Hubbry Logo
Mosquito netMosquito netMain
Open search
Mosquito net
Community hub
Mosquito net
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mosquito net
Mosquito net
Mosquito net
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A mosquito net in a beach lodge in Mozambique
Ceiling-hung mosquito netting
Frame-hung mosquito netting
Tent made of mosquito netting
Window with mosquito netting

A mosquito net is a type of meshed curtain or cloth that is circumferentially draped over a bed or a sleeping area to offer the sleeper barrier protection against bites and stings from mosquitos,[1] flies, and other pest insects, and thus against the diseases they may carry. Examples of such preventable insect-borne diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, zika virus, Chagas disease, and various forms of encephalitis, including the West Nile virus.[2]

To be effective, the mesh of a mosquito net must be fine enough to exclude such insects without obscuring visibility or ventilation to unacceptable levels. The netting should be made of stiff cotton or synthetic thread to allow the movement of air. A white net allows the user to see mosquitoes against the background. Netting with 285 holes per square inch is ideal because it is very breathable but will prevent even the smallest mosquito from entering.[3] It is possible to increase the effectiveness of a mosquito net greatly by treating it with an appropriate insecticide or insect repellent. Research has shown mosquito nets to be an extremely effective method of malaria prevention, averting approximately 663 million cases of malaria over the period 2000–2015.[4]

History

[edit]

Mosquito netting is mainly used for the protection against the malaria transmitting vector, Anopheles gambiae. The first record of malaria-like symptoms occurred as early as 2700 BCE from China. The vector for this disease, specifically avian malaria, was not identified until 1897 when Sir Ronald Ross identified mosquitoes as a vector for malaria.[5]

Conopeum or Conopium (Ancient Greek: κωνώπιον or κωνόπιον or κωνωπεῖον) was a mosquito-curtain. It was made to keep away mosquitos and other flying insects. It took its name from κώνωψ, which means mosquito in Greek, and is the origin of the English word canopy. These curtains were especially used in Egypt because of the mosquitoes which infest the Nile. The Scholiast on Juvenal mention that at Rome they were called cubiculare. They are still used in Greece and other countries surrounding the Mediterranean.[6][7][8][9]

Mosquito netting has a long history. Though use of the term dates from the mid-18th century,[1] Indian literature from the late medieval period has references to the usage of mosquito nets in ritual Hindu worship. Poetry composed by Annamayya, the earliest known Telugu musician and poet, references domatera, which means "mosquito net" in Telugu.[10] Use of mosquito nets has been dated to prehistoric times. It is said that Cleopatra, the last active pharaoh of Ancient Egypt, also slept under a mosquito net.[11] Mosquito nets were used during the malaria-plagued construction of the Suez Canal.[11]

Construction

[edit]

Mosquito netting can be made from cotton, polyethylene, polyester, polypropylene, or nylon.[12] A mesh size of 1.2 millimetres (0.047 in) stops mosquitoes, and smaller, such as 0.6 millimetres (0.024 in), stops other biting insects such as biting midges/no-see-ums.[13]

A mosquito bar is an alternate form of a mosquito net. It is constructed of a fine see-through mesh fabric mounted on and draped over a box-shaped frame. It is designed to fit over an area or item such as a sleeping bag to provide protection from insects. A mosquito bar could be used to protect oneself from mosquitoes and other insects while sleeping in jungle areas.[14] The mesh is woven tightly enough to stop insects from entering but loosely enough to not interfere with ventilation. The frame is usually self-supporting or freestanding although it can be designed to be attached from the top to an alternative support such as tree limbs.[14]

Usage

[edit]

Mosquito nets are often used where malaria or other insect-borne diseases are common, especially as a tent-like covering over a bed. For effectiveness, it is important that the netting not have holes or gaps large enough to allow insects to enter. It is also important to 'seal' the net properly because mosquitoes are able to 'squeeze' through improperly secured nets. Because an insect can bite a person through the net, the net must not rest directly on the skin.[15]

Mosquito netting can be hung over beds from the ceiling or a frame, built into tents, or installed in windows and doors. When hung over beds, rectangular nets provide more room for sleeping without the danger of netting contacting skin, at which point mosquitoes may bite through untreated netting. Some newer mosquito nets are designed to be both easy to deploy and foldable after use.[16][17]

Where mosquito nets are freely or cheaply distributed, local residents sometimes opportunistically use them inappropriately, for example as fishing nets. When used for fishing, mosquito nets have harmful ecological consequences because the fine mesh of a mosquito net retains almost all fish, including bycatch such as immature or small fish and fish species that are not suitable for consumption.[18][19][20][21] In addition, insecticides with which the mesh has been treated, such as permethrin, may be harmful to the fish and other aquatic fauna.[19]

An Ethiopian mother with a mosquito net treated with a long-lasting insecticide.

Insecticide-treated nets

[edit]

Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed and tested in the 1980s for malaria prevention by P. Carnevale and his team in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets,[22] and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net.[23] These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes. For maximum effectiveness, ITNs should be re-impregnated with insecticide every six months. This process poses a significant logistical problem in rural areas. Newer, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have now replaced ITNs in most countries and dual agent nets, typically using alpha-cypermethrin and chlorfenapyr, are starting to be used in response to reports of mosquito resistance.[24][25]

Effectiveness

[edit]

According to one study comparing methods to prevent malaria between 2000 and 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa, the combined methods prevented approximately 663 million cases, and ITNs in particular prevented about 68 percent of those cases (around 451 million).[4] It is also one of the most cost-effective methods of prevention. These nets can often be obtained for around $2.50–$3.50 (2–3 euros) from the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and others. ITNs have been shown to be the most cost-effective prevention method against malaria and are part of WHO's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).[26] Generally LLINs are purchased by donor groups and delivered through in-country distribution networks.

ITNs protect people sleeping under them and simultaneously kill mosquitoes that contact the nets. Some protection is provided to others by this method, including people sleeping in the same room but not under the net. However, mathematical modeling has suggested that disease transmission may be exacerbated after bed nets have lost their insecticidal properties under certain circumstances.[27] Although ITN users are still protected by the physical barrier of the netting, non-users could experience an increased bite rate as mosquitoes are deflected away from the non-lethal bed net users.[27] The modeling suggests that this could increase transmission when the human population density is high or at lower human densities when mosquitoes are more adept at locating their blood meals.[27]

In December 2019 it was reported that West African populations of Anopheles gambiae include mutants with higher levels of sensory appendage protein 2 (a type of chemosensory protein in the legs), which binds to pyrethroids, sequestering them and so preventing them from functioning, thus making the mosquitoes with this mutation more likely to survive contact with bednets.[28]

Distribution

[edit]

While some experts argue that international organizations should distribute ITNs and LLINs to people for free to maximize coverage (since such a policy would reduce price barriers), others insist that cost-sharing between the international organization and recipients would lead to greater use of the net (arguing that people will value a good more if they pay for it). Additionally, proponents of cost-sharing argue that such a policy ensures that nets are efficiently allocated to the people who most need them (or are most vulnerable to infection). Through a "selection effect", they argue, the people who most need the bed nets will choose to purchase them, while those less in need will opt out.

However, a randomized controlled trial study of ITNs uptake among pregnant women in Kenya, conducted by economists Pascaline Dupas and Jessica Cohen, found that cost-sharing does not necessarily increase the usage intensity of ITNs nor does it induce uptake by those most vulnerable to infection, as compared to a policy of free distribution.[29][30] In some cases, cost-sharing can decrease demand for mosquito nets by erecting a price barrier. Dupas and Cohen's findings support the argument that free distribution of ITNs can be more effective than cost-sharing in increasing coverage and saving lives. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, Dupas and Cohen note that "cost-sharing is at best marginally more cost-effective than free distribution, but free distribution leads to many more lives saved."[29]

The researchers base their conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of free distribution on the proven spillover benefits of increased ITN usage.[31] ITNs protect the individuals or households that use them, and they protect people in the surrounding community in one of two ways.[32]

  • First, ITNs kill adult mosquitoes infected with the malaria parasite directly which increases their mortality rate and can therefore decrease the frequency in which a person in the community is bitten by an infected mosquito.[33]
  • Second, certain malaria parasites require days to develop in the salivary glands of the vector mosquito. This process can be accelerated or decelerated via weather; more specifically heat.[34] Plasmodium falciparum, for example, the parasite that is responsible for the majority of deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa, takes eight days to mature. Therefore, malaria transmission to humans does not take place until approximately the tenth day, although it requires blood meals at intervals of two to five days.[35] By killing mosquitoes before maturation of the malaria parasite, ITNs can reduce the number of encounters of infected mosquitoes with humans.[33]

When a large number of nets are distributed in one residential area, their chemical additives help reduce the number of mosquitoes in the environment. With fewer mosquitoes, the chances of malaria infection for recipients and non-recipients are significantly reduced. (In other words, the importance of the physical barrier effect of ITNs decreases relative to the positive externality effect[clarification needed] of the nets in creating a mosquito-free environment when ITNs are highly concentrated in one residential cluster or community.)

Standard ITNs must be replaced or re-treated with insecticide after six washes and, therefore, are not seen as a convenient, effective long-term solution to the malaria problem.[36][37][38]

As a result, the mosquito netting and pesticide industries developed so-called long-lasting insecticidal mosquito nets, which also use pyrethroid insecticides. There are three types of LLINs — polyester netting which has insecticide bound to the external surface of the netting fibre using a resin; polyethylene which has insecticide incorporated into the fibre and polypropylene which has insecticide incorporated into the fibre. All types can be washed at least 20 times, but physical durability will vary. A survey carried out in Tanzania concluded that effective life of polyester nets was 2 to 3 years;[39] with polyethylene LLINs there are data to support over 5 years of life with trials in showing nets which were still effective after 7 years.[40]

Scientific trials

[edit]

A review of 22 randomized controlled trials of ITNs[41] found (for Plasmodium falciparum malaria) that ITNs can reduce deaths in children by one fifth and episodes of malaria by half.

More specifically, in areas of stable malaria "ITNs reduced the incidence of uncomplicated malarial episodes by 50% compared to no nets, and 39% compared to untreated nets" and in areas of unstable malaria "by 62% compared to no nets and 43% compared to untreated nets". As such the review calculated that for every 1000 children protected by ITNs, 5.5 lives would be saved each year.

Through the years 1999 and 2010 the abundance of female anopheles gambiae densities in houses throughout western Kenya were recorded. This data set was paired with the spatial data of bed net usage in order to determine correlation. Results showed that from 2008 to 2010 the relative population density of the female anopheles gambiae decreased from 90.6% to 60.7%.[42] The conclusion of this study showed that as the number of houses which used insecticide treated bed nets increased the population density of female anopheles gambiae decreased. This result did however vary from region to region based on the local environment.

A 2019 study in PLoS ONE found that a campaign to distribute mosquito bednets in the Democratic Republic of Congo led to a 41% decline mortality for children under five who lived in areas with a high malaria risk.[43]

Associated problems

[edit]

Malaria and arboviruses are known to contribute to economic disparity within that country and vice versa. This opens the stage for corruption associated to the distribution of self-protection aides.[44] The least wealthy members of society are both more likely to be in closer proximity to the vectors' prime habitat and less likely to be protected from the vectors.[45] This increase in probability of being infected increases the demand for self-protection which therefore allows for higher pricing and uneven distribution of self-protection means. A decrease in per capita income exaggerates a high demand for resources such as water and food resulting in civil unrest among communities. Protecting resources as well as attempting to obtain resources are both a cause for conflict.

Mosquito nets have been observed to be used in fisheries across the world, where their strength, light weight and free or cheap accessibility make them an attractive tool for fishing. People who use them for fishing catch vast numbers of juvenile fish.[18]

Alternatives

[edit]

Mosquito nets do reduce air flow to an extent and sleeping under a net is hotter than sleeping without one, which can be uncomfortable in tropical areas without air-conditioning.

Some alternatives are:

  • The use of a fan to increase air flow.[46]
  • The application of an insect repellent to the skin; this also may be less effective (reducing rather than eliminating bites), more expensive, and may pose health risks with long-term use.
  • The use of indoor residual spraying of insecticides. This was a common practice in the late-20th Century. However, due to an increased awareness of the environmental hazards associated with the insecticide DDT used for some of these programs, this practice became less common. For example - American funding for African programs were cut and the number of malaria-infected subjects skyrocketed. In order to see results from the use of indoor residual spraying programs 80% of homes in the affected area need to be sprayed and the application of insecticide needs to be constant in order to suppress certain species which are immune to the insecticide.[47] Large-scale application results in a dependence on continual spraying. If the aggressive style of application is not maintained then the risk of an increase of genetically-resistant mosquitos increases. This would ultimately result in an unrealistic mediation process.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mosquito net

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A mosquito net is a fine mesh barrier, typically draped over a bed or sleeping area, designed to physically exclude mosquitoes from biting humans during sleep and thus interrupt the transmission of diseases such as malaria. Constructed from materials like cotton, polyester, or polyethylene, these nets provide a simple yet effective form of personal protection, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions where mosquito vectors are prevalent.
Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), especially long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) infused with pyrethroids or other insecticides, augment physical blocking by killing or repelling mosquitoes upon contact, thereby offering both individual and community-level protection against malaria parasites. Empirical studies confirm that ITNs reduce Plasmodium falciparum infection risk by approximately 37% and clinical malaria incidence by 38% among users compared to non-users. Mass distribution campaigns have distributed billions of these nets since the early 2000s, averting an estimated 450 million malaria cases between 2000 and 2015 alone through combined direct user protection and indirect effects on mosquito populations. Despite emerging insecticide resistance in some mosquito species, LLINs remain a cornerstone of malaria control strategies due to their cost-effectiveness and proven causal impact on reducing severe disease and mortality in endemic areas.

History

Pre-modern and traditional uses

The earliest documented uses of mosquito nets trace to , where inhabitants of marshy lowlands employed nets draped over beds to repel biting , as described by the Greek historian in the 5th century BCE.00278-2) This practice served as a physical barrier to reduce exposure to mosquitoes during sleep, predating any understanding of transmission and relying solely on the mesh's ability to block insect access. Similar applications appear in , where nets known as conopea—fine-meshed coverings for beds—were used to protect against gnats and flies, with references in the writings of (116–27 BCE), who noted their role in preventing pest-related ailments. In tropical regions of , pre-colonial communities constructed rudimentary nets from local materials such as cloth, raffia palm fronds, and thin woven fabrics to shield sleepers from insect bites. Groups including the Fulani and Hausa in routinely suspended these lightweight barriers over sleeping areas, providing a mechanical deterrent to mosquito contact without chemical treatments. Ethnographic accounts from early European explorers corroborate this, observing that such nets effectively minimized bites in high-infestation environments, attributing protection to the impermeable weave rather than any repellent properties. Traditional practices extended to parts of , where fine cotton or meshes were draped over beds in regions prone to insect vectors, as evidenced by historical records from ancient and dating to at least the 13th century CE with kaya netting. These nets functioned primarily through physical exclusion, limiting skin exposure and thereby reducing bite incidence, a causal mechanism validated by the consistent reports of lower among users in traveler and local testimonies from endemic areas. Archaeological and textual evidence remains limited, but the persistence of these methods across cultures underscores their empirical utility in insect-prone habitats prior to industrialized materials.

19th-20th century developments

In the , industrialization enabled the production of factory-woven and mosquito nets, which offered finer meshes and greater uniformity compared to traditional handwoven varieties, improving barrier effectiveness against insect entry. These developments coincided with Sir Ronald Ross's 1897 discovery that mosquitoes transmit parasites, providing scientific validation for nets as a preventive measure by physically blocking vector access during sleep, a principle rooted in the mosquito's biting behavior at night. During , mosquito nets saw expanded military application in malarial zones such as the , where British and Allied forces deployed them alongside prophylaxis to curb non-combat losses from disease, though compliance varied due to discomfort in humid conditions. In , mass production scaled up for troops in Pacific theaters, with U.S. Army mandates requiring bed nets after severe outbreaks, contributing to a marked decline in incidence—evidenced by pre-war rates exceeding 100 cases per 1,000 soldiers dropping through combined measures including netting. Early 20th-century innovations included patented framed and conical net designs, such as the 1894 U.S. Patent 508,072 for a collapsible mosquito-net frame that facilitated easy bed attachment and deployment, enhancing practical efficacy by maintaining taut barriers tailored to Anopheles flight patterns and host-seeking habits without relying on suspension from ceilings. These structural refinements emphasized mesh apertures small enough—typically under 1.5 mm—to exclude female Anopheles mosquitoes, prioritizing physical exclusion over chemical aids.

Post-WWII advancements and global scaling

Following the establishment of the World Health Organization's Global Eradication Programme in 1955, which emphasized indoor residual spraying with as the primary intervention, mosquito nets served as an adjunct measure for personal protection in endemic areas. Early post-war efforts incorporated nets alongside spraying, drawing on military trials from 1944 that tested -treated versions against vectors, though distribution remained localized and did not achieve widespread global scaling amid the focus on chemical eradication. By the late 1960s, as mosquito resistance to emerged and the eradication campaign faltered, net promotion persisted at low levels, with indicating physical barriers reduced vector contact but required consistent use for causal impact on transmission. The resurgence of malaria control strategies in the , amid resistance and economic constraints in , prompted renewed trials of treated nets, leading to a surge in distribution during the through NGOs such as Population Services International (PSI) and . Social marketing initiatives, like PSI's KINET project in starting in 1996, facilitated access in rural areas, while partnerships with ministries of health enabled community-based rollout, achieving initial household ownership rates below 10% continent-wide but rising with targeted campaigns. By the late , millions of nets had been distributed via these efforts, supporting the WHO's 1992 Global Malaria Control Strategy and 1993 endorsement of nets as key tools, with designs standardizing toward rectangular forms to enhance manufacturing efficiency and logistical scalability for mass campaigns. Field trials and cohort studies in during this period provided causal evidence of nets' effectiveness as barriers, linking consistent use to observable reductions in outcomes independent of spraying. In , 1985–1987 community trials demonstrated decreased parasitemia and clinical episodes among children using nets, with protective efficacy against reaching 51% for untreated versions in 1996 evaluations. Mid-1990s randomized controlled trials across sites like and reported 20–30% lower parasitemia prevalence in net-using cohorts compared to non-users, corroborated by pooled analyses of observational data showing a 20% relative reduction in child parasitemia associated with household net ownership. These outcomes underscored nets' role in interrupting vector-host contact, though adherence varied with cultural and practical factors, informing subsequent scaling under the 1998 Roll Back initiative.

Design and Construction

Materials and manufacturing

Mosquito nets are constructed primarily from synthetic polymers including , , and , selected for their lightweight nature, tensile strength, and resistance to environmental factors such as UV exposure and moisture. offers good UV resistance and waterproofing but can degrade under prolonged sunlight if not stabilized, while provides high strength and minimal shrinkage after repeated washing, and contributes superior flexibility though with potentially lower long-term durability compared to . These materials are typically processed into monofilaments or multifilaments with deniers ranging from 75 to 150, ensuring a balance between barrier efficacy and . The structure of mosquito nets features densities of 250 to 300 holes per , sufficient to prevent penetration—given their body widths of approximately 2-3 mm—while allowing adequate airflow. Manufacturing begins with the of resins into fine filaments, followed by or these into a fabric using specialized looms that control thread spacing and tension for consistent hole size. Post-weaving steps may include heat-setting to enhance dimensional stability and cutting to standard dimensions, enabling scalable production suitable for bulk distribution. Durability is assessed through metrics such as bursting strength, which measures the net's resistance to tearing under pressure, and tensile strength of individual strands, with guidelines recommending tests that simulate operational wear to ensure physical integrity over 20 washes or three years of use. UV resistance is incorporated via stabilizers in the formulation, preventing rapid degradation in sun-exposed conditions, as polyethylene variants without such additives show accelerated breakdown. These properties allow untreated nets to be produced economically, with bulk unit costs often falling between $1 and $2 depending on material and scale.

Structural variations and specifications

Mosquito nets for beds commonly adopt rectangular, conical, or box-shaped geometries to optimize coverage over sleeping areas. Rectangular and box designs, which feature flat tops and vertical sides, provide greater internal volume and headroom, allowing users to sit upright without contacting the netting, unlike conical variants that taper to a peak and restrict movement. Standard dimensions for double or family-sized bed nets, suitable for 2-4 occupants, measure approximately 1.8 m in width, 1.9-2.2 m in length, and 1.5 m in , ensuring full when tucked under a ; larger variants for 4-6 people extend to 2.4 m or more in and span to accommodate multiple mats. These shapes derive from trade-offs: box forms maximize usable space per fabric area, while conical designs reduce material by concentrating suspension at a single point, though they compromise practicality for multi-person use. Non-bed variants include nets, which form cylindrical or rectangular enclosures around suspended sleeping platforms, and door curtains, consisting of vertical panels hung across entryways. nets achieve near-complete coverage efficiency by integrating zippered or closures that seal around the user, preventing lateral entry points in dynamic setups where or motion could otherwise create gaps; empirical observations note their superiority in over enclosed tents due to the inherent openness of suspension. Door curtains, by contrast, offer partial efficiency for static barriers, with coverage relying on overlapping panels that reduce but do not eliminate ingress unless weighted or tensioned to overlap fully, as loose hangs permit up to 20-30% exposure in breezy conditions based on sealing studies. Framed nets incorporate rigid elements such as aluminum poles, flexible hoops, or wands to maintain structural integrity independent of external anchors, whereas free-hanging models depend on cords or hooks from ceilings or beams. In framed designs, the distributes loads evenly, minimizing deflection and ensuring consistent tension across the surface to block passage through fabric voids. Free-hanging nets require multiple equidistant suspension points to achieve uniform tension, as uneven pull causes sagging—governed by principles of curves where insufficient tautness increases sag depth by up to 10-15 cm under self-weight, forming pooled gaps at the base that insects exploit via probing behaviors. Proper tension in free-hanging setups, often via adjustable cords, counters gravitational sag by balancing forces, enhancing practicality in low-ceiling environments but demanding regular adjustment to sustain gap-free barriers.

Quality standards and testing

The (WHO) prequalification process for long-lasting insecticidal nets mandates physical durability testing to ensure nets withstand simulated field conditions, including 20 standardized washes with neutral soap to replicate domestic laundering. This protocol assesses retention of fabric strength and , with nets required to maintain bursting strength above 150 kPa post-washing per ISO 13938-1 standards, preventing excessive degradation that compromises mosquito exclusion. Physical integrity is evaluated via the proportionate hole index (pHI), a composite metric where pHI = (1 × number of holes <0.5 cm diameter + 23 × number of 0.5–2 cm holes + 196 × number of 2–10 cm holes + 785 × number of >10 cm holes) / total nets assessed; nets are deemed serviceable if pHI ≤ 64, damaged if 65–200, and unserviceable if >200, guiding decisions on replacement. Lab protocols for pinhole detection employ manual counting and sizing under controlled lighting, supplemented by emerging techniques to quantify total hole surface area with greater precision than visual estimation alone. Field wear simulations extend beyond washing to include abrasion and tear resistance tests, such as snag strength per BS 15,598:2008 and hole enlargement per BS 3423-38, mimicking daily handling, tucking, and environmental stressors to forecast longevity. Supply chain analyses reveal that substandard nets failing these metrics—often due to inferior materials or manufacturing—exhibit accelerated pHI escalation, reducing effective coverage duration by up to 50% in operational settings and inflating control costs through premature replacements and diminished program efficacy.

Types

Untreated nets

Untreated mosquito nets rely exclusively on their structure as a physical barrier to deter mosquitoes from reaching sleeping individuals. Entomological evaluations confirm that undamaged nets, when correctly deployed without gaps, prevent mosquito penetration in 99–100% of cases, effectively eliminating bites if the barrier remains intact throughout the night. Field studies underscore their standalone protective value. In a 1996 cross-sectional survey across 48 villages in , children using untreated nets in good condition experienced a 51% lower of Plasmodium falciparum infection compared to those without nets (95% CI: 34–64%; P < 0.001), with even greater reductions (62%; 95% CI: 14–83%) observed in the poorest households. Such outcomes highlight the nets' capacity for personal protection in malaria-endemic regions, contingent on regular inspection and repair to maintain integrity. Their affordability—often substantially less than insecticide-impregnated alternatives—drives widespread adoption in low-resource settings, where they serve as a primary defense for households unable to procure treated nets. from surveys in these areas links consistent use of well-maintained untreated nets to measurable, albeit partial, decreases in incidence among users. Physical vulnerabilities limit longevity, as routine exposure to , , and pests leads to that diminish barrier over time. Nets commonly develop 12–20 holes within 1–2 years of domestic use, necessitating frequent replacement to sustain ; failure to do so allows increased ingress and elevates bite exposure risks.

Insecticide-treated nets

Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) consist of mosquito nets impregnated with synthetic insecticides, such as or , which target mosquitoes through direct contact. These pyrethroids function as neurotoxins by binding to voltage-gated s in the insect's axonal membranes, prolonging channel opening and inducing repetitive nerve impulses that lead to hyperexcitation, , and rapid death. This mechanism exploits differences in sodium channel kinetics and body temperature between insects and mammals, rendering pyrethroids selectively more toxic to arthropods. The contact-kill effect of ITNs extends protection beyond physical exclusion by repelling approaching mosquitoes via excito-repellency and reducing their survival rates upon brief contact with the net surface. Early formulations required manual re-impregnation every 6-12 months to maintain potency, limiting widespread adoption in resource-poor settings. Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), first prequalified by the in 2001 with the Olyset net, addressed this limitation by incorporating pyrethroids into the polymer matrix of or fibers during manufacturing. This binding technique enables controlled release of the , preserving bioefficacy for a minimum of 3 years of simulated use or 20 standardized washes in laboratory tests. Field trials in the pre-resistance era demonstrated that ITNs achieve 50-70% reductions in biting rates compared to untreated nets, driven by combined knockdown, irritancy, and mortality effects that diminish host-seeking success and local vector densities. These outcomes highlight the additive entomological impact of chemical treatment, with personal persisting even as community-level transmission suppression varies by coverage and vector behavior.

Specialized and next-generation nets

Specialized mosquito nets incorporate (PBO), a synergist that inhibits mosquito enzymes responsible for metabolizing and detoxifying insecticides, thereby countering metabolic resistance mechanisms observed in vector populations. Cluster-randomized trials in and during the 2010s demonstrated that PBO-treated long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) reduced parasite prevalence by an additional 44% compared to standard pyrethroid-only nets after one year of use, with sustained superiority for up to 18 months in areas of moderate-to-high resistance.30214-2/fulltext) These nets maintain higher mosquito mortality rates and personal protection even after household washing and aging, outperforming conventional LLINs against resistant Anopheles species. Next-generation dual-active ingredient (dual-AI) nets combine pyrethroids with non-pyrethroid insecticides such as chlorfenapyr, targeting multiple resistance pathways and enhancing lethality against pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes. The Interceptor G2, incorporating alpha-cypermethrin and chlorfenapyr, received (WHO) prequalification in 2020 and recommendation for widespread use in 2023 following evidence of superior performance in resistant settings. Field trials and pilot implementations across reported 20-50% greater reductions in clinical cases relative to pyrethroid-only nets, with Unitaid-supported distributions averting an estimated 13 million cases by 2024 through deployment of over 56 million such nets. Emerging innovations as of 2025 integrate antimalarial compounds directly into net fabrics to disrupt parasite development within feeding mosquitoes, bypassing insecticide resistance by targeting transmission biology rather than vector survival. A Harvard-led study published in May 2025 identified synergistic antimalarial formulations—combining atovaquone and proguanil derivatives—that, when coated onto LLINs, blocked oocyst formation and sporozoite maturation in over 90% of infected , preventing onward transmission even in -resistant strains. These "transmission-blocking" nets, tested in controlled mosquito feeding assays, offer a complementary to -based approaches, with potential for field evaluation in high-burden regions to address stalled declines amid intensifying resistance.

Usage and Deployment

Domestic and bed-based applications

In household settings, mosquito nets are deployed over sleeping areas, particularly beds, to form a physical barrier that prevents bites during vulnerable nighttime hours. Optimal performance requires securing the net by tucking its edges firmly under the or sleeping mat, which seals potential entry points and minimizes gaps through which mosquitoes could infiltrate. This installation ensures comprehensive coverage, as nets are typically used nightly in malaria-endemic regions to protect users for 10-12 hours, aligning with the primary activity period of vector mosquitoes like species. Consistent nightly use of bed nets has been associated with a protective effectiveness of approximately 39% against infection among young children, based on field data from endemic areas where parasite prevalence was measured alongside net utilization rates. In and parts of , household adoption includes cultural modifications such as preferring non-white net colors to avoid associations with practices, though compliance with regular use varies widely across surveys, ranging from 50% to 85% depending on local factors like net availability and perceived comfort.

Outdoor, travel, and agricultural uses

Portable nets, including pop-up and designs, enable protection during and travel in regions with high activity, such as areas endemic for Aedes-transmitted diseases like dengue. These lightweight structures, often weighing under 100 grams, create a enclosure for sleeping outdoors, preventing entry by when combined with tarps or incomplete tents. Users report effective bite prevention through the physical barrier, though efficacy relies on proper deployment and sealing at entry points. In outdoor scenarios, net protection is constrained by user movement and daytime exposure, yielding bite reductions of approximately 20-50% compared to over 70% for stationary indoor applications, as outdoor-biting mosquitoes evade full coverage during non-rest periods. Studies indicate that while nets deter host-seeking near treated surfaces, mobility limits personal protection, particularly against exophilic that bite before . Agricultural applications involve draping fine-mesh nets over paddies and vegetable fields in to shield crops from pests and reduce worker exposure to vectors during planting and harvesting. Field trials in demonstrate that insect-proof nets decrease pest incidence by over 60%, alter microclimates to favor growth, and lower applications, indirectly curbing vector habitats. For laborers in malaria-endemic rice-growing regions like , such netting mitigates biting risks during peak outdoor activity, though heat discomfort often hampers consistent use.

Maintenance and best practices

Proper maintenance extends the functional lifespan of mosquito nets by preserving their physical integrity and, for insecticide-treated varieties, bioefficacy. Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) should be washed infrequently—at most every three months or only when soiled—to minimize wear on the fibers and insecticide depletion; gentle with mild soap in cold water, followed by two thorough rinses, is recommended. Over-washing accelerates degradation, as nets are designed to withstand approximately 20 standardized washes while retaining sufficient insecticidal activity. After washing, nets must be dried flat in the shade to prevent radiation from weakening the fibers or accelerating loss, such as , which can decline significantly with prolonged sun exposure. Direct sunlight drying does not substantially affect short-term concentrations in some tests but risks long-term fabric brittleness and hole formation. Holes compromise the net's by creating direct entry points for mosquitoes, allowing passage even in treated nets where repellency might otherwise deter approach; prompt repair using simple techniques—such as tying knots in small tears, patches over larger ones, or stitching seams—prevents enlargement from abrasion or animal activity. Repair kits, often including needles, thread, and patches, are distributed in some programs to facilitate this, though field observations note infrequent adoption despite awareness. When not in use, nets should be folded neatly and stored in elevated, -proof containers or bags to avert gnawing damage, which contributes to tears and seam failures observed in studies; households with low rodent exposure show 38% reduced net failure risk compared to those with frequent sightings. Field data link such preventive storage to lower overall attrition, where animal damage accounts for notable portions of physical loss alongside abrasion.

Effectiveness

Personal protection mechanisms

Mosquito nets provide personal protection primarily through physical exclusion of mosquitoes from the human host, supplemented by insecticidal effects that induce irritancy, rapid knockdown, and mortality in contacting vectors. The structure impedes mosquito penetration and flight, preventing blood-feeding attempts; intact untreated nets alone can inhibit up to 70% of landings in semi-field conditions by creating a barrier that forces mosquitoes to redirect or abandon host-seeking. Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) enhance this by delivering contact doses that excite mosquitoes (irritancy), causing premature departure from the net surface before feeding, with laboratory assays showing feeding inhibition rates of 80-93% at effective doses (e.g., 250-500 mg/m² pyrethrins or equivalent pyrethroids) against susceptible . Insecticidal components exhibit dose-response relationships, where higher surface concentrations correlate with steeper knockdown probability curves and lower lethal concentrations (LC50 ≈ 124 mg/m² for pyrethrins in susceptible strains, with 95% knockdown achieved at 353 mg/m² after 60 minutes). Susceptible mosquito strains demonstrate rapid knockdown, often with median times (KT50) under 15 minutes for pyrethroids like at operational doses (0.1 g/m²), reflecting neurotoxic excitation and paralysis upon tarsal contact. This irritancy reduces time spent probing the net (e.g., 43-70% shorter feeding durations on Olyset or PermaNet 2.0 versus untreated nets) and ingested blood volume (by ≈22% on average), further limiting vectorial capacity at the individual level. Efficacy varies with net positioning and integrity, as gaps from improper tucking or sagging allow increased mosquito ingress; human landing catch data from semi-field studies indicate higher bite attempts (up to 2-3 fold) when nets fail to seal around the sleeping platform, emphasizing the causal role of complete enclosure in . Video tracking reveals mosquitoes exploit such openings more readily on treated nets due to irritancy-driven persistence, underscoring that physical fit directly modulates contact exposure and feeding success beyond alone.

Community-wide transmission reduction

Insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs), when deployed at community scale, exert a mass killing effect on vector mosquitoes, reducing overall population density and the proportion of infectious vectors, thereby conferring indirect protection to non-users through diminished biting rates and transmission potential. This community-wide suppression occurs because mosquitoes that survive feeding attempts on net users are often killed by contact with insecticides, shortening vector lifespan and limiting their capacity to transmit Plasmodium parasites, with effects extending beyond household boundaries in high-coverage settings. Cluster-randomized controlled trials across multiple African sites have demonstrated that community-wide ITN distribution reduces all-cause mortality in children under 5 years by approximately 20%, an outcome attributable to lowered incidence rather than solely personal protection, as benefits accrue even at moderate coverage levels where effects dilute infectious pools. These causal impacts, derived from randomized designs controlling for confounders, hold independently of universal individual usage, underscoring the role of reduced vectorial capacity in averting deaths from and related complications. However, ITNs alone do not achieve malaria elimination, as evidenced by persistent transmission in regions with coverage exceeding 80%, where residual outdoor biting, insecticide resistance, and incomplete sustain low-level endemicity despite mass effects. Complementary interventions, such as indoor residual spraying or novel insecticides, are required to interrupt transmission fully, as high ITN coverage stagnates rather than eradicates parasite reservoirs in many sub-Saharan contexts.

Empirical evidence from field trials

A 2018 Cochrane systematic review of 21 cluster-randomized controlled trials involving over 92,000 participants across sub-Saharan Africa found that insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) reduced uncomplicated clinical malaria episodes by 38% (rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.73) and severe malaria by similar margins, with moderate- to high-certainty evidence, though effects were stronger in areas of low mosquito resistance to pyrethroids. Earlier meta-analyses corroborated these findings, estimating ITNs lowered Plasmodium falciparum infection risk by 37% and clinical incidence by 38% compared to no nets, but emphasized that personal protection persists even as community-wide transmission reduction diminishes under rising resistance. Cluster-randomized trials in western during the early 2000s, such as a 1996-2001 study in Asembo covering 70,000 residents, demonstrated ITNs reduced all-cause by 17% and malaria-attributable mortality by up to 44% over initial years, with sustained transmission drops in low-resistance settings. However, follow-up evaluations from 2004 indicated waning , as parasite prevalence rebounded to baseline levels within 2-3 years post-distribution without replacements, highlighting dependence on continuous coverage rather than permanent elimination of transmission. In contrast, recent cluster trials in Tanzania, including a 2022-2023 evaluation in Muheza district, showed standard pyrethroid ITNs yielded only modest reductions in malaria prevalence (e.g., 20-30% lower than controls in high-resistance zones), with untreated net prevalence remaining high due to market availability of cheaper alternatives, underscoring diminished efficacy amid widespread vector resistance. Critics of ITN impacts, drawing from entomological data in resistant areas, note behavioral shifts in vectors—such as increased early outdoor biting to evade treated surfaces—which may counteract net benefits by elevating residual human-vector contact outside sleeping hours, though direct trial evidence for net-induced human disinhibition (e.g., reduced caution outdoors) remains limited and observational. Successes persist in low-resistance contexts, but meta-analyses confirm resistance erodes protective effect sizes by 20-50% in high-intensity zones, necessitating novel net formulations for sustained impact.

Distribution and Programs

Historical and current aid initiatives

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and , established in 2002, and the U.S. President's Initiative (PMI), launched in 2005, have spearheaded large-scale distribution of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) as core components of global malaria control efforts since the early 2000s. These programs, in partnership with entities like the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, have facilitated the delivery of over 2 billion ITNs worldwide since 2004, with distributions ramping up from 5.5 million nets in 2004 to hundreds of millions annually by the 2010s. This massive rollout correlated with substantial reductions in burden, including a more than 50% decline in incidence across from 2000 to 2015, during which coverage rose from 2% to over 50% of the at-risk population sleeping under nets. Of the 663 million clinical cases averted in since 2001, approximately 78% are attributable to ITNs and indoor residual spraying combined. Empirical analyses indicate high , with ITN distributions costing $5 to $31 per (DALY) averted in various settings. In recent years, aid initiatives have emphasized next-generation dual-active-ingredient (dual-AI) nets to counter insecticide resistance, with the Global Fund introducing an advance market commitment mechanism via its Revolving Facility in 2023 to accelerate procurement and distribution. This scaling effort targets 2023–2025 deployment, supported by investments from Unitaid and others, which have already prevented 13 million cases through pilot introductions of dual-AI nets from 2018 to 2022. In 2024 alone, Global Fund-supported programs distributed 162.5 million ITNs, including transitioning to these enhanced types for sustained impact.

Logistical and economic challenges

Supply chain disruptions in mosquito net distribution often arise from leakage, where nets intended for free or subsidized programs divert to informal resale markets, fostering illegal trade and reducing intended coverage. The has emphasized the need for strict controls to prevent such leakage to non-target populations, as uncontrolled free distributions can create parallel black markets that undermine program efficacy. Counterfeiting exacerbates these issues, with substandard or fake nets infiltrating African markets and diluting the impact of genuine insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). An exploratory study across three African countries identified the presence and frequency of counterfeit and questionable mosquito net products in retail outlets, highlighting failures in supply chains. In , health officials have been implicated in colluding with hawkers to distribute counterfeit nets mimicking genuine packaging, which erodes trust and effectiveness. Aid-driven models promoting free or heavily subsidized ITNs foster dependency, crowding out local manufacturers and impeding self-reliant production. In , foreign aid for bed net distribution has been critiqued for prioritizing imported donations over domestic industry development, leading to negative perceptions of among recipients and stunting local . Free distributions can bankrupt nascent local producers unable to compete with zero-cost imports, as illustrated by cases where subsidized nets displace commercial alternatives, increasing long-term reliance on external funding. Subsidies distort retail dynamics, escalating donor costs while untreated nets dominate commercial sales due to lower prices. In Tanzania's markets, untreated nets comprised 99% of observed retail stock in recent surveys, reflecting consumer preference for affordable options over subsidized ITNs channeled through separate channels. This parallel structure inflates expenses—reaching up to USD 6.13 per net in adjusted economic costs—without fully integrating into sustainable market systems, as taxes and hurdles further complicate local commercialization.

Impact on local economies and self-sufficiency

Mass distribution of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) through free aid programs has been documented to crowd out local commercial markets in several African countries, diminishing incentives for domestic manufacturers to invest in production of durable, high-quality nets. In Tanzania, for instance, retail sales data from 2021-2022 showed untreated nets dominating the market at 99.2% and 88.3% shares respectively, as free ITN distributions suppressed demand for treated equivalents available for purchase. This dynamic discourages local entrepreneurs from scaling up manufacturing, as shops avoid stocking identical free items and instead offer niche variants, perpetuating reliance on imports rather than fostering endogenous supply chains. Repurposing of distributed ITNs for , driven by economic pressures like and food insecurity, provides short-term income gains for artisanal fishers but erodes long-term self-sufficiency in prevention. Surveys across African lake regions indicate that 27-35% of fishers use ITNs as illegal gillnets, capturing higher yields of small and compared to traditional gear, which boosts immediate revenues in areas like and . However, this misuse accelerates net degradation, diverts resources from health infrastructure, and sustains dependency on repeated inflows without building alternative economic activities or local net repair industries. Efforts toward through subsidized local factories show promise but highlight contrasts between African dependency and Asian maturity. In , initiatives like Tanzania's 2017 net factory and Nigeria's planned 10 million annual production hub starting in 2024 aim to reduce import reliance, potentially creating jobs and cutting costs, yet widespread free distributions have historically stifled such development, leaving most nets imported from . Asian producers, particularly in and , have achieved scale through market-oriented subsidies and export focus, supplying global demand without equivalent distortions, whereas African stagnation stems from aid models prioritizing short-term handouts over incentivized local production.

Limitations and Criticisms

Durability and misuse issues

Field studies on long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) reveal that physical durability often falls short of manufacturers' three-year projections, with median functional survival times ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 years due to tears from everyday wear, improper storage, and damage by rodents or other animals. In remote areas like the Democratic Republic of Congo, estimated median survival was 1.6–2.2 years, attributed primarily to physical deterioration rather than loss of insecticidal efficacy. A Benin study after 24 months found 86.1% of nets in good condition (proportionate hole index <65%), but 13.2% damaged or torn, highlighting accelerated degradation in household use. These outcomes underscore that while nets maintain partial serviceability beyond two years in controlled tests, real-world factors like rough handling and environmental exposure reduce effective lifespan, necessitating more frequent replacements than aid programs often budget for. Misuse of mosquito nets for non-protective purposes, such as gear or room dividers/curtains, further compromises their availability for prevention, particularly in impoverished lakeside communities in . A randomized survey on reported that over 87% of households had repurposed bed nets for at some point, often after receiving free distributions, which directly diverts resources from health use without yielding equivalent protective benefits. Similar patterns emerge around , where poverty and food insecurity drive fishermen to use nets illegally for small-mesh capture of juvenile fish, exacerbating local resource strain. While such repurposing of torn nets for curtains or sieves is widespread post-degradation, primary diversions like occur in 20–50% of cases in affected areas per localized surveys, though global prevalence remains low and debated due to underreporting in broader studies. Critics argue that misuse constitutes inefficient aid allocation, as nets deployed for fishing yield negligible malaria risk reduction while accelerating environmental harms like , potentially offsetting program gains. Defenders counter that in , where alternative materials are scarce, such adaptations represent rational survival strategies prioritizing immediate caloric needs over deferred health outcomes, though evidence suggests targeted education and economic supports could mitigate without prohibiting use. Overall, these issues highlight tensions between net longevity assumptions and behavioral realities, with field data indicating that physical wear and diversion reduce effective coverage years by 20–40% in high-risk settings.

Biological adaptations and resistance

Mosquitoes, particularly species in the genus, have developed physiological resistance to pyrethroids—the primary insecticides used in long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs)—primarily through target-site mutations in the voltage-gated (VGSC) gene, known as kdr (knockdown resistance) alleles such as L1014F and L1014S. These mutations reduce neural sensitivity to pyrethroids, conferring cross-resistance to and leading to survival rates that can exceed 80-90% in bioassays, compared to near-100% mortality in susceptible populations. Resistance has been documented in major vectors like s.s., An. arabiensis, and An. funestus across , with metabolic detoxification mechanisms (e.g., overproduction) amplifying the effect in many populations. Field studies indicate that resistance has substantially diminished LLIN efficacy since the early 2010s, with mortality rates in experimental trials dropping by 50% or more in resistant areas; for instance, in western , susceptibility to fell from over 90% in 2000s collections to below 50% by 2015. This reduction in lethal and deterrent effects allows resistant to blood-feed successfully on net users, sustaining transmission despite high LLIN coverage. Genetic surveillance confirms kdr allele frequencies exceeding 70% in some An. gambiae populations, driven by intense selection from widespread net deployment. In parallel, mosquitoes exhibit behavioral adaptations that circumvent net protection, including shifts toward exophagic (outdoor) and crepuscular/early evening biting, as evidenced by human landing catches showing increased proportions of feeds occurring before peak indoor sleeping hours. In regions with universal LLIN coverage, such as parts of and , An. funestus and An. gambiae populations have altered host-seeking patterns, with up to 40-60% of bites now outdoor or pre-10 PM, reducing net contact and enabling residual transmission. These changes, while heritable to some degree, arise more slowly than physiological resistance under insecticide pressure. Debate persists on whether LLINs primarily drive these adaptations or remain indispensable; proponents of heightened selection argue that high net usage correlates with rising kdr prevalence and behavioral evasion, potentially eroding gains in malaria control. Conversely, empirical data from diverse African settings suggest that even in resistant areas, LLINs retain partial personal and benefits, as resistance has not yet uniformly reversed incidence declines, underscoring their continued role alongside resistance-monitoring strategies.

Environmental and ecological impacts

Insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs), commonly incorporating synthetic s such as or , release trace amounts of these chemicals during routine washing, which can leach into nearby water bodies. Laboratory and field studies indicate that washing ITNs under simulated conditions results in pyrethroid concentrations in sufficient to affect sensitive aquatic organisms, though designed wash-resistance minimizes overall release compared to untreated spraying. s exhibit high to non-target aquatic species, including crustaceans (LC50 values as low as 0.01–0.1 μg/L for spp.), , and amphibians, primarily through disruption of function in cells, leading to and mortality. occurs in sediment-dwelling organisms and food chains, with residues detected in wild-caught from regions with high ITN usage, potentially magnifying trophic transfer and sublethal effects like impaired . Ecological monitoring in malaria-endemic areas reveals broader non-target impacts, including reductions in aquatic invertebrate diversity near ITN-heavy communities due to runoff. These non-selectively kill beneficial and macroinvertebrates, which serve as base-level consumers in aquatic food webs, potentially cascading to higher trophic levels such as populations reliant on prey. surveys in sub-Saharan African wetlands have documented shifts in invertebrate assemblages post-ITN distribution, with declines in sensitive taxa like mayflies and stoneflies, though is confounded by concurrent factors such as habitat alteration. Misuse of discarded or old ITNs for exacerbates these effects, as prolonged submersion accelerates leaching and direct exposure, harming fisheries in shallow s. Empirical risk assessments suggest low population-level threats under standard household use, given dilution in large water volumes, but localized hotspots near sites pose higher concerns. The deployment of ITNs presents trade-offs between substantial human health benefits—such as averting an estimated 680,000 deaths annually—and ecosystem costs, including potential long-term erosion in vulnerable habitats. Peer-reviewed analyses highlight the need for causal evaluation of these impacts, as observational data often lacks controls for variables like or . In response, researchers advocate integrating non-chemical alternatives, such as durable untreated nets or spatial repellents, to mitigate reliance on persistent insecticides while preserving efficacy, though field trials of these options remain limited in scale.

Alternatives and Integration

Non-net vector control methods

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) applies insecticides to the interior walls and ceilings of dwellings to kill or repel endophilic mosquitoes that rest indoors after feeding. This method targets species responsible for transmission, shortening vector lifespan and reducing biting rates, though mosquitoes may still feed before contacting treated surfaces. Empirical studies indicate IRS achieves substantial reductions in incidence, with non-pyrethroid formulations reducing cases by up to 50% over multiple rounds in high-transmission areas like when implemented annually from 2018 to 2021. Historically, IRS with , permitted under WHO guidelines in resistant areas, has demonstrated 50-90% drops in transmission where vectors remain susceptible, as evidenced by control campaigns in and from the 1940s onward, though efficacy wanes with resistance and requires high coverage (over 80%) for impact. Logistical demands include trained sprayers, acceptance, and repeated applications every 6-12 months, rendering it resource-intensive compared to passive tools, with costs per protected person often exceeding $5-10 annually in rural settings. Spatial repellents, including volatile pyrethroids dispersed via emanators or mats, create mosquito-free zones without direct contact, deterring host-seeking females. Cluster-randomized trials in have shown these devices reduce indoor mosquito landings by 40-70% over 8-12 weeks, with standalone efficacy against comparable to topical repellents in semi-field tests, particularly suited to urban environments where outdoor biting limits net utility. and door screens, as physical barriers, similarly prevent entry, with field evaluations in Latin American urban trials reporting 60-80% fewer and indoors when properly installed and maintained, though durability issues like tears reduce long-term performance without regular repairs. These methods excel in high-density settings with accessible or simple installation, but require consistent use and face challenges from behavioral resistance, limiting broad scalability without subsidies. Larviciding targets mosquitoes in breeding sites using chemical (e.g., temephos) or biological agents (e.g., ), preventing adult emergence. In urban , drone-assisted larviciding from 2020-2022 reduced larval density by 70-90% at targeted sites, yielding cost-effectiveness of $1.33-2.53 per person protected annually, competitive with nets in areas with discrete water collections but higher in expansive rural habitats requiring surveillance. Standalone trials in demonstrate 40-60% transmission reductions over 6 months, outperforming nets in flood-prone zones where aquatic habitats proliferate, though efficacy depends on exhaustive site mapping and faces dilution from rainfall or untreated sources. Compared to nets, larvicides offer proactive control but incur operational costs 1.5-2 times higher per intervention due to labor for application and monitoring, with microbial formulations extending persistence to 3-6 months at $0.50-1.00 per treated.

Complementary strategies in malaria prevention

Combining indoor residual spraying (IRS) with long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) synergizes by exposing mosquitoes to s via multiple routes and classes, particularly in areas with resistance prevalent in LLINs. Randomized trials demonstrate that this combination yields 23–65% greater reductions in incidence compared to LLINs alone, as IRS targets resting mosquitoes indoors while LLINs deter entry and biting.00216-5/fulltext) In high-transmission settings with resistance, achieving over 80% effective population coverage through both interventions—via sequential or alternating use—restores control where single methods falter, though sustained impact requires high adherence to spraying cycles. Malaria vaccines like RTS,S/AS01E complement LLINs by inducing partial immunity against Plasmodium falciparum, targeting the parasite directly rather than vectors. Phase 3 trials of RTS,S showed 36% efficacy against clinical over four years in children receiving four doses, with additive effects alongside nets that enhance overall protection against severe cases by layering bite prevention with reduced disease severity upon infection. Integration in pilot programs has demonstrated up to 71% effectiveness against severe when combined with net distribution, outperforming either alone in endemic regions. This approach mitigates limitations of net-based control in outdoor-biting or resistant scenarios but introduces complexities such as vaccine cold-chain requirements and scheduling alongside net campaigns, potentially straining delivery systems and fostering dependency on imported biologics. These combinations bolster prevention by diversifying intervention mechanisms, yielding superior outcomes in resistant or high-burden contexts over nets in isolation, yet demand rigorous monitoring for rotation and boosters to counter waning efficacy and logistical hurdles. Evidence from field studies underscores their role in integrated strategies, where IRS addresses immediate vector density and provide longer-term host resilience, though real-world adherence remains critical to realizing additive benefits.30427-6/fulltext)

Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses

Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) typically cost $1.94 to $3 per unit in bulk procurement, enabling widespread distribution at low marginal expense. Organizations such as the (WHO) and classify LLIN distribution as highly cost-effective, with estimates ranging from $3.93 to $31.73 per (DALY) averted in high-transmission settings, and $3,000 to $8,000 per death averted when adjusted for real-world usage rates. These figures derive from models incorporating empirical trial data on incidence reduction, though they assume consistent net usage and minimal resistance, factors that can inflate projected benefits in uncontrolled environments. In comparisons with indoor residual spraying (IRS), LLINs generally exhibit superior cost-effectiveness for protecting one person-year, at a $2.20 versus $6.70 for IRS, particularly in high-transmission areas where mass net campaigns achieve broad coverage without recurrent labor demands. However, IRS demonstrates advantages in low-transmission or epidemic-prone zones, where targeted application yields higher marginal returns per due to lower required coverage thresholds and reduced reliance on compliance; for instance, targeted IRS has averted DALYs at $7,845 per additional case in modeled low-burden scenarios, outperforming nets when net usage falls below 80%. Integrated approaches combining both interventions can enhance efficiency, but IRS's higher upfront costs—often 2-3 times those of nets—limit scalability in resource-constrained settings, favoring LLINs for aid-driven programs. Critics argue that standard cost-effectiveness models overestimate LLIN impacts by underweighting insecticide resistance, physical degradation (with nets lasting 2-3 years in practice versus assumed 3-5), and misuse such as for , which can diminish by 60% or more in coastal regions. Empirical adjustments for these factors reveal , with resistance eroding against pyrethroid-resistant vectors and misuse accelerating replacement needs, potentially elevating effective costs per DALY by 20-50% beyond optimistic projections. organizations, reliant on donor for mass distributions, prioritize LLINs for their logistical simplicity over IRS or emerging (e.g., RTS,S at median $52 per DALY in some reviews), despite that market-oriented IRS sustains longer-term control in areas with variable compliance.
InterventionMedian Cost per Person-Year Protected (USD)Typical Cost per DALY Averted (USD)Contextual Strengths
LLINs2.2016.8–31.73High-transmission, mass scale
IRS6.70266 (combined with nets)Low-transmission, targeted use

Recent Developments

Innovations in insecticide and durability (2023-2025)

In 2023, the World Health Organization issued recommendations endorsing the deployment of dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), incorporating pyrethroids combined with either piperonyl butoxide (PBO) or chlorfenapyr, to address pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors. These nets feature two modes of action: the pyrethroid for rapid knockdown and the secondary ingredient to overcome metabolic detoxification mechanisms. Field trials and pilot implementations from 2023 onward demonstrated that dual-AI LLINs restored protective efficacy by 20–50% in areas with high insecticide resistance, compared to standard pyrethroid-only nets, by reducing mosquito survival rates and malaria incidence. PBO-enhanced LLINs specifically target oxidase enzymes responsible for metabolizing pyrethroids in resistant Anopheles species, inhibiting these detoxifying proteins to enhance lethality. Bioefficacy evaluations of field-aged PBO-pyrethroid nets in and other regions during 2023–2024 confirmed sustained insecticidal activity after repeated washes and use, with mortality rates exceeding 80% against resistant strains even after 20 washes, outperforming non-synergist nets. Similarly, chlorfenapyr-pyrethroid combinations provided non-pyrethroid backup killing, effective against multiple resistance profiles. Advancements in net durability included improved polymer incorporation techniques for active ingredients, ensuring release over 3 years under field conditions, as validated in longitudinal studies from the New Nets Project extended into 2023–2025. These innovations, including dual-AI formulations, are projected to drive the global mosquito net market from approximately USD 100 million in 2023 to over USD 400 million by 2032, fueled by demand for resistance-breaking technologies in endemic regions. The Global Fund supported scaled procurement of these nets starting in 2023 via innovative financing models to accelerate access.

Emerging technologies and trials

Researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health identified chemical compounds in May 2025 that, when incorporated into insecticide-treated bed nets, kill Plasmodium parasites within mosquitoes upon contact, thereby blocking transmission without relying on insecticides that mosquitoes have developed resistance to. In laboratory tests, two top compounds achieved 100% parasite mortality when extruded into net films at low concentrations, targeting the parasite's life cycle stage inside the mosquito rather than the vector itself. This approach circumvents widespread pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles species, with early data suggesting potential transmission reductions of up to 50% in resistant environments, though field trials are pending to validate scalability amid concerns over compound stability and cost in . Advancements in durable polymers aim to extend net lifespan beyond the standard three years by enhancing resistance to wear from washing and handling. Polyethylene-based formulations with reinforced additives have shown insecticidal activity persisting up to four years in accelerated aging tests, potentially reaching five years under optimal use, reducing replacement frequency in resource-limited settings. These polymers maintain bioefficacy against resistant mosquitoes longer than traditional nets, with prototypes demonstrating 20-30% higher physical integrity after simulated field exposure. However, scalability challenges include higher manufacturing costs and variable performance in humid climates, where hydrolysis degrades polymer-insecticide bonds prematurely. Mathematical models indicate synergies between technologies and improved nets, where gene drives suppressing fertility could amplify net efficacy by reducing vector density. Simulations project 71-98% population declines when combining gene drives with next-generation nets, yielding 60% greater case aversion than nets alone in West African scenarios. Early lab validations of parasite-resistant gene edits in suggest compatibility with net deployment, but ecological risks and regulatory hurdles limit near-term integration, with trials focused on contained releases rather than field synergies. Overall, these technologies promise 40-60% transmission cuts in models, tempered by scalability issues like production logistics and unintended ecological effects.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/prevention/about-mosquito-nets.html
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mosquito-nets
  3. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/php/public-health-strategy/insecticide-treated-nets.html
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3348006/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X21002163
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X21000418
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7370456/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8987077_Did_Herodotus_describe_the_first_airborne_use_of_mosquito_repellents
  9. https://zenodo.org/record/1531748/files/article.pdf
  10. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-015-0700-9
  11. https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/9781487552251.008
  12. https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/1774.2/60905/1/MOORE-SHEELEY-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf
  13. https://highshrink.com/2017/07/31/the-mosquito-bar/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2636258/
  15. https://www.science.org/content/article/mosquito-connection
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4301033/
  17. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1948-7134.2009.00007.x
  18. https://www.armyheritage.org/soldier-stories-information/malaria-in-world-war-ii/
  19. https://patents.google.com/patent/US508072A/en
  20. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth172545/
  21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1724/
  22. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-017-1879-8
  23. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001091
  24. https://www.qicaiknitting.com/news/mosquito-net-buying-guide.html
  25. https://mosquitoscreen.net/blog-posts/nylon-vs-polyester-nets
  26. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i7/IRJET-V7I7372.pdf
  27. https://www.orkin.com/pests/mosquitoes/outdoor-mosquito-nets
  28. https://www.akiropes.com/mosquito-net-making-machine-manufacturer-and-exporter.php
  29. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGV8CV2Oaj_/?hl=en
  30. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102704265A/en
  31. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501705
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7816374/
  33. https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/bulk-mosquito-net.html
  34. https://www.glisglis.net/en/faqs/the-right-mosquito-net-shape/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3527063/
  36. https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/vcp-documents/WHOVC-SP_Deltamethrin_Coated%2520LN%2520_2020.pdf
  37. https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/Mosquito%2520net%2520190x150x180m%2520LLIN%2520PE.pdf
  38. https://eaglesnestoutfittersinc.com/collections/hammock-bug-nets
  39. https://www.curtain-and-divider.com/outdoor-industrial-curtains/mosquito-curtain-enclosures/
  40. https://safariquip.co.uk/pages/choosing-a-mosquito-net
  41. https://www.woodminium.com/blog/different-types-of-mosquito-nets-how-to-choose-the-right-one/
  42. https://mosquitoscreen.net/blog-posts/top-5-mistakes-mosquito-nets
  43. https://entomologytoday.org/2018/12/05/hole-story-how-mosquitoes-seek-gaps-nets-screens/
  44. https://extranet.who.int/prequal/sites/default/files/document_files/Final_Draft_WHO_ITNGuideline_WEB.pdf
  45. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/who_guidance_longevity_llins.pdf
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7001382/
  47. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-025-05324-7
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348612062_Textile_testing_to_assess_the_resistance_to_damage_of_long-lasting_insecticidal_nets_for_malaria_control_and_prevention
  49. https://www.africanconstituency.org/the-global-fund-procurement-of-sub-standard-long-lasting-insecticidal-nets-calls-it-and-african-countries-to-step-up-mosquito-nets-manufacturing-and-quality-assurance-for-health-commodities/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683549/
  51. https://academic.oup.com/jme/article/57/2/503/5585707
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003592030190001X
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10770894/
  54. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/18766
  55. https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB04930
  56. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499633/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692614/
  58. https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-3305-7-208
  59. https://timelines.issarice.com/wiki/Timeline_of_mosquito_net_distribution
  60. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets
  61. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2821%2900216-3/fulltext
  62. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD012776_pyrethroid-pbo-nets-prevent-malaria
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5910376/
  64. https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/104/3/article-p979.xml
  65. https://unitaid.org/news-blog/global-fund-and-unitaid-welcome-who-recommendation-for-insecticide-treated-nets-with-dual-active-ingredients/
  66. https://medaccess.org/our-agreements/agreements/next-generation-mosquito-nets/
  67. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/expanded-use-of-new-dual-insecticide-nets-offers-hope-for-malaria-control-efforts-in-africa
  68. https://unitaid.org/news-blog/new-nets-prevent-13-million-malaria-cases-in-sub-saharan-africa/
  69. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/new-malaria-control-strategy-efficiently-kills-parasites-in-the-mosquito-could-lead-to-more-effective-bed-nets/
  70. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/malaria/applying-new-compound-bed-nets-targets-malaria-parasites-not-mosquitoes
  71. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/slowing-malaria-treating-mosquitoes
  72. https://epidemics.ifrc.org/volunteer/action/37-mosquito-nets-bed-nets
  73. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/avoid-bug-bites
  74. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002081
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995690/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9942310/
  77. https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/537/what-mosquito-nets-can-be-used-while-camping
  78. https://envirobug.com.au/blogs/envirobug-blog/keeping-mosquitos-away-using-mosquito-nets
  79. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820646116
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2829902/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5397833/
  82. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00047/full
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6305117/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5120485/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3080352/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7144236/
  87. https://ncvbdc.mohfw.gov.in/WriteReadData/l892s/Guidelines-for-ITNS-LLINS.pdf
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X22000279
  89. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-13-322
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5275399_Evaluation_of_the_effects_of_repeated_hand_washing_sunlight_smoke_and_dirt_on_the_persistence_of_deltamethrin_on_insecticide-treated_nets
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23953160_The_effects_of_different_drying_methods_and_sun_exposure_on_the_concentrations_of_deltamethrin_in_nets_treated_with_K-O_TabR_tablets
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63968-y
  93. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-13-435
  94. https://thecompassforsbc.org/project-examples/do-not-wait-small-holes-your-mosquito-net-get-bigger-repair-holes-immediately
  95. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-024-04989-w
  96. https://d-nb.info/1229073221/34
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348610620_The_causes_of_holes_and_loss_of_physical_integrity_in_long-lasting_insecticidal_nets
  98. https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/doseeffects-of-bednets-impregnated-with-a-natural-pyrethrins-formulation-persistence-feeding-inhibition-and-wash-resistance-against-anopheles-gambiae-ss-2090-2778.1000101.pdf
  99. https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-022-05220-y
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7334894/
  101. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35958-z
  102. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13392
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4228892/
  104. https://files.givewell.org/files/Cause1-2/%2BAmerican%2520Red%2520Cross/53-0196605%2520CAUSE%25201%2520Attachment%2520Korenromp%25202003.pdf
  105. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/223/Supplement_2/S55/6255900
  106. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000363.pub3/full
  107. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001619
  108. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198845
  109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15173148/
  110. https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002586
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10910777/
  112. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets/insecticide-resistance-malaria-control
  113. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-trump-administrations-foreign-aid-review-status-of-the-presidents-malaria-initiative-pmi/
  114. https://beatmalaria.org/blog/celebrating-the-distribution-of-2-billion-life-saving-mosquito-nets/
  115. https://www.malarianomore.org/story/malaria-no-more-proud-of-its-contribution-to-the-global-milestone-of-2-billion-insecticide-treated-mosquito-nets-delivered-since-2004
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4901420/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5968369/
  118. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets/2009-report
  119. https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/news/2023/2023-08-22-global-fund-announces-new-mechanism-increase-access-more-effective-mosquito-nets-prevent-malaria/
  120. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/2vld4oal/core_2025-results_report_en.pdf
  121. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/ykqnxfzt/core_2025-results_annex_en.pdf
  122. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/mal-ITNinterventions_en.pdf
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10552209/
  124. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/145614-investigation-nigerian-health-officials-connive-hawkers-steal-counterfeit-mosquito-nets.html
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263277261_Foreign_Aid_and_Self-Reliance_in_Post-_Socialist_Tanzania_The_Case_of_the_Distribution_of_Mosquito_Bed_Nets
  126. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HkpYyr93P2j5R5Go7/does-anti-malaria-charity-destroy-the-local-anti-malaria
  127. https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/10/6/175
  128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5571666_Costs_and_effects_of_the_Tanzanian_national_voucher_scheme_for_insecticide-treated_nets
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3224907/
  130. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-023-04726-9
  131. https://www.ram-global.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Source-of-Mosquito-Nets-Report-Africa-2019-.pdf
  132. https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/impact-of-mosquito-nets-on-fisheries/
  133. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets/fishing-with-insecticide-treated-nets
  134. https://ccp.jhu.edu/2019/01/07/poverty-food-insecurity-mosquito-net-misuse-lake-malawi/
  135. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/how-a-factory-in-tanzania-is-saving-lives-and-boosting-economies/
  136. https://guardian.ng/news/malaria-nigeria-to-produce-10-million-mosquito-nets-annually/
  137. https://africa.peacelink.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_12172.html
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4759777/
  139. https://ccp.jhu.edu/2020/06/01/malaria-net-durability-mosquito-behavior-geography/
  140. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-69
  141. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346268441_Assessment_of_the_Durability_and_Bio-effectiveness_of_Three_Long-Lasting_Insecticidal_Nets_in_Three_Different_Communities_After_the_2017_Mass_Net_Distribution_Campaign_in_Benin
  142. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2952-2
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4198669/
  144. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-020-03342-1
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3075220/
  146. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets/estimating-equivalent-coverage-years-for-LLINs
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3221647/
  148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X22000322
  149. https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-015-0946-7
  150. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41952-2
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11507339/
  152. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022574
  153. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/21/12/15-0814_article
  154. https://elifesciences.org/articles/16090
  155. https://academic.oup.com/jme/article/40/6/985/839128
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10433675/
  157. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/206/10/1622/858634
  158. https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-023-06065-9
  159. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96759-w
  160. https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-018-3101-4
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4571732/
  162. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1609889113
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7793550/
  164. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765723000480
  165. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7001
  166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348342405_Implications_of_Insecticide-Treated_Mosquito_Net_Fishing_in_Lower_Income_Countries
  167. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195808
  168. https://www.pscouncil.org/a/Member_Spotlight/2024/Assessing%2520the%2520Impacts%2520of%2520Mosquito%2520Net%2520Fishing%2520in%2520Malawi.aspx
  169. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/php/public-health-strategy/irs-strategies.html
  170. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.11.23288261v1.full-text
  171. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9308352/
  172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396425003354
  173. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35737833/
  174. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06998-z
  175. https://www.ivcc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/An-Expert-Review-of-Spatial-Repellents-for-Mosquito-Control.pdf
  176. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-023-04713-0
  177. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.18.22280065v1.full.pdf
  178. https://research.unsw.edu.au/projects/efficacy-and-cost-effectiveness-long-lasting-microbial-larvicides-malaria-mosquito-control
  179. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001630
  180. https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/8/10/475
  181. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-10-208
  182. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22144448/
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7227679/
  184. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1515257
  185. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/everything-you-need-know-about-malaria-vaccine
  186. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X20305119
  187. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24736370/
  188. https://www.unicef.org/supply/media/13951/file/LLIN-Market-and-Supply-Update-October-2022.pdf
  189. https://www.texilajournal.com/thumbs/article/15_TJ3557.pdf
  190. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001706X19306655
  191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3229472/
  192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673621002518
  193. https://resource-allocation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12962-024-00598-1
  194. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2625363/
  195. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/rxTPv3MdrsHiqK7kM/money-population-and-insecticide-resistance-why-malaria
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5877091/
  197. https://www.1daysooner.org/cost-effectiveness-of-malaria-interventions-a-systematic-review/
  198. https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/96/6/article-p1430.xml
  199. https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005935
  200. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-03-2023-who-publishes-recommendations-on-two-new-types-of-insecticide-treated-nets
  201. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X2400058X
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X24000475
  203. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.24.25336605v1.full.pdf
  204. https://dataintelo.com/report/mosquito-net-market
  205. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j554pgjgko
  206. https://phys.org/news/2025-05-malaria-source-drug-nets-parasites.html
  207. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-023-04832-8
  208. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59172-7
  209. https://targetmalaria.org/virtual-press-room/press-releases/new-mathematical-modelling-study-demonstrates-gene-drives-could-boost-malaria-control-when-added-to-intervention-packages-including-new-bed-nets-and-vaccines/
  210. https://www.science.org/content/article/controversial-gene-drive-strategy-could-make-mosquitoes-hostile-malaria-parasites
  211. https://genedrivenetwork.org/blog/predicting-the-potential-of-gene-drives-in-mosquitoes-to-control-malaria-in-west-africa-with-mathematical-models/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.