Version classiqueVersion mobile

La lutte antivectorielle en France

Didier Fontenille
Christophe Lagneau
Sylvie Lecollinet
et al.

Assessment of vector control

Unwanted side-effects of vector control1

Texte intégral

  • 1 In this chapter, the references to the CD-ROM concern question 9: “What are the unwanted side-effec (...)

1The notion of unwanted side-effects (unwanted effects on non-target species) relates especially to control measures involving the use of biocidal products. Distinction is made between those that bear directly or indirectly on human and domestic animal health relating to toxicology, from those which affect different components of the environment (water, soil, air, fauna, flora), relating to the field of ecotoxicology. Since the implementation of the European directive 98/8/EC, known as the “biocide directive”, assessment of unwanted side-effects is compulsory for any active biocide substance and, eventually, for any formulated biocide product that contains it, prior to acquiring marketing authorization (see the section on Community law in the chapter “Legislative and regulatory framework for vector control”).

2Standardized studies, mostly conducted in the laboratory, produce a prior classification of active substances and derived products by category of danger for health and the environment. Once the products are authorized and in use, other detailed studies, carried out mostly in situ and usually outside the field of regulatory requirements, often bring additional knowledge on the question and provide bases for subsequently adjusting the recommendations, or otherwise for restricting the use of the products concerned. The following pages are devoted exclusively to toxicological and ecotoxicological data on the major active biocidal substances, whether the effect be linked to their composition or the methods of application, on the basis of the literature and research performed over recent years.


3The main results covered here, necessarily summarized briefly, are based on the work of AFSSET, the French “Agency for Environmental Health and Safety at Work”, on the whole set of certification documents (French and European) and on a large body of work of French and foreign (notably American and Canadian) agencies, institutes or laboratories.

Risk assessment

4Risk assessment (in conformity with annex VI of directive 98/8/EC, taken up in annex VI of the French order of 19 May 2004) is conducted in three stages: identification of dangers, assessment of exposure, characterization of risks. Danger identification consists of characterizing the toxicity and ecotoxicity. Standardized protocols exist for performing specific toxicological and ecotoxicological studies. Published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), they can help produce results with a maximum level of confidence. Other protocols can be followed, whose reliability is left to the assessors’ judgment case-by-case.

5The exposure assessment concerns not only the person who applies the product, those present at the time of treatment and the people presumed to be benefiting from the protection measures, but also the environment. Exposure depends on a number of factors, extremely variable depending on the situation. Among these could be mentioned: the type of formulation, packaging and presentation of the product, application method and dosage, frequency and exposure time and, in conditions of experimental investigations (in microcosm experiments for instance), the environmental conditions (both biotic and abiotic; see the procedures on CD-ROM).

6Furthermore, human risk characterization requires comparison between the measured or estimated exposure dose with toxicological reference values (TRVs). Calculation of TRVs requires the choice of the most relevant toxicological effect and the application of safety factors for extrapolating the results of the experimental tests performed on the animal model (such as rat, rabbit, dog), for a determined time (21 days, 90 days, 2 years and so on) for a certain exposure route (oral, dermal, inhalation) to humans. The human risk is considered acceptable if the exposure dose is below the TRV. Environmental risk characterization entails comparing the measured or estimated exposure concentrations with the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC), the environmental concentration below which the risk is considered to be acceptable.

Protection practices and measures

  • 2 DRT Circular n° 12 of 24 May 2006 on general rules for chemical risk prevention and specific rules (...)

7Good practices and measures for protection of operators exist under the regulations regarding the use of plant-protection pesticides (Public Health Code and Rural Code), which could be transposed by extension to anti-vector biocide products which have similar application methods. Moreover, most insecticides fall within the category of dangerous chemical agents, according to the provisions of the Work Code, and their use is subject to the general rules for chemical risk prevention, described in articles R. 231-54 to R. 231-54-17 of this Code. The regulatory provisions linked to the prevention of chemical risk are set out clearly in DRT circular n° 12 of 24 May 2006 relating to the general rules of prevention of chemical risk2, and these should be referred to.

8These rules aim to systematize – under the responsibility of every employer – the application of measures that can, in order of priority, assess the risk, remove it, help to apply the principle of substitution provided for by these regulations, and set in place prevention measures tailor-made for each working situation and for the level of risks observed.

9The employer must conduct a follow-up of all product exposure events experienced by all the workers exposed, in line with these measures, specifically for chemical insecticide products. This he does by listing the workers exposed and establishing an exposure record sheet (R. 231-54-15). Furthermore, the workers exposed to chemical insecticides are placed under intensified medical surveillance as defined in articles R. 241-49 and R. 24150 of the Work Code.

10In parallel, the employer must put into operation all possible means of protection of workers against risks linked to the use of these products, in particular collective protective equipment or, failing that, appropriate, well maintained individual protection. That must be accompanied by information on the risk run plus training in the use of this equipment.

11Since the setting-up of the Agence Nationale pour la Démoustication et la Gestion des Espaces Naturels Démoustiqués, the “National Agency for Mosquito Destruction and Management of Natural Areas”, (ADEGE) in 1996, the public partner mosquito destruction operators have been applying more attention to compliance with rules of good practice, but also to the adoption of protective measures for their agents in charge of treatment operations.

12Theme-specific information sheets, drawn up on the principle of a participatory approach, validated by decision of a joint technical committee, have found their place where oral instruction and experience on their own were sometimes judged sufficient. The individual protection equipment (IPE) is chosen after consultation with the user personnel. Some public mosquito destruction operators, such as EID Méditerranée, have recently taken on personnel to supervise the application of health and safety recommendations, or even a permanent manager for this. For the long term, the settingup of a Quality Assurance plan (ISO9000 version 2000) is envisaged for the operational level in the same type of structure.


13Toxicovigilance data are useful as a basis for epidemiological studies. Toxicovigilance is the “surveillance of the toxic effects for humans of a substance, a preparation or polluting substance for the purpose of conducting actions for warning, prevention, training and information”. It is now founded mainly on the network of Centres Antipoison et de Toxicovigilance, “Poison Control and Toxicovigilance Centres”, (CAPTV). The InVS, in line with its duties to watch over health risks, was put in charge of coordinating toxicovigilance activities and deriving epidemiological applications of the data gathered to that end. Concerning specifically vector control, the CATPV network has been called upon, notably during the chikungunya epidemic that occurred in the Indian Ocean (2005-2006), in order to assess the dangers of certain substances and make an inventory of poisonings attributed to products used during this emergency situation.

Environmental impact of biocides

14The environmental impact of biocides is studied as part of scientific investigations reaching beyond just the regulatory requirements imposed for certification purposes. As well as enhancing knowledge, these investigations can provide means for assessing the possible impact of a strategy as a whole or of a particular control method. Or they can be useful for devising a methodology geared to the assessment of effects in the highly specific conditions and environments in which mosquito destruction or vector control operations are performed. The principal studies carried out in France over the past ten years have characteristically involved often close collaboration between one or more research organizations and the public mosquito eradication operators (see CD-ROM), in particular:

  • 1998-2001 and 2005-2007: long-term assessment programme on the effects of mosquito destruction in the Morbihan, Brittany;

  • 1999-2003: comparative in situ study (mesocosm) of the effects of Bti and temephos on non-target aquatic arthropods (in the framework of the European Life Environment programme);

  • 2005-2007: research programme on the assessment of environmental risk associated with Bti-diflubenzuron- and spinosad-based larvicides for mosquito control, and harmonization of investigation methods applicable to non-target invertebrates in Mediterranean and Atlantic littoral wetlands (as part of the Programme National d’Écotoxicologie-PNETOX);

  • 2006: first review of the impacts of anti-mosquito treatments deployed for chikungunya control on species and environments on Reunion Island (multidisciplinary group report, Regional Department of the Environment, DIREN-Reunion Island).


15No biocidal substance is completely innocuous. Risks can be controlled only by using them in full knowledge of their properties. The results of some of the studies mentioned in the preceding section are summarized in Table 9 (for further information, see CD-ROM). The Table presents only those active biocide substances notified under product-type 18 and for which an application has been submitted to the European Commission for their examination and inscription on the positive list of active substances (see the section on Community law in the chapter “Legislative and regulatory framework for vector control”).

Table 9 – Identity card of active biocidal substances*

Table 9 – Identity card of active biocidal substances*

* Summary of the toxicity, ecotoxicity and environmental impact of four adulticides (deltamethrin, permethrin, pyrethrum, naled) and five larvicides (Bti, pyriproxyfen, spinosad, diflubenzuron, temephos), resulting from a literature review (for further information on each substance, see CD-ROM).

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances

* Summary of the toxicity, ecotoxicity and environmental impact of four adulticides (deltamethrin, permethrin, pyrethrum, naled) and five larvicides (Bti, pyriproxyfen, spinosad, diflubenzuron, temephos), resulting from a literature review (for further information on each substance, see CD-ROM).

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances

* Summary of the toxicity, ecotoxicity and environmental impact of four adulticides (deltamethrin, permethrin, pyrethrum, naled) and five larvicides (Bti, pyriproxyfen, spinosad, diflubenzuron, temephos), resulting from a literature review (for further information on each substance, see CD-ROM).

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances*

Table 9 (continuation) – Identity card of active biocidal substances*

Note * Summary of the toxicity, ecotoxicity and environmental impact of four adulticides (deltamethrin, permethrin, pyrethrum, naled) and five larvicides (Bti, pyriproxyfen, spinosad, diflubenzuron, temephos), resulting from a literature review (for further information on each substance, see CD-ROM).

16The withdrawal of organophosphates from the market, already decided or planned as a result of a desirable change in European regulations, poses the question of how to replace them (for example: the case of malathion in French Guiana and Guadeloupe, of fenitrothion in Reunion Island, Corsica, and Languedoc-Roussillon). The toxicological and/or ecotoxicological profiles of the main candidate compounds (spinosad, pyrethrum or diflubenzuron) are in any case not very favourable for a generalized use in vector control.

17Certain active pyrethrenoid substances show the advantage of being active at low doses and having low persistence (no residual effect), but have low selectivity. An impact study is under way at EID Méditerranée. Its objective is to measure the effects of an aqueous emulsion-type deltamethrin based formulation on non-target insect fauna. The product is applied by terrestrial treatment with a cold nebulizer in natural conditions. The application conditions are strict: lapse of time of at least 24 h if treatment is made on grazed marshland or grassland, compliance with zones to be left non-treated near water points or water courses, account to be taken of risk for pollinators. With no alternative available (new more specific or more selective active substances), this spatial spreading method in natural environments remains a problem and needs to be assessed.


18Many questions on the advantages and risks involved in the use of these active substances and products remain in suspense. These substances are the subject of a notification for product type 19 in the framework of directive 98/8/EC (see the section on the Community law in the chapter “Legislative and regulatory framework of vector control”), and are currently being assessed at Community level. These products, like any biocidal product, will eventually be submitted for a marketing authorization, after prior assessment.

Skin insect repellents

19Following the 2005-2006 chikungunya epidemic on Reunion Island, repellents for body application prompted the DGS to refer them to the InVS and the CAPTV, with the objective of assessing the risks of poisoning associated with the use of these products. The health authorities had in fact strongly encouraged such usage. The study showed that the consequences of such exposure remained moderate (see CD-ROM).

20This type of study brings a picture of the acute risks linked to the use of this category of substances, but it does not give an idea of the chronic or sub-chronic risks. To date, the data on such biocidal products is still fragmented for a certain number of substances and uncertainties persist especially with regard to sensitive sections of the population like young children and pregnant women.

21Whatever the case may be, it is justified to consider the direct advantages of employing these products according to the disease (frequency, gravity), on one hand, and to reduce the uncertainties about product toxicity, on the other. Moreover, the existing French recommendations were delivered in a context of health protection for people travelling rather than for residents of the areas where certain vector-borne diseases are endemic. Not enough is known about the effects of repeated use of this type of product over long periods. Furthermore, data needs to be available on their effectiveness on other medically important arthropods (such as ticks) against which this personal protection is sometimes the main preventive action to take.

22Improvement in knowledge of all these aspects should lead to ways of adapting communication campaigns on personal prevention aimed at the public.

Mosquito coils

23Mosquito coils (or fumigators) appear to represent a significant health risk if used inside, owing to the fall in air quality during burning, at least according to some studies. Inconsistencies have been found in the recommendations issued by different manufacturers of these devices, by an enquiry of the DSDS of French Guiana (prescribing exclusively exterior use, or claiming equal effectiveness inside buildings), whereas the health recommendations for travellers as published in the Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire (BEH) of 24 June 2008 say they should be used outside or in a well-ventilated room if kept inside. These differing elements led the Ministry of Health (Direction Générale de la Santé, “Department of Health”, DGS) and the Ministry of the Environment (Direction Générale de la Prévention des Risques, “Department of Risk Prevention”, DGPR) to commission AFSSET to carry out a simplified assessment of risks, the results of which are expected in 2009.


24Baits, like repellents, are considered as biocides in their own right. One of the major products vector control operators can call on is carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 is employed in many models of bait, traps and capturing devices with different levels of sophistication devoted to the capture of haematophage insects. These traps are often designed to supply the entomological surveillance networks or, more occasionally, check the presence of a target species or assess its abundance.

25CO2 was the subject of an application by a Task Force. Nevertheless, the question is raised as to the pertinence of this type of assessment for an active substance intrinsically present in the environment and which hardly represents any danger when its use is authorized exclusively for the open air or, rather, according to different modes of presentation (bottled gas, dry ice, or the result of the combustion of bottled butane/propane gas or of a chemical reaction).

26A complementary substance, oct-1-ene-3-ol, used with carbon dioxide and known as a synergist, reinforces its attractive power for certain species. Its toxicological and ecotoxicological properties will soon be the subject of an EC assessment. Another substance with synergist properties is L-(+)-lactic acid, which has not been notified for this type of usage. Contrary to CO2 which finds multiple uses, these synergist products are generally utilized in tiny quantities, which hardly justifies investing in a certification process with a view to keeping them on the market.


27It is important not to underestimate the health risks associated with application methods, whatever the toxicological and ecotoxicological profile of the biocidal agent used. By the same token, the heterogeneity of different services can lead to significant differences in terms of exposure.

28In mosquito eradication campaigns in metropolitan France, open-field larvicide treatments are applied over sometimes very extensive surface areas (in Languedoc-Roussillon region for example). This requires airborne operations. Such applications can create disturbance for bird fauna in their nesting areas. In addition, during submersion episodes that occur on the coasts of Languedoc-Roussillon (at the spring and autumn equinoxes for example), the Bti-based antilarval treatments can only be effected by aerial spraying at ultralow volume. Effects of aerial drift and droplet evaporation must be reduced and to do this a mineral-oil additive is added to the insecticide mixture. If it proves necessary to continue its use in the future, a proper authorization must be delivered for the biocidal product in its entirety in line with directive 98/8/EC (in France, the Environmental Code, articles L. 522-1 and the following). Studies are under way to assess alternative techniques (see CD-ROM).

29Concerning the larvicide treatments applied on land (marshes subject to submersion by rain, marine encroachment or artificial irrigation), light amphibious caterpillar machines are used for spreading operations. They can leave tracks in their passage and provoke considerable disturbance, especially for the flora and bird fauna, whose impact remains to be assessed (investigation is under way at the EID Méditerranée). Then, as part of mosquito destruction campaigns or during certain vector control operations, recourse must be made to spatial treatments on adult mosquitoes (adulticide or imagocide tretaments) in natural environments. There is currently no completely satisfactory biocidal product with regard to risks for health and the environment.


30The chikungunya epidemic, which raged in Reunion Island in 20052006, provided an opportunity to examine the toxicological data relating to biocidal products, study those provided by the toxicovigilance systems and conduct an environmental impact assessment.

Toxicological data

31The toxicological data for the products useful in this context were the subject of a comparative assessment by AFSSET, who had been commissioned to do this (results published in November 2007). It must be recalled that these assessments were done in an emergency situation and are only valid for the Reunion Island chikungunya epidemic. Extrapolation to other contexts, although possible, would require a complementary analysis. Moreover, they show methodological limitations, regarding modelling of exposure in particular: the human exposure models and the models of spray drift in the environment alike, derived from the assessment of agricultural pesticides, are poorly suited to vector control treatments. Finally, this work does not prejudge the assessment that will be effected in the framework of directive 98/8/EC.


32The risks linked to the use of deltamethrin have been assessed for treatments carried out using backpack atomizers or sprays, equipment mounted on 4x4 vehicles and impregnated mosquito nets. In anti-vector treatment, the risk is acceptable for workers and for the general public, whatever the method of application.

33The risks for birds, mammals and earthworms are acceptable. The risk is high for aquatic organisms and for bees during treatment campaigns with 4x4 vehicles (an untreated area of 100 m must be preserved). However, it is acceptable when spreading is conducted using a backpack sprayer.

34The use of deltamethrin for mosquito net impregnation does not pose an unacceptable risk for the human adult, child or newborn.


35The use of permethrin-impregnated clothing does not present an unacceptable risk for the human adult. For children, the risk is acceptable for those under 10 years of age and the under threes.

36Risk assessment results concerning re-impregnation operations by steeping by an individual are encouraging. Nevertheless it is recommended that such work be assigned to professionals, because a certain number of risks do exist (see CD-ROM).

37The risk run by a spraying operator re-impregnating a mosquito net with a spray seems acceptable. However, if extensive treatment of clothes is needed, for example at the start of an epidemic, an operator could be severely exposed, to an amount exceeding the maximum quantity that could be ingested without danger to health (Acute Reference Dose or ARfD). Furthermore, this treatment technique cannot guarantee a homogeneous spread of the product on the clothing. In spite of these reservations, this procedure can be envisaged if the pre-impregnated tissues or clothes are not available on the market, but instructions on precautions for use and frequency of treatment must be given.


38Risks associated with using pyrethrum have been assessed for treatments applied with a backpack atomizer or sprayer and equipment mounted on 4x4 vehicles.

39Risk for the operator cannot be ruled out because there are hardly any data that could help assess its potential for dermal absorption. Some measures could in fact reduce the risks (see CD-ROM). The absence of risk for aquatic organisms could not be demonstrated for most organisms considered. The risk is acceptable for birds and mammals, but the study could not discard a risk for bees. Risk management measures would therefore be necessary: a more selective set-up, limits set to the times of treatment in line with the biology of bees. The risk for earthworms and soil microorganisms could not be assessed in the absence of toxicity data on these organisms.


40The risks from utilization of naled were assessed for treatments effected with the aid of backpack atomisers or spray and for equipment fixed to 4x4 vehicles.

41The risk is not acceptable either for the operator or for the general public, whatever the levels of protection and application techniques. Results for the risks to animals are similar to those already described for pyrethrum.

Bacillus thuringiensis ser. israelensis (Bti)

42The Bti-related risks have been assessed for treatments with a manual pre-pressurized sprayer, an air-assisted sprayer mounted on a vehicle, a non air-assisted centrifugal sprayer (lance) also on a vehicle, a spreading technique with a small portable granule dispenser and hand spreading. For the operator and the general public, they are acceptable in all cases without individual protection equipment.


43The risks from using pyriproxyfen were assessed for spreading methods with small portable granule-spreading devices and hand spreading.

44They are acceptable for manual spreading or for the technique using the small devices carried by operators, as long as protective gloves are worn. They are also acceptable for assisting personnel and persons present near the treated zones during the application phase.

45Risks are high for aquatic organisms but considered as acceptable for birds and terrestrial mammals.


46Concerning the use of spinosad, risks were assessed for treatments with a manual pre-pressurized sprayer, an air-assisted sprayer mounted on a vehicle and a non air-assisted centrifugal sprayer (lance) on a vehicle.

47The risk for the operator is acceptable in all cases without protective equipment. The absence of risk for aquatic organisms could not be demonstrated. The risk is acceptable for birds and mammals. The strong intrinsic toxicity of the product for bees leads to an unacceptable risk for this organism at the time of application of the product containing spinosad as a larvicide. Consequently, risk management measures would be necessary such as a more selective equipment set-up and limits to the treatment periods according to the biology of bees. The risk for earthworms and soil microorganisms is considered to be acceptable.


48In the context of a request for a derogation for essential use, the risks linked to the use of temephos were assessed for manual spreading of granules with a ladle, manual spraying with a portable pre-pressurized sprayer, mechanized air-assisted (pneumatic) ground spraying or non-air assisted sprayer (lance) and aerial spraying.

49The use of protection measures to reduce the risks of exposure of spray operators resulted in a safety margin more than 30 times that of the reference safety margin for all the spreading scenarios. The assessment could not be carried out for the scenario for manual spreading with a ladle.

50Exposure of workers entering onto a treated plot of land was examined. It was considered as zero in the case of granules and manual spraying and as acceptable in the case of spraying using a 4x4 pick-up. In contrast, it is unacceptable when treatments are applied by air-assisted spray from a quad or caterpillar vehicle. Direct exposure to aerial treatment presents a risk judged to be at the limits of the acceptable, but exposure to spray drift remains acceptable.

51The effects on aquatic organisms are, however, cause for concern. Nevertheless, chronic exposure is not to be feared and the risk of secondary poisoning of birds or mammals eating fish exposed to the treatment is extremely limited. At the dose of 125 g/ha, there is no potential risk for bees.

  • 3 Order of 10 May 2007 concerning the marketing and utilization of certain biocidal products, contain (...)

52The authorization for the use of temephos has been granted up to 14 May 2009 for the purposes of vector control, but only in the four overseas départements (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Reunion Island). Apart from these départements, the marketing of temephos-based insecticides has been banned since 1st September 2006, and their utilization forbidden since 1st September 20073.


53The toxicovigilance systems have provided a certain number of data on the pathological cases resulting from biocide exposure. The DGS made three referrals to the InVS: first to assess the dangers of fenitrothion, then the dangers of deltamethrin, and finally to envisage the setting-up of a surveillance system for intoxications attributed to vector control actions.

54These referrals were dealt with by the Comité de Coordination de Toxicovigilance, “Toxicovigilance Coordination Committee” (CCTV) organized by the InVS. The responses to the first two referrals notably allowed identification of the dangers of each of the substances used, guide the choice of products (deltamethrin was thus replaced by fenitrothion from February 2006) and definition of recommendations intended for spray operators and the public. These recommendations still form the basis of the information delivered by the Reunion Island vector control service concerning its operations.

55The response to the third referral was the setting-up of a system of surveillance to record and list the cases of poisoning attributed to exposure to biocides used for vector control, and to describe the circumstances of expo-sure favouring such incidents. The aim was to detect deviations from the protocols. To this effect, the CIRE Reunion Island-Mayotte has been equipped with a toxicovigilance since February 2006.

56Judging by the information gathered (see CD-ROM), the symptoms appeared to be mostly benign and transitory. The symptoms that appeared following a direct exposure incident to sprayed insecticides led to the detection of deviations from the recommendations governing their utilization.

57An environmental follow-up was organized, on the initiative of the Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, “Regional Department of the Environment” (DIREN-Reunion Island), to assess the non-target effects of vector control treatments.

58Even if it seems that these large-scale treatments have had no serious consequences for the terrestrial and aquatic environments and fauna (see CD-ROM), the limits of this follow-up must be emphasized. In the time allotted, it could only take into account the short-term lethal and sub-lethal effects, and in no case the indirect long-term effects. In the framework of a generalization of vector control in Reunion Island, the observation protocols implemented in the course of the first six months of 2006 should be pursued by the organization of a regular follow-up and the launch of detailed research on the impact of pesticides on the tropical environment. A multi-partner research programme led by INRA (EnviroChik) was in fact devised in May 2006 specifically to meet this need. To date, however, it has not found the necessary funding. However, the insecticides used for vector control on Reunion Island have been incorporated into a programme investigating the effects of pesticides on coral reefs (ERICOR) led by ARVAM (Association de Recherche pour la Valorisation de la Mer, “Ocean Valorization Research Association”) and financed by the “Pesticides” programme (APR 2006) of MEEDDAT.

Assess the risk associated with the use of biocidal products: prior characterization and ecological follow-up
Previous expert surveys on the unwanted side-effects of biocidal products used in vector control have come up against certain limits (insufficient knowledge, absence of appropriate tools, emergency situations).
A range of measures must now be taken:
■ obtain better characterization of the exposure of vector-control agents in order to keep possible consequences to a minimum (spatial treatment, household treatments), by developing exposure models and scenarios specific for usage in vector control;
■ achieve better characterization of the exposure of the general public;
■ undertake assessment of substances after utilization, beyond the preapplication assessment, by using and developing the appropriate methods;
■ characterize better the various types of environmental exposure by conducting regular campaigns for measuring the environmental conditions and sampling invertebrate communities in the different treated sites in comparison with treated areas;
■ identify the species that could serve as environmental quality indicators;
■ ensure the traceability of vector-control actions to make retrospective and prospective analysis possible, by keeping rigorous records of all activities;
■ always accompany the implementation of mosquito destruction programmes by ecological follow-up, based particularly on the characterization of the functional dynamics of the system as a whole and a (semi)-quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the treatments in controlling the target species.


1 In this chapter, the references to the CD-ROM concern question 9: “What are the unwanted side-effects of vector control?”.

2 DRT Circular n° 12 of 24 May 2006 on general rules for chemical risk prevention and specific rules to apply against risk of exposure to carcinogenic, or mutagenic agents or those toxic for reproduction.

3 Order of 10 May 2007 concerning the marketing and utilization of certain biocidal products, containing non-notified substances in terms of regulations (EC) 2032/2003 of the Commission of 4 November 2003.

© IRD Éditions, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation :

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search