Field Evaluation of CDC and Mosquito Magnet® X Traps Baited With Dry Ice, Co₂Sachet, and Octenol Against Mosquitoes

Abstract

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps and Mosquito Magnet X (MMX) traps baited with dry ice, octenol, and a new formulation (granular) of carbon dioxide (CO2) were evaluated against adult mosquitoes in the field. The results showed that the MMX traps (68.6%) baited with dry ice collected more mosquitoes compared to the CDC light traps (32.4%) only. The CDC traps baited with dry ice (64%) collected significantly more mosquitoes than traps baited with CO2 sachets (11%) or octenol (23%). The MMX traps baited with dry ice (85.5%) collected significantly more mosquitoes than traps baited with CO2 sachets (6.5%) or octenol (9%). The CDC traps baited with the formulations of normal and slow release CO2 sachets collected more mosquitoes than the formulation of fast release sachets. The CDC traps baited with fresh sachets and 24-h-exposed sachets collected significantly more mosquitoes than the traps baited with 48-h- and 72-h-exposed sachets.

Efficacy of Mosquito Traps for Collecting Potential West Nile Mosquito Vectors in a Natural Mediterranean Wetland

“…atroparvus with or without CO 2 . Comparison with other traps, such as Mosquito Magnet or Zumba traps 50,51 and attractants, with and without CO 2 and development of ornitophilic lures are important keystones to the ultimate objective of improving trapping efficiency for several mosquito-borne diseases such as WNV and USU. Such an evaluation of the efficacy of the different trapping methods and their biases is essential if we are to provide researchers and fieldworkers with accurate tools for targeted trapping (that is, to point to the fraction of the mosquito community that is of greatest ecoepidemiological importance).…”

Can Mosquito Magnet® substitute for human-landing catches to sample anopheline populations?

“…In contrast, Henderson et al (2006) could not demonstrate that the continuous operation of the Mosquito Magnet Pro Model in urban and rural areas of Manitoba, Canada, significantly reduced the activity of Aedes vexans (Meigen), Ochlerotatus sticticus (Meigen) and Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker). In general, MM traps are more efficient for mosquito surveillance than CDC light traps (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Hiwat et al 2011a). Nevertheless, in Latin America the use of MM trap has been limited to surveillance of West Nile virus in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Farfan-Ale et al 2009) and was evaluated to collect anophelines in Suriname (Hiwat et al 2011a, b) and French Guiana (Dusfour et al 2010).…”

“…Although it has been shown that the traps can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance, the MM traps are marketed for the control of blood-seeking insects in residential areas (mosquitomagnet.com), although the traps have shown that can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance (Pucci et al 2003, Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Kitau et al 2009. The MM trap is battery operated and utilises CO 2 , one of the products of the catalysis of propane gas, as an attractant (Kline 1999).…”

“…Several studies have shown that Mosquito Magnet ® (MM) traps (American Biophysics Corporation, North Kingstown, RI) are more efficient than CDC light traps baited with CO 2 and/or octenol to collect mosquitoes (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Dusfour et al 2010, Hiwat et al 2011a). Although it has been shown that the traps can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance, the MM traps are marketed for the control of blood-seeking insects in residential areas (mosquitomagnet.com), although the traps have shown that can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance (Pucci et al 2003, Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Kitau et al 2009.…”

Effect of CO2 and 1-octen-3-ol attractants for estimating species richness and the abundance of diurnal mosquitoes in the southeastern Atlantic forest, Brazil

“…In relation to total abundance, Mosquito Magnet outperformed CDC-CO 2 (Johansen et al 2003, Xue et al 2008. However, the sensibility of CDC-CO 2 (19/27) was very close to that of Mosquito Magnet (20/27) in the study by Johansen et al (2003).…”