Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Results of experimental hut evaluation of the protective efficacy of the transfluthrin treated eave ribbons fitted along the eave-spaces of the huts

From: Eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent, transfluthrin, can effectively protect against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria mosquitoes

Mosquito species Nights Micro-climatic conditions** Intervention Indoor mosquito collection Outdoor mosquito collection %Pe
Average Temp (°C) Average %RH Window Trap %Pe Resting Trap %Pe Min-double net-Trap
Mean [LCI-UCI] 95% Mean [LCI-UCI] 95% Mean [LCI-UCI] 95%
Anopheles gambiae 16 22.9 73.1 Control 13.11 [12.1–14.1] Ref 0.23 [0.1–0.4] Ref 7.95 [7.2–8.8] Ref
16 22.9 73.1 Treatment 0.54 [0.0–1.3] 96% 0.14 [0.0–0.3] 39% 1.26 [1.1–1.4] 84%
Anopheles funestus 16 22.9 73.1 Control 3.6 [3.4–3.8] Ref 0.47 [0.4–0.5] Ref 1.0 [0.2–0.7] Ref
16 22.9 73.1 Treatment 2.1 [2.0–2.2] 42% 0.16 [0.1–0.3] 66% 0.60 [0.3–0.6] 40%
Other Anopheles species## 16 22.9 73.1 Control 0.7 [0.1–0.2] Ref 0.03 [0.0–0.1] Ref 3.33 [3.3–3.4] Ref
16 22.9 73.1 Treatment 0.27 [0.0–0.2] 61% 0.06 [0.0–0.2] − 10% 1.50 [1.4–1.6] 55%
Culex species 16 22.9 73.1 Control 73.8 [71.5–76.1] Ref 7.08 [5.7–8.5] Ref 30.6 [28.9–32.3] Ref
16 22.9 73.1 Treatment 51.3 [49.3–53.3] 30% 5.73 [4.7–6.8] 19% 19.23 [18.3–20.3] 37%
  1. Assessment of biting risk was conducted outdoors using human-occupied double net traps and indoors using both exit window traps and Prokopack® Aspirator
  2. ** represents the average temperature and relative humidity in the huts which were averaged over the entire duration of the study
  3. ## represent other Anopheles species caught during the study which are Anopheles coustani, Anopheles pharoensis, Anopheles welcommei and Anopheles squamosus