Fig 1.
Map of the study area showing the trap positions (circles) in the villages in Ulanga and Kilombero districts in Tanzania, where the study was conducted.
Fig 2.
Sampling methods: (A) BG-Sentinel and (B) BG-Malaria. The functionality of the traps is shown on the left panel, while the installation in field is shown on the right panel of the figure. IF = Intake funnel; CB = Catch Bag; F = Fan; G = Gauze Cover; T = Tube; RC = Recipient of CO2; OB = Odour Bait. Arrows indicate the direction of the airflow. Adapted from Batista et al., [22].
Table 1.
Mosquito catches, grouped by taxa, with median number and Interquartile range (IQR) of mosquitoes caught per night by different sampling methods in the study.
Table 2.
Estimation of sampling efficiency of the different sampling methods used (per night) relative to the human landing catch.
Fig 3.
Percentage of parous mosquitoes observed among collections using human-landing catches (HLC), BG-Malaria (BGM) and BG-Sentinel (BGS) traps.
The number of mosquitoes dissected per method is included at the top of the bars.
Table 3.
Mosquito catches, grouped by taxa, caught by BG-Malaria traps baited with different lures (CO2 gas, BG-Lure, Mbita-5 Blend, Ifakara blend or no bait, i.e., control).
Table 4.
Estimation of sampling efficiency of BG-Malaria traps baited with different lures (per night) relative to control (unbaited trap)*.
Table 5.
Mosquitoes, grouped by taxa, caught by BG-Malaria traps baited with Ifakara blend released by different odour-dispensing devices (BG-Cartridge, BG-Sachet, Nylon strips or no bait, i.e., control).
Table 6.
Pair-wise post hoc comparison using Tukey’s honestly significance tests (Tukey’s HSD) showing similarities and differences between number of Anopheles gambiae caught by BG-Malaria traps baited with Ifakara blend released by different odour-dispensing devices.