https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6352-5275
Figures
Abstract
Farmers face higher health risks due to constant exposure to environmental and occupational hazards. Prolonged sun exposure increases the risk of UV-related eye damage (e.g., cataracts and pterygium), and frequent contact with dust, pesticides, and airborne debris can lead to chronic eye irritation, infections, and long-term vision problems. The physical demands of farm work, along with limited access to protective eyewear and healthcare, further compound these risks, and make eye health a significant concern in agricultural communities. This cross-sectional study examines the prevalence of eye ailments among farmers, exploring the environmental, occupational, and demographic factors contributing to these conditions. Data were collected from 893 participants and analyzed using a descriptive-correlational methodology to identify associations affecting farmers’ eye health. Individuals whose primary or secondary profession is agriculture reported a greater impact of climate on their eye health (p=0.003), while farmers experienced a more significant effect of agricultural activities on their vision (p=0.007), despite being more likely to use protective equipment. However, no meaningful correlation was found between farming and the prevalence of specific eye illnesses. These findings emphasize that farmers are particularly vulnerable to environmental and occupational factors that negatively impact the daily eye health. Despite their increased use of protective equipment, they still reported significant effects from climate conditions and agricultural activities. This suggests that current protective measures may be insufficient or. inconsistently used. While no direct correlation was found between farming and ipecific eye illnesses, the cumulative impact of environmental exposure on vision health remains a concern. Hence, there is a need for improved protective strategies, increased access to eye care, and targeted interventions to mitigate the occupational risks faced by farmers.
Citation: Alawneh A, Fraiwan M, Almomani F (2025) Eye health in farmers: The impact of environmental and occupational factors. PLoS One 20(12): e0337944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337944
Editor: Biswajit Pal, West Bengal State University, INDIA
Received: June 25, 2025; Accepted: November 15, 2025; Published: December 5, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Alawneh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Farming activities entail the cultivation of crops and the raising of livestock for food, fiber, and other agricultural products. Farmers are uniquely vulnerable to eye diseases due to their constant exposure to UV radiation [1,2], airborne particulates, pesticides [3], and mechanical hazards . They are disproportionately exposed to environmental and occupational hazards that elevate their risk of developing eye diseases [4]. These risks are compounded by limited protective measures, inadequate healthcare access, and environmental extremes [5]. Extreme weather conditions further compound the risks faced by farmers. High temperatures and prolonged sun exposure contribute to corneal dehydration, intensifying symptoms of dry eye, while cold temperatures and strong winds can lead to excessive tearing and corneal sensitivity [6,7]. Seasonal changes, particularly in regions with significant temperature fluctuations [8], exacerbate ocular discomfort and increase the likelihood of developing long-term eye conditions [9].
Farmers experience prolonged exposure to UV radiation, which has been linked to conditions such as cataracts, pterygium, and photokeratitis [10]. UV rays cause oxidative damage to the lens and cornea, accelerating the formation of cataracts, a leading cause of blindness worldwide [11]. Additionally, wind, dust, and dry air exacerbate ocular surface conditions like dry eye syndrome and chronic conjunctivitis, particularly in arid and semi-arid farming regions [12]. Seasonal variations, including extreme temperatures, further contribute to corneal irritation and inflammation. Farmers working in highly reflective environments, such as sandy or snow-covered fields, face an even higher risk of developing photokeratitis, a painful condition often described as sunburn of the eye. Although UV-blocking sunglasses or protective eyewear can mitigate these effects, many farmers do not use them regularly due to discomfort, cost, or lack of awareness [13].
Agricultural workers frequently handle pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, many of which contain toxic chemicals that are harmful to ocular tissues. Exposure to organophosphates and carbamates has been associated with optic neuropathy, retinal damage, and corneal burns [14]. Studies indicate that pesticide exposure significantly increases the risk of chronic eye irritation, uveitis, and retinal degeneration [15]. Furthermore, airborne irritants such as dust, smoke, and plant debris cause allergic conjunctivitis, corneal abrasions, and chronic eye infections [16]. Farmers who operate machinery or work near plowing fields are at heightened risk due to the high concentration of airborne debris. Corneal irritation and inflammation are common consequences, as small dust particles can cause micro-abrasions that, if left untreated, may lead to infection or long-term damage [17].
Despite the recognized risks, many farmers either lack access to protective eyewear or do not use it consistently due to discomfort, cost, or lack of awareness [13]. Studies have shown that even when protective measures are available, farmers underutilize them, leading to sustained exposure to hazardous conditions [18]. Moreover, access to healthcare remains another significant challenge for farmers. Many work in remote or rural areas where eye care services are scarce, leading to delayed diagnoses and treatment of ocular conditions. Financial limitations further prevent regular eye check-ups, and the lack of specialized ophthalmological services in rural settings means that many farmers endure vision problems without timely medical intervention. As a result, minor eye conditions often progress into more severe impairments, ultimately affecting their quality of life and productivity.
Materials and methods
Ethical approval declarations
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of King Abdullah University Hospital and the Deanship of Research, at Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan (Ref. 99/301/2024 Date 30/11/2024). Written informed consent was collected from all participants before they completed the questionnaire.
Design
This study employed a cross-sectional design with a descriptive-correlational methodology to investigate the prevalence and risk factors associated with eye health as a result of practicing farming.
Participants
Participants were randomly recruited from the local community between December 15, 2024, and April 15, 2025. It included a representative sample of farmers, casual farmers and non-farmers. To determine the necessary sample size, a power analysis was conducted using the Cochran’s formula for finite populations, see Eq 1. Thus, the necessary sample size for a population of 350,000 (i.e., number of individual associated with agriculture in Jordan [19]) with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error is approximately 384 respondents.
Where:
N = 350,000 (population size)
Z = 1.96 (Z-score for 95% confidence level)
p = 0.5 (proportion, set to 0.5 for maximum variability)
e = 0.05 (margin of error, 5%)
Procedure
The questionnaire gathered socio-demographic data, including whether they identify themselves as agricultural workers (primary or secondary) or not, age, gender, income, and educational level, as well as work-related details such as income, work sector, nature of work (office vs field), number of working days per week, and time of work (night or day). It also investigated factors potentially correlated with eye diseases in farmers, which included frequency of visits to an eye doctor and prior knowledge of climate change effects. The study involved four outcome variables, including the effect of the environmental/weather factors on eye health, having an eye illness, effect of agricultural activities on eye health, and the use of protective equipment. These factors were calculated based on several questions as shown in Table 1.
In the survey, some questions had four response levels, while others had three. During the statistical analysis, a decision was made to reduce the number of levels for certain questions in cases where either “sometimes” or “rarely” had very few responses. To ensure sufficient statistical power, these two intermediate categories were merged, and this adjustment was accounted for in the analysis. This modification affected four questions related to eye illnesses presented in Table 6, all of which showed insignificant or very weak associations with being a farmer. It is important to note that participants were generally able to distinguish between “sometimes” and “rarely” in the context of agricultural activities. Specifically, “rarely” referred to occurrences happening only a few times during an agricultural season (e.g., once or twice when performing tasks such as digging or pruning), whereas “sometimes” described problems that occurred more regularly but not consistently (e.g., several times during the season, though not every time the task was performed). While participants’ interpretations may naturally vary, including both categories helped capture meaningful differences in the frequency of eye-related issues during agricultural work.
Data processing and statistical analyses
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS statistical software statistical summaries were generated for the dependent variable and key factors. For independent categorical variables, a chi-square test was used to compare frequencies between two groups, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied for variables with more than two groups. Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test was then used to interpret significant differences (i.e., p<0.05). Four outcome variable were studied; the effect of the environment on farmers’ eye health, having eye illness, effect of agricultural activities on eye health, and whether the subject uses sunglasses and eye protection. The statistical methods required that these outcome variable are normally distributed, which was verified using quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot, as shown in Figs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Once the significant predictors were identified for each outcome variable, multiple linear regression was conducted to generate more robust findings by evaluating the unique contribution of each factor while controlling for the influence of others. Both standardized and unstandardized coefficients of the fitted models were reported to aid interpretation. Multicollinearity among predictors was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF), which is the reciprocal of tolerance. According to the literature, a VIF of 1 indicates no multicollinearity, values between 5 and 10 suggest potential concerns, and values above 10 reflect serious multicollinearity problems [20].
Results
Table 2 presents demographic and occupational characteristics of the sample population (N = 893) based on their primary or secondary engagement in agriculture or non-farming status. Males (43.7%) are more likely to have agriculture as their main profession (63.1%), whereas females (56.3%) are more prevalent among those who are not farmers (68.8%). The largest age group is 18-23 years (47.0%), with most of them not being farmers (56.0%). The majority earn less than 500 JOD (45.4%), while only 2.9% earn more than 2001 JOD. Most respondents visit an eye doctor every five years (44.2%), while 3.6% go monthly, and 7.8% never visited one. Education levels are high, with 67.7% holding a bachelor’s degree, while only 2.4% have a basic education. Government employment (58.8%) is more common than private sector work (41.2%). A majority work five days a week (41.7%), with 13.5% working daily. Most (76.9%) work during the day, while only 4.8% work exclusively in the evening. Climate change awareness is high (66.3%), though 23% are uncertain, and 10.8% are unaware of it.
Table 3 summarizes the association between environmental/weather factors and eye health across professional groups in agriculture. Significant effects were observed for rising temperatures (=13.789, p=0.008), where non-farmers reported more symptoms than farmers, and for rainfall (
=30.235, p=0.000), with non-farmers more often reporting no symptoms. Dusty weather also showed a significant association (
=10.141, p=0.038). By contrast, wind (
=6.740, p=0.150) and sunlight (
=9.241, p=0.055) were not significantly linked to symptoms, while cold weather showed only borderline significance (
=12.585, p=0.050). The analysis shows that dryness, rainfall, and heat emerged as the most impactful environmental factors, with differences between farmers and non-farmers suggesting variation in exposure or adaptation.
**: statistically significant with p < .01.
Multiple linear regression was used to test if the environmental factors effect on eye health was explained by the significant variables in Table 3. The regression was statistically significant (R2 = 0.905, F(4,890) = 1691.116, p < 0.001), see Tables 4 and 5. This indicates that the variables explain 90.5% of the variance in the outcome variable. Furthermore, Multicollinearity among the variables was assessed using the VIF. All VIF values were between 1 and 1.51, which indicates a high level of acceptability.
a Predictors are the significant factors in Table 3.
Dependent variable is the effect of the environmental factors on eye health. Predictors same as Table 4.
Table 6 presents the distribution of eye-related problems across professional groups. Most conditions, including dry eyes, burning eyes, blurred vision, itchy eyes, and sensitivity to light, showed no significant association with profession. In contrast, significant differences were observed for red eyes (=22.687, p=.001), pimples inside the eyes (
=35.629, p=.000), difficulty seeing at night (
=14.581, p=.024), headaches (
=10.694, p=.030), severe eye pain (
=14.982, p=.020), and lack of tear production (
=22.554, p=.001). These findings suggest that while many common symptoms occur at similar frequencies across professions, certain conditions are more strongly associated with professional background, particularly distinguishing farmers from non-farmers.
: statistically significant with p < .05, **: statistically significant with p < .01.
Multiple linear regression was used to test if having an eye illness was explained by the significant variables in Table 6. The overall regression was statistically significant (R2 = 0.878, F(6, 889) = 1062.289, p < 0.001), see Tables 7 and 8. This indicates that the variables are able to explain 87.8% of the variance in the outcome variable. Furthermore, Multicollinearity test among the variables was highly acceptable with all VIF values lying with the range of 1.2 and 1.74.
Dependent variable is having eye illness. Predictors same as Table 7.
Table 9 summarizes the relationship between agricultural activities and eye-related symptoms. Most activities showed no significant differences across professions, with participants generally reporting rare occurrences of eye irritation. Specifically, pollen exposure during fruit picking ((4,432) = 2.438, p = 0.295), soil particles when digging (
(4,432) = 3.530, p = 0.171), pesticide spraying (
(4,432) = 1.187, p = 0.552), and digging-related eye injuries (
(4,432) = 3.263, p = 0.196) showed no significant associations. Fruit-related eye allergies showed a near-significant trend (
(4,432) = 5.960, p = 0.051). By contrast, tree pruning (
(4,432) = 11.994, p = 0.002) and crop watering (
(4,432) = 7.758, p = 0.021) revealed significant differences, with agricultural workers more likely to report eye injuries and non-farmers reporting fewer problems. Overall, the results suggest that while most agricultural activities pose limited eye health risks, specific tasks such as pruning and watering are more strongly linked to eye problems.
: statistically significant with p < .05, **: statistically significant with p < .01
Multiple linear regression was used to test if the effect of agricultural activities on eye health was explained by the significant variables in Table 9. The overall regression was statistically significant (R2 = 0.638, F(2, 432) = 380.441, p < 0.001), see Tables 10 and 11. This indicates that the variables are able to explain 63.8% of the variance in the outcome variable. Furthermore, Multicollinearity test among the variables was highly acceptable with a VIF value of 1.394 for both significant variables.
Dependent variable is effect of agricultural activities on eye health. Predictors same as Table 10.
Table 12 summarizes eyewear and eye protection usage. Prescription glasses were never used by 49.8% of respondents, with no significant differences across professions ((6,893) = 8.780, p = 0.186). Similarly, sunglasses showed no significant variation (
(6,893) = 8.910, p = 0.179), though non-farmers reported slightly higher regular use. Eye protection, however, revealed significant differences: 53.9% reported never using it, with the highest rate among non-farmers (61.4%) (
(6,893) = 28.139, p = 0.000). When asked specifically about agricultural practices, 24.8% never used protection, with agricultural workers showing the highest non-use (27.4%), while non-farmers reported more frequent use (
(6,432) = 14.319, p = 0.003). Overall, while prescription glasses and sunglasses use do not differ by profession, agricultural workers are less likely to use protective equipment, highlighting the need for greater awareness and adoption of safety measures.
N=893 except for the last question, N=432. **: statistically significant with p < .01.
Multiple linear regression was used to test if the use of protective equipment was explained by the significant variables in Table 12. The overall regression was statistically significant (R2 = 0.712, F(2, 432) = 534.528, p < 0.001), see Tables 13 and 14. This indicates that the variables are able to explain 71.2% of the variance in the outcome variable. Furthermore, Multicollinearity test among the variables was highly acceptable with a VIF value of 1.017 for both significant variables.
a Predictors: (Constant), Time you work, I visit an eye doctor every, Income, Gender, Age, Nature of work, Work sector, Number of working days per week, Educational level.
Dependent variable is use of protective equipment. Predictors same as Table 13.
Table 15 presents one-way ANOVA results on eye health-related variables across professions. Each variable was generated using the sum of answers to the questions in the corresponding table. Farmers, particularly those with agriculture as their main job, reported stronger perceptions of climate and agricultural work affecting their eye health and higher use of protective equipment. Weather impact differed significantly (F(2,890) = 5.916, p = 0.003), with main-profession farmers reporting the highest mean (2.20), followed by secondary farmers (2.12) and non-farmers (2.03). Perceptions of overall eye health issues were slightly higher among farmers (main = 2.05, secondary = 1.98) than non-farmers (1.92), though not significant (F(2,890) = 2.849, p = 0.058). Agricultural work’s impact on eye health was significant (F(1,430) = 7.400, p = 0.007), with main-profession farmers (2.07) reporting greater effects than secondary farmers (1.91). Eye protection use also differed significantly (F(1,430) = 5.041, p = 0.025), with main-profession farmers (2.40) more likely to adopt protection than secondary farmers (2.22).
: statistically significant with p < .05, **: statistically significant with p <.01.
Table 16 shows the LSD pair-wise comparisons. The table reveals that the difference between the “primarily a farmer” group and the “secondary farmers” group is not statistically significant, with a mean difference of 0.07979, while a statistically significant difference exists between “primarily a farmer” and “not a farmer” groups (mean difference = 0.16952), indicating that those whose main profession is farming suffer a greater impact on eye health. Comparisons between “secondary farmers” and “not a farmer” also show a small mean difference of 0.08972, and it is statistically significant. Overall, the results suggest that those in primary/secondary agricultural roles are more concerned about eye health than non-farmers, while the differences between primarily farming professionals and secondary farmers are less pronounced.
**: statistically significant difference with p<.01
Discussion and conclusion
Studying the effect of weather/climate conditions and farming activities on farmers’ eye health is important due to the variety of risks posed by environmental and occupational factors, which are exacerbated by changing climatic conditions. Increased ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a consequence of ozone layer depletion and climate change, heightens the risk of cataracts, pterygium, and photokeratitis among farmers who spend prolonged hours outdoors [21,22]. Furthermore, farming activities such as plowing and harvesting generate dust and particulate matter, which can cause chronic eye irritation, conjunctivitis, and dry eye syndrome, with climate change intensifying these risks through more frequent droughts and dust storms [23]. Exposure to agricultural chemicals like pesticides and herbicides further compounds the problem, leading to chemical burns and ocular surface disorders, with climate change potentially altering the dispersal and volatility of these substances [24]. Rising temperatures also contribute to heat stress, reducing tear production and exacerbating dry eye disease, particularly among farmers working in hot environments [25]. Moreover, climate change influences the spread of vector-borne diseases such as trachoma, a leading cause of preventable blindness, particularly in rural farming communities [26]. The economic and social implications of poor eye health among farmers are significant, as vision impairment can reduce productivity, increase healthcare costs, and threaten food security, especially in developing regions with limited access to eye care [27]. Addressing these challenges requires adaptive strategies, including protective eyewear, improved farming practices, and community-based health education, to mitigate the compounded effects of climate change and occupational hazards on farmers’ eye health [28].
The present findings that primary farmers reported significantly higher eye problems in cold, rainy, and dusty weather highlight the unique occupational vulnerabilities of individuals whose main livelihood depends on farming. Cold weather can destabilize the tear film, lower ambient humidity, and expose farmers to wind, thereby exacerbating symptoms such as ocular dryness, irritation, and discomfort, as confirmed by studies showing that cold weather is a common aggravating factor in dry eye conditions [29]. Rainy or wet weather, while increasing humidity, creates favorable conditions for microbial growth and facilitates the entry of soil, debris, and infectious agents into the eye, predisposing to conjunctivitis, fungal keratitis, and other ocular infections, which have been reported to rise during monsoon or wet seasons [30]. Dust exposure represents one of the most documented occupational hazards for farmers, as organic and inorganic dust particles mechanically irritate the conjunctiva and cornea; consistent with this, a Norwegian study demonstrated higher rates of eye irritation during dusty agricultural tasks such as grain handling and livestock feeding [31]. Taken together, the elevated mean scores among primary farmers reflect both greater duration and intensity of exposure to environmental stressors and the lack of widespread use of protective equipment in these communities.
The higher perception of eye illness symptoms such as red eyes and pain, pimples inside the eyes, headaches, and lack of tear production among primary farmers compared to secondary farmers and non-farmers indicate the cumulative effect of prolonged and direct agricultural exposure on ocular health. Red eyes and ocular pain often reflect conjunctival or corneal inflammation, which can arise from chronic exposure to dust, pesticides, ultraviolet radiation, and other irritants common in farming environments. The occurrence of “pimples inside eyes,” likely referring to chalazia or styes, is consistent with blocked meibomian glands or recurrent bacterial infections, conditions that are more prevalent in environments with poor hygiene and continuous exposure to organic dust [32]. Headaches, on the other hand, may be secondary to uncorrected refractive errors exacerbated by eye strain, or linked to ocular surface irritation from constant environmental stressors [33]. The lack of tear production is indicative of dry eye disease, a condition strongly associated with chronic outdoor work, excessive UV exposure, and wind, as documented in rural populations where farming is a dominant occupation [34].
Agricultural workers engaged in diverse tasks such as picking fruit and pollen exposure, digging and soil contact, handling pesticides, pruning vegetation, and watering crops are subject to multiple overlapping risk factors for ocular irritation, allergic reactions, and more serious eye injuries. Pollen and airborne soil or dust from digging can trigger allergic conjunctivitis, mechanical irritation and foreign body entry into the eye; pruning and brushing against branches increase risk of abrasion or penetrating trauma. Pesticide use compounds this by introducing chemical irritants and toxins that stimulate symptoms such as burning, watering, redness, and possibly contribute to long-term damage such as retinal degeneration. Empirical studies support these associations. For example, farmers in Thailand reported high rates of itchy eyes, burning and conjunctivitis linked with pesticide exposure (26.3%) when using insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides [35]. In Ghana, watermelon farmers similarly reported burning sensation and watering of eyes as common health risk symptoms in relation to pesticide use and lack of protective equipment [5]. An Indian study across two states found that agricultural tasks such as weed removal, harvesting, and pesticide spraying were associated with ocular morbidities and foreign body injuries, and that the use of safety eyewear improved comfort and reduced exposure to hazards including dust and flying particles [36]. Thus, when comparing primary farmers, who perform these tasks more intensively, to secondary or non-farmers, it is plausible and supported by the literature that primary farmers show higher mean scores for eye illness symptoms.
