Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: Efficacy of PermaNet® 2.0 and PermaNet® 3.0 against insecticide-resistant Anopheles gambiae in experimental huts in Côte d'Ivoire

Back to article

  1. Omission from article

    Rune Bosselmann, Intelligent Insect Control

    6 July 2011

    The authors fail to fully describe the product they are investigating but only state insecticide content for the sides of Permanet 3.0 and not the roof, which is the interesting part of the product as it contains the combination with PBO.

    The sides of Permanet 3.0 contain 2.8g/kg and the roof contains 4 g/kg (so almost 50%more) and 25 g/kg PBO. In comparison Permanet 2.0 has about 2g/kg or only half that of the roof of Permanet 3.0.

    In the discussion section of the article (p. 18 in the pdf) the authors note that;

    "The high dose of deltamethrin alone in the side panels of unwashed PermaNet® 3.0 could explain the significant difference
    in mortality of resistant An. gambiae s.s with this net compared to the other treatment arms"

    It is a grave omission to not further note that the dose of deltamethrine in the roof of permanet 3.0 is even higher, twice that of Permanet 2 and 50% more than the sides of 3.0 and that this could explain the difference in mortality of resistant An. gambiae s.s with this net compared to the other treatment arms, incl the sides of Permanet 3.0.

    This finding is line with the fact that resistance is not a "yes / no" function but a sliding decrease in susceptability that can to an extend (and for while) be countered with an increase in the dose of active. This is nicely demonstrated in the article, also by the better performance of the roof than the sides of Permanet 3.0.

    In order to better represent these findings in the conclusion one should better have written, The additive impact of unwashed PermaNet® 3.0 over PermaNet® 2.0 can be explained by the higher dosage of deltamethrin - etc. This would leave out any doubt as to whether the effect of adding PBO to the yarn of the product was in fact demonstrated in the study.

    The authors as well as the reviewers of the article should have picked up that the very subject of the study was not properly described and therefore not taking into account when considering and concluding on the data.

    Competing interests

    I work with Intelligent Insect Control. We license out a product competing with Permanet 2.0.