Cited by 34Malaria Research and ControlInsect Pest Control StrategiesInsect Resistance and Genetics

Evaluating the efficacy of biological and conventional insecticides with the new ‘MCD bottle’ bioassay

Open access
Sternberg, Eleanore D, Waite, Jessica L, Thomas, Matthew B·2014·Malaria Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Control of mosquitoes requires the ability to evaluate new insecticides and to monitor resistance to existing insecticides. Monitoring tools should be flexible and low cost so that they can be deployed in remote, resource poor areas. Ideally, a bioassay should be able to simulate transient contact between mosquitoes and insecticides, and it should allow for excito-repellency and avoidance behaviour in mosquitoes. Presented here is a new bioassay, which has been designed to meet these criteria. This bioassay was developed as part of the Mosquito Contamination Device (MCD) project and, therefore, is referred to as the MCD bottle bioassay. METHODS: Presented here are two experiments that serve as a proof-of-concept for the MCD bottle bioassay. The experiments used four insecticide products, ranging from fast-acting, permethrin-treated, long-lasting insecticide nets (LLINs) that are already widely used for malaria vector control, to the slower acting entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, that is currently being evaluated as a prospective biological insecticide. The first experiment used the MCD bottle to test the effect of four different insecticides on Anopheles stephensi with a range of exposure times (1 minute, 3 minutes, 1 hour). The second experiment is a direct comparison of the MCD bottle and World Health Organization (WHO) cone bioassay that tests a subset of the insecticides (a piece of LLIN and a piece of netting coated with B. bassiana spores) and a further reduced exposure time (5 seconds) against both An. stephensi and Anopheles gambiae. Immediate knockdown and mortality after 24 hours were assessed using logistic regression and daily survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Across both experiments, fungus performed much more consistently than the chemical insecticides but measuring the effect of fungus required monitoring of mosquito mortality over several days to a week. Qualitatively, the MCD bottle and WHO cone performed comparably, although knockdown and 24 hour mortality tended to be higher in some, but not all, groups of mosquitoes exposed using the WHO cone. CONCLUSION: The MCD bottle is feasible as a flexible, low-cost method for testing insecticidal materials. It is promising as a tool for testing transient contact and for capturing the effects of mosquito behavioural responses to insecticides.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1475-2875-13-499

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Short-contact assays were conducted using a similar set-up made from 1.5-L plastic bottles with the lower half removed and the open end covered with treated netting.

    “Short-contact assays were conducted using a similar set-up made from 1.5-L plastic bottles with the lower half removed and the open end covered with treated netting (42).”

    From Electrostatic coating enhances bioavailability of insecticides and breaks pyrethroid resistance in mosquitoes (2015) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Background describes a plastic bottle with its bottom cut off and netting held over the opening, and the Methods describe short exposures using that assay. However, the paper specifies a 1-L bottle, not a 1.5-L bottle, and does not say the lower half was removed. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sternberg, E. D., Waite, J. L., & Thomas, M. B.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sternberg, Eleanore D
Venue
Malaria Journal
Published
2014-12
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
499-499
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135697031
Cited by
34
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (306105)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
Keywords
insecticide resistance monitoring, Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles gambiae, long-lasting insecticidal nets, permethrin, Beauveria bassiana, entomopathogenic fungi, bioinsecticides, excito-repellency, WHO cone bioassay, mosquito mortality, daily survival
MeSH terms
Animals, Anopheles, Behavior, Animal, Biological Assay, Insecticides, Survival Analysis

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