New Member
|
Two parts of the question was answered. Is it more "attractive" than human hosts? ...basically No. Does it work, definitely Yes, but not under any circumstances. Your request for details and testing parameters will obviously come, via a post-grad scientific paper, to be presented by the Uni, not me. I think there is a presentation scheduled in Santiago later in the year for the peers.
Working units are currently deployed in many sites and states, with volunteer testers and study teams. The first phase of testing, over a 2 year +period is completed, and the current tests expands the geographical spread and scope of the tests.
However, you are right about not substantiating statements, but the point of this post, in a public forum, is about feedback and opinions, from those who are interested in this topic. The more important aim of this post is to inform the same forum members that even though most commercial traps have been tried and decried as useless by the general public, the science behind this system for mosquito control is very real and holds great potential. Advertising, yes, for open mindedness.
It will be a great tragedy if a pre-conceived notion, that mosquito traps with semiochemical attractants are only commercial gimmicks, is allowed to be planted into the minds of the scientific and general community by either skeptics or those who have bought useless traps. It is difficult enough to work on the science. Turning an entrenched negative public opinion is not the forte of scientists generally, especially with chemicals.
The release of the lab video is to demonstrate, for all to see, that this is a serious and relatively new science...and real!
To answer your questions, you will notice that the mosquito response in the video, and the picture of the trap, is free of large UV light stimulants. The big UV lights in traps attracts a lot of nocturnal insects, as does the use of acetone, ammonia and octenol attract small flies. The MMA is mosquito specific. It does not attract flies, bees, moths, ants, birds, cats, monitor lizard,squirrels,snakes [yes,they were in the test compound], etc. Your query on the trapping of other beneficial insects was one of the first considerations raised by UM.
On the effectiveness of the trap and attractant against a trap without any semiochemicals [zappers], the factor is greater than 5:1 in an outdoor environment. On most days, it is actually 10-20:0. Mosquitoes seems to be primitive in their responses, and will almost always fly towards the more attractive scent, even if the difference is marginal. In parallel tests where one scent is an improved version and the other is a lesser attractant, the catch of the improved version is often all:zero. In outdoor trappings, via a normal suburban garden, wind and light conditions affects the results of such parallel testing. The potency and quantity of the attractant emitted is the single most important factor in trapping efficacy. The trap is secondary.
On other solutions...all of us are local, so it starts with mosquito coils, nets, vapor mats, screens, aerosols, tiling up the whole garden, gardeners cleaning the drains, cutting down the fruit trees, fogging, removing the roof gutters, Bti, repellents and air-conditioning the whole house. Did them all, and still kena Dengue. The problem is the Outdoors...open drains, urban structures, litter and green, tropical weather. My personal favourite, I think the mosquito racket was the best invention so far, but a lot of effort and can't do it in the dark outdoors. The trap and attractant is actually effortless and fills up this gap.
On the question of the time it takes to clear an individual site, the answer is not exact, as testers can only check [ during the daytime] by physically walking and deliberately disturbing the compound to observe for resting mosquitoes after a night's trapping. In a "cleared compound" they will encounter very few mosquitoes, say two, for example. But it is impossible to tell if these mosquitoes were blown in during the day or migrated from next door upon disturbance by the testers. However, it is consistent that even when no mosquitoes were found in such a foraging exercise, the overnight trapping will average 10-20 in a house in PJ. Inward migration is the only logical conclusion. In a test compound in PJ, via a bungalow sitting on 14,000 sq.ft, the traps were switched off for 7 days, and mosquitoes numbers were allowed to build up. Traps were then switched on and trappings for the first 3 day period was 120 mosquitoes, and then fell to 10-20 daily thereafter, as the ongoing norm for this particular test premise. There will always be incoming mosquitoes.
An inaugural mass community based deployment test is currently being planned, so there is no data to answer your question on neighborhood deployment yet. However, the immediate neighbours of the test compound in PJ have indicated that they can feel the reduction of mosquitoes. The testers reports that the lack of scouting mosquitoes is a palpable sensation.
On the question of trapping efficacy against breeding.... tests are ongoing. Ovitraps supplied by Bandaraya KL are simultaneously deployed in the test compound where the traps and attractants are used. While daily trappings are counted, larvae that have developed in the ovitraps are also counted. This test is ongoing, but in the 7 months of dual deployment, to date, the trapping of mosquitoes are consistent at 10-20 mosquitoes nightly, while larvae development has been very low in the prior 6 months, but have only increased these two weeks when a new ovitrap attractant was introduced into some of the traps. Total larvae developed in the clean water ovitraps over the whole period so far will be 1:25 when compared to daily mosquito trappings. The ovitraps with attractant ratios are too early to call, but it does not look like breeding will be anywhere near trapping within the compound...but ovitraps with attractants does it's part.
The types of mosquitoes caught varies by geography and degree of urbanization. Very early on, a comparative test was made, within the Uni campus, to check the potential efficacy of the MMA using the Biogents sentinel traps and lure [ current state of art for vector surveillance] as the comparative benchmark. The numbers and types caught were almost identical. The predominant mosquito trapped was Culex, while Aedes was a lesser catch.
Current tests results in the other states are not yet tabulated. The tests should conclude by the end of the current academic year. Culex is highly dominant in the east coast states.
There is one point brought up that is of great interest... that a "working solution" is better than all the banter. The [proposed and awaiting approval] next phase of this post is to present the instructions on how to make the trap from a 4" computer fan, so that forum members who are interested can DIY the mosquito trap. The MMA attractant will then be provided [ FOC] so that the testing can be extended to new independent "volunteer testers" [ with conditions]. Some permit and safety issues have to be ironed out.
Can you help?
|