Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-4thr5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:36:50.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mosquito repellents

Being a report of the work of the Mosquito Repellent Inquiry, Cambridge 1943–5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. Rickard Christophers
Affiliation:
Zoological Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A general survey has been given of the subject of repellents against mosquitoes. Results recorded in published literature prior to the war have been summarized and those from the greatly increased volume of unpublished research during the war briefly outlined.

2. Of the older literature it has been shown that results were often conflicting due to many of the substances tested not being pure chemicals but very commonly essential oils and other products having a variable composition and to the methods used in testing being insufficiently precise and standardized. Particularly, standardization was lacking in that most important respect, viz. the condition of the mosquitoes used in the tests. The whole treatment of repellency on a scientific basis depends upon the suitability of the methods used in testing and for this reason a full and detailed account has been given in § IV of the methods used in the present enquiry in rearing standardized cultures of Aedes aegypti and in § V of the methods of laboratory testing and of interpreting results.

3. Some remarks have been made on the proper sphere of field tests. Field tests, it is pointed out, are extremely valuable but less suitable than laboratory tests for determining with precision the properties of repellent substances owing to the impossibility of obtaining controlled conditions. The proper sphere of such tests would appear to be as an extension of the results of laboratory tests to cover the many qualifying circumstances which are introduced when repellents of known effectiveness are used in practice.

4. A description has been given in § III of the chief features of such repellents as have been in use, and in § VI are given the results of testing a considerable number of compounds and preparations, with data showing their comparative repellent power and duration of protection afforded. In this series three types of compound especially exhibit repellency, viz. (1) unsaturated long-chain alcohols, aldehydes and phenolic compounds such as are characteristic of most essential oils, oil of citronella, due to its active principle citronellal, being one of this type; (2) high boiling-point esters of the lower methyl series with various high molecular weight acids, such as phthalic, adipic, cinnamic, citric, etc., of which dimethyl phthalate is the best-known example, and (3) high boiling-point alcohols, especially diols, which need not necessarily be unsaturated or contain methyl series groups, of which Rutger's 612 or 2ethylhexane-l:3-diol is that best known. There are, however, undoubtedly many other groups which for some reason may possess this property as may be instanced the last entry on the list of compounds tested which belongs to none of these groups but was found as powerful as any compound tested.

5. Attention has been directed to the importance, in connexion with duration of effect, of the boiling-point. It is shown that to give protection for a period sufficient to qualify a substance to be considered a repellent, i.e. in the criterion adopted by the Unit a protection period of 2 hr., it must have the relatively high boiling-point of at least 250° C. at 760 mm. pressure. Compounds with lower boiling-point merely volatilize completely on the warm skin by the time this period is reached. To give protection for 6 hr. the boiling-point must be at least of the order of 280° C. Substances with boiling-point much over this, whilst they show lasting effect, are apt to exhibit a lower grade of repellency. In this connexion a method, sufficiently accurate for the purpose, has been quoted by which any boiling-point given as at a reduced pressure can be reduced to its theoretical boiling-point at 760 mm. The basis on which the necessary factors for this have been arrived at will be found in a note kindly furnished by Dr E. A. Moelwyn-Hughes given as an appendix.

6. The question of rub-resistant creams, of measurement of effect of repellency at a distance, of impregnation of clothing with repellents and of the testing of penetrability of clothing fabrics to mosquito bites are dealt with in their respective sections and any conclusions regarding these subjects there given. The last has been dealt with in some detail since no account of such testing has, so far as is known, been given in the literature. A note by Mr J. R. Whinfield, Ministry of Supply, giving technical methods of measuring structural features of fabrics has been given as an appendix and should be useful to anyone taking up the study of fabrics from this point of view.

7. It remains desirable, perhaps, to indicate in a general way what recent advances in regard to mosquito repellents amount to in practice, apart altogether from theoretical or scientific considerations. Results during the war have related almost entirely to the use of repellents for military purposes and the repellent almost universally employed in practice has been dimethyl phthalate. A number of reasons have combined to make this the repellent of choice for such a purpose. For the American Army the so-called 6: 2: 2 mixture, i.e. a mixture in the above proportions of dimethyl phthalate, Rutger's 612 and indalone, has been the official repellent. But Rutger's 612 has never been so freely available as dimethyl phthalate and neither it nor indalone has been in extensive use in this country. Dimethyl phthalate has very generally been found most suitably used ‘straight’ being carried in a suitable receptacle from which a little is shaken out into the palm of the hand and used to anoint exposed skin areas or even clothing. For impregnation of tropical uniforms it has usually been used suitably dissolved in a solvent or as an emulsion and the articles sprayed or dipped and wrung out. It is effective against many forms of biting insects and has been used against mites. In this last respect, however, it has been to some extent replaced by dibutyl phthalate, which when used for impregnating clothing is by reason of its higher boiling-point more resistant to washing.

