Novel Arthropod Repellent, BioUD, Is an Efficacious Alternative to Deet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For >50 yr, N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet) has been the standard for arthropod repellents and has been an important tool to protect people from disease agents carried by ticks, mosquitoes, and other arthropods. However, some people avoid using deet because of concerns about adverse health effects. In 2007, a new repellent, BioUD, with the active ingredient 7.75% 2-undecanone, originally derived from wild tomato (Lycopersicon hirsutum Dunal f. glabratum C. H. Müll) plants, was registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the current study, repellent efficacy of BioUD was compared using arm-in-cage studies with 7 and 15% deet against the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes albopictus Skuse. No differences were found in mean repellency over 6 h after application between BioUD versus 7 and 15% deet for Ae albopictus. For Ae. aegypti, no differences were found over the same time period for 7% deet. Compared with 15% deet, BioUD mean repellency was lower over the 6-h test period. Human subject field trials were conducted in North Carolina, United States, and Ontario, Canada, comparing the repellency of BioUD to products containing 25 and 30% deet. BioUD provided the same repellency or was more efficacious than 25 and 30% deet, respectively, in these studies. Laboratory trials were conducted to determine the repellent activity of BioUD against the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say), on human skin and cloth. BioUD repelled ticks at least 2.5 h after application to human skin. On cloth, no differences in mean repellency were found through 8 d after application between BioUD and 7% deet. In a two-choice test for BioUD versus 15% deet on filter paper, ticks spent significantly more time on the deet-treated surface than the BioUD-treated surface. Based on these studies in toto, BioUD is an efficacious alternative to deet in its repellent activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".