Abstract

BackgroundLLINs are susceptible to forming holes within a short time in use, compromising their ability to provide long-term physical protection against insect-borne vectors of disease. Mechanical damage is known to be responsible for the majority of holes, with most being the result of snagging, tearing, hole enlargement, abrasion and seam failure, which can readily occur during normal household use. To enable an assessment of the ability of LLINs to resist such damage prior to distribution, a new suite of testing methods was developed to reflect the main damage mechanisms encountered during normal use of LLINs.MethodsFour existing BS EN and ISO standards used by the textile industry were adapted to determine the ability of LLINs to resist the most common mechanisms of real-world damage experienced in the field. The new suite comprised tests for snag strength (BS 15,598:2008), bursting strength (ISO 13938-2:1999), hole enlargement resistance (BS 3423–38:1998), abrasion resistance (ISO 12947-1:1998) and new guidance around the seam construction of LLINs. Fourteen different LLINs were tested using the new suite of tests to evaluate their resistance to damage.ResultsThe resistance to mechanical damage of LLINs is not the same, even when the bursting strength values are comparable. Differences in performance between LLINs are directly related to the fabric design specifications, including the knitted structure and constituent yarns. The differences in performance do not primarily relate to what polymer type the LLIN is made from. LLINs made with a Marquisette knitted structure produced the highest snag strength and lowest hole enlargement values. By contrast, LLINs made with a traverse knitted structure exhibited low snag strength values when compared at the same mesh count.ConclusionsPrequalification of LLINs should consider not only insecticidal performance, but also inherent resistance to mechanical damage. This is critical to ensuring LLINs are fit for purpose prior to distribution, and are capable of remaining in good physical condition for longer. The new suite of test methods enables the performance of LLINs to be assessed and specified in advance of distribution and can be used to establish minimum performance standards. Implementation of these testing methods is therefore recommended.

Highlights

  • LLINs are susceptible to forming holes within a short time in use, compromising their ability to provide long-term physical protection against insect-borne vectors of disease

  • Snag strength test Snagging is the most frequently encountered form of mechanical damage in LLINs, and is caused by the mesh of the fabric catching on solid protuberances in the household, which when pulled away can lead to yarn breakage and the formation of a hole [18]

  • All fourteen LLINs were assessed using the new suite of tests to determine relative performance and to develop a more detailed understanding of their inherent resistance to damage than is possible using bursting strength alone

Read more

Summary

Introduction

LLINs are susceptible to forming holes within a short time in use, compromising their ability to provide long-term physical protection against insect-borne vectors of disease. To enable an assessment of the ability of LLINs to resist such damage prior to distribution, a new suite of testing methods was developed to reflect the main damage mechanisms encountered during normal use of LLINs. LLINs are physically protective products for malaria control and prevention, safeguarding the health of millions of vulnerable people. LLINs are physically protective products for malaria control and prevention, safeguarding the health of millions of vulnerable people They are intended to remain effective for 3 years, which means retaining physical integrity as well as insecticidal functionality. LLINs are Wheldrake et al Malar J (2021) 20:47 widely known to accumulate holes within the first few years of use, undermining physical protection, compromising the safety of the product, and putting users at risk of malaria [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Not least for health and safety reasons, these attributes are normally assessed in the laboratory prior to use of the product

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call