Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287616

Comparative efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicides in Thailand and 4% dimeticone against head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis

Manachai Yingklang 1, Chadaporn Nuchjangreed Gordon 2, Patchana Hengboriboonpong Jaidee 1, Phonpilas Thongpon 3, Somchai Pinlaor 3,*
Editor: Joshua Kamani4
PMCID: PMC10289457  PMID: 37352268

Abstract

Head louse infestations remain a global public-health concern due to increased resistance of lice to artificial pediculicides. In Thailand, there is a lack of comparative data on the current efficacy of pediculicides for treating head lice. In this study, we explored the status of botanical and toxic synthetic pediculicides with that of 4% dimeticone liquid gel for treating head lice in Thailand. The ex-vivo pediculicidal activity of various pediculicidal shampoos available at drugstores in Thailand was assessed and compared with that of 4% dimeticone liquid gel. The shampoos chosen were based on active ingredients toxic to lice (1% permethrin, 0.6% carbaryl, 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, or mixed plant extracts), whereas dimeticone acts physically on lice. We found that exposure to 4% dimeticone liquid gel following the manufacturer’s instructions completely killed 100% of head lice in 15 min, whereas other pediculicide products failed to kill the great majority of head lice, whether treatment was for 10 min (resulting in 0% to 50.0% mortality) or 30 min (resulting in 17.0% to 60.0% mortality). We also extended a clinical assessment to confirm the efficacy of 1% permethrin for treating head lice in infested schoolchildren. In this clinical assessment, none of the 26 children treated with 1% permethrin shampoo achieved a cure after two applications. These results highlight that 4% dimeticone demonstrated a higher ex-vivo pediculicidal efficacy compared to both chemical and botanical pediculicides in Thailand. Conversely, 1% permethrin showed low efficacy in both laboratory and clinical assessments. Given its physical mode of action, 4% dimeticone merits consideration as an alternative treatment option for lice in Thailand, particularly in cases where treatment with toxic pediculicides has proven ineffective.

Introduction

The human louse (Pediculus humanus) is an ectoparasite that feeds on blood and includes two medically important ecotypes: Pediculus humanus humanus Linnaeus, the body louse and Pediculus humanus capitis De Geer, the head louse [1]. Although these lice share physical similarities, they differ ecologically. The head louse is limited to the scalp and feeds more frequently while the body louse dwells in clothes and feeds on human blood about five times a day [2]. Understanding of genetic diversity and its distribution in lice is largely now based on studies of molecular sequences [35]. The human louse found in Thailand is the head louse: Pediculus humanus capitis [6, 7], while body louse has never been reported.

Infestation with head lice is generally found in schoolchildren, especially those 3–12 years of age [8, 9]. The prevalence of head louse infestation varies from 15.1% to 86.1% in Thailand [10, 11]. Direct head-to-head contact with infested people is the main means of spread. Transmission is also possible via shared personal items (hairbrushes, clothing, hats, towels, and combs) [8]. Pruritus, induced by saliva of lice, is the most common symptom and scaling of the scalp is a severe consequence associated with chronic lesions. Unlike the body louse, dangerous pathogens (especially Rickettsia prowazekii, Bartonella quintana, and Borrelia recurrentis) can be found in head lice but it is unclear whether the lice can transmit these to humans [12].

Several methods are widely used to control head louse infestations. These include neurotoxic chemical pediculicides (e.g., permethrin, malathion, benzene hexachloride, carbaryl, malathion, and ivermectin), occlusive agents (e.g., benzyl alcohol, isopropyl myristate and dimeticone), and manual removal methods (louse-combing) [13, 14]. Toxic chemical pediculicides are the mainstay of therapy but can have various adverse effects on humans and often fail to kill all lice, especially the egg stage. Head lice have also developed resistance to such pediculicides in many countries [1518]. To combat resistant lice, it is essential to explore treatment options utilizing medications from different classes [19]. One potential alternative is the use of physically acting agents, with dimeticone being a prominent option, particularly in regions with a high resistance rate [20]. It has been suggested that dimeticone is superior to or equally effective as neurotoxic pediculicides [21].

Dimeticone is a silicone-based polymer or polydimethylsiloxane that kills lice by blocking physical exchange of fluid and gasses between the louse and the environment [22]. It has been widely used to control head lice in European countries and has been shown, both experimentally and clinically, to be highly effective [2328]. Those studies include 4–100% concentrations of dimethicone based on different modes of use such as shampoo, lotion, and liquid gel.

In Thailand, there have been no reports on the efficacy of dimeticone for treatment of head lice. Neurotoxic chemical pediculicides (permethrin shampoo (0.75% and 1% w/w), carbaryl shampoo (0.6% w/w), or 25% benzyl benzoate lotion) are available in pharmacies. Chemical pediculicides, especially 1% permethrin and 0.6% carbaryl, are used most frequently. Permethrin is a member of the pyrethroid family that disrupts the sodium-channel function of insects, and carbaryl belongs to a group of carbamate insecticides that inhibit acetylcholinesterase, leading to spastic paralysis and death [29]. Pediculicidal products containing medicinal plants (Stemona root crude extract, and/or Annona squamosa mixed plant extract) are also available in pharmacies and local markets: their mechanism of action against head lice is not understood.

Resistance of lice to pyrethroids has also been reported in Thailand [30] but information about the extent of this resistance needs to be updated. This is necessary to ensure the sustained effectiveness of those pediculicide treatments that are successful in controlling infestation [31]. Utilizing ex-vivo studies is an initial step in determining the necessary conditions to kill lice, enabling the assessment of efficacy and prediction of treatment failure or resistance before conducting any clinical trials.

Here, we conducted an ex-vivo bioassay aimed to investigate the pediculicidal efficacy of neurotoxic chemical pediculicides (1% permethrin and 0.6% carbaryl) and botanical pediculicide shampoos (containing 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, or mixed plant extracts) available in drugstores in Thailand compared with the physically acting 4% dimeticone liquid gel (Hedrin) (not commercially available in Thailand). The pediculicidal exposure times we used to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for each product and was increased to 30 min in one set of experiments. We also extended a clinical investigation to confirm the efficacy of 1% permethrin shampoo before and after treating head lice infestation in schoolchildren.

Materials and methods

Human ethical statement

This protocol was approved by the human ethics committees from Khon Kaen University, Thailand (HE621476) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Participants were recruited to the study between July and October 2022. Before head louse sample collection and pediculicidal treatment, signed, written and informed consent forms were provided by parents/guardians of schoolchildren after verbal description of the objectives and the method of the research. Participation was entirely voluntary. No photographs or identifying information of the participants are found in the paper. The data were analyzed anonymously. At the end of this study, children who still had head lice infestations were treated with appropriated products (permethrin and/or carbaryl).

Pediculicides used and head louse sample collection

Four commercial pediculicide products, each with different bioactive components, were purchased from a drugstore in Chonburi Province, Thailand. Dimeticone 4% liquid gel (Hedrin Once) was purchased from the Thornton & Ross Ltd, Huddersfield, UK. The bioactive ingredients, mode of use, and recommended lengths of application for each product are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Pediculicides used in this study.

Commercial products Active ingredients Mode of use Recommended length of exposure
A 1% permethrina Shampoo 10 min
B 0.6% carbaryla Shampoo 5–10 min
C Mixed plant extractsa (Azadirachta indica Leaf extract, Sapindus rarak fruit extract, and Annona squamosa extract)a Shampoo 10 min
D 0.15% Stemona root crude extracta Shampoo 10 min
E 4% dimeticone (Hedrin)b Liquid gel 15 min

a Commercial product available in drugstores in Thailand

b Product not commercially available in Thailand

In total, 109 girl schoolchildren (7–12 years of age) from one public primary school in an urban area in Chonburi Province were examined for head lice infestation by trained staff using a fine-tooth comb (with teeth spaced 0.3 mm apart and 10.7 mm in length) and a magnifying glass. Twenty-six (26/109, 23.85%) individuals were found to be infested (presence of motile lice and/or viable eggs). This school had not previously taken part in any head louse prevention projects. Children also had not received any pediculicide treatment at home in the past three months. To collect head lice, a fine-tooth comb was passed through the hair of the volunteers from the scalp to the ends of the hair. Live lice were combed onto a sheet of white paper and transferred to a small plastic box. All head louse samples were kept in plastic containers and transported within 30 min to the laboratory, Faculty of Public Health, Burapha University, for experimental testing. The total time elapsing between head lice sample collection and laboratory work was 2 hr.

Pediculicidal bioassay

A topical bioassay was used to evaluate the pediculicidal efficacy of each head louse treatment. Before testing, each louse was examined for morphological integrity (complete organs and active movement) under a light stereomicroscope. Ten head lice (adults), both males and females, were used in each experimental treatment. A total of 2 ml of each pediculicide tested was spread over the body of lice on filter paper (Whatman No. 1; 9-cm diameter). Batches of head lice were exposed to each solution for 10 or 15 min (as recommended by the manufacturer) or 30 min under 29–30 °C; 69% relative humidity. Distilled water was used as a negative control and 1% permethrin shampoo was used as a reference control. At the end of the exposure time, the lice were transferred to another petri dish (90 × 15 mm) and rinsed with distilled water for 2–3 min then transferred to dry filter paper. In the group treated with 4% dimeticone, the lice were rinsed with diluted normal shampoo (not a pediculicide) before washing with distilled water for 2–3 min. Following that, treated lice were observed under a light stereomicroscope and mortality was calculated at intervals up to 8 hr after the end of the exposure period. This observation time was based on the findings of previous workers [24, 32, 33]. The criteria of mortality or no vital sign included that they did not show movement of any appendage (antennae and legs) or internal organ (gut) at the end of the observation time [24, 34]. All experiments were done in triplicate.

Treatment of head louse infestation in schoolchildren

To explore the efficacy of 1% permethrin shampoo to kill head lice in a clinical assessment, the 26 infested individuals were re-examined two weeks after the initial head louse collection. The severity of the infestation was determined using a fine-tooth comb (for crawling stage) and a magnifying glass (for egg stage) and scored as mild (one to five lice found after 5–6 strokes of the comb or one to five live lice eggs), moderate (six to ten lice after 5–6 strokes) or severe (more than ten lice after 5–6 strokes of the comb or more than ten live lice eggs) [35]. Infested individuals with hair length reaching close to the shoulders were then treated with 15 ml of 1% permethrin shampoo. Those with shorter hair were treated with 10 ml of assigned shampoo. Following administration of the shampoo by trained staff, all treated individuals were required to wear a shower cap for 10 min. In this study, 1% permethrin shampoo was chosen because it is generally thought to be safer than other chemical pediculicides. It is also registered as a pediculicidal drug for control of head lice under the food and drug administration of Thailand. At the end of the application time, the heads of treated individuals were washed with tap water without being combed. Any common side effects (irritation, burning skin, swelling, and red eyes) resulting from the pediculicide product use were immediately evaluated by a nurse. Treatment of head lice was done in two applications; the first treatment was applied on day 0 and the second on day 7. After the first round of treatment, head louse infestation was assessed on day 1 (comb 5–6 strokes) and on day 7. The second treatment on day 7 was immediately after the assessment of persisting infestation. The percentage of cure was calculated by checking the hair and scalp using a fine-tooth comb one week later (day 14) and continuing to the next week (day 21) to confirm the efficacy of lice clearance and no hatched lice. Treatment failure was defined when crawling lice were found on day 1 or day 7 after the first-round treatment and also found on day 14 after the second-round treatment [36].

Statistical analysis

The mortality of head lice after exposure to neurotoxic chemical pediculicides (1% permethrin and 0.6% carbaryl), botanical pediculicide shampoos (containing 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, or mixed plant extracts), and 4% dimeticone liquid gel in ex-vivo testing and the cure rates from the clinical intervention were explored using descriptive statistics (percentage, mean ±SE). Relative efficacy of the experimental treatments was analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests as implemented in the STATA package version 10.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, United States). Any p-value less than 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

Results

Ex-vivo pediculicidal testing

In the 4% dimeticone liquid gel treatment group when using the same application time with shampoo products in Thailand, 96.7% of lice were dead following a 10-min application. Mortality increased to 100% after exposure for 15 min (the manufacturer’s instructions time of dimeticone product) (Fig 1 & S1 File). This was statistically significantly different from the positive control group (1% permethrin) (p < 0.05), in which no lice died. In the group treated with 0.6% carbaryl shampoo, 50% of lice were dead following the recommended application time of 10 min. In addition to 1% permethrin, low efficacy was observed for 0.15% Stemona root crude extract and mixed plant extract shampoos, as well as for distilled water (negative control). Efficacy of these treatments remained low at both 30 min and 8 hr after a 30 min exposure: for 0.6% carbaryl, 1% permethrin, 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, and mixed plant extract shampoo treatments, efficacy was 60.0%, 43.3%, 20.0%, and 17.0%, respectively (Fig 2 & S1 File).

Fig 1. Percentage mortality of head lice and mean number of deaths recorded at 30 min and 8 hr after the end of a 10 or 15 min exposure to each solution based on the topical test.

Fig 1

a) Percentage mortality of head lice recorded at 30 min and (b) 8 hr after the end of an exposure. c) Mean number of deaths recorded at 30 min and (d) 8 hr after the end of an exposure to each solution. Group 1 = exposure to distilled water; 2 = 1% permethrin; 3 = 0.6% carbaryl; 4 = Mixed plant extracts; 5 = 0.15% Stemona root crude extract; 6 = 4% dimeticone (10 min); 7 = 4% dimeticone (15 min). NS = not significant; * = p <0.01; ** = p <0.001 based on Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s test (compared mean number of lice with reference control group: 1% permethrin). The experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 10 each group).

