Table 5.

Summary of the results for the evaluation of different doses of transfluthrin used in emanators across different species of Anopheles mosquitoes in the Ifakara large ambient chamber test, as measured using a landing method (human landing catch; HLC) and a biting method (blood-feeding)

Mosquito species	Dosage	Landing experimenta			Biting experimentb			IRR landing vs biting
		IRR (95% CI)	P-value	%PE (1-1RR)	IRR (95% CI)	P-value	%PE (1-1RR)	IRR (95% CI)	P-value
Overall	Overall							0.87 (0.81–0.93)	< 0.001
	Control							0.90 (0.82–0.97)	0.01
	Transfluthrin							0.82 (0.74–0.91)	< 0.001
Anopheles gambiae (Ifakara strain)	0 g	1.00			1.00			1
	5 g	0.65 (0.47–0.88)	0.01	35	0.60 (0.44–0.82)	0.01	40	0.77 (0.63–0.94)	0.01
	10 g	0.55 (0.40–0.72)	0.01	45	0.46 (0.33–0.66)	0.01	34
	15 g	0.52 (0.38–0.72)	0.01	48	0.51 (0.36–0.74)	0.01	49
	20 g	0.41 (0.28–0.61)	0.01	59	0.31 (0.11–0.51)	0.01	69
Anopheles gambiae (Kisumu strain; KDR)	0	1.00			1.00			1
	5 g	0.56 (0.41–0.77)	0.01	44	0.68 (0.50–0.93)	0.01	32	0.97 (0.80–1.17)	> 0.05
	10 g	0.59 (0.43–0.81)	0.01	41	0.57 (0.41–0.81)	0.01	43
	15 g	0.46 (0.32–0.65)	0.01	54	0.48 (0.34–0.69)	0.01	52
	20 g	0.44 (0.32–0.64)	0.01	56	0.46 (0.31–0.69)	0.01	54
Anopheles funestus	0	1.00			1.00			1
	5 g	0.76 (0.57–1.00)	0.01	34	0.70 (0.53–0.95)	0.01	30	0.75 (0.63–0.89)	< 0.001
	10 g	0.70 (0.52–0.92)	0.01	30	0.56 (0.40–0.77)	0.01	44
	15 g	0.68 (0.50–0.90)	0.01	32	0.50 (0.36–0.69)	0.01	50
	20 g	0.43 (0.30–0.62)	0.01	57	0.40 (0.26–0.60)	0.01	60

Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was adjusted for temperature, humidity, volunteer, and compartment

CI Confidence interval

^aEstimated by comparison between the treatment and the control for each dose of transfluthrin used in the HLC method

^bEstimated using the model comparing the transfluthrin treatment and control for the biting method, in which the mosquitoes were allowed to interact with the human volunteers and blood-feed