Field evaluation of the efficacy of proprietary repellent formulations with IR3535 and picaridin against Aedes aegypti.

Institute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology (IMMIP), University Clinic Bonn, Sigmund Freud Street 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany.
Parasitology Research (Impact Factor: 2.33). 07/2007; 101(1):169-77. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-006-0450-2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Seven proprietary repellent formulations (3 hydro-alcoholic spray solutions and 4 skin lotions) with active ingredient IR3,535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate, EBAAP) or Picaridin (hydroxyethyl isobutyl piperidine carboxylate, KBR 3,023, Bayrepel) were tested in a field study on 10 test persons over a period of 10 h for their efficacy at preventing bites. The tests were conducted in Belo Horizonte, Brazil on field populations of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. The concentration of the active substances ranged from 10% to 20%. All the tested samples provided lasting protection (time to first bite) over several hours: ranging from 5 h 20 min to 6 h 50 min with a mean of approximately 6 h. The longest protection until the second bite (=first confirmation bite) was approximately 7 h 40 min, whereas the shortest protection was 6 h 50 min. The longest protection until the third bite (=second confirmation bite) was 8 h 35 min, whereas the shortest protection was 7 h 40 min. In the control tests in which none of the samples were applied, the mean times until the first, second and third bites were 26, 46 and 59 min, respectively. The basis for this field study was provided by two American guidelines, which have the greatest international acceptance. The first is a draft guideline from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), Product performance test guidelines. OPPTS 810.3700. Insect repellents for human skin and outdoor premises. Public Draft, 1999) and the second is a standard from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials International), E 939-94 (reapproved 2,000): standard test method of field testing topical applications of compounds as repellents for medically important and pest arthropods (including insects, ticks, and mites): I. Mosquitoes, 2,000). Both guidelines recommend measuring the duration of protection until the first and second bites and also determining the relative protection efficacy in terms of a 95% protection level. The ASTM standard permits different repellents to be applied, whereas the EPA guidelines only permit the use of a single repellent (in different concentrations) on the extremities (forearms or lower leg). In the study presented here, to exclude any possibility of different repellents or concentrations of a single repellent having a reciprocal effect on each other, each test person had repellent samples applied to only one of their forearms. The other forearm was used as a control for making comparative checks every hour and for determining the biting pressure. There was no significant difference in protection times between the two active substances.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Travellers are confronted with a variety of vector-borne threats. Is one type of repellent effective against all biting vectors? The aim of this review is to examine the literature, up to December 31st, 2012, regarding repellent efficacy. We searched PubMed for relevant papers. Repellents of interest were DEET, Icaridin as well as other piperidine-derived products (SS220), Insect Repellent (IR) 3535 (ethyl-butylacetyl-amino-propionat, EBAAP) and plant-derived products, including Citriodora (para-menthane-3,8-diol). As vectors, we considered the mosquito species Anopheles, Aedes and Culex as well as the tick species Ixodes. We selected only studies evaluating the protective efficacy of repellents on human skin. We reviewed a total of 102 publications. Repellents were evaluated regarding complete protection time or as percentage efficacy [%] in a time interval. We found no standardized study for tick bite prevention. Regarding Aedes, DEET at concentration of 20% or more, showed the best efficacy providing up to 10 h protection. Citriodora repellency against this mosquito genus was lower compared to the other products. Also between subspecies a difference could be observed: Ae. aegypti proved more difficult to repel than Ae. Albopictus. Fewer studies have been conducted on mosquito species Anopheles and Culex. The repellency profile against Anopheles species was similar for the four principal repellents of interest, providing on average 4-10 h of protection. Culex mosquitoes are easier to repel and all four repellents provided good protection. Few studies have been conducted on the tick species Ixodes. According to our results, the longest protection against Ixodes scapularis was provided by repellents containing IR3535, while DEET and commercial products containing Icaridin or PMD showed a better response than IR3535 against Ixodes ricinus. Many plant-based repellents provide only short duration protection. Adding vanillin 5% to plant-based repellents and to DEET repellents increased the protection by about 2 h.
    Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 10/2013; 11(6). DOI:10.1016/j.tmaid.2013.10.005 · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The IR3535 derivative (LJH158), in which the ethyl ester of IR3535 was converted to methyl ester, was synthesized and studied as a new mosquito repellent. The repellent efficacy of LJH158 was compared with that of DEET against Aedes albopictus, Culex pipiens pallens and Aedes togoi. Also, the aromatic repellent tests were conducted with mixtures of repellents and the essential oils of cinnamon, which were obtained by supercritical fluid extraction. In addition, the safety issues of LJH158 were monitored using single oral dose safety methods and eye irritation, and skin irritation tests. The results of repellent efficacy in both biting and aromatic tests and safety tests demonstrate that LJH158 has high potential to be used as a new repellent or in combination with other repellents.
    Entomological Research 11/2012; 42(6). DOI:10.1111/j.1748-5967.2012.00473.x · 0.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Revista Paulista de Pediatria 01/2009; 27(1). DOI:10.1590/S0103-05822009000100013


Available from
Sep 19, 2014