{"title":"dynatrap®dt160作为CDC诱捕器在西非马里监测成蚊的廉价替代品的评价","authors":"M. M. Traoré","doi":"10.32473/JFMCA.V68I1.129098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mosquito monitoring traps (i.e., CDC light traps) are crucial tools for basic vector ecology research, risk assessment, and vector control programs. Unfortunately, they are expensive which is often an issue in projects conducted in developing countries. Therefore, it would be desirable to have reliable but inexpensive alternatives based on existing consumer products. We compared an off-the-shelf DynaTrap (model DT160, CCFL tube 365 ± 3 nm UV) modified to fit a CDC trap collection bag and to use a 12V power supply, with two commonly used CDC traps: CDC Miniature Light Trap Model 512 (incandescent light, 6 Volt) and CDC Miniature Downdraft Blacklight (UV) Trap Model 912 (4-Watt blue-black-light tube, 12 Volt), in different ecological settings in southwest (Kenieroba) and northwest (Nioro du Sahel) Mali, West Africa. In northwest Mali, the modified DynaTrap caught a mean of 20.67 ± 2.8 females and 5.38 ± 1.0 male Aedes aegypti which was 16.55% and 10.78% more, respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap (control). The DynaTrap caught a mean of 29.75 ± 2.8 female and 17.92 ± 3.5 male Culex quinquefasciatus. which was 47.76% and 20.70% more than the control CDC incandescent trap. The DynaTrap caught a mean of 2.46 ± 0.5 females and 1.63 ± 0.6 males and 10.16% and 2.45% more female and male An. gambiae s.l., respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap. Trap and catch means were lower at the southwest Mali site. However, trap catch proportions by sex were similar to those in the northwest. The modified DynaTrap outperformed both CDC monitoring traps for less than one third of the cost including the cost of the DynaTrap modifications.","PeriodicalId":17272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Florida Mosquito Control Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EVALUATION OF DYNATRAP® DT160 AS AN INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO CDC TRAPS FOR ADULT MOSQUITO MONITORING IN MALI, WEST AFRICA\",\"authors\":\"M. M. Traoré\",\"doi\":\"10.32473/JFMCA.V68I1.129098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mosquito monitoring traps (i.e., CDC light traps) are crucial tools for basic vector ecology research, risk assessment, and vector control programs. Unfortunately, they are expensive which is often an issue in projects conducted in developing countries. Therefore, it would be desirable to have reliable but inexpensive alternatives based on existing consumer products. We compared an off-the-shelf DynaTrap (model DT160, CCFL tube 365 ± 3 nm UV) modified to fit a CDC trap collection bag and to use a 12V power supply, with two commonly used CDC traps: CDC Miniature Light Trap Model 512 (incandescent light, 6 Volt) and CDC Miniature Downdraft Blacklight (UV) Trap Model 912 (4-Watt blue-black-light tube, 12 Volt), in different ecological settings in southwest (Kenieroba) and northwest (Nioro du Sahel) Mali, West Africa. In northwest Mali, the modified DynaTrap caught a mean of 20.67 ± 2.8 females and 5.38 ± 1.0 male Aedes aegypti which was 16.55% and 10.78% more, respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap (control). The DynaTrap caught a mean of 29.75 ± 2.8 female and 17.92 ± 3.5 male Culex quinquefasciatus. which was 47.76% and 20.70% more than the control CDC incandescent trap. The DynaTrap caught a mean of 2.46 ± 0.5 females and 1.63 ± 0.6 males and 10.16% and 2.45% more female and male An. gambiae s.l., respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap. Trap and catch means were lower at the southwest Mali site. However, trap catch proportions by sex were similar to those in the northwest. The modified DynaTrap outperformed both CDC monitoring traps for less than one third of the cost including the cost of the DynaTrap modifications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Florida Mosquito Control Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Florida Mosquito Control Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32473/JFMCA.V68I1.129098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Florida Mosquito Control Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32473/JFMCA.V68I1.129098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
蚊虫监测陷阱(即CDC灯诱)是媒介生态学基础研究、风险评估和媒介控制规划的重要工具。不幸的是,它们很昂贵,这在发展中国家进行的项目中经常是一个问题。因此,在现有消费产品的基础上找到可靠而廉价的替代品是可取的。我们在西非马里西南部(Kenieroba)和西北部(Nioro du Sahel)的不同生态环境中,将一种现有的DynaTrap(型号DT160, CCFL灯管365±3 nm UV)与两种常用的CDC陷阱进行了比较,这两种陷阱分别是CDC微型光陷阱512型(白炽灯,6伏)和CDC微型下吸黑光(UV)陷阱912型(4瓦蓝黑色灯管,12伏)。在马里西北部,改良DynaTrap平均捕获雌伊蚊20.67±2.8只,雄伊蚊5.38±1.0只,分别比CDC白炽灯诱蚊器(对照)多16.55%和10.78%。平均捕获雌蚊29.75±2.8只,雄蚊17.92±3.5只。分别比对照CDC白炽灯高出47.76%和20.70%。DynaTrap平均捕获雌鼠2.46±0.5只,雄鼠1.63±0.6只,雌鼠和雄鼠分别高出10.16%和2.45%。冈比亚血吸虫分别比CDC白炽灯诱捕器。陷阱和捕获手段在马里西南部站点较低。但不同性别的捕获比例与西北地区相似。改进后的DynaTrap比两种CDC监测陷阱都要好,成本不到三分之一,其中包括修改DynaTrap的成本。
EVALUATION OF DYNATRAP® DT160 AS AN INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO CDC TRAPS FOR ADULT MOSQUITO MONITORING IN MALI, WEST AFRICA
Mosquito monitoring traps (i.e., CDC light traps) are crucial tools for basic vector ecology research, risk assessment, and vector control programs. Unfortunately, they are expensive which is often an issue in projects conducted in developing countries. Therefore, it would be desirable to have reliable but inexpensive alternatives based on existing consumer products. We compared an off-the-shelf DynaTrap (model DT160, CCFL tube 365 ± 3 nm UV) modified to fit a CDC trap collection bag and to use a 12V power supply, with two commonly used CDC traps: CDC Miniature Light Trap Model 512 (incandescent light, 6 Volt) and CDC Miniature Downdraft Blacklight (UV) Trap Model 912 (4-Watt blue-black-light tube, 12 Volt), in different ecological settings in southwest (Kenieroba) and northwest (Nioro du Sahel) Mali, West Africa. In northwest Mali, the modified DynaTrap caught a mean of 20.67 ± 2.8 females and 5.38 ± 1.0 male Aedes aegypti which was 16.55% and 10.78% more, respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap (control). The DynaTrap caught a mean of 29.75 ± 2.8 female and 17.92 ± 3.5 male Culex quinquefasciatus. which was 47.76% and 20.70% more than the control CDC incandescent trap. The DynaTrap caught a mean of 2.46 ± 0.5 females and 1.63 ± 0.6 males and 10.16% and 2.45% more female and male An. gambiae s.l., respectively, than the CDC incandescent trap. Trap and catch means were lower at the southwest Mali site. However, trap catch proportions by sex were similar to those in the northwest. The modified DynaTrap outperformed both CDC monitoring traps for less than one third of the cost including the cost of the DynaTrap modifications.