# Work and work exposures in sugarcane farming in Eswatini, Southern Africa

## TL;DR

This study examines work practices and health risks faced by sugarcane workers in Eswatini, highlighting poor working conditions and inadequate safety measures.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical data on work exposures and safety practices in smallholder sugarcane farming in Eswatini, focusing on subcontracted and directly employed workers.

## Key findings

- Most sugarcane workers reported physically demanding work with inadequate access to shade, water, and protective equipment.
- WBGT measurements exceeded recommended safety limits for cane cutters, indicating high heat stress.
- Pesticide applicators had limited access to proper protective gear, increasing health risks.

## Abstract

To describe work practices and exposures among sugarcane farm workers on smallholder cooperatives in eSwatini, being subcontracted (cane cutters) or directly employed (pesticide applicators).

Data 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.

Sugarcane 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.

Workplace interventions are needed to protect workers' health and safety.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00420-025-02140-z.