2

Journal of Vector Ecology June 2009

Efficacy of the botanical repellents geraniol, linalool, and citronella against

mosquitoes
Günter C. Müller1, Amy Junnila2, Jerry Butler3, Vassiliy D. Kravchenko4, Edita E. Revay5,
Robert W. Weiss6, and Yosef Schlein1
1
Department of Parasitology, Kuvin Centre for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, The Hebrew University,
Hadassah-Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, 91120
2
Department of Parasitology, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec H9X 3V9, Canada
3
Medical-Veterinary Entomology and Nematology Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620, U.S.A.
4
Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
5
Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel
6
Entomological Associates, 102 Beaver Mills Road, Julian, PA 16844, U.S.A.

Received 25 February 2007; Accepted 2 December 2008

ABSTRACT: We determined the degree of personal protection provided by citronella, linalool, and geraniol in the form of
commercially available candles or diffusers, both indoors and outdoors. Under the uniform conditions of the experiments,
all substances repelled significantly more mosquitoes than the unprotected control. Furthermore, the repellents tested were
more active when in the form of a continuous release diffuser than in candle form. All candles were 88g containing 5% of the
active ingredient and all diffusers contained 20g of 100% active ingredient. Indoors, the repellency rate of citronella candles
was only 14% while the repellency rate of citronella diffusers was 68%. The repellency of geraniol candles was 50% while
the diffusers provided a repellency rate of 97%. No linalool candles were available for study but linalool diffusers repelled
mosquitoes by 93%. Outdoors, citronella diffusers placed 6 m from mosquito traps repelled female mosquitoes by 22%,
linalool repelled females by 58%, and geraniol repelled females by 75%. Trap catches were significantly reduced again when
diffusers were placed 3 m from the traps. We concluded that geraniol had significantly more repellent activity than citronella
or linalool in both indoor and outdoor settings. Journal of Vector Ecology 34 (1): 2-8. 2009.

Keyword Index: Monoterpene alcohols, mosquito repellent, citronella, geraniol, linalool, Aedes spp., Culex spp., botanical
repellents, plant essential oils, Puerto Rico.

an advisory committee in 2000 to curb inconsistencies in

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, botanical insect repellents have become
increasingly popular as viable alternatives to synthetic
chemical pest repellents because they reputedly pose little
risk to the environment or human health. However, the
body of scientific literature documenting bioactivity of
plant derivatives is sometimes contradicting and lacking in
standardized testing protocols. Therefore, we feel there is a
need for increased research on the use of natural or herbal-
based repellents to ensure quality and determine the most
effective means of application and use.
N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) remains
the gold standard of currently available insect repellents,
however, there have been case reports of DEET toxicity in
the literature (Zadikoff 1979, Snyder et al. 1986, Osimitz and
Grothaus 1995, Osimitz and Murphy 1997) and consumer
interest in natural alternative repellents is growing rapidly.
A broad spectrum of plants and plant essential oils have
been tested as potential insect repellents (for a review see
Sukumar et al. 1991). Out of those tested, such a large number
of claims of repellent activity were made that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed
repellent product performance testing. The committee
pointed out that many factors play a role in how effective
repellents are, including frequency and uniformity of
repellent application (Khan et al. 1972, Gabel et al.1976),
the number and species of the organisms attempting to bite,
the user’s inherent attractiveness to blood-feeding insects,
age (Muirhead-Thomson 1951), sex (Gilbert et al. 1966)
and size of the potential host (Port and Boreham 1980), and
the physical activity level of the potential host. As well, the
committee made recommendations as to the duration of
the tests, statistical significance of sample size, replication
of experiments, and rotation of human volunteer subjects
(http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/april/
freportapril572000.pdf).
Specifically, many claims have been made regarding the
repellent properties of citronella essential oil and various
terpene alcohols (Hwang et al. 1985, Tawatsin et al. 2001,
Barnard and Xue 2004). Citronella essential oil is derived
from different species of Cymbopogon (citronella grass) and
contains some industrially important aromatic compounds
such as geraniol. Geraniol and linalool, isomers of each other,
are monoterpene alcohols found in many plant essential oils
such as citronella and thyme respectively (Choi et al. 2002,
Vol. 34, no. 1 Journal of Vector Ecology 3
Park et al. 2005). Unfortunately, there seems to be little
consistency in the experimental protocols used to test these
repellents. Consequently, there are major differences in
concentration, application, and test methods (i.e., hand-in-
box vs field trials) used to determine bioactivity of natural
repellents (Sukumar et al. 1991). Moreover, in the case of
citronella oil, counter claims of reduced or absent repellent
activity have been made (Lindsay et al. 1996, Centers et al.
2002).
This study was conducted to help resolve some of
these issues and determine the repellent activity of three
commonly used natural repellents (citronella, linalool,
and geraniol) in candle or diffuser form, both indoors
and outdoors. To ensure quality control, the current study
adheres to the above-mentioned EPA guidelines, as well as
to currently accepted standards for testing insect repellents
(Govere and Durrheim 2007, Barnard et al. 2007).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The repellency rates of candles and/or diffusers
containing a specific type and concentration of active
ingredient (Table 1) were determined in both an indoor and
outdoor setting.
Indoor experiments
Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were bred under insectarium
conditions following the recommendations of the EPA. Ae.
aegypti was used in evening experiments since this species
is active in the evening in Puerto Rico as well as in Israel
(Muller and Schlein, unpublished data). There are reports
on a third peak of indoor biting activity around 18:00 h
in Trinidad, parts of Africa, and Indonesia (Chadee and
Martinez 2000). Larvae were reared at 27±1º C, relative
humidity 80 ±10%, and photoperiod 16:8 hours (light:dark).
Adults were 8 days old, fed 10% sucrose, and received no
blood meals before the test. Before the experiments, the
insects were starved for 24 h. After each test the mosquitoes
were discarded.
Four authors of this study (♂♂, ♀♀) served as the
volunteer subjects and were therefore fully informed of
the nature and purposes of the test and of any reasonably
foreseeable physical and mental health consequences.
For the trials, the exposed legs (from knee to ankle) of
each volunteer were used as a test area. The skin outside the
test area was covered with regular clothes to protect it from
mosquito bites. Volunteers wore short trousers and long-
sleeved shirts. Immediately before each trial, the exposed
skin on each volunteer was cleaned with 70% isopropyl
alcohol. The volunteers were advised to avoid alcohol,
caffeine, and fragrance products (e.g., perfume, cologne,
hair spray, lotion, etc.) during the entire test period.
Experiments were performed on the northern coastal
plain of Puerto Rico, during March 2004, south of the city
of San Sebastian. The test site consisted of a dormitory
building in a church retreat. Four rooms of the same size
and shape, with a single screened window, were situated
near each other along a corridor. From these four rooms,
all furniture was removed except for two chairs. The doors
to the other rooms were closed. During the experiments,
the air conditioning and the lights were switched off. The
average indoor temperature at the time of the experiments
was 24.4 ± 0.8º C with a relative humidity of 74-75%.
At 18:00 local time, 200 Ae. aegypti females were
released in the sealed corridor and allowed to disperse for
30 min. Prior to the mosquito release, a Coleman Mosquito
Deleto diffuser (model# 2950-602) containing one of four
cartridges, or one of three candles (Table 1) was placed
on a chair in the center of each experimental room and
turned on or lit. On the other chair in a corner of the room
approximately 2 m from the diffuser or candle, opposite the
door, a volunteer with exposed legs sat on a chair prepared
to collect landing mosquitoes. At 18:30, the doors to each
of the experimental rooms were opened. A head-mounted
light covered with red foil was used to improve vision while
volunteers collected mosquitoes with an aspirator. After the
experiment, the mosquitoes in the aspirators were counted
and the remaining mosquitoes in the corridor and rooms
were removed the following morning with an entomological
net and a vacuum cleaner.
On the first day of testing, the diffusers or candles
were randomly assigned to the volunteers. The candle and
diffuser experiments were conducted for three h on nine
consecutive nights; nine nights of candles and nine nights of
diffusers for a total of 18 nights. To avoid sex and locational
bias, the volunteers and diffusers or candles were rotated to
different rooms on successive nights to allow each volunteer
to test each set-up.
Outdoor experiments
A readily available residential outdoor mosquito trap
was used in lieu of volunteers to determine the effectiveness
of the diffuser repellents outdoors. The model chosen was
the Lentek MK01 mosquito trap, sold in the U.S., which
uses 120V AC electric power and generates CO2, heat, and
moisture by burning propane.
Tests were performed in the tropical area of Puerto
Rico at the northwestern coastal plain during early to mid-
March near the city of Mayaguez. The test site was along
a canal surrounded by pasture and farm land. A slow, but
repeatedly changing, airflow was observed during the
balance of the test period. Experiments were conducted
during the dry season and consequently no rainfall
occurred. The average temperature at night was 21.5±0.9º
C with a relative humidity of 70-75%. No dramatic weather
changes occurred during the trial period.
To determine the effective range of the repellents, two
experiments were conducted in which four diffusers hung
on tripods (approximately 80 cm from the ground) were
arranged in squares (3 m and 6 m squares) with an MK01
trap placed in the middle. The diffusers were equipped
either with citronella, linalool, geraniol, or empty cartridges.
Diffuser/trap squares were distanced 100 m apart and were
positioned alternately (active ingredient vs empty cartridge).
The squares were rotated on consecutive nights to account
for locational bias.
4 Journal of Vector Ecology June 2009
Diffusers and traps were operated from one h before
average sunset (18:32) to one h after average sunrise (06:40).
There were 12 repetitions on consecutive nights. Traps were
emptied and mosquitoes counted daily. The field trial test
protocol and site selection were in accordance with EPA
published guidelines (Govere and Durrheim 2007, Barnard
et al. 2007).
Statistical analyses
Statistical analysis was carried out using the GraphPad
Prism 4.0 statistical package. The numbers of mosquitoes
in the rooms used in indoor tests were analyzed using
multivariate ANOVA technique with the mean as within-
subject variable. Experiments with diffusers and candles
were analyzed separately. Following a significant F score,
post-hoc tests (Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference) were
used to further distinguish between groups. All differences
were considered statistically significant if p<0.05.
The number of mosquitoes in the traps used in outdoor
tests were analyzed using the ANOVA technique. Following
a significant F score, the Tukey’s Honestly Significant
Difference post-hoc test was used to further distinguish
between groups. All differences were considered statistically
significant if p < 0.05.
The total number of mosquitoes caught in traps and
aspirators were converted to mean ± standard deviation.
Mean totals were converted to percentage of the unprotected
controls by using the following equations: for indoor
experiments, the repellency rate (%) = [l - (biting attempts
treated / biting attempts control)] x 100. For outdoor
experiments, the repellency rate (%) = [l - (total caught
treated / total caught control)] x 100.
RESULTS
After each overnight use, candles and diffusers were
weighed to determine the average volume of material
expended. The volume expended was the same among the
candles, and the same among diffuser cartridges, regardless
of composition. The 100% active ingredient diffusers lost
an average total weight of only 0.1 g per h, whereas the 5%
candles lost an average of 2.2 g per h (Table 1). The candles
are only 5% and therefore contain 0.05 g of active ingredient
per 1.0 g of candle wax but lose more volume than the
diffusers. Assuming that the active ingredient is uniformly
distributed throughout the candle wax, the candles would
have released 0.11 g of active ingredient per h, which is
nearly the same as the amount of active ingredient released
by diffusers (0.1 g).
Indoor experiments
Within the first hour, about 90% of the mosquitoes,
which were ready to feed, entered one of the rooms with
the volunteers. During the following two hours, very little
movement was observed. After three hours, there were no
more feeding attempts. On average, geraniol, linalool, and
citronella diffusers all provided significant protection to
volunteers compared to controls (Figure 1) F(4,5) = 645.6,
p<0.0001. Among the diffusers, the geraniol and linalool
equipped units provided significantly more protection than
citronella equipped units (Tukey-Kramer Test p<0.05).
Overall, however, the geraniol diffuser was about twice
as effective as the linalool diffuser and about five times as
effective as the citronella diffuser in protecting a person
from Ae. aegypti indoors.
Of the 1,800 female mosquitoes released for the indoor
diffuser experiment (200 at each of nine repetitions), 1,103
(61%) tried to feed on the unprotected person (control). Of
all the released mosquitoes, 13% did not try to bite any of the
volunteers and were removed in the following mornings.
Near a citronella diffuser there were 355 feeding
attempts, near a linalool diffuser 74 attempts, and near
a geraniol diffuser 38 attempts. When the number of
mosquitoes collected by the non-protected control
volunteer was compared to the number collected by the
protected volunteers, it was found that the repellency rate
of citronella diffusers was 68%, linalool diffusers 93%, and
geraniol diffusers 97%.
Geraniol and citronella candles also provided
significant protection to volunteers compared to controls
(Figure 2) F(3,6) = 101.9, p<0.0001. Overall, however, the
geraniol candle provided significantly more protection
than the citronella candle, (Tukey-Kramer Test p<0.05) the
geraniol being about five times as effective as the citronella
in protecting a person from Ae. aegypti feeding indoors.
Of the 1,800 female mosquitoes released for the indoor
candle experiment (200 released at each of nine repetitions),
908 (50%) tried to feed on the unprotected volunteer. Of all
the released mosquitoes, 14% did not try to bite any of the
volunteers and were removed in the following mornings.
Near a citronella candle there were 533 feeding attempts
and near a geraniol candle there were 106 attempts. When the
number of mosquitoes caught by the non-protected control
volunteer was compared to the number of mosquitoes
caught by the protected volunteers, it was found that the
repellency rate of citronella was 41% while the repellency
rate of geraniol was 88%. Commercially available geraniol
and citronella were more effective in protecting volunteers
in diffuser form than in candle form.
Outdoor experiments
The following common mosquito species were
encountered in the study: Culex nigripalpus, Ae. aegypti, Ae.
mediovittatus, and Ae. sollicitans. Most of the mosquitoes
caught in the 3 m2 and 6 m2 experiments were Aedes species;
the rest were Culex. There was no significant difference in
the response of the two genera towards linalool or geraniol.
Geraniol, linalool, and citronella in combination
with the Coleman Mosquito Deleto Diffuser significantly
reduced mosquito capture (Figure 3; 3 m2 F(3,9) = 16.2 p<
0.0001; 6 m2 F(3,44) = 39.3, p < 0.0001). When arranged in a
3x3 m square, geraniol reduced the number of mosquitoes
caught by the MK01 mosquito trap by 95.5%, linalool by
88.4%, and citronella by 65.6%. When arranged in a 6x6 m
square, geraniol reduced the number of mosquitoes caught
by the MK01 mosquito trap by 75%, linalool by 58%, and
Table 1. Details of equipment used in experiments. All batteries, cartridges, and candles were changed daily.

Vol. 34, no. 1

Loss of Active
Active Ingredient and Concentration Weight Amount Active Total loss of Composition of Active
Ingredient per Supplier
Release Type (%) (g) Ingredient (g/g) Weight per h (g) Ingredient
h (g)

1
Citronella** Diffuser 100% 20g 1.0 0.1 0.1 23.18% Geraniol Nature's Alkamy
34.79% Citronellal
11.19% Citronellol
0.72% Linalool
30.12% All Other*
1
Linalool Diffuser 100% 20g 1.0 0.1 0.1 95.54% Linalool Coleman
4.6% Isomers
2
Geraniol Diffuser 100% 20g 1.0 0.1 0.1 95.54% Geraniol Fasst Products
4.6% Isomers
Control Diffuser 0% n/a 0.0 n/a n/a n/a Coleman
Citronella** Candle 5% 88g 0.05 2.2 0.11 23.18% Geraniol Wal-Mart
34.79% Citronellal
11.19% Citronellol
Journal of Vector Ecology

0.72% Linalool
30.12% All Other*
Geraniol Candle 5% 88g 0.05 2.2 0.11 95.54% Geraniol Fasst Products
4.6% Isomers
Control Candle 0% 88g 0.0 n/a n/a n/a Wal-mart

*Citronella oil is comprised of more than 80 closely related terpenes, alcohols, and aldehydes (PMRA 2007). Only relevent components are listed here.
** Type "Java" from Cymbopogon winterianus.
n/a: not applicable.
1
Oil.
2
Impregnated low density polyethelene pellets.
5
6 Journal of Vector Ecology June 2009

130
120
110
100

# Mosquitoes
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

*
20
10
0
ol

or

ol

la
io

el
tr

lo
rid

an
on

on
na
or

er
C

itr
Li
C

C
Figure 1. Average number of mosquitoes caught after indoor diffuser
experiments (N=9) ± standard deviation. All repellents were significantly more
repellent than the control (F(4,5) = 645.6, p < 0.0001). *Geraniol significantly
more repellent than all others (Tukey-Kramer Test p<0.05).

120
110
100
90
# Mosquitoes

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 *
0
ol

or

la
io

el
tr

rid

an
on

on
or

er
C

itr
C

Figure 2. Average number of mosquitoes caught after indoor candle

experiments (N=9) ± standard deviation. All repellents were significantly
more repellent than control (F(3,6) = 101.9, p < 0.0001). *Geraniol significantly
more repellent than all others (Tukey-Kramer Test p<0.05).
Vol. 34, no. 1 Journal of Vector Ecology 7

250

# of female mosquitoes
200

150

100

50

0
itr ol

itr ol
Li la

er l

Li la

er l

l
o

io

io
el

el
tr

tr
lo

lo
an

an
on

on
on

on
na

na
C

C
G

G
C

C
3 mft square
20 square 6 mft square
10 square

Figure 3. Average number of female mosquitoes caught in MK01 mosquito

traps (N=12) ± standard deviation. Active compounds were significantly
more repellent than control (3 m square: F(3,44) = 39.3, p<0.0001) (6 m
square: F(3,9) = 16.2 p<0.0001).

