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

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
Malar J ; 18(1): 83, 2019 Mar 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30885205


BACKGROUND: Mosquito biting rates and host preferences are crucial determinants of human exposure to vector-borne diseases and the impact of vector control measures. The human landing catch (HLC) is a gold standard method for measuring human exposure to bites, but presents risks to participants by requiring some exposure to mosquito vectors. Mosquito electrocuting traps (METs) represent an exposure-free alternative to HLCs for measuring human exposure to malaria vectors. However, original MET prototypes were too small for measuring whole-body biting rates on humans or large animals like cattle. Here a much larger MET capable of encompassing humans or cattle was designed, and its performance was evaluated relative to both the original small MET and HLC and for quantifying malaria vector host preferences. METHODS: Human landing catch, small human-baited METs (MET-SH), and large METs baited with either a human (MET-LH) or calves (MET-LC) were simultaneously used to capture wild malaria vectors outdoors in rural southern Tanzania. The four capture methods were compared in a Latin-square design over 20 nights. Malaria vector host preferences were estimated through comparison of the number of mosquitoes caught by large METs baited with either humans or cattle. RESULTS: The MET-LH caught more than twice as many Anopheles arabiensis than either the MET-SH or HLC. It also caught higher number of Anopheles funestus sensu lato (s.l.) compared to the MET-SH or HLC. Similar numbers of An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) were caught in MET-LH and MET-SH collections. Catches of An. arabiensis with human or cattle-baited large METs were similar, indicating no clear preference for either host. In contrast, An. funestus s.s. exhibited a strong, but incomplete preference for humans. CONCLUSIONS: METs are a sensitive, practical tool for assessing mosquito biting rates and host preferences, and represent a safer alternative to the HLC. Additionally these findings suggest the HLC underestimate whole-body human exposure. MET collections indicated the An. funestus s.s. population in this setting had a higher than expected attack rate on cattle, potentially making eliminating of this species more difficult with human-targetted control measures. Supplementary vector control tools targetted at livestock may be required to effectively tackle this species.

Anopheles/fisiologia , Entomologia/métodos , Comportamento Alimentar , Especificidade de Hospedeiro , Adulto , Animais , Bovinos , Entomologia/instrumentação , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , População Rural , Tanzânia , Adulto Jovem
Malar J ; 15: 465, 2016 Sep 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27618941


BACKGROUND: Reliable quantification of mosquito host-seeking behaviours is required to determine the efficacy of vector control methods. For malaria, the gold standard approach remains the risky human landing catch (HLC). Here compare the performance of an improved prototype of the mosquito electrocuting grid trap (MET) as a safer alternative with HLC for measuring malaria vector behaviour in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. METHODS: Mosquito trapping was conducted at three sites within Dar es Salaam representing a range of urbanicity over a 7-month period (December 2012-July 2013, 168 sampling nights). At each site, sampling was conducted in a block of four houses, with two houses being allocated to HLC and the other to MET on each night of study. Sampling was conducted both indoors and outdoors (from 19:00 to 06:00 each night) at all houses, with trapping method (HLC and MET) being exchanged between pairs of houses at each site using a crossover design. RESULTS: The MET caught significantly more Anopheles gambiae sensu lato than the HLC, both indoors (RR [95 % confidence interval (CI)]) = 1.47 [1.23-1.76], P < 0.0001 and outdoors = 1.38 [1.14-1.67], P < 0.0001). The sensitivity of MET compared with HLC did not detectably change over the course of night for either An. gambiae s.l. (OR [CI]) = 1.01 [0.94-1.02], P = 0.27) or Culex spp. (OR [CI]) = 0.99 [0.99-1.0], P = 0.17) indoors and declined only slightly outdoors: An. gambiae s.l. (OR [CI]) = 0.92 [0.86-0.99], P = 0.04), and Culex spp. (OR [CI]) = 0.99 [0.98-0.99], P = 0.03). MET-based estimates of the proportions of mosquitoes caught indoors (P i ) or during sleeping hours (P fl ), as well as the proportion of human exposure to bites that would otherwise occurs indoors (π i ), were statistically indistinguishable from those based on HLC for An. gambiae s.l. (P = 0.43, 0.07 and 0.48, respectively) and Culex spp. (P = 0.76, 0.24 and 0.55, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This improved MET prototype is highly sensitive tool that accurately quantifies epidemiologically-relevant metrics of mosquito biting densities, behaviours and human exposure distribution.

Anopheles/fisiologia , Culex/fisiologia , Entomologia/métodos , Comportamento Alimentar , Adulto , Animais , Estudos Cross-Over , Eletricidade , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Tanzânia , Voluntários