Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Medical Entomology logoLink to Journal of Medical Entomology
. 2025 Oct 27;63(1):tjaf157. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjaf157

Toward comfortable mosquito-proof clothing: repellent- and insecticide-free fabrics that block bites across three disease-transmitting mosquito genera

Eddie Hill 1, Maria J Della Rocca 2, Robyn Raban 3, Nicolas Herard 4, Antonio Esho 5, Monique S Sun 6, Rhodri T M Edwards 7, Nicholas Boechler 8,9, Omar S Akbari 10,✉
Editor: Edwin Burgess
PMCID: PMC12823275  PMID: 41144297

Abstract

Mosquito-borne disease and nuisance biting from mosquitoes have severe health and economic consequences. Conventional fabrics are typically not effective at providing protection against mosquito bites, and fabrics treated with repellents and/or insecticides are limited by rising insecticide resistance, risk of significant dermatologic and neurologic side effects, and decreased efficacy with washing and time. The goal of this study was to identify commercially available, repellent/insecticide-free, comfortable fabrics that block bites from three genera of mosquitoes that are known to transmit dangerous infectious diseases with widespread distribution: Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex. To do this, we evaluated fabrics from Ripstop By the Roll LLC in a step-wise series of mouse blood-feeding and behavioral bioassays. Out of 88 fabrics, 53 were found to be blood-feed-proof. These fabrics were more likely to have a higher areal weight density (AWD) and a polyurethane coating than blood-feed-susceptible fabrics. Of the six most comfortable fabrics by subjective hand-feel testing, five were definitively bite-proof during behavioral bioassays. These five fabrics varied substantially in AWD, thickness, finish/coating, and fiber pattern. None of them had a polyurethane coating. Three of them were breathable, making them appropriate for active-wear clothing. Overall, the bite-proof fabrics identified in this study have the potential to significantly reduce mosquito biting and the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases.

Keywords: mosquito-borne diseases, vector control, ripstop fabrics, bite-proof clothing, personal protection

Introduction

Mosquito-borne diseases (MBDs), such as dengue, Zika, chikungunya, yellow fever, malaria, and West Nile, kill more than 700,000 people per year (World Health Organization 2014). Due to increased global connectivity (e.g. travel, migration), urbanization, and temperatures, annual MBD cases have significantly increased since 2000 (World Health Organization 2012, Alenou et al. 2023). A multidisciplinary approach has been used to address this global health risk. This approach has included chemical use (e.g. repellents, insecticides), household textiles (e.g. bed nets, window and door curtains), environmental management (e.g. elimination of standing water), and biological control strategies (e.g. use of Wolbachia bacteria, sterile insect technique, release of Insects carrying a dominant lethal) (Wilson et al. 2014, Horstick and Runge-Ranzinger 2018, Pryce et al. 2018, Lenhart et al. 2022, Feng et al. 2024). Multiple genetic biocontrol technologies (e.g. precision-guided sterile insect technique and gene drive) are also in development but have not yet been deployed at scale (Li et al. 2021, 2024, Weng et al. 2024).

Wearing protective clothing also serves as an important strategy to combat the rising incidence of MBDs, particularly for individuals who work outside the home. Unfortunately, most modern clothing does not block mosquito bites (Holt et al. 2024). In fact, some modern and form-fitting athletic clothing options (e.g. Under Armour compression heat gear) exacerbate the problem by reducing the perception of ­mosquito landing events; as such, they are associated with even more mosquito bites than exposed bare skin (Holt et al. 2024).

Treatment of clothing with chemicals such as pyrethroids (e.g. permethrin), DEET (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide), and picaridin has been associated with reduced risk for contracting MBDs (Faulde et al. 2006, Banks et al. 2014, Orsborne et al. 2016). In particular, many national militaries have invested heavily in the development and testing of uniforms treated or impregnated with insecticide for deployed personnel serving in regions with high risk of MBD transmission (Croft et al. 2001, McCain and Leach 2007, Kitchen et al. 2009). In the civilian setting, the treatment of fabrics with natural compounds to reduce mosquito biting has also been studied. Plant-derived essential oils such as citronella, lavender, cedar, peppermint, eucalyptus, neem, and geranium oil have been applied to fabrics using methods such as microencapsulation, β-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes, and natural gum binders, achieving short-term protection in laboratory bioassays (Specos et al. 2010, Lee 2018, Al Parvez et al. 2023, Anwar et al. 2023).

However, the treatment of fabrics with chemicals—whether synthetic insecticides or plant-derived essential oils—has limitations: the more long-lasting chemicals used in fabrics, such as permethrin, can lose efficacy in just a few washes (Kittayapong et al. 2017) and require frequent reapplication to retain efficacy; mosquitoes have developed resistance to multiple repellents and insecticides (necessitating higher doses and continual development of alternative chemicals) (Chandre et al. 2000, Deletre et al. 2019, Hancock et al. 2020); some insecticides do not cause instantaneous death upon contact and still allow for potential MBD transmission (Sternberg et al. 2014); DEET can dissolve some synthetic fibers (Fradin and Day 2002); and topical insecticide exposure from insecticide-treated clothing can cause significant dermatologic and neurologic side effects (Katz et al. 2008, Nguyen et al. 2023). Dermal absorption and the risk of systemic side effects may increase with concurrent sunscreen exposure (Ross et al. 2004) and in hot and humid environments disproportionately burdened by MBDs (Kittayapong et al. 2017, Maule et al. 2020).

