Alternative Application Technology

1. Alternative Application Technology Daniel L. Kline USDA-ARS, CMAVE Gainesville, FL dkline@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu

2. Alternative ApplicationTechnology • Area repellents • Tent studies • Insecticide-treated vegetation • Semi-field: CMAVE protocol • Field: Studies in Arkansas versus Anopheles

3. MilitaryRelevance Pristine Sand Fly Habitat … Everywhere Before Tent Cities

4. Army Tent City Air Force Tent City

5. Area Repellents: Tent Studies Metofluthrin (SumiOne™) A highly volatile pyrethroid

6. Participants • CMAVE • Dan Kline, Jerry Hogsette and Brian Quinn • Joyce Urban and Melissa Doyle • NECE • CDR Steve Rankin • LCDR Dan Szumlas • Dr. Todd Walker • Valent • John Lucas

7. Tent Studies: Metofluthrin (Sumi OneTM) • Types of emanators • Placement of emanators • Number of emanators • Environmental effects

8. TENT A TENT B 100 feet 30 ft wide 60 ft long 13’ 6” wide 18’ 6” long West Cage East Cage Tent configurations

10. SumiOne™ Paper Emanators Surface area 4000 cm3 (both faces) Treated with 200 mg SumiOne®

11. Placement of emanators

12. SumiOne™ Plastic Emanators 7.9 cm wide x 11 cm long (192 holes, each .25 cm2) Plastic impregnated with 5% (w/w) SumiOne®

13. Mosquito Magnets and emanators

14. Mosquitoes Releasedin Each Cage Ochlerotatustaeniorhynchus (500) Aedesaegypti (500)

15. Measures of Emanator Efficacy • Landing counts on human volunteers (inside and outside tent) • Mosquito Magnet Pro collections (within tents) • Residue analysis

16. Percent reduction in trap collections with SumiOne paper at two heights

17. Percent residue of metofluthrin in paper emanators

18. Average percent reduction in trap collection using SumiOne plastic emanator

19. Outside Outside Inside Inside Untreated Treated

20. Treated Untreated Nets

21. Overall Summary • SumiOne® shows potentially good knockdown and bite inhibition activity against mosquitoes. • 2. Type and placement of SumiOne emanators is very important. • 3. Further research is needed on type and placement of emanators. • 4. Additional candidate compounds need to be evaluated.

22. Large outdoor screen cage (16’ high) West 60’ Coleman MD-2500 10’ X X X X X X X 10’ North South 30’ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X East Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) 7 plants per side

23. Participants • CMAVE • Dan Kline, Jerry Hogsette, Sandy Allan and Brian Quinn • Joyce Urban, Aaron Lloyd and Melissa Doyle • Arkansas • David Dame (Entomological Services) • Max Meisch (University of Arkansas)

24. CMAVE Protocol Mini-plots

25. Bifenthrin residual treatment on wax myrtle

26. Arkansas Studies David Dame (Entomological Services) and Max Meisch, Univ. of Arkansas Mini-plots (10’ x 10’) 0.1 acre plots Bifenthrin .22 lb/acre Bifenthrin .11 and .22 lb/acre

28. Trap Collections

29. Bifenthrin treated mini-plots

30. Bifenthrin treated field plots

31. Bioassay

32. Percent mortality of An. quadrimaculatus after 1 hr exposure to Bifenthrin-treated leaves from field plots

33. Percent mortality of An. quadrimaculatus after 24 hour exposure to Bifenthrin (Talstar) treated leaves from field plots.

34. Percent mortality of Oc. taeniorhyncus after one hour exposure to Bifenthrin (Talstar) treated leaves from field plots.

35. Percent mortality of Oc. taeniorhyncus after 24 hour exposure to Bifenthrin (Talstar) treated leaves from field plots.

36. Residue Analysis

37. Future Studies Comparison of regular backpack sprayers with electrostatic sprayers