引用本文
金姝青, 樊坚, 曹晖, 高强, 冷培恩. 二氧化碳与BG-lure引诱剂诱蚊效果比较研究[J]. 中国热带医学, 2022,22(10): 954-958.
JIN Shu-qing, FAN Jian, CAO Hui, GAO Qiang, LENG Pei-en. Comparison of the effectiveness of BG-trap mosquito traps using carbon dioxide versus BG-lure attractants[J]. China Tropical Medicine, 2022,22(10): 954-958.  
Doi: 10.13604/j.cnki.46-1064/r.2022.10.12
Permissions
Copyright©2022, 《中国热带医学》编辑部
《中国热带医学》编辑部 所有
二氧化碳与BG-lure引诱剂诱蚊效果比较研究
金姝青1, 樊坚1, 曹晖1, 高强1,*, 冷培恩2,*
1.上海市黄浦区疾病预防控制中心,上海 200023
2.上海市疾病预防控制中心,上海 200336
*通信作者：高强,E-mail: gaoqiang110209@163.com;冷培恩,E-mail: lengpeien@scdc.sh.cn

作者简介：金姝青（1990—）,女,本科,主管医师,研究方向：病媒生物防制。

收稿日期: 2022-03-04
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金青年项目（No.81903376）; 上海市三年行动计划第五轮重点学科（No.GWV-10.1-XK13）; 黄浦区科委面上项目（No.HLM202022）; 黄浦区医疗卫生重点研究发展项目（No.HWZFX201805）
摘要

目的 比较BG-trap捕蚊器在现场使用CO2和BG-lure引诱剂（BG）的诱蚊效果。方法 2020年8—9月,设置2处现场,间隔100 m,每个现场设置2个点位,分别布放1个BG-trap捕蚊器,彼此间隔 5 m。每个点位设置不同流量CO2及不同数量BG,次日同一现场2个捕蚊装置交换位置。收集各捕蚊器所捕捉的蚊虫,分类和记录捕获的蚊虫种类、性别和捕获数,并进行统计。结果 BG +/ CO2 -和BG -/ CO2+捕获白纹伊蚊密度分别为14只和31只,淡色库蚊分别 2只和16只,差异均有统计学意义（t=-2.675,-4.873, P<0.05）。在BG +条件下,CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雌蚊、淡色库蚊雌蚊和白纹伊蚊雄蚊密度分别是CO2 -组的2.6（25/9.5）、12.0（12/1）和3.0（12/4）倍,差异均有统计学意义（t=-4.119,-4.592, -3.284, P<0.01）,提示吸引白纹伊蚊雌蚊、淡色库蚊雌蚊和白纹伊蚊雄蚊CO2更有效;在BG -条件下,CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雌蚊、淡色库蚊雌蚊和白纹伊蚊雄蚊密度分别是CO2-组的1.8（18/10）、15.5（15.5/1.0）和2.0（9.0/4.5）倍,差异均有统计学意义（t=-2.868,-5.259,-2.508, P<0.05）;在CO2 +条件下,BG +组白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊密度分别是BG -组的1.4 （43.5/31）和0.78（12.5/16.0）倍,差异无统计学意义（t=-0.943,0.709, P>0.05）;在CO2 -条件下,BG +组白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊是BG-组的1.0（14/14）和2.0（2.0/1.0）倍,差异无统计学意义（t=-0.500,-1.000, P>0.05）;在BG -条件下,添加0、 1和2份干冰捕获白纹伊蚊雌蚊密度分别为10只、17.5只和18只,三组差异有统计学意义（F=3.942, P<0.05）,捕获淡色库蚊雌蚊分别为1只、13只和18只,三组差异有统计学意义（F=13.881, P<0.05）,但添加1份和2份干冰捕获白纹伊蚊雌蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊,差异无统计学意义（t=0.112,-0.540, P>0.05）;在CO2 -条件下,添加0、1和2份BG捕获白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊分别为10只、10只、9.5只和1只、1只、1.5只,三组差异无统计学意义（F=0.120,0.477, P>0.05）。结论 使用BG-trap捕蚊器监测中,CO2诱蚊效果优于BG引诱剂,且用100 mL/min流量CO2能更节省使用成本。

