Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Malaria Journal and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research

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

Maggy Sikulu1*, Nicodem J Govella23, Sheila B Ogoma1, John Mpangile24, Said H Kambi24, Khadija Kannady4, Prosper C Chaki23, Wolfgang R Mukabana1 and Gerry F Killeen235

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Zoology, University of Nairobi, PO Box 30197-00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya

2 Ifakara Health Institute, Coordination Office, PO Box 78373, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni A, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania

3 Durham University, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

4 Dar es Salaam City Council, Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government, United Republic of Tanzania

5 Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Vector Group, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Malaria Journal 2009, 8:197  doi:10.1186/1475-2875-8-197

Published: 12 August 2009

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.

Conclusion

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.