Cargando…

A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex

BACKGROUND: Mosquito sampling methods are essential for monitoring and evaluating malaria vector control interventions. In urban Dar es Salaam, human landing catch (HLC) is the only method sufficiently sensitive for monitoring malaria-transmitting Anopheles. HLC is labour intensive, cumbersome, haza...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Govella, Nicodemus J, Chaki, Prosper P, Geissbuhler, Yvonne, Kannady, Khadija, Okumu, Fredros, Charlwood, J Derek, Anderson, Robert A, Killeen, Gerry F
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-157
_version_ 1782170163789955072
author Govella, Nicodemus J
Chaki, Prosper P
Geissbuhler, Yvonne
Kannady, Khadija
Okumu, Fredros
Charlwood, J Derek
Anderson, Robert A
Killeen, Gerry F
author_facet Govella, Nicodemus J
Chaki, Prosper P
Geissbuhler, Yvonne
Kannady, Khadija
Okumu, Fredros
Charlwood, J Derek
Anderson, Robert A
Killeen, Gerry F
author_sort Govella, Nicodemus J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mosquito sampling methods are essential for monitoring and evaluating malaria vector control interventions. In urban Dar es Salaam, human landing catch (HLC) is the only method sufficiently sensitive for monitoring malaria-transmitting Anopheles. HLC is labour intensive, cumbersome, hazardous, and requires such intense supervision that is difficulty to sustain on large scales. METHODS: Novel tent traps were developed as alternatives to HLC. The Furvela tent, designed in Mozambique, incorporates a CDC Light trap (LT) components, while two others from Ifakara, Tanzania (designs A and B) require no electricity or moving parts. Their sensitivity for sampling malaria vectors was compared with LT and HLC over a wide range of vector abundances in rural and urban settings in Tanzania, with endophagic and exophagic populations, respectively, using randomised Latin-square and cross- over experimental designs. RESULTS: The sensitivity of LTs was greater than HLC while the opposite was true of Ifakara tent traps (crude mean catch of An. gambiae sensu lato relative to HLC = 0.28, 0.65 and 1.30 for designs A, B and LT in a rural setting and 0.32 for design B in an urban setting). However, Ifakara B catches correlated far better to HLC (r(2 )= 0.73, P < 0.001) than any other method tested (r(2 )= 0.04, P = 0.426 and r(2 )= 0.19, P = 0.006 for Ifakara A and LTs respectively). Only Ifakara B in a rural setting with high vector density exhibited constant sampling efficiency relative to HLC. The relative sensitivity of Ifakara B increased as vector densities decreased in the urban setting and exceeded that of HLC at the lowest densities. None of the tent traps differed from HLC in terms of the proportions of parous mosquitoes (P ≥ 0.849) or An. gambiae s.l. sibling species (P ≥ 0.280) they sampled but both Ifakara A and B designs failed to reduce the proportion of blood-fed mosquitoes caught (Odds ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.6 [1.2, 2.1] and 1.0 [0.8, 1.2], P = 0.002 and 0.998, respectively), probably because of operator exposure while emptying the trap each morning. CONCLUSION: The Ifakara B trap may have potential for monitoring and evaluating a variety of endophagic and exophagic Afrotropical malaria vectors, particularly at low but epidemiologically relevant population densities. However, operator exposure to mosquito bites remains a concern so additional modifications or protective measures will be required before this design can be considered for widespread, routine use.
format Text
id pubmed-2720981
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27209812009-08-05 A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex Govella, Nicodemus J Chaki, Prosper P Geissbuhler, Yvonne Kannady, Khadija Okumu, Fredros Charlwood, J Derek Anderson, Robert A Killeen, Gerry F Malar J Methodology BACKGROUND: Mosquito sampling methods are essential for monitoring and evaluating malaria vector control interventions. In urban Dar es Salaam, human landing catch (HLC) is the only method sufficiently sensitive for monitoring malaria-transmitting Anopheles. HLC is labour intensive, cumbersome, hazardous, and requires such intense supervision that is difficulty to sustain on large scales. METHODS: Novel tent traps were developed as alternatives to HLC. The Furvela tent, designed in Mozambique, incorporates a CDC Light trap (LT) components, while two others from Ifakara, Tanzania (designs A and B) require no electricity or moving parts. Their sensitivity for sampling malaria vectors was compared with LT and HLC over a wide range of vector abundances in rural and urban settings in Tanzania, with endophagic and exophagic populations, respectively, using randomised Latin-square and cross- over experimental designs. RESULTS: The sensitivity of LTs was greater than HLC while the opposite was true of Ifakara tent traps (crude mean catch of An. gambiae sensu lato relative to HLC = 0.28, 0.65 and 1.30 for designs A, B and LT in a rural setting and 0.32 for design B in an urban setting). However, Ifakara B catches correlated far better to HLC (r(2 )= 0.73, P < 0.001) than any other method tested (r(2 )= 0.04, P = 0.426 and r(2 )= 0.19, P = 0.006 for Ifakara A and LTs respectively). Only Ifakara B in a rural setting with high vector density exhibited constant sampling efficiency relative to HLC. The relative sensitivity of Ifakara B increased as vector densities decreased in the urban setting and exceeded that of HLC at the lowest densities. None of the tent traps differed from HLC in terms of the proportions of parous mosquitoes (P ≥ 0.849) or An. gambiae s.l. sibling species (P ≥ 0.280) they sampled but both Ifakara A and B designs failed to reduce the proportion of blood-fed mosquitoes caught (Odds ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.6 [1.2, 2.1] and 1.0 [0.8, 1.2], P = 0.002 and 0.998, respectively), probably because of operator exposure while emptying the trap each morning. CONCLUSION: The Ifakara B trap may have potential for monitoring and evaluating a variety of endophagic and exophagic Afrotropical malaria vectors, particularly at low but epidemiologically relevant population densities. However, operator exposure to mosquito bites remains a concern so additional modifications or protective measures will be required before this design can be considered for widespread, routine use. BioMed Central 2009-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC2720981/ /pubmed/19602253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-157 Text en Copyright © 2009 Govella et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology
Govella, Nicodemus J
Chaki, Prosper P
Geissbuhler, Yvonne
Kannady, Khadija
Okumu, Fredros
Charlwood, J Derek
Anderson, Robert A
Killeen, Gerry F
A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title_full A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title_fullStr A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title_full_unstemmed A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title_short A new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex
title_sort new tent trap for sampling exophagic and endophagic members of the anopheles gambiae complex
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-157
work_keys_str_mv AT govellanicodemusj anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT chakiprosperp anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT geissbuhleryvonne anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT kannadykhadija anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT okumufredros anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT charlwoodjderek anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT andersonroberta anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT killeengerryf anewtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT govellanicodemusj newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT chakiprosperp newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT geissbuhleryvonne newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT kannadykhadija newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT okumufredros newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT charlwoodjderek newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT andersonroberta newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex
AT killeengerryf newtenttrapforsamplingexophagicandendophagicmembersoftheanophelesgambiaecomplex