关键词: 二氧化碳; BG-lure引诱剂; BG-trap捕蚊器; 诱蚊效果
中图分类号:R521.1 文献标志码:A 文章编号:1009-9727(2022)10-954-05
Comparison of the effectiveness of BG-trap mosquito traps using carbon dioxide versus BG-lure attractants
JIN Shu-qing1, FAN Jian1, CAO Hui1, GAO Qiang1, LENG Pei-en2
1. Shanghai Huangpu District Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 200023, China
2. Shanghai Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 200336, China
Corresponding authors: GAO Qiang, E-mail: gaoqiang110209@163.com; LENG Pei-en, E-mail: lengpeien@scdc.sh.cn
Abstract

Objective To compare the mosquito trapping effect of BG-trap mosquito trap using carbon dioxide versus BG-lure attractant under filed conditions.Methods In August and September 2020, two areas were set with a distance of 100 m. Two sites were set at each area, and one mosquito trap BG trap was set with a distance of 5 m. Each site was set with different flow of CO2 and different amount of BG-lure attractants. The BG-trap mosquito traps on the same area would exchange positions every other day. The mosquitoes captured by each mosquito trap was collected and classified. and the species, sex and number of mosquitoes captured were recorded and counted.Results The densities of Aedes albopictus captured by BG+/CO2-and BG-/CO2+were 14 and 31, and that of Culex pipiens pallens were 2 and 16, respectively. The differences were statistically significant ( Aedes albopictus, t=-2.675, P<0.05; Culex pipiens pallens, t=-4.873, P<0.05). With BG-lure attractant, the females of Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens pallens in the CO2+group were 2.6 (25/9.5) and 12.0 (12 /1) times higher than those in the CO2-group, and the differences were statistically significant (female Aedes albopictus, t=-4.119, P<0.01; female Culex pipiens pallens, t=-4.592, P<0.01), suggesting that the most important attractant to female mosquitoes is CO2. With BG-lure attractant, the male Aedes albopictus in the CO2+ group was 3.0 (12/4) times higher than that in the CO2-group, and the difference was statistically significant (male Aedes albopictus, t=-3.284, P<0.01). Without BG-lure attractant, female Aedes albopictus and female Culex pipiens pallens in the CO2 + group were 1.8 (18 / 10) and 15.5 (15.5/1.0) times higher than those in the CO2-group, and the difference was statistically significant (female Aedes albopictus, t=-2.868, P<0.05; female Culex pipiens pallens, t=-5.259, P<0.05). Without BG-lure attractant, the male Aedes albopictus in the CO2+group was 2.0 (9.0/4.5) times higher than that in the CO2-group, with a statistically significant difference ( t=-2.508, P<0.05). With CO2, Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens pallens in the BG + attractant group were 1.4 (43.5/31) and 0.78 (12.5/16.0) times higher than those in the BG-attractant group, and the differences were not statistically significant ( Aedes albopictus, t=-0.943, P>0.05 ; Culex pipiens pallens, t=0.709, P>0.05). Without CO2, Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens pallens in the BG + attractant group were 1.0 (14/14) and 2.0 (2.0/1.0) times higher than those in the BG + attractant group, and the differences were not statistically significant ( Aedes albopictus, t=-0.500, P>0.05; Culex pipiens pallens, t=-1.000, P>0.05). Without BG-lure attractant, the densities of female Aedes albopictus captured by adding 0, 1 and 2 parts of dry ice were 10, 17.5 and 18 respectively, and the difference was statistically significant among the three groups ( F=3.942, P<0.05). The densities of female Culex pipiens pallens captured were 1, 13 and 18 respectively, and the difference was statistically significant among the three groups ( F=13.881, P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the capture of female Aedes albopictus and female Culex pipiens pallens by adding 1 part of dry ice and 2 parts of dry ice (female Aedes albopictus, t=0.112, P>0.05; female Culex pipiens pallens, t=-0.540, P>0.05). Without CO2, 10, 10, 9.5 and 1, 1 and 1.5 female Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens pallens were captured by adding 0, 1 and 2 portions of BG-lure attractants, respectively. There were no significant differences between the three groups (female Aedes albopictus, F=0.120, P>0.05; female Culex pipiens pallens, F=0.477, P>0.05).Conclusions In the monitoring of BG-trap mosquito trap, the mosquito trapping effect of CO2 is better than that of BG-lure attractant. When the same monitoring effect is obtained, the use of CO2 (100 mL/min) can save the use cost.

Keyword: Carbon dioxide; BG-lure attractant; BG-trap mosquito trap; mosquito trapping effect

全球超过80%的人口正面临媒介传播疾病的风险[1]。目前, 登革热和基孔肯雅热尚未有疫苗, 病媒控制成为主要的预防措施[2]。目前, 伊蚊监测方法主要是布雷图指数（BI）法、诱蚊诱卵器法[3]。根据最新修订GB/T23797—2020《病媒生物密度监测方法 蚊虫》, 被公共卫生工作者和科研工作者广泛使用, 对伊蚊吸引力较好的BG-Trap法已加入成蚊的监测方法之一, 且文献报道BG-Trap法白蚊伊蚊捕获率高, 值得推广[4, 5, 6]。但BG-lure引诱剂（简称BG）存在价格高、进口产品购买周期长等局限性, CO2干冰对蚊虫有引诱效应[7], 上海等地历来使用CO2诱蚊灯法, 且CO2易获得。本研究通过现场试验BG与不同流量CO2对成蚊的引诱效果, 为改进病媒监测工作提供科学依据。

1 材料与方法
1.1 材料

1.1.1 仪器 BG-trap捕蚊器（德国 Biogents 公司）, 是可折叠的蚊虫监测装置, 直径 36 cm, 高40 cm, 顶部面罩中间有带风门的进气漏斗, 漏斗下面有一个小风扇连接到一个漏斗网和可拆卸的蚊虫收集袋。通过引诱剂吸引, 内置风扇产生吸入气流, 将引诱到的蚊虫吸入收集袋。

1.1.2 试剂 BG由德国 Biogents 公司开发的专用引诱剂, 具有优秀的缓释性能, 把三种挥发性成分（乳酸、己酸和碳酸氢氨）以填充颗粒形式包装, 仪器工作过程中会释放有效成分到周围环境中, 模拟人体皮肤的气味[4]。从Biogents购买, 有效期2年（未开封）, 开封后在完全暴露状态下, 可连续缓释60 d, 每次用完后用自封袋密封包装, 放置冰箱冷藏, 以备下次使用; 干冰（固体CO2）, 干冰使用量：1份干冰即250 g/次（流量设置100 mL/min）, 2份干冰即500 g/次（流量设置200 mL/min）。

1.2 方法

1.2.1 现场实验设置 按《病媒生物密度监测方法 蚊虫》规定的BG-trap法, 于 2020 年8—9月份, 室外环境温度31~37 ℃。

1.2.2 BG与CO2对蚊虫吸引影响 选用拉丁方设计。测试选择远离干扰光源的避风区域作为设置点, 共设置2处现场（Area1、Area2）, 间隔100 m; 每个现场设置2个点位（Area1-s1& 2、Area2-s3& 4）, 分别布放 1个捕蚊装置BG-trap, 彼此间隔 5 m。每个点位设置不同流量的CO2及不同数量的BG, 次日同一现场2个捕蚊装置交换位置, 见表1。第1天, 每个点位均设置100 mL /min流量的CO2, 每处现场右侧设置有1个BG的捕蚊装置即Area1-s1和Area2-s3, 每处现场左侧设置有无BG的捕蚊装置即Area1-s2和Area2-s4; 第2天, 两处现场捕蚊装置左右两侧交换位置, 即Area1-s1与Area1-s2互换, Area2-s3与Area2-s4互换; 第3天至第4天, 每个点位均设置0 mL/min流量的CO2, BG引诱剂数量分别同第1、2天; 自第2天起, 重复第1~4天。现场实验重复进行两轮, 共计8 d。收集各捕蚊器所捕捉的蚊虫, 分类和记录捕获的蚊虫种类、性别和捕获数, 并进行统计。

表1 12天每个点位CO2流量及BG引诱剂数量设置 Table 1 Schematic diagram of CO2 flow and attractant quantity setting at each point within 12 days

1.2.3 BG数量及CO2流量对蚊虫吸引影响 第9天, 每个点位均设置200 mL/min流量CO2, 每处现场右侧设置有1个BG的捕蚊装置即Area1-s1和Area2-s3, 每处现场左侧设置有无BG的捕蚊装置即Area1-s2和Area2-s4; 第10天, 两处现场捕蚊装置左右两侧交换位置, 即Area1-s1与Area1-s2互换, Area2-s3与Area2-s4互换; 第11天, 每个点位均设置0 mL /min流量CO2, 每处现场右侧设置有2个BG引诱剂的捕蚊装置即Area1-s1和Area2-s3, 每处现场左侧设置有无BG引诱剂的捕蚊装置即Area1-s2和Area2-s4; 第12天, 两处现场捕蚊装置左右两侧交换位置。见表1。

1.2.4 蚊种鉴定 将蚊虫收集并冷冻后在解剖镜下进行分类计数, 包括种类和雌雄, 鉴定依据《中国重要医学动物鉴定手册》[8]。

1.3 统计学分析

采用SPSS 13.0进行数据统计分析, 平均密度以中位数（四分位数）[M（P25, P75）]表示, 不同条件情况下监测蚊虫密度的比较采用独立样本t检验或单因素方差分析（One-way ANOVA）, 以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果
2.1 蚊种构成

12 d共捕获蚊虫2属2种, 1 686只, 其中伊蚊属（Aedes）白纹伊蚊（Ae. albopictus）1 284只（占76.16%）, 库蚊属（Cules）淡色库蚊（Cx.Pipiens pallens）402只（占23.84%）。

2.2 BG与CO2对蚊虫吸引影响

BG+/CO2-和BG-/CO2+捕获白纹伊蚊平均密度分别为14.0只和 31.0只, 淡色库蚊密度分别2.0只和16.0只, CO2诱蚊效果优于BG引诱剂, 差异均有统计学意义（t= -2.675, -4.873, P<0.05）; 在BG+（CO2+和CO2-）, 共捕获蚊虫2属2种, 894只, 其中白纹伊蚊702只（占78.52%）, 淡色库蚊192只（占21.48%）。CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雌蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊是CO2-组的2.6（25/9.5）和12.0（12/1）倍, 差异均有统计学意义（t=-4.119, -4.592, P<0.01）, 提示对雌蚊最重要的吸引物是CO2。CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雄蚊是CO2 -组的3.0（12/4）倍, 差异有统计学意义（t=-3.284, P<0.01）; 淡色库蚊雄蚊捕获数仅为个位数, 差异无统计学意义（t=1.332, P>0.05）; 在BG-（CO2+和CO2-）, 共捕获蚊虫2属2种, 792只, 白纹伊蚊582只（占73.48%）, 淡色库蚊210只（占26.52%）。CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雌蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊是CO2 -组的1.8（18/10）和15.5（15.5/1.0）倍, 差异均有统计学意义（t=-2.868, -5.259, P<0.05）。CO2 +组白纹伊蚊雄蚊是CO2 -组的2.0（9.0/4.5）倍, 差异有统计学意义（t=-2.508, P<0.05）, 见表2; 在CO2 +（BG +和BG -）, 共捕获蚊虫2属2种, 1 293只, 白纹伊蚊939只（占72.62%）, 淡色库蚊354只（占27.38%）。BG +组白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊是BG -组的1.4（43.5/31）和0.78（12.5/16.0）倍, 差异无统计学意义（t=-0.943, 0.709, P>0.05）; 在CO2-（BG+和BG-）, 共捕获蚊虫2属2种, 393只, 白纹伊蚊345只（占87.79%）, 淡色库蚊48只（占12.21%）。BG +组白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊是BG -组的1.0（14/14）和2.0（2.0/1.0）倍, 差异无统计学意义（t= -0.500, -1.000, P>0.05）。提示在相同CO2条件下, 添加BG引诱剂对蚊虫诱集效果无显著影响。见表2。

表2 BG引诱剂和CO2对蚊虫吸引的影响 Table 2 Independent sample t-test of whether BG-lure and CO2attracts mosquitoes
2.3 BG数量及CO2流量对蚊虫吸引影响

在BG-条件下, 添加0、1和2份干冰捕获白纹伊蚊雌蚊密度分别为10.0只、17.5只和18.0只, 捕获淡色库蚊雌蚊分别为1.0只、13.0只和18.0只, 三组比较差异有统计学意义（F=3.942, 13.881, P<0.05）, 但添加1份干冰和2份干冰捕获白纹伊蚊雌蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊, 差异无统计学意义（t=0.112, -0.540, P>0.05）。提示在获得同样监测效果的情况下, 使用100 mL/min流量能更节省使用成本。在CO2 -条件下, 添加0、1和2份BG引诱剂捕获白纹伊蚊和淡色库蚊雌蚊分别为10.0只、10.0只、9.5只和1.0只、1.0只、1.5只, 三组比较差异无统计学意义（F=0.120, 0.477, P>0.05）, 见表3。

