Light traps fail to estimate reliable malaria mosquito biting rates on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea

Abstract

Light trap collections in combination with bed nets are not recommended as a reliable method to assess human biting rates on Bioko Island. Different statistical analyses methods give variable and inconsistent results. Substantial variation in collection methods prevents the determination of reliable and operationally feasible conversion factors for both indoor and outdoor data. Until improved mosquito collection methods are developed that can provide reliable and unbiased HBR estimates, HLCs should continue to serve as the reference method for HBR estimation.

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

“…Shannon-type tent traps are bulky, which makes setting them up and moving them difficult. However, a main disadvantage of the physical, chemical and physical/chemical anopheline collection methods is their inefficiency in providing results that are useful in assessing entomological parameters of anthropophilic anophelines when compared to the results and efficiency obtained from the human landing catch method (Hiwat et al 2011b, Overgaard et al 2012). …”

Sampling Host-Seeking Anthropophilic Mosquito Vectors in West Africa: Comparisons of an Active Human-Baited Tent-Trap Against Gold Standard Methods

“…It has been well documented that this technique, although effective and the benchmark for calculation of a variety of entomological measures, is laborious, skill-dependent, difficult to manage, and puts participants at direct risk of vector-borne disease. [1][2][3][4][5] As a result of these concerns, development of alternatives to HLC for the capture of host-seeking vectors is important. Currently used alternative approaches include the Centers for Disease Control Light Trap, 3 baited odor boxes, 6 vector-electrocuting grids, 4 and a variety of human-baited tent trap designs including the Mbita, Ifakara B and C, and Furvela tent traps.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5] As a result of these concerns, development of alternatives to HLC for the capture of host-seeking vectors is important. Currently used alternative approaches include the Centers for Disease Control Light Trap, 3 baited odor boxes, 6 vector-electrocuting grids, 4 and a variety of human-baited tent trap designs including the Mbita, Ifakara B and C, and Furvela tent traps. 2,5,7 These techniques have found varying degrees of success and applicability, though unreliability in biting estimation, 2,3 failure to distinguish between endophagic/exophagic populations, 4 and possible exposure to vectors 2 have all been reported.…”

“…Currently used alternative approaches include the Centers for Disease Control Light Trap, 3 baited odor boxes, 6 vector-electrocuting grids, 4 and a variety of human-baited tent trap designs including the Mbita, Ifakara B and C, and Furvela tent traps. 2,5,7 These techniques have found varying degrees of success and applicability, though unreliability in biting estimation, 2,3 failure to distinguish between endophagic/exophagic populations, 4 and possible exposure to vectors 2 have all been reported. Furthermore, most of the previously described tent traps have been passive rather than active designs, and did not make use of modern camping tent materials for increased durability, collector comfort, and ease of use and setup.…”

“…Correlations were performed using Pearson correlations on log(x+1) transformed data because of the largely linear relationship between methods and to assure normality for all sites presented. 3 The majority of data sets had normal distributions (D'Agostino-Pearson omnibus normality test), with the exception of LTC in Kedougou, likely as a result of there being five zero-catch nights. Differences in P. falciparum infection rates and An.…”