河南省部分地区中华按蚊对杀虫剂抗药性的监测

doi:10.12140/j.issn.1000-7423.2023.01.019

中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (1): 117-120.doi: 10.12140/j.issn.1000-7423.2023.01.019

河南省部分地区中华按蚊对杀虫剂抗药性的监测

贺志权¹^,²(), 胡亚博³, 王丹¹^,², 张红卫¹^,²^,^*(), 刘颖¹^,², 杨成运¹^,², 钱丹¹^,², 纪鹏慧¹^,², 蒋甜甜¹^,², 鲁德领¹^,²

1.河南省疾病预防控制中心, 郑州 450016
2.河南省寄生虫病原与媒介医学重点实验室，郑州 450016
3.郑州大学公共卫生学院，河南郑州 450016

收稿日期:2022-03-29 修回日期:2022-07-01 出版日期:2023-02-28 发布日期:2023-02-24
通讯作者: * 张红卫（1969-），男，博士，主任医师，从事寄生虫病防治和研究工作。E-mail：zhwei69@163.com
作者简介:贺志权（1992-），男，硕士，医师，从事寄生虫病防治和研究工作。E-mail：380590352@qq.com
基金资助:
河南省医学科技攻关计划联合共建项目(LHGJ20210145)

Surveillance of resistance of Anopheles sinensis in some areas of Henan Province

HE Zhiquan¹^,²(), HU Yabo³, WANG Dan¹^,², ZHANG Hongwei¹^,²^,^*(), LIU Ying¹^,², YANG Chengyun¹^,², QIAN Dan¹^,², JI Penghui¹^,², JIANG Tiantian¹^,², LU Deling¹^,²

1. Henan Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Zhengzhou 450016, China
2. Henan Provincial Medical Key Laboratory of Parasitic Pathogen and Vector, Zhengzhou 450016, China
3. College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450016, Henan, China

Received:2022-03-29 Revised:2022-07-01 Online:2023-02-28 Published:2023-02-24
Contact: * E-mail: zhwei69@163.com
Supported by:
Henan Medical Science and Technology Plan Project(LHGJ20210145)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了解传疟媒介中华按蚊对杀虫剂的抗药性状况，2021年7—9月于河南省信阳市平桥区、开封市祥符区、许昌市襄城县和南阳市唐河县等4县（区）的羊圈、猪圈或牛棚等附近采集按蚊，经形态学鉴定后，采用WHO推荐的成蚊滤纸接触筒法测定雌性中华按蚊对0.05%溴氰菊酯（0.017 8 g/m²）、0.15%高效氟氯氰菊酯（0.053 4 g/m²）、0.1%残杀威（0.035 7 g/m²）和5%马拉硫磷（1.78 g/m²）的抗药性，并判定中华按蚊对不同杀虫剂的抗性级别。结果显示，平桥区、祥符区、襄城县和唐河县共采集1 334只中华按蚊用于抗性测定。唐河县受试蚊接触溴氰菊酯的首只击倒时间最长为25.85 min，平桥区受试蚊接触高效氟氯氰菊酯药膜的首只击倒时间最短为2.83 min。平桥区、祥符区、襄城县和唐河县受试蚊接触高效氟氯氰菊酯的60 min后击倒率分别为24.42%（21/86）、2.47%（2/81）、37.31%（25/67）和45.45%（25/55）（χ² = 39.355，P < 0.05）；接触溴氰菊酯的分别为75.86%（66/87）、2.33%（2/86）、10.81%（8/74）和20.35%（23/113）（χ² = 142.630，P < 0.05）；接触残杀威的分别为48.28%（42/87）、22.62%（19/84）、50.50%（51/101）和72.34%（34/47）（χ² = 32.635，P < 0.05）；接触马拉硫磷的分别为66.29%（59/89）、15.69%（16/102）、82.54%（104/126）和91.84%（45/49）（χ² = 133.489，P < 0.05）。唐河县受试蚊接触高效氟氯氰菊酯和残杀威药膜24 h死亡率分别为70.91%和80.60%，平桥区受试蚊接触溴氰菊酯药膜24 h死亡率为85.85%，均已达到抗性。平桥区和唐河县中华按蚊对马拉硫磷24 h死亡率分别为97.43%和97.67%，抗性级别为初步抗性群体；祥符区和襄城县中华按蚊对马拉硫磷24 h死亡率为64.23%和99.21%，抗性级别分别为抗性群体和敏感群体。河南省4县（区）中华按蚊对马拉硫磷抗性水平从敏感到抗性不等，但对溴氰菊酯、高效氟氯氰菊酯和残杀威已产生高度抗性。

关键词: 中华按蚊, 杀虫剂, 抗药性, 河南

Abstract:

To understand the resistance of Anopheles sinensis to insecticides, An. sinensis were captured near sheepfolds, pigstys or cowsheds in four counties (districts), including Pingqiao District of Xinyang City, Xiangfu District of Kaifeng City, Xiangcheng District of Xuchang City, and Tanghe County of Nanyang City in Henan Province from July to September 2021. The An. sinesis was identified by morphology. The insecticide susceptibility test of female An. sinensis was determined by the filter-paper bioassay, which is recommended by WHO, using 0.05% deltamethrin (0.017 8 g/m²), 0.15% beta-cyfluthrin (0.053 4 g/m²), 0.1% propoxur (0.035 7 g/m²), and 5% malathion (1.78 g/m²). The result showed that a total of 1 334 An. sinensis were used for insecticide susceptibility test in Pingqiao District, Xiangfu District, Xiangcheng County and Tanghe County. The mosquitoes were exposed to the four insecticide films, including, beta-cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, propoxur and malathion. The longest knockdown time of the first mosquito exposed to deltamethrin was seen in mosquitoes collected from Tanghe was 25.85 min, and the shortest knockdown time of the first mosquito exposed to deltamethrin was seen in mosquitoes collected from Pingqiao, which was 2.83 min. The knockdown rate of cypermethrin against the tested mosquitoes from Pingqiao District, Xiangfu District, Xiangcheng County and Tanghe County after 60 min was 24.42% (21/86), 2.47% (2/81), 37.31% (25/67) and 45.45% (25/55), respectively (χ² = 39.355, P < 0.05）. The knockdown rate of deltamethrin against mosquitoes from all different sites were 75.86% (66/87), 2.33% (2/86), 10.81% (8/74) and 20.35% (23/113), respectively (χ² = 142.630, P < 0.05). The knockdown rate of propoxur against mosquitoes from all different sites were 48.28% (42/87), 22.62% (19/84), 50.50% (51/101) and 72.34% (34/47), respectively (χ² = 32.635, P < 0.05). The knockdown rate of malathion against mosquitoes from all different sites were 66.29% (59/89), 15.69% (16/102), 82.54% (104/126) and 91.84% (45/49), respectively (χ² = 133.489, P < 0.05). The mortality rate of mosquitoes from Tanghe exposed to beta-cypermethrin and propoxur for 24 h was 70.91% and 80.60%, respectively, and the mortality rate of mosquitoes from Pingqiao exposed to deltamethrin for 24 h was 85.85%, which had reached resistance. The 24 h mortality rates of mosquitoes from Pingqiao and Tanghe to malathion were 97.43% and 97.67%. The resistance levels were possible resistance; The 24 h mortality rates of mosquitoes from Xiangfu and Xiangcheng to malathion were 64.23% and 99.21%. The resistance levels were resistance and susceptible. The resistance level of An. sinensis to malathion varies from susceptible to resistance but has developed resistance to deltamethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, and propoxur in four surveillance sites of Henan Province.

Key words: Anopheles sinensis, Insecticide, Resistance, Henan Province

中图分类号:

R384.111

贺志权, 胡亚博, 王丹, 张红卫, 刘颖, 杨成运, 钱丹, 纪鹏慧, 蒋甜甜, 鲁德领. 河南省部分地区中华按蚊对杀虫剂抗药性的监测[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2023, 41(1): 117-120.

HE Zhiquan, HU Yabo, WANG Dan, ZHANG Hongwei, LIU Ying, YANG Chengyun, QIAN Dan, JI Penghui, JIANG Tiantian, LU Deling. Surveillance of resistance of Anopheles sinensis in some areas of Henan Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, 2023, 41(1): 117-120.

图/表 1

参考文献 16

[1]	Wang YH, Zheng AH, Liu QY, et al. Advances in research on vector insects[J]. Chin J Appl Entomol, 2017, 54(3): 364-371. (in Chinese)
	(王燕红, 郑爱华, 刘起勇, 等. 虫媒疾病传播媒介的研究进展[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2017, 54(3): 364-371.)
[2]	Zhang HW, Zhang QQ, Yang CY, et al. Progress of malaria elimination and achievements of scientific researches in Henan Province[J]. Henan J Prev Med, 2019, 30(10): 721-725. (in Chinese)
	(张红卫, 张群群, 杨成运, 等. 河南省消除疟疾的进程与科技成就[J]. 河南预防医学杂志, 2019, 30(10): 721-725.)
[3]	Xu BL, Su YP, Shang LY, et al. Malaria control in Henan Province, People’s Republic of China[J]. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2006, 74(4): 564-567. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2006.74.564
[4]	Xu X, Qian K. Research progress on the resistance of mosquitoes to pyrethroid insecticides[J]. Cap J Public Health, 2018, 12(1): 9-12. (in Chinese)
	(徐鑫, 钱坤. 蚊虫对拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂抗性研究进展[J]. 首都公共卫生, 2018, 12(1): 9-12.)
[5]	Fang Y, Shi WQ, Wu JT, et al. Resistance to pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides, and the geographical distribution and polymorphisms of target-site mutations in voltage-gated sodium channel and acetylcholinesterase 1 genes in Anopheles sinensis populations in Shanghai, China[J]. Parasit Vectors, 2019, 12(1): 396. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3657-7
[6]	Lu BL. Prevalence and control of malaria in Henan Province[M]. Zhengzhou: Zhongyuan publishing media group, 2011: 1-20. (in Chinese)
	(陆宝麟. 河南疟疾的流行与控制[M]. 郑州: 中原出版传媒集团, 2011: 1-20.)
[7]	Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. Test methods of mosquito resistance to insecticides—Bioassay methods: GB/T 26347—2010[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2011: 1-6. (in Chinese)
	(中华人民共和国卫生部. 蚊虫抗药性检测方法生物测定法: GB/T 26347—2010[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011: 1-6.)
[8]	Li HL, Zhang GL, Dang RL, et al. Calculation of KT50 of pesticides with SPSS software[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control, 2011, 22(2): 155-157. (in Chinese)
	(李海龙, 张桂林, 党荣理, 等. 应用SPSS软件进行杀虫剂的KT50分析[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2011, 22(2): 155-157.)
[9]	WHO. Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vector mosquitoes[S]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018: 1-30.
[10]	WHO. Malaria control today: current WHO recommendations[Z]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005: 1-75.
[11]	Zhao L, Teng Y, Luo YM. Present pollution status and control strategy of pesticides in agricultural soils in China: a review[J]. Soils, 2017, 49(3): 417-427. (in Chinese)
	(赵玲, 滕应, 骆永明. 中国农田土壤农药污染现状和防控对策[J]. 土壤, 2017, 49(3): 417-427.)
[12]	Liu Y, Chen JS, Zhou RM, et al. Investigation on the sensitivity of Anopheles sinensis to insecticide[J]. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis, 2012, 30(4): 309-311. (in Chinese)
	(刘颖, 陈建设, 周瑞敏, 等. 中华按蚊对杀虫剂敏感性调查[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2012, 30(4): 309-311.)
[13]	Hu YB, He ZQ, Liu Y, et al. Susceptibility of Anopheles sinensis to insecticides in Puyang City, Henan Province[J]. Chin J Schisto Control, 2021, 33(5): 501-504, 509. (in Chinese)
	(胡亚博, 贺志权, 刘颖, 等. 河南省濮阳市中华按蚊对杀虫剂敏感性调查[J]. 中国血吸虫病防治杂志, 2021, 33(5): 501-504, 509.)
[14]	Bo YX, Tang ZQ, Zhang YQ, et al. Insecticide resistance of Culex pipiens pallens in Henan Province[J]. Chin J Hyg Insectic & Equip, 2010, 16(3): 214-216. (in Chinese)
	(薄玉霞, 唐振强, 张玉勤, 等. 河南省淡色库蚊对杀虫剂的抗性状况分析[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2010, 16(3): 214-216.)
[15]	Zhang YQ, Zhao Q, Liu JQ, et al. Resistance of Anopheles sinensis to three kinds of insecticide in Xinyang City[J]. Chin J Hyg Insectic & Equip, 2014, 20(4): 368-370. (in Chinese)
	(张玉勤, 赵奇, 刘吉起, 等. 河南信阳中华按蚊对3种杀虫剂的敏感性调查[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2014, 20(4): 368-370.)
[16]	Huang XD, Zhao JX, Hu YP, et al. Surveillance of Anopheles sinensis resistance to insecticides along Dongping Lake of South-North water project in Shandong Province[J]. Chin Trop Med, 2016, 16(12): 1166-1168. (in Chinese)
	(黄晓丹, 赵久旭, 胡延平, 等. 山东省南水北调东平湖沿线中华按蚊的抗药性监测[J]. 中国热带医学, 2016, 16(12): 1166-1168.)

