Comparative evaluation of different versions of exposure-free mosquito electrocuting traps and barrier screen trap for monitoring outdoor densities and biting time phenotypes by malaria and filariasis vectors in Tanzania.
Comparative evaluation of different versions of exposure-free mosquito electrocuting traps and barrier screen trap for monitoring outdoor densities and biting time phenotypes by malaria and filariasis vectors in Tanzania.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13071-022-05549-4
复制
发表时间：
2022-11-11
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
估计人类接触蚊媒的情况对于预测疟疾传播和干预影响至关重要。人类着陆捕获法经常用于直接测量估计暴露率；然而，越来越多的人从这种方法转向无暴露的替代方法，例如电死蚊子陷阱 (MET) 和其他方法。虽然后一种方法可以提供人类暴露和蚊子密度的可靠且具有代表性的值，但它们通常仍然需要人类志愿者，这带来了后勤方面的挑战。此外，就 MET 而言，早期的 MET 原型 (METe) 要求人类志愿者穿着可能不舒服的防护服。我们通过比较 METe 原型的性能，研究了两种替代诱捕方法来应对这些挑战：(i) 改进的笼式 MET 原型，为用户提供全面保护 (METc) 和 (ii) 屏障屏幕陷阱 (BST)，设计用于在户外被动采样（寻找宿主和吸血）蚊子，无需人类参与者。 METe、METc 和 BST 的相对性能通过在坦桑尼亚东南部进行的 3 × 3 拉丁方现场实验设计进行了 12 个晚上的采样评估。感兴趣的结果是夜间捕获的蚊子和叮咬时间的估计。 METc 和 BST 捕获的 An 数量相似。 arabiensis 为 METe（分别为相对比 [RR] = 0.76，95% 置信区间 [CI]：0.42–1.39，P = 0.38，RR = 1.13，95% CI：0.63–2.04，P = 0.69）。同样，METc 和 BST 捕获的库蚊数量相似。为 METe（分别为 RR = 0.87，95% CI：0.62–1.22，P = 0.42 和 RR = 0.80，95% CI：0.57–1.12，P = 0.199）。所有三种诱捕方法均表明按蚊的叮咬活动模式相似。阿拉伯和库蚊属的叮咬现象，其特点是在傍晚（18:00–22:00）开始叮咬，在人们通常睡觉时（22:00–05:00）达到高峰，并在早晨（05:00–07:00）急剧下降。为了提高用户舒适度并消除对防护服的需求而对 METe 设计进行的修改不会导致蚊子媒介丰度的低估，也不会导致其叮咬时间模式的误报。我们建议使用 METc 而非 METe 设计。同样，生物科技技术也展示了监测坦桑尼亚疟疾和丝虫病媒介密度的潜力。在线版本包含可在 10.1186/s13071-022-05549-4 获取的补充材料。
Estimating human exposure to mosquito vectors is crucial for the prediction of malaria transmission and intervention impact. The human landing catch method is frequently used to directly measure estimate exposure rates; however, there has been an increasing shift from this method to exposure-free alternatives, such as the mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and other approaches. While these latter methods can provide robust and representative values of human exposure and mosquito density, they often still require a human volunteer, which poses logistical challenges. Additionally, in the case of the MET, the early MET prototype (METe) required human volunteers to wear protective clothing that could be uncomfortable. We investigated two alternative trapping approaches to address these challenges by comparing the performance of the METe prototype to: (i) a modified caged MET prototype that offers full protection to users (METc) and (ii) a barrier screen trap (BST) designed to passively sample (host-seeking and blood-fed) mosquitoes outdoors without requiring a human participant. The relative performance of the METe, METc and BST were evaluated in a 3 × 3 Latin square field experiment design conducted in south-eastern Tanzania over 12 nights of sampling. The outcomes of interest were the nightly catch of mosquitoes and biting time estimates. The METc and BST caught similar numbers of An. arabiensis as the METe (relative ratio [RR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–1.39, P = 0.38 and RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.63–2.04, P = 0.69, respectively). Similarly, the METc and BST caught similar numbers of Culex spp. as the METe (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.62–1.22, P = 0.42 and RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.57–1.12, P = 0.199, respectively). All three trapping methods indicated a similar pattern of biting activity by An. arabiensis and Culex spp., characterized by biting starting in the early evening (18:00–22:00), peaking when people are typically sleeping (22:00–05:00) and dropping off drastically toward the morning (05:00–07:00). The modifications made to the METe design to improve user comfort and remove the need for protective clothing did not result in an underestimation of mosquito vector abundance nor misrepresentation of their biting time pattern. We recommend the METc for use over the METe design. Similarly, the BST demonstrated potential for monitoring malaria and filariasis vector densities in Tanzania. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-022-05549-4.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
8.1
作者：
Killeen GF;Kiware SS;Okumu FO;Sinka ME;Moyes CL;Massey NC;Gething PW;Marshall JM;Chaccour CJ;Tusting LS
通讯作者：
Tusting LS
影响因子：
3
作者：
Govella NJ;Chaki PP;Geissbuhler Y;Kannady K;Okumu F;Charlwood JD;Anderson RA;Killeen GF
通讯作者：
Killeen GF
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Ortega-Lopez, Leonardo D.;Pondeville, Emilie;Ferguson, Heather M.
通讯作者：
Ferguson, Heather M.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Burkot, Thomas R.;Russell, Tanya L.;Lobo, Neil F.
通讯作者：
Lobo, Neil F.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Khatib, Rashid A.;Chaki, Prosper P.;Abdullah, Salim
通讯作者：
Abdullah, Salim