Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2010 Aug 5;83(2):230–240. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0179

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2010 by The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene's Re-use License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 5. — Effects of three intervention strategies, applied singly, on the host-biting rate and EIR in an epidemiological setting based on Namawala, Tanzania, with baseline and intervention-modified parameter values shown in Tables 3 and 4 and described in the Appendix. The plots on the right represent an average member of the human population. The plots on the left show the human population divided into two groups: the curves with squares represent the humans that are protected by a malaria-control intervention, and curves with circles represent the unprotected humans in a population partially protected by a malaria-control intervention. Because IRS with bendiocarb does not provide personal protection, the protected and unprotected humans have the same EIR and host-biting rate, and therefore, we only show one curve. The intervention coverage does not start at 0 but slightly above 0; where the curves appear to touch the y axis, one individual is protected. (A) The host-biting rate, as a function of intervention coverage, measures the number of mosquito bites per person per day. Note that for IRS with DDT, while the host-biting rate increases for both protected and unprotected humans as coverage increases, since the proportion of protected humans increases, the host-biting rate for the average human decreases. (B) The EIR, as a function of intervention coverage, measures the number of infectious bites per person per year. We see the community effects of both ITNs and IRS with DDT, because increasing coverage reduces the EIR for both protected and unprotected humans. At any coverage level, IRS with DDT is not as effective as the use of ITNs, which are not as effective as IRS with bendiocarb, in reducing transmission. We again see that coverage over 80% of IRS with bendiocarb interrupts transmission. This figure appears in color at www.ajtmh.org.