Content uploaded by Mohammed Sadick
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammed Sadick on Oct 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
ISSN: 2186-8662 – www.isdsnet.com/ijds
Volume 4 Number 10 (2015): Pages 977-987
ISDS Article ID: IJDS15042201
Effect of farmers’ attitude, usage pattern
and handling of pesticides on potable
water quality in northern Ghana
Alyu Abdulahi 1, Kwasi Obiri-Danso 1, Sadick Mohammed 2*
1 Department of Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
2 Faculty of Agribusiness and Communication Sciences, University for Development Studies, Nyankpala Campus
Abstract
The study assessed smallholder cotton farmers’ attitude, usage pattern and handling practices of pesticides in the
Savelugu-Nanton Municipality. The study identified the most used type of pesticides in the area and their residue
levels in drinking water bodies. Farmers’ attitude and handling practices of these pesticides were also established.
The study sampled 100 farmers across 20 communities in four zones within the Municipality. Water samples from
twelve (12) boreholes and four (4) hand dug wells from these communities were analyzed for traces of pesticides
used by the cotton farmers. The study found that though Cypermethrin, Acetameprid, Flubendiamide, Profenos, Beta-
cyfluthrin, Imidacloprid and Chlorpyrifos were detected in water samples across most zones, Cyhalothrin was the
highest in western and northern zones (WZ=1.74µg/L and NZ=1.70µg/L) and exceeded the Ghana Standard
Authority (GSA) maximum limits of 0.5µg/L and 0.1µg/L acceptable limit of the European Economic Commission
Standard for drinking water. The study also found poor attitude of farmers in the usage, storage and disposal of
pesticides by cotton farmers in the Municipality. The study therefore recommended that Government should give
regulatory approval and promote the production of Bt cotton among famers to reduce the amount of pesticides used
by cotton farmers in Ghana.
Keywords: Cotton, Pesticides, Residue Level, Drinking Water Quality; Farmer Health
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: msadick@yahoo.com
Published by ISDS LLC, Japan | Copyright © 2015 by the Author(s) | This is an open access article distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Cite this article as: Abdulahi, A., Obiri-Danso, K. and Mohammed, S. (2015), “Effect of farmers’ attitude, usage pattern and
handling of pesticides on potable water quality in northern Ghana”, International Journal of Development and Sustainability,
Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 977-987.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
978 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
1. Introduction
Cotton is the world’s most important non-food agricultural commodity, yet it is responsible for the release of
numerous chemical insecticides each year, of which more than 50 percent are considered toxic and
hazardous by the World Health Organization (Environmental Justice Foundation, 2007). Cotton is seen as one
crop that can be used to fight poverty in resource poor communities in developing countries. Predominantly
members of the rural poor, cultivate cotton on plots of less than one-half hectare, or on part of their farms, as
a means of supplementing their income. In Ghana, cotton is a cash crop and income earner for farmers in
Northern, Upper West and Upper East regions where poverty is endemic. The potential for these principal
cotton producing regions to increase their output are undermined by voracious seasonal attacks of their
cotton fields by insect pests and diseases as well as unfavorable policy environment, poor sector organization,
lack of professionalism of stakeholders, and weak cotton farmer organizations. As a result, from a peak of
38,000 tons in 1999, seed cotton production collapsed to 2,500 tons in 2010.
The Government of Ghana attempts to rescue cotton production established three cotton production
zones (North Eastern zone, North Central zone and North Western zone) and entered into transitional
agreements with private companies to replace the role of the parastatal Ghana Cotton Company which at the
time had a monopoly over cotton production. These companies are responsible for the provision of inputs,
purchase of seed cotton, ginning and commercialization of the cotton lint. The major composition of inputs
these companies provide are mainly insecticides, pesticides and fertilizers. This resulted in farmers using
insecticides from different chemical classes to control insect pest on their cotton farms of which the type of
insecticide used is dependent on the region that the farm is located. For instance, Abudulai et al. (2006)
reported that Organochlorine insecticides such as Callisufan and Endosulfan are those commonly used in the
Northern and Upper East Regions whereas farmers in the Upper West Region generally used
Organophosphates such as Dursban (Chlorpyrifos) and Pyrethroids such as karate (Lamda-Cyhalothrin) as
well as insecticide mixtures such as Novabol (profenofos+cypermethrin). Some products have the same
active ingredients but are marketed under different trade names to farmers across the regions (Abudulai et
al., 2006). These insecticides are used either as emulsifiable concentrates (EC) or ultra-low volume (ULV)
concentrations. Majority of farmers in the Northern and Upper West regions applied five (5) sprays while
those in the Upper East region applied four (4) sprays during a season. Control practices in cotton production
generally starts from the vegetative stage and ends at squaring (Abudulai et al., 2006). It is estimated that 80-
90 percent Ghanaian farmers who reside in rural areas are using chemical insecticides or weedicides to
control insect pests, diseases and weeds on their food and cash crop farms beyond cotton (NPASP, 2012).
