Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Malar J ; 21(1): 36, 2022 Feb 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35123497

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In sub-Saharan Africa, house design and ventilation affects the number of malaria mosquito vectors entering houses. This study hypothesized that indoor light from a CDC-light trap, visible from outside a hut, would increase entry of Anopheles arabiensis, an important malaria vector, and examined whether ventilation modifies this effect. METHODS: Four inhabited experimental huts, each situated within a large chamber, were used to assess how light and ventilation affect the number of hut-entering mosquitoes in Tanzania. Each night, 300 female laboratory-reared An. arabiensis were released inside each chamber for 72 nights. Nightly mosquito collections were made using light traps placed indoors. Temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations were measured using data loggers. Treatments and sleepers were rotated between huts using a randomized block design. RESULTS: When indoor light was visible outside the huts, there was an 84% increase in the odds of collecting mosquitoes indoors (Odds ratio, OR = 1.84, 95% confidence intervals, 95% CI 1.74-1.95, p < 0.001) compared with when it was not. Although the odds of collecting mosquitoes in huts with closed eaves (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.72, p < 0.001) was less than those with open eaves, few mosquitoes entered either type of well-ventilated hut. The odds of collecting mosquitoes was 99% less in well-ventilated huts, compared with poorly-ventilated traditional huts (OR = 0.01, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, p < 0.001). In well-ventilated huts, indoor temperatures were 1.3 °C (95% CI 0.9-1.7, p < 0.001) cooler, with lower carbon dioxide (CO2) levels (mean difference = 97 ppm, 77.8-116.2, p < 0.001) than in poorly-ventilated huts. CONCLUSION: Although light visible from outside a hut increased mosquito house entry, good natural ventilation reduces indoor carbon dioxide concentrations, a major mosquito attractant, thereby reducing mosquito-hut entry.


Assuntos
Anopheles , Malária , Animais , Feminino , Habitação , Malária/prevenção & controle , Controle de Mosquitos , Mosquitos Vetores , Tanzânia
2.
Malar J ; 18(1): 414, 2019 Dec 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31823783

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Many subsistence farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania regularly relocate to distant farms in river valleys to tend to crops for several weeks or months each year. While there, they live in makeshift semi-open structures, usually far from organized health systems and where insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) do not provide adequate protection. This study evaluated the potential of a recently developed technology, eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent transfluthrin, for protecting migratory rice farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. METHODS: In the first test, eave ribbons (0.1 m × 24 m each) treated with 1.5% transfluthrin solution were compared to untreated ribbons in 24 randomly selected huts in three migratory communities over 48 nights. Host-seeking mosquitoes indoors and outdoors were monitored nightly (18.00-07.00 h) using CDC light traps and CO2-baited BG malaria traps, respectively. The second test compared efficacies of eave ribbons treated with 1.5% or 2.5% transfluthrin in 12 huts over 21 nights. Finally, 286 farmers were interviewed to assess perceptions about eave ribbons, and their willingness to pay for them. RESULTS: In the two experiments, when treated eave ribbons were applied, the reduction in indoor densities ranged from 56 to 77% for Anopheles arabiensis, 36 to 60% for Anopheles funestus, 72 to 84% for Culex, and 80 to 98% for Mansonia compared to untreated ribbons. Reduction in outdoor densities was 38 to 77% against An. arabiensis, 36 to 64% against An. funestus, 63 to 88% against Culex, and 47 to 98% against Mansonia. There was no difference in protection between the two transfluthrin doses. In the survey, 58% of participants perceived the ribbons to be effective in reducing mosquito bites. Ninety per cent were willing to pay for the ribbons, the majority of whom were willing to pay but less than US$2.17 (5000 TZS), one-third of the current prototype cost. CONCLUSIONS: Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons can protect migratory rice farmers, living in semi-open makeshift houses in remote farms, against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. The technology is acceptable to users and could potentially complement ITNs. Further studies should investigate durability and epidemiological impact of eave ribbons, and the opportunities for improving affordability to users.


Assuntos
Ciclopropanos , Fazendeiros , Fluorbenzenos , Mordeduras e Picadas de Insetos/prevenção & controle , Repelentes de Insetos , Malária/prevenção & controle , Controle de Mosquitos/instrumentação , População Rural , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Agricultura , Animais , Culicidae , Feminino , Habitação , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tanzânia , Migrantes , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA