Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory
Abstract Background Efforts to evaluate the residual efficacy of new indoor residual spraying (IRS) formulations have identified limitations with the industry standard laboratory sprayer, the Potter Spray Tower (PT). Calibrating the PT can be time-consuming, and the dosing of surfaces may not be as...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-02-01
|
| Series: | Parasites & Vectors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06168-x |
| _version_ | 1797275715907878912 |
|---|---|
| author | Jane Bonds George Parsons Kyle J. Walker Annabel Murphy Rosemary Susan Lees Derric Nimmo John Clayton David Malone |
| author_facet | Jane Bonds George Parsons Kyle J. Walker Annabel Murphy Rosemary Susan Lees Derric Nimmo John Clayton David Malone |
| author_sort | Jane Bonds |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Efforts to evaluate the residual efficacy of new indoor residual spraying (IRS) formulations have identified limitations with the industry standard laboratory sprayer, the Potter Spray Tower (PT). Calibrating the PT can be time-consuming, and the dosing of surfaces may not be as accurate or uniform as previously assumed. Methods To address these limitations, the Micron Horizontal Track Sprayer with Spray Cabinet (TS) was developed to provide higher efficiency, ease of operation and deposition uniformity equal to or better than the PT. A series of studies were performed using a fluorescent tracer and three IRS formulations (Actellic® 300CS, K-Othrine WG250 and Suspend PolyZone) sprayed onto surfaces using either the PT or the TS. Results Deposition volumes could be accurately calibrated for both spray systems. However, the uniformity of spray deposits was higher for the TS compared to the PT. Less than 12% of the volume sprayed using the PT reaches the target surface, with the remaining 88% unaccounted for, presumably vented out of the fume hood or coating the internal surfaces of the tower. In contrast, the TS deposits most of the spray on the floor of the spray chamber, with the rest contained therein. The total sprayed surface area in one run of the TS is 1.2 m2, and the operational zone for spray target placement is 0.7 m2, meaning that 58% of the applied volume deposits onto the targets. The TS can treat multiple surfaces (18 standard 15 × 15 cm tiles) in a single application, whereas the PT treats one surface at a time and a maximum area of around 0.0225 m2. An assessment of the time taken to perform spraying, including the setup, calibration and cleaning, showed that the cost of application using the TS was around 25–35 × less per tile sprayed. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for calibration and use of both the Potter Tower and Track Sprayer have been developed. Conclusions Overall, the TS represents a significant improvement over the PT in terms of the efficiency and accuracy of IRS formulation applications onto test substrates and offers a useful additional tool for researchers and manufacturers wanting to screen new active ingredients or evaluate the efficacy of IRS or other sprayable formulations for insect control. Graphical Abstract |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:17:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dc1d529b4b244a0b8933a376a5b75301 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1756-3305 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:17:29Z |
| publishDate | 2024-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Parasites & Vectors |
| spelling | doaj.art-dc1d529b4b244a0b8933a376a5b753012024-03-05T17:51:11ZengBMCParasites & Vectors1756-33052024-02-0117111310.1186/s13071-024-06168-xComparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratoryJane Bonds0George Parsons1Kyle J. Walker2Annabel Murphy3Rosemary Susan Lees4Derric Nimmo5John Clayton6David Malone7Bonds Consulting Group LLCDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical MedicineDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical MedicineDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical MedicineDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical MedicineInnovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), Liverpool School of Tropical MedicineMicron Sprayers Ltd, Bromyard Industrial EstateBill & Melinda Gates FoundationAbstract Background Efforts to evaluate the residual efficacy of new indoor residual spraying (IRS) formulations have identified limitations with the industry standard laboratory sprayer, the Potter Spray Tower (PT). Calibrating the PT can be time-consuming, and the dosing of surfaces may not be as accurate or uniform as previously assumed. Methods To address these limitations, the Micron Horizontal Track Sprayer with Spray Cabinet (TS) was developed to provide higher efficiency, ease of operation and deposition uniformity equal to or better than the PT. A series of studies were performed using a fluorescent tracer and three IRS formulations (Actellic® 300CS, K-Othrine WG250 and Suspend PolyZone) sprayed onto surfaces using either the PT or the TS. Results Deposition volumes could be accurately calibrated for both spray systems. However, the uniformity of spray deposits was higher for the TS compared to the PT. Less than 12% of the volume sprayed using the PT reaches the target surface, with the remaining 88% unaccounted for, presumably vented out of the fume hood or coating the internal surfaces of the tower. In contrast, the TS deposits most of the spray on the floor of the spray chamber, with the rest contained therein. The total sprayed surface area in one run of the TS is 1.2 m2, and the operational zone for spray target placement is 0.7 m2, meaning that 58% of the applied volume deposits onto the targets. The TS can treat multiple surfaces (18 standard 15 × 15 cm tiles) in a single application, whereas the PT treats one surface at a time and a maximum area of around 0.0225 m2. An assessment of the time taken to perform spraying, including the setup, calibration and cleaning, showed that the cost of application using the TS was around 25–35 × less per tile sprayed. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for calibration and use of both the Potter Tower and Track Sprayer have been developed. Conclusions Overall, the TS represents a significant improvement over the PT in terms of the efficiency and accuracy of IRS formulation applications onto test substrates and offers a useful additional tool for researchers and manufacturers wanting to screen new active ingredients or evaluate the efficacy of IRS or other sprayable formulations for insect control. Graphical Abstracthttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06168-xInsecticide residual spray (IRS)Application technologyVector controlPotter Tower (PT)Micron Track Sprayer (TS) |
| spellingShingle | Jane Bonds George Parsons Kyle J. Walker Annabel Murphy Rosemary Susan Lees Derric Nimmo John Clayton David Malone Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory Parasites & Vectors Insecticide residual spray (IRS) Application technology Vector control Potter Tower (PT) Micron Track Sprayer (TS) |
| title | Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| title_full | Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| title_short | Comparative analysis of the Potter Tower and a new Track Sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of the potter tower and a new track sprayer for the application of residual sprays in the laboratory |
| topic | Insecticide residual spray (IRS) Application technology Vector control Potter Tower (PT) Micron Track Sprayer (TS) |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06168-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT janebonds comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT georgeparsons comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT kylejwalker comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT annabelmurphy comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT rosemarysusanlees comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT derricnimmo comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT johnclayton comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory AT davidmalone comparativeanalysisofthepottertowerandanewtracksprayerfortheapplicationofresidualspraysinthelaboratory |