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: Efficacy of unregulated minimum risk tick repellent products evaluated with Ixodes scapularis nymphs in a human skin bioassay.
    Author: Burtis JC, Ford SL, Parise CM, Eisen RJ, Eisen L.
    Journal: Parasit Vectors; 2024 Feb 01; 17(1):50. PubMed ID: 38303091.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The majority of vector-borne disease cases in the USA are caused by pathogens spread by ticks, most commonly the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis. Personal protection against tick bites, including use of repellents, is the primary defense against tick-borne diseases. Tick repellents registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are well documented to be safe as well as effective against ticks. Another group of tick repellent products, 25(b) exempt or minimum risk products, use alternative, mostly botanically derived, active ingredients. These are considered to pose minimal risk to human health and therefore are exempt from EPA registration; efficacy testing is not mandated for these products. METHODS: We used a finger bioassay to evaluate the repellency against I. scapularis nymphs for 11 formulated 25(b) exempt products together with two positive control DEET-based EPA registered products. Repellency was assessed hourly from 0.5 to 6.5 h after product application. RESULTS: The DEET-based products showed ≥ 97% repellency for all examined timepoints. By contrast, an average of 63% of ticks were repelled in the first 1.5 h after application across the 11 25(b) exempt products, and the average fell to 3% repelled between 2.5 and 6.5 h. Ten of the 11 25(b) exempt products showed statistically similar efficacy to DEET-based products at 30 min after application (repellency of 79-97%). However, only four 25(b) exempt products maintained a level of repellency similar to DEET-based products (> 72%) at the 1.5-h mark, and none of these products were effective in repelling ticks at the timepoints from 2.5 to 6.5 h after application. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the claims on the labels nor specific active ingredients and their concentrations appeared to predict the duration of efficacy we observed for the 25(b) exempt products. These products are not registered with the EPA, so the methods used to determine the application guidelines on their labels are unclear. Consumers should be aware that both the level of efficacy and the duration of repellency may differ among unregulated 25(b) exempt repellent products labeled for use against ticks. We encourage more research on these products and the 25(b) exempt active ingredients they contain to help determine and improve their efficacy as repellents under different conditions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]