We’re going to wrap up this year; this is all way too sad, so I really appreciate your shot of optimism here. I have 2 at most 3 things on my to do list, just waiting for the city to name the board so that we can meet with them.

If folks can’t order or purchase the interceptors available now, they could attempt to rig interceptors as described by the study below:

The bed bug interceptors consisted of two plastic bowls (Fig. 1). The large bowl (IKEA New Haven, New Haven, CT) was 6 cm high with a 18-cm diameter at the bottom and a 15-cm diameter at the top. Fabric was glued to its exterior wall to allow bed bugs to climb the bed bug interceptors. The inner wall of the bowl was smooth. Bed bugs that reached the top of the bowl were subject to falling into the bottom of the bowl, which contained 40 ml of 50% ethylene glycol as a killing agent. The small bowl was a plastic container 7 cm high with a 9-cm bottom diameter and a 10.5-cm top diameter. The small bowl was placed inside the large bowl and formed a trench between the large and the small bowl. The inner bottom of the small bowl was covered with a mixture of diatomaceous earth (50%) and talcum powder (50%) as killing agent. Furniture legs were placed inside the small bowl. Bed bugs from the room that were trying to reach the human host on bed or sofa would climb the large bowl and fall into the killing agent (ethylene glycol). Bed bugs from furniture crawling into the small bowl by furniture legs were not able to escape into the large bowl because of the small bowl’s hard smooth inner surface and talcum power (as an extra preventative measure).

That excerpt is interesting. Despite some challenging circumstances, the investigators were still able to eradicate a sizable percentage. (Not saying ALL participants were unable or unwilling to cooperate.)

That brings new optimism and a little sadness too. If folks are able & willing to commit to a recommended IPM protocol, surely the odds of success will improve. But that woman … bringing back the bedbugged chair. How frustrating …

On a general note, Renee, the information and content of this blog is amazing!

Yeah, I shouldn’t have posted this without reading the paper. For one thing, their study was not designed to compare chlorfenapyr-based IPM treatment against DE-IPM treatment, so the title of this post is inappropriate.

Failure occurred in some cases because, well, here’s their description:

Many of the residents involved in this study were not aware of and/or were not concerned about bed bug infestations. At the end of this study, none of the residents complained about bed bug bites. However, 50% of the apartments still had bed bugs. Thus, relying on resident reporting and interviews will not provide accurate information on bed bug infestations. Many residents did not or were unable to wash bed bug-infested linens and reduce clutter. One resident did not like our frequent visits and treatments, despite her bed bug infestation. She brought in a bed bug-infested chair during our study, which contributed to the eradication failure in her apartment.

They also came away with these thoughts about what is necessary:

Results from this study suggest several important considerations in bed bug management: (1) bed bug interceptors are a valuable tool for estimating bed bug populations, reducing bed bug numbers, and providing immediate relief to residents from bed bug bites; (2) IPM regimens such as those used in this study reduce pesticide use and human/insecticide exposure risks; (3) effective residual insecticides are needed for bed bug elimination; (4) multiple inspections and treatments are necessary to eradicate bed bug infestations.

I was able to download a copy of this paper by doing the journal article search directly on the ESA’s website on this page. This direct link to the PDF download may or may not work.

I can email it to you later if you want to read it.

Best.

(Ignoring the Phantom study for now) IPM with just steam, DE, interceptors, encasements and education _eradicated_ infestations in half the subjects in just ten weeks. IPM _can_ work! I wonder if you’d see higher eradication rates if the study period had been longer (e.g. 16 weeks vs. 10 weeks).

I know 10, 16, 20 weeks is a long time, but people fight infestations with restricted pesticides for longer periods than that and still don’t eradicate their problem. I wonder if the researchers analyzed how other factors influenced the results, e.g. the initial size of the infestation.