↓ Skip to main content

Bio-efficacy of new long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets against Anopheles funestus and Anopheles gambiae from central and northern Mozambique

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bio-efficacy of new long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets against Anopheles funestus and Anopheles gambiae from central and northern Mozambique
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0885-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Paula Abílio, Pelágio Marrune, Nilsa de Deus, Francisco Mbofana, Pedro Muianga, Ayubo Kampango

Abstract

Long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) are one of the main methods used for controlling malaria transmission in Mozambique. The proliferation of several types of LLINs and the re-emergence of insecticide resistance in the local vector populations poses challenges to the local malaria control programme on selecting suitable insecticide-based vector control products. Therefore, this study evaluated the insecticide susceptibility and bio-efficacy of selected new LLINs against wild populations of Anopheles funestus sensu lato and A. gambiae s.l. from Northern and Central Mozambique. The study also investigated whether the insecticide contents on the LINNs fabrics were within the WHOPES recommended target range. The susceptibility of 2-5 day old wild female A. funestus and A. gambiae sensu stricto against the major classes of insecticides used for vector control, viz: deltamethrin (0.05 %), permethrin (0.75 %), propoxur (0.1 %), bendiocarb (0.1 %) and DDT (4 %), was determined using WHO cylinder susceptibility tests. WHO cone bioassays were conducted to determine the bio-efficacy of both pyrethroid-only LLINs (Olyset(®), Permanet 2.0(®), NetProtect(®) and Interceptor(®)) and, Permanet 3.0(®) a combination LLIN against A. funestus s.s, from Balama, Mocuba and Milange districts, respectively. The bio-efficacy of LLINs against the insectary-susceptible A. arabiensis (Durban strain) was assessed, as well. Untreated bed net swatches were used as negative controls. Chemical analyses, by high performance liquid chromatography, were undertaken to assess whether the insecticide contents on the LLINs fabrics fell within recommended target dose ranges. The frequency of kdr gene mutations was determined from a random sample of A. gambiae s.s. from both WHO susceptibility and cone bioassay experiments. Anopheles funestus from Balama district showed resistance to deltamethrin and possible resistance to permethrin, propoxur and bendiocarb, whilst A. gambiae from Mocuba district was susceptible to deltamethrin, bendiocarb and propoxur. There were no kdr mutants found in the sample of 256 A. gambiae tested. Overall, 186 LLIN swatches were tested. Mosquitoes exposed to Olyset(®) had the lowest knockdown (±standard error) and mortality rate (±standard error) in all studied sites regardless of vectors species tested. Permanet 3.0 showed the highest bio-efficacy independent of vector species tested and level of insecticide resistance detected. All types of LLINs effectively killed susceptible A. arabiensis Durban strain. The insecticide content of Olyset(®) and Permanet 2.0(®) was higher than the target dose but NetProtect(®) had a lower insecticide content than the target dose. The study shows evidence of considerable heterogeneity in both insecticide susceptibility and the level of bio-efficacy of commonly available types of LLINs against wild A. funestus and A. gambiae from Balama, Mocuba and Milange districts, located in north and centre of Mozambique. The findings suggest that vector control approaches combining different types of insecticides might help to tackle the apparent problem of pyrethroid resistance in the vector populations from these three sites. Results from bioassays on laboratory-susceptible A. arabiensis strongly suggest that LLINs can offer some protection against susceptible malaria vectors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,773,420
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,854
of 5,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,338
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#118
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.