Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia

Sikaala, Chadwick, Killeen, Gerry ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8583-8739, Chanda, Javan, Chinula, Dingani, Miller, John M, Russell, Tanya L. and Seyoum, Aklilu (2013) 'Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia'. Parasites & Vectors, Vol 6, e91.

Preview

Text parasitesandvectors_6_91.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (405kB)

Abstract

Background

Sampling malaria vectors and measuring their biting density is of paramount importance for entomological surveys of malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) has been traditionally regarded as a gold standard method for surveying human exposure to mosquito bites. However, due to the risk of human participant exposure to mosquito-borne parasites and viruses, a variety of alternative, exposure-free trapping methods were compared in lowland, south-east Zambia.

Methods

Centres for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara Tent Trap model C (ITT-C), resting boxes (RB) and window exit traps (WET) were all compared with HLC using a 3 × 3 Latin Squares design replicated in 4 blocks of 3 houses with long lasting insecticidal nets, half of which were also sprayed with a residual deltamethrin formulation, which was repeated for 10 rounds of 3 nights of rotation each during both the dry and wet seasons.

Results

The mean catches of HLC indoor, HLC outdoor, CDC-LT, ITT-C, WET, RB indoor and RB outdoor, were 1.687, 1.004, 3.267, 0.088, 0.004, 0.000 and 0.008 for Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald respectively, and 7.287, 6.784, 10.958, 5.875, 0.296, 0.158 and 0.458, for An. funestus Giles, respectively. Indoor CDC-LT was more efficient in sampling An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus than HLC indoor (Relative rate [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.873 [1.653, 2.122] and 1.532 [1.441, 1.628], respectively, P < 0.001 for both). ITT-C was the only other alternative which had comparable sensitivity (RR = 0.821 [0.765, 0.881], P < 0.001), relative to HLC indoor other than CDC-LT for sampling An. funestus.

Conclusions

While the two most sensitive exposure-free techniques primarily capture host-seeking mosquitoes, both have substantial disadvantages for routine community-based surveillance applications: the CDC-LT requires regular recharging of batteries while the bulkiness of ITT-C makes it difficult to move between sampling locations. RB placed indoors or outdoors and WET had consistently poor sensitivity so it may be useful to evaluate additional alternative methods, such as pyrethrum spray catches and back packer aspirators, for catching resting mosquitoes.

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/6/1/91
Subjects:	QX Parasitology > Insects. Other Parasites > QX 510 Mosquitoes QX Parasitology > Insects. Other Parasites > QX 515 Anopheles WA Public Health > Health Problems of Special Population Groups > WA 395 Health in developing countries WC Communicable Diseases > Tropical and Parasitic Diseases > WC 750 Malaria WC Communicable Diseases > Tropical and Parasitic Diseases > WC 755 Epidemiology WC Communicable Diseases > Tropical and Parasitic Diseases > WC 765 Prevention and control
Faculty: Department:	Biological Sciences > Vector Biology Department
Digital Object Identifer (DOI):	https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-91
Depositing User:	Samantha Sheldrake
Date Deposited:	12 Jul 2013 09:35
Last Modified:	16 Sep 2019 10:12
URI:	https://archive.lstmed.ac.uk/id/eprint/3425

Statistics

View details

Actions (login required)

Edit Item