Study area

The Hohoe Municipality is located in the Volta Region of Ghana, within the forest–savannah transitional ecological zone. It covers approximately 1,172 square kilometers and shares boundaries with Jasikan, Afadzato South, Kpando, and the Republic of Togo. According to the 2021 Population and Housing Census, the municipality has a population of about 200,000 , with agriculture serving as the dominant livelihood. Over 70% of residents engage in small-scale farming, cultivating crops such as maize, cassava, yams, rice, plantain, cocoa, and vegetables [19]. Hohoe was purposively selected for this study because of its intensive pesticide-dependent farming activities, limited access to agricultural extension services, and socioeconomic vulnerability of smallholder farmers, which make it a high-risk area for occupational pesticide exposure.

Study design

The study employed a focused ethnographic design, which is well-suited for exploring specific practices and knowledge systems within defined communities over a limited time frame. Unlike classical ethnography that requires prolonged field residence, focused ethnography uses intensive interviewing and field engagement to gain insider perspectives on a particular issue; in this case, farmers’ knowledge and practices surrounding pesticide handling. The approach was chosen to capture culturally embedded practices, language, and meanings around pesticide use in Hohoe. The researcher engaged with participants both in farm and community settings, supplemented interviews with field notes, and maintained reflexive memos to document contextual insights. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with these farmers. The study was conducted and reported in accordance with the RATS (Relevance, Appropriateness, Transparency, Soundness) guidelines for qualitative research [20].

Sampling procedure

In total, 18 eligible farmers were approached and were expected to participate in the study; however, only 13 consented and participated, yielding a response rate of 72%. The inclusion criteria were farmers with more than five years of farming experience who were actively engaged in pesticide use during crop production. Variation in pesticide application practices (e.g., use patterns, storage methods, PPE adherence, and disposal habits) was sought to enrich the diversity of perspectives within the various farming communities to ensure all information provided by the participants reflected the actual problems within the farming community. Also, recruitment considered crop diversity, as different crops attract distinct pest pressures and pesticide regimens. Data collection occurred during the main farming season, when pesticide use was at its peak, allowing the capture of practices under real working conditions.

Although the sample size (n = 13) is small compared to quantitative studies, it is consistent with qualitative research standards where depth of understanding is prioritized over numerical representativeness. Farmers were sampled purposively using criterion-based selection. Agricultural extension officers in the Hohoe municipality assisted the research team in identifying farmers who met the inclusion criteria . A list of eligible farmers was generated through community registers and local farming cooperatives. From this list, the research team approached potential participants in person at their farms, explained the study, and invited them to participate. Those who agreed provided informed consent before being enrolled. Sampling was iterative, with participants selected to reflect variation in age, gender, household size, and farming experience. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was reached [17]. The theoretical saturation was determined when additional interviews yielded no new codes or themes relevant to the research questions. After the eleventh interview, only repetitive responses were noted; by the thirteenth interview, no novel insights emerged, confirming that saturation had been reached. The depth of ethnographic interviewing and attainment of saturation ensured that the data were sufficient to answer the study objectives.

Data collection and analysis

The researcher conducted an in-depth interview. Consent was sought and obtained from each interviewee. All interviews were audio‐recorded, and anonymized transcripts were used for analysis. The topic guide was developed after reviewing prior studies on farmers’ pesticide knowledge, safety practices, and occupational risks [5,13,21].

Open‐ended questioning was employed, and the flow of each interview determined the order of questioning. The interview guide and subsequent thematic analysis were organized around four main domains: (1) knowledge and practices of pesticide use (types, reasons for use, and dosage determination); (2) health risks and exposure (self-reported symptoms and perceived causes); (3) safety practices (use of personal protective equipment, pre- and post-exposure management); and (4) pesticide storage and disposal (methods, locations, and environmental implications). Each domain included open-ended variables that allowed farmers to narrate personal experiences and perceptions related to occupational exposure.

Each interview began with a description of the participant’s farming experiences and sociodemographic characteristics. The interview guide was piloted with two farmers outside the study sample to ensure clarity, cultural appropriateness, and validity; minor revisions were made before full data collection.

Data collection was conducted between 13^th August and 14^th October 2024, coinciding with the peak pesticide application season for maize and vegetable cultivation in the municipality. This timing allowed the capture of farmers’ practices during periods of intensive pesticide use, thereby enriching the contextual validity of the findings.

Investigators familiarized themselves with the transcript data through repeated reading and reflection and independently subjected the transcripts to a process of open coding by going through the transcripts line by line. ATLAS.ti (Version 25.0.0) was used to apply thematic coding. This software was selected because it provides efficient management of large qualitative datasets, facilitates systematic coding, and supports retrieval of co-occurring themes. To enhance consistency, two researchers independently coded a subset of transcripts and compared results. Inter-coder reliability was established through iterative discussions until consensus was achieved, and a unified coding framework was applied to the remaining transcripts. The process of selective coding was used to generate related themes to explain the information of the participants.

Ethical issues

Ethical approval for this study was sought from the University of Health and Allied Sciences Research Ethics Committee (UHAS-REC B.10[160]24–25) and written approval from the Municipal Health Directorate. Importantly, participants were allowed to give written consent by indicating their signature or thumbprint. During transcription, each participant was assigned an identification code (e.g., “Farmer 01,” “Farmer 02”) that replaced personal identifiers such as names, community, or farm location. The transcripts and audio files were stored separately on password-protected drives, with only the principal investigator having access. This ensured complete anonymity and confidentiality throughout the analysis process. All data obtained was handled confidentially.

Socio-demographic characteristics of the farmers

The socio-demographic characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 1 below. The majority (38.5%) of the farmers were between 30–39, while the 20–29 and 40 + age groups were equally lower (30.8%) each. Females (61.5%) were more involved in farming than males (38.5%). Most participants (69.2%) lived in households with fewer than 9 members, while a smaller proportion (30.8%) had 10–19 members. The majority of the farmers (38.5%) had completed Senior High School (SHS), while Junior High School (JHS/JSS) and Tertiary education had the lowest representation (15.4%) each. In terms of farming experience, the largest group (38.5%) had 10–19 years of experience, whereas the least experienced group (less than 9 years) accounted for 15.4 percent.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the farmers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337693.t001

Thematic findings

Table 2 presents the themes of pesticide use among farmers for analysis. The main themes were knowledge and practices of using pesticides, health risks and exposure, safety practices, and storage and disposal of pesticides.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Thematic table.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337693.t002

Knowledge and practices of pesticide use

In the findings, five (5) sub-themes emerged: type of pesticide use, the reason for pesticide use, determining the quantity of pesticide, awareness of expiry date, and application. These sub-themes give in-depth knowledge of pesticide use. Farmers explained that agrochemical vendors were the main sources of pesticides and advice. Vendors generally did not visit farms; rather, farmers purchased pesticides directly from shops or stalls in town markets. Only a few vendors occasionally toured farming communities during peak planting seasons. Most vendors had limited or no formal agricultural training; some had only received short informal sessions from pesticide distributors. As a result, farmers heavily relied on vendor recommendations when selecting and mixing/loading pesticides, increasing the risk of misinformation and unsafe application practices.

Regarding the type of pesticide use, the farmers identified various pesticides they commonly apply to their farms. They described these pesticides as essential for controlling weeds and pests that threaten crop yield. Specifically, they mentioned Glyphosate (gramazole), Paraquat Dichloride, glyphosate-based herbicide (Jupata), Gamma, and 2,4-D, Keystone, each serving different functions in their agricultural practices. Participants reported that,

“Okay, we sometimes use King Kong; they said ‘jupata’ and ‘gramazole” (Male, 21 years)

“First, I used to use glyphosate. Glyphosate is the one I used to use, but at some point, I didn’t get the glyphosate I used, now “Edwoji” and King Kong are the ones I use so far” (Male, 40 years)

