Molecular Biology Reports

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 1819–1824 | Cite as

Determination of antimicrobial and antiviral properties of IR3535

  • Zeynep IyigundogduEmail author
  • Sadik Kalayci
  • Ayla Burcin Asutay
  • Fikrettin Sahin
Original Article


Insect repellent is a substance directly applied to skin or clothing in order to repel flies, mosquitoes, ticks etc. IR3535 or Ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate (EBAAP) is a relatively new repellent which is classified as a biopesticide due to exceptional skin tolerance and overall safety. The repellency against various insect and ticks, and the low toxicity of IR3535 are well acknowledged. However, there has been no attempt to investigate the effects on microorganisms or viruses up to now. In the present study, antimicrobial activity was investigated based on disc diffusion and micro-well dilution assays. Disc diffusion assays revealed IR3535 displayed remarkable antimicrobial activity on the microorganisms tested. MIC results showed that the antifungal efficiency of IR3535 is higher with respect to its antibacterial and anticandidal efficiency. Moreover, antiviral test results revealed that IR3535 showed antiviral effects against Poliovirus and Adenovirus. This is the first study that reveals IR3535’s antimicrobial and antiviral properties against a broad range of microorganisms and viruses. In consideration of the antimicrobial and antiviral properties, IR3535 is a promising agent that could be used to develop novel therapeutic approaches, new application areas and formulations in the future.


IR3535 Ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate EBAAP Repellent Antimicrobial Antiviral 



The authors thank Yeditepe University for supporting this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Tolle MA (2009) Mosquito-borne diseases. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 39(4):97–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naucke TJ, Lorentz S, Grünewald H-W (2006) Laboratory testing of the insect repellents IR3535® and DEET against Phlebotomus mascittii and P. duboscqi (Diptera: Psychodidae). Int J Med Microbiol 296:230–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bissinger BW, Roe RM (2010) Tick repellents: past, present, and future. Pestic Biochem Physiol 96(2):63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strickman D (2006) Older synthetic active ingredients and current additives. In: Insect repellents: principles, methods, and usesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandstrom MW, Kolpin DW, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD (2005) Widespread detection of N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide in US Streams: Comparison with concentrations of pesticides, personal care products, and other organic wastewater compounds. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(5):1029–1034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frances SP, Debboun M, Debboun M, Frances S, Strickman D (2007) User acceptability: public perceptions of insect repellents. In: Insect repellents: principles, methods, and uses, pp 397–404Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katz TM, Miller JH, Hebert AA (2008) Insect repellents: historical perspectives and new developments. J Am Acad Dermatol 58(5):865–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown M, Hebert AA (1997) Insect repellents: an overview. J Am Acad Dermatol 36(2):243–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puccetti G, Debboun M, Frances S, Strickman D (2006) IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate). In: Insect repellents: principles, methods, and usesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carroll SP (2008) Prolonged efficacy of IR3535 repellents against mosquitoes and blacklegged ticks in North America. J Med Entomol 45(4):706–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nentwig G (2003) Use of repellents as prophylactic agents. Parasitol Res 90(1):S40–S48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D (2006) Insect repellents: principles, methods, and uses. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Elert E, Preuss K, Fink P (2016) Infodisruption of inducible anti-predator defenses through commercial insect repellents? Environ Pollut 210:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalaycı S, Demirci S, Sahin F (2014) Determination of antimicrobial properties of Picaridin and DEET against a broad range of microorganisms. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 30(2):407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wayne P (2007) Clinical and laboratory standards institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testingGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 11(7):714–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Livermore DM (2002) Multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: our worst nightmare? Clin Infect Dis 34(5):634–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benz R, Hancock RE (1981) Properties of the large ion-permeable pores formed from protein F of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in lipid bilayer membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) 646(2):298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poole K (2001) Multidrug efflux pumps and antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and related organisms. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 3(2):255–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epstein HA (2012) Repelling insects with safe and effective alternatives to DEET. Skinmed 10(1):36–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park SJ, Kim JE, Park MJ, Lee IS, Lee J, Lee J, Kim BH, Lee DK, Lee SP (2012) Repellent efficacy and safety evaluation of IR3535 derivative against Aedes albopictus, Culex pipiens pallens and Aedes togoi. Entomol Res 42(6):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naucke T, Kröpke R, Benner G, Schulz J, Wittern K, Rose A, Kröckel U, Grünewald H (2007) Field evaluation of the efficacy of proprietary repellent formulations with IR3535® and Picaridin against Aedes aegypti. Parasitol Res 101(1):169–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Staub D, Debrunner M, Amsler L, Steffen R (2002) Effectiveness of a repellent containing DEET and EBAAP for preventing tick bites. Wilderness Environ Med 13(1):12–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faulde MK, Albiez G, Nehring O (2010) Insecticidal, acaricidal and repellent effects of DEET-and IR3535-impregnated bed nets using a novel long-lasting polymer-coating technique. Parasitol Res 106(4):957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioengineering, Faculty of EngineeringAdana Science and Technology UniversitySaricam, AdanaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Genetics and Bioengineering, Faculty of EngineeringYeditepe UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations