Control of Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus for Disease and Nuisance Purposes

Control of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus For Disease and Nuisance Purposes

Christopher Lesser Manatee County MCD Palmetto, FL History of Mosquito Control

• Most MCD’s originally established to deal with ….. – nuisance issues that impact quality of life and/or local economy ….. Typically saltmarsh mosquitoes such as Aedes taeniorhynchus or Ae. sollicitans, Ae. vexans and sometimes Psorophora spp. • Disease control was generally an ancillary benefit; “Good nuisance control = good disease control” Historical (and effective) Mosquito Control Paradigm in the US …… Methods of “Traditional” Mosquito Control

“Traditional” Habitat: ‐Isolated ‐Concentrated breeding ‐ Adults have long flight range ‐Easily accessible ‐ Remote/rural

Methods of “Traditional” Mosquito Control

“Traditional” Habitat: Ae. aegypti/albopictus Habitat: ‐ Amongst human residents ‐Isolated ‐ Larval and adults are diffuse ‐Concentrated breeding ‐Adults have very short flight range = area ‐ Adults have long flight range of larval breeding ‐Easily accessible ‐ Breeding habitat is difficult to access ‐ Remote/rural ‐Urban, but can endo‐ or exophilic History: Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus

• Little if any authority to enter onto private properties without permission of resident • Code Enforcement laws generally do not include mosquito breeding containers • Reluctance of political bodies to support strong “sanitation ordinances” for fear of appearing too heavy‐handed to citizens (Fred Soper’s approach was strong‐handed and forced his will upon the people) • Chemical resistance to pyrethroids very common in Aedes aegypti populations throughout FL (and probably US too) History: Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus Background (cont.) • Dengue, once a common epidemic occurrence, was “eradicated” from Florida in the late 1940’s; • Increasing number of imported cases but no documented local transmission until “reemergence” in Key West outbreak in 2009 (27 local cases) and 2010 (68 local cases) • Majority of Florida (and Texas) residences have – A/C and window screening restricting Aedes aegypti to “exophilic behavior” ……. – But ……. much of South America and the Caribbean as well as Key West and many areas of SE Florida where we see more “island lifestyle”, making it “higher risk” – And we also see increased risk in SE Florida due to visitors/tourism History: Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus Background (cont.)

• High nuisance species • Why so difficult to control? – Daytime active – Breed/live in very close proximity to humans (access) – Pyrethroid resistance • Historically (pre‐ 2010)…… “efforts” against Aedes aegypti by mosquito control programs in Florida been focused upon public education (media, schools, public events, etc.), very focal premise sanitation in response to resident’s “service requests” and some night time truck spraying (ULV adulticiding) – admittedly more public relations than effective wide area mosquito control • Since “reemergence” of Dengue in Florida in 2009… and appearance of Chikungunya in the Caribbean in 2013 and now Zika in 2016..… Florida programs re‐evaluating available methods and efficacy on Aedes aegypti populations Imported Dengue Cases in Florida 1987‐2015

200 68

160

4 120 22 Imported Case 6 80 Locally Acquired Case 6 27 40

0 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 The Start: Re‐Evaluation of Existing Strategies

• Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) had to respond to the 2009‐2010 Dengue outbreak in Key West (7.5 square miles – 26,000 residents) • Well funded program ($15 mil) with large workforce (60+ employees along the 130 mile island chain) 2009/10 Dengue Outbreak Control Techniques

• Hired 8‐10 new employees to cover a 2x4 mile area. – Source reduction and Education • Repeated sweeps of high‐interest areas Eliminate larvae Residents did not like weekly visits – Aerial larvicides were added in 2010 – Adults • Handheld fogging • Aerial/truck adulticiding not feasible – 15% Reduction in adult Ae. aegypti pop. (pers comm. Mike Doyle)

Re‐Evaluation of Existing Strategies

• At the same time, the Manatee County MCD was also re‐ evaluating their existing Ae. aegypti control strategies • Necessary because ……..most programs have much larger urban areas (as compared to the Keys) and a much smaller workforce and budget • Key factors to remember: Generally an inability to conduct house‐to‐house inspections due to poor accessibility (residents not home, locked gates, dogs, etc), less than 50% success rate… • And poor public response to education Domestic Complaints received by Manatee County MCD June, July, August 2011 •25,000 acre block •Scope of Problem: 2‐person teams; 20min/home; 6hr field day = 18homes per day = 6 acres/day •Need 11.5 years for 2 people to make a complete sanitation operation •Or need 140 employees to make the complete inspection every 30‐days •Cost ‐ $7.0 million in direct/indirect employee costs Re‐Evaluation of Existing Strategies • Manatee County Mosquito Control District (Southwest FL) has an operating budget of $3.5 million and a workforce of 30 (10 field inspectors) to cover a 750 square mile county (50+ square miles urban) with 350,000 residents • Started a more comprehensive “operational evaluation” program (for Aedes aegypti) in 2010 by establishing 8 separate urban areas each comprising 100‐300 acres and containing 15 ovitraps to monitor Aedes aegypti population levels through weekly egg counts (also have smaller populations of Aedes albopictus , mostly <5% of total). • Also included “modified landing rate counts” in some areas to monitor impact of adulticiding on host‐seeking females Re‐Evaluation of Existing Strategies

• Considered all control methods that might provide wide area coverage without the need to access private properties and utilizing existing equipment and techniques – Small droplet larviciding from our truck‐mounted cold aerosol equipment – Ground adulticiding (space spraying) using our truck‐mounted cold aerosol equipment – Small droplet aerial larviciding (helicopter) – Aerial adulticiding (helicopter) • Not considering any “hand‐application” (backpack sprayers) platforms or ATSB, GMO, Wolbachia, or trap‐and‐kill stations since these techniques are labor intensive, slow developing, expensive and generally aren’t applicable to wide‐area population control nor can be rapidly employed in a disease response Artificial Containers More Challenging …..

Truck applications of Larvicides….

CL1 Slide 24

CL1 Chris Lesser, 10/25/2016 Evaluation: Small droplet truck larviciding (2010) • Equipment calibrated to deliver Altosid 5% (methoprene ‐ IGR) at 4 oz/ac and droplet size of approximately 50‐75 microns (Dv0.5)

• Performed all applications post sunset (avoid traffic, public outdoor activities)

• Results: Good/acceptable level of larval mortality in sentinel larvae placed in the treatment area but observed no overall population‐level reduction as compared to control

• Why? Poor chemical coverage due to low/negligible winds at night, particularly in wooded neighborhoods; too many cryptic breeding habitats AerialAerial Applications Larviciding of Larvicides Typical Aerial Larviciding at MCMCD

• Routinely utilized method in treating coastal swamp habitats of our major pest species, Aedes taeniorhynchus, the “Black Salt Marsh Mosquito” • Daytime applications; low level and using a liquid formulation with droplets in the 500‐1000 micron range (0.5 to 1 mm) that deposit very close to the aircraft flight line • Applied to concentrated mosquito breeding • Utilize “environmentally friendly” actives: Bti, Spinosad, methoprene Aerial Larviciding for Aegypti? (2011‐2012) • But could this method be adapted to treat scattered/cryptic container habitats of Aedes aegypti in an urban environment?

• From a “public acceptance” standpoint …. “YES” …….we are already using night‐time aerial adulticiding over many urban/suburban/rural areas from an altitude of 150 feet utilizing both NVG’s and specialized flight guidance systems for accuracy and safety.

• But …… We want larger droplets than aerial adulticides that will “deposit” but small enough that that could move with prevailing air currents and deposit into containers in both open and sheltered areas.

