Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:30:12.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of residual Films of DDT and Gammexane in Malaria Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. R. Ribbands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) Sprays that are atomised and mingled with air were unsuitable because they were wasteful in both material and labour.

(2) Knapsack oilers and modified stirrup pumps were efficient. Where labour is cheap hand-operated sprayers of this type are more economical than motoroperated machines.

(3) The relation between mosquito mortality and infectivity is discussed and it is calculated that any treatment which produces 75 per cent. mortality among the mosquitos exposed to it should effect malaria elimination.

(4) The effects of a DDT emulsion were much more durable than those of a similar quantity of DDT in kerosene solution. The difference was much less marked when Gammexane was used. Emulsions will probably displace kerosene solutions as vehicles for the application of residual films.

(5) The persistence of the effects of DDT was markedly increased by increased dosage, so that it will be most economical to apply DDT in heavy doses at long intervals.

(6) The persistence of Gammexane effects was not greatly increased by increased dosage because it evaporates much more quickly than DDT. It is not likely to be effective for much longer than 10 weeks.

(7) Treatments with DDT were usually effective against A. minimus for about twice as long as against A. vagus or Culicines, but treatments with Gammexane had similar effects on all species.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , March 1947 , pp. 567 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Barnes, S. (1945). The residual toxicity of DDT to bed-bugs (Cimex lectularius, L.).—Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, S.. (1946). The use of adhesive agents in DDT sprays.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 173–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blakeslee, E. B. (1944). DDT as a barn spray in stablefly control.—J. econ. Ent., 37, pp. 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahan, J. B., Travis, B. V., Morton, F. A. & Lindquist, A. W. (1945). DDT as a residual-type treatment to control Anopheles quadrimaculatus.—J. econ. Ent., 38, pp. 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1946). The excitant and repellent effects on mosquitos of sub-lethal contacts with DDT.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, A. L. & McDuffie, W. C. (1945). DDT residual spray tests in Panama.—J. econ. Ent., 38, p. 608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribbands, C. R. (1945). The use of DDT as a mosquito larvicide on still waters.—Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 315–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribbands, C. R.. (1946a). Moonlight and house-haunting habits of female Anophelines in West Africa.—Bull. ent. Res., 36, 395–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribbands, C. R.. (1946b). The use of DDT as a mosquito larvicide on flowing water.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 105–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribbands, C. R.. (1946c). Repellency of pyrethrum and lethane sprays to mosquitos.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 163–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, P. F. & Ramachandra Rao, T. (1942). Observations on longevity of Anopheles culicifacies imagines.—Amer. J. trop. Med., 22, pp. 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, C., Roy, D. N. & Chaudhuri, M. P. (1933). A year's observations in Calcutta on the invasion of the salivary glands of Anopheles stephensi by malarial sporozoites, and the influence of some climatic conditions.—Indian J. med. Res., 20, pp. 819–840.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. C. M. (1941). Studies on the behaviour of Anopheles minimus. Part V.—J. Malar. Inst. India, 4, pp. 217–245.Google Scholar