↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a new outdoor mosquito control device, the mosquito landing box, on densities and survival of the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis, inside controlled semi-field settings

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of a new outdoor mosquito control device, the mosquito landing box, on densities and survival of the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis, inside controlled semi-field settings
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-1013-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnold S. Mmbando, Fredros O. Okumu, Joseph P. Mgando, Robert D. Sumaye, Nancy S. Matowo, Edith Madumla, Emmanuel Kaindoa, Samson S. Kiware, Dickson W. Lwetoijera

Abstract

The significance of malaria transmission occurring outdoors has risen even in areas where indoor interventions such as long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying are common. The actual contamination rates and effectiveness of recently developed outdoor mosquito control device, the mosquito landing box (MLB), on densities and daily survival of host-seeking laboratory Anopheles arabiensis, which readily bites humans outdoors was demonstrated. Experiments were conducted in large semi-field systems (SFS) with human volunteers inside, to mimic natural ecosystems, and using MLBs baited with natural or synthetic human odours and carbon dioxide. The MLBs were dusted with 10 % pyriproxyfen (PPF) or entomopathogenic fungi (Metarhizium anisopliae) spores to mark mosquitoes physically contacting the devices. Each night, 400 laboratory-reared An. arabiensis females were released in one SFS chamber with two MLBs, and another chamber without MLBs (control). Mosquitoes were individually recaptured while attempting to bite volunteers inside SFS or by aspiration from SFS walls. Mosquitoes from chambers with PPF-treated MLBs and respective controls were individually dipped in water-filled cups containing ten conspecific third-instar larvae, whose subsequent development was monitored. Mosquitoes recaptured from chambers with fungi-treated MLBs were observed for fungal hyphal growth on their cadavers. Separately, effects on daily survival were determined by exposing An. arabiensis in chambers having MLBs treated with 5 % pirimiphos methyl compared to chambers without MLBs (control), after which the mosquitoes were recaptured and monitored individually until they died. Up to 63 % (152/240) and 43 % (92/210) of mosquitoes recaptured inside treatment chambers were contaminated with pyriproxyfen and M. anisopliae, respectively, compared to 8 % (19/240) and 0 % (0/164) in controls. The mean number of larvae emerging from cups in which adults from chambers with PPF-treated MLBs were dipped was significantly lower [0.75 (0.50-1.01)], than in controls [28.79 (28.32-29.26)], P < 0.001). Daily survival of mosquitoes exposed to 5 % pirimiphos methyl was nearly two-fold lower than controls [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.748 (1.551-1.920), P < 0.001]. High contamination rates in exposed mosquitoes even in presence of humans, demonstrates potential of MLBs for controlling outdoor-biting malaria vectors, either by reducing their survival or directly killing host-seeking mosquitoes. The MLBs also have potential for dispensing filial infanticides, such as PPF, which mosquitoes can transmit to their aquatic habitats for mosquito population control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 22%
Environmental Science 15 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Engineering 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#870,674
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#117
of 5,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,300
of 389,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#3
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.