Table. Window screen and eave baffle treatments that were rotated through experimental huts with 3 IRS treatments for control of malaria vector mosquitoes, Tanzania*.

Treatment no.	Description	Eaves baffled		Windows screened	Treatment of window screen and eave baffle netting
		Entrances	Exits		LC, mg/m2	PM, g/m2	BA
1	Negative control: no trapping or insecticide	Yes	No	No	0	0	No
2	Partial negative control: trapping without insecticide	Yes	Yes	Yes	0	0	No
3	Partial negative control: trapping without insecticide	Yes	Yes	Yes	0	0	Yes
4	Trapping plus long-lasting LC and BA treatment	Yes	Yes	Yes	55	0	Yes
5	Trapping plus varying dose PM treatments	Yes	Yes	Yes	0	1	No
6		Yes	Yes	Yes	0	2	No
7		Yes	Yes	Yes	0	4	No
8	Trapping plus varying dose PM treatments with BA	Yes	Yes	Yes	0	1	Yes
9		Yes	Yes	Yes	0	2	Yes
10		Yes	Yes	Yes	0	4	Yes
11	Trapping plus varying dose PM treatments with BA and LC	Yes	Yes	Yes	55	1	Yes
12		Yes	Yes	Yes	55	2	Yes
13		Yes	Yes	Yes	55	4	Yes
*Indoor residual spraying treatments of experimental huts used lambda-cyhalothin (30 mg/m2 in 4 huts), pirimiphos-methyl (2 g/m2 in 4 huts), or a negative control (water diluent only: 5 huts), which was applied to all inner surfaces of walls and ceilings. All doses are per square meter of treated netting (window screening and eave baffles) or wall and ceiling surface (IRS), so that these doses can be directly compared in terms of lethality and cost per unit area treated. The 26-day schedule applied to complete 1 full replicate of evaluation for duplicates of these 13 treatments, by rotating them through all 13 IRS-treated experimental huts, is detailed in Technical Appendix 1. BA, binding agent; IRS, indoor residual spraying; LC, lambda-cyhalothin; PM, primiphos-methyl.