首页> 外文期刊>Parasites Vectors >Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia
【24h】

Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia

机译:赞比亚低地东南部疟疾媒介的替代蚊虫采样方法的评估

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Sampling malaria vectors and measuring their biting density is of paramount importance for entomological surveys of malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) has been traditionally regarded as a gold standard method for surveying human exposure to mosquito bites. However, due to the risk of human participant exposure to mosquito-borne parasites and viruses, a variety of alternative, exposure-free trapping methods were compared in lowland, south-east Zambia. Methods Centres for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara Tent Trap model C (ITT-C), resting boxes (RB) and window exit traps (WET) were all compared with HLC using a 3?×?3 Latin Squares design replicated in 4 blocks of 3 houses with long lasting insecticidal nets, half of which were also sprayed with a residual deltamethrin formulation, which was repeated for 10 rounds of 3 nights of rotation each during both the dry and wet seasons. Results The mean catches of HLC indoor, HLC outdoor, CDC-LT, ITT-C, WET, RB indoor and RB outdoor, were 1.687, 1.004, 3.267, 0.088, 0.004, 0.000 and 0.008 for Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald respectively, and 7.287, 6.784, 10.958, 5.875, 0.296, 0.158 and 0.458, for An. funestus Giles, respectively. Indoor CDC-LT was more efficient in sampling An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus than HLC indoor (Relative rate [95% Confidence Interval]?=?1.873 [1.653, 2.122] and 1.532 [1.441, 1.628], respectively, P?
机译:背景技术采样疟疾载体并测量其咬合密度对于疟疾传播的昆虫学调查至关重要。传统上,人类着陆捕获(HLC)被视为调查人类受到蚊虫叮咬的金标准方法。但是,由于人类参与者有暴​​露于蚊子传播的寄生虫和病毒的风险,因此在赞比亚东南部的低地比较了多种其他的无接触诱捕方法。方法将疾病预防控制中心微型光阱(CDC-LT),Ifakara帐篷阱C型(ITT-C),休息箱(RB)和窗户出口阱(WET)与HLC进行比较,使用3××?将3个Latin Square设计复制到3个带有长效杀虫网的房屋的4个街区中,其中一半还喷洒了残留的溴氰菊酯制剂,在干燥和潮湿季节均重复10轮,每次旋转3晚。结果室内HLC,室外HLC,CDC-LT,ITT-C,WET,室内RB和室外RB的平均捕捞量为按蚊,按蚊和按蚊分别为1.687、1.004、3.267、0.088、0.004、0.000和0.008,以及7.287, An的6.784、10.958、5.875、0.296、0.158和0.458。 funestus Giles,分别。室内CDC-LT采样An的效率更高。 Quadriannulatus和An。室内相对于HLC(相对比率[95%置信区间]?=?1.873 [1.653,2.122]和1.532 [1.441,1.628],两者的P 0.001)。相对于室内CDC-LT以外的HLC,ITT-C是唯一具有类似灵敏度(RR?=?0.821 [0.765,0.881],P?<?0.001)的其他替代方法。 Funestus。结论尽管两种最敏感的无接触技术主要捕获寻求宿主的蚊子,但两者对于常规的基于社区的监视应用都具有实质性的缺点:CDC-LT需要定期对电池充电,而ITT-C的体积庞大则很难移动在采样位置之间。 RB放置在室内或室外,并且WET的敏感性一直很差,因此可能有必要评估其他替代方法,例如除虫菊喷雾剂捕获器和后装式吸盘,以捕获静止的蚊子。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号