• After much trial/error research, we compromised on a droplet size of approximately 150 microns (Dv0.5) Aerial Larviciding for Aegypti? (vs ground‐based) • With our truck‐based larviciding we were applying the spray cloud into a relatively “motionless” air mass close to the ground…

• …Preventing the efficient spread of the droplets throughout the neighborhood (typically 300‐400 feet between roads)

• With Aerial larviciding released from 150 feet AGL, the top 50‐100 feet of descent time allows for the droplets to distribute themselves for more even coverage to the “habitats” (containers) at ground level. And ALWAYS some wind at altitude. 5 mph at 150 ft 5 mph at 150 ft

REGULAR AERIAL LARVICIDING REGULAR AERIAL ADULTICIDING 1000 micron Droplet 30 micron Droplet from 150 ft (Helicopter) from 150 ft (Helicopter)

5 mph at 150 ft 0.5 mph at 10 ft SMALL DROPLET TRUCK LARVICIDING SMALL DROPLET AERIAL LARVICIDING 150 micron Droplet 50 micron Droplet from 150 ft (Helicopter) From 10 ft (truck) 2011: Efficacy of Aerial Larviciding upon Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (Values Indicate Average # of Eggs & Larvae at 15 Sampling Sites within each group)

180 167.2 Aerial Larvicide ‐ 161.5 Methoprene on 8/16, 8/31 and 9/14; 160 Midnight ‐ 2am 128‐acres 140 130.8

Control 120 110.1

107.1 Number 104.3 99.4 Treatment 94.7 100

91.2 88.7 of

Eggs 78.2

80 and 69.7

66.9 62.2 63.6 64.6 Larvae 70.2 57.0 60.0 60 62.3 64.1 60.5 59.8 60.6 53.8 55.7 52.1 53.5 51.6 52.1 51.9 48.2 34.9 40 29.9 40.7 26.1 25.2 23.1 32.8 31.1 30.5 31.4 27.2 20 24.1 23.3 18.1 9.6 0 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23 5/31 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/5 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/6 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10 Date of Collection 2011: Efficacy of Aerial Larviciding upon Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (Values Indicate Average # of Eggs & Larvae at 15 Sampling Sites within each group)

180 167.2 161.5 Aerial Larvicide ‐ Methoprene on 8/16, Control 160 8/31 and 9/14; Midnight ‐ 2am 128‐acres 140 Treatment 130.8

120 110.1 107.1

104.3 Number 99.4 94.7 91.2 100

88.7 of

78.2 Eggs

80 69.7 and 66.9

62.2 63.6 64.6 Larvae 70.2 57.0 60.0 60 62.3 64.1 60.5 59.8 60.6 53.8 55.7 52.1 53.5 51.6 52.1 51.9 48.2 34.9 40 29.9 40.7 26.1 25.2 23.1 32.8 31.1 30.5 31.4 27.2 20 24.1 23.3 18.1 9.6 0 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23 5/31 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/5 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/6 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10 Date of Collection 2011: Efficacy of Aerial Larviciding upon Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (Values Indicate Average # of Eggs & Larvae at 15 Sampling Sites within each group)

180 167.2 161.5 Aerial Larvicide ‐ Methoprene on 8/16, Control 160 8/31 and 9/14; Midnight ‐ 2am Treatment 128‐acres 130.8 140

120 Effective,110.1 but ….. 107.1 Number 104.3 99.4 94.7 91.2 100

88.7 of

78.2 Eggs 80 SLOW and EXPENSIVE!69.7 and 66.9

62.2 63.6 64.6 Larvae 57.0 60.0 70.2 60 64.1 60.5 62.3 59.8 60.6 53.8 55.7 52.1 53.5 51.6 52.1 51.9 48.2 34.9 40 29.9 40.7 26.1 25.2 23.1 32.8 31.1 30.5 31.4 27.2 20 24.1 18.1 23.3 9.6 0 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23 5/31 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/5 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/6 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10 Date of Collection Truck‐based adulticiding (2013) • Very common technique used throughout Florida mosquito control programs • 15‐20 million acres (6‐8 million hectares) treated annually in Florida • Primarily targeting mosquitoes with crepuscular & nocturnal activity periods • Normally use pyrethroid formulation • High pyrethroid resistance in local Aedes aegypti led to use of Fyfanon ULV (96.5% malathion) at 0.75 oz/ac (maximum labeled rate) and a droplet size of 15 microns 2013: Efficacy of Weekly Daytime‐Ground ULV Adulticide ‐ Fyfanon 97% upon Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (Values Indicate Average # of Eggs & Larvae at 15 Sampling Sites within each group) 200

181.1 76% Reduction during 180 Start of Weekly ULV treatment period per Applications Henderson‐Tilton (control 160 150.2 variation corrected)

140

Treatment 120 Control 1 102.6 97.0 Control 2 100

80 68.8 62.5 59.4 56.1 57.3 54.9 60

39.6 33.1 38.0 40 29.0 27.3 28.1 19.4 20 6.1 0.0 0 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/30 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 Date of Collection 2013: Efficacy of Weekly Night‐Ground ULV Adulticide ‐ Fyfanon 97% upon Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (Values Indicate Average # of Eggs & Larvae at 15 Sampling Sites within each group) 160

145.5

Start of Weekly ULV 140 Applications 68% Reduction during treatment period per Henderson‐Tilton Treatment (control variation corrected) 120 Control

Control 2 102.0 100

84.2 81.5 76.7 80

64.1

60 51.2 48.5 50.1 45.0 47.7 41.3 38.9 38.7 40 27.1 28.7 28.7 24.9 28.0 13.5 20 23.9

0 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/30 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 Date of Collection Truck Applied Adulticides

– Disadvantages: • Slow (only treat a few hundred acres per evening) • Relies upon ambient winds (at the ground‐level) to carry spray cloud (little in nocturnal periods) • Often need multiple spray events in a short window to be effective (1‐2x per week) • Higher public exposure to the spray operations; more complaints (as compared to aerial applications) Efficacy of Aerial Adulticide Applications on Aedes aegypti Populations Aerial Adulticiding Against Aedes aegypti

• We had already shown moderate control at the population level against Aedes aegypti through the use of truck‐based adulticiding with Fyfanon ULV

• Could we improve on those results by utilizing aerial adulticiding (more efficacious, faster response, larger areas, better distribution/coverage?)

• It should be noted that we chose to use Fyfanon rather than our more commonly used aerial adulticide product Dibrom (a.i. Naled) in hopes that the anecdotal reports of irritation to mosquitoes (causing a “feeding frenzy”) would help in getting a higher proportion of the population “up” and flying. History of Aerial Spraying to Control Aedes aegypti • This is not a new technique, having been tried on many occasions with mixed‐poor results

• Studies from SE Asia have generally shown quite good aegypti control via aerial ULV applications (but application rates are much higher than allowed here in the US)

• Studies in Caribbean countries have typically found poor and unacceptable results….. Why? – A poor understanding of the physical process of spray cloud dynamics – “Old equipment” not capable of converting the majority of the spray volume into optimum droplet sizes – Wrong “spray‐on” times A few relevant references:

Andis MD, Sackett SR, Carroll MK, Bordes ES. 1987. Strategies for the emergency control of arboviral epidemics in New Orleans. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 3:125-130.

Bonds JAS. 2012. Ultra-low volume space sprays in mosquito control: a critical review. Med Vet Entomol 26: 121-130

Castle T, Amador M, Rawlins S, Figueroa JP, Reiter P. 1999. Absence of impact of aerial malathion treatment on Aedes aegypti during a dengue outbreak in Kingston, Jamaica. Pan Am Pub Health 5:100-104

Chadee DD. 1988. Landing periodicity of the mosquito Aedes aegypti in Trinidad in relation to the timing of insecticidal space-spraying. Med Vet Ento 2:189-192.

Charles LJ Sr, Davis C, Benenson MW, Pollack MP, Giglioli MEC, Race M. 1979. Notes on the 1977 outbreak of dengue fever in the Bahamas. In: Dengue in the Caribbean, 1977: proceedings of a workshop held in Montego Bay, Jamaica (8-11 May 1978). Washington, D.C, Pan American Health Organization, pp 19-30. A few relevant references (continued):

Chiriboga J, Eliason DA, Moore CG, Breeland SG, Ruiz-Tiben E, Casta-Velez A, Von Allmen SD. 1979. Dengue control during the 1977 epidemic in Puerto Rico. In: Dengue in the Caribbean, 1977: proceedings of a workshop held in Montego Bay, Jamaica (8-11 May 1978). Washington, D.C, Pan American Health Organization, pp 101-106.

Clark GG, et al. 1987. Efficacy of aerial ULV application of Dibrom 14 against Aedes aegypti in San Juan, Puerto Rico. DHHS CDC Dengue Surveillance Summary No. 47, October 1987

Gigliogi MEC. 1979. Aedes aegypti programs in the Caribbean and emergency measures against the dengue pandemic of 1977-1978: a critical review. In: Dengue in the Caribbean, 1977: proceedings of a workshop held in Montego Bay, Jamaica (8-11 May 1978). Washington, D.C, Pan American Health Organization, pp 133- 152.

Hornby JA, Robinson, J, Opp W, Sterling M. 2006. Laser-diffraction characterization of flat-fan nozzles used to develop aerosol clouds of aerially applied mosquito adulticides. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 22:702-706.

Moody C, Bowen-Wright C, Murray J, Castle T, Barrett M, Dunkley G, Watson L, Robinson I. 1979. Emergency control of vectors during a dengue outbreak in Jamaica, 1977. In: Dengue in the Caribbean, 1977: proceedings of a workshop held in Montego Bay, Jamaica (8-11 May 1978). Washington, D.C, Pan American Health Organization, pp 87-92. A few relevant references (continued):

Mount GA, Lofgren CS. 1967. Ultra-low volume and conventional aerial sprays for control of adult salt-marsh mosquitoes, Aedes sollicitans (Walker) and Aedes taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann) in Florida. Mosq News 27:473-477.

Perich MJ, Tidwell MA, Williams DC, Sardelis MR, Pena CJ, Mandeville D, Boobar LR. 1990. Comparison of ground and aerial ultra-low volume applications of malathion against Aedes aegypti in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 6:1-6 . Self LS, Pant CP, Singh I, Noordin R. 1974. Ultra low volume applications of malathion from a large helicopter during an outbreak of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Malaysia. WHO/VBC/74.484.

Self LS, Nelson MI, Thees B, Wiseso G. 1977. A reduction in hospitalized cases of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Menado (Sulawesi), Indonesia, after aerial spraying with ULV malathion to control Aedes aegypti. J Med Assoc Thailand 60:482-492.

Trpis M, McClelland GAH, Gillett JD, Teesdale C, Rao TR. 1973. Diel periodicity in the landing of Aedes aegypti on man. Bull World Health Org 48:623-629. Manatee County: Methodologies –Aerial Adulticide Applications ‐ Aedes aegypti

• Study site in commercial fishing village

• Spray Platform: Hughes 500D

• Treatment area aerially‐adulticided 1x per 2 week interval starting in mid June; and ending on July 30, 2013; total of 4 applications. Each application covered approx. 800 acres

• Adulticide: Fyfanon (97% malathion) delivered at 3 oz/ac through high‐ pressure spray system at 700psi via 9 PJ20 nozzles; VMD = approx 30 microns

• Measured mosquito population dynamics via 10‐Landing Rate Count stations at 2‐day intervals

• “Spray‐On” was consistent at 30‐45minutes prior to sunset 2012 ‐ Aerial Daytime Adulticiding in Cortez Village

Average Mortality = 89.7% 97% Reduction 78% Reduction

94% Reduction Night‐Aerial Adulticiding for Ae. aegypti/albopictus???

Will it work on a day‐active mosquito?

And why switch from a “day‐spray” activity previously shown to be successful?

Aerial Adulticiding in Cortez Village 2013: Efficacy of Night‐Aerial ULV Applications on Aedes aegypti populations ‐ Night Applications

16.0 Aerial applications; 6/20, 7/3, 7/15, and 7/30 Population Reduction: Spray‐On: 30‐45 min after astronomical sunset 6/20 ‐ 98.6% 14.0 7/3 ‐ 86.5% 7/15 ‐ 94.0% 7/30 ‐ 85.9% 12.0 Avg: 91.2%

10.0

8.0

6.0 Landing Rate Counts

4.0

2.0

0.0 13‐Jun 20‐Jun 27‐Jun 04‐Jul 11‐Jul 18‐Jul 25‐Jul 01‐Aug 08‐Aug 15‐Aug 22‐Aug 29‐Aug 05‐Sep Discussion

• The practices of nocturnal aerial adulticiding appears to have a significant population level impact upon exophilic mosquitoes when appropriate droplet sizes and spray techniques are used.

• Not a great deal of observed difference between “evening” (pre‐ sunset) and night (post‐sunset) aerial spray events.

• Would this be enough to truncate a Dengue epidemic or local transmission? Back to the Real World: If we had a Local case of Dengue or Chik ….. What Would We Do? What Technique Would be Most Efficacious?

• 2014 –Evaluated Efficacy of: – Surveillance‐based Aerial Adulticide, vs…… – Surveillance‐based Aerial Adulticides + Aerial Larvicide Applications (think …. “IPM” for domestic mosquitoes)

– Malathion @ 3 oz/ac – Altosid 5% applied at 4 oz/ac – Modified LRC’s used as measure of efficacy Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (IPM ‐ approach)

10.0 A & 9.0 L 8.6 A L L A L

8.0 Larvicide + Adulticide Control COUNT

7.0 RATE

6.0 5.5 LANDING 5.0

AVG 3.8 4.2 ‐ 4.0 3.6 3.4 SIZE

3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.7

POPULATION 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 17‐May 24‐May 31‐May 07‐Jun 14‐Jun 21‐Jun 28‐Jun 05‐Jul 12‐Jul 19‐Jul 26‐Jul 02‐Aug 09‐Aug 16‐Aug 23‐Aug 30‐Aug 06‐Sep DATE Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (IPM ‐ approach) 10.0

A 9.0 8.6 & L A L L A L 8.0 Larvicide + Adulticide

COUNT Control 7.0 RATE 6.0 5.5 89.3% Overall

5.0 Population Reduction LANDING

‐ 3.8 4.2 SIZE

4.0 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.8 POPULATION 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 17‐May 24‐May 31‐May 07‐Jun 14‐Jun 21‐Jun 28‐Jun 05‐Jul 12‐Jul 19‐Jul 26‐Jul 02‐Aug 09‐Aug 16‐Aug 23‐Aug 30‐Aug 06‐Sep

DATE Cost: $34.57/acre (Chemical Costs)

89.3% Seasonal Population Reduction Effects of Aerial Adulticing on Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations 12

10.8 10.3 10 9.6 Adulticide Only L 8.8 & Control A COUNT 8 RATE

6.6 6 LANDING

‐ 5.5 5.4 5.3 SIZE

3.8 4

2.5 3.0 2.7 POPULATION

2 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.1

0 17‐May 24‐May 31‐May 07‐Jun 14‐Jun 21‐Jun 28‐Jun 05‐Jul 12‐Jul 19‐Jul 26‐Jul 02‐Aug 09‐Aug 16‐Aug 23‐Aug 30‐Aug 06‐Sep DATE

Cost: $12.19/acre (Chemical Costs)

65.5% Seasonal Population Reduction Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (IPM ‐ approach) 10.0

A 9.0 8.6 & L A L L A L 8.0 Larvicide + Adulticide

COUNT Control 7.0 RATE 6.0 5.5 89.3% Overall

5.0 Population Reduction LANDING

‐ 3.8 4.2 SIZE

DATE

Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti/albopictus Populations (IPM ‐ approach) 10.0

A 9.0 8.6 & L A L L A L 8.0 Larvicide + Adulticide

COUNT Control 7.0 RATE 6.0 5.5 89.3% Overall

5.0 Population Reduction LANDING

‐ 3.8 4.2 SIZE

DATE Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti Populations ‐ 2013 ‐ 2015 (Myakka, FL)

10.2 10 9.6 9.2 2013 2014 2015 8.5 8.6 LRC 8 7.4 8.1

6.2 AVERAGE ‐ 6 5.7 SIZE

4 POPULATION

0 5/16/13 8/14/13 11/12/13 2/10/14 5/11/14 8/9/14 11/7/14 2/5/15 5/6/15 8/4/15 11/2/15 1/31/16 4/30/16 7/29/16 10/27/16 DATE Effects of Aerial Larviciding and Adulticiding on Ae. aegypti Populations ‐ 2013 ‐ 2016 (Myakka, FL)

10.2 10 9.6 9.2 Avg – 2013 2014 2015 2016 8.6 8.5 8.2 LRC 8 7.4 8.1

6.2 AVERAGE ‐ 6

SIZE 5.7

4 86%

POPULATION 90% reduction reduction

0 5/16/13 8/14/13 11/12/13 2/10/14 5/11/14 8/9/14 11/7/14 2/5/15 5/6/15 8/4/15 11/2/15 1/31/16 4/30/16 7/29/16 10/27/16 DATE Summary • Sanitation –Best “theoretical” approach but doesn’t work in practice due to poor access and poor public participation • (Optimized) Truck adulticiding may be effective in small geographic areas but limited to small scale mosquito control approaches; may have poor acceptability in many residential areas • Aerial larviciding is effective but costly and doesn’t target active vectors • Aerial adulticiding is very effective but gains are short‐lived • IPM – approaches (ie active surveillance + aerial larvicides + aerial adulticide) yield excellent long‐term control Summary (the limitations)

• Most of the operational evaluations have been targeting exophilic populations of Aedes aegypti (exception some USDA/USAF and also at Manatee County)

• And most of these in a non‐disease setting

• However, “Miami Experience” has demonstrated the value of the methods in the cessation of local transmission (get there in a second…..)

• There is great difficulty in educating naïve areas to the safety, practicality and effectiveness of these aerial application methods

• Not discussed at any of the novel control strategies such as GMO’s, Wolbachia infected mosquitoes, toxic traps, ATSB, etc …. because these are slow developing & labor intensive control strategies that don’t easily lend themselves to implementation once local disease transmission has started Zika Experience: Background

 Zika outbreak ‐ Brazil Spring 2015 In US: Domestic Cases 5,109 Travel Associated – 4,813 Locally Acquired –280 (45 sexual, 28 congenital; most in FL, 6 in TX) Special Note: 38,000+ in PR

* www.cdc.gov/zika and FL Dept. of Public Health accessed 3/14/17 Florida/Miami‐Dade

 Florida:  Travel related cases – 1,075  Locally acquired cases – 274 Pregnant Women – 262 (imported and local) Miami‐Dade County:  Locally acquired cases – Wynwood – 33 cases Miami Beach –75 cases Little River –9 cases

Top 4 countries for imported cases: Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Jamaica Travel‐Associated Zika Fever Cases in 2016 as of February 21, 2017

Image courtesy of Florida Department of Health 68 Florida Imported Dengue Cases 2009‐ 2016

Image courtesy of Florida Department of Health, data current as of February 1, 2017. 69 Areas of Active Zika Transmission ‐ 2016

Image courtesy of Florida Department of Health 70 CDC‐Issued Travel Advisories

Image courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 71 Major Activities  Up until this point (2016), the local MCD was geared towards Ae. taeniorhynchus control and some Ae. aegypti (truck adulticiding and hand‐fogging backyards; some localized hand‐larviciding and barrier sprays in response to citizen complaints)  Increased surveillance infrastructure from a handful of CDC traps to 100 CDC and 12 BG traps  Aerial adulticide and larvicide spraying added to program  Truck larviciding added to program  Evaluation of insecticide resistance status  FMEL bottle bioassays Source: Floridahealth.gov/zika

