Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKosgei, Jackline
dc.contributor.authorGimnig, John E.
dc.contributor.authorMoshi, Vincent
dc.contributor.authorOmondi, Seline
dc.contributor.authorMcDermott, Daniel P.
dc.contributor.authorDonnelly, Martin J.
dc.contributor.authorOuma, Collins
dc.contributor.authorAbong’o, Bernard
dc.contributor.authorOchomo, Eric
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-18T15:49:03Z
dc.date.available2023-09-18T15:49:03Z
dc.date.issued2023-08-31
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.maseno.ac.ke/handle/123456789/5785
dc.descriptionhttps://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3302877/v1en_US
dc.description.abstractEnhanced vector surveillance, is one of the 4 pillars of the WHO’s global vector control response (2017–2030). Human landing catches are the gold standard for entomological surveys but are difficult to implement and expose collectors to mosquito bites and potentially to malaria infection. Other surveillance tools such as light traps, pyrethrum spray catches and aspiration are less expensive and do not expose collectors to potentially infectious mosquitoes, but they are difficult to implement outdoors and/or to assess duration of collection/standardize collection effort. This study evaluated four mosquito trapping methods that may be cheaper, easier, and less risky to implement compared to human landing catch.en_US
dc.publisherResearch squareen_US
dc.subjectUV light trap, Human landing catches, Anopheles, Trapping methodsen_US
dc.titleComparison of Different Trapping Methods to Collect Malaria Vectors Indoors and Outdoors in Western Kenyaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record