Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2009 Dec;25(4):511-3.

Comparative field evaluation of repellent formulations containing deet and IR3535 against mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia.

Author information

  • 1Australian Army Malaria Institute, Gallipoli Barracks, Enoggera, Queensland 4051, Australia, USA.


Field trials comparing repellent formulations containing IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate) and deet (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) against mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia, were conducted. Two repellents were compared: Avon Bug Guard, containing 7.5% IR3535; and Australian Defense Force (ADF) deet, containing 35% deet in a gel. Two tests were conducted, one in February-March 2006, and the second in February 2007. In the 1st test, the predominant mosquito species collected were Mansonia uniformis (58.9% of collection) and Culex annulirostris (33.4%), and in the 2nd test, the predominant species was Aedes vigilax (85.7% of collection). In the 1st test, Avon Bug Guard provided >95% protection against all mosquitoes for only 1 h, and ADF deet provided the same level of protection for 5 h. In the 2nd field test, Avon Bug Guard provided only 85% protection against all mosquitoes 1 h after repellent application, while ADF deet provided 5 h of protection. The study showed that ADF deet provided significantly better protection against mosquitoes than Avon Bug Guard (IR3535).

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioOne
    Loading ...
    Support Center