Concerning the reasons for pesticide use, the farmers highlighted several motivations for incorporating pesticides into their farming practices. They emphasized that the primary reason was preventing insect infestation, as they explained that without pesticide application, crops would be highly vulnerable to pest attacks, leading to significant yield losses. Additionally, some participants noted that their choice of pesticides was based on vendor recommendations; thus, they rely on agrochemical sellers for guidance on which pesticides to use. This suggests that vendor influence plays a crucial role in shaping farmers’ pesticide selection and usage patterns. They also stated crop safety, as farmers explained that pesticides help protect crops from insects. They believed that without pesticides, their crops would be weaker and more susceptible to damage, ultimately affecting their food supply and income. Farmers commonly expressed that,

“Ummmh,” the okro, if you leave it and you didn’t use that medicine, the insect will get into it and it will spoil” (Female, 32 years)

“I ask the seller what to use for my crops, and follow their advice” (Male, 40 years)

Interestingly, several farmers referred to pesticides as “medicine” for crops, reflecting a cultural perception that equates chemical treatment with healing or strengthening plants rather than recognizing their toxic properties. This symbolic view is explored further in the Discussion.

With the determination of pesticide quantity, they have employed various methods to measure the appropriate amount for application. One common approach was reading the product label, as some farmers explained that they followed the manufacturer’s instructions to ensure accurate pesticide dosage. However, not all farmers strictly relied on product labels. Some mentioned the use of a calibrated measuring cup, which provided a standardized way to measure pesticide quantities. This method was perceived as more precise, especially among those who had access to proper measuring tools. Others, however, adopted more informal measurement techniques, such as using household containers like milk cans or tin tomato cans. This method was based on their experience as farmers. They also indicated that in some cases, vendor advice influenced the quantity of pesticide they applied. This is expressed by some farmers that;

“Sometimes it’s written on the container, so per the litter, sometimes they can say 500ml per litter” (Female, 29 years)

“First, I used to ask the seller because mostly they also buy it somewhere. So, they ask the one they buy it from, so as they also know a little about it, they also advise me that I have to apply this quantity to the water, before I spray. That’s exactly what I do” (Male, 24 years)

About awareness of pesticide expiry dates, the farmers exhibited varying levels of knowledge and practices. Some farmers acknowledged that they check expiry dates before purchasing and using pesticides; they stated that expired products might lose effectiveness or pose risks to the crop. They explained that ensuring the pesticide is within its valid period helps maintain its intended potency and prevents unintended harm to their crops. However, other farmers admitted that they do not check expiry dates when purchasing pesticides. They explained that their focus is primarily on the pesticide’s function rather than its expiration status. Some assumed that if the pesticide is available for sale, it must still be effective. Most older participants did not check expiry dates, while younger farmers were likely to mention expiry checks. Farmers who ignored expiry dates often assumed that products sold in shops must still be effective. Illustrative quotes included,

“I have to check because if I didn’t check, I would end up buying something that will not work out on my farm for me” (Male, 40 years)

“Hahaha, oh no, i dont check expiry date because I don’t know anything about ” (Female, 66 years)

Concerning application methods and frequency, the study identified spraying as the most common. All farmers used knapsack sprayers operated manually by pumps; none reported using motorized or tractor-mounted sprayers. Most Knapsacks were older than three years, frequently borrowed or shared among farmers, and rarely serviced. Worn nozzles and leaking hoses were a common sight, increasing the likelihood of direct dermal exposure. Only one farmer reported regular maintenance, including rinsing and checking seals before each spraying season.

The farmers explained that spraying allows for even distribution of the pesticide across crops, ensuring effective pest and weed control. All participants reported beginning pesticide use within the first few years of starting farming, often after experiencing severe pest infestations. Most farmers (10 of 13) had used pesticides continuously since then. A few older farmers (3 of 13) indicated they had changed brands or reduced frequency in response to health symptoms such as dizziness or eye irritation, but none had stopped using pesticides entirely. None of the farmers received formal training before their first use. In terms of frequency, pesticide application varied among the farmers. Some reported applying pesticides every month, particularly for crops that require regular pest control to maintain their health and yield. Others indicated that they used pesticides seasonally or yearly, depending on the crop type and level of infestation. Additionally, a few farmers mentioned that weather conditions influenced their pesticide application schedules. For instance, heavy rains could wash away pesticides, requiring reapplication, while prolonged dry conditions might reduce the need for frequent pesticide use. These variations in application methods and frequency highlight the adaptive nature of pesticide use among farmers. The findings also suggest that while spraying is widely accepted, there is no standardized approach to pesticide application frequency, leading to potential differences in effectiveness and safety.

“No, for the spraying we use the machine” (Female, 66 years)

I use them depending on the weather, because some can be used and the rain washes them away, so I always study the season and the wind that blows” (Male, 59 years)

Health risks and exposures

Regarding health issues associated with pesticide use, the farmers reported experiencing various health effects, ranging from mild irritations to severe consequences. They mentioned eye irritation, which some farmers attributed to direct exposure to pesticide sprays during application. They also reported skin irritation, describing symptoms such as itching, rashes, and burning sensations after coming into contact with pesticides. Additionally, some farmers also complained of waist pains, which they linked to the physical strain of carrying pesticide-spraying machines and repetitive bending during application. They also stated severe health effects, including cases of vision loss and reported deaths among farmers who were heavily exposed to pesticides. These cases highlight the potential dangers of inadequate pesticide safety practices and prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals. Farmers reported that,

“It itches me anytime I use it, and it’s very strong and highly scented.” (Male, 30 years)

“Okay, that one (Glyphosate), it has passed through the eye glass and then entered into my face before, let me say. Okay, so I feel like it’s harmful to my eyes.” (Male, 40 years)

Safety practices

Under this main theme, three (3) main sub-themes emerged that explain the safety procedures the farmers employed in applying pesticides. These themes were safety material use (PPE), Safe handling and application practices, and post-exposure management. Concerning the safety material used in pesticide application, farmers commonly counted their ordinary long-sleeved shirts and trousers as protective wear, equating regular clothing with PPE. Only a few used industrial coveralls. They mentioned boots, which were the most PPE they used. They also used coveralls, which included long sleeves and trousers, nose masks, and gloves. After spraying, most farmers stored their work clothes and PPE in the same rooms where they kept pesticides, often under beds or in storerooms, posing a risk of secondary contamination to household members. None reported dedicated cleaning or drying areas for PPE. Some washed their spraying clothes with regular household laundry, while others reused unwashed garments for several applications. Cleaning of sprayers was inconsistent; only a few farmers (3 of 13) rinsed equipment after use, while most left residues inside the tanks until the next spraying cycle. They emphasized that this protective equipment protects them from direct exposure to the pesticide. Participants reported that,

“Yes, we wear long sleeves, boots, and socks.” (female, 66 years)

“I wear overalls, nose mask, and gloves.” (Male, 19 years)

Regarding safe handling and application practices, the farmers described various precautionary measures taken to minimize the risks associated with pesticide application. These strategies were aimed at reducing direct contact with pesticides, preventing accidental exposure, and ensuring safe handling practices. Most farmers reported partial PPE usage, especially boots and gloves, while eye protection was consistently neglected. Younger farmers often mentioned gloves or masks, whereas older farmers relied on improvised clothing, such as long sleeves or pantyhose.

In addition to PPE, the farmers emphasized the importance of handling pesticides with care. This involved carefully mixing/loading and applying chemicals, avoiding spills, and ensuring that pesticide containers were properly sealed and stored. Some farmers also noted that reading product labels and following dosage instructions were essential in preventing excessive exposure. They also reported the practice of partially filling the spraying machine instead of completely loading it. Farmers explained that overfilling the sprayer increased the risk of leakage and spills. Additionally, they also reported adopting the practice of walking backward while spraying to avoid stepping on freshly treated areas and minimize direct contact with pesticide residues. Some farmers reported that:

“Okay, if you are spraying, you have to be spraying and walking backward and not spraying forward” (Female, 32 years).

