» Articles » PMID: 34118973

Comparison of Four Outdoor Mosquito Trapping Methods As Potential Replacements for Human Landing Catches in Western Kenya

Abstract

Introduction: Longitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infectious bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited because of the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC.

Methodology: The Anopheles trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods-Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)-was assessed relative to HLC in a 5 × 5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages.

Results: The MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more An. arabiensis compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling An. funestus in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 5.59, 95% CI 2.49-12.55, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.62-11.80, P = 0.004) and in sampling An. arabiensis in Masogo (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.17-13.24, P < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of An. coustani in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.65-5.56, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.15-7.22, P = 0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly An. coustani, FTT had similar proportions of An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while HDT sampled predominantly An. arabiensis in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites.

Conclusion: FTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host-seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large-scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk.

Citing Articles

Efficiency of four trap types and human landing catch in the sampling of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae) in Porto Velho, Rondônia, Brazil.

Furtado N, Saraiva J, Ribeiro K, Fernandes Neto N, Barroso J, Rodovalho C PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0315869.

PMID: 39808618 PMC: 11731733. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315869.


Considerations for first field trials of low-threshold gene drive for malaria vector control.

Connolly J, Burt A, Christophides G, Diabate A, Habtewold T, Hancock P Malar J. 2024; 23(1):156.

PMID: 38773487 PMC: 11110314. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-04952-9.


Comparison of different trapping methods to collect malaria vectors indoors and outdoors in western Kenya.

Kosgei J, Gimnig J, Moshi V, Omondi S, McDermott D, Donnelly M Malar J. 2024; 23(1):81.

PMID: 38493098 PMC: 10943837. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-04907-0.


Early morning anopheline mosquito biting, a potential driver of malaria transmission in Busia County, western Kenya.

Odero J, Abongo B, Moshi V, Ekodir S, Harvey S, Ochomo E Malar J. 2024; 23(1):66.

PMID: 38438933 PMC: 10910777. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-04893-3.


Insecticide treated eaves screens provide additional marginal protection compared to untreated eave screens under semi-field conditions in western Kenya.

Abongo B, Agumba S, Moshi V, Simwero J, Otima J, Ochomo E Malariaworld J. 2024; 15:1.

PMID: 38322708 PMC: 10842374. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10567425.


References
1.
Ototo E, Mbugi J, Wanjala C, Zhou G, Githeko A, Yan G . Surveillance of malaria vector population density and biting behaviour in western Kenya. Malar J. 2015; 14:244. PMC: 4468962. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-015-0763-7. View

2.
Abongo B, Gimnig J, Torr S, Longman B, Omoke D, Muchoki M . Impact of indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS) on entomological indicators of transmission and malaria case burden in Migori County, western Kenya. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):4518. PMC: 7066154. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61350-2. View

3.
Killeen G . Characterizing, controlling and eliminating residual malaria transmission. Malar J. 2014; 13:330. PMC: 4159526. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-330. View

4.
VaIe G, Torr S . Surveillance and sampling of disease vectors. Rev Sci Tech. 2015; 34(1):227-33. DOI: 10.20506/rst.34.1.2355. View

5.
Koekemoer L, Kamau L, Hunt R, Coetzee M . A cocktail polymerase chain reaction assay to identify members of the Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae) group. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002; 66(6):804-11. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.804. View