Tick Repellent Properties of Three Libyan Plants

Garboui, Samira S.; Borg‐Karlson, Anna‐Karin; Pålsson, Katinka

doi:10.1603/033.046.0623

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important that user-accepted repellent products are available to provide protection against ticks for people who choose not to use DEET or other synthetic products. Plant-based repellents have gained popularity in recent years (Gerberg & Novak, 2007) and can be used as tick repellents (Jaenson et al, 2006;Thorsell et al, 2006;Tunón et al, 2006;Mkolo & Magano, 2007;Garboui et al, 2009;Bissinger & Roe, 2010). These compounds, however, generally provide repellency for a shorter length of time than DEET-based repellents (Fradin & Day, 2002;Moore et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bissinger

Apperson

Watson

et al. 2010

Medical and Veterinary Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two new field bioassay methods were developed to compare the repellent activity of BioUD(®) (containing 7.75% 2-undecanone), 98.1% DEET and 0.5% permethrin against natural populations of nymphal Amblyomma americanum (L.) (Acari: Ixodidae). In a cloth sheet assay, pieces of material measuring 41 × 58 cm, separately treated with one of the test materials or the appropriate solvent carrier, were placed at random on the ground and baited with dry ice for 1 h. Mean numbers of ticks on repellent-treated sheets were significantly lower than on control sheets. There was no significant difference in the number of ticks collected between sheets treated with BioUD(®) and those treated with DEET. However, significantly fewer ticks were found on sheets treated with BioUD(®) or DEET than on permethrin-treated sheets. In a sock test, over-the-calf tube socks were treated with one of the test materials or the appropriate solvent carrier. Human volunteers wore a repellent-treated and a corresponding carrier-treated sock on either leg and walked randomly over an area of approximately 4000 m(2) for 15 min. Significantly fewer ticks were collected from socks treated with BioUD(®) or DEET than from socks treated with the carrier and there was no significant difference in repellency between these two agents. No difference in the mean number of ticks collected was found between permethrin-treated and corresponding carrier-treated socks. To examine the mechanism of repellency of BioUD(®) , a four-choice olfactometer was used to assess spatial repellency against adult A. americanum. As expected in the absence of a repellent, when all choices were represented by water-treated filter paper, ticks were equally distributed among the choices. When one choice consisted of BioUD(®) -treated filter paper and the remaining choices of water-treated paper, the distribution of ticks on the repellent-treated paper was significantly lower than might be expected to occur by chance, suggesting that repellency is at least partly achieved by an olfactory mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bissinger

Apperson

Watson

et al. 2010

Medical and Veterinary Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question is which EOs to prospect in order to get more rapid results. Prospecting criteria may incorporate the investigation of EOs found to be active against other mites of veterinary importance as recently reviewed in (Flamini Phytochem Rev (2011) 10:227-244 239 2006; George et al 2008), such as the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae GhrabiGammar et al 2009), the ear mite Psoroptes cuniculi (Lans et al 2008), the sheep tick Ixodes ricinus (Garboui et al 2009), the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Jonsson and Piper 2007), etc. Besides, other promissory products to be tested against varroa are the ones that have already being described in other non-varroa related studies as innocuous against bees, such as the Lamiaceae, Hyptis suaveolens (Abramson et al 2007), Ocimum basilicum (Albo et al 2003) and Salvia sclarea (Ebert et al 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant essential oils as potential control agents of varroatosis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beekeeping has always been vulnerable to various sanitary drawbacks. The mite Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae), an obligated ectoparasite of honeybees, has been in recent times one of the major problems leading not only to economical losses but also to ecological problems related to the role of honeybees as the most important pollinators on Earth. Varroatosis has been treated by methods that include special practices of beekeeping, physical removal, and the use of synthetic acaricides. None of these methods have, however, rendered complete protection, and there is clear evidence for the evolution of resistance to conventional acaricides. Consequently, the need for alternative control means has prompted the onset of several prospecting programs on botanicals with anti-varroa potential. Among these, essential oils appear as good candidates for safer control. In this review, we provide a concise compilation of the information generated in the last years on essential oils with anti-varroa activity. Future developments in this area demand standardization of bioassay protocols (either in the laboratory for primary screening or in hives), a detailed chemical characterization of the essential oils tested, and comprehensive studies on application methods.

show abstract

“…On other hand, Salvadora persica was known to containing on several biologically active chemical constituents such as volatile oils, flavonoids, alkaloids, steroids, terpenoids, saponins, and carbohydrates (Kamil et al, 1999;Garboui et al, 2009;Abdillahi et al, 2010). The highest value in total phenolics compounds was in ECE, and the lowest value was recorded in water extract of Siwak (ASE), and data of total phenolics compounds showed a significant difference between the two plants (cinnamon and Siwak), also between the two extract solvents in the one plant.…”

Section: Chemical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro evaluation of Cinnamon (Cinnamomum spp.) and Siwak (Salvadora persica) extracts for controlling the foulbrood pathogens of honeybee

Hashish¹,

Khattaby²,

Khattab³

et al. 2016

Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instead of the synthetic antibiotics, the antibacterial activity of the aqueous and ethanolic extracts of both Cinnamon (Cinnamomum spp.) and Siwak (Salvadora persica) plants was evaluated against the foulbrood bacteria under the laboratory conditions. To the study knowledge, it is the first time to evaluate Siwak plant against the foulbrood diseases. The major antimicrobial constituents (total phenolics, flavonoids and tannins) were determined quantitatively in the extracts using the spectrophotometer technique. The results showed these extracts had significant antibacterial effects against the selected pathogens, Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus plutonius.

show abstract

Tick Repellent Properties of Three Libyan Plants

Cited by 25 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Plant essential oils as potential control agents of varroatosis

An in vitro evaluation of Cinnamon (Cinnamomum spp.) and Siwak (Salvadora persica) extracts for controlling the foulbrood pathogens of honeybee

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About