International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. Available online at www.ijagcs.com IJACS/2014/7-13/1332-1338 ISSN 2227-670X ©2014 IJACS Journal

Pest status of housefly (musca domestica l.) According to the opinion of community of southern punjab, pakistan RUNNING TITLE: Surveillance of Housefly Junaid Zafar1 , Muhammad Nadir Naqqash2, Shafqat Saeed3, Syed Muhammad Zaka4, Waqar Jaleel5, Nida Idrees6, Marryam Bakhtawar7, Saqib Rehman8, *Qamar Saeed9 , Arslan Bukhari10, Asif Latif11 Department Of Entomology, Faculty Of Agricultural Sciences And Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan *Corresponding Author email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Housefly (Musca domestica) is a devastating pest of agriculture and public health. It is responsible of transmitting a number of important diseases like typhoid, diarrhea, plague etc. This survey based study was conducted for management of vector-borne diseases transmitted by housefly. People of Southern Punjab were interviewed about their socio-demographic features, basic and applied knowledge about housefly. Majority of respondents i.e. 87.6% houses said that housefly is found in abundance in their houses round the year. Results showed that 90.6% respondents claimed that they were able to identify the housefly. According to 54.1% interviewee daytime was the peak time of infestation. The most important damage in view of 37.0% respondents was food contamination and buzzing. For management of houseflies in houses 74.0% respondents were using insecticides. As housefly is a mobile pest so it can’t be managed by maintaining hygienic conditions in houses only. As housefly is a global pest so majority of people were familiar with its basic knowledge. Chemical control is most adapted method in houses due to its knock-down and quick action. Key Words: Housefly, Multan, DG Khan, Bahawalpur, Shujabad INTRODUCTION Musca domestica commonly known as housefly is a notorious pest of domesticated animals and human. Housefly acquired importance for health that has plagued humans throughout recorded history (West, 1951; Förster, et al. 2007). Housefly is often found in close proximity of human beings especially in and around houses or hospitals with poor sanitation and insalubrious conditions (Baker, 1981). It is commonly found around human and animal waste and landfills, from which they disperse to areas of human habitation and activity (Moriya, et al. 1999; Sulaiman, et al. 2000; Mian, et al. 2002). Large populations of houseflies cause reduced yields in veterinary and also play role in considerable public health problems when they come in direct or indirect contact with animals or human beings (Axtell, 1970; Axtell and Arends, 1990; Howard and Wall, 1996). Recent apprehensions about food-borne human illnesses have led to increase in number of published works on the role of housefly in spreading disease-causing organisms especially Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., and Salmonella spp. (Nayduch and Stuzenberger, 2001; Ahmad, et al. 2007; Holt, et al. 2007; Macovei, et al. 2008). Houseflies have been found to carry multi-drug resistant bacteria in hospital environments and they may play a role in the transmission of pathogens within hospitals (Fotedar, et al. 1992; Sramova, et al. 1992; Khalil et al. 1994). Recent reports have revealed that housefly is also recognized as potential transmitter of bird flu virus, causing threats to humans and poultry industry all over the world (Wanaratana, 2011).

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014 In developing countries like Pakistan, houseflies are national threat as it is transmitter of important diseases like typhoid, diarrhea, plague, cholera etc. which are more devastating in developing countries as compared to developed countries (WHO, 1991; Chavasse, et al. 1996; Lifshitz, 1996; Zurek, et al. 2001). Human being’s perception about natural world largely influences the way one thinks and behaves with its environment. The attitude towards animals depends on humans’ knowledge, perception, and nature of the relationship they have with a particular animal (Drews, 2002). Due to medical, veterinary and public health concerns a number of insecticides are used for the control of houseflies in urban environment. World-wide use of insecticides for its control, it has developed resistance to a number of insecticides (Learmount, et al. 2002; Marcon, et al. 2003). Thus increasing costs of application, pest resurgence, pest resistance and lethal effects on non-target organisms (Paranagama, et al. 2003), chemical control is usually not recommended in houses. The present study was designed for better management, of this pest. The objective was to assess knowledge, attitude and practices of common persons in relation to harms caused by housefly and its management in houses. The basic purpose of study was to gather the basic information from educated community about housefly and the preventive and control measures adapted by them to get rid of houseflies and to develop national programmes for integrated pest management of this pest accordingly. MATERIAL AND METHOD Feedback form development Keeping in view the guidelines of Frary, a questionnaire was designed in Eco-toxicology laboratory Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture Science & Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan (Frary, 1998). Sites selected Major cities of Southern Punjab i.e. Multan, Shujabad, Muzaffargarh, Kot Addu and Dera Ghazi Khan (D.G khan) were selected for interviews due to the fact that Punjab is the most developed province of Pakistan. Data assemblage The questionnaire was designed to collect the information of three different aspects from 500 people about housefly: Socio-demographic status of the interviewee including gender, education level, locality and age of the respondent. Hygienic conditions in houses, insect-pests present in their houses, identification of housefly, its pest status in houses and other information about housefly in relation to diseases. Methods adapted for control of houseflies in houses. Statistical analysis Tables and Graphs were drawn on SPSS system according to the Socio-demographic status of interviewee, personal knowledge of surveyed persons about houseflies and how they manage them. RESULTS Survey of community awareness relevant to houseflies was done among 434 people of Southern Punjab of Pakistan. Both males and females were interviewed with more number of males i.e. 69.8%. More number of males was from lesser developed areas because of strict religious and social terms in lesser developed areas. Educated people (97.7%) of Southern Punjab, Pakistan were focused for the survey. Majority of respondents i.e. of all surveyed areas were of 18–25 years of age. Comparison of respondents belonging to different areas revealed that highest percentage i.e. 58.6% of interviewee with 18–25 years of age was from D.G khan. It was concluded that 82.3% people clean house daily and highest number of people (89.3%) who clean their houses daily was found in Bahawalpur (Table1). According to opinion of 92.9% of people were of the view that insect-pests were present in their houses. It is obvious from the data that in area of D.G khan maximum percentage (96.6%) observed insect pests in their houses. Among the respondents, 90.6% interviewee of the claimed that they can identify the housefly. Comparing the surveyed sites, highest percentage (94.7%) of interviewee who claimed of identifying housefly was from Bahawalpur. It was concluded that 87.6% interviewee admitted that housefly can be observed in their houses throughout the year. Highest percentage of interviewee facing housefly round the year was resident of Multan i. e 89.0%. Kitchen was found the most preferred site of infestation as 38.5% respondents declared kitchen as the site

1333

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014 observed by them with severe infestation. About the activity period of houseflies, 54.1% of the surveyed people believed that houseflies remain abundant during daytime. Highest number of respondents i.e. 60.3% with the believe that houseflies remain abundant during daytime opinion was residents of DG Khan. Merely 38.7% of the all the interviewee claimed to identify breeding sites of housefly with highest percentage (43.6%) belonging to Shujabad as compared to rest of areas studied. It was exposed by the respondents that housefly is a source of irritation for 81.5% people. Highest percentage i.e. 94.7% declaring houseflies as major source of irritation was in Bahawalpur. Houseflies were declared as carrier of diseases by 77.7% respondents. Comparing the surveyed areas with each other, highest number of respondents i.e. 80.5% declaring the housefly as a vector was from Multan. In the light of survey it was concluded that 47.4% people suffered from one or more diseases transmitted by houseflies at least once in their life. Comparing the surveyed areas with each other highest percentage i.e. 49.3% suffering from disease(s) transmitted by houseflies was calculated from Bahawalpur. By surveillance, we concluded that according to 80.5% interviewee diseases transmitted by houseflies can be controlled with highest percentage i.e. 86.2% people from Shujabad. As determined 42.4% people, diarrhea was transmitted by housefly. Highest number of respondents i.e. 44.8% who declared housefly a carrier of diarrhea was in DG Khan (Table 2). For evaluating the type of annoyance due to houseflies, 37.0% people declared the type of annoyance caused by housefly was food contamination and buzzing (Figure 1). Management of houseflies For devising the IPM strategies of a specific insect-pest contribution of community is very important so the people were asked about the control strategies they usually adapt for controlling houseflies, 74% people used insecticides for control of houseflies (Figure 2). For evaluation of best control method of housefly, chemical control was declared the best control method by 74.0% respondents (Figure 3). In the light of survey it was concluded that 70.0% people said that they should be responsible to manage houseflies at their own (Figure 4). DISCUSSION This study was conducted to fill the gap between the need of health facilities and need of health programmes for control of important diseases and their vectors like housefly in this case (Vandebroek, et al. 2011). Education is very important for creating awareness and proper management of any problem as it affects the behavior, knowledge and practices relevant to a specific problem (Falvo, 2004; Snoek and Visser, 2003). Despite of the fact that majority of respondents claimed that they clean their house regularly but as a number of household disease carrying insects are mobile and active so they can’t be managed only by maintaining hygienic conditions in houses only. So majority of houses in developing countries have severe problem of insect-pests (Rivault, et al. 1993; Cloarec, et al. 1992; Yap and Foo, 1984). Majority of people have the problem of housefly in their houses thus results reinforce the conclusion of a number of researches that the housefly is a cosmopolitan notorious pest (Busvine, 1980; Chapman, et al. 1998; Howard, 2001). As houseflies are global problem and they are found in intimate close association with human beings (Förster, 2007; Baker, 1981) so people were able to identify housefly, they were also aware of its time of abundance, its disease transmitting ability as a number of people were suffered from diseases transmitted by houseflies (Ahmad, et al. 2007; Macovei, et al. 2008). However most of the people gave point of view that diseases transmitted by houseflies can be managed easily and disease transmission is not the most important damage of houseflies (Barin, et al. 2010). The awareness of house flies’ breeding sites, active time and preventive tools are essential components to reduce chances of the house fly-human or house fly food contacts. Houseflies could be controlled effectively by the reduction and/or elimination of breeding habitats (Malik, et al. 2007). Chemical control is still the main approach for urban pest control (Castle, et al. 1999; Lee and Yap, 2003) as it provides effective control (WHO, 2002).

CONCLUSION This study was conducted to fill the gap between the need of health facilities and need of health programmes. Education affects the behavior, knowledge and practices relevant to a specific problem so educated persons of Southern Punjab, Pakistan were focused. Clean vicinity in addition to hygienic conditions in houses would help us to fight vectors like housefly and important vector-borne diseases like typhoid, diarrhea, cholera etc. The knowledge of basic information and preventive measures play an important role in management of insectpests. Chemical control was found to be the most important method used for the control of insect-pests in houses.

1334

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014 However due to increasing resistance, pest resurgence and effects on non-target organisms research on alternate control methods should be conducted and applied in Pakistan. REFERENCES Ahmad A, Nagaraja TG, Zurek L. 2007. Transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to cattle by house flies. Prev Vet Med 80:74–81. Axell RC, Arends JJ. 1990. Ecology and management of arthropod pest of poultry. Ann. Rev. Entomolog. 35:101–126. Axtell RC. 1970. Integrate fly-control program for caged-poultry houses. J Econ Entomol 63: 400–405. Barin A, Arabkhazaeli F, Rahbari S, Madani S. 2010. The housefly, Musca domestica, as a possible mechanical vector of Newcastle disease virus in the laboratory and field. Med Vet Entomol 24:88–90. Busvine JR. 1980. Insects and Hygiene: the Biology and Control of Insect Pests of Medical and Domestic Importance in Britain . Methuen & Co. Ltd , London . Chapman JW, Howse PE, Knapp JJ, Goulson D. 1998a. Evaluation of three (Z)-9-tricosene formulations for control of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in caged-layer poultry units . J Econ Entomol 91:915–922 . Chavasse D, Ahmad N, Akhtar T. 1996. Scope for fly control as a diarrhea intervention in Pakistan: a community perspective. Soc Sci Med 43:1289–1294. Cloarec A, Rivault C, Fontaine F, Leguyader A. 1992. Cockroaches as carriers of bacteria in mult family dwellings. Epidemio Infect 109:483–490. Drews C. 2002. Attitudes, knowledge and wild animals aspets in Costa Rica. ANTHROZOÖS 15:119–138. Falvo D. (ed), Effective patient education: a guide to increased compliance. Jones and Barlett Publishers: Sudbury, Massachusetts USA, p.31 Förster M, Klimpel S, Mehlhorn H, Sievert K, Messler S, Pfeffer K. 2007. Pilot studies on synantropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fania, Lucilia, Stomoxys) as vectors of pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitol Res 101:243–246. Fotedar R, Banarjee U, Samantray JC, Shriniwas SS. 1992. Vector potential of the hospital house flies with special reference to Klebsiella species. Epidemiol Infect 109:143–47. Frary RB. 1998. A brief guide to questionnaire development. [www.ericae.net/ ft/tamu/vpiques3.htm]. ERICAE.net. Holt PS, Geden CJ, Moore RW, Gast RK. 2007. Isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar enteriditis from houseflies (Musca domestica) found in rooms containing Salmonella serovar enteriditis-challenged hens. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:6030–6035. Howard JJ, R Wall. 1996. Control of the housefly, Musca domestica in Poultry units. Current techniques and future prospects. Agric Zool Rev 7: 247–265. Howard JJ. 2001. Nuisance flies around a landfill: patterns of abundance and distribution. Waste Manage Res 19:308–313. Khalil K, Lindblom GB, Mazhar K, Kaijsher B. 1994. Flies and water as reservoirs for bacterial enteropathogens in urban and rural areas in and around Lahore, Pakistan. Epidemiol Infect 113:435–44. Learmount J, Chapman P, MacNicoll A. 2002. Impact of an insecticide resistance strategy for housefly (Diptera: Muscidae) control in intensive animal units in the United Kingdom. J Econ Entomol 95:1245–1250. Lifshitz EI. 1996. Travel trouble:typhoid fever- A case presentation and review. J Am Coll Health 45(3):99–105. Macovei L, Miles B, Zurek L. 2008. The potential of house flies to contaminate ready-to-eat food with antibiotic resistant enterococci. J Food Protect 71:432–439. Malik A, Singh N, Satya S. 2007. House Fly (Musca domestica): a review of control strategies for a challenging pest. J Environ Sci Health 42:453–469. Marcon PCRG, Thomas GD, Siegfried BD, Campbell JB, Skoda SR. 2003. Resistance status of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from southeastern Nebraska beef cattle feedlots to selected insecticides. J Econ Entomol 96:1016–1020. Mian LS, Maag H, Tacal JV. 2002. Isolation of Salmonella from muscoid flies at commercial animal establishments in San Bernardino County, California. J Vector Ecol 27:82–85. Moriya K, Fujibayashi T, Yoshihara T, Matsuda A, Sumi N, Umezaki N, Kurahash H, Agui N, Wada A, Watanabe H. 1999. Verotoxinproducing Escherichia coli O157:H7 carried by the housefly in Japan. Med Vet Entomol 13:214–216. Nayduch D, Stutzenberger F. 2001. The housefly (Musca domestica) as a vector for emerging bacterial enteropathogens. Recent Res Dev Microbio 5:205–209. Paranagama PA, Abeysekera KHT, Abeywickrama KP, Nugaliyadde L. 2003. Fungicidal and anti-aflatoxigenic effects of the essential oil of Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf. (lemongrass) against Aspergillus flavus Link. isolated from stored rice. Let App Microbiol 36: 1–5. Rivault C, Cloarec A, Leguyader A. 1993. Bacterial load of cockroaches in relation to urban environment. Epidemiol Infect 110:317–25. Snoek F, Visser A. 2003. Improving quality of life in diabetes: how effective is education? Patient Educ Couns 51(1):1–3. Sramova H, Daniel M, Absolonova V, Dedicova D, Jedlickova Z, Lhotova H, Petras P, Subertova V. 1992. Epidemiological role of arthropods detectable in health facilities. J Hosp Infect 20:281–92. Sulaiman S, Othman MZ, Aziz AH. 2000. Isolations of enteric pathogens from synanthropic flies trapped in downtown Kuala Lumpur. J Vector Ecol 25:90–93. Vandebroek I, Reyes-Garcia V, Albuquerque UP, Bussmann R, Pieroni A. 2011. Local knowledge: who cares? J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 7:35. Wanaratana S, Panyim S, Pakpinyo S. 2011. The potential of house flies to act as a vector of avian influenza subtype H5N1 under experimental conditions. Med Vet Entomol 25:58– 63. West LS. 1951. The Housefly. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, NY, 584 PP. WHO [World Health Organization]. 2002. Global insecticide use for vector-borne disease control. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2002.2. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. 79 pp. WHO. 1991. Insect and rodent control through environmental management: A community action programme. Geneva, Switzerland. 29–34 pp. Yap HH, Foo AES. 1984. Household pests and household insecticide usage on Penang Island, Malaysia.-A questionnaire survey. B Public Health Soc 16:2–8. Zurek L, Denning SS, Schal C, Watson DW. 2001. Vector competence of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) for Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. J Med Entomol 38:333–335.

1335

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014 Castle T, Amador M, Rawlins S, Figueroa JP, Reiter P. 1999. Absence of impact of aerial malathion treatment on Aedes aegypti during a dengue outbreak in Kingston, Jamaica. Rev. Panam. Salud. Publica/Pan. Am J Public Health 5:100–105. Lee CY, Yap HH. 2003. Status of urban pest control in Malaysia. In, Lee CY, Yap HH, Chong NL, Jaal Z. (eds.), Urban Pest Control, A Malaysian Perspective. Universiti Sains Malaysia. 1–8 pp. Annonymous a 2013, http://x.dawn.com/2013/05/22/literacy-and-pakistan/ Baker LF. 1981. Pests in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2:5–9.

Legends Of The Tables Basic information of Persons in five different cities of Southern Punjab, Pakistan Identification of insects pests in house and information of house fly in five different cities of Punjab, Pakistan Table 1. Basic information of Persons in five different cities of Southern Punjab, Pakistan Sr. No 1.

Variables

2.

Education

3.

Education

4.

Age

5.

Can you clean your House

Gender

Category

Multan DG Khan n (%) n (%) Male 108 (54.0) 46 (79.3) Female 92 (46.0) 12 (20.7) Yes 196 (98.0) 57 (98.3) No 4 (2.0) 1 (1.7) Primary 4 (2.0) 1 (1.7) Matric 15 (7.5) 5 (8.6) Graduate 172 (86.0) 49 (84.5) Above graduate 9 (4.5) 3 (5.2) 18-25 years 116 (58.0) 34 (58.6) 26-40years 76 (38.0) 21 (36.2) < 40 years 8 (4.0) 3 (5.2) Yes 160 (80.0) 50 (86.2) No 40 (20.0) 8 (13.8) *n= Frequency **%= Percentage

Shujabad n (%) 83 (82.2) 18 (17.8) 98 (97.0) 3 (3.0) 7 (6.9) 3 (3.0) 86 (85.1) 5 (5.0) 58 (57.4) 40 (39.6) 3 (3.0) 80 (79.2) 21 (20.8)

Bahawalpur n (%) 66 (88.0) 9 (12.0) 73 (97.3) 2 (2.7) 3 (4.0) 5 (6.7) 65 (86.7) 2 (2.7) 42 (56.0) 31 (41.3) 2 (2.7) 67 (89.3) 8 (10.7)

Total n (%) 303 (69.8) 131 (30.2) 424 (97.7) 10 (2.3) 10 (2.3) 28 (6.4) 372 (85.7) 19 (4.3) 250 (57.6) 168 (38.7) 16 (3.7) 357 (82.3) 77 (17.7)

Table 2. Identification of insects pests in house and information of house fly in five different cities of Punjab, Pakistan Sr. No

Variables

Category

Multan

DG Khan

Shujabad

Bahawalpur

Total

1.

Ever you seen Insect pest In house Can you identify house fly? Ever seen house fly in house Where you seen house fly in House

Yes No Yes No Yes No Kitchen Toilet Dustbin Others Morning Evening No idea Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Diarrhea Typhoid Dysentery T.B Other

n (%) 187 (93.5) 13 (6.5) 181 (90.5) 19 (9.5) 178 (89.0) 22 (11.0) 67 (33.5) 33 (16.5) 76 (38.0) 24 (12.0) 103 (51.5) 66 (33.0) 31 (15.5) 80 (40.0) 120 (60.0) 153 (76.5) 45 (22.5) 161 (80.5) 39 (19.5) 89 (44.5) 111 (55.5) 161 (80.5) 39 (19.5) 83 (41.5) 23 (11.5) 17 (8.5) 7 (3.5) 70 (35.0)

n (%) 56 (96.6) 2 (3.4) 50 (86.2) 8 (13.8) 51 (87.9) 7 (12.1) 18 (31.0) 7 (12.1) 28 (48.3) 5 (8.6) 35 (60.3) 13 (22.4) 10 (17.2) 20 (34.4) 38 (65.5) 54 (92.1) 4 (6.9) 45 (77.6) 13 (22.4) 34 (58.6) 24 (41.4) 44 (75.9) 14 (24.1) 26 (44.8) 8 (13.8) 2 (3.4) 11(18.9) 11(18.9)

n (%) 91 (90.1) 10 (9.9) 91 (90.1) 10 (9.9) 86 (85.1) 15 (14.9) 40 (39.6) 33 (32.7) 25 (24.8) 3 (3.0) 53 (52.5) 36 (35.6) 12 (11.9) 44 (43.6) 57 (56.4) 76 (75.3) 25 (24.8) 81 (80.2) 20 (19.8) 46 (45.6) 55 (54.5) 87 (86.2) 14 (13.9) 43 (42.6) 12 (11.9) 9 (8.9) 7 (6.9) 30 (28.0)

n (%) 69 (92.0) 6 (8.0) 71 (94.7) 4 (5.3) 65 (86.7) 10 (13.3) 42 (56.0) 4 (5.3) 20 (26.7) 9 (12.0) 44 (58.7) 20 (26.7) 11 (14.7) 24 (32.0) 51 (68.0) 71 (94.7) 4 (5.3) 61 (81.3) 14 (18.7) 37 (49.3) 38 (50.7) 57 (76.0) 18 (24.0) 32 (42.7) 11 (14.7) 2 (2.7) 16 (21.3) 14 (18.6)

n (%) 403 (92.9) 31 (7.1) 393 (90.6) 41 (9.4) 380 (87.6) 54 (12.4) 167 (38.5) 77 (17.7) 149 (34.3) 41 (9.4) 235 (54.1) 135 (31.1) 64 (14.7) 168 (38.7) 266 (60.3) 354 (81.5) 80 (18.5) 348 (80.1) 86 (19.9) 206 (47.4) 228 (52.6) 349 (80.5) 85 (19.5) 184 (42.4) 54 (12.4) 30 (6.9) 41 (9.4) 125 (28.8)

2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Do you know Abundance time of house fly Can you identify breeding site of house fly House fly cause irritation? Can house fly cause any type of disease Can you suffer due to cause by house fly disease Can you control diseases Which diseases is due to house fly

*n= Frequency **%= Percentage

1336

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014

Legends Of The Figure People perception about type of annoyance of housefly in Southern Punjab, Pakistan People perception related to control method for housefly in Southern Punjab, Pakistan Evaluation of best control method for housefly in accordance to the people People perception for responsibility of control of house fly in Southern Punjab, Pakistan

Other, 3

Disease, 23.3 Buzzing, 37.1

Food contamination, 36.6

Percentage of people Figure 1.

Poison Baits, 0

Others, 1.4

Fly swatters, 24.9

Insecticide, 73.7

Percentage of people Figure 2.

1337

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 7 (13), 1332-1338, 2014

Others, 2

Poison Baits, 0 Fly swatters, 24

Insecticide, 74

Percentage of people Figure 3.

Both, 8 Government, 22.3 Self , 70.7

Percentage of People Figure 4.

1338