Excito-repellency activity of plant extracts have been increasingly studied as mosquito repellents. In this study, the crude extract of Andrographis paniculata was evaluated for its noncontact repellency, contact excitation (irritancy + repellency), and knockdown/toxicity response against five colonized mosquitoes; Aedes aegypti (L.), Aedes albopictus (Skuse), Anopheles dirus Peyton & Harrison, Anopheles epiroticus Linton & Harbach, and Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) using an excito-repellency assay system under laboratory-controlled conditions. The escape responses were observed at four different concentrations (0.5–5.0% w/v) with A. paniculata showing strong spatial repellency against Ae. albopictus (96.7% escape) and Ae. aegypti (71.7% escape) at the 2.5% and 0.5% concentrations, respectively. At 0.5% and 5.0% concentrations, the greatest repellency was seen for An. dirus (48.2% escape) and Cx. quinquefasciatus (59.7% escape), respectively. Comparatively, low repellency action was observed against An. epiroticus (1.6–15.0% escape). Escape in contact assays (before adjustment) was generally less pronounced compared to noncontact spatial repellency, with Ae. albopictus showing highest percent escape (71.4% escape) in the contact assay at 1.0% concentration. After adjusting for spatial repellency, escape due to contact irritancy alone was either not present or an insignificant contribution to the overall avoidance response for all species. No knockdown or mortality at 24-h postexposure was observed in any trials. These findings indicate that the A. paniculata crude extract is more active against day-biting mosquitoes; however, this may be a reflection of the time of testing. This study demonstrates compelling evidence that A. paniculata extract performs primarily as a spatial repellent. Further investigations exploring the use A. paniculata as a potential active ingredient in repellent products are needed.
The objective of this study was to investigate evidence of emerging anaplasmosis and bartonellosis in rodents from endemic areas of Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. Rodent trapping was undertaken in 13 sub‐districts of Muang District. The live‐capture traps were set up in three locations of selected scrub typhus patient houses for three consecutive nights. Wild‐caught rodent whole blood samples and associated ticks and fleas were collected and tested for Anaplasma spp. and Bartonella spp. In addition, heat maps using GIS software were used to determine the density of infection of positive wild‐caught rodents. A total of 347 wild‐caught rodents of nine species was captured. Rattus rattus (38.6%) was the dominant species. A total of 1,518 Heamaphysalis bandicota ticks and 57 Xenopsylla cheopis fleas was removed. Twenty‐two of the 347 tested blood samples (6.3%) were Anaplasma bovis‐positive and 121 blood samples and five out of 27 pools of X. cheopis fleas were Bartonella queenslandensis‐positive. Of these infected rodents, dual‐infections between A. bovis and B. queenslandensis were found in three B. indica rodents. Our results offer new information concerning the infections of A. bovis and B. queenslandensis in both rodents and their ectoparasites collected in high‐risk areas of rodent‐borne diseases in Thailand.
Control strategies exploiting the innate response of mosquitoes to chemicals are urgently required to complement existing traditional approaches. We therefore examined the behavioral responses of 16 field strains of Aedes aegypti (L.) from two countries, to deltamethrin and permethrin by using an excito-repellency (ER) test system. The result demonstrated that the escape percentage of Ae. aegypti exposed to pyrethroids did not vary significantly between the two countries in both contact and noncontact treatment despite the differing epidemiological patterns. Deltamethrin (contact: 3.57 ± 2.06% to 31.20 ± 10.71%; noncontact: 1.67 ± 1.67% to 17.31 ± 14.85%) elicited relatively lower responses to field mosquitoes when compared with permethrin (contact: 16.15 ± 4.07% to 74.19 ± 4.69%; noncontact: 3.45 ± 2.00% to 41.59 ± 6.98%) in contact and noncontact treatments. Compared with field strains, the mean percentage of escaping laboratory susceptible strain individuals were significantly high after treatments (deltamethrin contact: 72.26 ± 6.95%, noncontact: 61.10 ± 12.31%; permethrin contact: 78.67 ± 9.67%, noncontact: 67.07 ± 7.02%) and the escaped individuals spent significantly shorter time escaping from the contact and noncontact chamber. The results indicated a significant effect of resistance ratio on mean escape percentage, but some strains varied idiosyncratically compared to the increase in insecticide resistance. The results also illustrated that the resistance ratio had a significant effect on the mortality in treatments. However, the mortality in field mosquitoes that prematurely escaped from the treated contact chamber or in mosquitoes that stayed up to the 30-min experimental period showed no significant difference.
Light traps are a common method for attracting and collecting arthropods, including disease vectors such as mosquitoes. Various types of traps have been used to monitor mosquitoes in a forest in Western Thailand. In this study, four Light Emitting Diodes (LED) light sources (UV, blue, green, and red) and two fluorescent lights (white and UV) were used to trap nocturnal adult mosquitoes. These traps were used with light alone and not any additional attractant. The experiment was conducted from 18:00 to 06:00 h. on six consecutive nights, every two months, across dry, wet, and cold seasons. All specimens were first identified by morphological features and subsequently confirmed by using PCR. We collected a total of 873 specimens of 31 species in four genera, Anopheles, Aedes, Culex, and Armigeres. Anopheles harrisoni was the predominant species, followed by Aedes albopictus, Culex brevipalpis, Culex nitropunctatus, and Armigeres (Leicesteria) longipalpis. UV fluorescent light was the most effective light source for capturing forest mosquitoes, followed by UV LED, blue LED, green LED, white fluorescent, and red LED. The optimal times for collection were from 21:00 to 03:00 h in the dry season. Our results demonstrate that appropriate sampling times and light sources should be selected for optimal efficiency in vector surveillance programs.
BACKGROUND: Exploiting indoor-resting mosquitoes' innate behavioral responses to commonly used insecticide is crucial in vector control programs. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) treated with pyrethroids have become widely used for controlling dengue fever vectors. The present study tested the effects of piperonyl butoxide (PBO) synergism and cuticular thickening on the contact irritancy response of field A. aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to deltamethrin in Taiwan and Thailand.RESULTS: The escape response of field mosquitoes treated with PBO was significantly elicited, with an escape percentage increase between 2-and 10-fold. In addition, the escape time was significantly lower in PBO-pretreated mosquitoes compared with field mosquitoes treated with deltamethrin alone. PBO-pretreated mosquitoes from seven out of 11 field strains exhibited a knockdown percentage of 11.23-54.91%, significantly higher than that of mosquitoes in corresponding strains treated with deltamethrin only. The Annan, Zhongxi, Sanmin, and North strains exhibited weak knockdown responses (≤3.75%). The mortality of PBO-pretreated field mosquitoes increased 2-to 75-fold compared with those treated with deltamethrin alone (mortality: 0-6.70%). Furthermore, the effect of cuticular thickness on the escape response of field mosquitoes was significant, that is, the escape response marginally increased inversely to cuticular thickness. By contrast, cuticular thickness was not significantly associated with knockdown or mortality percentage.CONCLUSION: Irritant behavior in mosquitoes was significantly elicited by PBO synergism. PBO incorporating deltamethrin IRS or LLINs may be effective for controlling dengue fever vectors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.