PLoS ONE plos plosone PLOS ONE 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454 PONE-D-20-16862 Research Article People and placesPopulation groupingsProfessionsAgricultural workers Biology and life sciencesAgriculturePest control Biology and life sciencesAgricultureAgrochemicalsInsecticides Biology and life sciencesAgriculture Biology and life sciencesAgriculturePestsInsect pests Biology and life sciencesAgricultureCrop scienceCrops Biology and life sciencesAgricultureAgrochemicalsPesticides Biology and life sciencesAgriculturePest controlPesticides Biology and life sciencesAgricultureAgrochemicalsInsecticidesBiological insecticides A cross sectional survey of knowledge, attitude and practices related to the use of insecticides among farmers in industrial triangle of Punjab, Pakistan KAP study https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6973-8500 Bakhtawer Conceptualization Data curation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Afsheen Sumera Supervision Writing – review & editing * Department of Zoology, University of Gujrat, Hafiz Hayat Campus, Gujrat, Punjab, Pakistan Uludag Ahmet Editor Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, TURKEY

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 * E-mail: sumera.afsheen@uog.edu.pk 19 8 2021 2021 16 8 e0255454 7 7 2020 17 7 2021 2021 , Afsheen 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.

Pesticides in Pakistan are abundantly utilized for pest control in agriculture sector. The over and unsafe use of insecticides plus poor handling leads to the development of resistance, outbreak of secondary pests and hazardous impact on environment. The present study was aimed to access the current knowledge, attitude and common practices of farmers about the use of insecticides against pest in industrial triangle of Province Punjab, Pakistan. This study was conducted during October 2019 to February 2020. In this study farmers (n = 300) took part from three localities of Province Punjab (Gujrat, Gujranwala and Sialkot). Farmers were interviewed using a questionnaire to collect data about the knowledge of pest control by use of chemical method, biological method and combination of both to eradicate the pests. The result shows almost all (93%) farmers were male and they did not know about the insecticides mode of action and its chemical composition. They do not have any knowledge about the biological control of pests and did not get any assistance or help from Agriculture Extension Officer. They even did not properly dispose off the empty containers of insecticides. Statistical analysis reveals that lack of education and awareness about biological control of pest depicts development of resistance and outbreak of secondary pest including health hazards and environmental pollution. Poor understanding about pests, abundant use of insecticides, incorrect perception about application of insecticides and negligence regarding biological control shows that there is need to initiate public awareness programs to ensure the application of integrated pest management (IPM) and sustainable agriculture.

 The authors received no specific funding for this work. Data Availability All relevant data are in the paper and its Supporting Information files. Introduction

Being an agricultural country, economy of Pakistan is based on agriculture sector. There is about 1.8 billion people round the globe that deal with pesticides to increase the yield of crops and protect them from pest attack. In Pakistan, 42.5 percent people in rural areas are involved in agricultural activities. Chemical control of pests in agriculture sector is the major prominent method to maximize productivity of crops.

Various chemicals including Organophosphate, Neonicotinoids, Carbamates and Pyrethroids are abundantly used. There were 108 types of insecticides, 39 types of herbicides, 6 types of rodenticides and 5 types of aracicides reported which is be used in Pakistan for different pests of crops. The use of pesticides have increased by 9% or more per hectare in most developing countries including Pakistan.

It has been observed that farmers mostly rely on chemicals to protect their crops from pest’s attacks without knowing the harmful consequences of insecticides. This practice leads not only to development of resistance in pests but also reduce the number of useful insects, outbreak of secondary pests, health issues and environmental pollution [1].

In Province Punjab variety of crops are cultivated including wheat, rice, cotton, sugarcane, fruits and vegetables. In these crops field sap sucking insects cause damage to crops at all stages of crop development. Farmers of this region rely on insecticidal control of pests [2]. These farmers did not have any awareness about the chemical nature of insecticides [3]. They also do not have any assistance or training from agricultural extension sector regarding application of insecticides [4]. Due to lack of knowledge about harmful results of pesticides farmers did not pay attention about taking precautionary measures. Improper disposal of empty containers that contain surplus enough quantity of pesticides leads to the pollution as well as resistance development in non target species.

For sustainable agriculture there is need to reduce the use of insecticides and control the pest attack by other means. It is very necessary to adopt the biological control method along with chemical control in order to bring sustainability. For this purpose, public awareness is very important to give general knowledge to farmers about the use of pesticides. Integration of chemical control with biological control is the basic part of IPM but unfortunately it has been rarely applied [5]. Use of natural predators can be economical to farmers as well as it is ecofriendly.

Keeping in view all the factors current study was designed to access the knowledge of farmers about pesticides application and alternative methods to control pests. This will help the agriculture department to design a comprehensive plan to educate farmers as well as built up an effective IPM strategy to control pests attack, secure food and bring sustainability.

 Materials and methods Study area

A cross sectional study was conducted during October 2019 to February 2020 by using questionnaire based interview of farmers. In this survey face to face conversation was done with farmers. Firstly, in local language aim of study was described, later on after their willingness questions were asked verbally and their response was noted on questionnaire. This survey was carried out in industrial triangle including Gujrat, Gujranwala and Sialkot. These sites were selected on the basis of operational convenience and industrial importance of this region. Due to availability of water and suitability of climatic conditions various crops like wheat, rice, fruits and vegetables are cultivated in this region. Farmers of this region use insecticides abundantly to protect their crops from pests. The demographic characteristics of this region are given in Table 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.t001 Demographic characteristic of study area source: Pakistan bureau of statistics 2017.
Province District Area Sq km Population
Number Rural % Urban %
Punjab Gujranwala 3622 5014196 41.18 58.81
Gujrat 3192 2756110 96.98 30.02
Sialkot 3016 3893672 70.64 29.36

From each site six localities were further selected randomly. From Gujrat, six localities include Jalal pur jattan (JPJ), Karianwala (KN), Dolat Nagar (DN), Wazirabad (w), Lalamusa (LM) and Kharian (KH). From Gujranwala, ferozawala (FW), Uggochak (UG), Veropal Chatha (VC), Ali pur Chatha (AC), Qila miyan singh (QS) and Kot Ladha (KL) were selected for data collection. Daska (D), sambrial (S1), Sahowal (S2), Majra Kalan (MK), Dera sanda (SD) and Sahowala (S3) from Sialkot site were included in survey study. Detail of study area is represented in Map 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g001 Map indicating current study area (Map created by using GIS-ARc).

In first step questionnaire was prepared and survey was conducted from a subsample of 20 farmers who were reluctant to participate in study. On the basis of results of pre-test, this survey was further modified to reduce the deficiencies felt at that time. In second step a comprehensive survey was conducted among 300 respondents of District Gujrat, Gujranwala and Sialkot of Punjab province.

 Interview procedure

Each village was visited for 4–5 days and 10–15 on average respondents were interviewed per day via face to face conversation. Before interview main objectives were explained clearly to respondents. Later on, with the consent of the respondent, the data was recorded on questionnaire by verbally asking the questions because majority of respondents were not able to read and understand questionnaire.

A structured questionnaire having open ended and close ended questions was used to collect information by using Urdu and Punjabi Language. The questionnaire consists of three sections. First part is related to sociodemographic characters of respondents such as Gender, marital status, age, education level, farm area, irrigation method, farming experience and working hours they spend in their crops. Second part is related to perceptions like which insecticide is better and they prefer to use more, which crop and which pest most frequently targeted, how they prepare the spray dose for targeted pests, they have any idea about alternate pest control method like IPM, Biological agent or natural enemies and third part related to the attitude and practices of respondents like how they protect themselves during spray, they use protective equipment or not and they acquired any skill or training from any department or agency.

 Ethics statement

This study was approved by all statuary forums of the University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan including the Departmental Review and Research Committee (DRRC), Advanced Study and Research Board (ASRB), Board of Faculty (BoF) and Academic Council.

 Results

In total, 300 respondents from three Districts participated in this study. Random sampling was done. Most of the respondents were involved in cultivation of wheat, rice, millet, sorghum and vegetables in this region. The response rate from respondents was 100% which makes this study more interesting.

Demographic characteristics of respondents

The majority of respondents were male (i.e.93.66%) while only 6.34% women were involved in farming. Education is a very important variable for the assessment of farmer’s knowledge and practices. It was found that 34% respondents were illiterate, 16% had primary level, 6% had middle level education, 11.33% of respondents had education level up to higher secondary school and only 12.33% were graduated. Fig 1(A) represents the detail of the education level of respondents. Age group of the respondents ranged from 20–60 years with an average of 31–40 (34%) years. Detail of age in years was represented in Fig 1(B).

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g002 <p><bold>(a). Education level.</bold> Education level of the farmers represented in Fig 1 (a). Percentage of farmers was given on Y-axis while their education level was placed on X-axis. <bold>(b). Age Group of Farmers.</bold> Age group of farmers was represented on x-axis and their percentage was given on Y-axis.</p> </caption> <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:href="info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g002" xlink:type="simple"/> </fig> </sec> <sec id="sec008"> <title>Description of respondents

Most of the respondents have 1-hectare area for the cultivation of crops. This data indicate that these farmers had small farming units (Fig 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g003 Total farming area of the respondents.

Farming area of respondents in hectare represented in Fig 2. The area occupied by respondents in hectare was placed at x-axis while Y-axis represents the percentage of the respondents. Most of the respondents has farm area in the range of 1–1.5 hectare followed by less than 1 hectare however respondents having 2 or more than 2 hectares were having same trend.

Most common irrigation method adopted by the respondents was tube well (i.e.72%) followed by the drip method (i.e.18%) while 3% was reported to utilize the canal system for irrigation purpose as shown Fig 3. Most of the respondents had 7–9 years of farming experience is presented in Fig 4.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g004 Irrigation method adopted by the respondents.

Irrigation method-This pie chart represent the irrigation method adopted by the respondents.72% of the respondents use tube well system for irrigation purpose, 18% use drip method, 7% use sprinkle method and 3% use canal system for irrigation of their crops.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.g005 Farming experience of respondents.

Farming experience- this graph represents the farming experience of the respondents in years. On X-axis faring experience in years was mentioned while on Y-axis percentage of the respondents was mentioned. This data revealed that most of the respondents have 7–9 years of farming experience.

38% respondents spend 4–6 hours for farming activities daily. Only 2% reported to do work more than 12 hours.

 Knowledge of respondents regarding pesticides

Majority of respondents deals with acetamprid, cypermethrim, lambda cyhalothrin and dimethoate belonging to the organophosphate and pyrethoids group of insecticides (WHO category II). Pest infestation was reported by the respondents including Smuts, Aphids, Whiteflies, Jassids, Mildew, Mealybugs and Termites in this area. For the control of pest attack 46% farmers used to spray their crops three times, 32% sprayed four times and 6% were reported to spray their crops five times. These sprays were used during the early stage of pest growth (67.33%). Only 5.66% were reported to use spray at harvesting stage of crops. About 71.33% of farmers spray their crops by arial method, 15.33% used synergist and only 13.33% used mixture with water. Label instruction for preparing dose is very crucial step to properly use insecticides against pests. 42% of respondents understand the label instruction during preparation for spray. 22% of respondents were able to make proper dose whereas 15% of the respondents follow the schedule for spray and 21% were found to maintain empty containers of insecticides. When the respondents were asked about the alternative of synthetic insecticides,63% did not know while 37% were aware of it. 68.6% did not have knowledge about IPM. 65.3% of respondents did not know about biological control method of pests. Detailed information about knowledge of respondents about insecticides usage and alternative pest control methods is given in Table 2.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.t002 Knowledge of respondents in three localities of province Punjab Pakistan (n = 300).
Knowledge of farmers
Insecticides used Acetamiprid
Cypermethrin
Lambda cyhalothrin
Dimethoate
Characters Number Percentage
Crops Wheat 93 31
Rice 69 23
Sugarcane 3 1
Millet 6 2
Sorghum 12 4
Vegetables 117 39
Pests Scientific belonging Common name
Ustilaginaceae Smuts 30 10
Aphidoidea Aphids 147 49
Aleyrodidae Whiteflies 36 12
Amrasca biguttula Jassids 42 14
Golovinomyces orontii Mildew 30 10
Pseudococcidae Mealybugs 9 3
Isoptera  Termites 6 2
Frequency of spray (per Month) Two times 44 14.66
Three time 139 46.33
Four time 97 32.33
Five time 20 6.66
Stage of crop Early stage 202 67.33
Grown stage 56 18.67
Mature stage 25 8.33
Harvesting stage 17 5.67
Mode of application Arial 214 71.33
Mix with water 40 13.33
Synergist 46 15.33
Label instructions Follow 126 42
Proper dose 66 22
Schedule 45 15
Maintain containers 63 21
Alternative synthetic insecticides Yes 111 37
No 189 63
In case yes Crop repetition 3.33 3
Organic farming 1.11 1
Crop rotation 96.57 87
Crop mixtures 7.77 7
Knowledge about IPM Yes 94 31.33
No 206 68.67
Biological control Yes 104 34.67
No 196 65.33
Knowledge about natural enemies Yes 99 33
No 201 67
Common practices of respondents

Chemical control of pest (i.e. 55.33%) was common practice followed by the cultural control methods (i.e. 32. 33%). Cultural control refers to the manipulation of old practices like date management with respect to pest outbreak etc. Only a small fraction of respondents have adopted IPM (i.e. 5.33%) and biological control method (7%) in their farming routines. Interestingly, 50.33% respondents burry the empty containers and 14% of respondents burnt them while 31.67% throw them in trash without any processing while 3.67% of respondents go for Government collection centers for disposal of empty containers of insecticides. As far as precautionary measures are concerned, hand gloves 44% and facemask 41% or covering the face with cloth are most adopted precautionary measures. Use of glasses, overall, respirator and long shoes were mostly neglected measures among respondents during the use of insecticides. For the proper use of insecticides, training is very important but unfortunately only 7% have some acquired skill and 12% have training about the use of insecticides while most of them get name of products and use them for pests just by asking from agriculture officer. Detail of common practices of respondents is given in Table 3.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.t003 Common practices of respondents in three localities of province Punjab Pakistan (n = 300).
Character Number Percentage
Crop practices methods Cultural 97 32.33
Chemical 166 55.33
Biological 21 7
IPM 16 5.33
Practices for Disposal of insecticides containers Govt collection 11 3.67
Burry 151 50.33
Burnt 43 14.33
Throw in trash 95 31.67
Farmer training /skill Pesticides application 36 12
Agriculture officer guidance 243 80
Use acquired skills 21 7
Practice to use Protective measures Hand gloves 132 44
Glasses 33 11
Overall 3 1
Respirator 3 1
Face mask 123 41
Boot/shoes 6 2
Time of spray Morning 132 44
Noon 16 5.33
After noon 111 37
Evening 41 13.67

Analysis revealed respondents having non formal education are at high level of risk as compared to the respondents that know about the mode of action of insecticides. There was strong correlation between education level and common practices of respondents. There was strong association between knowledge and label instructions given on products for proper dose preparation by respondents similarly time of spray, frequency of spray, use of protective equipment and disposal of empty insecticides containers has strong association with the knowledge of respondents. However knowledge about the IPM and biological control method of pests was insufficient which indicate the need of awareness campaign among farmers. Chemical control was the dominated method practiced among the respondents for the control of pests.

 Statistical analysis

The univariate regression analysis showed that all factors had significant differences with the education level of respondents (i.e. p< 0.001). Table 4 shows the knowledge of respondents about the alternative methods like IPM, Biological control and natural enemies is very poor however the farmers having knowledge about them are more likely to reduce the harmful impact of insecticides.

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.t004 Summary of univariate regression analysis column of the table refers to the education level of the farmers and rows refer the practices of farmers.

Shown are the odd Ration (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Non formal Primary level Middle level Secondary level Higher secondary level undergraduate level Graduation level
P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI) P-value OR (95%CI)
Heard IPM Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No .000 2.29 (1.46–3.36) .000 2.21 (1.46–3.36) .011 2.20 (1.19–4.05) .079 2.12 (.91–4.92) .655 1.22 (.50–2.94) .012 2.66 (1.24–5.73) .009 2.77 (1.29–5.95)
Biological Control Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1
No .000 2.43 (1.59–3.72) .000 2.433 (1.59–3.72) .011 2.200 (1.19–4.05) .034 2.57 (1.07–6.15) .187 1.85 (.74–4.65) .061 2.00 (.97–4.12) .004 3.25 (1.47–7.17)
Natural Enemies Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1
No .025 1.57 (1.06–2.34) .025 1.57 (1.06–2.34) .011 2.20 (1.19–4.05) .002 5.25 (1.80–15.29) .374 1.50 (.61–3.67) .002 3.71 (1.61–8.55) .494 1.26 (.64–2.49)
Follow label Information Follow 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Proper Dose .03 .59 (.36-.96) .08 .52 (.25–1.08) .06 .30 (.08–1.09) .01 .15 (.03-.68) .32 .66 (.30–1.48) .12 .52 (.23–1.18) .28 .35 (.13-.89)
Follow Schedule of spray .001 .40 (.23-.78) .004 .23 (.09-.63) .206 .50 (.17–1.46) .014 .15 (.03-.68) .011 .20 (.05-.69) .016 .29 (.10-.79) .028 .35 (.13-.89)
Maintenance of Pesticide Container .000 .34 (.19-.61) .08 .52 (.25–1.08) .46 .70 (.26–1.08) .02 .23 (.06-.81) .01 .26 (.08-.80) .006 .17 (.05-.60) .079 .47 (.20–1.09)
Irrigation method Drip 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sprinkler .40 .42 (.18-.96) .05 .22 (.04–1.02) -- -- -- -- .73 1.25 (.33–4.65) .142 .20 (.02–1.71) .739 1.25 (.33–4.65)
Tube Well .000 3.78 (2.28–6.28) .000 3.88 (1.86–8.09) .006 4.0 (1.50–10.65) .18 1.85 (.74–4.65) .001 6.0 (2.08–17.29) .001 5.20 (1.99–13.54) .000 6.5 (2.26–18.62)
Canal Irrigation .005 .21 (.07-.61) .054 .22 (.04–1.02) -- -- -- -- -- -- .273 .40 (.07–2.06) .423 .50 (.09–2.73)

Table 4 shows the results for Education risk practices with different predictor variables. The columns are showing the categories of predictor variables and rows are showing the outcomes variables categories followed with their OR, 95% CI for OR, and their P-values. The OR = 1 presents the reference group OR. The yellow highlighted and (--) present that there was no significant association of those variables. The estimated OR of non-formal education is 2.29 times as large as in who do not hear IPM than in who heard IPM with 95%(1.46–3.36) of OR. They don’t hear IPM showed high-risk levels being less likely to non-formal education (p-value = .000). The estimated OR of primary level education is 2.21 times as large as in who do not hear IPM than in who heard IPM with 95%(1.46–3.36) of OR. They do not hear that IPM showed high-risk levels being less likely to primary level education (p-value = .000). Similarly estimated OR of middle-level education is 2.20 times as large as in who do not hear IPM than in who heard IPM with 95%(1.19–4.05) of OR. They do not hear IPM showed high-risk levels being less likely to middle-level education (p-value = .001). Similarly estimated OR of undergraduate level education is 2.66 times as large as in who do not hear IPM than in who heard IPM with 95%(1.24–5.73) of OR. They do not hear IPM showed high-risk levels being less likely to undergraduate level education (p-value = .012). Similarly estimated OR of graduate-level education is 2.77 times as large as in who do not hear IPM than in who heard IPM with 95%(1.29–5.95) of OR. They do not hear that IPM showed much higher risk levels being less likely to graduate-level education (p-value = .009).

Label information on the containers of the insecticides for the preparation of required dose is a very crucial factor while most of the farmers were unable to read it as many are unable to understand the terminologies and units p<0.001. There is a need to start a campaign to give awareness to farmers about it (Table 5).

10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.t005 Summary of regression analysis column of the table refers to the education level of the farmers and rows refer the practices of farmers.
Non formal education Primary level Middle level Secondary level Higher secondary level Under Graduation level Graduation level
Crop Practices Cultural Control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Chemical Control .000 2.78 (1.72–4.48) .090 1.73 (.918–3.27) .39 1.44 (.61–3.37) .166 2.00 (.75–5.32) .006 3.228 (1.41–7.65) .136 1.80 (.83–3.89) .023 2.27 (1.11–4.61)
Biological Control .028 .43 (.20-.91) .019 .26 (.08-.80) .054 .22 (.04–1.02) . . .118 .28 (.05–1.37) .121 .40 (.12–1.27) . .
IPM .003 .26 (.10-.64) .011 .20 (.05-.69) .037 .11 (.01-.87) .178 .33 (.06–1.65) .069 .14 (.01–1.16) .038 .20 (.04-.91) .022 .09 (.01-.70)
Disposal of empty containers Government Collection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Burry .000 63 (8.73-454-2) .001 11 (2.58–46.7) .054 4.5 (.97–20.8) .080 4 (.84–18.8) .005 18 (2.40–134.8) .001 12 (2.83–50.7) .002 23 (3.1–170.3)
Burnt .013 13 (1.70–99.3) .423 2 (.36–10.9) .423 2 (.36–10.9) 1 1 (.14–7.0) .142 5 (.58–42.7) .423 2 (.36–10.9) .142 5 (.58–42.7)
Throw in Trash .001 26 (3.52–191.5) .002 10 (2.3–42.7) .038 5 (1.09–22.8) .080 4 (.84–18.8) .037 9 (1.14–71.03) .423 2 (.36–10.91) .050 8 (1–63.9)
Training and Protective Measures Hand Gloves 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Eye Glasses .000 .17 (.09-.34) .001 .16 (.05-.46) .013 .07 (.01-.58) .017 .08 (.01-.64) .058 .40 (.15–1.03) .002 .10 (.02-.42) .034 .38 (.16-.93)
Overall .000 .01 (.002-.12) . . .013 .07 (.01-.58) .017 .08 (.01-.64) .009 .06 (.009-.50) .003 .05 (.007-.37) . .
Respirator .000 .03 (.009-.14) .002 .04 (.005-.29) . . . . .007 .13 (.03-.58) . . . .
Face Mask .004 .52 (.33-.81) .163 .64 (.34–1.2) .533 .76 (.33–1.75) .057 .33 (.10–1.03) .226 .60 (.26–1.3) .074 .50 (.23–1.06) .136 .55 (.25–1.20)
Boot/Shoes .000 .05 (.01-.16) .001 .08 (.01-.33) . . .019 .16 (.03-.74) . . .003 .05 (.007-.37) .003 .11 (.02-.47)

The regression analysis also showed that most common practice to control the pest was use of chemical abundantly by the farmers instead of alternative methods (p = 0.001).

Disposal of empty containers is a potential factor that can bring resistance in pests, pollution and outbreak of secondary pest. This practice makes the situation worse than sustainability (p = 0.001). Use of protective equipment by the farmers is neglected most (p = 0.004)- see Table 5.

 Discussion

Current study reported that most of the farmers were male (93.6%) while 6.4% were female. The study conducted by Dilek Oztas et al in Turkey reported 100% male farmers [6]. Similar work done by Oluewe and Cheke in Nigeria 93% of farmers were male. Lekei et al. also reported the same trend 93% farmers were male [7].

The mean age of the farmers were in range of 31–50 years. The mean age of farmers were 18–51 years reported by Tuna et al in a study conducted about farmer’s knowledge, attitude and behavior about pesticides in Turkey [8]. The average age of farmers were 37.5 years according to Lekei et al [9]. in Tanzania. Mubashar et al. conducted study on knowledge of farmers regarding pesticides usage and biosafety in Pakistan reported average age of farmers were 30–50 years [10]. Similar trend was reported by Khuhro et al. during 2020 in northern Sindh Pakistan for 18–50 years age of farmers [11].

Education level of farmers is closely related with their practices. Educated farmers can read and understand the instructions given on insecticides about dose preparation and precautionary measures given. The current survey showed 34% farmers were illiterate, 16% had primary level education, 8.33% had middle level education while 12.33% were graduated from university and 11.33% were those who got education up to higher and undergraduate level. A study conducted by Yassin et al. (2002) on Knowledge, attitude, practices and toxic symptoms related to use of pesticides in Philistine showed 8.5% were illiterate [12]. In Northern Sindh, it was reported that 12.2% were illiterate 40.9% were primary and 27.7% had middle level education. In Lodhran and Vehari Pakistan similar trend was reported i.e. 26.4% were illiterate. These results are in accordance with Khan and Iqbal who reported that majority of farmers in Pakistan had low level of education and only 6% had university level education [13].

