Mgeni M Tambwe1,2,3, Adam Saddler4,5,6,7, Ummi Abdul Kibondo4, Rajabu Mashauri4, Katharina S Kreppel8, Nicodem J Govella4,8,9, Sarah J Moore4,5,6,8. 1. Vector Control Product Testing Unit, Ifakara Health Institute, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, P.O. Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania. mmohamed@ihi.or.tz. 2. Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. mmohamed@ihi.or.tz. 3. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland. mmohamed@ihi.or.tz. 4. Vector Control Product Testing Unit, Ifakara Health Institute, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, P.O. Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania. 5. Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. 6. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia. 8. Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST), P.O. Box 447, Tengeru, Tanzania. 9. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human landing catch (HLC) measures human exposure to mosquito bites and evaluates the efficacy of vector control tools. However, it may expose volunteers to potentially infected mosquitoes. The mosquito electrocuting trap (MET) and BG-Sentinel traps (BGS) represent alternative, exposure-free methods for sampling host-seeking mosquitoes. This study investigates whether these methods can be effectively used as alternatives to HLC for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanator against Aedes aegypti. METHODS: The protective efficacy (PE) of freestanding passive transfluthrin emanators (FTPEs), measured by HLC, MET and BGS, was compared in no-choice and choice tests. The collection methods were conducted 2 m from an experimental hut with FTPEs positioned at 3 m on either side of them. For the choice experiment, a competitor HLC was included 10 m from the first collection point. One hundred laboratory-reared Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were released and collected for 3 consecutive h. RESULTS: In the no-choice test, each method measured similar PE: HLC: 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-82), MET: 55% (95% CI: 48-63) and BGS: 64% (95% CI: 54-73). The proportion of mosquitoes recaptured was consistent between methods (20-24%) in treatment and varied (47-71%) in the control. However, in choice tests, the PE measured by each method varied: HLC: 37% (95% CI: 25-50%), MET: 76% (95% CI: 61-92) and BGS trap: 0% (95% CI: 0-100). Recaptured mosquitoes were no longer consistent between methods in treatment (2-26%) and remained variable in the control (7-42%). FTPE provided 50% PE to the second HLC 10 m away. In the control, the MET and the BGS were less efficacious in collecting mosquitoes in the presence of a second HLC. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the PE in isolation was fairly consistent for HLC, MET and BGS. Because HLC is not advisable, it is reasonable to use either MET or BGS as a proxy for HLC for testing volatile pyrethroid (VP) in areas of active arbovirus-endemic areas. The presence of a human host in close proximity invalidated the PE estimates from BGS and METs. Findings also indicated that transfluthrin can protect multiple people in the peridomestic area and that at short range mosquitoes select humans over the BGS.
BACKGROUND: The human landing catch (HLC) measures human exposure to mosquito bites and evaluates the efficacy of vector control tools. However, it may expose volunteers to potentially infected mosquitoes. The mosquito electrocuting trap (MET) and BG-Sentinel traps (BGS) represent alternative, exposure-free methods for sampling host-seeking mosquitoes. This study investigates whether these methods can be effectively used as alternatives to HLC for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanator against Aedes aegypti. METHODS: The protective efficacy (PE) of freestanding passive transfluthrin emanators (FTPEs), measured by HLC, MET and BGS, was compared in no-choice and choice tests. The collection methods were conducted 2 m from an experimental hut with FTPEs positioned at 3 m on either side of them. For the choice experiment, a competitor HLC was included 10 m from the first collection point. One hundred laboratory-reared Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were released and collected for 3 consecutive h. RESULTS: In the no-choice test, each method measured similar PE: HLC: 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-82), MET: 55% (95% CI: 48-63) and BGS: 64% (95% CI: 54-73). The proportion of mosquitoes recaptured was consistent between methods (20-24%) in treatment and varied (47-71%) in the control. However, in choice tests, the PE measured by each method varied: HLC: 37% (95% CI: 25-50%), MET: 76% (95% CI: 61-92) and BGS trap: 0% (95% CI: 0-100). Recaptured mosquitoes were no longer consistent between methods in treatment (2-26%) and remained variable in the control (7-42%). FTPE provided 50% PE to the second HLC 10 m away. In the control, the MET and the BGS were less efficacious in collecting mosquitoes in the presence of a second HLC. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the PE in isolation was fairly consistent for HLC, MET and BGS. Because HLC is not advisable, it is reasonable to use either MET or BGS as a proxy for HLC for testing volatile pyrethroid (VP) in areas of active arbovirus-endemic areas. The presence of a human host in close proximity invalidated the PE estimates from BGS and METs. Findings also indicated that transfluthrin can protect multiple people in the peridomestic area and that at short range mosquitoes select humans over the BGS.
Authors: Sheila B Ogoma; Hassan Ngonyani; Emmanuel T Simfukwe; Anthony Mseka; Jason Moore; Gerry F Killeen Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: George B Schoeler; Sonya S Schleich; Stephen A Manweiler; Victor Lopez Sifuentes Journal: J Am Mosq Control Assoc Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 0.917
Authors: L Hannah Gould; Magdi S Osman; Eileen C Farnon; Kevin S Griffith; Marvin S Godsey; Said Karch; Basimike Mulenda; Amgad El Kholy; Francesco Grandesso; Xavier de Radiguès; Maria-Emanuela Brair; Sylvie Briand; El Sadig Mahgoub El Tayeb; Edward B Hayes; Herve Zeller; William Perea Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Joseph Kamtchum-Tatuene; Benjamin L Makepeace; Laura Benjamin; Matthew Baylis; Tom Solomon Journal: Curr Opin Infect Dis Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.915
Authors: Leonard E G Mboera; Clement N Mweya; Susan F Rumisha; Patrick K Tungu; Grades Stanley; Mariam R Makange; Gerald Misinzo; Pasquale De Nardo; Francesco Vairo; Ndekya M Oriyo Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2016-01-26
Authors: Anne L Wilson; Orin Courtenay; Louise A Kelly-Hope; Thomas W Scott; Willem Takken; Steve J Torr; Steve W Lindsay Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2020-01-16