• Users Online: 24
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

Table of Contents
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 55  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 122-129

Small-scale (Phase II) evaluation of the efficacy and residual activity of SumiShield® 50 WG (clothianidin 50%, w/w) for indoor residual spraying in comparison to deltamethrin, bendiocarb and pirimiphos-methyl for malaria vector control in Karnataka state, India

1 ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, Field Unit, Bengaluru, India
2 ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission27-Jan-2018
Date of Acceptance01-May-2018
Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
U Sreehari
Scientist ‘C’, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, Field Unit, Poojanahalli, Kannamangala (Post), Devanahalli (Taluk), Bengaluru-562 110
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-9062.242559

Rights and Permissions

Background & objectives: There is an urgent need of introducing new insecticide molecules with novel modes of action to counter the ever growing insecticide-resistance in mosquito vectors. In the present study, a new insecticide molecule, SumiShield 50 WG (clothianidin 50%, w/w) was investigated for its efficacy as an indoor residual spray along with its residual action in comparison to deltamethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and bendiocarb.
Methods: The study area included three villages in Almatti Dam catchment area in Bagalkot district, Karnataka, India. Spraying was done using Hudson sprayers with the following dosages—Clothianidin, 300 mg AI/m2; deltamethrin, 25 mg AI/m2; bendiocarb, 400 mg AI/m2; and pirimiphos-methyl, 1 g AI/m2. Cone bioassays were conducted on cement and mud plastered surfaces at fortnightly intervals to assess the bioefficacy and residual activity. Mosquito densities in the sprayed houses were recorded at regular intervals for assessment of the insecticidal efficacy. Filter paper samples collected from the sprayed houses were analyzed for insecticide content sprayed on different wall surfaces at the Walloon Agricultural Research Institute, Gembloux, Belgium.
Results: Chemical content analysis of filter paper samples revealed that the applied to target ratios were in the acceptable range (1 + 0.5) for all the treatment types. Duration of persistence of effectiveness of bendiocarb (≥80% mortality in cone bioassays) was 19 to 21 wk on cement plastered surfaces and 15 to 19 wk on mud plastered surfaces. Duration of persistence of effectiveness of deltamethrin was 17 to 21 wk on both mud and cement plastered surfaces and that of pirimiphos-methyl was 15 to 19 wk. For SumiShield, it was 17 to 25 wk on both types of surfaces, indicating slow action of SumiShield. The densities of Anopheles culicifacies were lower in bendiocarb sprayed houses throughout the observation period, followed by pirimiphos methyl, deltamethrin and clothianidin sprayed houses. In case of other mosquitoes also, similar trend was observed.
Interpretation & conclusion: Considering the persistence of effectiveness of SumiShield on sprayed surfaces, effectiveness in reducing the density of mosquitoes, operational feasibility, safety and community acceptance, the formulation of clothianidin is a better option for IRS for the control of insecticide-resistant mosquito vectors.

Keywords: Anopheles culicifacies, bendiocarb, clothianidin, deltamethrin, indoor residual spraying, pirimiphos-methyl, residual activity, SumiShield

How to cite this article:
Sreehari U, Raghavendra K, Tiwari S N, Sreedharan S, Ghosh S K, Valecha N. Small-scale (Phase II) evaluation of the efficacy and residual activity of SumiShield® 50 WG (clothianidin 50%, w/w) for indoor residual spraying in comparison to deltamethrin, bendiocarb and pirimiphos-methyl for malaria vector control in Karnataka state, India. J Vector Borne Dis 2018;55:122-9

How to cite this URL:
Sreehari U, Raghavendra K, Tiwari S N, Sreedharan S, Ghosh S K, Valecha N. Small-scale (Phase II) evaluation of the efficacy and residual activity of SumiShield® 50 WG (clothianidin 50%, w/w) for indoor residual spraying in comparison to deltamethrin, bendiocarb and pirimiphos-methyl for malaria vector control in Karnataka state, India. J Vector Borne Dis [serial online] 2018 [cited 2021 Apr 19];55:122-9. Available from: https://www.jvbd.org/text.asp?2018/55/2/122/242559

  Introduction Top

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) has been the mainstay in vector control programmes across the world for the control of vector mosquitoes, and in recent times long-lasting insecticidal nets are being promoted for personal protection vis-a-vis control of mosquitoes[1]. Chemical insecticides belonging to the four classes, namely organochlorines, organophosphates, synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates have been used for IRS in many countries for several years. Continued usage of these chemical insecticides in public health programmes and in agriculture, has led to the development of resistance in mosquitoes against them in many areas. Development of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes has become a great impediment for successful control of mosquito-borne diseases in many countries[1],[2]. Hence, there is an urgent need for development of new insecticides with novel modes of action than the existing insecticides in present day use. In recent years, efforts are underway to develop new molecules with new formulations for the control of mosquitoes and SumiShield® (clothianidin 50, WG) (a neonicotinoid) is one such insecticidal formulation that has been developed for the control of vector mosquitoes.

The neonicotinoids are systemic toxins that target acetylcholine receptors in the insect nervous system and are nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists. These are grouped in 4A as per the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee Mode of Action (IRAC MoA) classification[3]. Neonicotinoids have attracted great attention for their high efficacy, safety to mammals, low toxicity, nocross resistance and unique mode of action[4],[5]. These have emerged as the fourth generation of pesticides replacing organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids, and are being widely used for control of insects of agricultural importance[6],[7]. Neonicotinoids cause irreversible blockage of post-synaptic nicotinergic acetylcholine receptors[8] and possess low mammalian toxicity in comparison to other toxins and are also relatively nontoxic to nontarget species[9],[10]. These are highly effective in control of wide range of insect pests[11] and are selective to them because of the differential sensitivity of insect and vertebrate nAChR subtypes[9].

Clothianidin is one of the neonicotinoids with promising insecticidal properties. It belongs to nitroguanidine group. M/s. Sumitomo Chemical Company, Japan has developed a formulation containing Clothianidin with a brand name SumiShield 50 WG. Preliminary studies conducted on this product as per the information provided by the manufacturer, have shown promising efficacy of seven months against Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) in experimental hut trials in Africa. The present study evaluated the efficacy and residual action of SumiShield 50 WG in comparison to deltamethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and bendiocarb as positive controls on common indoor surfaces against An. culicifacies (Diptera: Culicidae) in Almatti Dam catchment area in Karnataka state, India.

  Material & Methods Top

Candidate test formulations

  1. SumiShield 50 WG contains clothianidin (IUPAC formula): (E)-N-[(2-chloro-1, 3-thiazol-5-yl), methyl]-N-methyl-N-nitroguanidine; and chemical formula: C6H8ClN5O2S) 50% (w/w). It is a water dispersible granule formulation packed in sachets containing 150 g formulated product and was applied at the dose of 300 mg AI/m2.
  2. Pali 250 WG (deltamethrin 250 WG-SB), manufactured by M/s. Tagros Chemicals, Chennai, India was applied at 25 mg AI/m2 dose.
  3. Actellic CS (pirimiphos-methyl 300 CS), manufactured by M/s. Syngenta, Switzerland was applied at 1 g AI/m2 dose.
  4. Ficam VC (bendiocarb 80 WP-SB), manufactured by M/s. Bayer Crop Science, Germany was applied at 400 mg AI/m2 dose.

Pali 250 WG, Actellic CS and Ficam VC are recommended by WHO for indoor residual spray and were used as per the WHO specifications. The Central Insecticide Board, Govt. of India has approved these three insecticides for use in public health.

Study area

The Phase II study was conducted in three villages of Almatti Dam catchment area, District Bagalkot in Karnataka state, India from July 2016 to March 2017. The study villages, namely Manahalli, Hosur and Nagasampagi are located in an irrigated rural area along the banks of the River Krishna. There are around 250–300 houses in these villages. Houses in the villages are of various types, viz. of mud/brick, cement brick walls with mostly mud-plastering, cement-plastering with lime-coating or cementplastering without lime coating, and with roofs made up of either earthen tiles/thatching supported by wooden frame or cement-concrete. The villages contain most of the common surfaces intended for the present study. Cattlesheds were generally in the form of either separate enclosure adjacent to the households or as mixed dwellings, i.e. share a common roof with human dwelling rooms. The inhabitant human population is stable and major occupation of the people is agriculture. Major crops grown in the area are rice, millet and vegetables. The climate of the area is tropical and broadly the seasons are monsoon (July to October), winter (November to February) and summer (March to June). The temperature ranges from 15–23 °C in winters and 25–45 °C in summer. The major malaria vector in the study area is An. culicifacies, which is mainly endophilic and endophagic and is susceptible to control by IRS.

Mosquitoes for bioassays

Insecticide susceptibility status of a colonized Almatti strain of An. culicifacies was determined before initiation of the study using deltamethrin (0.05%), pirimiphosmethyl (0.25%) and bendiocarb (0.1%) impregnated papers procured from the Vector Control Research Unit, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, following the WHO test procedure[12]. The strain was found resistant to deltamethrin 0.05% (86% mortality) (but fully susceptible to bendiocarb and pirimiphos-methyl (100% mortality). This strain was used for contact bioassays.

Selection of sentinel rooms and informed consent procedure

Baseline entomological collections were made from 30 suitable houses in each of the three villages for 2–3 times consecutively. The most productive houses were short listed and randomly allocated to each of the five test arms (four insecticide arms and one unsprayed control) for entomological studies including contact bioassays on walls. Same houses were selected for consecutive bioassays in the study villages and another house for entomological studies.

The investigators obtained consent of the Panchayat Sarpanch (Head of the village council) and local opinion leaders and appraised the purpose of the study, activities planned in the villages, safety aspects and sought cooperation in spray operations, bioassays and entomological collections. Informed consent of the head person of the potential households was obtained using Kannada (local dialect) version of the informed consent form developed by the ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research (NIMR), New Delhi. In consented households, mosquito collections were made 2–3 times consecutively to finally select rooms/houses that have high mosquito densities. Allocation of houses to the comparison arms was made by using a simple random method. In total, 110 houses were sprayed in all the three villages which include 52 mud wall surfaces and 58 cement wall surfaces. In Manahalli village, spraying was done on 27 July 2016 with all four insecticides included in the study; Hosur village was sprayed on 2 August 2016 and Nagasampagi village was sprayed on 8 August 2016.

Indoor spraying of insecticides and safety of spray men and households

Only one round of spraying was done using handoperated compression sprayers (Hudson brand pumps; H.D. Hudson Asia Ltd., Hong Kong) fitted with a pressure gauze, a 1.5 bar control flow valve and 8002E flat fan nozzle, according to the standard WHO application procedure[13]. Spraying was done at the initial 58 psi working pressure in the sprayer tank. The spray pumps were calibrated every day before spraying to obtain uniform and good-quality spraying for the targeted dose. Separate sprayers were used for each insecticide to avoid contamination. Participating householders were informed well in advance about the spray schedule.

Four spray men were recruited and were given 2-day training in spraying technique prior to spraying operation in the study villages and an information sheet in local language was provided to them. Protective overall clothing, goggles, gloves, masks, etc. were provided to them for their protection and safety. After spraying the rooms, the households were instructed not to scrub or damage or mud-plaster the walls until tests on mosquitoes were terminated. At the time of taking informed consent from the participating households, they were educated to take safety precautions to avoid any possible risks during and after the spray in their house. On the day of spraying all family members were advised by a spray team supervisor to remain out of the rooms during the spray and up to 2–3 h of spraying. Insecticide containers, left over insecticide and other contaminated material during spray operations were disposed as per the WHO standard procedure[13].

Adverse effects on spray men and households

An assessment of the adverse effects, was made using a questionnaire. All the spray men were interviewed at the end of the day of spraying and again in the following morning and one week later by a clinician. Assessment of adverse events on inhabitants of the sprayed houses/rooms was done after first and fourth week of spraying.

Assessment of the quality of treatment

For assessing the quality and accuracy of insecticide treatment, three Whatman filter paper No. 1 (Round shape) were attached at various heights using fine steel pins on the walls. After one day of spraying, the papers were removed gently using the forceps. Each filter paper sample was packed in aluminum foil separately and properly labeled with house ID, surface type, position of the sample and village code. The packed samples were stored in a refrigerator at +4 °C temperature until these were sent to CRA-W, Gembloux, Belgium for chemical analysis. The spots where filter papers were fixed were marked and cone bioassays were avoided on those areas.

Scheme of bioassays and sampling of mosquitoes in sentinel houses

Entomological studies were conducted in one house per village periodically (fortnight intervals) and the same house was used for consecutive mosquito collections/bioassays in each village. One room in each village for each of the five arms was selected for behavioural studies. The room was fitted with two exit traps on the windows/walls facing east/north direction allowing early morning light. The eaves and other openings were covered from inside with black cloth which was hung like a curtainfunnel from a top frame but allowing entry of mosquitoes through the eaves.

Contact bioassays

To determine the efficacy and persistence of insecticides sprayed on walls, contact bioassays were carried out using cones following the WHO procedures[12],[14]. Cone bioassays were conducted on mud-wall and cemented wall surfaces in different rooms. Laboratory-reared strain of An. culicifacies females; 3–5 days old and sugar fed were used. Four replicates of 10 mosquitoes each were used for each surface type. After 30 min of exposure to the sprayed surface, mosquitoes were removed gently from the cones and kept in plastic cups covered with a netting cloth. Mosquitoes were provided with cotton-wool moistened with 10% glucose solution and kept at 28 ± 2 °C temperature and >80% RH. Knockdown was recorded after 60 min of the exposure and mortality was scored at 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h post-exposure. Bioassays were conducted on Week 1, 2, and at fortnightly intervals. Data of all the three villages were pooled for each interval, and mortalities were calculated. When the mortality recorded was <80% for consecutive fortnights, further assessment was terminated. Mortality was corrected by applying Abbott’s formula[15], whenever the mortality in control replicates lied between 5 and 20%.

Indoor density of mosquitoes

To measure the impact of spraying, following parameters were monitored and recorded: Mortality, total mosquito entry rate, exit rate and proportion of human blood-fed mosquitoes in sentinel rooms selected in each study village in each study arm. Same house was used for data collection in subsequent periodical assessments.

Floor sheet collection: In the evening before the day of mosquito collection, white cloth-sheets were spread on the floor of the rooms with the cooperation of householders before they retired to bed. Next morning mosquitoes found dead on cloth-sheets were picked up by an entomology staff carefully using the forceps and placed in the cups provided with moist cotton-wool and taken for identification to species level.

Exit trap collection (ETC): The cleaned exit traps were positioned before the sunset in the designated windows with the help of the householders. On the following morning, live mosquitoes found resting in the exit trap cage were collected with the help of an aspirator tube and transferred to plastic cups lined with a net piece and provided with cotton wool pad soaked with 10% glucose solution. Delayed mortality was scored after holding them for 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h. Dead mosquitoes from the exit trap were collected carefully and placed in cups provided with moist cotton wool for identification of species.

Hand catch and total catch (HC and TC) : After completing the collections from floor sheets and exit traps, the mosquitoes resting in the rooms were caught using an aspirator tube and flash light for 15 min by two well-trained mosquito collectors. The live mosquitoes were kept in cups provided with cotton-wool moistened with 10% glucose solution to observe delayed mortality after 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h. The rooms were then sprayed with a d-trans allethrin 0.25% w/w aerosol (Brand name HIT, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Mumbai, India) starting from inner corners and then the doors were closed. After 15 min, the rooms were opened for ventilation and all mosquitoes found dead on the floor-sheets were collected using forceps. All the mosquitoes collected by hand aspirator and pyrethrum spray collection methods were identified to species and recorded.

Ethical statement

The project has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (ECR/NIMR/EC/2016/118), Scientific Advisory Committee of NIMR and Health Ministers Screening Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research (TDR/675/2016-ECD-II, dated October 4, 2016).

Data analysis

MS-Excel software was used for data analysis. Percent mortalities were ArcSin transformed and analysed using ANOVA. The data of the three villages were pooled and mortalities or densities were calculated.

  Results Top

The efficacy of IRS of SumiShield 50 WG (clothianidin) was tested in comparison to deltamethrin, pirimiphosmethyl and bendiocarb in three villages of Almatti Dam catchment area in Bagalkot district of Karnataka state. Results of chemical analysis of filter paper samples collected from sprayed houses are shown in [Table 1]. The applied to target ratios for cement plastered surfaces sprayed with bendiocarb, deltamethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and clothianidin was 1.29, 1.38, 0.96, and 1.13, respectively. Similarly, in case of mud plastered surfaces it was 1.14, 1.38, 0.80, and 1.40, respectively. The applied to target ratio of insecticide for all the insecticides was in acceptable range (1 + 0.5).
Table 1: Dosage of insecticides applied in Phase II trial rooms based on the chemical content analysis of filter papers

Click here to view

The data on the residual action and duration of persistence of effectiveness of insecticides sprayed on mud plastered wall and cement plastered wall surfaces was determined by cone bioassays on laboratory reared, pyrethroid resistant strain of An. culicifacies. The results revealed that the persistence of efficacy (≥80% mortality in bioassays) of bendiocarb was up to 19 wk at 24 h holding period on cement plastered surfaces and 15 wk on mud plastered surfaces. However, extended holding period of 120 h showed effectiveness up to 21 wk on cement plastered wall surfaces and 19 wk on mud plastered wall surfaces. There was no significant difference in mortalities recorded between mud and cement plastered wall surfaces at 120 h holding period (p > 0.05)

Persistence of effectiveness of deltamethrin was 17 wk on both cement and mud plastered surfaces at 24 h post-exposure period which increased to 21 wk when the holding period was extended to 120 h. There were no significant differences in mortalities recorded on mud wall and cement wall surfaces at 120 h holding period (p > 0.05). Similarly, persistence of effectiveness of pirimiphos-methyl CS was 15 wk on both mud plastered and cement plastered surfaces at 24 h holding period post-exposure, which increased to 19 wk on both mud plastered and cement plastered wall surfaces at 120 h extended holding period. There were no significant differences in mortalities recorded on mud plastered wall and cement plastered wall surfaces at 120 h holding period (p > 0.05).

Persistence of effectiveness of clothianidin WG was up to 17 wk on cement plastered surfaces and 15 wk on mud plastered wall surfaces at 24 h holding period post-exposure; however, it increased to 25 wk at 120 h extended holding period on both mud plastered and cement plastered wall surfaces and there were no significant differences in mortalities recorded on mud wall and cement wall surfaces at this extended period (p > 0.05).

Summarized results of persistence of effectiveness of different insecticides on two types of surfaces are shown in [Table 2]. Analysis of variance among the four insecticides on cement plastered wall surface showed significant difference in mortalities recorded after 120 h extended holding period with the four insecticides (F3,15= 7.521; p = 0.003). Similar results were obtained on mud plastered walls (F3,15 = 6.198; p = 0.001) indicating that the efficacy of four insecticides differs from each other and clothianidin showed superior efficacy than the other three insecticides.
Table 2: Summarized results of the duration of persistence of effective residual action (≥80% mortality) based on contact bioassays on different sprayed surfaces against An. culicifacies, pyrethroid-resistant Almatti strain in Phase II trial

