Gürtler R E, Schweigmann N J, Cecere M C, Chuit R, Wisnivesky-Colli C
Laboratorio de Ecología General, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Med Vet Entomol. 1993 Jul;7(3):238-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1993.tb00683.x.
In mud-and-thatch houses of Santiago del Estero Province, north-west Argentina, where no insecticides had been sprayed officially to control domestic infestations of the Chagas disease vector Triatoma infestans (Klug) (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), two knockdown (KD) insecticidal collection procedures were compared with the standard flush-out (FO) method for sampling T. infestans. Bugs were collected by FO using 0.2% tetramethrin in bedrooms of (1) 41 houses of Amamá village employing 1 man-hour of capture effort per house, and (2) 19 houses of Trinidad and Mercedes villages employing 4 man-hours/house. From the same houses, 2-5 days after the manual FO collection, bugs were collected by KD indoor-spraying of deltamethrin 25 mg a.i./m2 in Amamá, or burning of one gamma-HCH (= gamma-BHC) fumigant tablet 3.1 g of gamma-isomer) per bedroom in Trinidad and Mercedes. The majority of infestations were detected by both methods, the proportion of positive houses being 81% at Amamá and 95% at the other villages. Although the FO method was more sensitive, at least because it was applied first, the KD method detected infestations in 25% of houses where bugs were not found by FO. Bug densities estimated by FO or by subsequent KD in each house were significantly correlated: r = 0.795 for deltamethrin; r = 0.882 for gamma-HCH. Compared with FO collections of T. infestans large stages, i.e. adults plus fourth and fifth instar nymphs, the KD catch averaged 0.88 x with deltamethrin and 0.57 x with gamma-HCH, regardless of the apparent population density of bugs per house. However, the KD method has practical advantages of speed and standardization.
在阿根廷西北部圣地亚哥-德尔埃斯特罗省的泥草房里,官方未喷洒杀虫剂来控制恰加斯病病媒大锥蝽(Triatoma infestans (Klug),半翅目:猎蝽科)的家庭侵扰,在此对两种击倒(KD)杀虫采集程序与标准的冲洗(FO)方法进行了比较,以对大锥蝽进行采样。在(1)阿马马村的41所房屋的卧室中,使用0.2%胺菊酯通过冲洗法采集虫子,每所房屋投入1人时的捕获工作量;在(2)特立尼达村和梅赛德斯村的19所房屋中,每所房屋投入4人时。在人工冲洗采集后的2至5天,在阿马马村通过室内喷洒25毫克有效成分/平方米的溴氰菊酯进行击倒采集,在特立尼达村和梅赛德斯村则在每间卧室燃烧1片3.1克γ-异构体的林丹熏蒸片进行击倒采集。两种方法都检测到了大多数侵扰情况,阿马马村阳性房屋的比例为81%,其他村庄为95%。尽管冲洗法更灵敏,至少因为它是首先应用的方法,但击倒法在25%冲洗法未发现虫子的房屋中检测到了侵扰情况。通过冲洗法或随后的击倒法估计的每所房屋中的虫口密度显著相关:溴氰菊酯的r = 0.795;林丹的r = 0.882。与冲洗法采集的大锥蝽大虫态(即成虫加上四龄和五龄若虫)相比,无论每所房屋中虫子的表观种群密度如何,击倒法捕获量平均为溴氰菊酯的0.88倍和林丹的0.57倍。然而,击倒法在速度和标准化方面具有实际优势。