Margaret Mendi Njoroge1,2, Ulrike Fillinger3, Adam Saddler4,5,6, Sarah Moore4,5,6, Willem Takken2, Joop J A van Loon2, Alexandra Hiscox1,2,7. 1. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Human Health Theme, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. 2. Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 3. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Human Health Theme, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. ufillinger@icipe.org. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051 833, Basel, Switzerland. 5. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Department of Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania. 7. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, ARCTEC, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel malaria vector control approaches aim to combine tools for maximum protection. This study aimed to evaluate novel and re-evaluate existing putative repellent 'push' and attractive 'pull' components for manipulating the odour orientation of malaria vectors in the peri-domestic space. METHODS: Anopheles arabiensis outdoor human landing catches and trap comparisons were implemented in large semi-field systems to (i) test the efficacy of Citriodiol® or transfluthrin-treated fabric strips positioned in house eave gaps as push components for preventing bites; (ii) understand the efficacy of MB5-baited Suna-traps in attracting vectors in the presence of a human being; (iii) assess 2-butanone as a CO2 replacement for trapping; (iv) determine the protection provided by a full push-pull set up. The air concentrations of the chemical constituents of the push-pull set-up were quantified. RESULTS: Microencapsulated Citriodiol® eave strips did not provide outdoor protection against host-seeking An. arabiensis. Transfluthrin-treated strips reduced the odds of a mosquito landing on the human volunteer (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.12-0.23). This impact was lower (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.52-0.66) during the push-pull experiment, which was associated with low nighttime temperatures likely affecting the transfluthrin vaporisation. The MB5-baited Suna trap supplemented with CO2 attracted only a third of the released mosquitoes in the absence of a human being; however, with a human volunteer in the same system, the trap caught < 1% of all released mosquitoes. The volunteer consistently attracted over two-thirds of all mosquitoes released. This was the case in the absence ('pull' only) and in the presence of a spatial repellent ('push-pull'), indicating that in its current configuration the tested 'pull' does not provide a valuable addition to a spatial repellent. The chemical 2-butanone was ineffective in replacing CO2. Transfluthrin was detectable in the air space but with a strong linear reduction in concentrations over 5 m from release. The MB5 constituent chemicals were only irregularly detected, potentially suggesting insufficient release and concentration in the air for attraction. CONCLUSION: This step-by-step evaluation of the selected 'push' and 'pull' components led to a better understanding of their ability to affect host-seeking behaviours of the malaria vector An. arabiensis in the peri-domestic space and helps to gauge the impact such tools would have when used in the field for monitoring or control.
BACKGROUND: Novel malaria vector control approaches aim to combine tools for maximum protection. This study aimed to evaluate novel and re-evaluate existing putative repellent 'push' and attractive 'pull' components for manipulating the odour orientation of malaria vectors in the peri-domestic space. METHODS:Anopheles arabiensis outdoor human landing catches and trap comparisons were implemented in large semi-field systems to (i) test the efficacy of Citriodiol® or transfluthrin-treated fabric strips positioned in house eave gaps as push components for preventing bites; (ii) understand the efficacy of MB5-baited Suna-traps in attracting vectors in the presence of a human being; (iii) assess 2-butanone as a CO2 replacement for trapping; (iv) determine the protection provided by a full push-pull set up. The air concentrations of the chemical constituents of the push-pull set-up were quantified. RESULTS:Microencapsulated Citriodiol® eave strips did not provide outdoor protection against host-seeking An. arabiensis. Transfluthrin-treated strips reduced the odds of a mosquito landing on the human volunteer (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.12-0.23). This impact was lower (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.52-0.66) during the push-pull experiment, which was associated with low nighttime temperatures likely affecting the transfluthrin vaporisation. The MB5-baited Sunatrap supplemented with CO2 attracted only a third of the released mosquitoes in the absence of a human being; however, with a human volunteer in the same system, the trap caught < 1% of all released mosquitoes. The volunteer consistently attracted over two-thirds of all mosquitoes released. This was the case in the absence ('pull' only) and in the presence of a spatial repellent ('push-pull'), indicating that in its current configuration the tested 'pull' does not provide a valuable addition to a spatial repellent. The chemical 2-butanone was ineffective in replacing CO2. Transfluthrin was detectable in the air space but with a strong linear reduction in concentrations over 5 m from release. The MB5 constituent chemicals were only irregularly detected, potentially suggesting insufficient release and concentration in the air for attraction. CONCLUSION: This step-by-step evaluation of the selected 'push' and 'pull' components led to a better understanding of their ability to affect host-seeking behaviours of the malaria vector An. arabiensis in the peri-domestic space and helps to gauge the impact such tools would have when used in the field for monitoring or control.
Authors: Samir Bhatt; Daniel J Weiss; Bonnie Mappin; Ursula Dalrymple; Ewan Cameron; Donal Bisanzio; David L Smith; Catherine L Moyes; Andrew J Tatem; Michael Lynch; Cristin A Fergus; Joshua Yukich; Adam Bennett; Thomas P Eisele; Jan Kolaczinski; Richard E Cibulskis; Simon I Hay; Peter W Gething Journal: Elife Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Marlon P Saavedra; Jan E Conn; Freddy Alava; Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar; Catharine Prussing; Sara A Bickersmith; Jorge L Sangama; Carlos Fernandez-Miñope; Mitchel Guzman; Carlos Tong; Carlos Valderrama; Joseph M Vinetz; Dionicia Gamboa; Marta Moreno Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Jacob I Meyers; Sharmila Pathikonda; Zachary R Popkin-Hall; Matthew C Medeiros; Godwin Fuseini; Abrahan Matias; Guillermo Garcia; Hans J Overgaard; Vani Kulkarni; Vamsi P Reddy; Christopher Schwabe; Jo Lines; Immo Kleinschmidt; Michel A Slotman Journal: Malar J Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Margaret Mendi Njoroge; Alexandra Hiscox; Adam Saddler; Willem Takken; Joop J A van Loon; Ulrike Fillinger Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Mgeni M Tambwe; Adam Saddler; Ummi Abdul Kibondo; Rajabu Mashauri; Katharina S Kreppel; Nicodem J Govella; Sarah J Moore Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Adrian Denz; Margaret M Njoroge; Mgeni M Tambwe; Clara Champagne; Fredros Okumu; Joop J A van Loon; Alexandra Hiscox; Adam Saddler; Ulrike Fillinger; Sarah J Moore; Nakul Chitnis Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 3.876