Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparisons of indoor and outdoor resting of malaria vectors between two house types

From: The effect of light and ventilation on house entry by Anopheles arabiensis sampled using light traps in Tanzania: an experimental hut study

Experiments

Description

Indoor resting mosquitoes caught by Prokopack® aspirators

Outdoor resting mosquitoes caught by Prokopack® aspirators

Mean no. mosquitoes/night (95% CI)

Odds ratio (95%CI)

p-value

Mean no. mosquitoes/night (95% CI)

Odds ratio (95%CI

p-value

Experiment 1: Light-opaque walls vs light-transparent walls

 

Opaque-walled

1.3 (0.8–2.1)

1

 

8.1 (6.9–9.5)

1

 

Transparent-walled

1.1 (0.7–1.9)

0.89 (0.74–1.05)

 = 0.17

4.9 (4.1–5.8)

0.57 (0.54–0.64)

 < 0.001

Experiment 2: Open gaps under roofing vs closed gaps under roofing

 

Open eave-gaps

9.4*e−4 (0.0–0.1)

1

 

59.1 (56–62)

1

 

Closed eave-gaps

1.7*e−4 (0.0–0.01)

0.19 (0.08–0.44)

 < 0.001

60.6 (57.6–63.5)

1.07 (1.02–1.12)

 = 0.008

Experiment 3: Poorly ventilated vs well-ventilated

 

Traditional

0.5 (0.3–0.8)

1

 

50.1 (46.4–53.8)

1

 

Star-homes type

0.1 (0–0.1)

0.12 (0.06–0.23)

 < 0.001

75.3 (72.5–78.0)

3.04 (2.90–3.20)

 < 0.001

  1. 24 nights of experimentations done in each experiment; each house type test was replicated inside two chambers. 300- host-seeking laboratory reared An. arabiensis released in each SFS-chamber. Prokopack® aspirators used to collect resting mosquitoes inside and outside the huts