Toxicity of a plant based mosquito repellent/killer

Matricaria chamomilla Essential Oils: Repellency and Toxicity against Imported Fire Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Matricaria chamomilla flower essential oils (EOs) blue Egyptian (EO-1), chamomile German CO2 (EO-2), and chamomile German (EO-3) and the pure compound α-bisabolol were evaluated against red imported fire ants (RIFA), Solenopsis invicta Buren, black imported fire ants, S. richteri Forel (BIFA), and hybrid imported fire ants (HIFA) for their repellency and toxicity. A series of serial dilutions were tested starting from 125 µg/g until the failure of the treatment. Based on the amount of sand removed, EO-1 showed significant repellency at dosages of 7.8, 7.8, and 31.25 µg/g against RIFA, BIFA, and HIFA, respectively. EO-3 was repellent at 3.9, 7.8, and 31.25 µg/g against BIFA, RIFA, and HIFA, whereas α-bisabolol was active at 7.8, 7.8, and 31.25 µg/g against BIFA, HIFA, and RIFA, respectively. DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) was active at 31.25 µg/g. Toxicity of EOs and α-bisabolol was mild to moderate. For EO-1, LC₅₀ values were 93.6 and 188.11 µg/g against RIFA and BIFA; 98.11 and 138.4 µg/g for EO-2; and 142.92 and 202.49 µg/g for EO-3, respectively. The LC₅₀ of α-bisabolol was 159.23 µg/g against RIFA. In conclusion, M. chamomilla EOs and α-bisabolol offer great potential to be developed as imported fire ant repellents.

Thiamine (vitamin B1) as an insect repellent: a scoping review

While the desire for systemic repellents is high, ineffective repellents put one at risk of insect-vectored pathogens. Vitamin B1, or thiamine, has been touted as a systemic insect repellent since 1943, and denounced as an ineffective placebo for just as long. This paper presents a scoping review of 104 relevant case reports, research studies, and review articles to trace the evolution of this idea and identify an evidence-based, scientific consensus. Reports of thiamine's systemic repellency are primarily anecdotal and based on uncontrolled trials and/or used bite symptoms as a proxy for reduced biting. Controlled experiments on insect landing and feeding found no evidence of repellency. Of the 49 relevant review papers, 16 insect bite prevention guidelines, and 4 government documents, none after the 1990s claimed thiamine is a repellent. The findings of this review are that thiamine cannot repel arthropods in any dosage or route of administration. Due to limited available evidence, the possibility that thiamine reduces the subjective symptoms of insect bites cannot currently be ruled out. Unfortunately, many medical professionals and travelers today still believe thiamine may be effective despite the evidence stating otherwise. Continued promotion of debunked repellents on the commercial market poses a serious risk in countries with the endemic, mosquito-vectored disease.

Field efficacy of ethnomedicinal plant smoke repellency against Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti

The repellency effect of smoke from burning Azadirachta indica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Ocimum forskolin plants to reduce human-mosquito biting activity. Ground mixed powders of the plant leaves produced smoke by direct burning and thermal expulsion on the traditional stoves in experimental huts against An. arabiensis and Ae. aegypti. A four-by-four Latin-square design was used to assign treatment and control experimental huts over different nights. In the treatment huts, the percent repellency of the smoke produced by burning powdered plant mixtures of the plants were determined by reduction mosquito density. There was a reduction on An. arabiensis (93.75%, P < 0.001) and Ae. aegypti (92%, P < 0.001) respectively, for huts with burning powder versus no treatment. Overall, plant mixed powders tested by both methods of application offered significant protection (>90%) against both mosquito species tested and has the potential to be used as an alternative mosquito control method.

Comparison of Field and Laboratory-Based Tests for Behavioral Response of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to Repellents

The repellent and irritant effects of three essential oils-clove, hairy basil, and sweet basil-were compared using an excito-repellency test system against an insecticide-resistant strain of Aedes aegypti (L.) females from Pu Teuy, Kanchanaburi Province. DEET was used as the comparison standard compound. Tests were conducted under field and controlled laboratory conditions. The most marked repellent effect (spatial noncontact assay) among the three test essential oils was exhibited by sweet basil, Ocimum basilicum L. (53.8% escaped mosquitoes in 30-min exposure period) under laboratory conditions while hairy basil, Ocimum americanum L. and clove, Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merill et. L.M. Perry from laboratory tests and sweet basil from field tests were the least effective as repellents (0-14%). In contrast, the contact assays measuring combined irritancy (excitation) and repellency effects found the best contact irritant response to hairy basil and DEET in field tests, whereas all others in laboratory and field were relatively ineffective in stimulating mosquitoes to move out the test chambers (0-5.5%). All three essential oils demonstrated significant differences in behavioral responses between field and laboratory conditions, whereas there was no significant difference in contact and noncontact assays for DEET between the two test conditions (P > 0.05).