The goal of this study was to identify commercially available, repellent-free, and insecticide-free fabrics that block bites from three significant mosquito genera of human disease vectors—Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex—and could be used to create comfortable clothing. In murine blood-feeding experiments, we found that 53 out of 88 tested fabrics were blood-feed-proof (BFP) against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex. Six of the 53 fabrics were determined to be the most comfortable by subjective hand-feel testing. Behavioral bioassay experiments revealed five fabrics that were definitively bite-proof. The characteristics of these fabrics varied substantially, but all have qualities beneficial to active-wear and have the potential to create effective mosquito-proof clothing.

Materials and Methods

Fabric Characterization

Circular and square fabric swatches with a surface area of 125–165 cm2 were obtained directly from Ripstop By the Roll LLC, a US-based online retailer that sells technical fabrics. In contrast to conventional fabrics, which are generally used for common applications or aesthetic purposes, technical fabrics are primarily manufactured for their functional and performance attributes (McIntyre and Daniels 1962, Ahmad et al. 2021). Technical fabrics can be made from any fiber type (e.g. cotton, nylon, polyester). All fabric swatches were acquired at retail price through the Ripstop By the Roll LLC website. The company was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, and no financial or other relationship exists between the researchers and the manufacturer. We chose Ripstop By the Roll LLC because it offers a large and publicly accessible inventory of technical fibers, allowing us to sample a broad and diverse range of fiber types and constructions. Additionally, many of the technical fabrics from Ripstop By the Roll LLC are constructed with a ripstop weave. A ripstop weave is characterized by a grid-like fiber pattern and is associated with increased tear-resistance and durability (Behera et al. 2022, 2023, Benltoufa and Algamdy 2025).

The areal weight density (AWD) and finish/coating of each fabric were provided by Ripstop By the Roll LLC. Calipers were used to measure the thickness of each fabric, and the average was calculated from five separate measurements. We excluded fabrics with an average thickness of >3 mm, because the average proboscis length for Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes is 2–4 mm (Munstermann and Conn 1997, Ribeiro 2000, Wahid et al. 2003, Dixon and Vondra 2022).

Microscopy images were captured using a Leica M165 FC Stereomicroscope with a View4K HD Microscope Camera on unstretched fabrics. Microscopy images were used to evaluate the weave of the fabrics.

Fabrics that were BFP during Trials 1, 2, and 3 were blindly evaluated on the basis of comfort. Comfort was measured using a 10-point grading scale for bipolar attributes that included itchy/silky, sticky/slippery, rough/smooth, hard/soft, noncompressible/compressible, non-stretchable/stretchable, and stiff/flexible (Tadesse et al. 2019). Each piece of fabric was blindly tested by hand-feel for all factors by three different individuals. The values from all of the tests were averaged together to form cumulative comfort scores. Higher cumulative comfort scores were intuitively more comfortable. Fabrics with cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0 were chosen for behavioral bioassay experiments.

Mosquito Colony Maintenance

Multiple strains of mosquitoes were used: A. aegypti Liverpool (Nene et al. 2007), A. stephensi UCISS2018 wildtype, and C. quinquefasciatus wildtype S-strain. The mosquitoes have been raised in the laboratory for many years and are lab-adapted to feed on mice as their sole blood source. We used Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi, and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes in this study because they are responsible for a significant proportion of global MBDs.

Mosquitoes were reared in incubators (Caron, Marietta, OH) with 12-h light/12-h dark cycles at 28°C and 70% to 80% humidity. To maintain the lines, adults were provided with 10% (m/V) aqueous sucrose ad libitum, females were blood-fed on anesthetized mice, and the eggs were hatched in deionized water. Until pupation, larvae were reared in a plastic container (Sterilite, 34.6 × 21 × 12.4 cm, USA) with deionized water and fed ground fish food (TetraMin Tropical Flakes, Tetra Werke, Melle, Germany). The A. stephensi diet was supplemented with yeast powder. The mosquitoes used in the experiments were 7 to 14 days old and were only provided with 10% (m/V) aqueous sucrose ad libitum. At this point in time, host-seeking is fully developed in Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes, and females are very hungry for blood.

Blood-Feeding Experiments

This study involved a step-wise series of mouse blood-feeding experiments. Each experiment was conducted by placing an anesthetized mouse on top of a cage (Fig. 1A). A fabric swatch was placed flush with the abdomen of the anesthetized mouse and the top surface of a BugDorm cage. Mosquitoes were acclimated to the cage for approximately 10 min prior to the addition of the mouse. The mouse was then exposed to 150 to 300 mosquitoes. We only included and analyzed experiments in which at least 20 mosquitoes were observed attempting to penetrate the fabric, as indicated by repeated proboscis contact with the fabric surface. Mosquitoes were considered BFP if their abdomens were not enlarged or visibly red in color, indicating blood-feeding.

Fig. 1.

Illustration of the mouse blood-feeding experimental system. The flow diagram provides a general overview of the study protocol and results.

Open in a new tab

(A) Set-up of blood-feeding and behavioral bioassay experiments showing an anesthetized mouse positioned on a fabric swatch on top of a BugDorm cage; figure created in https://BioRender.com. (B) Overview of study protocol and results. Solid-line boxes depict the number of fabrics tested in each experiment, while dashed-line boxes indicate the number eliminated during testing.

The fabrics used in Trials 1, 2, and 3 were tested through the 700 µm aperture white mesh of BugDorm cages (BD4M2222, size 24.5 cm3, MegaView Science Co., Ltd, Taichung, Taiwan). Trial 1 involved a 15-min-long single-species blood-feeding experiment. If no blood-feeding was observed, the fabric underwent two additional 15-min-long single-species experiments in Trial 2. Trials 1 and 2 each employed a single mosquito species, which differed between trials (as tabulated in Supplementary Table S1). The species used were Anopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti, and Culex quinquefasciatus. If successfully BFP after Trial 2, the fabric underwent three additional 15-min-long experiments, one each with Aedes, Anopheles, or Culex mosquitoes in Trial 3 (Fig. 1B). Fabrics were not washed or dried prior to blood-feeding experiments because previous observations showed that washing and drying improved mosquito blocking in repellent/insecticide-free fabrics by decreasing fabric pore size and surface area (Holt et al. 2024).

Behavioral Bioassay Experiments

We performed behavioral bioassay experiments on the six most comfortable fabrics that were BFP during Trials 1, 2, and 3. BugDorm cages (DP1000 30.0 cm3, MegaView Science Co., Ltd, Taichung, Taiwan) with polypropylene plastic on the top and two side panels were used for better visualization of the mosquitoes. A 2.54 × 2.54 cm section was cut from the top panel, and during experiments, the fabric swatch and mouse were positioned directly over the opening. Only mated and nulliparous A. aegypti mosquitoes were used.

The goal of the first round of behavioral bioassay experiments was to assess the host-seeking behavior of the mosquitoes. Each fabric was tested in three independent experiments for 10 min each with 16 to 20 female mosquitoes. RynoSkin Total Base Layer was used as a positive control because of prior research that showed that it was BFP (Luan et al. 2021). Video recordings were taken of each experiment using an Apple iPhone 13. Blood-feeding, number of landings, and average time/landing were manually recorded and documented.

The aim of the second round of behavioral bioassay experiments was to evaluate the bite-blocking capacity of the six most comfortable fabrics that were BFP during Trials 1, 2, and 3. Mosquito bites are characterized by proboscis penetration, probing (i.e. the intradermal search for blood), and the secretion of salivary proteins to counteract hemostasis (Martin-Martin et al. 2023a, 2023b). Secretion of salivary proteins can transmit infectious pathogens in the absence of blood-feeding (Boyd and Stratman-Thomas 1934, Gillett 1967, Ribeiro et al. 1985). To evaluate whether biting occurred in the absence of blood-feeding, biting was investigated by careful visual analysis of close-up high-resolution videos. Each experiment lasted between 2 and 5 min and involved 30 to 40 mosquitoes. 2.2 oz HEX70 XL was used as a negative control because it was blood-feed-susceptible in our early trials (Supplementary Table S1), had moderate thickness, and had a durable water repellent (DWR) finish/coating. Fabrics that showed no fascicle penetration despite multiple attempts were identified as bite-proof (Martin-Martin et al. 2023b).

Statistical Analysis

For evaluation of blood-feeding status by AWD or thickness, data were not normally distributed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, so Mann–Whitney U test was used for comparison. We used the chi-square test of Independence to analyze the effect of finish/coating on blood-feed susceptibility. Two-tailed Pearson correlation tests were used to investigate the effect of finish/coating on comfort.

For evaluation of landing and time per landing during the behavioral bioassay experiments, data were normally distributed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, so analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison; Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference was used post-hoc when indicated. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant for all statistical tests.

All statistical analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) using the Real Statistics Resource Pack add-in (Release 8.9.1; Copyright 2013–2023, Charles Zaiontz, www.real-statistics.com).

Results

Of the 92 fabrics tested, 88 had a thickness ≤3 mm, indicating that they would be susceptible to blood-feeding. No blood-feeding was observed for 53/88 (60.2%) fabrics in Trials 1, 2, and 3 (Fig. 1B, Supplementary Table S1). These fabrics were considered BFP. They had a significantly higher mean AWD (162.72 ± 121.52 g/m2) compared to blood-feed-susceptible fabrics (70.33 ± 61.60 g/m2) (P = 0.000131) (Supplementary Fig. S1, Supplementary Table S2). For reference, light-weight t-shirts generally have AWD 50 to 150 g/m2, medium-weight t-shirts generally have AWD 150 to 300 g/m2, and heavy workwear generally has AWD 300 to 600 g/m2 (Humphries 1996). No significant difference in thickness was found between BFP fabrics (0.289 ± 0.336 mm) and blood-feed-susceptible fabrics (0.217 ± 0.369 mm) (P = 0.10) (Supplementary Fig. S1, Supplementary Table S2).

