Correa-Morales, Dunbar, Dzul-Manzanilla, Medina-Barreiro, Morales-Ríos, Bibiano-Marín, Che-Mendoza, Manrique-Saide, Vazquez-Prokopec (2019) Evaluation and Comparison of Spray Equipment for Indoor Residual Spraying Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 35(2) 107-112


The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently recommended indoor residual spraying (IRS) as part of a vector control strategy to combat Aedes-borne diseases, including dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses. Hand compression sprayers have been used in malaria prevention and control programs worldwide since the 1950s and are a standard for IRS application. However, there are technological advances that should be considered to improve IRS application (e.g., flow-control valves, rechargeable-battery equipment, reduced-drift nozzles, etc.), particularly if interventions are performed in urban areas to target Aedes aegypti. Using WHO guidelines, we contrasted technical characteristics of potential IRS equipment including hand compression sprayers (Hudson X-pert, Goizper IK Vector Control Super), rechargeable-battery sprayers (Solo 416, Birchmeier REC 15ABZ, Hudson NeverPump), and motorized sprayers (Honda WJR 2525, Kawashima AK35GX). Measurements included flow rate, droplet size, battery/fuel life, and technical/physical characteristics. Flow rate, the most important parameter, of the Hudson X-pert was stabilized at 550 ml/min by the use of a control flow valve (CFV). The IK Vector Control Super had integrated CFVs and produced a similar flow as the Hudson X-pert. Rechargeable-battery equipment provided consistent flow as well as negligible noise. Motorized sprayers also produced consistent flow, but their weight, high noise pollution when used indoors, and high engine temperature made them highly unpleasant for technicians. We identify alternatives to the more traditional hand compression Hudson X-pert sprayer with technical and operational considerations for performing IRS.