Comparison of two adult mosquito sampling methods with human landing catches in south-central Ethiopia

Malaria Journal

Research

Meshesha Balkew¹  Teshome Gebre-Michael¹  Bernt Lindtjørn²  Wakgari Deressa³  Habte Tekie⁴  Oljira Kenea⁵  Hans J. Overgaard⁶  Eskindir Loha⁷ 

[1] Akililu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, P. O. Box 7804, 5020, Bergen, Norway;Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;Department of Biology, Wollega University, P. O. Box 395, Nekemte, Ethiopia;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P. O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway;School of Public and Environmental Health, Hawassa University, P. O. Box 1560, Hawassa, Ethiopia;

关键词: Anopheles arabiensis;    Ethiopia;    Human landing catches;    Light traps;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12936-016-1668-9

 received in 2016-09-15, accepted in 2016-12-22,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe human landing catch (HLC) is the standard reference method for measuring human exposure to mosquito bites. However, HLC is labour-intensive, exposes collectors to infectious mosquito bites and is subjected to collector bias. These necessitate local calibration and application of alternative methods. This study was undertaken to determine the relative sampling efficiency (RSE) of light traps with or without yeast-produced carbon dioxide bait vs. HLC in south-central Ethiopia.MethodsThe experiment was conducted for 39 nights in a 3 × 3 Latin square randomized design with Anopheles arabiensis as the target species in the period between July and November 2014 in Edo Kontola village, south-central Ethiopia. Center for Disease Control and Prevention light trap catches (LTC) and yeast-generated carbon dioxide-baited light trap catches (CB-LTC) were each evaluated against HLC. The total nightly mosquito catches for each Anopheles species in either method was compared with HLC by Pearson correlation and simple linear regression analysis on log-transformed [log10(x + 1)] values. To test if the RSE of each alternative method was affected by mosquito density, the ratio of the number of mosquitoes in each method to the number of mosquitoes in HLC was plotted against the average mosquito abundance.ResultsOverall, 7606 Anopheles females were collected by the three sampling methods. Among these 5228 (68.7%) were Anopheles ziemanni, 1153 (15.2%) An. arabiensis, 883 (11.6%) Anopheles funestus s.l., and 342 (4.5%) Anopheles pharoensis. HLC yielded 3392 (44.6%), CB-LTC 2150 (28.3%), and LTC 2064 (27.1%) Anopheles females. The RSEs of LTC and HLC for An. arabiensis were significantly correlated (p < 0.001) and density independent (p = 0.65). However, for outdoor collection of the same species, RSEs of LTC and CB-LTC were density dependent (p < 0.001). It was estimated that on average, indoor LTC and CB-LTC each caught 0.35 and 0.44 times that of indoor HLC for An. arabiensis respectively.ConclusionsResults showed that HLC was the most efficient method for sampling An. arabiensis. LTC can be used for large-scale indoor An. arabiensis surveillance and monitoring when it is difficult to use HLC. CB-LTC does not substantially improve sampling of this major vector compared to LTC in this setting.Trial registration PACTR201411000882128 (retrospectively registered 8 September, 2014)

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2017