Enhancement of mosquito trapping efficiency by using pulse width modulated light emitting diodes

Liu, You‐Nian; Liu, Yu‐Jen; Chen, Yi-Chian; Ma, Hsin-Yi; Lee, Hsiao-Yi

doi:10.1038/srep40074

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the use of high-intensity UV light during the day may not be effective in attracting nocturnal mosquitoes. Controlling the timing and light spectra may allow targeting of specific mosquito species using environmentally friendly light-based approaches [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circadian Regulation of Light-Evoked Attraction and Avoidance Behaviors in Daytime- versus Nighttime-Biting Mosquitoes

Baik

Nave

et al. 2020

Current Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circadian Regulation of Light-Evoked Attraction and Avoidance Behaviors in Daytime- versus Nighttime-Biting Mosquitoes

Baik

Nave

et al. 2020

Current Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UV-LTs generally collected more mosquitoes than CDC-LTs, possibly because the e cacy of incandescent light in CDC-LTs may be affected by other light sources in the night including moonlight [40]. Also, mosquitoes have diverse response to different light spectra as previously reported where mosquito response to arti cial light indicated that blue and green light is often more attractive than that in the yellow-orange and red regions of the visible spectrum [41,42]. UV-LT is a largely unexplored trapping technique that could be useful for both indoor and outdoor trapping of mosquitoes especially when evaluating outdoor deployed vector control methods such as ATSBs as was recently done in Mali [43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Comparison of Different Trapping Methods to Collect Malaria Vectors Indoors and Outdoors in Western Kenya

Kosgei,

Gimnig,

Moshi

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Enhanced vector surveillance, is one of the 4 pillars of the WHO’s global vector control response (2017–2030). Human landing catches are the gold standard for entomological surveys but are difficult to implement and expose collectors to mosquito bites and potentially to malaria infection. Other surveillance tools such as light traps, pyrethrum spray catches and aspiration are less expensive and do not expose collectors to potentially infectious mosquitoes, but they are difficult to implement outdoors and/or to assess duration of collection/standardize collection effort. This study evaluated four mosquito trapping methods that may be cheaper, easier, and less risky to implement compared to human landing catch. Methods Three mosquito sampling methods (UV light traps, CDC light traps and Prokopack aspiration) were evaluated against human landing catches in two villages of Rarieda sub-county, in Siaya County, western Kenya. UV light traps, CDC light traps and human landing catches were conducted in three locations: inside houses, 10 meters from the house and 10 meters from the compound boundary. These were done every hour from 17:00 until 07:00. Prokopack aspiration was done indoors and outdoors of houses adjacent to the light trap and HLC houses from 07:00 until 11:00. Analyses of mosquito densities, species abundance and sporozoite infection prevalence were performed across all sampling methods. Species within the An. gambiae and An. funestus species complexes were identified using PCR. ELISAs were used to determine mosquito sporozoite infection prevalence. Data analysis was done in R statistical software. Results A total of 5,370 male and female Anopheles mosquitoes were sampled from 608 trapping efforts. An. funestus constituted 70.3% (n = 3,877) of the sampled Anopheles mosquitoes while An. coustani was 19.7% and An. gambiae s.l. was much lower at 7.2%. 93.8% of An. funestus s.l. samples processed through PCR were An. funestus s.s. and 97.8% of An. gambiae s.l. were confirmed to be An. arabiensis. Only An. funestus samples were positive for sporozoites, with a species specific sporozoite infection prevalence of 3.1%. Indoor aspiration captured the highest number of An. funestus (mean = 6.74; RR = 7.49 compared to indoor HLC, 95% CI 3.95–14.22, P < 0.001) followed by indoor UV-LT, (mean = 3.7; RR = 3.6, 95% CI 2.02–6.42, P < 0.001) and indoor CDC-LT (mean = 1.74; RR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.02–3.33, P = 0.042). In pairwise comparisons, significantly different numbers of An. funestus were collected by all indoor methods with the most collected by aspiration and the fewest by HLC. For An. arabiensis, indoor UV-LT and indoor CDC-LT each captured an average of 0.18 per trap-night which were significantly higher than HLC indoors. Outdoors, UV-LT collected significantly higher numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes across all species analyzed (An. funestus: mean = 1.69, RR = 4.27 compared to outdoor HLC, 95% CI 2.20–8.31, P < 0.001; An. arabiensis: mean = 0.22, RR = 15.64, 95% CI 1.97-124.36, P = 0.009; An. coustani: mean = 3.74, RR = 10.48, 95% CI 4.37–25.14, P < 0.001) when compared to outdoor HLC. Hourly biting in UV-LT and CDC-LT indicated different peaks compared to HLC for An. funestus collected indoors. Conclusions Anopheles funestus remains the predominant malaria vector in the region and was primarily caught indoors. Anopheles arabiensis were trapped in similar both indoors and outdoors while and An. coustani were mostly collected outdoors with UV-LTs. UV-LT and CDC-LT collected higher numbers of the primary Anopheles mosquitoes indoors and outdoors except for An. funestus indoors where aspiration was the most efficient method. The UV-LT generally collected more mosquitoes than the CDC-LT indicating UV-LTs may be an efficient tool for monitoring populations of Anopheles mosquitoes. Differences in hourly biting by different collection methods indicate the need to further investigate the behaviour of An. funestus.

show abstract

“…Recent studies demonstrate that catching efficiency did increase by 250% when the LED was Pulse Width Modulated (PWM). Furthermore, PWM allows for a reduction of energy consumption by 25% and enables these devices to be solar powered [18]. Although the underlying neurophysiologic mechanisms that trigger this higher attraction are not understood, it can be speculated that modulating pulse width is another interesting parameter to be tuned in these systems.…”

Section: Laser-based Killing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Physical and Computer-Based methods for Adult Mosquito Pest Control and Monitoring

Schwerte¹

2018

AZS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mosquitoes -a global dangerA source of danger must not be big to have a high impact on human health. Blood-seeking flight insects are one of the most dangerous animals on earth. More than 500 million people are currently infected with mosquito-borne diseases, and more than 3 million people die every year from these infections [1]. In addition, currently half of the world's population, about 3.5 billion people, is now at risk for infection from mosquito-borne diseases. Taking into account, that global

show abstract

Enhancement of mosquito trapping efficiency by using pulse width modulated light emitting diodes

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Circadian Regulation of Light-Evoked Attraction and Avoidance Behaviors in Daytime- versus Nighttime-Biting Mosquitoes

Circadian Regulation of Light-Evoked Attraction and Avoidance Behaviors in Daytime- versus Nighttime-Biting Mosquitoes

Comparison of Different Trapping Methods to Collect Malaria Vectors Indoors and Outdoors in Western Kenya

Novel Physical and Computer-Based methods for Adult Mosquito Pest Control and Monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About