Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:06:15.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The activity of some pyrethroids, DDT and lindane in smoke from coils for biting inhibition, knockdown and kill of mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. R. Chadwick
P. R. Chadwick
Affiliation:
Wellcome Research Laboratories, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, HP4 2QE, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The action of smoke from smouldering mosquito coils against Aedes aegypti(L.), Anopheles stephensi List. and Culex pipiens fatigans Wied. was studied. Smokes from lindane or DDT coils did not inhibit biting of guinea-pigs by Ae. aegypti or A. stephensi nor did they cause knockdown. The pyrethroids (allethrin, pyrethrins, bioallethrin and S-bioallethrin in that order) were increasingly effective in knocking down and killing C. p. fatigans and Ae. aegypti, and their bite-inhibiting activity on Ae. aegypti and A. stephensi increased in the same sequence. Pyrethrins were inferior to allethrin for knockdown of A. stephensi. Smoke from a bioallethrin coil inhibited Ae. aegypti from probing and taking blood from man. Tests in a cylinder of 0·034 m3 and a room of 25 m3 suggested approximate relative potencies of 1:2:4 for allethrin, bioallethrin and S-bioallethrin, the bite-inhibitory and knockdown actions being closely associated. Use of gauze-ended test cages reduced the range of relative potencies. The discussion suggests that the sequence of effects exerted by smoke on a mosquito entering a room is deterrency, expellency, interference with host finding, bite inhibition, knockdown and, eventually, death.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 97 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Baker, G. J. (1970). Insecticidal concentrates with improved allethrin.— Soap chem. Spec. 46 (5), 72–76, 80.Google Scholar
Chadwick, P. R. (1970). The activity of dl-allethrolone, d-trans chrysanthemate and other pyrethroids in mosquito coils.—Mosquito News 30, 162–170.Google Scholar
Fales, J. H., Durbin, C. G. Jr & Mills, G. D. Jr (1971). Evaluation of smoke from insecticidal coils containing synthetic pyrethroids as mosquito repellents.—Mosquito News 31, 35–36.Google Scholar
Fales, J. H., Mills, G. D. Jr & Durbin, C. G. Jr (1968). Evaluation of smoke from insecticidal coils against mosquitoes.—Mosquito News 28, 547–553.Google Scholar
Godin, P. J. & Sleeman, R. J. (1964). A qualitative examination of mosquito coil smoke by gas-liquid chromatographic analysis.—Pyrethrum Post 7 (3), 18–19.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. E. & Esozed, S. (1971). The effects of smoke from mosquito coils on Anopheles gambiae Giles and Mansonia uniformis (Theo.) in verandah-trap huts at Magugu, Tanzania.—Bull. ent. Res. 61, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsuda, Y. & Ogami, H. (1968). Studies on biological assay of mosquito coil for adults of Culex pipiens. I. Cylinder method. In Contributions to the study of the laboratory test methods of insecticides.—33–35. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Mace, E. F. (1969). Biological test method for mosquito coils.—Pyrethrum Post 10 (1), 41–43Google Scholar
MacIver, D. R. (1964 a). Mosquito coils. Part II. Studies on the action of mosquito coil smoke on mosquitoes.—Pyrethrum Post 7 (3), 7–14.Google Scholar
MacIver, D. R. (1964 b). Mosquito coils. Part III. Factors influencing the release of pyrethrins from coils.—Pyrethrum Post 7 (3), 15–17, 19.Google Scholar
Ogami, H., Yoshida, Y., Katsuda, Y., Miyamoto, J. & Kadota, T. (1970). Insecticidal activity of a new synthetic chrysanthemic ester, 5-propargylfurfuryl chrysanthemate (Prothrin).—Botyu-Kagaku 35 (2), 45–55. [In Japanese, summary in English]Google Scholar
Rauch, F., Lhoste, J. & Martel, J. (1974). Insecticidal properties of some allethrin isomers used in coil formulations against mosquitoes.—Pestic. Sci. 5, 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. (1965 a). A verandah-trap hut for studying the house-frequenting habits of mosquitoes and for assessing insecticides. A description of the verandah-trap hut and of studies on the egress of Anopheles gambiae Giles and Mansonia uniformis (Theo.) from an untreated hut.—Bull. ent. Res. 56, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. (1965 b). A varandah-trap hut for studying the house-frequenting habits of mosquitoes and for assessing insecticides. The effect of dichlorvos (DDVP) on egress and mortality of Anopheles gambiae Giles and Mansonia uniformis (Theo.) entering naturally.—Bull. ent. Res. 56, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A., Hudson, J. E. & Esozed, S. (1971). Trials with pyrethrum mosquito coils against Anopheles gambiae Giles, Mansonia uniformis (Theo.) and Culex fatigans Weid. entering verandah-trap huts at Magugu, Tanzania.—Misc. Rep. E. Afr. trop. Pestic. Res. Inst. no. 750, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, A. & Obudho, W. O. (1967). Trials with pyrethrum mosquito coils against Anopheles gambiae entering a verandah-trap hut.—Pyrethrum Post 9 (2), 15–17.Google Scholar
Who (1970). Insecticide resistance and vector control. 17th report of the WHO Expert Committee on insecticides.—Tech. Rep. Ser. Wld Hlth Org. no. 443, 279 pp.Google Scholar
Winney, R. (1969). The biological activity of mosquito coils based on pyrethrum and coils based on other active ingredients.—Pyrethrum Post 10 (1), 3–6.Google Scholar
Wright, R. H. & Kellogg, F. E. (1962). Mosquito attraction and repulsion.—Nature, Lond. 195, 404–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar