Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:54:40.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tests on Clothing impregnated with DDT as an anti-louse Measure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. J. Musgrave
A. J. Musgrave
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Simple tests have been done to appraise the value of garments impregnated with DDT as an anti-louse measure. It is very toxic to the body louse but its action is relatively slow. Woollen and cotton fabrics can be impregnated with it.

No estimate can be given of the precise length of the insecticidal life of a garment because of variations in wear, etc. But garments have been found to have o·1 per cent. DDT remaining after five launders and three weeks' wear. The minimum safe degree of impregnation as an anti-louse measure appears to be o·1 per cent. By the use of simple biological tests reasonably accurate assessments of the chemical content of garments can be made.

DDT is to some extent resistant to high temperatures. It is suggested that the chief cause of loss of insecticidal power is due to loss of nap. Impregnated garments transfer their insecticidal power to uriimpregnated garments kept in contact with them.

Results show that subsequent mortality is complete or very high among lice which have crawled for three hours on fabrics impregnated with DDT at rates between o·1 and 1·75 per cent. Signs of poisoning may take six hours to be manifested in the louse.

The results obtained with a sleeve test compared very closely with those obtained by the box method used chiefly in this work.

The theory is put forward that DDT enters the body louse through its tactile sense organs.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , June 1946 , pp. 43 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

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

Bushland, R. C., McAlister, L. C., Eddy, G. W. & Jones, H. A. (1944). DDT for the control of human lice.—J. econ. Ent., 37, pp. 126–127.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1945). Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1939). The Louse. E. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Kalabukhov, N. I. (1943). The action of some pyrethrum preparations on Pediculus humanus. [In Russian].—Med. Parasitol., Moscow, 12, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Läuger, P., Martin, H. & Müller, P. (1944). Ueber Konstitution und toxische Wirkung von natürlichen und neuen synthetischen insektentötenden Stoffen.—Helv. chim. Acta, 27, pp. 892–928.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. & Craufurd-Benson, H. J. (1941). Observations on natural populations of the body louse, Pediculus humanus corporis, Deg.—Parasitology, 33, pp. 278–299.Google Scholar
Moore, W. & Hirschfelder, A. D. (1919). An investigation of the louse problem.—Res. Publ. Univ. Minn., 8 (4), pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
Peacock, A. D. (1916). The louse problem at the western front.—J. R. Army med. Cps, 27, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
Soboleva, N. I. (1942). The use of “K” preparation against Pediculosis. [In Russian.]—Med. Parasitol., Moscow, 10, pp. 576–580.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1941). The sensory physiology of the human louse.—Parasitology, 33 pp. 67—109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar