Vector surveillance is among the World Health Organization global vector control response (2017–2030) pillars. Human landing catches are a gold standard but difficult to implement and potentially expose collectors to malaria infection. Other methods like light traps, pyrethrum spray catches and aspiration are less expensive and less risky to collectors. Three mosquito sampling methods (UV light traps, CDC light traps and Prokopack aspiration) were evaluated against human landing catches (HLC) in two villages of Rarieda sub-county, Siaya County, Kenya. UV-LTs, CDC-LTs and HLCs were conducted hourly between 17:00 and 07:00. Aspiration was done indoors and outdoors between 07:00 and 11:00 a.m. Analyses of mosquito densities, species abundance and sporozoite infectivity were performed across all sampling methods. Species identification PCR and ELISAs were done for Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus complexes and data analysis was done in R. Anopheles mosquitoes sampled from 608 trapping efforts were 5,370 constituting 70.3% Anopheles funestus sensu lato (s.l.), 19.7% Anopheles coustani and 7.2% An. gambiae s.l. 93.8% of An. funestus s.l. were An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) and 97.8% of An. gambiae s.l. were Anopheles arabiensis. Only An. funestus were sporozoite positive with 3.1% infection prevalence. Indoors, aspiration captured higher An. funestus (mean = 6.74; RR = 8.83, P < 0.001) then UV-LT (mean = 3.70; RR = 3.97, P < 0.001) and CDC-LT (mean = 1.74; RR = 1.89, P = 0.03) compared to HLC. UV-LT and CDC-LT indoors captured averagely 0.18 An. arabiensis RR = 5.75, P = 0.028 and RR = 5.87, P = 0.028 respectively. Outdoors, UV-LT collected significantly higher Anopheles mosquitoes compared to HLC (An. funestus: RR = 5.18, P < 0.001; An. arabiensis: RR = 15.64, P = 0.009; An. coustani: RR = 11.65, P < 0.001). Anopheles funestus hourly biting indoors in UV-LT and CDC-LT indicated different peaks compared to HLC. Anopheles funestus remains the predominant mosquito species. More mosquitoes were collected using aspiration, CDC-LTs and UV-LTs indoors and UV-LTs and CD-LTs outdoors compared to HLCs. UV-LTs collected more mosquitoes than CDC-LTs. The varied trends observed at different times of the night suggest that these methods collect mosquitoes with diverse activities and care must be taken when interpreting the results.

中文翻译：

---

肯尼亚西部室内和室外不同诱捕方法收集疟疾病媒的比较

病媒监测是世界卫生组织全球病媒控制应对措施（2017-2030）的支柱之一。人类登陆捕捞是黄金标准，但难以实施，并且可能使捕捞者感染疟疾。其他方法，如光陷阱、除虫菊喷雾捕捉和抽吸，对于收集者来说成本较低，风险也较小。在肯尼亚西亚县拉里达县的两个村庄，对三种蚊子采样方法（紫外线诱捕器、CDC 诱捕器和 Prokopack 吸入法）与人类登陆捕获物 (HLC) 进行了评估。UV-LT、CDC-LT 和 HLC 在 17:00 至 07:00 之间每小时进行一次。上午 07:00 至 11:00 之间在室内和室外进行抽吸。通过所有采样方法对蚊子密度、物种丰度和子孢子感染性进行分析。对冈比亚按蚊和福氏按蚊复合体进行了物种鉴定 PCR 和 ELISA，并在 R 中进行了数据分析。从 608 次诱捕工作中抽取的按蚊样本为 5,370 只，其中按蚊 70.3% 为感按蚊 (sl)，按蚊为 19.7%，库斯坦按蚊为 7.2%，按蚊为 7.2%。 。冈比亚 sl 93.8% 的 An. funestus sl 是 An。funestus sensu stricto (ss) 和 An 的 97.8%。冈比亚 sl 是阿拉伯按蚊。只有安. funestus 子孢子阳性，感染率为 3.1%。在室内，渴望捕获更高的安。funestus（平均值 = 6.74；RR = 8.83，P < 0.001），然后 UV-LT（平均值 = 3.70；RR = 3.97，P < 0.001）和 CDC-LT（平均值 = 1.74；RR = 1.89，P = 0.03） HLC。UV-LT 和 CDC-LT 室内平均捕获 0.18 An。阿拉伯树 RR = 5.75，P = 0.028 和 RR = 5.87，P = 0.028。在户外，与 HLC 相比，UV-LT 收集到的按蚊数量明显更高（按蚊：RR = 5.18，P < 0.001；阿拉伯按蚊：RR = 15.64，P = 0.009；库斯塔按蚊：RR = 11.65，P < 0.001） 。与 HLC 相比，按蚊在室内每小时叮咬一次的 UV-LT 和 CDC-LT 显示了不同的峰值。按蚊仍然是主要的蚊子种类。与 HLC 相比，室内使用抽吸、CDC-LT 和 UV-LT 以及室外 UV-LT 和 CD-LT 收集到的蚊子数量更多。UV-LT 比 CDC-LT 捕获更多的蚊子。在夜间不同时间观察到的不同趋势表明，这些方法收集了具有不同活动的蚊子，在解释结果时必须小心。