0000000001054653
AUTHOR
Miguel Angel Miranda
From the Field to the Laboratory: Quantifying Outdoor Mosquito Landing Rate to Better Evaluate Topical Repellents.
Abstract Vector-borne diseases are a worldwide threat to human health. Often, no vaccines or treatments exist. Thus, personal protection products play an essential role in limiting transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) arm-in-cage (AIC) test is the most common method for evaluating the efficacy of topical repellents, but it remains unclear whether AIC testing conditions recreate the mosquito landing rates in the field. This study aimed to estimate the landing rate outdoors, in an area of Europe highly infested with the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894, Diptera: Culididae)), and to determine how to replicate this rate in the laboratory. To assess the landing ra…
Two New Alternatives to the Conventional Arm-in-Cage Test for Assessing Topical Repellents
Abstract European guidelines for testing attractant and repellent efficacy (i.e., Product type 19 [PT19]) have been in revision since 2017. A key topic of discussion is the current approach to evaluating topical repellents. The European Chemical Agency has stated field testing should be avoided because of mosquito-borne disease risks. However, the most common laboratory method, the arm-in-cage (AIC) test, may limit the reliable extrapolation of lab results to field conditions. This study’s main goal was to assess alternative laboratory methods for evaluating topical mosquito repellents that use mosquito landing rates more representative of those in the field. The study took place at three E…