Larvisida Dan Pupisida Isotearil Alkohol Etoksilat Terhadap Larva Dan Pupa Aedes Aegypti

Isotearil alkohol etoksilat merupakan larvasida yang bekerja sebagai barier fisik bagi pertumbuhan nyamuk. Larvasida ini membentuk lapisan yang sangat tipis (monomolecular surface film) dan menurunkan tegangan permukaan air. Permasalahan penelitian adalah bagaimana efektifitas isotearil alkohol etoksilat dalam membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Tujuan penelitian ingin mengetahui efektifitas isotearil alkohol etoksilat dalam membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Metode penelitian dengan pengujian efikasi isotearil alkohol etoksilat terhadap larva Aedes aegypti. Penelitian menggunakan 5 dosis, yaitu 0,5 ml/m2, 0,75 ml/m2, 1,0 ml/m2, 1,5 ml/m2 dan 2 ml/m2 serta kontrol. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa isotearil alkohol etoksilat selama satu minggu membunuh larva dan pupa Ae. aegypti ± 75%. Hasil analisis data menggunakan Anova menunjukkan tidak ada perbedaan jumlah kematian larva Ae. aegypti pada dosis yang berbeda (p=0,999). Simpulan penelitian adalah isotearil alkohol etoksilat dosis 0,5, 0,75, 1,0, 1,5 dan 2 ml/m2 kurang efektif digunakan untuk membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Isotearil alcohol ethoxylate is larvicide who works as a physical barrier to mosquito\u27s growth. This larvicides form is very thin layer (monomolecular surface film) and lowers the surface tension of water. The research problem was how effectiveness of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for killing mosquito larvae and pupae dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Research purpose was to determine the effectiveness of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for killing larvae and pupae of dengue mosquitoes vector Aedes aegypti. Research methods used to test the efficacy of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil against Aedes aegypti larvae. Research used 5 doses, 0.5ml/m2, 0.75ml/m2, 1.0ml/m2, 1.5ml/m2, and 2ml/m2, and control. The results showed that the alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for a week to kill the larvae and pupae of Aedes aegypti ± 75 %. Data analysis using ANOVA showed no difference in mortality of larvae of Aedes aegypti at different doses (p=0.999). Therefore, isotearil alcohol ethoxylate dose of 0.5 , 0.75 , 1.0 , 1.5 and 2 ml/m2 were not effective used to kill mosquito larvae and pupae dengue vector Aedes aegypti

Overview of the dominant current sexual health delivery system and the SESH delivery system.

a<p>The current sexual health delivery approach as exemplified by a public-sector STD service.</p><p>CBO, community-based organization; MARP, most-at-risk population.</p

Key partners in a multisectoral SESH program.

<p>Key partners in a multisectoral SESH program.</p

Study selection flow chart as per PRISMA guidelines.

<p>Study selection flow chart as per PRISMA guidelines.</p

Results of sensitivity analysis.

<p>CrI = Credible Interval; “n” refers to the number of data entries per group.</p

Results of pooled sensitivity and specificity, before and after adjustment for imperfect reference standard.

<p>CrI = Credible Interval; “n” refers to the number of data entries per group; NA = Not Available.</p

Impact of intervention on prevalence and percentage of infections averted for different model structures.

<p>Impact is shown at three different time points for FSWs (<b>A,C</b>) and clients (<b>B,D</b>). Impact is presented as relative change in prevalence (compared to pre-intervention levels) (<b>A,B</b>) and percentage infections averted since the start of the intervention (compared with the situation where there was no intervention) (<b>C,D</b>). Simulated intervention assumed FSW were screened once per year with a rapid test of 87% sensitivity, with all individuals testing positive receiving immediate treatment. The thick horizontal line in each box is the median, with the box limits denoting the 25^th and 75^th percentiles and the whiskers denoting the 2.5^th and 97.5^th percentiles. Impact is shown at 6 months, 5 years and 10 years after the start of a 5-year intervention (so that 10 years is 5 years after the end of the intervention). The different population models are: (<b>1</b>) baseline-homogeneous FSW population with no syphilis infection among FSWs and clients; (<b>2</b>) heterogeneous FSW population with no infection in new FSWs and clients; (<b>3</b>) heterogeneous FSW population with syphilis infection in both new FSWs and new clients; (<b>4</b>) heterogeneous FSW population with incoming syphilis infection and regular partners of FSW included.</p

Model structure: syphilis stages and transitions.

<p>Schematic diagram showing different stages of infection for infected FSWs, clients and regular partners, and transitions between different stages. Leaving rates are not shown ( leaving every compartment). Solid lines show normal transitions in the natural history, dashed lines show transitions due to treatment.</p

Timing and height of peak rebound in infectious syphilis for different FSW syphilis prevalence levels.

<p>Results are shown for model 3 using the best fit parameter set and varying (transmission probability per act) between 0.01 and 1 to produce different epidemic settings. A 5-year intervention with yearly testing of all FSWs, using a rapid test of 87% sensitivity, was simulated. The x-axis shows overall pre-intervention syphilis prevalence (all infected stages) in the FSW population (high risk+low risk), and the rebound statistics shown are for infectious syphilis (primary, secondary and recurrent secondary stages) in the total FSW population (high risk+low risk).</p

Projected intervention impact for the baseline model.

<p>The baseline model is model 3, which has a heterogeneous FSW population, incoming syphilis infection and no regular partners. A test with sensitivity of 87% was used, with FSWs being tested on average once per year, and with immediate treatment of all individuals testing positive. Results are shown over 5 years of the intervention and for an additional 10 years after the intervention stopped. Panels (<b>A</b>) and (<b>B</b>) summarise the range of prevalences seen across the different fits (N = 326) for (<b>A</b>) FSWs and (<b>B</b>) clients. The thick solid line shows the median, the dark shaded area shows the interquartile range (25^th–75^th percentile), the light shaded area the full range (minimum-maximum), and the dashed line shows the best fit. The black circles with error bars represent the data (mean and range) that the model was fit to. In panels (<b>C</b>) and (<b>D</b>) impact is presented as (<b>C</b>) percentage change in prevalence (compared to pre-intervention endemic levels) and (<b>D</b>) percentage infections averted since the start of the intervention (compared with the situation where there was no intervention), and these are shown at yearly intervals. The thick horizontal line in each box is the median, with the box limits denoting the 25^th and 75^th percentiles and the whiskers denoting the 2.5^th and 97.5^th percentiles. The dotted vertical lines mark the start and end of the intervention.</p