Pupicidal Activity of Ethanol and Water Extracts of <i>Phytolacca dodecandra </i> on <i> Anopheles gambiae</i> (Diptera Culicidae) Pupae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pupae are an integral part of Anopheles gambiae life history and a tool that effectively targets them is likely to impact on malaria vector density. In this study we evaluated pupicidal activities of crude ethanol and water extracts of Phytolacca dodecandra (L’ Herit) on An. gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) under laboratory condition. Individual early pupae of An. gambiae mosquitoes were exposed to concentrations of 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5 mgs/100 ml of mature green fruits and leaves of the shoot and midsection of P. dodecandra in containers measuring 6 cm top × 5.7 cm bottom × 3.5 cm height. P. dodecandra was sourced from Eldoret (highland) and Nyando (lowland). Extraction of P. dodecandra bioactives was done using 80% ethanol and distilled water. Extracts of Neem leaves and untreated rain water were used as positive and negative controls respectively. WHO, 2005 mortality threshold of >80% was used to determine the effectiveness of the extracts as pupicide 24 hours post exposure. Mortality of exposed pupae was dose dependent. Concentrations of 20 mgs/100 mls and higher and 40 mgs/ 100mls of mature green fruits from Nyando and Eldoret met the mortality threshold respectively. Extracts of P. dodecandra from Nyando was more potent than that from Eldoret as was water compared to ethanol extracts. Positive (Neem) control killed < 80% of exposed pupae. It was concluded that crude extracts of P. dodecandra are potent as pupicide against An. gambiae mosquitoes and is a likely alternative to synthetic insecticides against An. gambiae in future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".