Ripstop By the Roll LLC provided information about finish/coating for 84/88 (95.5%) of the fabrics. DWR, polyurethane (PU), calendering technique, and silicone were frequently cited. No significant associations were found for blood-feeding susceptibility: DWR, χ2 = 0.46, P = 0.50; Silicone, χ2 = 0.49, P = 0.48; or calendered fabrics, χ2 = 0.49, P = 0.48. However, fabrics coated with PU were significantly more likely to be BFP than fabrics without PU coating (χ2 = 5.7, P = 0.017).

Fabrics that were BFP during Trials 1, 2, and 3 and also had cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0 included: (1) 10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex (6.86); (2) Polartec Alpha Direct with Wool 4048 (6.67); (3) 0.77 oz MTN Silnylon 6.6 (6.62); (4) Polartec Power Grid Fleece 9110 OR (6.48); (5) 1.1 oz Ripstop Polyester Calendered (6.48); and (6) MEMBRANE 15 Ripstop Polyester (6.29) (Table 1, Supplementary Table S3). On the Ripstop By the Roll LLC website, these six fabrics are, respectively, described as: (1 and 2) breathable and moisture-wicking; (3) water-proof; (4) antimicrobial; or (5 and 6) breathable.

Table 1.

Fabric characterization, results of blood-feeding experiments, and results of behavioral bioassay experiments of blood-feed-proof fabrics with cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0

Fabric characterization
 Blood-feeding experiments Behavioral bioassay experiments
Fabric AWD (g/m2) Thickness (mm) Finish/coating Descriptors Blood-feed-proof? Number of landings (mean ± SD) Time (s)/landing (mean ± SD) Video clip Bite-proof?
10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex 339.06 0.73 Breathable/wicking finish Breathable; moisture-wicking Yes 21.17 ± 16.93 51.72 ± 12.60 A Yes
Polartec Alpha Direct with Wool 4048 152.58 2.20 Alpha direct dyed solid Breathable; moisture-wicking Yes 14.67 ± 15.01 25.45 ± 24.22 B Cannot confirm
0.77 oz MTN Silnylon 6.6 26.11 0.04 Silicone (impregnated) Waterproof Yes 13.33 ± 9.75 72.79 ± 30.17 C Yes
Polartec Power Grid Fleece 9110 OR 223.78 0.86 Solid jersey shearling, grid with stretch Antimicrobial Yes 7.33 ± 3.51 119.10 ± 61.15 D Yes
1.1 oz Ripstop Polyester Calendered 37.30 0.04 Breathable, calendered, PFC-free DWR Breathable Yes 30.83 ± 12.39 42.93 ± 12.42 E Yes
MEMBRANE 15 Ripstop Polyester 30.52 0.03 Breathable, calendered, DWR Breathable Yes 5.33 ± 4.54 33.11 ± 12.48 F Yes
Open in a new tab

AWD (areal weight density), finish/coating, and descriptors were provided by Ripstop By the Roll LLC. “Video Clip” column refers to the corresponding video clip in Supplementary Video S1.

All six fabrics with cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0 had finishes/coatings: two with calendered technique, two with DWR, one with silicone, and none with PU (Table 1). Analysis of all 53 BFP fabrics revealed that calendered technique is associated with comfort (t = 5.23, P = 0.00027, 95% confidence interval [−1.90, −0.77]), but not DWR (t = 1.34, P = 0.189, 95% CI [−0.23, 1.13]), PU (t = 1.83, P = 0.077, 95% CI [−0.072, 1.32]), or silicone (t = 1.50, P = 0.201, 95% CI [−2.90, 0.82]) finishings/coatings.

Microscopic images of the most comfortable fabrics revealed varied weaves (Fig. 2). The 10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex, 0.77 oz MTN Silnylon 6.6, 1.1 oz Ripstop Polyester Calendered, and MEMBRANE 15 Ripstop Polyester revealed a tight grid-like weave typical of ripstop fabrics (Benltoufa and Algamdy 2025). In contrast, Polartec Alpha Direct with Wool 4048 and Polartec Power Grid Fleece 9110 OR revealed a dense, multilayered, and seemingly disorganized network of fibers. Further analysis of the other, less-comfortable fabrics involved in the blood-feeding experiments revealed that some fabrics had prominent patterns (e.g. Supplementary Fig. S2, image 43) while others were minimally or not patterned (e.g. image 47). Small pores were frequently seen in both blood-feed-susceptible and BFP fabrics. Fabrics with large pores (i.e. images 30, 33, 40, 44, and 73) were, not surprisingly, blood-feed-susceptible.

Fig. 2.

Microscopic images of blood-feed-proof fabrics with cumulative comfort scores above 6.0.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic images of fabrics with cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0 that were used in behavioral bioassays.

