Open Access

Field evaluation of a novel synthetic odour blend and of the synergistic role of carbon dioxide for sampling host-seeking Aedes albopictus adults in Rome, Italy

  • Marco Pombi1Email author,
  • Frans Jacobs2,
  • Niels O Verhulst2,
  • Beniamino Caputo1,
  • Alessandra della Torre1 and
  • Willem Takken2
Parasites & Vectors20147:580

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-014-0580-9

Received: 8 August 2014

Accepted: 28 November 2014

Published: 11 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Despite the expanding worldwide distribution of Aedes albopictu s and its increasing relevance as arboviral vector, current methods to collect adult specimens are not optimal. Improved approaches are thus needed to monitor their density and pathogen infections, and to establish baseline data for control interventions. A widely used device is the BG-Sentinel (BG-trap) which mostly targets host-seeking females attracted by release of CO2 and/or a synthetic odour blend (the BG lure). We compared the attractiveness of this blend to that of the Mbita (MB5) lure, a new synthetic blend of proven efficiency in attracting Afrotropical malaria vectors, and evaluated the additional effect of CO2 to the two odour baits.

Findings

We carried out 6x6 Latin square experiments in two Ae. albopictus-infested areas in Rome, baiting the BG-traps as follows: CO2, BG lure, MB5 lure, BG lure + CO2, MB5 lure + CO2, no bait. CO2 was derived from yeast-fermented sugar. Overall, 949 females and 816 males were collected. Baited traps collected significantly more females than unbaited ones. Traps baited with either lures in combination with CO2 were more effective than those baited with CO2 alone. No significant differences were observed in female captures between traps baited with any of the two lures, nor between the two lures, independently from the addition of CO2. The use of BG lure + CO2 significantly increased males catches compared to unbaited traps.

Conclusions

The results suggest a broad significance of the MB5 lure for sampling medically important mosquito species and highlight the high efficacy of the combination of lures + CO2 for female Ae. albopictus and of BG lure + CO2 for males, leading to consider CO2 as an essential additional cue for the sampling of this species.

Keywords

Aedes albopictus Mosquito Adult collections BG-sentinel trap Attraction Odour bait CO2 Synergism

Findings

Aedes albopictus is an aggressive daytime-biting mosquito responsible for prominent Chikungunya virus epidemics in the Indian Ocean [1]. Moreover during the past 20 years, the species became a major nuisance in Italy as well as in other southern European countries, where it has also been responsible for endemic Chikungunya transmission in Italy as well as dengue in mainland France and Croatia [2].

While ovitraps are considered the best approach to detect the presence of new establishments of Ae. albopictus, current methods to collect adult specimens in order to better monitor their density and their possible infections with mosquito-borne pathogens, and to establish baseline data for control interventions and assess their efficacy, are not optimal [3]. Presently, the most widely used trap to collect host-seeking Ae. albopictus females is the BG-Sentinel trap (hereafter BG-trap; Biogents A.G., Regensburg, Germany). This device consists of a cylindrical counterflow trap generally baited with a slow-release pack of a synthetic attractant (BG lure). The fan blows downward into the cylinder so that the attractant is blown upward, by overpressure, and out through the upper netting cover. Mosquitoes attracted to the source of odour are drawn into a mesh collecting bag by the downward airflow originating from the fan. Although the BG-trap was originally developed to collect the main dengue vector species Ae. aegypti in tropical areas [4]-[6], field studies have shown its efficacy in collecting other mosquito species as well, particularly when simultaneously releasing both BG lure and CO2, in North America [7] as well as in Europe [8],[9].

A recent study showed a very high attractiveness of selected synthetic blends simulating human odours to host-seeking Afrotropical malaria vectors as well as the filariasis vector Culex quinquefasciatus and other potential mosquito species [10]. Here we report results of field experiments carried out in Rome, Italy, to test the efficacy of one of these blends as a possible alternative to the commonly used BG lure to collect adult Ae. albopictus and to assess the possible effect of CO2 addition to the lures.

