U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document: Ethohexadiol (2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol). EPA 738-R-94-030. September 1994. [这份EPA的RED文件是评估驱蚊醇健康和环境风险的关键监管文件,详细说明了其毒性、生态毒理学以及当时的风险评估结论,是理解其安全性问题和逐步淘汰原因的核心依据。]
Gleason, M. N., Gosselin, R. E., Hodge, H. C., & Smith, R. P. (Eds.). (1969).Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (3rd ed.). Williams & Wilkins. [这本经典的毒理学参考书记录了历史上多种商品(包括含驱蚊醇产品)的毒性数据和中毒案例,是了解其早期安全性和中毒事件的重要来源。]
National Library of Medicine (NLM) - PubChem. Compound Summary for CID 31264, Ethohexadiol. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethohexadiol[PubChem提供化学物质的基本信息、结构、性质(包括部分毒理学性质)以及链接到其他数据库(如TOXNET)的入口,是获取基础化学和毒理数据的便捷权威来源。]
World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). Guidelines for efficacy testing of mosquito repellents for human skin. WHO/HTM/NTD/WHOPES/2013.5. [WHO的驱避剂测试指南确立了评估标准,虽然不直接讨论驱蚊醇,但其推荐的测试方法和效果要求有助于理解现代驱避剂的性能标准。]
Fradin, M. S., & Day, J. F. (2002). Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mosquito bites. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(1), 13-18. [这篇经典文献比较了多种驱避剂的效果,虽然可能未直接包含驱蚊醇数据,但其研究方法和结论(如避蚊胺、派卡瑞丁的优越性)支持了驱蚊醇被替代的原因。]
Rutledge, L. C., & Gupta, R. K. (1996). Reanalysis of the CDC arm-in-cage data: Implications for the design and interpretation of repellent efficacy trials. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 12(4), 677-680. [对经典测试方法的分析,有助于理解驱避效果评估,间接说明驱蚊醇相对较短的持续时间是其劣势。]
Medical and Veterinary Entomology textbooks. (e.g., Mullen, G. R., & Durden, L. A. (Eds.). (2019). Medical and Veterinary Entomology (3rd ed.). Academic Press). [标准医学昆虫学教材会在介绍驱避剂的章节中提及历史使用的成分如驱蚊醇及其局限性。]
National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). Active Ingredient Fact Sheets (Historical). [NPIC可能提供过驱蚊醇的Fact Sheet,概述其用途、作用方式、毒性和环境归宿,是综合信息的来源。需注意信息的时效性。]
Review articles on insect repellents. (e.g., Diaz, J. H. (2016). Chemical and plant-based insect repellents: efficacy, safety, and toxicity. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 27(1), 153-163). [综述性文章通常会涵盖历史使用的驱避剂,包括驱蚊醇,总结其优缺点和当前地位。]