Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T22:17:58.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trials of Residual Insecticides against Anophelines in African-type Huts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. F. Burnett
G. F. Burnett
Affiliation:
Colonial Insecticide Research Unit, Arusha, Tanganyika.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since November 1951, trials of residual insecticides have been carried out at Taveta, Kenya, against Anopheles gambiae Giles and A. funestus Giles in native-type huts fitted with exit traps.

DDT wettable powder at over 2·5 g. DDT per sq. metre in a hut with plaster of absorbent mud gave, for eight months, kills of over 50 per cent. of the female Anophelines that entered.

BHC wettable powder in huts with absorbent walls at 0·24 g. γ isomer per sq. metre gave kills of over 50 per cent. for nine months or more. On non-absorbent walls the kill fell rapidly during the third month and was negligible by the fifth. Insecticide persisted in walls of active material after the roof of inactive materials had become relatively innocuous.

Wettable powders combining DDT and BHC were not effective unless the deposit of DDT was at least 2·1 g./m.2. For an equivalent cost, BHC alone was more effective on active walls and dieldrin on inactive ones.

BHC in urea-formaldehyde resin at 2·5 g. γ BHC per sq. metre was persistent but the persistence was not commensurate with the cost of the material and difficulty of application. The insecticide persists longest on mud surfaces, presumably because it is absorbed from the skin of resin and later released as vapour. Absorption would render permanently innocuous a nonvolatile insecticide.

Aldrin wettable powder was found considerably less persistent than BHC on absorbent walls.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 631 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, W. S. (1925). J. econ. Ent., 18, pp. 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annecke, D. H. S. (1954). Use of dieldrin in control of malaria.—E. Afr. med. J., 31, pp. 491–494.Google ScholarPubMed
Barlow, F. & Hadaway, A. B. (1955). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. V.—Bull. ent. Res., 46, pp. 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordas, E. & Navarro, L. (1955). Studies in vapour toxicity, repellency, and the residual activity of DDT, chlordane, lindane and dieldrin.—WHO/Mal/125, WHO/Insecticides/38.Google Scholar
Burnett, G. F. & Woodcock, K. E. (1956). The choice of nozzles for spraying buildings with residual insecticides.—E. Afr. med. J., 33, pp. 54–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Davidson, G. (1953). Experiments on the effect of residual insecticides in houses against Anopheles gambiae and A. funestus.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, G. & Burnett, G. F. (1952). Apparent fumigant action of non-volatile insecticides in African huts.—Nature, Lond., 170, p. 893.Google Scholar
Downs, W. G. & Bordas, E. (1951). Control of Anopheles pseudopunctipennis in Mexico with DDT residual sprays applied in buildings. V.—Amer. J. Hyg., 54, pp. 150–156.Google ScholarPubMed
SirFisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1953). Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. 4th edn.—126 pp. Edinburgh, Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1949). Further studies on the loss of insecticides by absorption into mud and vegetation.—Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 323–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1952). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. III.—Bull. ent. Res., 43, pp. 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1953). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. IV.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1956). Effect of changes in humidity on the toxicity and distribution of insecticides sorbed by some dried soils.—Nature, Lond., 178, pp. 1299–1300.Google Scholar
Hocking, K. S. (1947). The residual action of DDT against Anopheles gambiae and funestus.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 40, pp. 589–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCauley, R. H., Fay, R. W. & Simmons, S. W. (1948). The importance of coverage in DDT residual house spraying for control of Anopheles quadrimaculatus mosquitoes.—Publ. Hlth Rep., 63, pp. 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, G. & Davidson, G. (1953). Dose and cycle of insecticide applications in the control of malaria.—Bull. World Hlth Org., 9, pp. 785–812.Google ScholarPubMed
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1950). DDT and Gammexane as residual insecticides against Anopheles gambiae in African houses.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 43, pp. 401–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. (1955). Distribution and host choice of resting A. gambiae Giles and A. funestus Giles in cone huts on Ukara Island, Tanganyika.—E. Afr. med. J., 32, pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
Wharton, R. H. (1951). The behaviour and mortality of Anopheles maculatus and Culex fatigans in experimental huts treated with DDT and BHC.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar