title: Comparative evaluation of the Ifakara tent trap-B, the standardized resting boxes and the human landing catch for sampling malaria vectors and other mosquitoes in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Frequent, sensitive and accurate sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes is a prerequisite for effective management of malaria vector control programmes. The most reliable existing means to measure mosquito density is the human landing catch (HLC). However, the HLC technique raises major ethical concerns because of the necessity to expose humans to vectors of malaria and a variety of other pathogens. Furthermore, it is a very arduous undertaking that requires intense supervision, which is severely limiting in terms of affordability and sustainability.
  
  
  METHODS
  A community-based, mosquito sampling protocol, using the Ifakara tent trap-B (ITT-B) and standardized resting boxes (SRB), was developed and evaluated in terms of the number and sample composition of mosquitoes caught by each, compared to rigorously controlled HLC. Mosquitoes were collected once and three times every week by the HLC and the alternative methods, respectively, in the same time and location.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, the three traps caught 44,848 mosquitoes. The ITT-B, HLC and SRB caught 168, 143 and 46 Anopheles gambiae s.l. as well as 26,315, 13,258 and 4,791 Culex species respectively. The ITT-B was three- and five-times cheaper than the HLC per mosquito caught for An. gambiae and Cx. Species, respectively. Significant correlations between the numbers caught by HLC and ITT-B were observed for both An. gambiae s.l. (P < 0.001) and Cx. species (P = 0.003). Correlation between the catches with HLC and SRB were observed for Cx. species (P < 0.001) but not An. gambiae s.l. (P = 0.195), presumably because of the low density of the latter. Neither ITT-B nor SRB exhibited any obvious density dependence for sampling the two species.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  SRBs exhibited poor sensitivity for both mosquito taxa and are not recommended in this setting. However, this protocol is affordable and effective for routine use of the ITT-B under programmatic conditions. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the trap and the protocol be evaluated further at full programmatic scales to establish effectiveness under fully representative conditions of routine practice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Zoology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. maggysikulu@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Maggy
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sikulu
authors.forename: Nicodem J
authors.initials: NJ
authors.lastname: Govella
authors.forename: Sheila B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Ogoma
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Mpangile
authors.forename: Said H
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Kambi
authors.forename: Khadija
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kannady
authors.forename: Prosper C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Chaki
authors.forename: Wolfgang R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Mukabana
authors.forename: Gerry F
authors.initials: GF
authors.lastname: Killeen
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000852:Anopheles / Q000145:classification*; D003465:Culex / Q000145:classification*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D009032:Mosquito Control / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011156:Population Density; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013636:Tanzania
references.citation: Malar J. 2005 Jan 14;4:4
references.pmid: 15649333
references.citation: Malar J. 2006 Feb 03;5:9
references.pmid: 16457724
references.citation: J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1993 Sep;9(3):260-3
references.pmid: 8245934
references.citation: Malar J. 2008 Jan 25;7:20
references.pmid: 18218148
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e5107
references.pmid: 19333402
references.citation: J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008 Jun;24(2):228-35
references.pmid: 18666530
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Oct;49(4):520-9
references.pmid: 8214283
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2007 Mar;5(3):e42
references.pmid: 17311470
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2006 Jun 15;6:154
references.pmid: 16776829
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Jul;61(1):109-13
references.pmid: 10432066
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug;71(2 Suppl):224-31
references.pmid: 15331841
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug;71(2 Suppl):103-17
references.pmid: 15331826
references.citation: Malar J. 2007 Sep 19;6:126
references.pmid: 17880679
references.citation: Bull Entomol Res. 2002 Feb;92(1):71-6
references.pmid: 12020364
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Jan;76(1):42-7
references.pmid: 17255227
references.citation: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1984 Sep;33(5):783-8
references.pmid: 6385740
references.citation: Malar J. 2009 Jul 14;8:157
references.pmid: 19602253
references.citation: Tanzan Health Res Bull. 2005 Sep;7(3):117-24
references.pmid: 16941936