Cargando…

Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China

BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Qiang, Wang, Fei, Lv, Xihong, Cao, Hui, Zhou, Jianjun, Su, Fei, Xiong, Chenglong, Leng, Peien
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8
_version_ 1783351273634922496
author Gao, Qiang
Wang, Fei
Lv, Xihong
Cao, Hui
Zhou, Jianjun
Su, Fei
Xiong, Chenglong
Leng, Peien
author_facet Gao, Qiang
Wang, Fei
Lv, Xihong
Cao, Hui
Zhou, Jianjun
Su, Fei
Xiong, Chenglong
Leng, Peien
author_sort Gao, Qiang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring compared with the standard HLC. METHODS: Outdoor HDN and HLC catches were conducted simultaneously at 15 field sites on two sunny days in mid-July and August. The tests were performed 3 h apart: an early morning period (7:30–8:30 h), a pre-sunset period (16:30–17:30 h) and a post-sunset period (18:30–19:30 h). A total of 90 comparisons were made between the two methods. Field comparisons were designed to minimize half-hour bias and human-bait attraction bias. RESULTS: Two mosquito species were collected by HDN and HLC, with the predominated species being Ae. albopictus (HDN: n = 1325, 97.35% of total; HLC: n = 531, 92.51% of total). A small proportion were adults of the Culex pipiens complex (HDN: n = 36, 2.65% of total; HLC: n = 43, 7.49% of total). Although the mean Ae. albopictus catch per hour of HLC was significantly higher than HDN (14.72 vs 5.90 per h, t((178)) = 3.151, P = 0.003), there were significant positive spatial and temporal correlations between HLC and HDN for Ae. albopictus sampling among different sites and hours (r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001; r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001). Both methods proved that Ae. albopictus was most active during the hours before sunset and least active after sunset. No significant variation was observed in Ae. albopictus catch size of HDN between groups of more attractive and less attractive humans (3.38 vs 2.51 per 30 min, t((88)) = 1.283, P = 0.201). CONCLUSIONS: With moderate sampling efficiency, significantly positive spatial correlation with HLC, and less human-bait attraction bias, HDN appears to be a safer alternative to HLC for Ae. albopictus monitoring in Shanghai. With mosquito activity peaking in the pre-sunset hours, Ae. albopictus catches of HDN should be performed in the hours before dark. The trap design could be improved to make it more portable and easier for field operation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6114860
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61148602018-09-04 Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China Gao, Qiang Wang, Fei Lv, Xihong Cao, Hui Zhou, Jianjun Su, Fei Xiong, Chenglong Leng, Peien Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring compared with the standard HLC. METHODS: Outdoor HDN and HLC catches were conducted simultaneously at 15 field sites on two sunny days in mid-July and August. The tests were performed 3 h apart: an early morning period (7:30–8:30 h), a pre-sunset period (16:30–17:30 h) and a post-sunset period (18:30–19:30 h). A total of 90 comparisons were made between the two methods. Field comparisons were designed to minimize half-hour bias and human-bait attraction bias. RESULTS: Two mosquito species were collected by HDN and HLC, with the predominated species being Ae. albopictus (HDN: n = 1325, 97.35% of total; HLC: n = 531, 92.51% of total). A small proportion were adults of the Culex pipiens complex (HDN: n = 36, 2.65% of total; HLC: n = 43, 7.49% of total). Although the mean Ae. albopictus catch per hour of HLC was significantly higher than HDN (14.72 vs 5.90 per h, t((178)) = 3.151, P = 0.003), there were significant positive spatial and temporal correlations between HLC and HDN for Ae. albopictus sampling among different sites and hours (r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001; r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001). Both methods proved that Ae. albopictus was most active during the hours before sunset and least active after sunset. No significant variation was observed in Ae. albopictus catch size of HDN between groups of more attractive and less attractive humans (3.38 vs 2.51 per 30 min, t((88)) = 1.283, P = 0.201). CONCLUSIONS: With moderate sampling efficiency, significantly positive spatial correlation with HLC, and less human-bait attraction bias, HDN appears to be a safer alternative to HLC for Ae. albopictus monitoring in Shanghai. With mosquito activity peaking in the pre-sunset hours, Ae. albopictus catches of HDN should be performed in the hours before dark. The trap design could be improved to make it more portable and easier for field operation. BioMed Central 2018-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6114860/ /pubmed/30153868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Gao, Qiang
Wang, Fei
Lv, Xihong
Cao, Hui
Zhou, Jianjun
Su, Fei
Xiong, Chenglong
Leng, Peien
Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title_full Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title_fullStr Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title_short Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
title_sort comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for aedes albopictus monitoring in shanghai, china
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8
work_keys_str_mv AT gaoqiang comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT wangfei comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT lvxihong comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT caohui comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT zhoujianjun comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT sufei comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT xiongchenglong comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina
AT lengpeien comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina