» Articles » PMID: 19583848

Limitation of Using Synthetic Human Odours to Test Mosquito Repellents

Overview
Journal Malar J
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Tropical Medicine
Date 2009 Jul 9
PMID 19583848
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Gold-standard tests of mosquito repellents involve exposing human volunteers to host-seeking mosquitoes, to assess the protective efficacy of the repellents. These techniques are not exposure-free and cannot be performed prior to toxicological evaluation. It is postulated that synthetic lures could provide a useful assay that mimics in-vivo conditions for use in high-throughput screening for mosquito repellents.

Methods: This paper reports on a semi-field evaluation of repellents using a synthetic blend of human derived attractants for the malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto Different concentrations of known repellents, N, N diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet) and Para-methane-3, 8, diol (PMD) were added into traps baited with the synthetic blend, and resulting changes in mosquito catches were measured.

Results: All test concentrations of deet (0.001% to 100%) reduced the attractiveness of the synthetic blend. However, PMD was repellent only at 0.25%. Above this concentration, it significantly increased the attractiveness of the blend. There was no relationship between the repellent concentrations and the change in mosquito catches when either deet (r2 = 0.033, P = 0.302) or PMD (r2 = 0.020, P = 0.578) was used.

Conclusion: It is concluded that while some repellents may reduce the attractiveness of synthetic human odours, others may instead increase their attractiveness. Such inconsistencies indicate that even though the synthetic attractants may provide exposure-free and consistent test media for repellents, careful selection and multiple-repellent tests are necessary to ascertain their suitability for use in repellent screening. The synthetic odour blend tested here is not yet sufficiently refined to serve as replacement for humans in repellent testing, but may be developed further and evaluated in different formats for exposure free repellent testing purposes.

Citing Articles

The effect of novel mosquito bite prevention tools on Anopheles minimus landing and key secondary endpoints: semi-field evaluations in Thailand.

Vajda E, Ross A, Saeung M, Pongsiri A, McIver D, Tatarsky A Malar J. 2024; 23(1):387.

PMID: 39695591 PMC: 11656824. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-05188-3.


Novo plant-based mosquito repellent shows promise for exclusion of Aedes mosquitoes from "window" entry.

Yavasoglu S, Wood M, Bull J, Alkis N, Dogan E, Alkhaibari A J Med Entomol. 2024; 62(1):39-46.

PMID: 39485014 PMC: 11735262. DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjae137.


Field evaluation of a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent and etofenprox treated clothing for outdoor protection against forest malaria vectors in Cambodia.

Vajda E, Ross A, Doum D, Fairbanks E, Chitnis N, Hii J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):17348.

PMID: 39069597 PMC: 11284218. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-67470-3.


A semi-field evaluation in Thailand of the use of human landing catches (HLC) versus human-baited double net trap (HDN) for assessing the impact of a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent and pyrethroid-treated clothing on Anopheles minimus landing.

Vajda E, Saeung M, Ross A, McIver D, Tatarsky A, Moore S Malar J. 2023; 22(1):202.

PMID: 37400831 PMC: 10318828. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-023-04619-x.


Semi-field evaluation of the exposure-free mosquito electrocuting trap and BG-Sentinel trap as an alternative to the human landing catch for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanators against Aedes aegypti.

Tambwe M, Saddler A, Abdul Kibondo U, Mashauri R, Kreppel K, Govella N Parasit Vectors. 2021; 14(1):265.

PMID: 34016149 PMC: 8138975. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04754-x.


References
1.
Fradin M . Mosquitoes and mosquito repellents: a clinician's guide. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 128(11):931-40. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-11-199806010-00013. View

2.
Dogan E, Ayres J, Rossignol P . Behavioural mode of action of deet: inhibition of lactic acid attraction. Med Vet Entomol. 1999; 13(1):97-100. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00145.x. View

3.
Costantini C, Badolo A, Ilboudo-Sanogo E . 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. 2004; 98(11):644-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2003.12.015. View

4.
Lindsay S, Janneh L . Preliminary field trials of personal protection against mosquitoes in The Gambia using deet or permethrin in soap, compared with other methods. Med Vet Entomol. 1989; 3(1):97-100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1989.tb00481.x. View

5.
Ditzen M, Pellegrino M, Vosshall L . Insect odorant receptors are molecular targets of the insect repellent DEET. Science. 2008; 319(5871):1838-42. DOI: 10.1126/science.1153121. View