↓ Skip to main content

Repellent efficacy of DEET, MyggA, neem (Azedirachta indica) oil and chinaberry (Melia azedarach) oil against Anopheles arabiensis, the principal malaria vector in Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Repellent efficacy of DEET, MyggA, neem (Azedirachta indica) oil and chinaberry (Melia azedarach) oil against Anopheles arabiensis, the principal malaria vector in Ethiopia
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0705-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ephrem Abiy, Teshome Gebre-Michael, Meshesha Balkew, Girmay Medhin

Abstract

In Ethiopia, Anopheles arabiensis is the main vector responsible for the transmission of malaria in the country and its control mainly involves application of indoor residual spraying (IRS) and use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs). Although the role of repellents for reducing man-vector contact is documented in the literature, the response of An. arabiensis to repellents was not previously evaluated under field conditions in Ethiopia. The trial was conducted in Sodere village assessing the repellent activities of four repellents, of which, two of them were commercially available DEET (N, N-diethyl-1,3-methylbenzamide) and MyggA (p-methane diol ) and the other two were laboratory- produced, 20% neem oil and 20% chinaberry oil. A 6 by 6 Latin square design was employed by involving six volunteers who received rotated treatments of repellents and the Ethiopian Niger seed, noog abyssinia (Guizotia abyssinia), and locally called as noog oil (diluents to the two plant oils). Each volunteer also served as control. Volunteers were positioned at a distance of 20-40 m from each other and each was treated with one of the repellents, Niger seed/noog/ oil or untreated. Landing mosquitoes were collected from dusk to down using tests tubes. The tests were done in three replicates. Both DEET and MyggA provided more than 96% protection. The mean protection time for DEET was 8 hrs while the time for MyggA was 6 hrs. Protection obtained from neem oil and chinaberry oil was almost similar (more than 70%), however, the complete protection time for neem was 3 hrs, while that of chinaberry oil was one hour. The commercial products and laboratory-produced repellents can be utilized by individuals to avoid contact with An. arabiensis in Ethiopia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 31 27%
Unknown 37 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,565,071
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#276
of 5,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,415
of 264,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#10
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.