↓ Skip to main content

An experimental hut evaluation of Olyset Plus, a long-lasting insecticidal net treated with a mixture of permethrin and piperonyl butoxide, against Anopheles fluviatilis in Odisha State, India

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
An experimental hut evaluation of Olyset Plus, a long-lasting insecticidal net treated with a mixture of permethrin and piperonyl butoxide, against Anopheles fluviatilis in Odisha State, India
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1424-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kasinathan Gunasekaran, Sudhansu Sekhar Sahu, Tharmalingam Vijayakumar, Swaminathan Subramanian, Rajpal Singh Yadav, Olivier Pigeon, Purushothaman Jambulingam

Abstract

Fast development of pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors prompted the development of new vector control tools including combination of insecticides with different modes of action as part of resistance management strategies. Olyset Plus® is a new long-lasting insecticidal net, in which, permethrin and a synergist, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), are incorporated into filaments. Mixture nets such as this may have application against resistant mosquitoes, particularly those whose resistance is based on oxidative metabolism. There may also be enhanced activity against susceptible mosquitoes since mixed function oxidases are involved in a many metabolic activities including activation to form bioactive compounds. Bio-efficacy of Olyset Plus was evaluated against susceptible malaria vector, Anopheles fluviatilis in experimental huts. Deterrence, blood feeding inhibition, induced exophily and killing effect were measured to assess the bio-efficacy. The results were compared with Olyset Net®, a polyethylene permethrin-incorporated LLIN and a conventionally treated polyester net (with permethrin) washed to just before exhaustion. Results showed significant reduction in entry (treatment: 0.4-0.8; control: 4.2 per trap-night) and increase in exit (56.3-82.9 % and 44.2 %) rates of Anopheles fluviatilis in the treatment arms compared to control (P < 0.05). While blood feeding rates declined in treatment arms (18.8-30.6 %), it increased in control (77.6 %) (P < 0.05). This was further evident from the blood-feeding inhibition rates in treatment arms (60.6-90.6 %). Total mortality was significantly higher in all treatment arms (96.3-100 %) compared to control arm (2 %) (P < 0.05). Chemical analysis for active ingredient (AI) showed retention of 75 and 88 % in Olyset plus and Olyset net respectively after 20 washes. Performance of Olyset Plus washed 20 times was equal to the CTN and Olyset Net against the susceptible malaria vector An. fluviatilis, fulfilling the WHO efficacy criteria of Phase II evaluation for LLIN. However, the benefit of incorporating PBO and permethrin together in a long-lasting treatment could not be demonstrated in the current study as the target vector species was fully susceptible to pyrethroids. Olyset Plus, with its intrinsic bio-efficacy could be an effective vector control tool to prevent transmission of malaria by susceptible vectors like An. fluviatilis. However, the results of the current study need to be further supported by testing the net at village level (Phase III) for community acceptability. Before taking the net to village level, it needs to be verified whether the net is better than pyrethroid nets in terms of bio-efficacy against resistant An. culicifacies, another malaria vector that has developed resistance to synthetic pyrethroids in India.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 25%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,811,358
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,866
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,761
of 364,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#112
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 364,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.