Conventional and Advanced Strategies for Mosquito Management

#### **Chapter 2**

## Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management

*Zeeshan Javed, Saira Mansha, Usama Saleem, Asad Mangat, Bilal Rasool, Muhammad Imran, Amna Batool, Mashal Shahzadi, Tehreem Raza, Danish Riaz and Muhammad Asrar*

#### **Abstract**

As the global human and animal population increases, deadly pathogens and parasites may be transmitted by arthropods. There are a number of vectors that pose a threat to human health due to their role in transmitting dangerous pathogens, including mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). The most important drawback of these products is the incidence of insecticide resistance, which has increased rapidly in recent years. New approaches and vector-control tools targeting aquatic stages and adults are urgently needed. The three main mosquito genera, *Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex,* transmit the causative agents of numerous important diseases to humans as well as animals. A technique that involves the use of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes for the purpose of vector control is another potential option. Other best ways to control the mosquito are by chemical, biological and genetic means.

**Keywords:** populations, pandemic, pathogens, approaches, causative

#### **1. Introduction**

There are several causes that contribute to the close relationship between fauna and flora in the globe today, including population expansion and the development of transportation networks. These variables break down biogeographic boundaries and lead to the initial occurrence of species in new environments [1]. Damage caused by these species in the Americas is estimated to be in the neighborhood of \$120 billion each year [2]. Arthropods may spread deadly infections and parasites [3]. Epidemics and pandemics present a risk to the world's growing human and animal populations [4]. It is important to note that mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) are considered the most harmful vector because of their involvement in the transfer of deadly infections [5]. As a result of commerce and travel, essential mosquito species are being introduced to new environments [6, 7]. Commercially accessible chemical compounds, employed for mosquito management, are often toxic to human beings imparting major skin and nervous system issues, such as rashes, swelling, or eye irritation [8]. Since pesticide resistance has been on the rise in recent years [9], treating mosquito breeding is exceedingly difficult or impossible, as these products pose a serious problem. Thus, the need for new vector control techniques and instruments that target aquatic stages and adults is critical [10]. Currently available information about mosquito-borne illnesses, as well as the most recent statistics on their reappearance, are discussed in this chapter, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the management methods currently in practice. For biological control of mosquito-borne illnesses, new inventive alternatives are recognized but seldom used, others that are not employed at all, and rest are in the test or design phase.

Mosquitoes of the three major genera *Anopheles*, *Aedes*, and *Culex* spread the pathogens that cause a wide range of serious illnesses in both people and animals [11]. There has been an increase in the number of mosquito-borne diseases that have a significant influence on human health.

As the most common parasite illness of humans, malaria, transmitted by *Anopheles* sp. is prevalent in more than 80 countries, with the majority of cases and fatalities occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 85 percent of cases and 90 percent of deaths occur, largely in children under 5 years old (**Figure 1**). There have been 228 million cases of malaria at the globe level, with 93% of them occurring in Africa alone, and recent epidemics have decimated several places [12].

Many mosquito species transmit *Wuchereria bancrofti* and *Brugia spp*., leading to lymphatic filariasis which produce diverse clinical symptoms (25 million men with hydrocele and over 15 million individuals with lymphoedema), and at least 36 million people continue to have these long-lasting illness manifestations. It is apparent, however, that eradicating lymphatic filariasis is not achievable without managing the vectors of this disease.

Likewise, *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (**Figure 2**) transmit dengue, yellow fever, Chikungunya Zika, etc. in human beings. The dengue virus (DENV), containing four unique serotypes, belong to the Family Flaviviridae [13]. With 3.6 billion people living in places at risk of transmission and hundreds of millions of cases of dengue fever recorded each year [14], it is now the most common arthropod-borne viral illness affecting humans [15].

**Figure 1.** *Anopheles gambiae: (A) larvae, (B) pupa, and (C) adult.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Aedes albopictus: (A) larvae, (B) pupa, and (C) adult.*

Zika virus (ZIKV) also belonging to Flaviviridae causes frequent disease outbreaks in numerous Latin American and Pacific nations (**Figure 3**) [16]. *A. albopictus* is the major and secondary vectors of ZIKV epidemics [17]. In addition, a number of other species are also implicated in the fast spread of this virus. It is now regarded as one of the most significant public health threats [18, 19].

Antalgic stance gait and acute articular pain are hallmarks of chikungunya fever (CHIF) caused by the Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) (**Figure 3**). The 1.4 percent to 90 percent of infected individuals often progress to the chronic stage (52 percent in the American continent). Several nations have lately had outbreaks of the disease [20].

#### **Figure 3.**

*Cartography of significant resurgences of mosquito-borne diseases worldwide (until September 2019). It presents outbreaks and cases of malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunya fever, and Zika fever between 2017 and 2019. The figure clearly illustrates their resurgence in most tropical countries. There are several northern countries where the competent vector has become established, which may allow local transmission.*

Apart from these diseases, the hemorrhagic and possibly deadly RNA virus, Flaviviridae [21], causes more diseases and generates more epidemics in various countries, particularly in unprotected populations [21]. A new epidemic usually appears every 7–10 years or so [22]. More than half the YFV (Yellow Fever Virus)-endemic nations in the world are located in Africa, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Numerous outbreaks have been reported, with a death rate of up to 33.6% [23]. Roughly 70 to 90 million doses of vaccines are manufactured each year across the globe, making it the most cost-effective and safe method of preventing YF.

According to the World Health Organization, around 67,000 people per year are infected with *Culex*-borne Japanese encephalitis, 20 percent to 30 percent of whom die, and 30 to 50 percent of those who survive have major neurological consequences. As previously mentioned, new strains that are genetically similar to those implicated in prior epidemics have been discovered [24]. Louis encephalitis virus was the primary arbovirus cause of epidemic encephalitis in the United States [25]. Numerous people have been struck down by it in the last few years [26].

Similar to humans, horses are the domesticated animal most frequently infected by the West Nile virus transmitted by *Culex* (**Figure 4**). Eighty percent of cases are asymptomatic, neurological signs are the most frequently reported symptom, and 90 percent of those infected with the virus go on to develop clinical symptoms. The mortality rate for infected horses may reach 30 percent [24]. In spite of this, recent cases of human epidemics have been documented [25].

It is common to find different harmful blood-borne bacteria in mosquitoes [27]. It is not yet known whether the existence of these bacteria in mosquitoes may be attributed to their infrequent consumption of blood meals or environmental acquisition, or if they can grow and ultimately transmit during blood meals. Various pathogenic alpha-proteobacteria, such as *Anaplasma species*, *Ehrlich species*, *Candidatus neoehrlich species*, *Bartonella species*, and *Rickettsia species*, have been discovered in adult mosquitoes (xeno-monitoring studies) [28]. More intriguingly, laboratory tests have shown

**Figure 4.** *Culex pipiens: (A) larvae, (B) pupa, and (C) adult.*

that the agent of febrile rickettsiosis, *Rickettsia felis*, may be transmitted by *Anopheles* mosquitoes [29]. *Francisella tularensis* is the first known mosquito-borne bacteria since it is also transmitted by mosquitoes (*Aedes*), the primary vector in Sweden and Finland [30].

Inadequate vector-control efforts, limited access to quality healthcare, rapid and unplanned urbanization of tropical regions coupled with unsanitary conditions, a deterioration of public health infrastructures, and a number of complex factors, including population growth, globalisation of the economy, international travel (recreational, business, and military), may explain the spread of these diseases in the region. All of these factors are connected to climate change [31]. The misuse of insecticides and the development of resistance, however, continue to be the primary contributing causes.

#### **2. Mosquito control**

Controlling the mosquito vectors that spread the major diseases is an important part of global initiatives to get rid of and control diseases. If these initiatives are successful, they can lead to a huge drop in the number of diseases around the world. However, various problems are associated with the vector control measures, which are discussed below.

The prevalence of pesticide resistance among vectors is a major obstacle that prevents the proper implementation of vector control measures [32]. Adult vector mosquitoes may be particularly difficult to manage if insecticides are no longer effective, leading to serious implications for human health. Another issue is the wide range of mosquito susceptibilities to various pesticides [33]. Malaria has been reduced by the use of ITNs (Insecticide-treated bed nets) and IRS (Indoor Residual Sprays) but insecticide resistance and the inability to maintain these treatments might have the inverse effect. Some ITNs and IRS approaches have shown potential in malaria control, but are restricted in dengue control because of the ecology of *Anopheles* and *Aedes* mosquitoes. The enormous variety of vectors and the changing behavior of mosquitoes are a few more obstacles to overcome. In addition, rising urbanization and climate change [24] might have an unanticipated and significant effect on the distribution of vectors, creating new challenges for vector management strategies [34–36].

In addition to this, other challenges in the implementations of vector control initiatives include issues arising in prevention strategies such as a limited amount of funds or fair distribution of funds for vector control. These are just some of the challenges that are associated with the implementation of vector control programs. It is also possible for the vector control interventions to be weakened if there is a lack of effective monitoring methods relevant to pesticide resistance and the behavior of vectors. In addition, the absence of cooperation between governmental and nongovernmental groups may have an impact on the vector control operations that are carried out. Migration of both people and products presents difficulties in terms of both disease emergence and vector control [37].

Although the approaches to eradicate mosquito-breeding places are very successful, they are not practicable in locations with intermittent water supply and if these methods are not applied at the grass-root level, the efficiency of these strategies is impaired [38]. For example, kerosene oil and chemical larvicides are excellent in killing larvae, but this method has a big drawback of being harmful to the environment. Similarly, application of the soil bacteria *Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis* (Bti)

though effective, but works only on the larval stages and therefore using Bti is not a viable option for controlling larval populations. Further, Bti has been proven to have an influence on food chains and led to other environmental consequences in recent research [39, 40]. Likewise, the introduction of *Tilapia* and mosquito fish into the ecosystems without the use of a controlled ecosystem might potentially result in harmful environmental impacts.

The harmful effects of these chemical larvicides necessitate that the World Health Organization (WHO) understands and assesses the development of new vector control products before they are used in the field. Consequently, a variety of various vector control tactics and research are addressed below, such as the release of sterile insects by irradiation, the use of *Wolbachia* and gene-drive technologies, etc. Public acceptance and regulatory approval need a detailed risk assessment and significant stakeholder input.

While using genetically modified organisms, these kinds of hurdles are obviously far greater than they are for purely biological control methods like use of *Wolbachia*. Second, the implementation of these treatments will put enormous selection pressures, which might lead to the development of resistance in either the target pathogen (in the case of *Wolbachia* or vector competence gene drive constructs) or the vector (for population suppression genetic constructs and possibly *Wolbachia*). In addition, the long-term phenotypic stability of *Wolbachia* in *Ae. aegypti* is yet unclear at this time [41].

A technique that involves the use of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes for the purpose of vector control is another potential option. This method has various benefits, such as the fact that it is non-toxic and prevents the use of chemical pesticides. However, the use of genetically modified mosquitoes raises a number of ethical difficulties. In addition to this, it is necessary to take into mind the possible influence that these creatures may have on the surrounding ecosystem [42]. In addition, the process of creating genetically modified mosquitoes is highly pricey and may not be feasible for economically disadvantaged endemic nations. Thus, the World Health Organization (WHO) advises and urges more field tests and risk assessments to determine how effective this method is in preventing the spread of disease [43].

Recently, the environmentally friendly production of nanoparticles has developed as an approach for vector control that is both easy and efficient in its use. The largescale synthesis and its potential effects on the environment are, however, subject to a number of restrictions. In addition, there is a significant divide between the implications that may be theoretically drawn from this technology and those that can be drawn from its actual use. In addition, there is a very limited amount of data available about the effect that these nanoparticles have on other aquatic creatures [44]. A good number of these nanoparticles have been subjected to acute toxicity testing on nontarget creatures or on other aquatic organisms that live in the same biological niche as vector mosquitoes.

The presence of high-transmission hotspots and heterogeneity both make the task of mosquito management more difficult; yet, it is possible that the task of control in low-transmission regions will be simpler than was originally anticipated based on geographically inaccurate transmission intensity forecasts [45].

Making the most of limited resources (especially in low-income regions) in order to achieve the greatest possible improvement in public health is going to be another one of the most challenging tasks. Extrapolation of clinical trial data to forecast population effect of each intervention in a wider variety of contexts and in conjunction

*Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107364*

with other control methods would require rigorous epidemiological research and mathematical modelling to ensure such optimal deployment. In addition, stringent monitoring and evaluation are necessary in order to determine whether therapies are beneficial in actual practice [36]. Meanwhile, the political commitment and implementation of collaborative vector control techniques are the keys to achieving the aim of vector control and, as a result, lowering the risk of disease transmission and making a contribution to the elimination of disease.

#### **3. Alternative strategies for mosquito control**

As many as 4 billion people are at danger of dengue virus transmission alone, despite our best attempts to manage vector-borne disease outbreaks using present intervention strategies. Because of this, new tactics for mosquito vector management must be devised in light of the current situation. With the fast rise in pesticide resistance and its harmful effects on non-target species, new methods for mosquito control are needed.

#### **3.1 Repellents of the physical environment**

To prevent interaction between people and the vector, the repellent compounds function in the vapor phase to make the area undesirable for the insect. Using this strategy, mosquitoes will be diverted to non-human hosts, reducing the damaging effects of pesticides on people and other non-target organisms, as a result. Instead of killing the insect, the repellents aim to keep it from biting humans [46]. New active chemical components can be used to change the typical behavior of the vectors and boost this method's effectiveness. Currently, there is no indication that this practice has any effect on the population. However, many hurdles must be overcome before spatial repellents may be used as a tool in vector management, as they cost too much money. Also, these repellents need the usage of power, which makes them unsuitable for places with a high transmission rate in less developed areas. If these deterrents are to be easily included into vector control programs, their cost must be comparable to that of IRS or LLINs (Long lasting insecticidal nets) [47].

Allethrin (Therma CELL) and metofluthrin (OFF! clip-ons or lamps) emanators have been tested in several early field trials for their efficiency as spatial repellents and have been found to provide more than 70% protection [48]. In push-pull systems, the application of these deterrents eventually aids in the mosquito's push towards the baited traps. Some of these trials involved the use of various repellents like as PMD, catnip oil, and delta-undecalactone.

#### **3.2 Use of repellents derived from plants**

Plant-based "natural" smelling insect repellents are now extensively used over the world since they are considered safe and effective. Many plant volatiles are effective insect deterrents and repellents due to their high vapor toxicity. Compounds present in most plants protect them from phytophagous (plant-eating) insects from being eaten. Among the compounds utilized are repellents, growth regulators, poisons, and feeding deterrents [49]. Alkaloids, terpenoids, proteinase inhibitors and phenolic compounds are among the greatest examples of secondary metabolites in plants which defend the plants. Currently, the volatile components produced by herbivory

are well known for their capacity to repel mosquitoes and other biting pests. Insects detect volatile scents with the help of sensory neurons (ORNs), which are typically located on the antennae and maxillary palps of insects, and are equipped with odorant receptor (OR) proteins [50].

Many people have known for millennia that lemon eucalyptus has insect repellent properties. Essential oils containing 85 percent citronellal are far more effective than water in keeping mosquitoes away for long periods. The low vapor pressure of one of its ingredients, para-menthane-3, 8-diol, on the other hand, provides great protection against a wide range of insect vectors over an extended length of time. Eucalyptus extracts have recently been given fresh life by advances in nanotechnology [51]. As a repellent, citronella and vanillin are found in quantities of 5–10 percent in lemongrass extract and essential oil extract (5 percent). Using citronella oil in a nano-emulsion, stable droplets may be formed that help retain the oil and postpone its release. The efficacy of neem-based treatments has also been proven in various field studies in India [52].

#### **3.3 Traps**

Traps can be used to catch adult mosquitoes. The carbon dioxide that is released on conversion of propane into water can work as an attractant. Warm water vapors with carbon dioxide attract mosquitoes. As a result, mosquitoes may be lured up to 30 meters away from the trap using the pesticide octenol, or 1-octen-3-ol. This attractant mostly attracts zoophagous mosquitoes. In certain traps, a dim light is employed to attract the mosquitoes which are then into a collection chamber or bag using a fan. It is common in some mosquito traps, such as CDC light trap. This trap will catch many other flying insects, such as flies and bumblebees.

UV/visible light mosquito traps draw not only mosquitoes, but also helpful in catching pollinating insects, resulting in unintended injury. A larvicide pharmaceutical package is discharged to avoid the death of undesired insects; nevertheless, attracted insects may provide falsely optimistic image processing results. It is also possible to reduce power consumption by eliminating active traps that need actuators [42]. In order for a trap to be effective, it has to be set up, maintained, and operated correctly. Their effectiveness may be affected by the wind. An awkward location for a mosquito trap may lead to more attacks. To counter this problem, one might try setting up traps around their property [53].

#### **3.4 Sterile insect technique (SIT)**

The SIT is a pest control method that uses mass-reared sterile males to control an insect population in a certain region. When wild sterile males mate with wild females, no offspring are produced [54]. The target wild insect population is reduced over time by introducing sterile males in a systematic and repeated method. Various nations, including Brazil, Cuba, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, and Germany, have tested the SIT on a small scale in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The IAEA, TDR (Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases), and WHO collaboration are planning larger-scale pilot releases as a part of research and technical cooperation activities, as well as test releases in connection with epidemiological investigations. There are two types of mosquitoes: those that bite and transfer diseases, and those that do not bite and do not constitute a *Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107364*

threat to humans. Because sterile mosquitoes are unable to breed, their numbers will not rise in the wild. Normally, sterile mosquitoes are dispersed by land, but the IAEA, in partnership with the FAO and others, has achieved promising results in Brazil utilizing a drone release approach [51].

Tsetse flies, melon fruit fly, pink bollworm and the New World screwworm have all been eradicated using this method. Sterilization and genetic sexing, the development of superior strains for mass manufacturing and release, as well as the identification of molecular markers for detecting the released sterile insects in the field, can all help to increase the effectiveness of this procedure. To evaluate the SIT programme, it is critical to distinguish between sterile and wild insects that have been released [55]. A luminous transformation marker incorporated into a transgenic bug might make releasing insects easier to identify. *Anopheles gambiae* and *Aedes aegypti* mosquito species have evolved fluorescent sperm marking systems [51].

#### **4. Management control of mosquitoes**

Malaria, Mayaro fever, dengue, Chikungunya, yellow fever, filariasis, Zika, are just a few of the diseases that mosquitoes potentially spread. With the use of insecticides, larvicidal agents and bed nets, along with the use of medications as chemoprevention and treatment of the sick, these vectors can be control effectively.

**Figure 5** represents the chemical, genetic and biological control techniques for mosquitoes which are discussed below.

#### **Figure 5.** *Chemical, biological and genetic control of mosquitoes.*

#### **4.1 Chemical control**

Mosquitoes are responsible for the death of millions of people each year from diseases transmitted by vectors. There is currently no vaccine available for viral illnesses and malaria transmitted by mosquitoes. As a result, mosquito and vector species management is critical if epidemics like malaria and dengue fever are to be kept in check.

Control strategies based on chemical, biological and physical elements have all been implemented to prevent the spread of mosquito-borne disease as the most typical and conventional method of regulating mosquito populations. Among these, chemical control is the most productive, but it damages the environment and threatens non-target individuals as well. Despite their well-known negative effects, chemical insecticides combined with personal protection techniques are currently the most frequently applied strategy for mosquito control [56].

Chemicals with mosquitocidal qualities are known as insecticides. These chemicals include organochlorines, organophosphorus, carbamates, pyrethroids, pyrroles, and phenyl pyrazole. These substances are employed in sprays for public health purposes. The application of chemical pesticides as principal agents in excessive amounts without limit, without interference, without discriminatory treatment, and on a continuous basis result in warranted toxic or lethal effects on non-target organisms, resistance in mosquitos and most importantly the potential for toxic effects on environment and adverse effects on health, posing a great threat to life and the environment [57].

Pyrethroid pesticides are neurotoxic because they interfere with voltage-gated sensitive sodium channels (VSSC). Pyrethroids have a greater effect on insect sodium channels than on vertebrate sodium channels [58]. Pyrethroids are mixed with water or oil and applied as an ultra-low volume spray to kill flying adult mosquitoes by skilled mosquito control services. Toxic effects of pyrethroids are attributed to their ability to delay the activation of the voltage-sensitive sodium channel, which leads to immobility and eventually death of the insect, an effect known as "knockdown" [59]. Pesticides incorporating pyrethroids are most often used in the various countries to suppress dengue virus vectors *Aedes albopictus* (Skuse) and *Aedes aegypti* [60].

In the programmes, actively combating malaria and reducing the lifespan of gravid female mosquitoes, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) may have been the most frequently employed man-made organic pesticide during the twentieth century. Water-based larvicides are used to control the number of larvae in the environment. Adult mosquito populations can be managed with adulticides and synergists, which disguise and spray adult mosquitoes. There are numerous insect development regulators, including pyriproxyfen, diflubenzuron, and methoprene, which can be used as larvicides and adulticides, along with ovicidal attributes, in mosquito control techniques worldwide [61].

In chemical control, the most obvious issues are growing pesticide resistance, human health hazard and the pollutants that has a detrimental effect on wildlife and the environment. Propoxur, permethrin, malathion, deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin have been linked to behavioral changes in *Culex quinquefasciatus* and *A. aegypti* after exposure to sub-lethal concentrations of these organic chemicals, which belong to the three primary chemical classes; pyrethroids, carbamates, and organophosphates. Females of *A. aegypti* and *C. quinquefasciatus* species avoided feeding during the WHO tunnel experiments that used treated bed nets after a single sub-lethal pesticide exposure. The ability of mosquitos to change and resist towards

insecticides has been shown to have a major influence on the effectiveness of these interventions [62]. As a result, there is an urgent need for further viable supply to synthetic insecticides over the world.

#### **4.2 Biological control**

Biological control has evolved from a specialized technique to a broader one over time. As a consequence, the number and variety of biocontrol agents used to treat pests and mosquito transmission has increased tremendously in recent decades [63].

Numerous studies have shown that a number of environmentally safe natural substances have insecticidal properties, including bioactive peptides, essential oils [64], nanomaterials [65] and polyphenolic extracts. Both natural enemies of the target mosquitoes and biotoxins are used in biological control tactics. Invertebrate predators, nematodes (such as *Romanomermis culicivorax*), larvivorous fish (such as *Gambusia affinis*), some fungi (like *Lagenidium giganteum*), and protozoa are included in this regard [66].

Shrimps of the species *Macrobrachium brasiliense, Macrobrachium amazonicum, M. pantanalense*, and *Macrobrachium jelskii* can be used to suppress *A. aegypti*, *C. quinquefasciatus* and *Anopheles darlingi* larvae [67].

As a result of the management of vectors, biocontrol approaches have also already contributed in reducing the mosquito number. As a biocontrol agent, bacteria such as *Bacillus thuringiensis*, *Bacillus sphaericus* and *Streptomyces avermitilis* have been shown to be safe for the environment and a feasible approach for reducing mosquitoes. One of the insecticidal protein families found in *B. thuringiensis* subsp. *israelensis*, the Cyt (cytolysins), as well as the Cry (crystal delta)–(endotoxins), have been proven to be efficient in mosquito control [68].

In specific African regions, some fungi are capable of attacking *A. aegypti*, which can be exploited as cost effective and ecofriendly for controlling flavivirus pandemics in North as well as South America [69]. *Microsporidia coelomomyces* is virulent and is known as the most varied parasitic fungus groups against mosquitos [70].

The use of larvivorous fish as a biological and self-reproducing adversary of insects through the process of predation is not only an extremely cost-effective approach of regulating mosquito populations, but it also has a mosquito control effect that is maintained over the long term. One of the fishes that is being employed the most often as a biocontrol agent is *Gambusia* [71]. It is clear that mosquito fish biocontrol has many benefits over traditional pesticide mosquito control mechanisms. Furthermore, employing exotic mosquito fish presents a problem because they might affect native species and local ecosystems. As a result, extreme care must be exercised while using them [72].

*Toxorhynchites splendens* is a mosquito genus well known for its larvae's capacity to feed on mosquito species such as *C. quinquefasciatus, A. darlingi* and *A. aegypti* as well as other aquatic animals living in naturally or artificially created habitats. *Toxorhynchites* mosquito is thought to be a potential biological control tool for mosquitos residing in a variety of habitats [73].

Insects that live in water, such as the *Lethocerus americanus*, have the potential to consume mosquitoes throughout various stages of their development [74]. Frogs, tadpoles, and toads can feed on the larvae of *A. darlingi*, *C. quinquefasciatus*, and *A. aegypti*.

Rhabditidae and Heterorhabditidae worms are known to either directly or indirectly cause death in their hosts. Nematodes can infect their hosts in one of four ways: by entering the body while the host is just being fed by a mosquito; by penetrating the cuticle; by entering through the anus or spiracle; or by entering during mosquito feeding [75].

The plant extract-based larvicidal pesticides are a promising class because of their low toxicity, low environmental impact, and lack of harm to non-targeted species [76]. Mosquitocidal activity of different plants is combined with the microbicide capabilities of silver nanoparticles (Ag–NPs), leading to an improved nanoscale (1–100 nm) effectiveness due to the increased A/v of nanoparticles. Because of these attributes, Ag–NPs are remarkably efficient against vector larvae even at extremely low concentrations [77].

#### **4.3 Genetic control**

The number of disease-carrying mosquitoes can also be controlled by genetic methods that can target both the adults and the larvae [78]. For gene functional analysis and pest control, genome editing is essential. Orco (odorant receptor coreceptor) is a critical modulator of several olfactory-driven behaviors throughout the *Anopheles sinensis* life cycle, emphasizing the role of Orco as a potential molecular target for malaria control [79].

As an alternative to sterilizing males for the purpose of insect population control, genetic engineering is often used to introduce a gene into mosquito vectors that causes them to die off on their own [80]. It was discovered that OX513A males in Malaysia had similar lifespans [81] and spreading capacities, however the most recent production of OX513A males in Brazil ended in a large drop of the target wild population.

LA513A, an *A. aegypti* strain modified to possess a non-sex specific, dominant, complicated late acting lethal genetic process that leads to death during the pupal stage rather than larval maturation, avoids density dependent effects on larval stage in natural populations. Despite the fact that without tetracycline, the vast majority (95–97 percent) of LA513A insertion carrying larvae dies during the pupal stage, they grow properly without it [82].

Release of Insects Carrying a Dominant Lethal Gene (RIDL) is a concept that was introduced by the British biotech company Oxitec. Tetracycline, an antidote, can suppress the deadly gene so that mosquitoes can be raised to adulthood in breeding locations before being released into the wild as males, where they mate with wild females and produce offspring that die at the larval stage [83].

The first successful gene knockout and transgenesis experiment was performed on mosquitoes. Instinct biological control methods based on population modification of vector mosquitoes have shown incredible potential in the struggle against mosquito-borne illnesses. These strategies include the genetics based sterile insect technique (SIT), CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene drive, and population-replacement methodologies [84].

The development of innovative nanotechnology-based formulations for natural and synthetic repellents is a necessary aspect towards more efficient techniques with fewer adverse side effects.

#### **5. Conclusions**

In recent years, a number of new diseases that are transmitted by mosquito vectors have evolved as a consequence of climate change, dramatic population increase,

*Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107364*

degradation and increased resistance to pesticides. However, the use of pesticides can have a negative impact on other forms of life, which can then lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem. As a result, it is of the utmost importance to focus on finding novel and effective strategies that are environmentally friendly, easy to handle, safe, and inexpensive with no negative impact on populations that are not being targeted. Control strategies based on chemical, biological, and physical elements have all been implemented to prevent the spread of mosquito-borne diseases as the conventional methods of regulating mosquito populations. Due to the innovation and latest research scientist are able to explore the non-conventional methods of mosquito management based on genetic modification, nanotechnology, etc. Harmonious utilization of various control methods is the best way to manage the mosquito population.

#### **Acknowledgements**

First of all, I am very thankful to the Almighty Allah who is the greatest creator of universe. He blessed and inspired me to complete my research work satisfactorily. I also pay my gratitude with heart and soul to the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) and his beloved and Holy Family. Throughout my research, I am deeply grateful to my most respected, gracious, knowledgeable, and reverend supervisor Dr. Muhammad Asrar Assistant Professor Department of Zoology for his consolidated and inspiring guidance.

#### **Thanks**

Thank you to my group members Zeeshan Yousaf, Usama Saleem, Muhammad Rashid, and Muhammad Faisal for their love, care, and friendship. I am very grateful my mother Balqees Anwar, aunt Khalida Akthar, and brother Usman Javed always raised their hands for my well-being.

May Allah bless all these bright minds with long, happy and peaceful lives including me (Ameen).

#### **Author details**

Zeeshan Javed1 , Saira Mansha1 , Usama Saleem1 , Asad Mangat1 , Bilal Rasool1 , Muhammad Imran1 , Amna Batool1 , Mashal Shahzadi1 , Tehreem Raza1 , Danish Riaz<sup>2</sup> , and Muhammad Asrar1 \*

1 Department of Zoology, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

2 Department of Zoology, Division Science and Technology, University of Education, Township, Lahore, Pakistan

\*Address all correspondence to: asrar\_agri@yahoo.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Benelli G. Research in mosquito control: Current challenges for a brighter future. Parasitology Research. 2015;**114**(8):2801-2805

[2] Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alieninvasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 2005;**52**(3):273-288

[3] Dahmana H, Mediannikov O. Mosquito-borne diseases emergence/ resurgence and how to effectively control it biologically. Pathogens. 2020;**9**(4):310

[4] Mehlhorn H, Al-Rasheid KA, Al-Quraishy S, Abdel-Ghaffar F. Research and increase of expertise in arachnoentomology are urgently needed. Parasitology Research. 2012;**110**(1):259-265

[5] Benelli G. Research in mosquito control: Current challenges for a brighter future. Parasitology Research. 2015;**114**(8):2801-2805

[6] Kilpatrick AM. Globalization, land use, and the invasion of West Nile virus. Science. 2011;**334**(6054):323-327

[7] Hubálek Z, Halouzka J. West Nile fever—A reemerging mosquito-borne viral disease in Europe. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1999;**5**(5):643

[8] Shukla D, Wijayapala S, Vankar PS. Effective mosquito repellent from plantbased formulation. International Journal of Mosquito Research. 2018;**5**(1):19-24

[9] Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I, et al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2017;**11**(7):e0005625

[10] Wilke ABB, Marrelli MT. Genetic control of mosquitoes: Population suppression strategies. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo. 2012;**54**:287-292

[11] Benelli G, Beier JC. Current vector control challenges in the fight against malaria. Acta Tropica. 2017;**174**:91-96

[12] Lok P, Dijk S. Malaria outbreak in Burundi reaches epidemic levels with 5.7 million infected this year. BMJ. 2019;**366**:15104

[13] Ramos-Castaneda J, Barreto dos Santos F, Martinez-Vega R, Galvão de Araujo JM, Joint G, Sarti E. Dengue in Latin America: Systematic review of molecular epidemiological trends. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2017;**11**(1):e0005224

[14] Katzelnick LC, Coloma J, Harris E. Dengue: Knowledge gaps, unmet needs, and research priorities. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;**17**(3):e88-e100

[15] Villamil-Gómez WE, Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Uribe-García AM, González-Arismendy E, Castellanos JE, Calvo EP, et al. Zika, dengue, and chikungunya co-infection in a pregnant woman from Colombia. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2016;**51**:135-138

[16] Brady OJ, Hay SI. The first local cases of Zika virus in Europe. The Lancet. 2019;**394**(10213):1991-1992

[17] Diallo D, Sall AA, Diagne CT, Faye O, Faye O, Ba Y, et al. Zika virus emergence in mosquitoes in southeastern Senegal, 2011. PLoS One. 2014;**9**(10):e109442

[18] Musso D, Nilles EJ, Cao-Lormeau VM. Rapid spread of emerging Zika virus in the Pacific area. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2014;**20**(10):O595-O596

[19] Edington F, Varjao D, Melo P. Incidence of articular pain and arthritis after chikungunya fever in the Americas: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Joint, Bone, Spine. 2018;**85**(6):669-678

[20] Silva NIO, Sacchetto L, de Rezende IM, Trindade GDS, LaBeaud AD, de Thoisy B, et al. Recent sylvatic yellow fever virus transmission in Brazil: The news from an old disease. Virology Journal. 2020;**17**(1):1-12

[21] Fernandes NCCDA, Cunha MS, Guerra JM, Réssio RA, Cirqueira CDS, D'Andretta Iglezias S, et al. Outbreak of yellow fever among nonhuman primates, Espirito Santo, Brazil, 2017. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2017;**23**(12):2038-2041

[22] Auguste AJ, Lemey P, Bergren NA, Giambalvo D, Moncada M, Morón D, et al. Enzootic transmission of yellow fever virus, Venezuela. Emerging infectious diseases. 2015;**21**(1):99

[23] Selemane I. Epidemiological monitoring of the last outbreak of yellow fever in Brazil—An outlook from Portugal. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2019;**28**:46-51

[24] Fang Y, Zhang Y, Zhou ZB, Xia S, Shi WQ, Xue JB, et al. New strains of Japanese encephalitis virus circulating in Shanghai, China after a ten-year hiatus in local mosquito surveillance. Parasites & Vectors. 2019;**12**(1):1-14

[25] López-Ruiz N, del Carmen Montaño-Remacha M, Durán-Pla E, Pérez-Ruiz M, Navarro-Marí JM, Salamanca-Rivera C, et al. West Nile virus outbreak in humans and epidemiological surveillance, West Andalusia, Spain, 2016. Eurosurveillance. 2018;**23**(14):17-00261

[26] Diaz A, Coffey LL, Burkett-Cadena N, Day JF. Reemergence of St. Louis encephalitis virus in the Americas. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2018;**24**(12):2150

[27] Guo WP, Tian JH, Lin XD, Ni XB, Chen XP, Liao Y, et al. Extensive genetic diversity of Rickettsiales bacteria in multiple mosquito species. Scientific Reports. 2016;**6**(1):1-11

[28] Krajacich BJ, Huestis DL, Dao A, Yaro AS, Diallo M, Krishna A, et al. Investigation of the seasonal microbiome of anopheles coluzzii mosquitoes in Mali. PLoS One. 2018;**13**(3):e0194899

[29] Dieme C, Bechah Y, Socolovschi C, Audoly G, Berenger JM, Faye O, et al. Transmission potential of rickettsia felis infection by Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;**112**(26):8088-8093

[30] Eliasson H, Broman T, Forsman M, Bäck E. Tularemia: Current epidemiology and disease management. Infectious Disease Clinics. 2006;**20**(2):289-311

[31] San Martín JL, Brathwaite O, Zambrano B, Solórzano JO, Bouckenooghe A, Dayan GH, et al. The epidemiology of dengue in the Americas over the last three decades: A worrisome reality. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2010;**82**(1):128

[32] Girod R, Guidez A, Carinci R, Issaly J, Gaborit P, Ferrero E, et al. Detection of chikungunya virus circulation using sugar-baited traps during a major outbreak in French Guiana. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;**10**(9):e0004876

[33] Dale P, Knight J. Mosquito Control: Perspectives on Current Issues and Challenges. Annals of Community Medicine and Practice; 2017;**3**(2):1023

*Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107364*

[34] Bowman LR, Donegan S, McCall PJ. Is dengue vector control deficient in effectiveness or evidence? Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;**10**(3):e0004551

[35] Bai L, Morton LC, Liu Q. Climate change and mosquito-borne diseases in China: A review. Globalization and Health. 2013;**9**(1):1-22

[36] Ferguson NM. Challenges and opportunities in controlling mosquito-borne infections. Nature. 2018;**559**(7715):490-497

[37] World Health Organization & UNICEF. 2017. Global vector control response 2017-2030

[38] World Health Organization. (2013). Larval Source Management: A Supplementary Malaria Vector Control Measure: An Operational Manual

[39] Allgeier S, Friedrich A, Brühl CA. Mosquito control based on bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) interrupts artificial wetland food chains. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;**686**:1173-1184

[40] Bruehl CA, Despres L, Frör O, Patil CD, Poulin B, Tetreau G, et al. Environmental and socioeconomic effects of mosquito control in Europe using the biocide bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti). Science of the Total Environment. 2020;**724**:137800

[41] Wang GH, Gamez S, Raban RR, Marshall JM, Alphey L, Li M, et al. Combating mosquito-borne diseases using genetic control technologies. Nature Communications. 2021;**12**(1):1-12

[42] Jamrozik E, de la Fuente-Núñez V, Reis A, Ringwald P, Selgelid MJ. Ethical aspects of malaria control and research. Malaria Journal. 2015;**14**(1):1-7

[43] Kaura T, Walter NS, Kaur U, Sehgal R. Different Strategies for Mosquito Control. Challenges and Alternatives; Intechopen. 2022:104594

[44] Murugan K, Benelli G, Ayyappan S, Dinesh D, Panneerselvam C, Nicoletti M, et al. Toxicity of seaweed-synthesized silver nanoparticles against the filariasis vector Culex quinquefasciatus and its impact on predation efficiency of the cyclopoid crustacean Mesocyclops longisetus. Parasitology Research. 2015;**114**(6):2243-2253

[45] Acevedo MA, Prosper O, Lopiano K, Ruktanonchai N, Caughlin TT, Martcheva M, et al. Spatial heterogeneity, host movement and mosquito-borne disease transmission. PLoS One. 2015;**10**(6):e0127552

[46] Achee NL, Bangs MJ, Farlow R, Killeen GF, Lindsay S, Logan JG, et al. Spatial repellents: From discovery and development to evidence-based validation. Malaria Journal. 2012;**11**(1):1-9

[47] Syafruddin D, Asih PB, Rozi IE, Permana DH, Hidayati APN, Syahrani L, et al. Efficacy of a spatial repellent for control of malaria in Indonesia: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2020;**103**(1):344

[48] Xue RD, Qualls WA, Smith ML, Gaines MK, Weaver JH, Debboun M. Field evaluation of the off! Clip-on mosquito repellent (metofluthrin) against Aedes albopictus and Aedes taeniorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae) in northeastern Florida. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2012;**49**(3):652-655

[49] Shah G, Shri R, Panchal V, Sharma N, Singh B, Mann AS. Scientific basis for the therapeutic use of Cymbopogon citratus, stapf (lemon grass). Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research. 2011;**2**(1):3

[50] Pichersky E, Gershenzon J. The formation and function of plant volatiles: Perfumes for pollinator attraction and defense. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2002;**5**(3):237-243

[51] Sugumar S, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N. Eucalyptus oil nanoemulsion-impregnated chitosan film: Antibacterial effects against a clinical pathogen, Staphylococcus aureus, in vitro. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2015;**10**(Suppl 1):67

[52] Tyagi BK. Advances in vector mosquito control technologies, with particular reference to herbal products. In: Herbal Insecticides, Repellents and Biomedicines: Effectiveness and Commercialization. New Delhi: Springer; 2016. pp. 1-9

[53] Chen YC, Wang CY, Teng HJ, Chen CF, Chang MC, Lu LC, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of CO2 baited and unbaited light traps, gravid traps, backpack aspirators, and sweep net collections for sampling mosquitoes infected with Japanese encephalitis virus. Journal of Vector Ecology. 2011;**36**(1):68-74

[54] Bellini R, Medici A, Puggioli A, Balestrino F, Carrieri M. Pilot field trials with Aedes albopictus irradiated sterile males in Italian urban areas. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2013;**50**(2):317-325

[55] Gupta VK, Jindal V. Biotechnological approaches for insect pest management. In: Integrated Pest Management. Academic Press; 2014:311-335

[56] Quesada-Moraga E, Carrasco-Díaz JA, Santiago-Álvarez C. Insecticidal and antifeedant activities of proteins secreted by entomopathogenic fungi against Spodoptera littoralis (Lep., Noctuidae). Journal of Applied Entomology. 2006;**130**(8):442-452

[57] Raveen R, Kamakshi KT, Deepa M, Arivoli S, Tennyson S. Larvicidal activity of Nerium oleander L.(Apocynaceae) flower extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus say (Diptera: Culicidae). International Journal of Mosquito Research. 2014;**1**(1):38-42

[58] Vais H, Williamson MS, Devonshire AL, Usherwood PNR. The molecular interactions of pyrethroid insecticides with insect and mammalian sodium channels. Pest Management Science. 2001;**57**(10):877-888

[59] Amelia-Yap ZH, Chen CD, Sofian-Azirun M, Low VL. Pyrethroid resistance in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Southeast Asia: Present situation and prospects for management. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;**11**(1):1-17

[60] Madarieta SK, Salarda A, Benabaye MRS, Tangle JR. Use of Permethrin-Treated Curtains for Control of Aedes aegypti, in the Philippines. 1999

[61] Suman DS, Wang Y, Bilgrami AL, Gaugler R. Ovicidal activity of three insect growth regulators against Aedes and Culex mosquitoes. Acta Tropica. 2013;**128**(1):103-109

[62] Vail PV, Coulson JR, Kauffman WC, Dix ME. History of biological control programs in the United States Department of Agriculture. American Entomologist. 2001;**47**(1):24-49

[63] El-Tarabily KA, El-Saadony MT, Alagawany M, Arif M, Batiha GE, Khafaga AF, et al. Using essential oils to overcome bacterial biofilm formation and their antimicrobial resistance. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2021;**28**(9):5145-5156

[64] El-Ashry RM, El-Saadony MT, El-Sobki AE, El-Tahan AM, Al-Otaibi S, El-Shehawi AM, et al. Biological silicon

*Innovative Methods of Mosquito Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107364*

nanoparticles maximize the efficiency of nematicides against biotic stress induced by Meloidogyne incognita in eggplant. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2022;**29**(2):920-932

[65] Das PK, Amalraj DD. Biological control of malaria vectors. The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 1997;**106**:174-197

[66] Coelho WMD, Coêlho JDCA, Bresciani KDS, Buzetti WAS. Biological control of Anopheles darlingi, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus larvae using shrimps. Parasite Epidemiology and Control. 2017;**2**(3):91-96

[67] Jacups SP, Rapley LP, Johnson PH, Benjamin S, Ritchie SA. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis misting for control of Aedes in cryptic ground containers in North Queensland, Australia. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2013;**88**(3):490

[68] Evans HC, Elliot SL, Barreto RW. Entomopathogenic fungi and their potential for the management of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Americas. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. 2018;**113**:206-214

[69] Das MK, Rao MRK, Kulsreshtha AK. Native larvivorous fish diversity as a biological control agent against mosquito larvae in an endemic malarious region of Ranchi district in Jharkhand, India. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases. 2018;**55**(1):34

[70] Sarwar M. Reducing dengue fever through biological control of disease carrier Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). International Journal of Preventive Medicine Research. 2015;**1**(3):161-166

[71] Mullen GR, Durden LA, editors. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Academic press; 2009

[72] Focks DA. Toxorhynchites as biocontrol agents. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2007;**23**(sp2):118-127

[73] Shaalan EAS, Canyon DV, Muller R, Younes MWF, Abdel-Wahab H, Mansour AH. A mosquito predator survey in Townsville, Australia, and an assessment of Diplonychus sp. and Anisops sp. predatorial capacity against Culex annulirostris mosquito immatures. Journal of Vector Ecology. 2007;**32**(1):16-21

[74] Petersen JJ. Nematodes as biological control agents: Part I. Mermithidae. Advances in Parasitology. 1985;**24**:307-344

[75] Thiyagarajan P, Kumar PM, Kovendan K, Murugan K. Effect of medicinal plant and microbial insecticides for the sustainable mosquito vector control. Acta Biologica Indica. 2014;**3**:527-535

[76] Benelli G, Caselli A, Canale A. Nanoparticles for mosquito control: Challenges and constraints. Journal of King Saud University-Science. 2017;**29**(4):424-435

[77] Bisset J, Rodríguez MM, Fernández D. Selection of insensitive acetylcholinesterase as a resistance mechanism in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) from Santiago de Cuba. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2006;**43**(6):1185-1189

[78] Li Y, Zhang J, Chen D, Yang P, Jiang F, Wang X, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 in locusts: Successful establishment of an olfactory deficiency line by targeting the mutagenesis of an odorant receptor co-receptor (Orco). Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2016;**79**:27-35

[79] Thomas DD, Donnelly CA, Wood RJ, Alphey LS. Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science. 2000;**287**(5462):2474-2476

[80] Wang Y, He X, Qiao L, Yu Z, Chen B, He Z. CRISPR/Cas9 mediates efficient site-specific mutagenesis of the odorant receptor co-receptor (Orco) in the malaria vector Anopheles sinensis. Pest Management Science. 2022;**78**(8):3294-3304

[81] Phuc HK, Andreasen MH, Burton RS, Vass C, Epton MJ, Pape G, et al. Lateacting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biology. 2007;**5**(1):1-11

[82] Carvalho DO, McKemey AR, Garziera L, Lacroix R, Donnelly CA, Alphey L, et al. Suppression of a field population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by sustained release of transgenic male mosquitoes. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2015;**9**(7):e0003864

[83] Lacroix R, Delatte H, Hue T, Reiter P. Dispersal and survival of male and female Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) on Reunion Island. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2009;**46**(5):1117-1124

[84] Nolan T. Control of malariatransmitting mosquitoes using gene drives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2021;**376**(1818):20190803

#### **Chapter 3**

## Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review

*Sarita Kumar and Arunima Sahgal*

#### **Abstract**

Mosquitoes are the important global vectors transmitting diseases of human concern such as dengue, Chikungunya, Malaria, encephalitis and yellow fever, etc. Management of mosquito-borne diseases largely relies on the vector management because of the lack of effective medication and vaccination. Several strategies have been formulated and applied in the fields to control mosquitoes; yet there is a continued rise in mosquito-borne diseases leading to sufferings and morbidities. Presently, chemical interventions are the most preferred methods which has impacted human health and the environment negatively. These issues have created a demand to devise novel approaches which can be used safely and effectively for mosquito management. Thus, several innovative mosquito control interventions have been devised based on genetic, physical and behavioral modifications in mosquitoes. These strategies span from Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) Release of Insects Carrying a Dominant Lethal (RIDL), creating transgenics with abnormal and lethal genes, gene drive technology, reducing the vectorial capacity by *Wolbachia* infection and application of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB), or by lasers and light detectors to investigate their behavior, and enhance their trap and kill. This Chapter gives a comprehensive overview of the conventional, and novel and innovative techniques devised for the control of mosquito vectors.

**Keywords:** Mosquito control, SIT, *Wolbachia*, ATSB, Transgenics, Gene drive, RIDL, Laser, Conventional strategies

#### **1. Introduction**

Mosquitoes, *Aedes, Culex* and *Anopheles* sp., are the global vectors of public health importance. These are widely distributed throughout the world and are responsible for transmitting several diseases of human concern such as dengue, Chikungunya, Zika, Malaria, encephalitis and yellow fever, etc. The continuous rise in these diseases has created a worldwide concern. According to the World Health Organization [1], an estimated 241 million global cases of malaria were recorded in 2020 in comparison to the 227 million cases in 2019. Among these, India accounts for 3% of global malaria cases and 2% of malaria deaths across the globe [2]. Likewise, dengue cases have increased intensely leading to about 50% global population at risk of dengue transmission and approximately 100–400 million annual infections [3].

*Aedes* is a known vector of dengue, Chikungunya, Yellow fever and Zika. According to the reports, the most common urban species, *Ae. aegypti*, was originated as *Ae. aegypti formosus* in the wilds of Sub-Saharan Africa and gradually established globally, more specifically in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world [4–6]. Likewise, *Ae. albopictus,* the peri-urban and rural vector, a native zoophilic species of Southeast Asia, Western Pacific and islands of Indian Ocean, has expanded globally *via* human activities and active transportations [7–9]. It is believed that *Aedes* could spread and establish into new regions because of climatic changes, elevated carbon emissions and global warming leading to the global appearance and expansion of several *Aedes-*borne arboviral diseases [10–12]. *Aedes* is currently distributed throughout the tropics including Africa (from where it originates) and a number of subtropical regions such as South-Eastern United States, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Indian Islands, and Northern Australia (**Figure 1**).

Among *Culex*, the *Cx. pipiens* is the most widely distributed species responsible for the transmission of encephalitis, West Nile Fever, St. Louis encephalitis, etc. The *Cx. pipiens pipiens*, an old word taxon, is prevalent in temperate regions dispersed from Northern Europe to the highlands of South Africa while *Cx. p. pallens* is distributed throughout temperate Asia and *Cx. p. fatigans* is prevalent in the tropical regions. Another common species, *Cx. quinquefasciatus* is present throughout the tropical and warm temperate regions (**Figure 2**). Presumed to be the native of lowlands of West Africa, it has spread to the New World *via* slave ships dispersing gradually to Asia and other tropical and temperate parts of the world [14].

**Figure 1.** *Predicted distribution of Aedes aegypti (A) and Aedes albopictus (B) [6] (CC-BY-4.0).*

*Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Global distribution of Culex quinquefasciatus. Red areas represent the most suitable areas, yellow areas as potentially suitable while blue areas as unsuitable areas [13] (CC-BY-4.0).*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Global distribution of Anopheles mosquito [15] (CC-BY-2.0).*

Like other mosquito vectors, *Anopheles* species is also extensively distributed throughout the world, specifically in the tropical areas though with variability in the complexity (**Figure 3**). In Africa, the hardest hit, *An. gambiae, An. arabiensis* and *An. funestus* are the most common species, whereas in Indian region, *An. culicifacies, An. stephensi* and *An. fluviatilis* are the most prevalent. **Figure 4** depicts the status of

**Figure 4.** *Indigenous case status of malaria in 2020 [16].*

malaria cases in these regions. China and El Salvador were declared malaria-free in 2021 by WHO as no malaria cases were reported in these countries for 4 consecutive years [16]. In addition, Islamic Republic of Iran and Malaysia have been reported to eliminate malaria with zero indigenous cases for 3 consecutive years (**Figure 4**).

#### **2. Management of mosquitoes: Conventional strategies**

Management of mosquito-borne diseases largely relies on the vector management because of the lack of effective medication and vaccination. Though, a few vaccines; such as dengvaxia is approved in some countries against dengue fever, 17D against yellow fever and RTS, S/AS01 against malaria; the use of these vaccines is associated with some constraints. For example, dengvaxia is considered effective only for 9–16 years old children and only when they have been previously infected with dengue and are living in areas where dengue is common [17]. Similarly, the WHO has endorsed RTS, S/AS01 vaccine against malaria but just for children and in regions with moderate to high *P. falciparum* malaria transmission [18].

Since olden times, several conventional strategies have been used to control mosquito vectors. Measures such as elimination of mosquito breeding sites and use of net screens on windows and doors to prevent entry of mosquitoes, etc. were commonly employed. During nineteenth century, the progress in science led to the formulation of DDT (an organochlorine) which was used as Indoor Residual Spray (IRS) during the Global Malaria Eradication Campaign (1955–1969) [19]. Gradually, other conventional synthetic insecticides – organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids; and Insect growth regulators, like JH analogues – Methoprene, Fenoxycarb, etc.; Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors – Dimiln, Penfluron, etc., were formulated which changed the direction of mosquito control [20]. These chemicals were used as active ingredients in the form of various formulations, sprays, dust, granules, and in mosquito repellents and bed nets, etc.

These interventions, devised for mosquito management, can be categorized into environmental interferences, chemical-based approaches, and biological control methods. Environmental management strategies include - sanitation, elimination of the mosquito breeding sites, avoid water stagnation, emptying water containers, covering all water-filled containers and waste management. Chemical interventions are based on the use of insecticides such as Temephos, Malathion and pyrethroids. Biological methods use agents such as copepods, larvivorous fish, *Bacillus sphaericus*, dragon fly naiads, may fly naiads, etc. A few measures to control *Aedes*-borne arboviral transmission have been depicted in **Figure 5**.

The use of insecticide-treated door curtains and bed nets (ITN), residual sprays in peri-domestic spaces, indoor residual spraying (IRS) and the control of larval breeding by Temephos and diflubenzuron, etc. are other commonly used approaches for mosquito management. In fact, use of IRS, ITNs (Insecticide-treated Nets) and LLINs (Long Lasting Insecticide-treated Nets) could reduce the malaria incidence in 21st century. Consequently, mass campaigns were held to distribute LLINs in countries with disease epidemics. However, the associated constrains; primarily development of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and involved operational costs; limit the effectiveness of these approaches. Thus, efforts have been made to impregnate nets with synergized insecticides in order to reduce or reverse the resistance. Nevertheless. despite all efforts, the mosquito-borne diseases are continuing to rise in the world causing illness and morbidities at the global level.

Currently, majority of the mosquito control strategies are reliant on chemicalbased interventions. However, use of these toxicants frequently and extensively has increased the problem of environmental pollution and led to widespread development of insecticide resistance in disease vectors. In addition, bioaccumulation of these chemicals in the environment has caused their biological magnification through the ecosystem. It is hypothesized that the vector control can be achieved fast with the implementation of new vector control interventions which can complement long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying. Thus, these issues have highlighted and necessitated the need to manage resistance, prevent resurgence of mosquito-borne diseases and maintain the drive towards disease elimination using biorational, effective and other novel approaches.

**Figure 5.** *Measures to control Aedes-borne arboviral transmission [21] (CC-BY-4.0).*

#### **3. Management of mosquitoes: Novel strategies**

Successful control of mosquitoes requires a comprehensive approach. Since last few decades, several innovative mosquito control interventions and management approaches have been devised including genetic, physical and behavioral approaches. A brief and systematic review of these interventions has been discussed below.

#### **3.1 Sterile insect technique**

The use of sterile insects for insect pest management was first described in 1950's by E. F. Knipling. Though this innovative idea of paradigm shift in control interventions was initially used to eradicate screwworm flies, fruit flies etc., the use of SIT approach against mosquitoes has been conceived recently.

The SIT is a 4-step approach: mass production of mosquitoes, sorting males from females, irradiate male mosquitoes to make them sterile and mass release of sterile male mosquitoes into the target area (**Figure 6**). The objective behind the approach is that once released, sterile male mosquitoes compete with the wild males to mate with wild females. As SIT males are sterile, the mating does not produce any offspring and over time, the number of the targeted mosquito species in the area is reduced. The uniqueness of the SIT is that as the pest population reduces, the efficacy of the approach increases. Consequently, continued release of sterile mosquitoes reduces the vector population gradually over generations. Nonetheless, the approach can be successful in isolated population of mosquitoes and when the released male SIT mosquitoes are more numerous than the wild males.

The earlier attempts, however, had mixed success because it was highly problematic to rear and produce enough number of sterile males to suppress natural populations [23]. Further, sex separation in mosquitoes has been formerly based on the mechanical sorting according to the size dimorphism between male and female pupae

**Figure 6.**

*Principle of sterile insect technique [22] (CC-BY-4.0).*

as according to the reports, the pupal size-based sex separation could consistently give an essentially male-only population [24]. Nevertheless, irradiation at pupal stage used to often damage the insects in comparison to the irradiation at the adult stage which was, but, operationally much more difficult [25].

As a result, now, novel transgenic approaches have been created which help to develop and release required number of mosquitoes in the fields. Such approaches have been used for *An. gambiae* [26], *Ae. aegypti* [27], and *Ae. albopictus* [28]. Using these techniques, transgenic sterile *Ae. aegypti* have been released in the Grand Cayman and have demonstrated an effective reduction of these mosquitoes [29].

It is recommended that novel genetic methods using sex-linked markers may enhance the accuracy and efficiency of sex-sorting. For instance, the specificity of the homing endonuclease I-PpoI (Intron encoded endonuclease) of *An. gambiae* was exploited to distort sex ratio by producing only male offspring. The endonuclease selectively cleaved the ribosomal gene sequences located on the X chromosome (**Figure 7**). Slicing of the X chromosome prevents its transmission to the next generation and produced >95% male offspring [26].

The SIT technique is often used as a complement to other approaches as it is ecologically benign and insect-specific. The major limitation of SIT is that it is non-persistent in the environment because of inability of SIT mosquitoes to reproduce. Thus, once the release of these mosquitoes is stopped, the targeted mosquito species can return to normal. Hence, the technique demands regular release of irradiated males to be successful. Other constraints include – heavy expenditure to set up rearing and irradiation facility, complications in segregation of male mosquitoes, transportation issues, probable overdose of radiation which might affect vitals, and release of mosquitoes in isolated areas to avoid immigration of wild males and gravid females. The approach requires planning and commitment for long-term implementation due to its slow action as unlike fast-acting chemical interventions with immediate actions, it compromises the hereditary machinery of insect pest population by affecting next generation.

#### **3.2 Release of insects carrying a dominant lethal (RIDL)**

The limitations and issues associated with SIT could also be alleviated by the use of transgenic strains carrying specific novel traits, such as conditional genetic sterilization or lethality. The approach is based on the concept that transgenic strains of mosquitoes carrying a female-specific lethal gene could be used to remove females prior to release in the fields. It will remove the need for irradiation of males to manage vector population.

The RIDL approach acts late in the development and thus, it prevents mosquitoes from becoming adults. It was reported that introduction of LA 513 transposons into the mosquito's DNA produced offspring that die in the larval stage. The approach has been recommended in Malaysia as a control measure of *Ae. aegypti* [30].

#### **Figure 7.**

*Distortion of the sex ratio model in mosquitoes towards males based on meiotic X shredding [26] (CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0).*

In another study, the "flightless female" *Ae. aegypti* has been developed by the genetic engineering of synthetic phenotypes [31]. The gene present in the strain encodes a toxin which destroys the wing muscles of females because of which the they are unable to fly, mate or search their food and oviposition sites. In *Ae. albopictus,* the gene *Actin-4* has been isolated to drive a dominant lethal gene in the indirect flight muscles leading to the development of a conditional female-specific flightless phenotype [28].

#### **3.3 Male determining factor**

The scientific advancement has discovered the male determining factor (M factor) in mosquitoes located within a Y chromosome–like highly repetitive M locus. These include *Nix* in *Ae. aegypti* [32], *gYG2/Yob* in *An. gambiae* [33, 34] and *Guy1* in *An. stephensi* [35]. A dominant male-determining locus (M-locus) establishes the male sex (M/m) in the yellow fever mosquito, *Ae. aegypti*.

It was discovered that knocking out the *Nix* gene results in feminized males while ectopic expression gave masculinized females with male genitalia [32]. Demonstration that M locus determines the male sex in *Ae. aegypti* and is thus inherited by only male mosquitoes has been carried out [36]. In case, the *Nix* gene inserted into a chromosomal region is inherited by the female *Ae. aegypti*, the mosquitoes can convert into non-biting males. They recommended that female-to-male sex conversion by *Nix* can complement SIT that requires only non-biting males and can help in reducing vector population to a great extent.

A *myo-sex* gene, need for flight, has also been discovered in the M-locus of male *Ae. aegypti* [36]. They demonstrated that the non-biting males converted from females lack this gene and thus were unable to fly for mating. They could not fold their wings completely but could walk and sometimes jump.

#### **3.4** *Wolbachia***-based control**

*Wolbachia*, an intracellular bacterium, is found in more than 50% of insect species and is transmitted vertically [37]. Mosquitoes do not possess *Wolbachia* but it can be introduced in the mosquito through trans-infections. The first *Wolbachia* strain (*wPip - Wolbachia pipientis*) was discovered in *Cx. pipiens* [38]. Later, other strains, *wAlbA* and *wAlbB* were found in *Ae. albopictus* [39].

The bacterium has been used to manage mosquito population, especially *Aedes.* It is reported that *Wolbachia*-based control techniques can not only disrupt replication and transmission of arbovirus; but the bacterium can also suppress the vector population [40]. *Wolbachia*-based mosquito control strategy involves two kinds of approaches – either replacement or suppression of the population [41]. In the population replacement strategy, the female mosquitoes infected with *Wolbachia* are released in the fields. The offspring of these mosquitoes are viable, whether they mate with *Wolbachia*-infected males or uninfected males. This allows the spread of *Wolbachia* in the field population. Consequently, though the total number of mosquitoes remains unchanged the individuals are less competent (**Figure 8**). On the other hand, in population suppression strategy, *Wolbachia*-infected males are released in the fields. These, when mate with the wild females, do not produce viable offspring. Thus, this strategy reduces the total number of mosquitoes instead of affecting their competency (**Figure 8**).

**Figure 8.** *Wolbachia-based mosquito control strategy [41] (CC-BY-4.0).*

The studies have revealed that the *Wolbachia* trans-infection may decrease the fitness of *Aedes* leading to the population reduction and could halve its life-span [42, 43]. The study also showed that the mortality in *Wolbachia*-infected (*wMel, wAlbB, wMelPop*) mosquitoes was significantly higher in comparison to their wilds counterparts. In northern Australia, a *w*AlbB2-F4 strain has been generated which showed incompatibility with the wild strain as well as *w*Mel-*Wolbachia Ae. aegypti* [44]. The strain was mass reared and sexes were sorted in order to release only males in the field. They released 3 million males in 600 houses, approximately 50 males/house, 3 times a week for 20 weeks and recorded 80% decline in population in comparison to the control.

Research has shown that *Wolbachia*-infected strains have a competitive benefit over their wild counterparts. Mating between *Wolbachia*-infected male *Ae. aegypti* and wild female mosquitoes results in sterile eggs due to unidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility [45]. In addition, the mating between male and female infected with different *Wolbachia* strains could also produce non-viable offspring (bidirectional incompatibility) [46]. Hence, in SIT, if *Wolbachia*-infected males are used and released regularly, the vector population can reduce drastically.

In addition, the *Wolbachia* has the capacity to block the transmission of dengue and Zika viruses by *Aedes* species. Studies have suggested that *Wolbachia*-infected *Ae. aegypti* might fix in the target population [47, 48]. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, by 18 months of *Wolbachia*-host coevolution in the field, it was observed that blocking of dengue virus transmission and unidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility were not compromised in a field-adapted *wAlbB*-carrying *Ae. aegypti* strain [49]. Thus, *Wolbachia-*based control can be three-pronged approach; release of *Wolbachia*infected male mosquitoes along with uninfected female mosquitoes resulting in sterile offspring due to CI; introduction of *Wolbachia* strain causing fitness cost by reducing the life-span; and invasion of *Wolbachia* strain that inhibits virus transmission (**Figure 9**).

#### **Figure 9.**

*Vertical transmission of Wolbachia and its role in reducing fitness of Aedes sp. and inhibition of dengue virus transmission. Red colored mosquitoes are infected with Wolbachia while green colored mosquitoes are uninfected [50] (CC-BY-4.0).*

#### **3.5 Gene drive**

CRISPR-based gene drives are selfish genetic elements that can be used to modify entire populations of the mosquito for sustainable vector control [51]. Using gene drive technology, a genetic modification can spread through a population at higher inheritance rates than the normal. These technologies have been investigated in *An. gambiae, An. stephensi* and other mosquito species. The approach can either suppress a wild mosquito population or reduce its transmission competency by spreading genes that interfere with parasite development.

A highly effective and autonomous CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) mediated gene-drive system has been developed in *An. stephensi* which resulted in progeny derived from transgenic males exhibiting a high frequency of germ-line gene conversion [52]. Earlier, it was used in *An. gambiae* for knocking out the genes responsible for female fertility exhibiting the potential to pass through consecutive generations [53].

#### **3.6 Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)**

Attractive-toxic sugar baits are considered a new vector control paradigm based on "attract and kill" approach. The approach is based on the natural behavior of the mosquitoes to feed on plant sugars as an energy source immediately after emergence and intermittently during their life history. It is a known fact that the successful feeding by mosquito adults helps in high survival rate and reproductive fitness of mosquito. Though it is an old-age known fact, yet this behavior of mosquitoes was not tapped till recent times. Nowadays, the sugar feeding behavior of mosquito is being tapped to formulate ATSBs by combining a concentrated sugar-based food source, an olfaction stimulant to lure mosquitoes and a systemic insecticide to kill them. It is believed that development of ATSBs may contribute to their localized control.

ATSB approach has been favored as mosquito control strategy since use of a safe systemic toxin, such as boric acid, targets the sugar-seeking behavior of mosquitoes and can evade problems conventionally associated with the indiscriminate use of contact insecticides [54]. This method is suitable to be combined with any type of low-risk gut toxin, which makes it a potential and plausible tool to fight rising resistance against conventional contact pesticides [55].

Application of mosquito sugar-feeding behavior as a control strategy was first observed successfully in *Ae. aegypti* adults which when fed upon a paper incorporated with malathion-sugar solution exhibited 85.2% mortality [56]. Likewise, *Bacillus sphaericus* spores incorporated with the sucrose/dye solutions resulted in effective mortality in *Cx. pipiens* [57]. Now, researchers are exploring diverse toxic sugar baits containing fruit or flower juice as an attractant and different types and concentrations of toxic active ingredients against mosquito vectors.

The aim of using the attractant in the formulation is to manipulate mosquito behavior moving them away from their natural sugar sources, attracting towards bait and encourage feeding. The baits can be applied to the foliage, or kept in a simple trap, such as plastic bottles (bait stations) to lure and kill, capitalizing on resting and sugar seeking mosquitoes. The approach offers an exceptional tool of pesticide delivery. The concentrated sugar source prompts a natural feeding response in mosquitoes. The mosquitoes, then ingest the bait and receive the active toxic ingredients integrated with the bait [58]. The researchers are attempting to use contact insecticides too along with which can enter the mosquito body during their visit to the bait.

As mosquitoes spend most of their time in particular outdoor microhabitats, there is a high probability that mosquitoes ingest ATSB solution at their resting sites. Application of a dyed sucrose-spinosad solution on the tree flowers at desert areas had resulted in a substantial reduction in the feral mosquitoes as compared to that at the control locations [59]. The ATSB trials were held against *An. sergentii* and *An. gambiae* in an arid habitat of Israel with relatively little sugar source vegetation which proved to be highly successful [60]. The approach resulted in over 98% reduction in the sugar-poor sites. Interestingly, over 95% population reduced even in the sugarrich sites. Likewise, a dramatic reduction of daily survival rates and malaria vectorial capacity was observed in *An. gambiae,* from 11.2 to 0.0 in sugar-poor sites and from 79.0 to 0.3 in sugar-rich sites. Similarly, about 90% of mosquitoes emerged from

cisterns and wells were found to feed on ASB which suggested that applications of ATSB could be successful in storm drain systems [61].

A few successful ATSB field trials have also controlled *Cx. quinquefasciatus* from storm drains in Florida, USA and *An. gambiae* in Mali, West Africa reducing the population by 90% [62]. The ATSB treatments in Mali also reduced the longevity of older mosquitoes which had completed three or more gonotrophic cycles and decreased the mosquito prevalence from 37% pre-treatment to 6% post treatment in a month's time [63].

Application of a TSB containing 5% sucrose solution and 1% boric acid in the habitat of *Ae. taeniorhynchus* larvae could significantly reduce the landing rate counts of adults [64]. The application of 0.4% microencapsulated garlic-oil to local vegetation as the oral toxin component of ATSB for controlling *An. sergentii* populations inhabiting desert-surrounded wetlands in Israel reduced the biting-pressure by 97.5% [65]. Different juices and bait prototypes were investigated in laboratory and fieldsimulated conditions to control *An. arabiensis* [66]. The preference of mosquitoes was found for orange, watermelon and commercial guava juice over tomato, mango and banana. The results elucidated that the design of the sugar bait can influence feeding rates and, therefore, efficacy. Sugar baits that offered a resting surface were found more efficient and feeding on the sugar baits was maximized when these were placed close to peri-domestic vegetation.

In a laboratory study, 48 h exposure of *Ae. albopictus*, *Ae. taeniorhynchus* and *Cx. nigripalpus* to the non-flowering *Rhaphiolepis indica* (L.) plants sprayed with TSB containing 5% sucrose solution and 1% boric acid resulted in >96% mortality in all mosquito species [67]. Sugar baits formulated with boric acid, deltamethrin and dinotefuran tested against *Cx. quinquefasciatus* showed higher efficacy of boric acid and dinotefuran baits against resistant populations while that of deltamethrin bait against susceptible population [68]. The carbamate-resistant strain of *Cx. quinquefasciatus* has also been found significantly more affected by dinotefuran than the susceptible strain suggesting that toxicity of dinotefuran against mosquitoes is not strongly affected by the presence of common resistance mechanism, i.e., *kdr* mutation and insensitive acetylcholinesterase [69]. Indoor trials conducted with ATSB bait station, containing guava juice-bait mixed with chlorfenapyr (0.5%), boric acid (2%), oxazolamide (1%) in experimental huts (**Figure 10**) as well as window traps (**Figure 11**), could also

**Figure 10.** *ATSB station positioning in experimental huts [70] (CC-BY-4.0).*

*Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

#### **Figure 11.**

*ATSB station positioning near windows [70] (CC-BY-4.0).*

successfully attract and kill *Cx. quinquefasciatus* [70]. Use of aqueous sugar solutions in bait stations containing boric acid, fipronil, or spinosad resulted in significant reductions of local mosquito populations [59, 71].

Nevertheless, the selection of the toxicant to be included in an ATSB has remained a scientific concern as non-target species may be affected and also children may be attracted given the sweet nature of the substrate [72]. A comprehensive review of the advancements in the attractive toxic sugar baits for the mosquito control has highlighted their effects on the mosquito larvae and non-target insects, as well as has discussed future applications of ATSB methodologies [73]. The possible efficacy of TSBs and ATSBs in mosquito management recommends their integration into mosquito abatement programs.

#### **3.7 Optical approaches**

Various physical management strategies have been devised which use devices, such as microphones, sensors, lasers and light detectors to identify mosquitoes and detect, monitor, and investigate their behavior. The method aims to reduce energy consumption, and enhance trapping and killing of specific insects.

Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist invented a laser-based device to kill mosquitoes. The "Mosquito Laser" uses an imaging CCD Camera along with a LED and a retroflective material to detect mosquitoes. A high-power laser is then released on the detected target which kills it by physical disintegration. It is a very novel technique which is still in the prototype stage. However, this approach can be dangerous for humans as well as the environment.

The short (<25ms) laser pulses have been used to kill/disable *An. stephensi* females (**Figure 12**). The researchers reported the higher efficacy of green and far-infrared

#### **Figure 12.**

*Laser-induced killing of Anopheles stephensi (a) the current dosing laser co-aligned axially with an imaging camera; (b) anesthetized mosquitoes arranged in a 12 by 7 grid (c) view from the camera; (d) areas hit by the two typical beam diameters indicated by the circles; (e, f) Images from CCD beam (e) without and (f) with a subject [74] (CC-BY-4.0).*

wavelengths in comparison to near- and mid-infrared wavelengths [74]. They recommended the use of cheap, robust lasers with sufficient beam quality so that they can be focused over a long range to kill mosquitoes. Earlier, efficacy of low power blue light to disable mosquitoes has been shown on exposure for several hours to days [75].

#### **4. Conclusions**

Prevention and control of mosquito-borne diseases, currently rely on the vector control due to the lack of effective medication and vaccines. The mosquito control has become a global challenge due to its widespread occurrence and transmission of diseases at a rapid rate. Despite the use of diverse conventional strategies; chemicalsbased interventions, environmental management, human-vector interaction control, use of biological agents, etc.; the world is facing continual rise in these diseases. Thus, there is a need for the adequate implementation of these control strategies. Presently, mosquito control is based on the use of chemical insecticides. However, the recurrent and unsystematic use of these toxicants have caused harm to the human health, non-targets and the environment. Hence, researchers are incessantly exploring the alternate innovative strategies. The interventions which are covered in this Chapter can supplement the existing strategies and help to alleviate the mosquito

*Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

population. Nevertheless, implementation of any new measure requires monitoring of its success which itself is a logistic challenge. It is recommended to carry out regular mosquito surveillance in the prevalent areas and implement the integrated mosquito control strategy.

#### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Author details**

Sarita Kumar1 \* and Arunima Sahgal2

1 Department of Zoology, Acharya Narendra Dev College (University of Delhi), Delhi, India

2 Department of Zoology, Ramjas College (University of Delhi), Delhi, India

\*Address all correspondence to: saritakumar@andc.du.ac.in

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] World Health Organization (WHO). Malaria. 2022a. Available from: https:// www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/ detail/malaria [Accessed: May 10, 2022]

[2] World Malaria Report. 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/i/ item/9789241565721 [Accessed: May 2, 2022]

[3] World Health Organization (WHO). Dengue and Severe Dengue. 2022b. Available from: https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengueand-severe-dengue [Accessed: May 10, 2022]

[4] Brown JE, McBride CS, Johnson P, Ritchie S, Paupy C, Bossin H, et al. Worldwide patterns of genetic differentiation imply 'domestications' of *Aedes aegypti*, a major vector of human diseases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011;**278**(1717):2446-2454. DOI: 10.1098/ rspb.2010.2469

[5] Brown JE, Evans BR, Zheng W, Obas V, Barrera-Martinez L, Egizi A, et al. Human impacts have shaped historical and recent evolution in *Aedes aegypti*, the dengue and yellow fever mosquito. Evolution. 2014;**68**(2):514-525. DOI: 10.1111/evo.12281

[6] Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors *Aedes aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus*. eLife. 2015;**4**:e08347. DOI: 10.7554/ eLife.08347

[7] Ponlawat A, Harrington LC. Blood feeding patterns of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* in Thailand. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2005;**42**(5): 844-849. DOI: 10.1093/jmedent/42.5.844 [8] Delatte H, Gimonneau G, Triboire A, Fontenille D. Influence of temperature on immature development, survival, longevity, fecundity, and gonotrophic cycles of *Aedes albopictus*, vector of chikungunya and dengue in the Indian Ocean. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2009;**46**(1):33-41. DOI: 10.1603/033.046.0105

[9] Izri A, Bitam I, Charrel RN. First entomological documentation of *Aedes* (*Stegomyia*) *albopictus* (Skuse, 1894) in Algeria. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2011;**17**(7):1116-1118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03443.x

[10] Carrington LB, Simmons CP. Human to mosquito transmission of dengue viruses. Frontiers in Immunology. 2014;**5**:290. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu. 2014.00290

[11] Semenza JC, Sudre B, Miniota J, Rossi M, Hu W, Kossowsky D, et al. International dispersal of dengue through air travel: Importation risk for Europe. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2014;**8**(12):e3278. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pntd.0003278

[12] Messina JP, Brady OJ, Pigott DM, Golding N, Kraemer MU, Scott TW, et al. The many projected futures of dengue. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2015;**13**(4):230-239. DOI: 10.1038/ nrmicro3430

[13] Alaniz AJ, Carvajal MA, Bacigalupo A, Cattan PE. Global spatial assessment of *Aedes aegypti* and *Culex quinquefasciatus*: A scenario of Zika virus exposure. Epidemiology and Infection. 2019;**147**:E52. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268818003102

[14] CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). *Culex*  *Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

*quinquefasciatus* (Southern House mosquito). 2012. Available from: https:// www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/86848 [Accessed: May 17, 2022]

[15] Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Rubio-Palis Y, Chareonviriyaphap T, Coetzee M, et al. A global map of dominant malaria vectors. Parasite & Vectors. 2012;**5**:69. DOI: 10.1186/ 1756-3305-5-69

[16] World Malaria Report 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/ publications/i/item/9789240040496 [Accessed: February 10, 2022]

[17] Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dengue vaccination: What everyone should Know. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/ dengue/public/index.html [Accessed: May 11, 2022]

[18] World Health Organization (WHO). WHO recommends groundbreaking vaccine for children at risk. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/ item/06-10-2021-who-recommendsgroundbreaking-malaria-vaccine-forchildren-at-risk [Accessed: May 11, 2022]

[19] Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Indoor Residual Spraying. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/ malaria/malaria\_worldwide/reduction/ irs.html [Accessed: May 11, 2022]

[20] Mamatha DM, Kanji VK, Cohly HH, Rao MR. Juvenile hormone analogues, methoprene and fenoxycarb dose dependently enhance certain enzyme activities in the silkworm *Bombyx mori* (L). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2008;**5**(2):120-124. DOI: 10.3390/ ijerph5020120

[21] Ogunlade ST, Meehan MT, Adekunle AI, Rojas DP, Adegboye OA, McBryde ES. A review: *Aedes*-borne arboviral infections, controls and *Wolbachia*-based strategies. Vaccine. 2021;**9**(1):32. DOI: 10.3390/ vaccines9010032

[22] Vreysen MJB, Abd-Alla AMM, Bourtzis K, Bouyer J, Caceres C, de Beer C, et al. The insect pest control laboratory of the joint FAO/IAEA programme: Ten years (2010-2020) of research and development, achievements and challenges in support of the sterile insect technique. Insects. 2021;**12**:346. DOI: 10.3390/insects12040346

[23] Benedict MQ, Robinson AS. The first releases of transgenic mosquitoes: An argument for the sterile insect technique. Trends in Parasitology. 2003;**19**(8):349-355. DOI: 10.1016/ s1471-4922(03)00144-2

[24] Ansari MA, Singh KR, Brooks GD, Malhotra PR, Vaidyanathan V. The development of procedures and techniques for mass rearing of *Aedes aegypti*. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 1977;**65**(Suppl):91-99

[25] Andreasen MH, Curtis CF. Optimal life stage for radiation sterilization of *Anopheles* for sterile insect releases. Medical Veterinary Entomology. 2005;**19**:238-244. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2005.00565.x

[26] Galizi R, Doyle L, Menichelli M, Bernardini F, Deredec A, Burt A, et al. A synthetic sex ratio distortion system for the control of the human malaria mosquito. Nature Communications. 2014;**5**:3977. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4977

[27] Phuc HK, Andreasen MH, Burton RS, Vass C, Epton MJ, Pape G, et al. Lateacting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biology. 2007;**5**:11. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-5-11

[28] Labbé GM, Scaife S, Morgan SA, Curtis ZH, Alphey L. Female-specific flightless (fsRIDL) phenotype for control of *Aedes albopictus*. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;**6**:e1724. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001724

[29] Harris AF, McKemey AR, Nimmo D, Curtis Z, Black I, Morgan SA, et al. Successful suppression of a field mosquito population by sustained release of engineered male mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology. 2012;**30**:828-830

[30] Aldridge S. Genetically modified mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology. 2008;**26**:828-830

[31] Macias VM, Ohm JR, Rasgon JL. Gene drive for mosquito control: Where did it come from and where are we headed? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;**14**(9):1006. DOI: 10.3390/ ijerph14091006

[32] Hall AB, Basu S, Jiang X, Qi Y, Timoshevskiy VA, Biedler JK, et al. A male-determining factor in the mosquito *Aedes aegypti*. Science. 2015;**348**:1268-1270

[33] Hall AB, Papathanos P-A, Sharma A, Cheng C, Akbari CC, Assour L, et al. Radical remodeling of the Y chromosome in a recent radiation of malaria mosquitoes. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA. 2016;**113**:E2114-E2123. DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1525164113

[34] Krzywinska E, Dennison NJ, Lycett GJ, Krzywinski J. A maleness gene in the malaria mosquito *Anopheles gambiae*. Science. 2016;**353**:67-69. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5605

[35] Criscione F, Qi Y, Tu Z. GUY1 confers complete female lethality and is a strong candidate for a male-determining factor in *Anopheles stephensi*. eLife. 2016;**5**:e19281. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.19281

[36] Aryan A, Anderson MAE. Biedler Jk, Qi Y, Overcash JM, Naumenko AN, Sharakhova MV, Mao C, Adelman ZN, Tu Z. *nix* alone is sufficient to convert female *Aedes aegypti* into fertile males and *myo-sex* is needed for male flight. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA. 2020;**117**(30):17702-17709. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001132117

[37] Hilgenboecker K, Hammerstein P, Schlattmann P, Telschow A, Werren JH. How many species are infected with *Wolbachia*? – A statistical analysis of current data. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2008;**281**:215-220. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01110.x

[38] Hertig M, Wolbach S. Studies on rickettsia-like micro-organisms in insects. Journal of Medical Research. 1924;**44**:329-374

[39] Zhou W, Rousset F, O'Neill SL. Phylogeny and PCR-based classification of *Wolbachia* strains using *wsp* gene sequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Science. 1998;**265**:509- 515. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0324

[40] Hoffmann AA, Ross PA, Rašić G. *Wolbachia* strains for disease control: Ecological and evolutionary considerations. Evolutionary Applications. 2015;**8**:751-768. DOI: 10.1111/eva.12286

[41] Yen P-S, Failloux A-B. A review: *Wolbachia*-based population replacement for mosquito control shares common points with genetically modified control approaches. Pathogens. 2020;**9**(5):404. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens9050404

[42] McMeniman CJ, Lane RV, Cass BN, Fong AWC, Sidhu M, Wang Y-F, et al. Stable introduction of a life-shortening *Wolbachia* infection into the mosquito *Aedes aegypti*. Science. 2009;**323**:141-144. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165326

*Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

[43] Axford JK, Callahan AG, Hoffmann AA, Yeap HL, Ross PA. Fitness of wAlbB *Wolbachia* infection in *Aedes aegypti*: Parameter estimates in an outcrossed background and potential for population invasion. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2016;**94**:507-516. DOI: 10.4269/ ajtmh.15-0608

[44] Beebe NW, Pagendam D, Trewin BJ, Bomer A, Bradford M, Ford A, et al. Releasing incompatible males drives strong suppression across populations of wild and *Wolbachia*-carrying *Aedes aegypti* in Australia. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA. 2021;**118**(41):e2106828118. DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.2106828118

[45] Flor M, Hammerstein P, Telschow A. *Wolbachia*-induced unidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility and the stability of infection polymorphism in parapatric host populations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2007;**20**:696-706. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01252.x

[46] Zhong Y, Li Z-X. Bidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility induced by cross-order transfection of *Wolbachia*: Implications for control of the host population. Microbial Ecology. 2014;**68**:463-471. DOI: 10.1007/ s00248-014-0425-2

[47] Nazni WA, Hoffmann AA, Noor Afizah A, Cheong YL, Mancini MV, Golding N, et al. Establishment of *Wolbachia* strain wAlbB in Malaysian populations of *Aedes aegypti* for dengue control. Current Biology. 2019;**29**:4241- 4248.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.11.007

[48] Ryan PA, Turley AP, Wilson G, Hurst TP, Retzki K, Brown-Kenyon J, et al. Establishment of wMel *Wolbachia* in *Aedes aegypti* mosquitoes and reduction of local dengue transmission in Cairns and surrounding locations in northern

Queensland, Australia. Gates Open Research. 2020;**3**:1547. DOI: 10.12688/ gatesopenres.13061.2

[49] Ahmad NA, Mancini M-V, Ant TH, Martinez J, Kamarul GMR, Nazni WA, et al. *Wolbachia* strain wAlbB maintains high density and dengue inhibition following introduction into a field population of *Aedes aegypti*. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2021;**376**:20190809. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0809

[50] Khadka S, Proshad R, Thapa A, Acharya KP, Kormoker T. *Wolbachia*: A possible weapon for controlling dengue in Nepal. Tropical Medicine and Health. 2020;**48**:50. DOI: 10.1186/ s41182-020-00237-4

[51] Hammond A, Pollegioni P, Persampieri T, North A, Minuz R, Trusso A, et al. Gene-drive suppression of mosquito populations in large cages as a bridge between lab and field. Nature Communications. 2021;**12**:4589. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24790-6

[52] Gantz VM, Jasinskiene N, Tatarenkova O, Fazekas A, Macias VM, Bier E, et al. Highly efficient Cas9 mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito *Anopheles stephensi*. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA. 2015;**112**(49):E6736-E6743. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521077112

[53] Hammond A, Galizi R, Kyrou K, Simoni A, Siniscalchi C, Katsanos D, et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector *Anopheles gambiae*. Nature Biotechnology. 2016;**34**:78-83. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3439

[54] Enayati A, Hemingway J. Malaria management: past, present, and

future. Annual Review of Entomology. 2010;**55**:569-591. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev-ento-112408-085423

[55] Allan SA. Susceptibility of adult mosquitoes to insecticides in aqueous sucrose baits. Journal of Vector Ecology. 2011;**36**(1):59-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1948-7134.2011.00141.x

[56] Lea AO. Sugar-baited insecticide residues against mosquitoes. Mosquito News. 1965;**25**:65-66

[57] Schlein Y, Pener H. Bait-fed adult *Culex pipiens* carry the larvicide *Bacillus sphaericus* to the larval habitat. Medical Veterinary Entomology. 1990;**4**:283-288. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1990.tb00441.x

[58] Stone CM, Jackson BT, Foster WA. Effects of bed net use, female size, and plant abundance on the first meal choice (blood vs sugar) of the malaria mosquito *Anopheles gambiae*. Malaria Journal. 2012;**11**:3-17. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-3

[59] Müller G, Schlein Y. Sugar questing mosquitoes in arid areas gather on scarce blossoms that can be used for control. International Journal for Parasitology. 2006;**36**:1077-1080. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijpara.2006.06.008

[60] Beier JC, Muller GC, Gu W, Arheart KL, Schlein Y. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods decimate populations of *Anopheles* malaria vectors in arid environments regardless of the local availability of favoured sugar-source blossoms. Malaria Journal. 2012;**11**:31-37. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-31

[61] Qualls WA, Xue RD, Revay EE, Allan SA, Muller GC. Implications for operational control of adult mosquito production in cisterns and wells in St. Augustine, FL using attractive sugar baits. Acta Tropica. 2012;**124**:158-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.07.004 [62] Müller GC, Junnila A, Qualls WA, Revay EE, Kline DL, Allan SA, et al. Control of *Culex quinquefasciatus* in a storm drain system in Florida using attractive toxic sugar bait. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2010a;**24**:346-351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00876.x

[63] Müller GC, Beier JC, Traore SF, Toure MB, Traore MM, Bah S, et al. Successful field trial of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) plant-spraying methods against malaria vectors in the *Anopheles gambiae* complex in Mali. West Africa. Malaria Journal. 2010b;**9**:210-216. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-210

[64] Hossain TT, Fulcher A, Davidson C, Beier JC, Xue RD. Evaluation of boric acid sprayed on plants against salt marsh mosquitoes, *Aedes taeniorhynchus* (Diptera: Culicidae). Florida Entomologist. 2014;**97**:1865-1868. DOI: 10.1653/024.097.0469

[65] Revay EE, Müller GC, Qualls WA, Kline DL, Naranjo DP, Arheat KL, et al. Control of *Aedes albopictus* with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) and potential impact on non-target organisms in St. Augustine, Florida. Parasitology Research. 2014;**113**:73-79. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-013-3628-4

[66] Tenywal FC, Kambagha A, Saddler A, Maia MF. The development of an ivermectin-based attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to target *Anopheles arabiensis*. Malaria Journal. 2017;**16**:338- 347. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-1994-6

[67] Xue RD, Ali A, Kline DL, Barnard DR. Application of boric acid baits to plant foliage for adult mosquito control. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2006;**22**:497-500. DOI: 10.2987/8756-971X(2006)22[497,AOBAB T]2.0.CO;2

*Advances in Mosquito Control: A Comprehensive Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106378*

[68] Gu ZY, He J, Teng XD, Lan CJ, Shen RX, Wang YT, et al. Efficacy of orally toxic sugar baits against contact-insecticide resistant *Culex quinquefasciatus*. Acta Tropica. 2020;**202**:105256. DOI: 10.1016/j. actatropica.2019.105256

[69] Corbel V, Duchon S, Zaim M, Hougard JM. Dinotefuran: a potential neonicotinoid insecticide against resistant mosquitoes. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2004;**41**(4):712-717. DOI: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.4.712

[70] Stewart ZP, Oxborough RM, Tungu PK, Kirby MJ, Rowland MW, Irish SR. Indoor application of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) in combination with mosquito nets for control of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2013;**8**:e84168. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0084168

[71] Xue RD, Ali A, Kline DL, Barnard DR. Field evaluation of boric acid- and fipronil-based bait stations against adult mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2008;**24**:415-418. DOI: 10.2987/5683.1

[72] See AS, Salleh AB, Bakar FA, Yusof NA, Abdulamir AS, Lee YH. Risk and health effect of boric acid. American Journal of Applied Sciences. 2010;**7**:620-627

[73] Fiorenzano JM, Koehler PG, Xue R-D. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) for control of mosquitoes and its impact on non-target organisms: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;**14**: 398-410. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14040398

[74] Keller MD, Leahy DJ, Norton BJ, Johanson R, Mullen ER, Marvit M, et al. Laser induced mortality of *Anopheles stephensi* mosquitoes. Scientific Reports. 2016;**6**:20936. DOI: 10.1038/srep20936

[75] Hori M, Shibuya K, Sato M, Saito Y. Lethal effects of short-wavelength visible light on insects. Scientific Reports. 2014;**4**:07383. DOI: 10.1038/srep07383

### Section 3
