Login | Register
Kazakh National Agrarian Research University ISSN 2304-3334 (Print)  ·  ISSN 2304-3334 (Online)
submit an article
Menu
submit an article
AGRICULTURE, AGROCHEMICAL, FEED PRODUCTION, AGROECOLOGY

ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS

Askhat Tursynkulov 1 , Izbasar Temreshev 2 , Aidyn Yeszhanov 3 , Rauza Abdukerim 4

1 Kazakh National Agrarian Research University; 2 LLP "Kazakh Research Institute for Plant Protection and Quarantine named after Zh.Zhiembayev"; 3 "Institute of Zoology"; 4 «Al-Farabi Kazakh National University»

doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10 pp. 102-111 Admitted 04.04.2023 Published 29.06.2023

Abstract

The article presents data on laboratory tests of the effectiveness of a new biotechnological contact insecticide Actarofit from the avermectin group against Nosopsyllus fasciatus fleas. Fleas were exposed to the drug in concentrations from 0.001% to 1%, while the exposure also varied and was 1, 2 and 5 minutes for all concentrations. Thus, the first signs of the knockdown effect or flea death occurred on average 25 seconds after contact with 1% solution, whereas the range was 16.8-36.7 seconds after treatment. 100% death of fleas in all three series of the experiment occurred already 6 hours after treatment. However, some of the fleas remained alive after the onset of the "knockdown effect", and the "knockdown-death" ratio after treatment with 1% solution was: after 5 minutes – 53.3% and 46.6%, 1 hour – 50% and 50%, 2 hours – 43.3%, 3 hours - 33.3% and 66.6%, 4 hours – 10% and 90%. 100% death of fleas, as a rule, occurred 5 hours after treatment. The issues of possible use of the drug Actarofit in field disinfection and other anti-epidemic measures are discussed. Based on the data obtained, the authors conclude that the limited use of the drug Actarofit in field and village disinfection is possible for preventive purposes, but its use in emergency cases does not seem appropriate in view of the prolonged effect until complete immobilization and death of fleas.

Avermectin, biopreparation, disinsection, plague, fleas, Nosopsyllus fasciatus, ectoparasites

01 Introduction

The full text of the article is available for download in PDF format on the right panel.

