ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2025
Work and work exposures in sugarcane farming in Eswatini, Southern Africa.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe work practices and exposures among sugarcane farm workers on smallholder cooperatives in eSwatini, being subcontracted (cane cutters) or directly employed (pesticide applicators).
methodsData were collected at mid-harvest using repeated field observations and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) measurements. Questionnaires were administered to 267 sugarcane cutters and 125 pesticide applicators. Individual work output was defined as the length of the row of sugarcane cut over the workday, which also determined the monthly remuneration. The Quick Exposure Check was used to assess exposure to musculoskeletal risks. Pesticide handling practices were described with a focus on personal protection safety practices. Additionally, heart rate was measured in 20 pesticide workers for estimation of workload and core temperature.
resultsSugarcane sites generally had no provision for rest in shade. Few workers were provided with drinking water and thus used personal containers or took water from the irrigation system. The mean water intake over the workday was as low as 1.4 L. Most workers (87%) described their work as physically demanding. For workers with a high workload (cane cutters), the observed daily average maximum WBGT of 28.6 °C was above the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 26 °C. Pesticide applicators had a moderate workload. A minority of the applicators had access to proper personal protective equipment such as air respirators (4%), chemical gloves (17%), and chemical overalls (21%); still, their protective clothing hindered heat dissipation and thus increased heat stress.
conclusionWorkplace interventions are needed to protect workers' health and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.