Table 3.

Results of experimental hut evaluation of the protective efficacy of the transfluthrin treated eave ribbons fitted along the eave-spaces of the huts

Mosquito species	Nights	Micro-climatic conditions**		Intervention	Indoor mosquito collection				Outdoor mosquito collection	%Pe
		Average Temp (°C)	Average %RH		Window Trap	%Pe	Resting Trap	%Pe	Min-double net-Trap
					Mean [LCI-UCI] 95%		Mean [LCI-UCI] 95%		Mean [LCI-UCI] 95%
Anopheles gambiae	16	22.9	73.1	Control	13.11 [12.1–14.1]	Ref	0.23 [0.1–0.4]	Ref	7.95 [7.2–8.8]	Ref
	16	22.9	73.1	Treatment	0.54 [0.0–1.3]	96%	0.14 [0.0–0.3]	39%	1.26 [1.1–1.4]	84%
Anopheles funestus	16	22.9	73.1	Control	3.6 [3.4–3.8]	Ref	0.47 [0.4–0.5]	Ref	1.0 [0.2–0.7]	Ref
	16	22.9	73.1	Treatment	2.1 [2.0–2.2]	42%	0.16 [0.1–0.3]	66%	0.60 [0.3–0.6]	40%
Other Anopheles species##	16	22.9	73.1	Control	0.7 [0.1–0.2]	Ref	0.03 [0.0–0.1]	Ref	3.33 [3.3–3.4]	Ref
	16	22.9	73.1	Treatment	0.27 [0.0–0.2]	61%	0.06 [0.0–0.2]	− 10%	1.50 [1.4–1.6]	55%
Culex species	16	22.9	73.1	Control	73.8 [71.5–76.1]	Ref	7.08 [5.7–8.5]	Ref	30.6 [28.9–32.3]	Ref
	16	22.9	73.1	Treatment	51.3 [49.3–53.3]	30%	5.73 [4.7–6.8]	19%	19.23 [18.3–20.3]	37%

Assessment of biting risk was conducted outdoors using human-occupied double net traps and indoors using both exit window traps and Prokopack^® Aspirator

** represents the average temperature and relative humidity in the huts which were averaged over the entire duration of the study

## represent other Anopheles species caught during the study which are Anopheles coustani, Anopheles pharoensis, Anopheles welcommei and Anopheles squamosus