New York vs Bed Bugs » Featured

January 18: bed bug panel at the Museum of the City of New York

Renee Corea — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:48:48 +0000

Brief notes here.

There is a bed bug event in NYC in January! The Museum of the City of New York is hosting a panel — please see their announcement below. I am very pleased to be able to join Lou in participating in this public conversation about bed bugs in our city. The museum is offering a discount as noted below when you mention New York vs Bed Bugs. The discount is available when reserving by phone, not through the online reservation system. As details become available about the other panelists, I will update this post.

Final update 1/14/11: Program description with final panel revised below. Note the NY Entomological Society’s monthly meeting announcement about this event and a separate community bed bug forum also taking place on January 18.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

Plague! Bed Bugs: Myths and Realities

Bed bugs, it seems, are all over New York City. In your mattress, your couch, that futon in the free pile at the end of your block. What is worse, they may have overrun your newspapers and even your TV screen. What’s hype and what’s reality? How big a problem are bed bugs, really? What is the city doing to stop them, and what can you do before they take over your apartment? Moderator Dr. Amy L. Fairchild, Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, heads a discussion that includes entomologist Louis Sorkin of the New York Entomological Society; Gale A. Brewer Council Member from District 6; Renee Corea, former Director of New York vs Bed Bugs; David Cain, Managing Director of Bed Bugs Ltd, London; Yasmine Hecker, CEO of Prep 4 Bed Bugs, and Ray Lopez, Little Sisters of Assumption Family Health Service of how the recent plague of bed bugs is affecting city life and culture. Co-sponsored by the New York Entomological Society.

Reservations required: 917-492-3395 or e-mail programs@mcny.org.
$6 museum members; $8 seniors and students; $12 non-members
$6 when you mention New York vs Bed Bugs

Museum of the City of New York
1220 Fifth Avenue at 103rd Street
New York, NY 10029
www.mcny.org
212-534-1672

Vincent Harraca: basic research, olfaction, and the difficult bed bug

Renee Corea — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 05:59:21 +0000

bed bug on servosphere - photo: Vincent Harraca

Ever since seeing this photograph of Vincent Harraca’s research at Lund University (Sweden) I have been looking forward to learning more.

This year Dr. Harraca and his colleagues published two deeply interesting articles about the olfactory physiology of the bed bug and the interplay of chemical signals in bed bug mating. Male bed bugs approach recently fed bed bugs of either sex, but they quickly dismount males and large nymphs. This observation, building on recent investigations, led to a valuable mating-disruption experiment.

But I also wanted to ask about the impetus for bed bug research projects—as we learn more about the bed bug, we see more clearly how much is still unknown.

Dr. Harraca generously took the time to answer my questions via email, from South Africa where he is now researching an entomopathogenic fungus against an agricultural pest.

NYvsBB: I am excited by what feels like rushing advancement in our understanding of how bed bugs perceive odors from hosts and from other bed bugs and how they may interpret those cues and signals, to get what they want and where they’re going. It seems that your and other research teams have begun to fill in the physiology and behavior gaps. To an observer it seems like rapid progress. Although of course the gaps also seem large. But just in the past year you’ve described the olfactory system of the bed bug, two previously unreported nymph-specific chemical compounds were identified (Feldlaufer et al. 2010), and you and your colleagues devised a behavioral experiment that neatly exploits all this new knowledge.

But I confess I am impatient for the research that would eventually describe in all its complex detail how bed bugs find and access their hosts for a blood meal. So perhaps that is my first question, do you think signalling between bed bugs is more relevant for control efforts and that has made it a priority for investigation?

Vincent Harraca: As you said, we started to fill in the gaps about bed bug physiology and behaviour. However, as most of the research is done by Universities, the focus is most of the time centred on theoretical questions with the aim to improve our general knowledge. Indeed, even if we keep in mind that our results may have a practical output, the information we gain is generally not directly applicable. Of course, it is because bed bugs started to be a problem recognised by the public opinion that academic researchers managed to get grants in order to develop our knowledge about this re-invading pest. Chemical ecology is one of the academic fields which gives the most “visible” results, because olfaction is the major sense used by most insects to orientate and the understanding of their perception permits to modify their behaviour.

NYvsBB: Before we get to your exciting investigation into the disruption of bed bug mating, can I ask about their antennae, the site of all the olfactory action? What are the sensilla for and how do they work? And how did you achieve electrical measurements on such small sites? Did you identify chemical compounds that seem like good candidates for further investigation of their role in bed bug orientation and host-seeking?

Vincent Harraca: An odour is composed by a specific blend of different molecules and it is the perception of some of these molecules by olfactory receptor neurons which is called olfaction. When the adequate odorant molecules bind the adequate neurons, an electrical signal is created and transmitted to the brain. In the insects, these neurons are housed inside sensilla (evaginations of the cuticle looking like hairs) mostly placed on their antennae.

bed bug antennal sensilla: trichoid sensilla (hairs) (E), smooth peg sensilla (D), and grooved peg sensilla (C) - SEM image: Vincent Harraca

Scientists have developed different electrophysiology techniques in order to measure this electrical signal produced after stimulating the neuron with chosen odours. We applied the technique of single sensillum recording on bed bugs and demonstrated some of the compounds bed bugs are able to smell or not (Harraca et al. 2010a). The main conclusion of our study is that compared to other blood feeding insects such as mosquitoes, bed bugs detect fewer compounds, meaning they might mostly rely on other cues than odours to find us. It is also perhaps for this reason that most of the published laboratory experiments (meaning with positive results!) on bed bugs have focused on the detection of their refuge or their interactions with other bed bugs (Levinson & Bar Ilan 1971, Siljander et al. 2008, Olson et al. 2009, Harraca et al. 2010b, Weeks et al. 2010…). In parallel to that, the few studies which have tried to add odorant molecules to traps in order to enhance their attraction failed (Anderson et al. 2009, Wang et al. 2009), but it was mostly because they used mosquito attractant molecules that we showed bed bugs cannot smell (Harraca et al. 2010a). This latest example demonstrated the value of basic theoretical knowledge before application.

NYvsBB: The very small number of odors that bed bugs actually perceive, or respond to, seems significant. Smaller than triatomines. What are odors derived from, excretions from hosts?

Vincent Harraca: Fragmented studies about blood feeding insects seem to demonstrate that they use a combination of compounds from different origin. Some are more associated to the host (i.e. carbon dioxide from the breath, carboxylic acids and octenol from the skin, phenols evacuated via urine) whereas other molecules (such as terpens or ammonia) are more linked to refuge. It is based on this knowledge that the first traps baited with odours were made (Anderson et al. 2009, Wang et al. 2009). Unfortunately, as the olfactory perception of the bed bug seems to be much narrower than other vectors (Harraca et al. 2010a), they do not smell compounds such as lactic acid or octenol used in these studies and which are quite efficient to attract mosquitoes. Until now, CO2 and heat were the only host cues proven to enhance attraction of bed bugs to traps.

NYvsBB: I am thinking of the servosphere experiments I was so looking forward to learning more about—can you tell us about them?

servosphere - photo: Vincent Harraca

Vincent Harraca: Before applying a new technology it is always good to test it in a laboratory controlled environment. But once more, doing behavioural experiments with bed bugs is not straightforward. Indeed, during experiments with arena they mostly followed the wall and scarcely adventure in open areas. For these reasons, many studies only measured the resting position of the bed bug, which in my opinion has no meaning except when looking for refuge cue. In order to see direct behavioural effect (such as seeking for a host?!), we tried to develop experiments on a servosphere (locomotion compensator) which proved to be quite helpful in studying the behaviour of other walking insects (Otálora-Luna et al. 2004…). Indeed, in this system the animal is totally free of movement and never encounters any boundary. Moreover precise information about his displacement (speed, direction, time of walking…) are recorded.

However, we quickly discovered that bed bugs hate moving air which is needed to release the odour to test. So during our experiments with this system, the bed bug systematically walked downwind without any visible difference linked to stimuli.

bed bug tracks recorded with servosphere - Vincent Harraca

That is why we returned to an arena behavioural experiment, but we tried to make it reflect as much as possible the bed bug natural environment and to measure precise behavioural parameters.

In our latest publication with bed bugs (Harraca et al. 2010b), we demonstrated the effect of two molecules that are exclusively emitted by the nymphs (Feldlaufer et al. 2010, Liedtke et al. submitted). The conclusion of this study is that young bed bugs are able to emit two molecules that identify their status and permit them to avoid the traumatic insemination by males. Indeed, when these molecules are emitted the males do not pierce the abdomen or inject any sperm to their partner.

NYvsBB: Where do you think this line of inquiry can take us?

Vincent Harraca: We do not know what could be the effect of introducing such compounds in a bed bug colony, but two scenarios may be possible: it decreases the reproduction rate (as the males think all the females are too young), or it increases the mortality rate of young bed bugs (because the males lose the ability to recognise them and pierce their abdomen while trying to fertilise them). In both situations, there could not be appearance of resistance (as the molecules used are produced by the bed bugs themselves) and this technique will allow a less rapid recovery of the colony after treatment and so, a quicker elimination. I unfortunately do not think these molecules employed on their own will be sufficient on short term eradication and they will have to be coupled to other techniques such as trapping. However, such odorant compounds may also have a repellent effect on the establishment of new colonies.

References:

Anderson, J F, F J Ferrandino, S McKnight, J Nolen, and J Miller. 2009. A carbon dioxide, heat and chemical lure trap for the bedbug, Cimex lectularius. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 23: 99-105. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00790.x.

Feldlaufer, Mark F., Michael J. Domingue, Kamlesh R. Chauhan, and Jeffrey R. Aldrich. 2010. 4-Oxo-Aldehydes from the Dorsal Abdominal Glands of the Bed Bug (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 47: 140-143. doi:10.1603/ME09210. [download PDF here]

Harraca, Vincent, Rickard Ignell, Christer Löfstedt, and Camilla Ryne. 2010a. Characterization of the Antennal Olfactory System of the Bed Bug (Cimex lectularius). Chemical Senses 35: 195-204. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjp096.

Harraca, Vincent, Camilla Ryne, and Rickard Ignell. 2010b. Nymphs of the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) produce anti-aphrodisiac defence against conspecific males. BMC Biology 8: 121. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-8-121. [open access]

Levinson, H. Z., and Anna R. Bar Ilan. 1971. Assembling and alerting scents produced by the bedbug Cimex lectularius L. Experientia 27: 102-103. doi:10.1007/BF02137766. [PDF available]

Olson, J.F., R.D. Moon, and S.A. Kells. 2009. Off-host aggregation behavior and sensory basis of arrestment by Cimex lectularius (Heteroptera: Cimicidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 55: 580-587. doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.03.001.

Otálora-Luna, Fernando, Jean-Luc Perret, and Patrick Guerin. 2004. Appetence behaviours of the triatomine bug Rhodnius prolixus on a servosphere in response to the host metabolites carbon dioxide and ammonia. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 190: 847-854. doi:10.1007/s00359-004-0540-5.

Siljander, Eric, Regine Gries, Grigori Khaskin, and Gerhard Gries. 2008. Identification of the airborne aggregation pheromone of the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34: 708-718. doi:10.1007/s10886-008-9446-y.

Wang, Changlu, Timothy Gibb, Gary W. Bennett, and Susan McKnight. 2009. Bed Bug (Heteroptera: Cimicidae) Attraction to Pitfall Traps Baited with Carbon Dioxide, Heat, and Chemical Lure. Journal of Economic Entomology 102: 1580-1585. doi:10.1603/029.102.0423.

Weeks, E.N.I., J.G. Logan, S.A. Gezan, C.M. Woodcock, M.A. Birkett, J.A. Pickett, and M.M. Cameron. 2010. A Bioassay for Studying Behavioural Responses of the Common Bed Bug, Cimex Lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) to Bed Bug-Derived Volatiles. Bulletin of Entomological Research FirstView: 1-8. doi:10.1017/S0007485309990599.

