| |
FACTS ABOUT DEET
DEET IS A PESTICIDE
It is used as the active ingredient many
insect repellents.
Chemical Name: (N,N -
diethyl-3-methyl benzamide)
In April, Health Canada banned
repellents with more than 30% DEET, as well as those
mixed with sunscreen.
Health Canada DEET Consumer Advisory:
 | children under six months of age
should not be using DEET |
| children between six months and 12
years of age should never have DEET on their face and
hands |
| children between six months and two
years should only use DEET when there's a high risk of
complications from insect bites and only the least
concentrated product should be used sparingly |
| for children aged two to 12 years of
age, should use the least concentrated product and do
not apply more than three times daily. Do not apply to
the face or hands |
| for anyone 12 years of age and older:
do not use any products with a DEET concentration of
30 per cent or stronger |
In the United States:
EPA is no longer allowing child safety
claims on DEET product labels. These claims currently
appear on certain products containing a DEET concentration
of 15% or less. The scientific data on DEET do not support
product label claims of child safety based on the
percentage of active ingredient.
Researchers at Duke University Medical
School (led by Dr.
Mohamed Abou-Donia) have published findings
demonstrating in laboratory studies that:
| frequent and prolonged application of
DEET cause neurons to die in regions of the brain
responsible for muscle movements, learning, memory and
concentration --all subtle effects |
| laboratory animals exposed to average
human doses of DEET perform far worse than untreated
animals on neurobehavioral tasks requiring muscle
coordination |
| low dose exposure to DEET in
combination with some pesticides sprayed by truck or
aircraft for West Nile Virus show a synergistic or
severely increased neurological effect |
Find more out about the healthy
and safe alternatives to DEET.
Research Study Abstracts
Additional information can be found at
http://environmentalrisk.cornell.edu/WNV/
| Lindsay, L.R., G.A. Surgeoner and
J.D. Heal. 1996. Field Evaluation of the Efficacy
of Three DruideReg. Citronella-Based
Repellents to Protect Against Aedes Species
Mosquitoes in Ontario: Final Report.
Unpublished, 8 pp. Contact: L.R. Lindsay, G. A.
Surgeoner and J. D. Heal, Department of
Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario, Canada or Vincent LeCorne, Laboratoires
Druide, 154, Prom. Oneida, Pointe-Claire, Quebec H9R
1A8.
Summary: The purpose of this study was
to assess, under field conditions, the efficacy of three DruideReg.
Citronella-Based products (lotion, milk and
sunblock formulations; active ingredients: 10% oil of
citronella and 5% terpene of citronella) to protect
against Aedes species mosquitoes. The complete
protection time was calculated for each product,
complete protection being 95% fewer bites than
non-treated controls. The complete protection time
provided by the three candidate repellents varied from 7
to 60+ minutes and the milk formulation had a
significantly longer complete protection time than the
other two candidate repellents. All of candidate
repellents reduced the number of mosquitoes biting by
95% over the 1st and 2nd 30 minutes after application,
although the lotion and milk formulations were more
effective than the sunblock formulation during the 2nd
30 minutes following product application.
|
| Lindsay, L.R., G.A. Surgeoner and J.D. Heal. Undated.
Evaluation of WalkaboutReg. (2.8%) citronella) as a
Repellent Against Summer Aedes spp. Mosquitoes.
Unpublished, 5pp. Contact: J. D. Heal, G. A. Surgeoner,
and S. M. Butler, Department of Environmental Biology,
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
Summary: The purpose of this study was
to access, under field conditions, the efficacy of the
2.8% oil of citronella product, WalkaboutReg., for
protection against summer Aedes spp. mosquitoes. The
WalkaboutReg. oil significantly reduced the number of
mosquitoes biting treated subjects. The average percent
repellency that this product provided over the one hour
evaluation period was excellent (greater than 96.0%).
Complete protection times were variable although on 5 to
8 instances, CPT was at least 30 minutes. As a result,
consumers with a low tolerance to mosquito bites will
likely have to reapply this product at 30 minute
intervals to maintain 95-100% protection. Although this
level of protection provided by WalkaboutReg. is less
than would be anticipated with a comparable DEET-based
formulation, the "organic" nature of the
active ingredients will likely appeal to some consumers.
| Lindsay, L.R., G.A. Surgeoner, J.D. Heal, and G.J.
Gallivan. 1996. Evaluation of the Efficacy of 3%
Citronella Candles and 5% Citronella Incense for
Protection Against Field Populations of Aedes
Mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control
Association 12 (2): 293-294.