“So I wear my pantyhose before, wearing multiple layers of clothing and sometimes farm boots as protective measures” (Female, 38 years)

Concerning post-exposure management, participants described various actions taken to mitigate the effects of accidental pesticide exposure. Immediate rinsing with water emerged as the common safe handling and application practice. Farmers explained that when pesticides accidentally spilt on their skin, they quickly washed the affected area with large amounts of water to minimize absorption and irritation. This practice was recognized as an essential first-aid measure, though some participants admitted they did not always have immediate access to clean water in the field. They also reported the use of medicinal plants, particularly the neem tree, as a medication when exposed to pesticides. They also stated that they washed with soap after pesticide exposure to remove any chemical residues left on their skin or clothing. This practice was considered effective in reducing prolonged contact with pesticides and preventing further irritation. Illustrative quotes included,

“If it comes like that, I will use the ‘neem tree’, uh-huh. That same day when it happened, I use the ‘neem tree’, I cooked it, and I drink it.” (Female, 32 years)

“I’m aware that it hurts, so immediately it pours; I rinse with plenty of water.” (Female, 38 years).

Storage and disposal of pesticides

Under this theme, the farmers explain how they store the remaining pesticide and the various ways of discarding it.

For storage practices, the farmers reported different locations for storing their pesticides. Most of them stated they stored it inside their homes, particularly in storerooms or under beds. This was due to concerns about theft, as some farmers feared that leaving pesticides on the farm would result in them being stolen. Others preferred to store them in cartons, possibly to keep them organized and prevent spills. Some also reported storing them on their farms. Some farmers reported that:

“I put it in the room, but not in our bedroom, the store room” (Female, 38 years)

“I put it in the carton, and then I hide it under my storeroom” (Male, 40 years)

With disposal methods, farmers left empty pesticide containers on their farms, either discarding them openly or burying them. This raises concerns about soil contamination and long-term environmental hazards. Some farmers also burnt pesticide containers, which, while reducing waste, could release harmful fumes into the air, posing health risks. However, these practices contradict Ghana EPA guidelines, which prohibit open burning and encourage safe collection and disposal. Farmers’ limited awareness of these rules highlights a gap between policy and practice, emphasizing the need for education on environmentally friendly disposal techniques. Some farmers reported that:

“Okay, sometimes, we keep it in the farm at one place, yeah” (Male, 21 years)

“For the containers I used to pack them. And sometimes we burn them also” (Female, 29 years)

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, several context-specific interventions are proposed to improve pesticide safety among farmers in the Hohoe municipality. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture, in collaboration with the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should institute regular farmer training programs focused on correct pesticide dosage, consistent use of complete Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), especially goggles and respirators, and safe disposal of pesticide containers. These trainings should be delivered in local languages, use practical demonstrations, and be tailored to the literacy levels of farmers to ensure comprehension and adoption.

Furthermore, agrochemical vendors, who are a primary source of advice for farmers, should be trained, certified, and closely monitored to ensure they provide accurate, evidence-based information on pesticide application. Vendor regulation would reduce misinformation and the unsafe recommendations that currently shape farmers’ practices.

Moreover, local assemblies should establish community collection points for empty pesticide containers and enforce Ghana EPA regulations that prohibit unsafe practices such as burning or discarding containers on farms. Public awareness campaigns in farming communities can further reinforce safe disposal practices and reduce environmental contamination.

Finally, interventions should address socio-cultural and economic realities in Hohoe. This includes engaging both male and female farmers in training programs, providing subsidized PPE to overcome cost barriers, and strengthening links with local health facilities for routine health monitoring of farmers exposed to pesticides.