Coproscopical methods like sedimentation and flotation techniques are widely used in the field for studying simian gastrointestinal parasites. Four parasites of known zoonotic potential were studied in a free-ranging, non-provisioned population of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): 2 nematodes (Necatoramericanus/Oesophagostomum sp. complex and Strongyloides sp.) and 2 protozoan species (Balantidium coli and Entamoeba coli). Different coproscopical techniques are available but they are rarely compared to evaluate their efficiency to retrieve parasites. In this study 4 different field-friendly methods were compared. A sedimentation method and 3 different McMaster methods (using sugar, salt, and zinc sulphate solutions) were performed on 47 faecal samples collected from different individuals of both sexes and all ages. First, we show that McMaster flotation methods are appropriate to detect and thus quantify large protozoan cysts. Second, zinc sulphate McMaster flotation allows the retrieval of a higher number of parasite taxa compared to the other 3 methods. This method further shows the highest probability to detect each of the studied parasite taxa. Altogether our results show that zinc sulphate McMaster flotation appears to be the best technique to use when studying nematodes and large protozoa.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 August 2019.
All research outputs
#16,584,977
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Folia Primatologica
#524
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,682
of 336,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Primatologica
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 336,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.
