↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of ICON Maxx, a long-lasting treatment kit for mosquito nets: experimental hut trials against anopheline mosquitoes in Tanzania

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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Evaluation of ICON Maxx, a long-lasting treatment kit for mosquito nets: experimental hut trials against anopheline mosquitoes in Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0742-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick K. Tungu, Robert Malima, Frank W. Mosha, Issa Lyimo, Caroline Maxwell, Harparkash Kaur, William N. Kisinza, Stephen M. Magesa, Matthew J. Kirby, Mark Rowland

Abstract

Insecticide-treated nets are the primary method of preventing malaria. To remain effective, the pyrethroid insecticide must withstand multiple washes over the lifetime of the net. ICON® Maxx is a 'dip-it-yourself' kit for long-lasting treatment of polyester nets. The twin-sachet kit contains a slow-release capsule suspension of lambda-cyhalothrin plus binding agent. To determine whether ICON Maxx meets the standards required by the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES), the efficacy and wash fastness of ICON Maxx was evaluated against wild, free-flying anopheline mosquitoes. ICON Maxx was subjected to bioassay evaluation and experimental hut trial against pyrethroid-susceptible Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus. Mosquito mortality, blood feeding inhibition and personal protection were compared between untreated nets, conventional lambda-cyhalothrin treated nets (CTN) washed either four times (cut-off threshold) or 20 times, and ICON Maxx-treated nets either unwashed or washed 20 times. In bioassay, ICON Maxx demonstrated superior wash resistance to the CTN. In the experimental hut trial, ICON Maxx killed 75 % of An. funestus, 71 % of An. gambiae and 47 % of An. arabiensis when unwashed and 58, 66 and 42 %, respectively, when 20 times washed. The CTN killed 52 % of An. funestus, 33 % of An. gambiae and 30 % of An. arabiensis when washed to the cut-off threshold of four washes and 40, 40 and 36 %, respectively, when 20 times washed. Percentage mortality with ICON Maxx 20 times washed was similar (An. funestus) or significantly higher (An. gambiae, An. arabiensis) than with CTN washed to the WHOPES cut-off threshold. Blood-feeding inhibition with ICON Maxx 20 times washed was similar to the CTN washed to cut-off for all three species. Personal protection was significantly higher with ICON Maxx 20 times washed (66-79 %) than with CTN washed to cut-off (48-60 %). Nets treated with ICON Maxx and washed 20 times met the approval criteria set by WHOPES for Phase II trials in terms of mortality and blood-feeding inhibition. This finding raises the prospect of conventional polyester nets and other materials being made long-lastingly insecticidal through simple dipping in community or home, and thus represents a major advance over conventional pyrethroid treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#1,586,283
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#276
of 5,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,426
of 268,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#10
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 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 5,657 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 268,223 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 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.