Small-scale field evaluation of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and sandals for the control of malaria vectors in rural Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Early-evening and outdoor-biting mosquitoes may compromise the effectiveness of frontline malaria interventions, notably insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-cost insecticide-treated eave ribbons and sandals as supplementary interventions against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes in south-eastern Tanzania, where ITNs are already widely used. METHODS: This study was conducted in three villages, with 72 households participating (24 households per village). The households were divided into four study arms and assigned: transfluthrin-treated sandals (TS), transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (TER), a combination of TER and TS, or experimental controls. Each arm had 18 households, and all households received new ITNs. Mosquitoes were collected using double net traps (to assess outdoor biting), CDC light traps (to assess indoor biting), and Prokopack aspirators (to assess indoor resting). Protection provided by the interventions was evaluated by comparing mosquito densities between the treatment and control arms. Additional tests were done in experimental huts to assess the mortality of wild mosquitoes exposed to the treatments or controls. RESULTS: TERs reduced indoor-biting, indoor-resting and outdoor-biting Anopheles arabiensis by 60%, 73% and 41%, respectively, while TS reduced the densities by 18%, 40% and 42%, respectively. When used together, TER & TS reduced indoor-biting, indoor-resting and outdoor-biting An. arabiensis by 53%, 67% and 57%, respectively. Protection against Anopheles funestus ranged from 42 to 69% with TER and from 57 to 74% with TER & TS combined. Mortality of field-collected mosquitoes exposed to TER, TS or both interventions was 56-78% for An. arabiensis and 47-74% for An. funestus. CONCLUSION: Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and sandals or their combination can offer significant household-level protection against malaria vectors. Their efficacy is magnified by the transfluthrin-induced mortality, which was observed despite the prevailing pyrethroid resistance in the study area. These results suggest that TER and TS could be useful supplementary tools against residual malaria transmission in areas where ITN coverage is high but additional protection is needed against early-evening and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. Further research is needed to validate the performance of these tools in different settings, and assess their long-term effectiveness and feasibility for malaria control.

Observing the distribution of mosquito bites on humans to inform personal protection measures against malaria and dengue vectors.

BACKGROUND: Understanding mosquito biting behaviours is important for designing and evaluating protection methods against nuisance biting and mosquito-borne diseases (e.g. dengue, malaria and zika). We investigated the preferred biting sites by Aedes aegypti and Anopheles arabiensis on adult volunteers in standing or sleeping positions; and estimated the theoretical protection limits affordable from protective clothing or repellent-treated footwear. METHODS: Adult volunteers dressed in shorts and t-shirts were exposed to infection-free laboratory-reared mosquitoes inside screened chambers from 6am to noon (for day-biting Ae. aegypti) or 6pm to midnight (night-biting An. arabiensis). Attempted bites on different body parts were recorded. Comparative observations were made on same volunteers while wearing sandals treated with transfluthrin, a vapour-phase pyrethroid that kills and repels mosquitoes. RESULTS: An. arabiensis bites were mainly on the lower limbs of standing volunteers (95.9% of bites below the knees) but evenly-distributed over all exposed body surfaces when the volunteers were on sleeping positions (only 28.8% bites below knees). Ae. aegypti bites were slightly concentrated on lower limbs of standing volunteers (47.7% below knees), but evenly-distributed on sleeping volunteers (23.3% below knees). Wearing protective clothing that leave only hands and head uncovered (e.g. socks + trousers + long-sleeved shirts) could theoretically prevent 78-83% of bites during sleeping, and at least 90% of bites during non-sleeping hours. If the feet are also exposed, protection declines to as low as 36.3% against Anopheles. The experiments showed that transfluthrin-treated sandals reduced An. arabiensis by 54-86% and Ae. aegypti by 32-39%, but did not change overall distributions of bites. CONCLUSION: Biting by An. arabiensis and Ae. aegypti occur mainly on the lower limbs, though this proclivity is less pronounced in the Aedes species. However, when hosts are on sleeping positions, biting by both species is more evenly-distributed over the exposed body surfaces. High personal protection might be achieved by simply wearing long-sleeved clothing, though protection against Anopheles particularly requires covering of feet and lower legs. The transfluthrin-treated footwear can reduce biting risk, especially by An. arabiensis. These findings could inform the design and use of personal protection tools (both insecticidal and non-insecticidal) against mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases.

Semi-field assessment of the Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) with the aim of controlling Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti populations.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti is the main vector of arboviroses and current approaches to control this vector are not sufficiently effective. Adult traps, such as the BG-Sentinel (BGS), have been successfully used for mosquito surveillance and can also suppress vector populations. A new "passive" trap for gravid Ae. aegypti (Gravid Aedes Trap-GAT) has been shown efficient for Aedes collection and suppress Ae. albopictus populations using mass trapping techniques. Here the GAT was evaluated for the first time as a new tool to control Ae. aegypti in semi-field conditions using simulated outdoor environments (SOE). Two identical large screened chambers inside of a SOE containing different numbers and sizes of artificial breeding sites were used to assess the trapping efficiency of the GAT. One hundred mosquitoes were released into the chambers, and recapture rates evaluated after 48h. The parity status of the captured mosquitoes was also recorded. The number of eggs laid, and breeding productivity were also monitored when using different numbers and sizes of breeding sites. The BGS trap was used here as a control (gold standard) trap to compare capture rates to those of the GAT. The GAT recaptured between 50-65% of the mosquitoes independent of the number and sizes of the breeding sites in the SOEs, whereas the BGS recaptured 60-82% of the females. Both traps showed similar results regarding to the parity status of recaptured mosquitoes. Our results confirmed the effectiveness of GAT for the capture of adult female Ae. aegypti in simulated field environments. The BGS trap recaptured gravid Ae. aegypti before egg-laying in different sizes and number of breading sites, whereas the oviposition activity occurred prior to recapture mosquitoes in the GAT. Based on the results, we believe that GAT is a promising candidate for mass-trapping intervention in urban settings, but a source reduction intervention should be made prior trap deployment. Therefore, we suggest future field studies to confirm the use of GAT as a complementary tool in vector control activities.

Videographic analysis of flight behaviours of host-seeking Anopheles arabiensis towards BG-Malaria trap.

The BG-Malaria trap (BGM) is an adaptation of the well-known BG-Sentinel trap (BGS) with greater trapping efficiencies for anopheline and culicine mosquitoes. Its continued optimization requires greater understanding of mosquito flight behaviors near it. We used three high-resolution infrared cameras (68 frames/second) to track flight behaviors of laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis females in vicinity of the BGM in comparison with BGS. Additional comparisons were done for BGM at 20, 40 and 80cm heights, and for BGMs baited with Ifakara blend plus CO2, CO2 alone, or no bait. More mosquitoes were observed near BGM than BGS. Both BGMs installed 20cm above the floor and baited with CO2 received more visits by host-seeking mosquitoes than the other BGMs evaluated in their respective experiments. Trap designs, height and attractants all influence mosquito activity in vicinity of the traps which can be readily visualized using infrared cameras to accelerate trap development and testing. The greater activity of host-seeking mosquitoes near BGM than BGS supports the proven superiority of BGM traps in field and semi-field settings.

Evaluation of a push-pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors.

BACKGROUND: Push-pull strategies have been proposed as options to complement primary malaria prevention tools, indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), by targeting particularly early-night biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. This study evaluated different configurations of a push-pull system consisting of spatial repellents [transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (0.25 g/m2 ai)] and odour-baited traps (CO2-baited BG-Malaria traps), against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria vectors inside large semi-field systems. METHODS: Two experimental huts were used to evaluate protective efficacy of the spatial repellents (push-only), traps (pull-only) or their combinations (push-pull), relative to controls. Adult volunteers sat outdoors (1830 h-2200 h) catching mosquitoes attempting to bite them (outdoor-biting risk), and then went indoors (2200 h-0630 h) to sleep under bed nets beside which CDC-light traps caught host-seeking mosquitoes (indoor-biting risk). Number of traps and their distance from huts were varied to optimize protection, and 500 laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis released nightly inside the semi-field chambers over 122 experimentation nights. RESULTS: Push-pull offered higher protection than traps alone against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 35.0%) and outdoor-biting (79% vs. 31%), but its advantage over repellents alone was non-existent against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 81%) and modest for outdoor-biting (79% vs. 63%). Using two traps (1 per hut) offered higher protection than either one trap (0.5 per hut) or four traps (2 per hut). Compared to original distance (5 m from huts), efficacy of push-pull against indoor-biting peaked when traps were 15 m away, while efficacy against outdoor-biting peaked when traps were 30 m away. CONCLUSION: The best configuration of push-pull comprised transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons plus two traps, each at least 15 m from huts. Efficacy of push-pull was mainly due to the spatial repellent component. Adding odour-baited traps slightly improved personal protection indoors, but excessive trap densities increased exposure near users outdoors. Given the marginal efficacy gains over spatial repellents alone and complexity of push-pull, it may be prudent to promote just spatial repellents alongside existing interventions, e.g. LLINs or non-pyrethroid IRS. However, since both transfluthrin and traps also kill mosquitoes, and because transfluthrin can inhibit blood-feeding, field studies should be done to assess potential community-level benefits that push-pull or its components may offer to users and non-users.

Field evaluation of the BG-Malaria trap for monitoring malaria vectors in rural Tanzanian villages.

BG-Malaria (BGM) trap is a simple adaptation of the widely-used BG-Sentinel trap (BGS). It is proven to be highly effective for trapping the Brazilian malaria vector, Anopheles darlingi, in field conditions, and the African vector, Anopheles arabiensis, under controlled semi-field environments, but has not been field-tested in Africa. Here, we validated the BGM for field sampling of malaria vectors in south-eastern Tanzania. Using a series of Latin-Square experiments conducted nightly (6pm-7am) in rural villages, we compared mosquito catches between BGM, BGS and human landing catches (HLC). We also compared BGMs baited with different attractants (Ifakara-blend, Mbita-blend, BG-Lure and CO2). Lastly, we tested BGMs baited with Ifakara-blend from three odour-dispensing methods (BG-Cartridge, BG-Sachet and Nylon strips). One-tenth of the field-collected female Anopheles gambiae s.l. and Anopheles funestus were dissected to assess parity. BGM captured more An. gambiae s.l. than BGS (p < 0.001), but HLC caught more than either trap (p < 0.001). However, BGM captured more An. funestus than HLC. Proportions of parous An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus consistently exceeded 50%, with no significant difference between methods. While the dominant species caught by HLC was An. gambiae s.l. (56.0%), followed by Culex spp. (33.1%) and Mansonia spp. (6.0%), the BGM caught mostly Culex (81.6%), followed by An. gambiae s.l. (10.6%) and Mansonia (5.8%). The attractant-baited BGMs were all significantly superior to un-baited controls (p < 0.001), although no difference was found between the specific attractants. The BG-Sachet was the most efficient dispenser for capturing An. gambiae s.l. (14.5(2.75-42.50) mosquitoes/trap/night), followed by BG-Cartridge (7.5(1.75-26.25)). The BGM caught more mosquitoes than BGS in field-settings, but sampled similar species diversity and physiological states as BGS. The physiological states of malaria vectors caught in BGM and BGS were similar to those naturally attempting to bite humans (HLC). The BGM was most efficient when baited with Ifakara blend, dispensed from BG-Sachet. We conclude that though BGM traps have potential for field-sampling of host-seeking African malaria vectors with representative physiological states, both BGM and BGS predominantly caught more culicines than Anopheles, compared to HLC, which caught mostly An. gambiae s.l.

Evaluation of a simple polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based membrane for blood-feeding of malaria and dengue fever vectors in the laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Controlled blood-feeding is essential for maintaining laboratory colonies of disease-transmitting mosquitoes and investigating pathogen transmission. We evaluated a low-cost artificial feeding (AF) method, as an alternative to direct human feeding (DHF), commonly used in mosquito laboratories. METHODS: We applied thinly-stretched pieces of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes cut from locally available seal tape (i.e. plumbers tape, commonly used for sealing pipe threads in gasworks or waterworks). Approximately 4 ml of bovine blood was placed on the bottom surfaces of inverted Styrofoam cups and then the PTFE membranes were thinly stretched over the surfaces. The cups were filled with boiled water to keep the blood warm (~37 °C), and held over netting cages containing 3-4 day-old inseminated adults of female Aedes aegypti, Anopheles gambiae (s.s.) or Anopheles arabiensis. Blood-feeding success, fecundity and survival of mosquitoes maintained by this system were compared against DHF. RESULTS: Aedes aegypti achieved 100% feeding success on both AF and DHF, and also similar fecundity rates (13.1 ± 1.7 and 12.8 ± 1.0 eggs/mosquito respectively; P > 0.05). An. arabiensis had slightly lower feeding success on AF (85.83 ± 16.28%) than DHF (98.83 ± 2.29%) though these were not statistically different (P > 0.05), and also comparable fecundity between AF (8.82 ± 7.02) and DHF (8.02 ± 5.81). Similarly, for An. gambiae (s.s.), we observed a marginal difference in feeding success between AF (86.00 ± 10.86%) and DHF (98.92 ± 2.65%), but similar fecundity by either method. Compared to DHF, mosquitoes fed using AF survived a similar number of days [Hazard Ratios (HR) for Ae. aegypti = 0.99 (0.75-1.34), P > 0.05; An. arabiensis = 0.96 (0.75-1.22), P > 0.05; and An. gambiae (s.s.) = 1.03 (0.79-1.35), P > 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: Mosquitoes fed via this simple AF method had similar feeding success, fecundity and longevity. The method could potentially be used for laboratory colonization of mosquitoes, where DHF is unfeasible. If improved (e.g. minimizing temperature fluctuations), the approach could possibly also support studies where vectors are artificially infected with blood-borne pathogens.

Semi-field assessment of the BG-Malaria trap for monitoring the African malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis.

Odour-baited technologies are increasingly considered for effective monitoring of mosquito populations and for the evaluation of vector control interventions. The BG-Malaria trap (BGM), which is an upside-down variant of the widely used BG-Sentinel trap (BGS), has been demonstrated to be effective to sample the Brazilian malaria vector, Anopheles darlingi. We evaluated the BGM as an improved method for sampling the African malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis. Experiments were conducted inside a large semi-field cage to compare trapping efficiencies of BGM and BGS traps, both baited with the synthetic attractant, Ifakara blend, supplemented with CO2. We then compared BGMs baited with either of four synthetic mosquito lures, Ifakara blend, Mbita blend, BG-lure or CO2, and an unbaited BGM. Lastly, we compared BGMs baited with the Ifakara blend dispensed via either nylon strips, BG cartridges (attractant-infused microcapsules encased in cylindrical plastic cartridge) or BG sachets (attractant-infused microcapsules encased in plastic sachets). All tests were conducted between 6P.M. and 7A.M., with 200-600 laboratory-reared An. arabiensis released nightly in the test chamber. The median number of An. arabiensis caught by the BGM per night was 83, IQR:(73.5-97.75), demonstrating clear superiority over BGS (median catch = 32.5 (25.25-37.5)). Compared to unbaited controls, BGMs baited with Mbita blend caught most mosquitoes (45 (29.5-70.25)), followed by BGMs baited with CO2 (42.5 (27.5-64)), Ifakara blend (31 (9.25-41.25)) and BG lure (16 (4-22)). BGM caught 51 (29.5-72.25) mosquitoes/night, when the attractants were dispensed using BG-Cartridges, compared to BG-Sachet (29.5 (24.75-40.5)), and nylon strips (27 (19.25-38.25)), in all cases being significantly superior to unbaited controls (p < 000.1). The findings demonstrate potential of the BGM as a sampling tool for African malaria vectors over the standard BGS trap. Its efficacy can be optimized by selecting appropriate odour baits and odour-dispensing systems.