4.6 Article

Field Evaluation of a Push-Pull System to Reduce Malaria Transmission

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123415

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [NMP2-2009-228639]
  2. Foundation for the National Institutes of Health [121]
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Portugal [SFRH/BDE/51601/2011]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BDE/51601/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malaria continues to place a disease burden on millions of people throughout the tropics, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Although efforts to control mosquito populations and reduce human-vector contact, such as long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, have led to significant decreases in malaria incidence, further progress is now threatened by the widespread development of physiological and behavioural insecticide-resistance as well as changes in the composition of vector populations. A mosquito-directed push-pull system based on the simultaneous use of attractive and repellent volatiles offers a complementary tool to existing vector-control methods. In this study, the combination of a trap baited with a five-compound attractant and a strip of net-fabric impregnated with micro-encapsulated repellent and placed in the eaves of houses, was tested in a malaria-endemic village in western Kenya. Using the repellent delta-undecalactone, mosquito house entry was reduced by more than 50%, while the traps caught high numbers of outdoor flying mosquitoes. Model simulations predict that, assuming area-wide coverage, the addition of such a push-pull system to existing prevention efforts will result in up to 20-fold reductions in the entomological inoculation rate. Reductions of such magnitude are also predicted when mosquitoes exhibit a high resistance against insecticides. We conclude that a push-pull system based on non-toxic volatiles provides an important addition to existing strategies for malaria prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据