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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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