表3 BG数量及CO2流量对蚊虫吸引影响 Table 3 Variance analysis of BG-lure quantity and CO2 flow on mosquito attraction without CO2
3 讨论

BG-trap最初是为收集热带地区登革热媒介伊蚊而研发[9, 10, 11], 但在北美[12]和欧洲[13, 14]的野外研究表明其在同时释放BG引诱剂和CO2时, 可提高捕蚊器诱捕效能[15], 位于巴西亚马逊地区[16]也支持添加CO2作为蚊子合成气味诱饵的基本元素, 并对收集其他蚊种方面也很有效, 如疟疾媒介及丝虫病媒介库蚊等[17]。

本研究通过现场测试提示, 使用BG-trap捕蚊器监测中, CO2诱蚊效果[16]优于BG引诱剂。在获得同样监测效果的情况下, 使用100 mL/min流量CO2能更节省使用成本。

无论在BG+或BG -引诱剂条件下, CO2+所捕获的雌蚊密度均明显高于CO2-组, 两者差异有统计学意义, 提示对雌蚊最重要的吸引物是CO2。与文献[18]广义估计方程模型所阐述一致, 并且该研究提示仅用引诱剂会低估蚊种的丰富度。此外, 值得注意的是, CO2 +组所捕获白纹伊蚊雄蚊密度是CO2-组的2（9.0/4.5）倍, 白纹伊蚊雄性虽不吸血, 但通常会在潜在宿主附近寻求雌性交配机会[19], 从而CO2对其有一定吸引力。尽管雄性白纹伊蚊并不吸血, 但他们会经垂直传播感染登革热和基孔肯雅热病毒, 并通过性传播使得雌性感染, 继而由雌蚊将病毒传染给人类。因此, 对白纹伊蚊雄蚊更有效的监测手段, 在登革热及基孔肯雅热防控中同样发挥巨大作用[2]。本研究中收集的大量白纹伊蚊雄蚊表明, 该方法能作为测量雄性动物扩散、交配行为和寿命的有效工具。Pombi 等[15]在意大利罗马的现场研究同样强调了CO2在蚊虫监测中起到了必不可少的作用, 尤其是BG引诱剂与CO2协同作用显著增加了雄性捕获量。

在CO2+/CO2-条件下, 添加BG引诱剂对蚊虫诱集效果无显著影响。在CO2-条件下, BG引诱剂数量对蚊虫诱集效果无显著影响, 但在BG-引诱剂状态下, 低流量的CO2（100 mL/min）对蚊虫已有良好的引诱效应, 这与李剑泉等研究结果一致[7]。凌超等[20]在浙江省探究不同CO2流量对BG-trap诱捕白纹伊蚊的现场试验结果表明白纹伊蚊捕获总数和白纹伊蚊雌蚊捕获数随着CO2流量的增加而增加, 在300 mL/min时达到峰值, 但高于300 mL/min后未见明显增加。因此, 使用100 mL/min流量能更节省使用成本。

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明不存在利益冲突

编辑：符式刚

参考文献
[1] FRANKLINOS L H V, JONES K E, REDDING D W, et al. The effect of global change on mosquito-borne disease[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2019, 19(9): e302-e312. [本文引用:1]
[2] TU T T, XIAO H S, LUO C, et al. Ecological surveillance analysis of dengue vector Aedes in Chongqing, 2020[J]. China Trop Med, 2021, 21(7): 667-669, 680. (in Chinese)
涂涛田, 肖汉森, 罗超, 等. 重庆市2020年登革热媒介伊蚊生态学监测[J]. 中国热带医学, 2021, 21(7): 667-669, 680. [本文引用:2]
[3] 国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 全国病媒生物监测方案[Z]. 北京: 国家卫生和计划生育委员会, 2020. [本文引用:1]
[4] HUANG R, SONG H Y, JIANG H. Study on the mosquito catching efficacy of BG-trap in field[J]. Chin J Hyg Insectic Equip, 2021, 27(3): 285-287. (in Chinese)
黄润, 宋洪允, 蒋洪. BG-trap诱捕器现场捕蚊效果研究[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2021, 27(3): 285-287. [本文引用:2]
[5] GU D A, SUN A J, XU Y, et al. Comparative observations on the outcomes of three devices in trapping adult Aedes[J]. J Trop Dis Parasitol, 2020, 18(3): 173-175, 164. (in Chinese)
顾灯安, 孙爱娟, 许圆, 等. 三种捕蚊器在伊蚊成蚊监测中的效果比较[J]. 热带病与寄生虫学, 2020, 18(3): 173-175, 164. [本文引用:1]
[6] WEI L Y, KONG Q X, WANG H M. Effectiveness of double mosquito net and BG-trap for emergency vector surveillance during dengue fever epidemics: a comparative study[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control, 2019, 30(1): 65-68. (in Chinese)
韦凌娅, 孔庆鑫, 王慧敏. 双层叠帐法与BG-trap诱捕器法在登革热应急蚊媒监测中的捕蚊效果比较[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2019, 30(1): 65-68. [本文引用:1]
[7] LI J Q, SHEN Z R, LIU Z Q. Comether function of carbon dioxide to Aedes albopictus[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control, 2003, 14(3): 165-167. (in Chinese)
李剑泉, 沈佐锐, 刘志桥. 二氧化碳对白纹伊蚊的引诱作用[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2003, 14(3): 165-167. [本文引用:2]
[8] 陆宝麟. 中国重要医学动物鉴定手册[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1982: 66-86. [本文引用:1]
[9] KROCKEL U, ROSE A, EIRAS A E, et al. New tools for surveillance of adult yellow fever mosquitoes: comparison of trap catches with human land ing rates in an urban environment[J]. J Am Mosq Control Assoc, 2006, 22(2): 229-238. [本文引用:1]
[10] MACIEL-DE-FREITAS R, EIRAS A E, LOURENÇO-DE-OLIVEIRA R. Field evaluation of effectiveness of the BG-Sentinel, a new trap for capturing adult Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)[J]. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 2006, 101(3): 321-325. [本文引用:1]
[11] MEERAUS W H, ARMISTEAD J S, ARIAS J R. Field comparison of novel and gold stand ard traps for collecting Aedes albopictus in northern Virginia[J]. J Am Mosquito Control Assoc, 2008, 24(2): 244-248. [本文引用:1]
[12] FARAJOLLAHI A, KESAVARAJU B, PRICE D C, et al. Field efficacy of BG-Sentinel and industry-stand ard traps for A edes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and West Nile virus surveillance[J]. J Med Entomol, 2009, 46(4): 919-925. [本文引用:1]
[13] DRAGO A, MARINI F, CAPUTO B, et al. Looking for the gold stand ard: assessment of the effectiveness of four traps for monitoring mosquitoes in Italy[J]. J Vector Ecol, 2012, 37(1): 117-123. [本文引用:1]
[14] LÜHKEN R, PFITZNER W P, BÖRSTLER J, et al. Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe[J]. Parasit Vectors, 2014, 7: 268. [本文引用:1]
[15] POMBI M, JACOBS F, VERHULST N O, et al. 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[J]. Parasit Vectors, 2014, 7: 580. [本文引用:2]
[16] MUKABANA W R, MWERESA C K, OTIENO B, et al. A novel synthetic odorant blend for trapping of malaria and other African mosquito species[J]. J Chem Ecol, 2012, 38(3): 235-244. [本文引用:2]
[17] DEGENER C M, EIRAS A E, AZARA T M F, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of mass trapping with BG-sentinel traps for dengue vector control: a cluster rand omized controlled trial in Manaus, Brazil[J]. J Med Entomol, 2014, 51(2): 408-420. [本文引用:1]
[18] VAN DE STRAAT B, HISCOX A, TAKKEN W, et al. Evaluating synthetic odours and trap designs for monitoring Anopheles farauti in Queensland , Australia[J]. Malar J, 2019, 18(1): 299. [本文引用:1]
[19] WU Y Y, WANG J N, LI T Q, et al. Effect of different carbon dioxide (CO2) flows on trapping Aedes albopictus with BG traps in the field in Zhejiang Province, China[J]. PLoS One, 2020, 15(12): e0243061. [本文引用:1]
[20] LING C, TAN J Y. Mosquito catching effect of mosquito trap lamps at two different CO2 flows[J]. Chin J Hyg Insectic Equip, 2020, 26(2): 123-124. (in Chinese)
凌超, 谭佳叶. 2种流量的CO2诱蚊灯捕蚊效果的比较[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2020, 26(2): 123-124. [本文引用:1]