Knock down times (min), Resistant ratio, and mortality rates (after 24 h) of <i>Aedes albopictus</i> after exposure to insecticides at the diagnostic doses (WHO tube test).

<p>ATM95: susceptible reference strain. KDT₅₀: Knock down time where 50% of the mosquitoes are knocked down (min); RR₅₀: Resistant Ratio =  KDT₅₀ ATM95/KDT₅₀ field population. Significant RRs are shown in bold.</p

Global amount or activity of detoxification enzymes in adult <i>Aedes albopictus</i> from field populations and the laboratory strain (ATM95): cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s), Esterase (α and β-CCEs) and Glutathione-S transferases (GSTs).

<p>Sample sizes are 47 specimens/population. Confidence intervals are one standard deviation of the mean. An asterisk (*) denotes significantly up-regulated values compared to the susceptible reference strain ATM95, Tukey-Kramer test.</p

Resistance status of larvae <i>Aedes albopictus</i>.

<p>ATM95: susceptible reference strain; LC₅₀: Lethal Concentration that kills 50% of the population (mg/L); RR₅₀: Resistant Ratio  =  LC₅₀ susceptible strain (ATM95)/LC₅₀ field population; CI: Confidence Interval. Significant RRs are shown in bold (P<0.05).</p

Global amount or activity of detoxification enzymes in <i>Aedes albopictus</i> larvae from field populations and the laboratory strain (ATM95): cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s), Esterase (α and β-CCEs), and Glutathione-S transferases (GSTs).

<p>Sample sizes are 47 specimens/population (15 for P450, n = 3). Confidence intervals are one standard deviation of the mean. An asterisk (*) denotes significantly up-regulated values compared to the susceptible reference strain ATM95, Tukey-Kramer test.</p

Name, class, and mode of action of all insecticides tested in this study.

<p>Name, class, and mode of action of all insecticides tested in this study.</p

Quantifying the Impact of Mosquitoes on Quality of Life and Enjoyment of Yard and Porch Activities in New Jersey

<div><p>The recent expansion of <i>Aedes albopictus</i>, a day-biting mosquito, to densely inhabited areas in the northeastern Atlantic states of the USA has dramatically increased the problem that mosquitoes create for urban and suburban residents. We quantified the impact of mosquitoes on residents' quality of life within the context of a comprehensive area-wide integrated pest management program to control <i>Ae. albopictus</i> in two counties (Mercer and Monmouth) in New Jersey. We interviewed residents of 121 randomly selected households in both counties between October and November 2010. We asked residents about their experience with mosquitoes in their neighborhood and the importance of the ability to relax outdoors without mosquitoes compared to other neighborhood characteristics (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important). We rated residents' utility based on paired comparisons to known states from the EuroQol health description system. The majority (54.6%) of respondents considered mosquitoes to be a problem. Respondents reported an average of 7.1 mosquito bites in a typical week during that summer. Mosquitoes prevented 59.5% of residents from enjoying their outdoor activities at least to some extent. Residents rated the mosquito acceptability (mean ± standard deviation) during that summer on a scale of 0 (mosquito invasion) to 100 (no mosquitoes) at 56.7±28.7, and their overall utility at 0.87±0.03. This is comparable to living with up to two risk factors for diabetes (i.e., abdominal obesity, body mass index of 28 or more, reported cholesterol problems, diagnosis of hypertension, or history of cardiovascular disease) or women experiencing menstrual disorders. Respondents rated the importance of enjoying outdoor activities without mosquitoes (4.69±0.80) comparable to that of neighborhood safety (4.74±0.80) and higher than that of a clean neighborhood (4.59±0.94). In conclusion, New Jersey residents reported that mosquitoes decreased their utility by 0.13, comparable to the loss from worrisome health risk factors, underscoring the importance of controlling this problem.</p></div

Economic Evaluation of an Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management Program to Control the Asian Tiger Mosquito in New Jersey

<div><p><i>Aedes albopictus</i> is the most invasive mosquito in the world, an important disease vector, and a biting nuisance that limits outdoor activities. Area-wide integrated pest management (AW-IPM) is the recommended control strategy. We conducted an economic evaluation of the AW-IPM project in Mercer and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey with a controlled design (AW-IPM vs. control) from 2009 through 2011. The study analyzed financial documents and staff time for AW-IPM and surveyed an average of 415 randomly chosen households in AW-IPM and control areas each fall from 2008 through 2011. Hours lost from yard and porch activities were calculated as differences between actual and potential hours of these activities in an average summer week if there had been no mosquito concerns. Net estimated benefits of AW-IPM were based on cross-over and difference-in-difference analyses. Reductions in hours lost were valued based on respondents' willingness to pay for a hypothetical extra hour free of mosquitoes spent on yard or porch activities and literature on valuation of a quality adjusted life year (QALY). The incremental cost of AW-IPM per adult was $41.18 per year. Number of hours lost due to mosquitoes in AW-IPM areas between the base year (2008) and the intervention years (2009-2011) declined by 3.30 hours per summer week in AW-IPM areas compared to control areas. Survey respondents valued this improvement at$27.37 per adult per summer week. Over the 13-week summer, an average adult resident gained 42.96 hours of yard and porch time, worth $355.82. The net benefit over the summer was$314.63. With an average of 0.0027 QALYs gained per adult per year, AW-IPM was cost effective at $15,300 per QALY gained. The benefit-cost ratio from hours gained was 8.64, indicating that each$1 spent on AW-IPM gave adults additional porch and yard time worth over $8.</p></div

Enjoyment associated with yard and porch activities and willingness to pay (WTP) for one additional work-free, mosquito-free hour per summer week engaged in each of these activities.

<p>* 1 Denotes highest ranked (most enjoyable) activity.</p><p>Notation: SEM denotes standard error of the mean.</p

Validation of willingness to pay (WTP).

+<p>p< 0.1;</p><p>* p<0.05;</p><p>** p<0.01.</p

Household characteristics of respondents compared to study sites and counties, 2010.

†<p>N denotes the number of respondents to the question.</p>+<p>child under 18.</p>#<p>population 25 years and over.</p><p>*p<0.05;</p><p>*** p<0.001 based on Chi Squared test (for discrete variables) and t-test (for continuous variables); NS = Not statistically significant.</p