Average Number of Adult Female Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes Collected Per Trap, Wynwood ‐ Miami‐Dade County, Florida, July‐August 2016

Figure courtesy of Likos A, Griffin I, Bingham AM, et al. Local Mosquito‐Borne Transmission of Zika Virus —Miami‐Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, June– 76 August 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:1032‐1038. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6538e1 Vector Surveillance

• Limited impact in Wynwood on the population of Aedes aegypti mosquito vectors from initial ground‐based mosquito control efforts • Aerial adulticiding/aerial larviciding appears to have the most impact • No observed human health impacts after Wynwood spraying • 8 positive mosquito pools in Miami Beach • Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory study showed resistance to pyrethroid pesticides

Data courtesy of Florida Department of Health 77 Distractions Politics Will Zika Reappear in 2017? Look at History….. ◦ Dengue in Key West ◦ 2009 –27 local cases ◦ 2010 –68 local cases ◦ Chikungunya (in southeast FL but mostly Martin County) ◦ 2014 ‐ 510 cases; 12 local infections ◦ 2015 –75 imported; 0 local ◦ 2016 –6 imported; 0 local Case 1 ‐ Disease Response: Manatee County Imported Chikungunya ‐ 2014

• Chikungunya in resident returning from Church Mission Trip to Dominican Republic – Lived in “high income” gated community with strictly maintained landscaping ‐ Inspected about 50 properties in the vicinity with very few positive containers (just a few flower pot bases) –No additional action Case 2 ‐ Disease Response: Manatee County Imported Dengue ‐ 2014

• Dengue in “middle income” neighborhood of widely spaced houses – Inspected about 30 surrounding properties and only 3 found with positive containers, although 1 property was being used as a daycare for pre‐school children and had numerous “toys” –treated that “high risk” premise with residual bifenthrin after hours and also conducted aerial adulticiding of surrounding square mile with malathion Case 3 ‐ Disease Response: Manatee County Imported Chikungunya ‐ 2014 • Chikungunya in resident returning from family visit in Haiti –“Worst Case Scenario” –Low income/high crime neighborhood –transient population, often non‐English speaking, drug dealing, vicious dogs, residents spending lots of time outside …… and lots of water‐holding containers • Inspectors able to access only 10‐20% of properties ‐ Had to rely on aerial larviciding (methoprene) and aerial adulticide (malathion) as only method of mosquito control, despite the obvious need for premise sanitation Current Aedes aegypti Control Measures in the Florida Keys • Door‐to‐Door Work • Added more inspectors • Source reduction • Direct application of larvicides • Handheld ULV applications of adulticide • Education of home and business owners • Aerial Work • Combination of larviciding and adulticiding Key West Ae. aegpyti Catch Rate: 2010‐2016 25

10 aegypti/Trap/Night

5 #Ae.

0 01/02/2010 01/02/2011 01/02/2012 01/02/2013 01/02/2014 01/02/2015 01/02/2016

Key West Weekly House Index 40

30 Inspections

20 Home

10 Positive 5

%Larval 1/3/2010 1/3/2011 1/3/2012 1/3/2013 1/3/2014 1/3/2015 1/3/2016 Key West House Indices by Week 2016

18 Number of Inspections 2500 2016 16 Average (2010‐2015) 2000 14

12 1500 Inspections 10

8 1000 Positive 6

Larval 4 500 % 2

0 0 Key West Aedes aegypti Catch Rate 20 Average (2011‐2015)

2010

2016 15

/Trap/Night 10 aegypti

Ae.

5 #

0 Aerial Operations vs. Catch Rate 20 Catch Rate Vectobac WDG (Bti)

15 Vectobac WDG (Bti) and Dibrom (Naled)

/Trap/Night 10 aegypti

Ae. 5