Mosquito density, biting rate and cage size effects on repellent tests

Abstract

Mosquito biting rates and the mean duration of protection (in hours) from bites (MDPB) of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles quadrimaculatus, using the repellent 'deet' (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) on a 50 cm2 area of healthy human skin, were observed in small (27 l), medium (approximately 65 l) and large (125 l) cages containing low, medium or high densities of mosquitoes: respectively, 640, 128 or 49 cm3 of cage volume per female. At the initial treatment rate of approximately 0.4 microliter/cm2 (1 ml of 25% deet in ethanol on 650 cm2 of skin), the MDPB for deet against Ae. aegypti ranged from 4.5 to 6.5 h and was significantly less (5.0 +/- 0.8 h) in large cages compared with medium (6.2 +/- 0.9 h) and small (6.2 +/- 0.8 h) cages, regardless of the density. Against An. quadrimaculatus the MDPB for deet 0.4 microliter/cm2 was 1.5-8.0 h, less in small (3.7 +/- 2.3 h) and large (2.2 +/- 1.1 h) cages at medium (3.7 +/- 2.3 h) and high (2.5 +/- 1.7 h) mosquito densities, and was longest in medium cages (6.2 +/- 2.6 h) at low mosquito densities (5.8 +/- 2.8 h). With equinoxial photoperiodicity (light on 06.00-18.00 hours) the biting rate was influenced by the time of observation (08.00, 12.00, 16.00 hours) for Ae. aegypti but not for An. quadrimaculatus. For both species, the biting rate was inversely proportional to mosquito density and the MDPB. The shortest MDPBs were obtained in large cages with high densities of mosquitoes and longest protection times occurred in medium sized cages with low mosquito densities.

Parameterization and Sensitivity Analysis of a Complex Simulation Model for Mosquito Population Dynamics, Dengue Transmission, and Their Control

“…In most cases, the resources that larvae consume in natural systems have not even been identified. Finally, many investigators have estimated mosquito biting rates in the field, [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] but few have defined details of biting behavior that we identified as important in our sensitivity analysis.…”

Insecticidal Activities of the Essential Oil of Aegle marmelos (Linnaeus, 1800) against Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say, 1823)

“…[22,23]. Again, the age of mosquitoes, body size and density in the cage are also responsible for such outcomes [17].…”

“…Repellent bioassay was done according to the method of Barnard et al [17]. For the study of repellent activity, the protection time was calculated taking olive oil as control.…”

A Novel Test Cage With an Air Ventilation System as an Alternative to Conventional Cages for the Efficacy Testing of Mosquito Repellents

“…A variety of abiotic and biotic factors inßuence the outcome of laboratory bioassays, such as absorption through and evaporation of active substances from the skin, probing or biting activity of the test mosquitoes, mosquito age and body size, test population density and cage shape and size (Gabel et al 1976, Rueda et al 1998, Xue et al 1995, Barnard et al 1998). The inßuence of these factors is even greater in the Þeld; nevertheless, Þeld tests provide the most valuable information on the performance of a repellent under realistic conditions.…”