Author:
Peard Evah F.,Luu Calvin,Hageman Kimberly J.,Sepesy Rose,Bernhardt Scott A.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle bioassay is a commonly used susceptibility test for measuring insect response to insecticide exposure. However, inconsistencies and high variability in insect response when conducting CDC bottle bioassays have been reported in previous publications. We hypothesized that the CDC bottle bioassay results may be compromised when expected and actual insecticide concentrations in the bottles are not equivalent and that inadequate bottle cleaning and/or loss during insecticide introduction and bottle storage steps could be responsible. We explored this hypothesis by quantifying insecticides using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) in bottles that had been cleaned, prepared, and stored according to the CDC guidelines.
Methods
We investigated the bottle cleaning, preparation, and storage methods outlined in the CDC bottle bioassay procedure to identify sources of irreproducibility. We also investigated the effectiveness of cleaning bottles by autoclaving because this method is commonly used in insecticide assessment laboratories. The two insecticides used in this study were chlorpyrifos and lambda-cyhalothrin (λ-cyhalothrin). Insecticides were removed from glass bioassay bottles by rinsing with ethyl-acetate and n-hexane and then quantified using GC-MS/MS.
Results
The CDC bottle bioassay cleaning methods did not sufficiently remove both insecticides from the glass bottles. The cleaning methods removed chlorpyrifos, which has higher water solubility, more effectively than λ-cyhalothrin. Chlorpyrifos experienced significant loss during the bottle-coating process whereas λ-cyhalothrin did not. As for bottle storage, no significant decreases in insecticide concentrations were observed for 6 h following the initial drying period for either insecticide.
Conclusions
The CDC bottle bioassay protocol is susceptible to producing inaccurate results since its recommended bottle cleaning method is not sufficient and semi-volatile insecticides can volatilize from the bottle during the coating process. This can lead to the CDC bottle bioassay producing erroneous LC50 values. High levels of random variation were also observed in our experiments, as others have previously reported. We have outlined several steps that CDC bottle bioassay users could consider that would lead to improved accuracy and reproducibility when acquiring toxicity data.
Graphical Abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference41 articles.
1. Melander AL. Can insects become resistant to sprays? J Econ Entomol. 1914;7:167–72.
2. Brogdon WG, Chan A. Guideline for evaluating insecticide resistance in vectors using the CDC bottle bioassay. CDC Atlanta: CDC Technical Report. 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/ir_manual/ir_cdc_bioassay_en.pdf.
3. CDC. International manual for evaluating insecticide resistance using the CDC bottle bioassay. Atlanta: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2024. p. 2024.
4. McGregor BL, Giordano BV, Runkel AE IV, Nigg HN, Nigg HL, Burkett-Cadena ND. Comparison of the effect of insecticides on bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) and mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus) by standard mosquito research methods. J Econ Entomol. 2021;114:24–32.
5. WHO. Global plan for insecticide resistance management in malaria vectors (GPIRM). Geneva: WHO; 2012.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献