4.3 Article

Evaluation of Clove Oil, Icaridin, and Transfluthrin for Spatial Repellent Effects in Three Tests Systems Against the Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 150-158

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjw129

Keywords

Aedes aegypti; spatial repellent; test system; resistance; fecundity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One essential oil (clove oil), one skin repellent (icaridin), and one insecticide (transfluthrin) were tested for spatial repellent effects against non-blood-fed female Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes. The compounds were tested in acetone dilution series using a Y-olfactometer, a double cage system, and a double room system. All compounds exhibited spatial repellent effects at certain concentrations. Clove oil required relative high dosages to cause high effects (Y-olfactometer 6 mg, double cage 60 mg, and double room 1,200 mg). The dosages to achieve comparable results with icaridin were lower (Y-olfactometer and double cage 1 mg, and double room 150 mg). For transfluthrin, the equivalent dosages were lower again (Y-olfactometer 0.003 mg, double cage 0.03 mg, and double room 0.1 mg). Furthermore, these results reveal a correlation between the size of the test system and the effective dosage. Averaged for the three compounds, the quantity for the double room was 21-fold higher than for the double cage, which required again a 9-fold higher dosage than the Y-olfactometer. An establishment of a screening cascade is discussed starting with the Y-olfactometer (high throughput rate), followed by the double cage system and ending with the double room system as the most nearest to practical conditions. Furthermore, the testing of existing repellent products to validate the double room test, the role of sublethal dosages concerning insecticides including possible upcoming of resistance after exposure, the delayed action and impact on blood feeding and oviposition are exemplified.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available