INTRODUCTION
Vector-borne diseases such as dengue, chikungunya, and lymphatic filariasis, pose a major threat to human life and health, especially in tropical and subtropical regions. More than 80% of the global population lives in areas at risk from at least one major vector-borne disease, with more than half at risk from two or more. Vector-borne diseases cause more than 700,000 deaths every year, accounting for about 17% of the global burden of communicable diseases.1,2 They also cause huge economic losses and hinder the development of rural and urban areas. Remarkable progress has been made globally in the fight against malaria and lymphatic filariasis,1 but the burden of other vector-borne diseases, especially mosquito-borne diseases, has increased in recent years.3 Since 2014, dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever, and other mosquito-borne diseases have been raging in many countries, taking lives and overburdening the health system. In 2016, Zika virus infection and its related complications spread rapidly in the Americas region of the WHO, which had a direct impact on individuals and families and caused social panic and economic loss.4
Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) (Ae. albopictus) is a competent vector for at least 22 arboviruses such as dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and so on.5–8 At present, many Aedes-borne diseases have neither vaccines nor special therapeutic drugs. It has been proved that vector control is the most effective measure to prevent transmission of these diseases.9,10 Real-time grasps of accurate Ae. albopictus population and density dynamics information is an important part of effective prevention and control.11 At the same time, Ae. albopictus density surveillance can guide us to carry out timely mosquito control and provide the basis for evaluating the control effect. From a public health perspective, this is important and indispensable.
LITERATURE SEARCH
Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Google Scholar with the keywords of “Aedes”, “surveillance” and “adult or larva” to identify relevant articles published up until October 21, 2021.
A basic PubMed search was performed to identify commonly used terms in literature describing Aedes, surveillance, adult, and larva. Through trial and error, we determined the most comprehensive and relevant literature search field combination, and we also used the Google Scholar search engine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to obtain relevant information that was not available in PubMed until October 21, 2021. Articles were further preselected based on titles and abstracts, and a thorough assessment of relevance was conducted by full text reading. After the literature search, additional references were added to the author’s file if they were relevant to the topic and helpful for the discussion.
SURVEILLANCE OF ADULT AEDES ALBOPICTUS
Ae. albopictus is a day-biting species, which synchronizes its feeding behavior with human activity.12 Adult mosquito surveillance is conducted to determine mosquito density, species composition, spatiotemporal distribution, and it can also collect mosquito samples for pathogen screening.13 Compared with larval surveillance, it can accurately predict the epidemic trend of the disease in a timely manner.14 Adult mosquitoes collected by surveillance can be identified to species level by using morphological keys with reference to “Fauna Sinica, Insecta, Eighth Volume, Diptera, Culicidae”15 or “Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, Systematic Catalog of Culicidae”.16
Human landing catch.
Human landing catch (HLC) is a traditional gold standard method for adult mosquito surveillance.17 It is also the most efficient surveillance method for highly anthropophilic mosquito species like Ae. albopictus. It is suitable for capturing mosquito species that prefer to feed on human or both human and animal blood. During the hours of peak mosquito biting, human volunteers wearing long clothes and trousers collected mosquitoes landing on their exposed right or left legs using aspirators and torchlights for 30 minutes or more. Because Ae. albopictus can be strongly attracted by lactic acid and odor secreted by the human body, some researchers believe that HLC is a sensitive method,18 which can be used as a standard reference method to evaluate the surveillance effect of other methods.19 In addition, due to its simple operation and low independence of equipment, HLC is suitable for routine Ae. albopictus surveillance. However, due to concerns of potential health risks to collectors, especially in epidemic areas, this method is not recommended.20,21 Moreover, another limitation of HLC is that different collectors have different collecting skills and are also attractive to mosquitoes to varying degrees. Before using this method, ethical certification and informed consent are required.
Human-baited double net trap.
The human-baited double net trap (HDN) consists of two box nets, the inner net falling to the ground protects the human bait, and the outer net is raised 35 cm off the ground, so that mosquitoes lured to the human-bait could fly into the space between the nets. The human bait exposes two legs in the inner net, and another collector collects mosquitoes between the nets using a mosquito respirator, who is protected by long closes or repellent. To a certain extent, the HDN can effectively protect the monitoring participants.17 As a common method for dengue vector surveillance, it is relatively economic and efficient. At the same time, China has taken its bite index as an important exponent of dengue control.22 In Lao PDR, four methods including HND, carbon dioxide–baited light trap catch (CB-LTC), BG-Sentinel (BGS) trap, and Suna trap were compared; the HDN is more effective than the other three methods in both day and night.23 It can be used as a more ethical alternative to HLC for Aedes sampling.17
However, HDN underestimates the density of Ae. albopictus compared with HLC because of its two-layer-nets design, which could result in a lower surveillance result.24 HDN also has some shortcomings, such as the need to set up tents on the spot; the operation is relatively complex and needs two participants acting as bait and catcher.17 The samples obtained by HLC and HDN can be used to evaluate the resistance of the mosquito population.
BGS trap.
The BGS trap is designed with a combination of attractive visual and olfactory cues. It is collapsible and portable. The BGS trap is essentially a collapsible fabric container with a white lid with holes covering its opening. It is 36 cm in diameter and 40 cm high. Its attractant simulates the odor produced by the host, which is composed of lactic acid, ammonia and acetic acid or with CO2.25,26 The BGS trap has become the industry standard because of its good collection effect on Aedes collection.27–29 The lure is strongly recommended,30 and without the need for carbon dioxide, it is superior.31,32 Meanwhile, the synergistic effect of CO2 and the BG lure makes the most efficient combination in attracting Ae. albopictus.33
BGS-trap has been extensively field-tested in many countries, and it has been proved as a good tool for the Aedes collection. In two Italian cities, mosquitoes were collected with HLC and BGS traps without CO2, with the similar numbers of Ae. albopictus females during 0.5 or 1.5 hours.34 In addition, CO2 is also to be an effective mosquito attractant at long and medium distances. The BGS trap is a tool used for routine mosquito surveillance of Ae. albopictus in America, when used with lure and CO2, the BGS trap collected 33 times more females than CB-LTC per 24 hours.35 Australia Darwin port intercept the exotic Ae. albopictus by BGS-trap with CO2.36 In another study carried out on La Réunion Island, Indonesia, researchers confirmed that a mouse-baited BGS trap provided an efficient tool for trapping.37 In New Jersey, a study reported that BGS trap placement had a significant effect on Ae. albopictus capture rate, and traps in shade or partial shade locations captured 3 times more insects than sunny locations.38 Moreover, the operation of the BGS trap is simpler and more standardized than HDN and HLC, and its results are not easily influenced by monitoring personnel. The BGS trap with CO2 accounted for more than 85% of all Ae. albopictus captured and was significantly more effective at detecting the presence of Ae. albopictus compared with the other three techniques (Gravid trap, HLC, and Aspirator).39
In most cases, the BGS trap has shown high efficiency in Ae. albopictus sampling; however, there were also inconsistencies in some cases. In a study carried out in Yunnan Province of China, 23 BGS traps were placed in the field to catch mosquitoes for 328 hours; only eight Ae. albopictus were caught.40 Moreover, some researchers found that BGS traps collected insufficient numbers of female mosquitoes for pathogen isolation and that there were construction quality issues.38 As a new mosquito surveillance device in some regions, the BGS trap has a high price, and its operation needs a power supply,41 so it is difficult to popularize in some economically backward areas.
Autocidal gravid ovitrap.
The autocidal gravid ovitrap (AGO) consists of three primary components: a black pail that contains hay and water to attract ovipositing female Aedes mosquitoes; a capture chamber is attached to the bucket, with a net cover that allows mosquitoes to enter, and on the bottom, a fine mesh prevents mosquitoes from reaching the water; and there is a sticky lining inside the chamber to which mosquitoes adhere.42 AGO is mainly used for surveillance and control of the dengue vector Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (L.),41–44 and it can also be applied for Ae. albopictus.6,7,45
Field trials in Puerto Rico demonstrated that AGO captured more Ae. aegypti gravid females and provided higher sensitivity than conventional ovitraps.44 Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between mosquito captures using the BGS trap and AGOs, indicating that AGOs are useful and low-cost mosquito surveillance devices.41 A study reported that a modified AGO with a powered suction fan or additional lures (BG lure or BG lure + octenol)46 could increase collections of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus.47 Compared with clean water, hay infusion (or Bermuda grass infusion),48 larval rearing water, solution of ammonium phosphate and potassium nitrate are more attractive to gravid female Ae. albopictus.49,50 Furthermore, raising the size of the trap entrance, changing the white color of trap components to black, and adding the volume surface area of the aqueous bait could significantly improve the performance of the AGO.44
Gravid Aedes Trap.
The Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) consists of a 10-L black bucket base, a translucent top chamber, a black nylon mesh placed between the translucent chamber and base, and a black plastic entrance funnel. The black entrance funnel (12 cm in diameter) was inserted on the top of the translucent chamber and extended 6.5 cm into the GAT top.51 The GAT is a passive trap that relies on visual and olfactory cues to lure and capture gravid mosquitoes.52 When mosquitoes enter the transparent chamber through the black funnel on top of the trap, because the black mesh net provides a barrier between the mosquito and the infused water, it is difficult for the mosquito to escape from the transparent chamber. At the same time, they are exposed to a sticky surface,53 oil,54 or insecticides.51,55
The black color of GAT attracts mosquitoes from afar. Therefore, the trap needs to be placed where it is readily visible but protected from rain. In field trials of northern Australia, GAT collected 2 to 4 times more female Ae. aegypti than the MosquiTRAP and the double sticky ovitrap.55 A study in Northeastern Florida also proved the GAT a highly effective surveillance tool, it collected overall 6-fold more Ae. albopictus than the AGO.56 Moreover, it can be used effectively both indoors and outdoors. It is important that GAT can incorporate a noninsecticide killing agent without reducing collections.
Although the researcher suggested that it underperforms compared with the BGS trap,54 the GAT could still be used as an additional tool to reduce an adult Ae. albopictus population. To achieve a better performance, sufficient traps must be deposited at a suitable distance of approximately 25 m or less.57
Mosquito magnet.
