Close

Singapore eDevelopment’s Biomedical Subsidiary Confirms 100% Repellency of 3F Mosquito Fragrance

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

Singapore Exchange-listed Singapore eDevelopment Limited (“SeD”) announced that its U.S. biomedical subsidiary, Global BioLife Inc. (“Global BioLife”) has completed development and testing of mosquito deterring technologies including fragrances, paints, and fabric.

In August 2017 SeD announced that Global BioLife was collaborating with U.S.-based Chemia Corporation (“Chemia”) to develop a suite of fragrances for medical applications, referred to as 3F (Functional Fragrance Formulation). In addition to 3F, the two companies have also worked together to create photonic mosquito deterring paints and fabric.

3F Mosquito Fragrance (“3F Mosquito”), which is made up of specialized oils sourced from botanicals that mosquitoes avoid, has shown 100% repellency against mosquitoes in laboratory testing. Global BioLife contracted U.S.-based Snell Scientifics, LLC (“Snell”) in Meansville, Georgia to conduct the mosquito studies for the mosquito deterring technologies.

Global BioLife has entered into further collaboration with Chemia to co-develop 3F Mosquito into laundry detergents, shampoos, and lotions to provide a revolutionary alternative to traditional mosquito repellents. The two companies plan to license 3F products globally to manufacturers and distributers. The 3F Mosquito product is based on extensive research of botanical oils which possess mosquito repelling properties. When 3F is infused into products such as detergents, shampoos, and lotions, consumers will be provided with multiple layers of protection against mosquito bites.

“Chemia is very excited to introduce these sustainable and tested fragrances to provide natural alternatives to protecting consumers from the risk of mosquito transmitted diseases,” said Mr. Thomas A. Meyer, Chemia’s Vice-President of Innovation and Sustainability.

Developed by natural products scientist Mr. Daryl Thompson and formulated by Chemia, the uniquely-designed mosquito deterring paints and functional fabric both deter mosquitoes by chemical-free photonic means; a wavelength of light is emitted that mosquitoes avoid. Snell reported that Global BioLife’s photonic mosquito paints and mosquito fabric both exhibit degrees of repellency effective against mosquitoes.

Global BioLife and Chemia have designed the mosquito deterring fabric for use in outdoor apparel, hats, tents, and other camping gear. The mosquito deterring paints were designed as exterior paints for homes as well as commercial applications. These new mosquito deterring technologies are non-chemical methods of repelling mosquitoes for consumers.

The market for safe mosquito repellents and deterrents is growing as the risk of Zika grows. The most vulnerable group of our population at highest risk for Zika infection may be pregnant women, because of their avoidance and dislike of Deet containing products. Although studies regarding the safety of Deet have been conducted, pregnant women continue to be hesitant to use Deet-containing products. The Center for Disease Control of the United States has released multiple statements attempting to convince pregnant women that the use of Deet is safe.

Dr. Peggy Tang, Global BioLife’s CEO, commented: “We expect that these new techniques for fighting mosquito bites will be very appealing to consumers. We are providing unique and useful products, free of harsh chemicals. Due to the perceived toxicity of Deet and the avoidance of chemicals by consumers, Global BioLife’s chemical-free products will have a direct advantage over traditional mosquito repellents.”

“The objective in the design of 3F Mosquito was to identify and create a suitable formula that was both pleasant and would excel in protective abilities against mosquitoes. We have achieved that goal,” Mr. Daryl Thompson, Global BioLife’s Director of Scientific Initiatives, said of 3F Mosquito. “These oils are scientifically proven to affect mosquitoes’ receptors, essentially making the mosquito blind to your presence. 3F offers a pleasant scent while providing layers of protection to keep people safe from mosquito bites.”

“Biomedical science has become increasingly vital. Global BioLife is proud to be taking steps to provide solutions to issues that have been plaguing the biomedical field for decades. This collaboration marks one of the first steps in actively changing the game of healthcare,” said SeD and Global BioLife Executive Chairman Mr. Chan Heng Fai.

In addition to 3F Mosquito, Global BioLife is working with Chemia on the formulation of additional 3F fragrances to fight stress and anxiety and 3F for anti-viral medical applications.

Mr. Thomas Meyer added: “This groundbreaking partnership with Global BioLife sets the stage for a steady stream of innovative fragrances that feature functional properties in various consumer product applications.”

About Singapore eDevelopment Limited
Incorporated on 9 September 2009 and listed on the Singapore Exchange in July 2010, Singapore eDevelopment Limited is involved in (i) property development and investments primarily in the United States and Western Australia; (ii) information technology-related businesses; (iii) development, research, testing, manufacturing, licensing and distribution of biomedical products; and (iv) investment activities. For more information, please visit: www.SeD.com.sg or email contact@sed.com.sg

About Global BioLife Inc.
Global BioLife Inc. (“GBLI”) is a 80%-held direct subsidiary of Global BioMedical Inc., which is a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Singapore BioMedical Pte. Ltd., which in turn is a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Singapore eDevelopment Limited, a company listed on the Singapore Exchange. The remaining shareholding of Global BioLife Inc. is held by Global Research and Discovery Group Scientific LLC (“GRDGS”) and Australian Exchange-listed Holista CollTech Limited (“Holista”) in equal proportions of 10% each.

With an aging population and a growing focus in healthcare issues, biomedical science has become increasingly vital. GBLI strives to leverage its scientific know-how and intellectual property rights to provide solutions that have been plaguing the biomedical field for decades. By tapping into the scientific expertise of GRDGS and Holista, GBLI pledges to undertake a concerted effort in the R&D, drug discovery and development for the prevention, inhibition and treatment of neurological, oncology and immuno-related diseases. GBLI is also collaborating with its partners to develop second generation mosquito defence technologies, which are DEET alternatives, to protect against mosquito transmitted diseases such as Zika and Dengue. For more information, please visit: http://www.globalbiolife.com

About Chemia Corporation
Chemia Fragrance and Flavor provides high quality, cost effective fragrances to the manufacturers of personal care, household and industrial & institutional products. For more information, please visit: http://www.chemiacorp.com

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »