ABSTRACT

Mosquitoes pose health risks to human populations by serving as vectors of diseases. Mosquito control organizations are responsible for inspecting and controlling vector populations to reduce the risk of infection of these diseases. Current sampling methods are effective for numerous types of mosquito habitat, but not conducive for sampling small overhead habitat such as roof gutters or tree holes. We have developed and tested a tool called the Mosquito GutterSnipe to sample these overhead habitats. Volumetric and larval capacity testing of the tool prototype demonstrated comparable sampling integrity to standard mosquito dipping methods. The GutterSnipe can be employed as a reliable way to sample previously overlooked mosquito habitat. Its current model is cost effective and easy to produce for mosquito control organizations and easy to use for inspectors.

Mosquitoes employ a diverse selection of breeding habitats, both naturally occurring and man-made. Habitat types ranging from cattail wetlands and tree holes to standing water in catch basins and waste containers all offer ideal reproductive conditions for numerous species of mosquitoes (Fincke et al. 1997, Muturi et al. 2007). While all habitats are researched and controlled in consideration of mosquito-borne disease prevention, focal habitat type will vary by area based on other surrounding environmental factors. These factors help to direct funding, resources, and time allocated toward higher risk habitat types for vector population control (Nasci et al. 2001, Evans et al. 2018, Ng et al. 2019). This does not mean that smaller or less researched mosquito habitats cannot produce disease-bearing mosquito vectors or overwhelming populations of mosquitoes (Yanoviak 2001a, 2001b).

Some man-made structures are successful mimics to some of the less investigated mosquito habitats, and many require further study for proper health risk assessments. One such habitat includes roof gutters on buildings or shelters (Sota et al.1994, Saleza et al. 2011). Acknowledged but often overlooked, roof gutters can become dammed with leaves, sticks, and other debris or runoff from roofs and lead to failed drainage in wet conditions (Troyo et al. 2008, Parker and Allan 2019). The standing water can serve as habitat if roof gutters remain unchecked, allowing various species of mosquitoes to use it for reproduction, such as Aedes aegypti (L.), Ae. albopictus (Skuse), Limatus durhamii Theobald, Ae. notoscriptus (Skuse), Ae. sierrensis (Ludlow), and Culex spp. (Goddard et al. 2002, Montgomery and Ritchie 2002, Calderón-Arguedas et al. 2009). As a result of increased habitat and increased reproductive potential, risk for the development of mosquito-borne diseases also increases (Goddard et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005, Hemingway et al. 2006).

The importance of surveying gutter habitats is understood, but appropriate sampling methods for this unique location and form of the habitat are often challenging to perform. In standard mosquito inspection practice, specialized long-handled 400-ml ladles (dippers) and pipets are the most common sampling tools (Andis et al.1983 Claborn et al. 2018, Dinh and Noval 2018, Ostrum and Mutebi 2019). Observational inspections are another inspection method (Montgomery and Ritchie 2002, Calderón-Arguedas et al. 2009, Saleeza et al. 2011, Haas-Stapleton et al. 2019). Combinations of the listed techniques have been employed when studying mosquito gutter habitat, but no uniform methodology that is safe, effective, and time efficient has been defined at present (Slaff et al. 1983, Rajarethinam et al. 2020). To address this, we developed and tested a tool prototype designed to allow mosquito inspectors to access roof gutters and other overhead mosquito habitats that would typically be out of an inspector's reach: Mosquito GutterSnipe.

The GutterSnipe is a dowel-mounted siphon operated by a simple lever that uses a modified baster as the means of sample collection. It comprises mainly poplar dowels, metal fasteners, bolts, and screw eyes, and colored mason line. The tool's body measures 31.75 cm (12.5 in.) in length, 22.86 cm (9 in.) in height, and 10.16 cm (4 in.) in width in a non-space-filling volume with the plunger depressed. When a baster is inserted into the frontal screw eye, it can extend down to 19.05 cm (7.5 in.) below the bottom surface of the body. When assembled, the GutterSnipe is 0.63 kg (1.39 lb). The handle may vary in length, but all handles must have circular ends with a 1.91 cm (0.75 in.) diam. Strong adhesives are required to modify the baster by depressing the bulb in on itself and cementing the crease. Adhesives may also be used to help cement connections or fasteners and prevent loosening of the plunger (Fig. 1; see also https://youtu.be/OQMQxjgXMpg).

Fig. 1.

Display of the Mosquito GutterSnipe prototype. (A) Main body of the apparatus. Other components were excluded to give finer detail on the body. (B) Full Mosquito GutterSnipe disassembled. Mosquito dip cup included in photo as an example of a container into which samples can be dispensed from the GutterSnipe for finer inspection. (C) Detailed view of the modified baster used in the Mosquito GutterSnipe. The bulb was cemented and compressed but was not cemented to the plastic tube component of the baster.

Fig. 1.

Display of the Mosquito GutterSnipe prototype. (A) Main body of the apparatus. Other components were excluded to give finer detail on the body. (B) Full Mosquito GutterSnipe disassembled. Mosquito dip cup included in photo as an example of a container into which samples can be dispensed from the GutterSnipe for finer inspection. (C) Detailed view of the modified baster used in the Mosquito GutterSnipe. The bulb was cemented and compressed but was not cemented to the plastic tube component of the baster.

The GutterSnipe prototype was designed to be cost effective, easy to modify, and easy to repair and maintain. Materials for building the prototype can be acquired at hardware stores. In many cases, more than enough materials are included with the packaged source materials, further increasing the cost-effective production of the GutterSnipe (Table 1).

Table 1.

Categorized quantities and cost of Mosquito GutterSnipe components. Due to packaging, some supplies were purchased in excess. Parenthetical values in the “Amount needed” column indicate the specific amount of partial material needed from the package and were used when calculating the cost per tool.

Categorized quantities and cost of Mosquito GutterSnipe components. Due to packaging, some supplies were purchased in excess. Parenthetical values in the “Amount needed” column indicate the specific amount of partial material needed from the package and were used when calculating the cost per tool.
Categorized quantities and cost of Mosquito GutterSnipe components. Due to packaging, some supplies were purchased in excess. Parenthetical values in the “Amount needed” column indicate the specific amount of partial material needed from the package and were used when calculating the cost per tool.

The GutterSnipe was tested in both laboratory and field settings. Volumetric tests were performed in the field to compare sampling methods and determine uptake volume, whereas larvae sample tests were performed in a laboratory setting. Volume potential was tested by taking samples from wetland habitat using only the baster part of the tool in hand and immediately measuring the contents, using the GutterSnipe and immediately measuring the contents, and using the GutterSnipe and waiting 5 sec before measuring the sample contents. Respectively, these categories of measurements served as volumetric control, maximum potential, and simulated-use results. Additionally, volumetric tests were conducted at 3 separate field sites in Fridley, Minnesota, and were categorized by qualitative environmental factors, particularly visual water clarity. Sites 1, 2, and 3 were selected based on respective decreasing water clarity.

Larval sampling tests were conducted by drawing samples from premeasured Culex pipiens L.–burdened containers and counting the numbers of larvae drawn up by the GutterSnipe. Three containers of larvae-infested water were tested: 325 ml with a depth of 8.16 cm, 1.81 liter with a depth of 1.9 cm, and 1.93 liter with a depth of 12.5 cm; respectively; these containers represented sampling control, wet habitat, and flooded habitat. All larval test conditions were conducted with a stock larval count of 488 mosquito larvae. Findings from volumetric and larval testing were analyzed statistically using analyses of variance (ANOVA) conducted in the program R (R Core Team 2020).

A total of 270 dips were measured when assessing the volumetric potential of the GutterSnipe. These were subdivided by site, sample type, or both (90 dips, 90 dips, or 30 dips respectively). Using ANOVA tests, mean dip volumes were compared by site (F = 1.105, P = 0.333) and showed no significance between any of the 3 sites sampled. Volumes were also compared by sample type (F = 49.75, P < 0.001) and showed significance between the tested sampling methods. Further analysis with a Tukey HSD post hoc test showed that the control, no wait, and 5-sec wait sampling methods were all significantly different from one another (P < 0.001).

A total of 300 dips were taken when assessing the larval sampling potential of the GutterSnipe. These were categorized by the container from which the samples were siphoned (control, wet, and flooded habitat simulations). Average larval sample sizes were compared by simulated habitat type (F = 20.89, P < 0.001). Further analysis with a TukeyHSD post hoc test showed that samples collected from the flooded habitat showed statistically significant differences from both the control (P < 0.001) and wet habitats (P < 0.001). However, a comparison of the control to the wet habitat did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (P = 0.57).

Both the volumetric potential and larval sampling capability results were compared to determine an overall sampling rate estimate. Based on the average 5-sec-wait volume (simulating field use of the GutterSnipe; 28.51 ml), the overall larval sampling average (9.01 siphoned larvae), and common habitat sampling procedure, the GutterSnipe has an average calculated sampling rate of 3.16 mosquitoes/dip.

The GutterSnipe allows mosquito inspectors to collect samples easily and inspect them with greater scrutiny than other available sampling methods. It provides an easier and safer alternative to climbing up to the overhead mosquito habitat or attempting to bring it down and collect samples. Additionally, it is a less invasive manner of data collection, especially on or near privately owned properties (Focks 2003).

