目的 分析粘捕法和目测法的侵害率结果，评估二者侵害率指标的差异性、一致性和相关性。方法 2018年选择4个设区市开展粘捕法和目测法的同步对比试验，采用χ2检验或秩和检验比较组间率的差异。结果 粘捕法和目测法的侵害率分别为7.92%和2.56%，粘捕法的侵害率明显高于目测法（χ2=153.893，P<0.001）。粘捕法的侵害率在0%组的频数低于目测法，但在0%~组至70%~组的频数均高于目测法。粘捕法和目测法的侵害率均以农贸市场及餐饮行业较高，分别为16.95%、4.80%和14.17%、2.76%；以医院和居民区较低，分别为2.17%、1.83%和4.29%、1.58%。粘捕法的侵害率在5－11月较高，1和3月较低；目测法的侵害率在3－7月较高，1和11月较低。2种监测方法的侵害率结果具有一致性（Z=12.212，P<0.001），简单Kappa系数为0.47。2种监测方法得出的侵害率存在相关性（r=0.560，P<0.001）。结论 粘捕法和目测法的侵害率指标均能有效反映蜚蠊侵害情况，二者一定程度上具有一致性和相关性，但粘捕法比目测法更敏感。
Objective To analyze the cockroach infestation rates determined by the sticky trap method and visual observation, and to evaluate the difference, consistency, and correlation between the two methods. Methods The sticky trap method and visual observation were used simultaneously to carry out comparative studies in four districts in 2018. Between-group comparison was made by the Chi-square test or rank sum test. Results The sticky trap method gave a significantly higher cockroach infestation rate than visual observation (7.92% vs. 2.56%, χ2=153.893, P<0.001). Compared with visual observation, the sticky trap method had a lower frequency of the infestation rate in the 0% group but higher frequencies from the 0%~group to the 70%~group. Both the sticky trap method and visual observation gave higher infestation rates in farmers' markets (16.95%, 4.80%) and food industry (14.17%, 2.76%), and lower infestation rates in hospitals (2.17%, 1.83%) and residential areas (4.29%, 1.58%). By using the sticky trap method, the infestation rate was higher from May to November and lower in in January and November; by visual observation, the cockroach infestation rate was higher from March to July and lower in January and March. The cockroach infestation rates determined by the two methods were consistent (Z=12.212, P<0.001), with a simple Kappa coefficient of 0.47. There was a correlation between the two methods (r=0.560, P<0.001). Conclusion Cockroach infestation can be effectively reflected by the infestation rate determined by the sticky trap method or visual observation. The two methods are to a certain extent consistent and correlated with each other. However, the sticky trap method is more sensitive than visual observation.
[1] 蔡恩茂,徐建康,沈辉. 长宁区农贸市场德国小蠊侵害调查[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2005,16(6):424-426. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2005.06.005. Cai EM,Xu JK,Shen H. The investigation for Blattella germanica in indoor free markets in Changning,Shanghai[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2005,16(6):424-426. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2005.06.005.
[2] 段黎明,孙学礼,赵剑. 药激法与粘捕法在蜚蠊密度监测中的比较分析[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2008,19(3):256-258. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2008.03.034. Duan LM,Sun XL,Zhao J. Comparative analysis of drug smoke method and the sticky trap method for monitoring density of cockroaches[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2008,19(3):256-258. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2008.03.034.
[3] 刘林,胡俊,王辉,等. 动车组列车德国小蠊监测方法的探讨[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械,2015,21(6):614-615. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2015.06.023. Liu L,Hu J,Wang H,et al. Analysis of cockroach density with different monitoring methods for China railway high-speed trains[J]. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip,2015,21(6):614-615. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2015.06.023.
[4] 瞿宾雁,莫英瑛,吴戈,等. 药烟法与常规蟑螂密度监测方法的效果对比研究[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械,2005,11(4):226-228. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2781.2005.04.005. Qu BY,Mo YY,Wu G,et al. Study on difference between drug smoke method and general methods for monitoring density of cockroaches[J]. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip,2005,11(4):226-228. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2781.2005.04.005.
[5] 卢生善,尚友文,郭强,等. 2种蟑螂密度监测方法的对比研究[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械,2010,16(4):285-286. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2010.04.012. Lu SS,Shang YW,Guo Q,et al. Comparative study on two methods for monitoring cockroaches density in passenger train[J]. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip,2010,16(4):285-286. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2010.04.012.
[6] 潘国绍,陈理,何学军,等. 3种蟑螂密度监测方法与效果分析对比试验[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械,2004,10(3):149-150. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2781.2004.03.004. Pan GS,Chen L,He XJ,et al. The density monitor methods and efficacy analysis experiment of three kinds of cockroaches[J]. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip,2004,10(3):149-150. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-2781.2004.03.004.
[7] 徐仁权,任文军,陈仁潮,等. 3种蜚蠊密度检查方法比较试验[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2010,21(1):36-38. Xu RQ,Ren WJ,Chen RC,et al. Comparison of three methods of cockroach density monitoring[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2010,21(1):36-38.
[8] 任东升,吴海霞,郭玉红,等. 2018年全国蜚蠊监测报告[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2019,30(2):142-145. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2019.02.006. Ren DS,Wu HX,Guo YH,et al. National vectors surveillance report on cockroaches in China,2018[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2019,30(2):142-145. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2019.02.006.
[9] 付学锋,佟颖,刘婷,等. 关于国标《病媒生物密度监测方法蜚蠊》的编写与释义[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械,2012,18(6):541-542. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2012.06.029. Fu XF,Tong Y,Liu T,et al. Definition about national standard "surveillance methods for vector density-cockroach"[J]. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip,2012,18(6):541-542. DOI:10.19821/j.1671-2781.2012.06.029.
[10] 黄谊,黄河. 对"四害"常用密度监测方法的评述和建议[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2009,20(4):375-376. Huang Y,Huang H. Evaluation on density surveillance methods of four pests[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2009,20(4):375-376.
