1. Evaluation of Prototype Dry Ice Substitutes for Mosquito Trapping Brian Zeichner Rich Wells MAJ Steve Richards Tom Burroughs Robyn Lee The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Departments of Army, Defense or the U.S. Government. Use of a commercial product name does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

2. Four Trap Types ABC Light Trap, dry ice Granular Media CO2 Sachets –Mixture of two dry powders TOM Trap –Dry ingredients activated with water

3. Four Trap Types Continued ABC Light Trap Augmented with Yeast Generated CO2

4. Maryland Costal Plain, Wooded Area Adjacent September 03 5 sets of 4, 4 nights, each trap in each location –ABC with CO2 and gravid trap –ABC with Sachet –ABC with TOM –TOM alone (Biter Fighter)

5. Statistical Results – 03 Trap TypeOverall Mean ABC with CO2 22.7 Gravid3.9 ABC with Sachet 6.5 ABC with TOM 2.3 TOM Alone0.3 37% Aedes, 32% Culex, 23% Anopheles ABC with CO2 caught significantly more mosquitoes and a greater number of species than all others No significant difference between Gravid, ABC with Sachet, or ABC with TOM TOM alone caught significantly less

6. Maryland Costal Plain, Wooded Area 04 3 sets of 5, 15 nights, each trap in each location –ABC with CO2 –ABC Alone –ABC with Sachet –ABC with TOM –TOM alone

7. 2004 TRAP TYPE Days Total 123456789101112131415 ABC w/ CO211820444179540561311226 041001 ABC Alone6543128231106126820530312 SACHET-ABC64518172110 49006070316 TOM-ABC472961591537232003610256 TOM00000000910000010 Grand Total29633871123691382524312624271341938

8. Trap TypeOverall Mean ABC with CO2 66.7 ABC Alone20.8 ABC with Sachet 21.1 ABC with TOM 17.1 TOM Alone0.7 Three Factor ANOVA 46% Culex, 36% Coquillettidia, 10% Anopheles ABC w/CO2 was significantly different P< 0.05 No difference between ABC alone and sachet or TOM TOM alone significantly different 2004

9. 2003 – 2004 Summary 65 Trap Nights Trap Type 0304 Mean Per Night % of ABC CO2 Mean Per Night % of ABC CO2 ABC with CO222.710066.7100 ABC Alone--20.831.2 ABC with Sachet6.528.621.131.6 ABC with TOM2.310.117.125.6 TOM Alone0.31.30.71.9

10. Summary Despite a lack of consistent weather and some trap malfunctions A total of 65 trap nights per trap type indicates: – neither the Sachet or TOM is a replacement for CO2 – in fact, neither resulted in more mosquitoes caught than the ABC alone for the Edgewood species Additional testing not planned Their use not recommended without confirmation of efficacy

11. Yeast Generated CO2 Saitoh Y, et. al. J. Am Mosq Control Assoc., 20(3):261-264 –290g sugar –21g yeast (3 packets) –2.9 liters water –1 gallon (4 liter) capacity container with a tube run to the CO2 gas connection of the light trap.

12. Maryland Costal Plane, Wooded Area July – August 2004 3 sets of 3, 6 nights, traps rotated daily –ABC with CO2 –ABC Alone –ABC Augmented with yeast produced CO2

13. Trap TypeOverall Mean Overall Total %An. Mean An. Total % ABC with Dry Ice 31356321003.563100 ABC with Yeast 1592698484.373116 ABC alone611031184.373116 Significant difference between overall mean of all three. Tukey’s multiple comparison test, p <.01 No difference in number of anophelines 2005

14. Significant correlations between temperature, and light traps without augmentation and light traps with yeast generated CO2, p<0.05, but not with dry ice generated CO2 Temperature impacts the amount of CO2 yeast produces DayAveDusk-DawnDuskDawn 25 Jul83808777 26 Jul85828878 27 Jul78737469 1 Aug76737969 2 Aug82788674 3 Aug81778773

15. Summary Yeast generated CO2 improved collections, but only about half as much as dry ice generated CO2. Neither dry ice or yeast CO2 augmentation increased anopheline captures at our site. Cooler weather may reduce the efficacy of yeast generated CO2 augmentation.