Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T18:16:29.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Responses of the Female Aëdes Mosquito. Part II.—The Action of Liquid Repellent Compounds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

D. S. Sarkaria  and
A. W. A. Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A number of liquid mosquito repellents were assessed for vapour repellency power in an olfactometer mounted in a very large cage filled with females of Aëdes aegypti. They were also tested for their knockdown power in fumigation bottles. Their vapour pressures were determined by the Ramsay-Young method.

All the liquids showed vapour repellency, and in 39 out of the 42 tested this effect was highly significant. The highest vapour repellency ratings were shown by compounds already known to be the most effective repellents.

Although the more volatile compounds such as citronellal tend to show the highest repellency ratings, nevertheless compounds of low vapour pressure such as indalone, DMP and isobornyl morpholinoacetate may also show high vapour repellency. It is concluded that vapour repellency, although in the first instance dependent upon volatility, can vary independently of vapour pressure, so that compounds may be found which afford not only a long protection period due to their nonvolatility, but also a high vapour repellency due to the potency of the comparatively few molecules that are volatilised.

The vapours of most of the repellents were found to induce knockdown of mosquitos, but there was no correlation between the speed of this process and the vapour repellency of the compounds.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , September 1951 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Christophers, Sir S. R. (1947). Mosquito repellents : being a report of the work of the Mosquito Repellent Inquiry, Cambridge, 1943–45.—J. Hyg., 45, pp. 176–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, F. & others (1949). Experimental Methods in Physical Chemistry.—New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Linduska, J. P. & Morton, F. A. (1947). Determining the repellency of solid chemicals to mosquitos.—J. econ. Ent., 40, pp. 562–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, R. N. & Waterhouse, D. F. (1947). Laboratory and field tests of mosquito repellents.—Bull. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust., no. 213, 28 pp.Google Scholar
Pijoan, M. (1947). New insect repellents.—Soap & sanit. Chem., 23, no. 3, pp. 124, 127, 173, 175.Google Scholar
Travis, B. V. (1949). Studies of mosquito and other biting-insect problems in Alaska.—J. econ. Ent., 42, pp. 451–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Wood, H. C. & Osol, A. (1943). (Citation of Merck Report, 20,, p. 9, 1921.)—U.S. Dispensary, 23rd edn., Philadelphia, Pa., Lippincott.Google Scholar