Talk:Insect repellent/Archives/2017

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insect repellent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021024248/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0002red.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0002red.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Repellent Effectiveness

The Repellent Effectiveness section needs some pretty heavy duty cleanup. It's ambiguous, to say the least and brings together a variety of sources, some (many?) of which are of questionable quality.

A good, professionally vetted starting point with a solid bibliography can be found here: http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/preventing-mosquito-and-tick-bites

An interesting starting point for an update comes from, of all places, Quora: E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/23/some-insect-repellents-are-much-more-effective-at-fighting-zika-carrying-mosquitoes-than-others/#13e26c045417

A good rule of thumb is that DEET is highly effective against many biting insects. Picaridin or icaridin is highly effective in most cases as well. However, broad sweeping generalizations about the two are not always valid since different species of insect (mostly the mosquito is tested) vary in their response to the active ingredients. PMD is another repellent worth checking out but its range of repelled insects seems smaller than DEET and icaridin as is its duration.

While there's a whole mythology around DEET's safety there's also no clinical evidence to support the mythology. People don't particularly like DEET because it leaves behind a greasy film on application, smells unpleasant and it damages numerous synthetic materials but that makes it no less safe than any of the other insect repellents, including all the "natural" ones (tangent: arsenic kills, naturally).

One sweeping generalization that appears to be valid is that no "herbal" product ever comes close to DEET or (p)icaridin in repellent efficacy. Anything herbal is more likely to empty a person's bank account rather than protect them from vectors of disease.

Another chemical of note is the pyrethroid insecticide permethrin. It is not effective at a distance (it's an insecticide, after all) like DEET and (p)icaridin and is only relevant for use in cases where it can be applied to objects (i.e. clothes, shoes, mosquito nets, etc.). Its efficacy depends heavily on its intended use. As a mosquito repellent, permethrin is relatively speaking, ineffective (though, for use on mosquito nets it works better than DEET or picaridin), but, for ticks it's supposedly highly effective on contact (need details).

I might propose a new section: Repellent Benefits & Drawbacks

DEET: +: effective against wide range of insects, including...; its effect lasts for many hours DEET: -: unpleasant smell, dissolves certain synthetic materials, bad but undeserved reputation, less effective against: insert list

Picaridin/icaridin: +: odorless, does not dissolve synthetic materials, effective against a wide range of insects, including...; its effect lasts for many hours Picaridin/icaridin: -: less effective against: insert list; absorbs deeper into skin than DEET thus reducing its efficacy in certain cases (list those that have been identified)

Citronella: + smells nice, makes people feel like they're doing something Citronella: - does not work; avoid if repelling insects is your goal

Permethrin: + effective against ticks (no primary source on that one) Premethrin: - highly toxic to cats, fish, humans in high doses

PMD: ???

Inactive substances – carriers

This section should be deleted in its entirety for a variety of reasons.

1. The section cites the website of a company that's in the business of selling a "natural" product. (www.homs.com)
2. The section draws incorrect conclusions from the cited work. For example, the section includes the following statement: "[The NEJM] published an article that found products containing essential oils such as catnip[56] or geranium oil, when combined with a suitable carrier oil such as soybean, have been found to be effective as natural repellents.". Catnip does not appear in the article at all and geranium oil is mentioned once but not in relation to testing. Soybean oil is also not discussed as a carrier for anything.
3. The original source is not cited. This is a PDF of the actual article (which is cited correctly elsewhere in this Wikipage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdunbar (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)