Journal of Mosquito Research, 2026, Vol.16, No.1, 1-20 http://emtoscipublisher.com/index.php/jmr 16 Table 5b Evolution of the monthly risks of receiving an infective bite of a main vector of malaria in a house before, and after, vector control, and the difference of risks. Before After Diff. M1 55.6 12.7 -77.1% M2 80.2 23.8 -70.3% M3 91.2 33.5 -63.2% M4 96.1 42.0 -56.3% M5 98.3 49.4 -49.7% M6 99.2 55.8 -43.7% M7 99.7 61.5 -38.3% M8 99.9 66.4 -33.5% M9 99.9 70.7 -29.3% M10 100.0 74.4 -25.6% M11 100.0 77.6 -22.4% M12 100.0 80.5 -19.5% Table 6 Evolution, with time, of the protection afforded by each method of vector control. (M= number of months) Diff (%) LLIN LLIN+ZF ZV IRS thenDL Average M1 -50.2 -72.9 -78.1 -72.3 -77.1 M3 -36.4 -55.5 -68.1 -52.2 -63.2 M6 -20.3 -33.5 -52.7 -29.0 -43.7 M9 -10.3 -19.6 -39.5 -15.7 -29.3 M12 -5.1 -11.4 -29.2 -8.5 -19.5 The evolution of level of protection with duration of exposure was different according to the method of vector control (Graph 6). With time: six months “M6”; nine months “M9”, one year “M12”, the reduction of risks conferred by ITPS ZeroVector® (“ZV”) alone appeared clearly higher than the other methods (Graph 7). Graph 7 Reduction of risk according to the method of vector control and duration of exposure. (M= number of months) 4 Discussion-Conclusion The notion of “risks” appeared the article “Malaria Vectorial Capacity of a Population of Anopheles gambiae.An Exercise in Epidemiological Entomology” (Garrett-Jones and Shidrawi, 1969). “The index of inoculation risk was derived from the infective density by taking into account the mosquito's supposed biting-frequency and the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==