2 'least toxic' treatment methods compared(7 posts)
Just ran across this rather short account comparing the use of steam/dust/passive monitors vs. steam/phantom/passive monitors in an infested low-income high-rise apartment complex
(hope I posted that correctly)
Thought it might be of interest to those considering non-chemical treatment. The interceptors were considered very useful.
Thanks, EudoraWelty! The interface on that site is baffling; is there some way to actually read the article, as opposed to the abstract?
In particular, I'm interested in the interceptor devices used in the study: Were the devices used the Climbup Interceptors, or some other device?
I suspect they are referring to Climb Up Interceptors in the abstract.
The authors indicated that they found the passive monitors to be effective, but I think we should note that the treatment outcomes under both conditions were less than 100%
Anything less than 100% is a treatment failure when we are talking about bed bugs in the field ..... even with the 89.7% - 97.6% reduction that was observed during the ten week trial .... infestations were still present in 50% of the units at the end of the study.
After 10 wk, bed bugs were eradicated from 50% of the apartments in each group. Bed bug count reduction (mean +/- SEM) was 97.6 +/- 1.6 and 89.7 +/- 7.3% in the D-IPM and S-IPM groups, respectively. Mean treatment costs in the 10-wk period were $463 and $482 per apartment in the D-IPM and S-IPM groups, respectively. Bed bug interceptors trapped an average of 219 +/- 135 bed bugs per apartment in 10 wk. The interceptors contributed to the IPM program efficacy and were much more effective than visual inspections in estimating bed bug numbers and determining the existence of bed bug infestations.
They did not use Climb-ups. They made their own monitoring interceptors using plastic bowls from Ikea, fabric, DE/talc in one moat, and a liquid barrier in the other. Pretty ingenious.
Anyone looking to make their own interceptors could try following the description offered in that study.
p.s. for those who want to read the study, newyorkvsbedbugs.org blogged about it and linked to a PDF of the full report.
Found the link.
EudoraWelty - 15 hours ago »
Thought it might be of interest to those considering non-chemical treatment.
Can you provide a link?
I have been looking for the study on New York vs Bed Bugs, but haven't been able to locate it yet.
Okay, found a link for the study.
I really like the design, but I have reservations about using ethylene glycol in an occupied residence. Due to the sweet taste animals will seek it out & consume it. Forty milliliters is a small amount, but it doesn't take much to harm a small pet.
I would strongly urge anyone that tries this design to substitute mineral oil, Kleen Free, soapy water or some other pet / child safe agent in the outer cup.
Ethylene glycol is used in antifreeze fluid & is well known for causing the deaths of children & domestic pets. It was one of the chemicals responsible for poisoning hundreds of people & pets due to its illegal use in Chinese food products
Here is the entry for ethylene glycol toxicity on Wikipedia
Main article: ethylene glycol poisoning
The major danger from ethylene glycol is ingestion. Due to its sweet taste, children and animals will sometimes consume large quantities of it if given access to antifreeze. Upon ingestion, ethylene glycol is oxidized to glycolic acid which is, in turn, oxidized to oxalic acid, which is toxic. It and its toxic byproducts first affect the central nervous system, then the heart, and finally the kidneys. Ingestion of sufficient amounts can be fatal.
You must log in to post.