• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

从现场到实验室:量化户外蚊虫着陆率以更好地评估局部驱蚊剂。

From the Field to the Laboratory: Quantifying Outdoor Mosquito Landing Rate to Better Evaluate Topical Repellents.

机构信息

Henkel Ibérica S.A, Research and Development (R&D) Insect Control Department, Barcelona, Spain.

Laboratorios Lokímica, Departamento de Investigación y Desarrollo (I+D), Valencia, Spain.

出版信息

J Med Entomol. 2021 May 15;58(3):1287-1297. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjaa298.

DOI:10.1093/jme/tjaa298
PMID:33458778
Abstract

Vector-borne diseases are a worldwide threat to human health. Often, no vaccines or treatments exist. Thus, personal protection products play an essential role in limiting transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) arm-in-cage (AIC) test is the most common method for evaluating the efficacy of topical repellents, but it remains unclear whether AIC testing conditions recreate the mosquito landing rates in the field. This study aimed to estimate the landing rate outdoors, in an area of Europe highly infested with the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894, Diptera: Culididae)), and to determine how to replicate this rate in the laboratory. To assess the landing rate in the field, 16 individuals were exposed to mosquitoes in a highly infested region of Italy. These field results were then compared to results obtained in the laboratory: 1) in a 30 m3 room where nine volunteers were exposed to different mosquito abundances (ranges: 15-20, 25-30, and 45-50) and 2) in a 0.064 m3 AIC test cage where 10 individuals exposed their arms to 200 mosquitoes (as per WHO requirements). The highest mosquito landing rate in the field was 26.8 landings/min. In the room test, a similar landing rate was achieved using 15-20 mosquitoes (density: 0.50-0.66 mosquitoes/m3) and an exposure time of 3 min. In the AIC test using 200 mosquitoes (density: 3,125 mosquitoes/m3), the landing rate was 229 ± 48 landings/min. This study provides useful reference values that can be employed to design new evaluation standards for topical repellents that better simulate field conditions.

摘要

虫媒传染病是对全球人类健康的威胁。通常,这些疾病没有疫苗或治疗方法。因此,个人防护产品在限制传播方面起着至关重要的作用。世界卫生组织(WHO)的笼诱法(AIC)试验是评估局部驱避剂功效的最常用方法,但尚不清楚 AIC 测试条件是否能重现野外的蚊虫降落率。本研究旨在估计户外地区(蚊虫高度滋生的欧洲地区)的降落率,并确定如何在实验室中重现此降落率。为了评估现场降落率,16 人在意大利蚊虫高度滋生的地区暴露于蚊子。然后将这些现场结果与实验室结果进行比较:1)在一个 30 m3 的房间中,九名志愿者暴露于不同的蚊虫丰度(范围:15-20、25-30 和 45-50),2)在一个 0.064 m3 的 AIC 测试笼中,十个人将手臂暴露于 200 只蚊子(按照 WHO 的要求)。现场的最高蚊虫降落率为 26.8 次/分钟。在房间测试中,使用 15-20 只蚊子(密度:0.50-0.66 只/立方米)和 3 分钟的暴露时间,可实现类似的降落率。在 AIC 测试中使用 200 只蚊子(密度:3125 只/立方米)时,降落率为 229±48 次/分钟。本研究提供了有用的参考值,可用于设计更好地模拟野外条件的局部驱避剂新评估标准。

相似文献

1
From the Field to the Laboratory: Quantifying Outdoor Mosquito Landing Rate to Better Evaluate Topical Repellents.从现场到实验室:量化户外蚊虫着陆率以更好地评估局部驱蚊剂。
J Med Entomol. 2021 May 15;58(3):1287-1297. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjaa298.
2
Two New Alternatives to the Conventional Arm-in-Cage Test for Assessing Topical Repellents.两种替代传统手臂笼试验评估局部驱避剂的新方法。
J Med Entomol. 2021 Jul 16;58(4):1826-1838. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjab050.
3
Infected Mosquitoes Have Altered Behavior to Repellents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.受感染的蚊子对驱虫剂的行为发生了改变:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Med Entomol. 2020 Feb 27;57(2):542-550. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz209.
4
Human landing catches provide a useful measure of protective efficacy for the evaluation of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents.人体着陆捕捉为评估挥发性拟除虫菊酯空间驱避剂的保护效果提供了一种有用的衡量标准。
Parasit Vectors. 2023 Mar 7;16(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05685-5.
5
Protection against mosquito vectors Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi and Culex quinquefasciatus using a novel insect repellent, ethyl anthranilate.使用新型驱虫剂邻氨基苯甲酸乙酯预防蚊媒埃及伊蚊、斯氏按蚊和致倦库蚊
Acta Trop. 2017 Oct;174:56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.06.024. Epub 2017 Jun 27.
6
New mosquito repellency bioassay for evaluation of repellents and pyrethroids using an attractive blood-feeding device.利用具有吸引力的吸血装置评估驱蚊剂和拟除虫菊酯的新蚊虫驱避生物测定法。
Parasit Vectors. 2021 Mar 10;14(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-04656-y.
7
Semi-field evaluation of freestanding transfluthrin passive emanators and the BG sentinel trap as a "push-pull control strategy" against Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.半野外条件下评价自立型呋虫胺诱芯和 BG 诱蚊诱卵器作为防治埃及伊蚊的“推拉控制策略”。
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Jul 31;13(1):392. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04263-3.
8
Repellency of 29 Synthetic and Natural Commercial Topical Insect Repellents Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Central Mexico.墨西哥中部29种合成及天然商用局部用驱虫剂对埃及伊蚊(双翅目:蚊科)的驱避作用
J Med Entomol. 2017 Sep 1;54(5):1305-1311. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjx076.
9
Toxicity and repellency of two anthranilates against Aedes albopictus Skuse (Diptera: Culicidae).两种邻氨基苯甲酸酯类化合物对白纹伊蚊(双翅目:蚊科)的毒性和驱避性。
Acta Trop. 2019 Dec;200:105171. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105171. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
10
Laboratory and field evaluation of insect repellents as oviposition deterrents against the mosquito Aedes albopictus.作为白纹伊蚊产卵驱避剂的驱虫剂的实验室和现场评估
Med Vet Entomol. 2001 Jun;15(2):126-31. doi: 10.1046/j.0269-283x.2001.00301.x.

引用本文的文献

1
In the arm-in-cage test, topical repellents activate mosquitoes to disengage upon contact instead of repelling them at distance.在笼臂试验中,局部用驱避剂会使蚊子在接触时而非在远处接触时就脱离接触。
Sci Rep. 2024 Oct 21;14(1):24745. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-74518-x.
2
To Kill or to Repel Mosquitoes? Exploring Two Strategies for Protecting Humans and Reducing Vector-Borne Disease Risks by Using Pyrethroids as Spatial Repellents.杀死蚊子还是驱赶蚊子?探索两种使用拟除虫菊酯作为空间驱避剂来保护人类并降低媒介传播疾病风险的策略。
Pathogens. 2021 Sep 11;10(9):1171. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10091171.
3
A Three-Pronged Approach to Studying Sublethal Insecticide Doses: Characterising Mosquito Fitness, Mosquito Biting Behaviour, and Human/Environmental Health Risks.
一种研究亚致死剂量杀虫剂的三管齐下方法:表征蚊子的适应性、蚊子的叮咬行为以及人类/环境健康风险。
Insects. 2021 Jun 11;12(6):546. doi: 10.3390/insects12060546.
4
Two New Alternatives to the Conventional Arm-in-Cage Test for Assessing Topical Repellents.两种替代传统手臂笼试验评估局部驱避剂的新方法。
J Med Entomol. 2021 Jul 16;58(4):1826-1838. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjab050.