Next Article in Journal
Towards Effective and Socio-Culturally Appropriate Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions in the Philippines: A Mixed Method Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Acute Effects of Exposure to a Traditional Rural Environment on Urban Dwellers: A Crossover Field Study in Terraced Farmland
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Extent, Nature and Environmental Health Implications of Cottage Industries in Johannesburg, South Africa

1
South African Medical Research Council, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa
2
School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12(2), 1894-1901; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201894
Submission received: 24 October 2014 / Revised: 4 January 2015 / Accepted: 2 February 2015 / Published: 5 February 2015

Abstract

:
Cottage industries comprise a sub-group of informal sector income generation activities which are conducted in the home environment and organized around families or households. Cottage industry workers may be at risk of exposure to harmful substances associated with their work, and given the lack of separation of cottage industry activities from living spaces, their families and neighbors may similarly be at risk of exposure. This study was undertaken to determine the extent and nature of cottage industries in five neighborhoods in Johannesburg (South Africa) A cross-sectional survey was conducted across five communities in Johannesburg in 2012. Data on metal-related cottage industry activities were collected through the administration of a pre-structured questionnaire. Metal-related cottage industry activities were defined as car repairs, spray painting, scrap metal recycling, electrical appliance repairs, welding, hairdressing and metal jewelry making. One fifth of the households interviewed were operating one or more cottage industries associated with the use of toxic substances. Therefore, the potential exists for associated ill health effects in a considerable proportion of the population. Further research is needed to fully assess exposure to the harmful aspects of cottage industry, as are scaled up campaigns to increase awareness of the risks and correct handling of toxic substances.

1. Introduction

Cottage industries comprise a sub-group of income generation activities under the umbrella of the informal sector, and are characterized by their conduct in the home setting, and their organization around families or households [1]. Home-based work is an important source of employment for many, especially in developing countries [2], and is widely regarded as a strategy for providing employment and alleviating or surviving poverty [3].
However, a wide range of pollutants may be used in cottage industries. Exposure to harmful substances in cottage industries may be exacerbated by limited knowledge and awareness of the associations between cottage industry processes and ill health outcomes [1]. Furthermore, given the lack of separation of cottage industry activities from living spaces, families and other household members may similarly be at risk of exposure to a range of harmful substances [4]. In this regard, those who spend a major portion of their time in the home environment may be at particular risk, for example, young children (especially those with pica or pronounced hand-to-mouth behavior), those with pre-existing ill-health conditions, the elderly, and pregnant women. Cottage industries are almost completely unregulated and exempt from worker compensation laws and other occupational health and safety regulations [1]. However, certain cottage industries involve the use of highly toxic metals such as lead [5], mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which have been associated with a range of detrimental effects on health, including reductions in intelligence quotient scores, hyperactivity, shortened concentration spans, and aggressive or violent behavior [6,7]. Table 1 shows the toxic metal, the associated cottage industry relevant to this paper and the concomitant health effect.
Table 1. Toxic metals and concomitant health effects associated with type of cottage industry.
Table 1. Toxic metals and concomitant health effects associated with type of cottage industry.
Toxic MetalCottage IndustryHealth Effect
LeadElectrical appliance repair [8,9]
Hairdressing [10]
Car repairs [11,12,13]
Welding [11]
Spray painting [14,15]
Scrap metal recycling [8,16]
Metal jewelry making [17]
Ill health effects include headache, irritability, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, problems with intellectual development, convulsions, coma, renal failure, death, hypertension, cognitive impairment, tremor of the hands, excitability, memory loss, insomnia [18,19], cardiac conduction disturbances [20]. Children in particular are susceptible to the ill health effects of lead exposure due to their permeable blood-brain barrier and high gastrointestinal uptake. Children may be affected by behavioural disturbances, learning and concentration difficulties [19].
MercuryElectrical appliance repair [8,9]Injury to the lungs and the neurological system, anxiety [18,19].
ArsenicElectrical appliance repair [8,9]Skin hyperpigmentation, skin cancer, cancers of the liver, lungs and bladder, diabetes, blood vessel damage, and peripheral nerve damage (presenting as numbness or tingling in hands and feet) [18,19,21].
CadmiumElectrical appliance repair [8,9]
Welding [22]
Spray painting [14]
Metal jewelry making [17]
Chronic lung disease [8], kidney dysfunction [23] and osteoporosis [24].
The aim of this study is to describe the extent and nature of cottage industries in Johannesburg, South Africa.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The Health, Environment and Development (HEAD) study is a Johannesburg-based, household level study, which was initiated in 2006. Annual cross-sectional surveys are conducted in five lower socio-economic communities for the collection of data on socio-demographic factors, as well as living conditions and health status [25]. The entire HEAD study is designed in this way to assess trends in environmental conditions and health status of impoverished communities. The HEAD study is undertaken in Riverlea, an apartheid era township; Bertrams, an old, degraded suburb of Johannesburg, with a protracted history of displacement and migration; Hillbrow, a densely populated, high rise, inner city area; Braamfischerville, a democratic era low-cost, mass-based housing development; and Hospital Hill, an informal settlement situated to the west of Johannesburg. These five study sites characterize the main housing options available to the urban poor living in Johannesburg.
Households were randomly selected using town planning maps and/or aerial photographs; vacant and non-residential buildings were excluded. In Bertrams, Riverlea and Braamfischerville dwellings for inclusion were randomly selected at the start of the study. In the informal settlement of Hospital Hill a convenience sample of dwellings was taken, while in the high-rise neighborhood of Hillbrow apartments were systematically sampled (random sampling of apartment buildings, followed by floors and then individual apartments).
For this analysis data on socio-economic status and metal-related cottage industry activities in the five HEAD study neighborhoods (Riverlea, Bertrams, Hillbrow, Braamfischerville and Hospital Hill) were extracted for the year 2012. The question posed was, “Does anyone regularly do any of the following at home to make money?” The cottage industry categories presented were: fix cars, spray painting of cars, make metal jewelry, welding, fix electrical appliances, scrap metal recycling, hairdressing, and other, where respondents were required to state the type of cottage industry. Response options were “Yes”, “No”, “Don’t know” and “Refused to answer”.

2.2. Procedure

Each participant gave written informed consent prior to commencement of the study. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa (Protocol number M10471). A total of 548 interviews were conducted in the five study areas. All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion in the study.
The field work took place between August and September 2012. An adult, over the age of 18 years, in each household was randomly selected to be interviewed. Pre-structured questionnaires were administered by environmental health students from the University of Johannesburg, who had been trained in interviewing techniques. Questions were orally translated for participants who did not speak English. Persons who were not immediately available (owing to circumstances such as work or hospitalisation) were contacted the following month over the weekend. The overall response rate was 68% (548/805), with 12% refusals (96/805) and 20% (161/805) participants not available.

2.3. Data Analysis

Point estimate prevalence of cottage industries was presented as percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Difference in prevalences was described using chi-square test. All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software: Release 12 (StataCorp LP., College Station, TX, USA, 2011).

3. Results

Prevalence and Types of Cottage Industries

One hundred and five (19.2%, 95% CI: 16.1%–22.6%) out of a total sample of 548 households reported the operation of at least one metal-related cottage industry within their homes. Of these, 32.4% were operating multiple metal-related cottage industries. For example, in Riverlea, a household would commonly operate electrical appliance repairs and car repairs. The prevalence of cottage industries varied significantly from one neighborhood to another (chi-square test, p < 0.001). As shown in Figure 1, Riverlea (37.1%; 95% CI: 23.8%–40.2%) and Hospital Hill (24.8%; 95% CI 14.9%–34.4%) had the highest prevalence of cottage industries. In Hillbrow, on the other hand, only 6.7% (95% CI 5.1%–17.1%) of households operated a cottage industry, possibly due to the nature of the neighborhood – Hillbrow is a densely populated high-rise neighborhood with limited space for cottage industries. Cottage industry prevalence in Bertrams and Braamfischerville was 16.2% and 15.2%, respectively.
Figure 1. Overall prevalence of cottage industry in the five study sites.
Figure 1. Overall prevalence of cottage industry in the five study sites.
Ijerph 12 01894 g001
Overall, the most widespread types of cottage industry were electrical appliance repairs (25.8%) and hairdressing (25.8%).

4. Discussion

This study highlights the scale of operation of cottage industries in settings of relative poverty in Johannesburg—19% in the total study, and up to 37% of households in particular neighborhoods. The most common cottage industries were electrical repairs (25.8% in the total sample and up to 53.9% in Riverlea) and hairdressing (25.8% in the total sample and up to 57.7% in Hospital Hill).
Both electrical appliance repairs and hairdressing are associated with the use of hazardous substances. For example, repair work on electrical appliances may result in exposure to arsenic used in microwave circuits and light-emitting diodes [18]; cadmium in cathode-ray tube (CRT) screens such as those used in television sets and old computer monitors; lead in the glass of CRT screens, batteries, solder, and cable sheathing [18]; and mercury in fluorescent lamps, thermostats, and relay switches used to open and close electrical circuits [9]. Those involved in hairdressing are at risk of exposure to hundreds of harmful chemicals [26] and volatile organic compounds such as lead acetate [10]. Lead acetate, found in certain hair-dyes, is water soluble and easily transferred to hands and other surfaces, such as counter tops and hairdressing equipment, with the potential for hand-to-mouth transfer of lead in adults as well as children [10]. Children are particularly vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of lead [6,7,18,19]. Even low-level lead exposure in children results in impaired cognitive function which presents as a loss in intelligence quotient [27]. Interestingly, informal car lead battery recycling, which is well-documented in many developing countries [28,29,30,31,32], was not reported by respondents interviewed in this study.
Amongst other human activities such as mining and the use of unleaded petrol, cottage industry has been shown to be a source of exposure to lead [33]. The uncontrolled use of hazardous substances in cottage industries poses a health threat to cottage industry workers themselves, as well as to their families and neighbors. The public health impact is therefore potentially significant. Protecting the health of people involved in home-based enterprises is recognized to be a major challenge, especially given the informal nature and relative concealment of cottage industries within dwellings and backyards. Cottage industry involvement in the HEAD study undertaken in 2006 showed an overall prevalence of 14% compared to the present study (19%), with a 4% involvement in more than one cottage industry activity [34]; present study results show a marked increase (32.4%) for households involved in multiple cottage industries. Given the scale of operation of cottage industries, which may increase further in the light of the stagnating formal economy in South Africa, public health action is warranted. At the very least, and in the short term, awareness programs on relevant hazards, and the promotion of protection measures such as good ventilation in the workplace, the use of protective clothing, and measures to reduce contamination in the home environment, are of particular importance to protect workers, their families and neighbors, and especially vulnerable groups such as young children.
A limitation of this study is that actual exposure to metal toxicity was not assessed, neither was the presence or absence of personal protection equipment. Further work is needed to assess the occupational metal exposure associated with selected cottage industry activities and the impact on the communities’ health.

5. Conclusions

Further research is needed to fully assess the health implications of exposure of cottage industry workers, their families and neighbors, to the harmful substances associated with their occupations. The contribution of cottage industries to household exposure needs to be characterized in relation to other known local sources of exposure to hazardous substances, for example, from industrial processing plants and mining activities [35]. In light of the evidence from this study of widespread prevalence of cottage industries associated with hazardous substances, there is a clear need for scaled-up health action. Apart from immediate strategies and action to reduce exposure, the roles of the occupational and environmental health sectors need to be explored in relation to public health protection.

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible by funding from the South African Medical Research Council.

Author Contributions

Angela Mathee and Nisha Naicker conceptualized and designed the study, Tahira Kootbodien analyzed the data and June Teare led the writing with participation and constructive discussion from Angela Mathee, Tahira Kootbodien, and Nisha Naicker.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McCann, M. Hazards in cottage industries in developing countries. Amer. J. Ind. Med. 1996, 30, 125–129. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, M.; Sebstad, J.; O#x2019;Connell, L. Counting the invisible workforce: The case of homebased workers. World Dev. 1999, 27, 603–610. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hiralal, K. The “invisible” workers of the informal economy—A case study of home-based workers in Kwazulu/Natal, South Africa. J. Soc. Sci. 2010, 23, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  4. Knishkowy, B.; Baker, E.L. Transmission of occupational disease to family contacts. Amer. J. Ind. Med. 1986, 9, 543–550. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tong, S.; von Schirnding, Y.E.; Prapamontol, T. Environmental lead exposure: A public health problem of global dimensions. Bull. WHO 2000, 78, 1068–1077. [Google Scholar]
  6. Stein, J.; Schettler, T.; Wallinga, D.; Valenti, M. In harm’s way: Toxic threats to child development. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2002, 23, S13–S22. [Google Scholar]
  7. Horton, L.M.; Mortensen, M.E.; Iossifova, Y.; Wald, M.M.; Burgess, P. What do we know of childhood exposures to metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury) in emerging market countries? Int. J. Pediatr. 2013. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/872596 (accessed on 15 September 2014).
  8. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Guidance for the Identification and Control of Safety and Health Hazards in Metal Scrap Recycling. 2008. Available online: http://www.osha.gov (accessed on 15 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  9. Hazardous Substances in E-Waste. Available online: http://ewasteguide.info/ (accessed on 4 June 2014).
  10. Mielke, H.W.; Taylor, M.D.; Gonzales, C.R.; Smith, M.K.; Daniels, P.V.; Buckner, A.V. Lead-based hair coloring products: Too hazardous for household use. J. Amer. Pharm. Assoc. 1997, 37, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clausen, J.; Rastogi, S.C. Heavy metal pollution among autoworkers. I. Lead. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 1977, 34, 208–215. [Google Scholar]
  12. Öktem, F.; Arslan, M.K.; Dündar, B.; Delibas, N.; Gültepe, M.; Ilhan, I.E. Renal effects and erythrocyte oxidative stress in long-term low-level lead-exposed adolescent workers in auto repair workshops. Arch. Toxicol. 2004, 78, 681–687. [Google Scholar]
  13. Babalola, O.O.; Ojo, L.O.; Aderemi, M.O. Lead levels in some biological samples of auto-mechanics in Abeokuta, Nigeria. Indian J. Biochem. Biophys. 2005, 42, 401–403. [Google Scholar]
  14. Vitayavirasuk, B.; Junhom, S.; Tantisaeranee, P. Exposure to lead, cadmium and chromium among spray painters in automobile body repair shops. J. Occup. Health 2005, 47, 518–522. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tahir, H.; JahanZeb, Q.; Sultan, M. Assessment of heavy metal exposure around auto body refinishing shops. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 7862–7869. [Google Scholar]
  16. Department of Labor and Industries. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Scrap Metal Recycling. Available online: http://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/research/files/lead_scrap.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2015).
  17. Gonzales, M.; Shah, V.; Bobelu, A.; Qualls, C.; Natachu, K.; Bobelu, J.; Jamon, E.; Neha, D.; Paine, S.; Zager, P. Concentrations of surface-dust metals in Native American jewelry-making homes in Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. Arch. Environ. Health 2004, 59, 245–249. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hu, H. Human health and heavy metals exposure. In Life Support; McCally, M., Ed.; The Environment and Human Health, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Järup, L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Brit. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng, Y.; Schwartz, J.; Vokonas, P.S.; Weiss, S.T.; Aro, A.; Hu, H. Electrocardiographic conduction disturbances in association with low-level lead exposure (the Normative Aging Study). Amer. J. Cardiol. 1998, 82, 594–599. [Google Scholar]
  21. Çöl, M.; Çöl, C.; Soran, A.; Sayli, B.S.; Öztürk, S. Arsenic-related Bowen’s Disease, palmar keratosis, and skin cancer. Environ. Health Perspect. 1999, 107, 687–689. [Google Scholar]
  22. Clausen, J.; Rastogi, S.C. Heavy metal pollution among autoworkers. II. Cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, and nickel. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 1977, 34, 216–220. [Google Scholar]
  23. Järup, L.; Hellström, L.; Alfvén, T.; Carlsson, M.D.; Grubb, A.; Persson, B.; Pettersson, C.; Spång, G.; Schütz, A.; Elinder, C.G. Low level exposure to cadmium and early kidney damage: The OSCAR study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2000, 57, 668–672. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alfvén, T.; Elinder, C-G.; Carlsson, M.G.; Grubb, A.; Hellström, L.; Persson, B.; Pettersson, C.; Spång, B.; Schütz, A.; Järup, L. Low-level cadmium exposure and osteoporosis. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2000, 15, 1579–1586. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mathee, A. Indicators of Health Environment and Development: Longitudinal Study in Johannesburg, 2006–2008; Environmental & Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2009. Available online: http://www.mrc.ac.za/environmenthealth/head0608.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2014).
  26. Labréche, F.; Forest, J.; Trottier, M.; Lalonde, M.; Simard, R. Characterization of chemical exposures in hairdressing salons. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2003, 8, 1014–1021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Banks, E.C.; Ferretti, L.E.; Shucard, D.W. Effects of low-level lead exposure on cognitive function in children: A review of behavioural, neuropsychological and biological evidence. Neurotoxicology 1997, 18, 237–281. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haefliger, P.; Mathieu-Nolf, M.; Lociciro, S.; Ndiaye, C.; Coly, M.; Diouf, A.; Faye, A.L.; Sow, A.; Tempowski, J.; Pronczuk, J.; et al. Mass lead intoxication from informal used lead-acid battery recycling in Dakar, Senegal. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 1535–1540. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nriagu, J.O. Toxic metal pollution in Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 1992, 121, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  30. Suplido, M.L.; Ong, C.N. Lead exposure among small scale battery recyclers, automobile radiator mechanics, and their children in Manila, the Philippines. Environ. Res. 2000, 82, 231–238. [Google Scholar]
  31. Matte, T.D.; Fiqueroa, J.P.; Ostrowski, S.; Burr, G.; Jackson-Hunt, L.; Keenlyside, R.A.; Baker, E.L. Lead poisoning among household members exposed to lead-acid battery repair shops in Kingston, Jamaica. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1989, 18, 874–881. [Google Scholar]
  32. Paoliello, M.M.; de Capitani, E.M. Environmental contamination and human exposure to lead in Brazil. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2005, 184, 59–96. [Google Scholar]
  33. UNEP. Draft Final Review of Scientific Information on Lead; United Nations Environment Programme, Chemicals Branch: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available online: http://www.chem.unep.ch/Pb_and_Cd/SR/Draft_final_reviews/Pb_Review/Final_UNEP_Lead_review_Nov_2008.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2015).
  34. Mathee, A.; Harpham, T.; Barnes, B.; Swart, A.; Naidoo, S.; de Wet, T.; Becker, P. Inequity in poverty: The emerging public health challenge in Johannesburg. Dev. Southern Afr. 2009, 26, 721–732. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kootbodien, T.; Mathee, A.; Naicker, N.; Moodley, N. Heavy metal contamination in a school vegetable garden in Johannesburg. S. Afr. Med. J. 2012, 102, 226–227. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teare, J.; Kootbodien, T.; Naicker, N.; Mathee, A. The Extent, Nature and Environmental Health Implications of Cottage Industries in Johannesburg, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 1894-1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201894

AMA Style

Teare J, Kootbodien T, Naicker N, Mathee A. The Extent, Nature and Environmental Health Implications of Cottage Industries in Johannesburg, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015; 12(2):1894-1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201894

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teare, June, Tahira Kootbodien, Nisha Naicker, and Angela Mathee. 2015. "The Extent, Nature and Environmental Health Implications of Cottage Industries in Johannesburg, South Africa" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12, no. 2: 1894-1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201894

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop