2018年寿光市洪灾后6乡镇蝇类密度监测
详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |
  • 英文篇名:Surveillance on flies density in 6 towns after flood,Shouguang city,2018
  • 作者:孙桂兰
  • 英文作者:SUN Gui-lan;Shouguang City Center for Disease Control and Prevention;
  • 关键词:洪灾 ; 蝇类 ; 密度 ; 防控措施
  • 英文关键词:Flood;;Flies;;Density;;Prevention and control measures
  • 中文刊名:YXWX
  • 英文刊名:Preventive Medicine Tribune
  • 机构:寿光市疾病预防控制中心;
  • 出版日期:2019-05-10
  • 出版单位:预防医学论坛
  • 年:2019
  • 期:v.25
  • 语种:中文;
  • 页:YXWX201905026
  • 页数:3
  • CN:05
  • ISSN:37-1428/R
  • 分类号:80-82
摘要
目的了解寿光市2018年8月洪灾后蝇类密度情况,评价短期内洪灾对其消长的影响,为下一步全面实施蝇类防控措施提供依据。方法分别于9月1~2、8日先后对受灾最严重的6乡镇蝇密度采用目测法进行2次统一监测。结果第1次监测:成蝇密度平均为16.54只/m~2,其中进水村为19.23只/m~2,未进水村为13.85只/m~2;垃圾堆放场所密度最高为42.79只/m~2。蝇幼虫孳生率为5.51%,其中进水村为5.21%,未进水村为5.94%。第2次监测:成蝇密度平均为1.89只/m~2,其中进水村为1.25只/m~2,未进水村为2.53只/m~2,垃圾堆放场所密度最高为3.46只/m~2。结论洪灾引起蝇密度异常升高(结合2017年同期成蝇密度7.83只/m~2),灾后及时采取蝇类防控措施效果明显。
        Objective To understand the flies density after the August 2018 flood in Shouguang city,and evaluate the short-term impact of the flood on its fluctuation and growth,so as to provide the basis for the further comprehensive implementation of flies control measures. Methods Visual observation method was used to monitor the flies density twice in 6 towns and villages that were seriously affected by flood on September 1 st-2 nd and 8 th. Results From September 1 th-2 nd,the average flies density was 16.54/m~2,among which the flies density was 19.23/m~2 in the waterflooded villages and 13.85/m~2 in the non-waterflooded villages;the maximum density in garbage stacking place was 42.79/m~2.The breeding rate of flies larvae was 5.51%,among which was 5.21% in waterflooded villages and 5.94% in non-waterflooded villages.On September 8 th,the average density of adult flies was 1.89/m~2,among which the flies density in waterflooded villages was 1.25/m~2,and in non-waterflooded villages was 2.53/m~2,the highest density in garbage stacking place was 3.46/m~2. Conclusion The flies density increased abnormally after the flood(combined with the flies density of 7.83/m~2 in the same period of 2017),taking prevention and control measures in time after the flood is effective.
引文
[1] 王广文,刘朝辉,许春明.北京市房山区“7.21”水灾后病媒生物监测[J].首都公共卫生,2014,8(6):279-281.
    [2] 胡作林,张春菊,田大勇,等.2006~2013年泰安市突发公共卫生事件流行病学分析[J].预防医学论坛,2016,22(2):120-122,125.
    [3] 张璐,王艳,尹晔,等.2010~2014年鞍山市其他感染性腹泻病流行病学分析[J].预防医学论坛,2016,22(2):109-111.
    [4] 中国国家标准化管理委员会.病媒生物密度监测方法蝇类:GB/T 23797-2009[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2009.
    [5] 冷培恩,刘洪霞,曾晓芃,等.《病媒生物密度控制水平》国家标准解析[J].上海预防医学,2017,29(12):910-914.
    [6] 国家卫生计生委办公厅.《关于印发洪涝灾害后卫生防疫有关方案的通知》(国卫办疾控函[2017]758号)[Z],2017.7.
    [7] 杨素声,王云,刘旭红,等.创建卫生城市活动中病媒生物防治效果研究[J].中华卫生杀虫药械,2013,19(2):120-121,125.
    [8] 周良才,包继永,陈晓敏,等.武汉市家蝇对常用卫生杀虫剂抗药性发展趋势研究[J].中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2017,28(5):502-504.
    [9] 杨和仙,李加全,赵永,等.云南省保山市家蝇抗药性监测初步研究[J].医学动物防制,2019,35(1)89:90.
    [10] 冷培恩.我国蝇类防治杀虫剂与应用技术[J].中华卫生杀虫药械,2012,18(4):269-273.