长效蚊帐2种接触检测方法的效果比较研究

目的比较经强迫接触法和接触筒法同时检测长效蚊帐的结果差异。方法长效蚊帐按WHO标准洗涤程序洗涤0次和20次后,分别按强迫接触法、接触筒法对白纹伊蚊和中华按蚊进行药效测定,结果用SPSS12.0统计比较。结果蚊帐在洗涤0次时,接触筒法和强迫接触法测试结果显示对中华按蚊的击倒率分别为82.0%、85.0%,死亡率分别为78.5%、72.5%,对白纹伊蚊的击倒率分别为77.9%、85.0%,死亡率分别为50.0%、60.0%;在洗涤20次时,接触筒法和强迫接触法测试结果显示对中华按蚊的击倒率分别为16.0%、10.0%,死亡率分别为9.5%、12.5%,对白纹伊蚊的击倒率分别为72.0%、63.0%,死亡率分别为11.4%、18.0%。结论接触筒法和强迫接触法对长效蚊帐的效果检测结果并无明显差异,长效蚊帐应用于现场防治蚊虫时,在洗涤20次后,应更换蚊帐或重新浸泡药物后使用。不同地区根据其防治蚊虫的优势种和其抗药性等选择不同有效成分的长效蚊帐。

Comparison study of long-lasting insecticidal nets by two contact bioassay methods

Objective To compare efficacy difference of long-lasting insecticidal nets by forced tarsal contact test and standard WHO cones test. Methods The forced tarsal contact test and the standard WHO cones test would be done to evaluate the efficacy of the net for killing the mosquito after different number of times washed using a standard of WHO,and the efficacy by two different method were analyzed by SPSS12.0. Results In the forced tarsal contact test and in WHO cones test,when the net was washed by 0 time,the results showed that for Anopheles sinensis, KD were 82.0%, 85.0%, mortality were 78. 5%, 72. 5% respectively. And KD were 77.9%, 85.0%, mortality were 50.0% ,60. 0% respectively against Aedes albopictus. When washed by 20 times, KD were 16. 0% , 10. 0% , mortality were 9. 5% ,12. 5% respectively against An. sinensis, and KD were 72. 0% ,63.0%, mortality were 11.4% ,18. 0% respectively against A. albopictus. Conclusion There are no significant differences between results in the forced tarsal contact tests and in the WHO cones test. When long-lasting insecticidal nets were used to control the mosquito, they should be changed or reimmerged insecticides after 20 washing times. To choose long-lasting insecticidal nets with different active ingredients should be according to the dominant species of mosquito control and the resistance situation.