SHARK MITIGATION SCIENCE
Accessible Research, Safer Waters
Other personal mitigation
This type of personal mitigation aims to deter sharks using measures other than electric or magnetic mechanisms. For example, smell-based, sound-based, or eye-contact.
The research
This study assesses whether common cuttlefish ink can disrupt smell receptors in cloudy catsharks and white sharks, and potentially act as a deterrent. The study used 3D modelling to investigate the binding affinities of cuttlefish ink components on shark smell receptor proteins. Melanin and taurine (ink components) exhibited strong binding affinities for both shark species, indicating that these components of cuttlefish ink may disrupt shark sensory perception and potentially be used as prey defense.
​
Lawless, C., Simonitis, L.E., Finarelli, J.A. and Hughes, G.M., 2025. Decoding Deception: The binding affinity of cuttlefish ink on shark smell receptors. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, p.jkaf001.
This study assesses whether eye contact can deter Caribbean reef sharks (Carcharhinus perezi) from swimming towards humans. Divers either maintained or broke eye contact with sharks. Sharks came significantly closer to divers when eye contact was interrupted and also reduced their swim speed.
​
Ritter, E.K. and Amin, R., 2021. Does the interruption of eye contact between humans and Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi, influence the sharks’ approach patterns?. Journal of ecotourism, 20(3), pp.270-281.
Five different deterrents were tested on white sharks - the Shark Shield Pty Ltd [Ocean Guardian] Freedom+ Surf (electric), Rpela (electric), SharkBanz bracelet (magnetic), SharkBanz surf leash (magnetic), and Chillax Wax (smell-based). Authors compared the number of baits taken, number of passes, number of reactions and the distance between control (devices switched off) and treatment (devices switched on) trials. The Freedom + Surf was the most effective deterrent, reducing the proportion of baits taken from 96% (control) to 40% (device switched on), and increasing the pass distance from 1.6 ± 0.1 m (control board) to 2.6 ± 0.1 m (device switched on). No other deterrents (including the smell-based deterrent) had a measurable affect on white shark behaviour.
​
Huveneers, C., Whitmarsh, S., Thiele, M., Meyer, L., Fox, A. and Bradshaw, C.J., 2018. Effectiveness of five personal shark-bite deterrents for surfers. PeerJ, 6, p.e5554.
A shark necromone - a pheromone given off by decomposing shark tissue - was exposed to feeding Caribbean reef sharks (Carcharhinus perezi) and blacknose sharks (Carcharhinus acronotus) by an aerosol can at the surface of the water. Estimates of shark numbers were made at initial, 1-minute and 5-minute intervals. For all sharks, feeding behaviours halted after 1-minute of exposure. Sharks evacuated the area, even though a bait was present. Controls showed that bubbles, sound and the solvents used to extract necromones did not cause sharks to evacuate the area.
​
Stroud, E.M., O'Connell, C.P., Rice, P.H., Snow, N.H., Barnes, B.B., Elshaer, M.R. and Hanson, J.E., 2014. Chemical shark repellent: Myth or fact? The effect of a shark necromone on shark feeding behavior. Ocean & Coastal Management, 97, pp.50-57.
This study assesses the ability to use sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), cupric acetate, and rotenone as a deterrent on horn sharks, Heterodontus francisci, swell sharks, Cephaloscylliun ventriosum, and leopard sharks, Triakis semifasciata. Concentration thresholds of each were calculated for both (1) minimum noticeable and (2) strong reactions. No deterrent reactions were seen for cupric acetate. Weak responses were seen for Rotenone, but no strong responses. See the paper for effective concentrations for SLS.
​
Smith Jr, L.J., 1991. The effectiveness of sodium lauryl sulphate as a shark repellent in a laboratory test situation. Journal of Fish Biology, 38(1), pp.105-113.
.jpg)