Is the extract from the plant catmint (Nepeta cataria) repellent to mosquitoes in Australia?

Trends in insect repellent formulations: A review

The use of natural and synthetic repellents, marketed in different pharmaceutical forms, is growing in the world due to the emerging vector-borne viral diseases as Dengue, Zika, Chikungunya, Yellow Fever and Malaria. The choice of the ideal formulation will depend on a series of factors to be analyzed: type of repellent active (natural or synthetic), pharmaceutical forms (spray, lotion, cream, gel), action time duration (short or long), environment of exposure and the user (adult, pregnant women, children, newborn). The most used repellents are DEET, IR3535 (Ethyl Butylacetylaminopropionate) (EB), Icaridin (Picaridin) and essential oils, each of them presenting advantages and disadvantages. DEET is the oldest and the most powerful repellent available in the market, thus being the reference standard. For this reason, there are many classic formulations available in the market containing the chemical component DEET in spray forms and lotions. However, due to its toxicity, DEET is not recommended for children up to 6 months and pregnant women. DEET has been an option along with other market-shared products as IR3535 and Icaridin (Picaridin), which present less toxicity in their composition. IR3535 is the less toxic and may be prescribed for children over 6 months of age and pregnant women so that they have been the best option because of the lower toxicity levels presented. IR3535 is the one that has the lowest toxicity level among the three options and may be prescribed for children above 6 months of age and pregnant women. Icaridin is as potent as DEET, but less toxic, and has the advantage of having the long-lasting action among the aforementioned repellents. The new formulations have been based on controlled release systems (CRS). The CRSs for repellents comprise polymer micro/nanocapsules, micro/solid lipid nanoparticles, nanoemulsions/microemulsions, liposomes/niosomes, nanostructured hydrogels and cyclodextrins. There are many formulations based on micro and nanocapsules containing DEET and essential oils to increase repellent action time duration and decrease permeation and consequently, systemic toxicity. The development of new formulations for the IR3535 and Icaridin is a research field yet to be explored. The current trend is the use of natural repellent actives such as essential oils, which present low toxicity, do not harm the environment, but present reduced repellent action time due to rapid evaporation after skin application. CRSs have been used as vehicle of natural repellents to improve long-lasting repellent action, reduce skin permeation and systemic effects.

EPA-Registered Repellents for Mosquitoes Transmitting Emerging Viral Disease

In many parts of the United States, mosquitoes were previously nuisance pests. However, they now represent a potential threat in the spread of viral diseases. The Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, and Culex species mosquitoes are endemic to the United States and together may transmit a variety of viral diseases of growing concern, including West Nile virus, chikungunya, dengue fever, and Zika virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommend N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) as a first-line mosquito repellent, but for patients refusing to use DEET or other conventional repellents, guidance is limited to any EPA-registered product. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify which EPA-registered personal mosquito repellent provides the best protection from A. aegypti, A. albopictus, and Culex spp. mosquitoes. We abstracted data from 62 published reports of EPA-registered mosquito repellents. The conventional repellent picaridin has the strongest data to support its use as a second-line agent, while IR3535 and oil of lemon eucalyptus are reasonably effective natural products. Citronella, catnip, and 2-undecanone offer limited protection or have limited data. These results can be used by pharmacists and other health care professionals to advise patients on the selection of an EPA-registered mosquito repellent. Regardless of the repellent chosen, it is vital for patients to follow all instructions/precautions in the product labeling to ensure safe and effective use.

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).

Repellent activity of catmint, Nepeta cataria, and iridoid nepetalactone isomers against Afro-tropical mosquitoes, ixodid ticks and red poultry mites

The repellent activity of the essential oil of the catmint plant, Nepeta cataria (Lamiaceae), and the main iridoid compounds (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS)-nepetalactone, was assessed against (i) major Afro-tropical pathogen vector mosquitoes, i.e. the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.s. and the Southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, using a World Health Organisation (WHO)-approved topical application bioassay (ii) the brown ear tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, using a climbing repellency assay, and (iii) the red poultry mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, using field trapping experiments. Gas chromatography (GC) and coupled GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of two N. cataria chemotypes (A and B) used in the repellency assays showed that (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS)-nepetalactone were present in different proportions, with one of the oils (from chemotype A) being dominated by the (4aS,7S,7aR) isomer (91.95% by GC), and the other oil (from chemotype B) containing the two (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS) isomers in 16.98% and 69.83% (by GC), respectively. The sesquiterpene hydrocarbon (E)-(1R,9S)-caryophyllene was identified as the only other major component in the oils (8.05% and 13.19% by GC, respectively). Using the topical application bioassay, the oils showed high repellent activity (chemotype A RD(50)=0.081 mg cm(-2) and chemotype B RD(50)=0.091 mg cm(-2)) for An. gambiae comparable with the synthetic repellent DEET (RD(50)=0.12 mg cm(-2)), whilst for Cx. quinquefasciatus, lower repellent activity was recorded (chemotype A RD(50)=0.34 mg cm(-2) and chemotype B RD(50)=0.074 mg cm(-2)). Further repellency testing against An. gambiae using the purified (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS)-nepetalactone isomers revealed overall lower repellent activity, compared to the chemotype A and B oils. Testing of binary mixtures of the (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS) isomers across a range of ratios, but all at the same overall dose (0.1 mg), revealed not only a synergistic effect between the two, but also a surprising ratio-dependent effect, with lower activity for the pure isomers and equivalent or near-equivalent mixtures, but higher activity for non-equivalent ratios. Furthermore, a binary mixture of (4aS,7S,7aR) and (4aS,7S,7aS) isomers, in a ratio equivalent to that found in chemotype B oil, was less repellent than the oil itself, when tested at two doses equivalent to 0.1 and 0.01 mg chemotype B oil. The three-component blend including (E)-(1R,9S)-caryophyllene at the level found in chemotype B oil had the same activity as chemotype B oil. In a tick climbing repellency assay using R. appendiculatus, the oils showed high repellent activity comparable with data for other repellent essential oils (chemotype A RD(50)=0.005 mg and chemotype B RD(50)=0.0012 mg). In field trapping assays with D. gallinae, addition of the chemotype A and B oils, and a combination of the two, to traps pre-conditioned with D. gallinae, all resulted in a significant reduction of D. gallinae trap capture. In summary, these data suggest that although the nepetalactone isomers have the potential to be used in human and livestock protection against major pathogen vectors, intact, i.e. unfractionated, Nepeta spp. oils offer potentially greater protection, due to the presence of both nepetalactone isomers and other components such as (E)-(1R,9S)-caryophyllene.

Evaluation of repellent properties of volatile extracts from the Australian native plant Kunzea ambigua against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culcidae)

Kunzea ambigua (Smith) Druce (Myrtaceae) is an Australian native plant, commonly known as tick bush. The essential oil of the plant has been proposed as a potential mosquito repellent. Commercial K. ambigua oil was analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and its composition compared with that of oils from two individual K. ambigua plants and citronella oil. K. ambigua oils were studied for their repellency against Aedes aegypti L. Formulations of three different K. ambigua essential oils (30% vol:vol) were tested for repellency to mosquitoes using human volunteers. One oil was compared with citronella and N,N'-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet) for repellency. Oil formulations were also tested for repellency with and without the addition of 5% vanillin. The formulation containing commercially produced K. ambigua oil had a mean complete protection time (CPT) of 49 +/- 24 (SD) min. All the K. ambigua formulations had comparable repellency to 40% citronella. However, the 60% citronella formulation showed higher repellency than the 40% K. ambigua formulation. The addition of 5% vanillin did not increase the repellency of K. ambigua oil. Both K. ambigua oil and citronella were significantly less repellent than deet. The K. ambigua essential oil formulations should not be advocated for use as repellents in regions prone to mosquito-borne disease.

Are commercially available essential oils from Australian native plants repellent to mosquitoes?

While the use of topical insect repellents, particularly those containing synthetic active ingredients such as deet (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide), are a mainstay in personal protection strategies emphasized in public health messages, there is a growing demand in the community for alternative repellents, particularly those of botanical origin and thus deemed to be "natural." This study evaluated the repellency of essential oils from 11 Australian native plants in 5% v/v formulations against Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus, and Culex annulirostris under laboratory conditions. A blend of the top 3 performing oils was then compared with deet and a commercially available botanical insect repellent. All essential oils provided at least some protection against the 3 mosquito species, with the longest protection time (110 min) afforded by Prostanthera melissifolia against Cx. quinquefasciatus. Mean protection times against Ae. aegypti were substantially lower than those for the Culex spp. tested. Deet provided significantly longer protection against Ae. aegypti than both the 5% v/v blend of Leptospermum petersonii, Prostanthera melissifolia, and Melaleuca alternifolia (the 3 most effective oils) and the commercial botanical repellent. The results of this study indicate that these essential oils from Australian native plants offer limited protection against biting mosquitoes and that a blend of essential oils holds may offer commercial potential as a short-period repellent or under conditions of low mosquito abundance. However, it is important that public health messages continue to emphasize the greater effectiveness of deet-based repellents in areas with risks of mosquito-borne disease.

Behavioral responses of catnip (Nepeta cataria) by two species of mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Anopheles harrisoni, in Thailand

An investigation of the biological effect of catnip oil (Nepeta cataria L.) on the behavioral response of field collected Aedes aegypti and Anopheles harrisoni was conducted using an automated excitorepellency test system. Aedes aegypti showed significantly higher escape rates from the contact chamber at 5% catnip oil compared to other concentrations (P < 0.05). With Anopheles harrisoni, a high escape response was seen at 2.5% catnip oil from the contact chamber, while in the noncontact chamber a higher escape response was observed at a concentration of 5%. Results showed that this compound exhibits both irritant and repellent actions.

Excito-repellency properties of essential oils from Melaleuca leucadendron L., Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Persoon, and Litsea salicifolia (Nees) on Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes

We compared the behavioral responses of Aedes aegypti females to essential oils extracted from native plants Melaleuca leucadendron (ML), Litsea cubeba (LC), and Litsea salicifolia (LS) by using an excito-repellency test chamber. Mortality of Ae. aegypti females following 24 h holding period post-contact and non-contact trials were observed. No mortality was seen in escaped mosquitoes after direct contact with essential oils ML and LS, and low mortality (2.3-20.4%) with LC. Likewise, in all non-contact trials, no mortality was observed in escaped females from all three treatments, whereas low mortality was seen in non-escaped mosquitoes exposed to LC (0-14.3%) and LS (0-17.1%). Ae. aegypti showed significantly higher escape rates from contact chambers treated with ML and LC compared to LS, regardless of test concentrations (P<0.05). Non-contact repellent responses were significantly pronounced with LS, except at the highest (6.0%) concentration. We conclude that essential oils from all three botanicals exhibit significant irritant and repellent properties against Ae. aegypti and deserve further investigation for possible use as active ingredients in topical (skin) and indoor dispersed repellent systems.