The last variable, use of eye protective equipment, assessed both general use and use specifically during agricultural activities. Results show that farmers are more inclined to wear protective equipment compared to non-farmers, both in general and while practicing agriculture. This not only highlights a positive trend toward preventive behavior among farmers but also reinforces the quality and reliability of the self-reported data, as the pattern aligns with the higher exposure risks identified in this group. Furthermore, evidence from different regions shows that farmers are generally more inclined to use eye protection, especially when engaged in high-risk agricultural tasks, which supports the reliability of our data. For instance, intervention studies among citrus harvesters in Florida demonstrated that providing well-designed protective eyewear and peer support increased usage from less than 2% to nearly 37% across seasons [37], while similar findings in India confirmed that refractive safety eyewear improved comfort, reduced dust exposure, and lowered ocular morbidity among farmers [17,38]. Nonetheless, despite these benefits, barriers such as discomfort, poor fit, or lack of awareness remain common, leading to inconsistent use [38]. A two-state study in India further emphasized that agriculture workers face high risks of ocular injury but often underutilize protective equipment [36]. Similarly, Latino farmworkers in North Carolina reported very low baseline use (8.3%), but usage increased when employers mandated or supplied protective gear [39].
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample included a disproportionate number of farmers compared to other occupational groups. While this reflects the demographic reality of the study community, where farming, whether as a primary or secondary activity, is common, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations with different occupational distributions and subsequently affect the validity of the statistical analysis. Second, a substantial proportion of participants engaged in farming as a secondary profession while their primary occupation was in government or office-based work. Because these primary professions were not systematically stratified in the analysis, potential confounding cannot be excluded, particularly since occupational exposures in the primary profession may have contributed to health outcomes independent of farming. Third, some of the conditions discussed, such as dry eye, require clinical evaluation and formal diagnostic criteria for confirmation. In this study, no clinical diagnoses were performed; rather, symptoms were self-reported. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and future studies employing clinical assessment are warranted to validate these observations.
Despite these limitations, the study draws attention to an important but often overlooked issue: the eye health of farmers in rural communities, particularly in regions with limited healthcare infrastructure, minimal use of protective measures, and little prior research. Paying closer attention to the occupational health of farmers in such settings is critical, as they are disproportionately exposed to environmental and occupational hazards yet receive less medical care and protective guidance. Addressing this gap not only strengthens public health initiatives in under-studied populations but also supports the development of targeted interventions (e.g., education on protective equipment use, and improved healthcare access) that can significantly reduce preventable eye problems among agricultural workers.
Given the perceived impact of farming on eye health, several recommendations can help mitigate risks and promote protective measures. Increasing awareness of climate-related eye health risks is not a luxury. Farmers should be educated through awareness campaigns about the harmful effects of prolonged sun exposure, airborne pollutants, and agricultural chemicals. Moreover, enhancing the use of protective eyewear is important since studies in the literature have shown that proper eye protection can reduce the incidence of work-related eye injuries [40]. Policies should mandate the use of safety goggles, wrap-around sunglasses, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling soil, pesticides, and crops. Reducing exposure to agricultural hazards can further minimize eye health risks, as studies have shown that pesticide exposure significantly increases the likelihood of ocular toxicity and irritation [14]. This brings into the fore the need for farmers to wear masks and goggles during activities such as spraying pesticides or pruning trees. Regular eye examinations should also be promoted to detect and address vision problems early, particularly among agricultural workers frequently exposed to dust and chemicals, as occupational exposure to particulate matter has been associated with increased eye health complications [36]. Healthcare providers and governments should facilitate mobile eye clinics in rural farming communities to ensure accessible checkups. Improving agricultural safety training programs is another vital strategy, as structured training significantly enhances compliance with eye protection recommendations [41]. Farmers should be educated on safe handling techniques for chemicals and soil to minimize direct contact with hazardous materials. Furthermore, encouraging the adoption of safer farming practices through mechanization and precision agriculture can help reduce direct exposure to harmful elements, as modernized techniques lower the risk of eye injuries by limiting manual interactions with dust and chemicals [17].
Policymakers should support farmers in transitioning to these safer technologies through subsidies or training programs. Alternatives such as organic and nature-based farming systems offer viable pathways to minimize chemical dependency while maintaining soil fertility and crop yield [42]. Similarly, integrated pest management and the use of biopesticides, derived from natural organisms or substances, can effectively control pests with lower ecological and health impacts [43,44]. Encouraging the adoption of these practices through awareness campaigns, training programs, and policy support may help safeguard both farmer well-being and environmental sustainability.
Supporting information
S1 File. Research data.