Material and methods

Two 6 × 6 Latin square experiments were carried out from 5 to 13 October 2011 in two highly Ae. albopictus-infested areas in Rome (~3000 m2 each and ~1 km distant one from the other), i.e. the garden of the Unit of Comparative Anatomy of the Department of Biology and Biotechnology of Sapienza University [11] and Verano Cemetery [12]. At each location, six BG-Sentinel traps (Biogents GmbH, Regensburg, Germany) were located at approximately 20 m from each other and baited with five different odour blends, as follows: 1- CO2 (produced by 17.5 g of fermenting baker’s yeast in a sucrose solution 0.29 M, as described by Smallegange et al. [13]). 2- BG lure, i.e. standard BG lure sachets, Biogents, consisting of NH3, L-Lactic acid and hexanoic acid in unknown concentrations. 3- Mbita blend, i.e. MB5 lure, NH3 (25% in water), L-(+)-Lactic acid (88-92% in water), tetradecanoic acid (16% in EtOH), 3-methyl-1-butanol (0.01% in paraffin oil) and butan-1-amine (0.001% in paraffin oil) [14]. One mL of each of the solutions was separately embedded in nylon strips (26.5 × 1.0 cm) mounted on a wire frame and placed at the entrance of BG trap [15]. 4- BG lure + CO2. 5- MB5 lure + CO2. 6- a trap activated without any odour and used as a negative control (no bait). Temperature and relative humidity data of the sampling period in the Municipality of Rome were downloaded by the website Archivio Meteo Italia (http://archivio-meteo.distile.it); no rain occurred during the period of the experiment. Every 24 h, all BG-traps were rotated clockwise to the next position for a total of six days. Mosquitoes during each 24 h-sampling were removed from the trap-bags and frozen. Morphological identifications were carried out following Severini et al. [16].

For both Ae. albopictus males and females collected, data were analysed by Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with Poisson distribution with log-link function, dispersion parameter estimated using sampling area, days of collection, trap positions and bait as factors. The final model, including significant factors, was used to calculate the estimated mean trap catches and standard errors followed by a pairwise comparison with LSD correction. All analyses have been performed with SPSS statistical software [17].

Results and discussion

A total of 1,858 mosquitoes were collected (1,191 in the Anatomy garden and 667 in the Verano cemetery): 95% of these were Ae. albopictus and 5% Culex pipiens. Table 1 shows the median and total catches of Ae. albopictus females and males for each site and for each tested odour blend. Overall, a comparable number of females were collected in the two areas, while a significantly higher number of males were collected in the Anatomy garden (i.e. males:females ratio was 1.5 in the Anatomy garden and 0.3 in Verano; χ2 = 229.1; p < 0.0001). Since there is no reason to assume that this reflects a real difference in sex-ratio in the two areas, the observed difference may be due to their distinctive ecological features. In particular, it may be hypothesized that the lower abundance of visual landmarks for male swarming [18] in Anatomy garden (as opposed to Verano cemetery where landmarks such as graves or trees are very abundant) makes the white/dark contrast of BG-Sentinel trap the major swarming landmark in this area [19],[20].
Table 1

Descriptive statistics of Aedes albopictus collected with different odour blends

Bait

Sex

Anatomy garden

Verano cemetery

Median

5-95% Percentiles

N (%)

Median

5-95% Percentiles

N (%)

No bait

females

5

0-10

30 (29%)

7

1-18

49 (77%)

males

7

0-44

72 (71%)

1

0-8

15 (23%)

CO2

females

10

0-20

64 (47%)

8

1-28

59 (84%)

males

13

5-18

71 (53%)

1

0-6

11 (16%)

MB5 lure

females

7

5-11

44 (40%)

12

2-37

99 (79%)

males

12

1-20

67 (60%)

4

0-9

26 (21%)

MB5 lure + CO2

females

15

11-28

97 (44%)

19

7-23

96 (74%)

males

16

6-48

121 (56%)

6

0-14

34 (26%)

BG lure

females

14

10-24

93 (44%)

10

0-40

87 (80%)

males

21

4-34

118 (56%)

2

0-10

22 (20%)

BG lure + CO2

females

18

10-32

118 (35%)

18

2-36

113 (74%)

males

37

5-95

219 (65%)

7

0-19

40 (26%)

Total females

446 (40%)

 

503 (77%)

Total males

668 (60%)

 

148 (23%)

Median and 5-95% percentile intervals of Ae. albopictus females and males collected with BG-Sentinel traps baited with different odour blends (BG lure and MB5 lure with/without CO2) in two areas in Rome (Italy). No bait = negative control.

While the ambient temperature remained roughly stable during the experiments, fluctuations in daily female collections were positively correlated with relative humidity variations (Pearson’s R2 = 0.41, p = 0.026; Figure 1). This phenomenon, already observed in a previous study [21], could be due to a stimulation of host-seeking behaviour by increasing relative humidity, which may be perceived by female mosquitoes as an indication of possible imminent rains and, thus, of increasing availability of oviposition/breeding sites [22]. This hypothesis is also supported by the lack of correlation between daily male collections and relative humidity.
Figure 1

Aedes albopictus daily collections in relation to relative humidity and temperature. Total numbers of Aedes albopictus males (blue bars) and females (orange bars) daily collected with BG-Sentinel traps in Anatomy garden (A) and Verano cemetery (B) in relation to mean daily temperature (black solid line, with minimum and maximum) and relative humidity (green solid line). X-axis = dates in October 2011.

The GLM model for Ae. albopictus females retained sampling area (χ2 = 22.0; p = 0.001), date of collection (χ2 = 38.3; p < 0.0001) and odour bait tested (χ2 = 4.39; p < 0.036) as significant effects. BG-trap position was shown not to affect the model significantly, although exposure to sun has been shown to reduce collection efficiency [21]. Significant differences were observed in the mean number of females collected daily in the two sites with traps baited with the different blends (Figure 2A; Table 2): i) all baited traps were significantly more effective than the unbaited ones (t-probabilities of pairwise differences; P < 0.05); ii)traps baited with either lures in combination with CO2 were more effective than those baited with CO2 alone (MB5 lure + CO2 vs CO2: P = 0.052; BG lure + CO2 vs CO2: P = 0.005). No significant differences were observed between traps baited with MB5 lure alone versus MB5 lure + CO2 and with BG lure alone versus BG lure + CO2. Finally, no significant differences were observed between the two lures neither in the absence, nor in the presence of CO2, although the highest collections were obtained with combinations of each lure with CO2.
Figure 2

Daily mean estimates of Aedes albopictus collected with different odour blends. Daily mean estimates of Aedes albopictus females (A) and males (B) collected with two BG-Sentinel trap-odour blends (BG lure and MB5 lure with/without CO2). Solid dots represent the mean estimate for each odour blend. Bottom and top of the box show the standard error range. Whiskers show 5-95% percentile range. Means not sharing the same letter differ significantly at P <0.05. No bait = negative control.

Table 2

Pairwise comparisons of predicted mean estimates of Aedes albopictus collected with different odour blends

Females

 

No bait

CO2

MB5 lure

BG lure

MB5 lure + CO2

CO2

ns

    

MB5 lure

0.034

ns

   

BG lure

0.02

ns

ns

  

MB5 lure + CO2

0.001

0.052

ns

ns

 

BG lure + CO2

0.000

0.005

0.025

ns

ns

Males

 

No bait

CO2

MB5 lure

BG lure

MB5 lure + CO2

CO2

ns

    

MB5 lure

ns

ns

   

BG lure

ns

0.035

ns

  

MB5 lure + CO2

ns

0.019

ns

ns

 

BG lure + CO2

0.005

0.002

0.007

0.038

ns

P-values of pairwise comparisons of predicted mean estimates of Ae. albopictus females and males collected with different odour blends (BG lure and MB5 lure with/without CO2) as obtained by GLM. Only 95% significant p-values are shown. ns = non-significant p-value. No bait = negative control.

GLM model of male collections – of which significant variables are: date of collection (χ2 = 68.5; p < 0.0001), bait tested (χ2 = 35.7; p < 0.0001) and trap position (χ2 = 27.7; p-0.002) - showed a trend only partially consistent with the one observed for females (Figure 2B, Table 2): i) baited traps were not significantly more effective than the not baited ones (probably due to low average catch sizes and large variations in estimates) except for BG lure + CO2 (t-probabilities of pairwise differences; P = 0.005), ii) traps baited with BG lure, with or without CO2, were more effective than those baited with CO2 alone (BG lure vs CO2: P = 0.035; BG lure + CO2 vs CO2: 0.002), whereas MB5 lure was more effective than CO2 alone only in combination with CO2 (P = 0.019) iii) BG lure showed increased performance when CO2 was added to the blend (BG lure + CO2 vs BG lure: P = 0.038), whereas no significant differences were observed between traps baited with MB5 lure alone versus MB5 lure + CO2. The attractive effect of odour blends is likely due to the fact that Ae. albopictus males, although not blood-feeding, often mate with females in proximity of potential hosts and thus seek for hosts to increase their reproductive success [18].

