Abstract
The recent spread of invasive mosquito species, such as Aedes albopictus and the seasonal sporadic transmission of autochthonous cases of arboviral diseases (e.g., dengue, chikungunya, Zika) in temperate areas, such as Europe and North America, highlight the importance of effective mosquito-control interventions to reduce not only nuisance, but also major threats for public health. Local, regional, and even national mosquito control programs have been established in many countries and are executed on a seasonal basis by either public or private bodies. In order for these interventions to be worthwhile, funding authorities should ensure that mosquito control is (a) planned by competent scientific institutions addressing the local demands, (b) executed following the plan that is based on recommended and effective methods and strategies, (c) monitored regularly by checking the efficacy of the implemented actions, (d) evaluated against the set of targets, and (e) regularly improved according to the results of the monitoring. Adherence to these conditions can only be assured if a formal quality management system is adopted and enforced that ensures the transparency of effectiveness of the control operation. The current paper aims at defining the two components of this quality management system, quality assurance and quality control for mosquito control programs with special emphasis on Europe, but applicable over temperate areas.
Highlights
Anthropogenic changes at a local, regional and global scale, such as land use change, increasing trade, travel and urbanization, coupled with current and predicted climate changes, accelerate several processes that strongly enhance the incidence and spread of mosquito-borne diseases, in tropical and in temperate areas [1,2]
We argue that there is an urgency to advocate for external quality management (QM) in mosquito control programs in Europe
If treatments are made by a PCO identified by a public tender, the quality controlcontrol (QC) activities should be well described in the contract in order to make the PCO aware of its duties and possible penalties
Summary
Antonios Michaelakis 1 , Fabrizio Balestrino 2 , Norbert Becker 3 , Romeo Bellini 2 , Beniamino Caputo 4 , Alessandra della Torre 4 , Jordi Figuerola 5,6 , Gregory L’Ambert 7 , Dusan Petric 8 , Vincent Robert 9 , David Roiz 9 , Anastasios Saratsis , Carla A. Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International journal of environmental research and public health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
