Fradin Mark S, Day John F
Chapel Hill Dermatology, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 4;347(1):13-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011699.
The worldwide threat of arthropod-transmitted diseases, with their associated morbidity and mortality, underscores the need for effective insect repellents. Multiple chemical, botanical, and "alternative" repellent products are marketed to consumers. We sought to determine which products available in the United States provide reliable and prolonged complete protection from mosquito bites.
We conducted studies involving 15 volunteers to test the relative efficacy of seven botanical insect repellents; four products containing N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, now called N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET); a repellent containing IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate); three repellent-impregnated wristbands; and a moisturizer that is commonly claimed to have repellent effects. These products were tested in a controlled laboratory environment in which the species of the mosquitoes, their age, their degree of hunger, the humidity, the temperature, and the light-dark cycle were all kept constant.
DEET-based products provided complete protection for the longest duration. Higher concentrations of DEET provided longer-lasting protection. A formulation containing 23.8 percent DEET had a mean complete-protection time of 301.5 minutes. A soybean-oil-based repellent protected against mosquito bites for an average of 94.6 minutes. The IR3535-based repellent protected for an average of 22.9 minutes. All other botanical repellents we tested provided protection for a mean duration of less than 20 minutes. Repellent-impregnated wristbands offered no protection.
Currently available non-DEET repellents do not provide protection for durations similar to those of DEET-based repellents and cannot be relied on to provide prolonged protection in environments where mosquito-borne diseases are a substantial threat.
节肢动物传播疾病在全球范围内构成威胁，其所带来的发病率和死亡率凸显了有效驱虫剂的必要性。多种化学、植物和“替代”驱虫产品面向消费者销售。我们试图确定美国市场上哪些产品能提供可靠且持久的完全防蚊叮咬保护。
我们开展了涉及15名志愿者的研究，以测试七种植物性驱虫剂的相对功效；四种含N,N - 二乙基间甲苯胺（现称为N,N - 二乙基 - 3 - 甲基苯甲酰胺，即避蚊胺）的产品；一种含IR3535（乙基丁基乙酰氨基丙酸酯）的驱虫剂；三种浸有驱虫剂的腕带；以及一种通常宣称具有驱虫效果的保湿剂。这些产品在受控的实验室环境中进行测试，其中蚊子的种类、年龄、饥饿程度、湿度、温度和明暗周期均保持恒定。
基于避蚊胺的产品提供完全保护的持续时间最长。避蚊胺浓度越高，保护持续时间越长。一种含23.8%避蚊胺的配方产品的平均完全保护时间为301.5分钟。一种基于大豆油的驱虫剂平均防蚊叮咬时间为94.6分钟。基于IR3535的驱虫剂平均保护时间为22.9分钟。我们测试的所有其他植物性驱虫剂的平均保护持续时间均少于20分钟。浸有驱虫剂的腕带没有提供保护。
目前市面上的非避蚊胺驱虫剂提供保护的持续时间与基于避蚊胺的驱虫剂不同，在蚊媒疾病构成重大威胁的环境中，不能依靠它们提供长期保护。
