Open Access

Durability associated efficacy of long-lasting insecticidal nets after five years of household use

  • Eliningaya J Kweka1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Yousif E Himeidan4,
  • Aneth M Mahande1,
  • Beda J Mwang'onde1,
  • Shandala Msangi1,
  • Michael J Mahande2,
  • Humphrey D Mazigo3 and
  • Mramba Nyindo2
Parasites & Vectors20114:156

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-4-156

Received: 17 June 2011

Accepted: 5 August 2011

Published: 5 August 2011

Abstract

Background

Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have been strongly advocated for use to prevent malaria in sub-Saharan Africa and have significantly reduced human-vector contact. PermaNet® 2.0 is among the five LLINs brands which have been given full approval by the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES). The LLINs are expected to protect the malaria endemic communities, but a number of factors within the community can affect their durability and efficacy. This study evaluated the durability, efficacy and retention of PermaNet® 2.0 after five years of use in a Tanzanian community.

Method

Two to three day- old non blood-fed female mosquitoes from an insectary susceptible colony (An. gambiae s.s, this colony was established at TPRI from Kisumu, Kenya in 1992) and wild mosquito populations (An. arabiensis and Culex quinquefasciatus) were used in cone bioassay tests to assess the efficacy of mosquito nets.

Findings

The knockdown effect was recorded after three minutes of exposure, and mortality was recorded after 24 hours post-exposure. Mortality of An. gambiae s.s from insectary colony was 100% while An. arabiensis and Cx.quinquefasciatus wild populations had reduced mortality. Insecticide content of the new (the bed net of the same brand but never used before) and used PermaNet® 2.0 was determined using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that, in order to achieve maximum protection against malaria, public health education focusing on bed net use and maintenance should be incorporated into the mass distribution of nets in communities.

Findings

Malaria vector-human contact reduction has been shown to have a significant impact in decreasing malaria transmission and disease prevalence [14]. However, the use of malaria intervention tools in Africa is affected by culture and the socioeconomic status of malaria endemic communities and these have influenced bed net ownership and utilization [5, 6]. At present, malaria endemic countries in Africa are reporting a wider coverage of LLINs with some countries reporting coverage of more than 60% [4, 6, 7]. The wide coverage is attributed by the willingness of African government and donors to fund the scale up of LLINs distribution.

Investment has primarily been for long lasting technology bed nets, including PermaNet® 2.0 which has been evaluated in different setting in malaria endemic regions globally [711]. Today, WHOPES has given a full approval to PermaNet® 2.0 to be categorized as long lasting net. The PermaNet® 2.0 nets are made with polyester and coated with deltamethrin, whereas the Olyset® nets, which are impregnated with permethrin, are made from polyethylene [12, 13]. The other generations of LLITNs, the Netprotect® (Icon-Life) are impregnated with deltamethrin and are made from polyethylene filaments, while the Interceptor® nets are coated with alphacypermethrin and are made from polyester filaments [12, 13]. Lastly, the Duranet® made from polyethylene filaments and are coated with alpha-cypermethrin [13]. Many others are still in the developmental stages. Currently, some of the greatest challenges for the use of LLINs in different malaria endemic settings, particularly in Africa are net durability, retention and efficacy. In Tanzania, PermaNet® 2.0 (Vestergaard Frandsen Company, Thailand) is among the brands of LLINs distributed in the community and its durability, retention and efficacy status has not yet been evaluated at community level. Its efficacy was reported only immediately after distribution [12]. Long term data on its durability, retention and efficacy is required for improving the effectiveness of LLINs at the field level and this was the main objective of the present study.

