A handmade trap for malaria mosquito surveillance by citizens in Rwanda

Abstract

For effective sampling of mosquitoes in malaria surveillance programmes, it is essential to include attractive cues in traps. With the aim of implementing a citizen science project on malaria vectors in rural Rwanda, a handmade plastic bottle trap was designed and tested in the field to determine its effectiveness in capturing adult Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, the main malaria vector, and other mosquito species. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) and light were used as attractive cues. CO₂ was produced by inoculating sugar with yeast and water. Light was emitted from a torch by light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Under field conditions in rural Rwanda, three handmade trap designs were compared to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps (CDC-LT) in houses. The trap baited with yeast produced CO₂ and light caught the highest number of mosquitoes compared to the traps baited with light alone or CO₂ alone. The number of An. gambiae s.l. in the handmade trap with light and CO₂ was approximately 9–10% of the number caught with a CDC light trap. This suggests that about 10 volunteers with a handmade trap could capture a similar-sized sample of An. gambiae as one CDC-LT would collect. Based on these findings, the handmade plastic bottle trap baited with sugar fermenting yeast and light represents an option for inclusion in mosquito surveillance activities in a citizen science context.

Introduction

Malaria remains a public health concern in many Sub-Saharan African countries including Rwanda. The disease is transmitted by mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles, and in Rwanda the most important vectors are An. gambiae s.s. and An. arabiensis [1]. The country achieved a significant reduction in the burden of malaria through the implementation and scale-up of malaria control interventions from 2005 to 2011 [2]. However, from 2012 to 2016, the country experienced an eight-fold increase in reported malaria cases [3]. This increase in malaria incidence was observed in all 30 districts of the country, thereby putting the entire population at risk of the disease [4, 5].

Integrated vector control currently forms the most effective way to reduce the spread of mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria. These control programmes include mosquito monitoring with the aim to provide information on mosquito abundance and species composition [6]. It thereby enables the assessment of malaria disease risk, and guides vector control in reducing disease transmission and preventing infection [1]. In Rwanda, mosquito monitoring programmes have been established in twelve sentinel sites across the country [3]. However, not all regions of the country benefit from these mosquito monitoring programmes. Factors such as limited funds, limited number of trained entomologists and inaccessibility of some regions hinder the progress towards malaria elimination. In Rwanda, the main methods used for mosquito collection are pyrethrum spray collection (PSC) and human landing catches (HLC) [1, 7–9]. HLC is a collection method based on the use of human volunteers as baits where volunteers collect mosquitoes landing on their exposed legs and feet [10]. As such, the method remains ethically disputed [11], although it remains the most effective estimator of biting intensity currently in use [1, 7–9]. Therefore, other collection methods are desired, but the feasibility, cost and practicability should be considered.

In 2017, the World Health Organization launched the Global Vector Control Response (GVCR) and encouraged countries to employ science and innovation with the aim to bring tangible changes in current vector control programmes [12]. The GVCR sets out the guidance needed to make vector control programmes effective, acceptable and sustainable [6, 12–14]. Among innovative approaches, citizen science can provide benefits in terms of capacity building and tracking mosquito populations, as evidenced by a number of recent publications [15–21]. These initiatives engage volunteer citizens, for example in adult mosquito collections using different trapping techniques [22]. These techniques include the capturing of mosquitoes with hands or with containers against walls [16, 23], or include the submission and identification of adult mosquito pictures or even of mosquito sounds recorded by volunteers [15, 16, 24]. Mosquito traps such as BG sentinel or BG Gravid Aedes traps have also been used in a citizen science project to collect Aedes species [22].

Interestingly, citizen science approaches for adult mosquito surveillance, and malaria vectors, have hardly been studied in a rural African context. Factors such as cost, ease of use, portability and the effectiveness of the mosquito collection method are crucial when deciding about the sampling approach to employ in a citizen science project, especially in low resource settings [20, 22, 25]. Results of a recent survey based on a participatory approach showed the necessity to provide a simple mosquito sampling tool [25] to capture Anopheles mosquitoes in a citizen science context in Rwanda.

Many mosquito sampling tools have been designed on the principle of attraction of mosquitoes towards their hosts. Host-seeking mosquitoes rely on olfaction, visual and thermal cues to locate and identify their vertebrate hosts on which they feed [26–30]. Odours and light as stimuli have been incorporated in many mosquito sampling tools and used to monitor mosquito populations [8, 31]. In addition, visual stimuli such as dark contrast are used by host-seeking mosquitoes to spot a host [29, 30, 32], and thermal sensory information to detect body heat [29]. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is one of the main olfactory stimuli involved in the orientation of mosquitoes and other insects that feed blood from their hosts [33]. All vertebrates produce CO₂ through respiration, and these elevated levels of CO₂ make mosquitoes more responsive towards volatile host odours. The synergistic combination of CO₂ and artificial blends of host odours has been extensively studied for deployment in mosquito traps [11, 26, 34–37]. For field sampling purposes, CO₂ can be produced by fermenting sugar and yeast in water. Hence, sugar-fermenting yeast in a bottle trap has been suggested as a potential cheap and efficient tool for sampling Anopheles and other human-biting mosquito species in rural settings [35].

The objective of the present study was to design and evaluate a low cost, easy-to-use mosquito trap to capture adult mosquitoes, including An. gambiae s.l., for mosquito surveillance in rural Rwanda. The goal was to employ this trap in a larger one-year citizen science programme that was co-developed with the local population [25] and which ran from November 2018 to October 2019. Trap designs were evaluated under field conditions by comparing them to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps (CDC-LT), which are considered the gold standard sampling method [9, 38].

Materials and methods

Field experiments

Field experiments were conducted in Kibaza, Bugesera district, Eastern province, Rwanda. Twelve houses from three village clusters called “isibo” (a cluster of a maximum of 15 households) were selected for mosquito collection (Fig 1). Kibaza village is situated at 1°52’18.0"S and 30°16’11.0"E. The area is a rural, agricultural setting with a traditionally high level of malaria transmission [39]. The study site is characterized by two rainy seasons (March-May and October-December) which alternate with two dry seasons (January-February and June-September). Kibaza is bordered by one irrigated rice scheme with two annual rice growing cycles and the selected houses were mainly made of mud walls with iron sheet roofs.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Inset shows Rwanda in green with Bugesera district in grey and the location of Kibaza village indicated with a red dot.

Handmade carbon dioxide-baited mosquito traps were made from 1.5 litre transparent plastic bottles. The top was cut off at three-quarter height and inverted into the remaining part. The opening was elongated with a piece of black paper as a funnel to prevent mosquitoes from escaping from the trap. This design was based on a pilot experiment in the laboratory (see S1 File) in which we evaluated the effectiveness of the handmade trap in terms of collecting female An. coluzzii in large cages with different sugar sources and heat as stimuli. The trap also included a gauze net that was inserted to prevent the mosquitoes from entering the fermenting solution. In addition, the bottle was wrapped with black scotch tape (Fig 2) [29, 45, 46]. Carbon dioxide was provided by preparing a mixture of 25 g brown sugar, two grams of yeast (Pakmaya instant dry yeast, Istanbul, Turkey) and 250 mL of water [35, 40].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

At each house, a handmade carbon dioxide-baited trap was placed either indoors next to a human sleeping under a bed net, or outside of the selected house, preferably near the main entrance of the house and positioned against the wall. The traps were placed on the ground, where the opening of the trap was at 9 cm from the ground (Fig 2). The yeast-sugar mixture was prepared at 9:00 am, and the traps were set up in the bedroom of the community members at the foot end of the bed. At least two occupants slept in the bedroom, protected by an ITN. To examine the effect of light on trap catches, light was provided from a torch (Super bright DH-168 light-emitting diodes (LEDs) powered by 2 X Tiger Head R6S AA UM3 1.5 Volt batteries (last for ± 12 hours). In the experiment with light, the torch was suspended 5 cm above the trap entrance. The torch and the trap were operated from 6:00 pm till 6:00 am.

Three experiments using the bottle trap with either only CO₂ produced by sugar-yeast fermentation (experiment A), with light alone (experiment B) or with sugar-yeast produced CO₂ in combination with light (experiment C) were evaluated (Table 1). To control for night and location effects, a 4 x 4 Latin square design was used for comparative studies of mosquito traps at each of the three sites (Table 2). To compare the effectiveness of the three handmade trap designs, CDC light traps were used as a reference. Indoor, CDC light traps were set up in the bedroom and hung at the foot end of the bed, with the shield of the trap at 150 cm from the floor [41]. Outdoor traps were positioned outside the house in the peridomestic area (outside against the wall at the house entrance). First, experiment A was carried out by providing three houses with the yeast-sugar baited trap indoor, three houses with the yeast-sugar baited trap outdoor, three houses with the CDC light trap indoor and three houses with the CDC light trap outdoor. This procedure was repeated for four consecutive nights so that each house had received each of the four trap designs on one night. This procedure was repeated for experiments B and C on different nights. All experiments were carried out between 24 September 2018 and 1 November 2018.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

This schedule was used for the three treatments between 24 September 2018 and 1 November 2018. Experiments were carried out consecutively (not simultaneously).

The traps were set at 6:00 pm and the owner of the room was instructed to switch off the light of the handmade or CDC trap and tie the bag connected to the collection cup or the net of the handmade traps at 6:00 am the next morning to avoid mosquitoes escaping from the traps. After their collection from the traps, mosquitoes were stored in labelled petri dishes before morphological identification at the laboratory of entomology in Kigali for further analysis.

Mosquito species identification

Mosquitoes collected per trap per house per night from each experiment were kept separately in labelled petri dishes and were sorted by genus and sex. All female Anopheles mosquitoes were morphologically identified to species level using the standard morphological identification keys [42] at the central laboratory. Mosquitoes from each house and trap were then pooled in 1.5 ml labelled vials with silica gel and kept for molecular species identification. A random sample of 250 An. gambiae s.l. caught indoors and outdoors using CDC light traps and handmade traps were used for DNA extraction and identification using the Polymerase Chain Reaction method (PCR) [43]. DNA was extracted only from the heads and thoraxes of the mosquitoes for amplification. For samples that did not show a product on the electrophoresis gel, legs and wings were tested.

Statistical analysis

For the field experiments, the numbers of collected female mosquitoes were analysed using different Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM with negative binomial with log function, dispersion estimated) to test the differences in capturing effectiveness of different odour baits in combination with or without visual cue (light) using the handmade trap versus the CDC light traps. The main effects tested were the trap type and the location (indoor/outdoor). Covariates associated with the experimental design (house location, trapping night) were included as random factors in the model. The model, including (significant) covariates, was used to calculate the incidence rate ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Catches from traps baited with light and with yeast and sugar were not included in the statistical analyses as the number of mosquitoes was too low. A Chi-square test was computed to compare proportions of An. arabiensis and An. gambiae s.s. collected with CDC-LT and traps baited with yeast-sugar mixture and light. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 25.0, IBM Corporation, New York, USA).

Ethical approval

The ethical approval was guaranteed to the study (408/CMHS IRB/2016) by the Institutional Review Board of the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda. Written informed consent was obtained from the head of the selected houses for the experiment.

Results

Field experiments

Three mosquito genera were identified from collected mosquitoes (Table 3). Almost two-thirds (n = 2,196, 69.3%) were Culex species, followed by Anopheles (n = 855, 27%), and Mansonia (n = 116, 3.7%). The species collected from the genus Anopheles included An. gambiae sensu lato (n = 742, 86.7%), An. ziemanni (n = 69, 8%), An. maculipalpis (n = 39, 4.6%), An. brohieri (n = 3, 0.4%), An. pharoensis (n = 1, 0.12%) and An. rufipes (n = 1, 0.12%).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

A, B and C indicate the three different experiments carried out in the field study which each covered 12 trapping nights.

Comparison between handmade and CDC light traps

CDC light traps collected significantly higher numbers of female mosquitoes (Culicidae) and An. gambiae s.l. (GLMM, P < 0.001; Table 4) compared to all three handmade traps baited with sugar and yeast alone (Fig 3), light alone (Fig 4), or with the combination of sugar, yeast and light (Fig 5).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A and B) and Culicidae (C and D) collected using a CDC light trap (12 trapping nights per treatment) or a trap baited with a sugar and yeast mixture (12 trapping nights per treatments) in Rwanda.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A and B) and Culicidae (C and D) collected using a CDC light trap (12 trapping nights per treatment) or a trap baited with light (12 trapping nights per treatments) in Rwanda.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

(A and B) and Culicidae (C and D) collected using a CDC light trap (12 trapping nights per treatment) or a trap baited with the combination of a sugar-yeast mixture and light (12 trapping nights per treatments) in Rwanda.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The number of mosquitoes (Culicidae) caught indoors was significantly lower than those collected outdoors for the trials in which we tested light only (GLMM, P = 0.050), or the combination of sugar, yeast and light (GLMM, P = 0.005). This was not the case for numbers of An. gambiae s.l. or for the experiment with sugar and yeast only (Table 4).

All models reported in Table 4 included the random factors house location and trapping night (collection date). In experiments B and C, these random factors were not significant, but for experiment A, collection date was significant in the model for all mosquitoes (GLMM, Wald chi-square = 4.320, P = 0.038), while house location was significant in the model for An. gambiae s.l. (GLMM, Wald chi-square = 4.477, P = 0.034).

When comparing the overlap in 95% confidence intervals of the incidence rate ratio’s, we can deduce that traps baited with the combination of sugar-yeast mixture and light were significantly better in catching mosquitoes (Culicidae) as well as in catching An. gambiae s.l. than traps baited with a sugar-yeast mixture only, or light only (Fig 6).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

L: handmade trap baited with light only, S + Y: handmade trap baited with a sugar-yeast mixture, S + Y + L: handmade trap baited with a sugar-yeast mixture and light.

Sibling species identification

Of a random sample of 250 female An. gambiae s.l. identified to sibling species by PCR, 4% (11/250) were An. gambiae s.s. and 96% (239/250) were An. arabiensis. There was no significant difference between the relative proportions of both species collected in CDC traps and in traps baited with a sugar-yeast mixture and light (Chi-square = 0.206, P = 0.650). Similarly, the relative proportion of both sibling species in indoor and outdoor collections was the same (Chi-square = 2.134, P = 0.144).

Discussion

Many studies have demonstrated that sugar-fermenting yeast is a practical source of CO₂ in traps, especially in the field, because industrial CO₂ is not always available and is costly [35, 40, 44]. However, its potential for use in simple, handmade traps for mosquito surveillance in a citizen science context had not been fully explored. Overall, traps baited with a yeast-sugar mixture and light, a yeast-sugar mixture alone, or with light alone caught very few mosquitoes compared to (powered) CDC light traps. Although this study investigated the effects of CO₂ produced by the fermentation of brown sugar and dry yeast in capturing adult mosquitoes, cues such as light added to the trap seemed to play a role in capturing mosquitoes. When comparing the three handmade traps among each other, the trap baited with a yeast-sugar mixture and light captured more An. gambiae s.l. The same was true for capturing other Culicidae, which included species such as Cx. quinquefasciatus, Cx. annulioris, Mansonia africana and M. uniformis. Thus, malaria vectors and other mosquitoes seem to make use of visual cues in host-seeking despite their nocturnal habit [29], but here only in combination with CO₂. Interestingly, traps baited with a yeast-sugar mixture and light caught significantly more mosquitoes outdoors than indoors, which agrees with previous research [45]. However, traps baited with a yeast-sugar mixture did not catch more mosquitoes outdoors and these findings therefore disagree with other studies conducted previously [45, 46].

It is clear that CDC traps caught the highest number of mosquitoes, as well as a higher diversity of species. It should be noted that the CDC trap requires a powered fan, whereas the handmade trap is a non-mechanical, passive trap without an active suction mechanism. Interestingly, both indoors and outdoors, the number of An. gambiae s.l. in the handmade trap with light and CO₂ was about 9–10% of the number caught with a CDC light trap (16 out of 168 indoor, and 22 out of 237 outdoor; experiment C). This suggests that 10 bottle traps distributed over 10 houses would capture a similar number of mosquitoes (including An. gambiae) as one CDC light trap placed in one house. In other words, if sufficient volunteers can be recruited in a citizen science project using a bottle trap, this could present an alternative for installment of a CDC light trap. Further studies are needed to compare the cost-effectiveness of both approaches, and should investigate labour, logistical costs and materials, especially because plastic bottles will be banned in the country. Alternative and more sustainable materials, such as bioplastics, would thus need to be identified. In addition, longevity of the batteries and the torch, and inclusion of human foot odor collected on socks as an attractant are issues or options to further explore to improve the durability and capture efficiency of the traps.

If such citizen science reporting can be linked with digital technology (e.g. reporting observations through a mobile app), rapid assessments of malaria risk can be made with high spatial coverage. In that respect, our recent work presents the results of a one-year study in which 116 volunteers participated in the collection of mosquito data using the above-described handmade traps [47]. It demonstrated significant correlations between numbers of Culicidae caught in the passive trap and confirmed malaria cases. The study concluded that a citizen science approach can contribute to mosquito monitoring, and can help to identify areas that, in view of limited resources for control, are at higher risk of malaria.

Traps can be further developed by evaluating the effectiveness of the handmade trap for Anopheles mosquitoes in other malaria endemic areas in Rwanda, as well as in other regions with different vector species and different seasonality. Such evaluations need to include concerns about data quality, standardization, as well as the earlier mentioned need to replace components of the trap.

Conclusion

A handmade trap that produced CO₂ by yeast-sugar fermentation attracted and trapped mosquitoes, including malaria vectors, in the field in Rwanda. Additional visual cues such as a light source increased the attractiveness of the trap for mosquitoes. Although there are limitations with using the handmade trap, the trap presents an alternative option for inclusion in mosquito surveillance activities in a citizen science context in rural areas.

Supporting information

S1 File. Results of pilot experiment in the laboratory.

The experiment evaluated the effectiveness of the handmade trap in terms of collecting female An. coluzzii in large cages with different sugar sources and heat as stimuli.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266714.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the Ruhuha Health Centre, Ruhuha administrative sector, the entomology technicians as well the study participants for their collaboration. We also thank the laboratory of Entomology from The Malaria and Other Parasitic Diseases Division and Wageningen University, The Netherlands for the technical support. The warm appreciation is addressed to Pieter Rouweler, Frans van Aggelen, and Andre J. Gidding for mosquito rearing. Finally, we thank Hans Smid, Julien Rougeot and Jeanine Loonen for their assistance and for the technical support.

Citation: Murindahabi MM, Takken W, Hakizimana E, van Vliet AJH, Poortvliet PM, Mutesa L, et al. (2022) A handmade trap for malaria mosquito surveillance by citizens in Rwanda. PLoS ONE 17(5): e0266714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266714

About the Authors:

Marilyn M. Murindahabi

Roles: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, College of Sciences and Technology, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda

Willem Takken

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1976-0726

Emmanuel Hakizimana

Roles: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Malaria and other Parasitic Diseases Division, Rwanda Biomedical Center, Kigali, Rwanda

Arnold J. H. van Vliet

Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9426-3511

P. Marijn Poortvliet

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Strategic Communication group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Leon Mutesa

Roles: Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda

Constantianus J. M. Koenraadt

Roles: Formal analysis, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7861-8781

References

1. Hakizimana E, Karema C, Munyakanage D, Githure J, Mazarati JB, Tongren JE, et al. Spatio-temporal distribution of mosquitoes and risk of malaria infection in Rwanda. Acta Trop. 2018;182:149–57. pmid:29476726

2. Karema C, Aregawi MW, Rukundo A, Kabayiza A, Mulindahabi M, Fall IS, et al. Trends in malaria cases, hospital admissions and deaths following scale-up of anti-malarial interventions, 2000–2010, Rwanda. Malar J. 2012;11(1):1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-236 pmid:22823945

3. MOH. Rwanda Malaria Control Extended National Strategic Plan. 2017.

4. MOH. Revised National Malaria Contingency Plan 2016–2020. Kigali; 2017.

5. PMI. President’s Malaria Initiative. Malaria Operational Plan: Rwanda FY 2018. Washington DC.; 2018.

6. WHO. Global vector control response 2017–2030. World Health Organization. 2017.

7. Sikaala CH, Chinula D, Chanda J, Hamainza B, Mwenda M, Mukali I, et al. A cost-effective, community-based, mosquito-trapping scheme that captures spatial and temporal heterogeneities of malaria transmission in rural Zambia. Malar J. 2014;13(1):225. pmid:24906704

8. Hoel DF, Marika JA, Dunford JC, Irish SR, Geier M, Obermayr U, et al. Optimizing Collection of Anopheles gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Biogents Sentinel Traps. J Med Entomol. 2014;51(6):1268–75. pmid:26309317

9. Wong J, Bayoh N, Olang G, Killeen GF, Hamel MJ, Vulule JM, et al. Standardizing operational vector sampling techniques for measuring malaria transmission intensity: Evaluation of six mosquito collection methods in western Kenya. Malar J. 2013;12(1):1–11. pmid:23631641

10. Tusting LS, Bousema T, Smith DL, Drakeley C. Measuring changes in plasmodium falciparum transmission. Precision, accuracy and costs of metrics. In: Advances in Parasitology. Elsevier Ltd.; 2014. p. 151–208.

11. Maliti DV, Govella NJ, Killeen GF, Mirzai N, Johnson PCD, Kreppel K, et al. Development and evaluation of mosquito ‑ electrocuting traps as alternatives to the human landing catch technique for sampling host ‑ seeking malaria vectors. Malar J. 2015;1–15. pmid:25557741

12. WHO. The Compendium of WHO malaria guidance-–prevention, diagnosis, treatment, surveillance and elimination. Geneva, Switzerland; 2019. p. 39.

13. Wirth DF, Winzeler EA, Hall BF, Bopp SE, LaMonte G, Rabinovich NR, et al. The malERA Refresh Consultative Panel on Basic Science and Enabling Technologies (2017) malERA: An updated research agenda for basic science and enabling technologies in malaria elimination and eradication. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):1–29.

14. Rabinovich RN, Drakeley C, Djimde AA, Hall BF, Hay SI, Hemingway J, et al. malERA: An updated research agenda for malaria elimination and eradication. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):1–17. pmid:29190300

15. Palmer JRB, Oltra A, Collantes F, Delgado JA, Lucientes J, Delacour S, et al. Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1–12. pmid:28232747

16. Kampen H, Medlock JM, Vaux AG, Koenraadt CJ, van Vliet AJ, Bartumeus F, et al. Approaches to passive mosquito surveillance in the EU. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8(1):1–13. pmid:25567671

17. Bartumeus F, Oltra A, Palmer JRB. Citizen Science: A Gateway for Innovation in Disease-Carrying Mosquito Management? Trends Parasitol. 2018;1–3. pmid:29793805

18. Tyson E, Bowser A, Palmer J, Kapan D, Bartumeus F, Brocklehurst M. Global Mosquito Alert: Building Citizen Science Capacity for Surveillance and Control of Disease-Vector Mosquitoes. Washington, DC; 2018.

19. Jordan RC, Sorensen AE, Ladeau S. Citizen Science as a Tool for Mosquito Control. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2017;33(3):241–5. pmid:28854108

20. Bartumeus F, Costa GB, Eritja R, Kelly AH, Finda M, Lezaun J, et al. Sustainable innovation in vector control requires strong partnerships with communities. PLOS Negleted Trop Dis. 2019;13(4):1–5. pmid:31022178

21. Murindahabi MM, Asingizwe D, Poortvliet PM, Van Vliet AJH, Hakizimana E, Mutesa L, et al. A citizen science approach for malaria mosquito surveillance and control in Rwanda. NJAS—Wageningen J Life Sci. 2018;86–87:101–10.

22. Bazin M, Williams CR. Mosquito traps for urban surveillance: collection efficacy and potential for use by citizen scientists. Vector Ecol. 2018;43(1):98–103. pmid:29757507

23. Walther D, Kampen H. The Citizen Science Project “Mueckenatlas” Helps Monitor the Distribution and Spread of Invasive Mosquito Species in Germany. J Med Entomol. 2017;54(6):1790–4. pmid:29029273

24. Mukundarajan H, Hol FJH, Castillo EA, Newby C, Prakash M. Using Mobile Phones As Acoustic Sensors For High-Throughput Surveillance Of Mosquito Ecology. Elife. 2017; 6:e27854. pmid:29087296

25. Asingizwe D, Murindahabi MM, Koenraadt CJM, Poortvliet PM, Van Vliet AJH, Ingabire CM, et al. Co-Designing a Citizen Science Program for Malaria Control in Rwanda. Sustainability. 2019;11(24):1–17.

26. Takken W, Knols BGJ. Odor-Mediated Behavior of Afrotropical Malaria Mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 1999;44(1):131–57. pmid:9990718

27. Smallegange R, Takken W. Host-seeking behaviour of mosquitoes: responses to olfactory stimuli in the laboratory. Olfaction vector-host Interact. 2010;143–80.

28. Zwiebel LJ, Takken W. Olfactory regulation of mosquito-host interactions. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;34(7):645–52. pmid:15242705

29. Hawkes FM, Dabiré RK, Sawadogo SP, Torr SJ, Gibson G. Exploiting Anopheles responses to thermal, odour and visual stimuli to improve surveillance and control of malaria. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):17283. pmid:29229938

30. Moon YM, Metoxen AJ, Leming MT, Whaley MA, Tousa JEO. Rhodopsin management during the light-dark cycle of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. J Insect Physiol. 2015;70:88–93.

31. Lima JBP, Rosa-Freitas MG, Rodovalho CM, Santos F, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R. Is there an efficient trap or collection method for sampling Anopheles darlingi and other malaria vectors that can describe the essential parameters affecting transmission dynamics as effectively as human landing catches?—A Review. Memórias do Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2014;109(5):685–705. pmid:25185008

32. Rajia JI, DeGennaro M. Genetic Analysis of Mosquito Detection of Humans. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018; 20:34–38.

33. Gillies MT. The role of carbon dioxide in host-finding by mosquitoes. Bull Entomol Res. 1980;70(1940):525–32.

34. Mboera LEG, Knols BGJ, Takken W, Torre A della. The response of Anopheles gambiae s.l. and A. funestus (Diptera: Culicidae) to tents baited with human odour or carbon dioxide in Tanzania. Bull Entomol Res. 1997;87(2):173–8.

35. Smallegange R, Schmied WH, van Roey KJ, Verhulst NO, Spitzen J, Mukabana WR, et al. Sugar-fermenting yeast as an organic source of carbon dioxide to attract the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Bull Entomol Res. 2010;70(4):525–32. pmid:20973963

36. Spitzen J, Smallegange RC, Takken W. Effect of human odours and positioning of CO2 release point on trap catches of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto in an olfactometer. Physiol Entomol. 2008;33(2):116–22.

37. Takken W, Verhulst NO. Host Preferences of Blood-Feeding Mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 2013;58(1):433–53. pmid:23020619

38. Asale A, Kussa D, Girma M, Mbogo C, Mutero CM. Community based integrated vector management for malaria control: Lessons from three years’ experience (2016–2018) in Botor-Tolay district, southwestern Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2019;19 (1):1–14. pmid:30606151

39. Kateera F, Ingabire CM, Hakizimana E, Kalinda P, Mens PF, Grobusch MP, et al. Malaria, anaemia and under-nutrition: three frequently co-existing conditions among preschool children in rural Rwanda. Malar J. 2015;14(1):1–11. pmid:26542672

40. Laguna-Aguilar M, Alvarado-Moreno MS, Sánchez-Rodríguez OS, Ramírez-Jiménez R, Zárate-Nahón EA, Sánchez-Casas RM, et al. Field Evaluation of a Novel Trap Baited with Carbon Dioxide Produced by Yeast for the Collection of Female Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in Mexico. Southwest Entomol. 2012;37(4):495–504.

41. Mboera LEG, Kihonda J, Braks M a H, Knols BGJ. Short report: influence of centers for disease control light trap position, relative to a human-baited bednet, on catches of Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinqufasciatus in Tanzania. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59(4):5.

42. Gillies MT, Coetzee M. A Supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara. Publ South African Inst Med Res. 1987;55(55):63.

43. Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH. Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49(4):520–9. pmid:8214283

44. Hoel DF, Dunford JC, Kline DL, Irish SR, Weber M, Richardson AG, et al. A Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Sources for Mosquito Capture in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Light Traps on the Florida Gulf Coast. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2015;31(3):248–57. pmid:26375906

45. Rosanti TI, Mardihusodo SJ, Artama WT. Effectiveness of environmentally friendly mosquito trap containing sugar yeast solution. KEMAS. 2017;1(1):1–11

46. Abdon-liwanag B, Tansengco ML. Feasibility of Brown Sugar and Yeast Solution as a Potential Organic Mosquito Trap (OMT). Biol Chem Res. 2015;2015:357–61

47. Murindahabi MM, Hoseni A, Vreugdenhil LC, van Vliet AJH, Umupfasoni J, Mutabazi A et al. Citizen science for monitoring the spatial and temporal dynamics of malaria vectors in relation to environmental risk factors in Ruhuha, Rwanda. Malaria J. 2021; 20(1): 453. pmid:34861863