Fig 2. Percentage mortality of head lice and mean number of deaths recorded 30 min and 8 hr after the end of a 30 min exposure to each solution based on the topical test.

Fig 2

a) Percentage mortality of head lice recorded at 30 min and (b) 8 hr after the end of an exposure. c) Mean number of deaths recorded at 30 min and (d) 8 hr after the end of an exposure to each solution. Group 1 = exposure to distilled water; 2 = 1% permethrin; 3 = 0.6% carbaryl; 4 = Mixed plant extracts; 5 = 0.15% Stemona root crude extract; 6 = 4% dimeticone. NS = not significant; * = p <0.01; ** = p <0.001 based on Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s test (compared mean number of lice with reference control group: 1% permethrin). The experiments were conducted in triplicate (n = 10 each group).

Treatment of head louse infestation in schoolchildren

Twenty-six schoolchildren (26/109, 23.85%) were infested with head lice and received two applications of 1% permethrin-based shampoo (on day 0 and day 7). Four of the children had mild infestations, thirteen had moderate infestations and nine had severe infestations. Head lice (adult and/or nymph) were still present on the first and seven days after the first round of treatment, indicating a low efficacy to kill at the crawling lice stage. On assessment days 14 and 21, all participants were still infested with head lice (presence of motile lice), despite a second treatment on day 7 (S2 File). There were no common side effects (irritation, burning skin, swelling, and red eyes) observed that could be associated with the use of 1% permethrin shampoo.

Discussion

In this study, we explored the current efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicide products in Thailand compared with 4% dimeticone liquid gel for treating head lice using an ex-vivo bioassay. After the recommended application time, dimeticone 4% killed all head lice (100% mortality). Treatment of head lice with 0.6% carbaryl shampoo for 10 min killed only 50.0% of them, while other pediculicide products (1% permethrin, 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, and mixed plant extract shampoos) failed to kill most head lice despite their correct use. Almost all lice used in the experimental treatments (other than the dimeticone treatment) recovered after treatment and were still moving and walking 8 hr later, indicating low efficacy and/or resistance to the tested products.

It is generally assumed that an artificial pediculicide delivered in a shampoo can be used for a short time on wet hair (5–10 min) to kill crawling louse stages [37]. However, our results indicated that treating head lice with shampoos for the recommended length of time failed to kill most of them. Interestingly, when exposure time was increased to 30 min, the mortality of head lice also increased, but did not result in 100% mortality in any treatment. A long treatment period carries the risk of adverse effects. Unlike compounds with low neurotoxicity (e.g., dimeticone), carbaryl is a synthetic carbamate insecticide [29]. This chemical can have adverse effects on human skin [38]. For long-term use in schoolchildren, the safety and efficacy of this pediculicide should be considered.

In this study, we also extended the intervention pre-post assessments to confirm the efficacy of 1% permethrin for treating head lice infesting schoolchildren. This clinical assessment was done to avoid the limitations of the ex-vivo study. To be effective in the control of head lice, two treatments with pediculicides are needed, a week apart [14]. Our results indicated that 26 infested schoolchildren still had living adults and nymphs on their scalps after both the first and second applications of permethrin. This result was supported by the ex-vivo bioassay; 1% permethrin failed to kill any head lice after 10 and 30 min exposures. If some crawling lice survive treatment, the infestation will become re-established [19]. In this study, we did not find any side effects (skin irritation, burning skin, swelling, and red eyes) that could be associated with the use of 1% permethrin shampoo. This could be due to the administration of the shampoo by trained, knowledgeable personnel. However, our study cannot guarantee that using 1% permethrin pesticide is safe because of the small number of children tested. Side effects from pediculicide may be discovered with a larger number of tested. We recommend that children’s head lice be treated by their parents, who should be advised to follow the manufacturer’s instructions carefully. It is also advisable to seek medical advice before using any treatment options, especially for children under two years of age or those with allergies or skin sensitivities.

A limitation of this study is the small sample size of head lice used for the experimental study. In Thailand, several cosmetic or homemade shampoo products containing different local plants or herbs are also claimed to be useful for treatment of pediculosis and are available as over-the-counter preparations. We did not test all of these because of the advised requirement for daily administration. Nor did we test the topical 25% benzyl benzoate lotion in the ex-vivo bioassay because of its different mode of use and the requirement for an exposure time of 12 to 24 hr. In the clinical assessment, we did not examine head lice in boys, despite their typically short hair, often in the form of an army-style crew cut, and the prevalence of infestation in Thailand has been reported with zero or very low, depending on the specific residential area [10, 11]. However, boys can harbor head lice and transmit them to their classmates. Furthermore, our study did not include family members of infested children or children from different schools within the same community, thereby limiting our examination of head louse infestations. It is important to consider that these factors may potentially contribute to the risk of reinfestation, which cannot be solely attributed to permethrin resistance. Future studies should control these potential risks of reinfestation. In the future, larger samples of head lice should be used, and the efficacy of several additional pediculicide products, particularly those containing herbal components and with different modes of use, should be assessed for the treatment of head louse infestations in schoolchildren.

