## 4 Discussion
### Prison Effect Assessment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Textile**} & \(t_{t}\pm\) SD & **(\(D_{bx}+D_{hy}/t_{t}\))** & \(L_{py}/L_{py}\) & \(d_{Td_{d}}\) & \(D_{pp}\) & \(L_{py}/2\) & \(A_{20}\pm\) SD & \(A_{20}\pm\) **SD** & \(A_{20}\pm\)**SD** & \((A_{20}\pm-A_{20})\) (\%) & \(\epsilon\) **(\%)** \\  & **(\(\mu\)m)** & **(\(\mu\)m**m**-1) & **(\(\mu\)m**m**-1) & **(\(\mu\)m**m**-1) & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** & **(\(\mu\)m**)** \\ \hline
5 & \(454\pm 5\) & 0.91 & 0.938 & 370 & 423 & 194 & 0.140 \(\pm\) 0.013 & 0.153 & 8.3 & 98.8 \\
1 & \(474\pm 5\) & 0.91 & 0.517 & 382 & 505 & 343 & 0.244 \(\pm\) 0.027 & 0.262 & 6.7 & 71.6 \\
7 & \(486\pm 5\) & 0.91 & 0.477 & 391 & 528 & 372 & 0.264 \(\pm\) 0.024 & 0.288 & 8.2 & 54.5 \\
4 & \(404\pm 5\) & 0.80 & 0.478 & 372 & 523 & 375 & 0.267 \(\pm\) 0.022 & 0.277 & 3.7 & 52.2 \\
8 & \(472\pm 4\) & 0.92 & 0.456 & 395 & 554 & 402 & 0.295 \(\pm\) 0.029 & 0.313 & 5.9 & 43.6 \\
2 & \(444\pm 5\) & 0.90 & 0.400 & 376 & 566 & 436 & 0.303 \(\pm\) 0.027 & 0.321 & 5.6 & 62.8 \\
6 & \(464\pm 5\) & 1.00 & 0.395 & 399 & 594 & 458 & 0.330 \(\pm\) 0.018 & 0.355 & 7.0 & 65.3 \\
3 & \(418\pm 4\) & 0.82 & 0.343 & 370 & 622 & 509 & 0.355 \(\pm\) 0.040 & 0.369 & 3.8 & 17.8 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Textile thickness \(t_{t}\), ratio between the sum of thread thicknesses and textile thickness (\(D_{bx}+D_{hy}/t_{t}\)), shape factor \(L_{py}/L_{py}\), generatrix related to the mean male thorax value \(d_{Td_{d}}\), 3D diagonal of half a hole \(D_{PQ}\), 2D and 3D hole surface areas (\(A_{20}\) and \(A_{\simeq 30}\)), percentage variation in hole surface, and efficacy \(\epsilon\) values against _B. tabaci_. we have hole geometries in which the difference between the width \(L_{px}\) and the length \(L_{py}\) is small, and therefore, the holes are close to a square. On the other hand, as the shape ratio decreases in value, the difference between width and length is marked, and we are dealing with holes in which the weft threads are further apart in relation to the warp threads. Table 3 also shows the distance \(\mathrm{D_{PQ}}\) between points P and Q (Figure 7). Considering half of the hole, this is the largest distance left by the threads. In this case, it does not offer any additional information because the hole width is not a variable, but it can be a very interesting parameter when comparing protective screens with different hole widths and lengths. As expected, the three-dimensional porous surface area \(A_{\simeq 3\mathrm{D}}\) calculated with Equation (4) gives higher values than the surface area \(A_{2\mathrm{D}}\) measured in the images obtained under the microscope (Table 3). The increase in the porous surface area obtained by considering the spatial arrangement of the threads is variable depending on the textile considered since it depends on the thickness of the screens and the thickness of the threads (Table 3). Therefore, using finer threads in the manufacturing process will allow us to obtain fabrics of lesser thickness with smaller differences between the 2D and 3D porous surface areas, which can have a positive effect on the exclusion of insects (and in the porosity). In the three dimensions, the only generatrix of the hole surface area that coincides with \(L_{px}\) (hole width measured in the two dimensions) is the hole axis (central part of the distance between the warp threads, Figures 3 and 4). This is the most restrictive place for the passage of insects because it coincides with the minimum separation between the warp threads.