*2.6. Model Development*

Based on observations of mosquito probing and biting behavior, we hypothesized that the morphometrics critical for blood feeding were associated with the head size and length, the relationship of the antennae to the head, and the length and diameter of the labrum. Based on these assumptions, there were three rationales on how a textile might be used to prevent penetration of the skin: (i) a barrier that is thick enough to prevent the labrum from reaching and penetrating the skin; (ii) a barrier with small enough pores that prevented the labrum and/or the head from penetrating the surface of the textile; and (iii) combinations of (i) and (ii). The boundaries for thickness based on our morphometrics were set from 0 to 2.95 mm (the sum of the head diameter and proboscis length) and the boundaries for pore diameter were from 0 μm to 1.8 mm (the sum of the antenna length and head diameter). Due to the complex geometry between the head and proboscis, we specified three cases to achieve a bite-resistant structure: pore diameter smaller than the diameter of the labrum, pore diameter smaller than the head diameter, and pore diameter smaller than the sum of the head diameter and antenna length. In those cases, each pore diameter has a specific thickness determined by the geometry of the mosquito mouthparts, head, and antenna that would impact biting.

The bite-resistance model describing the relationship between the pore diameter and thickness of a textile barrier is shown in Figure 2B–D. In Case 1, the critical trajectory of the combination of pore diameter and thickness is the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle (the longest side) of the labrum. In Case 2, the critical factor is the arc determined by the head shape. In Case 3, the critical factor is a straight line governed by the antenna. Based on this geometry, we defined the mathematical relationships for each case.

#### *2.7. Materials for Model Validation*

## 2.7.1. Stable Structures

Due to the sophisticated interlacement and entanglement of the fibers [22], most textiles have irregularly distributed pores of different shapes and area and an uneven thickness. In terms of the latter, a textile never has an absolute planer surface. Because of this variability, relating textile structure to bite resistance is not precise. This is further complicated by the large variety of possible textile structural parameters that can be selected, including yarn denier, covering rate, surface roughness, weave or knitting density, etc. Therefore, the use of a textile with a single pore shape and size and a single, fixed thickness is challenging and requires testing a vast number of iterations using different textile production methods. Instead, our first step in model validation was the use of stable structures.

For Case 2 and Case 3 conditions, we simulated a porous fabric with rigid polypropylene plates (Figure S2C) with bored holes of varying diameters that were distributed in uniform patterns on each plate where we could simulate precise pore shapes (circular), pore areas, and textile thicknesses. The size of each polypropylene plate was fixed at 14.5 cm × 3.4 cm to fit into the *in vitro* bioassay device described earlier. Based on mosquito morphometrics, we focused on 3 different pore diameters which (i) included the head (1.25 mm); (ii) partially excluded the head (0.8 mm); and (iii) completely excluded the head (0.5 mm). Those plates were produced by a combination of 3D printing to obtain the correct thickness and computer numerical controlled (CNC) machining to obtain a specific pore size and number of holes. First, a plain mold was printed on a 3D printer (Objet Connex350, Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA) to the desired thickness. Then the pre-designed pattern was processed on a CNC machine to obtain holes with precise diameters that would mimic a porous textile. A series of prototype spacers (S = plastic spacer; S1, S2 ... , S8, listed in Table 1) were made at different combinations of pore sizes and thickness, which spans Case 2 and Case 3's safe and unsafe combinations. As shown in Figure S5C,D, S1 is 2.1 mm thick, with a 0.5 mm pore diameter; S2 2.1 mm thick, with a 0.8 mm diameter; S3 2.5 mm thick, with a 0.5 mm diameter; S4 2.5 mm thick, with a 0.8 mm diameter; S5 2.5 mm thick, with a

1.25 mm diameter; S6 2.72 mm thick, with a 0.8 mm diameter; S7 2.75 mm thick, with a 1.25 mm pore diameter; and S8 3 mm thick, with a 1.25 mm diameter.

**Figure 2.** Bite-resistance model development. (**A**–**D**) Ice green vertical bars are the textile barrier, and the red dotted line the critical combination of pore diameter and thickness of the textile barrier. (**A**) Three cases that prevent mosquito biting based on mosquito anatomy. (**B**) Case 1—the pore diameter is smaller than the labrum diameter. (**C**) Case 2—the pore diameter is larger than the labrum diameter but smaller than the head diameter. (**D**) Case 3—the pore diameter is larger than head diameter but smaller than the sum of the head diameter and antenna length. (**E**) Abbreviations for length and diameter of the mosquito anatomy. (**F**) Zoomed-in view of the Case 1 model. (**G**) Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3 model predictions. Brown dotted lines in (**F**,**G**) are the critical parameters measured from the anatomy of the *Ae. aegypti* female in Figure S1 that define the three cases' combinations of porosities and thicknesses of the textile.

The holes in each plate were of uniform diameter. The ratio of open space (from the pores) to closed space (from the solid surface) was held constant in these studies. If the number of pores per plate was held constant but pore diameter increased, there would be an increasing probability that the probing mosquitoes would encounter a pore by chance alone. Furthermore, differences in the open area across a plate affects the amount of mosquito attractants (heat and odor [23]) penetrating through the holes in the plate. These attractants can affect landing and biting rates. Accordingly, as pore diameter was increased, a smaller number of pores were needed per plate. If the number of pores is designated as *N* and the diameter of a pore is designated as d with a unit of cm, the percentage of open area in a spacer should be a constant *C*, as shown in Equation (1):

$$C = \frac{N \cdot \pi (d/2)^2}{14.5 \times 3.4} \tag{1}$$

To keep the probability of a mosquito encountering a pore constant, the equation shows that the number of pores *N* in a spacer is inversely proportional to the square of the diameter of a pore, d. From the equation, the value of *N* was 572, 1396, and 3574 for pore diameters at 1.25, 0.8, and 0.5 mm, respectively.

For the Case 1 barriers, constructing thin plastic plates of ~75 μm or less by 3D printing was not possible. The thickness was too variable across the area of the plate. Furthermore, drilling small pores of ~28 μm or less by drilling across a thin plastic plate was not possible. To achieve the operational parameters needed to test the Case 1 model, commercially available Saatifil® polyester woven filtration fabrics were used (W = woven; W1, W2, W3, and W4, listed in Table 1) (shown in Figure S2B). In Figure S5A,B, W1 is 52 μm thick with a 25 μm pore dimeter, W2 is 60 μm thick with an 18 μm diameter, W3 is 58 μm thick with 14 μm pores, and W4 is 86 μm thick with 8 μm pores. These fabrics had square pores produced when the polypropylene monofilaments were woven in a plain weave pattern. The size of each woven fabric was 14.5 cm × 3.4 cm to fit into the *in vitro* bioassay device already described. We evaluated the bite resistance of four monofilament woven fabrics and the plastic blocks using the *in vitro* bioassay described earlier.

#### 2.7.2. Knitted Textile Structures

To further validate our model for flexible textiles (T = textile materials; Table 1), we constructed fabrics including one predicted unsafe and one predicted safe according the model for each Case.

Case 1: The Case 1 fabric (T1; Figure S2D) was an ultra-fine synthetic knit of 80 percent polyamide of 20 denier count (a unit of measure for the linear mass density of fibers, the mass in grams per 9000 m of the fiber) and 20 percent elastane of 15 denier count and has a weight of 82 g/m2. Its pattern was a jersey plated knit structure of 78 wales and 104 courses per inch and with a pore size between 32 and 42 μm. The pore diameter of T1 in Figure S5F was larger than the diameter of the mosquito labrum. To reduce the pore diameter based on our Case 1 model, we used a 1 m-wide, laboratory oil-heated Stork laminator (Stork GmbH, Bavaria, Germany) to heat set the fabric in the Dyeing and Finishing Pilot Plant at NC State University. The temperature was 190 ◦C (lower than *T*g of the polyamide) with a 120 s duration. It was found that the pore diameters of the fabric (T2) was reduced by this treatment to 10 μm from 16 μm and the thickness reduced to 0.26 mm, as shown in Figure S5E,F (predicted to be safe by the Case 1 model).

Case 2: 3D spacer fabrics (T3, T4: satin weave + pillar stitch; Figure S2E) were produced on a double-needle bed, Raschel warp knitting machine with six guide bars (Rius Mini-tronic Raschel Warp Knitting Machine, RIUS-COMATEX, Barcelona, Spain) in the Knitting Laboratory at the Wilson College of Textiles at NC State University. The material consisted of 100% polyester (Huizhou City Meilin Textile Co., Ltd., Huizhou, China). For the pile yarn, a 33 dtex (a unit of direct measure of yarn linear density, grams per 10 km of yarn) monofilament was used. The outside surface was made with 55 dtex multi-filaments. Both multi-filaments contained 36 filaments, respectively. To make variations in the design, the take-up speed was changed. Hence, the stitches per cm and the thickness would change. The T3 fabric was made by a 700% take-up speed, and the T4 one made by a 900% take-up speed. The combination of thickness and pore diameter of the T3 (Figure S5E,F) was predicted unsafe while that of T4 was predicted safe.

Case 3: The 3D spacer (warp) knit fabric for Case 3 had the same pattern and materials as the Case 2 fabrics, which were produced on the same Raschel warp knitting machine. Case 3 fabrics T5 and T6 (Figure S2E) were produced at 1500% and 1200% take-up speeds. The T5 thickness was 2 mm with a pore diameter of 940 μm. T6 was 3 mm and 770 μm, respectively (Figure S5E,F). Based on the model prediction, T6 is a safe material that should resist mosquito bites.

We evaluated the bite resistance of the Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3 fabrics using the *in vitro* bioassay system described earlier. All the materials used in the model validation, as listed in Table 1, including the woven textiles, plastic plates, and knits, were white in color to avoid potential mosquito preferences in landing and biting based on color differences.

#### *2.8. Finite Element Model for Proboscis Penetration*

In addition to our Case 1–3 conditions, we needed to investigate the point of contact of the proboscis to a textile surface and how this specific interaction might impact our prediction of penetration (especially relative to the Case 1 model). The finite analysis model was necessary because for Case 1, predictions based on labrum diameter alone were not 100% correct in predicting blood feeding when approaching the boundary between safe and unsafe textiles (Figure 3B). This result suggested additional physical interactions might be in play that were important in preventing biting. Finite Element Analysis was conducted for a woven versus a knitted structure to examine two possible scenarios for micro-deformation. The woven model was used for investigating the interaction of the woven structures and the knit to understand the role of stretching.

Structural parameters of woven and knit structures were obtained by the calculation of fabric thickness, weave density and spatial axial distribution [11,24], which were then imported into SolidWorks®, a computer-aided design program, for establishment of a geometrical model. The boundary conditions of both the woven and knit model were set to periodical boundary conditions [25] for approximating a large (infinite) fabric piece by using a small fraction of the piece. Since only a small force is applied in both scenarios, the mechanical property for the knit and woven model can be treated as linear elastic materials.

To simulate the pore deformation of the woven structure, a virtual labrum with the same mechanical properties and shape of a real mosquito labrum was used to penetrate the woven fabric. This virtual labrum will be discussed more later. The test was analyzed using the software suite SIMULIA Abaqus/Explicit 6.14. The elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of the polyester monofilament used in this model were 2.16 GPa and 0.3, respectively.

For modelling the virtual labrum, we needed the fundamental mechanical properties of the proboscis. Because of its small size, traditional methods to measure tensile and compression [26] were not possible. Alternatively, the elastic properties of the proboscis were determined with a Bruker Hysitron TI980 Triboindenter (in the NC State University Analytical Instrumentation Facility). The measured location and load–depth curves are shown in Figure S7C. The elastic modulus of the proboscis can be achieved by the initial part of the recovery curve [27].

To simulate the pore deformation of the knit structure, virtual tensile forces were applied to the model in the course and wale directions (Figure S7B), and the simulated deformations compared with the real fabric deformation (Figure S7D,E). The elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of the blended yarn used in this model were 1.08 GPa and 0.21, respectively. The knit model was validated using the experimental tensile data (Figure S7C) to ensure they have an equivalent mechanical property as the real knit fabrics.

**Figure 3.** Mosquito morphometrics, model prediction based on mosquito morphometrics, impact of fabric distortion on biting, and comparison of non-insecticide versus insecticide-treated textiles for bite resistance. (**A**) Measured parameters of mosquito anatomy (average value calculated from 20 measurements for each parameter). (**B**) Model prediction of safe and unsafe woven filtration fabrics (left graph) and plastic plates (right graph). See Figure 4 and Table 1 for the in vitro bioassay results and Table 1 for the barrier abbreviations and whether the prediction was correct. (**C**–**H**) A demonstration of the textile structure failing to resist the mosquito bite at the critical boundary between safe and unsafe (Figure 3B) due to enlargement of the pore under labrum penetration. (**C**) Tip of proboscis. To measure the resistance to proboscis penetration, the mechanical property of the labrum (pink color) was measured. (**D**) Nanoindentation curve of the labrum. The elastic modulus was 1.35 GPa calculated by the load–depth curve. (**E**) Illustration of four weave patterns (W = Case 1 validating Woven structures, W1 to W4). (**F**) Model of the W2 fabric under pressure from proboscis penetration. The elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of the polyester monofilament used in this model was 2.16 GPa and 0.3, respectively, evaluated on the MTS® tensile tester with 2 cm gauge and 5 mm/min speed. (**G**) Deformation process of W-2 subjected to proboscis penetration. (**H**) Variation of the pore diameter caused by proboscis penetration. The black dashed line is the maximum proboscis diameter. Pore diameters of W1 and W2 increased beyond this critical value, and thereby failed to resist proboscis penetration. (**I**,**J**) Arm-in-cage bioassay results for fabrics H and P: (**I**) difference in the number of landings was statistically significant at *p* < 0.01; (**J**) difference in the percentages of blood-fed mosquitoes was significant at *p* < 0.05. (**K**) Mosquitos failing to probe through the H fabric because of its small pore size (obvious proboscis bending trying to push through the H fabric). (**L**) Blood-fed female after successfully penetrating through the P fabric.

**Figure 4.** In vitro bioassay results for the woven structures, plastic plates, and knitted and knitted spacer fabrics (see Table 1 for the pore size and thickness, model prediction, and whether the prediction was accurate; Figure 3B for the position of the woven structures and plastic plates relative to the safe and unsafe barriers predicted by the model). (**A**) Number of landings on the woven structures. (**B**) Percentage of blood fed on by mosquitoes on woven structures. (**C**) Number of landings on plastic plates. (**D**) Percentage of blood fed on by mosquitoes on plastic plates. (**E**) Number of landings on knitted fabrics. (**F**) Percentage of blood fed on by mosquitoes on knitted fabrics. Abbreviations used: W1 to W4 = Case 1 woven filtration structures; S1 to S8 = Cases 2 and 3 plastic spacer blocks; T1 to T6 = Cases 1–3 knitted and spacer (3D) knitted textiles (see Table 1 for more detailed definitions of the abbreviations).

#### *2.9. Prototype Bite-Resistant Fabrics Tested for Garment Construction*

Three knitted fabrics (H, B, S; Table 1 and Figure S3B–D) were developed as component textiles for garmen<sup>t</sup> construction. They were selected from a dataset of candidate bite resistant fabrics that were predicted safe by our bite-resistance model. These textiles were assayed using arm-in-cage bioassays since the goal later was to test them in garments on human subjects in walk-in-cage studies.

Case 1 H. The Case 1 fabric H (the high-density fabric, H; Figure S3B) was an ultrafine synthetic knit of 80 percent polyamide of 20 denier count and 20 percent elastane of 20 denier count and had a weight of 96 g/m2. Its pattern is a jersey plated knit structure of 84 wales and 112 courses per inch and with a pore size between 20 μm and 28 μm, allowing air passage but preventing mosquito biting. It had a high elasticity of 400% stretch in the course direction and 160% stretch in the wale direction (Figure S7C). The H fabric has a more elastane content and smaller pore size compared with T1, which came from the same knitting technology. It was made into a base layer in the following section "construction of protective garments". Although the H fabric was not a 100% bite-resistant material due to an irregular pore distribution in the knit pattern, when combined as a base layer with military issued garments, a 100% bite resistance was possible in whole-garment testing.

Case 1 B. Fabric B (a bonded fabric; Figure S3C) is the combination of two layers of H fabric that was made by applying a small dot pattern of dry low-melt adhesive (CG-1698 polyurethane adhesive, Chemix Guru Ltd., Taichung, Taiwan) to one surface and then feeding the two fabrics back-to-back together applying pressure using heated drums (temperature 120 ◦C, duration 20 s). The two fabrics are fused together at regular intervals, and then the adhesive dots subjected to cool circulating air for 24 h to eliminate volatiles that might affect mosquito biting. The paste dot application procedure is particularly gentle to the substrate, and the wide range of options for formulating the paste provides the user flexibility in the application procedure. The relative nature, drape, porosity, and flexibility of the fabric is maintained, and this method only adds approximately 5% to the total weight. The B fabric is highly stretchable and demonstrated high mosquito bite resistance, which makes it suitable to being used as an outer protective garment.

Case 2 S. The S fabric (3D spacer fabric; Figure S3D) was a commercially available 3D warp knit spacer fabric (Production ID: 34836, Springs Creative Products Group, LLC, Rock Hill, SC, USA) that was predicted safe for bite protection using our Case 2 model. The surface (top and bottom) yarns are PA filament tows, and the pile yarns used in the middle layer were PA monofilaments. The surface patterns are shown in Figure S3D. The S fabric had a stable structure with large openings outside that allowed air flow into and under the garment, thereby transporting of heat and sweat out.

Case 3. Case 3 fabrics were translucent due to their large pores and not practical when used alone for typical garments where human body parts need to be covered and not seen by others. Therefore, we did not use the Case 3 fabrics to assemble a garment. This is not to say this fabric does not have uses for mosquito protection in parts of the body where it is ok to show the skin or as a cover at the beach or in the tropics where there are mosquitoes and also high thermal challenges to the body. The materials could also have uses for garmen<sup>t</sup> ventilation in specific areas of a garment.

Base on the color requirement for military garments, the H fabric was dyed to a light brown color before assembly into the base layer. B and S were dyed to a camo color before assembly into the military-style shirt (NCSU shirt).

#### *2.10. Textile Structural Analysis*

As mentioned before, fabric pore size and thickness are two critical factors in our model that determined bite resistance. Hence, it was important to measure these variables accurately. Pore areas in textile materials, especially in knitted fabrics, have irregular shapes due to complex fiber configurations. Pores with an elliptical shape often failed to resist mosquito bites even though the pore openings were narrower than the proboscis in one direction. We also found irregular pore openings were difficult to measure accurately and were not informative to our model. Therefore, we assumed pores to be circular, and we measured pore diameter across the widest area of fabric pores so that the model would reflect a worst-case scenario.

Pore diameter was measured (Figure S4) with a digital microscope (Bausch & Lomb, Monozoom-7 Zoom Microscope), and images analyzed using ImageJ software, an opensource image-processing program designed for analyzing multidimensional images [28]. Based on Feret's diameter, the width of the pore along its longest direction, a frequency distribution of the pore diameters, and a fitting curve were obtained. From the peak of the fitting frequency distribution, we picked three maximum diameters for each fabric to calculate the average maximum pore diameter (4 images were captured for each fabric, a total of 12 measured values). Fabric thickness, measured with a Thwing-Albert ProGage Thickness Tester (Thwing-Albert ProGage instrument company, West Berlin, NJ, USA) was averaged over 10 tests, using standard methods for assessing textile thickness, as described in the ASTM D1777 guidelines [29]. The procedure of measuring pore diameter is shown in Figure S4, and the values of the measured pore diameters and fabric thicknesses are shown in Figure S5.

#### *2.11. Comparison of the Non-Insecticide and Insecticide-Treated Textiles*

Before garmen<sup>t</sup> construction, it was prudent to understand how our bite-resistant, non-insecticidal textiles performed relative to a leading brand of insecticide-treated cloth. We compared the bite resistance of the H fabric with a commercially available permethrintreated T-shirt fabric (P = permethrin, listed in Table 1), which was cut from an InsectShield® T-shirt (RN149846, Insect Shield, LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA) purchased from a local retail store. The fabric was 70% cotton and 30% polyester and cut into 14.5 cm × 3.4 cm for the arm-in-cage (in vivo) bioassays.

#### *2.12. Construction of Protective Garments*

Based on the predictions of our model, three types of fabrics were used as bite resistant materials: a superfine knit fabric (H), a double-layer bonded knit fabric (B), and a knitted 3D spacer fabric (S), as shown in Figure S3B–D. Two types of garments were produced: a base layer and a military-style combat shirt, as shown in Figure S6A,B.

Base layer (Figure S6A). A form-fitting undergarment was constructed consisting of an upper body, form-fitting garmen<sup>t</sup> having a torso section and arm sections made from the Case 1 fabric H. The garmen<sup>t</sup> was fitted with an elastic neck cuff secured to define a neck opening for the torso section; an elastic waist cuff secured to define a waistband around the torso section; and a pair of elastic wrist cuffs disposed at an outer terminus of each of the arm sections. The ensemble also included a lower-body, form-fitting garmen<sup>t</sup> having a waist section and left- and right-leg sections made from the same textiles as previously described for the shirt. The pants were fitted with an elastic waist cuff secured to define the waistband around the waist section and a pair of elastic ankle cuffs disposed at the terminus of each of the left and right leg sections. The cut and sewing of this garmen<sup>t</sup> were conducted in the Fashion Studio at the Wilson College of Textiles at NC State University. The garmen<sup>t</sup> was unwashed and tested in walk-in-cage studies (described earlier).

NCSU shirt (Figure S6B). A long sleeve shirt was constructed as an upper-body, formfitting garment. The shirt consisted of Case 1 B and Case 2 S fabrics. The incorporation of the B fabric provides extensionality and bite resistance, while the use of the S fabric brings breathability, pressure release, and bite resistance to the shirt. The S fabric was designed into the sections of the shoulders, chest, back, and elbow of the garment, and the remainder of the shirt was the B fabric. The cut and sewing for this garmen<sup>t</sup> were conducted in the Fashion Studio at the Wilson College of Textiles at NC State University. The garmen<sup>t</sup> was unwashed and tested in walk-in-cage studies (described earlier).

Both garments were sewed on an MF 7924 cover stitch sewing machine (JUKI, Singapore) and locked on a DDL-8700-7 lockstitch machine (JUKI, Singapore). The sewing thread was 100% polyester (RCL, model: RCLJ-ST-W, Wuxi, China). The seams were bite

resistant in the walk-in-cage bioassay, since there was a two-layer overlap of the textile at the connections between the two pieces of cloth.

#### *2.13. Sweat Manikin Test for Comfort Evaluation of Garments*

In the Textile Protection and Comfort Center of NC State University, a sweating manikin was used to evaluate the thermal insulation and breathability of the garments [30] (Figure S6D). The test instrument is composed of a manikin, an environmental chamber, an ambient detector, a power supplier, a water reservoir, and a pump.

Comparisons were made with a commercially available base layer garmen<sup>t</sup> (Under Armour® men's base 1.0 crew, model: 1281079, Under Armour Inc., Baltimore, MD, USA) and a military-issued combat shirt (Winter Army Combat Shirt Test, made in the USA by NIB/NCW, Figure 5A). The comparison garments had similar material characteristics and knit patterns to our garments. Each comfort evaluation was replicated three times, after which average values were calculated.

Manikin zones (a group of thermal-sweat elements on the manikin) were measured for thermal resistance and evaporative resistance. The standard method for measuring thermal resistance is described in ASTM F1291 and was followed. Test conditions for thermal resistance were 20 ◦C, 50% relative humidity, and a 0.4 m/s air speed with a 35 ◦C skin temperature. The measurement standard of evaporative resistance was ASTM F2370. Test conditions for evaporative resistance were 35 ◦C, 40% relative humidity, and a 0.4 m/s air speed with a 35 ◦C skin temperature. The following parameters were obtained from the manikin test: *R*t ( ◦C·<sup>m</sup>2/W), the total thermal resistance provided by the manikin, garmen<sup>t</sup> ensembles, and air layer; *R*et (kPa·<sup>m</sup>2/W), the total evaporative resistance provided by the manikin, garmen<sup>t</sup> ensembles, and air layer; *R*cl ( ◦C·<sup>m</sup>2/W), the instinct thermal resistance provided by the garmen<sup>t</sup> ensembles only; *R*ecl (kPa·<sup>m</sup>2/W), the instinct evaporative resistance provided by the garmen<sup>t</sup> ensembles only; *I*t (clo), the total insulation provided by the manikin, garmen<sup>t</sup> ensembles, and air layer (higher *I*t values mean the garmen<sup>t</sup> has a higher thermal insulation property that would not be desirable in warm weather for a bite-resistant fabric); *i*m, the moisture-heat permeability through the fabric on a scale of 0 (total impermeable) to 1 (total permeable) normalized by the permeability of still air on the naked skin; and *Q*predicted (W/m2), the predicted heat loss potential, which gives a predicted level of the total amount of heat that could be transferred from the manikin to the ambient environment for a specified condition. The *Q*predicted incorporates thermal and evaporative resistance values to calculate the predicted levels of evaporative and dry heat transfer components for a specific environmental condition. In this case, the specified environment was 25 ◦C and a 65% relative humidity. The overall *Q*predicted under these conditions was calculated by adding the predicted dry component of heat loss to the predicted evaporative component of heat loss and reflected the predicted total amount of heat loss possible. The test results of all parameters are shown in Table S1.
