These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Field evaluation of repellent formulations against daytime and nighttime biting mosquitoes in a tropical rainforest in northern Australia.
    Author: Frances SP, Van Dung N, Beebe NW, Debboun M.
    Journal: J Med Entomol; 2002 May; 39(3):541-4. PubMed ID: 12061453.
    Abstract:
    Field trials to compare repellent formulations containing either picaridin or deet against rainforest mosquitoes in northern Queensland, Australia, were conducted. Three repellents were compared at night: 9.3% picaridin and 19.2% picaridin (Autan Repel and Autan Repel Army 20, respectively, Bayer, Sydney, Australia) and 35% deet in a gel (Australian Defense Force [ADF]). During the day, the following three repellents were compared: 19.2% picaridin, 20% deet in a controlled release formulation (Sawyer Controlled Release Deet), and 33% deet in a polymer formulation (U.S. Army Extended Duration Topical Insect and Arthropod Repellent [EDTIAR]). The predominant mosquito species collected was Verrallina lineata (Taylor), with smaller numbers of Ochlerotatus kochi (Donitz), Anopheles farauti s.s. Laveran, Ochlerotatus notoscriptus (Skuse), and Coquilletidia xanthogaster (Edwards). In nighttime tests, 19.2% picaridin provided >94.7% protection for at least 9 h, and ADF deet provided >95% protection for 7 h. The 9.3% picaridin formulation provided >95% protection for only 2 h, and provided 60% protection at 9 h. In daytime tests, Sawyer 20% deet provided >95% protection for 6 h, and both 19.2% picaridin and U.S. Army EDTIAR provided >95% protection for 8 h. In both nighttime and daytime tests 19.2% picaridin provided similar or better protection than deet formulations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]