In this study, we emphasize that the pediculicides commonly sold and authorized by health authorities have demonstrated ineffectiveness in efficiently eliminating lice. This finding helps explain the low ex-vivo efficacy and the high rate of infestation among schoolchildren, which has reached 23.85%. In the meantime, use of 4% dimeticone liquid gel is to be encouraged in Thailand. This agent is not neurotoxic and its physical mode of action on head lice means that it can be effective against head lice whether they are resistant or susceptible to other preparations.

Conclusion

The present study provides evidence that the chemical and botanical commercial pediculicides commonly used in Thailand, including 1% permethrin, 0.6% carbaryl, 0.15% Stemona root crude extract, and mixed plant extracts, do not effectively eliminate all lice. This lack of efficacy can be attributed to their low ex-vivo efficacy. Specifically, permethrin 1% exhibited limited pediculicidal efficacy in both laboratory and clinical assessments. Dimeticone 4% liquid gel was more effective at killing head lice than other products when used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Therefore, it is advisable for health authorities to promptly introduce dimethicone-based products in the country.

Supporting information

S1 File. Percentage mortality of head lice and mean number of deaths recorded at 30 min and 8 hr after the end of an exposure to each solution based on the topical test.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Efficacy and safety of 1% permethrin shampoo for treating head lice infestation in children.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all students who voluntarily participated in school. We would like to acknowledge Prof. David Blair from Publication Clinic KKU, Thailand, for his comments and editing the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was granted by Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand to SP. (Grant number RU65201). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Light JE, Toups MA, Reed DL. What’s in a name: the taxonomic status of human head and body lice. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008;47(3):1203–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bonilla DL, Durden LA, Eremeeva ME, Dasch GA. The biology and taxonomy of head and body lice—implications for louse-borne disease prevention. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(11):e1003724. Epub 2013/11/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boumbanda Koyo CS, Amanzougaghene N, Davoust B, Tshilolo L, Lekana-Douki JB, Raoult D, et al. Genetic diversity of human head lice and molecular detection of associated bacterial pathogens in Democratic Republic of Congo. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):290. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3540-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boutellis A, Abi-Rached L, Raoult D. The origin and distribution of human lice in the world. Infect Genet Evol. 2014;23:209–17. Epub 2014/02/15. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Amanzougaghene N, Mediannikov O, Ly TDA, Gautret P, Davoust B, Fenollar F, et al. Molecular investigation and genetic diversity of Pediculus and Pthirus lice in France. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):177. Epub 2020/04/09. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04036-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 6.Yingklang M, Banjong D, Haonon O, Intuyod K, Dangtakot R, Thongpon P, et al. Phylogeography and demographic history of Thai Pediculus humanus capitis (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Infect Genet Evol. 2021:104825. Epub 2021/03/30. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sunantaraporn S, Sanprasert V, Pengsakul T, Phumee A, Boonserm R, Tawatsin A, et al. Molecular survey of the head louse Pediculus humanus capitis in Thailand and its potential role for transmitting Acinetobacter spp. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:127. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0742-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hatam-Nahavandi K, Ahmadpour E, Pashazadeh F, Dezhkam A, Zarean M, Rafiei-Sefiddashti R, et al. Pediculosis capitis among school-age students worldwide as an emerging public health concern: a systematic review and meta-analysis of past five decades. Parasitol Res. 2020;119(10):3125–43. Epub 2020/08/18. doi: 10.1007/s00436-020-06847-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Rafailidis PI, Panos G, Pappas G. Worldwide prevalence of head lice. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14(9):1493–4. Epub 2008/09/02. doi: 10.3201/eid1409.080368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ruankham W, Winyangkul P, Bunchu N. Prevalence and factors of head lice infestation among primary school students in Northern Thailand. Asian Pac J Trop Dis. 2016;6(10):778–82. doi: 10.1016/S2222-1808(16)61129-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Singhasivanon OU, Lawpoolsri S, Mungthin M, Yimsamran S, Soonthornworasiri N, Krudsood S. Prevalence and alternative treatment of head-lice infestation in rural Thailand: a community-based study. Korean J Parasitol. 2019;57(5):499–504. Epub 2019/11/14. doi: 10.3347/kjp.2019.57.5.499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Amanzougaghene N, Fenollar F, Raoult D, Mediannikov O. Where Are We With Human Lice? A review of the current state of knowledge. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:474. Epub 2020/02/11. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nolt D, Moore S, Yan AC, Melnick L. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2022. Epub 2022/09/27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-059282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gunning K, Kiraly B, Pippitt K. Lice and Scabies: Treatment Update. Am Fam Physician. 2019;99(10):635–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Karakus M, Atici T, Karabela SN, Baylan O, Limoncu ME, Balcioglu IC. Detection of permethrin resistance and phylogenetic clustering of turkish head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis; De Geer, 1767 populations. Acta Trop. 2020;204:105362. Epub 2020/02/02. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Roca-Acevedo G, Del Solar Kupfer CP, Dressel Roa P, Toloza AC. First determination of pyrethroid knockdown resistance alleles in human head lice (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) from Chile. J Med Entomol. 2019;56(6):1698–703. Epub 2019/06/21. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Amanzougaghene N, Fenollar F, Diatta G, Sokhna C, Raoult D, Mediannikov O. Mutations in GluCl associated with field ivermectin-resistant head lice from Senegal. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;52(5):593–8. Epub 2018/07/29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hodgdon HE, Yoon KS, Previte DJ, Kim HJ, Aboelghar GE, Lee SH, et al. Determination of knockdown resistance allele frequencies in global human head louse populations using the serial invasive signal amplification reaction. Pest Manag Sci. 2010;66(9):1031–40. Epub 2010/06/22. doi: 10.1002/ps.1979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Coates SJ, Thomas C, Chosidow O, Engelman D, Chang AY. Ectoparasites: pediculosis and tungiasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(3):551–69. Epub 2019/07/16. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.05.110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Leung AKC, Lam JM, Leong KF, Barankin B, Hon KL. Paediatrics: how to manage pediculosis capitis. Drugs Context. 2022;11. Epub 2022/04/05. doi: 10.7573/dic.2021-11-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Flores-Genuino RNS, Gnilo CMS, Dofitas BL. Occlusive versus neurotoxic agents for topical treatment of head lice infestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020;37(1):86–92. Epub 2019/10/24. doi: 10.1111/pde.14016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Burgess IF. The mode of action of dimeticone 4% lotion against head lice, Pediculus capitis. BMC Pharmacol. 2009;9:3. Epub 2009/02/24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-9-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Burgess IF, Burgess NA. Dimeticone 4% liquid gel found to kill all lice and eggs with a single 15 minute application. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:15. Epub 2011/01/27. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Heukelbach J, Canyon DV, Oliveira FA, Muller R, Speare R. In vitro efficacy of over-the-counter botanical pediculicides against the head louse Pediculus humanus var capitis based on a stringent standard for mortality assessment. Med Vet Entomol. 2008;22(3):264–72. Epub 2008/09/26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00738.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kassiri H, Fahdani AE, Cheraghian B. Comparative efficacy of permethrin 1%, lindane 1%, and dimeticone 4% for the treatment of head louse infestation in Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28(3):3506–14. Epub 2020/09/13. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10686-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kalari H, Soltani A, Azizi K, Faramarzi H, Moemenbellah-Fard MD. Comparative efficacy of three pediculicides to treat head lice infestation in primary school girls: a randomised controlled assessor blind trial in rural Iran. BMC Dermatol. 2019;19(1):13. Epub 2019/09/13. doi: 10.1186/s12895-019-0093-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Burgess IF, Brunton ER, Burgess NA. Single application of 4% dimeticone liquid gel versus two applications of 1% permethrin creme rinse for treatment of head louse infestation: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:5. Epub 2013/04/04. doi: 10.1186/1471-5945-13-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ihde ES, Boscamp JR, Loh JM, Rosen L. Safety and efficacy of a 100% dimethicone pediculocide in school-age children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:70. Epub 2015/06/21. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0381-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schneider D. Using Drosophila as a model insect. Nat Rev Genet. 2000;1(3):218–26. Epub 2001/03/17. doi: 10.1038/35042080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brownell N, Sunantaraporn S, Phadungsaksawasdi K, Seatamanoch N, Kongdachalert S, Phumee A, et al. Presence of the knockdown resistance (kdr) mutations in the head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis) collected from primary school children of Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(12):e0008955. Epub 2020/12/17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Burgess IF. Physically acting treatments for head lice-can we still claim they are ’resistance proof’? Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(11). Epub 2022/11/12. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14112430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yingklang M, Priprem A, Nualkaew N, Sungthong B, Pinlaor P, Pinlaor S. Biochemical constituents and insecticidal activities of Callistemon viminalis essential oil against adults and eggs of Pediculus humanus capitis (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae). Phytomedicine Plus. 2022;2(1):100156. doi: 10.1016/j.phyplu.2021.100156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Candy K, Brun S, Nicolas P, Durand R, Charrel RN, Izri A. Do drowning and anoxia kill head lice? Parasite. 2018;25:8. Epub 2018/03/10. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2018015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Carpinella MC, Miranda M, Almiron WR, Ferrayoli CG, Almeida FL, Palacios SM. In vitro pediculicidal and ovicidal activity of an extract and oil from fruits of Melia azedarach L. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(2):250–6. Epub 2006/12/07. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.10.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kurt O, Balcioğlu IC, Burgess IF, Limoncu ME, Girginkardeşler N, Tabak T, et al. Treatment of head lice with dimeticone 4% lotion: comparison of two formulations in a randomised controlled trial in rural Turkey. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:441. Epub 2009/12/03. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mumcuoglu KY, Pollack RJ, Reed DL, Barker SC, Gordon S, Toloza AC, et al. International recommendations for an effective control of head louse infestations. Int J Dermatol. 2021;60(3):272–80. Epub 2020/08/09. doi: 10.1111/ijd.15096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wolf L, Eertmans F, Wolf D, Rossel B, Adriaens E. Efficacy and safety of a mineral oil-based head lice shampoo: a randomized, controlled, investigator-nlinded, comparative study. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Costa LG, Giordano G, Guizzetti M, Vitalone A. Neurotoxicity of pesticides: a brief review. Front Biosci. 2008;13:1240–9. Epub 2007/11/06. doi: 10.2741/2758 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joshua Kamani

18 May 2023

PONE-D-23-11571Comparative efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicides in Thailand and 4% dimeticone against head louse, Pediculus humanus capitisPLOS ONE

Dear Prof.  Pinlaor

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 02/07/2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joshua Kamani, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Pinlaor

I'd like to make a suggestion for the modification of the topic to- Comparative efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicides and 4% dimeticone against head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis in Thailand

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Lines 32-33: It might be better to give a range of percentage mortality

Lines 35-36: Are you saying that none of the 26 children treated with 1% permethrin was cured after two treatments?

Lines 50-51: It does not appear in this publication that body louse feeds once or twice a day!

Lines 52-53: Does it mean that body lice were never found in Thailand?

Lines 69-70: in the reference number 20 it is rather said that…. : In treating head louse infestation, evidence suggests occlusive agents may be superior to or equally efficacious as neurotoxic pediculicides.

Line 114: Pediculicides used might be better than “Chemical preparation”

Line 121: Was only one kind of louse comb used and if yes if you could give any details about the comb

Lines 254-: It is suggested that the conclusion should be stronger than written here and should include that the most sold and authorized by the health authorities pediculicides are not effective, which would also explain the high rate of infestation of children in the country and it would be advisable to the health authorities to introduce dimethicone-based products such as Hedrin ASAP to the country.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents the outcomes of an important study in Thailand, where head lice infestation (HLI) is a significant problem among primary school children, as in many parts of the world. The study is mostly well-designed and well-written and its outcomes are significant as they include the first assessment results of dimeticone in Thailand, presents ex vivo results of local products used in HLI, together with efficacy of permethrin 1% among school children. The content of the study is very rich and there is a hard work in the background of the study. However, an important mistake seems to be effective in the results of HLI-positive school children investigation with 1% permethrin. The study universe had 109 primary school girls only, not any boys. In our experience, despite their short hair compared to girls, boys can also harbor head lice and transmit them to their classmates. As the boys were not investigated nor treated with 1%permethrin on Day 1 and 7, the HLI-positive girls identified on days 7 and 14 may be due to reinfestation from their classmate boys, not because of permethrin resistance. Since permethrin resistance have been reported from many regions in the world, it is not surprising to identify such a resistance also in Thailand, but the design of the study does not exclude the risk of reinfestation from classmates. This potential risk should be mentioned within the drawbacks of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287616.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Jun 2023

We are grateful for the opportunity provided by the editor and reviewers to revise the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' insightful criticism and valuable recommendations, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. All of the reviewers' suggestions and comments have been thoroughly addressed.

Reviewer #1:

Lines 32-33: It might be better to give a range of percentage mortality

Response: We have provided a range of percentage mortality as “…..whether treatment was for 10 min (resulting in 0 to 50.0% mortality) or 30 min (resulting in 17.0 to 60.0% mortality)……..”

Lines 35-36: Are you saying that none of the 26 children treated with 1% permethrin was cured after two treatments?

Response: Yes, we have modified the sentence as “none of the 26 children treated with 1% permethrin shampoo achieved a cure after two applications.”

Lines 50-51: It does not appear in this publication that body louse feeds once or twice a day!

Response: We acknowledge this comment and have modified to “body louse feeds about five times a day”.

Lines 52-53: Does it mean that body lice were never found in Thailand?

Response: Yes, there aren’t any previous reports of body lice being found in Thailand. We have modified the sentence as “ The human louse found in Thailand is the head louse: Pediculus humanus capitis [6, 7], while body louse has never been reported.”

Lines 69-70: in the reference number 20 it is rather said that…. : In treating head louse infestation, evidence suggests occlusive agents may be superior to or equally efficacious as neurotoxic pediculicides.

Response: We have modified accordingly and also included additional references.

“To combat resistant lice, it is essential to explore treatment options utilizing medications from different classes [20]. One potential alternative is the use of physically acting agents, with dimeticone being a prominent option, particularly in regions with a high resistance rate [21]. It has been suggested that dimeticone is superior to or equally effective as neurotoxic pediculicides [22].”

Line 114: Pediculicides used might be better than “Chemical preparation”

Response: We have changed “Chemical preparation” to “Pediculicides used” accordingly.

Line 121: Was only one kind of louse comb used and if yes if you could give any details about the comb

Response: We have added more details of the louse comb as “….using a fine-tooth comb (with teeth spaced 0.3 mm apart and 10.7 mm in length)….”

Lines 254-: It is suggested that the conclusion should be stronger than written here and should include that the most sold and authorized by the health authorities pediculicides are not effective, which would also explain the high rate of infestation of children in the country and it would be advisable to the health authorities to introduce dimethicone-based products such as Hedrin ASAP to the country.

Response: We have revised it according to the suggestions provided by the reviewer in the conclusion section.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents the outcomes of an important study in Thailand, where head lice infestation (HLI) is a significant problem among primary school children, as in many parts of the world. The study is mostly well-designed and well-written and its outcomes are significant as they include the first assessment results of dimeticone in Thailand, presents ex vivo results of local products used in HLI, together with efficacy of permethrin 1% among school children. The content of the study is very rich and there is a hard work in the background of the study. However, an important mistake seems to be effective in the results of HLI-positive school children investigation with 1% permethrin. The study universe had 109 primary school girls only, not any boys. In our experience, despite their short hair compared to girls, boys can also harbor head lice and transmit them to their classmates. As the boys were not investigated nor treated with 1% permethrin on Day 1 and 7, the HLI-positive girls identified on days 7 and 14 may be due to reinfestation from their classmate boys, not because of permethrin resistance. Since permethrin resistance have been reported from many regions in the world, it is not surprising to identify such a resistance also in Thailand, but the design of the study does not exclude the risk of reinfestation from classmates. This potential risk should be mentioned within the drawbacks of the study.

Response: We acknowledge your insightful comments on our manuscript. We also appreciate your attention to detail and the valuable points you have raised regarding the potential risk of reinfestation from classmates, particularly boys, in our study on HLI-positive school children treated with 1% permethrin.

We understand your concern that boys, despite having shorter hair compared to girls, can also harbor head lice and transmit them to their classmates. However, it is important to note that previous studies conducted in Thailand have reported a very low or no infestation rate among boys, suggesting that their contribution to the reinfestation dynamics in our study population may be minimal. Nevertheless, we have included the importance of considering potential reinfestation sources, such as classmates in our limitation section to provide a comprehensive analysis of the findings and emphasize the importance of considering this aspect in future investigations as suggestion in the Discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewers PONE-D-23-11571-R1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Joshua Kamani

8 Jun 2023

Comparative efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicides in Thailand and 4% dimeticone against head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis

PONE-D-23-11571R1

Dear Dr. Pinlaor,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Joshua Kamani, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear sir

I am glad to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think that all questions of the reviewers have been answered by the authors and accordingly the manuscript could be published

Reviewer #2: It is clear that the authors have clearly reviewed the comments of the referees, and revised the manuscript according according to their suggestions. In my opinion, the manuscript is complete now and it may be accepted for publication. It will contribute to the research and infection data in Thailand.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Özgür Kurt, M.D., Ph.D.

**********

Acceptance letter

Joshua Kamani

15 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-11571R1

Comparative efficacy of chemical and botanical pediculicides in Thailand and 4% dimeticone against head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis

Dear Dr. Pinlaor:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Joshua Kamani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Percentage mortality of head lice and mean number of deaths recorded at 30 min and 8 hr after the end of an exposure to each solution based on the topical test.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Efficacy and safety of 1% permethrin shampoo for treating head lice infestation in children.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewers PONE-D-23-11571-R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES