↓ 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)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 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 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 19 23%

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
#1,147,000
of 17,356,510 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#218
of 4,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,141
of 235,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,356,510 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 4,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 235,950 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them