The clean anonymized data entered by the respondents.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337944.s001
(XLSX)
References
- 1. Schmid-Kubista KE, Kellner L, Maier H, Felke S, Wanka A, El Modeir A, et al. Effect of work-related ultraviolet exposure and ophthalmic changes in Austrian farmers: the SVB-UV study. Ophthalmic Res. 2010;43(4):201–7. pmid:20068373
- 2. Kurniyawan EH, Junanda AI. Ultraviolet lights effect on farmer health and productivity: literature review. Nursing and Health Sciences Journal. 2023;3(1):24–31.
- 3. Montgomery MP, Postel E, Umbach DM, Richards M, Watson M, Blair A, et al. Pesticide use and age-related macular degeneration in the agricultural health study. Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125(7):077013. pmid:28886597
- 4. Chitra GA, Muraleedharan VR, Swaminathan T, Veeraraghavan D. Use of pesticides and its impact on health of farmers in South India. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2006;12(3):228–33. pmid:16967829
- 5. Miyittah MK, Kwadzo M, Gyamfua AP, Dodor DE. Health risk factors associated with pesticide use by watermelon farmers in Central region, Ghana. Environ Syst Res. 2020;9(1).
- 6. Hirata H, Meng ID. Cold-sensitive corneal afferents respond to a variety of ocular stimuli central to tear production: implications for dry eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(8):3969–76. pmid:20335617
- 7. Kirrane EF, Hoppin JA, Kamel F, Umbach DM, Boyes WK, Deroos AJ, et al. Retinal degeneration and other eye disorders in wives of farmer pesticide applicators enrolled in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(11):1020–9. pmid:15901622
- 8. Oddone E, Taino G, Vita S, Schimd M, Frigerio F, Imbriani M. Macular degeneration: peculiar sunlight exposure in an agricultural worker. Med Lav. 2019;110(3):241–5. pmid:31268431
- 9. Parra A, Madrid R, Echevarria D, del Olmo S, Morenilla-Palao C, Acosta MC, et al. Ocular surface wetness is regulated by TRPM8-dependent cold thermoreceptors of the cornea. Nat Med. 2010;16(12):1396–9. pmid:21076394
- 10. Yam JCS, Kwok AKH. Ultraviolet light and ocular diseases. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34(2):383–400. pmid:23722672
- 11.
World Health Organization. Vision impairment and blindness. 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment
- 12. Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, Jalbert I, Lekhanont K, Malet F, et al. TFOS DEWS II epidemiology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334–65. pmid:28736337
- 13. Pandiyan A, Lari S, Vanka J, Gavaravarapu SM, Jee B, Jonnalagadda PR. Knowledge, attitude and practices related to pesticide usage among farmers: findings from a hospital based cross-sectional study. Work. 2023;76(3):1061–70. pmid:37248931
- 14. Jaga K, Dharmani C. Ocular toxicity from pesticide exposure: a recent review. Environ Health Prev Med. 2006;11(3):102–7. pmid:21432383
- 15. Kamel F, Hoppin JA. Association of pesticide exposure with neurologic dysfunction and disease. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(9):950–8. pmid:15198914
- 16.
Cosmin. How the environment can affect your vision and eye health. 2022. https://www.valleyvisionclinic.com/how-the-environment-can-affect-your-eyes-2022/
- 17. Chatterjee S, Agrawal D. Primary prevention of ocular injury in agricultural workers with safety eyewear. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017;65(9):859–64. pmid:28905831
- 18. Gangemi S, Gofita E, Costa C, Teodoro M, Briguglio G, Nikitovic D, et al. Occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides and cytokine pathways in chronic diseases (Review). Int J Mol Med. 2016;38(4):1012–20. pmid:27600395
- 19.
Economic Indicators | List By Country. https://tradingeconomics.com/countries
- 20. Johnston R, Jones K, Manley D. Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1957–76. pmid:29937587
- 21. Taylor HR. Ultraviolet radiation and the eye: an epidemiologic study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1989;87:802–53. pmid:2562534
- 22. Nunomura CY, Sousa SJ de FE. Ultraviolet radiation and the human eye. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2022;86(6):e2021-0354. pmid:36169437
- 23. Wolkoff P. Indoor air humidity, air quality, and health - An overview. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018;221(3):376–90. pmid:29398406
- 24. Zúñiga-Venegas LA, Hyland C, Muñoz-Quezada MT, Quirós-Alcalá L, Butinof M, Buralli R, et al. Health effects of pesticide exposure in Latin American and the Caribbean populations: a scoping review. Environ Health Perspect. 2022;130(9):96002. pmid:36173136
- 25. Shao Y, Wu J, Wu P, Liu X, Shen J, Zhang L, et al. Emphasis on heat strain to the ocular surface: a functional and clinical study of a modified goggle. Front Public Health. 2022;10:955443. pmid:35983364
- 26. Campbell-Lendrum D, Manga L, Bagayoko M, Sommerfeld J. Climate change and vector-borne diseases: what are the implications for public health research and policy?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1665):20130552. pmid:25688013
- 27. Frick KD, Joy SM, Wilson DA, Naidoo KS, Holden BA. The global burden of potential productivity loss from uncorrected presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1706–10. pmid:26190438
- 28. Kjellstrom T, Briggs D, Freyberg C, Lemke B, Otto M, Hyatt O. Heat, human performance, and occupational health: a key issue for the assessment of global climate change impacts. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:97–112. pmid:26989826
- 29. Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K, et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):539–74. pmid:28736342
- 30. Satpathy G, Ahmed NH, Nayak N, Tandon R, Sharma N, Agarwal T, et al. Spectrum of mycotic keratitis in north India: Sixteen years study from a tertiary care ophthalmic centre. J Infect Public Health. 2019;12(3):367–71. pmid:30600158
- 31. Eduard W, Douwes J, Mehl R, Heederik D, Melbostad E. Short term exposure to airborne microbial agents during farm work: exposure-response relations with eye and respiratory symptoms. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(2):113–8. pmid:11160989
- 32. Sheppard JD, Nichols KK. Dry eye disease associated with meibomian gland dysfunction: focus on tear film characteristics and the therapeutic landscape. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(3):1397–418. pmid:36856980
- 33. Ismail OM, Poole ZB, Bierly SL, Van Buren ED, Lin F-C, Meyer JJ, et al. Association between dry eye disease and migraine headaches in a large population-based study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(5):532–6. pmid:30844042
- 34. Shah S, Jani H. Prevalence and associated factors of dry eye: our experience in patients above 40 years of age at a Tertiary Care Center. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(3):151.
- 35. Sapbamrer R, Sittitoon N, Thongtip S, Chaipin E, Sutalangka C, Chaiut W, et al. Acute health symptoms related to perception and practice of pesticides use among farmers from all regions of Thailand. Front Public Health. 2024;11:1296082. pmid:38259756
- 36. Janani S, Krithica S, Saranya SB, Lakshmi S, Nivethikka RMR, Shefali JJ, et al. Occupational hazards, associated ocular morbidities and impact of refractive safety eyewear among agriculture workers in india - a two state study. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2024;28(3):182–8. pmid:39618898
- 37. Monaghan PF, Bryant CA, McDermott RJ, Forst LS, Luque JS, Contreras RB. Adoption of safety eyewear among citrus harvesters in rural Florida. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14(3):460–6. pmid:21643727
- 38. Madheswaran G, Eshwari K, Jathanna JS, Ibrahim S, Srinivasan K, Shinde L, et al. Facilitators and barriers to protective eyewear acceptance among Indian farmers: a qualitative studyf Judith. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):479. pmid:39910634
- 39. Verma A, Schulz MR, Quandt SA, Robinson EN, Grzywacz JG, Chen H, et al. Eye health and safety among Latino farmworkers. J Agromedicine. 2011;16(2):143–52. pmid:21462026
- 40. de-Assis MP, Barcella RC, Padilha JC, Pohl HH, Krug SBF. Health problems in agricultural workers occupationally exposed to pesticides. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2021;18(3):352–63. pmid:33597986
- 41. Kearney GD, Xu X, Balanay JAG, Allen DL, Rafferty AP. Assessment of personal protective equipment use among farmers in eastern North Carolina: a cross-sectional study. J Agromedicine. 2015;20(1):43–54. pmid:25635742
- 42. Benbrook C, Kegley S, Baker B. Organic farming lessens reliance on pesticides and promotes public health by lowering dietary risks. Agronomy. 2021;11(7):1266.
- 43. Daraban GM, Hlihor R-M, Suteu D. Pesticides vs. biopesticides: from pest management to toxicity and impacts on the environment and human health. Toxics. 2023;11(12):983. pmid:38133384
- 44. Ayilara MS, Adeleke BS, Akinola SA, Fayose CA, Adeyemi UT, Gbadegesin LA, et al. Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: a case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1040901. pmid:36876068