Experience of farmers is very important in order to acquire skills. This factor alone can help to increase yield and make farming cost effective. Current study represented that 35% farmers have 7–9 years of farming experience, 13% have 10–12 years while 29% had 4-5years of farming experience. The same trend was reported by Mubasher et al that 41% had 11–15 years 37.9% having 5–10 years of farming experience [10]. Research in Pakistan represented that sociodemographic characteristics of farmers like gender, age, education level and farming experience greatly affect the use of insecticides.

Alternative pest control method is very important component of IPM and very essential for sustainability. The result of current study shows that 63% of respondents did not have any idea about alternative methods. Among 37% that know about alternative method crop rotation only practiced among farmers. Biological control is a very effective method along with the chemical control but unfortunately due to low level of knowledge and awareness that 65.3% of respondents did not know about this. This unawareness leads to force them only rely on insecticidal control. Khan et al reported few farmers implement IPM and most did not know about non chemical method [14]. According to them cultural control and mechanical methods were easy to implement. Khuhro et al reveals that 22.72% farmers practiced cultural method, 22.72% could not identify pest and 95.45% did not use any other alternative method to control pest [11]. The work is also supported by Yassin et al farmers did not have any knowledge about biological control or natural control agent [12].

Following the instruction given on the products for the preparation of proper dose is very important to prevent the overused as well as the release of residues in environment ultimately leads to development of resistance in insects. Present study reported that only 22% farmers were able to prepare the required dose while 58% farmers were unable to understand the terminologies and language of the label instructions. There was strong association between farmer’s knowledge and understanding the label information of insecticides products. It leads to the higher exposure via the increase emission rate. Dalamas and Khan reported that 73% farmers were unable to read label instruction on insecticides containers [15]. Similar trend was reported by Mubasher et al i.e. 48.2% were unable to read instructions on insecticides label [10]. Shetty et al reported major factor behind this is illiteracy and lack of awareness [16].

Failure to use of protective measures was another problem linked with the hazardous impact of insecticides on environment. A study conducted in North Greece and India reported the significant association between knowledge and use of protective measures. Clark and collegues reported the poor trend about use of protective measures among the farmers in tropics due the hot and humid climatic conditions farmers feel discomfort during use of protective measures [17].

The use of protective measure becomes an important step for the sustainable use of insecticides likewise the IPM, irrigation method, use of less toxic agents and alternative pest control methods (use of biological agents) are the key component for sustainable agriculture. In this survey it was concluded that most of the farmers neglected the use of protective gears i.e. 29.7% use face mask and 3.3% use long shoes. The use of respirator was neglected during spray which was only 1.7% reported. It is worth mentioning that 40% farmers in Iran were reported to use any protective equipment during spray reported by Hashemi et al [18].

Furthermore, improper disposal of empty containers may be another source of pesticides exposure. Mostly farmers dumped the empty insecticides containers in unsafe manners this leads to the contamination of environment due to run off, leaching and arial distribution of residues even in developing countries the practices were very common. Study in Tanzania and south Africa reported that farmers had been using empty insecticides containers for domestic purpose.

Data reveals most of respondents had no trainings from extension officer about the use of insecticides as Aldosari et al [19] that 79.5% of farmers did not received any training whereas 12.3%, 5.1% and 3.1% received 2 to 4 and more than four trainings respectively [19]. Similarly according to Aslam et al [20] farmers of Pakistan had low level of knowledge about insecticides use which attributes to the fact that training by extension officer can be an effective step to reduce risk factors [21]. According to another study conducted in Ethiopia by Negatu et al [21], 85% of the farmers had no training regarding application of insecticides [22], while Ibitayo [3] reported similar trend of farmers [4]. According to this study 98% of farmers did not had any training about insecticides application. In UK, a study conducted regarding risk assessment about safe use of insecticides among workers. It indicated that proper training and adoption of proper safety measures can reduce the health hazards [6].

 Conclusions

The findings of this survey demonstrate poor understanding and risky practices adopted by the farmers are the major contributing factors towards resistance development and health issues. For underdeveloped countries like Pakistan a comprehensive and well planned program targeting on alternative pest control method and use of biological agents along with insecticides need to be initiated that can reduce the total dependency on chemicals.

There is a dier need to start up the farmer’s awareness campaigns as well as need to organize farmers by giving them trainings about proper disposal of empty containers to minimize the resistance development and resurgence of secondary pests.

 Supporting information Questionnaire.

(PDF)

 Supplementary data.

(PDF)

The author sincerely thanks to the farmers and extension agriculture department for participating and contributing to this study. Special thanks to Dr Fayyaz Ahmed (Statistics department), University of Gujrat for his kind help in statistical analysis.

 References Abbas N, Shad SA, Ismail M, Resistance to conventional and new insecticides in houseflies (Diptera: Muscidae) from poultry facilities in Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2014; 108 (02): 826. doi: 10.1093/jee/tou057 26470195 Basit M, Saeed S, Saleem MA, Denholm I, Shah M. Detection of resistance, cross resistance and stability of resistance to new chemistry insecticides in Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Journal of Economic Entomology.; 106 (03):1414. doi: 10.1603/ec12414 23865209 Ibitayo OO, Egyptian farmer’ attitude and behavior regarding agricultural pesticides: implications for pesticides risk communication. Risk analysis 2006; 26(4): 989. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00794.x 16948691 Rodrigues ARS, Spindola AF, Torres JB, Siqueira HAA, Colares F. Response of different populations of seven lady beetle species to Lamda-Cyhalothrin with record of resistance. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety. 2013; 96 (Oct): 53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.06.014 23856123 Sodavy P, Sitha M, Nugent R, Murphy H. Situation analysis: Farmers awareness and perceptions of the effects of pesticides on their health. FAO Community IPM Programme Field document. 2000. http://files.panap.net/resources/Report-on-women-and-pesticide-survey-Cambodia.pdf. Oztas D, Kurt B, Koc A, Akbaba M and Ilter H. Knowledge level, attitude and behavior of respondents in Cukurora region regarding the use of pesticides. Biomed research international, 2018; 19(July): 6146509. doi: 10.1155/2018/6146509 30112406 Oluwole O, Cheke RA, Health and environmental impact of pesticide use practices: A case study of respondents in Ekiti state Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2009; 7 (03): 153. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0431 Tuna RY, Gun I, Ceyhen O. Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour of respondents on storage conditions and safety use of insecticides. in 1st Agricultural Health and Safety Symposium, Urfa, Turkey, 2012. Lekei EE, Ngowi AV, London L. Farmers knowledge, practices and injuries associated with pesticides exposure in rural farming villages in Tanzania. BMC public Health. 2014; 14:389. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/389 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-389 24754959 Mubasher M, Aldosari FO, Baig MB, Altotaibi BM, Khan AQ. Assessment of respondents on their knowledge regarding pesticides usage and biosafety. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2019;26(07): 1903. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.03.001 31762673 Khuhro SN, Junejo IA, Hullio MH, Hassan MF, Maitlo SA, Sheikh MA. Knowledge attitude practice regarding pesticide application among vegetable growers of Dadu canal irrigated areas of northern Sindh Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 2020;33(2): 331. doi: 10.17582/journal.pjar/2020/33.2.331.336 Yassin MM, Abu MTA, and Safi JM. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxicity symptoms associated with pesticide use among farm workers in the Gaza Strip. Occupational and Environmental Medicine.2002; 59 (06): 387. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.6.387 12040114 Khan MA,Iqbal M. Sustainable cotton production through skill development among farmers: evidence from Khairpur district of Sindh, PakistanPakistan Dev. Rev. 2009;44: 695–716. KhanM Mahmood HZ, Damalas CA. Pesticide use and risk perceptions among farmers in the cotton belt of Punjab, Pakistan. Crop Protection. 2015; 67 (Jan): 184. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.10.013 Khan M, Dalamas AC. Farmers’ knowledge about common pest and pesticides safety in conventional cotton production in Pakistan. Crop Protection. 2015; 77 (Nov): 45. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.07.014 Shetty PK, Murugan M, Hiremath MB, Sreeja KG, Farmers’ education and perception on pesticide use and crop economies in Indian agriculture. Journal of Experimental Sciences. 2010; 1 (01):03. http://updatepublishing.com/journal/index.php/jes/article/view/1691/1675. Clark EE, Levy LS, Spurgeon A, Calvert IA: The problems associated with pesticides use by irrigation workers in Ghana. Occup Med. 1997; 47 (5): 301–308. doi: 10.1093/occmed/47.5.301 9302813 Hashemi SM, Hosseini SM, Hashemi MK, Farmers’ perceptions of safe use of pesticides: determinants and training needs, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2010; 85 (1)57. doi: 10.1007/s00420-011-0641-8 21541766 Aldosari F, Shunaifi MSA, Ullah MA, Muddassir M, Noor MA. Farmers’ Perceptions regarding the Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Northern Pakistan.Journal of the Saudia Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.004 Aslam M, Ali T, Zafar MI, Ahmad M. Training needs offruit growers regarding pesticide use for sustainableenvironmental health in Punjab. PakistanJournal of AgriculturalSciences.2007; 44 (03): 511.doi: http://pakjas.com.pk/papers/304.pdf Negatu B, Kromhout H, Mekonnen Y, Vermeulen R. Use of Chemical Pesticides in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study on Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Farmers and Farm Workers in Three Farming Systems. Annual Occupation Hygiene. 2016; 60(5):551. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mew004 26847604 Remoundou K, Brennan M, Hart A, Frewer LJ. PesticideRisk Perceptions, Knowledge, and Attitudes of Operators,Workers, and Residents: A Review of the Literature. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment; An International Journal. 2014; 20 (04):1113. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2013.799405 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r001 Decision Letter 0 Uludag Ahmet Academic Editor 2021 Ahmet Uludag 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. Submission Version 0 Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

30 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-16862

A Cross Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to the Use of Insecticides among Farmers in Industrial Triangle of Punjab, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nasrullah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please note that maps produced using Google Maps imagery are not compatible with the licence used by PLOS (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright). Please replace the map in Fig 1 using an alternative source of imagery that is compatible with our licence. For more information, please see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-maps.

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Normally, I reject such papers after one rejection and one major revision that has more criticism. However, I would like to give you another chance to improve your manuscript. Please see both reviewers suggestions in the form and santicised copies of the manuscript. Please improve your language. Statistical analysis is must. You can run multiple correlation analysis or another one (see Maclaren et al 2018). If I continue as editor in the second stage, I will look for all main points suggested by reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: the introduction section is too short and did not cover the state of the arts in the last 10 years. the methodology section is not well designed and lack of inclusion and exclusion criteria. the statistical analysis is not well done. results section needs to be reformatted. Discussion section is rather weak, did not explain the results, and not connect them with previous published work. the references in this section should be rewritten. the conclusion section is more general and did not show filled gap of knowledge, the reference section is not up-to-date.

Reviewer #2: - The introduction is inadequate and should be expand it. The detailed aim should be given at last paragraph of introduction.

-The reasons for the preference of three sub-regions should be explained and if the differences there are should be given in the text such as crop, irrigation, topographic, climate, etc.

-The abstract mentioned Anova analyses and the result has the univariate regression model. However, the detailed analysis method is not in the material and method. Please give a detailed analysis method.

-There are no statistical results and this decreases its value for publication in this journal.

-I did not understand the terminology (%age) in your tables. You mean percentage, please change it

- Discussion is inadequate please expand it. You have three sub-region, you can compare them

-Reference should be rearranged according to journal guidelines

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yasser El-Nahhal

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: 15-7-2020-PONE-D-20-16862_reviewer.pdf

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-16862_reviewer.pdf

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version 1

28 Feb 2021

file attached.

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r003 Decision Letter 1 Uludag Ahmet Academic Editor 2021 Ahmet Uludag 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. Submission Version 1

26 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-16862R1

A Cross Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to the Use of Insecticides among Farmers in Industrial Triangle of Punjab, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nasrullahh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Again we will ask major revision. Normally I would have rejected. Could you please follow all points from the first and second rounds. You write a rebuttal point by point explaining why you did not follow reviewer's specific point. If you done it, mention it.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Again we will ask major revision. Normally I would have rejected. Could you please follow all points from the first and second rounds. You write a rebuttal point by point explaining why you did not follow reviewer's specific point. If you done it, mention it.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: the manuscript is not improved. the previous commitments must be considered to timprove the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript was adjusted according to reviewers’ comments; however, it still has limits and should not be published in the submitted version. Suggested revisions can be found directly in the text (pdf). There are many grammatical errors in the text (including errors in active ingredients names), as well as punctuation errors. There is no uniformity in the use of initial capital and small letters in the text. Due to these limitations, the overall impression is then reduced. Chapters could be better structured.

Concerning guidelines of this journal for Figures and Tables, these are not followed: figure captions must be inserted in the text of the manuscript, immediately following the paragraph in which the figure is first cited. Also, the Figure should be abbreviated to “Fig” (e.g. Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 3, etc).

The other guideline which is not followed is related to References: these should be listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the order that they appear in the text. In the text, cite the reference number in square brackets (e.g., “We used the techniques developed by our colleagues [19] to analyze the data”).

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-16862_R1_reviewer.pdf

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r004 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Submission Version 2

3 May 2021

d

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r005 Decision Letter 2 Uludag Ahmet Academic Editor 2021 Ahmet Uludag 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. Submission Version 2

16 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-16862R2

A Cross Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to the Use of Insecticides among Farmers in Industrial Triangle of Punjab, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bakhtawer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are some editorial, lingual and presenting problems. I hope you can improve all quickly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 45 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have been following your paper due to being editor. I think, you need help from a native English speaker to improve the language in the text although it can be understandable for some colleagues. I also recommend that change some tables to basic graphs. It can be more visual and understandable for the audience. Actually you have almost done with this paper. Please check grammatical and editorial mistakes carefully.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: the manuscript is improved

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-16862_R2_reviewer.pdf

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r006 Author response to Decision Letter 2 Submission Version 3

2 Jul 2021

Already provided in separate file

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r007 Decision Letter 3 Uludag Ahmet Academic Editor 2021 Ahmet Uludag 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. Submission Version 3

19 Jul 2021

A Cross Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to the Use of Insecticides among Farmers in Industrial Triangle of Punjab, Pakistan

PONE-D-20-16862R3

Dear Dr. nasrullah,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Author, please go through text and make it more precise for language.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

 10.1371/journal.pone.0255454.r008 Acceptance letter Uludag Ahmet Academic Editor 2021 Ahmet Uludag 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.

29 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-16862R3

A Cross Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to the Use of Insecticides among farmers in Industrial Triangle of Punjab, Pakistan.

Dear Dr. Nasrullah:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmet Uludag

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE