Pattern of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus Associated with Human Exposure to Dengue Virus in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo

COMMENT

RESPONSES

1. All species’ name needs to be in Italic; it is necessary to put a dot after the Aedes abbreviation (Ae. aegypti/ Ae. albopictus).

Thanks you for the observation. The whole manuscript revised accordingly

2. Dengue does not need to be written in capital letters.

Thanks, comment incoporated in the revised manuscript

3. Abstract Methods: The phrase is strange. Were the captured larvae kept in a BSL-2 insectary? Maybe it could be said here. So, a suggestion: Collected larvae were kept in a BSL-2 insectary until the adult emergence for morphological identification

We thank this suggestion and considered in the revised manuscript

4. The abstract results phrase is confusing. I suggest something like: We evaluated 1850 grid cells of which 19.5% were positive for Aedes larvae. The positive grid cells were identified in Ndjili (44.0%), Mont-Ngafula (32.0%) and Ngaliema (26.0%), Limete (32.0%) municipalities.The Ae. aegypti (11.2%) predominated in the northwestern, and Ae. albopictus (9.1%) in the high vegetation coverage appears areas

The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

5. You had so many interesting results in this work. I think you should improve the results of your abstract

We would like to add as you suggested, but according to the journal the abstract should have maximum of 200 words

6. Line 67-68: “Ae aegypti is known to be the main vector of dengue as well as other MBVD…”. The Ae. aegypti is the main urban vector for arboviruses. The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

7. Line 87: The RT-PCR does not isolate the virus. It just detects the viral RNA.

Comment incorporated in the revised manuscript is to read ribonucleic acid detection

8. I think the idea in the introduction is a little bit confusing. For example, the authors talk about mosquito-borne viral diseases (MBVD) in the first paragraph, then started talking about the Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus (invertebrate vectors), and then come back to MBVD in the third paragraph, and in the 5th paragraph they come back to talk about the Ae. albopictus. It became the text so tired to read.

The paragraph rearranged to make it more readable and to keep the idea flow .as now you cay appreciated in the revised manuscript

9. Line 128: Kasavubu - Please, confirm the orthography, it is different from the map (supplementary S1 - figure 1). Thanks, the orthography checked, now it is written Kasa-Vubu as it is from map

Thanks, the orthography checked, now it is written Kasa-Vubu as it is from map

10. Line 134: It is not figure 1. It is supplementary 1 (S1). I think the supplementary figure 1 needs to be improved. I suggest highlighting the municipalities where samples were collected using a specific color, for example.

Comment taken in consideration as you can appreciate, figure 1 improved accordingly

11. Table 4 has one error. It is 36,8%, not 26,8%.

Thanks , correction done

12. I did not understand the “report of the COVID-19 vaccination” above line 238.

It is deleted in the revised manuscript

13. The authors need to format all the manuscript´s tables.

Comment taken for consideration, tables formatted in the revised manuscript

14. 341-342 lines: “the infection is transmitted from human to human in the places where the competent vector exists”. When I read human to human, I already thought of sexual transmission. So, what happens, in this case, is the mosquito bites an infected human, post 7-10 days has another blood feeding transmitting the virus to other through the infected saliva; or the DENV-infected mosquito bite two people in the same house.

Now it is to read ‘’the infection is actively transmitted between humans through infected mosquito bites in the places where the competent vector exist’’

15. Line 375: I did not understand the Aedes Faune.

It refers to Aedes species composition, it is to read now Aedes species composition

16. The discussion of this manuscript is confused. It is too long and hard to understand the correlation between the data and discussion. There are results and methods in the discussion area, for example, in the lines 338-339, 369-370,406-408. Those information need to be in the correct area.

The observation taken for consideration, and manuscript revised accordingly

17. There is something that the authors could emphasize in this manuscript: the importance of community engagement to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti population.

COMMENTvv

RESPONSES

1. All species’ name needs to be in Italic; it is necessary to put a dot after the Aedes abbreviation (Ae. aegypti/ Ae. albopictus).

Thanks you for the observation. The whole manuscript revised accordingly

2. Dengue does not need to be written in capital letters.

Thanks, comment incoporated in the revised manuscript

3. Abstract Methods: The phrase is strange. Were the captured larvae kept in a BSL-2 insectary? Maybe it could be said here. So, a suggestion: Collected larvae were kept in a BSL-2 insectary until the adult emergence for morphological identification

We thank this suggestion and considered in the revised manuscript

4. The abstract results phrase is confusing. I suggest something like: We evaluated 1850 grid cells of which 19.5% were positive for Aedes larvae. The positive grid cells were identified in Ndjili (44.0%), Mont-Ngafula (32.0%) and Ngaliema (26.0%), Limete (32.0%) municipalities.The Ae. aegypti (11.2%) predominated in the northwestern, and Ae. albopictus (9.1%) in the high vegetation coverage appears areas

The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

5. You had so many interesting results in this work. I think you should improve the results of your abstract

We would like to add as you suggested, but according to the journal the abstract should have maximum of 200 words

6. Line 67-68: “Ae aegypti is known to be the main vector of dengue as well as other MBVD…”. The Ae. aegypti is the main urban vector for arboviruses. The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

The suggestion taken for consideration in the revised manuscript

7. Line 87: The RT-PCR does not isolate the virus. It just detects the viral RNA.

Comment incorporated in the revised manuscript is to read ribonucleic acid detection

8. I think the idea in the introduction is a little bit confusing. For example, the authors talk about mosquito-borne viral diseases (MBVD) in the first paragraph, then started talking about the Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus (invertebrate vectors), and then come back to MBVD in the third paragraph, and in the 5th paragraph they come back to talk about the Ae. albopictus. It became the text so tired to read.

The paragraph rearranged to make it more readable and to keep the idea flow .as now you cay appreciated in the revised manuscript

9. Line 128: Kasavubu - Please, confirm the orthography, it is different from the map (supplementary S1 - figure 1). Thanks, the orthography checked, now it is written Kasa-Vubu as it is from map

Thanks, the orthography checked, now it is written Kasa-Vubu as it is from map

10. Line 134: It is not figure 1. It is supplementary 1 (S1). I think the supplementary figure 1 needs to be improved. I suggest highlighting the municipalities where samples were collected using a specific color, for example.

Comment taken in consideration as you can appreciate, figure 1 improved accordingly

11. Table 4 has one error. It is 36,8%, not 26,8%.

Thanks , correction done

12. I did not understand the “report of the COVID-19 vaccination” above line 238.

It is deleted in the revised manuscript

13. The authors need to format all the manuscript´s tables.

Comment taken for consideration, tables formatted in the revised manuscript

14. 341-342 lines: “the infection is transmitted from human to human in the places where the competent vector exists”. When I read human to human, I already thought of sexual transmission. So, what happens, in this case, is the mosquito bites an infected human, post 7-10 days has another blood feeding transmitting the virus to other through the infected saliva; or the DENV-infected mosquito bite two people in the same house.

Now it is to read ‘’the infection is actively transmitted between humans through infected mosquito bites in the places where the competent vector exist’’

15. Line 375: I did not understand the Aedes Faune.

It refers to Aedes species composition, it is to read now Aedes species composition

16. The discussion of this manuscript is confused. It is too long and hard to understand the correlation between the data and discussion. There are results and methods in the discussion area, for example, in the lines 338-339, 369-370,406-408. Those information need to be in the correct area.

The observation taken for consideration, and manuscript revised accordingly

17. There is something that the authors could emphasize in this manuscript: the importance of community engagement to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti population.

It is add in the discussion section ‘’the findings of this study call also for social mobilization, education programmes to encourage the population of Kinshasa for active and persistence participation in the cleanliness of their living environment as it is  within their reach and adoption of protective behaviour against mosquito bites’’

Name of species should be in italic : The manuscript revised accordingly

We thank you for your useful observations and comments. Name of species should be in italic : The manuscript revised accordingly

L67 When species is at the beginning of sentence name of genus should not be shortened

Comment taken for consideration, the manuscript revised accordingly

L89 Did authors maybe want to say experienced staff? Yes, it was a mistake, now it to read experienced staff

Yes, it was a mistake, now it to read experienced staff

L101 Please make the genus shortened

Comment taken for consideration, the manuscript revised accordingly

L95 Authors should give whole name of country first time in text and later use only abbreviation DRC.

We added Democratic Republic of the Congo

L115 Please correct “carried in out” to “carried out in”

the manuscript revised accordingly

L116 Please delete the in front of “of the Congo”

the manuscript revised accordingly, we deleted the

L120 Please delete “Kinshasa is the third largest populated city in Africa after Lagos and Cairo” and keep just the number of inhabitants. Rest is not relevant to the research

The sentence is now deleted in the revised manuscript

L122-L129 This sentence with the names should be deleted and names presented on the map and only these details which could not be given on the map should be in the text.

The sentence deleted in the revised manuscript

L134 Please follow the journal’s instructions about figures and numbers when mentioned in text.

Figures revised accordingly, as you can appreciate

L137-L138 This should be presented different to be easier to follow then text. For example: the study was carried out from xxx to xxxx 2021 and from xxx to xxxx. In Kinshasa dry season lasts from xxx to xxx.

The sentence is rephrased ‘’The study period covered both rainy and dry seasons from February 2021 to August 2022. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022.

L144 It is necessary to explain why the authors excluded some parts from the research. You can keep the sentence but explain the reasons

 It is about the accessibility and security issues and these municipalities are also very large as you can appreciate in the map

L147 It is not the clear purpose of “discarded”. Please delete this word.

The word is deleted

L149 After pupae is missing space

Space added

L151 “were identified to the species level” change incorporated in the revised manuscript

The change incorporated in the revised manuscript

L152-L155 Why not in 2021 as well? With covid-19 pandemic, it was not easy to work with

With covid-19 pandemic, it was not easy to work with human samples in Kinshasa.

L201 – L217 This whole paragraph is very difficult to follow. Please transfer it to the table and if it is already in the table please give in text only the most important that you would like to stress out.

The paragraph revised accordingly

Tables need to be redesigned and some words should be modified. For example, it is not clear what is ….Women house. Is it a housewife? Also ….52 years. What does it mean? >52? Or? Please revise the English?

Thanks, now it is housewife instead of womenhouse and  ≥ 52 years  instead of 52 years, also tables  redesigned

 L268 Genus should be in italic

Change incorporated in the revised manuscript

 L369 Please correct specie.

Change incorporated in the revised manuscript

There were no figures or maps mentioned in the text. Maybe is a mistake by the journal's staff but I could not see any figures. 

Name of species should be in italic : The manuscript revised accordingly

We thank you for your useful observations and comments. Name of species should be in italic : The manuscript revised accordingly

L67 When species is at the beginning of sentence name of genus should not be shortened

Comment taken for consideration, the manuscript revised accordingly

L89 Did authors maybe want to say experienced staff? Yes, it was a mistake, now it to read experienced staff

Yes, it was a mistake, now it to read experienced staff

L101 Please make the genus shortened

Comment taken for consideration, the manuscript revised accordingly

L95 Authors should give whole name of country first time in text and later use only abbreviation DRC.

We added Democratic Republic of the Congo

L115 Please correct “carried in out” to “carried out in”

the manuscript revised accordingly

L116 Please delete the in front of “of the Congo”

the manuscript revised accordingly, we deleted the

L120 Please delete “Kinshasa is the third largest populated city in Africa after Lagos and Cairo” and keep just the number of inhabitants. Rest is not relevant to the research

The sentence is now deleted in the revised manuscript

L122-L129 This sentence with the names should be deleted and names presented on the map and only these details which could not be given on the map should be in the text.

The sentence deleted in the revised manuscript

L134 Please follow the journal’s instructions about figures and numbers when mentioned in text.

Figures revised accordingly, as you can appreciate

L137-L138 This should be presented different to be easier to follow then text. For example: the study was carried out from xxx to xxxx 2021 and from xxx to xxxx. In Kinshasa dry season lasts from xxx to xxx.

The sentence is rephrased ‘’The study period covered both rainy and dry seasons from February 2021 to August 2022. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022.

L144 It is necessary to explain why the authors excluded some parts from the research. You can keep the sentence but explain the reasons

 It is about the accessibility and security issues and these municipalities are also very large as you can appreciate in the map

L147 It is not the clear purpose of “discarded”. Please delete this word.

The word is deleted

L149 After pupae is missing space

Space added

L151 “were identified to the species level” change incorporated in the revised manuscript

The change incorporated in the revised manuscript

L152-L155 Why not in 2021 as well? With covid-19 pandemic, it was not easy to work with

With covid-19 pandemic, it was not easy to work with human samples in Kinshasa.

L201 – L217 This whole paragraph is very difficult to follow. Please transfer it to the table and if it is already in the table please give in text only the most important that you would like to stress out.

The paragraph revised accordingly

Tables need to be redesigned and some words should be modified. For example, it is not clear what is ….Women house. Is it a housewife? Also ….52 years. What does it mean? >52? Or? Please revise the English?

Thanks, now it is housewife instead of womenhouse and  ≥ 52 years  instead of 52 years, also tables  redesigned

 L268 Genus should be in italic

Change incorporated in the revised manuscript

 L369 Please correct specie.

Change incorporated in the revised manuscript

There were no figures or maps mentioned in the text. Maybe is a mistake by the journal's staff but I could not see any figures. 

The figures added

Figures 1-3 were not included in the files that I was given to review. I understand that this may not be the authors' wrongdoing, but it made reviewing parts of the results very difficult. That was unfortunate as I would have been interested to see the maps. 

Thanks for your interesting comments, The maps added  as you can appreciate

Line 90: Please mention again what RDT is an acronym for. While an explanation of how the robustness of RDTs differs from conventional tests is covered in the discussion, it may be worth mentioning it here, too. 

RDT means Rapid diagnostic Test. We add in introduction ‘’The recent global spread of dengue has implied an urgent need for accurate, not time-consuming, and low-cost disease diagnostic methods such as TDR that could be easy to use even in resource-limited settlements [41], such as DRC’’.

Line 114 onwards: There needs to be a map of the region and the grids in question, as it is very hard to imagine them from the text. As mentioned above, there currently is no Figure 1 in the manuscript. Similarly, health care facilities could be shown on such a map to allow for linkage of mosquito abundance and dengue cases. 

The maps added. The figure 1 shows the entomological sampling sites, and the health care facilities, the figure is about linkage of mosquito abundance dengue cases and different environmental parameters. 

Line 136 onwards: Information about the frequency of sampling should be included, as well as whether or not it was done simultaneously across all grids or on different days. 

The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids, but all the cells were visited during the rainy and dry seasons. In the first passage 11 municipalities were visited in 2021 and 8 later on 2022 . It is written in the revised manuscript ’The study period covered both rainy and dry seasons from February 2021 to August 2022. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022.

Line 176 onwards: Again, there need to be maps with geography, grids, vegetation cover, elevation and water bodies indicated. Figures 1-3 are mentioned but they are not currently present in the manuscript. I see that these should have been supplementary figures but I think they need to be in the main text. 

Figure on linkage of mosquito abundance dengue cases and different environmental parameters is now provided in figure 2, currently we consider your suggestion to put in the main text

Results section: Difficult to follow. Table legends are unclear and would benefit from further details, especially the Table 2 legend, which is very vague and reads almost identically to that of Table 1, even though it measures different variables. The format of tables needs to be standardized across the paper. Further, the use of “all” in tables should be replaced with “total”.

Thanks , we considered your comment, in the revised tables is to read total instead of all and the format of tables standardized across the paper.

Table 2 is titled Frequency of type of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations in Kinshasa, DRC.  The information captured here is about the total number of positive containers (N) from the all cells sampled in municipality. It was possible to found a cell with more than one positive containers. These positive containers were classified in four categories (domestic, discarded, tyres, bamboo). Now this table provided the % for each positive of type container (n) from the total positive containers within the municipality =(n/N)x100

Table 1. Frequency of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations and season in Kinshasa, DRC. The information captured here is about the number of cells which have been found with the presence of the mosquito larvae or pupae among the 100 grid cells for each municipality, therefore, as the denominator (N=100) for each municipality, the percentage is the same with (n= number of the positive cells). In brief n= total number of positive grid cells either per municipality or district or whole Kinshasa, N= total number of inspected grid cells either per municipality or district or whole Kinshasa, %=(n/N)x100. It is provided for each season and for the whole study period

In Table 3, many of the percentage calculations are incorrect. To me, it is unclear what "total" the authors referring to when calculating these percentages. Selembao, for example, has 17 positive grid cells. Shouldn't the percentage be 100%? Also, the positive grids over the rainy and dry seasons then do not add up to 17; and why are the percentages 7 and 4, while others are zero? Can you please check this table carefully and explain in the legend what total you are using for calculations. 

Thanks very much for attention paid, the calculations revised where they were miscalculated, but we have to signify also that in some grid cells we noted some co-occurrence of both species, it is also better illustrated in the map. Therefore these cells counted for both species separately, but we can not calculate the sum of simple addition considering the number of positives cells according of each specie individually  in total calculation of positive cells within a municipality, in that way a cell with co-occurrence of both species will count for double however it is not the case. This is the case of Selembao and some others municipalities

Tables 4, 7 and 8 need reformatting. It is unclear what the purpose of the “… ” (dots) is. The format is inconsistent with previous tables, where percentages were presented in brackets. What does "Women house" mean? In Table 8, what is the difference between columns 2-4 and columns 5-7?

Women house is now housewife in the revised manuscript

In table 4, there is no more information (data) to present when compared to others tables, therefore we find it better to make percentage in separate column.

In Table 8, columns 2-4 is related to univariate analysis, multivariate analysis , it is added a to aOR in case of multivariate analysis to say adjusted odd ratio

It was impossible to read the text on Figure 2 so somebody will have to review this still. In terms of their content, the figures are ok. Comments: - both figures should have separate figure legends to explain what they show in sufficient detail. I saw this is given in lines 419 - 425 but it would be good to have this with the figures, if the figures are to be kept as supplementary. As stated in my review it would be a lot more useful to have the figures in the main text. - Figure 1: the areas in which entomological surveys were undertaken should not have the same colour (white) as the background map. Why not have grey for grids that have not been surveyed and blue for areas that have been. -The sentence in line 177-181 should also make reference to the sub panels of figure 2 rather than just saying "figure 2 a,b,c,d" in line 188.

Figures 1-3 were not included in the files that I was given to review. I understand that this may not be the authors' wrongdoing, but it made reviewing parts of the results very difficult. That was unfortunate as I would have been interested to see the maps. 

Thanks for your interesting comments, The maps added  as you can appreciate

Line 90: Please mention again what RDT is an acronym for. While an explanation of how the robustness of RDTs differs from conventional tests is covered in the discussion, it may be worth mentioning it here, too. 

RDT means Rapid diagnostic Test. We add in introduction ‘’The recent global spread of dengue has implied an urgent need for accurate, not time-consuming, and low-cost disease diagnostic methods such as TDR that could be easy to use even in resource-limited settlements [41], such as DRC’’.

Line 114 onwards: There needs to be a map of the region and the grids in question, as it is very hard to imagine them from the text. As mentioned above, there currently is no Figure 1 in the manuscript. Similarly, health care facilities could be shown on such a map to allow for linkage of mosquito abundance and dengue cases. 

The maps added. The figure 1 shows the entomological sampling sites, and the health care facilities, the figure is about linkage of mosquito abundance dengue cases and different environmental parameters. 

Line 136 onwards: Information about the frequency of sampling should be included, as well as whether or not it was done simultaneously across all grids or on different days. 

The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids, but all the cells were visited during the rainy and dry seasons. In the first passage 11 municipalities were visited in 2021 and 8 later on 2022 . It is written in the revised manuscript ’The study period covered both rainy and dry seasons from February 2021 to August 2022. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022.

Line 176 onwards: Again, there need to be maps with geography, grids, vegetation cover, elevation and water bodies indicated. Figures 1-3 are mentioned but they are not currently present in the manuscript. I see that these should have been supplementary figures but I think they need to be in the main text. 

Figure on linkage of mosquito abundance dengue cases and different environmental parameters is now provided in figure 2, currently we consider your suggestion to put in the main text

Results section: Difficult to follow. Table legends are unclear and would benefit from further details, especially the Table 2 legend, which is very vague and reads almost identically to that of Table 1, even though it measures different variables. The format of tables needs to be standardized across the paper. Further, the use of “all” in tables should be replaced with “total”.

Thanks , we considered your comment, in the revised tables is to read total instead of all and the format of tables standardized across the paper.

Table 2 is titled Frequency of type of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations in Kinshasa, DRC.  The information captured here is about the total number of positive containers (N) from the all cells sampled in municipality. It was possible to found a cell with more than one positive containers. These positive containers were classified in four categories (domestic, discarded, tyres, bamboo). Now this table provided the % for each positive of type container (n) from the total positive containers within the municipality =(n/N)x100

Table 1. Frequency of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations and season in Kinshasa, DRC. The information captured here is about the number of cells which have been found with the presence of the mosquito larvae or pupae among the 100 grid cells for each municipality, therefore, as the denominator (N=100) for each municipality, the percentage is the same with (n= number of the positive cells). In brief n= total number of positive grid cells either per municipality or district or whole Kinshasa, N= total number of inspected grid cells either per municipality or district or whole Kinshasa, %=(n/N)x100. It is provided for each season and for the whole study period

In Table 3, many of the percentage calculations are incorrect. To me, it is unclear what "total" the authors referring to when calculating these percentages. Selembao, for example, has 17 positive grid cells. Shouldn't the percentage be 100%? Also, the positive grids over the rainy and dry seasons then do not add up to 17; and why are the percentages 7 and 4, while others are zero? Can you please check this table carefully and explain in the legend what total you are using for calculations. 

Thanks very much for attention paid, the calculations revised where they were miscalculated, but we have to signify also that in some grid cells we noted some co-occurrence of both species, it is also better illustrated in the map. Therefore these cells counted for both species separately, but we can not calculate the sum of simple addition considering the number of positives cells according of each specie individually  in total calculation of positive cells within a municipality, in that way a cell with co-occurrence of both species will count for double however it is not the case. This is the case of Selembao and some others municipalities

Tables 4, 7 and 8 need reformatting. It is unclear what the purpose of the “… ” (dots) is. The format is inconsistent with previous tables, where percentages were presented in brackets. What does "Women house" mean? In Table 8, what is the difference between columns 2-4 and columns 5-7?

Women house is now housewife in the revised manuscript

In table 4, there is no more information (data) to present when compared to others tables, therefore we find it better to make percentage in separate column.

In Table 8, columns 2-4 is related to univariate analysis, multivariate analysis , it is added a to aOR in case of multivariate analysis to say adjusted odd ratio

It was impossible to read the text on Figure 2 so somebody will have to review this still. In terms of their content, the figures are ok. Comments: - both figures should have separate figure legends to explain what they show in sufficient detail. I saw this is given in lines 419 - 425 but it would be good to have this with the figures, if the figures are to be kept as supplementary. As stated in my review it would be a lot more useful to have the figures in the main text. - Figure 1: the areas in which entomological surveys were undertaken should not have the same colour (white) as the background map. Why not have grey for grids that have not been surveyed and blue for areas that have been. -The sentence in line 177-181 should also make reference to the sub panels of figure 2 rather than just saying "figure 2 a,b,c,d" in line 188.

The both figures are now provided, and I am agreed with you to make it the main text

1)Superscript the number(s) of correlated Institutions;

All comments, inputs, suggestions received with many thanks, and taken for consideration in the manuscript.

Substitute insectarium for insectary (line 31)

Comment taken for consideration in the manuscript.

3) Substitute Aedes for Ae. (line 38);

Comment taken for consideration in the manuscript.

4) I am missing a space between 61 and parentheses (line 43);

Observation taken for consideration in the manuscript.

5) I think the authors would like to say RDT, no TDR (line 112);

Yes, taken for consideration in the manuscript.

6) Line 695: Figure 1. / Figure 2.

Observation taken for consideration in the manuscript.

7 Lines 695 – 700: “Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, human exposure to….”, add AND between “ albopictus, and human exposure to..” in all sentences.

1)Superscript the number(s) of correlated Institutions;

All comments, inputs, suggestions received with many thanks, and taken for consideration in the manuscript.

Substitute insectarium for insectary (line 31)

Comment taken for consideration in the manuscript.

3) Substitute Aedes for Ae. (line 38);

Comment taken for consideration in the manuscript.

4) I am missing a space between 61 and parentheses (line 43);

Observation taken for consideration in the manuscript.

5) I think the authors would like to say RDT, no TDR (line 112);

Yes, taken for consideration in the manuscript.

6) Line 695: Figure 1. / Figure 2.

Observation taken for consideration in the manuscript.

7 Lines 695 – 700: “Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, human exposure to….”, add AND between “ albopictus, and human exposure to..” in all sentences.

Suggestion taken for consideration in the manuscript.

L160-L162 Font is bigger

Thanks very much for all inputs, suggestions and comments observation that improve the manuscript. The manuscript revised accordingly

L241 Missing space: Table1)

The manuscript revised accordingly

L242 What is “domestic” here? Any

Container for domestic uses found in home places

L247 the tires WERE distributed

The manuscript revised accordingly

L248 Please delete “The”

The manuscript revised accordingly

L251-L255 Please change the sentence “In the sampled grid cells in the rainy and dry season, Ae. aegypti was recorded in 11.2%  and 0.7% grid cells respectively, but it predominated in the north and west sites. Aedes albopictus was recorded in 9.1% and 0.8% in the rainy and dry season, but predominated in the south and east of Kinshasa (Table 3) where the vegetation coverage appeared relatively high (Figure 2).

The manuscript revised accordingly

L254-L255 Please give Tables and Figure in capital letters: (Figure 2) instead (figure 2)

The manuscript revised accordingly

Table 7. Total in capital letter

The manuscript revised accordingly

References: in the first 10 references authors still have doubled numbers. Same after 46^th

The manuscript revised accordingly

L695 It is not Figures but Figure 1…… Figure 2, a then give A, B, C and D

Example

Figure 2 Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to humid and no humid areas of Kinshasa (A); Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to different strates of altitude in Kinshasa (B); Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to Kinshasa’ vegetation coverage (C) and distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to demographical density of the population in Kinshasa (D).

L160-L162 Font is bigger

Thanks very much for all inputs, suggestions and comments observation that improve the manuscript. The manuscript revised accordingly

L241 Missing space: Table1)

The manuscript revised accordingly

L242 What is “domestic” here? Any

Container for domestic uses found in home places

L247 the tires WERE distributed

The manuscript revised accordingly

L248 Please delete “The”

The manuscript revised accordingly

L251-L255 Please change the sentence “In the sampled grid cells in the rainy and dry season, Ae. aegypti was recorded in 11.2%  and 0.7% grid cells respectively, but it predominated in the north and west sites. Aedes albopictus was recorded in 9.1% and 0.8% in the rainy and dry season, but predominated in the south and east of Kinshasa (Table 3) where the vegetation coverage appeared relatively high (Figure 2).

The manuscript revised accordingly

L254-L255 Please give Tables and Figure in capital letters: (Figure 2) instead (figure 2)

The manuscript revised accordingly

Table 7. Total in capital letter

The manuscript revised accordingly

References: in the first 10 references authors still have doubled numbers. Same after 46^th

The manuscript revised accordingly

L695 It is not Figures but Figure 1…… Figure 2, a then give A, B, C and D

Example

Figure 2 Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to humid and no humid areas of Kinshasa (A); Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to different strates of altitude in Kinshasa (B); Distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to Kinshasa’ vegetation coverage (C) and distribution pattern of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, human exposure to Dengue virus in relation to demographical density of the population in Kinshasa (D).

The manuscript revised accordingly

Lines 158-170 – In your response to the reviewer’s comments, you mention that “The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids, but all the cells were visited during the rainy and dry seasons” – this absolutely needs to be included in the manuscript. It is otherwise quite unclear how the sampling was done. It also needs to be mentioned how many times the grids were visited (even if it is just once).

All comments, inputs, suggestions received with many thanks

It is to read now ‘’The study was carried out from February 2021 to August 2022. The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022. All the selected grids within a municipality were concomitantly inspected once during each season’’

Lines 264, 267 – as mentioned previously, the legends for Tables 1 and 2 are vague and require significantly more detail. For instance, Table 1’s legend should define what the grids are positive for and Table 2’s legend should make reference to the fact that it compares the different container types found across Kinshasa.

Thanks, we provide the Legend for Table 1 ‘’ Table 1 provides the number of grid cells positives for at least one container with immature stages of Aedes spp. per 100 inspected grid cells in municipality. The numbers of the positive grid cells are provided for each season, and the overall study period and area. A positive grid cell refers to a grid with at least one container with immature stages of Aedes spp

We provide the legend and modified the title

Table 2 Title ‘’Frequency of the different types of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations in Kinshasa, DRC’’.

Legend for Table 2: provides the number of positive containers types from each municipality according to the rainy and dry seasons. N is a total number of containers positive for immature stages of Aedes spp. per 100 inspected grid cells. A positive container refers to a container found with at least one larvae or pupae of Aedes spp.

Line 272 – It is still unclear how some of the values in Table 3 were calculated. For example, in Selembao, 23 grids were measured as being positive (8+7+4+4), but only 17 are shown as being positive in the table. Also, if you measured the grids twice (in dry and rainy seasons), should the total number of grids for the whole period not be 3,700? Finally, how were the percentages calculated? 17/1850 is 0.91%, not 17%.

We appreciate this comment; we try to provide some clarifications related to these values. It appeared that the same grid is positive for Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus, in such case we can't consider that we have two different positive grids; it is counted just for one positive. Therefore, when we want to determine the total number of positive grids for

 a municipality, we don't perform the simple sum of the number provided for the records of Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus columns. For example, in Selembao of 100 grids inspected in Selembao In rainy season Ae aegypti only alone was recorded

in 6 grids, Ae albopictus only alone in 5, and both species were recorded together in 2 grids. So, if we have to determine the number of positive, we have to do 6+5+2=11, but if we have to report the number of grids positive to Ae aegypti it 8 and for Ae albopictus is 7, but we can't use 8+7 as the number of positive grids. The same 100 visited in the rainy season were visited in the dry season in each municipality, it appeared in Selembao, during the

dry season of the five records of Aedes, one was in the grid which was previously positive in the rainy season, so we can't include again this one grid in the calculation of the total number of the positive grids for the study period, as it already counted for the rainy season, but can include 4 others records of Aedes species as they occurre

d in grids previously negative in rain season. Therefore, in selembao the number of positive grids is 6+5+2+4=17 and not 8+7+4+1 as you presume. The situation is in Kalamu, Limete, Kinseso, Ndjili, Masina, Nsele, Maluku, Kinshasa, Lingwala, Ngaliema, and Mont ngafula. In Brief, we have to dissociate information about the positive grids and species recorded in grids due to the issue of species co-occurrence in

the same; therefore, we delete the column of the number of positive grids in this table as it is already provided in Table1, it is replaced by the number of grids inspected by a municipality to avoid confusion. The same about a total number of the grids sampled is only 1850 grids however they were visited in the rainy season and in the dry season, as we visited

the same grids during both seasons, we can't consider 3700.

Percentages calculated were referring to the total number of the grids of study to make as you state 17/1850, but the percentages were

calculated for each municipality is also the table titled, as the number of grids in

each municipality was 100, we used 17/100=17. We add the legend also for Table in the revised manuscript ''Table 3 reported the frequency of the

occurrence of positive grids to Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus per 100 grids inspected in each municipality and for the whole study area according to the season''

Line 274 - it is still unclear to me what the “.…” in the various sections of Table 4 mean. Also, the structure of the table should be revisited as some of the variables have inconsistent indentations which makes it unclear what sections they belong to (e.g. “sex” seems to fall under the category of “age group”, which does not seem correct).

Thanks, comment taken for consideration and, the table is revised accordingly

). Line 302 – some of the groups in Table 8 (e.g. age group 6-17 years) seem to be control groups, and the other groups are normalized against them. Are these groups acting as controls? If so, why?

No, it is not the case, thanks

Line 695 – The figure legends for Figures 1 and 2 are currently combined. Please separate these and place them below their respective figures.

Lines 158-170 – In your response to the reviewer’s comments, you mention that “The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids, but all the cells were visited during the rainy and dry seasons” – this absolutely needs to be included in the manuscript. It is otherwise quite unclear how the sampling was done. It also needs to be mentioned how many times the grids were visited (even if it is just once).

All comments, inputs, suggestions received with many thanks

It is to read now ‘’The study was carried out from February 2021 to August 2022. The sampling was not done simultaneously across all grids. Respectively 11 and 8 municipalities were surveyed in 2021 and 2022. All the selected grids within a municipality were concomitantly inspected once during each season’’

Lines 264, 267 – as mentioned previously, the legends for Tables 1 and 2 are vague and require significantly more detail. For instance, Table 1’s legend should define what the grids are positive for and Table 2’s legend should make reference to the fact that it compares the different container types found across Kinshasa.

Thanks, we provide the Legend for Table 1 ‘’ Table 1 provides the number of grid cells positives for at least one container with immature stages of Aedes spp. per 100 inspected grid cells in municipality. The numbers of the positive grid cells are provided for each season, and the overall study period and area. A positive grid cell refers to a grid with at least one container with immature stages of Aedes spp

We provide the legend and modified the title

Table 2 Title ‘’Frequency of the different types of the positive grid cells stratified according the locations in Kinshasa, DRC’’.

Legend for Table 2: provides the number of positive containers types from each municipality according to the rainy and dry seasons. N is a total number of containers positive for immature stages of Aedes spp. per 100 inspected grid cells. A positive container refers to a container found with at least one larvae or pupae of Aedes spp.

Line 272 – It is still unclear how some of the values in Table 3 were calculated. For example, in Selembao, 23 grids were measured as being positive (8+7+4+4), but only 17 are shown as being positive in the table. Also, if you measured the grids twice (in dry and rainy seasons), should the total number of grids for the whole period not be 3,700? Finally, how were the percentages calculated? 17/1850 is 0.91%, not 17%.

We appreciate this comment; we try to provide some clarifications related to these values. It appeared that the same grid is positive for Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus, in such case we can't consider that we have two different positive grids; it is counted just for one positive. Therefore, when we want to determine the total number of positive grids for

 a municipality, we don't perform the simple sum of the number provided for the records of Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus columns. For example, in Selembao of 100 grids inspected in Selembao In rainy season Ae aegypti only alone was recorded

in 6 grids, Ae albopictus only alone in 5, and both species were recorded together in 2 grids. So, if we have to determine the number of positive, we have to do 6+5+2=11, but if we have to report the number of grids positive to Ae aegypti it 8 and for Ae albopictus is 7, but we can't use 8+7 as the number of positive grids. The same 100 visited in the rainy season were visited in the dry season in each municipality, it appeared in Selembao, during the

dry season of the five records of Aedes, one was in the grid which was previously positive in the rainy season, so we can't include again this one grid in the calculation of the total number of the positive grids for the study period, as it already counted for the rainy season, but can include 4 others records of Aedes species as they occurre

d in grids previously negative in rain season. Therefore, in selembao the number of positive grids is 6+5+2+4=17 and not 8+7+4+1 as you presume. The situation is in Kalamu, Limete, Kinseso, Ndjili, Masina, Nsele, Maluku, Kinshasa, Lingwala, Ngaliema, and Mont ngafula. In Brief, we have to dissociate information about the positive grids and species recorded in grids due to the issue of species co-occurrence in

the same; therefore, we delete the column of the number of positive grids in this table as it is already provided in Table1, it is replaced by the number of grids inspected by a municipality to avoid confusion. The same about a total number of the grids sampled is only 1850 grids however they were visited in the rainy season and in the dry season, as we visited

the same grids during both seasons, we can't consider 3700.

Percentages calculated were referring to the total number of the grids of study to make as you state 17/1850, but the percentages were

calculated for each municipality is also the table titled, as the number of grids in

each municipality was 100, we used 17/100=17. We add the legend also for Table in the revised manuscript ''Table 3 reported the frequency of the

occurrence of positive grids to Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus per 100 grids inspected in each municipality and for the whole study area according to the season''

Line 274 - it is still unclear to me what the “.…” in the various sections of Table 4 mean. Also, the structure of the table should be revisited as some of the variables have inconsistent indentations which makes it unclear what sections they belong to (e.g. “sex” seems to fall under the category of “age group”, which does not seem correct).

Thanks, comment taken for consideration and, the table is revised accordingly

). Line 302 – some of the groups in Table 8 (e.g. age group 6-17 years) seem to be control groups, and the other groups are normalized against them. Are these groups acting as controls? If so, why?

No, it is not the case, thanks

Line 695 – The figure legends for Figures 1 and 2 are currently combined. Please separate these and place them below their respective figures.

The comment taken for consideration, figures and legends are now separated