Activity of the plant-based repellent, TT-4302 against the ticks Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor variabilis, Ixodes scapularis and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae)
- 353 Downloads
The plant-based repellent TT-4302 (5 % geraniol) was compared to deet (15 %) in laboratory two-choice bioassays against the ticks Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor variabilis, Ixodes scapularis, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus. At 2.5 and 3.5 h after treatment of filter paper with TT-4302, 100 % repellency was observed for all species at both time points with the exception of I. scapularis at the 3.5 h evaluation where repellency was 95.8 %. Deet was 100 % repellent at both time points for D. variabilis and R. sanguineus and was 100 % repellent at the 2.5 h evaluation for I. scapularis. Repellency of deet to A. americanum was 88.9 and 95.8 % at 2.5 and 3.5 h, respectively which was not significantly different than that of TT-4302. No significant difference against I. scapularis was observed between TT-4302 and deet at 3.5 h after treatment where deet was 87.5 % repellent. A variant of TT-4302, TT-4228 was tested in the laboratory against A. americanum and was compared to deet (15 %) in field trials against wild populations of ticks in North Carolina, USA. In the laboratory, TT-4228 was 94.4 and 87.5 % repellent at 2.5 and 3.5 h after treatment, respectively. In the field where the predominant tick species was A. americanum, significantly fewer ticks were collected from socks worn by human volunteers that were treated with TT-4228 compared to those treated with deet 2.5 or 3.5 h after treatment. Significantly fewer ticks were recovered from socks treated with TT-4228 than their paired untreated controls 2.5 or 3.5 h after treatment and repellencies were 90 and 70 %, respectively. Fewer ticks were collected from deet-treated compared to their paired untreated socks 2.5 h after application; however, no significant difference was found in the number of ticks collected from deet-and untreated socks 3.5 h after treatment.
KeywordsDeet Essential oil Geraniol
The authors are grateful to Bryan LeBlanc (TyraTech) for technical assistance and Daniel Sonenshine (Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University) for providing D. variabilis. Funding for this project was provided by TyraTech.
- Arctander S (2003) Perfume and flavor chemicals (aroma chemicals), vol 1. Allured Publishing Corporation, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
- Draper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Mkolo MN, Magano MR (2007) Repellent effects of the essential oil of Lavendula angustifolia against adults of Hyalomma marginatum rufipes. JS Afr Vet Assoc 78:149–152Google Scholar
- Moore SJ, Lenglet A, Hill N (2007) Plant-based insect repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances S, Strickman D (eds) Insect repellents: principles, methods, and uses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 305–310Google Scholar
- Nicholson WL, Sonenshine DE, Lane RS, Uilenberg G (2009) Ticks (Ixodida). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 493–542Google Scholar
- Salafsky B, He Y-X, Li J, Shibuya T, Ramaswamy K (2000) Study on the efficacy of a new long-acting formulation of N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) for the prevention of tick attachment. J Trop Med Hyg 62:169–172Google Scholar
- SAS Institute (2000–2004) SAS 9.1.3 help and documentation. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Schreck CE, Fish D, McGovern TP (1995) Activity of repellents applied to skin for protection against Amblyomma americanum and Ixodes scapularis ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). JAMA 11:136–140Google Scholar
- Sonenshine DE (1993) Biology of ticks, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) DEET, showers, and tick checks can stop ticks. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/StopTicks/. Accessed 19 July 2012