Field evaluation of two commercial mosquito traps baited with different attractants and colored lights for malaria vector surveillance in Thailand

Table 6 Efficacy of different colored lights (for each trap type) relative to the incandescent light for collecting anophelines and An. minimus

		Treatment	IRR	95% CI	χ ²	P-value
CDC LT	♀ Anopheline	Incandescent (reference)
		UV (10–400 nm wavelength)	0.74	0.53–1.03	3.11	0.078
		Green (490–570 nm wavelength)	0.56	0.40–0.79	10.99	0.001
		Red (620–780 nm wavelength)	0.56	0.40–0.78	11.54	0.001
	♀ An. minimus	Incandescent (reference)
		UV (10–400 nm wavelength)	0.81	0.56–1.15	1.42	0.233
		Green (490–570 nm wavelength)	0.55	0.38–0.79	10.38	0.001
		Red (620–780 nm wavelength)	0.57	0.40–0.82	9.27	0.002
BGS Trap	♀ Anopheline	Incandescent (reference)
		UV (10–400 nm wavelength)	0.66	0.38–1.13	2.28	0.131
		Green (490–570 nm wavelength)	0.27	0.14–0.51	16.4	< 0.0001
		Red (620–780 nm wavelength)	0.31	0.16–0.58	13.05	< 0.0001
	♀ An. minimus	Incandescent (reference)
		UV (10–400 nm wavelength)	0.54	0.28–1.04	3.43	0.064
		Green (490–570 nm wavelength)	0.22	0.10–0.48	14.35	< 0.0001
		Red (620–780 nm wavelength)	0.17	0.07–0.40	16.60	< 0.0001

Abbreviations: IRR estimated incident rate ratio, CI confidence interval, corresponding P-value based on maximum likelihood estimation of GLM with negative binomial error and log link function

ISSN: 1756-3305