| Literature DB >> 34258465 |
Abenezer Wendimu1, Wondimagegnehu Tekalign1.
Abstract
The repellency effect of smoke from burning Azadirachta indica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Ocimum forskolin plants to reduce human-mosquito biting activity. Ground mixed powders of the plant leaves produced smoke by direct burning and thermal expulsion on the traditional stoves in experimental huts against An. arabiensis and Ae. aegypti. A four-by-four Latin-square design was used to assign treatment and control experimental huts over different nights. In the treatment huts, the percent repellency of the smoke produced by burning powdered plant mixtures of the plants were determined by reduction mosquito density. There was a reduction on An. arabiensis (93.75%, P < 0.001) and Ae. aegypti (92%, P < 0.001) respectively, for huts with burning powder versus no treatment. Overall, plant mixed powders tested by both methods of application offered significant protection (>90%) against both mosquito species tested and has the potential to be used as an alternative mosquito control method.Entities:
Keywords: Dengue; Malaria; Mosquito bites; Plant based products; Repellent plants; Smoke repellency
Year: 2021 PMID: 34258465 PMCID: PMC8258845 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07373
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Map showing the location of the study area at Diguna Fango, Ethiopia. Note: SNNPR = Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples' Region. Blue color = Fango Boloso kebele, Red color = Fango Ofa kebele.
The repellent effect of smoke by two methods for four treatment nights in individual huts by direct burning.
| Weeks | Condition | Species | Total number of mosquitos collected at human bait over four treatment nights | Mean ± SE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| W1 | T | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2.75 ± 0.85 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.25 ± 0.25 | |||
| C | 45 | 28 | 47 | 30 | 37.5 ± 4.94 | ||
| 10 | 8 | 12 | 7 | 9.25 ± 1.10 | |||
| W2 | T | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2.75 ± 1.03 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.75 ± 0.47 | |||
| C | 43 | 29 | 36 | 31 | 34.75 ± 3.11 | ||
| 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4.5 ± 1.93 | |||
| W3 | T | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2.25 ± 0.47 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.50 ± 0.28 | |||
| C | 41 | 23 | 32 | 40 | 34.0 ± 4.18 | ||
| 6 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 7.00 ± 0.91 | |||
| W4 | T | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1.50 ± 0.50 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.25 ± 0.25 | |||
| C | 29 | 32 | 25 | 39 | 31.25 ± 2.95 | ||
| 1 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5.25 ± 1.65 | |||
SE: Standard error. T: Treatment. C: Control. W: Week.
The mean repellent index (R) of mosquitoes collected at human bait in control and treatment huts by direct burning.
| The mosquito species | Conditions | Mean number collected | The mean repellent index (R) | P-Value∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 9.25 | 93.27 | P = 0.0021 | |
| Control | 137.5 | |||
| Treatment | 1.75 | 93.26 | P = 0.0003 | |
| Control | 26 |
∗P-Value obtained from Tukey's test at α = 0.05.
The repellent effect of smoke by two methods for four treatment nights in individual huts by thermal exclusion.
| Weeks | Condition | Species | Total number of mosquitos collected at human bait over four treatment nights | Mean ± SE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| W1 | T | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1.75 ± 0.47 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.25 ± 0.25 | |||
| C | 33 | 41 | 29 | 36 | 34.75 ± 2.52 | ||
| 10 | 11 | 13 | 17 | 12.75 ± 1.54 | |||
| W2 | T | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.75 ± 0.47 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.75 ± 0.25 | |||
| C | 22 | 39 | 29 | 25 | 28.75 ± 3.70 | ||
| 4 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 5.25 ± 1.75 | |||
| W3 | T | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2.25 ± 0.62 | |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.75 ± 0.47 | |||
| C | 39 | 20 | 34 | 40 | 33.25 ± 4.60 | ||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2.5 ± 0.64 | |||
| W4 | T | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1.75 ± 0.85 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 ± 0.25 | |||
| C | 22 | 36 | 40 | 35 | 33.25 ± 3.90 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.75 ± 0.47 | |||
SE: Standard error. T: Treatment. C: Control. W: Week.
The mean repellent index (R) of mosquitoes collected at human bait in control and treatment huts by thermal expulsion.
| The mosquito species | Conditions | Mean number collected | The mean repellent index (R) | P-Value∗ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 7.5 | 94.23 | P = 0.0001 | |
| Control | 130 | |||
| Treatment | 2 | 91 | P = 0.0012 | |
| Control | 22.25 |
∗P-Value obtained from Tukey's test at α = 0.05.