LSTM Home > LSTM Research > LSTM Online Archive

Monitoring mosquitoes in urban Dar es Salaam: Evaluation of resting boxes, window exit traps, CDC light traps, Ifakara tent traps and human landing catches

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Govella, Nicodem, Chaki, Prosper P, Mpangile, John M and Killeen, Gerry ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8583-8739 (2011) 'Monitoring mosquitoes in urban Dar es Salaam: Evaluation of resting boxes, window exit traps, CDC light traps, Ifakara tent traps and human landing catches'. Parasites & Vectors, Vol 4, e40.

[img]
Preview
Text
Para_Vect_4_40.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (521kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background

Ifakara tent traps (ITT) are currently the only sufficiently sensitive, safe, affordable and practical method for routine monitoring host-seeking mosquito densities in Dar es Salaam. However, it is not clear whether ITT catches represent indoors or outdoors biting densities. ITT do not yield samples of resting, fed mosquitoes for blood meal
analysis.

Methods

Outdoors mosquito sampling methods, namely human landing catch (HLC), ITT (Design B) and resting boxes (RB) were conducted in parallel with indoors sampling using HLC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps (LT) and RB as well as window exit traps (WET) in urban Dar es Salaam, rotating them thirteen times through a 3 × 3 Latin Square experimental design replicated in four blocks of three houses. This study was conducted between 6th May and 2rd July 2008, during the main rainy season when mosquito biting densities reach their annual peak.

Results

The mean sensitivities of indoor RB, outdoor RB, WET, LT, ITT (Design B) and HLC placed outdoor relative to
HLC placed indoor were 0.01, 0.005, 0.036, 0.052, 0.374, and 1.294 for Anopheles gambiae sensu lato (96% An. gambiae s.s and 4% An. arabiensis), respectively, and 0.017, 0.053, 0.125, 0.423, 0.372 and 1.140 for Culex spp, respectively. The ITT (Design B) catches correlated slightly better to indoor HLC (r2 = 0.619, P < 0.001, r2 = 0.231, P = 0.001) than outdoor HLC (r2 = 0.423, P < 0.001, r2 = 0.228, P = 0.001) for An. gambiae s.l. and Culex spp respectively but the taxonomic composition of mosquitoes caught by ITT does not match those of the indoor HLC (c2 = 607.408, degrees of freedom = 18, P < 0.001). The proportion of An. gambiae caught indoors was unaffected by the use of an LLIN in that house.

Conclusion

The RB, WET and LT are poor methods for surveillance of malaria vector densities in urban Dar es
Salaam compared to ITT and HLC but there is still uncertainty over whether the ITT best reflects indoor or outdoor biting densities. The particular LLIN evaluated here failed to significantly reduce house entry by An. gambiae s.l. suggesting a negligible repellence effect.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/40
Subjects: QX Parasitology > Insects. Other Parasites > QX 515 Anopheles
QX Parasitology > Insects. Other Parasites > QX 600 Insect control. Tick control
QX Parasitology > Insects. Other Parasites > QX 650 Insect vectors
Faculty: Department: Groups (2002 - 2012) > Vector Group
Digital Object Identifer (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-4-40
Depositing User: Users 183 not found.
Date Deposited: 21 Jun 2011 08:29
Last Modified: 16 Sep 2019 10:12
URI: https://archive.lstmed.ac.uk/id/eprint/2043

Statistics

View details

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item