Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:04:08.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A rapid method for screening and evaluating mosquito repellents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Micha Bar-Zeev
Micha Bar-Zeev
Affiliation:
Israel Institute for Biological Research, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A method is described by which candidate repellents can be rapidly screened and evaluated by comparing them with a standard repellent or with each other. Mosquitos are confined in a petri dish, of which the top is covered with mosquito gauze and the bottom lined with two semicircular filter papers, one of which is treated with a standard repellent, the other with candidate repellent. The dish is placed in an apparatus through which passes a slow stream of air of standard temperature and humidity. Counts of mosquitos are taken every half minute on and above the two halves of the petri dish, which is jarred after every second count to change the position of the mosquitos. A total of 40 counts is taken, the dish being rotated through 180° after the 20th count. The index of reaction is determined as the mean excess of position records for the candidate repellent over those for the standard one.

The initial effectiveness and the persistence of various repellents have been compared. In tests against Aedes aegypti (L.), the repellency of N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide and of O-chloro-N, N-diethyl benzamide did not differ, but each significantly exceeded that of dimethyl phthalate (DMP). The loss of repellency of DMP with time was approximately linear.

Attention is drawn to various aspects and applications of the method, and to its advantages, particularly for rapid screening of repellents.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , October 1962 , pp. 521 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bar-Zeev, M. (1960). The reaction of mosquitoes to moisture and high humidity.—Ent. exp. appl. 3 pp. 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Zeev, M. (in press). The effect of acceptable and unacceptable compounds on the orientation of houseflies and mosquitoes.—Proc. Xlth int. Congr. Ent.Google Scholar
Bar-Zeev, M. & Smith, C. N. (1959). Action of repellents on mosquitoes feeding through treated membranes or on treated blood.—J. econ. Ent. 52 pp. 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovingdon, H. H. S. (1958). An apparatus for screening compounds for repellency to flies and mosquitoes.—Ann. appl. Biol. 46 pp. 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, R. (1960). Variations in human body odour as a cause of individual differences of attraction for malaria mosquitoes.—Trop, geogr. Med. 12 pp. 186–192.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1957). A critical review of the techniques for testing insecticides.—208 pp. London, Commonw. Inst. Ent.Google Scholar
SirChristophers, S. R. (1947). Mosquito repellents; being a report of the work of the Mosquito Eepellent Inquiry, Cambridge 1943–5.—J. Hyg., Camb. 45 pp. 176–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dethier, V. G. (1947). Chemical insect attractants and repellents.—289 pp. Philadelphia, Pa., Blakiston.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1956). Repellents.— Annu. Rev. Ent. 1 pp. 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1957). Insect attractants and repellents.—Soap & chem. Spec. 33 no. 2 pp. 83–87, 117.Google Scholar
Gilbert, I. H., Gouck, H. K. & Smith, C. N. (1956). New mosquito repellents.—J. econ. Ent. 48 pp. 741–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P. (1940). Studies of mosquito repellents. I. Test procedure and method of evaluating test data.—J. econ. Ent. 33 pp. 563–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P. & Starnes, E. B. (1960). Screening chemical repellents.—In Shepard, H. H. Ed. Methods of testing chemicals on insects 2 pp. 101–119. Minneapolis, Minn., Burgess.Google Scholar
Kasman, S., Roadhouse, L. A. O. & Wright, G. F. (1953). Studies in testing inseçt repellents.—Mosq. News 13 pp. 116–123.Google Scholar
Pijoan, M., Gerjovich, H. J., Hopwood, M. L., Jachowski, L. A. & Romine, J. T. (1946). Studies on new insect repellents.—U.S. nav. med. Bull. 46 pp. 1506–1522.Google ScholarPubMed
Sarkaria, D. S. & Brown, A. W. A. (1951). Studies on the responses of the female Aëdes mosquito. Part II. The action of liquid repellent compounds.— Bull. ent. Res. 42 pp. 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, B. V. (1950). Known factors causing variations in results of insect repellent tests.—Mosq. News 10 pp. 126–132.Google Scholar
Travis, B. V., Morton, F. A., Jones, H. A. & Robinson, J. H. (1949). The more effective mosquito repellents tested at the Orlando, Fla., Laboratory, 1942–47.— J. econ. Ent. 42 pp. 686–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, E. R. (1947). The olfactorv responses of female mosquitoes.—J. econ. Ent. 40 pp. 769–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed