## 3 Results
### Efficacy of Textile Physical Barriers  
Figure 5 shows the results obtained in the efficacy tests against _B. tabaci_ carried out with the eight insect-proof screens selected under calm conditions (without simulating the effect of the wind). The trend shows that the efficacy of the textiles decreases with increasing hole length. For example, textile number 5 with a hole length of 363 \(\upmu\)m gives an efficacy against _B. tabaci_ of 98.8%, while if the length value is increased to 1018 \(\upmu\)m, the efficacy values drop drastically to 17.8% (screen number 3). Textile numbers 2 and 6 show an efficacy of over 60%, with higher performance than textile numbers 4, 7, and 8 with smaller hole lengths.  
Figure 5: Efficacy \(\varepsilon\) against _B. tabaci_ of the tested protective screens vs. mean hole length \(L_{py}\) (the number next to the points identifies each textile) (created using MS Excel v2304).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Textile** & **Thread Color** &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\rho_{x}\times\rho_{y}\) \\ **(Threads cm–2)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(L_{px}\) \(\pm\) **SD (\(\upmu\)m)** & \(L_{py}\) \(\pm\) **SD (\(\upmu\)m)** & \(D_{hx}\) \(\pm\) **\(\sigma\) (\(\upmu\)m)** & \(D_{hy}\) \(\pm\) **\(\sigma\) (\(\upmu\)m)** & \(\varphi\) (\%)** \\ \hline
5 & crystal & 15.9 \(\times\) 16.1 & 363 \(\pm\) 21 & 387 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 26 & 240 \(\pm\) 13 & 258 \(\pm\) 10 & 35.7 \\
1 & black & 10.5 \(\times\) 16.3 & 355 \(\pm\) 25 & 686 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 57 & 263 \(\pm\) 7 & 258 \(\pm\) 9 & 42.0 \\
7 & crystal & 9.7 \(\times\) 16.7 & 355 \(\pm\) 31 & 744 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 22 & 288 \(\pm\) 10 & 244 \(\pm\) 11 & 42.9 \\
4 & crystal & 10.0 \(\times\) 16.3 & 358 \(\pm\) 25 & 749 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 22 & 251 \(\pm\) 9 & 256 \(\pm\) 10 & 43.8 \\
8 & crystal & 9.5 \(\times\) 15.9 & 367 \(\pm\) 34 & 804 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 27 & 249 \(\pm\) 7 & 263 \(\pm\) 21 & 44.5 \\
2 & crystal & 8.9 \(\times\) 16.8 & 348 \(\pm\) 30 & 871 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 26 & 247 \(\pm\) 8 & 247 \(\pm\) 8 & 45.7 \\
6 & white & 8.7 \(\times\) 16.8 & 361 \(\pm\) 17 & 915 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 28 & 230 \(\pm\) 10 & 233 \(\pm\) 10 & 48.8 \\
3 & crystal & 7.9 \(\times\) 16.5 & 349 \(\pm\) 38 & 1018 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 22 & 252 \(\pm\) 6 & 257 \(\pm\) 10 & 46.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* a, b, c superscripts indicate groups identified by the Student–Newman–Keuls test.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Geometric characteristics of the protective textiles: thread color, average thread density in weft and warp directions \(\rho_{x}\times\rho_{y}\), average hole width \(L_{px}\), average hole length \(L_{py}\), average thickness of weft \(D_{lux}\) and warp \(D_{hy}\) threads, and porosity of the screens \(\varphi\).  
Therefore, the results represented in Figure 5 show that the hypothesis we are trying to prove, which states that the hole length does not influence the efficacy of protective screens, is false. The one-way ANOVA test confirms this statement since it gives an F-value of 15.183 and a \(p\)-value \(<0.001\) in the study relating the hole length values \(L_{py}\) to the efficacy achieved. The statistically different groups are indicated in Table 2 according to the results obtained in the Student-Newman-Keuls test.