BACKGROUND: Various methods have been studied as replacement of human landing catches (HLC) for mosquito sampling in entomological studies on malaria transmission. Conflicting results have been obtained in comparing relative efficiency of alternative methods, according to the area, the species present and their density. The aim of this study was to compare the number and characteristics of mosquitoes sampled in two areas of Senegal by three different methods: HLC, light traps adjacent to an occupied bed net (LT/N), pyrethrum spray catches (PSC). METHODS: Collections were performed in two villages: Dielmo (Soudan savanna) and Bandafassi (Soudan Guinean savanna), two or three nights per month for a 4-5 months period during the maximal transmission season in 2001-2002. Species were identified and Plasmodium infection determined by ELISA. The specific composition, circumsporozoite protein rate and entomological inoculation rate were calculated. RESULTS: The diversity of mosquito species captured was maximal with LT/N, minimal with PSC. The mean number of anopheles captures each night was significantly different according to the method used and the species. PSC displayed a significantly lower anopheles density. HLC was the most efficient sampling method when Anopheles gambiae was the main vector (in Bandafassi); LT/N when it was Anopheles funestus (in Dielmo). A significant correlation was found between HLC and LT/M but correlation parameters were different according to the species. Circumsporozoite protein rates were not significantly different between methods or species. The entomological inoculation rate varied along with vector density and thus with methods and species. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of sampling method influenced entomological data recorded. Therefore, the sampling technique has to be chosen according to the vector studied and the aim of the study. Only HLC must be considered as the reference method, but in some conditions LT/N can be used as an alternative method.
BACKGROUND: Various methods have been studied as replacement of human landing catches (HLC) for mosquito sampling in entomological studies on malaria transmission. Conflicting results have been obtained in comparing relative efficiency of alternative methods, according to the area, the species present and their density. The aim of this study was to compare the number and characteristics of mosquitoes sampled in two areas of Senegal by three different methods: HLC, light traps adjacent to an occupied bed net (LT/N), pyrethrum spray catches (PSC). METHODS: Collections were performed in two villages: Dielmo (Soudan savanna) and Bandafassi (Soudan Guinean savanna), two or three nights per month for a 4-5 months period during the maximal transmission season in 2001-2002. Species were identified and Plasmodiuminfection determined by ELISA. The specific composition, circumsporozoite protein rate and entomological inoculation rate were calculated. RESULTS: The diversity of mosquito species captured was maximal with LT/N, minimal with PSC. The mean number of anopheles captures each night was significantly different according to the method used and the species. PSC displayed a significantly lower anopheles density. HLC was the most efficient sampling method when Anopheles gambiae was the main vector (in Bandafassi); LT/N when it was Anopheles funestus (in Dielmo). A significant correlation was found between HLC and LT/M but correlation parameters were different according to the species. Circumsporozoite protein rates were not significantly different between methods or species. The entomological inoculation rate varied along with vector density and thus with methods and species. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of sampling method influenced entomological data recorded. Therefore, the sampling technique has to be chosen according to the vector studied and the aim of the study. Only HLC must be considered as the reference method, but in some conditions LT/N can be used as an alternative method.
Authors: R A Wirtz; J F Duncan; E K Njelesani; I Schneider; A E Brown; C N Oster; J B Were; H K Webster Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 1989 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Evan M Mathenge; George O Omweri; Lucy W Irungu; Paul N Ndegwa; Elizabeth Walczak; Tom A Smith; Gerry F Killeen; Bart G J Knols Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: C N Mbogo; G E Glass; D Forster; E W Kabiru; J I Githure; J H Ouma; J C Beier Journal: J Am Mosq Control Assoc Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 0.917
Authors: Benjamin J Krajacich; Jeremiah R Slade; Robert T Mulligan; Brendan Labrecque; Kevin C Kobylinski; Meg Gray; Wojtek S Kuklinski; Timothy A Burton; Jonathan A Seaman; Massamba Sylla; Brian D Foy Journal: J Med Entomol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.278
Authors: Collins K Mweresa; Wolfgang R Mukabana; Philemon Omusula; Bruno Otieno; Joop J A Van Loon; Willem Takken Journal: J Chem Ecol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: Jacklyn Wong; Nabie Bayoh; George Olang; Gerry F Killeen; Mary J Hamel; John M Vulule; John E Gimnig Journal: Malar J Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Shirley A Onyango; Uriel Kitron; Peter Mungai; Eric M Muchiri; Elizabeth Kokwaro; Charles H King; Francis M Mutuku Journal: J Med Entomol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.278
Authors: Hans J Overgaard; Solve Saebø; Michael R Reddy; Vamsi P Reddy; Simon Abaga; Abrahan Matias; Michel A Slotman Journal: Malar J Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Rachel Daniels; Hsiao-Han Chang; Papa Diogoye Séne; Danny C Park; Daniel E Neafsey; Stephen F Schaffner; Elizabeth J Hamilton; Amanda K Lukens; Daria Van Tyne; Souleymane Mboup; Pardis C Sabeti; Daouda Ndiaye; Dyann F Wirth; Daniel L Hartl; Sarah K Volkman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sisay Dugassa; Jenny M Lindh; Florence Oyieke; Wolfgang R Mukabana; Steven W Lindsay; Ulrike Fillinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 3.240