| Literature DB >> 16700902 |
Basilio N Njiru1, Wolfgang R Mukabana, Willem Takken, Bart G J Knols.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The successful development of odour-baited trapping systems for mosquitoes depends on the identification of behaviourally active semiochemicals, besides the design and operating principles of such devices. A large variety of 'attractants' has been identified in laboratory investigations, yet few of these increase trap catches in the field. A contained system, intermediate between the laboratory and open field, is presented and previous reports that human foot odour induces behavioural responses of Anopheles gambiae confirmed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16700902 PMCID: PMC1475871 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-5-39
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1The MMX counterflow geometry trap (American Biophysics, RI, USA). A: Experimental odour outlet; B: Central tube; C: Mosquito entry point; D: Plastic transparent mosquito holding container; F: Computer fan pumping odour downward; G: Computer fan sucking air upward; H: Rain shield. The yellow arrow depicts the flow of air through the trap.
MM-X trap catches (n = 200 released per night) of An. gambiae s.s. (Njage strain) for 4 trap nights when baited with worn socks of either nylon or cotton fabric worn by BNN or BGJK. Clean socks of the same fabric served as controls.
| Person Day | Nylon | Control | Cotton | Control | |
| BNN | 1 | 53 | 2 | 93 | 2 |
| 2 | 37 | 4 | 38 | 9 | |
| 3 | 34 | 1 | 41 | 4 | |
| 4 | 55 | 2 | 25 | 2 | |
| F = 141.8; P < 0.001 | F= 99.9; P < 0.001 | ||||
| BGJK | 1 | 75 | 21 | 74 | 1* |
| 2 | 98 | 5 | 58 | 1 | |
| 3 | 95 | 0 | 38 | 2 | |
| 4 | 59 | 2 | 84 | 6 | |
| F = 12.1; ns | F = 76.3; P < 0.001 | ||||
* Catch for the first night excluded (9-0), with cold weather, strong winds and rain.
MM-X trap catches (n= 200 released per night) of An. gambiae s.s. (Njage strain) when baited with a nylon (BGJK) or cotton sock (BNN) worn for 12 hr only and then used at 24 hr intervals afterwards. Clean socks of the same fabric served as controls.
| Hour* | Nylon | Control | Cotton | Control |
| 0–12 | 59b | 2 | 73 | 2 |
| 24–36 | 97 | 0 | 31 | 0 |
| 48–60 | 40 | 2 | 78 | 0 |
| 72–84 | 59 | 1 | 48 | 0 |
| 96–108 | 33 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| 120–132 | 43 | 0 | 13 | 0 |
| 144–156 | 55 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| 168–180 | 55 | 1 | 7 | 0 |
| 192–204 | 28 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
* Starting from the time the socks were removed; **Socks from last day Table 1.
MM-X trap catches (n = 200 released per night) of An. gambiae s.s. (Mbita strain) for 4 trap nights when baited with (A) NH3(0.1, 1, 10 or 100%), (B) CO2(500 ml/min), (C) 1-octen-3-ol, (D) foot odour (FO; from BNN) + NH3(10%), (E) foot odour (FO; from BNN) + CO2(500 ml/min) + NH3. Controls were unbaited traps.
| Expt. | Day | NH3 (0.1%) | Control | NH3 (1.0%) | Control |
| A | 1 | 18 | 1 | 29 | 3 |
| 2 | 11 | 1 | 15 | 3 | |
| 3 | 7 | 1 | 17 | 2 | |
| 4 | 5 | 2 | 18 | 1 | |
| F = 19.2; P < 0.05 | F= 69.4; P < 0.001 | ||||
| NH3 (10%) | Control | NH3 (100%) | Control | ||
| 1 | 31 | 2 | 22 | 3 | |
| 2 | 11 | 1 | 14 | 2 | |
| 3 | 25 | 2 | 11 | 5 | |
| 4 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| F = 1396.8; P < 0.001 | F= 6.58; ns | ||||
| B, C | CO2 | Control | 1-octen-3-ol | Control | |
| 1 | 122 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 119 | 1 | 5 | 1 | |
| 3 | 127 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
| 4 | 71 | 0 | 20 | 5 | |
| F = 7977.3; P < 0.001 | F = 11.9; ns | ||||
| D, E | FO+ NH3 | Control | FO+NH3+CO2 | Control | |
| 1 | 120 | 1 | 190 | 5 | |
| 2 | 73 | 1 | 205 | 2 | |
| 3 | 82 | 0 | 210 | 0 | |
| 4 | 65 | 3 | 118 | 0 | |
| F = 296.6; P < 0.001 | F= 81.9; P < 0.001 | ||||
4 × 4 Latin square experiments using various combinations of odours in combination with MM-X traps. Catches of An. gambiae s.s. (Mbita strain) for 4 trap nights (200 released per night), including totals caught are shown. FO = Foot odour (from BNN). Totals in the same column not followed by the same letter are significantly different at P < 0.05.
| Treatment | Day | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Total | F | P |
| (A) | ||||||||
| Control | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 13 a | 18.7 | <0.001 | |
| FO | 16 | 69 | 39 | 28 | 152 b | |||
| NH3* | 6 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 27 a | |||
| FO+NH3 | 9 | 29 | 7 | 15 | 60 c | |||
| (B) | ||||||||
| Control | 9 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 39 a | 50.1 | <0.001 | |
| CO2** | 35 | 78 | 51 | 56 | 220 b | |||
| NH3* | 12 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 39 a | |||
| CO2+NH3 | 62 | 62 | 34 | 53 | 211 b | |||
| (C) | ||||||||
| Control | 11 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 30 a | 34.9 | <0.001 | |
| FO | 14 | 21 | 31 | 27 | 93 b | |||
| CO2** | 35 | 14 | 31 | 49 | 129 b | |||
| FO+CO2** | 77 | 98 | 105 | 71 | 351 c | |||
*10% (v/v); ** 500 ml/min
Figure 2Average catch levels (± SD) for the different odours and combinations tested. Percentages indicate the proportion of overall number of mosquitoes released.