J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 510 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Original Article Laboratory Evaluation of Temephos against Anopheles stephensi and Culex pipiens Larvae in Iran Mohammad Reza Abai, Ahmad Ali Hanafi-Bojd, *Hassan Vatandoost Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. (Received 3 Nov 2015; accepted 5 Dec 2015) Abstract Background: Malaria is still a health problem in Iran. There are several vector control activities, including Indoor Residual spraying, using insecticide treated nets and larviciding including Temephos. In addition nuisance mosquitos are prevalent in the urban areas. So that evaluation of this species to larvicide will provide a clue for management of vector control activities. Methods: Two mosquito species were used in this study: Anopheles stephensi were collected from Kazeroun and Culex pipiens from Tehran, capital of Iran. All the tests were carried out according to the WHO method. All the test kis was provided by WHO. Results: Results showed a LC50= 0.0523 and LC90=0.3822 mg/l for An. stephensi. The figure for Cx. pipiens was 0.1838 and 0.8505 mg/l respectively. Conclusion: monitoring of insecticide resistance to Temephos should be evaluated regularly for management of vector control. Keywords: Temephos, Anopheles stephensi, Culex pipiens, Evaluation, Efficacy Introduction Mosquito-borne diseases are from the main public health problems around the world, es- pecially in tropical and semi-tropical areas. Among them malaria, dirofilariasis, dengue, west Nile, yellow fever, and some other viral diseases have the main morbidity. Malaria occurs in tropical and some temperate re- gions of the world with an annual morbidity of 300–500 million cases and 574000 deaths in 2013 (WHO 2014). Iran is going to elim- inate the disease by 2025 although local transmission happens in some areas in south and southeast. Anopheles stephensi is one of the main malaria vectors is coastal lowlands of southern Iran (Hanafi-Bojd et al. 2011). West Nile and dirofilariasis are diseases which can be transmitted by Cx. pipiens, a world- wide distributed mosquito species. Both dis- eases are potentially transmittable in Iran (Azari-Hamidian et al. 2009, Ahmadnejad et al. 2011). The first line in malaria control program in Iran is indoor residual spraying to interrupt the transmission cycle, followed by distributing long lasting insecticide im- pregnated nets (LLINs) and larviciding. The latter is doing by biological larvicides in current years, although Temephos, an organ- ophosphate compound, has been used for years in mosquito larvae control. There are reports of resistance to some insecticides such as DDT, diledrin and malathion in An. stephensi, as well as some indications of resistance to pyrethroids in current years (Davari et al. 2006, Hanafi-Bojd et al. 2012, Vatandoost and Hanafi-Bojd 2012), although current studies have confirmed full suscep- tibility of this species to malathion (Iranpour et al. 1993, Vatandoost et al. 2005, Hanafi- *Corresponding author: Dr Hassan Vatandoost, Email: hvatandoost1@yahoo.com,vatando@tums.ac.ir J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 511 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Bojd et al. 2012). By the way, larvicides tests showed resistance/tolerance to fenthion and fenitrothion in this species, but suscep- tibility to temephos (Vatandoost et al. 2004a, 2005, Vatandoost and Hanafi-Bojd 2005, Hanafi-Bojd et al. 2012, Soltani et al. 2013). In insecticide resistance management it is necessary to evaluate used insecticides/ lar- vicides periodically to monitor susceptibility status of the vectors. Considering the exten- sive use of insecticides in public health sec- tor as well as agriculture and urban pests, physiological and behavioral resistance is a big issue that must be determined in mos- quito vector species. Organophosphates are using widely in the agriculture sector, while they are using for larviciding against mos- quitoes, it is possible to develop resistance in some vectors. A study on different geo- graphical strains of An. stephensi in Iran showed considerable variations in temephos resistance ratios collected from different lo- calities (Soltani et al. 2013). Culex pipiens is known as urban pest nui- sance around the world and has a wide dis- tribution in the northern and central parts of Iran (Azari-Hamidian 2007). It can transmit dirofilariasis and has high resistance levels to different insecticides (Maraghi et al. 2006, Azari-Hamidian et al. 2009). This species usu- ally breeds in waste waters which are con- taminated with different detergents, insecti- cides, industrial pollutants, oil compounds etc. Therefore it is possible to develop re- sistance to insecticides and/or larvicides in this mosquito, as it has been reported in recent years (Vatandoost et al. 2004b). Temephos, a most widely used organo- phosphate insecticide, has been included in the list of World Health Organization (WHO) as a suitable and safe mosquito lar- vicide that can be used even in drinking wa- ter for con- trolling of the most mosquito vectors. The toxicity of this insecticide is low and unlikely to present acute hazard for human (WHO 2006). In 2006 for the first time in the Middle East, resistance to temeph- os was confirmed in An. stephensi breeding in water storage tanks in the Al-Dhahira region of Oman (Anderasen 2006). During last three decades temephos has considered as a safe larvicide (LC50= 8600 mg/l) in vector control programs (Pierce et al. 1989). World health organization sug- gested 1 ppm of this compound for larvi- ciding in drinking water bodies. It is effec- tive for 3 months in this concentration (Bang et al. 1972), and this is confirmed by several studies against different mosquito species (Mulla et al. 2004, Thavara et al. 2004, 2005). Also larval control in natural breeding places such as riversides has achieved by temephos EC 1% (Shililu 2001, Parvez and Al Wahai- bi 2003). Laboratory tests on this formula- tion resulted to 15 weeks residual and larvi- cidal effect against Aedes aegypti (Chen et al. 2006). With due attention to the long history of insecticide/larvicides resistance in Anopheles stephensi and Culex pipiens in Iran and other countries it is necessary to screen the sus- ceptibility status of these species at regular intervals using WHO standard bioassay tests and to map the spatial and temporal changes in their level of susceptibility/resistance. Therefore this study was aimed to determine the susceptibility of these species to temeph- os in two sentinel sites in Iran. Materials and Methods Mosquito collection and rearing Two mosquito species were used in this study: An. stephensi mysorensis collected from Kazeroun County, south of Iran and Cx. pipiens collected from Tehran, the capi- tal city of Iran. Collected larvae were trans- ferred to the insectary (Kazeroun Station, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences for An. stephensi and Department of Medical Entomology and J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 512 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences for Cx. pipiens) and fed on fish flakes (Tetra- mine). The specimens were reared under 28±1 °C temperature and 14:12 L: D photo- period to late 3rd early 4th instars, the suitable physiological ages for performing tests. Susceptibility tests Standard WHO method (1981, 2005) was followed for the tests using WHO standard kit and 1.25, 6.25, 31.25 and 156.25 mg/l concentration were used to provide the final concentration of 0.005, 0.025, 0.125 and 0.0625 when added 1 cc of each concentra- tion to 249 cc of tape water. The obtained results were corrected by Abbotts’ formula when mortality rate in control group was 5– 20 percent (Abbott 1925) and analyzed by Probit (Finney 1971) to obtain LC50, LC90 and regression line. For each larvicides con- centration 4 replicates of 25 larvae were used and 2 replicated for control. After 24 hrs all larvae without movement on the wa- ter surface were considered as dead. Results Table 1 shows the results of mortality of An. stephensi to temephos. We obtained LC50= 0.0523 and LC90=0.3822 for this spe- cies (Tables 1 and 2). Regression line is pre- sented in Fig. 1. It shows Y= 1.9014+ 1.4837X. For Cx. pipiens a mortality rate of 3–99% was obtained in different concentrations (Table 3). LC50 and LC90 for this species were calculated as 0.1838 and 0.8505 ppm (Table 4). Regression line is presented in Fig. 2. It shows Y=1.4171+1.9264 X. Table 1. Mortality rate of Anopheles stephensi larvae (Kazeroun Strain) against WHO standard concentrations of Temephos, 2014 Concentration (PPM) Replicates No. of tested No. of dead Mortality rate (%) Observed probit mortality Expected probit mortality 0.005 4 100 8 8 3.595 3.487 0.025 4 100 26 26 4.357 4.524 0.125 4 100 77 77 6.555 5.561 0.625 4 100 93 93 6.476 6.599 Control 2 50 0 0 - - Table 2. Lethal concentration values obtained from regression analysis of Temephos against Anopheles stephensi larvae of Kazeroun Strain, 2014 A b ± SE LC50 (ppm) ± 95%C.L. LC90 (ppm) ± 95%C.L. λ2 (heterogeneity) λ2 table (df) p-Value 1.9014 1. 4837 ± 0.128 0.0411 0.0523 0.0664 0.2695 0.3822 0.6001 3.906 * 5.991 (2) 0.001 * No Heterogeneity J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 513 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Table 3. Mortality rate of Culex pipiens larvae (Tehran Strain) against WHO standard concentrations of Temephos, 2014 Table 4. Lethal concentration values obtained from regression analysis of Temephos against Culex pipiens larvae of Tehran Strain, 2014 * Heterogeneity Fig. 1. Mortality regression line of Temephos against Anopheles stephensi of Kazeroun Strain, 2014 Concentration (PPM) Replicates No. of Tested larvae No. of mortality Mortality rate (%) Observed mor- tality probit Expected mor- tality probit 0.005 4 100 3 3 3.119 1.984 0.025 4 100 8 8 3.595 3.331 0.125 4 100 11 11 3.773 3.677 0.625 4 100 99 99 7.327 6.024 Control 2 50 0 0 - - A b ± SE LC50 (ppm) ± 95%C.L. LC90 (ppm) ± 95%C.L. λ2 (heterogeneity) λ2 table (df) p-Value 1.4171 1.9264 ± 0.174 0.1493 0.1838 0.2285 0.6186 0.8505 1.3039 11.113 * 5.991 (2) 0.001 J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 514 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Fig. 2. Mortality regression line of Temephos against Culex pipiens of Tehran Strain, 2014 Discussion Our study showed LC50 value of 0.0523 for An. stephensi in Kazeroun area, southern Iran. Previous studies on this species from different localities of southern regions of the country have reported 0.001613 mg/l (Vatan- doost and Hanafi-Bojd 2005) and 0.0022– 0.0141 mg/l (Soltani et al. 2013). Other studies on diagnostic dose of temephos (0.25 mg/l) found An. stephensi was susceptible to this larvicide in Iran (Vatandoost et al. 2004a, Hanafi-Bojd et al. 2012). By the way as it shown in table 1, in concentration of 0.625 mg/l only 93% mortality has occurred. Considering diagnostic dose for this species, Kazeroun strain is resistant to temephos. By the way these findings should be confirmed by more studies with different batches of WHO standard kits for temephos on more larval population collected from the same area. Resistance of An. stephensi to this larvi- cide has previously reported from Oman Country (Parvez and Al Wahaibi 2003). Anopheles stephensi has been reported sus- ceptible to temephos in India with LC50 range of 0.008–0.015 (Tikar et al. 2011, Singh et al. 2014). Study on An. labranchiae in Morocco found low resistance to temeph- os in a sentinel site. They revised the di- agnostic dose of temephos for this species (Faraj et al. 2010). A more recent study in Iran showed that the altered enzymes are responsible for temephos resistance in An. stephensi (Soltani et al. 2015). Although temephos is not used in national malaria program in last years but the study area has different rice fields and citrus gardens, and farmers use organophosphate insecticides to control pests. This may affect susceptibility J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 515 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 of An. stephensi as well. Integrated pest man- agement (IPM) in agriculture sector should be considered as an important priority parallel to integrated vector management (IVM) in health sector to overcome vector/pests re- sistance to pesticides. Our results on Cx. pipiens also showed LC50 (0.1838 mg/l) was more than diagnos- tic dose (0.02 mg/l) recommended by WHO for this species. It means resistance to temepho. Other studies on temephos in Cy- prus and Tunisia against Cx. pipiens reported LC50 ranges of 0.00076–0.310 and 0.0021– 0.015, respectively (Ben Cheikh et al. 1993, Vasques et al. 2009). Dose response tests of the technical temephos against Cx. pipiens in India showed LC50 of 0.01 mg/l in this spe- cies (Badawy et al. 2015). This value for Culex quinquefasciatus was 0.0000473 mg/l in another study in that country (Dorta et al. 1993). In Tunisia esterases were found to be contributed to temephos resistance by their increased activity (Ben Cheikh et al. 2008). Although there is no national program to control this species, but because wastewaters are the main breeding places for Cx. pipiens and they are contaminated with different pollutants, insecticides, detergents, etc this species has developed resistance to these compounds to save itself. A longitudinal on Cx. pipiens in Martinique showed that re- sistance ratio for temephos was 8.6 to 42- folds during 1991–1999 comparing 2.9 to 4.6-folds in 1990. They found organophos- phate resistance was associated with decreas- ing of susceptible genotypes at Ester and ace-1 foci, as well as to an allele replacement at the Easter locus (Yebakima et al. 2004). Our results on LC50 of Cx. pipiens were higher than the above mentioned studies in different countries. Therefore, it is necessary to do biochemical and molecular studies to find the reason for resistance to temephos. In conclusion, it is recommended to do temephos susceptibility tests against both species from the same localities with more larvae and different batches of WHO stand- ard kits of temephos to confirm their re- sistance status. The present study shows in- dications of resistance to this larvicides in An. stephensi and Cx. pipiens for the first time in Iran. Conclusions The results indicated that the monitoring and evaluation of insecticide resistance should be carried out regularly against mos- quito vectors. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thanks Eng. AR Ghane, Dr Y Rassi, Mr N Vade, Mr K Hemati, Mr H Salmanpour, Mr Gh R Afroozandeh from Kazerounand Eng. F Rafi, Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciecnes. This project has financially supported by Deputy of Research, Tehran Uni- versity of Medical Sciecnes, Grant No. 18404. References Abbott WS (1925) A method of comparing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol. 18: 265–267. Ahmadnejad F, Otarod V, Fallah MH, Low- enski S, Sedighi-Moghaddam R, Zavareh A, Durand B, Lecollinet S, Sabatier P (2011) Spread of West Nile virus in Iran: a cross-sectional serosurvey in equines, 2008–2009. Epidemiolo In- fect. 139: 1587–1593. Anderasen MH (2006) Emerging resistance to temephos in Anopheles stephensi in the Al-Dhahira region of oman. Mis- sion report of World Health Organiza- tion, pp. 1–13. Azari-Hamidian S (2007) Checklist of Iranian J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 516 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vec Ecol. 32(2): 235–242. Azari-Hamidian S, Yaghoobi-Ershadi MR, Javadian E, Abai MR, Mobedi I, Lin- ton YM, Harbach RE (2009) Distribu- tion and ecology of mosquitoes in a focus of dirofilariasis in northwestern Iran, with the first finding of filarial larvae in naturally infected local mos- quitoes. Med Vet Entomol. 23: 111–121. Badawy MEI, Taktak NEM, Awad OM, Elfiki SA, Abou El-Ela NE (2015) Larvicidal activity of temephos re- leased from new chitosan/alginate/gel- atin capsules against Culex pipiens. Int J Mosq Res. 2(3): 45–55. Bang YH, Tonn RJ, Jatanasen S (1972) Pilot studies of Abate as a larvicide for control of Aedes aegypti in Bangkok, Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 3: 106–115. Ben Cheikh II, Ben Ali-Haouas Z, Marquine M, Pasteur N (1998) Resistance to Or- ganophosphorus and Pyrethroid Insec- ticides in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Cu- licidae) from Tunisia. J Med Entomol. 35(3): 251–260. Ben Cheikh R, Berticat C, Ben Cheikh H, Berthomieu A, Weille M (2008) Char- acterization of a novel high-activity esterase in Tunisian populations of the mosquito Culex pipiens. J Econ Ento- mol. 101(2): 484–491. Chen CD and Lee, HL (2006) Laboratory bioefficacy of CREEK 1.0G (temeph- os) against Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus) larvae. Trop Biomed. 23(2): 220–223. Davari B, Vatandoost H, Ladonni H, Shaeghi M, Oshaghi MA, Basseri HR, Enayati AA, Rassi Y, Abai MR, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Akbarzadeh K (2006) Compara- tive efficacy of different imagicides against different strains of Anopheles stephensi in the malaroius areas of Iran, 2004-2005. Pakistan J Biol Sci. 9(5): 885–892. Dorta DM, Vasuki V, Rajavel A (1993) Evaluation of organophosphorus and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides against six vector mosquito species. Rev Saude Publica. 27(6): 391–397. Faraj C, Adlaoui E, Elkohli M, Her rak T, Ameur B, Chandre F (2010) Review of temephos discriminating concentration for monitoring the susceptibility of Anopheles labranchiae (Falleroni, 1926), malaria vector in Morocco. Malaria Res Treat. Finney JD (1971) Probit analysis, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, p. 333. Hanafi-Bojd AA, Azari-Hamidian S, Vatan- doost H, Charrahy Z (2011) Spatio- temporal distribution of malaria vec- tors (Diptera: Culicidae) across differ- ent climatic zones of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. pp. 412–420. Hanafi-Bojd AA, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Haghdoost AA, Shahi M, Abedi F, Yeryan M, Pakari A, Sedaghat MM (2012) Entomological and epidemio- logical attributes for malaria transmis- sion and implementation of vector con- trol in southern Iran. Acta Trop. 121: 85–92. Iranpour M, Yaghoobi-Ershadi MR, Mota- bar M (1993) Susceptibility tests of Anopheles stephensi with some chlo- rine, phosphorus, carbamate and py- rethriod insecticides in south of Iran. Iranian J Publ Health. 22 (1–4): 74–85. Maraghi Sh, Rahdar M, Akbari H, Rad- manesh M, Saberi AA (2006) Human dirofilariasis due to Dirofilaria repens in Ahvaz, Iran: a report of three cases. Pakistan J Med Sci. 22: 211–213. Mulla MS, Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Chompoosri J (2004) Procedures for evaluation of field efficacy of slow re- lease formulations of larvicides against Aedes aegypti in water storagecontainers. J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 517 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 20: 64 –73. Parvez SD, Al-Wahaibi SS (2003) Compari- son of three larviciding options for malaria vector control. Eastern Medi- terr Health J. 9: 627–636. Shililu J (2001) Eritrea field studies on effi- cacy of bacterial larvicides for use in malaria control. Environment Health Project. 112: 1–15. Singh PK, Mittal PK, Kumar G, Dhiman RC (2014) Insecticide susceptibility status of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles ste- phensi larvae against temephos in Del- hi, India. Int J Mosq Res. 1(3): 69–73. Soltani A, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Enayati AA, Raeisi A, Eshraghian MR, Soltan-Dallal MM, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Abai MR, Rafi F (2013) Baseline sus- ceptibility of different geographical strains of Anopheles stephensi (Dip- tera: Culicidae) to Temephos in ma- larious areas of Iran. J Arthropod- Borne Dis. 7(1): 56–65. Soltani A, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Ma- leki Ravasan N, Enayati AA, Asgarian F (2015) Resistance mechanisms of Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) to Temephos. J Arthropod-Borne Dis. 9(1): 71–83. Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Kong-ngamsuk W, Mulla MS (2004) Efficacy and longev- ity of a new formulation of temephos larvicide tested in village-scale trials against Aedes aegypti larvae in water storage containers. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 20: 176–182. Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Srithommarat R, Zaim M, Mulla MS (2005) Sequen- tialrelease and residual activity of temephos applied as sand granules to waterstoragejars for the control of Ae- des aegypti larvae (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vec Ecol. 30: 62–72. Tikar SN, Mendki MJ, Sharma AK, Suku- maran D, Veer V, Parashar BD (2011) Resistance status of the malaria vector mosquitoes, Anopheles stephensi and Anopheles subpictus towards adulticides and larvicides in arid and semi-arid areas of India. J Insect Sci. 11 (85): 1–10. Vasques MI, Violaris M, Wirth MC, Hadjivassilis A (2009) Susceptibility of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) field populations in Cyprus to conven- tional organic insecticides, Bacillus thu- ringiensis subsp. israelensis, and Metho- prene. J Med Entomol. 46(4): 881–887. Vatandoost H, Shahi H, Abai MR, Hanafi- Bojd AA, Oshaghi MA, Zamani G (2004a) Larval habitats of main ma- laria vectors in Hormozgan province and their susceptibility to different lar- vicides. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Publ Health. 35: 22–25. Vatandoost H, Ezeddinloo L, Mahvi A, Abai M, Kia E, Mobedi I (2004b) Enhanced tolerance of house mosquito to differ- ent insecticides due to agricultural and household pesticides in sewage system of Tehran, Iran. Iranian J Environ Health Sci Eng. 1(1): 46–50. Vatandoost H, Mashayekhi M, Abaie MR, Aflatoonian MR, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Sharifi I (2005) Monitoring of insecti- cides resistance in main malaria vec- tors in a malarious area of Kahnooj district Kerman province, southeastern Iran. J Vector-Borne Dis. 42: 100–108. Vatandoost H, Hanafi-Bojd AA (2005) Cur- rent resistant status of Anopheles ste- phensi Liston to different larvicides in Hormozgan Province, southeastern Iran. Pakistan J Biol Sci. 8(11): 1568–1570. Vatandoost H, Hanafi-Bojd AA (2012) Indi- cation of pyrethroid resistance in the main malaria vector, Anopheles ste- phensi from Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 5(9): 722–726. WHO (1981) Instruction for determining the susceptibility or resistance of mosquito larvae to insecticides. WHO/VBC/ 81.807. J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 510–518 MR Abai et al.: Laboratory Evaluation of … 518 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 WHO (2005) Guidelines for laboratory and field testing of mosquito larvicides. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2005.1 3. WHO (2014) World Malaria Report 2013. World Health Organization, Geneva Switzerland, p. 227. Yebakima A, Marquine MT, Rosine J, Pas- teur N (2004) Evolution of resistance under insecticide selection pressure in Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus (Dip- tera: Culicidae) from Martinique. J Med Entomol. 41(4): 718–725.