武汉市社区非物业居民区及小经营户灭鼠研究

目的研究在做好外环境灭鼠的基础上进入非物业管理居民住宅及小经营户干预灭鼠的控制效果。方法在渣家社区开展现场研究;外环境鼠洞、普通地面、下水道、化粪池及垃圾通道采用以前研究的方法灭鼠;在居委会办公室放置免费鼠药及灭鼠宣传单;居民住宅及小经营户采用逐户入户调查,免费送药灭鼠,并宣传灭鼠方法。不对拒绝服务的住宅和经营户及已经有PCO公司承包的经营户进行干预。结果外环境灭鼠取得同以前研究一样的灭鼠效果。全社区非物业居民区有2 380户居民居住,其中1 925户可以进入,占80.9%。入户干预前337户居民户有家栖鼠,侵害率为17.5%,5次覆盖干预后有96户居民户有鼠,侵害率为5%,干预灭效为71.5%。入户干预前全社区1楼家栖鼠侵害率为25.3%,其他楼层侵害率为16.6%,其差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。各楼层干预灭鼠效果58.1%～100%,楼层高度与灭效相关性无统计学意义。灭效〈40%的6栋居民楼全部在卫生条件差的集贸片区。223户小经营户全部能够进入,进入率高于居民区,其差异有统计学意义（P〈0.000 1）。将7户拒绝服务及已有PCO公司承包的经营户视为对照,干预前有88户经营户有鼠,侵害率为40.7%。其中涉及食品及与食品无关的经营户分别为92户和124户,侵害率分别为44.6%和37.9%,4次覆盖干预后,侵害率降为5.4%和0,灭效分别为87.8%和100%。结论居民住宅进入困难,政府财力有限时不宜普遍采取进入居民户干预灭鼠措施。小经营户较易进入,干预灭鼠效果较好,适合在创建国家卫生城市时由政府出资承包灭鼠。

Rodent control in no property management residential areas and commercial households in Wuhan city community

Objective To study the effect of door to door rodent control intervention on no property management residential areas and commercial households based on intensive outdoor rodent control in city community.Methods Field experiment was carried out in Zajia community in Wuhan city.Rodent in outdoor rodent burrows,ordinary ground,sewers,septic tanks and rubbish corridors were controlled according to our previous study.Rodenticides and rodent control education leaflets were placed in community office and offered free to residents who in need.A door to door survey and intervention on resident houses and commercial households were carried out with free rodenticides and rodent control education.Residents and commercial households who refused rodent control service were not intervened.Results Outdoor rodent control effects were similar as our previous study.There were 2 380 resident houses in no property management residential areas,in which 1 925 resident houses were accessible,investigation rate was 80.9%.Before intervention 337 houses were infested with rodent,infestation rate was 17.5%,after five rounds of rodent control intervention rodent infested houses decreased to 96,the infestation rate was 5%,deratization rate was 71.5%.Infestation rate of total base floor was 25.3% higher than infestation rate of 16.6% of other floors before intervention,the difference was of statistical significance（P0.01）.Deratization rates of each floors were 58.1%-100%,which were not correlated with number of floors.6 poorest controlled residential buildings with deratization rates40% were all located at food market area.All 223 commercial households were all accessible,the investigation rate was higher than which of residential houses,the difference was of statistical significance（P0.000 1）.7 commercial households were not intervened because of safety concern and on going rodent control service by PCOs.In other commercial households,before intervention 88 were infested with rodent with infestation rate of 40.7%.In which rodent infested food correlated and non food correlated commercial households were 92 and 124,with infestation rates of 44.6% and 37.9% respectively.After 4 rounds of intervention,their infestation rates decreased to 5.4% and 0,deratization rates were 87.8% and 100% respectively.Conclusion There are difficulties in access with residential houses,door to door rodent control intervention is not recommended when there is a shortage of rodent control funds of the government.It＇s easy to access with commercial households,rodent control intervention on them can reach better effects,and government funds rodent control intervention of commercial households is recommended when a city is establishing national health city.