grande parte dos agrotóxicos empregados era aplicada em plantas não indicadas nas bulas. Os achados deste estudo servem de orientação para ações da sociedade e do poder público, no sentido de prover uma atividade mais segura e produtiva para o agricultor familiar. Palavras-chave: assistência técnica; agricultores; exposição ocupacional; saúde; intoxicação. Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil Riscos ao meio ambiente e à saúde de agricultores familiares pelo uso inadequado de agrotóxicos: o caso da União das Associações do Vale do Salitre, Juazeiro/BA, Brasil Israel Vieira de Souza1 , Tâmara Almeida e Silva2 , Francisco Alves Pinheiro3 1Universidade do Estado da Bahia – Juazeiro (BA), Brazil. 2Universidade do Estado da Bahia – Paulo Afonso (BA), Brazil. 3Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco – Juazeiro (BA), Brazil. Correspondence address: Israel Vieira de Souza – Avenida Sebastião Almeida Branco, 29 – Pedra do Lord – CEP: 48901-340 – Juazeiro (BA), Brazil. E-mail: israel_cnbp@hotmail.com Conflicts of interest: the authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding: none. Received on: 10/10/2022. Accepted on: 12/10/2022. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781469 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 1, March 2021 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4447-9220 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-8285 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8651-5205 mailto:israel_cnbp@hotmail.com https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781469 Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil 655 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction Agriculture is in a constant process of technological development, whether in relation to machinery, or in relation to the inputs used in crops. However, due attention should be paid to the use of pesticides, especially the those applied by family farmers’ use, due to the fact that since there is evidence that the low knowledge and awareness of farm- ers about the risks related to the use of these products is a problem that threatens their health (Bagheri et al., 2018) and the environment (Damalas and Koutroubas, 2018; Bondori et al., 2019). It is also note- worthy that family farming plays an important role in the development of Brazil. Although its socioeconomic importance has been placed in the background by the State and dominantsectors (Picolotto, 2014), it emerges with the mission of reconciling aspects related to social, eco- nomic, environmental, and food security issues. Brazilian farmers, in many cases, make use of pesticides with- out proper technical guidance, which starts from the purchase of the products and extends to their application in the field. In addi- tion, they do not have the necessary knowledge of health and safety standards for the proper handling of pesticides (Adissi and Pinheiro, 2015), and this type of use constitutes a risk for users and their sur- roundings (Recena et al., 2006). Therefore, understanding the prod- uct that is being used and knowing its risks, the effects on health, and the appropriate means of risk control are fundamental to develop a safer activity (Brevigliero et al., 2020), both for the health of the rural worker and for the environment. The risk classification of pesticides used in Brazil is based on Res- olution DC/ANVISA No. 294, of July 29, 2019, which established the criteria for toxicological evaluation and classification of pesticides, components, related substances and wood preservatives. According to Article 39 of this Resolution, the classification according to acute tox- icity must be determined and identified with the respective category names, where: • Category 1: Extremely Toxic Product; • Category 2: Highly Toxic Product; • Category 3: Moderately Toxic Product; • Category 4: Slightly Toxic Product; • Category 5: Product Unlikely to Cause Acute Harm; • Unclassified: Not Classified Product. Access to this information and understanding its meaning are con- sidered important and necessary factors for the safe use of agrochemicals. However, despite regulations regarding pesticide labeling, many farmers do not follow these guidelines, either due to their low levels of education (Remoundou et  al., 2015; Öztaş et  al., 2018), or due to issues regarding risk perception (Bagheri et  al., 2018). Thus, in many cases, increased occupational exposure to pesticides is linked to lack of attention to instructions on their use, and particularly to the failure to comply with basic safety regulations (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos, 2011), which are often not clearly accessible to the user. In addition to the access to information, the farmer must understand its meaning and fully comprehends the risks related to each piece of information. Additionally, one should be aware of the likely acute effects related to the use and ways to avoid contact with the chemical substance. In this sense, it is essential to understand and fulfill the safety mea- sures, which includes following the manufacturers’ recommendations, described in the labels of pesticides (Soares and Souza Porto, 2009), and using the personal protective equipment (PPE) while handling the products (Weng and Black, 2015). Another important source of information is the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet), which is the basis for the risk management system, since it enables actions based on the conditions of use of the products, resulting in more efficient safety measures (Pinheiro, 2015). However, following such guidelines, contained in package leaf- lets/labels, collides with the low educational level of farmers (Öztaş et al., 2018; Sapbamrer, 2018; Dalbó et al., 2019) and the use of PPE has as barriers the cost of acquisition, lack of information, resistance of farmers to its use and lack of access to it (Adissi and Pinheiro, 2015; Magalhães and Caldas, 2019), mainly due to the cost of acquisi- tion thereof. In this context, it is asked: what is the situation of family farmers of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley regarding the use of pesticides? The answer to this question is fundamental not only for the com- munity studied, but it is also important for contributing to the debate and for new research on the conditions of family farming in Brazil, as well as for subsidizing government actions, in the sense of providing a safer and more productive activity for the family farmer. Thus, this study aimed to identify the pesticides used by family farmers in the Union of Associations of Salitre Valley (União das As- sociações do Vale do Salitre — UAVS), analyzing the method of use employed and the possible risks that pesticides offer to the health of farmers. The hypothesis is that family farmers receive technical assis- tance and use pesticides according to technical guidance, preserving their health and the environment. Methodology The municipality of Juazeiro is inserted in the Integrated Region of Economic Development (IRED) of the pole Petrolina/PE and Jua- zeiro/BA (Cavalcante et al., 2018), and is prominent in irrigated agri- culture. According to Junqueira et al. (2020), the city of Juazeiro-BA is located in the northeastern semi-arid region, within the Polygon of Droughts. The microregion of Juazeiro is located in the submedi- um of the São Francisco River basin, forming, with the neighboring municipality of Petrolina-PE, the largest urban agglomeration of the Brazilian semiarid region. According to data from IBGE (2017), the district of Junco is part of the municipality of Juazeiro/BA. This district is located in the region known as the Salitre Valley, which stretches from the community of Passagem do Sargento (on the border with Campo Formoso) to Boca Souza, I.V. et al. 656 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 da Barra, situated on the banks of a portion of the Salitre River basin (UFBA, 2001). This locality is permeated by a history of conflicts over water and land, as a result of unequal access to them (Rossi and San- tos, 2018), which became more acute after the implementation of the irrigated perimeters (Rossi and Santos, 2018), that aimed to develop irrigated fruit farming in the region, through the Salitre Project. The Junco district has several associations, most notably the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley (UAVS). The UAVS is composed of 10 local associations, totaling 397 members, which are distributed throughout the district as shown in Figure 1. Of these 397 members, according to information from the pres- idents of the associations, most of them perform economic activities such as trade, passenger transportation, livestock industry, organic ag- riculture, agriculture with use of salaried labor, agricultural workers, among others, and few develop family-based agriculture. In this case, the criteria for inclusion in this study were: being a family farmer, be- ing over 18 years old, producing with the use of pesticides, and being a member of the UAVS. The farmers participating in the interviews were selected through the snowball technique, which is based on the indi- cation of the participants themselves, who nominate new participants, according to the inclusion criteria, until all have been interviewed (Bal- din and Munhoz, 2011). From the application of the snowball tech- nique, 35 farmers were identified, and 31 agreed to participate in the research. For data collection, interviews were conducted between April and June 2022, using a semi-structured questionnaire. This study was authorized by the Ethics and Research Committee of Universidade do Estado da Bahia, under number CAAE 36657720.9.0000.0057. The questionnaire was comprised of both open and closed ques- tions. The first part dealt with the socioeconomic survey of the study population. The second part contained questions that sought to iden- tify the products grown on the farms, the type of pesticides used, the knowledge about health and environmental risks, the existing sources of information, the target crop, and the harmful effects of pesticides used on the health of the farmer and the environment. Figure 1 – Distribution of UAVS members in the Junco district, Salitre Valley, Juazeiro-BA. Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil 657 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 The interviews were conducted in the production site, which made it possible, through non-participant observation, to verify the storage site for pesticides, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the pesticides employed. Through literature searches, con- sultations of chemical material safety data sheets (MSDS) and pes- ticide labels, we evaluated the effects of the used pesticides on the health of farmers and the environment, whether the chemicals are being applied in accordance with the guidelines contained in the la- bels and with the crop for which it is intended, as well as whether the product is approved for use in our country. The data collected underwent descriptive statistical analysis to ver- ify socioeconomic characteristics of the participants, the representativ- ity of a given pesticide in relation to the overall use, the rate of correct and incorrect use relative to the target crop of the pesticide and the number of pesticides used. It also served as basis to relate the possible damage to the health of farmers. Results and Discussion Socioeconomic aspects From the analysis of the data collected, it can be stated that 100% of the respondents are male, similar data being found in the region of Jua- zeiro-BA and Petrolina-PE (Corcino et al., 2019). Regarding the age of the farmers, they presented a distribution between 20 and 62 years of age, with the most frequent range being the interval between 34 and 41 years of age (23%). The work of Corcino et al. (2019) found a higher frequency in the age range distributed between 40 and 59 years, while in the work of Petarli et al. (2019) the main age range was between 30 and 39 years, quite similar to that found in the present work. Barring methodological issues, it can be stated that the majority of these farmers, in general, has its largest distribution among men under 60 years old (94%), which indi- cates a mature population, but with few young people, only 6%. Concerning the level of education, it is important to note that there was no record of illiteracy among the farmers interviewed, and that 35.5% claimed to have completed high school. Such information differs from the latest census data from IBGE (PNUD, 2010), for the municipality of Juazeiro/BA, where the illiteracy rate was approximate- ly 51,14%, and is also distinct from the study conducted by Corcino et  al. (2019), which found an 8.8% illiteracy rate among agricultural workers and landowners in the region of Juazeiro-BA and Petrolina- PE. Despite the positive data, most farmers have complete (38.7%) and incomplete (22.6%) elementary school level. Other studies point to the low educational level of farmers, such as illiteracy (Remoundou et al., 2015) and incomplete elementary level education (Dalbó et al., 2019), as a factor that generates health and safety risks in relation to the use of pesticides, as it contributes to their inappropriate use (Dalbó et al., 2019), in addition to affecting the development of family farming pro- duction (Souza et al., 2019). The results obtained in the study conduct- ed by Magalhães and Caldas (2019), in the Federal District, further corroboates this statement, in which almost half of the farmers assisted in outpatient care, in connection with the use of pesticides, had only elementary school level education. Therefore, it is important to understand that the educational level of the population under study is an important factor to understand the type of use that they make of pesticides, and from then on to suggest control measures that are contextualized with the environment and the individuals involved.This is mainly due to the fact that illiteracy rates of farmers in underdeveloped countries contribute to their difficulty in understanding the safety regulations in the use of pesticides (Re- moundou et  al., 2014), as observed in the study conducted by Wahl- brinck et al. (2017), in the municipality of Imigrante-RS, where 83.1% of farmers had incomplete high school education, and only 33.1% claimed to read or understand what was written on the pesticide labels. Internet access was confirmed by 93.5% of the respondents, who cited cable and mobile data connection as their main means of connection. These results confirm that farmers have means of access to important information, such as television and internet, which, if well used, can be an important means of obtaining information about the products used in the field. Part of the interviewees (32%) highlighted the participation of up to two people from the family unit in agricultural activities, with greater relevance for the participation of the wife, who was pointed out in 35.5% of the interviews, followed by the children, who accounted for 22.5%, reinforcing and further characterizing this agricultural activity being de- veloped as family work. Other farmers also point out parents, nephews, brothers and sisters, in-laws, and neighbors as individuals who work in the field to help them out. Only 16.1% claim to rely on the labor force of rural day laborers to help at some point during the farming season. The main data from the interviews and questionnaire application are presented in Table 1. Besides the agricultural activity, 68% of the farmers state that they perform other economic activities to complement their income, the main ones being: commerce (29%) (grocery stores and bars), activities governed by the Brazilian Consolidation of Labor Laws (the CLT) (19%), day labor for other farmers (14%), and raising goats and sheep (14%). An important element for the health of farmers and their families is access to a source of drinking water. In this case, only 48% indicat- ed as a source thereof the Water and Environmental Sanitation Service (SAAE), without any treatment of effluents and waste disposal, of the municipality of Juazeiro / BA, another 48% have access to drinking wa- ter through cisterns, which are supplied by tanker cars, and 4% point to artesian wells as their sources of drinking water. Taking into account that contaminated drinking water is a source of contamination by pes- ticides (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos, 2011), the use of water from ar- tesian wells, which are in or near cultivation areas, increases the proba- bility of contamination of farmers, their families, domestic animals, and possibly neighbors who use this water domestically, since the intensive use of pesticides in agricultural systems causes environmental contami- nation of water, soil, food, and organisms (Sapbamrer, 2018). Souza, I.V. et al. 658 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 Aspects related to the production process Regarding the production process, it is noteworthy that the area used for planting is mostly owned by the farmer himself (51.6%), and planting occurs in areas that have between 1-2 hectares (41.9%), less than 1 hectare (16.1%) and 1 hectare (12.9%), whereas only 16.1% had access to bank financing for their current produc- tion. These results corroborate the research conducted by Pereira et al. (2009), in the region of Petrolina-PE and Juazeiro-BA, which already pointed out the difficulty in obtaining financial resources to fund production. According to Souza et al. (2019), the obstacles to access financial resources limit the access of family farmers to more efficient production technologies. The products most grown by family farmers of the UAVS are pre- sented in Figure 2, with emphasis on melon, lemon, pumpkin, bell pepper and passion fruit, as the most cultivated. It is worth noting that most farmers grow an average of two products, with some of them pro- ducing three to four agricultural products at the same time. The commercialization of all production is performed, in 87% of cases, through the middleman, a common figure in wholesale markets who defines the flow of agricultural products (Moraes et  al., 2018). These data differ from those found by Nascimento et  al. (2016), in Mato Grosso do Sul, where family farmers who used the services of middlemen were approximately 47%. These results demonstrate the need for action, together with family farmers and public authorities, in order to streamline the process of direct selling, which brings greater financial return to the farmer. An interesting practice that deserves to be highlighted is the fact that 3 family farmers (6% of the participants) who use water from artesian wells for irrigation through small dams for water stor- age also fatten Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus, 1758) in these storage dams. This activity, in addition to generating in- come and being a source of protein for the family, also potentially contributes to the process of crop fertilization (Baioni et  al., 2017). Table 1 – Socioeconomic characteristics of family farmers in the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, (UAVS), Junco district, Juazeiro-BA, in June 2022 (N = 31). Source: Prepared by the author (2022) based on interviews using a semi-struc- tured questionnaire, between April and June 2022. Characteristic Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 0 0 Male 31 100 Age 20 |—27 2 6.5 27 |—34 5 16.1 34 |—41 7 22.5 41 |—48 6 19.4 48 |—55 6 19.4 55 |—62 5 16.1 Number of children 0 6 19.4 1 6 19.4 2 8 25.8 3 7 22.5 4 or more 4 12.9 Educational level Illiterate 0 0 Complete elementary school 12 38.7 Incomplete elementary school 7 22.6 Complete middle school 0 0 Incomplete middle school 0 0 Complete high school 11 35.5 Incomplete high school 1 3.2 Average family income Less than 1 minimum wage 3 9.8 1 minimum wage 19 61.2 Between 1 and 2 minimum wages 4 12.9 Between 2 and 3 minimum wages 4 12.9 Between 3 and 4 minimum wages 0 0 Between 4 and 5 minimum wages 1 3.2 More than 5 minimum wages 0 0 Performs another activity besides agriculture Yes 21 67.7 No 10 32.3 Internet access Yes 29 93.5 No 2 6.5 Figure 2 – Relationship between farmer’s rates and the varieties of crops grown by family farmers in the UAVS. Source: Prepared by the author (2022) based on interviews using a semi-struc- tured questionnaire, between April and June 2022. Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil 659 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 However, there is a probability that this water source is contaminated by pesticides and these fish are another source of contamination for those who consume them. Because, as stated by Santana and Caval- cante (2016), the toxic effects of pesticides on fish represent a threat to the health of their consumers, including humans. Brazil has been presenting, in recent years, an increase in the consumption of pesticides in the field, as shown in the study by Ri- beiro et  al. (2022), in which between 2000 and 2014 there was an increase of 213% in the commercialization of pesticides, with the Northeast region showing an increase of 97.5% in sales, the state of Bahia standing out in the sales average. In this respect, regarding the main pesticides used by fami- ly farmers in UAVS, the seven (7) most cited by family farmers are shown in Table   2, with Vertimec 18 EC (68%) and Klorpan 480 EC (35.0%) standing out. It is worth noting that, on average, each farmer claimed to use at least three (3) different pesticides during cultivation, less than the five (5) used by farmers in Santa Maria do Jetibá-ES (Petarli et  al., 2019). Other pesticides cited were: Amistar Top, Avatar, Capataz, Cercobin 700 WP, Curacron 500, Curyon 550 EC, Dimexion, Glyphosate Notox SL, Karate Zeon 50 CS, Manzate WG, Polytrin, Potenza Sinon, Premio, Tifmine, Trigard 750 WP and Voraz. Among these, glyphosate stands out as one of the most com- mercialized worldwide (Pestizidatlas, 2022). In developing countries, like Brazil, farmers use highly toxic pes- ticides, many of them banned from the producing countries (Bondori et  al., 2019). In this study of the most used pesticides (Table 2), the majority is toxicologically classified as extremely toxic, used by 68% of the respondents. Similarly, 88% of family farmers in Santa Maria de Jetibá-ES also use pesticides in this classification (Petarli et al., 2019). Such information warns of the danger existing in the handling thereof, both for man and for the environment. However, it is a fact that most farmers have little knowledge of the risks to their health related to the use of pesticides (Weng and Black, 2015), which corroborates the need for actions intended to provide information to farmers, in such a way that there are changes in behaviors in the field. Regarding the chemical groups to which the 7 (seven) most cited pesticides belong, they are divided into: Avermectins (42.9%), Pyre- throid (20.6%), Organophosphate (23.8%) and the Oxine Methylcar- bamate (12.7%). The active ingredients (AI) and their chronic effects are presented in Table 3. In the study by Corcino et  al. (2019), in Juazeiro-BA and Petrolina-PE, pyrethroids (18.4%) and organophos- phates (17%) were also highlighted. All identified Ais (Table 3) present acute and chronic effects related to exposure during handling thereof, with Abamectin, Cypermethrin and Methomyl classified as extremely toxic. According to Remoundou et  al. (2014), in general, exposure to pesticides causes acute effects to human health, such as: headaches, nausea, eye irritation, skin rashes and flu-like symptoms, most of which are related to all the Ais identified in this study. Additionally, some Ais exhibit potentially carcinogenic effects and reduced human reproductive function (Carneiro, 2015), informa- tion that is not present in the package inserts provided by manufacturers. Data from the interviews conducted point out that 38.7% of family farmers have experienced some discomfort during pesticide application, with complaints related to irritation of the throat, eyes and nostrils, and headache, indicated as the most common acute effects experienced by family farmers. Similar results were found in studies in Rio de Janeiro (Leão et al., 2018) and in the region of Juazeiro-BA and Petrolina-PE (Cor- cino et  al., 2019).However, 61.3% of the respondents reported that they had never experienced any discomfort during, or after, pesticide appli- cation. Nevertheless, as stated by Berg et al. (2019), farmers may feel the harmful effects of pesticides years after being exposed and not make the cause and effect relationship with the exposure experienced in the past. Table 2 – Main pesticides mentioned by family farmers from the UAVS, Junco district, Juazeiro-BA. Source: based on ADAPAR (2022) and Agrolink websites (2022). Trade name/chemical group Action Toxicological classification Environmental Hazard Classification Registration Holder Abamex Br 18 Group 6 – Avermectins Acaricide, Insecticide and Nematicide Class I – Highly Toxic Class III – Environmentally Hazardous Product Sumitomo Chemical Brasil Indústria Química S.A Cyptrin 250 CE Group 3a - Pyrethroid Contact and ingestion insecticide Class I – Highly Toxic Class I – Highly Hazardous to the Environment Nufarm Indústria Química e Farmacêutica S/A Kaiso 250 CS Group 3a - Pyrethroid Contact and ingestion insecticide Class III – Moderately Toxic Product Class II – Very Hazardous to the Environment Sumitomo Chemical Brasil Indústria Química S.A Klorpan 480 EC Group 1b – Organophosphate Contact and ingestion insecticide Class III – Moderately Toxic Product Class II – Very Hazardous to the Environment Nufarm Indústria Química e Farmacêutica S/A Lannate BR Group 1a - Oxime Methylcarbamate Systemic and contact insecticide Class I - Highly Toxic Product Class II - Very Hazardous to the Environment Corteva Agriscience do Brasil Ltda. Malathion 1000 EC Group 1b - Organofosforado Inseticida de contato e ingestão Class V – Product Unlikely to Cause Acute Harm Class II – Very Hazardous to the Environment FMC Química do Brasil Ltda. Vertimec 18 EC Group 6 – Avermectin Acaricide, Insecticide and Nematicide Class IV – Mildly Toxic Product Class II – Very Hazardous to the Environment Syngenta Proteção de Cultivos Ltda. Souza, I.V. et al. 660 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 A worrisome fact is related to the practice of mixing two (2) or three (3) different pesticides, because no package insert consulted in- dicates the need for this mixture, highlighting that the critical point is the concentrations used by farmers in the mixtures (Belchior et al., 2014). The process of mixing pesticides in the field is a problem point- ed out in several studies (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos, 2011; Gazzie- ro, 2015), and, according to research by Yassin et  al. (2002), in the Gaza Strip, farmers who performed mixing had a higher prevalence of toxicity symptoms. According to Castro (2009), due to the reality of the mixtures that occur in the field, it is necessary to understand the toxic potential of these mixtures, in order to determine the advantages and disadvantages of their use, “because mixtures involve greater risk” (Majolo and Rempel, 2018, p. 16), despite being a common practice in Brazil, information about mixtures is insufficient (Gazziero, 2015). The problems reported above c”n be justified by the fact that over 87.1% of the interviewees stated that they did not receive any type of technical assistance to help with production. Added to this fact, the source of information about pesticides used in the field by family farmers comes from the father (45%), neighbors (29%), other family members (10%), and pesticide sellers (16%), as found in the study by Petarli et al. (2019). The data obtained from the application of the ques- tionnaires prove, for the most part, that the knowledge about the use of pesticides is related to the transfer of knowledge from father to son. Other sources are neighbors and vendors, also observed in a study conducted in Pakistan (Damalas and Khan, 2016), making it clear that most of the information is contained within the farmers’ family cycle, which in turn does not guarantee correct use and consequently puts the farmers’ health and the preservation of the environment at risk. According to Soares and Souza Porto (2009, p. 2725), “the guid- ance of an agronomist when purchasing pesticides, the mandatory use of an agronomist’s prescription, and the use of substances that are less toxic to human health considerably reduce health costs for farm workers.” Furthermore, there is evidence of a correlation between access to rural technical assistance and the viability of family farms (Souza et al., 2019). When we evaluated whether farmers apply the pesticides on target plants correctly, comparing the indications contained in the pesticide package leaflets with the use that family farmers perform in the field, it was found that only the pesticide Kaiso 250 CS is used 100% following what is stated in its package insert. The others, in addition to not respecting the directions on the package leaflets, are all used on plants not indicated by the manufacturers, as can be seen in Table 4. This problem may be related to the lack of technical assistance, since 87% of the respondents claimed not to receive it, added to the low educational level, which may interfere in understanding the information contained in the leaflets (Carvalho et al., 2016; Wahl- brinck et  al., 2017), and economic pressure. Because, as stated by Remoundou et  al. (2015), factors such as economic pressures also influence human behavior related to the inherent risks of pesticide use. As a result of this behavior, pesticides can harm non-target organisms, causing an ecological imbalance in the environment (Belchior et al., 2014). Thus, the use of pesticides not indicated for a particular crop may also explain the mixtures, considering that farmers are not following the manufacturer’s guidelines and the expected effect may not occur, since the indiscriminate use of pesticides can cause the development of pest resistance (Yassin et  al., 2002; Carvalho et  al., 2016), thereby leading to the need to increase the amount of applications and, con- sequently, greater dependence on these products by farmers (Yassin et al., 2002). In France, protection policies dictate that farmer protec- tion depends on the farmer’s ability to follow a set of recommenda- tions, such as the information contained in pesticide leaflets (Jouzel and Prete, 2015). Table 3 – Information about the health effects on humans, related to the Active Ingredients (AI) of the 7 pesticides most used by family farmers in the UAVS. *Prepared by the author (2022) based on ADAPAR (2022) and Agrolink websites (2022); **Dossiê ABRASCO 2015 (apud Carneiro, 2015). Trade name Active Ingredient (AI) Symptoms of chronic intoxication Abamex Br 18 Vertimec 18 EC / Abamectin *The active ingredient has not been found to be mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic to humans. ** Acute toxicity and suspected reproductive toxicity of the active ingredient (AI) and its metabolites Cyptrin 250 CE / Cypermethrin * Unidentified. **Mutagenic and genotoxic potential, decreased sperm count. Kaiso 250 CS / Lambda-Cyhalothrin *Unidentified. ** Neuromotor disorders. Klorpan 480 EC / Chlorpyrifos *No carcinogenic potential, and no potentially teratogenic effects or reproductive disorders in experimental animals. ** Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and decreased male reproductive function. Lannate BR / Methomyl *Unidentified. ** Neurotoxicity, endocrine dysregulation, thyroid ultrastructural changes, genotoxic effect, immunosuppressive effect, and chromosomal changes. Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil 661 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 Another point that should be considered in this analysis is the place where pesticides are stored, for 58.1% of the farmers interviewed store pesticides in the field, under trees and covered by tarpaulin, 35.5% store them at home, in external storage, and, very worryingly, 6.5% of family farmers store pesticides inside their homes. These types of er- rors are characteristic of agriculture, and the storage of pesticides in an inappropriate place is a problem that threatens the health of farmers (Bagheri et al., 2018) and family members. In this regard, it can be said that these storage methods expose farmers, their families, and domes- tic animals to the risks of contamination. Thus, the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment assume very exten- sive positions that go beyond the cultivation area, reaching the homes of farmers and their neighborhoods. All farmers interviewed irrigate their crops. However, there is a very distinct situation in this region regarding access to water for irri- gation, since only 29% have access to water from the Salitre irrigation project, whereas 51.6% use artesian wells and water from the Salitre river during the rainy season, and 19.4% use a canal with water from lixiviation arising from sugar cane irrigation. The lack of access to the waters of the Salitre Project is pointed out by the interviewees as limit- ing the number of farmers currently producing. Regarding the use of PPE, 61.3% of farmers claimed to use it during the preparation and application of the grout. However, only 19.4% made use of all PPE required for the activity, a number well below the 56.9% found by Corcino et al. (2019), in the Juazeiro-BA and Petrolina-PE region, and the 28% found by Petarli et al. (2019), in Espírito Santo. That is, the non-use of PPE during the handling of pesticides is a common practice in family farming (Petarli et al., 2019), which leads to a more aggravating occupational exposure. A sign that demonstrates that the provision of agricultural technical assistance has the potential to change this type of inappropriate be- havior is in the data found by Corcino et al. (2019), which verified that 56.9% of the respondents made use of all PPE, this same study pointing out that 83.5% of the respondents received specialized technical assistance. From the analysis of the data collected during the interviews, it can be stated that farmers use a wide variety of pesticides, and these prod- ucts are used indiscriminately, ignoring the manufacturer’s guidelines, whether they relate to their action on cultivated plants, or in relation to safety recommendations. Such practices can lead to environmental degradation (Wahlbrinck et  al., 2017), and can generate resistance of certain pests to pesticides (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos, 2011), thus requiring more intensive use thereof, which worsens the effects on the health of farmers and the environment. Conclusions The family farmers who participated in this study showed a low average income, lack of access to federal government benefits, and dif- Table 4 – Level of correct use as indicated on the label of the pesticides, compared to their use by farmers. Source: Prepared by the author (2022) based on ADAPAR (2022) and Agrolink websites (2022). Trade name Crop application, as indicated in the package insert, carried out by farmers Application to crops which are not listed in the package insert and are carried out by farmers Rate of farmers using pesticides according to the package insert (%) Rate of farmers using pesticides without following the package insert (%) ABAMEX BR 18 Lime Mango, onion, corn, passion fruit, melon 28.57 71.43 CYPTRIN 250CE Corn Mango, lime, melon, onion, bell pepper, banana, pumpkin, papaya, beans, watermelon 7.69 12.31 KAISO 250 CS Pumpkin, mango, watermelon, melon, beans, onions, bell pepper ----- 100 0 KLORPAN 480 EC Citrus, corn Melon, papaya, mango, bell pepper, passion fruit, onion, banana 11.76 88.24 LANNATE BR Corn Lime, papaya, mango, melon, bell pepper, passion fruit, pumpkin 9.09 90.91 MALATHION 1000 EC Citrus Onion, melon, passion fruit, banana 20 80 VERTIMEC 18 EC Citrus, beans, mango, watermelon, papaya, melon, bell pepper Pumpkin, guava, onion, passion fruit, banana, corn 55 45 Souza, I.V. et al. 662 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 ficulty in accessing rural financing, which represent barriers to the de- velopment of agricultural activity. In relation to education, the panora- ma shows an improvement in the level of schooling, which in isolation does not solve the problems identified, but creates possibilities for a policy of inclusion and sustainable development. The methods of storage of pesticides are another point of attention. It is necessary to define a safe place with limited access for the storage of these products, so that the risks related to their use are not increased, much less domiciliated. The limitation of access to water, both for irrigation and domes- tic consumption, is an issue that goes beyond food production; it is a public health issue, and a long-standing demand in this region. Water, in this context, is an essential element of inclusion, since several UAVS members do not produce due to lack of access to water. As demonstrated in the results of this research, family farmers do not receive technical assistance, which results in the inappropriate use of pesticides in the field, promoting increased exposure to pesticides with risks to their health and environment. Therefore, it is important to promote public policies that provide proper guidance on the han- dling of pesticides, in order to protect family farmers and the environ- ment. Furthermore, the results presented here can serve as a basis for the development of actions and technical assistance programs, at local and national levels, covering other communities of family farmers, and thus strengthening family farming. Contribution of authors: SOUZA, I. V.: Conceptualization; Data Curation; Formal Analysis; Funding; Acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project Administration; Resources; Writing — Original Draft; Writing — Review & Editing; SILVA, T. A.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing — Review & Editing; PINHEIRO, F. A.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing — Review & Editing. References Adissi, P.J.; Pinheiro, F.A., 2015. Análise de risco na aplicação manual de agrotóxicos: o caso da fruticultura do litoral sul paraibano. Sistemas & Gestão, v. 10, (1), 172-179. https://doi.org/10.7177/sg.2015.v10.N1.A14. Agência de Defesa Agropecuária do Paraná (ADAPAR), 2022. Agrotóxicos no Paraná (Accessed June 5, 2022) at:. https://www.adapar.pr.gov.br/Pagina/ Agrotoxicos-no-Parana. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA), 2019. Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada nº 294, de 29 de julho de 2019. Dispõe sobre os critérios para avaliação e classificação toxicológica, priorização da análise e comparação da ação toxicológica de agrotóxicos, componentes, afins e preservativos de madeira, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Seção 1, v. 146, 78- 31 (Accessed December 9, 2020) at:. http://www.cvs.saude.sp.gov.br/zip/U_RS- MS-ANVISA-RDC-294_290719.pdf. AGROLINK, 2022. Portal do Conteúdo Agropecuário. Agrolinkfito (Accessed June 5, 2022) at:. https://www.agrolink.com.br/agrolinkfito. Bagheri, A.; Emami, N.; Allahyari, M.S.; Damalas, C.A., 2018. Pesticide handling practices, health risks, and determinants of safety behavior among Iranian apple farmers. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, v. 24, (8), 2209-2223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1443265. Baioni, J.C.; Squassoni, G.H.; Souza Cultri, G.R.; Silva, J.D.T.; Dias, L.T.S., 2017. Efluente de piscicultura na produção consorciada de cebolinha e coentro. Nucleus Animalium, v. 9, (1), 143-150. https://doi. org/10.3738/21751463.2809. Baldin, N.; Munhoz, E.M.B., 2011. Educação ambiental comunitária: uma experiência com a técnica de pesquisa snowball (bola de neve). Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental, v. 27, 46-60. https://doi. org/10.14295/remea.v27i0.3193. Belchior, D.C.V.; Souza Saraiva, A.; López, A.M.C.; Scheidt, G.N., 2014. Impactos de agrotóxicos sobre o meio ambiente e a saúde humana. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia, v. 34, (1), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.35977/0104- 1096.cct2017.v34.26296. Berg, Z.K.; Rodriguez, B.; Davis, J.; Katz, A.R.; Cooney, R.V.; Masaki, K., 2019. Association between occupational exposure to pesticides and cardiovascular disease incidence: The Kuakini Honolulu Heart Program. Journal of the American Heart Association, v. 8, (19), e012569. https://doi.org/10.1161/ JAHA.119.012569. Bondori, A.; Bagheri, A.; Allahyari, M.S.; Damalas, C.A., 2019. Pesticide waste disposal among farmers of Moghan region of Iran: current trends and determinants of behavior. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 191, (1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-7150-0. Brevigliero, E.; Possebon, J.; Spinelli, R., 2020. Higiene Ocupacional: agentes biológicos, químicos e físicos. São Paulo: Editora Senac. Carneiro, F.F. (Ed.), 2015. Dossiê ABRASCO: um alerta sobre os impactos dos agrotóxicos na saúde. Rio de Janeiro: EPSJV; São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Carvalho, C.R.F.; Ponciano, N.J.; Souza, C.L.M., 2016. Levantamento dos agrotóxicos e manejo na cultura do tomateiro no município de Cambuci-RJ. Revista Ciência Agrícola, v. 14, (1), 15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.28998/rca. v14i1.2327. Castro, V.L.S.S., 2009. Uso de misturas de agrotóxicos na agricultura e suas implicações toxicológicas na saúde. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Ecotoxicology, v. 4, (1-3), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.5132/jbse.2009.01.012. Cavalcante, R.E.T.R.; Santos, J.S.; Bernardes, J.R.; Souza, W.D.; Guerra, C.J.O.; Souza, F.A., 2018. Análise do controle interno na gestão de recursos humanos: Uma análise empírica nas Câmaras Municipais da RIDE-Polo Petrolina-PE e Juazeiro-BA. In: Anais do Seminário Científico do UNIFACIG, (3). https://doi.org/10.7177/sg.2015.v10.N1.A14 https://www.adapar.pr.gov.br/Pagina/Agrotoxicos-no-Parana https://www.adapar.pr.gov.br/Pagina/Agrotoxicos-no-Parana http://www.cvs.saude.sp.gov.br/zip/U_RS-MS-ANVISA-RDC-294_290719.pdf http://www.cvs.saude.sp.gov.br/zip/U_RS-MS-ANVISA-RDC-294_290719.pdf https://www.agrolink.com.br/agrolinkfito https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1443265 https://doi.org/10.3738/21751463.2809 https://doi.org/10.3738/21751463.2809 https://doi.org/10.14295/remea.v27i0.3193 https://doi.org/10.14295/remea.v27i0.3193 https://doi.org/10.35977/0104-1096.cct2017.v34.26296 https://doi.org/10.35977/0104-1096.cct2017.v34.26296 https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012569 https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-7150-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.28998/rca.v14i1.2327 http://dx.doi.org/10.28998/rca.v14i1.2327 https://doi.org/10.5132/jbse.2009.01.012 Risks to the environment and to the health of family farmers through the inappropriate use of pesticides: the case of the Union of Associations of the Salitre Valley, Juazeiro/BA, Brazil 663 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 Corcino, C.O.; Teles, R.B.D.A.; Almeida, J.R.G.D.S.; Lirani, L.D.S.; Araújo, C.R.M.; Gonsalves, A.D.A.; Maia, G.L.D.A., 2019. Avaliação do efeito do uso de agrotóxicos sobre a saúde de trabalhadores rurais da fruticultura irrigada. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 24, (8), 3117-3128. https://doi. org/10.1590/1413-81232018248.14422017. Dalbó, J.; Filgueiras, LA.; Mendes, A. N., 2019. Effects of pesticides on rural workers: haematological parameters and symptomalogical reports. Ciencia & asúde Coletiva, v. 24, n. 7, 2569-2582. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413- 81232018247.19282017. Damalas, C.A.; Eleftherohorinos, I.G., 2011. Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 8, (5), 1402-1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph8051402. Damalas, C.A.; Khan, M., 2016. Farmers’ attitudes towards pesticide labels: implications for personal and environmental safety. International Journal of Pest Management, v. 62, (4), 319-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9670874.2016.1195027. Damalas, C.A.; Koutroubas, S.D., 2018. Farme’s’ behaviour in pesticide use: A key concept for improving environmental safety. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, v. 4, 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. coesh.2018.07.001. Gazziero, D.L.P., 2015. Misturas de agrotóxicos em tanque nas propriedades agrícolas do Brasil. Planta Daninha, v. 33, n. 1, 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0100-83582015000100010. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), 2017. IBGE: Cidades. IBGE (Accessed May 24, 2022) at:. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/ juazeiro/historico. Jouzel, J.; Prete, G., 2015. Becoming a victim of pesticides: legal action and its effects on theobilizationon of affected farmworkers. Sociologie du Travail, v. 57, suppl. 1, e63-e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2015.09.010. Junqueira, H.S.; Almeida, L.M.F.; Souza, T.S.; Santos Nascimento, P., 2020. Análise da variação sazonal e de tendências na precipitação pluviométrica no município de Juazeiro-BA. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física, v. 13, (6), 2641-2649. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.6.p2641-2649. Leão, R.S.; Marques, R.C.; Buralli, R.J.; Silva, D.S.; Guimarães, J.R.D., 2018. Avaliação de saúde pública por exposição a agroquímicos: uma experiência com a agricultura familiar no noroeste do Rio de Janeiro. Sustentabilidade em Debate, v. 9, (1), 81-94. http://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v9n1.2018.26956. Magalhães, A.F.A.; Caldas, E.D., 2019. Occupational exposure and poisoning by chemical products in the Federal District. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, v. 72, Suppl. 1, 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0439. Majolo, F.; Rempel, C., 2018. Impact of the use of pesticides by rural workers in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences (Online), (50), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820180357. Moraes, J.G.; Balensifer, P.H.M.; Pires, M.L.L.S., 2018. Agricultura Familiar e especificidades dos mercados atacadistas: O caso da CECAF/CEASA e Feira do feijão de Capoeiras–Pernambuco. Cadernos de Ciências Sociais da UFRPE, v. 2, (13), 106-123. Nascimento, J.S.; Bezerra, G.J.; Schlindwein, M.M.; Padovan, M.P., 2016. Produção agropecuária, agregação de valor e comercialização pela agricultura familiar no estado do Mato Grosso do Sul. Redes: Revista do Desenvolvimento Regional, v. 21, (3), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.17058/ redes.v21i3.6219. Öztaş, D.; Kurt, B.; Koç, A.; Akbaba, M.; İlter, H., 2018. Knowledge level, attitude, and behaviors of farmers in Çukurova region regarding the use of pesticides. Biomed Research International, v. 2018, 6146509. https://doi. org/10.1155/2018/6146509. Pereira, E.; Rola, S.; Freitas, M.; Rosa, L.P., 2009. Irrigation for food production in the semi-arid region of northeast Brazil: case studies in Petrolina, Juazeiro, Vale do Açu and Agrovila Canudos in Ceará-Mirim. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, v. 125, 537-551. https://doi. org/10.2495/WRM090481. Pestizidatlas, 2022. Daten und Fakten zu Giften in der Landwirtschaft. Fundação Heinrich Böll, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, PAN Germany e Le Monde Diplomatique (Accessed June 29, 2022) at:. https:// www.boell.de/de/pestizidatlas. Petarli, G.B.; Cattafesta, M.; Luz, T.C.D.; Zandonade, E.; Bezerra, O.M.D.P.A.; Salaroli, L.B., 2019. Exposição ocupacional a agrotóxicos, riscos e práticas de segurança na agricultura familiar em município do estado do Espírito Santo, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, v. 44, e15. https://doi. org/10.1590/2317-6369000030418. Picolotto, E.L., 2014. Os atores da construção da categoria agricultura familiar no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, v. 52, (suppl. 1), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032014000600004. Pinheiro, F., 2015. FISPQ e responsabilidade social das empresas. Revista Intertox de Toxicologia, Risco Ambiental e Sociedade, v. 2, (1), 117-120. https://doi.org/10.22280/revintervol2ed1.21. Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento (PNUD), 2010. Atlas Brasil. PNUD (Accessed May 24, 2022) at:. http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/perfil/ municipio/291840 Recena, M.C.P.; Pires, D.X.; Caldas, E.D., 2006. Acute poisoning with pesticides in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, v. 357, (1-3), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2005.04.029. Remoundou, K.; Brennan, M.; Hart, A.; Frewer, L.J., 2014. Pesticide risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes of operators, workers, and residents: a review of the literature. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, v. 20, (4), 1113-1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.799405. Remoundou, K.; Brennan, M.; Sacchettini, G.; Panzone, L.; Butler-Ellis, M.C.; Capri, E.; Charistou, A.; Chaideftou, E.; Gerritsen-Ebben, M.G.; Machera, K.; Spanoghe, P.; Glass, R.; Marchis, A.; Doanngoc, K.; Hart, A.; Frewer, L.J., 2015. Perceptions of pesticides exposure risks by operators, workers, residents and bystanders in Greece, Italy and the UK. Science of the Total Environment, v. 505, 1082-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.099. Ribeiro, S.D.D.M.; Siqueira, M.T.D.; Gurgel, I.G.D.; Diniz, G.T.N., 2022. A comercialização de agrotóxicos e o modelo químico-dependente da agricultura do Brasil. Saúde em Debate, v. 46, (spe. 2), 210-223. https://doi. org/10.1590/0103-11042022E214. Rossi, R.A.; Santos, E., 2018. Conflito e regulação das águas no Brasil: a experiência do Salitre. Caderno CRH, v. 31, (82), 151-167. https://doi. org/10.1590/S0103-49792018000100010. Sapbamrer, R., 2018. Pesticide use, poisoning, and knowledge and unsafe occupational practices in Thailand. New Solutions, v. 28, (2), 283-302. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1048291118759311. Santana, L.M.B.M.; Cavalcante, R.M., 2016. Transformações metabólicas de agrotóxicos em peixes: uma revisão. Orbital, v. 8, (4), 257-268. https://doi. org/10.17807/orbital.v8i4.856. Soares, W.L.; Souza Porto, M.F., 2009. Estimating the social cost of pesticide use: an assessment from acute poisoning in Brazil. Ecological Economics, v. 68, (10), 2721-2728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.008. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018248.14422017 https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018248.14422017 https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018247.19282017 https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018247.19282017 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051402 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051402 https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1195027 https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1195027 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582015000100010 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582015000100010 https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/juazeiro/historico https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/juazeiro/historico https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2015.09.010 https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.6.p2641-2649 http://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v9n1.2018.26956 https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0439 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820180357 https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v21i3.6219 https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v21i3.6219 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6146509 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6146509 https://doi.org/10.2495/WRM090481 https://doi.org/10.2495/WRM090481 https://www.boell.de/de/pestizidatlas https://www.boell.de/de/pestizidatlas https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6369000030418 https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6369000030418 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032014000600004 https://doi.org/10.22280/revintervol2ed1.21 http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/perfil/municipio/291840 http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/perfil/municipio/291840 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.029 https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.799405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.099 https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-11042022E214 https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-11042022E214 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-49792018000100010 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-49792018000100010 https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291118759311 https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291118759311 https://doi.org/10.17807/orbital.v8i4.856 https://doi.org/10.17807/orbital.v8i4.856 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.008 Souza, I.V. et al. 664 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 654-664 - ISSN 2176-9478 Souza, P.M.D.; Fornazier, A.; Souza, H.M.D.; Ponciano, N.J., 2019. Diferenças regionais de tecnologia na agricultura familiar no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, v. 57, (4), 594-617. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806- 9479.2019.169354. Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), 2001. Plano de gerenciamento dos recursos hídricos da bacia do Rio Salitre. UFBA (Accessed May 26, 2022) at:. http://www.grh.ufba.br/download/Rel%20Final%20Salitre-%20Res%20 Executivo%20-%2025-02-2003.pdf. Wahlbrinck, M.G.; Bica, J.B.; Rempel, C., 2017. Percepção dos agricultores do município de imigrante (RS) sobre os riscos da exposição a agrotóxicos. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences (Online), (44), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820170128. Weng, C.Y.; Black, C., 2015. Taiwanese farm workers’ pesticide knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and clothing practices. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, v. 25, (6), 685-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09 603123.2015.1020415. Yassin, M.M.; Mourad, T.A.; Safi, J.M., 2002. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxicity symptoms associated with pesticide use among farm workers in the Gaza Strip. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, v. 59, (6), 387-393. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.59.6.387. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2019.169354 https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2019.169354 http://www.grh.ufba.br/download/Rel%20Final%20Salitre-%20Res%20Executivo%20-%2025-02-2003.pdf http://www.grh.ufba.br/download/Rel%20Final%20Salitre-%20Res%20Executivo%20-%2025-02-2003.pdf https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820170128 https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2015.1020415 https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2015.1020415 https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.59.6.387