title: Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South--East Zambia.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Sampling malaria vectors and measuring their biting density is of paramount importance for entomological surveys of malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) has been traditionally regarded as a gold standard method for surveying human exposure to mosquito bites. However, due to the risk of human participant exposure to mosquito-borne parasites and viruses, a variety of alternative, exposure-free trapping methods were compared in lowland, south-east Zambia.
  
  
  METHODS
  Centres for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara Tent Trap model C (ITT-C), resting boxes (RB) and window exit traps (WET) were all compared with HLC using a 3 × 3 Latin Squares design replicated in 4 blocks of 3 houses with long lasting insecticidal nets, half of which were also sprayed with a residual deltamethrin formulation, which was repeated for 10 rounds of 3 nights of rotation each during both the dry and wet seasons.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean catches of HLC indoor, HLC outdoor, CDC-LT, ITT-C, WET, RB indoor and RB outdoor, were 1.687, 1.004, 3.267, 0.088, 0.004, 0.000 and 0.008 for Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald respectively, and 7.287, 6.784, 10.958, 5.875, 0.296, 0.158 and 0.458, for An. funestus Giles, respectively. Indoor CDC-LT was more efficient in sampling An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus than HLC indoor (Relative rate [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.873 [1.653, 2.122] and 1.532 [1.441, 1.628], respectively, P < 0.001 for both). ITT-C was the only other alternative which had comparable sensitivity (RR = 0.821 [0.765, 0.881], P < 0.001), relative to HLC indoor other than CDC-LT for sampling An. funestus.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  While the two most sensitive exposure-free techniques primarily capture host-seeking mosquitoes, both have substantial disadvantages for routine community-based surveillance applications: the CDC-LT requires regular recharging of batteries while the bulkiness of ITT-C makes it difficult to move between sampling locations. RB placed indoors or outdoors and WET had consistently poor sensitivity so it may be useful to evaluate additional alternative methods, such as pyrethrum spray catches and back packer aspirators, for catching resting mosquitoes.
authors.affiliation: National Malaria Control Centre, Chainama Hospital College Grounds, Lusaka, Zambia. chsikaala@yahoo.co.uk
authors.forename: Chadwick H
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Sikaala
authors.forename: Gerry F
authors.initials: GF
authors.lastname: Killeen
authors.forename: Javan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Chanda
authors.forename: Dingani
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Chinula
authors.forename: John M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Tanya L
authors.initials: TL
authors.lastname: Russell
authors.forename: Aklilu
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Seyoum
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000852:Anopheles / Q000469:parasitology*; D004199:Disease Vectors; D004772:Entomology / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D010274:Parasitology / Q000379:methods*; D010961:Plasmodium / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D015024:Zambia