Assessment of health risks associated with using N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide-based repellents (DEET)

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2025-4-8.pdf
UDC: 
614.449.57
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2025.4.08.eng
Authors: 

A.I. Vinogradova1, S.V. Kuzmin1, P.Z. Shur2, Yu.A. Zakharova1, M.V. Bidevkina1, S.V. Redko2

Organization: 

1Federal Scientific Center for Hygiene named after F.F. Erisman, 2 Semashko Str., Mytishchi, 141014, Russian Federation
2Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, 82 Monastyrskaya Str., Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET, CAS No. 134-62-3) is one of the first effective synthetic active substances used to prevent bites from blood-sucking insects. According to the parameters of acute toxicity, DEET is classified as a moderately hazardous substance upon acute exposure. No sensitizing effect has been identified, and it has a moderate irritating effect on the skin. It has a pronounced irritating effect on the mucous membranes of the eyes and a skin-resorptive effect. The problem of effects produced by repellents on health is caused by their widespread use among adults and children to protect themselves from blood-sucking insects.

The aim of this study is to substantiate reference doses for repellents and, based on the obtained data, to assess the risk for human health associated with using DEET-based repellents.
Two repellents were studied; both were sprays containing 7.5 % DEET (for children) and 50 % DEET (for adults). The ex-periments were conducted on 120 non-pedigree white rats of different ages kept in the institute's vivarium. The study relied on using conventional methods for assessing toxicity and hazards of repellents and biochemical methods for analyzing blood serum.

We studied the skin-resorptive effect of repellents with different DEET content on the functional state of immature and mature rats. Inactive, threshold, and effective doses were determined for each product, and reference doses were calculated. Based on the findings, the hazard coefficients were calculated for various conditions of using repellents for adults and children.

The study established that the hazard quotient for health was 0.068 when using a repellent with 7.5 % DEET content in conformity with the user guidelines and this was considered a minimal risk level. When using a product with 50 % DEET content, the hazard coefficient is 0.186 and this refers to a permissible (acceptable) risk level.