Click here to view

Per structure density of An. culicifacies collected on floor sheets, in exit traps, by hand catch and pyrethrum spray in a sprayed and unsprayed room in three villages are shown in [Table 3] and that of all other mosquitoes except An. culicifacies are shown in [Table 4]. The results revealed that in all the houses sprayed with different insecticides, the densities of both vector and non-vector mosquitoes remained very low when compared to those recorded in control houses. The densities of An. culicifacies were lower in bendiocarb sprayed houses throughout the observation period, followed by pirimiphos-methyl, deltamethrin and clothianidin sprayed houses. In case of all other mosquitoes also, similar trend was observed. There was a significant difference in the density of An. culicifacies mosquitoes collected from sprayed houses with different insecticides (p < 0.00001). In case of other mosquitoes, there was no significant difference in the density of mosquitoes collected from different insecticide-sprayed houses (p > 0.05).
Table 3: Mean mosquito density per room of An. culicifacies in sprayed houses with different insecticides

Click here to view
Table 4: Mean mosquito density per room of all other mosquitoes in sprayed houses with different insecticides

Click here to view

No adverse events were reported in spray men (n = 6) during and post-spraying after one week. Itching of skin was reported by one person in each of bendiocarb, deltamethrin and pirimiphos-methyl sprayed houses, which subsided few hours after spray without any medication. Sneezing was the major event reported by 6, 3, 5, and 4 persons in bendiocarb, deltamethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and clothianidin sprayed houses, respectively. Experience of bad smell was also another aspect reported by the households.

  Discussion Top

In the present study, a phase II trial of SumiShield 50 WG (clothianidin) indoor residual spraying at a dosage of 300 mg AI/m2 was undertaken in natural houses in three selected villages in comparison with bendiocarb (carbamate), at a dosage of 400 mg AI/m2, deltamethrin (synthetic pyrethroid) at a dosage of 25 mg AI/m2 and pirimiphos-methyl (organophosphate) at a dosage of 1 g AI/m2. The results showed superior duration of persistence of effectiveness of clothianidin up to 25 wk in causing >80% mortality in test mosquitoes. Further, the mosquito densities remained very low in the clothianidin sprayed houses up to 25 wk post-spray.

Indoor residual spraying on walls and roofs with effective insecticides is one of the promising vector control interventions against endophilic mosquitoes and has provided success in malaria control in several countries and also responsible for elimination of malaria in many countries[16],[17],[18],[19]· The success depends on the quality of spray, effectiveness of the insecticide in producing toxicity to mosquitoes, duration of effectiveness, susceptibility of mosquito vectors to the sprayed insecticides, spray coverage and cooperation of inhabitants in not mutilating the sprayed surfaces through mud plastering and white wash, etc[20]. Insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors is a major concern and is an impediment for the successful control of mosquito vectors vis-a-vis diseases caused by them. In several countries, the mosquito vectors have developed resistance to one or more classes of insecticides used in IRS, thereby reducing the duration of persistence of effectiveness of the insecticide sprayed on walls or diluting the toxic effects of the insecticide. Resistance to organochlorines such as DDT has been precipitated in several mosquito vectors, and its use has been minimized in many vector control programmes. Resistance to organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids have been also been reported in several countries[20],[21],[22],[23]. In the absence of alternative effective insecticide for use in IRS programmes, there is a great need of new lead molecules and effective formulations for IRS.

Neonicotinoids are widely used in agriculture and are found effective against other insects in field conditions. Their use in public health has not yet started. Previous few studies conducted on neonicotinoids against mosquitoes showed both adulticidal as well as larvicidal efficacy[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]. In silico studies on neonicotinoid compounds showed that these compounds possess good toxic activity against mosquitoes[29]. Neonicotinoid class of insecticides is one such alternative for IRS, and hence, few formulations have been developed such as SumiShield and Fludora Fusion.

  Conclusion Top

In the present study, SumiShield 50 WG (clothianidin 50%, w/w) was found very effective in controlling the pyrethroid resistant An. culicifacies in a small-scale. SumiShield could be a potential option for IRS for the control of mosquito vectors and its edge over other insecticides in producing longer duration of persistence of effectiveness. Further, the formulation is easy to handle, and community acceptance in terms of smell, safety and effectiveness could be viable option for IRS.

  Acknowledgements Top

The authors acknowledge the support of the Senior Health Officer, Almatti and his staff for their support in the study. The authors extend warm thanks to staff of the ICMR-NIMR Field Unit, Bengaluru, India for their continuous technical assistance in the field activities. The project is sponsored by the World Health Organization vide TSA No. 201541283.

  References Top

Core vector control methods. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available from: http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/vector_ control/core_methods/en/ (Accessed on July 17, 2017).  Back to cited text no. 1
Himeidan YE, Temu EA, Kweka EJ. Insecticides for vectorborne diseases: Current use, benefits, hazard and resistance. In: Farzana Perveen, editor. Insecticides—Advances in Integrated Pest Management. Croatia: InTech 2012; p. 683–708. Available from: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/25696.pdf (Accessed on July 17, 2017).  Back to cited text no. 2
The IRAC mode of action classification—Insecticide resistance action committee (IRAC) 2017. Available from: http://www. irac-online.org/modes-of-action/ (Accessed on July 17, 2017).  Back to cited text no. 3
Ware GW. The Pesticide. V edn. Frensco, CA: Thompson Publications 2000; p. 415.  Back to cited text no. 4
Zhu Y, Lose MR, Watson GB, Sparks TC, Rogers RB, Huang JX, et al. Discovery and characterization of sulfoxaflor, a novel insecticide targeting sap-feeding pests. J Agric Food Chem 2011; 59(7): 2950–7.  Back to cited text no. 5
Jeschke P, Nauen R, Schindler M, Elbert A. Overview of the status and global strategy for noenicotinoids. J Agric Food Chem 2011; 59 (7): 2897–908.  Back to cited text no. 6
Ohno I, Tomizawaa M. Durkin KA, Casida JE, Kagabu S. Bisneonicotinoid insecticides: Observed and predicted binding interactionswith the nicotinic receptor. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2009; 19(13): 3449–52.  Back to cited text no. 7
Bai D, Lummis SCR, Leicht W, Breer H, Sattelle DB. Action of imidacloprid and a related nitromethylene on cholinergic receptors of an identified insect motor neurone. Pest Sci 1991; 33: 197–204.  Back to cited text no. 8
Tomizawa M, Casida JE. Selective toxicity of neonicotinoids attributable to specificity of insect and mammalian nicotinic receptors. Annu Rev Entomol 2003; 48: 339–64.  Back to cited text no. 9
Tomizawa M, Casida JE. Neonicotinoid insecticide toxicology: Mechanisms of selective action. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 45: 247–68.  Back to cited text no. 10
Wollweber D, Tietjen K. Chloronicotinyl insecticides: A success of the new chemistry. In: Yamamoto I, Casida JE editors. Nicotinoid insecticides and the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Tokyo, Japan: Springer 1999; p. 109–26.  Back to cited text no. 11
Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vectors, bioefficacy and persistence of insecticides on treated surfaces: Report of the WHO informal consultation, Geneva: World Health Organization 1998. Available from: http://www. who.int/whopes/resources/who_cds_cpc_mal_98.12/en/  Back to cited text no. 12
Manual for indoor residual spraying—Application of residual sprays for vector control. Geneva: World Health Organization 2007. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69664/1/WHO_CDS_NTD_WHOPES_ GCDPP_2007.3_eng.pdf (Accessed on July 13, 2016).  Back to cited text no. 13
Guidelines for testing mosquito adulticides for indoor residual spraying and treatment of mosquito nets. Geneva: World Health Organization 2006. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_CDS_NTD_WHOPES_GCDPP_2006.3_eng. pdf, (Accessed on July 13, 2016).  Back to cited text no. 14
Abbott WS. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 1925; 18(2): 265–7.  Back to cited text no. 15
Trigg PI, Kondrachine AV. Commentary: Malaria control in the 1990s. Bull World Health Organ 1998; 76(1): 11–6.  Back to cited text no. 16
Shiff C. Integrated approach to malaria control. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002; 15: 278–93.  Back to cited text no. 17
Mabaso MLH, Sharp B, Lengeler C. Historical review of malarial control in southern African with emphasis on the use of indoor residual house-spraying. Trop Med Int Health 2004; 9(8): 846–56.  Back to cited text no. 18
Wakabi W. Africa counts greater successes against malaria. Lancet 2007; 370: 1895–6.  Back to cited text no. 19
Raghavendra K, Barik TK, Niranjan Reddy BP, Sharma P, Dash AP. Malaria vector control: From past to future. Parasitol Res 2011; 108(4): 757–79.  Back to cited text no. 20
Knox TB, Juma EO, Ochomo EO, Jamet HP, Ndungo L, Chege P, et al. An online tool for mapping insecticide resistance in major Anopheles vectors of human malaria parasites and review of resistance status for the Afrotropical region. Parasit Vectors 2014; 7: 76.  Back to cited text no. 21
Raghavendra K, Sharma PV, Verma V, Elamathi N, Barik TK, Bhatt RM, et al. Temporo-spatial distribution of insecticideresistance in Indian malaria vectors in the last quarter-century: Need for regular resistance monitoring and management. J Vector Borne Dis 2017; 54(2): 111–30.  Back to cited text no. 22
Global plan for insecticide resistance management in malaria vectors (GPIRM). Geneva: World Health Organization 2012. Available from: http://www.who.int/malaria/vector_control/gpirm_executive_summary_en.pdf (Accessed on July 20, 2017).  Back to cited text no. 23
Paul A, Laura C. Harrington LC, Scott JG. Evaluation of novel insecticides for control of dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 2006; 43(1): 55–60.  Back to cited text no. 24
Pridgeon JW, Pereira RM, Becnel JJ, Allan SA, Clark GG, Linthicum KJ. Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, and Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say to 19 pesticides with different modes of action. J Med Entomol 2006; 45(1): 82–7.  Back to cited text no. 25
Corbel V, Duchon S, Zaim M, Hougard JM. Dinotefuran: A potential neonicotinoid insecticide against resistant mosquitoes. J Med Entomol 2004; 41(4): 712–7.  Back to cited text no. 26
Darriet F, Chandre F. Efficacy of six neonicotinoid insecticides alone and in combination with deltamethrin and piperonylbutoxide against pyrethroid-resistant Aedes aegypti and Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). Pest Manag Sci 2013; 69(8): 905–10.  Back to cited text no. 27
Sreehari U, Verma V, Elamathi N, Sharma PV, Raghavendra K. Adulticidal and larvicidal efficacy of three neonicotinoids against insecticide susceptible and resistant mosquito strains. Indian J Med Res 2015; 142 (Suppl): 64–70.  Back to cited text no. 28
Elamathi N, Verma V, Sharma PV, Sreehari U, Bhatt RM, Raghavendra K. Neonicotinoids in vector control: In silico approach. Asian J Biomed Pharm Sci 2014; 4(39): 49–53.  Back to cited text no. 29


  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]

This article has been cited by
1 Small-scale field evaluation of the entomological efficacy and the residual activity of Fludora Fusion WP-SB indoor residual spraying against Anopheles culicifacies s.l . in Gujarat, India
Raghavendra Kamaraju,Chandra Shekhar Pant,Sreehari Uragayala,Rajendra Kumar Baharia,Harish Chandra Srivastava,Rajpal S. Yadav
Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
Material & M...
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded380    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal