MONTHATHIP KONGMEE

Dr. MONTHATHIP KONGMEE


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2019 in Acta Tropica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JNJirod Nararak
Jirod Nararak
SSSunaiyana Sathantriphop
Sunaiyana Sathantriphop
MKMONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MONTHATHIP KONGMEE
VMValerie Mahiou-Leddet
Valerie Mahiou-Leddet
EOEvelyne Ollivier
Evelyne Ollivier
TCTheeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap

30 September 2016 in Journal of Medical Entomology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JNJirod Nararak
Jirod Nararak
SSSunaiyana Sathantriphop
Sunaiyana Sathantriphop
MKMONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MBMichael J. Bangs
Michael J. Bangs
TCTheeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
The essential oils of kaffir lime ( Citrus hystrix DC.) at four different concentrations (0.5, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0% v/v) were studied for their repellency, excitation, and knockdown properties against laboratory strains of Aedes aegypti (L.) and Anopheles minimus Theobald using an excito-repellency test system. Both contact and noncontact escape responses to leaf- and peel-derived kaffir lime oils were observed. Comparing unadjusted escape responses for An. minimus , leaf oil had strong combined irritant and repellent activity responses at 1–5% concentrations (90.0–96.4% escape) and the strongest spatial repellent activity at 1% and 2% (85.9% and 87.2% escape, respectively). The peel oil exhibited good excitation with repellency at concentrations of 2.5% (89.8% escape) and 5% (96.28% escape), while concentrations 1–5% showed more moderate repellent activity against An. minimus. For Ae. aegypti , 2.5% leaf oil produced the greatest response for both contact (56.1% escape) and noncontact (63.3% escape) trials, while 2.5% produced the strongest response among all concentrations of peel oil, with 46.5% escape. However, after adjusting the contact trial escape (a measure of combined excitation and repellency), the estimated escape due to contact alone was a much weaker response than spatial repellency for both species. Knockdown responses above 50% were only observed in Ae. aegypti exposed to 5% leaf oil. Kaffir lime oils were more active against An. minimus than Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. There were statistically significant differences between leaf (more active) and peel oils at each concentration against An. minimus in contact and noncontact trials, except at the highest (5%) concentration.

30 November 2021 in Insects
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PJPairpailin Jhaiaun
Pairpailin Jhaiaun
APAmonrat Panthawong
Amonrat Panthawong
MSManop Saeung
Manop Saeung
ASAnchana Sumarnrote
Anchana Sumarnrote
MKMONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MONTHATHIP KONGMEE
TCTheeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
Light traps are a common method for attracting and collecting arthropods, including disease vectors such as mosquitoes. Various types of traps have been used to monitor mosquitoes in a forest in Western Thailand. In this study, four Light Emitting Diodes (LED) light sources (UV, blue, green, and red) and two fluorescent lights (white and UV) were used to trap nocturnal adult mosquitoes. These traps were used with light alone and not any additional attractant. The experiment was conducted from 18:00 to 06:00 h. on six consecutive nights, every two months, across dry, wet, and cold seasons. All specimens were first identified by morphological features and subsequently confirmed by using PCR. We collected a total of 873 specimens of 31 species in four genera, Anopheles, Aedes, Culex, and Armigeres. Anopheles harrisoni was the predominant species, followed by Aedes albopictus, Culex brevipalpis, Culex nitropunctatus, and Armigeres (Leicesteria) longipalpis. UV fluorescent light was the most effective light source for capturing forest mosquitoes, followed by UV LED, blue LED, green LED, white fluorescent, and red LED. The optimal times for collection were from 21:00 to 03:00 h in the dry season. Our results demonstrate that appropriate sampling times and light sources should be selected for optimal efficiency in vector surveillance programs.

1 January 2019 in Acta Tropica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MKMONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MONTHATHIP KONGMEE
KTKanutcharee Thanispong
Kanutcharee Thanispong
SSSunaiyana Sathantriphop
Sunaiyana Sathantriphop
CSChutipong Sukkanon
Chutipong Sukkanon
MBMichael J. Bangs
Michael J. Bangs
TCTheeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap

17 June 2024 in Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KTKanutcharee Thanispong
Kanutcharee Thanispong
SSSunaiyana Sathantriphop
Sunaiyana Sathantriphop
MKMONTHATHIP KONGMEE
MONTHATHIP KONGMEE
WCWachiraporn Chitjaroen
Wachiraporn Chitjaroen
PSPracha Sukchot
Pracha Sukchot
ASAnchana Sumarnrote
Anchana Sumarnrote