Tests of Olyset nets by bioassay and in experimental huts.

BACKGROUND: Olyset nets are a type of long-lasting insecticidal net made of polyethylene fibre with permethrin incorporated into it and with a 4 mm mesh size. BIOASSAYS: Olyset netting was wrapped around a wire frame and the mosquitoes were released inside for bioassays. There was significantly faster knockdown and higher percent mortality than bioassays with the netting attached to a WHO cone with a piece of cardboard on the other side of the net to prevent escapes through the large mesh. It is suggested that with the latter method some mosquitoes place their tarsae through the mesh on to the cardboard, thus avoiding insecticide contact. TRIALS IN EXPERIMENTAL HUTS: Four mm mesh nets were compared with conventional 1.5 mm mesh nets treated with permethrin. In further trials in huts Olyset nets which were either unwashed or five times washed, with or without subsequent heating, and a Olyset net which had been in domestic use for four years or a new Olyset net were compared with a net treated with bifenthrin. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: In all cases Anopheles biting on sleepers under the nets was reduced and Anopheles mortality was increased by the use of the insecticidal nets. No significant impact of washing or heating was detected and an Olyset net was as good as new after four years use, but did not cause as much mosquito mortality as bifenthrin treated nets.

Insecticide treated nets: impact on vector populations and relevance of initial intensity of transmission and pyrethroid resistance.

Insecticide treated bednets locate a deposit of a quick-acting insecticide of low human toxicity between a sleeper and host-seeking mosquitoes. Thus a chemical barrier is added to the often incomplete physical barrier provided by the net. Treated nets may be considered as mosquito traps baited by the odour of the sleeper. Trials in Assam, Tanzania and elsewhere have shown that when a whole community is provided with treated nets, so many mosquitoes of anthropophilic species are killed by contact with the nets that the density and/or sporozoite rate of the vector population is reduced. In order to gain this "mass" or community effect, in addition to widespread personal protection, and thus to achieve the full potential of the treated net method, a high per cent coverage of the community is needed. This suggests that organised free provision of treated nets, comparable to a house spraying programme, is likely to be more cost-effective than trying to market nets and insecticide to very poor rural people. In areas with high malaria transmission, where acquisition of immunity to malaria is very important, it has been argued that vector control (without vector eradication) could, in the long run, make the situation worse by preventing the normal build-up of immunity. However, our data from Tanzania do not support this idea--3-4 years after provision of nets (which are re-treated annually) young children are still showing clear health benefits; older children are not "paying" for this by showing worse impact of malaria. There is less malaria morbidity in a highland area where malaria transmission is about 15x less intense than in a nearby lowland area. The per cent impact of treated nets malaria morbidity in both area was very similar. At present only pyrethroids are used for net treatment which suggested that emergence of pyrethroid resistance would have a disastrous effect. However, in West Africa, where there is now a high frequency of the kdr resistance gene in Anopheles gambiae, it is reported that treated nets continue to have a powerful impact on vector populations. In Tanzania, pyrethroid resistance has not been detected in malaria vectors, but it has emerged in bedbugs after seven years use of treated nets.