...
首页> 外文期刊>The Indian journal of medical research >User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying
【24h】

User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying

机译:马residual泵与用于室内残留喷涂的手动压缩泵相比,用户友好性,效率和喷涂质量

获取原文
           

摘要

Background & objectives: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a proven tool to reduce visceral leishmaniasis vectors in endemic villages. In India IRS is being done with stirrup pumps, whereas Nepal, Bangladesh, and other countries use compression pumps. The present study was conducted with the objectives to compare the efficiency, cost and user friendliness of stirrup and compression pumps. Methods: The study was carried out in Gorigawan village of the Vaishali district in north Bihar and included a total population of 3259 inhabitants in 605 households. Spraying with 50 per cent DDT was done by two teams with 6 persons per team under the supervision of investigators over 5 days with each type of pump (10 days in total using 2 stirrup pumps and 3 compression pumps) by the same sprayers in an alternate way. The spraying technique was observed using an observation check list, the number of houses and room surfaces sprayed was recorded and an interview with sprayers on their satisfaction with the two types of pumps was conducted. Results: On average, 65 houses were covered per day with the compression pump and 56 houses were covered with the stirrup pump. The surface area sprayed per squad per day was higher for the compression pump (4636 m 2 ) than for the stirrup pump (4102 m 2 ). Observation showed that it was easy to maintain the spray swath with the compression pump but very difficult with the stirrup pump. The wastage of insecticide suspension was negligible for the compression pump but high for the stirrup pump. Interpretation & conclusions: The compression pump was found to be more user friendly due to its lower weight, easier to operate, lower operation cost, higher safety and better efficiency in terms of discharge rate and higher area coverage than the stirrup pump.
机译:背景与目标:室内残留喷洒(IRS)是减少流行村庄内脏利什曼病媒介的一种行之有效的工具。在印度,国税局使用马stir泵来完成,而尼泊尔,孟加拉国和其他国家使用压缩泵。进行本研究的目的是比较马rup和压缩泵的效率,成本和用户友好性。方法:该研究是在比哈尔邦北部的Vaishali区的Gorigawan村进行的,研究对象为605户家庭中的3259居民。由两个小组在调查人员的监督下,由两个小组在每个小组中进行6天50%滴滴涕的喷雾,每种类型的泵(由2个马rup泵和3个压缩泵总共10天)由相同的喷雾器交替进行。方式。使用观察检查表对喷涂技术进行观察,记录所喷涂房屋和房间表面的数量,并就他们对这两种泵的满意度进行了访谈。结果:平均每天有65座房屋被压缩泵覆盖,有56座房屋被箍筋泵覆盖。压缩泵(4636 m 2 )每天每班喷洒的表面积比马the泵(4102 m 2 )高。观察表明,使用压缩泵很容易保持喷雾带,而使用马rup泵则非常困难。对于压缩泵而言,杀虫剂悬浮液的浪费可以忽略不计,而对于箍筋泵而言,浪费则很高。解释与结论:与马pump泵相比,由于其重量轻,易于操作,运行成本低,安全性高,排放率高,覆盖面积大等优点,压缩泵被认为对用户更友好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号