Table 3.
|
Scenario 1 |
Scenario 2 |
Scenario 1 + 2 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ECDC
1
|
ExoSurv
2
|
ECDC
1
|
ExoSurv
2
|
ECDC
1
|
ExoSurv
2
|
||
Total | Post-doc | Technician | ||||||
Field investigations |
101 |
41 |
20 |
41 |
121 |
82 |
24 |
58 |
Laboratory investigations
3
|
13 |
26 |
67 |
22 |
80 |
48 |
35 |
13 |
Data processing |
4 |
7 |
35 |
12 |
39 |
19 |
11 |
8 |
Communication/dissemination |
4 |
22 |
31 |
44 |
35 |
66 |
41 |
25 |
Total surveillance workload |
122 |
96 |
153 |
119 |
275 |
215 |
111 |
104 |
Preparatory phase |
|
33 |
|
13 |
|
46 |
21 |
25 |
Total workload |
|
129 |
|
132 |
|
261 |
132 |
129 |
Available wd 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
242 |
121 |
121 |
Extra wd 2012 | 19 | 11 | 8 |
1Four months surveillance, including communication and dissemination, excluding preparatory phase (following scenario 1 & 2, without adjustment for trap density).
2One month preparation (Jun-Jul, preparatory phase), four months surveillance (Jul-Oct) and two months communication and dissemination (Nov-Dec).
3Workload for laboratory investigations was divided between scenario 1 & 2 based on the number of tubes with adults and larvae, and of polystyrene pieces checked (PoE = 54%, IMS-colonised areas = 46%).