两种杀虫剂浸泡蚊帐现场杀灭效果观察

The efficacy observation of two pesticides impregnated bednets for pest control in field in Sudan

目的在苏丹维和区观察比较奋斗呐和大灭杀虫剂浸泡蚊帐对蚊、蝇和其他昆虫的现场杀灭效果。方法选用奋斗呐(30mg.ai/m2)和大灭(20mg.ai/m2)浸泡军用蚊帐,检测对蚊、蝇和其他昆虫的杀灭效果。结果大灭浸泡蚊帐后第27天,对蚊类还具有较好的杀灭效果;奋斗呐浸泡蚊帐后第21天的杀灭效果明显下降,帐顶死蚊数仅为浸泡蚊帐第9天的33%。比较大灭组与奋斗呐组第21天帐顶蚊(蚊:Z=2.373,P=0.015)和第24天帐顶蝇及其他昆虫死亡数(蝇:Z=1.783,P=0.047;其他昆虫:Z=2.096,P=0.026)差异均有统计学意义,前者死亡数明显较后者为多。结论2种杀虫剂浸泡蚊帐后均能达到防治有害昆虫的目的,但大灭的持效时间更长,效果更好些。

Objective To observe the residual effects of Fendona and Demand impregnated bednets for pest control in peacekeeping area in Sudan. Methods Fendona （30 mg· ai/m^2） and Demand （20 mg· ai/m^2） was used to impregnate bednets before going abroad. Observating the dead number of mosquitoes, flies and other insects on the bednets one time every three days. Results The bednets impregnated by Demand has good residual effect for mosquitoes, flies and other insects after 27 days. The residual effect of bednets impregnated by Fendona appeared obviously decline after 21 days. Compared the dead number of vector on bednets impregnated by Demand and Fendona, there was significant difference in statistics on 21 days on mosquitoes （ Z = 2. 373, P = 0. 015 ） and on 24 days on flies and other vector （ Z = 1. 783, P = 0. 047 ; Z = 2. 096, P = 0. 026, each）. Conclusion Bednets treated by two pesticides are efficient for vector control, but Demand at 20 mg·ai/m^2 is better than Fendona at 30 mg· ai/m^2 because Demand can last more residual effects time.