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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |