Cargando…
The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s.
BACKGROUND: The type of sprayable surface impacts on residual efficacy of insecticide used in indoor residual spraying (IRS). However, there is limited data on common types of wall surfaces sprayed in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania where IRS began in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The study investigate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25890339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4 |
_version_ | 1782366022899073024 |
---|---|
author | Mutagahywa, Joshua Ijumba, Jasper N Pratap, Harish B Molteni, Fabrizio Mugarula, Frances E Magesa, Stephen M Ramsan, Mahdi M Kafuko, Jessica M Nyanza, Elias C Mwaipape, Osia Rutta, Juma G Mwalimu, Charles D Ndong, Isaiah Reithinger, Richard Thawer, Narjis G Ngondi, Jeremiah M |
author_facet | Mutagahywa, Joshua Ijumba, Jasper N Pratap, Harish B Molteni, Fabrizio Mugarula, Frances E Magesa, Stephen M Ramsan, Mahdi M Kafuko, Jessica M Nyanza, Elias C Mwaipape, Osia Rutta, Juma G Mwalimu, Charles D Ndong, Isaiah Reithinger, Richard Thawer, Narjis G Ngondi, Jeremiah M |
author_sort | Mutagahywa, Joshua |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The type of sprayable surface impacts on residual efficacy of insecticide used in indoor residual spraying (IRS). However, there is limited data on common types of wall surfaces sprayed in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania where IRS began in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The study investigated residual efficacy of micro-encapsulated lambda-cyhalothrin sprayed on common surfaces of human dwellings and domestic animal shelters in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. METHODS: An experimental hut was constructed with different types of materials simulating common sprayable surfaces in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. Surfaces included cement plastered wall, mud-daub, white-wash, wood, palm-thatch, galvanized iron-sheets, burnt-bricks, limestone and oil-paint. The World Health Organization (WHO) procedure for IRS was used to spray lambda-cyhalothrin on surfaces at the dose of 20–25 mg/m(2). Residual efficacy of insecticide was monitored through cone bioassay using laboratory-reared mosquitoes; Kisumu strain (R–70) of Anopheles gambiae ss. Cone bioassay was done every fortnight for a period of 152 days. The WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) threshold (80% mortality) was used as cut-off point for acceptable residual efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 5,800 mosquitoes were subjected to contact cone bioassay to test residual efficacy of lambda-cyhalothrin. There was a statistically significant variation in residual efficacy between the different types of wall surfaces (r = 0.24; p < 0.001). Residual efficacy decreased with increasing pH of the substrate (r = −0.5; p < 0.001). Based on WHOPES standards, shorter residual efficacy (42-56 days) was found in wall substrates made of cement, limestone, mud-daub, oil paint and white wash. Burnt bricks retained the residual efficacy up to 134 days while galvanized iron sheets, palm thatch and wood retained the recommended residual efficacy beyond 152 days. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a wide variation in residual efficacy of micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin across the different types of wall surfaces studied. In areas where malaria transmission is bimodal and wall surfaces with short residual efficacy comprise > 20% of sprayable structures, two rounds of IRS using lambda-cyhalothrin should be considered. Further studies are required to investigate the impact of sprayable surfaces on residual efficacy of other insecticides commonly used for IRS in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4392635 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43926352015-04-11 The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. Mutagahywa, Joshua Ijumba, Jasper N Pratap, Harish B Molteni, Fabrizio Mugarula, Frances E Magesa, Stephen M Ramsan, Mahdi M Kafuko, Jessica M Nyanza, Elias C Mwaipape, Osia Rutta, Juma G Mwalimu, Charles D Ndong, Isaiah Reithinger, Richard Thawer, Narjis G Ngondi, Jeremiah M Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: The type of sprayable surface impacts on residual efficacy of insecticide used in indoor residual spraying (IRS). However, there is limited data on common types of wall surfaces sprayed in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania where IRS began in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The study investigated residual efficacy of micro-encapsulated lambda-cyhalothrin sprayed on common surfaces of human dwellings and domestic animal shelters in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. METHODS: An experimental hut was constructed with different types of materials simulating common sprayable surfaces in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. Surfaces included cement plastered wall, mud-daub, white-wash, wood, palm-thatch, galvanized iron-sheets, burnt-bricks, limestone and oil-paint. The World Health Organization (WHO) procedure for IRS was used to spray lambda-cyhalothrin on surfaces at the dose of 20–25 mg/m(2). Residual efficacy of insecticide was monitored through cone bioassay using laboratory-reared mosquitoes; Kisumu strain (R–70) of Anopheles gambiae ss. Cone bioassay was done every fortnight for a period of 152 days. The WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) threshold (80% mortality) was used as cut-off point for acceptable residual efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 5,800 mosquitoes were subjected to contact cone bioassay to test residual efficacy of lambda-cyhalothrin. There was a statistically significant variation in residual efficacy between the different types of wall surfaces (r = 0.24; p < 0.001). Residual efficacy decreased with increasing pH of the substrate (r = −0.5; p < 0.001). Based on WHOPES standards, shorter residual efficacy (42-56 days) was found in wall substrates made of cement, limestone, mud-daub, oil paint and white wash. Burnt bricks retained the residual efficacy up to 134 days while galvanized iron sheets, palm thatch and wood retained the recommended residual efficacy beyond 152 days. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a wide variation in residual efficacy of micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin across the different types of wall surfaces studied. In areas where malaria transmission is bimodal and wall surfaces with short residual efficacy comprise > 20% of sprayable structures, two rounds of IRS using lambda-cyhalothrin should be considered. Further studies are required to investigate the impact of sprayable surfaces on residual efficacy of other insecticides commonly used for IRS in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. BioMed Central 2015-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4392635/ /pubmed/25890339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4 Text en © Mutagahywa et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Mutagahywa, Joshua Ijumba, Jasper N Pratap, Harish B Molteni, Fabrizio Mugarula, Frances E Magesa, Stephen M Ramsan, Mahdi M Kafuko, Jessica M Nyanza, Elias C Mwaipape, Osia Rutta, Juma G Mwalimu, Charles D Ndong, Isaiah Reithinger, Richard Thawer, Narjis G Ngondi, Jeremiah M The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title | The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title_full | The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title_fullStr | The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title_short | The impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against Anopheles gambiae s.s. |
title_sort | impact of different sprayable surfaces on the effectiveness of indoor residual spraying using a micro encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin against anopheles gambiae s.s. |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25890339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mutagahywajoshua theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ijumbajaspern theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT pratapharishb theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT moltenifabrizio theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mugarulafrancese theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT magesastephenm theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ramsanmahdim theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT kafukojessicam theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT nyanzaeliasc theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mwaipapeosia theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ruttajumag theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mwalimucharlesd theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ndongisaiah theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT reithingerrichard theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT thawernarjisg theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ngondijeremiahm theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mutagahywajoshua impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ijumbajaspern impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT pratapharishb impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT moltenifabrizio impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mugarulafrancese impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT magesastephenm impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ramsanmahdim impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT kafukojessicam impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT nyanzaeliasc impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mwaipapeosia impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ruttajumag impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mwalimucharlesd impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ndongisaiah impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT reithingerrichard impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT thawernarjisg impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT ngondijeremiahm impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess |