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: Comparative field evaluation of repellent formulations containing deet and IR3535 against mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia.
    Author: Frances SP, MacKenzie DO, Rowcliffe KL, Corcoran SK.
    Journal: J Am Mosq Control Assoc; 2009 Dec; 25(4):511-3. PubMed ID: 20099600.
    Abstract:
    Field trials comparing repellent formulations containing IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate) and deet (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) against mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia, were conducted. Two repellents were compared: Avon Bug Guard, containing 7.5% IR3535; and Australian Defense Force (ADF) deet, containing 35% deet in a gel. Two tests were conducted, one in February-March 2006, and the second in February 2007. In the 1st test, the predominant mosquito species collected were Mansonia uniformis (58.9% of collection) and Culex annulirostris (33.4%), and in the 2nd test, the predominant species was Aedes vigilax (85.7% of collection). In the 1st test, Avon Bug Guard provided >95% protection against all mosquitoes for only 1 h, and ADF deet provided the same level of protection for 5 h. In the 2nd field test, Avon Bug Guard provided only 85% protection against all mosquitoes 1 h after repellent application, while ADF deet provided 5 h of protection. The study showed that ADF deet provided significantly better protection against mosquitoes than Avon Bug Guard (IR3535).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]