Amy Wheldrake1, Estelle Guillemois1, Hamidreza Arouni1, Vera Chetty1, Stephen J Russell2. 1. Nonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK. 2. Nonwovens Innovation & Research Institute Ltd, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds, LS7 1SR, West Yorkshire, UK. stephenr@nonwovens-innovation.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. 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. METHODS: Four 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Prequalification 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.
BACKGROUND: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. 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. METHODS: Four 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Prequalification 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.
Authors: Allen S Craig; Mbanga Muleba; Stephen C Smith; Cecilia Katebe-Sakala; Gershom Chongwe; Busiku Hamainza; Batuke Walusiku; Megan Tremblay; Maureen Oscadal; Robert Wirtz; Kathrine R Tan Journal: Malar J Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Kathrine R Tan; Jane Coleman; Barbara Smith; Busiku Hamainza; Cecilia Katebe-Sakala; Casey Kean; Ashley Kowal; Jodi Vanden Eng; Tiffany K Parris; Carla T Mapp; Stephen C Smith; Robert Wirtz; Mulakwa Kamuliwo; Allen S Craig Journal: Malar J Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Lena M Lorenz; Hans J Overgaard; Dennis J Massue; Zawadi D Mageni; John Bradley; Jason D Moore; Renata Mandike; Karen Kramer; William Kisinza; Sarah J Moore Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Dennis J Massue; Sarah J Moore; Zawadi D Mageni; Jason D Moore; John Bradley; Olivier Pigeon; Erasto J Maziba; Renata Mandike; Karen Kramer; William N Kisinza; Hans J Overgaard; Lena M Lorenz Journal: Malar J Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Stephen G Mbwambo; Nakei Bubun; Emmanuel Mbuba; Jason Moore; Kasiani Mbina; Dismas Kamande; Moses Laman; Emmanuel Mpolya; Olukayode G Odufuwa; Tim Freeman; Stephan Karl; Sarah J Moore Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sydney Brake; Diego Gomez-Maldonado; Michael Hummel; Sarah Zohdy; Maria S Peresin Journal: Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis Date: 2022-09-19
Authors: Peter W Gething; Samir Bhatt; Amelia Bertozzi-Villa; Caitlin A Bever; Hannah Koenker; Daniel J Weiss; Camilo Vargas-Ruiz; Anita K Nandi; Harry S Gibson; Joseph Harris; Katherine E Battle; Susan F Rumisha; Suzanne Keddie; Punam Amratia; Rohan Arambepola; Ewan Cameron; Elisabeth G Chestnutt; Emma L Collins; Justin Millar; Swapnil Mishra; Jennifer Rozier; Tasmin Symons; Katherine A Twohig; T Deirdre Hollingsworth Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 14.919