citronella by 22%. All compounds provided significantly
more protection (Tukey–Kramer Test p > 0.05) when placed
closer to the MK01 trap.
DISCUSSION
In a previous study (Lindsay et al. 1996), 3% citronella
candles and 5% citronella incense in an outdoor setting
increased the repellency rate over the unprotected control
by only 42.3 and 24.2%, respectively. In this study, similar
results were obtained; a 5% citronella candle increased
the repellency rate indoors by only 14%. However, the
continuous release citronella diffusers increased the
repellency rate indoors by 68%. Since the amount of active
ingredient expended by candles and diffusers is nearly
identical, one possible explanation for this difference is
that the citronella candle releases its compounds with heat
from the flame and this may cause the active ingredients
to concentrate and move vertically away from the candle
with the heat. The diffuser, on the other hand, continuously
disperses an active ingredient horizontally. Only diffusers,
not candles, were tested for repellency outdoors; the results
of which, for citronella, were poor (21%).
Citronella in candle form used indoors, or in diffuser
form used outdoors, does not reduce mosquitoes or mosquito
bites to a degree acceptable to the EPA or conventional
recommended standards for repellent testing (Govere and
Durrheim 2007, Barnard et al. 2007). Currently accepted
guidelines require candles, coils, vaporizing mats, or other
such products to provide at least a 50% repellency rate to
make a reliable claim that the product repels mosquitoes
(Govere and Durrheim 2007). However, citronella diffusers
when used indoors are fairly repellent, possibly because
airflow indoors is minimal and the repellent molecules are
not diluted by airflow (i.e., building up vapor pressure).
Human forearm tests of topically applied linalool report
a 91.7% repellency rate towards Cx. pipiens (Park et al. 2005).
No linalool candles were available for evaluation but we
report here that linalool diffusers provided a 93% repellency
rate indoors and a repellency rate of 58% outdoors. These
rates, especially indoors, support the claim that linalool
repels mosquitoes (Govere and Durrheim 2007).
Studies conducted on the repellent effect of geraniol on
mosquitoes are limited and use varying measurements of
repellency. One laboratory study claims that 25% geraniol
applied topically repels mosquitoes for 3.2 to 4.8 h (Barnard
and Xue 2004) and still others claim geraniol repels termites
(Blaske and Hertel 2001), human body lice (Mumcuoglu et
al. 1996) and some species of flies (McGuire 1984). Under
the uniform conditions of our experiments, geraniol
repelled significantly more mosquitoes than citronella or
linalool, both indoors (97% repellency with diffusers; 50%
with candles) and outdoors (95.5% repellency with diffusers
at 3 m, 75% repellency with diffusers at 6 m).
According to the data collected in the present study,
geraniol diffusers, used indoors, fit the repellency criteria
outlined by Govere and Durrheim (2007) and Barnard and
colleagues (2007), and also strongly suggest that geraniol
provides much greater indoor and outdoor protection
coverage than the other tested products (Figures 1 and 2).
When diffusers were tested outdoors, all compounds
repelled better when placed closer to the traps (Figure 3),
8 Journal of Vector Ecology June 2009
suggesting the repellent activity of botanical products can
be improved by moving closer to the source compound. We
also conclude that diffusers are more effective than candles
when used indoors.
Although DEET remains the gold standard for repelling
mosquitoes, the human health and ecological consequences
of the use of synthetic mosquito control compounds are
becoming of greater concern to consumers. At least fifty years
of sustained struggle to control mosquitoes has resulted in
cases of toxicity to non-target organisms (Croft and Brown
1975), insecticide resistance (Brown 1986), and ecological
hazards (Hayes and Laws 1991). Among alternative control
strategies, the use of non-toxic plant essential oils such
as citronella and essential oil derivatives such as linalool
and geraniol are being more widely considered for both
industrial and household uses.
REFERENCES CITED
Barnard, D.R. and R. Xue. 2004. Laboratory evaluation of
mosquito repellents against Aedes albopictus, Culex
nigripalpus, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Diptera:
Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 41: 726-730.
Barnard, D.R., U.R. Bernier, R. Xue, M. Debboun, and M.
Govere 2007. Standard methods for testing mosquito
repellents. In: M. Debboun, S.P. Frances, and D.
Strickman (eds). Insect Repellents: Principles, Methods
and Uses. pp. 103-110. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Blaske, V.U. and H. Hertel. 2001. Repellent and toxic effects
of plant extracts on subterranean termites (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94: 1200–1208.
Brown, A.W.A. 1986. Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes:
pragmatic review. J. Am. Mosq. Contr. Assoc. 2: 123-
140.
Chadee D.D. and R Martinez. 2000. Landing periodicity of
Aedes aegypti with implications for dengue transmission
in Trinidad, West Indies. J. Vector Ecol. 25: 158-163.
Choi, W.S., B.S. Park, S.K. Ku, and S.E. Lee. 2002. Repellent
activities of essential oils and monoterpenes against
Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett. J. Am. Mosq. Contr.
Assoc. 18: 348-351.
Croft, B.A. and A.W.A. Brown. 1975. Responses of arthropod
natural enemies to insecticides. Annu. Rev. Entomol.
20: 285-335.
Gabel, M.L., T.S. Spencer, and W.A. Akers. 1976. Evaporation
rates and protection times of mosquito repellents.
Mosq. News. 36: 141-146.
Gilbert, I.H., H.K. Gouck, and N. Smith. 1966. Attractiveness
of men and women to Aedes aegypti and relative
protection time obtained with DEET. Fla. Entomol. 49:
53-66.
Govere, M. and D.N. Durrheim. 2007. Techniques for
evaluating repellents. In: M. Debboun, S.P. Frances,
and D. Strickman (eds). Insect Repellents: Principles,
Methods and Uses. pp. 147-159. CRC press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Hayes, W.J. and E.R. Laws Jr. (eds.) 1991. Handbook of
Pesticide Toxicology. Volume l: General Principles. 497
pp. New York, NY, Academic Press.
Hwang, Y., K. Wu1, J. Kumamoto, H. Axelrod, and M.S.
Mulla. 1985. Isolation and identification of mosquito
repellents in Artemisia vulgaris. J. Chem. Ecol. 11:
1297-1306.
Khan, A.A., H.I. Maibach, and D.L. Skidmore 1972. A study
of insect repellents: effect of temperature on protection
time. J. Econ. Entomol. 66: 437-438.
Lindsay, L.R., G.A. Surgeoner, J.D. Heal, and G.J. Gallivan
1996. Evaluation of the efficacy of 3% citronella candles
and 5% citronella incense for protection against field
populations of Aedes mosquitoes. J. Am. Mosq. Contr.
Assoc. 12: 293-294.
McGuire, T.R. 1984. Learning in three species of diptera:
The blow fly Phormia regina, the fruit fly Drosophila
melanogaster, and the house fly Musca domestica.
Behavior Genetics 14: 479-526.
Muirhead-Thomson, R.C. 1951. The distribution of
anopheline mosquito bites among different age groups.
Br. Med. J. 1: 1114-1117.
Mumcuoglu, K.Y., R. Galun, U. Bach, J. Miller, and S.
Magdassi. 1996. Repellency of essential oils and their
components to the human body louse, Pediculus
humanus humanus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 78: 309-314.
Osimitz, T.G. and R.H. Grothaus. 1995. The present safety
assessment of DEET. J. Am. Mosq. Contr. Assoc. 11:
274-278.
Osimitz, T.G. and J.V. Murphy. 1997. Neurological effects
associated with use of the insect repellent N,N-diethyl-
m-toluamide (DEET). J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 35: 435-
441.
Park, B.S., W.S. Choi, J. Kim, K. Kim, and S.E. Lee. 2005.
Monoterpenes from thyme (Thymus vulgaris) as
potential mosquito repellents. J. Am. Mosq. Contr.
Assoc. 21: 80-83.
Port, G.R. and P.F.L. Boreham.1980. The relationship of host
size to feeding by mosquitoes of the Anopheles gambiae
Giles complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull. Entomol. Res.
70: 133-144.
Snyder, J.W., R.O. Poe, J.F. Stubbins, and L.K. Garrettson.
1986. Acute manic psychosis following the dermal
application of N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) in an
adult. Clin. Toxicol. 24: 429-439.
Sukumar, K., M.J. Perich, and L.R. Boobar.1991. Botanical
derivatives in mosquito control: a review. J. Am. Mosq.
Contr. Assoc. 7: 210-237.
Tawatsin, A., S.D. Wratten, R.R. Scott, U. Thavara, and Y.
Techadamrongsin. 2001. Repellency of volatile oils
from plants against three mosquito vectors. J. Vector
Ecol. 26: 76-82.
Zadikoff, C.M. 1979. Toxic encephalopathy associated with
use of insect repellent. J. Pediatr. 95: 140-142.