See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274065283

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS IN THE

CONTROL OF DENGUE MOSQUITO VECTOR,
Aedes aegypti

Conference Paper October 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 707

2 authors:

Thaddeus Carvajal Kozo Watanabe

Ehime University Ehime University
17 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 217 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diversity of Pink Pigmented Facultative Methylotrophic bacteria from Various Sources in the
Philippines View project

Risk Mapping and Modeling of Dengue using Environmental Determinants View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thaddeus Carvajal on 26 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS IN THE
CONTROL OF DENGUE MOSQUITO VECTOR,
Aedes aegypti
Carvajal, Thaddeus M. 1, 2, and Watanabe Kozo1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering - Ehime University, Matsuyama, Japan
2
Biology Department De La Salle University, Taft Ave Manila, Philippines

Received Date: September 30, 2014

Abstract
Dengue fever is considered as a rapidly emerging arthropod-borne viral disease all over the
world especially in the Philippines resulting in severe illness, possibly death, and economic
burden to society and disruption of quality of life. In the absence of an available vaccine and
specific treatment for use by the general population, dengue prevention is largely focused in
controlling its main principal vector, Aedes aegypti and implicated secondary vector, Ae.
albopictus. The biology and distribution of these mosquito vectors are greatly affected by
several environmental determinants namely; (1) type of household (2) vegetation (3) climatic
conditions (4) artificial water-holding containers (5) population density and (6) affected flood
prone areas. Here we discuss the roles of each environmental or condition and its impact
towards the spread and epidemiology of Dengue in Metro Manila. It also highlights
modifiable measures of the environmental determinants that may be utilized in the prevention
and control of Dengue.

Keywords: Dengue, Aedes aegypti, Environmental determinants, vector control

INTRODUCTION
The presence and occurrence of Aedes aegypti in urban communities has been a public health
concern. The importance of such has been implicated for its role as a vector of a main
mosquito-borne disease in the Philippines known as Dengue. With this, vector control of Ae.
aegypti remains to be the only strategy against this dreaded disease. Even with these
strategies for vector control laid down by the WHO, the fundamental biology of the vector
has been investigated continuously namely the bionomics, ecology and its developmental
biology despite changes in the climate and urbanization. Aedes aegypti is a holometabolous
mosquito and has a general life cycle of more or less two weeks under ideal conditions from
egg, larvae, pupa and adult. According to Beng-Chuan et al. (2007), the life history of this
mosquito species rest upon many environmental determinants. Hence the primary aim of this
paper is to outline the environmental determinants that may affect the biology of the
mosquito vector and its relation to its disease spread. The presentation is a combination of the
results obtained from our studies in the past three years and may help better understand the
Dengue vector in Metro Manila. The environmental determinants are as follows: (1) Presence
of Artificial Water-Holding Containers, (2) Vegetation, (3) Households, (4) Climatic
Conditions and Flood Prone Areas and (5) Population Density. Emphasis towards modifying
these environmental determinants may help in the control of the mosquito vector.

POPULATION DENSITY AND DENGUE INCIDENCE

Metro Manila is the capital of the Republic of the Philippines and is officially called the
National Capital Region (NCR). It is populous, urbanized and the most densely populated
having over eleven million (11,855,975) of Philippines ninety-two billion (92,337,852)
people (NSO, 2012). It has a land area of six hundred thirty six (636) sq. kilometers
accounting for approximately 0.2 per cent of the countrys total land area (Ragragio, 2003).
The metropolis is divided into 17 cities and 1,687 barangays. Because of the highly urbanized
and populous area of this region, it has the highest recorded number of dengue vases in the
Philippines. Metro Manila have selected areas with very high crowding index especially
those areas wherein barong-barong occurs. With this, diseases can be easily transmitted
from one person to the other especially mosquito-borne diseases such as Dengue. The
mosquito vector has an anthrophilic nature, wherein its reproductive development is achieved
in sustaining a human blood meal. According Gubler and Ooi (2008), an increase in
population has an inevitable effect on the citizens that may lead to an increase in the need of
good housing, clean water, sewage and waste management creating ideal conditions for the
vector. The impact of economic expansion and urbanization indicates increased movement of
people in between cities and regions (Gubler, 1997). Rapid increase of population affects
dengue cases and other epidemic diseases as well such as population growth, public
transportations and minor and major changes in infrastructures.

To further examine the extent of population density and dengue cases, the researchers utilized
a tool called Geographic Information System or GIS. This is in order to visualize the
incidence of Dengue throughout the region by creating a visualize map. It is shown in Figure
1 that areas that are highly populated have more Dengue cases in the region. However, such
information would be more appreciated if is treated to be a disease incidence in the
epidemiological standpoint. Hence, it was observed that high incidence rate were observed in
cities of Pasig, Pateros, Valenzuela, Manila, Pasay, Paraaque and San Juan using the map
produced (Figure 2). Furthermore, the most number of barangays that have the highest
incidence rates were observed from the City of Manila and Pasay. These cities mentioned
with high dengue incidence are situated near or beside water bodies that may contribute to the
development of the vector.

Figure 1. (A) Total population (11,855,975) per city reported by National Statistics Office in
2010 census. (B) Total dengue cases (35,797) per city in Metro Manila as reported by
Department of Health-National Epidemiology Center in January to December 2012.

Figure 2. (A) Dengue incidence (2012) of Metro Manila per city in 2010 population census.
(B) Enlarged image of Manila City showing dengue incidence in 2012 by population census
in 2010 (in percentage).
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND FLOOD PRONE AREAS

Temperature and the presence of water play a big role in the mosquito development and its
spread. In the light of climate change, temperature and precipitation rate in the Philippines
has drastically changed and had become unpredictable for the past years. These unpredictable
changes may contribute also to the changing biology of the mosquito, thus, it may strengthen
their vectoral capacity to transmit the dengue virus (Mohammed and Chadee, 2011). To
address such, our research conducted a simulation of observing developmental changes of the
dengue vector subjected to different diurnal temperature changes. It was shown that higher
temperatures promoted faster development of the mosquito (Figure 3a) and may influence sex
ratio (Figure 3b). The results presented may mimic the temperature ranges of the rainy season
of the Philippines, thus, its development is hastened. From this, high mosquito abundance is
observed. Our mosquito surveillance in 2011 shows that when the rainy season months start,
there has been observed increase of abundance of mosquito population (Figure 4). These
findings are also congruent to the dengue cases presented in 2010 (DOH, 2012). It was shown
earlier that parts of Metro Manila are considered to be flood prone areas (Figure 5) wherein
some of these areas have very high dengue incidence. Floods may indirectly lead to an
increase in vector-borne diseases through the extension in the number and range of vector
habitats. Standing water instigated by heavy rainfall or overflow from the bodies of water can
exploit as breeding places for mosquitoes. The risk of outbreaks is greatly amplified by
complicating factors, such as variations in human behavior (increased exposure to mosquitoes
while sleeping outside, a temporary pause in disease control activities, overcrowding), or
changes in the habitat that promote mosquito breeding (landslide, deforestation, river
damming, and rerouting) (WHO, 2013).

Figure 3. (A) Component bar of the number of larvae, pupal development and emergence of
adult from 4 observations of the set ups Room Temperature, 30 degrees Celsius and 35
 degrees Celsius. (B) Component bar of the number of adult male and female Ae. aegypti
mosquitoes in different temperature set ups.

4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Figure 4. Mosquito surveillance in a tertiary university in Manila using ovitraps showing Ae.
aegypti abundance from the months of Jan 2011 to October 2011.

Figure 5. Actual Flood during a typhoon in August 2013 at a household in San Juan City,
Metro Manila
Figure 6. Flood Prone Areas in Metro Manila from Department of Environment and National
Disaster dated (2009).