The principle of Mosquito Magnet (MM) is to use liquefied petroleum gas to produce a certain concentration of CO2, heat, and water vapor through catalytic action, and at the same time use negative pressure technology to lure and trap mosquitoes.58–61 There are many types of MM, such as the P-type, L-type, and X-type.62
In a large tire repository, seven traps (MML, Fay-Prince, Dragonfly, moving-target trap, CDC without light, Center for Disease Control and Prevention light trap catch (CDC-LTC), Mosquito Deleto) were tested, significantly higher mean numbers of Ae. albopitus and Ae. aegypti females were collected with the MM compared with the remaining traps.63 There was also a study that showed the trap effect of MMP was significantly better than CDC-LTC and CB-LTC. Compared with the BGS trap, the capture rate of MM is 3 to 10 times greater than that of the BGS trap. MM also performed better than the BGS trap under a range of meteorological conditions (rain and wind).65
Compared with the basic version of MM, the addition of octenol,66 lactic acid, ammonia + lactic61 acid or octenol + lactic acid67 can improve the capture rate of Ae. albopictus. It has the advantages of labor-saving, little influence from human factors, and does not require an external power supply.58 Its waterproof design68 guarantees good performance under a variety of weather conditions.65 However, MM also has disadvantages, such as its high cost and importability. In some studies, MMX collected fewer Ae. albopictus compared with Mos-Hole and the BGS trap.69 The samples obtained by AGO, GAT, and MM can be used for vector-borne pathogen detection and population estimation.
LARVAL SURVEILLANCE OF AEDES ALBOPICTUS
Ae. albopictus is a semidomestic and container-breeding mosquito species,6 and its habitat is relatively wide and scattered.70 Ae. albopictus can breed in indoor and outdoor artificial small- and medium-sized container water,71 whereas adult Ae. albopictus mainly inhabits the dark and hidden place of the field environment,72,73 such as the forest or bamboo, bush or grass, and waste tires near the breeding place.74 The stage of Ae. albopictus larvae generally last for 4 to 10 days, depending on water temperature and food richness, and then developed into the pupal stage. Larval surveillance involves sampling a wide range of aquatic habitats for the presence of immature mosquitoes.13 It should be noted if there are cryptic aquatic habitats that cannot be visually detected, the surveillance may underestimate the prevalence and abundance of container Aedes.
As an important component of Aedes surveillance, larval surveillance allows us to identify and treat breeding sites; however, it is often ignored. Its main functions are as follows: to provide us cues of locations suitable for nonchemical treatment, such as breeding sites cleaning and biological treatment; to provide accurate background data of breeding status in regions to be controlled; to evaluate the application and control effect of insecticides on a continuous basis; to provide data of species distribution, density, and seasonal dynamics; to enhance understanding of adult mosquito surveillance; and to provide an evaluation of resistance surveillance.21
Larvae pipette method—Breteau index.
The larvae pipette method is used to monitor the density of mosquito larvae and pupae in various environments, mainly to check whether there are larvae and pupae in the container, as well as the species and quantity. The indicators include the 100-househoid index, larval density index, container index (CI), and house index (HI). One hundred-household index is defined as number of positive containers per 100 houses inspected. It is also known as the Breteau index (BI) for monitoring the larvae and pupae of Ae. albopictus or Ae. aegypti.75,76 It can objectively reflect the larval dynamics in the natural environment, providing data on species richness, composition, and distribution characteristics of Aedes breeding place.77 Before the surveillance, the residents should be publicized and educated to improve their understanding of the hazards of the Aedes mosquito, which could act as biting harassment and vectors of many deadly diseases, and further increase public awareness of the importance of turning over pots and pouring cans to remove mosquito breeding sources.78,79 It was aimed to give “help for self-help” and to transform the public from “spectators” to “actors.”80
BI is an important index to evaluate Aedes density and risk of community transmission during the dengue epidemic.81 It is easy to understand, and there are several risk assessment thresholds: BI < 5 (low infestation and low risk of dengue transmission); BI ≥ 5 (the risk of transmission); BI ≥ 10 (the risk of the outbreak); BI ≥ 20 (the risk of the regional epidemic).22 However, these values need to be verified when applied to dengue fever transmission, and the critical value should be adjusted according to the purpose, manpower and material resources to get more reasonable sensitivity and specificity in practice. A study carried out in Guangzhou, China, predicted that the BI thresholds of dengue transmission and outbreak could be determined as 5.0 and 9.5 respectively,82 according to the study of BI and dengue cases in 2006–2012. Some researchers believed that the most direct operational indicator for predicting the transmission risk of dengue is BI > 4.81,83
Path distance method-Route index.
Route index (RI) refers to the number of positive containers per kilometer of inspection route.21 Path distance method is suitable for monitoring small-size container water with larvae and pupae breeding in the field and is easy to operate. The RI can be used to evaluate the breeding status and mosquito control effect in a city and then establish and consolidate the achievement of a national health city in the future.
One study suggests that values of RI and BI are consistent, and there is a strong positive correlation between the two indices.84 During 2006–2012, a field study was conducted in Guangzhou, China, to evaluate Ae. albopictus breeding status using both RI and BI. The study suggested that the number of positive habitats reported in Guangzhou City was underestimated, compared with RI.85 In the urban environment or during the dengue emergency, the path distance method is much easier to operate and RI can serve as an effective supplement to BI.86 Oruxmaps is a free GPS software, and it can serve as a tool for an accurate distance calculation of path distance method, which could effectively reduce false behavior and then ensure the surveillance quality. The samples collected by larvae pipette method and path distance method can be used to detect mosquito-borne pathogens and evaluate insecticide resistance.
EGG SURVEILLANCE OF AEDES ALBOPICTUS
Oviposition traps are artificial containers baited with an infusion that acts as an attractant. Those traps are widely used to sample aedine mosquitoes such as Ae. albopictus. Ovitrap was developed based on the premise that gravid females must look for oviposition sites.13 The oviposition behavior of gravid females involves two crucial events. The first is to use remote cues such as color, texture and chemicals to find suitable habitat, and the second is the short-range cues that gravid females use to determine to lay eggs in the habitats, such as disturbance, the chemical properties of the water, and presence of conspecific individuals or other organisms.72
It should be noted that for egg surveillance in areas with more than one species of Aedes, eggs need to be hatched and larvae reared to be able to identify the species.