Hazardous insecticides are applied to cotton grown worldwide but their negative impact on human health
is visited disproportionately upon those living and working in developing countries owing to low levels of
safety awareness together with lack of access to and/or money for protective clothing, poor labelling of
insecticides, unsafe storage and misuse of used containers, illiteracy and chronic poverty exacerbate the
damage caused by cotton insecticides among these low income communities (Palis et al., 2006; Sanfilippo
and Perschau, 2008). Even farmers who are aware of the harmful effects of insecticides are sometimes
unable to translate this awareness into practice (Damalas et al., 2006; Isin and Yildirim, 2007). It is estimated
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 979
that worldwide there are more than 26 million human pesticide poisonings with about 220,000 deaths per
year (Richter, 2002). Human health effects are often caused by 1) Skin contact: handling of pesticide products,
2) Inhalation: breathing of dust or spray and 3) Ingestion: insecticides consumed as a contaminant on/in
food or in water. Farm workers have special risks associated with inhalation and skin contact during
preparation and application of insecticides to crops. However, for the majority of the population, a principal
source is through ingestion of food which is contaminated by insecticides. Degradation of water quality by
pesticide runoff has two principal human health impacts. The first is the consumption of fish and shellfish
that are contaminated by insecticides and that this can be a particular problem for subsistence fish
economies that lie downstream of major agricultural areas. The second is the direct consumption of
pesticide-contaminated water. The pesticide residues exerting serious effects on human health enter the
water supply through leaching from soil into ground water (Anju et al., 2010).
However, pesticides usage is wide spread among resource-poor cotton farmers in the northern part of
Ghana. Extension is not readily available to the cotton farmers, leaving them with no choice but to rely on
traditional forms of farming practices and misapplication of the insecticides which may not be sustainable.
To compound the farmers’ woes, neither insecticides handling practices among these cotton farmers is
properly monitored nor is the type of insecticides used on farmers’ fields are properly regulated. The fact
that surface and ground water is the main source of drinking water in most of these farming communities
give course for concern. The potential health risk associated with miss-handling of these insecticides could
cause Ghana loss of farm-hands and its attendant consequence of low productivity due to ill-health and
deaths that might result from residual chemical poisoning from consumption of toxic chemicals. This paper
therefore assessed cotton farmers’ attitude, usage pattern and handling practices of pesticides and their
residual levels in water bodies close to cotton farms and its health implications in one of the highest cotton
growing districts in Ghana, the Savelugu–Nanton Municipality of Northern region.
2. Materials and methods
The study conducted a preliminary field survey over one month period during the beginning of the cotton
growing season (August -September, 2012) and towards the end of the season (November 2012- January,
2013) to have a general overview of the entire cotton production system in the study area. The Municipality
was then divided into four zones namely; the Northern zone, Southern zone, Eastern and the Western zones.
Five communities were selected from each zone and five cotton farmers interviewed from each of these
communities. In all the study interviewed a total of 100 cotton farmers from 20 selected communities using
questionnaires. The study also collected secondary data from Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
and the cotton companies operating in the Savelugu-Nanton Municipality. Data was collected on types of
insecticides available and use by cotton farmers in the Municipality obtained from farmers and cotton
companies. Data on pesticide handling practices was obtained from farmers using questionnaires and
personal observations from the field survey. Areas critically observed include: attitude to insecticide labels,
storage of insecticides, sources of insecticides commonly used by famers, protective materials, mixture and
quantities, application methods, disposal of empty pesticide containers and dosages used by farmers.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
980 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
Recommended practices for various insecticides were obtained from pesticide labels and cross-referenced
with those conventionally used by farmers. All insecticides were grouped appropriately as weedicides,
herbicides and insecticides. The active ingredient, the target organism and the trade name of each pesticide
used were recorded. An album of common insecticides used by the cotton farmers in the Northern region
was compiled to facilitate the identification process.
