Laboratory and field evaluation of deet, CIC-4, and AI3-37220 against Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand

被引:30
作者
Frances, SP
Klein, TA
Hildebrandt, DW
Burge, R
Noigamol, C
Eikarat, N
Sripongsai, B
Wirtz, RA
机构
[1] ARMED FORCES RES INST MED SCI, USA MED COMPONENT, DEPT ENTOMOL, BANGKOK 10400, THAILAND
[2] WALTER REED ARMY INST RES, DEPT ENTOMOL, WASHINGTON, DC 20307 USA
[3] SC JOHNSON & SON INC, RACINE, WI 53403 USA
[4] WALTER REED ARMY INST RES, DEPT BIOMETR, WASHINGTON, DC 20307 USA
关键词
Anopheles dirus; diethyl methylbenzamide; (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone; 1-(3-cyclohexen-1-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine; Thailand;
D O I
10.1093/jmedent/33.4.511
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
Laboratory and field tests of the repellents diethyl methylbenzamide (deet), 1-(3-Cyclohexen-1-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine (AI3-37220), and (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone (CIC-4) were conducted against Anopheles dirus Peyton & Harrison, the principal malaria vector in Thailand. In the laboratory, An. dirus was more sensitive to CIC-4 than either AI3-37220 or deet. The duration of protection provided by each repellent in laboratory tests increased with higher concentrations of repellents and when exposed in cages containing fewer mosquitoes. A field study in Chanthaburi Province, southeastern Thailand, during November 1993 tested 25% (wt:wt) ethanol solutions of each repellent against An. dirus. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, protection provided by AI3-37220 was significantly better than either deet or CIC-4 and there was no significant difference between deer and CIC-4. Protection provided by deer and CIC-4 fell to below 95% 2 h after repellent application, whereas AI3-37220 provided >95% protection for 4 h. The protection provided by all repellents fell to less than or equal to 65% 7 h after repellent application.
引用
收藏
页码:511 / 515
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide [J].
Abbott, WS .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, 1925, 18 :265-267
[2]  
ALTMAN RM, 1969, MOSQ NEWS, V29, P110
[3]  
BAIMAI V, 1984, Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, V15, P536
[4]   LABORATORY EVALUATION OF REPELLENTS AGAINST 4 ANOPHELINE MOSQUITOS (DIPTERA, CULICIDAE) AND 2 PHLEBOTOMINE SAND FLIES (DIPTERA, PSYCHODIDAE) [J].
COLEMAN, RE ;
ROBERT, LL ;
ROBERTS, LW ;
GLASS, JA ;
SEELEY, DC ;
LAUGHINGHOUSE, A ;
PERKINS, PV ;
WIRTZ, RA .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY, 1993, 30 (03) :499-502
[5]   LABORATORY AND FIELD TRIALS OF 4 REPELLENTS WITH CULEX-PIPIENS (DIPTERA, CULICIDAE) [J].
COLEMAN, RE ;
RICHARDS, AL ;
MAGNON, GJ ;
MAXWELL, CS ;
DEBBOUN, M ;
KLEIN, TA ;
WIRTZ, RA .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY, 1994, 31 (01) :17-22
[6]   THE RELATIVE EFFICACY OF REPELLENTS AGAINST MOSQUITO VECTORS OF DISEASE [J].
CURTIS, CF ;
LINES, JD ;
IJUMBA, J ;
CALLAGHAN, A ;
HILL, N ;
KARIMZAD, MA .
MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY, 1987, 1 (02) :109-119
[7]  
FRANCES SP, 1993, J AM MOSQUITO CONTR, V9, P474
[8]   REPELLENTS AGAINST MOSQUITOES IN THAILAND [J].
GILBERT, IH ;
SCANLON, JE ;
BAILEY, DL .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, 1970, 63 (04) :1207-+
[9]  
GUPTA RK, 1989, J AM MOSQUITO CONTR, V5, P52
[10]  
Little T. M., 1978, Agricultural experimentation. Design and analysis.