The effect of light and ventilation on house entry by Anopheles arabiensis sampled using light traps in Tanzania: an experimental hut study

The behaviour of adult Anopheles gambiae, sub-Saharan Africa's principal malaria vector, and its relevance to malaria control: a review

BACKGROUND

Mosquitoes of the Anopheles gambiae complex are one of the major vectors of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Their ability to transmit this disease of major public health importance is dependent on their abundance, biting behaviour, susceptibility and their ability to survive long enough to transmit malaria parasites. A deeper understanding of this behaviour can be exploited for improving vector surveillance and malaria control.

FINDINGS

Adult mosquitoes emerge from aquatic habitats at dusk. After a 24 h teneral period, in which the cuticle hardens and the adult matures, they may disperse at random and search upwind for a mate or to feed. Mating generally takes place at dusk in swarms that form over species-specific 'markers'. Well-nourished females may mate before blood-feeding, but the reverse is true for poorly-nourished insects. Females are monogamous and only mate once whilst males, that only feed on nectar, swarm nightly and can potentially mate up to four times. Females are able to locate hosts by following their carbon dioxide and odour gradients. When in close proximity to the host, visual cues, temperature and relative humidity are also used. Most blood-feeding occurs at night, indoors, with mosquitoes entering houses mainly through gaps between the roof and the walls. With the exception of the first feed, females are gonotrophically concordant and a blood meal gives rise to a complete egg batch. Egg development takes two or three days depending on temperature. Gravid females leave their resting sites at dusk. They are attracted by water gradients and volatile chemicals that provide a suitable aquatic habitat in which to lay their eggs.

CONCLUSION

Whilst traditional interventions, using insecticides, target mosquitoes indoors, additional protection can be achieved using spatial repellents outdoors, attractant traps or house modifications to prevent mosquito entry. Future research on the variability of species-specific behaviour, movement of mosquitoes across the landscape, the importance of light and vision, reproductive barriers to gene flow, male mosquito behaviour and evolutionary changes in mosquito behaviour could lead to an improvement in malaria surveillance and better methods of control reducing the current over-reliance on the indoor application of insecticides.

Field comparison of broad-spectrum white LED-baited traps with narrow-spectrum green LED-baited traps in the capture of Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae)

Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) have been effective light sources in attracting Anopheles mosquitoes, but the broad-spectrum white light, even with a wide-ranging application in lighting, have not been evaluated yet. In this study, the white light was field evaluated against the green one in the light trapping of anopheline mosquitoes by using two non-suction Silva traps and two CDC-type suction light traps. Anopheline mosquitoes were captured for two 21-night periods of collecting (2022 and 2023). In the first period, two LEDs were used per Silva trap, but three were used in the second one to increase the luminance/illuminance at traps. A CDC-type suction light trap equipped with an incandescent lamp was used in 2022 and a CDC-type suction light trap equipped with a 6 V-white light (higher luminance/illuminance) in 2023. A total of eight species and 3,289 specimens were captured in both periods. The most frequent species were Anopheles triannulatus s.l., An. goeldii, An. evansae and An. argyritarsis. In 2022, white LEDs were less attractive to anopheline mosquitoes than the other light sources, but without statistical difference among treatments (F = 2.703; P = 0.0752; df = 2). In 2023, even with an increased luminance/illuminance at traps, no statistical difference was found between the two LED-baited Silva traps (F = 6.690; P = 0.0024; df = 2), but rather between the 6 V-white-baited CDC-type suction light trap and green-baited Silva traps. Due to some drawbacks and the lower abundance of individuals caught by using white LEDs, the narrow-banded green LEDs is preferable to white ones for attracting anophelines.

Evaluation of the solar-powered Silver Bullet 2.1 (Lumin 8) light trap for sampling malaria vectors in western Kenya

BACKGROUND

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps are widely used for sampling mosquitoes. However, this trap, manufactured in the USA, poses challenges for use in sub-Saharan Africa due to procurement costs and shipping time. Traps that are equally efficient than the CDC light trap, but which are amenable for use in remote African settings and made in Africa, are desirable to improve local vector surveillance. This study evaluated a novel solar-powered light trap made in South Africa (Silver Bullet trap; SB), for its efficiency in malaria vector sampling in western Kenya.

METHODS

Large cage (173.7 m3) experiments and field evaluations were conducted to compare the CDC-incandescent light trap (CDC-iLT), CDC-UV fluorescent tube light trap (CDC-UV), SB with white diodes (SB-White) and SB with UV diodes (SB-UV) for sampling Anopheles mosquitoes. Field assessments were done indoors and outdoors following a Latin square design. The wavelengths and absolute spectral irradiance of traps were compared using spectrometry.

RESULTS

The odds of catching a released Anopheles in the large cage experiments with the SB-UV under ambient conditions in the presence of a CDC-iLT in the same system was three times higher than what would have been expected when the two traps were equally attractive (odds ratio (OR) 3.2, 95% confidence interval CI 2.8-3.7, P < 0.01)). However, when the white light diode was used in the SB trap, it could not compete with the CDC-iLT (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48-0.66, p < 0.01) when the two traps were provided as choices in a closed system. In the field, the CDC and Silver Bullet traps were equally effective in mosquito sampling. Irrespective of manufacturer, traps emitting UV light performed better than white or incandescent light for indoor sampling, collecting two times more Anopheles funestus sensu lato (s.l.) (RR 2.5; 95% CI 1.7-3.8) and Anopheles gambiae s.l. (RR 2.5; 95% 1.7-3.6). Outdoor collections were lower than indoor collections and similar for all light sources and traps.

CONCLUSIONS

The solar-powered SB trap compared well with the CDC trap in the field and presents a promising new surveillance device especially when charging on mains electricity is challenging in remote settings.

Participatory development of practical, affordable, insecticide-treated mosquito proofing for a range of housing designs in rural southern Tanzania

Background

Insecticidal mosquito-proof netting screens could combine the best features of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), the two most important front line vector control interventions in Africa today, and also overcome the most important limitations of these methods. This study engaged members of a rural Tanzanian community in developing and evaluating simple, affordable and scalable procedures for installing readily available screening materials on eave gaps and windows of their own houses, and then treating those screens with a widely used IRS formulation of the organophosphate insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (PM).

Methods

A cohort of 54 households recruited upon consent, following which the structural features and occupant demographics of their houses were surveyed. Indoor mosquito densities were surveyed longitudinally, for approximately 3 months before and over 5 months after participatory house modification and screening using locally available materials. Each house was randomly assigned to one of three study arms: (1) No screens installed until the end of the study (negative control), (2) untreated screens installed, and (3) screened installed and then treated with PM, the insecticidal activity of which was subsequently assessed using standard cone assays.

Results

Almost all (52) recruited households participated until the end, at which point all houses had been successfully screened. In most cases, screening was only installed after making enabling structural modifications that were accepted by the enrolled households. Compared to unscreened houses, houses with either treated or untreated screens both almost entirely excluded Anopheles arabiensis (Relative reduction (RR) ≥ 98%, P < < 0.0001), the most abundant local malaria vector. However, screens were far less effective against Culex quinquefasciatus (RR ≤ 46%, P < < 0.0001), a non-malaria vector causing considerable biting nuisance, regardless of their treatment status. While PM did not augment household level protection by screens against either mosquito species (P = 0.676 and 0.831, respectively), 8 months after treatment it still caused 73% and 89% mortality among susceptible insectary-reared Anopheles gambiae following exposures of 3 and 30 min, respectively.

Conclusions

Participatory approaches to mosquito proofing houses may be acceptable and effective, and installed screens may be suitable targets for residual insecticide treatments.