A total of sixty PermaNet® 2.0 were distributed in lower Moshi, north-eastern Tanzania to the households in 2005 and evaluated in 2010. The active ingredient measured among these nets at the time of distribution was 55 mg/m2 of residual deltamethrin [12]. Of all (n = 60) the LLITNs (PermaNet® 2.0) distributed in the community, only 7 (11.7%) were still in use during the five years follow-up period. This result indicates a very poor retention of mosquito nets in Tanzanian community, a finding that is consistent with previous observations from several countries in Africa [1416]. The durability was defined by the number of holes in nets used by the community for a period of five years. The seven retained nets were found to have a limited number of holes along bed angles contacts, meaning none had very good durability. Considering the strength of the high technology used to make the fibers of these nets [17], these holes could be attributed to the rough use of the community as it were found to be on the lower area of the net indicating tough mechanical tearing of the beds edges (Figure 1). It is known that, the presence of holes in long-lasting nets reduces the efficacy of protection against mosquitoes [18, 19] despite high coverage in different parts of malaria endemic regions [20].
Figure 1

A sample PermaNet ® 2.0 collected from the community houses after 5 years of use. A RED arrow points the holes which are due to mechanical contacts with bed angles while a BLUE arrow shows a mark on the net due to the firewood smoke indoors.

The New PermaNet® 2.0 induced high mortality for insectary- reared susceptible mosquito of An. gambiae s.s (100%). However, among the species tested, a wild population of An. arabiensis showed lower mortality rates than others. This is likely due to the pyrethroid resistance conferred by the 1014F-kdr mutation known to be predominant among mosquitoes population in this study area [21, 22]. After use for a period of five years, PermaNet® 2.0 induced reduced mortalities in comparison to the new net. This was true for all strains of the three mosquito species tested (Table 1). Similar efficacy reductions have been reported for other types of LLINs after the same period [7, 19]. Fifty community members (100%) responded to the questionnaire pertaining to the washing and use of the nets.
Table 1

Percentage knockdown (KD) and mortality at 24 hours post-exposure of wild populations and laboratory strain of the three mosquito species tested

Permanent® 2.0

An. arabiensis wild population

Cx. quinquefasciatus wild population

An. gambiae s.s insectary population

 

%KD (95%CI)

%Mortality(95%CI)

%KD(95%CI)

%Mortality(95%CI)

%KD(95%CI)

%Mortality(95%CI)

New net

66a(52.9-79.1)

46ac(32.2-59.8)

91a(83.1-98.9)

81a(70.1-91.9)

100a(100-100)

100a(100-100)

Old net 1

60a(46.4-73.6)

58bc(44.3-71.7)

73bc(.60.7-85.3)

62b(48.5-75.4)

100a(100-100)

30b(21.2-39.8)

Old net 2

60a(46.4-73.6)

49cd(35.1-62.7)

62cde(48.5-75.4)

58b(44.3-71.7)

100a(100-100)

47cd(32.4-51.3)

Old net 3

58a(44.3-71.7)

71b(58.4-83.6)

75df(62.9-87)

49b(35.1-62.9)

100a(100-100)

33b(19.3-43.7)

Old net 4

54a(.40.2-67.8)

49ade(35.1-.62.9)

38b(24.5-51.4)

44b(30.2-57.8)

100a(100-100)

50ade(41.3-58.8)

Old net 5

87b(77.7-96.3)

75bf(.62.9-87.0)

60bef(56.4-73.6)

54b(40.2-67.8)

100a(100-100)

33b(19.7-45.2)

Old net 6

54a(40.2-67.8)

83bf(72.6-93.4)

66ef(52.9-79.1)

56b(42.2-69.8)

100a(100-100)

33a(23.1-39.4)

Old net 7

60a(46.4-73.6)

73ef(60.7-85.3)

49be(35.1-62.9)

44b(30.2-57.8

100a(100-100)

53be(41.8-61.9)

*Number in the same row sharing the same superscript letter have no significant differences from each other (P > 0.05)

The knockdown rates effect varied among mosquito species for both the two types of nets assayed (Table 1) and in Figure 2. Mortality observed at 24 hours post-exposure for different populations and strains showed similar trends of knockdown effects for both new and used PermaNet® 2.0 (Figure 3). Regardless of species, a significant reduction was observed in the overall mortality when PermaNet® 2.0 used for five years compared with the new net of the same brand which was kept in store since the time of distribution (Figure 3).
Figure 2

Knockdown rate of laboratory unfed females mosquitoes of different mosquitoes species An. gambiae s.s An. arabiensis and Culex quinquefasciatus against (A)New and (B) five years used PermaNet ® 2.0 at household level in Lower Moshi, north-eastern Tanzania.

Figure 3

Mortality at 24 hours post-exposure of unfed female of Anopheles gambiae s.s, An. arabiensis, Culex quinquefasciatus against New and five years used PermaNet ® 2.0 at household level in Lower Moshi, north-eastern Tanzania.

The active ingredient found in PermaNet® 2.0 after use of five years was undetectable by HPLC procedure compared to 55 mg of active ingredient/m2 of the new bed net of the same brand (Table 2). This could be attributed to use of strong detergents for washing net and the direct sun rays for drying them for a long period [79, 17]. The firewood smoke and dust may also have contributed to the loss of insecticides in LLINs [7, 8]. Generally, PermaNet® 2.0 has the potential to remain intact for a long period of time; and yet, washing techniques and other socioeconomic factors within the family or communities who use them may reduce their intended five years efficacy as per recommendation by WHOPES.
Table 2

Chemical ingredients of new and 5 years of field used net detected by HPLC technique

Net Condition

Number of washing

Deltermethrin content (mg/m2)

R-isomer

Bioefficacy Tests

    

KD 60

FM 24 Hrs

New Net

0

66.5

3.6

84

100

Old net A/01/F0

130

n.d

< 0.5

14

20

Old net A/02/F0

130

n.d

< 0.5

10

8

Old net A/04/F0

130

n.d

< 0.5

0

10

Old net A/05/F0

128

n.d

< 0.5

0

10

Old net A/07/F0

130

n.d

< 0.5

0

10

Old net A/09/F0

126

n.d

< 0.5

0

10

Old net A/10/F0

130

n.d

< 0.5

0

10

n.d = No Deltermethrin detected, FM = mortality in 24 hours after contact bioassay.

Bioassays procedures

On each net, four WHO contact bioassay cones were attached and a total of 10 mosquitoes were introduced into each cone. Two to three days old, unfed female of An. gambiae mosquitoes were used [23]. Wild populations of An. arabiensis and Cx. quinquefasciatus were collected from an area described by reduced susceptibility to pyrethroid insecticides [21, 22]. The mosquitoes were exposed on each net for 3 minutes and then transferred to holding paper cups and provided with 10% sugar solution soaked in absorbent cotton wool [2325]. Knockdown effects were recorded immediately after the 3 minutes and thereafter for 30 and 60 minutes post-exposure. Mortality was recorded after 24 hours post-exposure. Mosquitoes were considered knocked down or dead if they could not fly or could not stand upright on either the side or the bottom of the paper cups [23]. Untreated polystyrene net was used as a negative control for each bioassays test. Temperatures of 25°C ± 2 and relative humidity of 80% ± 10 were recorded during time of the tests using digital thermometer.

The mean percentage knock down (KD) at 3 minutes and mortality at 24 hours post-exposure were estimated for each of the evaluated bed net. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Turkeys-Kramer HSD was used to compare the mortalities and KDs of mosquito species among the mosquito nets. All control mortalities were below 5%.

Residual insecticide quantification

Four pieces of netting material were cut randomly from each net and then appropriately labeled with the name of the net, kept in individual envelops which were inserted into a single larger envelope and stored in the dark for subsequent residual insecticide quantification using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [26, 27]. For each test, the HPLC was performed using a piece of 5 × 5 cm from mosquito net with 0.15% grade water for determining deltamethrin iso-octan plus 1, 4 dioxan and dibutyl phthalate as internal standard [27]. Extracted samples were thoroughly shaken for uniform mixture and filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter suction pump. The filtered solution was aliquoted into 1 μL and then injected onto a normal phase isocratic HPLC machine. The insecticide quantification was achieved using an internal calibration curve based on UV detection.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that, in order to achieve maximum protection against malaria, public health education focusing on bed net use and maintenance should be incorporated into the mass distribution of nets in communities. This may be effective for improving durability, washing, drying and retention of LLINs.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The assistance of the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute staff in executing this study is appreciated. We are thankful to the cooperation of the community members, households and village leaders and their willingness to participate in this study. Chacha Ndege, Patrick Tungu and Jovin Kitau are acknowledged for their comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. Vestergaard Frandsen (EA) provided the nets and financed the study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Tropical Pesticides Research Institute, Division of Livestock and Human Diseases Vector Control, Mosquito Section
(2)
Kilimanjaro Christian Medical College, Tumaini University
(3)
Department of Medical Parasitology and Entomology, Weill-Bugando University College of Health Sciences
(4)
Entomology Unit, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Kassala

References

  1. Aregawi MW, Ali AS, Al-Mafazy AW, Molteni F, Katikiti S, Warsame M, Njau RJ, Komatsu R, Korenromp E, Hosseini M, Low-Beer D, Bjorkman A, D'Alessandro U, Marc Coosemans M, Otten M: Reductions in malaria and anaemia case and death burden at hospitals following scale-up of malaria control in Zanzibar, 1999-2008. Malar J. 2011, 10: 46-10.1186/1475-2875-10-46.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Okiro EA, Hay SI, Gikandi PW, Sharif SK, Noor AM, Peshu N, Marsh K, Snow RW: The decline in paediatric malaria admissions on the coast of Kenya. Malar J. 2007, 6: 151-10.1186/1475-2875-6-151.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. O'Meara WP, Mangeni JN, Steketee R, Greenwood B: Changes in the burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010, 10: 545-555. 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70096-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Koudou BG, Ghattas H, Esse C, Nsanzabana C, Rohner F, Utzinger J, Faragher BE, Tschannen AB: The use of insecticide-treated nets for reducing malaria morbidity among children aged 6-59 months, in an area of high malaria transmission in central Cote d'Ivoire. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 91-10.1186/1756-3305-3-91.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Githinji S, Herbst S, Kistemann T, Noor AM: Mosquito nets in a rural area of Western Kenya: ownership, use and quality. Malar J. 2010, 9: 250-10.1186/1475-2875-9-250.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallup JL, Sachs JD: The economic burden of malaria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001, 64: 85-96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Atieli FK, Munga SO, Ofulla AV, Vulule JM: The effect of repeated washing of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) on the feeding success and survival rates of Anopheles gambiae. Malar J. 2010, 9: 304-10.1186/1475-2875-9-304.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Atieli FK, Munga SO, Ofulla AV, Vulule JM: Wash durability and optimal drying regimen of four brands of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets after repeated washing under tropical conditions. Malar J. 2010, 9: 248-10.1186/1475-2875-9-248.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Green MD, Atieli F, Akogbeto M: Rapid colorimetric field test to determine levels of deltamethrin on PermaNet surfaces: association with mosquito bioactivity. Trop Med Int Health. 2009, 14: 381-388. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02247.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Prakash A, Bhattacharyya DR, Mohapatra PK, Gogoi P, Sarma DK, Bhattacharjee K, Mahanta J: Evaluation of PermaNet 2.0 mosquito bednets against mosquitoes, including Anopheles minimus s.l., in India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2009, 40: 449-457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sreehari U, Mittal PK, Razdan RK, Ansari MA, Rizvi MM, Dash AP: Efficacy of PermaNet 2.0 against Anopheles culicifacies and Anopheles stephensi, malaria vectors in India. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2007, 23: 220-223. 10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[220:EOPAAC]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Msangi S, Lyatuu E, Masenga C, Kihumo E: The effects of washing and duration of use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (PermaNets) on insecticidal effectiveness. Acta Trop. 2008, 107: 43-47. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.03.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. WHO: Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets: a position statement. 2007, [http://www.who.int/entity/malaria/publications/atoz/itnspospaperfinal.pdf]Google Scholar
  14. Fettene M, Balkew M, Gimblet C: Utilization, retention and bio-efficacy studies of PermaNet in selected villages in Buie and Fentalie districts of Ethiopia. Malar J. 2009, 8: 114-10.1186/1475-2875-8-114.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham K, Kayedi MH, Maxwell C, Kaur H, Rehman H, Malima R, Curtis CF, Lines JD, Rowland MW: Multi-country field trials comparing wash-resistance of PermaNet and conventional insecticide-treated nets against anopheline and culicine mosquitoes. Med Vet Entomol. 2005, 19: 72-83. 10.1111/j.0269-283X.2005.00543.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassan Sel D, Malik EM, Okoued SI, Eltayeb EM: Retention and efficacy of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets distributed in eastern Sudan: a two-step community-based study. Malar J. 2008, 7: 85-10.1186/1475-2875-7-85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Skovmand O, Bosselmann R: Strength of bed nets as function of denier, knitting pattern, texturizing and polymer. Malar J. 2011, 10: 87-10.1186/1475-2875-10-87.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Chandre F, Dabire RK, Hougard JM, Djogbenou LS, Irish SR, Rowland M, N'Guessan R: Field efficacy of pyrethroid treated plastic sheeting (durable lining) in combination with long lasting insecticidal nets against malaria vectors. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 65-10.1186/1756-3305-3-65.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Malima RC, Magesa SM, Tungu PK, Mwingira V, Magogo FS, Sudi W, Mosha FW, Curtis CF, Maxwell C, Rowland M: An experimental hut evaluation of Olyset nets against anopheline mosquitoes after seven years use in Tanzanian villages. Malar J. 2008, 7: 38-10.1186/1475-2875-7-38.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Atieli HE, Zhou G, Afrane Y, Lee MC, Mwanzo I, Githeko AK, Yan G: Insecticide-treated net (ITN) ownership, usage, and malaria transmission in the highlands of western Kenya. Parasit Vectors. 2011, 4: 113-10.1186/1756-3305-4-113.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kulkarni MA, Rowland M, Alifrangis M, Mosha FW, Matowo J, Malima R, Peter J, Kweka E, Lyimo I, Magesa S, Salanti A, Rau ME, Drakeley C: Occurrence of the leucine-to-phenylalanine knockdown resistance (kdr) mutation in Anopheles arabiensis populations in Tanzania, detected by a simplified high-throughput SSOP-ELISA method. Malar J. 2006, 5: 56-10.1186/1475-2875-5-56.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Matowo J, Kulkarni MA, Mosha FW, Oxborough RM, Kitau JA, Tenu F, Rowland M: Biochemical basis of permethrin resistance in Anopheles arabiensis from Lower Moshi, north-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 2010, 9: 193-10.1186/1475-2875-9-193.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bonnet J, Duchon S, Corbel V: Phase I evaluation of LLINs from In-tection. Montpellier: LIN-ISO 9002-Centre Collaborateur de l'OMS/WHO Collaborating Centre. 2005Google Scholar
  24. Muller O, Ido K, Traore C: Evaluation of a prototype long-lasting insecticide-treated mosquito net under field conditions in rural Burkina Faso. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002, 96: 483-484. 10.1016/S0035-9203(02)90411-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ordóñez González J, Kroeger A, Aviña AI, Pabón E: Wash resistance of insecticide-treated materials. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002, 96: 370-375. 10.1016/S0035-9203(02)90363-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Armstrong DW, Boehm RE: Gradient LC separation of macromolecules: theory and mechanism. J Chromatogr Sci. 1984, 22: 378-385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Armstrong DW, Yang XF, Han SM, Menges RA: Direct liquid chromatographic separation of racemates with an alpha-cyclodextrin bonded phase. Anal Chem. 1987, 59: 2594-2596. 10.1021/ac00148a014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kweka et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement