Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia
The efficiency of the recently developed handheld InsectaZooka™ (IZ) aspirator was compared to that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack (CDC-BP) aspirator by conducting human bait collections on 2 islets (locally called motus) of the atoll of Tetiaroa, French Polynesia. Abunda...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 2014-06, Vol.30 (2), p.126-129 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 129 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 126 |
| container_title | Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Hapairai, Limb K Cheong Sang, Michel A Bossin, Hervé C |
| description | The efficiency of the recently developed handheld InsectaZooka™ (IZ) aspirator was compared to that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack (CDC-BP) aspirator by conducting human bait collections on 2 islets (locally called motus) of the atoll of Tetiaroa, French Polynesia. Abundance of mosquitoes was compared between the wind-exposed and wind-protected sides of each motu to measure the effect of wind on mosquito distribution. The number of host-seeking Aedes polynesiensis mosquitoes collected on the 2 motus with either sampling device was not significantly different. Collection of male mosquitoes was low irrespective of the type of aspirator used. Wind had an effect on mosquito distribution, as females were more abundant on the protected sides of both motus. The IZ aspirator is a lighter and equally efficient alternative to the CDC-BP aspirator for collecting Ae. polynesiensis. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2987/13-6362.1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552369687</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1547847309</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b402t-236d23f1f693e2c1a1a626987b42b86af4659f47adafdb6195184ab2ac65a5f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQxi0EosvCgRcASxyAQ4r_xHZ8XBYKlSpRqVTiZk0Su3Wb2MHOIpUH4Xlx2IUDB8TBGs-nn77RzIfQU0qOmW7UG8orySU7pvfQiuq6dEyR-2jVKCErreiXI_Qo5xtCmBCifoiOmKDlr9UK_djGcYLkcww4OjxfW7y1YbYpYxcTfuezhVy0GOYUBwyhx-fJfiuIj6F6C93tVN4v_TRk283wPcZbwJs8-QRzPPhcwDgNPlzhje1txlMc7oLN3obsM_YBnyQbumt8ftDhMXrgYMj2yaGu0eXJ-8_bj9XZpw-n281Z1daEzRXjsmfcUSc1t6yjQEEyWU7S1qxtJLhaCu1qBT24vpVUC9rU0DLopADhBF-jV3vfKcWvO5tnM_rc2WGAYOMuGypEmaFlo_4DrVVTK050QV_8hd7EXQplkYWiWnHOFur1nupSzDlZZ6bkR0h3hhKz5GooN0uupa7Rs4Pjrh1t_4f8HWQBnu8BB9HAVQnUXF4wQiUhVGihllVf7onWxxjsP4b9BBsYs6s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1541973329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Allen Press Journals</source><creator>Hapairai, Limb K ; Cheong Sang, Michel A ; Bossin, Hervé C</creator><creatorcontrib>Hapairai, Limb K ; Cheong Sang, Michel A ; Bossin, Hervé C</creatorcontrib><description>The efficiency of the recently developed handheld InsectaZooka™ (IZ) aspirator was compared to that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack (CDC-BP) aspirator by conducting human bait collections on 2 islets (locally called motus) of the atoll of Tetiaroa, French Polynesia. Abundance of mosquitoes was compared between the wind-exposed and wind-protected sides of each motu to measure the effect of wind on mosquito distribution. The number of host-seeking Aedes polynesiensis mosquitoes collected on the 2 motus with either sampling device was not significantly different. Collection of male mosquitoes was low irrespective of the type of aspirator used. Wind had an effect on mosquito distribution, as females were more abundant on the protected sides of both motus. The IZ aspirator is a lighter and equally efficient alternative to the CDC-BP aspirator for collecting Ae. polynesiensis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-971X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-6270</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2987/13-6362.1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25102597</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>15000 Commerce Parkway, Suite C, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054: American Mosquito Control Association, Inc</publisher><subject>Aedes - physiology ; Aedes polynesiensis ; Animals ; Aquatic insects ; Atolls ; Baits ; Behavior ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack ; Disease control ; Efficiency ; Female ; Females ; French Polynesia ; InsectaZooka ; Male ; Mosquito Control - instrumentation ; mosquito sampling device ; Mosquitoes ; Polynesia ; Population Density ; Prevention ; SCIENTIFIC NOTES ; Specimen Handling ; Vegetation ; Wind</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 2014-06, Vol.30 (2), p.126-129</ispartof><rights>2014 by The American Mosquito Control Association, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services Jun 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b402t-236d23f1f693e2c1a1a626987b42b86af4659f47adafdb6195184ab2ac65a5f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b402t-236d23f1f693e2c1a1a626987b42b86af4659f47adafdb6195184ab2ac65a5f53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,27931,27932</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25102597$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hapairai, Limb K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheong Sang, Michel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossin, Hervé C</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia</title><title>Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association</title><addtitle>J Am Mosq Control Assoc</addtitle><description>The efficiency of the recently developed handheld InsectaZooka™ (IZ) aspirator was compared to that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack (CDC-BP) aspirator by conducting human bait collections on 2 islets (locally called motus) of the atoll of Tetiaroa, French Polynesia. Abundance of mosquitoes was compared between the wind-exposed and wind-protected sides of each motu to measure the effect of wind on mosquito distribution. The number of host-seeking Aedes polynesiensis mosquitoes collected on the 2 motus with either sampling device was not significantly different. Collection of male mosquitoes was low irrespective of the type of aspirator used. Wind had an effect on mosquito distribution, as females were more abundant on the protected sides of both motus. The IZ aspirator is a lighter and equally efficient alternative to the CDC-BP aspirator for collecting Ae. polynesiensis.