Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Resting mosquitoes can easily be collected using an aspirating device. The most commonly used mechanical aspirator is the CDC Backpack aspirator. Recently, a simple, and low-cost aspirator called the Prokopack has been devised and pr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mgando Joseph, John Alex, Robinson Ailie, Maia Marta F, Simfukwe Emmanuel, Moore Sarah J
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-06-01
Series:Parasites & Vectors
Online Access:http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/124
id doaj-cf554e78760543718dd2f40ab22a0fb4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cf554e78760543718dd2f40ab22a0fb42020-11-24T20:55:02ZengBMCParasites & Vectors1756-33052011-06-014112410.1186/1756-3305-4-124Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern TanzaniaMgando JosephJohn AlexRobinson AilieMaia Marta FSimfukwe EmmanuelMoore Sarah J<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Resting mosquitoes can easily be collected using an aspirating device. The most commonly used mechanical aspirator is the CDC Backpack aspirator. Recently, a simple, and low-cost aspirator called the Prokopack has been devised and proved to have comparable performance. The following study evaluates the Prokopack aspirator compared to the CDC backpack aspirator when sampling resting mosquitoes in rural Tanzania.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mosquitoes were sampled in- and outdoors of 48 typical rural African households using both aspirators. The aspirators were rotated between collectors and households in a randomized, Latin Square design. Outdoor collections were performed using artificial resting places (large barrel and car tyre), underneath the outdoor kitchen (<it>kibanda</it>) roof and from a drop-net. Data were analysed with generalized linear models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of mosquitoes collected using the CDC Backpack and the Prokopack aspirator were not significantly different both in- and outdoors (indoors p = 0.735; large barrel p = 0.867; car tyre p = 0.418; kibanda p = 0.519). The Prokopack was superior for sampling of drop-nets due to its smaller size. The number mosquitoes collected per technician was more consistent when using the Prokopack aspirator. The Prokopack was more user-friendly: technicians preferred using the it over the CDC backpack aspirator as it weighs considerably less, retains its charge for longer and is easier to manoeuvre.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Prokopack proved in the field to be more advantageous than the CDC Backpack aspirator. It can be self assembled using simple, low-cost and easily attainable materials. This device is a useful tool for researchers or vector-control surveillance programs operating in rural Africa, as it is far simpler and quicker than traditional means of sampling resting mosquitoes. Further longitudinal evaluations of the Prokopack aspirator versus the gold standard pyrethrum spray catch for indoor resting catches are recommended.</p> http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/124
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mgando Joseph
John Alex
Robinson Ailie
Maia Marta F
Simfukwe Emmanuel
Moore Sarah J
spellingShingle Mgando Joseph
John Alex
Robinson Ailie
Maia Marta F
Simfukwe Emmanuel
Moore Sarah J
Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
Parasites & Vectors
author_facet Mgando Joseph
John Alex
Robinson Ailie
Maia Marta F
Simfukwe Emmanuel
Moore Sarah J
author_sort Mgando Joseph
title Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
title_short Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
title_full Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
title_fullStr Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the CDC Backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania
title_sort comparison of the cdc backpack aspirator and the prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor- and outdoor-resting mosquitoes in southern tanzania
publisher BMC
series Parasites & Vectors
issn 1756-3305
publishDate 2011-06-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Resting mosquitoes can easily be collected using an aspirating device. The most commonly used mechanical aspirator is the CDC Backpack aspirator. Recently, a simple, and low-cost aspirator called the Prokopack has been devised and proved to have comparable performance. The following study evaluates the Prokopack aspirator compared to the CDC backpack aspirator when sampling resting mosquitoes in rural Tanzania.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mosquitoes were sampled in- and outdoors of 48 typical rural African households using both aspirators. The aspirators were rotated between collectors and households in a randomized, Latin Square design. Outdoor collections were performed using artificial resting places (large barrel and car tyre), underneath the outdoor kitchen (<it>kibanda</it>) roof and from a drop-net. Data were analysed with generalized linear models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of mosquitoes collected using the CDC Backpack and the Prokopack aspirator were not significantly different both in- and outdoors (indoors p = 0.735; large barrel p = 0.867; car tyre p = 0.418; kibanda p = 0.519). The Prokopack was superior for sampling of drop-nets due to its smaller size. The number mosquitoes collected per technician was more consistent when using the Prokopack aspirator. The Prokopack was more user-friendly: technicians preferred using the it over the CDC backpack aspirator as it weighs considerably less, retains its charge for longer and is easier to manoeuvre.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Prokopack proved in the field to be more advantageous than the CDC Backpack aspirator. It can be self assembled using simple, low-cost and easily attainable materials. This device is a useful tool for researchers or vector-control surveillance programs operating in rural Africa, as it is far simpler and quicker than traditional means of sampling resting mosquitoes. Further longitudinal evaluations of the Prokopack aspirator versus the gold standard pyrethrum spray catch for indoor resting catches are recommended.</p>
url http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/124
work_keys_str_mv AT mgandojoseph comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
AT johnalex comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
AT robinsonailie comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
AT maiamartaf comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
AT simfukweemmanuel comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
AT mooresarahj comparisonofthecdcbackpackaspiratorandtheprokopackaspiratorforsamplingindoorandoutdoorrestingmosquitoesinsoutherntanzania
_version_ 1716792845642235904