Carbon dioxide baited trap catches do not correlate with human landing collections of Anopheles aquasalis in Suriname

Is there an efficient trap or collection method for sampling Anopheles darlingi and other malaria vectors that can describe the essential parameters affecting transmission dynamics as effectively as human landing catches? - A Review

“…It has long been known that using the CDC trap without its original light, but with alternative attractants, such as CO 2 , may increase yield (Carestia & Savage 1967, Takken & Kline 1989). However, CDC traps using only CO 2 as the attractant performed poorly when sampling the anthropophilic Anopheles aquasalis in Suriname (Hiwat et al 2011a). In contrast, Anopheles darlingi from Suriname was more attracted by CO 2 in BG-Sentinel ® traps than by a protected human individual sleeping in a hammock nearby (Hiwat et al 2011b).…”

“…nuneztovari and Anopheles triannulatus s.l. , but the results have been inconclusive (Eiras & Jepson 1991, Rubio-Palis & Curtis 1992, Rubio-Palis 1996, Rubio-Palis et al 1999, 2012, Gama et al 2007, 2013, Hiwat et al 2011a, b, Missawa et al 2011 , JBP Lima et al, unpublished observations ) . Therefore, according to the most recent studies, the human landing catch is the collection method of choice for Neotropical anthropophilic anophelines.…”

“…Nonetheless, it has also been concluded that the yields of anthropophilic anophelines can be enhanced by the use of human odour as an attractant in physical/chemical-type traps, such as the CDC without light (Hiwat et al 2011a, b), the Mosquito Magnet ® (Hiwat et al. 2011a, b, Rubio-Palis et al 2012), the BG-Sentinel ® (Hiwat et al 2011a, b) or the BG-Malaria (Gama et al 2013) traps and by the use of the biological-type traps, such as protected human collectors in Shannon-type traps (Hiwat et al 2011b, Missawa et al 2011, JBP Lima et al, unpublished observations). Based on these findings and conclusions, we formulated questions and carried out experiments years ago that we will describe and discuss in the following section.…”

Can Mosquito Magnet® substitute for human-landing catches to sample anopheline populations?

“…Several studies have shown that Mosquito Magnet ® (MM) traps (American Biophysics Corporation, North Kingstown, RI) are more efficient than CDC light traps baited with CO 2 and/or octenol to collect mosquitoes (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Dusfour et al 2010, Hiwat et al 2011a). Although it has been shown that the traps can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance, the MM traps are marketed for the control of blood-seeking insects in residential areas (mosquitomagnet.com), although the traps have shown that can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance (Pucci et al 2003, Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Kitau et al 2009.…”

“…In contrast, Henderson et al (2006) could not demonstrate that the continuous operation of the Mosquito Magnet Pro Model in urban and rural areas of Manitoba, Canada, significantly reduced the activity of Aedes vexans (Meigen), Ochlerotatus sticticus (Meigen) and Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker). In general, MM traps are more efficient for mosquito surveillance than CDC light traps (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Hiwat et al 2011a). Nevertheless, in Latin America the use of MM trap has been limited to surveillance of West Nile virus in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Farfan-Ale et al 2009) and was evaluated to collect anophelines in Suriname (Hiwat et al 2011a, b) and French Guiana (Dusfour et al 2010).…”