4.2 Article

Human and other faeces as breeding media of the trachoma vector Musca sorbens

期刊

MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 314-320

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.0269-283x.2001.00318.x

关键词

Chlamydia trachomatis; Musca sorbens; blindness; faeces; flies; fly breeding media; fly control; human eye infection; sanitation; trachoma; The Gambia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fly Musca sorbens Wiedemann (Diptera: Muscidae) apparently transmits Chlamydia trachomatis, causing human trachoma. The literature indicates that M. sorbens breeds predominantly in isolated human faeces on the soil surface, but not in covered pit latrines. We sought to identify breeding media of M. sorbens in a rural Gambian villa-e endemic for trachoma. Test breeding media were presented for oviposition on soil-filled buckets and monitored for adult emergence. Musca sorbens emerged from human (6/9 trials), calf (3/9), cow (3/9), dog (2/9) and goat (1/9) faeces, but not from horse faeces, composting kitchen scraps or a soil control (0/9 of each). After adjusting for mass of medium, the greatest number of flies emerged from human faeces ( 1426 flies/kg). Median time for emergence was 9 (inter quartile range = 8-9.75) days post-oviposition. Of all flies emerging from faeces 81% were M. sorbens. Male and female flies emerging from human faeces were significantly larger than those from other media, suggesting that they would be more fecund and live longer than smaller flies from other sources. Female flies caught from children's eyes were of a similar size to those from human faeces, but significantly larger than those from other media. We consider that human faeces are the best larval medium for M. sorbens, although some breeding also occurs in animal faeces. Removal of human faeces from the environment, through the provision of basic sanitation, is likely to greatly reduce fly density, eye contact and hence trachoma transmission, but if faeces of other animals are present M. sorbens will persist.

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

4.2
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