PRESENCE OF ARTIFICIAL WATER-HOLDING CONTAINERS

The life-cycle of Ae. aegypti mosquito has two phases, the aquatic phase (larval and pupal
stage) and the terrestrial phase (adult and egg stage) (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC], 2012a). Highly associated with humans and urban areas, these mosquitoes
rely on people for the completion of their development. Humans also provide artificial water-
holding containers (AWHC) that serve as the mosquitos niche as it completes its life-cycle.
Several studies have shown that Ae. aegypti breed in 37 kinds of man-made water-holding
containers (Please see supplemental materials, Table 1 and Table 2). In our preliminary
survey of larval Ae. aegypti mosquitoes, it has shown that ceramic vases, plastic pails or
containers and plastic drums are the most common breeding sites from 72 households in
selected areas of Metro Manila. It is noteworthy to mention that regardless of water level,
these mosquito can breed and establish a niche. Such findings are consistent with literature
and thus recommend that proper management of household owners who has these containers
to be very vigilant in physical control such as removal of water in these containers.
In the course of our research, another study was conducted to determine which AWHC type
would be suited for mosquito development. The researchers identified nine (9) artificial
water-holding containers (AWHC) with differing material type namely; 1)glass bottle
simulated by a glassware; 2) ceramic vase simulated by a ceramic mugs; 3) plastic drum
simulated by a plastic container; 4) metal tin can simulated by a regular soft drink can with
the top cut off; 5) rubber tire simulated by one-third of a tire; 6) cement brick hole simulated
by a cement container; 7) clay flower/plant pot simulated by a miniature clay pot; 8)
styrofoam ice box simulated by a styrofoam bowl; and 9) steel pot simulated by a steel pot.
All containers were conducive for mosquito growth and development to occur in a laboratory
setting. However, it was observed that some containers have shown different developmental
rates in specific stages. Furthermore, Ae. aegypti development is fastest in glass containers.
Fortunately, despite of the observed faster developmental rate in glass, wild Ae. aegypti
mosquitoes do not prefer glasses that much (Stoler et al.,2011; Medronho et al.,2009).
Moreover, the cement containers were deemed to have the slowest developmental rate. In
addition to this, one cement container was observed that the whole population did not survive
and this may be due to the presence of particulate matter brought by the composition of the
material. Moreoever, it is noteworthy to mention that during the experimentation, water
levels in cement containers would tend to decrease drastically because it is being absorbed by
the container itself. Hence, larval stress because of the more frequent maintenance of cement
container water levels may be the reason why such results were observed.

PRESENCE OF VEGETATION

In most literature in regards to the vector biology of Aedes aegypti, there is a scarcity of
material that would look into the presence of vegetation as a key component in the biology of
the vector. However, it will tackle more of the presence of small plants in ceramic vases or
pots that can attribute in becoming a water holding container suited for the development of
mosquitoes (Figure 7). The assembly of these containers that holds plants are common niches
of mosquitoes because of its ability to hold water. Another plant type that has become
popular in Metro Manila, especially used for landscaping and as ornamental plants either
inside or outside households, is the Bromeliad plants (Figure 8). This plant is considered to
be exotic in the Philippines (dela Cruz, 2001) and native to the Americas. The anatomy of the
plant itself is designed in a way to capture water itself. The researchers have observed and
collected in some houses different flying insects especially mosquitoes in the areas of the
plant wherein water is collected. Thus, increasing the mosquito population wherein it can be
efficient vectors of disease.
Figure 7. Ornamental plants in different containers that can hold water where it may serve as
a breeding site for Ae. aegypti mosquito.

Figure 8. Ornamental Bromeliad plants in a household showing its capacity to hold water and
become a breeding site for Ae. aegypti mosquito and other insects.
HOUSEHOLDS

Households have been main focal area of interest for mosquito breeding sites. The
researchers determined household characteristic and surrounding factors would deem to be
conducive for mosquitoes. In our preliminary survey of households in selected areas of Metro
Manila, among the household factors highly associated to mosquito occurrence include
households located near crowded areas, presence of pests, having pots or vases, having big
and open windows or doors, having humid air and warm temperatures. Moreover, it is
interesting to further emphasize are the other household factors were associated to the non-
occurrence of mosquitoes in the household. These are having screens and curtains on
windows, presence of sunlight inside and outside of the household, having sufficient lighting
in the house, and cooler environments.

MODIFIABLE MEASURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS FOR

VECTOR CONTROL

Increase in human population growth has much effect in both health and environmental
factors that affects spread of diseases. Urbanization results to conversions of agriculture, land
use and other enhanced globalization that directs progression of epidemic diseases.
Expansion of networks and dynamic movement of people accounts to the persistence of
pathogen dispersion (Gubler et al., 2011). Thus, Environmental management procedures must
focus on changing the surroundings such that it would prevent or lessen vector proliferation
(Sia Su, 2008). Aedes aegypti breeding site elimination has been broadly adopted worldwide
to significantly lessen vector population density by targeting the most productive containers
(Maciel-de-Freitas & Lourenco-de-Oliveira, 2011). According to Williams et al. (2008), the
ecology of Aedes aegypti is regionally variable, especially with respect to the nature of its
larvaes habitat (i.e., water-filled containers). Determining the effects of the vectors habitat
[water containers] could aid in devising a strategy that would lead to the control of Aedes
aegypti, the vector mosquito for dengue virus. Physical control namely changing and
adapting to environmental factors can change the vector population. For instance, the
Philippines Department of Health (DOH), through their DOH-Rep Benjamin Ordoez,
explained that search and destroy is the peoples first line of defense against mosquito-
related diseases (Carbayas, 2012). Other measures namely responding the flooding situation
by urban planning in Metro Manila may reduce the yearly incidence of Dengue. Also,
households should be mindful to certain modifiable physical measure coupled with chemical
control that will prevent vector abundance in their surroundings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The present authors would like to extend their deepest gratitude to its funding sources
namely; JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grants # 25303020, 26241025), JSPS
Asian CORE Program, COE Program of Faculty of Engineering, Ehime University and
MEXT GREen Network of Excellence.
REFERENCES

Arunachalam, N., Tana, S., Espino, F., Kittayapong, P., Abeyewickreme, W., Wai,
K.T., Tyagi, B.K., Kroeger, A., Sommerfeld, J., & Petzold, M. (2010). Eco-bio-social
determinants of dengue vector breeding a multicountry study in urban and periurban
Asia. Bull World Health Organ, 88: 173-184.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012a). Entomology & Ecology.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/dengue/entomologyEcology/index.html
[Accessed: August 2012]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012b). Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/Dengue/faqFacts/index.html [Accessed: August
2012]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012c). Mosquito Life-Cycle. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/dengue/entomologyEcology/m_lifecycle.html [Accessed:
August 2012]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012d). Mosquitoes Main Aquatic
Habitats. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/Dengue/entomologyEcology/m_habitats.html [Accessed: August
2012]

Capeding, M.R. MD. (2012). Dengue matters newsletter. Retrieved from

http://www.denguematters.info/content/issue-7-dengue-philippines [Accessed: August
2012]

Carbayas, R.V. (2012). DOH says cleanliness is key to fight dengue. Retrieved from
http://pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=1421340598984 [Accessed: August 2012]

Chadee, D.D. (2004). Key premises, a guide to Aedes aegypti (Diptera Culicidae)
surveillance control. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 94, 201-207. Doi 10.1079
BER2004297

Cruz, E.I., Salazar, F.V., Porras, E., Mercado, R., Orais, V., Bunyr, J. (2008).
Entomological survey of dengue vectors as basis for developing vector control
measures in Barangay Poblacion, Muntinlupa City, Phillipines. Dengue Bulletin. 32,
167-170.

Cruz, E.I., Salazar, F.V., Aure, W.E., Torres, E.P. (2008). Aedes survey of selected
public hospitals admitting dengue patients in Metro Manila, Philippines. Dengue
Bulletin. 32, 171-177.
Dela Cruz R.T. 2001. Bromeliads: the exotic plant. Bureau of Agricultural Research
Research and Development Digest. October December 2001 Issue (Vol. 3 No. 4)

Department of Health - National Epidemiology Center: Public Health Surveillance

and Informatics Division. (2012c). Philippine Integrated Disease Surveillance and
Response (PIDSR) Annual Report 2010.

Fulmali, P V; Walimbe, A; Mahadev, P V M. (2008). Spread, establishment, and

prevalence of dengue vector Aedes aegypti (L.) in Konkan region, Maharashtra,
India. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 127, (6), 589-601.

Garelli, F.M., Espinosa, M.O., Weinberg, D., Coto, H.D., Gaspe, M.S., Gurtler, R.E.
(2009). Patterns of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Infestation and Container
Productivity Measured Using Pupal and Stegomyia Indices in Northern Argentina.
Journal of Medical Entomology. 46 (5), 1176-1186.

Garcia-Rejon, J.E., Lorono-Pino, M.A., Farfan-Ale, J.A., Flores-Flores, L.F., Lopez-

Uribe, M.P., Najera-Vazquez, M.d.R., Nunez-Ayala, G. Beaty,, B.J., & Eisen, L.
(2011). Mosquito Infestation and Dengue Virus Infection in Aedes aegypti Females in
Schools in Merida Mexico. American Journal of Tropical and Medical Hygiene. 84
(3), 489-496.

Gubler D. and Ooi E.2008. Dengue in Southeast Asia: Epidemiological

characteristics and strategic challenges in disease prevention. Cad. Saude Publica,
Rio de Janeiro. Sup 1: S115-124.

Gubler, D. (1997) Epidemic Dengue/Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever: A Global Public

Health Problem in the 21st Century. Chapter 1, pp 1-14, W.M. Scheld, D. Armstrong
and J.M. Hughes, editors, ASM Press, Washington DC.

Maciel-de-Freitas, R. (2010). A Review on the Ecological Determinant of Aedes

aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Vectorial Capacity. Oecologia Australis. 14 (3), 726-
736. doi:10.4257/oeco.2010.1403.08

Maciel-de-Freitas, R., & Lourenco-de-Oliveira, R. (2011). Does targeting key

containers effectively reduce Aedes aegypti population density? Tropical Medicine
and International Health 16 (8), 965-973. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02797.x

Maciel-de-Freitas, R., Marques, W.A., Peres, R.C., Cunha, S.P., de Oliveira, R.L.
(2007).Variation in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) container productivity in a
slum and a suburban district of Rio de Janeiro during dry and wet seasons.
Memorias de Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. 102 (4), 489-496.

Medronho, R.A., Macrini, L., Novellino, D.M., Lagrotta, M.T.F., Camara, V.M.,
Pedreira, C.E. (2009). Aedes aegypti Immature Forms Distribution According to Type
of Breeding Site. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygeine. 80 (3), 401-
404.
Midega, J. T., Nzovu, J., Kahindi, S., Sang, R. C., Mbogo, C. (2006). Application of
the pupal/demographic-survey methodology to identify the key container habitats of
Aedes aegypti (L.) in Malindi district, Kenya. Annals of Tropical Medicine and
Parasitology. 1, S61-S72.

Mohammed A and DD. Chadee. 2011. Effects of different temperature regimens on

the development of Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes. Acta Trop.
Vol. 119(1):38-43.

Montgomery, B.L., & Ritchie , S. A. (2002). Roof gutters: a key container for Aedes
aegypti and Ochlerotatus notoscriptus (diptera: culcidae) in Australia. The American
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 67 (3), 244-246.

National Statistics Office (2012) NCR in Figures. Retrieved from http://nso-ncr.ph/

[Accessed: May 2013]

Ragragio, J. (2003) The case of Metro Manila, Philippines. UNDERSTANDING

SLUMS: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

Romero-Vivas, C. M., Arango-Padilla, P., Falconar, A. K. (2006). Pupal-productivity

surveys to identify the key container habitats of Aedes aegypti (L.) in Barranquilla,
the principal seaport of Colombia. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology.
100 (1), S87-S95.

Sang, R.C., Ahmed, O., Faye, O., Kelly, C.L.H., Yahaya, A. A., Mmadi, I., Toilibou,
A., Sergon, K., Brown, J., Agata, N., Yakouide, A., Ball, M.D., Breiman, R.F., Miller,
B.R., & Powers, A.M. (2008). Entomologic Investigations of a Chikunguya Virus
Epidemic in the Union of the Comoros, 2005. American Journal of Tropical Medicine
and Hygeine. 78 (1), 77-82.

Sia Su, G.L. (2008). Correlation of Climactic Factors and Dengue Incidence in Metro
Manila, Philippines. Ambio 37 (4): 292.

Stoler, J., Brodine, S.K., Bromfield, S., Weeks, J.R., Scarlett, H.P. (2011). Exploring
the relationships between dengue fever knowledge and Aedes aegypti breeding in St
Catherine Parish, Jamaica: a pilot of enhanced low-cost surveillance. Dovepress:
Research and Reports in Tropical Medicine.

Williams, C.R., Johnson, P.H., Long, S.A., Rapley, L.P. & Ritchie, S.A. (2008).
Rapid Estimation of Aedes aegypti Population Size Using Simulation Modeling, with
a Novel Approach to Calibration and Field Validation. Journal of Medical
Entomology. 45(6), 1173-1179.

World Health Organization (2013) Flooding and communicable diseases fact sheet.
Humanitarian Health Action. Available from
http://who.int/hac/techguidance/ems/flood_cds/en/ [Accessed: June 2013]
Table 1. Non-Local Publications of Breeding Sites (AWHC) and Abundance of Aedes
Aegypti
Breeding Site Remark Reference
(---) mentioned as a breeding site
Animal ---; (CDC, 2012d);
drinking pans 35.7% container index (Stoler et al., 2011)
Flower pots ---; (CDC, 2012d);
(base and 8.2 pupae per container; (Montgomery and Ritchie,
saucer) 22.6 pupae/ha (wet season); 2002); (Williams et al.,
2% infested; 2008);
14.5% with larvae and 7.3% with (Garelli et al., 2009);
pupae (Medronho et al., 2009)
Tires ---; (CDC, 2012d);
---; (Montgomery and Ritchie,
4.7 pupae/ha (wet season); 2002);
---; (Williams et al., 2008);
4 (ave) pupae collected; (Romero-Vivas et al., 2008);
2.0% produced; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
7.5% infested; (Chadee, 2004);
58.82% with larvae; (Garelli et al., 2009);
17.95% with pupae; (Sang et al., 2008);
80% with larvae and 60% with (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
pupae; 2007);
84.6% container index; (Medronho et al., 2009);
--- (Stoler et al., 2011);
(Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011)
Damaged --- (CDC, 2012d)
appliances
Paint cans --- (CDC, 2012d)
Trash cans --- (CDC, 2012d)
Pails --- (CDC, 2012d)
Buckets ---; (CDC, 2012d);
(plastic) 2.31% of pupae (average); (Maciel-de-Freitas and
Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
28.2 pupae/ha (wet season); 2011);
75.5 (ave) pupae collected; (Williams et al., 2008);
22.2% produced; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
28.2% with larvae; (Chadee, 2004);
2.13% with pupae; (Sang et al., 2008);
25.8% with larvae and 16.7% with (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
pupae; 2007);
--- (Medronho et al., 2009);
(Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011)
Toys --- (CDC, 2012d)
Painting trays --- (CDC, 2012d)
Wells ---; (CDC, 2012d);
0 pupae collected; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
2.5% infested; (Garelli et al., 2009);
Breeding Site Remark Reference
(---) mentioned as a breeding site
Tanks ---; (CDC, 2012d);
(cement, 72% of pupae in first survey (Maciel-de-Freitas and
metal, and (28.35% average); Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
plastic) ---; 2011);
72% - 78.2% (wet season) & 65% - (Montgomery and Ritchie,
95.8% (dry season) Ae aegypti pupal 2002);
population; (Romero-Vivas et al., 2008);
7.5 (ave) pupae collected;
5.4% produced; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
54.5% infested; (Chadee, 2004);
28.84% with larvae; (Garelli et al., 2009);
6.54% with pupae; (Sang et al., 2008);
27% with larvae and 13.5% with (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
pupae; 2007);
6.7% container index; (Medronho et al., 2009);
--- (Stoler et al., 2011);
(Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011)
Cisterns ---; (CDC, 2012d);
28.84% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
47.4% with larvae and 31.6% with (Medronho et al., 2009);
pupae;
Barrels ---; (CDC, 2012d);
54.5% infested; (Garelli et al., 2009);
33.3% with larvae and 22.2% with (Medronho et al., 2009);
pupae;
Jars ---; (CDC, 2012d);
98.5 (ave) pupae collected; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
51.90% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
50% container index; (Stoler et al., 2011);
Dishes --- (CDC, 2012d)
Pools ---; (CDC, 2012d);
(plastic) 0 pupae collected; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
5.3% with larvae and pupae; (Medronho et al., 2009);
Water meters --- (CDC, 2012d)
Breeding Site Remark Reference
(---) mentioned as a breeding site
Drums 30.7% of pupae in (Maciel-de-Freitas and
(metal, plastic, second survey (8.72% average) ; Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
and cement) 72% - 78.2% (wet season) & 65% - 2011);
95.8% (dry season) Ae aegypti pupal (Romero-Vivas et al., 2008);
population;
metallic drums >70% of the pupae (Midega et al., 2006);
(indoor & wet season) and plastic
drums 83.7% of larvae seen
(outdoor & dry season); (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
7 (ave) pupae collected; (Chadee, 2004);
53.5% produced; (Garelli et al., 2009);
54.5% infested; (Sang et al., 2008);
51.90 with larvae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
18.60% with pupae; 2007);
48.7% with larvae and 20.5% with (Medronho et al., 2009);
pupae; (Stoler et al., 2011);
43.6% container index; (Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011);
---;
Drains 9.3% of pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas and
Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
0% with pupae; 2011);
6% with larvae and 4% with pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
2007); (Medronho et al.,
2009);
Bird baths 8.2 pupae per container; (Montgomery and Ritchie,
2002)
Cement --- (Fulmali et al., 2008)
Vases ---; (Romero-Vivas et al., 2008);
---; (CDC, 2012b);
17 (ave) pupae collected; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
5.26% with pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
22.2% with larvae and 11.1% with 2007);
pupae; (Medronho et al., 2009);
75% container index; (Stoler et al., 2011)
Dishes 12.48% of pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas and
(plant, plastic, Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
and xaxim) 1.20 % with pupae; 2011);
15.4% with larvae and 7.7% with (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
pupae; 2007); (Medronho et al.,
75% container index; 2009);
(Stoler et al., 2011)
Pots 10.23% of pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas and
(plastic) Lourencio-de-Oliveira,
14.5% with larvae and 7.3% with 2011);
pupae; (Medronho et al., 2009);
Breeding Site Remark Reference
(---) mentioned as a breeding site
Tarpaulin 14.4 pupae/ha (wet season); (Williams et al., 2008)
Indentation
Bottles 23.0% - 88.9% Ae aegypti pupal (Romero-Vivas et al., 2008);
population;
21.5% containers infested; 0.04% (Garelli et al., 2009);
with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
1.71% with pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
50% container index; 2007); (Stoler et al., 2011);
--- (Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011)
Basins 19 (ave) pupae collected; (Tsuzuki et al., 2009);
(concrete, 8.0% produced; (Chadee, 2004);
cement, and 51.90% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
plastic) 10.53% with pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
2007);
Ant trap 7.5 (ave) pupae collected (Tsuzuki et al., 2009)
Brick holes 4.2% produced (Chadee, 2004)
Cans 21.5% containers infested; (Garelli et al., 2009);
18.8% with larvae and 0% with (Medronho et al., 2009);
pupae; (Stoler et al., 2011);
70% container index; (Garcia-Rejon et al., 2011)
---
Tins 34.09% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
70% container index (Stoler et al., 2011)
Waste pits 0% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008)
Sauce pans & 28.82% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008);
Cooking pots 3.09% with pupae; (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
2007)
Potholes 33.33% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008)
Vehicle hood 100% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008)
Car battery 100% with larvae; (Sang et al., 2008)
Boat Hull 27.78% with pupae (Maciel-de-Freitas et al.,
2007)
Jugs 54.5% with larvae and 18.2% with (Medronho et al., 2009)
pupae
Glasses 50% container index (Stoler et al., 2011)
 Table 2. Local (Philippine) Breeding Sites (AWHC) and Abundance of Aedes Aegypti
Breeding Site Remark Reference
(---) mentioned as a breeding site
Tin cans ---; (Carbayas, 2012);
---; (Capeding, 2012);
42.6% + outdoor container for Aedes (Cruz et al., 2008b)
aegypti
Bottles ---; (Carbayas, 2012);
(plastic and glass) ---; (Capeding, 2012)
Drums ---; (Carbayas, 2012);
(metal, plastic, and ---; (Capeding, 2012);
cement) 100% + indoor container; (Cruz et al., 2008b);
37.3% + container (+C); (Cruz et al., 2008a);
49.2% of all pupae (Arunachalam et al., 2010)
Canals --- (Carbayas, 2012)
Sewerages --- (Capeding, 2012)
Pails ---; (Capeding, 2012);
23.09% + (average); (Cruz et al., 2008b);
2.9 % + Container (Cruz et al., 2008a)
Tyres ---; (Capeding, 2012);
10.5% + outdoor Container; (Cruz et al., 2008b);
40% + Container (Cruz et al., 2008a)
Jars ---; (Capeding, 2012);
50% + outdoor; (Cruz et al., 2008b);
2.8% + Container; (Cruz et al., 2008a);
9.8% of all pupae (Arunachalam et al., 2010)
Plant vases 61.67% +Container (average) (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Basins 0.14% +Container (average) (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Plant saucers 0.20% +Container (average) (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Plastic cups 80% + outdoor Container (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Paint cans 80% + outdoor Container (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Toilet bowls 31.5% + outdoor Container (Cruz et al., 2008b)
Soft-drink cases 100% + Container (Cruz et al., 2008a)
Jugs 8.3% + Container (Cruz et al., 2008a)

View publication stats