Oviposition trap (Ovitrap).
An ovitrap (OT) is a small plastic container, usually dark in color, containing water and a substrate where female mosquitoes lay their eggs.87 OTs are usually used to collect Aedes eggs.88 Its data indicate that it is suitable for assessing the presence of Ae. albopictus at a given site, but not adult abundance.89 At low population density, OT also can detect Ae. albopictus.90 Moreover, the number of eggs in OT is usually regarded as the only indicator of high nuisance or high risk of disease transmission and is used to plan mosquito control operations.91 An OT has the advantages of being sensitive, easy and inexpensive to construct, portable, and does not require electricity or carbon dioxide, and not invasive, so it can be extensively used as an effective tool for Aedes egg surveillance on site.92
Field tests proved that germination paper was the most appropriate oviposition substrate, and hay, pennisetum grass hay, or rice straw infusion could increase egg collecteds.93,94 Compared with tap water, water from natural environment ponding that containing or previously contained conspecific larvae95,96 or dead grass leaching would be more attractive97 because there are leaves, dead grass and other substances produced after degradation, such as plankton, which are more suitable for the growth of larva. It is suggested that infusions made using a wider range of plant biomass and over a longer fermentation period could vigorously attract Ae. albopictus.98 Moreover, a mixture of multiple synthetic materials based on n-heneicosane could also be used as an attractant.12
Mosquito-oviposition trap.
The mosquito-oviposition trap (MOT) was first described by Lin et al.99 This device consists of a transparent cylindrical plastic jar with a concave bottom and a black top cover with three conical holes. A white circular filter paper can be placed inside the bottom of the jar as an oviposition substrate, and it can collect both Aedes eggs and adults. The MOT has been widely used in routine surveillance of Ae. albopictus in China.100 It is designed by reference of Aedes’ oviposition preference of small-size containers (especially black101) and the conical holes in the cover are designed for easy entry but difficult exit for the mosquitoes, which is similar to the structure characteristics of the fly trap.99
As a modified OT, MOT is also cheap, portable, and sensitive in detecting Aedes mosquitoes; moreover, this device can also collect adult Aedes mosquitoes, which could meet the technical requirement of specimen collections for mosquito-borne pathogens screening.102 In urban environments, the stability and sensitivity of the MOT are higher than that of BI103; in rural areas, the sensitivity of MOT is higher than that of CI.99 Because MOT is also suitable for areas with low Aedes density or few breeding sites,104 MOT could be a good choice for Aedes surveillance when risk assessment is needed after dengue-related emergency mosquito control.105
MOTs have certain shortcomings. Data are unable to predict differences of Ae. albopictus population abundance among different locations. There were studies indicating that the efficiency of trapping adult mosquitoes was not significantly lower that of eggs collection.102,106 Additionally, the surveillance period is fairly long, and the sampling result is greatly affected by monitoring the environment, weather, and other factors. The samples obtained by BGS-trap, OT, and MOT can be used for virus detection, insecticide resistance, and population estimation.
OTHER SURVEILLANCE METHODS
In addition, there are many monitoring methods, such as BG-counter, BG-bowl, MOS-hole, and smart trap (Korea), and In2Care traps, sweep net, citizen science, modeling, that are not described in this article.
CONCLUSIONS
Different species of mosquitoes have various ecological habits, so when monitoring mosquito species, each surveillance method has advantages and disadvantages, as long as the corresponding surveillance method is selected according to the needs, the results will be optimal. The most important role of vector surveillance is to control the science-based evidence, effectiveness of results, the real-time reporting of data and then adjust the strategies and methods of control according to the evaluation report. We then take integrated environmental control, chemical control, biological control, and other measures to form a set of systematic prevention and treatment plan to keep mosquitoes damages under control and thus prevent the occurrence of mosquito-borne diseases and improve public health.
REFERENCES
- 1.↑
World Health Organization , 2016. World Malaria Report 2016. Available at: http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world-malaria-report-2016/.
- 2.↑
World Health Organization , 2015. Working to Overcome the Global Impact of Neglected Tropical Diseases: First WHO Report on Neglected Tropical Diseases. Available at: http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/Third_report_2015/.
- 3.↑
World Health Organization , 2014. A Global Brief on Vector-Borne Diseases. Available at: http://www.who.int/campaigns/world-health-day/2014/global-brief/.
- 4.↑
World Health Organization , 2016. World Health Organization. Zika Virus Outbreak Global Response. Interim report May 2016. Available at: http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/response/.
- 5.↑
Gratz NG, 2004. Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol 18: 215–227.
- 6.↑
Hasty JM et al., 2020. Entomological investigation detects dengue virus type 1 in Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) during the 2015–16 outbreak in Hawaii. Am J Trop Med Hyg 102: 869–875.
- 7.↑
Johnson BJ, Ritchie SA, Fonseca DM, 2017. The state of the art of lethal oviposition trap-based mass interventions for arboviral control. Insects 8: 5.
- 8.↑
Guo X et al., 2020. Vector competence and vertical transmission of Zika virus in Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 20: 374–379.
- 9.↑
Buhler C, Winkler V, Runge-Ranzinger S, Boyce R, Horstick O, 2019. Environmental methods for dengue vector control—a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13: e0007420–e0007420.
- 10.↑
Aryaprema VS, Xue RD, 2019. Breteau index as a promising early warning signal for dengue fever outbreaks in the Colombo District, Sri Lanka. Acta Trop 199: 105155.
