↓ Skip to main content

Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: initial development and semi-field evaluations in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
4 tweeters


31 Dimensions

Readers on

62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: initial development and semi-field evaluations in Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1499-8
Pubmed ID

Eleanore D. Sternberg, Kija R. Ng’habi, Issa N. Lyimo, Stella T. Kessy, Marit Farenhorst, Matthew B. Thomas, Bart G. J. Knols, Ladslaus L. Mnyone


Presented here are a series of preliminary experiments evaluating "eave tubes"-a technology that combines house screening with a novel method of delivering insecticides for control of malaria mosquitoes. Eave tubes were first evaluated with overnight release and recapture of mosquitoes in a screened compartment containing a hut and human sleeper. Recapture numbers were used as a proxy for overnight survival. These trials tested physical characteristics of the eave tubes (height, diameter, angle), and different active ingredients (bendiocarb, LLIN material, fungus). Eave tubes in a hut with closed eaves were also compared to an LLIN protecting a sleeper in a hut with open eaves. Eave tubes were then evaluated in a larger compartment containing a self-replicating mosquito population, vegetation, and multiple houses and cattle sheds. In this "model village", LLINs were introduced first, followed by eave tubes and associated house modifications. Initial testing suggested that tubes placed horizontally and at eave height had the biggest impact on mosquito recapture relative to respective controls. Comparison of active ingredients suggested roughly equivalent effects from bendiocarb, LLIN material, and fungal spores (although speed of kill was slower for fungus). The impact of treated netting on recapture rates ranged from 50 to 70 % reduction relative to controls. In subsequent experiments comparing bendiocarb-treated netting in eave tubes against a standard LLIN, the effect size was smaller but the eave tubes with closed eaves performed at least as well as the LLIN with open eaves. In the model village, introducing LLINs led to an approximate 60 % reduction in larval densities and 85 % reduction in indoor catches of host-seeking mosquitoes relative to pre-intervention values. Installing eave tubes and screening further reduced larval density (93 % relative to pre intervention values) and virtually eliminated indoor host-seeking mosquitoes. When the eave tubes and screening were removed, larval and adult catches recovered to pre-eave tube levels. These trials suggest that the "eave tube" package can impact overnight survival of host-seeking mosquitoes and can suppress mosquito populations, even in a complex environment. Further testing is now required to evaluate the robustness of these findings and demonstrate impact under field conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
of 8,815,676 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 3,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 254,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,815,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 254,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.