Cited by 69Malaria Research and ControlInsect Pest Control StrategiesDengue and Mosquito Control Research

Control of pyrethroid‐resistant Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes with chlorfenapyr in Benin

Open access
N’Guessan, Raphael, Boko, Pelagie, Odjo, Abiba, Knols, Bart, Akogbeto, Martin, Rowland, Mark·2009·Tropical Medicine & International Health

Abstract

Summary: Objective To compare the efficacy of chlorfenapyr applied on mosquito nets and as an indoor residual spray against populations of Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus in an area of Benin that shows problematic levels of pyrethroid resistance. Method Eight‐week trial conducted in experimental huts. Results Indoor residual spraying killed 82.9% of An. gambiae overall (mean mortality: 79.5%) compared to 53.5% overall (mean mortality: 61.7%) in the hut containing the lower dosed ITN. Analysis of data on a fortnightly basis showed high levels of mosquito mortality and blood‐feeding inhibition during the first few weeks after treatment. Control of C. quinquefasciatus by the IRS and ITN interventions showed a similar trend to that of An. gambiae and though the average level of mortality was lower it was still much higher than with pyrethroid treatments against this population. Chlorfenapyr’s reputation for being rather slow acting was evident particularly at lower dosages. The treatments showed no evidence of excito‐repellent activity in this trial. Conclusion Chlorfenapyr has the potential to control pyrethroid resistant populations of A. gambiae. There is a need to develop long‐lasting formulations of chlorfenapyr to prolong its residual life on nets and sprayed surfaces. On nets it could be combined with a contact irritant pyrethroid to give improved protection against mosquito biting while killing pyrethroid‐resistant mosquitoes that come into contact with the net.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02245.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 69

Authors
N’Guessan, R., Boko, P., Odjo, A., Knols, B., Akogbeto, M., & Rowland, M.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Rowland, Mark
Venue
Tropical Medicine & International Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-11
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
389-395
ISSN
  • 1360-2276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3156
OpenAlex
W2107765244
Cited by
69
References
30
Citations by year
2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tropical Medicine & International Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Insect Pest Control Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Dengue and Mosquito Control Research
Keywords
chlorfenapyr, pyrethroid resistance, Anopheles gambiae, Culex quinquefasciatus, indoor residual spraying, insecticide-treated nets, mosquito mortality, blood-feeding inhibition, malaria vector control, residual efficacy, Benin
MeSH terms
Animals, Anopheles, Bedding and Linens, Benin, Culex, Insecticide Resistance, Insecticides, Malaria, Mosquito Control, Pyrethrins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review