- 11.↑
Nebbak A, Willcox AC, Koumare S, Berenger J-M, Raoult D, Parola P, Fontaine A, Briolant S, Almeras L, 2019. Longitudinal monitoring of environmental factors at Culicidae larval habitats in urban areas and their association with various mosquito species using an innovative strategy. Pest Manag Sci 75: 923–934.
- 12.↑
Suman DS, 2019. Evaluation of enhanced oviposition attractant formulations against Aedes and Culex vector mosquitoes in urban and semi-urban areas. Parasitol Res 118: 743–750.
- 13.↑
Florida Mosquito Control Association , 2006. Technical Bulletin of the Florida Mosquito Control Association 6.
- 14.↑
Facchinelli L, Koenraadt CJM, Fanello C, Kijchalao U, Valerio L, Jones JW, Scott TW, della Torre A, 2008. Evaluation of a sticky trap for collecting Aedes (Stegomyia) adults in a dengue-endemic area in Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg 78: 904–909.
- 15.↑
Lu BL, 1997. Fauna Sinica, Insecta, Eighth Volume, Diptera, Culicidae. Beijing, China: People’s Medical Publishing House.
- 16.↑
Gaffigan TV, Wilkerson RC, Pecor JE, Stoffer JA, Anderson T, 2015. Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, Systematic Catalog of Culicidae. Available at: http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/.
- 17.↑
Gao Q, Wang F, Lv XH, Cao H, Zhou JJ, Su F, Xiong CL, Leng PE, 2018. Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China. Parasit Vectors 11: 483.
- 18.↑
Barnard DR, Knue GJ, Dickerson CZ, Bernier UR, Kline DL, 2011. Relationship between mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) landing rates on a human subject and numbers captured using CO2-baited light traps. Bull Entomol Res 101: 277–285.
- 19.↑
Krajacich BJ et al., 2014. Design and testing of a novel, protective human-baited tent trap for the collection of anthropophilic disease vectors. J Med Entomol 51: 253–263.
- 20.↑
Kenea O, Balkew M, Tekie H, Gebre-Michael T, Deressa W, Loha E, Lindtjørn B, Overgaard HJ, 2017. Comparison of two adult mosquito sampling methods with human landing catches in south-central Ethiopia. Malar J 16: 30–30.
- 21.↑
Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China , 2009. Surveillance Methods for Vector Density—Mosquito (GB/T 23797-2009).
- 22.↑
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention , 2014. Guidelines for Dengue Vector Aedes Surveillance.
- 23.↑
Tangena J-AA, Thammavong P, Hiscox A, Lindsay SW, Brey PT, 2015. The human-baited double net trap: an alternative to human landing catches for collecting outdoor biting mosquitoes in Lao PDR. PLoS One 10: e0138735.
- 24.↑
Huang CW, Lin L, Wang H, 2016. Comparison of human-baited sweeping method and double layered mosquito net method on surveillance of adult Aedes albopictus density. Occup Health (Lond) 32: 2846–2848.
- 25.↑
Jerry DCT, Mohammed T, Mohammed A, 2017. Yeast-generated CO2: A convenient source of carbon dioxide for mosquito trapping using the BG-Sentinel® traps. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 7: 896–900.
- 26.↑
Unlu I, Baker M, 2018. Comparison of BG-Sentinel prototype, BG-Sentinel-1, and BG-Sentinel-2: better results with modification of earlier design. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 34: 237–239.
- 27.↑
Krockel U, Rose A, Eiras AE, Geier M, 2006. New tools for surveillance of adult yellow fever mosquitoes: comparison of trap catches with human landing rates in an urban environment. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 22: 229–238.
- 28.↑
Farajollahi A, Kesavaraju B, Price DC, Williams GM, Healy SP, Gaugler R, Nelder MP, 2009. Field efficacy of BG-Sentinel and industry-standard traps for Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and West Nile virus surveillance. J Med Entomol 46: 919–925.
- 29.↑
Bhalala H, Arias JR, 2009. The Zumba mosquito trap and BG-Sentinel trap: novel surveillance tools for host-seeking mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 25: 134–139.
- 30.↑
Armed Forces Pest Management Board Technical Guide , 2016. Dengue and Chikungunya Vector Control Pocket Guide (AFPMB Technical Guide No. 47).
- 31.↑
Krueger A, Hagen RM, 2007. Short communication: first record of Aedes albopictus in Gabon, Central Africa. Trop Med Int Health 12: 1105–1107.
- 32.↑
Pages F, Peyrefitte CN, Mve MT, Jarjaval F, Brisse S, Iteman I, Gravier P, Tolou H, Nkoghe D, Grandadam M, 2009. Aedes albopictus mosquito: the main vector of the 2007 Chikungunya outbreak in Gabon. PLoS One 4: e4691.
- 33.↑
Roiz D, Duperier S, Roussel M, Boussès P, Fontenille D, Simard F, Paupy C, 2016. Trapping the tiger: eEfficacy of the novel BG-Sentinel 2 with several attractants and carbon dioxide for collecting Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in southern France. J Med Entomol 53: 460–465.
- 34.↑
Rose A, Englbrecht C, Venturelli C, Geier M, Colga N, Müller K, Torracca B, Macchioni F, 2010. Sampling the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus: the BG-Sentinel trap is an interesting alternative to the human landing collection. 17th European Society for Vector Ecology Conference.
- 35.↑
Meeraus WH, Armistead JS, Arias JR, 2008. Field comparison of novel and gold standard traps for collecting Aedes albopictus in Northern Virginia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 24: 244–248.
- 36.↑
Nguyen H, Whelan P, Finlay-Doney M, Soong SY, 2010. Interceptions of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the port of Darwin, NT, Australia, 25 January and 5 February 2010. Northern Territory Disease Control Bulletin 17.
- 37.↑
Le Goff G, Damiens D, Payet L, Ruttee AH, Jean F, Lebon C, Dehecq JS, Gouagna LC, 2016. Enhancement of the BG-sentinel trap with varying number of mice for field sampling of male and female Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Parasit Vectors 9: 514.
- 38.↑
Crepeau TN, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, Unlu I, Farajollahi A, Fonseca DM, 2013. Effects of Biogents Sentinel Trap field placement on capture rates of adult Asian tiger mosquitoes, Aedes albopictus. PLoS One 8: e60524.
- 39.↑
Obenauer PJ, Kaufman PE, Kline DL, Allan SA, 2010. Detection of and monitoring for Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in suburban and sylvatic habitats in north central Florida using four sampling techniques. Environ Entomol 39: 1608–1616.
- 40.↑
Liu XB, Guo YH, Li JH, Wang J, Zhou HN, Meng FG, Chen R, Ren DS, Lai MY, Liu QY, 2014. Surveillance of adult Aedes mosquitoes in response to the outbreak of dengue fever in Xishuangbanna using BG-Sentinel mosquito trap. Zhongguo Meijie Shengwuxue Ji Kongzhi Zazhi 25: 97–100.
- 41.↑
Barrera R, Amador M, Acevedo V, Caban B, Felix G, Mackay AJ, 2014. Use of the CDC autocidal gravid ovitrap to control and prevent outbreaks of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51: 145–154.
- 42.↑
Sharp TM et al., 2019. Autocidal gravid ovitraps protect humans from chikungunya virus infection by reducing Aedes aegypti mosquito populations. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13: e0007538.
- 43.↑
Montenegro D et al., 2020. Usefulness of autocidal gravid ovitraps for the surveillance and control of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in eastern Colombia. Med Vet Entomol 34: 379–384.
- 44.↑
Mackay AJ, Amador M, Barrera R, 2013. An improved autocidal gravid ovitrap for the control and surveillance of Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors 6: 225.
- 45.↑
Obregón JA, Ximenez MA, Villalobos EE, de Valdez MRW, 2019. Vector mosquito surveillance using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention autocidal gravid ovitraps in San Antonio, Texas. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 35: 178–185.
- 46.↑
Liu H, Dixon D, Bibbs CS, Xue R-D, 2019. Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap incorporation with attractants for control of gravid and host-seeking Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 56: 576–578.
- 47.↑
Zhu D, Khater E, Chao S, Dixon D, Bibbs CS, Xue R-D, 2019. Modifying the autocidal gravid ovitrap (AGO) with a powered suction fan and additional lures to increase the collections of released Aedes aegypti and a natural population of Ae. albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Ecol 44: 282–284.
- 48.↑
Zhang LY, Lei CL, 2008. Evaluation of sticky ovitraps for the surveillance of Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) and the screening of oviposition attractants from organic infusions. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 102: 399–407.
- 49.↑
Wiwatanaratanabutr I, Allan S, Linthicum K, Kittayapong P, 2010. Strain-specific differences in mating, oviposition, and host-seeking behavior between Wolbachia-infected and uninfected Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 26: 265–273.
- 50.↑
Anderson EM, Davis JA, 2014. Field evaluation of the response of Aedes albopictus (Stegomyia albopicta) to three oviposition attractants and different ovitrap placements using black and clear autocidal ovitraps in a rural area of Same, Timor-Leste. Med Vet Entomol 28: 372–383.
- 51.↑
Eiras AE, Buhagiar TS, Ritchie SA, 2014. Development of the gravid Aedes trap for the capture of adult female container-exploiting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51: 200–209.
- 52.↑
Harwood JF, Rama V, Hash JM, Gordon SW, 2018. The attractiveness of the gravid Aedes trap to Dengue vectors in Fiji. J Med Entomol 55: 481–484.
- 53.↑
Heringer L, Johnson BJ, Fikrig K, Oliveira BA, Silva RD, Townsend M, Barrera R, Eiras ÁE, Ritchie SA, 2016. Evaluation of alternative killing agents for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the gravid Aedes trap (GAT). J Med Entomol 53: 873–879.
- 54.↑
Johnson BJ, Hurst T, Quoc HL, Unlu I, Freebairn C, Faraji A, Ritchie SA, 2017. Field comparisons of the gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) and BG-Sentinel trap for monitoring Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) populations and notes on indoor GAT collections in Vietnam. J Med Entomol 54: 340–348.
- 55.↑
Ritchie SA, Buhagiar TS, Townsend M, Hoffmann A, Van Den Hurk AF, McMahon JL, Eiras AE, 2014. Field validation of the gravid Aedes trap (GAT) for collection of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51: 210–219.
- 56.↑
Cilek JE, Knapp JA, Richardson AG, 2017. Comparative efficiency of biogents gravid Aedes Trap, CDC Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap, and CDC Gravid Trap in northeastern Florida. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 33: 103–107.
- 57.↑
Becker N, Schn S, Klein AM, Ferstl I, Kizgin A, Tannich E, Kuhn C, Pluskota B, Jst A, 2017. First mass development of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae)—its surveillance and control in Germany. Springer Open Choice 116.
