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.
Abstract 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 inv...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2015-04-01
|
| Series: | Parasites & Vectors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4 |
| _version_ | 1797811849444458496 |
|---|---|
| author | Joshua Mutagahywa Jasper N Ijumba Harish B Pratap Fabrizio Molteni Frances E Mugarula Stephen M Magesa Mahdi M Ramsan Jessica M Kafuko Elias C Nyanza Osia Mwaipape Juma G Rutta Charles D Mwalimu Isaiah Ndong Richard Reithinger Narjis G Thawer Jeremiah M Ngondi |
| author_facet | Joshua Mutagahywa Jasper N Ijumba Harish B Pratap Fabrizio Molteni Frances E Mugarula Stephen M Magesa Mahdi M Ramsan Jessica M Kafuko Elias C Nyanza Osia Mwaipape Juma G Rutta Charles D Mwalimu Isaiah Ndong Richard Reithinger Narjis G Thawer Jeremiah M Ngondi |
| author_sort | Joshua Mutagahywa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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/m2. 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:29:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d24e442956e34632b0132669038dab27 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1756-3305 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:29:52Z |
| publishDate | 2015-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Parasites & Vectors |
| spelling | doaj.art-d24e442956e34632b0132669038dab272023-06-04T11:12:59ZengBMCParasites & Vectors1756-33052015-04-01811710.1186/s13071-015-0795-4The 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.Joshua Mutagahywa0Jasper N Ijumba1Harish B Pratap2Fabrizio Molteni3Frances E Mugarula4Stephen M Magesa5Mahdi M Ramsan6Jessica M Kafuko7Elias C Nyanza8Osia Mwaipape9Juma G Rutta10Charles D Mwalimu11Isaiah Ndong12Richard Reithinger13Narjis G Thawer14Jeremiah M Ngondi15RTI InternationalNelson Mandela African Institute of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Zoology and Wildlife Conservation College of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Dar es salaamSwiss Tropical and Public Health InstituteSengerema Health InstituteRTI InternationalRTI InternationalUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentSchool of Public Health, Catholic University of Health and Allied SciencesRTI InternationalRTI InternationalNational Malaria Control Program, Ministry of health and Social WelfareRTI InternationalRTI InternationalRTI InternationalRTI InternationalAbstract 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/m2. 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4Indoor residual sprayingLambda-cyhalothrinWall surfacesAnopheles gambiae ssMainland TanzaniaZanzibar |
| spellingShingle | Joshua Mutagahywa Jasper N Ijumba Harish B Pratap Fabrizio Molteni Frances E Mugarula Stephen M Magesa Mahdi M Ramsan Jessica M Kafuko Elias C Nyanza Osia Mwaipape Juma G Rutta Charles D Mwalimu Isaiah Ndong Richard Reithinger Narjis G Thawer Jeremiah M Ngondi 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. Parasites & Vectors Indoor residual spraying Lambda-cyhalothrin Wall surfaces Anopheles gambiae ss Mainland Tanzania Zanzibar |
| 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 | Indoor residual spraying Lambda-cyhalothrin Wall surfaces Anopheles gambiae ss Mainland Tanzania Zanzibar |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0795-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joshuamutagahywa theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jaspernijumba theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT harishbpratap theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT fabriziomolteni theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT francesemugarula theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT stephenmmagesa theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mahdimramsan theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jessicamkafuko theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT eliascnyanza theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT osiamwaipape theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jumagrutta theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT charlesdmwalimu theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT isaiahndong theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT richardreithinger theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT narjisgthawer theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jeremiahmngondi theimpactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT joshuamutagahywa impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jaspernijumba impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT harishbpratap impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT fabriziomolteni impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT francesemugarula impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT stephenmmagesa impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT mahdimramsan impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jessicamkafuko impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT eliascnyanza impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT osiamwaipape impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jumagrutta impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT charlesdmwalimu impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT isaiahndong impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT richardreithinger impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT narjisgthawer impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess AT jeremiahmngondi impactofdifferentsprayablesurfacesontheeffectivenessofindoorresidualsprayingusingamicroencapsulatedformulationoflambdacyhalothrinagainstanophelesgambiaess |