Wang, Changlu; Gibb, Timothy; Bennett, Gary W.; Mcknight, Susan (2009) Bed Bug (Heteroptera: Cimicidae) Attraction to Pitfall Traps Baited With Carbon Dioxide, Heat, and Chemical Lure Journal of Economic Entomology, 102:4, 1580-1585. (free PDF download)
Dr. Wang and colleagues have published a new paper on bed bug traps. It’s great to see them pursuing affordability. Dry ice instead of a pressurized tank; both deliver CO2 quite well—although it should be noted of course that dry ice requires safe handling. (This is a note about a research paper. Please do not try this at home. Carbon dioxide can suffocate you and your loved ones. Go ahead and try the heat trap, though! There is a photograph in the article, an inverted cat dish, fabric, hand warmers…)
They found that carbon dioxide and heat (from hand warmers) are good at catching bed bugs, but carbon dioxide is more effective.
Getting the right proportion and mix of chemical attractants is apparently difficult and so chemical attractants did not make that much of a difference in their trials:
The small pitfall traps made of plastic dishes provide an efficient method to quantify the attractiveness of nonchemical and chemical lures to bed bugs. Among the three attractants (CO2, heat, and chemical lure) tested, we found that CO2 was by far the most effective in attracting bed bugs, supporting the conclusion by Anderson et al. (2009). Additionally, we found that heat alone was effective in attracting bed bugs. Chemical lure increased trap catches in two of the three replicates at 6 h and in all replicates at 21 h. However, the differences were small. This result was consistent with our preliminary tests showing weak attractiveness of chemical lures.
Treating for bed bugs in unoccupied premises is extremely challenging, and so it is interesting to note that they tested a version of the trap in a vacated apartment and caught 505 bed bugs thirteen days after vacancy and 113 bed bugs twenty-one days after vacancy.
When you read this, I don’t want you to miss this:
The single test in a vacant apartment showed that in heavily infested apartments 1) visual inspections could seriously underestimate the bed bug numbers, 2) large numbers of bed bugs were not on the furniture and survived the chemical and nonchemical treatment, and 3) baited-pitfall traps were helpful in monitoring effectiveness of bed bug treatments. From our observations, bed bugs frequently travel from infested apartments to the hallways in a multiunit apartment building (C.W. et al. unpublished data). It is logical to infer that bed bugs are more likely to disperse into neighboring apartments through hallways when their host is no longer present. Therefore, using baited traps in unoccupied infested apartments may reduce the risk of bed bug dispersal between adjacent units in multiunit dwellings.
Emphasis added.
Best check those apartments across the hall then.
You can download another recent article from this group of researchers which described an evaluation of IPM treatments and the now-commercialized interceptor trap for use underneath bed posts and furniture legs here (free PDF download). No doubt there will be more and better trap designs out there soon.
They thought traps were for ‘primitives’ and here we are desperate for them.
Dear Renee,
It is great that people are working on solutions, but as always, these procedures are expensive and difficult, requiring more than the public can do themselves. As always, my view is that one application of good chemistry will end this. I often wonder if anyone has stopped to think how much effort is going into all of this and why?
We need to be aware as to who is responsible for keeping good chemistry away from the professionals. Because, whether it is new chemistry or old chemistry…chemistry is the answer.
Furthermore, there is no reason why the general public shouldn’t be able to take care of this problem themselves. Professionals always do it better, but products should be available in order for the do-it-yourselfers to be able care for their families by themselves. And make no mistake about it’; people are doing it themselves and what they are doing is a bit scary. People will not sit idly by and allow their families to suffer for someone else’s ideology.
To withhold products that can do the job is a moral dilemma that needs to be addressed, and the question that needs to be asked is this; what kind of morality allows for this to go on and whose morality is it?
Best wishes,
Rich Kozlovich
Hi Rich,
I actually agree with you more and more. But there are certain realities we all need to be fully aware of. One, people are making a lot of money in this situation as it is, many of them in the bosom of the industry you love so much. Two, nobody cares. Three, people like me can’t make much of a difference. Four…
Let me show you something. See this? Do you realize the harrowing reality that this represents? And do you know how many people care about this? Nobody cares. This is one of the reasons I was so underwhelmed by that federal bed bug bill.
I’m not sure what the answer is. It’s beyond depressing.
PS: Also, if you meant my over-dramatic warning about dry ice, that is kind of obligatory! I know how common sense-impaired people who have bed bugs actually are.
I think that our bed bug problems will not be solved until there is a widely-deployable (read: inexpensive and accessible) solution.
When i first saw this post, my main focus was about “across the hall” and what this means. The use of traps that are essentially non-”chemical” in the sense of being poisons is always of benefit as detection or even to reduce numbers, and the work of Wang certainly advances this. The idea of short term lures such as chemically activated heat and CO2 generators is great as a detection tool or even to help “draw out” bed bugs from vacated units into traps. Great ideas I think.
Our experience with “across the hall” are different from some of the noted “unreported observations” in the “across the hall” post. Some years ago we had concerns in about spread of infestation from units to hallways in a 26 storey high rise. In fact, this resulted in replacement of carpets with floor tiles but at the time there was pressure to spray every hallway in the entire building on a monthly basis. As the carpets were being replaced, workmen reported bed bugs and this created a panic — so I had two of my staff inspect every floor in the building during the carpet replacement. Amazingly, nothing was found in the way of living or dead bed bugs. This was not a scientific study but rather anecdotal observations, but it made me quite adamant about not spraying hallways monthly as the benefit was limited. As for monitoring “across the hall”, I discussed this with Clive Boase who pointed out that the collection of linens in hotels and the practice of putting dirty linens in a hallway could cause spread “across the hall”, whereas in residential this kind of spread might be caused throughout a hallway by improper disposal of infested items, but one has to consider how likely it might be in general. My take on the evidence we have experienced is that it is not impossible, but it is not that likely in average situations… Think like a “bed bug” as Austin Frishman might say. Moving along baseboards and through pipe penetrations seems a much safer route than traversing a hallway.. Mind you, if the unit was sealed perfectly, well, they might go to the hallway, but we also have to think of how long they can survive without new hosts, and how long the unit is actually vacant before the new host arrives. So there are a lot of factors going on to determine their pattern of spread. If we found a site in which hallways were found to be a significant route of spread, I would have them vacuumed carefully, and treat with steam at perimeters. Use pesticides only if the situation was such that this was really the only way … but my take is that this is likely rare..
It used to be a common practice to spray hallways in apartment buildings and in schools too.. but I consider it to be a primitive over-reaction, and in my view, should not be done without substantial evidence that it is efficacious.
Regarding Rich Kozlovich post about chemistry being the answer.. well, I agree with the notion of “good” chemistry… but we have to define what we mean by “good” chemistry. We live in a complex industrial society with hazards around us. On the one hand, we sometimes have objections to “good” chemistry such as fluoridation of water that has proven to dramatically improve dental health of our society, with no evidence to indicate that this has had any harm, but some groups believe passionately that it is the worse thing since the atomic bomb to threaten society and the world at large. On the other side, we have apologists for the use of pesticides even in the face of common sense and logic. The lawn care industry here in Toronto and in Ontario didn’t heed the warnings about societal concerns about overuse of pesticides for cosmetic reasons, and argued that the validity of registration of products by our regulatory agency should be sufficient grounds to continue to spray lawns for weeds and insect pests month to month on a seasonal basis. There was, however, a major concern about the common sense of risk/benefit, so the end result was the banning of pesticides for this purpose in all but special cases such as golf courses, .. and of course, this did not apply to the agrictultural sector. I can only say from personal experience, one of my friends had two daughters and one day they played on their backyard lawn a day after the weed treatment and one had zero effect and the other broke out in a major rash.
I am not against bringing a product back if it is effective but we need to depend on the scientists in regulatory agencies to review the risk/benefit equation for products in certain situations – and if their professional estimation in the context of available knowledge is that a particular product or group of products poses unacceptable risk to society in the context of patterns of use, well, I trust them. The problem, however, is more than just a particular product. It is about patterns of treatment and the way that control of particular pests is approached. Before the use of modern pesticides, there was little availability of safe pesticides, and for pests like bed bugs, it seems it was more related to cleaning and sometimes use of pretty toxic stuff like Cyanogas. Perhaps the risk/benefit equation for some of the banned products may go back to usage for bed bugs, but i think it still depends on the real risk, and if we are talking about major health risks to society at large over a lifetime, then the focus must be on best practices.
I do not think that good science should be influenced by politics or self-interest, but rather by common sense. Can we control bed bugs without return of the banned products, .. i believe that the answer is a resounding “YES”.
It is easy…? no.. not really…
but I suggest that demonizing regulators is counter productive.
Can people solve the problem themselves… some can, but they must research it carefully through reading best practices on the net and then applying those practices. Renee had it right not long ago about the benefit of good step by step procedures for the Do It Yourself person, but the “good” chemistry as a quick fix is not the answer. It didn’t work for roaches, and it won’t work for bed bugs. Yes, the resurgence is certainly related to chemistry, but if there is an irony to this, the change in the patterns of roach control that have been a main cause of the resurgence of bed bugs were most excellent and safer methods for roach control. In another curious twist, the very factors that make bed bug control so hard….. clutter and social isolation, mental health issues, old age, poverty — all these things must be approached to address this problem, especially in cities, and the work to eliminate the bed bugs often improves the GENERAL quality of life for these people. That is more than just so called “good” chemistry.
I again use the model of chemotherapy for cancer as a risk/benefit decision. Would you have chemotherapy if you didn’t have cancer. Of course not… And if there was a better way to cure the cancer instead of chemotherapy, wouldn’t you choose that? I think so….
for bed bug management it is IPM in its real meaning and practice…
and this is wide ranging and rich in common sense and good science…
good chemistry is only part of it….. but the good chemistry is not the silver bullet sought for as a quick fix to kill the Vampires..
Sam
Dear Renee,
I saw the chart. It is disheartening. Is there any data as to why the treatments went down as the complaints went up?
I don’t know, but I am wondering if the professionals are not willing to get involved as much. If the problems become overwhelming professionals will simply stop doing the work. It isn’t that they don’t care, it is that they can’t get control they can’t get the right amount of money and it is a no win situation in many cases.
Those who are getting control in these types of units are charging enormous amounts of money and doing an enormous amount of work. Apartments are especially difficult for any kind of treatment, let alone bed bugs, and that is including the $250,000 kind. I doubt that most NYC apartment building owners have that kind of money,
especially if there is a rent control issue. No money and no chemistry that works; it is a nightmare scenario. Don’t get discouraged. There was an entomology professor who once said that there was nothing like a good epidemic to get things started. Something will have to give, and it will have to include a solution that the homeowner can utilize.
Best wishes,
Rich
Rich,
David Cain in the UK told me that he has never had a failure in control in the thousands of cases he has treated. He does charge a lot of money, but I put this to a combination of time spent and market realities. Some people who can will pay a lot of money to a firm whose success rate and guarantees are powerful. As it is, of course, most people are put to hardship to pay $150 or $250 per room for bed bug control. And many simply cannot afford this, so the notion of do it yourself bed bug control is a good idea providng, of course, that the instructions given enable the homeowner to do it safely.
the other side is that the cost escalates as the infestations grow worse and become more widespread.., so there is this Catch-22 about expensive treatments and treat every square inch and dust walls, and take apart beds spending three or more hours in a one bedroom apartment but if this is not done in adjacent units or ”” let’s say.. the whole building, then we are back to failure in control. Or the so called failure of IPM as noted by you about Wang’s paper. tough show………………
I remember years ago some firms were touting dusting partition and structural walls in new buildings as a roach prevention measure… The only problem was that few roaches live inside walls, they tend to find places near moisture and when infestations became huge, then population pressure drives them into all kinds of habitats. The same can be said about bed bugs.. I heard of a situation in which an entire house was dusted due to a deeply established bed bug infestation and guess what? IT DIDN’T WORK…. Some months later on my recommendation the house was inspected by a K9 Team and they found live bed bugs in a sofa. Were there a lot of bed bugs inside the walls? My guess is likely NO….
It still comes back to education… and “smarts”. Toronto Communy Housing now has a program of sealing units to help prevent spread of bed bugs, and this is done under three specific situations — 1. in a difficult case of infestation 2. when the unit is vacant and 3. when the unit is being refurbished.
This is a positive step to help reduce spread. It is not 100%, but it helps and it is cost-effective in every situation.
Of course, early detection and early treatment are crucial……
Regarding chemistry again… I had a recent request from a concerned group in one of the U.S. states about a study on pesticide impact by the Ontario College of Family Physicians that was done about 1996…. I went to their web site and found other docs about pesticides, and this is certianly worth checking out.
I still say that it is about risk benefit, and about care and intelligent use of pesticides. If “chemistry” poses risk to children, then it is not “good” chemistry. And the reality is that if a product is out there .. people will use it and if this translates into an unacceptable risk, then it should not be out there..
Or at the least, it should be carefully restricted and regulated..
Here is the link to the OCFP website.. lots of intersting stuff there..
http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/Publications/default.asp?s=1
Pingback: Detecting bed bugs using bed bug monitors, Rutgers Cooperative Extension — New York vs Bed Bugs
Pingback: The active spread of bed bugs in buildings: the stakes for cities — New York vs Bed Bugs