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: Repellency of 29 Synthetic and Natural Commercial Topical Insect Repellents Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Central Mexico.
    Author: Kuri-Morales PA, Correa-Morales F, González-Acosta C, Sánchez-Tejeda G, Moreno-Garcia M, Dávalos-Becerril E, Juárez-Franco MF, Benitez-Alva JI, González-Roldán JF.
    Journal: J Med Entomol; 2017 Sep 01; 54(5):1305-1311. PubMed ID: 28402436.
    Abstract:
    In Mexico, the use of repellents to prevent insects from landing and biting is a common practice. However, variation in the efficiency of natural and synthetic repellents has been observed. In this study, we evaluated the repellency and protection time of 16 synthetic and 13 natural-based commercial products against Aedes aegypti (L.) from an endemic dengue area (Jojutla, Morelos) in Central Mexico. The "arm exposure" cage test was used to assess the efficacy of the repellents. Tests were conducted by three adult volunteers. Results showed that DEET (N, N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) repellents provided the highest protection and duration times against Ae. aegypti. However, low repellency and short-time protection was observed (when compared with the manufacturers' protection times). Natural-based products did not repel (either landing or biting) mosquitoes for >30 min. These results show that most of the repellent products did not provide satisfactory levels of personal protection against mosquito bites. Frequent reapplication of repellents (synthetic and natural-based) may compensate for their short duration of action. Repellent efficacy data must be integrated into the decision-making process for an optimal response to the local (or specific region) situation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]