河南省部分地区中华按蚊对杀虫剂抗药性的监测

Surveillance of resistance of Anopheles sinensis in some areas of Henan Province

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 1

参考文献 16

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

杀虫剂	地区	试虫数/只	击倒数/只	首只击倒时间/min	60 min击倒率/%	KT₅₀（95%CI）/min	死亡数/只	24 h校正死亡率/%	抗性级别
高效氟氯氰菊酯	平桥区	86	21	2.83	24.42	315.73（143.53，2 848.63）	37	36.24	R
	祥符区	81	2	-	2.47	-	8	3.28	R
	襄城县	67	25	4.00	37.31	96.69（69.21，183.34）	23	34.33^a	R
	唐河县	55	25	7.67	45.45	68.18（55.03，96.65）	39	70.91^a	R
溴氰菊酯	平桥区	87	66	7.52	75.86	33.35（30.21，37.10）	76	85.85	R
	祥符区	86	2	-	2.33	-	12	7.66	R
	襄城县	74	8	19.01	10.81	237.80（125.09，1 719.26）	22	29.73^a	R
	唐河县	113	23	25.85	20.35	101.10（81.66，148.67）	39	25.38	R
残杀威	平桥区	87	42	3.86	48.28	70.77（56.28，102.16）	63	68.39	R
	祥符区	84	19	10.33	22.62	159.36（101.27，412.00）	13	9.29	R
	襄城县	101	51	12.96	50.50	55.64（49.13，65.57）	38	37.62^a	R
	唐河县	47	34	15.08	72.34	36.60（33.37，40.33）	39	80.60	R
马拉硫磷	平桥区	89	59	3.78	66.29	29.81（25.28，35.59）	87	97.43	M
	祥符区	102	16	22.58	15.69	133.81（96.65，254.71）	68	64.23	R
	襄城县	126	104	15.03	82.54	32.33（27.80，37.43）	125	99.21	S
	唐河县	49	45	14.12	91.84	32.09（29.73，34.53）	48	97.67	M

[1]	纪鹏慧, 蒋甜甜, 贺志权, 王丹, 岳思宁, 李素华, 杨成运, 王昊, 张红卫, 周瑞敏. 河南省信阳地区家畜寄生蜱感染巴贝虫的分子流行病学调查[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2023, 41(5): 567-572.
[2]	师伟芳, 田珍灶, 周敬祝, 黄学平, 周雪梅, 吴国艳, 李琼, 廖启浪, 王丹. 2018—2020年贵州省中华按蚊抗药性调查研究[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2023, 41(1): 108-111.
[3]	蒋甜甜, 纪鹏慧, 贺志权, 陈伟奇, 张雅兰, 邓艳, 王丹, 周瑞敏, 刘颖, 张红卫. 2016—2020年河南省土源性线虫感染监测结果分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2022, 40(6): 742-747.
[4]	李素华, 纪鹏慧, 周瑞敏, 贺志权, 钱丹, 杨成运, 刘颖, 鲁德领, 王昊, 张红卫, 赵玉玲. 2015—2019年河南省不同诊断机构疟原虫检测能力评价[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2022, 40(6): 748-753.
[5]	纪鹏慧, 蒋甜甜, 贺志权, 周瑞敏, 李素华, 杨成运, 钱丹, 刘颖, 王昊, 张红卫. 2011—2021年河南省输入性三日疟流行病学特征分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2022, 40(6): 801-805.
[6]	王冠熙, 李雅姝, 李月月, 曹园园, 杨蒙蒙, 张梅花, 吴竞瑶, 梁成, 李菊林, 周华云, 唐建霞, 朱国鼎. 江苏省白纹伊蚊对溴氰菊酯抗性及击倒抗性突变分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2022, 40(4): 468-474.
[7]	杨成运, 贺志权, 鲁德领, 钱丹, 刘颖, 李素华, 周瑞敏, 邓艳, 张红卫, 王昊, 赵东阳, 郭万申. 2020年河南省内脏利什曼病病例的流行病学调查[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2022, 40(4): 481-486.
[8]	张雅兰, 邓艳, 陈伟奇, 朱岩昆, 蔺西萌, 张红卫. 2017—2019年河南省棘球蚴病患者医疗费用及影响因素分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2021, 39(3): 321-326.
[9]	杨成运, 钱丹, 鲁德领, 刘颖, 周瑞敏, 李素华, 关周, 赵玉玲, 张红卫, 赵东阳, 郭万申. 2019年河南省输入性疟疾流行病学特征分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2021, 39(1): 43-48.
[10]	彭恒, 陈翰明, 陈辉莹, 王琰, 李翔宇, 李基旭, 杨振洲, 马雅军. 我国赫坎按蚊种团的分子鉴别及中华按蚊的区系分布研究[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2020, 38(1): 58-67.
[11]	杨成运, 钱丹, 鲁德领, 刘颖, 周瑞敏, 李素华, 张红卫, 赵玉玲. 2016-2018年河南省疟疾疫情分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2019, 37(5): 619-622.
[12]	邓小强, 丁敬华. 2009-2018年抚顺市输入性疟疾疫情分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2019, 37(4): 497-500.
[13]	李素华, 赵玉玲, 高丽君, 张雅兰, 周瑞敏, 钱丹, 杨成运, 刘颖, 鲁德领, 张红卫, 许汴利. 河南省信阳市发热伴血小板减少患者中巴贝虫感染的分子流行特征分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2019, 37(1): 66-69.
[14]	刘颖1，李素华1，张雅兰1，刘若凝2，钱丹1，杨成运1，周瑞敏1，贺丽君1，. 河南省人体肠道原虫感染现状分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2018, 36(3): 13-280-285.
[15]	邓艳1，张雅兰1，李素华1，陈伟奇1，蔺西萌1，陈曦2，王庭柱3，李蓬1，张红卫1，许汴利1*. 2016年河南省方城县猪带绦虫病和囊尾蚴病知识、态度和行为的调查结果分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2018, 36(3): 19-242-245.