Parasitology Research

, 101:169 | Cite as

Field evaluation of the efficacy of proprietary repellent formulations with IR3535® and Picaridin against Aedes aegypti

  • T. J. NauckeEmail author
  • R. Kröpke
  • G. Benner
  • J. Schulz
  • K. P. Wittern
  • A. Rose
  • U. Kröckel
  • H. W. Grünewald
Original Paper


Seven proprietary repellent formulations (3 hydro-alcoholic spray solutions and 4 skin lotions) with active ingredient IR3535® (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate, EBAAP) or Picaridin (hydroxyethyl isobutyl piperidine carboxylate, KBR 3023, 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 2000): 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, 2000). 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.


Yellow Fever Test Person Deet Bite Rate Protection Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials International) (2000) E 939–94 (reapproved 2000): standard test method of field testing topical applications of compounds as repellents for medically important and pest arthropods (including insects, ticks, and mites): I. MosquitoesGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard DR (2000) Repellents and toxicants for personal protection. In: Global collaboration for development of pesticides for public health (GCDPP), position paper WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2000.5,
  3. Briassoulis G, Narlioglou M, Hatzis T (2001) Toxic encephalopathy associated with use of DEET insect repellents: a case analysis of its toxicity in children. Hum Exp Toxicol 20:8–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buescher MD, Rutledge LC, Wirtz RA, Glackin KB, Moussa MA (1982) Laboratory tests of repellents against Lutzomyia longipalpis (Diptera: Psychodidae). J Med Entomol 19:176–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Canyon DV, Hii JLK (1997) Efficacy of carbon dioxide, 1-octen-3-ol, and lactic acid in modified fay-prince traps as compared to man-landing catch of Aedes aegypti. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 13:66–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. CDC (2005) Dengue fact sheet. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Cilek JE, Petersen JL, Hallmon CF (2004) Comparative efficacy of IR3535 and DEET as repellents against adult Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 20:299–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clem JR, Havemann DF, Raebel MA (1993) Insect repellent (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) cardiovascular toxicity in an adult. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 27:289–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Costantini C, Badolo A, Ilboudo-Sanogo E (2004) Field evaluation of the efficacy and persistence of insect repellents DEET, IR3535, and KBR 3023 against Anopheles gambiae complex and other Afrotropical vector mosquitoes. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 98:644–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Diallo M, Ba Y, Sall AA, Diop OM, Ndione JA, Mondo M, Girault L, Mathiot C (2003) Amplification of the sylvatic cycle of dengue virus type 2, Senegal, 1999–2000: entomologic findings and epidemiologic considerations. Emerg Infect Dis 9:362–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dua VK, Nagpal BN, Sharma VP (1995) Repellent action of neem cream against mosquitoes. Indian J Malariol 32:47–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) Product performance test guidelines. OPPTS 810.3700. Insect repellents for human skin and outdoor premises. Public DraftGoogle Scholar
  13. Frances SP, Cooper RD, Popat S, Beebe NW (2001) Field evaluation of repellents containing DEET and AI3-37220 against Anopheles koliensis in Papua New Guinea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 17:42–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould DJ, Mount GA, Scanlon JE, Ford HR, Sullivan MF (1970) Ecology and control of dengue vectors on an island in the Gulf of Thailand. J Med Entomol 74:499–508Google Scholar
  15. Gubler DJ (1998) Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Clin Microbiol Rev 11:480–496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones JW, Sithiprasasna R, Schleich S, Coleman RE (2003) Evaluation of selected traps as tools for conducting surveillance for adult Aedes aegypti in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 19:148–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar S, Prakash S, Sharma SK, Kalyanasundaram M, Swamy RV, Rao KM (1984) Field evaluation of three repellents against mosquitoes, black flies & land leeches. Indian J Med Res 80:541–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuno G (1995) Review of the factors modulating dengue transmission. Epidemiol Rev 17:321–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kröckel U, Rose A, Eiras ÁE, Geier M (2006) New tools for surveillance of adult yellow fever mosquitoes: comparison of trap catches with human landing rates in an urban environment. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 22:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchio F (1996) Insect repellent 3535: a new alternative to DEET. SÖFW-J 122:478–485Google Scholar
  21. Milutinovic R, Milic J, Stajkovic N, Cvetkovic A (2000) Influence of O/W emulsion composition with polymeric emulsifier on repellents efficiency. Proceedings of the 19th Pharmaceutical Technology Conference, vol. 2, April 11–13, Baveno-Stressa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Milutinovic R, Stajkovic N, Milic J (2002) Assessment of efficacy of repellent preparations containing ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate. SÖFW-J 128:14–16Google Scholar
  23. Naucke TJ, Lorentz S, Grünewald HW (2006) Laboratory testing of the insect repellents IR3535® and DEET against Phlebotomus mascittii and P. duboscqi (Diptera: Psychodidae). Int J Med Microbiol 296:230–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson MJ (1986) Aedes aegypti: biology and ecology. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA, p 50Google Scholar
  25. Osimitz TG, Grothaus RH (1995) The present safety assessment of DEET. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 11:274–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Osimitz TG, Murphy JV (1997) Neurological effects associated with the use of the insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide. J Toxicol 35:435–441Google Scholar
  27. Peters BA, Miller PF, Patrick HN (2002) Field efficacy of IR3535 based personal insect repellents against the mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and the biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogobidae). Poster 38, 4th International Conference on Urban Pests, July 2002, Charleston, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakash G, Raju AK, Koroivueta J (2001) DF/DHF and its control in Fiji. Dengue Bull 25:21–27Google Scholar
  29. Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte (2006) Belo Horizonte-Estatísticas & Informações-Demografia. Retrieved on May 29, 2006 from
  30. Rodríguez H, de la Hoz F (2005) Dengue and dengue and vector behaviour in Cáqueza, Colombia, 2004. Rev Salud Públ (Colombia) 7:1–15Google Scholar
  31. Russell RC (2004) The relative attractiveness of carbon dioxide and octenol in CDC- and EVS-type light traps for sampling the mosquito Aedes aegypti (L.), Aedes polynesiensis Marks, and Culex quinquefasciatus Say in Moorea, French Polynesia. J Vector Ecol 29:309–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell RC, Webb CE, Davies N (2005) Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes polynesiensis Marks (Diptera: Culicidae) in Moorea, French Polynesia: a study of adult population structures and pathogen (Wuchereria bancrofti and Dirofilaria immitis) infection rates to indicate regional and seasonal epidemiological risk for dengue and filariasis. J Med Entomol 42:1045–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoeler GB, Schleich SS, Manweiler SA, Sifuentes VL, Joy JE (2004) Evaluation of surveillance devices for monitoring Aedes aegypti in an urban area of northeastern Peru. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 20:6–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott TW, Amerasinghe PH, Morrison AC, Lorenz LH, Clark GG, Strickman D, Kittayapong P, Edman JD (2000) Longitudinal studies of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Puerto Rico: blood feeding frequency. J Med Entomol 37:89–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Secretaria Municipal de Sáude de Belo Horizonte (2006) Dengue-Dados da Dengue em Belo Horizonte. Retrieved on May 29, 2006 from
  36. Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Phan-Urai P, Ngamsuk W, Chansang C, Liu M, Li Z (1996) Dengue vector mosquitoes at a tourist attraction, Ko Samui, in 1995. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 27:160–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Chompoosri J, Suwonkerd W, Chansang UR, Asavadachanukorn P (2001) Laboratory and field evaluations of the insect repellent 3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate) and DEET against mosquito vectors in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 17:190–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. WHO (2002) Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Fact sheet no. 117. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. WHO (2006) Yellow fever: a current threat. Retrieved on May 28, 2006 from
  40. WHOPES (2000) Review of insect repellent IR3535. Report of the Fourth WHOPES Working Group Meeting, WHO/HQ, Geneva WHO/CDS/WHOPES/2001.2, 9–120Google Scholar
  41. Wichmann O, Mühlberger N, Jelinek T (2003) Dengue—the underestimated risk in travellers. Dengue Bull 27:126–137Google Scholar
  42. Yasuno M, Tonn RJ (1970) A study of biting habits of Aedes aegypti, Bangkok, Thailand. Bull World Health Organ 43:319–325PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. J. Naucke
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • R. Kröpke
    • 4
  • G. Benner
    • 4
  • J. Schulz
    • 4
  • K. P. Wittern
    • 4
  • A. Rose
    • 5
  • U. Kröckel
    • 5
  • H. W. Grünewald
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology (IMMIP)University Clinic BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Division of ParasitologyUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.Parasitus Ex e.V.NiederkasselGermany
  4. 4.Beiersdorf AGHamburgGermany
  5. 5.BioGents GmbHRegensburgGermany
  6. 6.Merck KGaADarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations