↓ Skip to main content

Plant-based insect repellents: a review of their efficacy, development and testing

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 4,324)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
pinterest
1 Pinner
video
5 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
220 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
649 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.
Title
Plant-based insect repellents: a review of their efficacy, development and testing
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-10-s1-s11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Ferreira Maia, Sarah J Moore

Abstract

Plant-based repellents have been used for generations in traditional practice as a personal protection measure against host-seeking mosquitoes. Knowledge on traditional repellent plants obtained through ethnobotanical studies is a valuable resource for the development of new natural products. Recently, commercial repellent products containing plant-based ingredients have gained increasing popularity among consumers, as these are commonly perceived as "safe" in comparison to long-established synthetic repellents although this is sometimes a misconception. To date insufficient studies have followed standard WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme guidelines for repellent testing. There is a need for further standardized studies in order to better evaluate repellent compounds and develop new products that offer high repellency as well as good consumer safety. This paper presents a summary of recent information on testing, efficacy and safety of plant-based repellents as well as promising new developments in the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 649 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 628 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 125 19%
Student > Master 112 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 101 16%
Researcher 95 15%
Student > Postgraduate 39 6%
Other 120 18%
Unknown 57 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 223 34%
Chemistry 85 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 6%
Environmental Science 37 6%
Other 140 22%
Unknown 81 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 242. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#64,107
of 15,099,310 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#7
of 4,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223
of 92,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,099,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 92,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them