IS Insect Services GmbH, Haderslebener Str. 9, 12163 Berlin, Germany.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013 Apr;4(3):256-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.11.007. Epub 2013 Jan 20.
In the European Union (EU), tick repellents for humans need to be registered and approved by the authorities in order to be marketed. As there are currently no specific technical guidelines for product evaluation, we compared 3 different test methods: the mechanical moving object bioassay (MOB), and 2 assays involving human volunteers. For the latter, procedures according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Stiftung Warentest (StiWa), a German consumer care organization, were used. Two repellents, Autan(®) (AU), based on 20% Picaridin [2-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperidinecarboxylic acid-1-methylpropyl ester], and ZeckWeck (ZW), based on 12.5g/100g Citriodiol™ (main compound: p-menthane-3,8-diol) were tested with all 3 assays. Three repellents, Anti Brumm(®) naturelle, based on 20% Citriodiol™ (main compound: p-menthane-3,8-diol), G090141, based on 20% EBAAP (ethyl buthyl acetyl aminopropionate), and G090152, based on 10% decanoic acid (capric acid), which is contained in Zanzarin(®), were tested according to the EPA and the StiWa procedures. The EPA assay indicated a significantly higher repellency of the products AU and G090141 than the StiWa test, but no difference between assays could be detected for the remaining 3 products. Also the corresponding protection times were significantly longer (approximately 4h) when determined according to EPA versus to StiWa for 3 of the products, whilst the difference was insignificant for ZW and G090152. Additionally, significantly lower numbers of ticks initially walked onto the repellent-treated skin when tested according to EPA versus to StiWa in all products except ZW and G090152. Thus, the StiWa protocol appears to pose higher demands on a repellent than the EPA method. Contrary to expectation, the MOB showed the same or even lower product efficacy when compared to the EPA and StiWa tests. Particularly, the percentage of ticks clinging to repellent-treated filter paper was significantly higher than the proportion of ticks walking onto treated skin in the other assays. This could mean that in nature more ticks may probably cling to a human protected by a given repellent than the EPA or the StiWa assay might suggest. Nevertheless, the MOB produced results that are quite similar to the tests involving human volunteers.
在欧盟（EU），为了将杀蜱剂推向市场，必须经过当局的注册和批准。由于目前没有针对产品评估的具体技术指南，我们比较了 3 种不同的测试方法：机械移动物体生物测定法（MOB）和 2 种涉及人类志愿者的测试方法。后者采用了美国环境保护署（EPA）和德国消费者保护组织 Stiftung Warentest（StiWa）的程序。用这 3 种方法测试了两种杀蜱剂：Autan（®）（AU），其基础为 20%的派卡瑞丁[2-（2-羟乙基）-1-哌啶羧酸-1-甲基丙酯]；和 ZeckWeck（ZW），其基础为 12.5g/100g 的 Citriodiol™（主要化合物：p-薄荷烷-3,8-二醇）。按照 EPA 和 StiWa 的程序，对另外 3 种杀蜱剂 Anti Brumm（®）naturel、G090141（其基础为 20%的 Citriodiol™，主要化合物：p-薄荷烷-3,8-二醇）、G090152（其基础为 10%的癸酸，即 Zanzarin（®）中的成分）进行了测试。EPA 测试表明，产品 AU 和 G090141 的驱避效果明显高于 StiWa 测试，但其余 3 种产品在这两种测试方法中均未发现差异。同样，对于其中 3 种产品，根据 EPA 测试得到的保护时间明显长于根据 StiWa 测试（约 4 小时），而对于 ZW 和 G090152，两种方法的差异则不显著。此外，除了 ZW 和 G090152，在所有产品中，根据 EPA 测试初始有更少的蜱虫爬上涂有驱避剂的皮肤，而根据 StiWa 测试初始则有更多的蜱虫爬上涂有驱避剂的皮肤。因此，StiWa 方案似乎比 EPA 方法对驱避剂提出了更高的要求。出乎意料的是，与 EPA 和 StiWa 测试相比，MOB 显示出相同或甚至更低的产品功效。特别是，在其他测试中，粘在涂有驱避剂的滤纸的蜱虫比例明显高于在涂有驱避剂的皮肤上行走的蜱虫比例。这意味着，在自然界中，与 EPA 或 StiWa 测试所暗示的相比，被某种驱避剂保护的人可能会有更多的蜱虫附着。尽管如此，MOB 产生的结果与涉及人类志愿者的测试非常相似。
