Evaluation of surface versus total permethrin content in permethrin-treated clothing: Implications for protection against mosquitoes

ABSTRACT

Permethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used to treat uniforms (e.g. military, foresters) and other clothing to protect people against pests (e.g., mosquitoes, ticks). Pests contacting the surface of permethrin-treated clothing (PTC) are repelled and/or killed, depending on the dose and duration of exposure. Hence, it is important to assess the amount of permethrin on the surface of clothing. Fabric swatches prepared using two commercially available permethrin treatments (Insect Shield® & Sawyer Repellant) and one laboratory created treatment (4g permethrin/L) were tested. A Martindale Abrasion and Pilling Tester (MAPT) and gas chromatography were used to assess surface permethrin content (SPC) and total permethrin content (TPC). Sawyer PTC had the highest SPC (mean ± standard error) (32.68±14.55µg/g), followed by Insect Shield® (23.35±2.71µg/g) and lab-created 4g/L permethrin (8.7±0.78µg/g). SPC (after 1000 rubs on MAPT) for Insect Shield®, Sawyer, and 4g/L permethrin groups was significantly lower than TPC (P=0.011, P<0.001, and P=0.001, respectively). The SPC/TPC relationship varied widely between permethrin treatment methods and practical implications for this are discussed. Mosquito repellency tests indicate that Insect Shield®, Sawyer, and lab-created (4g/L) permethrin-treated fabrics showed a significantly higher repellency rate than control (untreated) fabrics (P=0.001, P<0.0001, P<0.0001, respectively). While Insect Shield® had the highest repellency rate against susceptible (53%) and exposed (48%) mosquitoes, differences between groups were not significant. Repellency rates indicate SPC plus other factors (e.g. treatment method) may contribute to mosquito repellency and should be considered in risk assessments for protection against pests.

KEYWORDS:

• Permethrin-treated clothing
• mosquito
• occupational health

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by ECU who provided a graduate assistantship to A. Vang. We are thankful for the feedback from two anonymous reviewers that improved the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.