Insecticide treated eaves screens provide additional marginal protection compared to untreated eave screens under semi-field conditions in western Kenya.

MalariaWorld journal Pub Date : 2024-01-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10567425
Bernard Abong'o, Silas Agumba, Vincent Moshi, Jacob Simwero, Jane Otima, Eric Ochomo
{"title":"Insecticide treated eaves screens provide additional marginal protection compared to untreated eave screens under semi-field conditions in western Kenya.","authors":"Bernard Abong'o, Silas Agumba, Vincent Moshi, Jacob Simwero, Jane Otima, Eric Ochomo","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.10567425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Human habitats remain the main point of human-vector interaction leading to malaria transmission despite the sustained use of insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying. Simple structural modifications involving screening of doors, windows and eaves have great potential for reducing indoor entry of mosquitoes. Moreover, insecticide treatment of the screen material may provide additional benefit in mosquito population reduction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Four huts, each constructed inside a semi-field structure, were used in the study. Two had untreated eave and door screens and screened air cavities in place of windows (experiment 1) or were similar but with the eave screens treated with Actellic® 300CS insecticide (experiment 2). The other two huts remained unscreened throughout the study. Two hundred, 3-day old adults of F1 generation <i>Anopheles funestus</i> collected by aspiration or F0 reared from <i>An. arabiensis</i> larvae or <i>An. arabiensis</i> (Dongola strain) were released in each semi-field structure at dusk and recaptured the following morning. A single volunteer slept in each hut under an untreated bednet each night of the study. Recaptured mosquitoes were counted and recorded by location, either indoor or outdoor of each hut in the different semi-field structures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on modelled estimates, significantly fewer, 10% <i>An. arabiensis</i> from Ahero, 11% <i>An. arabiensis</i> Dongola strain and 10% <i>An. funestus</i> from Siaya were observed inside modified huts compared to unmodified ones. Treating of eave screen material with Actellic® 300CS significantly reduced indoor numbers of <i>An. arabiensis</i> from Ahero, to nearly 0%, and <i>An. arabiensis</i> Dongola strain, to 3%, compared to huts with untreated eave screens, while eliminating <i>An. funestus</i> indoors. These modifications cost US$180 /structure and have been observed to last more than 15 years in a different location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Eave, door and window screening are effective ways of reducing mosquito entry into houses. Additionally, treatment of eave screen material with an effective insecticide further reduces the <i>Anopheles</i> population in and around the screened huts under semi-field conditions and could greatly complement existing vector control efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":74100,"journal":{"name":"MalariaWorld journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10842374/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MalariaWorld journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10567425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Human habitats remain the main point of human-vector interaction leading to malaria transmission despite the sustained use of insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying. Simple structural modifications involving screening of doors, windows and eaves have great potential for reducing indoor entry of mosquitoes. Moreover, insecticide treatment of the screen material may provide additional benefit in mosquito population reduction.

Materials and methods: Four huts, each constructed inside a semi-field structure, were used in the study. Two had untreated eave and door screens and screened air cavities in place of windows (experiment 1) or were similar but with the eave screens treated with Actellic® 300CS insecticide (experiment 2). The other two huts remained unscreened throughout the study. Two hundred, 3-day old adults of F1 generation Anopheles funestus collected by aspiration or F0 reared from An. arabiensis larvae or An. arabiensis (Dongola strain) were released in each semi-field structure at dusk and recaptured the following morning. A single volunteer slept in each hut under an untreated bednet each night of the study. Recaptured mosquitoes were counted and recorded by location, either indoor or outdoor of each hut in the different semi-field structures.

Results: Based on modelled estimates, significantly fewer, 10% An. arabiensis from Ahero, 11% An. arabiensis Dongola strain and 10% An. funestus from Siaya were observed inside modified huts compared to unmodified ones. Treating of eave screen material with Actellic® 300CS significantly reduced indoor numbers of An. arabiensis from Ahero, to nearly 0%, and An. arabiensis Dongola strain, to 3%, compared to huts with untreated eave screens, while eliminating An. funestus indoors. These modifications cost US$180 /structure and have been observed to last more than 15 years in a different location.

Conclusions: Eave, door and window screening are effective ways of reducing mosquito entry into houses. Additionally, treatment of eave screen material with an effective insecticide further reduces the Anopheles population in and around the screened huts under semi-field conditions and could greatly complement existing vector control efforts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在肯尼亚西部的半田间条件下,经过杀虫剂处理的屋檐纱窗比未经处理的屋檐纱窗提供了额外的边际保护。
导言:尽管持续使用驱虫蚊帐和室内滞留喷洒,人类居住地仍然是人类与病媒相互作用导致疟疾传播的主要场所。对门窗和屋檐进行简单的结构改造,就有可能减少蚊子进入室内。此外,对纱窗材料进行杀虫剂处理可能会在减少蚊子数量方面带来额外的好处:研究使用了四间小屋,每间都建在半田地结构内。其中两间小屋的屋檐和门纱窗未经处理,并用纱窗空腔代替窗户(实验 1);另一间小屋的屋檐纱窗经 Actellic® 300CS 杀虫剂处理(实验 2)。另外两间小屋在整个研究过程中都没有安装纱窗。黄昏时分,将通过抽吸法收集的 200 只 F1 代按蚊成虫或从阿拉伯按蚊幼虫或阿拉伯按蚊(Dongola 株系)饲养的 F0 代按蚊成虫(3 天大)释放到每个半地结构中,并于次日早晨重新捕获。研究期间,每晚都有一名志愿者在未经处理的蚊帐内睡觉。对重新捕获的蚊子进行计数,并按不同半农田结构中每间小屋的室内或室外位置进行记录:根据模型估算,与未经改造的茅屋相比,改造后的茅屋内观察到的阿拉伯疟蚊数量明显减少,阿赫罗的阿拉伯疟蚊占 10%,东戈拉的阿拉伯疟蚊占 11%,西亚的疟蚊占 10%。使用 Actellic® 300CS 处理屋檐纱窗材料后,与未处理屋檐纱窗的木屋相比,阿赫罗蚁的室内数量大幅减少到近 0%,东戈拉蚁的室内数量减少到 3%,同时消除了室内的真菌蚁。这些改造工程每栋花费 180 美元,据观察,在不同的地方,这些改造工程持续了 15 年以上:结论:屋檐、门窗纱窗是减少蚊子进入房屋的有效方法。此外,在半野外条件下,用有效的杀虫剂处理屋檐纱窗材料可进一步减少疟蚊在纱窗小屋内和周围的数量,从而极大地补充现有的病媒控制工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Biochemical features of the Cry4B toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis and its interaction with BT-R3, a bitopic cadherin G-protein coupled receptor in Anopheles gambiae. Relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria in a 12-year-old Brazilian girl: A case report. Uneasy bedfellows: Public-Private partnerships for malaria control. Palestine 100 years ago seen through the malaria lens: an examination of successful malaria elimination, and of where the malaria community seems to have taken a wrong turning Regaining the path to malaria elimination: Lessons from the pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1