Cargando…

Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management

Bed bug resistance to commonly used pesticide sprays has led to exploring new pesticides and other strategies for bed bug management. Non-chemical methods are effective in bed bug management; however, they do not provide residual protection. Compared to insecticide sprays, dust formulations are cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abbar, Salehe, Wang, Changlu, Cooper, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7411924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32674408
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects11070443
_version_ 1783568491402493952
author Abbar, Salehe
Wang, Changlu
Cooper, Richard
author_facet Abbar, Salehe
Wang, Changlu
Cooper, Richard
author_sort Abbar, Salehe
collection PubMed
description Bed bug resistance to commonly used pesticide sprays has led to exploring new pesticides and other strategies for bed bug management. Non-chemical methods are effective in bed bug management; however, they do not provide residual protection. Compared to insecticide sprays, dust formulations are considered to provide longer residual control. We evaluated two bed bug management programs in apartment buildings. A building-wide inspection was initially conducted to identify bed bug infested apartments. Selected apartments were divided into two treatment groups: non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment (10 apartments) and non-chemical treatment (11 apartments). After initial treatment, apartments were re-visited monthly for up to 6 months. During each visit, the total bed bug count per apartment was obtained by examining interceptor traps placed in the apartments and conducting a visual inspection. Mean bed bug count was reduced by 99% and 89% in non-chemical plus silica gel dust and non-chemical treatment, respectively. Non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment caused significantly higher bed bug count reduction than the non-chemical treatment at 6 months. Bed bugs were eradicated from 40% and 36% of apartments treated with non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment and non-chemical treatment, respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7411924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74119242020-08-25 Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management Abbar, Salehe Wang, Changlu Cooper, Richard Insects Article Bed bug resistance to commonly used pesticide sprays has led to exploring new pesticides and other strategies for bed bug management. Non-chemical methods are effective in bed bug management; however, they do not provide residual protection. Compared to insecticide sprays, dust formulations are considered to provide longer residual control. We evaluated two bed bug management programs in apartment buildings. A building-wide inspection was initially conducted to identify bed bug infested apartments. Selected apartments were divided into two treatment groups: non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment (10 apartments) and non-chemical treatment (11 apartments). After initial treatment, apartments were re-visited monthly for up to 6 months. During each visit, the total bed bug count per apartment was obtained by examining interceptor traps placed in the apartments and conducting a visual inspection. Mean bed bug count was reduced by 99% and 89% in non-chemical plus silica gel dust and non-chemical treatment, respectively. Non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment caused significantly higher bed bug count reduction than the non-chemical treatment at 6 months. Bed bugs were eradicated from 40% and 36% of apartments treated with non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment and non-chemical treatment, respectively. MDPI 2020-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7411924/ /pubmed/32674408 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects11070443 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Abbar, Salehe
Wang, Changlu
Cooper, Richard
Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title_full Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title_fullStr Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title_short Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management
title_sort evaluation of a non-chemical compared to a non-chemical plus silica gel approach to bed bug management
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7411924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32674408
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects11070443
work_keys_str_mv AT abbarsalehe evaluationofanonchemicalcomparedtoanonchemicalplussilicagelapproachtobedbugmanagement
AT wangchanglu evaluationofanonchemicalcomparedtoanonchemicalplussilicagelapproachtobedbugmanagement
AT cooperrichard evaluationofanonchemicalcomparedtoanonchemicalplussilicagelapproachtobedbugmanagement