Comparative efficacy of BG-Sentinel 2 and CDC-like mosquito traps for monitoring potential malaria vectors in Europe

Background

Different trapping devices and attractants are used in the mosquito surveillance programs currently running in Europe. Most of these devices target vector species belonging to the genera Culex or Aedes, and no studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of different trapping devices for the specific targeting of Anopheles mosquito species, which are potential vectors of malaria in Europe. This study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by comparing the performance of trapping methods that are commonly used in European mosquito surveillance programs for Culex and Aedes for the specific collection of adults of species of the Anopheles maculipennis complex.

Methods

The following combinations of traps and attractants were used: (i) BG-Sentinel 2 (BG trap) baited with a BG-Lure cartridge (BG + lure), (ii) BG trap baited with a BG-Lure cartridge and CO₂ (BG + lure + CO₂), (iii) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-like trap (CDC trap) baited with CO₂ (CDC + CO₂), (iv) CDC trap used with light and baited with BG-Lure and CO₂ (CDC light + lure + CO₂). These combinations were compared in the field using a 4 × 4 Latin square study design. The trial was conducted in two sites in northeastern Italy in 2019. Anopheles species were identified morphologically and a sub-sample of An. maculipennis complex specimens were identified to species level by molecular analysis.

Results

Forty-eight collections were performed on 12 different trapping days at each site, and a total of 1721 An. maculipennis complex specimens were captured. The molecular analysis of a sub-sample comprising 254 specimens identified both Anopheles messeae/Anopheles daciae (n = 103) and Anopheles maculipennis sensu stricto (n = 8) at site 1, while at site 2 only An. messeae/An. daciae (n = 143) was found. The four trapping devices differed with respect to the number of An. messeae/An. daciae captured. More mosquitoes were caught by the BG trap when it was used with additional lures (i.e. BG + lure + CO₂) than without the attractant, CO₂ [ratio_{BG+lure vs BG+lure+CO2} = 0.206, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.101–0.420, P < 0.0001], while no significant differences were observed between CDC + CO₂ and CDC light + lure + CO₂ (P = 0.321). The addition of CO₂ to BG + lure increased the ability of this combination to capture An. messeae/An. daciae by a factor of 4.85, and it also trapped more mosquitoes of other, non-target species (Culex pipiens, ratio_{BG+lure vs BG+lure+CO2} = 0.119, 95% CI 0.056–0.250, P < 0.0001; Ochlerotatus caspius, ratio_{BG+lure vs BG+lure+CO2} = 0.035, 95% CI 0.015–0.080, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results show that both the BG-Sentinel and CDC trap can be used to effectively sample An. messeae/An. daciae, but that the combination of the BG-Sentinel trap with the BG-Lure and CO₂ was the most effective means of achieving this. BG + lure + CO₂ is considered the best combination for the routine monitoring of host-seeking An. maculipennis complex species such as An. messeae/An. daciae. The BG-Sentinel and CDC traps have value as alternative methods to human landing catches and manual aspiration for the standardized monitoring of Anopheles species in Europe.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-022-05285-9.

Assessing Carbon Dioxide and Synthetic Lure-Baited Traps for Dengue and Chikungunya Vector Surveillance (3)

The Aedes mosquito vectors of dengue virus (DENV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV) are attracted to specific host cues that are not generated by traditional light traps. For this reason multiple companies have designed traps to specifically target those species. Recently the standard trap for DENV and CHIKV vectors, the BG-Sentinel (BGS) trap, has been remodeled to be more durable and better suited for use in harsh field conditions, common during military operations, and relabeled the BG-Sentinel 2 (BGS2). This new trap was evaluated against the standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light trap, Zumba Trap, and BG-Mosquitito Trap to determine relative effectiveness in collecting adult Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Evaluations were conducted under semifield and field conditions in suburban areas in northeastern Florida from May to August 2014. The BGS2 trap collected more DENV and CHIKV vectors than the standard CDC light trap, Zumba Trap, and BG-Mosquitito Trap, but attracted fewer species, while the BG-Mosquitito Trap attracted the greatest number of mosquito species.

Field assessment of yeast- and oxalic Acid-generated carbon dioxide for mosquito surveillance

Carbon dioxide (CO2) sources improve the efficacy of mosquito traps. However, traditional CO2 sources (dry ice or compressed gas) may be difficult to acquire for vector surveillance during military contingency operations. For this reason, a new and convenient source of CO2 is required. Two novel CO2 generators were evaluated in order to address this capability gap: 1) an electrolyzer that converts solid oxalic acid into CO2 gas, and 2) CO2 produced by yeast as it metabolizes sugar. The flow rate and CO2 concentration produced by each generator were measured, and each generator's ability to attract mosquitoes to BG-Sentinel™ traps during day surveillance and to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light traps with incandescent bulbs during night surveillance was compared to dry ice and compressed gas in Jacksonville, FL. The electrolyzed oxalic acid only slightly increased the number of mosquitoes captured compared to unbaited traps. Based on the modest increase in mosquito collection for traps paired with the oxalic acid, it is not a suitable stand-in for either of the 2 traditional CO2 sources. Conversely, the yeast-generated CO2 resulted in collections with mosquito abundance and species richness more closely resembling those of the traditional CO2 sources, despite achieving a lower CO2 flow rate. Therefore, if dry ice or compressed gas cannot be acquired for vector surveillance, yeast-generated CO2 can significantly improve trap capability.