白蛉人工光诱法与油纸法比较  

Comparison of sandfly surveillance methods of human-light and oil-paper

作　　者：顾灯安[1,2] 左新平[3] 兰勤娴[1] 伊斯拉音·乌斯曼[3] 张仪[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国疾病预防控制中心寄生虫病预防控制所,卫生部寄生虫病原与媒介生物学重点实验室,世界卫生组织疟疾、血吸虫病和丝虫病合作中心,上海.200025 [2]苏州市疾病预防控制中心,苏州215004 [3]新疆维吾尔自治区疾病预防控制中心,乌鲁木齐830002

出　　处：《国际医学寄生虫病杂志》2011年第5期277-280,共4页International JOurnal of Medical Parasitic Diseases

基　　金：基金项目：重要寄生虫病监测与检测技术研究（2008ZXl0004~11）

摘　　要：目的比较人工光诱法和油纸法两种白蛉监测方法的适用范围以及各自的优劣，为科学评价其监测结果提供依据。方法分别比较了人房、畜圈、农田、果园和荒地等处油纸法捕获率的差异，在人房和野外以及不同人员人工光诱法捕获率的差异，着重观察了有无光照对油纸法的影响。结果人工光诱法捕获率较高，平均每小时捕获数为42～405只；熟练培训的捕蛉人在人房和野外捕获白蛉数量差异有统计学意义。油纸法容易受灯光的影响。无光照时，捕获率较低，平均每张油纸捕获数仅为0～4只；有光照时，晚间白蛉集中在距离光源1m范围内活动，1m外则受光照影响甚微。结论人工光诱法捕获率高，适合多种环境监测；油纸法捕获率低，更适宜在有光照下作为白蛉监测方法。Objective To compare the application scale of human-light and oil-paper methods, in order to provide scientific reference for evaluating surveillance results. Methods The variation capturing rates of oil-paper meth^t were compared in housing, livestock shed, farm field, garden and wilderness, and the variation capturing rates of human-light method in housing, field and by different capturers were compared, especially the effect with or without light to oil-paper method were also observed. Results The number of captured sandfly was 42 to 405 per hour when using human-light method. The number of captured sandfly in housing and field showed significant difference by different trained capturer. Oil-paper method was susceptible to light, just about 0 to 4 sandfly could be captured without light. Sandfly would like gathering within 1 meter away from the light at night, however, light had little effect on sandfly beyond 1 meter from light source. Conclusion The capturing rates of human-light method were higher, it＇s adapted to more environments. The capturing rates of oil-paper method was lower, and more suitable to use in the condition with light.

关 键 词：白蛉 监测 人工光诱法 油纸法 

分 类 号：R384.1[医药卫生—医学寄生虫学]