- 58.↑
Kline DL, 2002. Evaluation of various models of propane-powered mosquito traps. J Vector Ecol 27: 1–7.
- 59.↑
Kitau J, Pates H, Rwegoshora TR, Rwegoshora D, Matowo J, Kweka EJ, Mosha FW, McKenzie K, Magesa SM, 2010. The effect of Mosquito Magnet Liberty Plus trap on the human mosquito biting rate under semi-field conditions. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 26: 287–294.
- 60.↑
Kline DL, 2006. Traps and trapping techniques for adult mosquito control. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 22: 490–496.
- 61.↑
Xue R-D, Qualls WA, Kline DL, Zhao T-Y, 2010. Evaluation of lurex 3, octenol, and CO2 sachet as baits in Mosquito Magnet Pro traps against floodwater mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 26: 344–345.
- 62.↑
Hoel DF, Kline DL, Allan SA, 2009. Evaluation of six mosquito traps for collection of Aedes albopictus and associated mosquito species in a suburban setting in north central Florida. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 25: 47–57.
- 63.↑
Dennett JA, Vessey NY, Parsons RE, 2004. A comparison of seven traps used for collection of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti originating from a large tire repository in Harris County (Houston), Texas. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 20: 342–349.
- 64.
Burkett DA, Kelly R, Porter CH, Wirtz RA, 2004. Commercial mosquito trap and gravid trap oviposition media evaluation, Atlanta, Georgia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 20: 233–238.
- 65.↑
Rochlin I, Kawalkowski M, Ninivaggi DV, 2016. Comparison of Mosquito Magnet and Biogents Sentinel traps for operational surveillance of container-inhabiting Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) Species. J Med Entomol 53: 454–459.
- 66.↑
Qualls WA, Mullen GR, 2007. Evaluation of the Mosquito Magnet Pro trap with and without 1-octen-3-ol for collecting Aedes albopictus and other urban mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23: 131–136.
- 67.↑
Hoel DF, Kline DL, Allan SA, Grant A, 2007. Evaluation of carbon dioxide, 1-octen-3-ol, and lactic acid as baits in Mosquito Magnet Pro traps for Aedes albopictus in north central Florida. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23: 11–17.
- 68.↑
Johansen CA, Montgomery BL, Mackenzie JS, Ritchie SA, 2003. Efficacies of the mosquitomagnet and counterflow geometry traps in North Queensland, Australia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 19: 265–270.
- 69.↑
Xue R-D, Smith ML, Yi H, Kline DL, 2015. Field evaluation of a novel mos-hole trap and naphtha compared with BG Sentinel Trap and Mosquito Magnet X Trap to collect adult mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 31: 110–112.
- 70.↑
da Silva VC, Scherer PO, Falcão SS, Alencar J, Cunha SP, Rodrigues IM, Pinheiro NL, 2006. Diversity of oviposition containers and buildings where Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti can be found. Rev Saude Publica 40: 1106–1111.
- 71.↑
Chareonviriyaphap T, Akratanakul P, Nettanomsak S, Huntamai S, 2003. Larval habitats and distribution patterns of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse), in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 34: 529–535.
- 73.↑
Rozilawati H, Tanaselvi K, Nazni WA, Mohd Masri S, Zairi J, Adanan CR, Lee HL, 2015. Surveillance of Aedes albopictus Skuse breeding preference in selected dengue outbreak localities, peninsular Malaysia. Trop Biomed 32: 49–64.
- 74.↑
Shabani F, Shafapour Tehrany M, Solhjouy-Fard S, Kumar L, 2018. A comparative modeling study on non-climatic and climatic risk assessment on Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes albopictus). PeerJ 6: e4474.
- 75.↑
Yi B et al., 2019. Incidence dynamics and investigation of key interventions in a dengue outbreak in Ningbo City, China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13: e0007659.
- 76.↑
Aziz S, Aidil RM, Nisfariza MN, Ngui R, Lim YAL, Yusoff WSW, Ruslan R, 2014. Spatial density of Aedes distribution in urban areas: a case study of Breteau index in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. J Vector Borne Dis 51: 91–96.
- 77.↑
Sarfraz MS, Tripathi NK, Tipdecho T, Thongbu T, Kerdthong P, Souris M, 2012. Analyzing the spatio-temporal relationship between dengue vector larval density and land-use using factor analysis and spatial ring mapping. BMC Public Health 12: 853.
- 78.↑
Tan BT, 2001. New initiatives in Dengue control in Singapore. Dengue Bull 25. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/163695.
- 79.↑
Ai-Leen GT, Song RJ, 2000. The use of GIS in ovitrap monitoring for dengue control in Singapore. Dengue Bull 24: 110–116.
- 80.↑
Becker N, 1992. Community participation in the operational use of microbial control agents in mosquito control programs. Bulletin of the Society of Vector Ecologists 17: 114–118.
- 81.↑
Sanchez L, Cortinas J, Pelaez O, Gutierrez H, Concepción D, Van der Stuyft P, 2010. Breteau Index threshold levels indicating risk for dengue transmission in areas with low Aedes infestation. Trop Med Int Health 15: 173–175.
- 82.↑
Li XN, Luo L, Xiao XC, Jing QL, Wei YH, Li Y, Cao Q, Yang ZC, Xu Y, 2014. Using Breteau Index to analyze the nature of sporadic and outbreak cases of Dengue fever. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 35: 821–824.
- 83.↑
Thammapalo S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater A, Dueravee M, 2008. Environmental factors and incidence of dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever in an urban area, Southern Thailand. Epidemiol Infect 136: 135–143.
- 84.↑
Li C, Jiang MH, Yuan DQ, Fu J, Liu D, Nie M, Cao NX, 2019. Definition of dengue risk thresholds of route index and mosq-ovitrap index. Prev Med 31: 445–448.
- 85.↑
Wu TP, Tian JH, Xue RD, Fang YL, Zheng AH, 2016. Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) habitat surveillance by Android mobile devices in Guangzhou, China. Insects 7: 79.
- 86.↑
Kong QX, Wei LY, Wang HM, Jin H, Wang YH, Shen LH, Chen BB, 2018. Study on the application of route index in the emergency monitoring of Aedes albopictus larva. Zhongguo Meijie Shengwuxue Ji Kongzhi Zazhi 29: 44–46.
- 87.↑
2017. Surveillance and Control of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the United States, 2–8.
- 88.↑
Schaffner F, Bellini R, Petrić D, Scholte EJ, Marrama-Rakotoarivony L, 2012. Technical Report: Guidelines for the surveillance of invasive mosquitoes in Europe. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Available at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/TER-Mosquito-surveillance-guidelines.pdf.
- 89.↑
Straetemans M, 2008. Vector-related risk mapping of the introduction and establishment of Aedes albopictus in Europe. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles/European communicable disease bulletin 13.
- 90.↑
Facchinelli L, Valerio L, Pombi M, Reiter P, Costantini C, Della Torre A, 2007. Development of a novel sticky trap for container-breeding mosquitoes and evaluation of its sampling properties to monitor urban populations of Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol 21: 183–195.
- 91.↑
Manica M, Rosà R, Della Torre A, Caputo B, 2017. From eggs to bites: do ovitrap data provide reliable estimates of biting females? PeerJ 5: e2998.
- 92.↑
Gao Q, Cao H, Fan J, Zhang ZD, Jin SQ, Su F, Leng PE, Xiong CL, 2019. Field evaluation of Mosq-ovitrap, Ovitrap and a CO(2)-light trap for Aedes albopictus sampling in Shanghai, China. PeerJ 7: e8031.
- 93.↑
Velo E et al., 2016. Enhancement of Aedes albopictus collections by ovitrap and sticky adult trap. Parasit Vectors 9: 223.
- 94.↑
Gopalakrishnan R, Das M, Baruah I, Veer V, Dutta P, 2012. Studies on the ovitraps baited with hay and leaf infusions for the surveillance of dengue vector, Aedes albopictus in northeastern India. Trop Biomed 29: 598–604.
- 95.↑
Shragai T, Harrington L, Alfonso-Parra C, Avila F, 2019. Oviposition site attraction of Aedes albopictus to sites with conspecific and heterospecific larvae during an ongoing invasion in Medellín, Colombia. Parasit Vectors 12: 455.
- 96.↑
Allan SA, Kline DL, 1998. Larval rearing water and preexisting eggs influence oviposition by Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 35: 943–947.
- 97.↑
Reiter P, Amador MA, Colon N, 1991. Enhancement of the CDC ovitrap with hay infusions for daily monitoring of Aedes aegypti populations. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 7: 52–55.
- 98.↑
Ponnusamy L, Xu N, Böröczky K, Wesson DM, Abu Ayyash L, Schal C, Apperson CS, 2010. Oviposition responses of the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to experimental plant infusions in laboratory bioassays. J Chem Ecol 36: 709–719.
- 99.↑
Lin LF, Lu WC, Cai SW, Duan JH, Yi JR, Deng F, Chen Q, Chen XG, 2005. The design and efficacy observation of new mosq-ovitrap for monitoring of vector of dengue fever. Zhongguo Meijie Shengwuxue Ji Kongzhi Zazhi 16: 26–28.
- 100.↑
Li YJ et al., 2016. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of the BG-Sentinel trap, CDC light trap and Mosquito-oviposition trap for the surveillance of vector mosquitoes. Parasit Vectors 9: 446.
- 101.↑
Chua KB, Chua IL, Chua IE, Chua KH, 2004. Differential preferences of oviposition by Aedes mosquitos in man-made containers under field conditions. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 35: 599–607.
- 102.↑
Liu BB, Wang JH, Guang S, Fan QW, Liu W, Zheng QY, Xu ZX, Wang GY, Zheng XL, Zhang J, 2018. Study on the efficiency between ovitrap and BG-sentinel trap. J Henan Univ Med Sci 37: 254–256.
- 103.↑
Deng H, Liu LP, Cai SW, Duan JH, Chen ZJ, Shen XT, Wu J, Lin LF, 2019. A study of Aedes albopictus population density in Guangdong province, China, from 2007 to 2017. Zhongguo Meijie Shengwuxue Ji Kongzhi Zazhi 30: 65–69.
- 104.↑
Jiang YM, Yan ZQ, Hu ZG, Xu JM, Li CL, Liang XY, 2015. Applicability of MOI as a density index in surveillance of mosquitoes. J Trop Med 15: 1555–1557.
- 105.↑
Lin LF, Cai SW, Duan JH, Zhou H, Lu WC, Feng Q, Chen Q, 2015. Application of Mosq-ovitrap on vector surveillance during dengue fever outbreak. Chin J Publ Health 21: 1459–1461.
- 106.↑
He L, Li XM, Chen WS, Yang L, 2016. Efficacy assessment of mosq-ovitraps for monitoring Aedes albopictus using water of different qualities. Zhongguo Meijie Shengwuxue Ji Kongzhi Zazhi 8: 327–329.