152 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE a human or nonhuman mammal (e.g., horses, cows, dogs, or cats), or clothing. Diluted versions on skin, per se, are expected to have lower repellency than the undiluted lotion. A long-term goal of our formulation development efforts reaches beyond merely protection from the nuisance of biting insects or other pests. The authors desire to demonstrate that once or twice daily applications of the sustained-release IR3535 lotion can prevent the symptoms of vector-borne diseases. The symptoms will be those common to specific and endemic vector-borne diseases (cutaneous erythema, inflammation, skin irritation, fever, headaches, etc.). Diagnostic tests might include immunologic or microscopic tests for pathogens within the blood, or RNA or DNA of the pathogen within the blood. The reduction in symptoms is anticipated within weeks or months of commencing daily topical applications of the repellent. This benefit is expected to last for the duration of the course of protection from biting insects or noninsect arthropod pests. At present, clinical prophylactic studies are in the planning stages. Consideration is being given to studies of vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, Lyme disease (borreliosis), leishmaniasis, Chagas disease (trypanosomiasis), Zika fever, equine encephalitis, and yellow fever. Current unanswered questions include whether the daily application of the sustained-release formulation (versions 2.0 or 2.55) can reduce the number of patients experiencing clinical symptoms of an endemic insect-borne disease. Meanwhile, can the daily application of the formulations impact quality of life, such as sleep or productivity at work? Can the preventative formulations be demonstrated as superior to standard-of-care topical repellent products containing a commercial DEET or IR3535 formulation? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the encouragement, comments, and efforts of Hogan Bassey and John Manwell. LivFul Inc. was responsible for funding, and no research grants were utilized. E.C.T., E.B., and T.P.D. are employees of LivFul Inc. T.P.D. and T.S. are shareholders in LivFul Inc. The encapsulation technology and repellent formulations described herein are subject to issued and pending patents (e.g., US patent 8,039,015) and trademarks. T.S. conceived of and formulated the initial unbuffered prototype repellent lotion. T.P.D., E.C.T., and E.B. conceived of and formulated the subsequent versions of the lotions, primarily to improve chemical stability. E.C.T. and E.B. conducted the formulation development and stability experiments. T.P.D. was the principal author responsible for preparing the manuscript. All coauthors approved the final version. REFERENCES (1) G.B. Kasting, V.D. Bhatt, and T.J. Speaker, Microencapsulation decreases the skin absorption of N,N- diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET), Toxicol. In Vitro, 22(2), 548–552 (2008). (2) J.I. Karr, T.J. Speaker, and G.B. Kasting, A novel encapsulation of N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) favorably modifies skin absorption while maintaining effective evaporation rates, J. Control Release, 160(3), 502–508 (2012). (3) M.R. Gomes Fernandes, L.C. Lopes, R.S. Iwami, M. Del Grossi Paglia, B. Mateus de Castilho, A. Maicon de Oliveira, I. Fulone, R.S. Leite, and C. de Cássia Bergamaschi, Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: a systematic review, Travel Med. Infect. Dis., 44, 102179 (2021).

153 MICROENCAPSULATED INSECT REPELLENT (4) D.R. Barnard, U.R. Bernier, K.H. Posey, and R.D. Xue, Repellency of IR3535, KBR3023, para- menthane-3,8-diol, and deet to black salt marsh mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Everglades National Park, J. Med. Entomol., 39(6), 895–899 (2002). (5) J.E. Cilek, J.L. Petersen, and C.E. Hallmon, Comparative efficacy of IR3535 and deet as repellents against adult Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., 20(3), 299 –304 (2004). (6) U. Thavara, A. Tawatsin, J. Chompoosri, W. Suwonkerd, U.R. Chansang, and P. Asavadachanukorn, Laboratory and field evaluations of the insect repellent 3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate) and deet against mosquito vectors in Thailand, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., 17(3), 190–195 (2001). (7) S.P. Frances, D.O. MacKenzie, K.L. Rowcliffe, and S.K. Corcoran, Comparative field evaluation of repellent formulations containing deet and IR3535 against mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., 25(4), 511–513 (2009). (8) S. Licciardi, J.P. Herve, F. Darriet, J.M. Hougard, and V. Corbel, Lethal and behavioural effects of three synthetic repellents (DEET, IR3535 and KBR 3023) on Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in laboratory assays, Med. Vet. Entomol., 20(3), 288–293 (2006). (9) S.K. Nakayama, R. Graf, A.M. Bohlmann, J. Zurlage, H. Epstein, M. Ranzani, and F. Pflüecker, Influence of sex ratio and density on the comparative repellency of IR3535® against caged Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes, J. Cosmetic Sci., 70(4), 197–207 (2019). (10) C. Costantini, A. Badolo, and E. Ilboudo-Sanogo, Field evaluation of the efficacy and persistence of insect repellents DEET, IR3535, and KBR 3023 against Anopheles gambiae complex and other Afrotropical vector mosquitoes, Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg., 98(11), 644–652 (2004). (11) M.M.N. Reynoso, E.A. Seccacini, J.A. Calcagno, E.N. Zerba, and R.A. Alzogaray, Toxicity, repellency and flushing out in Triatoma infestans (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) exposed to the repellents DEET and IR3535, Peer J, 5, e3292 (2017). (12) R.A. Alzogaray, Behavioral and toxicological responses of Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) to the insect repellents DEET and IR3535, J. Med. Entomol., 53(2), 387–393 (2016). (13) J.F. Carroll, J.P. Benante, M. Kramer, K.H. Lohmeyer, and K. Lawrence, Formulations of deet, picaridin, and IR3535 applied to skin repel nymphs of the lone star tick (Acari: Ixodidae) for 12 hours, J. Med. Entomol., 47(4), 699–704 (2010). (14) T.J. Naucke, S. Lorentz, and H.W. Grünewald, Laboratory testing of the insect repellents IR3535 and DEET against Phlebotomus mascittii and P. duboscqi (Diptera: Psychodidae), Int. J. Med. Microbiol., 296 Suppl 40, 230–232 (2006). (15) E.N.I. Weeks, G. Wasserberg, J.L. Logan, J. Agneessens, S.A. Stewart, and S. Dewhirst, Efficacy of the insect repellent IR3535 on the sand fly Phlebotomus papatasi in human volunteers, J. Vector Ecol., 44(2), 290–292 (2019). (16) Manual on development and use of FAO and WHO specifications for pesticides, First Edition – third revision, World Health Organization, (2016). (17) K. Rossington, The Science of Chlorine-Based Disinfectant 2014, accessed June 23, 2022, https://www. manufacturingchemist.com/news/article_page/The_science_of_chlorine-based_disinfectant/103112. (18) S. Tienungoon, P. Pinnil, K.-O. Kreelieng, and S. Onket, Quantitative bactericidal efficacy of alcohol- based handrub in Thailand using modified EN 1276: 2009 method, Bulletin Dept. Med. Sciences (Thailand), 61(2), 60–72 (2019). (19) A. Şahiner, E. Halat, and E.A. Yapar, Comparison of bactericidal and fungicidal efficacy of antiseptic formulations according to EN 13727 and EN 13624 standards, Turk. J. Med. Sci., 49(5), 1564–1567 (2019). (20) S. Messager, K.A. Hammer, C.F. Carson, and T.V. Riley, Assessment of the antibacterial activity of tea tree oil using the European EN 1276 and EN 12054 standard suspension tests, J. Hosp. Infect., 59(2), 113–125 (2005). (21) Z. Iyigundogdu, S. Kalayci, A.B. Asutay, and F. Sahin, Determination of antimicrobial and antiviral properties of IR3535, Mol. Biol. Rep., 46(2), 1819–1824 (2019). (22) S.P. Carroll, Prolonged efficacy of IR3535 repellents against mosquitos and blacklegged ticks in North America, J. Med. Entomol., 45(4), 706–714 (2008).