Abstract: We assessed the efficacy of
3% citronella candles and 5% citronella incense in
protecting subjects from bits of Aedes spp. under field
conditions. The study was conducted in a deciduous
woodlot in Guelph, Ontario, Canada from July 26 to
August 10, 1995. Eight subjects, dressed identically,
were assigned to one of 8 positions on a grid within the
study area. Two citronella candles, 2 citronella
incense, 2 plain unscented candles, or no candles (i.e.
nontreated controls) were assigned to 2 positions on the
grid each evening. Subjects conducted 5-min biting
counts at each position and performed 16 biting counts
per evening. On average, subjects received 6.2 +/- 0.4,
8.2 +/- 0.5, 8.2 +/- 0.4, and 10.8 +/- 0.5 bites/ 5
minutes at positions with citronella candles,
citronellaincense, plain candles, and no candles,
respectively. Although significantly fewer bites were
received by subjects at positions with citronella
candles and incense than at nontreated locations, the
overall reduction in bites provided by the citronella
candles and incense was only 42.3% and 24.2%,
respectively.
|
|
Lindsay, L.R., J.D. Heal and G.A. Surgeoner. August
1996. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Bite
Blocker, OFF! Skintastic, and Avon Skin-So-Soft to
Protect Against Aedes Species Mosquitoes in Ontario:
Final Report. Unpublished, 5 pp. Contact: L.R. Lindsay,
G. A. Surgeoner and J. D. Heal, Department of
Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario, Canada or Gary Sheppard, Chemfree Environment
Inc., 16763 Hymus Blvd., Kirkland, Quebec Canada H9H
3L4.
Introduction:The purpose of this study
was to compare, under field conditions, the relative
efficacy of Bite Blocker Reg. (Batch No. 199607023,
active ingredients: 2.0% soybean oil), OFF! Reg.
Skintastic spray (6.65% N, N-diethyl-M-toluamide), and
Avon Reg. Skin-So-Soft mosquito, flea and deer tick
repellent (0.05% oil of citronella) to protect against
Aedes mosquitoes in Ontario.
Results: The number of bites received
by subjects treated with Bite Blocker Reg. applied at
30, 90, and 120 minutes prior to exposure to mosquitoes
did not differ significantly from the number of bites
received by subjects treated with OFF! Reg. Skintastic
applied at 30 and 90 minutes prior to exposure (P
greater than 0.5). There was no signifcant difference
between the number of mosquitoes biting subjects treated
with Avon Reg. Skin-So-Soft when this product was
applied at 30, 90 or 210 minutes prior to exposure to
mosquitoes (P~ 0.2). When subjects were treated at 210
minutes prior to exposure to mosquitoes, the number of
mosquitoes biting subjects treated with OFF! Reg.
Skintastic was significantly higher that the biting
count for subjects treated with Bite BlockerReg.
(P~0.001) and significantly less than the number biting
subjects treated with Avon Reg. Skin-So-Soft (P less
than 0.001). The percent repellency provided by three
repellents varied among the different products. Avon
Reg. Skin-So-Soft provided a 39.6-56.8% reduction in the
number of bites compared with the non-treated subjects.
Bite Blocker Reg. reduced mosquito biting by 97.0-99.2%
whereas OFF! Reg. Skintastic provided from 85.8-100%
repellency compared with non-treated subjects. During
the biting count evaluations, ambient air T ranged from
16.4-22.8 degrees C, relative humidity ranged from
69.8-90.8% and wind was always less than 10 km per h and
typically less than 5 km per h. None of the subjects
noted any adverse effects after the products were
applied. [Results are accompanied by 3 tables.]
REPELLENCY OF VOLATILE OILS FROM PLANTS
AGAINST THREE MOSQUITO VECTORS
(A. Tawatsin, S.D. Wratten, R.R. Scott, U. Thavara, and
Y. Techadamrongsin)
(Source: Journal of Vector Ecology 26(1): 76-82, June
2001). Available online at http://www.sove.org/june2001/tawatsin.pdf
"Abstract: Volatile oils extracted by steam
distillation from four plant species (turmeric (Curcuma
longa), kaffir lime (Citrus hystrix), citronella grass (Cymbopogon
winterianus) and hairy basil (Ocimum americanum)), were
evaluated in mosquito cages and in a large room for
their repellency effects against three mosquito vectors,
Aedes aegypti, Anopheles dirus and Culex
quinquefasciatus. The oils from turmeric, citronella
grass and hairy basil, especially with the addition of
5% vanillin, repelled the three species under cage
conditions for up to eight hours. The oil from kaffir
lime alone, as well as with 5% vanillin added, was
effective for up to three hours. With regard to the
standard repellent, deet alone provided protection for
at least eight hours against Ae. aegypti and Cx.
quinquefasciatus, but for six hours against An. dirus.
However, deet with the addition of 5% vanillin gave
protection against the three mosquito species for at
least eight hours. The results of large room evaluations
confirmed the responses for each repellent treatment
obtained under cage conditions. This study demonstrates
the potential of volatile oils extracted from turmeric,
citronella grass and hairy basil as topical repellents
against both day- and night-biting mosquitoes. The three
volatile oils can be formulated with vanillin as
mosquito repellents in various forms to replace deet
(N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide), the most common
chemical repellent currently available."
If you are unable to access the report online -
CONTACT: PAT SKYLER
(CA) (916) 454-0817
pskyler@fs.fed.us
|
|
|
|
