Parasites & vectors · 2023
Efficacy of 3D screens for sustainable mosquito control: a semi-field experimental hut evaluation in northeastern Tanzania.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kathet Subam, Sudi Wema, Mwingira Victor, Tungu Patrick, Aalto Mikko, Hakala Tomi, Honkala Markku, Malima Robert, Kisinza William, Meri Seppo, Khattab Ayman
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A three-dimensional window screen (3D-Screen) has been developed to create a window double-screen trap (3D-WDST), effectively capturing and preventing the escape of mosquitoes. A 2015 laboratory study demonstrated the 3D-Screen's efficacy, capturing 92% of mosquitoes in a double-screen setup during wind tunnel assays. To further evaluate its effectiveness, phase II experimental hut trials were conducted in Muheza, Tanzania.
METHODS: Three experimental hut trials were carried out between 2016 and 2017. Trial I tested two versions of the 3D-WDST in huts with open or closed eaves, with one version using a single 3D-Screen and the other using two 3D-Screens. Trial II examined the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens in huts with or without baffles, while Trial III compared handmade and machine-made 3D structures. Mosquito capturing efficacy of the 3D-WDST was measured by comparing the number of mosquitoes collected in the test hut to a control hut with standard exit traps.
RESULTS: Trial I showed that the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens used in huts with open eaves achieved the highest mosquito-capturing efficacy. This treatment captured 33.11% (CI 7.40-58.81) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in this hut (3D-WDST and room collections) and 27.27% (CI 4.23-50.31) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in the control hut (exit traps, room, and verandahs collections). In Trial II, the two 3D-Screens version of the 3D-WDST captured 70.32% (CI 56.87-83.77) and 51.07% (CI 21.72-80.41) of female anophelines in huts with and without baffles, respectively. Compared to the control hut, the capturing efficacy for female anophelines was 138.6% (37.23-239.9) and 42.41% (14.77-70.05) for huts with and without baffles, respectively. Trial III demonstrated similar performance between hand- and machine-made 3D structures.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-WDST proved effective in capturing malaria vectors under semi-field experimental hut conditions. Using 3D-Screens on both sides of the window openings was more effective than using a single-sided 3D-Screen. Additionally, both hand- and machine-made 3D structures exhibited equally effective performance, supporting the production of durable cones on an industrial scale for future large-scale studies evaluating the 3D-WDST at the community level.
METHODS: Three experimental hut trials were carried out between 2016 and 2017. Trial I tested two versions of the 3D-WDST in huts with open or closed eaves, with one version using a single 3D-Screen and the other using two 3D-Screens. Trial II examined the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens in huts with or without baffles, while Trial III compared handmade and machine-made 3D structures. Mosquito capturing efficacy of the 3D-WDST was measured by comparing the number of mosquitoes collected in the test hut to a control hut with standard exit traps.
RESULTS: Trial I showed that the 3D-WDST with two 3D-Screens used in huts with open eaves achieved the highest mosquito-capturing efficacy. This treatment captured 33.11% (CI 7.40-58.81) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in this hut (3D-WDST and room collections) and 27.27% (CI 4.23-50.31) of female anophelines relative to the total collected in the control hut (exit traps, room, and verandahs collections). In Trial II, the two 3D-Screens version of the 3D-WDST captured 70.32% (CI 56.87-83.77) and 51.07% (CI 21.72-80.41) of female anophelines in huts with and without baffles, respectively. Compared to the control hut, the capturing efficacy for female anophelines was 138.6% (37.23-239.9) and 42.41% (14.77-70.05) for huts with and without baffles, respectively. Trial III demonstrated similar performance between hand- and machine-made 3D structures.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-WDST proved effective in capturing malaria vectors under semi-field experimental hut conditions. Using 3D-Screens on both sides of the window openings was more effective than using a single-sided 3D-Screen. Additionally, both hand- and machine-made 3D structures exhibited equally effective performance, supporting the production of durable cones on an industrial scale for future large-scale studies evaluating the 3D-WDST at the community level.