The study also identified water bodies which were close to cotton farms and served as sources of drinking
water for residents were selected for the study. Triplicate water samples were collected from sixteen (16)
waterholes consisting of twelve (12) boreholes and four (4) hand dug wells for laboratory analysis. Water
samples were transported to the laboratories of the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) in a cool box with ice
packs to test for the presence and concentration levels of organophosphates and pyrethroids residues in the
water samples. The socio-demographic data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
and Excel spreadsheet.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Age and educational level of cotton farmers
The results showed that majority 78 percent of cotton farmers interviewed were within the age category of
19-60years (Table 1). This implies most of the farmers were in their active working ages, meaning sustained
labour force exist in Savelugu-Nanton Municipality for continuous cotton production. It however, emerged
during the interview that cotton farmers within the age category of 60+ participated in cotton production
activities to have access to agro-inputs such as fertilizers, insecticides and tractor plough services for their
food crop production other than cotton.
Table 1. Age and educational level of cotton farmers
Age range
Number of Farmers (%)
15-18
3
19-60
78
60+
19
Educational Level
No education
79
Basic education
12
Secondary
3
Tertiary
1
Others (Non-formal education)
5
Source: Field Survey Data, January, 2013
Illiteracy rate among cotton farmers in the district was as high as 79 percent and many have never
received any form of formal education (Table 1). This could result in farmers’ inability to read, comprehend
and follow label instructions of various insecticides use.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 981
3.2. Types of pesticides used by cotton farmers
The study revealed that farmers used pesticides from different chemical classes to control insect pest on
cotton in the Municipality (Table 2). Some of the products had the same active ingredients but they were
marketed under different trade names to farmers confirming Abudulai et al. (2006) findings that pesticides
with same active ingredients are marketed under different trade names to farmers in the Northern part of
Ghana. The type of pesticide used was largely dependent on what was provided by the cotton company.
However, there were instances where the cotton companies delayed in delivering pesticides to famers that
resulted in some farmers using pesticides recommended by neighbours and what was readily available on
the market.
Table 2. List of pesticides used by cotton farmers
Trade name
Active ingredient
Category of pesticide
Armada
Lambda Cyhalothrin
Pyrethroids
Dursban
Chlorpyriphos
Organophosphate
Tihan
Flubendiamide/Spirotetramate
Class II
KD 14
Cyhalothrin
Pyrethroids
Chemaprid
Cypermethrin/Acetamiprid
Pyrethroids
Armaphos
Chlorpyrifos
Organophosphate
Pawa
Cyhalothrin
Pyrethroids
Polytheriyn C
Profenos/Cypermethrin
Organophosphate/Pyrethroids
Thunder
Beta-Cyfluthrin/Imidacloprid
Pyrethroids
Source: Field Survey Data, January, 2013
The most used pesticide type was Pyrethroids followed by Organophosphates and pesticides mixtures (Table
2). This finding disagrees with Abudulai et al. (2006) earlier report that Organochlorine insecticides such as
Callisufan and Endosulfan are the most commonly used insecticides in the Northern region. Farmers
however, confirmed that variation in terms of the type of pesticide used by cotton farmers from time to time
is largely determine by the cotton company that contract the farmers to produce cotton for them. Farmers
also reported that some of the pesticides supplied to them by the cotton companies were ineffective against
the insect pest on their fields and as a result, insect pest were not killed several days after spraying. This
could build resistance of insects under field conditions as Abudulai et al. (2006) reported that applying
ineffective and sub-lethal doses of insecticides induce resistance in insect pest on the field. This argument is
also supported by Vassal et al. (1997) and Martin et al. (2000; 2002) findings that the cotton bollworm, H.
armigera acquired resistance to pyrethroids in field populations in Cote d’Ivoire due to application of
ineffective and sub-lethal doses of insecticides on cotton farms.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
982 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
3.3. Pattern of insecticides usage
The results also showed that farmers in the area often apply insecticides very frequently. It was quite
common 88 percent, for farmers to spray insecticides more than three (3) times on a cotton farm in a season
(Table 3). The spray frequency in the area was as high as five (5) times in a season, confirming Abudulai et al.