Fabrics that were BFP during Trials 1, 2, and 3 and had cumulative comfort scores ≥6.0 underwent behavioral bioassay experiments. All six fabrics were BFP during the behavioral bioassay experiments (Table 1). In contrast, we observed blood-feeding with RynoSkin Total Base Layer despite the previous report indicating that it should be BFP (Luan et al. 2021). There was no significant difference in the average number of landings between fabrics (P = 0.067) (Table 1). A significantly higher average time per landing was seen with RynoSkin Total Base Layer (219.86 ± 134.39 s) compared to 10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex (P = 0.040), Polartec Alpha Direct with Wool 4048 (P = 0.015), 1.1 oz Ripstop Polyester Calendered (P = 0.029), and MEMBRANE 15 Ripstop Polyester (P = 0.020) (Table 1).

Close-up videos involving 10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex (Supplementary Video S1A, Fig. 3A), 0.77 oz MTN Silnylon 6.6 (Supplementary Video S1C), Polartec Power Grid Fleece 9110 OR (Supplementary Video S1D), 1.1 oz Ripstop Polyester Calendered (Supplementary Video S1E), and MEMBRANE 15 Ripstop Polyester (Supplementary Video S1F) did not show fascicle penetration; instead, the fascicle would bend when attempting to penetrate the fabric with force (Fig. 3). Therefore, these five fabrics were identified as bite-proof. In contrast, analysis of video involving Polartec Alpha Direct with Wool 4048 (Supplementary Video S1B) showed partial fascicle penetration into the fabric. However, penetrative movements were rapid, transient, and not suggestive of probing. Moreover, for all six fabrics, we did not observe any blood-feeding despite thousands of individual mosquito probing attempts across many replicates (>10 replicates with >300 female mosquitoes used per replicate). Close-up videos involving RynoSkin Total Base Layer (Supplementary Video S1G) and 2.2 oz HEX70 XL (Supplementary Video S1H, Fig. 3B) revealed penetration, probing, and blood-feeding.

Fig. 3.

Time-lapse images showing mosquito behavior on a bite-proof fabric (A) and a bite-susceptible fabric (B).

Open in a new tab

Still images showing the behavior of mosquitoes on different fabrics. (A) A single mosquito exploring 10 oz Flow Wicking Poly/Spandex without fascicle penetration (Supplementary Video S1A). (B) A single mosquito exploring, penetrating, and blood-feeding through 2.2 oz HEX70 XL (Supplementary Video S1H).

Discussion

Over the course of a step-wise series of experimental trials starting with 88 fabrics, we found 53 fabrics that were BFP in mice. We subsequently narrowed these down to five commercially available, repellent/insecticide-free, and comfortable fabrics that were bite-proof against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes. These fabrics exhibited a range of AWD (26.11—339.06 g/m2), thickness (0.03–0.86 mm), finish/coating, and fiber pattern. Furthermore, three of these five fabrics are described on the Ripstop By the Roll LLC website as breathable. Breathable fabrics can be ideal choices for generating active-wear clothing.

This study adds to a long-standing and progressively advancing body of research investigating the relationship between fabric characteristics and mosquito bite resistance. Previous work has shown that fabric pore size is inversely associated with bite resistance while thickness is directly associated with it (Luan et al. 2021, Holt et al. 2024), suggesting that higher AWD—which integrates both thickness and thread density—may also confer greater protection. Our findings are consistent with this pattern, and to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to statistically assess the relationship between AWD and a fabric’s ability to block mosquito bites.

Fabric composition has also been shown to influence bite resistance. For example, increased spandex content converted jersey-skip knits from penetrable to impenetrable (Holt et al. 2024). In the same study, greater thread thickness and shorter stitch length were associated with improved resistance, underscoring the importance of structural parameters. Other studies have found that fabrics with lighter colors are less attractive to mosquitoes (Brett 1938, Marin et al. 2020).

Few studies have looked at how different fabric finishes/coatings affect bite resistance. The addition of graphene-barrier layers to fabric can decrease mosquito biting behavior by mechanical puncture resistance and by interfering with host chemosensing (Castilho et al. 2019), though none of the fabrics in our study contained graphene. Until this work, silicone impregnation and DWR treatments have not been specifically studied in this context. Similarly, the process of calendering—which compresses fabrics between rollers under high pressure and (usually) heat (Paul 2014) – had also not been hitherto explicitly evaluated for mosquito resistance (noting that calendering increases smoothness, increases compactness, decreases thickness, decreases pore size, and creates a glazed finish).

PU is a versatile polymer coating commonly applied to outdoor clothing and gear because of its many favorable qualities: it is cost-effective; non-toxic (and therefore, environmentally-friendly and worker-friendly); resistant to abrasion, wear, weather, and UV light; durable to washing and drying; and breathable (Gorji et al. 2012, Javid et al. 2018, Das and Mahanwar 2020, Sikdar et al. 2022). To the best of our knowledge, PU has not previously been tested for mosquito bite resistance in isolation, though it has been evaluated in combination with known repellents such as DEET (Kulkarni et al. 2015) and ethyl anthranilate (Bramhecha and Sheikh 2024). In the case of ethyl anthranilate, PU is thought to enhance the durability of the repellent via covalent bonding with the polymer backbone. Our study found that the presence of a PU finish/coating was significantly associated with BFP fabrics. PU may confer this effect by partially or fully filling in the gaps between neighboring fibers, as suggested by scanning electron microscopy (Rahman Bhuiyan et al. 2019). Consistent with this point, we note that none of the six most comfortable fabrics chosen herein had a PU coating. Furthermore, of the broader set of 88 fabrics considered, of the 21 that had PU coatings, only two were denoted as “breathable.”

Consistent with a recent study (Holt et al. 2024), our overall findings challenge common perceptions that light, thin, and breathable fabrics are inherently permeable to mosquito bites. While our data showed that higher AWD levels and the presence of PU are associated with increased mosquito resistance, the significant variability of multiple objective characteristics in our BFP and bite-proof fabrics suggests one of three things about comfortable mosquito-proof clothing: an unidentified single trait may be responsible for complete bite resistance; resistance may arise from a combination of characteristics; or there is no set of traits that predictably guarantees complete bite resistance.

Future research should focus on systematically analyzing other characteristics in order to better understand the determinants of bite resistance. It should also thoroughly assess how wear-and-tear, including repeated laundering, affects bite resistance in these fabrics. Exploring new knit technologies and manufacturing processes is another promising direction, as the challenge remains to engineer fabrics that combine effective bite blocking with reduced thickness, maximized comfort, and added features such as cooling capability or repellency. Because most fabrics evaluated in the present study were relatively expensive, future efforts should also prioritize identifying more affordable materials and manufacturing approaches to make bite-proof fabrics accessible to more populations. Finally, human testing will be important, as real-world use may alter fabric performance through stretching, body heat, perspiration, and movement.

The need for continued research is underscored by the fact that conventional fabrics are not effective at providing protection against mosquito bites (Holt et al. 2024). To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to show at least one repellent/insecticide-free fabric with thickness <3 mm—let alone five fabrics—that is bite-proof against multiple mosquito genera. One previous study demonstrated protection against mosquito bites with fabrics that were not treated with insecticides or repellents, but it was conducted with A. aegypti mosquitoes alone (Luan et al. 2021). The RynoSkin Total clothing line emerged from the results of this past study, but other studies (Holt et al. 2024), including this one, revealed that RynoSkin Total Base Layer is blood-feed-susceptible and identified more mosquito-resistant fabrics.

A prior study has attempted to develop new mosquito-proof fabrics with mixed success (Luan et al. 2021), but we demonstrated that certain commercially available fabrics are bite-proof and can potentially be readily repurposed to create comfortable clothing. Identifying and using pre-existing fabrics to create mosquito-proof clothing is not only more cost-effective than creating new fabrics, but would also likely be faster to market. This can accelerate the distribution and real-world use of mosquito-proof clothing items in areas plagued by MBDs. Taken together, by identifying and characterizing numerous repellent/insecticide-free and comfortable fabrics that are bite-proof, our work can be used to create clothing that advances global efforts to effectively reduce the transmission of MBDs.

Supplementary Material

tjaf157_Supplementary_Data
tjaf157_supplementary_data.zip (8.3MB, zip)

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the use of ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-5 (OpenAI, 2025) in articulating ideas during the preparation of this manuscript. While the intellectual contributions and conceptual developments are entirely those of the authors, ChatGPT’s role in streamlining the writing process is duly recognized.

Contributor Information

Eddie Hill, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Maria J Della Rocca, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Robyn Raban, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Nicolas Herard, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Antonio Esho, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Monique S Sun, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Rhodri T M Edwards, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Nicholas Boechler, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Program in Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Omar S Akbari, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Author Contributions

Eddie Hill (Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing—original draft [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Maria J. Della Rocca (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal]), Robyn Raban (Supervision [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Nicolas Herard (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal]), Antonio Esho (Investigation [equal]), Monique S. Sun (Investigation [equal]), Rhodri Tomas Mawr Edwards(Investigation [equal]), Nicholas Boechler (Conceptualization [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), and Omar S. Akbari (Conceptualization [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Methodology [equal], Resources [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal])

Ethics Statement

All animals were handled by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as recommended by the National Institutes of Health and approved by the University of California San Diego Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC, Animal Use Protocol #S17187) and University of California San Diego Biological Use Authorization (BUA #R2401).

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available at Journal of Medical Entomology online.

Funding

This work was supported by NIH awards R01AI151004, RO1AI148300, and RO1AI175152 awarded to O.S.A. E.H. also received support from AI007384 (HOPE T32 Training Grant).

Conflicts of Interest

O.S.A., E.H., and M.J.D.R. have a patent pending for the novel use of fabrics for insect protection. The authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests related to Ripstop By the Roll LLC or any other fabric manufacturer. O.S.A. is a founder of Agragene, Inc. and Synvect, Inc. with equity interest. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California at San Diego, in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. S Ahmad, A Rasheed, Y Nawab, editors. 2021. Fibers for technical textiles. 1st ed. Springer Nature. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al Parvez A, Hossain MJ, Hossain MZ, et al.  2023. Mosquito repellent fabric: development and characterization of peppermint and garlic mixture finish on knitted fabric to examine mosquito repellency. Heliyon  9:e15944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alenou LD, Nwane P, Mbakop LR, et al.  2023. Burden of mosquito-borne diseases across rural versus urban areas in Cameroon between 2002 and 2021: prospective for community-oriented vector management approaches. Parasit. Vectors  16:136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anwar F, Abbas M, Malik MH, et al.  2023. Development of mosquito-repellent camouflage fabric using eucalyptus oil with Moringa oleifera gum. ChemEngineering  7:64. [Google Scholar]
  5. Banks SD, Murray N, Wilder-Smith A, et al.  2014. Insecticide-treated clothes for the control of vector-borne diseases: a review on effectiveness and safety. Med. Vet. Entomol. 28:14–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Behera GR, Mukhopadhyay A, Sikka M.  2022. Development of scheme to evaluate the performance of parachute canopy fabrics under tensile impact. J. Ind. Text. 51:2283S–3305S. [Google Scholar]
  7. Behera GR, Sikka M, Mukhopadhyay A.  2023. Effect of fabric construction, seam angle, and impact force on the performance of the parachute canopy. J. Text. Inst. 114:1257–1267. [Google Scholar]
  8. Benltoufa S, Algamdy H.  2025. Breathability and dynamic evaporative cooling heat flow of a ripstop defence fabric. Tekstilec  68:70–81. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd MF, Stratman-Thomas WK.  1934. Studies on benign tertian malaria. 7. Some observations on inoculation and onset. Am. J. Epidemiol. 20:488–495. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bramhecha I, Sheikh J.  2024. Inherent mosquito repellent-cum-multifunctional polyurethane for multifunctional coating of cotton fabric. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 132:247–258. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brett GA.  1938. On the relative attractiveness to Aedes aegypti of certain coloured cloths. Trans. R Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 32:113–124. [Google Scholar]
  12. Castilho CJ, Li D, Liu M, et al.  2019. Mosquito bite prevention through graphene barrier layers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A  116:18304–18309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chandre F, Darriet F, Duchon S, et al.  2000. Modifications of pyrethroid effects associated with kdr mutation in Anopheles gambiae. Med. Vet. Entomol. 14:81–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft AM, Baker D, Von Bertele MJ.  2001. An evidence-based vector control strategy for military deployments: the British Army experience. Med. Trop.  61:91–98. [Google Scholar]
  15. Das A, Mahanwar P.  2020. A brief discussion on advances in polyurethane applications. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 3:93–101. [Google Scholar]
  16. Deletre E, Martin T, Duménil C, et al.  2019. Insecticide resistance modifies mosquito response to DEET and natural repellents. Parasit. Vectors  12:89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon AR, Vondra I.  2022. Biting innovations of mosquito-based biomaterials and medical devices. Materials  15:4587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Faulde MK, Uedelhoven WM, Malerius M, et al.  2006. Factory-based permethrin impregnation of uniforms: residual activity against Aedes aegypti and Ixodes ricinus in battle dress uniforms worn under field conditions, and cross-contamination during the laundering and storage process. Mil. Med. 171:472–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Feng X, Jiang N, Zheng J, et al.  2024. Advancing knowledge of One Health in China: lessons for One Health from China’s dengue control and prevention programs. Sci. One Health  3:100087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fradin MS, Day JF.  2002. Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mosquito bites. N. Engl. J. Med. 347:13–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gillett JD.  1967. Natural selection and feeding speed in a blood-sucking insect. Proc. R Soc. London  167:316–329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gorji M, Jeddi AAA, Gharehaghaji AA.  2012. Fabrication and characterization of polyurethane electrospun nanofiber membranes for protective clothing applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 125:4135–4141. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hancock PA, Hendriks CJM, Tangena J-A, et al.  2020. Mapping trends in insecticide resistance phenotypes in African malaria vectors. PLoS Biol. 18:e3000633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Holt B, Oswalt K, England A, et al.  2024. Computer numerical control knitting of high-resolution mosquito bite blocking textiles. Commun. Eng. 3:119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Horstick O, Runge-Ranzinger S.  2018. Protection of the house against Chagas disease, dengue, leishmaniasis, and lymphatic filariasis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18:e147–e158. [Google Scholar]
  26. Humphries M.  1996. Fabric reference and fabric glossary value package. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  27. Javid A, Iftikhar K, Ashraf M, et al.  2018. Development and performance optimization of polyurethane-based multifunctional coatings using Taguchi method. J. Ind. Text. 48:521–535. [Google Scholar]
  28. Katz TM, Miller JH, Hebert AA.  2008. Insect repellents: historical perspectives and new developments. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 58:865–871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kitchen LW, Lawrence KL, Coleman RE.  2009. The role of the United States military in the development of vector control products, including insect repellents, insecticides, and bed nets. J. Vector Ecol. 34:50–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kittayapong P, Olanratmanee P, Maskhao P, et al.  2017. Mitigating diseases transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes: a cluster-randomised trial of permethrin-impregnated school uniforms. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11:e0005197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kulkarni SS, Mohan MS, Jagtap SB, et al.  2015. Polyurea and polyurethane microcapsules containing mosquito repellent DEET: preparation and characterization. Appl. Sci. Adv. Mat. Int. 2:7–10. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee MY.  2018. Essential oils as repellents against arthropods. Biomed Res. Int. 2018:6860271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lenhart A, Castillo CE, Villegas E, et al.  2022. Evaluation of insecticide treated window curtains and water container covers for dengue vector control in a large-scale cluster-randomized trial in Venezuela. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 16:e0010135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Li M, Kandul NP, Sun R, et al.  2024. Targeting sex determination to suppress mosquito populations. eLife  12:RP90199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li M, Yang T, Bui M, et al.  2021. Suppressing mosquito populations with precision guided sterile males. Nat. Commun. 12:Article 5374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Luan K, West AJ, McCord MG, et al.  2021. Mosquito-textile physics: a mathematical roadmap to insecticide-free, bite-proof clothing for everyday life. Insects  12:636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marin G, Mahiba B, Arivoli S, et al.  2020. Does colour of ovitrap influence the ovipositional preference of Aedes aegypti Linnaeus 1762 (Diptera: Culicidae). Int. J. Mosquito Res. 7:11–15. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin-Martin I, Williams AE, Calvo E.  2023. a. Determination of mosquito probing and feeding time to evaluate mosquito blood feeding. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2023:pdb.top107659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin-Martin I, Williams AE, Calvo E.  2023. b. Evaluation of Aedes aegypti penetration, probing, and feeding times on mice. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2023:pdb.prot108024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Maule AL, Heaton KJ, Cadarette B, et al.  2020. Effect of environmental temperature and humidity on permethrin biomarkers of exposure in U.S. soldiers wearing permethrin-treated uniforms. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 102:1455–1462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McCain WC, Leach GJ.  2007. Repellents used in fabric: the experience of the US military. In: Debboun M, Frances SP, Strickman D, editors. Insect repellents: principles, methods, and uses. CRC Press. p. 261–274. [Google Scholar]
  42. McIntyre J, Daniels PN.  1962. Textile terms and definitions. J. Text. Inst. 53:326–328. 10.1080/19447016208688726 [DOI]
  43. Munstermann LE, Conn JE.  1997. Systematics of mosquito disease vectors (Diptera, Culicidae): impact of molecular biology and cladistic analysis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42:351–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nene V, Wortman JR, Lawson D, et al.  2007. Genome sequence of Aedes aegypti, a major arbovirus vector. Science  316:1718–1723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nguyen Q-BD, Vu M-AN, Hebert AA.  2023. Insect repellents: an updated review for the clinician. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 88:123–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Orsborne J, DeRaedt Banks S, Hendy A, et al.  2016. Personal protection of permethrin-treated clothing against Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue and Zika virus, in the laboratory. PLoS One  11:e0152805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. R Paul, editor. 2014. Functional finishes for textiles: improving comfort, performance and protection. Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pryce J, Richardson M, Lengeler C.  2018. Insecticide-treated nets for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11:CD000363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rahman Bhuiyan MA, Wang L, Shaid A, et al.  2019. Polyurethane-aerogel incorporated coating on cotton fabric for chemical protection. Prog. Org. Coat. 131:100–110. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ribeiro JM.  2000. Blood-feeding in mosquitoes: probing time and salivary gland anti-haemostatic activities in representatives of three genera (Aedes, Anopheles, Culex). Med. Vet. Entomol. 14:142–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ribeiro JM, Rossignol PA, Spielman A.  1985. Aedes aegypti: model for blood finding strategy and prediction of parasite manipulation. Exp. Parasitol. 60:118–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ross EA, Savage KA, Utley LJ, et al.  2004. Insect repellent [correction of repellent] interactions: sunscreens enhance DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) absorption. Drug Metab. Dispos. 32:783–785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sikdar P, Dip TM, Dhar AK, et al.  2022. Polyurethane (PU) based multifunctional materials: emerging paradigm for functional textiles, smart, and biomedical applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 139. [Google Scholar]
  54. Specos MM, García JJ, Tornesello J, et al.  2010. Microencapsulated citronella oil for mosquito repellent finishing of cotton textiles. Trans. R Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 104:653–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sternberg ED, Waite JL, Thomas MB.  2014. Evaluating the efficacy of biological and conventional insecticides with the new ‘MCD bottle’ bioassay. Malar. J. 13:499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tadesse MG, Harpa R, Chen Y, et al.  2019. Assessing the comfort of functional fabrics for smart clothing using subjective evaluation. J. Ind. Text. 48:1310–1326. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wahid I, Sunahara T, Mogi M.  2003. Maxillae and mandibles of male mosquitoes and female autogenous mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 40:150–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Weng S-C, Masri RA, Akbari OS.  2024. Advances and challenges in synthetic biology for mosquito control. Trends Parasitol. 40:75–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilson AL, Dhiman RC, Kitron U, et al.  2014. Benefit of insecticide-treated nets, curtains and screening on vector borne diseases, excluding malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 8:e3228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. World Health Organization. 2012. Global strategy for dengue prevention and control 2012-2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/75303/9789241504034_eng.pdf.
  61. World Health Organization. 2014. A global brief on vector-borne diseases. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/111008/1/WHO_DCO_WHD_2014.1_eng.pdf.

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

tjaf157_Supplementary_Data
tjaf157_supplementary_data.zip (8.3MB, zip)

Articles from Journal of Medical Entomology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES