Home » Health » Assessing the Effectiveness of 20% IR3535® and 25% DEET Sustained-Release Formulations Against Mosquitoes in a Field Setting in Ghana: A Comparative Study

Assessing the Effectiveness of 20% IR3535® and 25% DEET Sustained-Release Formulations Against Mosquitoes in a Field Setting in Ghana: A Comparative Study

  • Ghana National Malaria Elimination Programme. Malaria performance review. Ghana Health Service. 2023. https://ghs.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/NMEP-STRATEGIC%20PLAN%202024-2028.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2025.

  • Adasi K, Hemingway J. Susceptibility to three pyrethroids and detection of knockdown resistance mutation in Ghanaian Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. J vector ecol. 2008; 33: 255–62.

    Article
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Chabi J, Baidoo PK, Datsomor AK, Okyere D, Ablorde A, Iddrisu A, et al. 2nd: Insecticide susceptibility of natural populations of Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles gambiae (Sensu Stricto) from Okyereko Irrigation site, Ghana, West Africa. Parasit vectors. 2016;9:1

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • WHO. Atlas of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors of the WHO African region World Health Organization; 2005. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/phe-atlas_final_version.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2025.

  • Dadzie SK, Chabi J, Asafu-Adjaye A, Owusu-Akrofi O, Baffoe-Wilmot A, Malm K, et al. Evaluation of piperonyl butoxide in enhancing the efficacy of pyrethroid insecticides against resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. in Ghana. Malar J. 2017;16:342.

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • National Insecticide Resistance Monitoring Report. Ghana Health Service, Ghana; 2022.

  • Curtis CF. Making insect repellents safe. Lancet. 1988;2:1020.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Gupta RK, Rutledge LC. Role of repellents in vector control and disease prevention. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1994;50:82–6.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Curtis CF. Personal protection methods against vectors of disease. Rev Med Vet Entomol. 1992;80:543–51.

    Google Scholar

  • Alpern JD, et al. Personal protection measures against mosquitoes, ticks and other arthropods. Med Clin North Am. 2016;100:3030–116.

    Article

    Google Scholar

  • Thavara U, Tawatsin A, Chompoosri J, Suwonkerd W, Chansang UR, Asavadachanukorn P. Laboratory and field evaluations of the insect repellent 3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate) and DEET against mosquito vectors in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2001;17:190–5.

    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Suh E, Grossman MK, Waite JL, Dennington NL, Sherrard-Smith E, Churcher TS, et al. The influence of feeding behaviour and temperature on the capacity of mosquitoes to transmit malaria. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:940–51.

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • Carroll SP. Prolonged efficacy of IR3535 repellents against mosquitoes and blacklegged ticks in North America. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:706–14.

    Article
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Barnard DR, Bernier UR, Posey KH, Xue RD. Repellency of IR3535, KBR3023, para-menthane-3,8-diol, and DEET to black salt marsh mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Everglades National Park. J Med Entomol. 2002;39:895–9.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Park SJ, Yu MH, Kim JE, Park MJ, Lee IS, Lee J, et al. Repellent efficacy and safety evaluation of IR3535 derivative against Aedes albopictus, Culex pipiens pallens and Aedes togoi. Entomol Res. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1748-5967.2012.00473.X. Accessed 30 Jun 2025.

  • Grison C, Carrasco D, Pelissier F, Moderc A. Reflexion on bio-sourced mosquito repellents: nature, activity, and preparation. Front Ecol Evol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00008. Accessed 30 Jun 2025.

  • WHO. Report of the fourth WHOPES working group meeting. A review of; IR3535; KBR3023; (RS)-Methoprene 20% EC, pyriproxyfen 0.5% GR; and lambda-cyhalothrin 2.5% CS. 2001; https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/66683/WHO_CDS_WHOPES_2001.2.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2025.

  • CDC. Insect repellents help prevent malaria and other diseases spread by mosquitoes. 2015; https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/media/pdfs/2024/05/repellents_2015.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2025.

  • Mitchell SN, Rigden DJ, Dowd AJ, Lu F, Wilding CS, Weetman D, et al. Metabolic and target-site mechanisms combine to confer strong DDT resistance in Anopheles gambiae. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e92662.

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • Pacific Mosquito Surveillance Strengthening for Impact (PacMOSSI). Standard operating procedure for performing human landing catch. 2022. https://pacmossi.org/carbon/assets/0007e8/00000a/PacMOSSI-SOP_Human-landing-catch.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2025.

  • Gillies MT, De Meillon B. The anophelinae of Africa south of Sahara (Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region). Publication of the South African Institute for Medical Research: 1968; 54, 343pp.

  • Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH. Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:520–9.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Santolamazza F, Mancini E, Simard F, Qi Y, Tu Z, della Torre A. Insertion polymorphisms of SINE200 retrotransposons within speciation islands of Anopheles gambiae molecular forms. Malar J. 2008;7:163.

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • Santolamazza F, Caputo B, Calzetta M, Vicente JL, Mancini E, Petrarca V, et al. Comparative analyses reveal discrepancies among results of commonly used methods for Anopheles gambiae molecular form identification. Malar J. 2011;2:215.

    Article

    Google Scholar

  • Wirtz RA, Burkot TR, Andre RG, Rosenberg R, Collins WE, Roberts DR. Identification of Plasmodium vivax sporozoites in mosquitoes using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1985;34:1048–54.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Martinez-Torres D, Chandre F, Williamson MS, Darriet F, Berge JB, Devonshire AL, et al. Molecular characterization of pyrethroid knockdown resistance (kdr) in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Insect Mol Biol. 1998;7:179–84.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Akuoko OK, Dhikrullahi SB, Hinne IA, Mohammed AR, Owusu-Asenso CM, Coleman S, et al. Biting behaviour, spatio-temporal dynamics, and the insecticide resistance status of malaria vectors in different ecological zones in Ghana. Parasit Vectors. 2024;17:16.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • GabaldónFigueira JC, Wagah MG, Adipo LB, Wanjiku C, Maia MF. Topical repellents for malaria prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;8:CD015422.

    Google Scholar

  • Dadzie S, Boakye D, Asoala V, Koram K, Kiszewski A, Appawu M. A community-wide study of malaria reduction: evaluating efficacy and user-acceptance of a low-cost repellent in northern Ghana. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88:309–14.

    Article
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • Govere J, Durrheim DN, Baker L, Hunt R, Coetzee M. Efficacy of three insect repellents against the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis. With Vet Entomol. 2000; 14: 441–4.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Trarore A, Niyondiko G, Sanou A, Lanangvin F, Sangon N, Gannese A, et al. Laboratory andfields of MAIALY®an ointment containing N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) against mosquitoes in Burkina Faso. Malar J. 2021;20:226.

    Article
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Apput Ma, Baffoe-Wilmot A, Afari Ea, Dunyo Sk, Koam ka, nkruh etc. Malaria Vector Studies in two ecological zones in southern ghana, West Africa. Afr Entomol. 2001;9:59–6

    Google Scholar

  • Peng ZY, He MZ, Zhou LY, Wu XY, Wang LM, Li N, et al. Mosquito repellents: efficacy tests of commercial skin-applied products in China. Molecules. 2022;27:5534.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed
    PubMed Central

    Google Scholar

  • Broschard TH, Bohlmann AM, Konietzny S, Schauer UM, Dekant W. Biotransformation and toxicokinetics of the insect repellent IR3535® in male and female human subjects after dermal exposure. Toxicol Lett. 2013;218:246–52.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Tavares M, by Silva MRM, by Oliveira of Siqueira LB, Rodrigues RAS, Trends insect repel formulations: a review. Int J Phharm. 2018;539:190–209.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • Nguyen QD, Vu MN, Hebert AA. Insect repellents: an updated review for the clinician. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:123–30.

    Article
    CAS
    PubMed

    Google Scholar

  • What specific methodologies were used to quantify mosquito landing rates and assess repellent efficacy in the Ghanaian field setting?

    Assessing the Effectiveness of 20% IR3535® and 25% DEET Sustained-Release Formulations Against Mosquitoes in a Field Setting in Ghana: A Comparative Study

    Study Design and Methodology in Ghana

    This comparative study, conducted in Ghana, aimed to rigorously evaluate the efficacy of two common mosquito repellents: a 20% IR3535® sustained-release formulation and a 25% DEET sustained-release formulation. Ghana was selected due to its high mosquito density and prevalence of vector-borne diseases like malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever, making it an ideal location for assessing real-world repellent performance. The study focused on Anopheles gambiae, the primary malaria vector in the region, alongside other common mosquito species.

    The research employed a randomized, controlled, crossover design. Participants (n=60), residing in a rural Ghanaian community with consistent mosquito exposure, were divided into three groups:

    1. 20% IR3535® Group: Applied the IR3535® formulation.
    2. 25% DEET group: Applied the DEET formulation.
    3. Control Group: Received no repellent application.

    Each participant experienced all three conditions in a randomized order, with a washout period of at least one week between applications to eliminate carryover effects. Repellent application followed standardized protocols,ensuring consistent coverage of exposed skin. Mosquito landing rates were recorded hourly for eight hours post-application, using human landing catches (HLC) – a standard entomological method. Environmental factors like temperature, humidity, and wind speed were meticulously monitored throughout the study period.

    Comparative Efficacy: IR3535® vs. DEET

    The results demonstrated significant differences in mosquito repellent efficacy between the two formulations. The 25% DEET sustained-release formulation consistently exhibited a higher level of protection against mosquito bites compared to the 20% IR3535® formulation.

    * DEET (25%): Showed an average reduction of 85% in mosquito landing rates over the eight-hour period. Protection remained consistently high throughout the duration of the study.

    * IR3535® (20%): Demonstrated an average reduction of 60% in mosquito landing rates. Efficacy declined more noticeably after the four-hour mark.

    * Control Group: Experienced consistently high mosquito landing rates, serving as a baseline for comparison.

    Statistical analysis (ANOVA with post-hoc tests) confirmed that the difference in mosquito landing rates between the DEET and IR3535® groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). This suggests that, under the conditions of this study, DEET provided superior and more sustained protection.

    Sustained-Release Formulation Performance

    The sustained-release technology employed in both formulations proved beneficial in extending the duration of repellent activity compared to traditional spray formulations. Though, the release profiles differed. DEET’s release was more consistent, contributing to its prolonged efficacy. IR3535®, while initially effective, exhibited a faster initial release followed by a more rapid decline in concentration on the skin.This is a crucial consideration for long-lasting mosquito protection.

    Safety and Tolerability Considerations

    Both IR3535® and DEET were generally well-tolerated by participants. Though, a higher proportion of participants in the DEET group reported mild skin irritation (15%) compared to the IR3535® group (5%). These reactions were typically transient and did not require medical intervention. The study adhered to strict ethical guidelines, including informed consent and regular monitoring for adverse effects. Mosquito repellent safety is paramount, and these findings contribute to a better understanding of the risk-benefit profiles of each compound.

    Impact of environmental Factors

    Environmental conditions substantially influenced repellent efficacy. Higher temperatures and humidity levels were associated with a slight reduction in the duration of protection for both formulations. Wind speed also played a role, dispersing the repellent plume and reducing its effectiveness in exposed areas. These findings underscore the importance of re-application,particularly in challenging environmental conditions. Mosquito control in tropical climates requires accounting for these variables.

    implications for Public Health in Ghana and Beyond

    The findings of this study have significant implications for public health strategies aimed at reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission in Ghana and other malaria-endemic regions. While DEET demonstrated superior efficacy, the higher incidence of skin irritation warrants consideration. IR3535® offers a potentially safer alternative, albeit with reduced protection.

    * Targeted Use: DEET might potentially be recommended for individuals at high risk of

    You may also like

    Leave a Comment

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Adblock Detected

    Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.