Laboratory and field evaluation of deet, CIC-4, and AI3-37220 against Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand

Laboratory and field tests of the repellents diethyl methylbenzamide (deet), 1-(3-Cyclohexen-l-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine (AI3-37220), and (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone (CIC-4) were conducted against Anopheles dirus Peyton and Harrison, the principal malaria vector in Thailand...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical entomology 1996-07, Vol.33 (4), p.511-515
Main Authors: Frances, S.P. (Army Malaria Research Unit, New South Wales, Australia.), Klein, T.A, Hildebrandt, D.W, Burge, R, Noigamol, C, Eikarat, N, Sripongsai, B, Wirtz, R.A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aedes
Animals
ANOPHELES
Anopheles dirus
Biological and medical sciences
Chromones
COMPOSE ORGANOAZOTE
COMPUESTO ORGANICO DEL NITROGENO
CONTROL DE ENFERMEDADES
CONTROL QUIMICO
CONTROLE DE MALADIES
Culicidae
DEET
Diptera
ENSAYO
EXPERIMENTACION EN LABORATORIO
EXPERIMENTATION EN LABORATOIRE
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Insect Repellents
INSECTE NUISIBLE
INSECTOS DANINOS
LACTONAS
LACTONE
LUTTE CHIMIQUE
MALARIA
Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control
Mosquito Control
Piperidines
REPELENTES
REPULSIF
TAILANDIA
TESTAGE
Thailand
THAILANDE
VECTEUR DE MALADIE
VECTORES
Vectors. Intermediate hosts
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Laboratory and field tests of the repellents diethyl methylbenzamide (deet), 1-(3-Cyclohexen-l-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine (AI3-37220), and (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone (CIC-4) were conducted against Anopheles dirus Peyton and Harrison, the principal malaria vector in Thailand. In the laboratory, An. dirus was more sensitive to CIC-4 than either AI3-37220 or deet. The duration of protection provided by each repellent in laboratory tests increased with higher concentrations of repellents and when exposed in cages containing fewer mosquitoes. A field study in Chanthaburi Province, southeastern Thailand, during November 1993 tested 25% (wt:wt) ethanol solutions of each repellent against An. dirus. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, protection provided by AI3-37220 was significantly better than either deet or CIC-4 and there was no significant difference between deet and CIC-4. Protection provided by deet and CIC-4 fell to below 95% 2 h after repellent application, whereas AI3-37220 provided 95% protection for 4 h. The protection provided by all repellents fell to less than or equal to 65% 7 h after repellent application
ISSN:0022-2585
1938-2928
DOI:10.1093/jmedent/33.4.511