Study area and population
The study area was Mwea West and Mwea East Sub-counties in Kirinyaga County of Central region of Kenya (0.6591° S, 37.3827° E), approximately 100 km North East of Nairobi at an altitude of about 1159m above sea level. Kirinyaga County has a population density of 246 persons per km2 in a total area of 581km2. The County is one of the areas with highest vector populations due to rice irrigations specifically in the Mwea region. Mwea East is predominantly rice growing whereas Mwea West’s main economic activity is horticulture (Figure 1).
Study design
The study adopted a cross-sectional household survey that took place between April and May 2018. The study targeted all households where LLINs had been distributed by the Ministry of Health in November 2016 during a mass net campaign. The Kirinyaga County Public Health Office (PHO) was the entry point where the register of households that had received the nets was availed to this study.
The research adopted multistage sampling procedure. Stage one involved selection of two sub-counties namely Mwea East and Mwea West from the five sub-counties of Kirinyaga
County based on prevailing ecological setting (the two sub-counties have an approximate population of 142,926 people). Stage two was selection of villages from the registered 281 villages in the two sub-counties (Mwea East 141 and Mwea West 140 villages). Villages have an average of 100 households and approximate population of 500 persons. To obtain our sample size of 405 households using a uniform sample take of 15 households per village, 27 villages were required with 1 extra village added, to cater for missing households or where occupants had relocated to other areas. Proportionate allocation method was used to determine number of villages needed per sub-county and in each sub-county, systematic sampling with a random start was applied to sample required villages. The systematic sampling method was applied as it enables sampled villages across sub-county to be evenly distributed and yield good estimates for the population parameters.
The final stage involved systematic sampling with a random start of eligible households within selected villages (15 households per village).
The inclusion criteria for the study were those nets which were distributed during mass net campaign of November 2016. Any other net found in the homestead and not a 2016 campaign net was excluded from the study.
The field team explained the survey objectives to the household heads before administration of the questionnaire. The field team comprised of researchers and community health workers. The community health workers had been trained on the questionnaire prior to the study. Training content included seeking written informed consent, technique of sampling nets for chemical analysis and classification of hole size.
A total of 420 household heads/spouses consented and participated in the study. Written informed consent stating the purpose of the research was sought from the household heads. A questionnaire and physical examination of LLINs were used to collect data.
The nets were removed from their hanging place and assessed outside the house for the presence of holes. Hole sizes were categorised into four groups; hole smaller than a thumb (0.5 - 2.0 cm), holes larger than a thumb but smaller than fist (2 - 10 cm), hole larger than a fist but smaller than a head (10 - 25 cm), holes larger than a head (>25 cm) [12].
LLINs Physical Integrity
Integrity of the nets was quantified as described in WHOPES [12]. The area of each ‘hole size’ was calculated from an assumed diameter. Size one hole diameter; 1.25cm, size two hole diameter; 6cm, size three hole diameter; 17.5cm and size four hole diameter; 30cm, [11]. Proportionate hole index (pHI) for each net was calculated by adding the areas of all hole sizes present in a net [12].
Chemical Residue Analysis
A random sample of 80 nets was withdrawn from the households (with replacement done) for chemical analysis. From each side of the five sides of a net 30cm x 30cm piece was cut and the pieces for each net pooled together to ensure there was no bias, wrapped in aluminium foil, labelled and stored in separate bags for transportation to KEMRI laboratories for chemical analysis. Five new and unused LLINs from the same batch as the nets distributed were also provided by the PHO. These new nets were used to develop baseline data for chemical testing.
Sample preparation
Mechanical extraction was used since only the surface concentration of the insecticide in the netting material is available to an alighting mosquito [13]. A 10 cm x 10 cm piece was cut from the 30 cm x 30 cm sample, weighed and the total mass recorded [14]. The samples was then cut into smaller pieces and introduced in a glass vial equipped with a tight stopper containing 5ml of analytical grade methanol. The insecticide was extracted from the net by ultra-sonicating at room temperature for 30 min [13]. The extract was filtered through a 0.45µm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) syringe filter and appropriate dilution was made. Methanol was evaporated from the extract before reconstituting with hexane, to bring down the permethrin and α-cypermethrin concentrations within the concentration range of the standards, of between 20ppb and 500ppb.
Standard preparation
All solvents used for the analysis were high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade. Pesticide standards used were of 99.9 % purity. Working standards were prepared on day of analysis and stock solutions stored at 4℃ at all times. Working standards were prepared from 20ppb to 500ppb. The limit of detection and limit of quantification for the instrument were also determined as part of method development.
GCMS instrumentation
A Shimadzu QP 2010-SE GCMS coupled to an auto sampler was used for the analysis. Ultrapure Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1ml/minute. A BPX5 non polar column, 30m; 0.25 mm ID; 0.25 µm film thickness, was used for separation. The GC was programmed as follows: 500 C (1 minute); 300 C /min to 3000 C. Only 1 µL of the sample was injected. Injection was done at 2000 C in split mode, with split ratio set to 10:1. The interface temperature was set at 2800 C. The Electron Ionisation (EI) ion source was set at 2000 C, Mass analyses was done in Single Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode at specific retention windows. SIM group ions for permethrin were 127, 163 and 183 m/z; with 183 m/z being the quantifier ion. The retention window for these ions was between 24 – 26 minutes. SIM group ions for α-cypermethrin were 127, 163 and 181; with 163 m/z being the quantifier ion. The retention window for these ions was between 26.5 – 28.5 minutes. To test the method suitability, extraction efficiency, repeatability, accuracy and limit of detection were determined before sample injection. All samples were analysed at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) analytical chemistry laboratory.
Data analysis
Data collected using questionnaire was entered into a Microsoft excel sheet before being exported to SPSS version 19. For continuous data, distribution characteristics were confirmed using Kolmogorov-Sminorf test and Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA). For continuous variables means, medians and standard deviations were calculated and for categorical data, proportions and 95% Confidence Intervals. Testing for difference between grouping variable categories was performed using Chi-square (for categorical data), Student T test or One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (for continuous normally distributed data) and Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal Wallis test (for continuous skewed data) depending on number of grouping variable categories.
The number of holes in a net were used to calculate the proportionate hole index (pHI). Each hole was weighted by its size and summing them up for each net. WHO formula for pHI was used; pHI = (area/1.23 x no. of size-1 holes) + (area/1.23 x no. of size-2 holes) + (area/1.23 x no. of size-3 holes) + (area/1.23 x no. of size-4 holes).
The area for each sample was calculated on the assumption that the holes are circular and the diameter is equal to the midpoint in each hole size category. A net with pHI of 0 - 64 is a good net, a net with pHI of between 65 and 642 is a damaged net and a net with a pHI ≥ 643 is a net which is too torn [12].
The pooled pieces of net samples were used for chemical analysis to determine the amount of insecticide available on the surface.
Ethical approval
Approval for this study was sought from the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Scientific and Ethics Review Unit (SERU), approval number KEMRI/SERU/CTDMR/037/3374.