See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5414772

Ability of Essential Oil Candles to Repel Biting Insects in High

and Low Biting Pressure Environments

Article  in  Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association · April 2008

DOI: 10.2987/8756-971X(2008)24[154:AOEOCT]2.0.CO;2 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

19 625

8 authors, including:

Gunter Muller Amy Junnila

139 PUBLICATIONS   1,977 CITATIONS   

Hebrew University of Jerusalem
36 PUBLICATIONS   430 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Vasiliy Kravchenko Edita Revay

Tel Aviv University University of Haifa
194 PUBLICATIONS   1,000 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   456 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sugar feeding behavior of the sand fly Phlebotomous papatasi View project

ATSB efficacy on multiple mosquito species View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vasiliy Kravchenko on 25 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 24(1):154–160, 2008
Copyright E 2008 by The American Mosquito Control Association, Inc.

ABILITY OF ESSENTIAL OIL CANDLES TO REPEL BITING INSECTS IN

HIGH AND LOW BITING PRESSURE ENVIRONMENTS
GÜNTER C. MÜLLER,1 AMY JUNNILA,2 VASILIY D. KRAVCHENKO,3 EDITA E. REVAY,4
JERRY BUTLER,5 OLGA B. ORLOVA,3 ROBERT W. WEISS6 AND YOSEF SCHLEIN1

ABSTRACT. The first goal of this study was to compare the degree of personal protection against biting
insects provided by geraniol, linalool, and citronella candle (5%) vapors outdoors, where such products are
commonly used. At a distance of 1.0 m, citronella candles reduced the number of female mosquitoes caught
in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps by 35.4% and sand flies by 15.4%, linalool candles
reduced female mosquitoes by 64.9% and sand flies by 48.5%, while geraniol candles reduced female
mosquitoes by 81.5% and sand flies by 69.8%. By increasing the distance to 2 m and 3 m, the repellency
dropped significantly. The second goal was to compare the degree of personal protection provided by the best
performing candle, geraniol, under conditions of high and low biting pressure. The introduction of geraniol
candles to protect volunteers in a high biting pressure environment reduced the mosquito pressure by an
average of 56% and the sand fly pressure by 62% over a distance of 1.0 m. In the low biting pressure
environment, geraniol reduced the mosquito pressure by an average of 62%. No sand flies were present at
this site.

KEY WORDS Natural repellent, essential oil candles, geraniol, linalool, citronella, mosquitoes, sand flies

INTRODUCTION manufacture citronella candles (Environmental

Increased public demand for safe, effective, and
cost-efficient biting insect repellent has led to the
mass marketing of natural ‘‘area repellents’’ such
as citronella candles, which are products reputed
to repel biting insects within a certain distance of
the source of the compound. However, quantita-
tive studies on their effect are lacking and the
results of the studies that have been done are
contradictory. Additional plant-based repellents,
specifically geraniol and linalool, are now avail-
able in candle form but also have little scientific
data to substantiate their value.
Area repellents create a chemical barrier that
insects will not cross. The number-one-selling
type of area repellent in the United States is the
mosquito coil, followed by the citronella candle
(Moore and Debboun 2007). When surveyed,
40% of candle manufacturers who are members
of the National Candle Association said they
1
Department of Parasitology, Kuvin Centre for the
Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, The Hebrew
University, Hadassah-Medical School, 91120 Jerusa-
lem, Israel.
2
Department of Parasitology, McGill University,
Macdonald Campus, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec
H9X 3V9, Canada.
3
Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel
Aviv 69978, Israel.
4
Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion,
Haifa 34995, Israel.
5 field experiments in the Eastern Mediterranean
Department of Entomology and Nematology,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620,
USA.
6
Entomological Associates, 102 Beaver Mills Road,
Julian, PA 16844, USA.
Protection Agency [EPA] 2001).
Considering the volume of citronella candles
and other such products (coils, diffusers, and
vaporizing mats) purchased per year (EPA 2001)
in the USA alone, there is a surprising lack of
scientific data to support the claims that these
products effectively repel biting insects. Although
there is a large body of literature concerning the
topical application of natural repellents (Choi et
al. 2002, Erler et al. 2006), to date few studies
have specifically examined the repellent effect of
botanical candles in an outdoor setting (Lindsay
et al. 1996). Contrary to the popular conception,
Lindsay et al. reported that citronella candles and
incense were both ineffective for reducing the
biting pressure of mosquitoes in the field. They
found that burning an unscented candle had the
same effect on reducing the biting rate of
mosquitoes as burning a citronella candle.
Similarly, there appear to be few scientific articles
that specifically address the protective effect of
either linalool or geraniol candles in an outdoor
setting where these products are likely to be used.
However, in a previous study, it was found that
geraniol in the form of a diffuser-style area
repellent provided significantly more protection
to volunteers than citronella or linalool (Müller et
al. 2007). It remains unknown as to whether
geraniol in candle form would protect better than
citronella or linalool.
To help resolve these issues, we carried out
region in Israel that tested the ability of the
vapors of citronella, linalool, and geraniol
produced by candles to repel biting insects. To
ensure quality control, the current study adheres

154
MARCH 2008 SYMPOSIUM: MOSQUITOES AND PLANTS
to EPA guidelines, as well as to currently
accepted standards for testing insect repellents
(EPA 2000, Barnard et al. 2007, Govere and
Durrheim 2007).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two experiments were conducted: the first to
compare the repellency rate of citronella, linalool,
and geraniol in a rural, high biting pressure
environment (oasis); and the second to compare
the repellency rates of the best performing
repellent from the first experiment, which was
geraniol, in both high (oasis) and low (suburban)
biting pressure environments, using volunteers.
Equipment
All candles were 85 g, containing 5% essential
oil of either citronella, linalool, or geraniol. A
paraffin candle of the same weight without any
repellent or fragrance was used as a control.
Candles were from Fasst Products, New York,
New York, USA.
The candles were placed in metal cups to catch
the melted wax. To ensure that sudden breezes–
drafts would not extinguish the flames, the
candles in metal cups were placed inside a lantern
made from white plastic cups (12-cm diam, 12-cm
height) with 4 holes (1-cm diam) in the side, and
covered with regular mosquito wire mesh.
Essential oil candle comparison
The first set of experiments took place in Neot
Ha Kikar, the largest natural oasis (more than 50
km2 in area) along the southern shore of the Dead
Sea, at an average altitude of 390 m below sea
level. The region belongs to the Sahara–Arabian
phytogeographical zone, an extreme desert with
occasional natural oases consisting of marshland
and artificial agricultural oases created by irriga-
tion. The conditions in these oases are tropical. In
the western part of Neot Ha Kikar oasis, there is
a large nonirrigated date plantation, which covers
an area of approximately 20 acres and is
surrounded mainly by uniform reed thickets and
Tamarix bushes. The experiments were carried
out in this plantation, which is known for its rich
mosquito fauna and high biting pressure.
Tests took place from late May to mid-June
2004 during the dry season. The late-May
temperatures in the early evening ranged from
27uC to 30uC and dropped in the early morning
to 22–23uC. Relative humidity was in the mid-
50% accompanied by clear skies. During mid-
June, early evening temperatures went up to 30–
33uC and dropped toward the early morning to
23–24uC. Again, relative humidity was in the mid-
50% accompanied by clear skies. During both test
periods, the weather conditions were stable.
155
For the first set of experiments, 4 candles of
each type (geraniol, linalool, citronella, or paraf-
fin with no active ingredient) were arranged in
squares of either 1 m, 2 m, or 3 m on each side,
with a lighted Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) trap (without CO2) placed in
the middle. The candles were placed in lanterns
with wire mesh covers to ensure that sudden
breezes or winds would not extinguish the flames,
and these were hung on tripods approximately
1.2 m above the ground. The candles were lit 30
min before the start of the experiment to grant
maximum performance. The trap–candle ar-
rangements were positioned alternately along a
transect with a distance of 10 m between them.
The order of geraniol, linalool, citronella, and
paraffin control arrangements were exchanged on
consecutive nights. The experiments were repeat-
ed on 10 nights, with the trap operational for 8 h/
night (2000 h to 0400 h) from mid-May to early
June.
Geraniol comparison in high and low biting
pressure environments
The aim of the second experiment was to
compare, in the presence of volunteers, the
performance of geraniol candles, which showed
the best results in the first experiment, in both
high (oasis) and low (suburban) biting pressure
environments.
These experiments were conducted both in the
oasis described above and on the coastal plain of
the Mediterranean Sea about 10 km south of Tel
Aviv. This region belongs to the Mediterranean
zone and has a relatively mild climate. The
suburban experimental site was located in an
area with fields, orchards, and olive groves near
Ramle. In the immediate area, there were poorly
maintained trenches and ditches in which mos-
quitoes were breeding in high numbers.
The tests took place in mid-June during the dry
season. Experiments started close to sunset and
ended in the early evening. The temperatures just
before sunset were around 27–29uC and dropped
in the following 1.5 h to 24–26uC. Relative
humidity was in the low 60% accompanied by
clear skies. Weather conditions during the testing
period were stable.
Volunteers
Six authors of this study (3=, 3R) served as the
volunteer subjects and were therefore fully
informed of the nature and purposes of the
test.
For both trials, the left forearms and hands of
each volunteer were used as the test area. The
skin outside the test area was covered with
regular clothes to protect from insect bites. For
their comfort and well-being, volunteers wore
156 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION
hats with mosquito netting to provide head and
neck protection. Immediately before each trial,
the exposed skin on each volunteer was cleaned
with 70% isopropyl alcohol. The volunteers
avoided alcohol, caffeine, and fragrance products
(e.g., perfume, cologne, hair spray, lotion, etc.)
during the entire test period.
The volunteers sat in chairs, as motionless as
possible, facing the same direction, with one arm
extended at a 45u angle, resting on thighs, in front
of them. Chairs were arranged along a line at a
distance of 10 m from each other, and the
volunteers rotated their positions during the
repetitions. The candles were suspended from
tripods (about 1.2 m from the ground) and were
placed 1.0 m upwind from the volunteers.
On the first day, the candles were randomly
assigned to the volunteers, and to avoid sex and
locational bias, the different types of candles were
rotated on successive trial days. Mosquitoes
landing, probing, and biting on the arms were
counted and recorded on data sheets in intervals
of 5 min by the volunteers.
At both test sites, the candles were evaluated
on 3 consecutive nights: at the oasis site (June 12–
14) and at the suburban site (June 15–17). The
trial test period was 1 h, from 2000 h to 2100 h.
Within this hour, 6 time intervals of 5 min each
were evaluated for a total of 36 test and 36
control intervals per site per day.
Data collection and analysis
To determine the repellency rate of each
candle, the number of mosquitoes and sand flies
caught in CDC traps or the number of mosqui-
toes and sand flies biting, probing, and landing
on volunteers were recorded. The total numbers
of mosquitoes caught in CDC traps or recorded
on volunteers were converted to mean 6 standard
deviation. Mean totals were converted to per-
centage of the unprotected control (repellency
rate) with the following equation: repellency rate
(%) 5 [l 2 (total active ingredient / total
unprotected control)] 3 100.
The number of mosquitoes and sand flies
caught in CDC traps were analyzed using the 2-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique.
Following a significant F score, the Bonferroni
post hoc test was used to further distinguish
between groups. All differences were considered
statistically significant if P , 0.05.
The reduction (%) of mosquitoes and sand flies
biting, probing, and landing on male versus
female volunteers at both high and low biting
pressure sites were also analyzed using the 2-way
ANOVA technique. Comparison of the total
reduction of biting pressure between high and
low biting pressure sites were analyzed using the
1-way ANOVA technique.
VOL. 24, NO. 1
RESULTS
Candles
All candles formed a full surface wax puddle
after approximately 0.5 h and thus should have
had maximum evaporation and performance.
The life span of the candles without a lantern
depended on the airflow; on average, they burned
for 8 h 6 45 min. Using a lantern increased the
life expectancy of the candles by about 1 h.
Essential oil candle comparison using CDC traps
During 10 repetitions at the high biting
pressure site (oasis), a total of 1,637 female
mosquitoes and 870 female sand flies were caught
in CDC traps. Fourteen mosquito species were
found: 40% of the catch was represented by the
genus Culex (Cx. pipiens L., Cx. perexiguus
Theobald, Cx. deserticola Kirkpatrick, Cx. uni-
vittatus Theobald, Cx. laticinctus Edwards, Cx.
theileri Theobald); 31% were in the genus Aedes
(Ae. caspius (Pallas), Ae. detritus (Haliday)); 25%
were in the genus Anopheles (An. sergentii
(Theobald), An. multicolor Cambouliu, An. super-
pictus Grassi, An. tenebrosus Doenitz, An. dthali
Patton); and 4% were the only species of
Uranotaenia (Ur. unguiculata Edwards) in the
country. The dominant mosquito species were
An. sergentii, Ae. caspius, and Cx. pipiens. The
only locally present sand fly was Phlebotomus
papatasi (Scopoli).
With repellents positioned at the furthest
distance from the traps (3.0 m), the CDC trap
surrounded by 4 regular paraffin candles caught
543 female mosquitoes, the trap with citronella
caught 474, the trap with linalool caught 346, and
the trap with geraniol caught 274. The trap
surrounded by paraffin candles caught 283 female
sand flies, the trap with citronella caught 264, the
trap with linalool caught 191, and the trap with
geraniol caught 132.
Compared to the control, the repellency rate of
citronella candles at the farthest distance from the
trap (3.0 m) toward female mosquitoes was
12.7%, of linalool candles was 36.3%, and of
geraniol candles was 49.5%. At 2.0 m, the
repellency rate of citronella was 20.9%, of linalool
was 50.8%, and of geraniol was 69.9%. At 1.0 m,
the repellency rate of citronella was 35.4%, of
linalool was 64.9%, and of geraniol was 81.5%.
The repellency rate of citronella candles at the
farthest distance (3.0 m) from the trap toward
female sand flies was 6.7%, of linalool candles
was 32.5%, and of geraniol was 53.3%. At 2.0 m,
the repellency rate of citronella was 9.9%, of
linalool was 43.9%, and of geraniol was 61.9%.
At 1.0 m, the repellency rate of citronella was
15.4%, of linalool was 48.5%, and of geraniol was
69.8%.
MARCH 2008 SYMPOSIUM: MOSQUITOES AND PLANTS 157

Statistical relationship of the number of mosquitoes caught in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps protected by candles placed at different
Citronella at 3.0 m from the trap did not repel

Geraniol
significantly more mosquitoes than the paraffin

O
controls (Table 1) nor did citronella at 3.0 m
repel significantly more sand flies than paraffin
(Table 2). However, when placed closer to the

Linalool
trap (2.0 m and 1.0 m), citronella did repel

N
O
significantly more mosquitoes but not sand flies
(Tables 1 and 2).

3m
Linalool at all distances from the trap repelled

Citronella
significantly more mosquitoes and sand flies than
the paraffin controls (Tables 1 and 2). At 2.0 m,

O
S
S
linalool repelled significantly more mosquitoes
than citronella candles placed all distances away
from the trap; however, linalool at 2.0 m repelled

distances from the traps. Significance was taken at P . 0.05 (2-way analysis of variance).1

Paraffin
sand flies just as well as citronella at 1.0 m from

N
O
S
S
the trap. Finally, at 1.0 m from the trap, linalool
repelled significantly more mosquitoes and sand
flies than citronella at all distances from the trap

Geraniol
(Tables 1 and 2).
Geraniol repelled significantly more mosqui-

O
S
S
S
S
toes and sand flies than paraffin at all distances.
At 3.0 m, geraniol did not repel significantly
more mosquitoes than citronella placed 1.0 m

Linalool
from the trap, but geraniol at 3.0 m was

O
S
S
S
S
significantly more repellent toward sand flies
than citronella at all distances. Geraniol (3.0 m)
2m

repelled amounts of mosquitoes similar to linal-

Citronella

ool (2.0 m) but significantly more sand flies than

N
N

O
linalool (2.0 m). Geraniol (2.0 m) repelled
S

S
S
S
amounts of mosquitoes similar to linalool
(1.0 m), but repelled significantly more sand flies
than linalool (1.0 m). Geraniol at 1.0 m repelled
Paraffin

significantly more mosquitoes and sand flies than

N
N

O
S
S

S
S
S
either citronella or linalool at all distances
(Tables 1 and 2).
Geraniol

Geraniol comparison in high and low biting

O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

pressure environments
At the high biting pressure site (oasis), 1,510
Linalool

O, not applicable; S, significant P , 0.05; N, not significant.

mosquitoes and 1,074 sand flies landed, probed,

or fed on all 6 volunteers during the 3-day study.
N

O
S
S
S
S

S
S
S
S

At this site, the average landing, probing, and

biting pressure of mosquitoes toward the untreat-
1m

ed control volunteers was (for 5-min time

Citronella

intervals) 20.2/5 min, 12.9/5 min, and 21.8/

N
N

O
S
S
S
S

S
S
S

5 min, with an overall average of 18.5/5 min.

For sand flies, the average pressure was 12.1/
5 min, 9.3/5 min, and 18.6/5 min, with an overall
average of 13.3/5 min. For both mosquitoes and
Paraffin

sand flies, this is well above the recommended

N
N

O
S
S

S
S
S

S
S
S

EPA minimum testing pressure of 5/5 min. The

introduction of geraniol candles at the oasis site
to protect the volunteers reduced the mosquito
Citronella

Citronella

Citronella

pressure by an average of 56% and the sand fly

Geraniol

Geraniol

Geraniol
Linalool

Linalool

Linalool
Paraffin

Paraffin

Paraffin

pressure by 62% over a distance of 1 m (Fig. 1).

At the low biting pressure site (suburban), 612
mosquitoes belonging mainly (82%) to the genera
Table 1.

Culex (Cx. pipiens and Cx. perexiguus) and Aedes

(Ae. caspius and Ae. detritus) landed, probed, or
3m

2m

1m

fed on the 6 volunteers during the 3-day study.

1
158 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION VOL. 24, NO. 1

Geraniol
Statistical relationship of the number of sand flies caught in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps protected by candles placed at different

O
Linalool

O
S
3m
Citronella

O
S
S
distances from the traps. Significance was taken at P . 0.05 (2-way analysis of variance).1

Paraffin

N
O
S
S
Geraniol

Fig. 1. Average number of mosquitoes caught in

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps at the
O
S
S
S
S

high biting pressure site (oasis) 6 standard deviation.

Bars represent each type of botanical repellent and
control tested at 3 distances (1 m, 2 m, and 3 m) from
Linalool

the trap.
N

O
S

S
S
S

No sand flies were present at this site. The

2m
Citronella

average landing, probing, and biting pressure of

mosquitoes toward the untreated control volun-
N
N

O
S
S

S
S

teers was (for 5-min time intervals) 7.9/5 min,

9.26/5 min, and 5.6/5 min, with an overall aver-
age of 7.7/5 min. This, too, is well above the
Paraffin

recommended EPA minimum testing pressure.

N
N

N
O
S
S

S
S

The introduction of geraniol candles to protect

the volunteer reduced the mosquito pressure by
an average of 62% over a distance of 1.0 m.
Geraniol

At both sites, compared to paraffin control

candles, geraniol candles significantly reduced
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

mosquitoes and sand flies biting, landing, and

probing both male and female volunteers collec-
tively (P , 0.0001). However, there was no
Linalool

O, not applicable; S, significant P , 0.05; N, not significant.

statistically significant difference in the reduction

N
N

O
S
S
S
S

S
S
S

of mosquitoes or sand flies biting male volunteers

compared to female volunteers (P . 0.05), nor
1m

was there any significant difference in the

Citronella

protective effect of geraniol candles toward

N
N
N

N
N

O
S

S
S
S

mosquitoes versus sand flies (P . 0.05). Further-

more, there was no statistically significant differ-
ence between the reduction of biting insect
pressure at the high pressure (oasis) site versus
Paraffin

the low pressure (suburban) site (P . 0.05;

N
N

N
N

N
O
S
S

S
S

S
S

Fig. 1).
Citronella

Citronella

Citronella

DISCUSSION
Geraniol

Geraniol

Geraniol
Linalool

Linalool

Linalool
Paraffin

Paraffin

Paraffin

The results from the CDC trap experiments

show that the performance of the 3 tested
Table 2.

essential oils very much depends on the distance

(Figs. 1 and 2). Generally, however, the manu-
facturer’s instructions for the placement of these
3m

2m

1m

products are somewhat vague and can vary from

MARCH 2008 SYMPOSIUM: MOSQUITOES AND PLANTS
Fig. 2. Average number of sand flies caught in
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps at the
high biting pressure site (oasis) 6 standard deviation.
Bars represent each type of botanical repellent and
control tested at 3 distances (1 m, 2 m, and 3 m) from
the trap.
product to product. Data collected from the CDC
trap experiments demonstrated that the area of
protection provided by botanical candles is small;
placing the candle 1 m from the trap was the
most effective distance. Still, it is unlikely that the
slight to moderate degree of protection citronella
and linalool provide answers the EPA standards
(EPA 2000). In the CDC trap experiments,
geraniol was the best performing botanical
repellent, reducing the catch of both female
mosquitoes and female sand flies by about
50% when candles were positioned at the
farthest distance (3 m) from the traps. Decreasing
the distance improved this repellency (Figs. 1
and 2).
To compare the degree of personal protection
provided by the best performing candle in CDC
trap experiments, geraniol candles were used to
protect human volunteers under conditions of
high and low biting pressure. Human-landing
catch experiments at the high biting pressure site
(oasis) show that under high pressure of biting
insects, geraniol candles provide protection at
and above 50%, which is the accepted EPA target
for claiming that a compound is repellent (EPA
2000). Furthermore, geraniol protects male and
female volunteers equally well and provides equal
protection against both mosquitoes and sand
flies.
The reduction of mosquito pressure by geraniol
candles at the low biting pressure site (suburban)
was not significantly different (Fig. 1) from the
reduction of mosquitoes and sand flies at the high
pressure site (oasis); however, to achieve the same
repellency rate with humans as seen in CDC trap
159
experiments, geraniol candles had to be placed
1.0 m from the volunteer instead of 3.0 m.
Our results seem to support the conclusion of
Lindsay et al. (1996) and Müller et al. (2007) that
citronella candles are not very effective in
repelling mosquitoes, and use of citronella by
the general public should be discouraged. In this
study, linalool candles were generally more
repellent than citronella, and geraniol candles
were more repellent than both citronella and
linalool candles. Pure monoterpenes, especially
geraniol, may be a more effective substitute of
citronella essential oil in products such as candles,
diffusers, and vaporizing mats.
To obtain reliable and repeatable results it was
important to work in an environment of no or
minimal air movement; therefore, this study was
conducted during stable weather conditions.
Under these conditions, geraniol candles provid-
ed the best protection from sand flies and
mosquitoes and, if properly used, these kinds of
candles can be especially useful in low biting
pressure areas.
RFERENCES CITED
Barnard DR, Bernier UR, Xue R, Debboun M, Govere
M. 2007. Standard methods for testing mosquito
repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D,
eds. Insect repellents: principles, methods and uses.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 103–110.
Choi WS, Park BS, Ku SK, Lee SE. 2002. Repellent
activities of essential oils and monoterpenes against
Culex pipiens pallens. J Am Mosq Control Assoc
18:348–351.
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. 2000. Sets of
scientific issues being considered by the Environmental
Protection Agency regarding: session I—implementation
plan for probabilistic ecological assessment: a consulta-
tion; session II—insect repellent product performance
testing guideline evaluation [Internet]. Available from
the Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA
[accessed February 11, 2008], http://www.epa.gov/
oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/april/freportapril572000.
pdf.
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. 2001. Candles
and incense as potential sources of indoor air pollution:
market analysis and literature review. Available from
the Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield,
VA [accessed February 11, 2008], http://www.epa.gov/
ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/Publications/600R01001.pdf.
Erler F, Ulug I, Yalcinkaya B. 2006. Repellent activity
of five essential oils against Culex pipiens. Fitoterapia
777–8:491–494.
Govere M, Durrheim DN. 2007. Techniques for
evaluating repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances SP,
Strickman D, eds. Insect repellents: principles,
methods and uses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
p 147–159.
Lindsay LR, Surgeoner GA, Heal JD, Gallivan GJ.
1996. Evaluation of the efficacy of 3% citronella
candles and 5% citronella incense for protection
against field populations of Aedes mosquitoes. J Am
Mosq Control Assoc 12:293–294.
160 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION VOL. 24, NO. 1

Moore SJ, Debboun M. 2007. History of insect Müller GC, Junnila A, Kravchenko VD, Revay EE,
repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman Butler J, Weiss RW, Schlein Y. 2008. Efficacy of the
D, eds. Insect repellents: principles, methods and uses. botanical repellents geraniol, linalool and citronella
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 1–10. against mosquitoes. J Vector Ecol 33. (in press).