## 3 Results
### Extraction of Volatiles and Analysis by GC-MS and GC-FID/GC-MS
#### 3.2.2 The Attractant Activity of Sheep Wool Using Semi-Field Bioassays  
A two-tailed paired \(t\)-test was used to compare the efficacies of the baits and determine the statistical significance of the differences within the pairs. The mean (\(\pm\)SEM) number of mosquitoes for each bait and the mean of the difference of these means (\(\pm\)SED) for each pair are presented in Table 4. The difference was statistically very significant (60.29 \(\pm\) 15.30) when bait \"vibration + wool\" was compared to bait \"none\" (setup C) (Figures 4 and 5). The differences between the paired baits \"vibration + wool\" vs. \"vibration\" 35.25 \(\pm\) 8.85 (setup A), and \"vibration + wool\" vs. \"wool\" 29.67 \(\pm\) 7.62 (setup B) were significant, as well. There was no significant difference between the efficacies of captures by baits \"vibration\" vs. \"wool\" 20.83 \(\pm\) 20.82 (D), Table 4.  
Relative attractiveness for paired baits \"vibration + wool\" vs. \"none\" was 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.04 (setup C). RAs for paired baits \"vibration + wool\" vs. \"vibration\", and \"vibration + wool\" vs. \"wool\" were almost identical, 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.02, and 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.03, correspondingly (setups A, and B).  
These results show that vibrated sheep wool is a better attractant than the baits with only wool or vibrated bait but without wool. Baits \"vibration\" vs. \"wool\" seem to have almost similar effects.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Setups** & **Paired Bates** & **Mean \(\pm\) SEM** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean of** \\ **Difference \(\pm\) SED** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **95\% CI of** \\ **Difference \(\pm\) SED** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **t-Value** \\ **(t-Critical)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(n_{r}\)** \\ **df** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)-Value** \\ **Two-Tail** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{A} & vibration + wool & 126.13 \(\pm\) 11.91 & \multirow{3}{*}{35.25 \(\pm\) 8.85} & \multirow{3}{*}{14.31–56.19} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.98 (2.36)} & \multirow{3}{*}{8, 7} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.005} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & vibration & 90.88 \(\pm\) 11.13 & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{B} & vibration + wool & 113.5 \(\pm\) 12.82 & \multirow{3}{*}{29.67 \(\pm\) 7.62} & \multirow{3}{*}{10.08–49.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.90 (2.57)} & \multirow{3}{*}{6, 5} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.012} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & wool & 83.83 \(\pm\) 15.39 & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{C} & vibration + wool & 98.29 \(\pm\) 19.56 & \multirow{3}{*}{60.29 \(\pm\) 15.30} & \multirow{3}{*}{22.86–97.72} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.94 (2.45)} & \multirow{3}{*}{7, 6} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.008} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & none & 38.00 \(\pm\) 6.70 & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{D} & vibration & 151.67 \(\pm\) 13.05 & \multirow{3}{*}{20.83 \(\pm\) 20.82} & \multirow{3}{*}{(\(-\)2.09)–43.75} & \multirow{3}{*}{2.34 (2.57)} & \multirow{3}{*}{6, 5} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.067} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & wool & 130.83 \(\pm\) 13.87 & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Summary of paired \(t\)-tests for comparison of differences between the mean amounts of mosquitoes collected in the paired traps in setups A, B, C, and D in semi-field assay.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Concentrations** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sheep Wool Hydrodistillate**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Thialdine**} \\ \hline
**(\(\upmu\)g/cm\({}^{2}\))** & **15 min** & **30 min** & **60 min** & **15 min** & **30 min** & **60 min** \\ \hline
10 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\
1 & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.54 \(\pm