Suppr超能文献

用于疟疾媒介采样的粘性休息盒诱捕器、标准化休息桶诱捕器和室内抽吸法的比较评估

Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors.

作者信息

Kreppel Katharina S, Johnson P C D, Govella N J, Pombi M, Maliti D, Ferguson H M

机构信息

Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences group, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

出版信息

Parasit Vectors. 2015 Sep 17;8:462. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1066-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Understanding mosquito resting behaviour is important for the control of vector-borne diseases, but this remains a challenge because of the paucity of efficient sampling tools. We evaluated two novel sampling methods in the field: the Sticky Resting Box (SRB) and the Resting Bucket trap (RBu) to test their efficiency for sampling malaria vectors resting outdoors and inside houses in rural Tanzania. The performance of RBu and SRB was compared outdoors, while indoors SRB were compared with the Back Pack Aspiration method (BP). Trapping was conducted within 4 villages in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania over 14 nights. On each night, the performance for collecting Anopheles vectors and Culicinae was compared in 4 households by SRB and RBu outdoors and by SRB or fixed-time Back Pack aspirator in 2 of the 4 focal households indoors.

FINDINGS

A total of 619 Anopheles gambiae s.l., 224 Anopheles funestus s.l. and 1737 Culicinae mosquitoes were captured. The mean abundance of An. arabiensis and An. funestus s.l. collected with SRB traps inside and outdoors was significantly lower than with BP or RBu. The SRB however, outperformed BP aspiration for collection of Culicinae indoors.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the methods trialled indoors (BP and SRB), BP was the most effective, whilst outdoors RBu performed much better than SRB. However, as SRB can passively sample mosquitoes over a week they could provide an alternative to the RBu where daily monitoring is not possible.

摘要

背景

了解蚊子的栖息行为对于控制媒介传播疾病至关重要,但由于缺乏有效的采样工具,这仍然是一项挑战。我们在实地评估了两种新的采样方法:粘性栖息箱(SRB)和栖息桶诱捕器(RBu),以测试它们在坦桑尼亚农村地区采集栖息在户外和室内的疟疾媒介的效率。在户外比较了RBu和SRB的性能,而在室内将SRB与背包抽吸法(BP)进行了比较。在坦桑尼亚基洛梅罗山谷的4个村庄内进行了14个晚上的诱捕。在每个晚上,通过户外的SRB和RBu以及室内4个重点家庭中的2个家庭通过SRB或定时背包抽吸器比较采集冈比亚按蚊和库蚊亚科的性能。

研究结果

共捕获619只冈比亚按蚊复合组、224只嗜人按蚊复合组和1737只库蚊亚科蚊子。使用SRB诱捕器在室内和室外采集的阿拉伯按蚊和嗜人按蚊复合组的平均丰度显著低于使用BP或RBu采集的。然而,SRB在室内采集库蚊亚科方面的表现优于BP抽吸法。

结论

在室内试验的方法(BP和SRB)中,BP最有效,而在室外RBu的表现比SRB好得多。然而,由于SRB可以在一周内被动地对蚊子进行采样,在无法进行每日监测的情况下,它们可以作为RBu的替代方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d2a6/4573490/1b36b2eb3495/13071_2015_1066_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验