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the MB5 lure – which was developed to specifically attract highly anthropophilic Afrotropical malaria vectors and was shown to be very efficacious in this respect [15] – is as attractive as the BG lure to Ae. albopictus despite the generalist feeding habits of this species [12]. This could imply that the MB5 lure can be effectively applied in sampling schemes were both anthropophilic and generalist species are targeted, although its attractiveness to tropical mosquito species remains to be compared to that of the BG lure. The availability of synthetic mosquito lures that are as attractive as a human is highly advantageous as odour-baited traps can be placed across a wide area without the need for operational visits for surveillance purposes. Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated that the residual effect of the MB5 lure exceeds 40 days opening the possibility to leave traps running unattended for several weeks, with a continuous release of attractants [10].

The results show that the addition of the synthetic lures to CO2 increases trap performance, thus confirming the importance of this blend combination in mosquito attraction already shown from previous studies with live animals [23]. Addition of CO2 to BG lure and MB5 was shown to be highly attractive also to Ae. aegypti in the Brazilian Amazon region [24] and in Iquitos, Peru (W. Takken et al., unpublished data), respectively, further supporting addition of CO2 as an essential element of synthetic odour baits for mosquitoes. Overall, odour-baited traps, as used in the current study, can be used in epidemiological studies of vector-borne disease risk estimates as well as for establishing the level of mosquito nuisance.

Moreover, the method used to release of CO2 by yeast fermentation of sugar was shown to be effective also for Ae. albopictus in temperate climates. This method, already representing a cheap and reliable method for collection of other tropical mosquito species, has the clear operational advantage to obviate the more expensive and demanding use of gas tanks or dry ice [13],[25].

Finally, the high numbers of males collected in this study show that BG-Sentinel traps baited with either odours in combination with CO2 represent an effective tool for measurements of male dispersal, mating behaviour and longevity, which are presently constrained by the lack of efficient sampling tools.

Conclusions

The results confirm the efficacy of BG-Sentinel trap baited with the standard BG lure and synergized with CO2 in collecting not only Ae. albopictus females, but also males, whose sampling is increasingly important in the frame of studies aimed to evaluate the potential of sterile insect technique control approaches [26]. Moreover, the results indicate that the MB5 lure, which was developed to attract anthropophilic Afrotropical malaria vectors, is also effective to attract mosquito species, such Ae. albopictus, with generalist trophic habits and thus involved in the transmission of human, as well as zoonotic pathogens.

Abbreviations

MB5: 

Mbita blend

BG-trap: 

Biogents BG-Sentinel trap

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the personnel of AMA-Cimiteri Capitolini and of the Unit of Comparative Anatomy of the Department of Biology and Biotechnology of Sapienza University for hosting our experiments and for helping with the logistics. This work has been funded by Italian Ministry of Defense –Ispettorato Generale della Sanità Militare (TelesorveglianzaVettoriale project) and by EU grant FP7-261504 EDENext, and is catalogued by the EDENext Steering Committee as EDENext N. 252 (http://www.edenext.eu). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry nor of European Commission.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Università di Roma “Sapienza”
(2)
Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University and Research Centre

References

  1. Pialoux G, Gaüzère B-A, Jauréguiberry S, Strobel M: Chikungunya, an epidemic arbovirosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007, 7: 319-327. 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70107-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Medlock JM, Hansford KM, Schaffner F, Versteirt V, Hendrickx G, Zeller H, Van Bortel W: A review of the invasive mosquitoes in Europe: ecology, public health risks, and control options. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12: 435-447. 10.1089/vbz.2011.0814.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Marrama Rakotoarivony L, Schaffner F: ECDC Guidelines for the Surveillance of Invasive Mosquitoes in Europe. 2012, European Centre for Disease Prevention and C ontrol, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. Krockel U, Rose A, Eiras AE, Geier M: New tools for surveillance of adult yellow fever mosquitoes: comparison of trap catches with human landing rates in an urban environment. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006, 22: 229-238. 10.2987/8756-971X(2006)22[229:NTFSOA]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Maciel-de-Freitas R, Eiras AE, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R: Field evaluation of effectiveness of the BG-Sentinel, a new trap for capturing adult Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2006, 101: 321-325. 10.1590/S0074-02762006000300017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Meeraus W, Armistead J, Arias J: Field comparison of novel and gold standard traps for collecting Aedes albopictus in northern Virginia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008, 24: 244-248. 10.2987/5676.1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Farajollahi A, Kesavaraju B, Price DC, Williams GM, Healy SP, Gaugler R, Nelder MP: Field efficacy of BG-Sentinel and industry-standard traps for Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and West Nile virus surveillance. J Med Entomol. 2009, 46: 919-925. 10.1603/033.046.0426.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Drago A, Marini F, Caputo B, Coluzzi M, Della Torre A, Pombi M: Looking for the gold standard: assessment of the effectiveness of four traps for monitoring mosquitoes in Italy. J Vector Ecol. 2012, 37: 117-123. 10.1111/j.1948-7134.2012.00208.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lühken R, Pfitzner WP, Börstler J, Garms R, Huber K, Schork N, Steinke S, Kiel E, Becker N, Tannich E, Krüger A: Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe. Parasit Vectors. 2014, 7: 268-10.1186/1756-3305-7-268.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mukabana WR, Mweresa CK, Otieno B, Omusula P, Smallegange RC, van Loon JJ, Takken W: A novel synthetic odorant blend for trapping of malaria and other African mosquito species. J Chem Ecol. 2012, 38: 235-244. 10.1007/s10886-012-0088-8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Caputo B, Ienco A, Cianci D, Pombi M, Petrarca V, Baseggio A, Devine GJ, Della Torre A: The “Auto-Dissemination” approach: a novel concept to fight Aedes albopictus in urban areas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012, 6: e1793-10.1371/journal.pntd.0001793.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Valerio L, Marini F, Bongiorno G, Facchinelli L, Pombi M, Caputo B, Maroli M, Della Torre A: Host-feeding patterns of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in urban and rural contexts within Rome province, Italy. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010, 10: 291-294. 10.1089/vbz.2009.0007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Smallegange RC, Schmied WH, van Roey KJ, Verhulst NO, Spitzen J, Mukabana WR, Takken W: Sugar-fermenting yeast as an organic source of carbon dioxide to attract the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Malar J. 2010, 9: 292-10.1186/1475-2875-9-292.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Menger DJ, VAN Loon JJA, Takken W: Assessing the efficacy of candidate mosquito repellents against the background of an attractive source that mimics a human host. Med Vet Entomol. 2014, 28: 407-413. 10.1111/mve.12061.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiscox A, Otieno B, Kibet A, Mweresa CK, Omusula P, Geier M, Rose A, Mukabana WR, Takken W: Development and optimization of the Suna trap as a tool for mosquito monitoring and control. Malar J. 2014, 13: 257-10.1186/1475-2875-13-257.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Severini F, Toma L, Di Lucia M, Romi R: Le Zanzare Italiane: Generalità e Identificazione degli Adulti (Diptera, Culicidae). Fragm Entomol. 2009, 41: 213-372.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. IBM Corp: IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. ; 2011.Google Scholar
  18. Hawley WA: The biology of Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc Suppl. 1988, 1: 1-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gubler DJ, Bhattacharia NC: Swarming and mating of Aedes (S.) albopictus in nature. Mosq News. 1972, 32: 219-223.Google Scholar
  20. Tuten HC, Stone CM, Dobson SL: Swarming behavior of Aedes polynesiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) and characterization of swarm markers in American Samoa. J Med Entomol. 2013, 50: 740-747. 10.1603/ME13026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Crepeau TN, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, Unlu I, Farajollahi A, Fonseca DM: Effects of biogents sentinel trap field placement on capture rates of adult Asian tiger mosquitoes. Aedes Albopictus PLoS One. 2013, 8: e60524-10.1371/journal.pone.0060524.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Clements AN: The Biology of Mosquitoes: Sensory, Reception, and Behaviour. 1999, CABI, New York, First editionGoogle Scholar
  23. Vickery C, Meadows K, Baughman I: Synergism of carbon dioxide and chick as bait for Culex nigripalpus. Mosq News. 1966, 26: 507-509.Google Scholar
  24. Degener CM, Eiras AE, Azara TMF, Roque RA, Rösner S, Codeço CT, Nobre AA, Rocha ESO, Kroon EG, Ohly JJ, Geier M: Evaluation of the effectiveness of mass trapping with BG-sentinel traps for dengue vector control: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Manaus, Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2014, 51: 408-420. 10.1603/ME13107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mweresa CK, Omusula P, Otieno B, van Loon JJA, Takken W, Mukabana WR: Molasses as a source of carbon dioxide for attracting the malaria mosquitoes Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus. Malar J. 2014, 13: 160-10.1186/1475-2875-13-160.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lacroix R, Delatte H, Hue T, Dehecq JS, Reiter P: Adaptation of the BG-Sentinel trap to capture male and female Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Med Vet Entomol. 2009, 23: 160-162. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00806.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Pombi et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement