Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 4376       
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 138  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 239-243

User friendliness, efficiency & spray quality of stirrup pumps versus hand compression pumps for indoor residual spraying


1 Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (ICMR), Patna, Bihar, India
2 National Institution of Preventive & Social Medicine, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Regional Office for South-East Asia, World Health Organization, New Delhi, India
3 International Centre for Diarrhoeal Diseases Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
4 Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Correspondence Address:
Pradeep Das
Director, Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna 800 007

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 24056601

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Background & objectives: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a proven tool to reduce visceral leishmaniasis vectors in endemic villages. In India IRS is being done with stirrup pumps, whereas Nepal, Bangladesh, and other countries use compression pumps. The present study was conducted with the objectives to compare the efficiency, cost and user friendliness of stirrup and compression pumps. Methods: The study was carried out in Gorigawan village of the Vaishali district in north Bihar and included a total population of 3259 inhabitants in 605 households. Spraying with 50 per cent DDT was done by two teams with 6 persons per team under the supervision of investigators over 5 days with each type of pump (10 days in total using 2 stirrup pumps and 3 compression pumps) by the same sprayers in an alternate way. The spraying technique was observed using an observation check list, the number of houses and room surfaces sprayed was recorded and an interview with sprayers on their satisfaction with the two types of pumps was conducted. Results: On average, 65 houses were covered per day with the compression pump and 56 houses were covered with the stirrup pump. The surface area sprayed per squad per day was higher for the compression pump (4636 m 2 ) than for the stirrup pump (4102 m 2 ). Observation showed that it was easy to maintain the spray swath with the compression pump but very difficult with the stirrup pump. The wastage of insecticide suspension was negligible for the compression pump but high for the stirrup pump. Interpretation & conclusions: The compression pump was found to be more user friendly due to its lower weight, easier to operate, lower operation cost, higher safety and better efficiency in terms of discharge rate and higher area coverage than the stirrup pump.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed661    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded206    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal