English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Ifakara tent traps (ITT) are currently the only sufficiently sensitive, safe, affordable and practical method for routine monitoring host-seeking mosquito densities in Dar es Salaam. However, it is not clear whether ITT catches represent indoors or outdoors biting densities. ITT do not yield samples of resting, fed mosquitoes for blood meal analysis.    Methods  Outdoors mosquito sampling methods, namely human landing catch (HLC), ITT (Design B) and resting boxes (RB) were conducted in parallel with indoors sampling using HLC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps (LT) and RB as well as window exit traps (WET) in urban Dar es Salaam, rotating them thirteen times through a 3 × 3 Latin Square experimental design replicated in four blocks of three houses. This study was conducted between 6 th  May and 2 rd  July 2008, during the main rainy season when mosquito biting densities reach their annual peak.    Results  The mean sensitivities of indoor RB, outdoor RB, WET, LT, ITT (Design B) and HLC placed outdoor relative to HLC placed indoor were 0.01, 0.005, 0.036, 0.052, 0.374, and 1.294 for  Anopheles gambiae sensu lato  (96%  An. gambiae s.s  and 4%  An. arabiensis ), respectively, and 0.017, 0.053, 0.125, 0.423, 0.372 and 1.140 for  Culex spp , respectively. The ITT (Design B) catches correlated slightly better to indoor HLC (r 2  = 0.619, P < 0.001, r 2  = 0.231, P = 0.001) than outdoor HLC (r 2  = 0.423, P < 0.001, r 2  = 0.228, P = 0.001) for  An. gambiae s.l . and  Culex spp  respectively but the taxonomic composition of mosquitoes caught by ITT does not match those of the indoor HLC (χ 2  = 607.408, degrees of freedom = 18, P < 0.001). The proportion of  An. gambiae  caught indoors was unaffected by the use of an LLIN in that house.    Conclusion  The RB, WET and LT are poor methods for surveillance of malaria vector densities in urban Dar es Salaam compared to ITT and HLC but there is still uncertainty over whether the ITT best reflects indoor or outdoor biting densities. The particular LLIN evaluated here failed to significantly reduce house entry by  An. gambiae s.l . suggesting a negligible repellence effect.

parasites and vectors

Monitoring mosquitoes in urban Dar es Salaam: Evaluation of resting boxes, window exit traps, CDC light traps, Ifakara tent traps and human landing catches