Comparative performance of the Mbita trap, CDC light trap and the human landing catch in the sampling of Anopheles arabiensis, An. funestus and culicine species in a rice irrigation in western Kenya.
Comparative performance of the Mbita trap, CDC light trap and the human landing catch in the sampling of Anopheles arabiensis, An. funestus and culicine species in a rice irrigation in western Kenya.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1475-2875-4-7
复制
发表时间：
2005-01-25
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Knols BG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mathenge EM;Misiani GO;Oulo DO;Irungu LW;Ndegwa PN;Smith TA;Killeen GF;Knols BG
蚊子采样是疟疾控制的重要组成部分。然而，大多数使用的方法都有一些缺点，因此需要开发和校准新方法。用于捕获寻找宿主的蚊子的 Mbita 诱捕器最近在肯尼亚开发并成功进行了测试。然而，Mbita 诱捕器在捕捉马达加斯加户外叮咬的按蚊和阿拉伯按蚊方面效果较差，因此，需要在不同的流行病学环境中进一步评估这种诱捕器。本研究报告了对肯尼亚水稻灌溉计划中 Mbita 诱捕器的现场评估。将 Mbita 诱捕器的蚊子采样效率与 CDC 光诱捕器和肯尼亚西部人类登陆捕获的蚊子采样效率进行了比较。通过线性和非线性模型的贝叶斯回归分析数据。 Mbita 陷阱捕获了大约 17%、60% 和 20% 的 An 数量。阿拉伯树，An. funestus 和 culicine 物种分别在人类登陆收集中捕获。姆比塔陷阱和人类着陆捕捉之间的采样比例是一致的。 arabiensis 和 culine 种。对于安. funestus 中，Mbita 陷阱描绘了一些与密度相关的采样效率，这表明低密度下人类登陆渔获物的采样效率较低。 CDC 光陷阱捕获了大约 60%、120% 和 552% 的按蚊数量。阿拉伯树，An. funestus 和 culicine 物种分别在人类登陆收集中捕获。 CDC 光阱和人类着陆捕捉之间的采样比例是一致的。阿拉伯和安。 funestus，而对于 culines，这两种方法之间没有简单的关系。 Mbita 陷阱的灵敏度不如人类着陆捕捉器或 CDC 光陷阱。然而，对于给定的时间和金钱投入，可能会在较长（因此更具代表性）的时间内捕获更多的蚊子。因此，建议社区成员使用该诱捕器进行被动蚊子监测。尽管如此，仍然需要针对某些流行病学环境开发新的采样方法。应将人类登陆捕获物作为标准参考方法，用于校准人类叮咬蚊子种群采样的新方法。
Mosquitoes sampling is an important component in malaria control. However, most of the methods used have several shortcomings and hence there is a need to develop and calibrate new methods. The Mbita trap for capturing host-seeking mosquitoes was recently developed and successfully tested in Kenya. However, the Mbita trap is less effective at catching outdoor-biting Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in Madagascar and, thus, there is need to further evaluate this trap in diverse epidemiological settings. This study reports a field evaluation of the Mbita trap in a rice irrigation scheme in Kenya The mosquito sampling efficiency of the Mbita trap was compared to that of the CDC light trap and the human landing catch in western Kenya. Data was analysed by Bayesian regression of linear and non-linear models. The Mbita trap caught about 17%, 60%, and 20% of the number of An. arabiensis, An. funestus, and culicine species caught in the human landing collections respectively. There was consistency in sampling proportionality between the Mbita trap and the human landing catch for both An. arabiensis and the culicine species. For An. funestus, the Mbita trap portrayed some density-dependent sampling efficiency that suggested lowered sampling efficiency of human landing catch at low densities. The CDC light trap caught about 60%, 120%, and 552% of the number of An. arabiensis, An. funestus, and culicine species caught in the human landing collections respectively. There was consistency in the sampling proportionality between the CDC light trap and the human landing catch for both An. arabiensis and An. funestus, whereas for the culicines, there was no simple relationship between the two methods. The Mbita trap is less sensitive than either the human landing catch or the CDC light trap. However, for a given investment of time and money, it is likely to catch more mosquitoes over a longer (and hence more representative) period. This trap can therefore be recommended for use by community members for passive mosquito surveillance. Nonetheless, there is still a need to develop new sampling methods for some epidemiological settings. The human landing catch should be maintained as the standard reference method for use in calibrating new methods for sampling the human biting population of mosquitoes.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
DAVIS, JR;HALL, T;SHIFF, CJ
通讯作者：
SHIFF, CJ
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
GITHEKO, AK;SERVICE, MW;JUMA, FO
通讯作者：
JUMA, FO
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Mathenge, EM;Killeen, GF;Knols, BGJ
通讯作者：
Knols, BGJ
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
LINES, JD;CURTIS, CF;NJUNWA, KJ
通讯作者：
NJUNWA, KJ
影响因子：
3
作者：
Laganier, R;Randimby, FM;Robert, V
通讯作者：
Robert, V