Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to establish whether the "bottle assay", a tool for monitoring insecticide resistance in mosquitoes, can complement and augment the capabilities of the established WHO assay, particularly in resource-poor, logistically challenging environments., Methods: Laboratory reared Aedes aegypti and field collected Anopheles darlingi and Anopheles albimanus were used to assess the suitability of locally sourced solvents and formulated insecticides for use with the bottle assay. Using these adapted protocols, the ability of the bottle assay and the WHO assay to discriminate between deltamethrin-resistant Anopheles albimanus populations was compared. The diagnostic dose of deltamethrin that would identify resistance in currently susceptible populations of An. darlingi and Ae. aegypti was defined. The robustness of the bottle assay during a surveillance exercise in the Amazon was assessed., Results: The bottle assay (using technical or formulated material) and the WHO assay were equally able to differentiate deltamethrin-resistant and susceptible An. albimanus populations. A diagnostic dose of 10 microg a.i./bottle was identified as the most sensitive discriminating dose for characterizing resistance in An. darlingi and Ae. aegypti. Treated bottles, prepared using locally sourced solvents and insecticide formulations, can be stored for > 14 days and used three times. Bottles can be stored and transported under local conditions and field-assays can be completed in a single evening., Conclusion: The flexible and portable nature of the bottle assay and the ready availability of its components make it a potentially robust and useful tool for monitoring insecticide resistance and efficacy in remote areas that require minimal cost tools.

Vector control is a key means of combating mosquito-borne diseases and the only tool available for tackling the transmission of dengue, a disease for which no vaccine, prophylaxis, or therapeutant currently exists. The most effective mosquito control methods include a variety of insecticidal tools that target adults or juveniles. Their successful implementation depends on impacting the largest proportion of the vector population possible. We demonstrate a control strategy that dramatically improves the efficiency with which high coverage of aquatic mosquito habitats can be achieved. The method exploits adult mosquitoes as vehicles of insecticide transfer by harnessing their fundamental behaviors to disseminate a juvenile hormone analogue (JHA) between resting and oviposition sites. A series of field trials undertaken in an Amazon city (Iquitos, Peru) showed that the placement of JHA dissemination stations in just 3-5% of the available resting area resulted in almost complete coverage of sentinel aquatic habitats. More than control mortality occurred in 95-100% of the larval cohorts of Aedes aegypti developing at those sites. Overall reductions in adult emergence of 42-98% were achieved during the trials. A deterministic simulation model predicts amplifications in coverage consistent with our observations and highlights the importance of the residual activity of the insecticide for this technique.

Background: The cost of mosquito repellents in Latin America has discouraged their wider use among the poor. To address this problem, a low-cost repellent was developed that reduces the level of expensive repellent actives by combining them with inexpensive fixatives that appear to slow repellent evaporation. The chosen actives were a mixture of para-menthane-diol (PMD) and lemongrass oil (LG)., Methods: To test the efficacy of the repellent, field trials were staged in Guatemala and Peru. Repellent efficacy was determined by human-landing catches on volunteers who wore the experimental repellents, control, or 15% DEET. The studies were conducted using a balanced Latin Square design with volunteers, treatments, and locations rotated each night., Results: In Guatemala, collections were performed for two hours, commencing three hours after repellent application. The repellent provided >98% protection for five hours after application, with a biting pressure of >100 landings per person/hour. The 15% DEET control provided lower protection at 92% (p < 0.0001). In Peru, collections were performed for four hours, commencing two hours after repellent application. The PMD/LG repellent provided 95% protection for six hours after application with a biting pressure of >46 landings per person/hour. The 20% DEET control provided significantly lower protection at 64% (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: In both locations, the PMD/LG repellent provided excellent protection up to six hours after application against a wide range of disease vectors including Anopheles darlingi. The addition of fixatives to the repellent extended its longevity while enhancing efficacy and significantly reducing its cost to malaria-endemic communities.