Field trials on the repellent activity of four plant products against mainly Mansonia population in western Ethiopia

The repellent activity of essential oils of lemon eucalyptus (Eucalyptus maculata citrodion), rue (Ruta chalepensis), oleoresin of pyrethrum (Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium) and neem (Azadiracta indica) have been field tested as 40%, 50% and 75% solutions in coconut oil against populations of mosquit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPhytotherapy research Vol. 17; no. 3; pp. 202 - 205
Main Authors Hadis, Mamuye, Lulu, Mesfin, Mekonnen, Yared, Asfaw, Teffera
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.03.2003
Wiley
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The repellent activity of essential oils of lemon eucalyptus (Eucalyptus maculata citrodion), rue (Ruta chalepensis), oleoresin of pyrethrum (Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium) and neem (Azadiracta indica) have been field tested as 40%, 50% and 75% solutions in coconut oil against populations of mosquitoes consisting mainly of Mansonia in Gambella, western Ethiopia. A latin square design was used to randomize the test subjects for possible individual differences for mosquito attraction. Repellency was evaluated as the percentage protection. Deet was included in the study for comparison. All the plant products manifested repellency. At 50% concentration at which the highest repellency was recorded the protection was 91.6%, 87.0%, 96.0%, 97.9% for rue, neem, pyrethrum and deet, respectively. The essential oil of lemon eucalyptus was not tried at this concentration. At a 40% concentration deet, lemon eucalyptus and pyrethrum were significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than rue and neem. At a 50% concentration, deet and pyrethrum were significantly better (p < 0.05) than rue and neem. At a 75% concentration concentration, deet and lemon eucalypus performed significantly better (p < 0.05) than pyrethrum and neem. The difference between pyrethrum and neem was also significant (p < 0.01). Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/WNG-JR66WHZ6-0
ArticleID:PTR1051
Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission
istex:8E14AD9E073FE8986EDE625F96999F4B313F3C81
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0951-418X
1099-1573
DOI:10.1002/ptr.1051