Novel Arthropod Repellent, BioUD, Is an Efficacious Alternative to Deet

Abstract

For >50 yr, N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet) has been the standard for arthropod repellents and has been an important tool to protect people from disease agents carried by ticks, mosquitoes, and other arthropods. However, some people avoid using deet because of concerns about adverse health effects. In 2007, a new repellent, BioUD, with the active ingredient 7.75% 2-undecanone, originally derived from wild tomato (Lycopersicon hirsutum Dunal f. glabratum C. H. Müll) plants, was registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the current study, repellent efficacy of BioUD was compared using arm-in-cage studies with 7 and 15% deet against the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes albopictus Skuse. No differences were found in mean repellency over 6 h after application between BioUD versus 7 and 15% deet for Ae albopictus. For Ae. aegypti, no differences were found over the same time period for 7% deet. Compared with 15% deet, BioUD mean repellency was lower over the 6-h test period. Human subject field trials were conducted in North Carolina, United States, and Ontario, Canada, comparing the repellency of BioUD to products containing 25 and 30% deet. BioUD provided the same repellency or was more efficacious than 25 and 30% deet, respectively, in these studies. Laboratory trials were conducted to determine the repellent activity of BioUD against the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say), on human skin and cloth. BioUD repelled ticks at least 2.5 h after application to human skin. On cloth, no differences in mean repellency were found through 8 d after application between BioUD and 7% deet. In a two-choice test for BioUD versus 15% deet on filter paper, ticks spent significantly more time on the deet-treated surface than the BioUD-treated surface. Based on these studies in toto, BioUD is an efficacious alternative to deet in its repellent activity.

First report of the repellency of 2-tridecanone against ticks

“…For this reason, more acceptable and effective alternatives are needed. We recently described the development of the repellent BioUD (Roe, 2004;Witting-Bissinger et al, 2008;Bissinger et al, 2009aBissinger et al, , 2009b with the EPA-registered compound 2-undecanone. 2-Undecanone is found naturally in the trichomes of wild tomato plants and, along with 2-tridecanone, is used by such plants to resist herbivory.…”

“…Bioassays were conducted to determine repellency and the duration of repellent activity on filter paper or cotton cheesecloth using our standard two-choice bioassay (Witting- Bissinger et al, 2008;Bissinger et al, 2009aBissinger et al, , 2009b. On each tested surface, ticks were provided with a choice between the test compound (either 2-tridecanone or 2-undecanone) vs. the ethanol control.…”

“…In subsequent studies, BioUD was found to be two to four times more repellent than DEET against three species of ixodid ticks [A. americanum, D. variabilis and Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae)] on filter paper (Bissinger et al, 2009a) and showed >90% repellency for 5 weeks on cotton cheesecloth against A. americanum (Bissinger et al, 2009b). Against mosquitoes under field conditions, BioUD on human skin provided the same repellency or was more efficacious than 25% and 30% DEET for 6 h in North Carolina, U.S.A. and Ontario, Canada, respectively (Witting- Bissinger et al, 2008). BioUD was also found to be more effective on cloth than many of the current commercial repellents for tick control (Bissinger et al, 2009b).…”

Novel field assays and the comparative repellency of BioUD®, DEET and permethrin against Amblyomma americanum

“…In summary, previous studies from our laboratory have shown that BioUD ® exhibits a level of repellency against ticks that is at least similar to those of 98.1% DEET and 0.5% permethrin under laboratory conditions (Witting-Bissinger et al, 2008;Bissinger et al, 2009aBissinger et al, , 2009b. The results of the current study demonstrate for the first time that BioUD ® under more realistic field conditions and in the presence of host cues and human subjects was as effective as 98.1% DEET and more effective than 0.5% permethrin against nymphal A. americanum.…”

“…As Matthewson et al (1981) and Dautel (2004) explained, laboratory tests in the absence of a host or host cues may result in the overestimation of repellency and incorrect conclusions about the practical value of a compound in host protection. In this regard, the present investigation allows us to compare results of field assay approaches with results of our previous laboratory studies of the repellent action to ticks of BioUD ® , DEET and permethrin on filter paper and cloth (Witting-Bissinger et al, 2008;Bissinger et al, 2009aBissinger et al, , 2009b. The laboratory experiments involved twochoice studies between repellent-treated or untreated surfaces and head-to-head two-choice tests in which the choices were two different repellents.…”