Update: the chlorfenapyr study has been published.
Curiosity about PestWorld led me to these videos of some of the exhibitors.1
BASF exhibitor (second video):
… a printed bed bug solution guide which outlines a new protocol, which features Phantom, Phantom pressurized insecticide and Alpine dust. And for the very first time, we feel as though we have an effective solution for bed bug prevention.
This is the BASF guide (PDF) [8/10: updated link] which under the heading “Preventing bed bug infestations?” (pg 4) describes what is likely to be, at the risk of understatement, a controversial approach to prevention based on the use of Phantom (active ingredient chlorfenapyr):
The cost to the hospitality industry of having rooms with bed bug infestations is enormous. Can steps be taken to prepare a room for the event of bed bug introduction in a way that significantly reduces the likelihood that a bed bug infestation will take hold and spread?
When weighing cost and time commitment involved in the treatment of bed bugs, BASF believes it is important to consider the value preventative treatments can present to customers in the hospitality industry, and other accounts like public transportation, movie theatres, and health care, to name a few.
[...]
Phantom® termiticide-insecticide and Prescription Treatment® brand Alpine® dust are very well suited for preventing bed bugs from getting established. They are nonrepellent, long-lived, and effective on all strains, including pyrethroid-resistant bed bugs. They also utilize three different chemical class mechanisms to avoid the development of resistance.
BASF cites research from the University of Kentucky:
Recent research from the University of Kentucky shows dry deposits of Phantom aged 4 months kill bed bugs just as quickly as fresh dry deposits (Figure 2).
4 months? That does sound like what has been desperately missing in the arsenal against bed bugs, an effective residual.
What do we know about chlorfenapyr? That it works but is slow (or that it’s slow but it works).
The research cited in the BASF guide is not yet published as far as I can tell. However, we know from previously published research that bed bugs do not avoid chlorfenapyr-treated surfaces.
You may also recall that Phantom was used as the sole insecticide in a 2007 apartment field trial which was reported by Dr. Potter in this PCT article:
Successive inspections and treatments produced a slow but steady decline in bed bug numbers (see Figure 1). In 12 of the 15 apartments, live bed bugs could no longer be found 20 weeks (about five months) after initiation of treatment.
Phantom was also used in Dr. Wang’s IPM study.
So, what do you think? 2
I can’t seem to figure out if this would even be possible in New York State, to treat a movie theater, for example, in the absence of the target pest.
People want bed bug prevention and bed bug prevention is exactly what no one can provide. What is a movie theater to do to prevent bed bug infestations?
Would this work? Out here in the real world?
- If you are going to watch any of the videos at Pete Grasso’s blog, I really recommend the Cimex video. By all means, gentlemen, do not throw away the nymphs. [↩]
- I should also note for completeness this odd reference to chlorfenapyr resistance from the University of Illinois Extension, which I am unable to find in any published research study. If you have any information about that, please share. Also, the Phantom products described in this guide include a new (or maybe new to me) aerosol formulation and I’m curious about its use or advantages. Re Alpine dust, it contains dinotefuran, a neonicotinoid, and diatomaceous earth. Dinotefuran was registered in 2004 and is a reduced risk insecticide for public health use. [↩]
These sections are from the EPA Federal Register from 2005. It’s bit confusing as it seems to have been written by morons but it seems to conclude that permissible levels are 0.01 pp.
Here is the link to BASF safety sheet: http://www.afpmb.org/pubs/standardlists/msds/6840-01-525-7139_msds.pdf
Notice section 12 ” not readily bio-degradable ”
[Editor's note: reformatted the quotation in this comment to make clear that it's a direct quote and added a link to its source. - RC]
This chemical seems to be toxic to pretty much everything and because it is non soluble in water tends to hang around for a long time. this link scares me: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/pdf_insect/insecticide%20actives/Chlorfenapyr.pdf
maybe it works but it doesn’t seem to be a big improvement in specifically targeting bedbugs.
I like the pheromone route better
I’m going to look at your link, jc, but I have to ask, what pheromone route?
the email i sent you the other day discussing the mating observations. to me , it seemed to imply that if a pheromone could be used to disrupt mating. if the alarm pheromone which tells males that they are trying to mount another male could be made odorless ( without the telltale almond scent ) then maybe it could be delivered from a automatic dispenser in a home or apt. disrupting the mating. used as a component of non toxic IPO along with DE etc. could be a form of eradication and prevention. just a thought.
IMHO, i do not trust chlorfenapyr. after reading about it, it sounds like the one aspect of it, ( that it persists well ) is the one aspect which would be very harmful to other animal life, and if i understand the studies, it is very toxic to aquatic life. because it is not water soluble, it will persist in an aquatic environment for a long time. sounds a lot like DDT problems if you ask me.
I believe that he is talking about Gentrol, which is an Insect Growth Regulator which disrupts their breeding cycle. A male bedbug’s phallus is like a sword which they drive directly into the female bedbug’s body anywhere they can. If enough males do this they can actually kill the female. As they reach maturity Gentrol turns this sword into a club. As a result they cannot penetrate the female’s bodies and fertilization does not occur. Presumable…and this can take some time….the population crashes. I don’t see this occurring without effective pesticides. It is just another component that must be used to get control.
As for Phantom; it is a different chemical classification, has low mammalian toxicity, and does not attack the nervous system. It attacks the cells directly depriving the cells of energy. As a result you would expect to see it do better than pyrethroids. Having said that…..it appears that resistance to Phantom is already developing. I don’t see it as the answer. I have heard of Alpiine Dust, but I haven’t used it yet and I don’t know anyone who has….I will try it though
.
here is the link to the study i am referencing:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/male-bed-bug-fear/
thanks for the links Renee.. The video presentations are a welcome new approach to getting information to people.
I had a look at the action of this group of insecticides (Pyrolle group), which as noted above, acts on the energy source of the cell in the mitochondria. The LC 50 for aersolized Chlorfenapyr as an aerosol is fairly low.. so caution for users is important, but BASF rather strong hint at preventive spray treatment (i.e. as a precautionary treatment) … more than a hint.. a recommendation… is really against common sense. It suggests that every hotel room should be sprayed on a periodic basis every few months based on the residual life of the product. Back to the old spray jockey routine for non existent pests. Oh, I have no doubt it would work for a time,, but when one looks at some reports of frequencies of infestation.. such as Clive Boase personal communication about a major hotel not having any infestation for six months after a full building treatment due to initial lack of awareness of existing infestations really suggests that this notion of spraying every unit every 3 or 4 months to be a huge unnecessary application of pesticide.
If I were a hotelier, I would invest in either good early warning through staff training and passive monitors, or get a dog and have a staffperson be the handler .. For smaller sites, they might partner and share the services of a dog .. I find the idea of preventive spraying to be a backward step.. I am sure that firms would sell this as a cheap service but the idea is rather repugnant to me..
having said that, if the product works well, then it would be a most welcome addition to the arsenal of treatment with focus on education and preventive measures in an IPM approach.
I wouild hate to see a backward step to spray jockey approaches as were the standard for roach control… that would be sad… and who knows what long term effects??
Renee,, forgot to say that your posts are always insightful and most useful in addition to the actual links you share…
I am very glad you are still there doing this…
Sam
Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments.
I think I personally want to stay away from DDT comparisons. I don’t think that is warranted at this stage, though I understand your concern, jc.
There will be a lot of disagreement, though philosophical objections to preventive uses are less useful than discussions of practical matters of effectiveness and resistance management.
This is a real crisis we are in and the societal responses that have been suggested as solutions are well near impossible. They’re not going to happen, not in NYC at any rate. Maybe in Toronto and Ohio, well, obviously, things are different there.
I don’t agree with the notion that repetitive spraying for non-existent pests on the off chance that they might appear sometime is a “philosophical” objection, unless of course we use the term “philosophical” to mean a thoughtful process based on logic and reason, I am always for philosophical considerations on that basis.
The fact is that bed bugs CAN be controlled and eliminated if the right measures are taken and the allocation of resources is made.
The safety of products goes through many evolutions – I have said it here at another time,- when i was a boy, the local shoe store had an x-ray machine to show good fit of shoes and we could watch our bones as we wiggled our toes. A few years later, it was realized that this posed an unacceptable risk for a frivolous purpose. Diazinon and Dursban used to be the mainstay of residual insecticides, but studies have shown that the risks – especially to children – are unacceptable.
Clive Boase told me that he had the experience in a major hotel with hundreds of rooms occupied by many thousands of guests, that in a period of six months, after getting an unresolved infestation under control, there was only ONE new infestation. By the preventive approach i presume that every one of those rooms would have been sprayed at least twice during that same period. so you can only imnagine the GALLONS of pesticide used NEEDLESSLY to control ONE NEW INFESTATION..
That is not mere philosophy.. that is FACTUAL, and it speaks to the way that these pests can succeed.. in the main due to unresolved infestations because there was no concerted effort to DO THE RIGHT THING..
yes, this is societal, and in a Dylanesque tone of lyric, “It ain’t easy” and as another Dylan song laments “It’s hard”..
I say. let’s do it right.. do it smart.. Let’s not get into spray jockey moving back into the middle ages of “spray till it drips off the walls”:… I have see that done in the past in roach control and guess what? IT DIDN’T WORK VERY WELL..
Treating every hotel room three times a year may sound as if it were common sense from a risk management investment perspective, but it doesn’t make much common sense from the notion of effective pest management. I would rather spend the money on education, on good inspections by staff and on a detection dog service and get a better result, FOR LESS MONEY…
that’s my practical philosophical outlook on this..
Pingback: DE vs chlorfenapyr — New York vs Bed Bugs
Pingback: More tales of CIN-1: PBO and deltamethrin — New York vs Bed Bugs
What sort of resistance to chlorfenapyr have been observed?
Also, Phantom PI seems to act very differently than Phantom SC – the difference in formulation seems to make a big difference where speed of kill is concerned. And it seems to make sense that both Phantom PI and Alpine Dust would applied in small quantities in very specific locations for the preventative treatment – nowhere does it say to do any sort of surface or even spot treatment, only crack & crevice (or void for the dust). ‘GALLONS’ may kind of be an exaggeration, even in a large commercial account like a hotel.
regarding the “gallons” comment i made..
if a firm does a detailed crack and crevice using straw tips on a B & G or a crack and crevice system like Whitmire, then i would agree that “gallons” is not the case, but it is not atypical for spray treatment to be broadcase and in that case, if this were done as a preventive quarterly treatment, YES, they would likely be using GALLONS… The difference between ideal treatment and the reality where the rubber meets the road is the difference between limited amounts and gallons.
The idea of spraying units on a periodic basis as a preventive approach is really not a good approach.. it is reverting back to “spray jockey” techniques. ‘
the classic gallons of spray to kill the occasional intruder..
more focus on staff training and early detection is a far better approach in my view.