8. For civilian use there would appear to be a wider field. One paramount requirement for military use has always been that the repellent should give very prolonged protection, i.e. that it should retain its effects for such periods as overnight, or as often specified for 6 hr. This has limited the choice of repellents excluding many substances which might be very effective for shorter periods. For the civilian such emphasis on duration of effect does not arise, for circumstances must be rare in which the application could not be renewed, say after 2 hr. if necessary. Again should it only be a matter of giving comfort against moderate numbers of mosquitoes something less drastic than anointing all bare skin with dimethyl phthalate might well suffice. For military purposes smell is a serious, indeed fatal, drawback. For the civilian a pleasant smell might even be an advantage. The civilian too would probably prefer a light pleasant cream to the repellent in liquid form. There is much scope here for the chemist and the cosmetician.

What then at present should the civilian be advised to use? This is dependent very largely on what he can now readily purchase, and there is some difficulty in saying under present circumstances what this might be. If a repellent is required to prevent attack where mosquitoes are a serious nuisance, and the same applies to midges, probably the best advice would be to try dimethyl phthalate straight as in military use. This might be obtained by order through a chemist to some wholesale firm such as Boake Roberts and Co. or Stafford Allan and Co. These or other firms would probably supply a moderate quantity, say 4 oz. on such an order. This could be used as stock from which to fill a small corked bottle for use. A corked bottle is better than a stoppered one as dimethyl phthalate is very liable to leak. It should be applied by pouring a little in the palm of the hand, rubbing the hands together and anointing any exposed parts such as the neck, behind the ears and even the face, but avoiding neighbourhood of the eyes. It might be more pleasant, especially if conditions were not so severe, to use a dimethyl phthalate cream such as Dr Hamil's very pleasant wax and arachis oil cream or the 70% magnesium stearate Porton cream as given in § VI(2). This could probably be made up to the formula given by a dispensing chemist. If it were possible to obtain it, a good Java citronella oil would probably be even better, for the great advantage here is that a good citronella oil will keep mosquitoes at a distance and complete covering of skin with the repellent is not so necessary as with dimethyl phthalate. Or if such an oil is not to be at present obtained it might be possible to get citronellal, its active principle, or even citronellol the corresponding alcohol. A little experimentation and careful preliminary trial is always desirable as to what can be done and as to how effective the substance seems to be. This applies especially to the case of midges which are not always the same species and might not in some cases be repelled. It should be realized that for civilian use there is still much that is experimental. For those with a liking for experiment it might be well worth while to try out that very pleasant smelling substance hydroxycitronellal, a note on which will be found in § III.

Mention should also be made of certain proprietary products issued by certain American firms which might at any time be obtainable in this country, such as ‘Skat’ or ‘Eveready repellent’. Skat (Skol Company Inc., New York) is issued in two forms, viz. as containing dimethyl phthalate and as containing indalone (in both cases practically these substances), and Eveready Insecticide (National Carbon Co. Inc., New York) as ‘formula 612’, in this case Rutger's 612. Very likely in time good repellents will eventually be put on the market by various firms in this country.

9. As regards the future no limit can probably be placed upon what may result from organized research which is likely to be taken up more seriously now than was previously thought worth while. Research in this field may be said to have reached a point where methods of testing will enable precise results to be obtained and if work by the synthetic chemist is linked with that of the insect biologist further progress in the discovery of still more effective repellents is extremely likely. Research should not, however, stop here for much still remains to be done in the direction of ascertaining methods of using such repellents to the best advantage to meet different requirements and even of ascertaining exactly what such requirements are.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

Bacot, A. W. & Talbot, G. (1919). The comparative effectiveness of certain culicifuges under laboratory conditions. Parasitology, 11, 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunker, C. W. O. & Hirschfelder, A. D. (1925). Mosquito repellents. Amer. Jour. Trop. Med. 5, 359–83.Google Scholar
Calvary, H. O. (1945). (On toxicity tests.) Food Packer, 04 1945.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R. (1945). Insect repellents. Brit. Med. Bull. 3, 222–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coogle, C. P. (1923). A preliminary report on the use of creosote oil as a mosquito repellent. Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 38, 437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coogle, C. P. (1923). A preliminary report on the use of creosote oil as a mosquito repellent. Publ. Hlth Bull., Wash., no. 137, 145–56.Google Scholar
Coogle, C.P. (1925). Mosquito repellents and mosquito cides. Publ. Hlth Bull., Wash., no. 156, 136–7.Google Scholar
Cooley, R. A.et al. (1928). Work done by the Entomological Department. Control of mosquitoes. 34th Ann. Rep. Montana Agric. Exp. Sta. 1926–7, pp. 90–3.Google Scholar
Covell, G. (1941). Malaria Control by Antimosquito Measures, 2nd ed.London: W. Thacker and Co.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1943). Testing attractants and repellents. Publ. No. 20. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. pp. 167–72.Google Scholar
Dover, C. (1930). An improved citronella mosquito deterrent. Indian J. Med. Res. 17, 961.Google Scholar
Draize, J. H.et al. (1934). (On toxicity tests.) J. Pharmacol. 82, 159.Google Scholar
Draize, J. H.et al. (1944). (On toxicity tests.) Chem. Engng. News, 22, 1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M. B. (1925). Methods of protection from mosquitoes, etc. Canada Dep. Agric. Pamphlet, n.s. no. 55.Google Scholar
Echstein, F. (1920). Aus einer Feldstation fur Stechmucken. Z. angew. Ent. 6, 338–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Editorial (1934). Essential oils from East Africa. II. Grass oils. Bull. Imp. Inst. 32, 216, 263–5.Google Scholar
Editorial (1942). (Thanite.) Science, 95, no. 2473, Supplement, p. 10.Google Scholar
Fletcher, T. B. (1920). Report of the Imperial Pathological Entomologist. Sci. Rep. Agric. Res. Inst. Pusa, 1919–20, pp. 95108.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. E. P. (1926). Malaria in Palestine. J. R. Army Med. Cps, 46, 264.Google Scholar
Freeborn, S. B. (1928). Observations on the control of Sierran Aedes (Culicidae, Diptera). Pan Pacific Cong. Ent. 4, no. 4, 177–81. Abs. Rev. App. Ent., Med. and Vet. 16, 214.Google Scholar
Gibson, A. & Twinn, C. R. (1939). Household insects and their control. Publ. Dep. Agric. Canada, no. 642 (Ent. Bull. no. 30), Ottawa, 100 pp.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. H. (1935). Protection from mosquito bites in outdoor gatherings. Science, 82, 490–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginsburgh, J. M. (1944). Mosquito oils, larvicides, repellents, outdoor sprays and their application. Bull. N. Jersey Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 711, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Given, D. H. C. (1922). The campaign against mosquitoes on board H.M.S. Cadmus in 1912 (Citronella). J. R. Naval Med. Serv. 8, 265–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P. (1938). Comparison of mosquito repellency tests under laboratory and field conditions. Proc. 25th Ann. Meet. N. Jersey Mosq. Exterm. Ass. pp. 51–7.Google Scholar
Granett, P. (1940). The development of a practical mosquito repellent. Proc. 27th Ann. Meet. N. Jersey Mosq. Exterm. Ass.Google Scholar
Granett, P. (1940). Studies of mosquito repellents. I. Test procedure and method of evaluating test data. J. Econ. Ent. 33, 563–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P. (1940). Studies of mosquito repellents. II. Relative performance of certain chemicals and commercially available mixtures as mosquito repellents. J. Econ. Ent. 33, 566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harry, R. G. (1941). Modern Cosmetology. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Hoffman, & Gildmeister, (1913–1916). The volatile oils, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1917). Remedies and preventatives against mosquitoes. Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 444, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. & Bishopp, F. C. (1928). Remedies and preventatives against mosquitoes. Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1570.Google Scholar
Imperial Institute (1940). A Survey of Insecticidal Materials of Vegetable Origin. London: Imperial Institute.Google Scholar
Joachim, A. W. R. (1937). The present position of the trade in Ceylon citronella oil. Trop. Agriculturalist, 88, 108–11.Google Scholar
Knipling, E. F. & Dove, W. E. (1944). Recent investigations of insecticides and repellents for the Armed Forces. J. Econ. Ent. 37, 477–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macnay, C. G. (1938). An effective repellent for biting insects. Canadian Ent. 70, 175–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macnay, C. G. (1939). Studies on repellents for biting flies. Canadian Ent. 71, 3844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, A. H., Lindquist, A. W. & Knipling, E. F. (1943). Tests of repellents against chiggers (Acariseus and Eutrombicula). J. Econ. Ent. 37, 283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mail, G. A. (1934). The mosquitoes of Montana. Bull. Montana Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 288, pp. 6470.Google Scholar
Marriott, W. (1911). Hints to Meteorological Observers, 7th ed. London: Stanford.Google Scholar
Marvin, C. F. (1941). Psychrometric Tables. Washington: U.S. Dep. Commerce, Government Printing Office. (Obtainable in this country from C. F. Casella and Co. Ltd., Regent House, Fitzroy Square, London, W. 1.)Google Scholar
Meillon, B. de (1934). Observations on Anopheles funestus and Anopheles gambiae in the Transvaal. Publ. S. Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 248 pp. (repellents, pp. 238–40).Google Scholar
