Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative repellency of 38 essential oils against mosquito bites

Trongtokit, Yuwadee, Rongsriyam, Yupha, Komalamisra, Narumon, Apiwathnasorn, Chamnarn·2005·Phytotherapy Research

Abstract

The mosquito repellent activity of 38 essential oils from plants at three concentrations was screened against the mosquito Aedes aegypti under laboratory conditions using human subjects. On a volunteer's forearm, 0.1 mL of oil was applied per 30 cm2 of exposed skin. When the tested oils were applied at a 10% or 50% concentration, none of them prevented mosquito bites for as long as 2 h, but the undiluted oils of Cymbopogon nardus (citronella), Pogostemon cablin (patchuli), Syzygium aromaticum (clove) and Zanthoxylum limonella (Thai name: makaen) were the most effective and provided 2 h of complete repellency. From these initial results, three concentrations (10%, 50% and undiluted) of citronella, patchouli, clove and makaen were selected for repellency tests against Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles dirus. As expected, the undiluted oil showed the highest protection in each case. Clove oil gave the longest duration of 100% repellency (2-4 h) against all three species of mosquito.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ptr.1637

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Trongtokit, Y., Rongsriyam, Y., Komalamisra, N., & Apiwathnasorn, C.
Venue
Phytotherapy Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
303-309
ISSN
  • 0951-418X (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1573
OpenAlex
W2060826790
Cited by
464
References
0
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.