Keywords: 
toxicity, health risk assessment, insect repellents, DEET, hazard quotient, white rats, flying blood-sucking insects, the level of risk, means of protection
Vinogradova A.I., Kuzmin S.V., Shur P.Z., Zakharova Yu.A., Bidevkina M.V., Redko S.V. Assessment of health risks associated with using N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide-based repellents (DEET). Health Risk Analysis, 2025, no. 4, pp. 79–88. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2025.4.08.eng
References: 
  1. Odintsova O.I., Lipina A.A. Perspektivnye preparaty dlya akaritsidno-repellentnoi otdelki tekstil'nykh materialov [Promising preparations for acaricide-repellent finishing of textile materials]. Ot khimii k tekhnologii shag za shagom, 2022, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 58–67. DOI: 10.52957/27821900_2022_01_58 (in Russian).
  2. Osimitz T.G., Murphy J.V., Fell L.A., Page B. Adverse events associated with the use of insect repellents containing N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 2010, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 93–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.09.004
  3. Chen-Hussey V., Behrens R., Logan J.G. Assessment of methods used to determine the safety of the topical insect repellent N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Parasit. Vectors, 2014, vol. 7, pp. 173. DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-173
  4. Fradin M.S. 6 – Insect protection. In book: Travel medicine, 4th ed., 2019, pp. 43–52. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-54696-6.00006-9
  5. Haleem Z.M., Yadav S., Cushion M.L., Tanner R.J., Carek P.J., Mainous A.G. Exposure to N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide insect repellent and human health markers: population based estimates from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 2020, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 812–814. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0226
  6. Feuser Z.P., Colonetti T., Grande A.J., Rodrigues Uggioni M.L., Roever L., da Rosa M.I. Efficacy of the DEET, IR3535, and picaridin topical use against Aedes Aegypti: Systematic review. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, 2020, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 327–341. DOI: 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000875
  7. Jiao X.-Y., C Wang.-S., Pan D., Liu P., Wang X.-R., Zhang C., Jin Y.-C., Hu J.-H. [et al.]. Unveiling the potential health risks induced by photolysis of insect repellents DEET under simulated sunlight. Water Cycle, 2025, vol. 6, pp. 206–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.watcyc.2024.12.005
  8. Nikiforov A.I., Osimitz T.G. Analysis and interpretation of pharmacokinetic studies following DEET administration to rats, dogs, and humans. Toxicology Research and Application, 2022, vol. 6, pp. 23978473221117230. DOI: 10.1177/23978473221117230
  9. Fediuk D.J., Wang T., Chen Y., Parkinson F.E., Namaka M.P., Simons K.J., Burczynski F.J., Guet X. Metabolic disposition of the insect repellent DEET and the sunscreen oxybenzone following intravenous and skin administration in rats. Int. J. Toxicol., 2012, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 467–476. DOI: 10.1177/1091581812459893
  10. Calafat A.M., Baker S.E., Wong L.-Y., Bishop A.M., Morales-A P., Valentin-Blasini L. Novel exposure biomarkers of N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET): Data from the 2007–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ. Int., 2016, vol. 92–93, pp. 398–404. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.021
  11. Wylie B.J., Hauptman M., Woolf A.D., Goldman R.H. Insect repellants during pregnancy in the era of the Zika virus. Obstet. Gynecol., 2016, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 1111–1115. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001685
  12. Barr D.B., Ananth C.V., Yan X., Lashley S., Smulian J.C., Ledoux T.A., Hore P., Robson M.G. Pesticide concentrations in maternal and umbilical cord sera and their relation to birth outcomes in a population of pregnant women and newborns in New Jersey. Sci. Total Environ., 2010, vol. 408, no. 4, pp. 790–795. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.007
  13. McGready R., Hamilton K.A., Simpson J.A., Cho T., Luxemburger C., Edwards R., Looa-reesuwan S., White N.J. [et al.]. Safety of the insect repellent N, N-diethyl-M-toluamide (DEET) in pregnancy. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 2001, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 285–289. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2001.65.285
  14. Diaz J.H. Chemical and plant-based insect repellents: efficacy, safety, and toxicity. Wilderness Environ. Med., 2016, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 153–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2015.11.007
  15. Gibson J.C., Marro L., Borghese M.M., Brandow D., Remedios L., Fisher M., Malowany M., Kieliszkiewicz K. [et al.]. Development of an observational exposure human biomonitoring study to assess Canadian children’s DEET exposure during protective use. PLoS One, 2022, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. e0268341. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.026834
  16. Germant O.M., Ushakova E.V., Akhmetshina M.B., Roslavtseva S.A. Repellenty v individual'noi zashchite lyudei ot krovososushchikh chlenistonogikh [Repellents for individual protection against blood-sucking arthropods]. Moscow, F.F. Erisman FSCH of Rospotebnadzor Publ., 2023, 144 p. (in Russian).
  17. Antwi F.B., Shama L.M., Peterson R.K.D. Risk assessments for the insect repellents DEET and picaridin. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 2008, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 31–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.03.002
  18. Almeida A.R., Oliveira N.D., Pinheiro F.A.S.D., de Morais W.A., De Santis Ferreira L. Challenges encountered by natural repellents: Since obtaining until the final product. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol., 2023, vol. 195, pp. 105538. DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2023.105538
  19. Sudakin D.L., Trevathan W.R. DEET: a review and update of safety and risk in the general population. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol., 2003, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 831–839. DOI: 10.1081/clt-120025348
  20. Ghali H., Albers S.E. An updated review on the safety of N,N‐diethyl‐meta‐toluamide insect repellent use in children and the efficacy of natural alternatives. Pediatr. Dermatol., 2024, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 403–409. DOI: 10.1111/pde.15531
Received: 
01.09.2025
Approved: 
10.10.2025
Accepted for publication: 
26.12.2025

You are here

Home