Cargando…

User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a proven tool to reduce visceral leishmaniasis vectors in endemic villages. In India IRS is being done with stirrup pumps, whereas Nepal, Bangladesh, and other countries use compression pumps. The present study was conducted with the obj...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Vijay, Kesari, Shreekant, Chowdhury, Rajib, Kumar, Sanjiv, Sinha, Gunjan, Hussain, Saddam, Huda, M. Mamun, Kroeger, Axel, Das, Pradeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24056601
_version_ 1782286294451224576
author Kumar, Vijay
Kesari, Shreekant
Chowdhury, Rajib
Kumar, Sanjiv
Sinha, Gunjan
Hussain, Saddam
Huda, M. Mamun
Kroeger, Axel
Das, Pradeep
author_facet Kumar, Vijay
Kesari, Shreekant
Chowdhury, Rajib
Kumar, Sanjiv
Sinha, Gunjan
Hussain, Saddam
Huda, M. Mamun
Kroeger, Axel
Das, Pradeep
author_sort Kumar, Vijay
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a proven tool to reduce visceral leishmaniasis vectors in endemic villages. In India IRS is being done with stirrup pumps, whereas Nepal, Bangladesh, and other countries use compression pumps. The present study was conducted with the objectives to compare the efficiency, cost and user friendliness of stirrup and compression pumps. METHODS: The study was carried out in Gorigawan village of the Vaishali district in north Bihar and included a total population of 3259 inhabitants in 605 households. Spraying with 50 per cent DDT was done by two teams with 6 persons per team under the supervision of investigators over 5 days with each type of pump (10 days in total using 2 stirrup pumps and 3 compression pumps) by the same sprayers in an alternate way. The spraying technique was observed using an observation check list, the number of houses and room surfaces sprayed was recorded and an interview with sprayers on their satisfaction with the two types of pumps was conducted. RESULTS: On average, 65 houses were covered per day with the compression pump and 56 houses were covered with the stirrup pump. The surface area sprayed per squad per day was higher for the compression pump (4636 m(2)) than for the stirrup pump (4102 m(2)). Observation showed that it was easy to maintain the spray swath with the compression pump but very difficult with the stirrup pump. The wastage of insecticide suspension was negligible for the compression pump but high for the stirrup pump. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: The compression pump was found to be more user friendly due to its lower weight, easier to operate, lower operation cost, higher safety and better efficiency in terms of discharge rate and higher area coverage than the stirrup pump.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3788210
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37882102013-10-04 User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying Kumar, Vijay Kesari, Shreekant Chowdhury, Rajib Kumar, Sanjiv Sinha, Gunjan Hussain, Saddam Huda, M. Mamun Kroeger, Axel Das, Pradeep Indian J Med Res Original Article BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a proven tool to reduce visceral leishmaniasis vectors in endemic villages. In India IRS is being done with stirrup pumps, whereas Nepal, Bangladesh, and other countries use compression pumps. The present study was conducted with the objectives to compare the efficiency, cost and user friendliness of stirrup and compression pumps. METHODS: The study was carried out in Gorigawan village of the Vaishali district in north Bihar and included a total population of 3259 inhabitants in 605 households. Spraying with 50 per cent DDT was done by two teams with 6 persons per team under the supervision of investigators over 5 days with each type of pump (10 days in total using 2 stirrup pumps and 3 compression pumps) by the same sprayers in an alternate way. The spraying technique was observed using an observation check list, the number of houses and room surfaces sprayed was recorded and an interview with sprayers on their satisfaction with the two types of pumps was conducted. RESULTS: On average, 65 houses were covered per day with the compression pump and 56 houses were covered with the stirrup pump. The surface area sprayed per squad per day was higher for the compression pump (4636 m(2)) than for the stirrup pump (4102 m(2)). Observation showed that it was easy to maintain the spray swath with the compression pump but very difficult with the stirrup pump. The wastage of insecticide suspension was negligible for the compression pump but high for the stirrup pump. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: The compression pump was found to be more user friendly due to its lower weight, easier to operate, lower operation cost, higher safety and better efficiency in terms of discharge rate and higher area coverage than the stirrup pump. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3788210/ /pubmed/24056601 Text en Copyright: © The Indian Journal of Medical Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Vijay
Kesari, Shreekant
Chowdhury, Rajib
Kumar, Sanjiv
Sinha, Gunjan
Hussain, Saddam
Huda, M. Mamun
Kroeger, Axel
Das, Pradeep
User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title_full User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title_fullStr User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title_full_unstemmed User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title_short User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
title_sort user friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24056601
work_keys_str_mv AT kumarvijay userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT kesarishreekant userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT chowdhuryrajib userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT kumarsanjiv userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT sinhagunjan userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT hussainsaddam userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT hudammamun userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT kroegeraxel userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying
AT daspradeep userfriendlinessefficiencysprayqualityofstirruppumpsversushandcompressionpumpsforindoorresidualspraying