02 References

  1. 1 Beugnet F., Marié J.L. Emerging arthropod-borne diseases of companion animals in Europe // Veterinary parasitology. – 2009. – Т.163. – № 4. C. 298-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.03.028
  2. 2 Bitam I. et al. Fleas and flea-borne diseases // International journal of infectious diseases. – 2010. – Т. 14. – №. 8. – С. e667-e676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2009.11.011
  3. 3 Nils Chr Stenseth, Bakyt B Atshabar, Mike Begon, Steven R Belmain, Eric Bertherat, Elisabeth Carniel, Kenneth L Gage, Herwig Leirs, Lila Rahalison. Plague: past, present, and future //PLoS medicine. – 2008. – Т. 5. – №. 1. – С. e3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050003
  4. 4 World Health Organization et al. Human plague: Review of regional morbidity and mortality, 2004-2009: Introduction //Weekly Epidemiological Record= Relevé épidémiologique hebdomadaire. – 2010. – Т. 85. – №. 06. – С. 40-45.
  5. 5 Ващенок В.С. Роль блох (Siphonaptera) в эпизоотологии чумы //Паразитология. – 1999. – Т. 33. – №. 3. – С. 198-209.
  6. 6 Атшабар Б.Б., Бурделов Л.А., Садовская и др. Атлас распространения особо опасных инфекций в Республике Казахстан. – 2012.
  7. 7 Бурделов Л.А., Шурубура П.В., Пак И.Г. Дератизация и дезинсекция в системе профилактических противочумных мероприятий на современном этапе // Пробл. особо опасных инфекций. – Саратов, 1994, № 6 (76). – С. 59-67
  8. 8 Чекалин В.Б., Седин В.И. Итоги и перспективы полевой дератизации и дезинсекции в природных очагах чумы Средней Азии и Казахстана // Профилактика особо опасных инфекций на ж.-д. транспорте. – Ташкент, 1984. – С. 80-82
  9. 9 Попов Н.В., Матросов А.Н., Топорков В. П. и др. Совершенствование неспицифической профилактики в сочетанных природных очагах чумы и других опасных инфекционных болезней бактериальной, риккетсиозной и вирусной этиологии на территории Российской Федерации // Дезинфекционное дело, 2012.– №1. – С. 31-35
  10. 10 Буpделов Л.А., Чекалин В.Б., Пак И.Г., и др. Перспективы полевой профилактики чумы на современном этапе // Матер. межгосудар. науч. конф. «Профил. и меры борьбы с чумой», посвящ. 100-летию открытия возбудителя чумы. – Алматы, 1994. – С. 5-6.
  11. 11 Руководство по экстренной полевой и поселковой профилактике чумы / Комитет здравоохранения Министерства образования, культуры и здравоохранения РК (составили: Бурделов Л.А., Чекалин В.Б., Грюнберг В.В., Сержанов О.С., Кочубей Н.Г., Мека-Меченко В.Г.; под редакцией д.б.н. Л.А. Бурделова). – Алматы, 1998. - 95 с.
  12. 12 Adélaïde Miarinjara, Soanandrasana Rahelinirina, Nadia Lova Razafimahatratra, Romain Girod, Minoarisoa Rajerison, Sebastien Boyer. Field assessment of insecticide dusting and bait station treatment impact against rodent flea and house flea species in the Madagascar plague context //PLoS neglected tropical diseases. – 2019. – Т. 13. – №. 8. – С. e0007604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007604
  13. 13 Miarinjara A., Boyer S. Current perspectives on plague vector control in Madagascar: susceptibility status of Xenopsylla cheopis to 12 insecticides //PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. – 2016. – Т. 10. – №. 2. – С. e0004414; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004414
  14. 14 Adélaïde Miarinjara, Jean Vergain, Jean Marcel Kavaruganda, Minoarisoa Rajerison & Sébastien Boyer. Plague risk in vulnerable community: assessment of Xenopsylla cheopis susceptibility to insecticides in Malagasy prisons //Infectious diseases of poverty. – 2017. – Т. 6. – №. 1. – С. 1-7.; https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-017-0356-5
  15. 15 Бурделов Л.А., Жумадилова З.Б., Мека-Меченко В.Г. и др. Итоги трехлетних полевых испытаний аэрозоля- ции нор большой песчанки (Rhombomys opimus) в ультрамалых объемах. Карантинные и зоонозные инфекции в Казахстане. Алматы. 2014; 1(29):14–21.
  16. 16 David M. Poché, Zaria Torres-Poché, Aidyn Yeszhanov, Richard M. Poché, Alexander Belyaev, Vit Dvořák, Zaure Sayakova, Larisa Polyakova, Batirbek Aimakhanov. Field evaluation of a 0.005% fipronil bait, orally administered to Rhombomys opimus, for control of fleas (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) and phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) in the Central Asian Republic of Kazakhstan //PLoS neglected tropical diseases. – 2018. – Т. 12. – №. 7. – С. e0006630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006630
  17. 17 Зинченко В.А. Химическая защита растений: средства, технология и экологическая безопасность. – 2012;
  18. 18 Попов С.Я., Дорожкина Л.А., Калинин В.А. Основы химической защиты растений./ Под редакцией профессора С.Я. Попова. – М.: Арт-Лион, 2003. – 208 с.
  19. 19 Набиев Н.К., Баязитова К.Н., Мирманов А.Б., Жамбыл Ə.Д. Совершенствование методов борьбы с кровососущими насекомыми в животноводстве // «Ізденістер, нəтижелер – Исследования, результаты». – 2020. – No4(88). – С. 23-30.
  20. 20 Alekseev A., Tyurin M., Khairov K. et al. Characterization and biological action of avermectin granules on the Moroccan Locust, Dociostaurus maroccanus (Orthoptera: Acrididae) //Journal of Economic Entomology. – 2019. – Т. 112. – №. 6. – С. 2663-2669
  21. 21 Temreshev I.I. et al. About the results of laboratory tests of the biological drug Actharophyt on different species of arthropod pests //SERIÂ AGRARNYH NAUK. – 2019. – С. 45. https://doi.org/10.32014/2019.2224-526X.59
  22. 22 Dubyanskiy V. M., Yeszhanov A. B. Ecology of Yersinia pestis and the Epidemiology of Plague //Yersinia pestis: Retrospective and Perspective. – Springer, Dordrecht, 2016. – С. 101-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0890-4_5

Citation Links

[1]2023. ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. Izdenister natigeler. 2 (98) (Jun. 2023), 102–111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10.
(1)ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. Izdenister natigeler 2023, No. 2 (98), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10.
ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. (2023). Izdenister Natigeler, 2 (98), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10
ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. Izdenister natigeler, [S. l.], n. 2 (98), p. 102–111, 2023. DOI: 10.37884/2-2023/10. Disponível em: https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/269. Acesso em: 15 sep. 2026.
“ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS”. 2023. Izdenister Natigeler, no. 2 (98) (June): 102-11. https://doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10.
“ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS” (2023) Izdenister natigeler, (2 (98), pp. 102–111. doi:10.37884/2-2023/10.
[1]“ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS”, Izdenister natigeler, no. 2 (98), pp. 102–111, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.37884/2-2023/10.
“ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS”. Izdenister Natigeler, no. 2 (98), June 2023, pp. 102-11, https://doi.org/10.37884/2-2023/10.
“ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS”. Izdenister natigeler, no. 2 (98) (June 29, 2023): 102–111. Accessed September 15, 2026. https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/269.
1.ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. Izdenister natigeler [Internet]. 2023 Jun. 29 [cited 2026 Sep. 15];(2 (98):102-11. Available from: https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/269
1.ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE DRUG ACTAROFIT AGAINST FLEAS NOSOPSYLLUS FASCIATUS. Izdenister natigeler. 2023;(2 (98):102-111. doi:10.37884/2-2023/10