Plant-based repellents have been used for generations in traditional practice as a personal protection measure against host-seeking mosquitoes. Knowledge on traditional repellent plants obtained through ethnobotanical studies is a valuable resource for the development of new natural products. Recently, commercial repellent products containing plant-based ingredients have gained increasing popularity among consumers, as these are commonly perceived as “safe” in comparison to long-established synthetic repellents although this is sometimes a misconception. To date insufficient studies have followed standard WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme guidelines for repellent testing. There is a need for further standardized studies in order to better evaluate repellent compounds and develop new products that offer high repellency as well as good consumer safety. This paper presents a summary of recent information on testing, efficacy and safety of plant-based repellents as well as promising new developments in the field.

BackgroundDisease transmitting mosquitoes locate humans and other blood hosts by identifying their characteristic odor profiles. Using their olfactory organs, the mosquitoes detect compounds present in human breath, sweat and skins, and use these as cues to locate and obtain blood from the humans. These odor compounds can be synthesized in vitro, then formulated to mimic humans. While some synthetic mosquito lures already exist, evidence supporting their utility is limited to laboratory settings, where long-range stimuli cannot be investigated.Methodology and Principal FindingsHere we report the development and field evaluation of an odor blend consisting of known mosquito attractants namely carbon dioxide, ammonia and carboxylic acids, which was optimized at distances comparable with attractive ranges of humans to mosquitoes. Binary choice assays were conducted inside a large-cage semi-field enclosure using attractant-baited traps placed 20 m apart. This enabled high-throughput optimization of concentrations at which the individual candidate attractants needed to be added so as to obtain a blend maximally attractive to laboratory-reared An. gambiae. To determine whether wild mosquitoes would also be attracted to this synthetic odor blend and to compare it with whole humans under epidemiologically relevant conditions, field experiments were conducted inside experimental huts, where the blend was compared with 10 different adult male volunteers (20-34 years old). The blend attracted 3 to 5 times more mosquitoes than humans when the two baits were in different experimental huts (10–100 metres apart), but was equally or less attractive than humans when compared side by side within same huts.Conclusion and SignificanceThis highly attractive substitute for human baits might enable development of technologies for trapping mosquitoes in numbers sufficient to prevent rather than merely monitor transmission of mosquito-borne diseases.

International public health workers are challenged by a burden of arthropod-borne disease that remains elevated despite best efforts in control programmes. With this challenge comes the opportunity to develop novel vector control paradigms to guide product development and programme implementation. The role of vector behaviour modification in disease control was first highlighted several decades ago but has received limited attention within the public health community. This paper presents current evidence highlighting the value of sub-lethal agents, specifically spatial repellents, and their use in global health, and identifies the primary challenges towards establishing a clearly defined and recommended role for spatial repellent products in disease control.

The antimalarial efficacy of the most important vector control interventions—long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS)—primarily protect against mosquitoes’ biting people when they are in bed and indoors. Mosquito bites taken outside of these times contribute to residual transmission which determines the maximum effectiveness of current malaria prevention. The likelihood mosquitoes feed outside the time of day when LLINs and IRS can protect people is poorly understood, and the proportion of bites received outdoors may be higher after prolonged vector control. A systematic review of mosquito and human behavior is used to quantify and estimate the public health impact of outdoor biting across Africa. On average 79% of bites by the major malaria vectors occur during the time when people are in bed. This estimate is substantially lower than previous predictions, with results suggesting a nearly 10% lower proportion of bites taken at the time when people are beneath LLINs since the year 2000. Across Africa, this higher outdoor transmission is predicted to result in an estimated 10.6 million additional malaria cases annually if universal LLIN and IRS coverage was achieved. Higher outdoor biting diminishes the cases of malaria averted by vector control. This reduction in LLIN effectiveness appears to be exacerbated in areas where mosquito populations are resistant to insecticides used in bed nets, but no association was found between physiological resistance and outdoor biting. Substantial spatial heterogeneity in mosquito biting behavior between communities could contribute to differences in effectiveness of malaria control across Africa.

Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are currently the preferred methods of malaria vector control. In many cases, these methods are used together in the same households, especially to suppress transmission in holoendemic and hyperendemic scenarios. Though widespread, there has been limited evidence suggesting that such co-application confers greater protective benefits than either ITNs or IRS when used alone. Since both methods are insecticide-based and intradomicilliary, this article hypothesises that outcomes of their combination would depend on effects of the candidate active ingredients on mosquitoes that enter or those that attempt to enter houses. It is suggested here that enhanced household level protection can be achieved if the ITNs and IRS have divergent yet complementary properties, e.g. highly deterrent IRS compounds coupled with highly toxic ITNs. To ensure that the problem of insecticide resistance is avoided, the ITNs and IRS products should preferably be of different insecticide classes, e.g. pyrethroid-based nets combined with organophosphate or carbamate based IRS. The overall community benefits would however depend also on other factors such as proportion of people covered by the interventions and the behaviour of vector species. This article concludes by emphasizing the need for basic and operational research, including mathematical modelling to evaluate IRS/ITN combinations in comparison to IRS alone or ITNs alone.

BackgroundThe most common pesticide products for controlling malaria-transmitting mosquitoes combine two distinct modes of action: 1) conventional insecticidal activity which kills mosquitoes exposed to the pesticide and 2) deterrence of mosquitoes away from protected humans. While deterrence enhances personal or household protection of long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual sprays, it may also attenuate or even reverse communal protection if it diverts mosquitoes to non-users rather than killing them outright.MethodsA process-explicit model of malaria transmission is described which captures the sequential interaction between deterrent and toxic actions of vector control pesticides and accounts for the distinctive impacts of toxic activities which kill mosquitoes before or after they have fed upon the occupant of a covered house or sleeping space.ResultsIncreasing deterrency increases personal protection but consistently reduces communal protection because deterrent sub-lethal exposure inevitably reduces the proportion subsequently exposed to higher lethal doses. If the high coverage targets of the World Health Organization are achieved, purely toxic products with no deterrence are predicted to generally provide superior protection to non-users and even users, especially where vectors feed exclusively on humans and a substantial amount of transmission occurs outdoors. Remarkably, this is even the case if that product confers no personal protection and only kills mosquitoes after they have fed.ConclusionsProducts with purely mosquito-toxic profiles may, therefore, be preferable for programmes with universal coverage targets, rather than those with equivalent toxicity but which also have higher deterrence. However, if purely mosquito-toxic products confer little personal protection because they do not deter mosquitoes and only kill them after they have fed, then they will require aggressive "catch up" campaigns, with behaviour change communication strategies that emphasize the communal nature of protection, to achieve high coverage rapidly.

Background: Medical entomologists increasingly recognize that the ability to make inferences between laboratory experiments of vector biology and epidemiological trends observed in the field is hindered by a conceptual and methodological gap occurring between these approaches which prevents hypothesis-driven empirical research from being conducted on relatively large and environmentally realistic scales. The development of Semi-Field Systems (SFS) has been proposed as the best mechanism for bridging this gap. Semi-field systems are defined as enclosed environments, ideally situated within the natural ecosystem of a target disease vector and exposed to ambient environmental conditions, in which all features necessary for its life cycle completion are present. Although the value of SFS as a research tool for malaria vector biology is gaining recognition, only a few such facilities exist worldwide and are relatively small in size (< 100 m 2 ).

BackgroundPartial mosquito-proofing of houses with screens and ceilings has the potential to reduce indoor densities of malaria mosquitoes. We wish to measure whether it will also reduce indoor densities of vectors of neglected tropical diseases.MethodologyThe main house entry points preferred by anopheline and culicine vectors were determined through controlled experiments using specially designed experimental huts and village houses in Lupiro village, southern Tanzania. The benefit of screening different entry points (eaves, windows and doors) using PVC-coated fibre glass netting material in terms of reduced indoor densities of mosquitoes was evaluated compared to the control.Findings23,027 mosquitoes were caught with CDC light traps; 77.9% (17,929) were Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, of which 66.2% were An. arabiensis and 33.8% An. gambiae sensu stricto. The remainder comprised 0.2% (50) An. funestus, 10.2% (2359) Culex spp. and 11.6% (2664) Mansonia spp. Screening eaves reduced densities of Anopheles gambiae s. l. (Relative ratio (RR)  = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.01); Mansonia africana (RR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.26, 0.76; P<0.001) and Mansonia uniformis (RR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.25, 0.56; P<0.001) but not Culex quinquefasciatus, Cx. univittatus or Cx. theileri. Numbers of these species were reduced by screening windows and doors but this was not significant.SignificanceThis study confirms that across Africa, screening eaves protects households against important mosquito vectors of filariasis, Rift Valley Fever and O'Nyong nyong as well as malaria. While full house screening is required to exclude Culex species mosquitoes, screening of eaves alone or fitting ceilings has considerable potential for integrated control of other vectors of filariasis, arbovirus and malaria.