(2006) report that majority of cotton farmers in the Northern and Upper West regions sprayed five (5) times
in a season. Most 83 percent farmers often sprayed their cotton farms in the first round at the vegetative
stage (between 35-40 days) whiles only 17 percent of farmers indicated that the first round of spraying was
done at the beginning of square formation (between 46-50 days). Though the farmers indicated that the first
round of spraying was to control insect pest that will disturb flower bugs formation, this was contrary to
findings by Greene et al. (2001) that applying insecticides at the vegetative stage is generally unnecessary as
damage at this stage often does not result in economic yield reduction. The pattern of spray practiced by
farmers in the Municipality could unnecessarily build up cost of production and drastic reduction in the
population of natural enemies of insect pest as observed by Salifu (1990); Javid et al. (1998) and Greene et al.
(2001).
Table 3. Pattern of insecticides usage
Type of insecticide
Rounds of Spraying (%)
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Lambda Cyhalothrin
-
-
74
-
-
Chlorpyriphos+
cypermethrin+Acetamiprid
-
-
-
72
61
Cyhalothrin
4
92
-
-
-
Chlorpyrifos
83
-
-
-
-
Profenos + Cypermethrin
-
-
21
-
-
Flubendiamide + Spirotetramate
13
8
-
-
-
Beta-Cyfluthrin+Imidacloprid
-
-
-
16
9
Percentage of farmers in each
round of spraying
100
100
95
88
70
Source: Field Survey Data, January, 2013
3.4. Attitude of cotton farmers in handling pesticides
3.4.1. Selection and Storage practices
The study further revealed that majority 67 percent of farmers in the Municipality placed priority on
availability rather than the correct and appropriate choice of insecticides type for their cotton fields. Similar
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 983
attitude also led to most of the farmers using surplus products on food crops other than cotton without
paying attention to the label, insofar as it is effective. The perception of cotton farmers on the choice of
pesticide is driven by cotton companies who supply insecticides to farmers on credit and therefore dictate
the type of insecticides used by cotton farmers. The results showed (Table 4) that majority of cotton farmers
67 percent, exhibited negative attitude in the storage of pesticides. It was found that farmers either stored
their insecticides under their beds, kitchen or on top of trees on their farms without any warning signs or
lock. This could exposed children and innocent adults or passersby to the harmful effects of the pesticides.
3.4.2. Usage practices
Similarly, with regards to usage practices cotton farmers in the Municipality exhibited high negative attitude
81 percent, in strictly observing usage information guide on the pesticide label which direct farmers to the
best usage practices (Table 4). An inspection of empty pesticides cans revealed that some of the safety usage
information on the labels as spelt out by manufacturers of the various insecticides included, wearing clean
protective cloths, not eating, drinking or smoking whiles applying insecticides, not to allow insecticides to
contact your skin, wash hands with detergents before eating, wash clothes with soap after each spray, not to
stir insecticides with hand and never spray directly into the wind.
Table 4. Attitude of farmers in handling insecticides
Pesticide handling practices
Farmers response
Percentages (%)
Selection of Insecticides
Positive
16
Negative
67
Average
17
Total
100
Storage of Insecticides
Positive
0
Negative
90
Average
4
Not Applicable
6
Total
100
Usage of Insecticides
Positive
4
Negative
81
Average
15
Total
100
Disposal of Insecticides (Empty containers and tank washings)
Positive
0
Negative
85
Average
15
Total
100
Source: Field Survey Data, January, 2013
However, when compared with on-farm usage practices by farmers it revealed that majority 80percent of
the farmers were spraying insecticides without any form of protection, not washing their hands and cloths
with any detergents after spraying and sometimes smoking or chewing cola nuts whiles spraying. This could
exposed farmers to pesticides poisoning through inhalation, ingestion or skin contact as reported by (Yeboah
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
984 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
et al., 2004; Mensah et al., 2004; Ajayi and Akinnifesi, 2007; Mekonnen and Agonafir, 2002; Yassin et al.,
2002). The study further revealed that 41percent of farmers claimed they changed their clothes before and
after pesticide use, however, less than 5percent washed these clothing before using them again. These
contaminated clothing could enhance dermal exposure which could result in systemic poisoning.
3.4.3. Disposal practices
Furthermore, majority 85percent of cotton farmers claimed knowledge of disposal of empty insecticides
containers and other pesticide related waste, but what was described and practiced by farmers were not
appropriate for disposal of empty pesticide containers and other pesticide related waste. These farmers were
found using empty insecticides containers to fetch water, store salt and sugar. Others were found leaving
empty containers on their fields and washing of spray equipment close to water bodies. This could serves as
source of pollution to both surface and underground water sources. This finding confirms earlier report by
FAO (1999) that people often reuse empty plastic or metal pesticide containers as storage for fuel or even
food and water, even though it is usually impossible to remove all traces of chemicals from these containers.
