Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2008abilityofessentialoilcandles PDF
2008abilityofessentialoilcandles PDF
2008abilityofessentialoilcandles PDF
net/publication/5414772
CITATIONS READS
20 2,326
8 authors, including:
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
Taxonomic and zoogeographical studies on the African Plusiinae (Noctuidae) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Vasiliy Kravchenko on 25 August 2015.
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
154
MARCH 2008 SYMPOSIUM: MOSQUITOES AND PLANTS 155
to EPA guidelines, as well as to currently For the first set of experiments, 4 candles of
accepted standards for testing insect repellents each type (geraniol, linalool, citronella, or paraf-
(EPA 2000, Barnard et al. 2007, Govere and fin with no active ingredient) were arranged in
Durrheim 2007). 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
MATERIALS AND METHODS
the middle. The candles were placed in lanterns
Two experiments were conducted: the first to with wire mesh covers to ensure that sudden
compare the repellency rate of citronella, linalool, breezes or winds would not extinguish the flames,
and geraniol in a rural, high biting pressure and these were hung on tripods approximately
environment (oasis); and the second to compare 1.2 m above the ground. The candles were lit 30
the repellency rates of the best performing min before the start of the experiment to grant
repellent from the first experiment, which was maximum performance. The trap–candle ar-
geraniol, in both high (oasis) and low (suburban) rangements were positioned alternately along a
biting pressure environments, using volunteers. transect with a distance of 10 m between them.
The order of geraniol, linalool, citronella, and
paraffin control arrangements were exchanged on
Equipment consecutive nights. The experiments were repeat-
All candles were 85 g, containing 5% essential ed on 10 nights, with the trap operational for 8 h/
oil of either citronella, linalool, or geraniol. A night (2000 h to 0400 h) from mid-May to early
paraffin candle of the same weight without any June.
repellent or fragrance was used as a control.
Candles were from Fasst Products, New York, Geraniol comparison in high and low biting
New York, USA. pressure environments
The candles were placed in metal cups to catch
the melted wax. To ensure that sudden breezes– The aim of the second experiment was to
drafts would not extinguish the flames, the compare, in the presence of volunteers, the
candles in metal cups were placed inside a lantern performance of geraniol candles, which showed
made from white plastic cups (12-cm diam, 12-cm the best results in the first experiment, in both
height) with 4 holes (1-cm diam) in the side, and high (oasis) and low (suburban) biting pressure
covered with regular mosquito wire mesh. environments.
These experiments were conducted both in the
oasis described above and on the coastal plain of
Essential oil candle comparison the Mediterranean Sea about 10 km south of Tel
The first set of experiments took place in Neot Aviv. This region belongs to the Mediterranean
Ha Kikar, the largest natural oasis (more than 50 zone and has a relatively mild climate. The
km2 in area) along the southern shore of the Dead suburban experimental site was located in an
Sea, at an average altitude of 390 m below sea area with fields, orchards, and olive groves near
level. The region belongs to the Sahara–Arabian Ramle. In the immediate area, there were poorly
phytogeographical zone, an extreme desert with maintained trenches and ditches in which mos-
occasional natural oases consisting of marshland quitoes were breeding in high numbers.
and artificial agricultural oases created by irriga- The tests took place in mid-June during the dry
tion. The conditions in these oases are tropical. In season. Experiments started close to sunset and
the western part of Neot Ha Kikar oasis, there is ended in the early evening. The temperatures just
a large nonirrigated date plantation, which covers before sunset were around 27–29uC and dropped
an area of approximately 20 acres and is in the following 1.5 h to 24–26uC. Relative
surrounded mainly by uniform reed thickets and humidity was in the low 60% accompanied by
Tamarix bushes. The experiments were carried clear skies. Weather conditions during the testing
out in this plantation, which is known for its rich period were stable.
mosquito fauna and high biting pressure.
Tests took place from late May to mid-June Volunteers
2004 during the dry season. The late-May
temperatures in the early evening ranged from Six authors of this study (3=, 3R) served as the
27uC to 30uC and dropped in the early morning volunteer subjects and were therefore fully
to 22–23uC. Relative humidity was in the mid- informed of the nature and purposes of the
50% accompanied by clear skies. During mid- test.
June, early evening temperatures went up to 30– For both trials, the left forearms and hands of
33uC and dropped toward the early morning to each volunteer were used as the test area. The
23–24uC. Again, relative humidity was in the mid- skin outside the test area was covered with
50% accompanied by clear skies. During both test regular clothes to protect from insect bites. For
periods, the weather conditions were stable. their comfort and well-being, volunteers wore
156 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION VOL. 24, NO. 1
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
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
O
S
S
S
S
S
either citronella or linalool at all distances
(Tables 1 and 2).
Geraniol
pressure environments
At the high biting pressure site (oasis), 1,510
Linalool
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Citronella
Citronella
Geraniol
Geraniol
Linalool
Linalool
Linalool
Paraffin
Paraffin
Paraffin
2m
1m
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
the trap.
N
O
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S
S
N
O
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
O
S
S
S
S
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
2m
1m
RFERENCES CITED
product to product. Data collected from the CDC
Barnard DR, Bernier UR, Xue R, Debboun M, Govere
trap experiments demonstrated that the area of M. 2007. Standard methods for testing mosquito
protection provided by botanical candles is small; repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D,
placing the candle 1 m from the trap was the eds. Insect repellents: principles, methods and uses.
most effective distance. Still, it is unlikely that the Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 103–110.
slight to moderate degree of protection citronella Choi WS, Park BS, Ku SK, Lee SE. 2002. Repellent
and linalool provide answers the EPA standards activities of essential oils and monoterpenes against
(EPA 2000). In the CDC trap experiments, Culex pipiens pallens. J Am Mosq Control Assoc
geraniol was the best performing botanical 18:348–351.
repellent, reducing the catch of both female EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. 2000. Sets of
scientific issues being considered by the Environmental
mosquitoes and female sand flies by about
Protection Agency regarding: session I—implementation
50% when candles were positioned at the plan for probabilistic ecological assessment: a consulta-
farthest distance (3 m) from the traps. Decreasing tion; session II—insect repellent product performance
the distance improved this repellency (Figs. 1 testing guideline evaluation [Internet]. Available from
and 2). the Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA
To compare the degree of personal protection [accessed February 11, 2008], http://www.epa.gov/
provided by the best performing candle in CDC oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/april/freportapril572000.
trap experiments, geraniol candles were used to pdf.
protect human volunteers under conditions of EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. 2001. Candles
and incense as potential sources of indoor air pollution:
high and low biting pressure. Human-landing
market analysis and literature review. Available from
catch experiments at the high biting pressure site the Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield,
(oasis) show that under high pressure of biting VA [accessed February 11, 2008], http://www.epa.gov/
insects, geraniol candles provide protection at ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/Publications/600R01001.pdf.
and above 50%, which is the accepted EPA target Erler F, Ulug I, Yalcinkaya B. 2006. Repellent activity
for claiming that a compound is repellent (EPA of five essential oils against Culex pipiens. Fitoterapia
2000). Furthermore, geraniol protects male and 777–8:491–494.
female volunteers equally well and provides equal Govere M, Durrheim DN. 2007. Techniques for
protection against both mosquitoes and sand evaluating repellents. In: Debboun M, Frances SP,
flies. Strickman D, eds. Insect repellents: principles,
methods and uses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
The reduction of mosquito pressure by geraniol
p 147–159.
candles at the low biting pressure site (suburban) Lindsay LR, Surgeoner GA, Heal JD, Gallivan GJ.
was not significantly different (Fig. 1) from the 1996. Evaluation of the efficacy of 3% citronella
reduction of mosquitoes and sand flies at the high candles and 5% citronella incense for protection
pressure site (oasis); however, to achieve the same against field populations of Aedes mosquitoes. J Am
repellency rate with humans as seen in CDC trap 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).