The tool exhibited an average maximum potential volume of 41.20 ml of water drawn up by suction, but this maximum volume is not commonly achieved with normal use of the tool. Mosquito dippers are expected to collect a maximum volume of approximately 350 ml of water but will realistically gather less volume in field samples (Andis et al. 1983, Dinh and Novak 2018, Harbison et al. 2018). This indicates that, like mosquito dippers, the GutterSnipe has high volumetric potential but in realistic use will not reach this value due to intricacies of sampling techniques. It is important to consider for the effect on the overall sampling potential of the GutterSnipe.

Standard mosquito dippers perform best in moderately deep water such that the cup can be completely submerged in the body with the base parallel to the water's surface. In shallower bodies of water, rotation of the cup and use of additional pressure to retrieve water samples is often required and can impact the sampling rate in some cases. Additionally, the cup's large size and shape can make it difficult to acquire samples from small sections of habitat or areas with small entry points (Focks 2003). The Mosquito GutterSnipe is ideal for reaching confined mosquito habitat with its narrow baster and suction action. In a laboratory setting, larval samples from simulated flooded habitat were significantly different from both the control and wet habitat simulations. However, there was no statistical difference between the control and wet habitats, indicating the GutterSnipe performs more effectively in small shallow habitat types. In testing, the GutterSnipe retrieved the least number of larvae from the flooded habitat (4.54 mosquitoes/dip), which was significantly less than the averages for the control and wet environments (9.42 mosquitoes/dip and 8.41 mosquitoes/dip, respectively). The GutterSnipe is less effective in conditions where a standard dipper would be used. Instead, it is better for sampling confined habitat types holding smaller volumes of water.

Larval sampling with a dipper seeks to obtain a sampling rate greater than or equal to an established risk threshold (Focks 2003). Mosquito dippers are expected to find a minimum average of 2 mosquito larvae per dip in appropriate habitat. The estimated sampling rate for field use of the GutterSnipe was able to meet this threshold expectation in a laboratory test setting calculated at 3.16 mosquitoes retrieved per dip. In a field application, it is likely this value will be closer to the established 2 mosquitoes/dip rate considering environmental factors such as water cleanliness and volume.

It should be noted that the Mosquito GutterSnipe is amenable to further modifications and improvements. Potential modifications include telescopic poles in place of the static dowel handle, a grip at the end of the pull string, simple pulleys to help guide the pull string, use of static or telescoping dowels in place of the pull string so the plunger can both be set and used while the tool is overhead, and a hinge system on the baster attachment so the tool can increase its range of motion for particularly hard-to-reach standing water. Despite any future changes, the purpose of the GutterSnipe remains to expand on current mosquito inspection methods by sampling a unique overlooked habitat type in a safe and time-effective manner.

We thank D. Dirkswager and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Mosquito Control District for assistance and resources for working on the GutterSnipe prototype. We thank A. Fallon for providing mosquito larvae for testing and J. Lundquist and P. J. Leonard for assistance with prototype testing and construction.

REFERENCES CITED

Andis
MD,
Meek
CL,
Wright
VL.
1983
.
Bionomics of Louisiana riceland mosquito larvae I. A comparison of sampling techniques
.
Mosq News
43
:
195
203
.
Calderón-Arguedas
O,
Troyo
A,
Solano
ME,
Avendaño
A,
Beier
JC.
2009
.
Urban mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) of dengue endemic communities in the Greater Puntarenas area, Costa Rica
.
Int J Trop Biol
57
:
1223
1234
.
Claborn
DM,
Poiry
M,
Famutimi
OD,
Duitsman
D,
Thomson
KR.
2018
.
A survey of mosquitoes in southern and western Missouri
.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
34
:
131
133
.
Dinh
ETN,
Novak
RJ.
2018
.
Diversity and abundance of mosquitoes inhabiting waste tires in a subtropical swamp in urban Florida
.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
34
:
47
49
.
Evans
MV,
Murdock
CC,
Drake
JM.
2018
.
Anticipating emerging mosquito-borne flaviviruses in the United States: what comes after Zika?
Trends Parasitol
34
:
544
547
.
Fincke
OM,
Yanoviak
SP,
Hanschu
RD.
1997
.
Predation by odonates depresses mosquito abundance in water-filled tree holes in Panama
.
Oecologia
112
:
244
253
.
Focks
DA.
2003
.
A review of entomological sampling methods and indicators for dengue vectors
.
TDR News
document TDR/IDE/Den/03.1.
Goddard
LB,
Roth
AE,
Reisen
WK,
Scott
TW.
2002
.
Vector competence of California mosquitoes for West Nile Virus
.
J Emerg Infect Dis
8
:
1385
1391
.
Haas-Stapleton
E,
Barretto
MC,
Castillo
EB,
Clausnitzer
RJ,
Ferdan
RL.
2019
.
Assessing mosquito breeding sites and abundance using an unmanned aircraft
.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
35
:
228
232
.
Harbison
JE,
Nasci
R,
Runde
A,
Henry
M,
Binnall
J,
Hulsebosch
B,
Rutkowski
N,
Johnson
H,
Uelmen
J,
Bradley
M,
Newton
G,
Irwin
P,
Bartlett
D,
Ruiz
MO.
2018
.
Standardized operational evaluations of catch basin larvicides from seven mosquito control programs in the midwestern United States during 2017
.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
34
:
107
116
.
Hemingway
J,
Beaty
BJ,
Rowland
M,
Scott
TW,
Sharp
BL.
2006
The Innovative Vector Control Consortium: improved control of mosquito-borne diseases
.
Trends Parasitol
22
:
308
312
.
Montgomery
BL,
Ritchie
SA.
2002
.
Roof gutters: a key container for Aedes aegypti and Ochlerotatus notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia
.
Am J Trop Med Hyg
67
:
244
246
.
Muturi
EJ,
Mwangangi
J,
Shililu
J,
Muriu
S,
Jacob
B,
Mbogo
C,
John
G,
Novak
R.
2007
.
Evaluation of four sampling techniques for surveillance of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) and other mosquitoes in African rice agroecosystems
.
J Med Entomol
44
:
503
508
.
Nasci
RS,
Savage
HM,
White
DJ,
Miller
JR,
Cropp
BC,
Godsey
MS,
Kerst
AJ,
Bennett
P,
Gottfried
K,
Lanciotti
RS.
2001
.
West Nile Virus in overwintering Culex mosquitoes, New York City, 2000
.
J Emerg Infect Dis
7
:
742
744
.
Ng
V,
Rees
EE,
Lindsay
LR,
Drebot
MA,
Brownstone
T,
Sadeghieh
T,
Khan
SU.
2019
.
Could exotic mosquito-borne diseases emerge in Canada with climate change?
Can Commun Dis Rep
45
:
98
107
.
Ostrum
ER,
Mutebi
J.
2019
.
New county records of Aedes aegypti and Aedes epactius in Colorado
.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
35
:
47
50
.
Parker
AT,
Allan
BF.
2019
.
Do gutter guards affect mosquito production in roof gutter habitats?
J Am Mosq Control Assoc
35
:
67
70
.
Rajarethinam
J,
Ong
J,
Neo
Z,
Ng
L,
Aik
J.
2020
.
Distribution and seasonal fluctuations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus larval and pupae in residential areas in an urban landscape
.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis
14
:
1
14
.
R Core Team
(2020)
.
R: a language and environment for statistical computing
.
Vienna, Austria
:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing
.
Saleza
SNR,
Norma-Rashid
Y,
Sofian-Azirun
M.
2011
.
Mosquitoes larval breeding habitat in urban and suburban areas, peninsular Malaysia
.
World Acad Sci Eng Tech
58
:
569
573
.
Slaff
M,
Wayne
J,
McGuiston
C,
McGuiston
LJ.
1983
.
A comparison of three mosquito sampling techniques in northwestern New Jersey
.
Mosq News
43
:
287
290
.
Sota
T,
Mogi
M,
Hayamizu
E.
1994
.
Habitat stability and the larval mosquito community in treeholes and other containers on a temperate island
.
Res Popul Ecol
36
:
93
104
.
Troyo
A,
Calderón-Arguedas
O,
Fuller
DO,
Solano
ME,
Avendaño
A,
Arheart
KL,
Chadee
DD,
Beier
JC.
2008
.
Seasonal profiles of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larval habitats in an urban area of Costa Rica with a history of mosquito control
.
J Vector Ecol
33
:
76
88
.
Turell
MJ,
Dohm
DJ,
Sardelis
MR,
O'Guinn
ML,
Andreadis
TG,
Blow
JA.
2005
.
An update on the potential of North American mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit West Nile Virus
.
J Med Entomol
42
:
57
62
.
Yanoviak
SP.
2001
a.
Predation, resource availability, and community structure in Neotropical water-filled tree holes
.
Oecologia
126
:
125
133
.
Yanoviak
SP.
2001
b.
The macrofauna of water-filled tree holes on Barro Colorado Island, Panama
.
Biotropica
33
:
110
120
.