Evaluation of commercial products for personal protection against mosquitoes

Edita E. Revay, Amy Junnila, Rui De Xue, Daniel L. Kline, Ulrich R. Bernier, Vasiliy D. Kravchenko, Whitney A. Qualls, Nina Ghattas, Günter C. Müller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Human landing catch studies were conducted in a semi-field setting to determine the efficacy of seven commercial products used for personal protection against mosquitoes. Experiments were conducted in two empty, insecticide free, mesh-enclosed greenhouses, in Israel, with either 1500 Aedes albopictus or 1500 Culex pipiens released on consecutive study nights. The products tested in this study were the OFF!® Clip-On™ Mosquito Repellent (Metofluthrin 31.2%) and the Terminix® ALLCLEAR® Sidekick Mosquito Repeller (Cinnamon oil 10.5%; Eugenol 13%; Geranium oil 21%; Peppermint 5.3%; Lemongrass oil 2.6%), which are personal diffusers; Super Band™ Wristband (22% Citronella oil) and the PIC® Citronella Plus Wristband (Geraniol 15%; Lemongrass oil 5%, Citronella oil 1%); the Sonic Insect Repeller Keychain; the Mosquito Guard Patch (Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus 80mg), an adhesive-backed sticker for use on textiles; and the Mosquito Patch (vitamin B1 300mg), a transdermal patch. It was determined that the sticker, transdermal patch, wristbands and sonic device did not provide significant protection to volunteers compared with the mosquito attack rate on control volunteers who were not wearing a repellent device. The personal diffusers: - OFF!® Clip-On™ and Terminix® ALLCLEAR® Sidekick - provided superior protection compared with all other devices in this study. These diffusers reduced biting on the arms of volunteers by 96.28% and 95.26% respectively, for Ae. albopictus, and by 94.94% and 92.15% respectively, for Cx. pipiens. In a second trial conducted to compare these devices directly, biting was reduced by the OFF!® Clip-On™ and the Terminix® ALLCLEAR® by 87.55% and 92.83%, respectively, for Ae. albopictus, and by 97.22% and 94.14%, respectively, for Cx. pipiens. There was no significant difference between the performances of the two diffusers for each species.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-230
Number of pages5
JournalActa Tropica
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2013
Externally publishedYes


  • Aedes albopictus
  • Culex pipiens
  • Diffusers
  • Personal repellent
  • Sonic device
  • Transdermal patch
  • Wristbands

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Insect Science
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Veterinary (miscellaneous)
  • Parasitology


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of commercial products for personal protection against mosquitoes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this