Study summary
Field Evaluation of the OFF! Clip-On Mosquito Repellent (Metofluthrin) Against Aedes albopictus and Aedes taeniorhynchus
Xue RD, Qualls WA, Smith ML, Gaines MK, Weaver JH, Debboun M
Read the original paper- Study type
- Field Trial
- Year
- 2012
- Published in
- Journal of Medical Entomology (2012), 49(3):652
- Evidence strength
- Well-supported evidence
Summary
This trial tested the OFF! Clip-On, a small battery-powered fan device that blows air across a metofluthrin-treated pad to build a repellent cloud around the wearer, in outdoor conditions in northeastern Florida. The researchers wanted to know how well a wearable emanator actually protects a person from bites in the field, so they compared biting rates on volunteers using the running device against unprotected controls. They looked at two mosquitoes: Aedes albopictus, the Asian tiger mosquito that is a common backyard biter, and Aedes taeniorhynchus, an aggressive coastal saltmarsh mosquito.
Key findings
The clip-on device gave about 70 percent protection against Aedes albopictus bites for more than three hours, and roughly 79 percent protection against the saltmarsh mosquito Aedes taeniorhynchus. That is meaningful relief, but it is important to read it plainly: at 70 percent protection, a person who would have taken 10 bites still takes around 3, so this is bite reduction rather than a bite-proof bubble. For a buyer, that maps well to real expectations for a personal wearable emanator in the open air, useful for taking the edge off, but not a substitute for skin repellent when mosquitoes are thick.
Limitations
The device creates a small personal zone that depends on its fan and on calm air, so wind and body movement can blow the protective cloud away and drop performance. The 70 to 79 percent figures are averages under the trial's conditions and against these particular Aedes species, and other mosquitoes or windier evenings could give lower numbers. Protection was characterized over a few hours, and the study measured landing and biting reduction rather than whether the device prevents disease transmission.