3- Mr Abai Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 10 Original Article Repellency Effects of Essential Oils of Myrtle (Myrtus communis), Marigold (Calendula officinalis) Compared with DEET against Anopheles stephensi on Human Volunteers M Tavassoli1, M Shayeghi1,*MR Abai1, H Vatandoost1, M Khoobdel2, M Salari1, A Ghaderi1, F Rafi1 1Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2Health Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical sciences, Tehran, Iran (Received 20 Nov 2011; accepted 21 May 2011) Abstract Background: Malaria and leishmaniasis are two most significant parasitic diseases which are endemic in Iran. Over the past decades, interest in botanical repellents has increased as a result of safety to human. The comparative effi- cacy of essential oils of two native plants, myrtle (Myrtus communis) and marigold (Calendula officinalis) collected from natural habitats at southern Iran was compared with DEET as synthetic repellent against Anopheles stephensi on human subjects under laboratory condition. Methods: Essential oils from two species of native plants were obtained by Clevenger-type water distillation. The protection time of DEET, marigold and myrtle was assessed on human subject using screened cage method against An. stephensi. The effective dose of 50% essential oils of two latter species and DEET were determined by modified ASTM method. ED50 and ED90 values and related statistical parameters were calculated by probit analysis. Results: The protection time of 50% essential oils of marigold and myrtle were respectively 2.15 and 4.36 hours compared to 6.23 hours for DEET 25%. The median effective dose (ED50) of 50% essential oils was 0.1105 and 0.6034 mg/cm2 respectively in myrtle and marigold. The figure for DEET was 0.0023 mg/cm2. Conclusion: This study exhibited that the repellency of both botanical repellents was generally lower than DEET as a synthetic repellent. However the 50% essential oil of myrtle showed a moderate repellency effects compared to marigold against An. stephensi. Keywords: Calendula officinalis, Myrtus communis, DEET, Anopheles stephensi, Repellent, Essential oils, Iran Introduction Malaria is still a major endemic disease in foci located in south and southeast of Iran. The annual malaria cases have been reported from 66075 to 6211 during 1995–2009, indi- cating the sharp decline of disease. It is un- stable with two seasonal peaks mainly in spring and autumn. These areas include the provinces of Sistan and Baluchistan, Hor- mozgan and Kerman. In this part of the country six anopheline mosquitoes including Anopheles culicifacies s.l., An. stephensi Lis- ton, An. dthali Patton, An. fluviatilis s.l., An. superpictus Grassi, and An. pulcherrimus Theobald are known to be the malaria vec- tors and An. sacharovi (Favre, 1903) and An. maculipennis s.l. are considered as malaria vector in northern part of the country (Manou- chehri et al. 1992, Zahirnia et al. 1998, 2001, Enayati et al. 2003, Naddaf et al. 2003, Oshaghi et al. 2003abc, Salari Lak et al. 2003, Vatan- doost et al. 2004ab, 2005ab, 2006ab, 2008ab, 2009a, 2010, 2011, Sedaghat et al. 2005, *Corresponding author: Mr Mohammad Reza Abai, E-mail: abaimr@tums.ac.ir Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 11 2003ab, Doosti et al. 2006, 2007, Davari et al. 2007, Abai et al. 2008). One of the widely used and effective in- sect repellents is the synthetic compound, N, N-diethyl-m toluamide (DEET) which is gen- erally considered the “gold standard” repellent, providing long-lasting protection of up to 8 hours from time of application. “There are some rare reports of severe reactions in people, additionally DEET melts plastics causing spoil- age of equipment, such as glasses and mo- bile phones, and many consumers find the odor and sensation on the skin unpleasant” (Logan et al. 2010). Therefore researchers are trying to improve the efficacy with re- ducing the side effects of new generation of repellents. In the past few years, a plant de- rived repellent, para-methane 3–8, diol (PMD) has been proven to be suitably efficacious and safe to compete with DEET in the field of disease prevention, and repellents have been recognized by WHO as a useful disease prevention tool to complement insecticide- based means of vector control. Many plants have substances that are toxic, antifeedant properties or repellency for insects. Repel- lent of plant material refers to a plant origin have an inherent and naturally defensive and repellency effects on insects (Maia and Moore 2010). This material includes extracts and essential oils. Their effect is significantly dif- fers from different parts of plants, including flowers, tubers, leaves, fruit, branches and roots. Myrtle (Myrtus communis L.) is a native plant distributed in south, north and central parts of Iran (Rechinger 1996). A study in Iran showed that the myrtle essential oil (M. communis) is very active against Streptococ- cus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in vitro. This con- firms the application of herbal medicines for treating a range of infectious diseases in an- cient times (Pourmand et al. 2008). Study of the conditions in vitro effect of myrtle essen- tial oil, the extracts form soluble in water, and soluble dichloromethane corn oil was studied on a variety of microbes. It was de- termined that the oil could prevent the growth of bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. Its effect of antiviral ointment contain- ing about 10% of myrtle essential oil on pa- tients with herpes simplex virus was tested (Zolfaghari et al. 1997). The essential oil of myrtle is effective in protection of biting in- sects. In addition insecticidal action was also observed (Yaghoobi-Ershadi et al. 2006). Marigold also exhibits great effects in treat- ing some skin disorders such as leaving the skin, acne and dermatitis. The Calendula oint- ment are presented and is believed that the spring flowers of this plant had been used for reducing swelling, treat injuries, and a disinfectant material. For domestic use, this plant has been used for soothing effects of mucosal ulcers, swelling of the stomach. The repellency property makes an impact effect on the insects away from humans. For the first time in the country, the repel- lency of essentials oils myrtle and marigold which are native in southern Iran, were as- sessed using An. stephensi and compared with DEET on human volunteers under labo- ratory condition. Materials and Methods Mosquitoes The tested mosquitoes were the established colony of An. stephensi obtained from the Insectary of School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Mosqui- toes were reared and maintained at 27±3 oC and 80±10% relative humidity (RH) under a 12: 12 (L: D) photoperiod. Larvae were fed on a diet of enriched wheat germ. The adults were maintained in screen cages and fed with 10% aqueous sucrose solution as a source of energy and guinea pigs as blood-feeding fe- male mosquitoes for maturing the eggs. Starved 7 to 10 days old females were used for the repellency tests. The sucrose solution was Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 12 picking up from the cage, 12 hour before start- ing the experiments. Repellents The chemical repellent, DEET (N, N- diethyl-meta-toluamid), CAS NUMBER: 134– 162 and assay 98.8%, Density: 0.998 g/cm3 were purchased from Merck Co, Germany. The myrtle (M. communis) is evergreen shrubs or small tree which was collected from south- ern extension of natural habitat in Noorabad district at coordinate 30º 7´E 51º 31´N, 920 meters above sea level, southern Iran. The marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) was also collected in suburb of Shiraz City, at coordi- nates 29°37′N 52°32′E at elevation of 1481 meter above sea level, Fars Province, south- ern Iran. The plants were identified and the voucher specimens were deposited at the Her- barium of Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacognosy. The leaves and flowers of myrtle and the flowers of marigold were dried at room temperature under good ven- tilation and chopped into small pieces using a knife mill. The essential oil was extracted from the plants using a Clevenger-type water steam distillation apparatus. The distilled es- sential oils were stored in a refrigerator at 4° C until being used in the experiments which were diluted by absolute ethanol at 50% concentration. The composition of the vola- tile constituents was established by gas chro- matography-mass spectrometry. Test method All series of the experiments were carried out in laboratory condition. In the first stage, in order to reveal the probable allergic reaction of chemical and natural repellents to human volunteers, the scratch test was done on skin of the upper arm. The treated skin of arm was observed up to 72 hours for allergic reaction. The 25% solution of DEET was prepared using absolute ethanol as well as 50% essen- tial oils myrtle and marigold was obtained in same manner and tested against An. ste- phensi on four male volunteers. Observation was based on the variable dose-response of the mosquito to the serial dilutions of the re- pellents. The procedures for determination of effective dosages of the repellents were adopted by the standard method of American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM E951-94). The testing kit was made of Plexi- glas cube at dimension of 4 x 5 x 18 cm hav- ing five circles in 29 mm diameters. Before selecting the mosquitoes, the willingness of mosquitoes for introducing in repellency tests were monitored based on determination of biting pressure on untreated, alcohol washed arm which should be at least 10 landings/ probes per 30 seconds. Each of 5 adjacent cells in the ASTM modules was provided with 5 female 7–10 days mosquitoes that ran- domly selected from a cage containing 200 starved mosquitoes. The effective dose tests were conducted by applying each repellent directly to the human skin. Five circles (29 mm in diameter) were drawn on the volun- teer's forearm using a felt tipped pen and a plastic pattern. The drawn circles on the hu- man subjects were treated with 25 µ l of the diluents. The serial dilutions were applied on 4 holes as well as the absolute ethanol was applied in control circle. The treated circles were allowed to dry, and then test apparatus containing starved mosquitoes were fixed on the treated skin of the volunteers and opened the slide for exposure with treated skin. The counts of probing and biting were recorded at 1 minute intervals up to 5 minutes. The ex- periments were done at 2 replicates on right forearm and 2 replicates on left forearm of the volunteers. After each test, the mosqui- toes were removed from the test apparatus using aspirator and then transferred into a screened cup. Mortality of mosquitoes was read after 24 hours. The protection and failure times were also determined on human subjects. Before starting the experiments, 1 ml DEET 25%, as well as 1 ml of 50% essential oils both myrtle and marigold were dissolved in Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 13 absolute ethanol and spread evenly between the elbow and wrist of a volunteer's arm. The other arm, acting as a control and was treated only with 1 ml of absolute ethanol. After drying the test arm, a rubber glove was put by volunteers and inserted the arms into 50× 50×50 cm cage containing 150–170 starved mosquitoes for 3 minutes. The mosquitoes which landed and attempted to bite were re- corded. The procedure was repeated at 30 minutes intervals and was used consistently throughout the experiment. If more than 1 mosquito bite was recorded during an ob- servation, the test of repellency was termi- nated, and the period of repellent protection was calculated as the time between the repel- lent application and multiple mosquito bite. If only 1 mosquito attempted to bite during an observation period, any addition mosquito bites during that next observation period (30 min later) confirmed that the initial bite rep- resented the time of repellent failure. The pe- riod was repeated up to 10th bites and took into account as failure time. The successive expose of the control arm were made prior to inserting the treated arm in order to provide a standard for comparing mosquito biting ac- tivity during the experiments. The similar tests were also repeated on 4 human volunteers. Statistical analysis The data were subjected to statistical analyses using SPSS software ver. 11.5. In order to estimate the ED50 and ED90 values, the cumulative results were subjected to the probit analysis which had been repeated in different days with four volunteers (Finney 1971, 1978). The regression lines were plot- ted and the ED50 and ED90 values with confi- dence limits and regression parameters were calculated. Data were transformed using arc- sine √x transformation to meet the normal- ity. Significant differences between three re- pellents were assessed by ANOVA. The lat- ter test was also used for assessment of the significant differences between protection times of the tested repellents. Means of protection times and ED were compared by the Tukey’s honest significance test or games-Howell test depending on significance of Levene’s test. The 1% level was employed in tests of significance. Ethical approval This study received formal ethical approval from the Medical Ethics and History of Med- icine of Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Informed consent was taken from each volunteer. Results Protection time The protection time of 50% essential oils myrtle and marigold compared with DEET 25% against An. stephensi on human subject is shown in Table 1. The protection time (PT) of botanical repellents was ranged be- tween 4.25–4.40 and 1.00–3.30 hours with mean of PT 4.36 and 2.15 hours respectively with myrtle and marigold essential oils (Ta- ble 1). The mean of protection time of DEET was ranged between 6.05–7.00 hours with mean of 6.23 hours. The difference between botanical repellents and DEET was signifi- cant compared to both botanical repellents (P< 0.01). On the other hand, the difference of protection times of myrtle compared with marigold essential oil were significant (P< 0.01) (Fig. 1). Effective doses The ED50 values (with 95% confidence limits) of the myrtle (M. communis) and the marigold (C. officinalis) essential oils were 0.1105 (0.0772–0.1399) and 0.6034 mg/cm2 (0.4464–0.7476), respectively on 4 human subjects. The ED90 values with 95% confi- dence limits were respectively 0.5404 (0.4281– 0.7683) and 3.4905 mg/cm2 (2.6203–5.4534) for myrtle and marigold plants (Table 2). The ED50 and ED90 values for DEET as a golden repellent were 0.0023 (0.002–0.0027) Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 14 and 0.009 mg/cm2 (0.0071–0.0127). Statisti- cal comparison of the data was revealed that the ED values for essential oils myrtle and marigold is significantly higher than ED values of DEET, showing less repellency of bo- tanical repellents compared with DEET (P< 0.01). The ED50 of myrtle was close to ED90 of marigold and was significant different (Fig. 2). Comparing the ED50 values, it can be concluded that the ED50 for DEET is sig- nificantly higher than those of ED50 for es- sential oils marigold and myrtle, showing higher repellency effect (P< 0.01). The related dose-response lines, ED values and regres- sion equations for DEET, marigold and myr- tle are shown in Fig. 3. GC-mass analysis The result of GC-mass analysis showed that the number of chemical contents were 65 and 33 constituents respectively in essential oils marigold and myrtle. The main compounds of marigold were Alpha-cadinol (18.3%), beta- eudesmol (14.5%) and tau-muurolol (13.0%) compared to alpha-pinene (47.8%), 1, 8- cineole (25.9%), linalool (8.4%) and linalyl acetate (4.3%) in myrtle. Table 1. Protection and failure times values of essential oils both marigold and myrtle compared to DEET against An. stephensi on human subjects Repellents Protection time (hour) Failure time (hour) Range Mean ± SE DEET 25% 6.05–7.00 6.23 ± 0.16 7.30 Marigold 50% 1.00–3.30 2.15 ± 0.66 3.30 Myrtle 50% 4.25–4.40 4.36 ± 2.18 4.40 Table 2. Parameters of probit analysis on chemical and botanical repellents against An. stephensi using standard method (ASTM- E951-94) R ep ellen ts N o. m osq u itoes E D 50 (m g/cm 2) 95% C .L . (m g/cm 2) E D 90 (m g/cm 2) 95% C .L . (m g/cm 2) X 2 (d f) ± S E X 2 (tab le) P -valu e E q u ation of regression lin es DEET 5% 100 0.0023 0.0020–0.0027 0.009 0.0071–0.0127 16.185(2)±0.221 5.99 <0.05 Y= 5.7588 +2.1903X Marigold - 100 0.6034 0.4464–0.7476 3.4905 2.6203–5.4530 8.110(2)±0.196 5.99 <0.05 Y= 0.3688+1.6813 X Myrtle 50% 100 0.1105 0.0772–0.1399 0.5404 0.4281–0.7683 12.043(2)±0.618 5.99 <0.05 Y= 1.7785+1.8589 X Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 15 Fig. 1. Statistical comparison of protection time of essential oils of marigold and myrtle as well as DEET on human subjects using An. stephensi Fig. 2. Statistical comparison of effective doses of essential oils marigold and myrtle as well as DEET on human subjects using An. stephensi Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 ED (mg/cm2) P ro te c ti o n f ro m b it in g ( P ro b it ) DEET MarigoldMyrtle ED50 =0.0023 mg/cm 2 ED50=0.6034 mg/cm 2 ED50=0.1105 mg/cm 2 Fig. 3. Dose-response lines and values for three botanical and chemical repellents against An. stephensi on human subjects Discussion Insect repellents are used to prevent nuisance bites from mosquitoes as well as other blood- feeding arthropods and may aid in lowering disease transmission e.g. malaria, leishma- niasis, filariasis and West Nile virus. Anopheles stephensi is the main malaria vector in the country and is rearing easily and used for different biological assays such as irritability tests, olfaction studies, bioassay tests for bednets and indoor residual spraying, biological tests for plant extraction and repellents (Hadjiakhoondi et al. 2000ab, 2003, 2005, 2006, Sadat Ebrahimi et al. 2005, Rafinejad et al. 2006, Vatandoost et al. 2006a, 2008b, 2009b, 2011, Davari et al. 2007, Omrani et al. 2010, Shahi et al. 2010, Hanafi- Bojd et al. 2011, Sedaghat et al. 2011). In this study, the effect of essential oils myrtle and marigold as the botanical repellents were compared with DEET. The N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) as a broad-spectrum repellent is provide longer-lasting protection against many species of biting arthropods including mosquitoes which has been used worldwide since 1957 (USEPA 1998). It is commonly assumed that plant-based repellents are safer than DEET because they have natural origin (Maia and Moore 2010). The botanical repellents were developed from definite species of plants are environment-friendly, with pleasant natural aroma and less harmful than synthetic repellents which have been reported to cause many undesirable side effects to human. In our study, 25% DEET provided an average of 6.23 hours of complete protection against An. stephensi bites. DEET-based re- pellents have been shown in other studies to provide complete protection against arthropod bites for as long as 12 hours under labora- tory conditions (Fradin and Day 2002) which depend on the concentration, formulation and mosquito species tested (Klun et al. 2006). Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 17 Our ED50 estimates for DEET is 0.0023 mg/cm2 on 4 human subjects. On the animal model, the ED50 value of DEET was calcu- lated 0.005 mg/cm2 against An. stephensi (Vatandoost 2008b). In the laboratory condi- tion, the mean of relative effectiveness of 50% DEET was showed 97.0% protection against An. stephensi on guinea pig and 80.5% pro- tection on human hand (Oshaghi et al. 2003b). A cream formulation of DEET was evalu- ated at 10 mg/cm2 with 96.2% protection against An. stephensi and provided protec- tion up to 6.75±0.2 hours up to 4 hours observation (Mittal et al. 2011). There are no published data describing the repellency of essential oil of marigold. The mean of protection time of 50% myrtle es- sential oil showed considerable repellency on human subjects and provided 4.36 hours pro- tection against An. stephensi, the main ma- laria vector at laboratory condition. In other study which conducted on 41 natural repel- lents, the protection time of myrtle essential oil was reported 6.5 hours against Anopheles species (Abdelkrim et al. 2006). The past studies revealed that the most natural prod- uct-based repellents provided 3 hours protec- tion which is comparable with protection provided by 7 or 15% DEET (Barnard and Xue 2004). The mean of protection time of 50% essential oil marigold provided only 2.15 hours protection against An. stephensi bites. In other laboratory study, the values ED50 and ED90 for myrtle essential oil were respectively calculated as 0.1140 and 0.6711 mg/cm2 on animal model (rabbit) using K and D apparatus against lab-bred Phleboto- mus papatasi Scopoli (Yaghoobi- Ershadi et al. 2006). Surprisingly, in our study, the ED50 and ED90 values for myrtle essential oil against An. stephensi was very close to latter studies on animal model with P. papatasi (respectively 0.1105 and 0.5404 mg/cm2) which assessed on 4 male human subjects. The repellent effects of the essential oils indicated that they contained active constitu- ents which responsible for the repellency ac- tivity. The major components of these two essential oils are monoterpenes, primarily 1, 8-cineole and linalyl acetate which detected in moderate percentages (13.0–18.3%) in the essential oil of studied myrtle (M.communis) compared to lower percentage (<0.5%) in marigold (C. officinalis). The higher repel- lency and insecticidal effects of the myrtle could be attributed to the major aforemen- tioned constituents. The insecticidal effect of mytle at 1.6 mg/cm2 was reported 62.2% against lab-bred P. papatasi on animal model (Yaghoobi-Ershadi et al. 2006). In marigold (C. officinalis), carvacrol and thymol were extracted in low percentage (0.18–0.28%) had been shown to have insecticidal properties. On the other hands, 1, 8-cineole and linalyl acetate could be responsible for the high re- pellency activity of the essential oil of myrtle (Klocke et al. 1987, Abdurrahman et al. 2006, Günter et al. 2009,). The protection time provided by 25% DEET (PT=6.23 hours) is contrastable with the results of 50% myrtle essential oil (PT= 4.36 hours) which shows that the myrtle es- sential oil can be useful and safe in prevent- ing mosquito bites and have potential use as a botanical repellent. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr A Ghohari- Kakhki, Associate Professor of Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy and Senior Researcher of Medicinal Plants Re- search Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) for his valuable leading and assistance for preparing of the essential oils. We thank Dr H Sershti, Associate Prof- essor of Faculty of Chemistry, College of Sciences, Tehran University for his kind col- laboration and providing facilities for GC- Mass Analysis of the essential oils. During this study, the voluntar participation of some our MSc Students in Medical Entomology Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 18 and Vector Control course at TUMS is grate- fully acknowledged. We would like to thank AH Hoseinie, technician of Insectary of School of Public Health, TUMS for his great efforts in mass production of An. stephensi. This study was financially supported by School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. References Abai MR, Mehravaran A, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Javadian E, Mashayekhi M, Mosleminia A, Piyazak N, Edallat H, Mohtarami F, Jabbarie H, Rafi F (2008) Comparative performance of imagicides on Anopheles stephensi, main malaria vector in a malarious area, southern, Iran. J Vector Borne Dis. 45: 307–312. Abdelkrim A, Mehlhorn H (2006) Larvicidal effects of various essential oils against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex larvae (Diptera, Culicidae). Parasitol Res. 99: 466– 472. Abdurrahman A, Osman S, Salih K, Ismet O (2010) Insecticidal activity of the es- sential oils from different plants against three stored-product insects. J Insect Sci. 10: 21. Barnard DR, Xue RD (2004) Laboratory Evaluation of Mosquito Repellents Against Aedes albopictus, Culex nigri- palpus, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 41(4): 726–730. Davari B, Vatandoost H, Ladonni H, Shaeghi M, Oshaghi MA, Basseri HR, Enayati AA, Rassi Y, Abai MR, Hanfi- Bojd AA, Akbarzadeh K (2006) Com- parative efficacy of different imagicides against different strains of Anopheles stephensi in the malarious areas of Iran, 2004–2005. Pak J Biol Sci. 9: 885–892. Davari B, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Ladonni H, Enayati AA, Shaeghi M, Basseri HR, Rassi Y, Hanafi-Bojd AA (2007) Selection of Anopheles ste- phensi with DDT and dieldrin and cross- resistance spectrum to pyrethroids and fipronil. Pest Bioch Physio. 89: 97–103. Doosti S, Azari-Hamidian S, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Hosseini M (2006) Taxo- nomic differentiation of Anopheles sa- charovi and An.maculipennis s.l. (Dip- tera: Culicidae) larvae by seta 2 (ante- palmate hair). Acta Med Iran. 44: 41–43. Doosti S, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Hosseini M, Sedaghat MM (2007) Ap- plying Morphometric variation of seta 2 (antepalmate hair) among the larvae of the members of the Maculipennis subgroup (Diptera: Culicidae) in Iran. Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis. 1: 28–37. Enayati AA, Vatandoost H, Ladonni H, Townson H, Hemingway J (2003) Mo- lecular evidence for a Kdr-like pyre- throid resistance mechanism in the ma- laria vector mosquito Anopheles ste- phensi. Med Vet Entomol. 17: 138–144. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis, 3rd ed. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, Eng- land. Finney DJ (1978) Statistical method in biological assay, 3rd ed. Charles Grif- fin and Co, London. Fradin MS, Day GF (2002) Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mos- quito bites. The New England J Med. 47: 13–18. Günter C, Müller AJ, Jerry B, Vassiliy DK, Edita ER, Robert WW, Schlein Y (2009) Efficacy of the botanical repellents gera- niol, linalool, and Citronella against mosquitoes. J Vector Ecol. 34(1): 2–8. Hadjiakhoondi A, Aghel N, Zamanizadeh N, Vatandoost H (2000a) Chemical and Biological study of Mentha spicata L. essential oil from Iran. Daru. 8: 19–21. Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 19 Hadjiakhoondi A, Vatandoost H, Abousaber M, Khanavi M, Abdi L (2000b) Che- mical composition of the essential oil of Tagetes minuta L. and its effects on Anopheles stephensi larvae in Iran. J Med Plants. 7: 33–100. Hadjiakhoondi A, Vatandoost H, Jamshidi A, Amiri EB (2003) Chemical constituents and efficacy of Cymbopogon olivieri (Boiss.) bar essential oil against malaria vector, Anopheles stepensi. Daru. 11: 125–128. Hadjiakhoondi A, Vatandoost H, Khanavi M, Abaee MR (2005) Biochemical in- vestigation of different extracts and lar- vicidal activity of Tagetes minuta L on Anopheles stephensi larvae. Iran J Pharm Sci. 1: 81–84. Hadjiakhoondi A, Sadeghipour-Roodsari HR, Vatandoost H, Khanavi M, Vosoughi M, Kazemi, M Abai, MR (2006) Fatty acid composition and toxicity of Melia azedarach L. fruits against malaria vector Anopheles stephensi. Iran J Pharm Sci. 2: 97–102. Hanafi-Bojd AA, Vatandoost H, Jafari R (2006) Susceptibility status of An. dthali and An. fluviatilis to commonly used larvicides in an endemic focus of malaria, southern Iran. J Vector Borne Dis. 43: 34–38. Hanafi-Bojd AA, Azari-Hamidian S, Vatan- doost H, Charrahy Z (2011) Spatio- temporal distribution of malaria vec- tors (Diptera: Culicidae) across differ- ent climatic zones of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 6: 498–504. Hanafi-Bojd AA, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Haghdoost AA, Shahi M, Se- aghat MM, Abedi F, Yeryan M, Pakari A (2011) Entomological and epidemi- ological attributes for malaria transmis- sion and implementation of vector con- trol in southern Iran. Acta Trop. Acta Trop. [Epub ahead of print] Klocke JA, Darlington MV, Balandrin MF (1987) 8-Cineole (Eucalyptol), a mosquito feeding and ovipositional repellent from volatile oil of Hemizonia fitchii (As- teraceae)". J Chem Ecol. 13(12): 23–27. Klun JA, Khrimian A, Debboun M (2006) Repellent and deterrent effects of SS220, Picaridin, and DEET suppress human- blood feeding by Aedes aegypti, Ano- pheles stephensi, and Phlebotomus papatasi. J Med Entomol. 43: 34–39. Logan JG, Stanczyk NM, Hassanali A, Ke- mei J, Santana AEG, Ribeiro KAL, Pickett JA, Mordue (Luntz) JA (2010) Arm-in-cage testing of natural human- derived mosquito repellents. Malar J. 9: 239. Maia FM, Moore SJ (2010) Plant-based in- sect repellents: a review of their efficacy, development and testing. Malar J. 10 (Suppl 1): S11. Manouchehri AV, Zaim M, Emadi AM (1992) A review of malaria in Iran, 1957–1990. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 8: 381–385. Mittal PK, Sreehari U, Razdan RK, Dash AP, Ansari MA (2011) Efficacy of Ad- vanced Odomos® repellent cream (N, N-diethyl-benzamide) against mosquito vectors. Indian J Med Res. 133: 426– 430. Naddaf SR, Oshaghi MA, Vatandoost H, As- mar M (2003) Molecular characteriza- tion of the Anopheles fluviatilis species complex in Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 9: 257–265. Omrani SM, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Shokri F, Guerin PM, Yaghoobi-Er- shadi, MR, Rassi Y, Tirgari S (2010) Fabrication of an olfactometer for mos- quito behavioural studies. J Vector Borne Dis. 47: 17–25. Oshaghi MA ,Ghalandari R, Vatandoost H, Shayeghi M, Kmali-nejad M, Tourabi- Khaledi H Abolhassani M, Hashem- zadeh M (2003a) Repellent effect of extracts and essential oil of Citrus limon Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 20 (Rutaceae) and Melissa officinalis (Labi- atae) against main malaria vector, Ano- pheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Iran. Iranian J Public Health. 32: 47–52. Oshaghi MA, Sedaghat MM, Vatandoost H (2003b) Molecular characterization of the Anopheles maculipennis complex in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 9: 59–66. Oshaghi MA, Yaaghoobi F, Abai MR (2006a) Pattern of mitochondrial DNA variation between and within Anophe- les stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) bio- logical forms suggests extensive gene flow. Acta Trop. 99: 226–233. Oshaghi MA, Yaghoobi F, Vatandoost H, Abai MR, Akbarzadeh K (2006b) Ano- pheles stephensi biological forms, geo- graphical distribution, and malaria trans- mission in malarious regions in Iran. Pak J Biol Sci. 9: 294–298. Oshaghi MA, Chavshin AR, Vatandoost H (2006c) Analysis of mosquito bloodmeals using RFLP markers. Exp Parasitol. 114: 259–264. Pourmand MR, Yazdi MH, Bayat M (2008) In vitro antimicrobial effects of Zataria multiflora Boiss., Myrtus communis L. L. and Eucalyptus officinalis against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influen- zae. Iran J Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. 23: 14–25. Rafinejad J, Vatandoost H, Nikpoor F, Abai MR, Shaeghi M, Duchen, S, Rafi F (2006) Effect of washing on the bioef- ficacy of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) against main malaria vector Anopheles stephensi by three bioassay methods. J Vector Borne Dis. 45: 143–150. Rechinger KH (1996) Myrtacea in Flora Iranica (No. 34.1). Kademische Druck- U. Verlagsanstalt, Graz. Sadat Ebrahimi SE, Hadjiakhoondi A, Reza- zadeh Sh, Fereidunian N, Vatandoost H, Abai MR (2005) The components of Tagetes minuta L. and its biological ac- tivities against malaria vector, Anopheles stephensi in Iran. J Med Plants. 4: 43–47. Salari Lak SH, Vatandoost H, Entezarmahd MR, Ashraf H, Abai MR, Nazari M (2002) Monitoring of insecticide resis- tance in Anopheles sacharovi (Favre, 1903) in borderline of Iran, Armenia, Naxcivan and Turkey,. Iran J Public Health. 31: 96–99. Sedaghat MM, Linton YM, Nicolescu G, Smith L, Koliopoulos G, Zounos AK, Athanassios K. Zounos, Oshaghi MA, Vatandoost H, Harbach RE (2003a) Morphological and molecular charac- terization of Anopheles (Anopheles) sacharovi Favre, a primary vector of malaria in the Middle East. Systematic Entomol. 28: 241–256. Sedaghat MM, Linton YM, Oshaghi MA, Vatandoost H, Harbach RE (2003b) The Anopheles maculipennis complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Iran: molecular characterization and recognition of a new species. Bull Entomol Res. 93: 527–535. Sedaghat MM, Harbach RE (2005) An anno- tated checklist of the Anopheles mos- quitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Iran. J Vector Ecol. 30: 272–276. Sedaghat MM, Dehkordi AS, Khanavi M, Abai MR, Mohtarami F, Vatandoost H (2011) Chemical composition and lar- vicidal activity of essential oil of Cu- pressus arizonica E.L. Greene against malaria vector Anopheles stephensi Lis- ton (Diptera: Culicidae). Pharmacognosy Res. 3: 135–139. Shahi M, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Iranshahi M, Vatandoost H, Hanafi-Bojd MY (2010) Larvicidal efficacy of latex and extract of Calotropis procera (Gentianales: Asclepiadaceae) against Culex quinq- uefasciatus and Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Borne Dis. 47: 185– 88. Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 21 USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) DEET: Reregistration eligibility decision. Washington, DC: USEPA, Of- fice of Pesticide Programs, Special Re- view and Registration Division. Vatandoost H, Shahi M, Abai MR, Hanafi- Bojd AA, Oshaghi MA, Zamani G. (2004a) Larval habitats of main malaria vectors in Hormozgan province and their susceptibility to different larvicides. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 35: 22–25. Vatandoost H, Borhani N (2004b) Suscep- tibility level and irritability of synthetic pyrethroids against main malaria vectors in the endemic areas of Iran. Acta Med Iran. 42: 247–255. Vatandoost H, Moinvaziri VM (2004c) Lar- vicidal activity of neem tree extract (Neemarin) against mosquito larvae in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Me- diterr Health J. 10: 573–578. Vatandoost H, Mashayekhi M, Abai MR, Aflatoonian MR, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Sharifi I (2005a) Monitoring of insecti- cides resistance in main malaria vectors in a malarious area of Kahnooj district, Kerman province, southeastern Iran. J Vector Borne Dis. 42: 100–108. Vatandoost H, Hanafi-Bojd AA (2005b) Current resistant status of Anopheles stephensi Liston to different larvicides in Hormozgan province, southeastern Iran. Pak J Biol Sci. 8: 1568–1570. Vatandoost H, Dehakia M, Djavadia E, Abai MR, Duchson S (2006a) Comparative study on the efficacy of lambdacyhalo- thrin and bifenthrin on torn nets against the malaria vector, Anopheles stephensi as assessed by tunnel test method. J Vector Borne Dis. 43: 133–135. Vatandoost H, Gholizadeh MR, Abai MR, Djavadian E (2006b) Laboratory efficacy of protection rate of torn nets treated with pyrethroids, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin and permethrin against Anopheles ste- phensi (Diptera: Culicidae). J Biol Sci. 6: 331–336. Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Abaie MR, Shahi M, Yaaghoobi F, Baghaii M, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Zamani G, Townson H (2006c) Bionomics of Anopheles stephensi Liston in the malarious area of Hormozgan province, southern Iran. Acta Trop. 97: 196–205. Vatandoost H, Khazani A, Rafinejad J, Khoobdel M, Kebriai-Zadeh A, Abai MR, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Akhavan AA, Abtahi SM, Rafi F (2008a) Compara- tive efficacy of Neem and dimethyl phthalate (DMP) against malaria vector, Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culici- dae). Asian Pacific J Trop Med. 1: 1–6. Vatandoost H, Hanafi-Bojd AA (2008b) Laboratory evaluation of 3 repellents against Anopheles stephensi in the Is- lamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 14: 260–267. Vatandoost H, Ramin E, Rassi Y, Abai MR (2009a) Stability and wash resistance of local made mosquito bednets and de- tergents treated with pyrethroids against Anopheles stephensi. Iran J Arthropod- Borne Dis. 3: 19–28. Vatandoost H, Ramin E, Rassi Y, Abai MR (2009b) Stability and wash resistance of local made mosquito bednets and de- tergents treated with pyrethroids against Anopheles stephensi. Iran J Arthropod- Borne Dis. 3: 19–28. Vatandoost H, Abai MR, Abbasi M, Shaeghi M, Abtahi M, Rafie F (2009c) Design- ing of a laboratory model for evaluation of the residual effects of deltamethrin (K-othrine WP 5%) on different surfaces against malaria vector, Anopheles ste- phensi (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Borne Dis. 46: 261–267. Vatandoost H, Zahirnia AH (2010) Respon- siveness of Anopheles maculipennis to different imagicides during resurgent ma- laria. Asian Pacific J Trop Med. 3:360-363. Iran J Arthropod-Borne Dis, 2011, 5(2): 10–22 M Tavassoli et al.: Repellency Effects of Essential … 22 Vatandoost H, Rashidian A, Jafari,M, Raeisi A, Hanafi-Bojd A, Yousofzai AW, Daryanavard A, Mojahedi A, Pakari A (2011) Demonstration of malaria situa- tion analysis, stratification and planning in Minab District, southern Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 4(1): 67–71. Yaghoobi-Ershadi MR, Akhavan AA, Ja- hanifard E (2006) Repellency effect of myrtle essential oil and DEET against Phlebotomus papatasi under laboratory conditions. Iran J Public Health. 35: 7–13. Zahirnia AH, Vatandoost H, Nateghpour M, Javadian E (1998) Insecticide resistance/ susceptibility monitoring in Anopheles pulcherrimus (Dipter: Culicidae) in Ghas- reghand district, Sistan and Baluchistan province. Hakim. 1: 97–106. Zahirnia AH, Taherkhani H, Vatandoost H (2001) Observation of malaria sporo- zoite in Anopheles culicifacies (Diptera: Culicidae) in Ghasreghand district, Sistan and Baluchistan province. Hakim. 4: 149–153. Zolfaghari ME, Salamian P, Riazi A, Khaksa G (1997) Clinical trial of Efficacy of myrtle in the treatment of herpes simplex. Iran J Med Sci. 22(3 and 4):137–140.