Devices used for dispensing mosquito attractants.

<p>Panels A and B show attractants infused inside microcapsules supplied by Biogents Company encased in a plastic sachet (BG-Sachet) and plastic cartridge (BG-Cartridge), respectively. Panel C shows a batch of nylon strips, each soaked in solution of a different constituent of the synthetic attractant [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186696#pone.0186696.ref033" target="_blank">33</a>].</p

Results of pair-wise post hoc comparison using Tukey’s honestly significance tests (Tukey’s HSD).

<p>Howing similarities and differences between number of mosquitoes caught in traps baited with different lures (Panel A) and number of mosquitoes caught in traps baited with different lures dispensed from different media (Panel B).</p

Distribution and median number of <i>Anopheles arabiensis</i> recaptured per night using different trapping methods in the semi-field system.

<p>BGM = BG-Malaria trap; BGS = BG-Sentinel trap.</p

Schematic diagram of the trap positions and mosquito release points within the semi-field system.

<p>Set ups for experiments 1, 2 and 3, are shown in figure panels A, B and C, respectively. Trap positions are shown in circles, and mosquito release points in triangles. In all experiments, the treatment being tested was rotated between the test locations nightly.</p

Illustration of design and functionality of: (A) BG-Sentinel and (B) BG-Malaria.

<p>IF = Intake funnel; CB = Catch Bag; F = Fan; G = Gauze Cover; T = Tube; RC = Recipient of CO₂; OB = Odour Bait. Arrows indicate the direction of the airflow. Adapted from Kröckel <i>et al</i>., (2006) and Gama <i>et al</i>., (2013).</p

Insecticide susceptibility of F1 generation <i>An</i>. <i>funestus s</i>.<i>l</i>. and <i>An</i>. <i>gambiae s</i>.<i>l</i>. from Magude district, 2015–2018.

Italics are used to indicate suspected resistance (mortality 90–97%); bold numbers indicate confirmed resistance (mortality below 90%).</p

District-level IRS realized efficacy of the 2016 IRS campaign in Magude district.

Grey solid line: IRS effective coverage (household level). Black solid line: Realized IRS residual efficacy in the district considering IRS coverage, the pace of spraying, residual efficacy in mud and cement walls and the distribution of these wall types in the district. To illustrate the effect of adjusting residual efficacy by pace of spraying, the dashed and dotted dashed lines represent how residual efficacy would have evolved if it started to decay at the beginning or the end of the campaign, respectively. Vertical lines mark the date when the campaign started to kill more than 80% of the mosquitoes resting indoors and when it started to kill less than 80% again.</p

Reduction in the estimated duration of the 2016 IRS campaign residual efficacy after adjusting for wall type distribution, pace of household spraying and IRS coverage.

Reduction in the estimated duration of the 2016 IRS campaign residual efficacy after adjusting for wall type distribution, pace of household spraying and IRS coverage.</p

Map of the study areas.

Villages/neighborhoods in Magude and Manhiça districts where adult mosquitoes were collected for insecticide resistance monitoring and/or WHO cone bioassays to evaluate the residual efficacy of Actellic® 300CS. The subnational administrative boundaries were obtained from the Humanitarian Data Exchange (https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-moz) under a CC-BY-IGO license (https://data.humdata.org/faqs/licenses).</p

Raw uncorrected mortality data for mosquitoes from all WHO cone bioassays conducted in Magude district from 2016 to 2018.

(XLSX)</p