citrefine-citriodiol-96689969.jpg
bigstockphoto_Wild_Mosquito_On_Green_Leaf_281917.jpg
citrefine-citriodiol-26928464.jpg
citrefine-citriodiol-24324678.jpg
citrefine-citriodiol-95579395.jpg
citrefine-citriodiol-96689969.jpg

efficacy home


Efficacy data

Studies and information

 

MOSQUITOES  TICKS  MIDGES  OTHER REFERENCES

SCROLL DOWN

efficacy home


Efficacy data

Studies and information

 

MOSQUITOES  TICKS  MIDGES  OTHER REFERENCES

Over more than 20 years, Citrefine has undertaken a large number of efficacy studies. Summaries of a selection of these studies for mosquitoes, ticks and midges are available here with further information available on request. You will also find additional study references and references for published materials.

We are always keen to improve our understanding of the repellency properties of Citriodiol® so if you decide to conduct efficacy testing of your own, we would welcome the opportunity to review your results and can even comment on proposed study protocols to ensure you get the most out of your testing.

Please contact us if you require any further information

 
 
Citrefine Citriodiol efficacy studies
 

 

Let's explore working together
GET IN TOUCH →

Read next
EFFICACY STUDIES FOR MOSQUITOES ↓

bigstockphoto_Wild_Mosquito_On_Green_Leaf_281917.jpg

efficacy studies - mosquitoes


Efficacy studies

Mosquitoes

efficacy studies - mosquitoes


Efficacy studies

Mosquitoes

Study 1.  

Carroll (2007).

 

A.  Test article  

  • 30% Citriodiol® pump spray product

 

B.  Species tested

The following mosquito species were present at the two geographic locations tested

  • Aedes
  • Anopheles
  • Culex

 

C.  Testing standards

This study was comprehensive in its testing method. It was field study (using two distinct geographic locations) and was conducted to US EPA standard OPPTS 810.3700.

  • It relied on 10 volunteers testing the product in two geographically distinct locations; hence 20 replicates in total.  
  • Application rate much lower than the industry standard rate of 1.0ml/600cm². 
  • It met all applicable ethical standards by ensuring subjects were adequately warned about the potential risks of the study, women at risk or pregnancy were excluded, and the privacy of the subjects was ensured (HSRB approved).

 

D.  Results

The 30% Citriodiol® spray formulation provided up to 8.25 hours of complete protection (CPT), a standard measuring 100% protection or repellency.

This result, which gave a median CPT of 4-6.2 hours was based on an application rate of the product that was 70% lower than industry standard.  In addition, the standard of complete protection required under OPPTS 810.3700 is arguably a more rigorous standard than required by some Member States in Europe under national laws insofar as it bases its conclusion on a standard of complete protection from landings with intent to bite (time of first confirmed landing with intent to bite) whereas the "percentage protection" standard requires the often less rigorous standard of a given percentage (less than 100%) of protection from actual bites. 

The US EPA determined this data supported a claim of“up to 6 hours protection from mosquitoes” based on this more conservative CPT standard. 

 

 

Study 2.  

Blackwell (2014)

 

A.  Test articles:

  • 30% Citriodiol® spray product(Mosi-guard Natural® Spray)
  • 20% IR3535 spray product(Jungle Formula for Sensitive Skin)
  • 15% DEET spray product (Coleman® Family Insect Repellent)
  • 32% Citriodiol® alternate non-spray product (Mosi-guard Natural® Roll-on)

 

B.  Species tested

  • Stegomyia (formerly Aedes)

 

C.  Testing standards

This study was an arm-in-cage laboratory biting assay.  The protocol was adapted fromUS EPA standard OPPTS 810.3700 and WHO/HTM/NTD/WHOPES/2009.4, in line with the latest TNsG on repellents (CA-Dec12-Doc.6.2.a-Final)

  • Three volunteers
  • Industry standard application rate of 1.0ml/600cm² (1g/600cm² for roll-on)
  • 50 unfed female mosquitoes
  • Three muslin-covered cages (30x30x30 cm)
  • Negative control

 

D.  Results

The 30% Citriodiol® spray formulation provided 360 minutes of complete protection (CPT), significantly greater than the CPT for the other spray products tested, and 70% repellency was maintained to 6 hours. 

 

Let's explore working together

 
 
citrefine-citriodiol-26928464.jpg

efficacy studies - ticks


Efficacy studies

Ticks

efficacy studies - ticks


Efficacy studies

Ticks

Study 1.  

Carroll (2002)

 

A.  Test articles

  • 40% Citriodiol® pump spray product
  • 30% Citriodiol® lotion

 

B.  Testing standards

US EPA 2002 testing guidance standards and California State EPA standards.

  • 10 subjects per product for ticks (lab)
  • Untreated control
  • 20% DEET positive control
  • Standard application rates recorded 1g/600cm²
  • 25 replicates for tick testing (lab only)
  • 6-hour duration

 

C.  Species tested

  • Ixodes

 

D.  Results

Tick testing showed 95% repellency for the lotion over the 6 hours and 100% repellency for the spray for the first 4 hours, dropping to 95% for the remaining 2 hours.

The DEET control for the tick test showed 100% protection for the entire 6 hours.

 


 

Study 2.  

Weisser (2000)

 

A.  Test article

  • 40% Citriodiol® pump spray product

 

B.  Testing standards

This trial was carried out in the moist deciduous forest of Bienwald in the Upper Rhine Valley in Germany from April through May 2000.

  • Two white cloths attached to rakes, one treated with Mosi-guard Natural® Spray
  • Untreated control
  • Cloths pushed side by side for five meters over grassy forest trails

 

C.  Species tested

  • Ixodes

 

D.  Results

Results from the study showed that on four (4) of the nine (9) days >95% were repelled, and those remaining were clearly discomforted and may have been repelled in time. The study concluded that on average 90% of Ixodes ricinus nymphs were actively repelled by Mosi-guard Natural® Spray.

 

Let's explore working together

 
 
citrefine-citriodiol-24324678.jpg

efficacy studies - midges


Efficacy studies

Midges

efficacy studies - midges


Efficacy studies

Midges

Study 1.

Blackwell (2013)

 

A.  Test article 

  • 30% Citriodiol® pump spray product (Mosi-guard Natural® Spray)

 

B.  Testing standards

  • This was a field study conducted in conformance with OPPTS 810.3700 and, where applicable WHO guidance and the TnG on PT19 efficacy testing.  There is no direct guidance in this TnG on midge testing.
  • It was of note that midge colonies do not typically survive for testing in laboratory conditions and hence field trials are preferred for this species.
  • An application rate much lower than the industry standard of 1.0ml/600cm².
  • 6 human subjects.
  • Negative control arms of each subject were used to establish % protection.  Complete protection time was also measured.
  • A positive DEET controlled was used to confirm appropriate testing conditions.

 

C.  Species

95% of the midges observed in this trial were Culicoides spp. biting midges.  This is a species commonly found in northern Europe.

 

D.  Results

The 30% Mosi-guard Natural® Spray provided a mean of 65% protection at 4 hours and complete protection for 2 hours.  Significant decreases in protection occurred after this time, suggesting that where midges are not pathogen carriers, reapplication every 4 hours is appropriate

 

Let's explore working together

 
 
citrefine-citriodiol-95579395.jpg

efficacy studies - further references


Efficacy studies

Further study references

efficacy studies - further references


Efficacy studies

Further study references

Additional Studies

  • Hagstrom (2005) - Deer keds (Field Study)
  • Carroll (2001) - Leptoconops Biting Midges (Field Study)
  • Barnard (2000) - Aedes mosquitoes (Field Study)
  • Barnard (2000) - Aedes, Anopheles & Culex mosquitoes (Lab Study)
  • Carroll (1999) - Deer tick (Lab Study)
 

References for published materials/links

  1. Drapeau, J. (2011), Green synthesis of para-Menthane-3,8-diol from Eucalyptus citriodora: Application for repellent products, C.R. Chimie 14 (2011) 629-635.
  2. Semmler, M. (2011), Why is it crucial to test anti-lice repellents?, Parasitol Res, DOI 10.1007/s00436-011-2483-4.
  3. Carroll SP, Loye J (2006), Field Test of a Lemon Eucalyptus Repellent against Leptoconops Biting Midges, J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006 Sep;22(3), 483-485.
  4. Carroll SP, Loye J (2006), PMD, a registered botanical mosquito repellent with deet-like efficacy, J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006 Sep;22(3), 507-14.
  5. Trongtokit Y, Curtis CF and Rongsriyam (2005), Efficacy of repellent products against caged and free flying Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes, Southeast Asian Journal of tropical medicine and public health, 2005, 36(6), 1423-1431.
  6. Kirton, L.G. (2005), Laboratory and field tests of the effectiveness of the lemon-eucalyptus extract, Citriodiol, as a repellent against land leeches of the genus Haemadipsa (Haemadipsidae), Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 2005, 99(7), 695-714.
  7. Barnard DR, Xue RD (2004), Laboratory evaluation of mosquito repellents against Aedes albopictus, Culex nigripalpus, and Ochierotatus triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae), Journal of Medical Entomology, 2004, 41(4), 726-730.
  8. Ann Gardulf; Ingrid Wohlfart; Rolf Gustafson (2004), A Prospective Cross-Over Field Trial Shows Protection of Lemon Eucalyptus Extract Against Tick Bites, Journal of Medical Entomology, 2004, 41(6), 1064-1067.
  9. Trigg J K and Hill, N (1996), Laboratory evaluation of a Eucalyptus-based repellent against four biting arthropods, Phytotherapy Research. 1996. 10: 313-316.
  10. Consumer Reports Rating:  http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/beauty-personal-care/insect-repellent/insect-repellent-ratings/ratings-overview.htm
 

For more information about our efficacy data

 
 

Return to the top of this page
BACK TO TOP ↑