Skip to main content

Table 2 Residual efficacy of the net treatment on Anopheles gambiaea

From: Electrophysiological and behavioral characterization of bioactive compounds of the Thymus vulgaris, Cymbopogon winterianus, Cuminum cyminum and Cinnamomum zeylanicum essential oils against Anopheles gambiae and prospects for their use as bednet treatments

Product

Time (h)

n

Irritated

Knocked-down

Killed

Control

0

66

6.1

(0.3–11.9)b

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

1.5

(−1.4–4.4)

Geraniol

0

61

45.9

(33.4–58.4)c

11.5

(3.5–19.5)

16.4

(7.1–25.7)

Geraniol

3

65

38.5

(26.7–50.3)

3.1

(−1.1–7.3)

12.3

(4.3–20.3)

Geraniol

6

66

34.8

(23.3–46.3)

3.0

(−1.1–7.1)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

Geraniol

9

60

36.7

(24.5–48.9)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

Control

9

65

7.7

(1.2–14.2)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

1.5

(–1.5–4.5)

p-value (model estimate)d

0.259

<0.001 (−0.4)

<0.001 (−0.6)

Control

0

62

9.7

(2.3–17.1)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

Cinnamaldehyde

0

62

35.5

(23.6–47.4)

11.3

(3.4–19.2)

82.3

(72.8–91.8)

Cinnamaldehyde

3

66

40.9

(29.0–52.8)

6.1

(0.3–11.9)

68.2

(57.0–79.4)

Cinnamaldehyde

6

61

54.1

(41.6–66.6)

19.7

(9.7–29.7)

60.7

(48.4–73.0)

Cinnamaldehyde

9

56

62.5

(49.8–75.2)

16.1

(6.5–25.7)

57.1

(44.1–70.1)

Control

9

62

9.7

(2.3–17.1)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

3.2

(−1.2–7.6)

p-value (model estimate)

0.001 (0.1)

0.006 (−0.1)

0.003 (−0.1)

Control

0

63

6.3

(0.3–12.3)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

1.6

(−1.5–4.7)

Carvacrol

0

61

14.8

(5.9–23.7)

9.8

(2.3–17.3)

86.9

(78.4–95.4)

Carvacrol

3

67

43.3

(31.4–55.2)

17.9

(8.7–27.1)

64.2

(52.7–75.7)

Carvacrol

6

65

46.2

(34.1–58.3)

40.0

(28.1–51.9)

43.1

(31.1–55.1)

Carvacrol

9

54

20.4

(9.7–31.1)

22.2

(11.1–33.3)

48.1

(34.8–61.4)

Control

9

71

18.3

(9.3–27.3)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

2.8

(−1.0–6.6)

p-value (model estimate)

0.368

<0.001 (−0.2)

<0.001 (−0.2)

Control

0

65

7.7

(1.2–14.2)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

1.5

(−1.5–4.5)

Cuminaldehyde

0

67

52.2

(40.2–64.2)

22.4

(12.4–32.4)

38.8

(27.1–50.5)

Cuminaldehyde

3

59

61.0

(48.6–73.4)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

5.1

(−0.5–10.7)

Cuminaldehyde

6

71

42.3

(30.8–53.8)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

12.7

(5.0–20.4)

Cuminaldehyde

9

63

25.4

(14.7–36.1)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

1.6

(−1.5–4.7)

Control

9

64

10.9

(3.3–18.5)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

0.0

(0.0–0.0)

p-value (model estimate)

<0.001 (−0.1)

1.00

<0.001 (−0.2)

  1. aProportion of 4- to 7-day-old, non-blood-fed, sugar-fed, Kisumu strain females that were irritated, knocked down, and killed by geraniol (0.023 μl/cm2), cinnamaldehyde (0.079 μl/cm2), carvacrol (0.014 μl/cm2) and cuminaldehyde (0.030 μl/cm2) after 0, 3, 6 and 9 h of the net treatment
  2. bconfidence interval calculated with the Wald method
  3. cPairwise comparison of proportion was done using Fisher’s test. Values in bold lettering were significantly different from the controls with the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction method
  4. d P-value and model estimate of the generalized linear model of the time on the mosquito repellency, knock down effect, and mortality
Back to article page

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us