| Literature DB >> 18423018 |
Eliningaya J Kweka1, Watoky M M Nkya, Aneth M Mahande, Charles Assenga, Franklin W Mosha, Ester E Lyatuu, Charles P Massenga, Edwin M Nyale, Stephen B Mwakalinga, Asanterabi Lowassa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Entomological surveys are of great importance in decision-making processes regarding malaria control strategies because they help to identify associations between vector abundance both species-specific ecology and disease intervention factors associated with malaria transmission. Sporozoite infectivity rates, mosquito host blood meal source, bed net coverage and mosquito abundance were assessed in this study.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18423018 PMCID: PMC2358915 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-59
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Description of the study villages, their geographical features and meteorological information.
| 750 | 920 | 1050 | 700 | |
| 589 | 290 | 980 | 280 | |
| 24.7 | 26.7 | 22.1 | 26 | |
| 29.4 | 31.2 | 29 | 30.3 | |
| Rural northern Tanzania; extensive swamps and savannah grassland | Peri urban-semi arid, northern Tanzania | Rural, northern Tanzania, bare hills, swamps and grassland. | Rural-central Tanzania, semi-arid. | |
| Masai, Pare and Chagga, growing maize, vegetable, rice and keeping large groups of cattle. | Pare, mainly growing maize and have cattle heads. | Pare, mainly growing maize, banana trees, sugarcane, rice and beans. They have cattle heads around. | Gogo, Growing maize and ground nuts, they have large groups of cattle around their houses. | |
| 285 (71.4%) | 605 (84.1%) | 1509 (72.5%) | 702 (67.4%) | |
| 322 (81.0%) | 520 (72.3%) | 1797 (86.0%) | 512 (49.1%) |
Figure 1Prevalence of Anopheline mosquitoes in four villages, in two regions of mainland Tanzania.
Sporozoite prevalence rates for Anopheles mosquitoes testes for circumsporozoite protein in each village monthly.
| Ndungu | Kisangara | Rundugai | Chamwino | |||||||||
| Months | SPR | SPM | TM | SPR | SPM | TM | SPR | SPM | TM | SPR | SPM | TM |
| April | 0.3 | 1 | 310 | 0 | 0 | 210 | 3.8 | 14 | 361 | 10 | 28 | 280 |
| May | 1 | 4 | 410 | 0 | 0 | 206 | 2.7 | 3 | 110 | 0.9 | 1 | 109 |
| June | 0.3 | 1 | 290 | 0 | 0 | 173 | 0.2 | 1 | 413 | 8 | 34 | 421 |
| July | 0 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 359 | 1 | 4 | 390 | 2.9 | 11 | 370 |
| August | 1 | 5 | 509 | 0 | 0 | 198 | 0 | 0 | 348 | 0.9 | 3 | 301 |
| September | 5.1 | 10 | 194 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 2 | 5 | 241 | 9 | 34 | 382 |
| Comparison of SPR in villages | χ2 = 13.3 ; df = 3 and P = 0.004 | |||||||||||
Key:
SPR = Sporozoite Prevalence rates; SPM = Sporozoite Positive mosquitoes; TM = Total Tested Mosquitoes
Figure 2Sporozoite Infectivity rate means among the three study villages that had infected mosquitoes.
Blood meal origins shown by different mosquito species caught indoors monthly in study villages.
| Sample Tested | Positive (%) | Negative | Total Tested | Positive (%) | Negative | Total tested | Positive samples (%) | |||
| April | 120 | 104 (86.7%) | 16 | 125 | 104 (83.2%) | 21 | 117 | 98 (83.8%) | 17 (14.5%) | 2 (1.7%) |
| May | 190 | 152 (80%) | 38 | 109 | 95 (87.1%) | 14 | 124 | 112(90.3%) | 12 (9.7%) | 0 (0%) |
| June | 142 | 132 (92.9%) | 10 | 114 | 94 (82.4%) | 20 | 97 | 78 (80.4%) | 16 (16.5%) | 3 (3.1%) |
| July | 163 | 126 (83.4%) | 37 | 113 | 109 (96.5%) | 4 | 142 | 130(91.6%) | 8 (5.6%) | 4 (2.8%) |
| August | 90 | 79 (87.8%) | 11 | 140 | 113 (80.7%) | 27 | 68 | 51 (75%) | 16 (23.5%) | 1 (1.5%) |
| September | 250 | 227 (90.8%) | 23 | 211 | 205 (97.2%) | 6 | 150 | 139(93.7%) | 11 (6.3%) | 0 (0%) |