Jtm_402.dviExpert Review of the Evidence Base for Arthropod Bite Avoidance
Larry I. Goodyer, PhD,∗ Ashley M. Croft, MD,† Steve P. Frances, PhD,‡ Nigel Hill, PhD,§
Sarah J. Moore, PhD,§ Sangoro P. Onyango, BSc,§ and Mustapha Debboun, PhD¶
∗Leicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Gateway, Leicester, UK; †Surgeon General's Department, London,
UK; ‡Australian Army Malaria Institute, Brisbane, Qld., Australia; §London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London,
UK; Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Morogoro, Tanzania; ¶US Army Medical Department Center & School, Center for
Health Education & Training, Fort Sam, Houston, TX, USA
Bite avoidance measures are commonly recom- at www.istm.org; click on ‘‘ISTM Committees'' and mended to international travelers to help reduce the risk of various arthropod-borne diseases. A keystrategy is the use of repellents applied topically to skin Part 1: Repellents for Topical Use
or clothing which are considered in the ﬁrst part ofthis review. Also advised are a variety of methods that Major Findings employ the use of insecticides and physical barriers such N ,N -diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet), (2-(2-hydroxy- as mosquito nets or oil preparations applied to the skin.
ethyl)-piperidinecarboxylic acid 1-methyl ester (icari- In the following document, the authors considered din), p-methane 3, 8-diol (PMD), and ethyl butylacety- some of the most widely used bite avoidance methods laminopropionate (IR3535)-based repellents all provide and identiﬁed the strength and quality of evidence that protection against biting arthropods, but volatile oils determined efﬁcacy. The overall purpose of the review and other natural products are less reliable. On the is to provide the available evidence, in a graded format, strength of available evidence, the ﬁrst-line choice for upon which to base recommendations for the selection those visiting areas where malaria or other arthropod- of appropriate repellents and other methods of bite borne diseases are endemic remains formulations with avoidance in those traveling overseas.
higher concentrations (20–50%) of deet. Higher con-centration icaridin and PMD preparations are the mostuseful alternatives to deet where they are available. See Desired Outcomes and Methods
Table 1 for a summary of the ﬁndings.
The authors were asked to consider the effectivenessof the most commonly used active ingredients Diethyltoluamide (Other Name Deet; Chemical (AIs) in repellent formulations and methods of bite Name: N ,N -Diethyl-3-Methylbenzamide, Former avoidance. The evidence base considered protection Nomenclature N ,N -Diethyl-m-Toluamide) against nuisance biting insects, reduction in the Deet has been widely used in insect repellent products incidence of arthropod-borne diseases, and safety for use on human skin to protect against biting proﬁle. Effectiveness of the repellent related to spectrum arthropods.1–5 The majority of laboratory and ﬁeld of activity against various mosquito species and other tests conducted to compare the efﬁcacy of repellents arthropods was examined as well as longevity of applied use deet as the primary formulation or as a comparison.
dose. Where possible, efﬁcacy was compared to deet Deet is considered the most effective broad spectrum as being the accepted gold standard. All sections repellent AI against biting arthropods.6 employed MEDLINE via PubMed in literature searches The ﬁrst laboratory tests against mosquitoes were augmented by others depending on the subject area reported by Gilbert and colleagues7 who showed investigated. Details of the review process can be found deet and dimethylphthalate were equally effectiveagainst Anopheles quadrimaculatus. Altman8 reportedﬁeld studies in Panama against Anopheles albimanus Corresponding Author: Larry I. Goodyer, PhD, Leicester
and showed 75% deet provided protection for at least School of Pharmacy, DeMontfort University, The Hawthorn 3 hours. Field studies undertaken in the last 20 years Gateway, Leicester in Africa,9,10 Australia,11,12 Papua New Guinea,13,14 Malaysia,15 and Thailand16 have shown that protection 2010 International Society of Travel Medicine, 1195-1982Journal of Travel Medicine 2010; Volume 17 (Issue 3): 182–192 Expert Review of Bite Avoidance Summary of evidence base for topically applied repellents Aspect of bite avoidance DeetDermal application to avoid mosquitoes Deet provides shorter protection against Anopheles sp.
mosquitoes than Culicine mosquitoes. Reapplicationtimes will vary to maintain optimal effectiveness.
Dermal application to avoid ticks Laboratory and ﬁeld tests showed deet provides minimal protection, recent test showed adequate protection.
Application of deet to wristbands Wristbands provide no protection for uncovered and untreated human skin.
IcaridinDermal application to avoid mosquitoes Icaridin provided good protection against Anopheles sp.
mosquitoes in Africa and Asia, also effective againstCulicine mosquitoes.
Dermal application of icaridin to humans to avoid ticks Laboratory test showed icaridin provides protection for 1 h. Recent test showed adequate protection.
IR3535Dermal application to avoid mosquitoes Based on limited ﬁeld studies for mosquitoes. Not recommended in malaria endemic areas.
Dermal application to avoid sand ﬂies Based on one laboratory study.
PMDDermal application to avoid mosquitoes Can be highly recommended as an alternative repellent to deet at concentrations of >20% as a repellent foruse in disease endemic areas. (Some evidence ofefﬁcacy against ticks.) Not recommended for use when engaging in vigorous activities, in disease endemic areas or areas with highdensities of mosquitoes.
More studies should be conducted before it is recommended as a repellent.
Essential oils require careful formulation to be effective, and safety data suggest skin irritation is a factor.
∗A = good evidence to support use; B = moderate evidence to support use; C = poor evidence to support use; D = moderate evidence to support a recommendationagainst use; E = good evidence to support a recommendation against use.
† I = evidence from one or more properly randomized, controlled trial; II = evidence from one or more well-designed clinical trial without randomization, fromcase-controlled analysis of cohort study; III = consensus evidence, evidence from one authority or reports of expert committees, single case studies.
against Anopheles spp. is less than that provided against may cause damage, and thus the use of deet applied to clothing is not widely accepted. The use of wristbands The response of different mosquito species to deet treated with deet and other AIs offered no protection is variable.17 Field tests of repellent formulations against mosquitoes.4 containing deet against biting Culex spp., Aedes spp., There have been a number of reviews concerning the Mansonia spp., and Verrallina spp. have been reported.5 safety of deet,25,26 and they have attested to its generally The protection provided by deet was longer against acceptable safety proﬁle. There are few reports of these genera than provided against Anopheles spp.12 systemic toxicity in adults following dermal application.
Studies have shown that deet provides only minimal The safety proﬁle in the second and third trimester of or poor protection against ticks.18–21 However, recently pregnancy has been established through observation of Carroll and colleagues22 showed that a 33% deet, very low placental cord concentrations after maternal Extended Duration formulation provided high levels application of deet,27 and animal models do not of protection for 12 hours.
indicate any teratogenic effects.28 Recommendations Deet is recommended to be applied to the exposed for use in young children do vary between countries, skin of humans. However, alternative methods of with some recommending lower concentrations29 and using deet have been proposed and investigated. The others suggesting that higher strengths can be used.30 application of deet to wide mesh cotton/nylon jackets However, the causation between the few reported cases provided good protection against mosquitoes and biting of encephalopathy in children and the topical use of ﬂies.23 Deet-treated netting used as groundsheets were deet cannot be supported by a good evidence base.31 shown to provide signiﬁcant protection against ticks.24 The scientiﬁc evidence and continued use of deet for Although application of deet to nylon/cotton fabrics >50 years has shown this AI is the best broad spectrum has been shown to enhance protection against bites, the repellent available for minimizing bites of mosquitoes, application of deet to some synthetic ﬁbers and plastics ticks, and other biting arthropods.
J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Goodyer et al. Icaridin (Formerly Picaridin; commercially available preparations. Importantly, PMD has been proven to prevent malaria in a clinical trial in 1-Methyl Ester; WHO Designation: Icaridin; Trade the Bolivian Amazon.44 Name: Bayrepel; Development Reference Code: KBR Studies carried out both in the laboratory and the ﬁeld using rigorous methodology have shown PMD Independent ﬁeld studies demonstrating the effective- to be a repellent of equal efﬁcacy and longevity as ness of repellents containing icaridin against mosquitoes deet.45 At 30% AI, PMD provided almost complete have been conducted in Malaysia32,33 and Florida.34 protection for 4 hours in South America46 and complete In Australia, a formulation containing 19.2% icaridin protection for 6 hours at 50% AI in Sub-Saharan Africa provided similar protection as 20% deet against Ver- against malaria vectors.47 In both of these studies, the rallina lineata.35 In another study in Australia, the protection time was equivalent to the deet controls. A same formulation provided >95% protection against well-designed laboratory trial of PMD against a further Culex annulirostris for 5 hours, but only 1 hour pro- African malaria vector showed complete protection tection against Anopheles spp.12 KBR 3023 at concen- for 4 to 5 hours using PMD impregnated towlettes,48 trations of 2% to 13% v/v in 90% ethanol provided again comparable with deet. Laboratory trials using better protection against Anophelines in Africa than the main vectors of dengue fever have shown good comparable formulations containing deet.10 protection, which is important for travelers as the Field studies against mosquitoes in two locations in vector bites in the day-time.45,49 Against the tick vectorsof Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Australia showed that a 9.3% formulation only provided PMD reduces attachment and feeding success by around 2-hour protection against V lineata35 and 5-hour 77%, and PMD is highly effective against the Highland protection against C annulirostris,36 while 7% icaridin Midge.50 PMD has not been tested against the vectors of provided 5.7 hours of protection against Aedes albopictus leishhmaniasis in vivo, although in vitro results suggest in laboratory tests.37 The use of lower concentrations that it may be effective.51 of icaridin in commercial formulations may requirethe user to reapply repellent more often to maintain effectiveness than with the higher concentrations( Citronella is one of the essential oils obtained from >20%) of icaridin used in the ﬁeld.
Protection from biting by ticks provided by 20% the leaves and stems of different species of Cymbopogon lotions of KBR 3023 was reported to be short.38 Carroll grasses. From the available literature and information, and colleagues22 showed that Bayrepel (10 and 20% we can conclude that the complete protection time forcitronella-based repellents is icaridin) repellent provided high levels of protection <2 hours4,49,52 because the repellent is highly volatile, but this can be prolonged for 12 hours when applied to human volunteers against by careful formulation and the addition of ﬁxatives like Amblyomma americanum under simulated ﬁeld-contact IR3535 [Also known as 3535 or EBAAP (EthylButylacetylaminopropionate)] Neem is a vegetable oil pressed from the fruits and seedsof neem (Azadirachta indica). Several ﬁeld studies from Five ﬁeld studies were identiﬁed, all testing IR3535 India have shown very high efﬁcacy of neem-based against mosquitoes.10,34,39–41 These indicated that preparations.54–56 However, these studies have used IR3535 is as effective as deet in repelling mosquitoes of questionable methodologies and their results contrast the Aedes and Culex genera but may be less effective than strongly with several others that have shown medium- deet in repelling anopheline mosquitoes. A number of range protection from neem products being inferior laboratory studies were also identiﬁed, testing IR3535 to deet.46,49,57 Neem has a low dermal toxicity but against a variety of other arthropods, including blackﬂies can cause skin irritation such as dermatitis.58 However, and ticks.42 An uncontrolled ﬁeld study of a new, caution should be taken as neem is a proven reproductive controlled-release formulation of IR3535 reported that toxicant and long-term subchronic exposure could these formulations may provide complete protection impair fertility.59 against mosquito biting for 7.1 to 10.3 hours.41 IR3535may be more effective than deet in protecting against Essential Oils phlebotomine sandﬂy biting (10.4 h mean protection vs Many commercial repellents contain a number of plant 8.8 h, respectively).42 essential oils either for fragrance or as repellents. Themost effective of these include thyme oil, geraniol, PMD: Lemon Eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora) Extract peppermint oil, cedar oil, patchouli, and clove.52,60,61 The principal repellent component of lemon eucalyptus Most of these essential oils are highly volatile and extract is PMD, which is the main by-product of lemon this contributes to their poor longevity as mosquito eucalyptus hydrodistillation.43 The active component is repellents. They can be irritating to the skin49,62 prepared through acid modiﬁed extraction of leaves or and their repellent effect is variable, dependent on a synthetic version of PMD is used in the majority of formulation and concentration.
J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Expert Review of Bite Avoidance important tool or method of personal protection The largest body of evidence for effectiveness in terms against arthropod bites and disease-transmitting vec- of spectrum of activity and longevity relates to deet that tors. Some of the insecticides that are recommended remains as a gold standard to which newer repellents are and used for treatment of fabrics are permethrin, compared in reducing nuisance bites from arthropods.
Icaridin and PMD are reasonable alternatives to deet for cyﬂuthrin, and etofenprox.66 However, the insecticide those visiting areas where arthropod-borne diseases are most commonly used for fabric impregnation is perme- endemic, whereas IR3535 has shown reduced efﬁcacy thrin [3-(phenoxyphenyl) methyl (±)-cis, trans-3-(2,2- against Anopheles mosquitoes and should not be advised for malaria endemic areas. When advising a formulation, the concentration of AI and the expected application Permethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide rate of AI should always be considered because these derived from crushed dried ﬂowers of the plant will greatly inﬂuence longevity of the applied dose.
Chrysanthemum cinerarifolium. Although permethrin's There are, for instance, some icaridin formulations primary mode of action is contact toxicity against a wide containing suboptimal concentrations. Apart from the variety of biting arthropods, it is also unique in that repellent choice, the following factors will determine it serves both as a contact insecticide and as an insect the duration of any repellent product.
repellent. Permethrin-impregnated clothing providesgood protection against mosquitoes,67–77 ticks,78–84 1. Product concentration: In general, the higher chigger mites,85,86 ﬂeas,87 lice,88,89 sand ﬂies,90,91 kissing percentage of AI, the greater the protection time bugs,92,93 and tsetse ﬂies.94 Thus, the use of permethrin- will be, although this tends to plateau at 50% w/v in treated clothing will decrease the biting frequency and the case of deet.63 transmission of arthropod-borne diseases among civilian 2. The rate of application that is applied to the exposed travelers and deployed military personnel. Today, human skin is also variable.64 And travelers have been military personnel from many countries use permethrin shown to apply relatively low doses of AI on treated to repel and kill arthropods that land on many kinds of treated surfaces, including ﬁeld uniforms, tents, bed 3. Activity level of the user: The effectiveness of a nets, and helmet covers.95 repellent is reduced by evaporation and absorption Impregnated-treated fabrics such as bed nets, from the skin surface and wash-off by sweat.
curtains, chaddars (veils or wraps worn by Muslim 4. Environmental conditions: Rain or water, washing women), top sheets, and blankets have also been found the repellent off the body, wind, and high ambient to be effective in reducing the burden of malaria temperatures will reduce a product's effectiveness.
and other vector-borne diseases96–100 and have been 5. User's overall attractiveness to blood-feeding used in the Roll Back Malaria Program by the World arthropods, such as mosquitoes.
Health Organization for tropical countries. However, 6. Number and species of blood-feeding arthropods due to the development of pyrethroid resistance in (biting density).
mosquito vectors, the use of impregnating fabrics withinsecticide mixtures, a combination of a repellent and Part 2: Area and Barrier Methods
insecticide-treated bed nets or mixtures of repellentsand non-pyrethroid–treated fabrics have become new Major Findings promising tools for disease vector control.101,102 The strongest level of evidence exists for the use of The development and use of long-lasting insecticide insecticide-treated mosquito nets, and these are to be nets such as Olyset Net and Perma Net has also been advised for all travelers visiting disease endemic areas proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating the at risk from biting arthropods on retiring. Insecticide- need for insecticide retreatment of insecticide-treated treated clothing and other fabrics would also be a useful nets.103–107 In addition, recently, the use of tent barrier adjunct to dermal applied repellents. Electric insecticide treatments with bifenthrin and permethrin is another vaporizers, essential oil candle, and coils to burn do effective method of personal protection against biting reduce bites from arthropods, but there is little evidence on the efﬁcacy of knockdown insecticide sprays. Thereis some concern regarding the potential adverse effects Electric Insecticide Vaporizers of burning coils. There is less evidence that these An insecticide vaporizer, which are mains- or battery- technologies reduce the incidence of malaria. There operated electrical devices releasing a pyrethroid is only weak evidence regarding the efﬁcacy of oils used insecticide, will clear a room of insects in around 30 on the skin. See Table 2 for a summary of the ﬁndings.
minutes and will remain effective for over 6 hours.112 Ten ﬁeld and laboratory studies were identiﬁed, Fabric Impregnation With Insecticides testing a variety of insecticides and devices in different The use of fabric impregnated with insecticides, par- settings, against a range of ﬂying insects, including ticularly insecticide-treated bed nets, has become an various mosquito species.113–122 J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Goodyer et al. Summary of evidence base for area and barrier methods InsecticidesEffectiveness of insecticides on clothing Strong evidence from numerous authorities or reports of expert committees supporting the use of impregnatedinsecticides (permethrin) on clothing as an importantmethod of personal protection against arthropod bites.
Effectiveness of net impregnation Numerous studies have shown good personal protection against arthropod bites with the use of netsimpregnated with insecticides.
Effectiveness of use on tents Consistent evidence from studies showing good personal protection against arthropod bites with the use ofimpregnated tents with insecticides.
Vaporizing insecticide matsInhibition of nuisance biting by mosquitoes Consistent evidence that insecticide vaporizers cause mosquito bite inhibition, mosquito repellence,mosquito knockdown, and mosquito death.
Malaria prevention No evidence from three studies Mosquito coilsInhibition of nuisance biting by mosquitoes Good evidence of protection against mosquito bites Malaria prevention Consensus that mosquito coils could be a useful measure to prevent malaria Prior exposure to mosquito coil smoke was more common in lung cancer patients than in controls.
Lung cancer risk was higher in frequent burners ofmosquito coils than in non-burners.125 Other adverse effects Breathlessness,132 chest irritation,114 eye and nose Essential oil candlesInhibition of nuisance biting by mosquitoes Two studies demonstrating signiﬁcant repellency compared to control.73,134 Inhibition of nuisance biting by other insect Essential oil, linalool, and geraniol but not citronella candles repelled signiﬁcantly more sandﬂies than didthe control candle.135 Mosquitoes knockdown spraysInhibition of nuisance biting by mosquitoes Anecdotal evidence only.
and other insect species Malaria prevention Two studies showed no signiﬁcant reduction in malaria Prevention of other insect-transmitted Oil-based productsInhibition of nuisance biting by midges Evidence for bath oils only.
Inhibition of nuisance biting by mosquitoes Evidence for chemical base oils only. Inhibition was observed mostly in culicine mosquitoes.148 Soybean oil inhibition of nuisance biting by More studies (ﬁeld trials) needed to establish the efﬁcacy mosquitoes and black ﬂy of soybean oil as a repellent, although initial studiesare very promising. Toxicity very low.
Garlic and vitamin B Do not confer protection against haematophagous arthropods and this notion should be discouraged.
∗A = good evidence to support use; B = moderate evidence to support use; C = poor evidence to support use; D = moderate evidence to support a recommendationagainst use; E = good evidence to support a recommendation against use.
† I = evidence from one or more properly randomized, controlled trial; II = evidence from one or more well-designed clinical trial without randomization, fromcase-controlled analysis of cohort study; III = consensus evidence, evidence from one authority or reports of expert committees, single case studies.
Electric insecticide vaporizers using pyrethrins or vaporizers containing these classes of insecticide pyrethroids inhibit nuisance biting by mosquitoes, and should be used by travelers with caution. Vaporized vaporized pyrethrins kill house ﬂies. There is no direct neem oil is an effective inhibitor of mosquito evidence that the technology does prevent malaria landing and appears safe to humans.121 It should or any other insect-transmitted infection.119,120,122 be investigated further for its potential usefulness in Exposure to pyrethrins and/or pyrethroids may present preventing malaria and other mosquito-transmitted a low-level health hazard to humans,123 and so J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Expert Review of Bite Avoidance Mosquito Coils insecticide sprays should be discouraged, in favor of Mosquito coils are made from a paste of powdered vector avoidance strategies of proven effectiveness.138 insecticide, usually a pyrethrin or pyrethroid whichwhen lit will smolder at a steady rate. Burning one Bath Oils and Chemical Base Oils mosquito coil releases the same amount of particulate Bath oils, and chemical base oils also, seem to protect matter as does burning 75–137 cigarettes124 and emits against insect biting not by a repellant action but by formaldehyde equivalent to 51 cigarettes.125 forming a physical barrier between the human target Historically, some authorities have advised interna- and the insect.139 They are reported to be especially tional travelers to burn mosquito coils in their room at effective against small ﬂying insects, creating an oily night, in order to discourage mosquito biting and so layer which traps these insects on the sticky surface help prevent mosquito-transmitted infection, notably of the skin.140 Some studies have suggested that small malaria. These authorities include some national expert ﬂying insects, such as biting midges and sandﬂies, are not efﬁciently repelled by conventional repellants (deet Consistent evidence from a systematic review and pyrethroid insecticides).141,142 indicated that coils cause mosquito bite inhibition, One small randomized controlled trial (nine adult mosquito repellence, mosquito deterrence, mosquito volunteers) tested a commercial bath oil preparation knockdown, and mosquito death. Inhibition of nuisance (Avon Skin-so-Soft, SSS)140 and found that deet biting is seen in all mosquito species: Aedes, formulations were signiﬁcantly more effective in Anopheles, Culex, and Mansonia.131 There has been preventing midge biting than was SSS.
little evidence that this technology prevents malariatransmission120,131,132 or other mosquito-transmittedinfection. However, the expert group considers that they Soybean Oil would be effective in preventing malaria in the light of Two well-designed laboratory evaluations of Bite as yet unpublished data.133 Exposure to mosquito coil Blocker, a commercial preparation containing 2% smoke could be hazardous to humans due to its potential soybean oil in addition to other oils and emulsiﬁers, association with lung cancer, but this should be taken have shown that it is competitive with deet, against a in context of the amount likely to be inhaled over an dengue vector and nuisance biting mosquitoes in one evening and the very occasional use by travelers. In study49 and equivalent to that of low-concentration many countries, such coils are licensed for outdoor use deet in a second study.4 A ﬁeld trial showed 3.5-hour only due to these concerns.
protection under intensive biting pressure of nuisancemosquitoes, but this was not conducted by independent Essential Oil Candles researchers.143 In a similar study against black ﬂies, Three ﬁeld studies were identiﬁed, demonstrating soybean oil provided complete protection from black ﬂy the effectiveness of essential oil candles in repelling bites of 9.7 hours as compared to 6.6-hour protection mosquitoes and sand ﬂies.134–136 provided by deet.144 Burning essential oil candles is likely to prevent biting by both mosquitoes and by sandﬂies. They may Garlic and Vitamin B also prevent biting by other insect species. While there It is still commonly believed and reported in magazines is no evidence that this technology prevents malaria, that ingestion of garlic or B vitamins makes the human leishmaniasis, or any other insect-transmitted disease, skin unpalatable to blood feeding and biting arthropods this is an aspect which should be investigated. Candles which have been refuted.145,146 Garlic and B vitamins containing 5% essential oil of geraniol appear to hold must never be suggested as a natural method of bite the most promise.
Knockdown Insecticide SpraysKnockdown insecticides are aerosol sprays which are designed to be sprayed indoors and into the air, toeliminate ﬂying insects by killing them as they ﬂy The use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets and through the room.128 clothing is well supported by the data and is to be Two individual studies were identiﬁed which failed recommended to travelers visiting malaria endemic to demonstrate that knockdown insecticide sprays areas. Electric insecticide vaporizers and essential oil prevented malaria in travelers to Africa.119,132 Only candles inhibit nuisance biting, but there is little anecdotal evidence supports the assumption that evidence that they help prevent malaria. Mosquito knockdown sprays inhibit nuisance biting by ﬂying coils are effective and may help to reduce the risk of insects. There is an obvious, but mostly unquantiﬁed malaria, although safety concerns have been raised. The health risk to humans, from inhaling any insecticide use of bath oils and other oils should be discouraged vapor.137 In the absence of persuasive evidence on in travelers until further effective personal protection the beneﬁts of this technology, the use of knockdown evidence is available.127 J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Goodyer et al. against Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) in Lae, Papua NewGuinea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1999; 14:339–341.
The authors dedicate this review to the memory of 14. Frances SP, Cooper RD, Popat S, Beebe NW. Field Dr Nigel Hill who died suddenly in January 2010.
evaluation of the repellents containing deet and AI3-37220, against Anopheles koliensis in Papua New Guinea.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2001;17:42–44.
Declaration of Interests
15. Yap HH, Jahinger K, Zairi J. Field efﬁcacy of four insect repellent products against vector mosquitoes in L. I. G. is director of Nomad Medical that produces deet a tropical environment. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2000; and permethrin based products. A. M. C., N. H., S. M., and P. S. state that they have no conﬂict of interest. The 16. Frances SP, Klein TA, Hildebrandt DW, et al. Labora- opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and tory and ﬁeld evaluation of the repellents, deet, CIC-4 do not necessarily reﬂect those of the UK Ministry of and AI3-37220, against Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culici- Defence, the United States Department of Defense, and dae) in Thailand. J Med Entomol 1996;33:511–515.
the Joint Health Command of the Australian Defence 17. Rutledge LC, Moussa MA, Lowe CA, Soﬁeld RK. Com- Force or any current defense policy.
parative sensitivity of mosquito species and strains tothe repellent diethyl toluamide. J Med Entomol 1978;14:536–541.
18. Schreck CE, Fish D, McGovern TP. Activity of repel- lents applied to skin for protection against Amblyomma 1. Curtis CF, Lines JD, Baolin L, Renz A. Natural and americanum and Ixodes scapularis ticks (Acari: Ixodidae).
synthetic repellents. In: Curtis CF, ed. Appropriate J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1995;11:136–140.
technology in vector control. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 19. Salafsky B, He Y-X, Li J, et al. Short report: study on the efﬁcacy of a new long-acting formulation of N , N - 2. Brown H, Hebert AA. Insect repellents: an overview.
diethyl-m-toluamide (deet) for the prevention of tick J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 36:243–249.
attachment. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2000; 62:169–172.
3. Fradin MS. Mosquitoes and mosquito repellents: a 20. Jensenius M, Pretorius A-M, Clarke F, Myrvang B.
clinician's guide. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128:931–940.
Repellent efﬁcacy of four commercial deet lotions against 4. Fradin MS, Day JF. Comparative efﬁcacy of insect Amblyomma herbraeum (Acari: Ixodidae), the principal repellents against mosquito bites. N Engl J Med 2002; vector of Rickettsia africae in southern Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2005; 99:708–711.
5. Frances SP. Efﬁcacy and safety of repellents containing 21. Solberg VB, Klein TA, McPherson KR, et al. Field deet. In: Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D, eds.
evaluation of deet and a piperidine repellent (AI3-37220) Insect repellents: principles, methods & uses. 1st Ed.
against Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007:311–325.
Entomol 1995; 32:870–875.
6. Gupta RK, Rutledge LC. Role of repellents in vector 22. Carroll JF, Benante JP, Klun JA, et al. Twelve-hour control and disease prevention. Am J Trop Med Hyg duration testing of cream formulations of three repellents 1994; 50:82–86.
against Amblyomma americanum. Med Vet Entomol 2008; 7. Gilbert IH, Gouck HK, Smith CN. New mosquito repellents. J Econ Entomol 1955; 48:741–743.
23. Grothaus RH, Haskins JR, Schreck CE, Gouck HK.
8. Altman RM. Repellent tests against Anopheles albimanus Wide mesh netting, and improved method of protection Wiedemann in the Panama Canal Zone. Mosq News against blood-feeding Diptera. Mosq News 1976; 1969; 29:110–112.
9. Walker T, Robert LL, Copeland A, et al. Field evalu- 24. Grothaus RH, Reed JT, Passingham LH. Field evalua- ation of arthropod repellents, deet and a piperidine tion of arthropod repellent netting as a ground cloth compound, AI3-37220, against Anopheles funestus and against ticks. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1976; 25:747–750.
Anopheles arabiensis in Western Kenya. J Am Mosq Con-trol Assoc 1996; 12:172–176.
25. Goodyer L, Behrens RH. Short report: the safety and 10. Constantini C, Ilboudo-Sanogo E. Field toxicity of insect repellents. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1998; evaluation of the efﬁcacy and persistence of insect repellents deet, IR3535 and KBR 3023 against 26. Sudakin DL, Wade R, Trevathan BS. Deet: a review and Anopheles gambiae complex and other Afrotropical vector update of safety and risk in the general population.
mosquitoes. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2004; J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41:831–839.
27. McGready R, Hamilton KA, Simpson JA, et al. Safety 11. Frances SP, Cooper RD, Sweeney AW. Laboratory and of the insect repellent N , N -Diethyl-M-Toluamide ﬁeld evaluation of the repellents deet, CIC-4, and AI3- (DEET) in pregnancy. Am J Trop Med 2001; 65: 37220 against Anopheles farauti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia. J Med Entomol 1998; 35:690–693.
28. Schoenig GP, Neeper-Bradley TL, Fisher LC, Hart- 12. Frances SP, Waterson DGE, Beebe NW, Cooper RD.
nagel RE Jr. Teratological evaluations of DEET in rats Field evaluation of repellent formulations containing and rabbits. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1994; 23:63–9.
deet and picaridin against mosquitoes in Northern 29. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada.
Territory, Australia. J Med Entomol 2004; 41:414–417.
Re-evaluation Decision Document RRD2002-01. Avail- 13. Frances SP, Cooper RD, Popat S, Sweeney AW. Field evaluation of the repellents, deet, CIC-4 and AI3-37220, rrd/rrd2002-01-e.pdf. (Accessed 2002 Apr 26).
J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Expert Review of Bite Avoidance 30. Chiodini P, Hill D, Lalloo D, et al. Guidelines for Vaca Diez Province, the Bolivian Amazon. J Am Mosq malaria prevention in travellers from the United Control Assoc 2002; 18:107–110.
Kingdom. London: Health Protection Agency, 2007.
47. Trigg JK. Evaluation of a eucalyptus-based repellent 31. Koren G, Matsui D, Bailey B. DEET-based insect against Anopheles spp. in Tanzania. J Am Mosq Control repellents: safety implications for children and pregnant Assoc 1996; 12:243–246.
and lactating women. CMAJ 2003; 169:209–212.
48. Govere J, Durrheim DN, Baker L, et al. Efﬁcacy of three 32. Yap HH, Jahangir K, Chong SC, et al. Field efﬁcacy of a insect repellents against the malaria vector Anopheles new repellent, KBR 3023, against Aedes albopictus (Skuse) arabiensis. Med Vet Entomol 2009; 14:441–444.
and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) in a tropical environment.
J Vec Ecol 1998; 23:62–68.
mosquito repellents against Aedes albopictus, Culex nigri- 33. Yap HH, Jahangir K, Zairi J. Field efﬁcacy of four palpus, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae).
insect repellent products against vector mosquitoes in J Med Entomol 2004; 41:726–730.
a tropical environment. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2000; 50. Trigg JK, Hill N. Laboratory evaluation of a eucalyptus- based repellent against four biting arthropods. Phytother 34. Barnard DR, Bernier UR, Posey KH, Xue R-D. Repel- Res 1996; 10:313–316.
lency of IR3535, KBR3023, para-menthane-3,8-diol, and 51. Rowton ED, Grieco JP, Coleman RE. High throughput deet to black salt marsh mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) testing for toxic and behaviour modifying chemicals in the Everglades National Park. J Med Entomol 2002; against Phlebotomine sand ﬂies, DoD Tri-Service Pest Management Workshop; Jacksonville, FL. 2007.
35. Frances SP, Dung NV, Beebe NW, Debboun M. Field 52. Trongtokit Y, Rongsriyam Y, Komalamisra N, Apiwath- evaluation of repellent formulations against daytime and nasorn C. Comparative repellency of 38 essential oils nighttime biting mosquitoes in a tropical rainforest in against mosquito bites. Phytother Res 2005; 19:303–309.
northern Australia. J Med Entomol 2002; 39:541–544.
53. Tawatsin A, Wratten SD, Scott RR, et al. Repellency of 36. Frances SP, Waterson DGE, Beebe NW, Cooper RD.
volatile oils from plants against three mosquito vectors.
Field evaluation of commercial repellent formulations J Vect Ecol 2001; 26:76–82.
against mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern 54. Singh N, Mishra AK, Saxena A. Use of Neem cream as a Territory, Australia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2005; mosquito repellent in tribal areas of central India. Indian J Malariol 1996; 33:99–102.
55. .Sharma SK, Dua VK, Sharma VP. Field studies on the insect repellents and criteria for their use. In: mosquito repellent action of Neem oil. Southeast Asian Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D, eds. Insect J Trop Med Public Health 1995; 26:180–182.
repellents: principles, methods & uses. 1st Ed. Boca 56. Caraballo AJ. Scientiﬁc note on the mosquito repellent Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007:405–415.
action of Neemos®. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2000; 38. Pretorius A-M, Jensenius M, Clarke F, Ringertz SH.
Repellent efﬁcacy of deet and KBR 3023 against 57. Hadis M, Lulu M, Mekonnen Y, Asfaw T. Field trials on Amblyomma hebraeum (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol the repellent activity of four plant products against mainly 2003; 40:245–248.
Mansonia population in western Ethiopia. Phytother Res 39. Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Chompoosri J, et al. Laboratory 2003; 17:202–205.
and ﬁeld evaluations of the insect repellent 3535 (ethyl 58. Reutemann P, Ehrlich A. Neem oil: an herbal therapy butylacetylaminoproprionate) and deet against mosquito for alopecia causes dermatitis. Dermatitis 2008; vectors in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2001; 59. Boeke SJ, Boersma MG, Alink GM, et al. Safety evalu- 40. Naucke TJ, Kr ¨opke R, Benner G, et al. Field evaluation ation of Neem (Azadirachta indica) derived pesticides.
of the efﬁcacy of proprietary repellent formulations with J Ethnopharmacol 2004; 94:25–41.
IR3535 and picaridin against Aedes aegypti. Parasitol Res 60. Barnard DR. Repellency of essential oils to mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 1999; 36:625–629.
41. Carroll SP. Prolonged efﬁcacy of IR3535 repellents 61. Rutledge LC, Gupta RK. Reanalysis of the C G Macnay against mosquitoes and blacklegged ticks in North mosquito repellent data. J Vect Ecol 1995; 21:132–135.
America. J Med Entomol 2008; 45:706–714.
62. Kiken DA, Cohen DE. Contact dermatitis to botanical 42. Naucke TJ, Lorentz S, Gr ¨unewald HW. Laboratory extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 2002; 13:148–152.
testing of the insect repellents IR3535 and deet 63. Buescher MD, Rutledge LC, Wirtz RA, Nelson JH. The against Phlebotomus mascittii and P. duboscqi (Diptera: dose-response of deet against Aedes aegypti. Mosq News Psychodidae). Int J Med Microbiol 2006; 296(Suppl 1983; 42:364–366.
64. Gupta RK, Sweeney AW, Rutledge LC, et al. Effective- 43. Schreck CE, Leonhardt BA. Efﬁcacy assessment of ness of controlled-release personal-use arthropod repel- Quwenling, a mosquito repellent from China. J Am lents and permethrin-impregnated clothing in the ﬁeld.
Mosq Control Assoc 1991; 7:433–436.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1987; 3:556–560.
44. Hill N, Lenglet A, Arnez AM, Cainero I. Randomised, 65. Thrower Y, Goodyer LI. Application of insect repellents double-blind control trial of p-menthane diol repellent by travellers to malaria endemic areas. J Travel Med against malaria in Bolivia. BMJ 2007; 335:1023.
45. Carroll SP, Loye J. PMD, a registered botanical 66. WHO. Instructions for treatment and use of insecticide- mosquito repellent with deet-like efﬁcacy. J Am Mosq treated mosquito nets. Geneva: World Health Organi- Control Assoc 2006; 22:507–514.
zation 2000. (WHO/CDS/RBM/2002.41). Available at 46. Moore SJ, Lenglet A, Hill N. Field evaluation of three http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO CDS RBM plant-based insect repellents against malaria vectors in 2002.41.pdf. (Accessed 2010 Mar).
J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Goodyer et al. 67. Rozendaal JA. Impregnated mosquito nets and curtains ouvert du centre-ouest de la France. Bull Soc Pathol for self-protection and malaria control. Trop Dis Bull Exot 1999; 92:337–340.
84. Faulde M, Scharninghausen J, Tisch M. Preventive 68. Schreck CE, Posey K, Smith D. Durability of perme- effect of permethrin-impregnated clothing to Ixodes thrin as a potential clothing treatment to protect ricinus ticks and associated Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. in against blood-feeding arthropods. J Econ Entomol 1978; Germany. Int J Med Micro 2008; 298(Suppl 1):321–324 85. Breeden GC, Schreck CE, Sorensen AL. Permethrin as 69. Lindsay IS, McAndless JM. Permethrin-treated jackets a clothing treatment for personal protection against versus repellent-treated jackets and hoods for personal chigger mites (Acarina:Trombiculidae). Am J Trop Med protection against black ﬂies and mosquitoes. Mosq Hyg 1982; 31:589–592.
News 1978; 38:350–356.
86. Frances SP, Yeo AET, Burke EW, Sweeney AW. Cloth- 70. Schreck CE, Smith N, Weidhaas D, et al. Repellents vs.
ing impregnations of dibutylphthalate and permethrin toxicants as clothing treatments for protection from as protectants against a chigger mite, Eutrombicula mosquitoes and other biting ﬂies. J Econ Entomol 1978; histi (Acari:Trombiculidae). J Med Entomol 1992; 71. Gupta RK, Rutledge LC, Reifenrath WG, et al. Effects 87. Mehr ZA, Rutledge LC, Inase JL. Evaluation of com- of weathering on fabrics treated with permethrin for mercial and experimental repellents against Xenopsylla protection against mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc cheopis (Siphonaptera:Pulicidae). J Med Entomol 1984; 1989; 5:176–179.
72. Sholdt LL, Shcreck CE, Qureshi A, et al. Field bioassays 88. Nassif M, Brooke JP, Hutchison DBA, et al. Studies with of permethrin-treated uniforms and a new extended permethrin against body lice in Egypt. Pestic Sci 1980; duration repellent against mosquitoes in Pakistan. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1988; 4:233–236.
89. Sholdt LL, Rogers EJ Jr, Gerberg EJ, Schreck CE.
73. Harback RE, TangDB, Wirtz RA, Gingrich JB. Rela- Effectiveness of permethrin-treated military uniforms tive repellency of two formulations of N,N-diethyl-3- fabric against human body lice. Mil Med 1989; methylbenzamide (deet) and permethrin-treated cloth- ing against Culex sitiens and Aedes vigilax in Thailand.
90. Wirtz RA, Rowton ED, Hallam JA, et al. Laboratory J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1990; 6:641–644.
testing of repellents against the sand ﬂy Phlebotomus 74. Eamsila C, Frances SP, Strickman D. Evaluation of papataci (Diptera:Psychodidae). J Med Entomol 1986; permethrin-treated military uniforms for personal protection against malaria in northeastern Thailand.
91. Asilian A, Sadeghinia A, Sharati F, et al. Efﬁcacy of J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1994; 10:515–521.
permethrin-impregnated uniforms in the prevention of 75. Deparis X, Frere B, Lamizana M, et al. Efﬁcacy of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Iranian soldiers. J Clin Phar permethrin-treated uniforms in combination with deet Ther 2003; 28:175–178.
topical repellent for protection of French military troops 92. Buescher MD, Rutledge LC, Wirtz RA, Nelson JH.
in Cote D'Ivoire. J Med Entomol 2004; 41:914–921.
Laboratory repellent tests against Rodnius prolixus 76. Miller RJ, Wing J, Cope SE, et al. Repellency of permethrin-treated battle-dress uniforms during Oper- ation Tandem Thrust 2001. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 93. Kroeger A, Ordonez-Gonzalez J, Behrend M, Alvarez G.
Bed net impregnation for Chagas disease control: a new 77. Khoobdel M, Shayeghi M, Vatandoost H, et al. Field perspective. Trop Med Int Health 1999; 4:194–198.
evaluation of permethrin-treated uniforms against 94. Sholdt LL, Schreck CE, Mwangelwa MI, et al. Evalu- Anopheles stephensi and 4 species of Culex (Diptera: ation of permethrin-impregnated clothing and three Culicidae) in Iran. J Entomol 2006; 3:108–118.
topical repellent formulations of deet against tsetse ﬂies 78. Schreck CE, Snoddy EL, Mount GA. Permethrin and in Zambia. Med Vet Entomol 1989; 3:153–158.
repellents as clothing impregnants for protection from 95. Debboun M, Strickman DA, Klun JA. Repellents and the the Lone Star tick. J Econ Entomol 1980; 73:436–439.
military: our ﬁrst line of defense. J Am Mosq Control 79. Schreck CE, Mount GA, Carlson DA. Wear and wash Assoc 2005; 21(Suppl):4.
persistence of permethrin used as clothing treatment 96. Lengeler C, Snow R. From efﬁcacy to effectiveness: for personal protection against the lone star tick insecticide treated bednets in Africa. Bull WHO 1996; (Acari:Ixodidae). J Med Entomol 1982; 19:143–146.
80. Mount GA, Snoddy EL. Pressurized sprays of perme- 97. Lengeler C. Insecticide-treated bed nets and cur- thrin and deet on clothing for personal protection tains for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database against the Lone Star tick and the American dog tick Syst Rev 2004, 2. Art. No.: CD000363. DOI: (Acari:Ixodidae). J Econ Entomol 1983; 76:529–531.
81. Evans SR, Korch GW Jr, Lawson MA. Comparative 98. Kroeger A, Gonzalez M, Ordonnez-Gonzalez J. Insecti- ﬁeld evaluation of permethrin and deet-treated military cide-treated materials for malaria control in Latin uniforms for personal protection against ticks (Acari).
America: to use or not use? Trans R Soc Trop Med J Med Entomol 1990; 27:829–839.
Hyg 1999; 3:565–570.
82. Rey JL. Moyens actuels de protection controle les 99. Kroeger A, Avinna A, Ordonnez-Gonzalez J, Escan- maladies transmises par les tiques. Med Mal Infect 1998; don C. Community cooperatives and insecticide treated materials for malaria control: a new experience in Latin 83. Ho-Pun-Cheung T, Lamarque D, Josse R, et al. Effet America. Malar J 2002; 1:15.
protecteur de vetements impregnes de permethrine vis- a- 100. Rowland M, Durrani N, Hewitt S, et al. Permethrin vis de D. reticulates et D. marginatus dans un biotope treated chadders and top-sheets: appropriate technology J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Expert Review of Bite Avoidance for protection against malaria in Afghanistan and other 117. Amalraj DD, Kalyanasundaram M, Das PK. Evaluation complex emergencies. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1999; of EMD vaporizers and bioallethrin vaporizing mats against mosquito vectors. Southeast Asian J Trop Med 101. Pennetier C, Corbel V, Hougard JM. Combination Public Health 1992; 23:474–478.
of a non-pyrethroid insecticide and a repellent: a 118. Manga L, Robert V, Carnevale P. Efﬁcacit´e des ser- new approach for controlling knockdown-resistant pentins et des diffuseurs en plaquettes dans la protection mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005; 72:739–744.
contre les vecteurs du paludisme au Cameroun. Cahiers 102. Pennetier C, Corbel V, Boko P, et al. Synergy between Sant´e 1995; 5:85–88.
repellents and non-pyrethroid insecticides strongly extends the efﬁcacy of treated nets against Anopheles personal protection measures against mosquito bites for gambiae. Malar J 2007; 6:38.
malaria prophylaxis in travellers. J Travel Med 1998; 103. N'Guessan R, Darriet F, Doannio JMC, et al. Olyset Net efﬁcacy against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles and 120. Srinivas G, Amalraj RE, Dhanraj B. The use of personal Culex after 3 years' ﬁeld use in Cote d'Ivoire. Med Vet protection measures against malaria in an urban Entomol 2001; 15:97–104.
population. Public Health 2005; 19:415–417.
104. Kroeger A, Skovmand O, Phan QC, Boewono DT.
121. Sharma VP, Nagpal BN, Srivastava A. Effectiveness of Combined ﬁeld and laboratory evaluation of a long- neem oil mats in repelling mosquitoes. Trans R Soc term impregnated bednet, PermaNet. Trans R Soc Trop Trop Med Hygiene 1993; 87:626.
Med Hyg 2004; 98:152–155.
122. Matsika-Claquin MD, M´enard D, Fontanet AL, et al.
105. Lindblade KA, Dotson E, Hawley WA, et al. Evaluation Efﬁcacy of chloroquine-proguanil malaria prophylaxis in of long-lasting insecticidal nets after 2 years of household a non-immune population in Bangui, Central African use. Trop Med Int Health 2005; 10:1141–1150.
Republic: a case-control study. Trans R Soc Trop Med 106. Graham K, Kayedi MH, Maxwell C, et al. Multi-country Hyg 2006; 100:381–386.
ﬁeld trials comparing wash-resistance of PermaNet and 123. Liu WK, Wong MH, Miu YL. Toxic effects of mosquito conventional insecticide-treated nets against anopheline coil (a mosquito repellent) smoke on rats I. Properties and culicine mosquitoes. Med Vet Entomol 2005; of the mosquito coil and its smoke. Toxicol Lett 1987; 107. Kilian A, Byamukama W, Pigeon O, et al. Long-term 124. Chen SC, Wong RH, Shiu LJ, et al. Exposure to ﬁeld performance of a polyester-based long-lasting mosquito coil smoke may be a risk factor for lung cancer insecticidal mosquito net in rural Uganda. Malar J 2008; in Taiwan. J Epidemiol 2008; 18:19–25.
125. Liu W, Zhang J, Hashim JH, et al. Mosquito coil 108. Heal JD, Surgeoner GA, Lindasy LR. Permethrin as a emissions and health implications. Environ Health tent treatment for protection against ﬁeld populations Perspect 2003; 111:1454–1460.
of Aedes mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 126. Heymann DL. Control of communicable diseases manual. 19th Ed. Washington, DC: American Public 109. Chouaibou M, Simard F, Chandre F, et al. Efﬁcacy of Health Association, 2008.
bifenthrin impregnated bednets against Anopheles funestus 127. St ¨urchler MP. The vector and measures against mosquito and pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae in North bites. In: Schlagenhauf-Lawlor P, ed. Travelers' malaria.
Cameroon. Malar J 2006; 5:77.
2nd Ed. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker, 2008:88–106.
110. McGinn D, Frances SP, Sweeney AW, et al. Evaluation 128. World Health Organization. International travel and of Bistar 80SC (bifenthrin) as a tent treatment for health. Geneva: WHO, 2008.
protection against mosquitoes in Northern Territory, 129. Chiodini P, Hill D, Lalloo D, et al. Guidelines for Australia. J Med Entomol 2008; 45:1087–1091.
malaria prevention in travellers from the United 111. Boulware DR, Beisang AA III. Passive prophylaxis with Kingdom. London: Health Protection Agency, 2007.
permethrin-treated tents reduces mosquito bites among 130. Hill DR. Pretravel advice and immunization. In: North American summer campers. Wild Environ Med Cohen J, Powderly WG, eds. Infectious diseases. 2nd 2005; 16:9–15.
Ed. London: Mosby, 2004:1429–1444.
112. Behrens RH, Steffen R. Travel health. In: Cook GC, 131. Lawrance CE, Croft AM. Do mosquito coils prevent Zumla AI, eds. Manson's tropical diseases. 22nd Ed.
malaria? A systematic review of trials. J Travel Med London: Saunders Elsevier, 2009:515–525.
113. Hewitt SE, Farhan M, Urhaman N, et al. Self-protection 132. Moore DAJ, Grant AD, Armstrong M, et al. Risk factors from malaria vectors in Pakistan: an evaluation of popu- for malaria in UK travellers. Trans R Soc Trop Med lar existing methods and appropriate new techniques in Hyg 2004; 98:55–63.
Afghan refugee communities. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 133. Hill N. Clinical evaluation of plant-based insect 1996; 90:337–344.
repellents against malaria in the Bolivian Amazon 114. Hewing AN, Sullivan WN, Schechter MS. Effectiveness and coils in China. 13th International Congress of of several pyrethroid vapors against Aedes aegypti (L) and Entomology; 2008 July 6–12; Durban, South Africa.
Musca domestica L. Mosq News 1974; 34:54–57.
134. Lindsay LR, Surgeoner GA, Heal JD, Gallivan GJ.
115. Chadwick PR, Lord CJ. Tests of pyrethroid vaporising Evaluation of the efﬁcacy of 3% citronella candles mats against Aedes aegypti (L) (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull and 5% citronella incense for protection against ﬁeld Entomol Res 1977; 67:667–674.
populations of Aedes mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control 116. Warui CM. A laboratory evaluation of vaporising mats Assoc 1996; 12:293–294.
based on pyrethrins and bioallethrin for mosquito 135. M ¨uller GC, Junnila A, Kravchenko VD, et al. Indoor repellency. Pyrethrum Post 1992; 18:131–138.
protection against mosquito and sand ﬂy bites: a J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192 Goodyer et al. comparison between citronella, linalool and geraniol 143. Lindsay LR, Heal JD, Surgeoner GA. Comparative candles. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2008; 24:150–153.
evaluation of the efﬁcacy of Bite Blocker, OFF! 136. M ¨uller GC, Junnila A, Kravchenko V, et al. Ability of Skintastic, and Avon Skin-So-Soft to protect against essential oil candles to repel biting insects in high and Aedes species mosquitoes in Ontario: ﬁnal report.
low biting pressure environments. J Am Mosq Control August 1996. Unpublished, 5 pp. Department of Assoc 2008; 24:154–160.
Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, 137. Coosemans M, Guillet P. La protection du voyageur Ontario, Canada/Chemfree Environment Inc., Quebec, contre les piq ˆures des moustiques. M´ed Mal Infect 1999; 144. Proposed Regulatory Decision Document PRDD-99- 138. Croft AM. Extracts from ‘‘Clinical Evidence''. Malaria: 02 Version, P. D. F., Statement on Personal Protective prevention in travellers. BMJ 2000; 321:154–160.
Measures to Prevent Arthropod Bites.
139. Mafong EA, Kaplan LA. Insect repellents. What really 145. Rajan TV, Hein M, Porte P, Wikel S. A double-blinded, works? Postgrad Med 1997; 102:63–74.
placebo-controlled trial of garlic as a mosquito repellent: 140. Magnon GJ, Robert LL, Kline DL, Roberts LW. Repel- a preliminary study. Med Vet Entomol 2005; 19:84–89.
lency of two deet formulations and Avon Skin-so-Soft® 146. Ives AR, Paskewitz SM. Testing vitamin B as a home against biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in remedy against mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc Honduras. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1991; 7: 80–82.
141. Sjogren RD. An effective repellent for Leptoconops kerteszi 147. Hudson JE, Esozed S. The effects of smoke from Kieffer (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Mosq News 1971; mosquito coils on Anopheles gambiae and Mansonia uniformis in verandah-trap huts at Magugu, Tanzania.
142. Asilian A, Sadeghinia A, Shariati F, et al. Efﬁcacy of Bull Entomol Res 1971; 61:247–265.
permethrin-impregnated uniforms in the prevention of 148. Ansari MA, Razdan RK. Relative efﬁcacy of various cutaneous leishmaniasis in Iranian soldiers. J Clin Pharm oils in repelling mosquitoes. Indian J Malariol 1995; Ther 2003; 28:175–178.
J Travel Med 2010; 17: 182–192
Impaired muscle metaboreflex-induced increases inventricular function in heart failure Donal S. O'Leary, Javier A. Sala-Mercado, Robert A. Augustyniak, Robert L.Hammond, Noreen F. Rossi and Eric J. AnsorgeAm J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 287:H2612-H2618, 2004. First published 15 July 2004;doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00604.2004
Manuel Utilisateur M1 PRO Contenu du Manuel Page 1 : Repérage de votre n° de série Batterie lithium et chargeur Page 10 : M1 PRO Présentation générale Page 11 : Utilisation du M1 PRO Page 2 : Instructions de charge pour votre batterie lithium Page 12 : Utilisation de la fonction "envoi à distance" Page 3 : Maintenance de votre batterie lithium Page 13 : Prise USB et porte GPS