Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In anti-malaria operations the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying has declined substantially over the past 30 years, but this insecticide is still considered valuable for malaria control, mainly because of its low cost relative to alternative insecticides. Despite the development of resistance to DDT in some populations of malaria vector Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), DDT remains generally effective when used for house-spraying against most species of Anopheles, due to excitorepellency as well as insecticidal effects. A 1990 cost comparison by the World Health Organization (WHO) found DDT to be considerably less expensive than other insecticides, which cost 2 to 23 times more on the basis of cost per house per 6 months of control. To determine whether such a cost advantage still prevails for DDT, this paper compares recent price quotes from manufacturers and WHO suppliers for DDT and appropriate formulations of nine other insecticides (two carbamates, two organophosphates and five pyrethroids) commonly used for residual house-spraying in malaria control programmes. Based on these 'global' price quotes, detailed calculations show that DDT is still the least expensive insecticide on a cost per house basis, although the price appears to be rising as DDT production declines. At the same time, the prices of pyrethroids are declining, making some only slightly more expensive than DDT at low application dosages. Other costs, including operations (labour), transportation and human safety may also increase the price advantages of DDT and some pyrethroids vs. organophosphates and carbamates, although possible environmental impacts from DDT remain a concern. However, a global cost comparison may not realistically reflect local costs or effective application dosages at the country level. Recent data on insecticide prices paid by the health ministries of individual countries showed that prices of particular insecticides can vary substantially in the open market. Therefore, the most cost-effective insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regional coordination of procurement of public health insecticides could improve access to affordable products.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)345-354
Number of pages10
JournalMedical and Veterinary Entomology
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

DDT
DDT (pesticide)
malaria
Insecticides
Malaria
insecticide
insecticides
Costs and Cost Analysis
cost
Pyrethrins
pyrethroid
pyrethrins
spraying
Anopheles
Carbamates
carbamate (ester)
Organophosphates
organophosphate
carbamates
World Health Organization

Keywords

  • Anopheles
  • Application rates
  • Bendiocarb
  • Cost
  • Cyfluthrin
  • DDT
  • Deltamethrin
  • Etofenprox
  • Feni trothion
  • House-spraying
  • Indoor residual spraying
  • Insecticide formulations
  • Lambda-cyhalothrin
  • Malaria
  • Malathion
  • Permethrin
  • Pric e
  • Propoxur
  • Pyrethroids
  • Safety
  • Toxicology
  • Vector control
  • WHO

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Insect Science
  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control. / Walker, Kathleen R.

In: Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2000, p. 345-354.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{56a1d4981ad94980b9f114597b559a91,
title = "Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control",
abstract = "In anti-malaria operations the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying has declined substantially over the past 30 years, but this insecticide is still considered valuable for malaria control, mainly because of its low cost relative to alternative insecticides. Despite the development of resistance to DDT in some populations of malaria vector Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), DDT remains generally effective when used for house-spraying against most species of Anopheles, due to excitorepellency as well as insecticidal effects. A 1990 cost comparison by the World Health Organization (WHO) found DDT to be considerably less expensive than other insecticides, which cost 2 to 23 times more on the basis of cost per house per 6 months of control. To determine whether such a cost advantage still prevails for DDT, this paper compares recent price quotes from manufacturers and WHO suppliers for DDT and appropriate formulations of nine other insecticides (two carbamates, two organophosphates and five pyrethroids) commonly used for residual house-spraying in malaria control programmes. Based on these 'global' price quotes, detailed calculations show that DDT is still the least expensive insecticide on a cost per house basis, although the price appears to be rising as DDT production declines. At the same time, the prices of pyrethroids are declining, making some only slightly more expensive than DDT at low application dosages. Other costs, including operations (labour), transportation and human safety may also increase the price advantages of DDT and some pyrethroids vs. organophosphates and carbamates, although possible environmental impacts from DDT remain a concern. However, a global cost comparison may not realistically reflect local costs or effective application dosages at the country level. Recent data on insecticide prices paid by the health ministries of individual countries showed that prices of particular insecticides can vary substantially in the open market. Therefore, the most cost-effective insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regional coordination of procurement of public health insecticides could improve access to affordable products.",
keywords = "Anopheles, Application rates, Bendiocarb, Cost, Cyfluthrin, DDT, Deltamethrin, Etofenprox, Feni trothion, House-spraying, Indoor residual spraying, Insecticide formulations, Lambda-cyhalothrin, Malaria, Malathion, Permethrin, Pric e, Propoxur, Pyrethroids, Safety, Toxicology, Vector control, WHO",
author = "Walker, {Kathleen R}",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00262.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "345--354",
journal = "Medical and Veterinary Entomology",
issn = "0269-283X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control

AU - Walker, Kathleen R

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - In anti-malaria operations the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying has declined substantially over the past 30 years, but this insecticide is still considered valuable for malaria control, mainly because of its low cost relative to alternative insecticides. Despite the development of resistance to DDT in some populations of malaria vector Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), DDT remains generally effective when used for house-spraying against most species of Anopheles, due to excitorepellency as well as insecticidal effects. A 1990 cost comparison by the World Health Organization (WHO) found DDT to be considerably less expensive than other insecticides, which cost 2 to 23 times more on the basis of cost per house per 6 months of control. To determine whether such a cost advantage still prevails for DDT, this paper compares recent price quotes from manufacturers and WHO suppliers for DDT and appropriate formulations of nine other insecticides (two carbamates, two organophosphates and five pyrethroids) commonly used for residual house-spraying in malaria control programmes. Based on these 'global' price quotes, detailed calculations show that DDT is still the least expensive insecticide on a cost per house basis, although the price appears to be rising as DDT production declines. At the same time, the prices of pyrethroids are declining, making some only slightly more expensive than DDT at low application dosages. Other costs, including operations (labour), transportation and human safety may also increase the price advantages of DDT and some pyrethroids vs. organophosphates and carbamates, although possible environmental impacts from DDT remain a concern. However, a global cost comparison may not realistically reflect local costs or effective application dosages at the country level. Recent data on insecticide prices paid by the health ministries of individual countries showed that prices of particular insecticides can vary substantially in the open market. Therefore, the most cost-effective insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regional coordination of procurement of public health insecticides could improve access to affordable products.

AB - In anti-malaria operations the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying has declined substantially over the past 30 years, but this insecticide is still considered valuable for malaria control, mainly because of its low cost relative to alternative insecticides. Despite the development of resistance to DDT in some populations of malaria vector Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), DDT remains generally effective when used for house-spraying against most species of Anopheles, due to excitorepellency as well as insecticidal effects. A 1990 cost comparison by the World Health Organization (WHO) found DDT to be considerably less expensive than other insecticides, which cost 2 to 23 times more on the basis of cost per house per 6 months of control. To determine whether such a cost advantage still prevails for DDT, this paper compares recent price quotes from manufacturers and WHO suppliers for DDT and appropriate formulations of nine other insecticides (two carbamates, two organophosphates and five pyrethroids) commonly used for residual house-spraying in malaria control programmes. Based on these 'global' price quotes, detailed calculations show that DDT is still the least expensive insecticide on a cost per house basis, although the price appears to be rising as DDT production declines. At the same time, the prices of pyrethroids are declining, making some only slightly more expensive than DDT at low application dosages. Other costs, including operations (labour), transportation and human safety may also increase the price advantages of DDT and some pyrethroids vs. organophosphates and carbamates, although possible environmental impacts from DDT remain a concern. However, a global cost comparison may not realistically reflect local costs or effective application dosages at the country level. Recent data on insecticide prices paid by the health ministries of individual countries showed that prices of particular insecticides can vary substantially in the open market. Therefore, the most cost-effective insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regional coordination of procurement of public health insecticides could improve access to affordable products.

KW - Anopheles

KW - Application rates

KW - Bendiocarb

KW - Cost

KW - Cyfluthrin

KW - DDT

KW - Deltamethrin

KW - Etofenprox

KW - Feni trothion

KW - House-spraying

KW - Indoor residual spraying

KW - Insecticide formulations

KW - Lambda-cyhalothrin

KW - Malaria

KW - Malathion

KW - Permethrin

KW - Pric e

KW - Propoxur

KW - Pyrethroids

KW - Safety

KW - Toxicology

KW - Vector control

KW - WHO

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033673825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033673825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00262.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00262.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 11129697

AN - SCOPUS:0033673825

VL - 14

SP - 345

EP - 354

JO - Medical and Veterinary Entomology

JF - Medical and Veterinary Entomology

SN - 0269-283X

IS - 4

ER -