The study further established from close examination of user manuals of some insecticides used by the
farmers (Tihan and Thunder) that pesticide manufacturers recommend that after application, empty
containers should be rinsed at least three times before disposal. Also the user manuals indicated that empty
containers should not be thrown into ponds and or rivers but be destroyed and buried. These recommended
practices by the manufacturers were contrary to the FAO (1999) guidelines on disposal of pesticide
containers that empty pesticide containers should not be buried or burned. The FAO noted that safe, hazard-
free burning techniques required a good understanding of pesticide chemistry while safe pesticide burial
requires knowledge of local hydrology as well as of the environmental behaviour of insecticides, which many
end users do not have given their circumstances.
3.5. Pesticide residue level in drinking water sources closed to cotton fields
The Organophosphates and Pyrethroids pesticide residues were detected at higher concentrations in some of
the water samples analyzed. About 54percent of water samples analyzed recorded mean concentration of
insecticides higher than the GSA maximum residual limits of 0.5µg/L and the European Economic
Commission (EEC directive 98/83/EC) allowable residual limits in drinking water at 0.1µg/L. Cyhalothrin
was detected in water samples from all the four zones with western and northern zones (WZ=1.74µg/L and
NZ=1.70µg/L) being the first and second highest respectively and exceeded the GSA maximum limits of
0.5µg/L. Similar observation was made for Cypermethrin, Acetameprid, Flubendiamide, Profenos, Beta-
cyfluthrin, Imidacloprid and Chlorpyrifos (Table 5). However, while no traces of Beta-cyfluthrin was detected
in the water sample of eastern zone (EZ) that of the water samples of NZ and WZ contained insignificant
traces of Acetameprid and Flubendiamide which were far below both GSA and European Economic
Commission (EEC directive 98/83/EC) allowable residual limits in drinking water.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 985
Table 5. Zonal average insecticides residue level in drinking water sources
Zonal Water Samples
Cyhalothrin
Cypermethrin
Acetameprid
Flubendiamide
Profenos
Beta-cyfluthrin
Imidacloprid
Chlorpyrifos
NZ
1.70*
0.37^
0.08
0.70*
0.34^
0.42^
0.77*
2.11*
EZ
0.47^
0.48^
0.23^
0.62*
1.08*
ND
0.70*
0.97*
WZ
1.74*
0.56*
0.24^
0.07
0.46^
0.30^
0.40^
0.43^
SZ
1.15*
0.26^
0.35^
0.50*
1.10*
0.58*
0.77*
1.67*
Source: Field Survey Data, January, 2013
NZ=northern zone, EZ=eastern zone, WZ=western zone, and SZ=southern zone; ND=not detected
* ≥0.5µg/L Ghana Standard Authority maximum residual limits for drinking water
^ ≥0.1µg/L European Community allowable residual limits in drinking water
4. Conclusion
The study concluded that most water bodies of cotton growing areas in the Municipality are significantly
polluted with insecticides residues, particularly Cyhalothrin. Though different types of insecticides are used
by cotton farmers to control insect pest of cotton in the Municipality Pyrethroids and Organophosphates are
dominant. Some of the insecticides have the same active ingredients but they are traded under different
names leading to multiple applications of such insecticides. Finally, cotton farmers in the Municipality
demonstrate high level of negative attitudes in the handling of insecticides which could trigger serious health
problems in future.
5. Recommendations
The study recommended that farmers should switch to the use of indigenous pest management strategies
which are largely based on botanicals such as neem extracts which have been reported by researchers to be
effective, less harmful to humans and economical in controlling major pest of cotton. Also, Government
should give regulatory approval and promote the production of Bt cotton among famers to reduce the
amount of insecticides used by farmers to control insect pest of cotton. This will also cut down the cost of
production for cotton farmers in the country.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
986 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
References
Abudulai, M., Abatania, L. and Salifu, A.B. (2006), “Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of cotton insect pests
and their control practices in Ghana”, Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 34-40
Ajayi, O.C. and Akinnifesi, F.K. (2007), “Farmers’ understanding of pesticide safety labels and field spraying
practices: a case study of cotton farmers in northern Côte d’Ivoire”, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 2, pp.
204-210.
Alamgir, Z.C., Sanjoy, B., Borhan, U., Mohammed, M., Nurul, K. and Siew, H.G. (2012), “Organophosphorus and
Carbamate Pesticide Residues Detected in Water Samples Collected from Paddy and Vegetable Fields of the
Savar and Dhamrai Upazilas in Bangladesh”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. 3318-3329.
Anju, A., Ravi S.P. and Bechan S. (2010), “Water Pollution with Special Reference to Pesticide Contamination
in India”, Journal of Water Resource and Protection, Vol. 2, pp. 432-448. doi:10.4236/jwarp.2010.25050
Damalas, C.A., Georgiou, E.B. and Theodorou. M.G. (2006), “Pesticide Use and Safety Practices among Greek
Tobacco Farmers: A survey”, International Journal of Environment Health Research, Vol. 16, pp. 339-348.
Environmental Justice Foundation (2007), The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton, Environmental Justice Foundation
in collaboration with Pesticide Action Network, London, UK.
FAO (1999), Guidelines for the management of small quantities of unwanted and obsolete pesticides, FAO
pesticide disposal series 7, Rome, Italy.
Greene, J.K., Turnipseed, S.G., Sullivan, M.J. and May, O.L. (2001), “Treatment thresholds for stink bugs
(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in cotton”, Journal of Economic entomology, Vol. 94, pp. 403-409.
Isin, S. and Yildirim. I. (2007), “Fruit-Growers’ Perceptions on the Harmful Effects of Pesticides and their
Reflection on Practices: The Case of Kemalpasa, Turkey”, Crop Protection, Vol. 26, pp. 917-922.
Javid, I., Uaine, R.N. and Massua, J.N. (1998), “Pest management constraints in small scale cotton farms in
Mozambique: timing and application of insecticides”, Insect Science and its Applications, Vol. 18, pp. 251-255
Jorgensen, D. (1989), Participant observation: A methodology for human studies, Sage, London.
Martin, T., Chandre, F., Ochou, O.G., Vaissayre, M. and Fournier, D. (2002), “Pyrathroid resistance mechanisms
in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from West Africa”, Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology, Vol. 74, pp. 17-26.
Martin, T., Ochou, G.O., Hala-N’klo, F., Vassal, J.M. and Vaissayre, M. (2000), “Pyrethroid resistance in the
cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in West Africa”, Pest Management Science, Vol. 56, pp. 549-
554.
Mekonnen, Y. and Agonafir, T. (2002), “Pesticide sprayers’knowledge, attitude and practice of pesticide use
on agricultural farms of Ethiopia”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 52, pp. 311-315.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.4 No.10 (2015): 977-987
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 987
Mensah, F.O., Yeboah, F.A. and Akman, M. (2004), “Survey of the Effect of Aerosol Pesticide Usage on the
Health of Farmers in the Akomadan and Afrancho Farming Com-munity”, Journal of Ghana Science Association,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 44-48.
NPASP - Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services and Partners (2012), Ghana’s Pesticide Crisis: The Need
for Further Government Action, NPASP, Ghana.
Palis, F.G., Flor, R.J., Warburton, H. and Hossain, M. (2006), “Our farmers at risk: behaviour and belief system
in pesticide safety”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 28, pp. 43-48.
Richter, E.D. (2002), “Acute human poisonings”, In: Encyclopedia of Pest Management (Ed D Pimentel).
Dekker, New York, 3–6.
Salifu, A.B. (1990), Effects of planting date on pest incidence and yield of cotton, Annual Report, Nyankpala
Agricultural Experiment station, Nyankpala, Ghana.
Sanfilippo, D. and Perschau, A. (2008), “Social and environmental impacts of pesticide use in cotton
production”, 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20.
Vassal, J.M., Martin, T., Hala-N’flo, F., Ochou, G.O. and Vaissayre, M. (1997), Decrease in the susceptibility of
Helicoverpa armigera to pyrethroid insecticide in Cote d’Ivoire. In resistance 1997-Integrated approach to
combating Resistance, IACR Rothamsted, April 14-16, 1997, Harpenden, Herts, UK
Yassin, M., Abu, M., Mourad, T.A. and Safi, J.M. (2002), “Knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxicity symptoms
associated with pesticide use among farm workers in the Gaza Strip”, Occupational Environmental Medicine,
Vol. 59, pp. 387-393.
Yeboah, F.A., Mensah, F.O. and Afreh, A.K. (2004), “The Probable Toxic Effects of Aerosol Pesticides on
Hepatic Function among Farmers at Akomadan and Afrancho Traditional Area of Ghana”, Journal of Ghana
Science Association, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 39-43.
