Get first dibs

Do Ultrasonic Mosquito Repellers Work?

No. A Cochrane review of ten field studies found that electronic mosquito repellents have no effect on preventing mosquito bites, and laboratory and field trials since have agreed. The Federal Trade Commission has brought cases against marketers of these devices since the 1980s, and the EPA requires no premarket review of a device's effectiveness before sale.

What are these devices supposed to do?

Cochrane defines the category: electronic mosquito repellents "are designed to repel female mosquitoes by emitting high-pitched sounds almost inaudible to the human ear." The sales theory is that the sound scares off the biting females, and the stories sellers tell appear verbatim in FTC files. In its 2002 complaint against Lentek International, the FTC described devices that "create sounds that mimic male mosquitoes and dragonflies, thereby supposedly frightening away the biting female mosquitoes." In 2004 it quoted a stroller clip whose ads said it "repels mosquitoes by electronically duplicating the wingbeat of the dragonfly."

What did the Cochrane review find?

Enayati, Hemingway, and Garner published the review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2007. Ten field entomological studies met the inclusion criteria, and the result was unanimous: "All 10 studies found that there was no difference in the number of mosquitoes caught from the bare body parts of the human participants with or without an EMR." The conclusion: "Field entomological studies confirm that EMRs have no effect on preventing mosquito bites. Therefore there is no justification for marketing them to prevent malaria infection." Cochrane has since flagged the review as a "current question, no update intended: further research unlikely to change conclusions."

What have individual studies found?

  • Flight chamber, 1985. Foster and Lutes tested five devices at fundamental frequencies of 20 to 70 kHz against four mosquito species. "For all species there was no significant difference between the numbers trapped when the devices were switched on or off, when all devices were tested simultaneously." Tests of individual devices against Ae. aegypti "also failed to show a repellent effect." (Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association)
  • Reviews, 1998. Coro and Suárez, surveying field tests run "in very different ecological conditions from Alaska to Equatorial Africa," concluded "these devices do not protect those who have them from the stings of mosquitoes" (Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical). Fradin's clinician's guide that year: "ultrasonic devices, outdoor bug 'zappers,' and bat houses are not effective against mosquitoes" (Annals of Internal Medicine).
  • Blinded household trial, Gabon, 2000. Sylla, Lell, and Kremsner ran a paired, cross-over, blinded, placebo-controlled trial over eighteen nights in nine pairs of houses, catching 7,485 mosquitoes. "There was no significant difference in landing rate between the houses with ultrasound device and the houses with placebo for any species of mosquito." (Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift)
  • Laboratory, Italy, 2024. The Istituto Superiore di Sanità tested four ultrasonic repellers on female Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus. Mean numbers drawn to the attractant with repellers on versus off were 2.8 versus 2.9 and 5.5 versus 6.1 respectively. "The repellence efficacy resulted not significant (P>0.05) in all the electronic ultrasound repellers tested."

One study went past "no effect." Andrade and Cabrini counted Aedes aegypti bite attempts in a chamber over four three-minute cycles, alternately off and on. Across five frequencies from 9.6 kHz to 18.2 kHz, biting rates first rose significantly, by roughly 20 to 50 percent, then fell by 8.3 to 25.1 percent when switched off. Those are on/off changes inside one chamber, not a claim about your patio. But the title says it: "Electronic mosquito repellers induce increased biting rates in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes." (Journal of Vector Ecology, 2010)

Do ultrasonic devices work on ticks?

Same answer, thinner literature. Panthawong, Doggett, and Chareonviriyaphap tested nine ultrasonic devices against female Ixodes holocyclus, the Australian paralysis tick, in paired test and escape chambers. More ticks moved to the escape chamber in every test arena than in the controls, and three devices differed statistically from the control, but "the highest percent of ticks that escaped was only 19.5%," which the authors called "insufficient to offer adequate protection against tick bites." Their conclusion: "ultrasonic devices should not be employed in pest management." (Insects, 2021) A 2026 field trial on dogs in Mali tested an ultrasonic collar alongside three other collar types: "none of the tested collar-type products showed significant repellent effects."

What has the FTC actually done about these claims?

A consent agreement carries no admission that the law was broken, so what follows is allegations and settlements, not findings of fact.

  • 1985 to 1997. "Between 1985 and 1997, the FTC brought law enforcement actions against six companies that allegedly made false and unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of ultrasonic devices in controlling rodent and insect infestations. Each of those cases was resolved by consent order." Per the same release, "previous FTC complaints alleged that ultrasound devices do not control insects."
  • May 3, 2001. FTC staff "sent warning letters to more than 60 manufacturers and retailers of ultrasonic pest-control devices, stating that efficacy claims about those products must be supported by scientific evidence."
  • August 28, 2002. An administrative complaint against Lentek International alleged the respondents "have falsely represented" that their MosquitoContro products "effectively repel mosquitoes from a user's body" and are "an effective alternative to the use of chemical pesticides" in preventing West Nile virus. Note the word: falsely, not unsubstantiated. Lentek settled February 4, 2003, and the final order issued that March.
  • July 18, 2003. Global Instruments settled charges over electromagnetic and ultrasonic products sold as Pest-A-Cator, PestVacator, and Riddex.
  • June 21, 2004. Prince Lionheart settled over the "Love Bug," a stroller clip whose ads claimed it "Helps protect your Baby from WEST NILE VIRUS!" The order bars false or unsubstantiated claims that any sonic or ultrasonic mosquito repellent repels mosquitoes, replaces chemical repellents, or protects people from contracting West Nile virus.
  • May 24, 2016. Viatek Consumer Products Group and its president Lou Lentine, the same principal named in the Lentek case, paid $300,000 over Mosquito Shield Bands. Those were mint-oil wristbands, not ultrasonic, but the FTC also charged them with violating the 2003 order.

Why doesn't the EPA stop them?

Because of a regulatory line most shoppers have never heard of. Under FIFRA a device is "any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) [that] is intended for trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest," and the EPA names the category: "Products claiming to control pests via electromagnetic and/or electrical means (e.g., ultrasonic insect and rodent repellers, hand-held bug zappers, electric flea combs) are devices."

"For products regulated as devices, there is no required premarket review. Unlike pesticides, FIFRA does not require registration of devices." The consequence, per the EPA: "Generally, device manufacturers, sellers, and distributors do not submit their claims or efficacy and safety data to EPA (for approval or otherwise) before selling or distributing a device." Registered pesticide products instead "undergo a thorough review of data supporting the registration, including product performance (efficacy) studies."

The EPA is not powerless. A device may be misbranded if its labeling carries "a false/misleading statement concerning the effectiveness of the device," and selling one is unlawful. Its February 2023 compliance advisory notes "substantial non-compliance with FIFRA in the device and pesticide marketplace."

You can spot the difference on the shelf. Per the EPA, "a compliant EPA-regulated device will include an EPA Establishment Number on the label. It will not include an EPA Registration Number, which would only be found on registered pesticide products." The establishment number is no mark of quality. It marks where the device was produced, and per the EPA it "does NOT indicate that the product has been reviewed for safety or efficacy by EPA." On its repellent search page the agency adds that "EPA and the U.S. Government do not endorse any product or service."

What does the CDC say to do instead?

The CDC Yellow Book lists sound-emitting devices among the things that do not work: "Ingestion of vitamin B or garlic and wearing sound-emitting devices or repellent-impregnated wristbands are ineffective."

For mosquito bites, the CDC says to use EPA-registered insect repellents with one of six active ingredients: DEET, picaridin (known as KBR 3023 and icaridin outside the United States), IR3535, oil of lemon eucalyptus, para-menthane-diol, or 2-undecanone. It adds: "Look for an EPA registration number (EPA Reg. No.) on the insect repellent product label. This registration number means the company provided EPA with technical information on the effectiveness of the product." It also recommends long-sleeved shirts and pants, permethrin-treated clothing and gear, window and door screens, and emptying water-holding containers weekly, which our guide to standing water control covers. For ticks, see prevention and removal.

What can you do if you already bought one?

The EPA takes reports on labeling: "consumers can report a device that appears misbranded on EPA's website for all environmental violations." The FTC takes advertising complaints at ftc.gov or 1-877-FTC-HELP.

Common questions

Do ultrasonic mosquito repellent phone apps work?

We found no study showing that they work. Andrade and Cabrini tested "three commercial devices and a computer program working on five different sound frequencies," and biting rates went up rather than down. Cochrane's ten field studies of the hardware these apps imitate found "no difference in the number of mosquitoes caught from the bare body parts of the human participants with or without an EMR."

Can an ultrasonic repeller make things worse?

In one chamber study it did. Andrade and Cabrini reported Aedes aegypti biting rates rising significantly, by roughly 20 to 50 percent, with the repellers on. That is a laboratory result, not a backyard measurement, but it is the opposite of the promised effect.

What about ultrasonic collars or plug-ins for ticks?

Testing has been unfavorable. Nine ultrasonic devices tested against female Ixodes holocyclus moved at most 19.5 percent of ticks into an escape chamber, which the authors called insufficient for protection against tick bites. A 2026 trial on dogs in Mali found none of the tested collar types, including an ultrasonic collar, showed significant repellent effects. Learn to identify the tick instead.

A word on the testimonials. Bite counts move with where and when you count, which is why Cochrane only accepted field studies "which controlled for geographic site, time, and attractiveness of human participants," and why the trials above used blinding, placebo devices, and on/off cycles. Our guide to why mosquitoes bite some people more covers individual differences. If a bite reaction worries you, or you develop fever or a rash after being bitten, talk to a clinician. Our bite treatment guide covers ordinary cases.

Where Longsleeve fits

Longsleeve is an EPA-registered picaridin lotion (EPA Reg. No. 101457-1). It repels mosquitoes and ticks for up to 14 hours. It is fragrance-free, with nine disclosed ingredients.

Sources

  1. Enayati A, Hemingway J, Garner P. Electronic mosquito repellents for preventing mosquito bites and malaria infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005434. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD005434_electronic-mosquito-repellents-preventing-mosquito-bites-and-malaria-infection
  2. Foster WA, Lutes KI. Tests of ultrasonic emissions on mosquito attraction to hosts in a flight chamber. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 1985;1(2):199-202. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2906666/
  3. Coro F, Suárez S. Electronic repellents against mosquitoes: the propaganda and the reality. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical, 1998;50(2):89-92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10349423/
  4. Fradin MS. Mosquitoes and mosquito repellents: a clinician's guide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998;128(11):931-40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9634433/
  5. Sylla el-H K, Lell B, Kremsner PG. A blinded, controlled trial of an ultrasound device as mosquito repellent. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 2000;112(10):448-50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10890136/
  6. Andrade CFS, Cabrini I. Electronic mosquito repellers induce increased biting rates in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Vector Ecology, 2010;35(1):75-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20618651/
  7. Panthawong A, Doggett SL, Chareonviriyaphap T. The Efficacy of Ultrasonic Pest Repellent Devices against the Australian Paralysis Tick, Ixodes holocyclus (Acari: Ixodidae). Insects, 2021;12(5):400. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33946185/
  8. Toma L, Lo Castro F, Severini F, et al. Evaluation of four common electronic mosquito repellers on Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 2024;60(4):258-263. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39699979/
  9. Junnila A, Revay EE, Traore M, et al. Efficacy of repellents against fleas and ticks: a field trial on free roaming dogs in Mali, West Africa. Frontiers in Insect Science, 2026;6:1811490. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42518720/
  10. FTC, FTC Warns Manufacturers and Retailers of Ultrasonic Pest-control Devices (May 3, 2001). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2001/05/ftc-warns-manufacturers-retailers-ultrasonic-pest-control-devices
  11. FTC, FTC Alleges Electronic Mosquito Repellent Claims Are False (August 28, 2002). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2002/08/ftc-alleges-electronic-mosquito-repellent-claims-are-false-sellers-also-lack-evidence-ultrasonic
  12. FTC, Seller of Various Pest-Control Devices and Air Cleaning Products Settles FTC Charges (February 4, 2003). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2003/02/seller-various-pest-control-devices-air-cleaning-products-settles-ftc-charges
  13. FTC, Marketer of Pest Control Devices Required to Provide Support for Claims (July 18, 2003). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2003/07/marketer-pest-control-devices-required-provide-support-claims
  14. FTC, The "Love Bug" Does Not Repel Mosquitos: FTC Challenges Claims for Ultrasonic Device (June 21, 2004). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2004/06/love-bug-does-not-repel-mosquitos-ftc-challenges-claims-ultrasonic-device
  15. FTC, Marketers of "Mosquito Shield Bands" to Pay $300,000 (May 24, 2016). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/05/marketers-mosquito-shield-bands-pay-300000-barred-making-misleading-pest-control-claims-under
  16. EPA, Pesticide Devices: A Guide for Consumers. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pesticide-devices-guide-consumers
  17. EPA, Compliance Advisory: What You Need to Know About Producing, Distributing or Selling Pesticide Devices (February 2023, EPA Document 305F22003). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/pesticidedevicecomplianceadvisory.pdf
  18. EPA, Find the Repellent that is Right for You. https://www.epa.gov/insect-repellents/find-repellent-right-you
  19. CDC Yellow Book, Mosquitoes, Ticks, and Other Arthropods. https://www.cdc.gov/yellow-book/hcp/environmental-hazards-risks/mosquitoes-ticks-and-other-arthropods.html
  20. CDC, Preventing Mosquito Bites. https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/prevention/index.html

Last reviewed 2026-08-06 · every claim on this page is sourced above