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

• Published in: Malaria Journal
• Main Authors: Jackline Kosgei, John E. Gimnig, Vincent Moshi, Seline Omondi, Daniel P. McDermott, Martin J. Donnelly, Collins Ouma, Bernard Abong’o, Eric Ochomo
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2024
• Subjects: UV light trap; Human landing catches; Anopheles; Trapping methods; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Infectious and parasitic diseases; RC109-216; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-024-04907-0; https://doaj.org/article/5f69cd07c896458a90ed7087f334d0b0

Abstract Background Vector surveillance is among the World Health Organization global vector control response (2017–2030) pillars. Human landing catches are a gold standard but difficult to implement and potentially expose collectors to malaria infection. Other methods like light traps, pyrethrum spray catches and aspiration are less expensive and less risky to collectors. Methods Three mosquito sampling methods (UV light traps, CDC light traps and Prokopack aspiration) were evaluated against human landing catches (HLC) in two villages of Rarieda sub-county, Siaya County, Kenya. UV-LTs, CDC-LTs and HLCs were conducted hourly between 17:00 and 07:00. Aspiration was done indoors and outdoors between 07:00 and 11:00 a.m. Analyses of mosquito densities, species abundance and sporozoite infectivity were performed across all sampling methods. Species identification PCR and ELISAs were done for Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus complexes and data analysis was done in R. Results Anopheles mosquitoes sampled from 608 trapping efforts were 5,370 constituting 70.3% Anopheles funestus sensu lato (s.l.), 19.7% Anopheles coustani and 7.2% An. gambiae s.l. 93.8% of An. funestus s.l. were An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) and 97.8% of An. gambiae s.l. were Anopheles arabiensis. Only An. funestus were sporozoite positive with 3.1% infection prevalence. Indoors, aspiration captured higher An. funestus (mean = 6.74; RR = 8.83, P < 0.001) then UV-LT (mean = 3.70; RR = 3.97, P < 0.001) and CDC-LT (mean = 1.74; RR = 1.89, P = 0.03) compared to HLC. UV-LT and CDC-LT indoors captured averagely 0.18 An. arabiensis RR = 5.75, P = 0.028 and RR = 5.87, P = 0.028 respectively. Outdoors, UV-LT collected significantly higher Anopheles mosquitoes compared to HLC (An. funestus: RR = 5.18, P < 0.001; An. arabiensis: RR = 15.64, P = 0.009; An. coustani: RR = 11.65, P < 0.001). Anopheles funestus hourly biting indoors in UV-LT and CDC-LT indicated different peaks compared to HLC. Conclusions Anopheles funestus remains the ...