4.3 Article

Laboratory evaluation of traditional insect/mosquito repellent plants against Anopheles arabiensis, the predominant malaria vector in Ethiopia

期刊

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 529-534

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-008-1001-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory study was carried out to evaluate the repellent efficiency of most commonly known four traditional insect/mosquito repellent plants Wogert [vernacular name (local native language, Amharic); Silene macroserene], Kebercho [vernacular name (local native language, Amharic); Echinops sp.], Tinjut [vernacular name (local native language, Amharic); Ostostegia integrifolia], and Woira[vernacular name (local native language, Amharic); Olea europaea] against Anopheles arabiensis under the laboratory conditions. One hundred (4-5 days old) female A. arabiensis were introduced into the both 'control' and 'test' repellent chamber through the hole on top. Traditional charcoal stoves were used for direct burning. The experiment was conducted by applying the smoke into the repellent test mosquito cage by direct burning of 25 gm of dried plant materials (leaves and roots) until plant materials completely burned. The number of mosquitoes driving away from the test and control cage was recorded for every 5 min. In the present investigation, the results clearly revealed that the roots of S. macroserene has potent repellent efficiency (93.61%) and was the most effective. The leaves of Echinops sp. (92.47%), leaves of O. integrifolia (90.10%) and O. europaea (79.78%) were also effective. Roots of S. macroserene exhibited the highest repellent efficiency by direct burning. The present study identified these four traditional indigenous insect/mosquito repellent plant materials are very promising and can be used as safer alternative to modern synthetic chemical repellents against mosquito vectors of disease. Since people have been using these plants for some medicinal purposes, no side effects have been found.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据