## 4 Discussion
### Prison Effect Assessment
Taking into account the thorax of males \(T_{d\sigma}\) (the smaller one), the generatrix of the 3D porous surface area that is at a distance \(242/2\) um (half the average thorax dimension) taken from the outline of the weft thread that closes the hole in the warp direction is \(d_{Td\sigma}\) (\(L_{y}=T_{d\sigma}/2\Rightarrow d_{y}=d_{Td\sigma}\)) (Table 3, Equation (1) and Figure 7). This value can serve as an indicator of whether the distance of the warp threads considered in space is small enough to prevent the passage of insects. In addition, it should be checked that the middle of the hole (\(L_{py}/2\)) has a value lower than the mean value of the considered thorax measurement \(T_{d\sigma}\). Therefore, screen number 5 is the only one with an efficacy close to 100%. These parameters do not perfectly order the screens according to their efficacy, which may be due to the variability in the sizes of the insects captured for each test and the small differences between the textiles in terms of thread densities, thread thicknesses, and thickness. The hole uniformity of the meshes should also be considered, and the screen color (crystal, black, and white) can also be a factor of variability. According to the above, a limit on hole length \(L_{py}\) must be defined to separate the weft threads \(L_{px}\) based on the reference measurement chosen according to the pest species considered. To set this limit, previous theoretical considerations can be made to allow textile prototype designs; however, given the complexity of the three-dimensional problem,  
Figure 7: Representation of a male _B. tabaci_ (**left**); half of a hole and reference measurements to theoretically assess the efficacy of the hole (**right**) (created using AutoCAD 2023). together with the variability of sizes in insect populations and their ability to pass through the holes, it must be the experimentation that allows obtaining definitive solutions. Given the size distributions of insect populations, the consideration of mean values of their body measurements is not a good indicator when designing screen holes. For design proposals, it might be interesting to choose some percentile (<50) instead of mean values. From a macroscopic point of view, considering that the textile conforms to a plane, bringing the warp threads closer together would be sufficient to guarantee greater efficacy of the textile regardless of the distance between the weft threads. However, from the microscopic perspective, the weave structure is three-dimensional and is defined by the alternating crossing of warp and weft threads in space. When considering the warp threads in the context of a single hole, the minimum distance between them coincides with the middle of the hole, and this separation coincides with the distance \(L_{px}\) measured in digital images taken under a microscope. However, the spatial separation between the threads increases as we move towards the weft thread that closes the contour, and therefore, the insect has more space to pass through. Therefore, we can say that this minimum distance \(L_{px}\) divides the hole into two parts in such a way that results in the following:  
* If the hole is long enough, one of the halves will offer a porous surface large enough for the insect to pass through. Additionally, that is what happens in holes as their length increases: the spatial separation of the warp threads increases from the segment defining the axis of the hole, and the insects find a larger free surface to pass through the textile. * However, if the hole, although rectangular, is not long enough, the insect will not be able to pass through any of the halves defined by the central axis, and in these cases, the spacing between the weft threads according to the design criterion will improve the porosity without loss of efficacy, considering that the hole width is well defined according to the target pest species. Given a sufficiently restrictive hole width for the passage of _B.