Moore, W. (1934). Esters as repellents. J. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 42, 185–92.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. A.et al. (1944). (Toxicity tests.) Publ. Hlth Rep. 59, 1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. K. & Russell, G. A. (1925). Essential oils. In Allen's Commercial Organic Analysis, 5th ed. 4, 1217.Google Scholar
Nernst, W. (1923). Theoretical Chemistry. London. (Very complete account of boiling-point and other physical characters.)Google Scholar
Parry, E. J. (1922). The Chemistry of Essential Oils and Artificial Perfumes, 4th ed.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. C. (1940). Insect pests in northern Norway. The mosquito nuisance. J. R. Nav. Med. Serv. 26, 346–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plumb, G. H. (1944). Lethane 384 special for control of the brown dog tick. J. Econ. Ent. 37, 292–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D. N. & Ghosh, S. H. (1942). Further work on the comparative efficacy of different culicifuges under laboratory conditions. Parasitology, 34, 291–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D. N., Ghosh, S. H. & Chopra, R. N. (1942). Comparative efficacy of different culicifuges under laboratory conditions. Parasitology, 34, 152–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1922). Chemotropism of mosquitoes. Bull. N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 367.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1923). Observations on the relation between atmospheric conditions and behaviour of mosquitoes. Bull. N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 388.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1924). Influence of external conditions upon the behaviour of mosquitoes. Proc. 11 th Meet. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Soc. pp. 5864.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1925). Relation between temperature, humidity and activity of house mosquitoes. J. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 33, 163–9.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1925). Studies of mosquito repellents. Rep. N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. 1923–4, pp. 350–3.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1926). Investigations of mosquito problems. Proc. 13 th Ann. Meet. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Soc. pp. 3354.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1930). Effects of chemicals upon the behaviour of mosquitoes. Bull. N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 496.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. O., Smith, R. C., Atkeson, F. W.et al. (1943). Tests of repellents of known ingredients and of selected commercial sprays on dairy cattle. J. Econ. Ent. 36, 1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. B. (1901). Report of the Entomological Dep., N.J. Agric. Coll. Exp. Sta. p. 542 (quoted by Granett, 1940).Google Scholar
Syddiq, M. M. (1938). Observations of practical importance for the malariologist. Indian Med. Gaz. 73, 676–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Woodard, G. W.et al. (1944). (Toxicity tests.) J. Pharmacol. 82, 152.Google Scholar
Yothers, M. A. & Carlson, F. W. (1944). Repellency of pyrethrum extract and other materials to full-grown codling moth larvae. J. Econ. Ent. 37, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkin, E. & Bacot, A. (1917). The relation between the hatching of the eggs and the development of the larvae of Stegomyia fasciata and the presence of bacteria and yeasts. Parasitology, 9, 482536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Hopkins, G. H. E. (1927). Researches in Polynesia and Melanesia. Parts I–IV. Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. Trop. Med. no. 1.Google Scholar
Connell, W. A. (1941). Hatching response of Aedes sollicitans eggs under selected and controlled environmental conditions. J. Econ. Ent. 34, 187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, W. A. L., Bracey, P. & Harvey, A. (1944). Equipment and method in breeding Aedes aegypti L. for the biological assay of insecticides. Bull. Ent. Res. 35, 227–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golberg, L., de Meillon, B. & Lavoipierre, M. (1945). The nutrition of the larva of Aedes aegypti L. II. Essential water-soluble factors from yeast. J. Exp. Biol. 21, 90–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinman, E. H. (1930). Amer. J. Hyg. 12, 238.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1913). The yellow fever mosquito. Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 547, pp. 116.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. A. (1937). Notes on the continuous rearing of Aedes aegypti in the laboratory. Publ. Hlth Reps., Wash., 52, 1177–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. J. (1933). Observations on Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera, Culicidae) under controlled atmospheric conditions. Bull. Ent. Res. 24, 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillon, B. de, Golberg, L. & Lavoipierre, M. (1945). The nutrition of the larva of Aedes aegypti L. I. J. Exp. Biol. 21, 84–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D. N. (1936). On the role of blood in ovulation in Aedes. Bull. Ent. Res. 27, 423–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaton, D. R. & Lumsden, W. H. R. (1941). Observations on the effect of age and light on biting of Aedes aegypti (L.) in a controlled microclimate.Google Scholar
Trager, W. (1935). The culture of mosquito larvae free from living organisms. Amer. J. Hyg. 22, 1825.Google Scholar
Trager, W. (1935). On the nutrition requirements of mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti). Amer. J. Hyg. 22, 475–93.Google Scholar
Trager, W. (1937). A growth factor required by mosquito larvae, J. Exp. Biol. 14, 240–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, (1936). Shirley Inst. 15, 65.Google Scholar
Private communication from the Shirley Institute.Google Scholar