</description><subject>Aedes - physiology</subject><subject>Aedes polynesiensis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquatic insects</subject><subject>Atolls</subject><subject>Baits</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>French Polynesia</subject><subject>InsectaZooka</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mosquito Control - instrumentation</subject><subject>mosquito sampling device</subject><subject>Mosquitoes</subject><subject>Polynesia</subject><subject>Population Density</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>SCIENTIFIC NOTES</subject><subject>Specimen Handling</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Wind</subject><issn>8756-971X</issn><issn>1943-6270</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQxi0EosvCgRcASxyAQ4r_xHZ8XBYKlSpRqVTiZk0Su3Wb2MHOIpUH4Xlx2IUDB8TBGs-nn77RzIfQU0qOmW7UG8orySU7pvfQiuq6dEyR-2jVKCErreiXI_Qo5xtCmBCifoiOmKDlr9UK_djGcYLkcww4OjxfW7y1YbYpYxcTfuezhVy0GOYUBwyhx-fJfiuIj6F6C93tVN4v_TRk283wPcZbwJs8-QRzPPhcwDgNPlzhje1txlMc7oLN3obsM_YBnyQbumt8ftDhMXrgYMj2yaGu0eXJ-8_bj9XZpw-n281Z1daEzRXjsmfcUSc1t6yjQEEyWU7S1qxtJLhaCu1qBT24vpVUC9rU0DLopADhBF-jV3vfKcWvO5tnM_rc2WGAYOMuGypEmaFlo_4DrVVTK050QV_8hd7EXQplkYWiWnHOFur1nupSzDlZZ6bkR0h3hhKz5GooN0uupa7Rs4Pjrh1t_4f8HWQBnu8BB9HAVQnUXF4wQiUhVGihllVf7onWxxjsP4b9BBsYs6s</recordid><startdate>20140601</startdate><enddate>20140601</enddate><creator>Hapairai, Limb K</creator><creator>Cheong Sang, Michel A</creator><creator>Bossin, Hervé C</creator><general>American Mosquito Control Association, Inc</general><general>American Mosquito Control Association</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140601</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia</title><author>Hapairai, Limb K ; Cheong Sang, Michel A ; Bossin, Hervé C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b402t-236d23f1f693e2c1a1a626987b42b86af4659f47adafdb6195184ab2ac65a5f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aedes - physiology</topic><topic>Aedes polynesiensis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquatic insects</topic><topic>Atolls</topic><topic>Baits</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>French Polynesia</topic><topic>InsectaZooka</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mosquito Control - instrumentation</topic><topic>mosquito sampling device</topic><topic>Mosquitoes</topic><topic>Polynesia</topic><topic>Population Density</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>SCIENTIFIC NOTES</topic><topic>Specimen Handling</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Wind</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hapairai, Limb K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheong Sang, Michel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossin, Hervé C</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hapairai, Limb K</au><au>Cheong Sang, Michel A</au><au>Bossin, Hervé C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Mosq Control Assoc</addtitle><date>2014-06-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>126</spage><epage>129</epage><pages>126-129</pages><issn>8756-971X</issn><eissn>1943-6270</eissn><abstract>The efficiency of the recently developed handheld InsectaZooka™ (IZ) aspirator was compared to that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack (CDC-BP) aspirator by conducting human bait collections on 2 islets (locally called motus) of the atoll of Tetiaroa, French Polynesia. Abundance of mosquitoes was compared between the wind-exposed and wind-protected sides of each motu to measure the effect of wind on mosquito distribution. The number of host-seeking Aedes polynesiensis mosquitoes collected on the 2 motus with either sampling device was not significantly different. Collection of male mosquitoes was low irrespective of the type of aspirator used. Wind had an effect on mosquito distribution, as females were more abundant on the protected sides of both motus. The IZ aspirator is a lighter and equally efficient alternative to the CDC-BP aspirator for collecting Ae. polynesiensis.</abstract><cop>15000 Commerce Parkway, Suite C, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054</cop><pub>American Mosquito Control Association, Inc</pub><pmid>25102597</pmid><doi>10.2987/13-6362.1</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 8756-971X |
| ispartof | Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 2014-06, Vol.30 (2), p.126-129 |
| issn | 8756-971X 1943-6270 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552369687 |
| source | MEDLINE; Allen Press Journals |
| subjects | Aedes - physiology Aedes polynesiensis Animals Aquatic insects Atolls Baits Behavior Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack Disease control Efficiency Female Females French Polynesia InsectaZooka Male Mosquito Control - instrumentation mosquito sampling device Mosquitoes Polynesia Population Density Prevention SCIENTIFIC NOTES Specimen Handling Vegetation Wind |
| title | Comparison of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Backpack and Insectazooka Aspirators for Sampling Aedes polynesiensis in French Polynesia |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T13%3A13%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention-Backpack%20and%20Insectazooka%20Aspirators%20for%20Sampling%20Aedes%20polynesiensis%20in%20French%20Polynesia&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Mosquito%20Control%20Association&rft.au=Hapairai,%20Limb%20K&rft.date=2014-06-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=126&rft.epage=129&rft.pages=126-129&rft.issn=8756-971X&rft.eissn=1943-6270&rft_id=info:doi/10.2987/13-6362.1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1547847309%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1541973329&rft_id=info:pmid/25102597&rfr_iscdi=true |