Background
Methods
Study sites
Trapping methods
Furvela tent trap
Ifakara tent trap
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps (LTs)
Human landing catch (HLC)
Experimental design
Experiment 1 (rural)
Experiment 2 (rural)
Experiment 3 (urban)
Processing of samples
Data analysis
Density-independent sampling efficiency
Distribution of parity, species and abdominal conditions among sampling techniques
Ethical clearance and protection of human participants
Results
Crude relative sensitivity of tent traps and correlation withreference methods
Collection methods | Trap nights | Total catch | Mean catch | Relative sensitivity | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anopheles gambiae
s.l.
| |||||
Furvela
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 1306 | 72.6 | NA | |
Ifakara A
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 483 | 26.8 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 18 | 429 | 23.8 | 0.28 | |
Ifakara B
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 1099 | 61.1 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 18 | 1007 | 55.9 | 0.65 | |
Experiment 3 | 164 | 442 | 2.7 | 0.32 | |
Light trap
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 54 | 3736 | 69.2 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 36 | 4008 | 111.3 | 1.30 | |
HLC
| |||||
Experiment 2 | 36 | 3081 | 85.6 | NA | |
Experiment 3 | 164 | 1398 | 8.5 | NA | |
Anopheles funestus
| |||||
Furvela
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 2 | 0.11 | NA | |
Ifakara A
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 2 | 0.11 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 18 | 2 | 0.11 | 0.28 | |
Ifakara B
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 18 | 3 | 0.16 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 18 | 4 | 0.22 | 0.55 | |
Experiment 3 | 164 | 13 | 0.07 | 1.40 | |
Light trap
| |||||
Experiment 1 | 54 | 21 | 0.38 | NA | |
Experiment 2 | 36 | 24 | 0.68 | 1.70 | |
HLC
| |||||
Experiment 2 | 36 | 14 | 0.40 | NA | |
Experiment 3 | 164 | 8 | 0.05 | NA |
Alternative collection methods | versus CDC-light trap reference method | versus human landing catch reference method | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
This study | r2 | P | r2 | P | |
Furvela |
0.303
|
0.021
| NA | NA | |
Ifakara A | 0.008 | 0.590 | 0.040 | 0.426 | |
Ifakara B |
0.148
|
0.020
|
0.731
|
< 0.001
| |
Light trap | NA | NA |
0.192
|
0.006
| |
Ref [14] | Light trap | NA | NA | 0.723 | < 0.001 |
Ref [46] | Light trap | NA | NA | 0.409 | < 0.001 |
Ref [48] | Light trap | NA | NA | 0.476 | < 0.001 |
Ref [15] | Light trap | NA | NA | 0.521 | < 0.001 |
Density-dependence of trap sampling efficiency
Alternative collection method | Parameter | Estimate [95%CI] | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Versus CDC-light trap reference method
| ||||
Furvela
| ||||
Experiment 1 | Intercept | 1.07 [0.70, 1.44] | < 0.001 | |
Ifakara A
| ||||
Experiment 1 | Intercept | 2.12 [1.42, 2.82] | < 0.001 | |
Log10(CDC-LT) | -0.90 [-1.22, -0.57] | < 0.001 | ||
Experiment 2 | Intercept | 1.05 [0.59, 1.51] | < 0.001 | |
Log10(CDC-LT) | -0.39 [-0.57, -0.21] | < 0.001 | ||
Ifakara B
| ||||
Experiment 1 | Intercept | 3.31 [1.17, 5.45] | 0.002 | |
Log10(CDC-LT) | -1.27 [-2.35, -0.19] | 0.021 | ||
Experiment 2 | Intercept | 2.10 [1.22, 2.99] | < 0.001 | |
Log10(CDC-LT) | -0.74 [-1.09, -0.39] | < 0.001 | ||
Experiment 3 | NA | NA | NA | |
Light trap
| ||||
Experiment 2 | NA | NA | NA | |
Versus human landing catch reference method
| ||||
Furvela
| ||||
Experiment 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
Ifakara A
| ||||
Experiment 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
NA | NA | NA | ||
Experiment 2 | Intercept | 1.69 [0.86, 2.52] | < 0.001 | |
Log10(HLC) | -0.71 [-1.09, 0.33] | < 0.001 | ||
Ifakara B
| ||||
Experiment 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
NA | NA | NA | ||
Experiment 2 | intercept | 0.64 [0.46, 0.81] | < 0.001 | |
Experiment 3 | Intercept | 1.06 [0.78, 1.33] | < 0.001 | |
Log10(HLC) | -0.75 [-0.99, 0.50] | < 0.001 | ||
Light trap
| ||||
Experiment 2 | Intercept | 4.65 [1.58, 7.71] | 0.003 | |
Log10(HLC) | -1.71 [-3.243, -0.178] | 0.029 |
Influence of trap design on the parity, species and abdominal status distribution
Variable | Parous (%) | OR [95%C.I] | P |
---|---|---|---|
Trap type
| |||
Furvela | 22.2 (35/158) | 0.89 [0.55, 1.45] | 0.849 |
Ifakara A | 30.5 (68/223) | 0.99 [0.55, 1.45] | 0.957 |
Ifakara B | 30.4 (106/349) | 1.00 [0.73, 1.36] | 0.999 |
Light trap | 15.2 (141/930) | 0.97 [0.74, 1.27] | 0.849 |
Human landing catch | 41.0 (293/714) | 1.00a | NA |
Experiment
| |||
Experiment 1 | 23.6 (168/713) | 0.51 [0.39, 0.67] | < 0.001 |
Experiment 2 | 28.6 (475/1661) | 1.00a | NA |
Variable | An. gambiae s.s(%) | OR [95%C.I] | P |
---|---|---|---|
Trap type
| |||
Ifakara A | 8.2 (12/146) | 0.71 [0.39 1.32] | 0.28 |
Ifakara B | 61.3 (234/382) | 0.84 [0.49 1.41] | 0.50 |
Light trap | 14.3 (116/814) | 1.32 [1.02 1.71] | 0.03 |
Human landing catch catch | 32.9 (591/1794) | 1.00a | NA |
Experiment
| |||
Experiment 2 | 11.9 (294/2471) | 0.001 [0.001 0.002] | < 0.001 |
Experiment 3 | 99.1 (666/672) | 1.00a | NA |
Variable | Proportion fed (%) | OR [95%C.I] | P |
---|---|---|---|
Trap type
| |||
Furvela | 1.53 (20/1306) | 0.24 [0.15, 0.39] | < 0.001 |
Ifakara A | 10.90(47/429) | 1.56 [1.17, 2.10] | < 0.002 |
Ifakara B | 6.51 (166/2548) | 1.00 [0.80, 1.23] | 0.998 |
Light trap | 1.83 (142/7744) | 0.32 [0.25, 0.40] | < 0.001 |
Human landing catch | 8.10 (363/4479) | 1.00a | NA |
Experiment
| |||
Experiment 1 | 3.10 (204/6624) | 0.56 [0.43, 0.72] | < 0.001 |
Experiment 2 | 3.74 (319/8525) | 0.48 [0.39, 0.58] | < 0.001 |
Experiment 3 | 1.00a | NA |