Note: Some of these articles are also available at the Armed Forces Pest Management Board’s free online library.

An interview with Steven W. Smollens: law and history in NYC

Renee Corea — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:47:39 +0000

Steven W. Smollens has practiced landlord and tenant law in New York City for 34 years.

I have (in my History of the Misery of Bed Bugs collection) a set of notes, passed along like contraband, of his New York County Lawyers’ Association Jack Newton Lerner Lecture on bed bugs, Bed Bugs, Constructive Eviction, Warranty of Habitability: Comments and Cases — an outline of the wonderful story of early bed bug litigation in the city.

When May Berenbaum’s recent NYT op-ed offered (as evidence for the changing fortunes of the persecuted bed bug?) a memorable phrase from an early 20th century New York decision — “[Bedbugs] can be dealt with by the tenant by processes known to all housewives” — I bethought myself my Smollens lecture notes…

Mr. Smollens indulged my questions.

New York vs Bed Bugs: Why look at early 20th century case law in the first place? Are bed bugs and the law like bed bugs and science, where we’re missing quite a big chunk of development and thought?

Steven W. Smollens: That is a potent observation. Science left the bedbug alone for a long time. With the bedbug gone, and modern insecticides left to cope with less offensive insects, when the bedbug came back, there were initially few treatments considered legal and lethal. While our coping skills were not honed to the bedbug spread, our own modern life helped the bedbug move in to one home and business after another.

When the bedbug problem was novel, we did not pay much attention. We missed out on chances to change certain patterns, to make the risks less, and to stem the spread. We passed up early warning, education, and training for exterminators, public officials, tenants, landlords, shopkeepers, travelers, public transportation operators, used furniture and mattress sellers, flea market vendors, college dormitory authorities and the like. The public’s lack of alertness and government’s slow pace, along with housing maintenance codes ill-suited for the new pestilence, has made for a variety of claims for successful pest eradication; but often failure to control is easily passed on to the tenant, or a neighbor or the building manager or landlord and it is hard to support one method of bedbug elimination over any other.

It comes down to “now we know it.” For nearly eighty years, there was not a new bedbug case decided in New York courts involving landlord and tenant. Today’s New York court case will typically involve the application of our Warranty of Habitability statute. But by the first time a warranty of habitability and bedbug case came into the court’s domain for decision, we had missed the chance to an early end to the bedbug’s spread. Today, we can learn a lot from how bedbugs influenced our older landlord and tenant law. We should be able to see ourselves in the tenants who lived in our city one hundred years ago, and realize that by the time bedbugs made it to court at that time, bedbugs were all around.

Early on city life was treated similarly to living in the country. Judges were bound by the state of the law and judges applied the law as it existed to the new circumstances. At the start the law was applied without taking into account the difference in the setting. The loss of control a tenant had over the home in an apartment living in a city is not found when living in a house in the fields. The law gyrated in examining deprivations in habitability and gradually left behind the common law basis of our landlord and tenant law, that the tenant was the equal of a buyer in a market place and thus “let the buyer beware” slowly exited.

The difficulty faced by our earlier city dwellers when confronted by bedbugs was accepted at first as a problem that could be easily handled. That approach took time to change. The law itself developed to recognize that tenants could face problems in their homes, not anticipated by the tenant and the landlord, and not solvable, that would justify breaking of the lease by the tenant and the nonpayment of a portion of the agreed rent.

Today, we have bedbugs in an environment where our city dweller has little or no practical experience in fixing anything at all, let alone a mature insect infestation. Yet, as a community, we have as ancient an approach as we did long ago, when almost every tenant was assumed to have skills to cope with this problem.

Today while the notion is that the landlord must eradicate the bedbugs, in the absence of science, landlords and exterminators, and city agencies, all place an immense pressure upon the tenant to make the home ready for the techniques used by the pest control experts. Unlike any other condition in one’s home, other than perhaps a fire or a flash flood, bedbugs force the tenant into a virtual move-out while still maintaining the apartment as a home. No other home repair requires the tenant to pack all personal belongings, clothing, papers, books, and remove furniture or carpets, and take down pictures, and launder in hot water and then store all garments, or to dry-clean and store away from the home, and to encapsulate mattresses and box springs, just for a start, before extermination can begin. The old days of do-it-self with ant or roach spray do not apply against the bedbug. We are truly not prepared for the dislocation that a bedbug can present.

The harshest reality for our tenants and landlords today is that there is no guarantee that extermination will do the job. Tenants must put their home on hold while waiting out a bedbug life cycle to learn if the insect and its progeny are gone from the home. And because the bedbug is very good at lying dormant, each tenant pins the hope for insect-free living on the skill of the exterminator, the willingness of the landlord to see the eradication through and the cooperation of neighbors. As we are now all too aware, that will not prevent a hitchhiking bedbug to come back again to your home or to a neighbor’s. Living in an apartment in a near-permanent state of packed-up is disheartening.

Constructive Eviction

I looked upon the case law developed in the NY Courts late in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century, as a means to discover how judges grappled with the responsibility of a landlord to the tenant, for habitable housing, in an age where the common law rule was best expressed as “The tenant hires at his peril and a rule similar to caveat emptor applies and throws on the lessee the responsibility of examining as to the existence of defects in the premises and of providing against their ill effects…” (Benjamin Franklin v. Mary Brown, 118 N.Y. 110, 23 N.E. 124, Court of Appeals, 1889).

The early cases evolved from the creation of a new legal doctrine, called “constructive eviction.” The law that an “eviction,” whether total or partial, created a full defense against the landlord suing for remaining unpaid rent expanded to making the “constructive eviction” of the tenant a total defense against a landlord’s post-tenancy rent claim.

Previous, but for a breach of lease by the landlord or an actual or partial eviction from the property, tenants had few merit defenses, such as the rent sued for was in fact paid, and so-called “technical defenses.” Those technical defenses, dealing with the rent demand and the service of process, and notice of commencement of the case were similar to the defenses currently utilized by tenants in modern courts. Eerily, the ancient technical cases, read as though written in the modern era, because the so-called “technical defenses” are as real today as when first applied to the modern standard lawsuit for an eviction, the “summary proceeding.”

The early-era version of the summary proceeding (very similar to the modern form) for litigating an eviction cause for a landlord was invented in the early part of the 19th century as a “swift and expeditious remedy” to recover real property to provide a landlord a new method to evict a tenant, instead of the common law ejectment action.

New York State’s land owners convinced the New York legislature to create this new cause of action, in derogation of common law, to replace the common law ejectment action, because in common law the tenant was entitled to a jury trial and the “peers” often had more in common with the tenant-farmer than the wealthy land baron.

By itself, as a doctrine, “constructive eviction” grew from the body of early cases that recognized that an eviction of the tenant, by the landlord without court process, ended the tenant’s obligation to pay the rent that the tenant agreed to pay when the lease was made.

Courts then grappled with parsing the nature of the “eviction” itself, moving from the obvious outright physical ouster from the property [an “actual eviction”], to evictions that were “partial”, that means from a part of the rented or leased property [an “actual partial eviction” or a “partial eviction”] to actions more sublime, such as the landlord perpetrating a nuisance condition, by either directly causing the condition, or by not correcting the condition when informed.

A key element to the proof of a “constructive eviction” was that the condition that forced the tenant to abandon was not known or discoverable when the lease was made, could not when discovered be corrected by the tenant or by the landlord and, that also rendered the leased property unfit for the use actually contemplated by the lease. [Vermin or noxious smells in or about the house did not constitute eviction so as to justify abandonment of the premises by the tenant (Truesdell v. Booth, 4 Hun 100.) A bad smell in the pantry, and the kitchen being too hot with the stove in it, and bad smells from the front window, along with a stagnant pond of water near the place, bad smell from fish, and vermin in the bedrooms, were all matters that might have given some trouble to eradicate, yet none of them could be held sufficient to relieve the tenant from his liability, or to come within the rule that defines an eviction (Vanderbilt v. Persse, 3 E.D. Smith 428.)]

Courts looking to limit the doctrine of “constructive eviction” pointed to the written agreement made by the tenant and the landlord (the lease). “…The apartment in suit was not under the control of the plaintiff, and no evidence was given of any express covenant in the lease to keep the apartment free from vermin; and, in the absence of such a covenant, the lessee, under the circumstances detailed above and in the absence of fraud, deceit or wrong-doing on the part of the plaintiff, ran the risk of the condition of the property in that regard…” Franklin v. Brown, 118 N.Y. 110; Sherman v. Ludin, 79 A.D. 37.

In the newly discovered potential that an eviction could exist without a full or part physical ouster, the New York legislature sought to identify conditions that could exist and present a defense to a tenant, who quit the leased property, although owing a remainder portion of rent as agreed to in the lease.

“…Pomeroy v. Tyler, 9 N.Y. St. Rep. 514, was also a case very similar in its facts to the present one; and it was held, McAdam, Ch. J., writing the opinion, that the fact that the rooms occupied by the tenant were overrun with vermin, namely, bedbugs, cockroaches, croton-bugs and red ants, making it inconvenient to inhabit the premises and rendering them untenantable, did not constitute a constructive eviction of the tenant…

“…The following remarks of Chief Justice McAdam, in the course of such opinion, are especially applicable to the present case: ‘The legislature has passed a statute relieving tenants from their common law obligations, where the demised premises have been destroyed by fire, tempest or other sudden and unexpected event (Laws 1860, chap. 345; Suydam v. Jackson, 54 N.Y. 450), but the legislative sense of relief to tenants has not as yet reached the case of rats, mice, bugs, roaches or other vermin, and all questions as to them must be decided according to the wisdom of the common law. The inconvenience is one to which all more or less are subject at times; but which, with ordinary skill and attention, may be abated by the tenant.’“ Excerpt from Jacobs v. Morand, 59 Misc. 200, 59 Misc. 200, 110 N.Y.S. 208, 1908, (Supreme Court Of New York, Appellate Term.)

Even then, “constructive eviction” was a defense only if the courts recognized the condition that drove the tenant out of the home, as one so noxious and unsolvable, that the tenant’s swift departure evidenced the severity of the condition and the reasonableness of the departure.

“…Leases would not be worth the paper upon which they are written, if the engagements of parties could be set at naught upon such slight and trivial pretexts. To constitute a constructive eviction, there must be an intentional and injurious interference by the landlord, which deprives a tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises, or materially impairs such beneficial enjoyment. An eviction depends upon the materiality of the deprivation. If trifling, and producing no substantial discomfort or serious inconvenience, it will be disregarded, and will not afford cause for the termination of the relation of landlord and tenant…” Excerpt from Seaboard Realty Co. v. Fuller, 33 Misc. 109, 67 N.Y.S. 146; (1900, Supreme Court Of New York, Appellate Term)

When judges first expanded the notion of constructive eviction to rental premises abandoned by the tenant due to uninhabitable conditions, the cases set the way for the eventual notion of a warranty that residential premises would be fit for human use. Many other jurisdictions adopted the warranty of habitability before New York. However, the judicial seeds for the New York warranty were set in the early 20th century bedbug cases.

New York vs Bed Bugs: Tell us about these cases. The 1908 decision is the case that would later be characterized as the “processes known to all housewives” case but it actually does not contain the phrase. That coinage belongs to another judge in 1913 who wasn’t actually deciding a bed bug case at all, if I understand correctly, but in trying to make an important distinction (one that I think prefigures the challenges of modern building-wide bed bug infestations where a single tenant acting alone does not really stand a chance) would open the door for yet another bed bug case…

Steven W. Smollens: The 1908 case is Jacobs v. Morand, and the court there relied upon another court’s decision, made in the case of Pomeroy v. Tyler, 9 N.Y. St. Rep. 514, where the quote goes as follows: “…the case of rats, mice, bugs, roaches or other vermin, and all questions as to them must be decided according to the wisdom of the common law. The inconvenience is one to which all more or less are subject at times; but which, with ordinary skill and attention, may be abated by the tenant…”

In 1913, in Barnard Realty Co. v. Bonwit, that became: “…The rule in Jacobs v. Morand (supra) in regard to bugs and ants within the apartment, which can be dealt with by the tenant by processes known to all housewives, should not be extended to cover offensive and unbearable nuisances outside of the apartment…”

Sometimes, the concept that the courts held to, that is, if a condition were bad but fixable, so that any ordinary person could find a way to deal with it, governed the language in place of the actual text. The “processes known to all housewives” was the sound bite that drove home the notion that courts were not going to protect rent-evading tenants, who after departing the home, were sued for the remainder of the rent, and then backwards, try to construct the “constructive eviction.” Judges knew, that if there were a tried and proven remedy, the abandonment by the tenant could not be defended.

The context for the “housewives” comes from Barnard v. Bonwit, the 1913 case:

“…This is an action to recover rent of an apartment. The defense was constructive eviction. The jury found for the defendant. The verdict having been set aside solely as contrary to law, the facts found are established. Defendant and his wife moved into an apartment on the top floor of a new apartment house on the 15th of September, 1910, and moved out on the 8th of November, 1910. The reason therefor was the disturbance caused by the nightly meetings and performances of rats in the walls and ceilings, coupled with a most offensive odor which increased until the place became untenantable.

There are two Appellate Term decisions, one (Jacobs v. Morand, 59 Misc. Rep. 200), in which the presence of bedbugs, croton bugs, red ants, etc., was held not to be sufficient to establish a constructive eviction; and the other (Madden v. Bullock, 115 N. Y. Supp. 723), which held that the loathsome stench of dead and decayed rats was sufficient.

Very large numbers of people live in tenement houses, apartment houses and apartment hotels in this city. Such tenants have, and can have, control only of the inside of their own limited demised premises. Conditions unknown to the ancient common law are thus created. This requires elasticity in the application of the principles thereof. An intolerable condition which the tenant neither causes nor can remedy seems to me warrants the application of the doctrine of constructive eviction. The rule in Jacobs v. Morand (supra) in regard to bugs and ants within the apartment, which can be dealt with by the tenant by processes known to all housewives, should not be extended to cover offensive and unbearable nuisances outside of the apartment. This tenant could not pull down the walls or the ceilings. He and his family ought not to be compelled to pay rent for an apartment in which they could not live.

This court has held that when the landlord had the entire control of the heating plant a failure to provide sufficient steam heat was enough to constitute constructive eviction. (Berlinger v. Macdonald, 149 App. Div. 5.) Of course that case is different from the one at bar because there it was within the power of the landlord to furnish the heat, and if he did not it was an act of omission upon his part. But here the jury have found the existence of an intolerable condition. The tenant did not cause it and could not remedy it. If any one could it was the landlord. He attempted to and failed. We think the flat dweller was justified in his abandonment of the premises. [Excerpt is from Barnard Realty Co. v. Bonwit, 155 A.D. 182, 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913)]

The first modern bed bug case, Streep v Simpson

1913 also brought the first modern bedbug case where the court’s analysis made the bedbug infestation the proper basis for finding a constructive eviction. It is worth noting, how present-day sounding the plight of the tenant was nearly one-hundred years ago:

Defendant, a tenant from year to year, was sued for the last month’s rent of a two-years’ occupancy of a flat in plaintiff’s apartment house which he abandoned just prior to the commencement of the last month in question. He sought to justify this abandonment upon the ground that he was constructively evicted owing to the presence of bedbugs in the house. The size of the apartment house does not appear save that there were two flats on a floor, the one occupied by the defendant being on the fourth floor. The defendant, with his family, had occupied this flat for eighteen months without observing the presence of the bugs. From that time on bedbugs were found in his flat, in the private hall thereof, in the parlor, dining-room, and bath-room, on the walls, in the closets, upon the clothing and in the beds to such an increasing and persistent extent as to cause the greatest discomfort and distress to the dwellers therein…

Shortly after having first observed them the defendant notified the landlord, and it appeared upon investigation that the bugs came from the flat underneath defendant’s. That flat was then occupied, but soon after became vacant, and the landlord employed an “exterminator,” who endeavored to drive the bugs both from the defendant’s flat and the one underneath, but without success; and despite the persistent efforts of this trained “exterminator,” coupled with those of the landlord, as well as the defendant and his wife and painters and decorators, the bedbugs continued to increase, befouling the walls, emitting odors and biting the occupants, and exhibiting in their migrations a tendency to abide in the defendant’s flat, probably because there were persons dwelling there. Such, in brief, is the proof, and so it may be said that the defendant’s flat was infested with bedbugs without his fault; and, as the court below has found a constructive eviction, can it be assumed on appeal that the premises were rendered untenantable and that the landlord must bear the loss of the rent?…

Observing the limitations placed by the Appellate Division upon the case of Jacobs v. Morand, as to bugs within the apartment which can be dealt with by the tenant himself, and applying the language of Mr. Justice Clarke, who wrote for the court in Barnard Realty Co. v. Bonwit, we have reached the conclusion that, under the circumstances shown, it could be found, as a fact, that the defendant was constructively evicted and that his abandonment of his tenancy was justifiable.

The proof here shows such a condition as amounted to an insufferable nuisance, and where its existence in an apartment house is in nowise attributable to the fault of the tenant, but arises and is due to conditions in another part of the same building into which the landlord may go and apply a remedy, if remediable, the tenant must be deemed to have been precluded from a beneficial enjoyment of the premises and his abandonment thereof bars the lessor’s action for the recovery of rent. Considering the landlord’s control over the vacant flat underneath for a period of about two months, and the defendant’s eagerness to afford him every opportunity and aid to rid the latter’s flat of the bugs, their presence cannot be said, as a matter of law, not to be due in some measure to the landlord’s fault, or, at least, to his inability to continue the habitableness of the defendant’s dwelling place. An eviction depends upon the materiality of the deprivation. If trifling, and producing no substantial discomfort or serious inconvenience, it will be disregarded and will not afford cause for the termination of the relation of landlord and tenant.” Seaboard Realty Co. v. Fuller, 33 Misc. Rep. 110.

Here the deprivation was most material. It was by no means trifling, and not only did it produce substantial discomfort and severe inconvenience but it amounted to an intolerable state. Whether or not the deprivation is material is a question of fact, and that having been found below in favor of the defendant the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. [The excerpt is from Streep v. Simpson, 80 Misc. 666, 666-669 (N.Y. Misc. 1913)]

The warranty of habitability

New York vs Bed Bugs: So, from an inconvenience to which all more or less are subject at times and processes known to all housewives, to an intolerable condition that the tenant did not cause and cannot remedy on his own. From caveat emptor to an incipient implied warranty of habitability — would that be an accurate way to put it? (But I thought the warranty of habitability was common law, so why did it take so long for it to be re-claimed?)

Steven W. Smollens: Well in fact, the warranty of habitability did not derive from our common law. Our law before we made statutes to define our law, was made in courts, by judges and lawyers and plain folks, taking their disputes to trial and then on to appeal.

Sometimes, those disputes involving claims for monetary damages were for less than $200 and were not finally determined until the battling opponents had made their way from a trial court to the Appellate Division. Along the way the law of Constructive Eviction was helped along by bedbugs and the dueling over which party, landlord or former tenant, was entitled to the rent.

Codified in Real Property Law § 235-b, as amended, the warranty of habitability had its genesis in the trial courts, where judges faced routinely the problems of urban tenants, whose landlords demanded payment of their rent, while not providing to their tenants the benefits they had “bargained” for in their rental agreement. New York law, slowly evolving from its agrarian roots, had not recognized the relationship between the tenant’s obligation to pay rent, and the landlord’s obligation to provide rental premises fit for human habitation.

Absent a fraud, there was “no law against letting a tumble-down house.” As long as there existed an abundance of rental housing, tenants were able to move away from their problems and take the risks inherent in establishing a constructive eviction.

Common sense concepts, involved in routine everyday life, such as grocery shopping (you would not expect to be required to pay for a full loaf of bread if the grocer were to sell only half a loaf) had no place in the relationship of landlord and tenant. As a lease had been found to be a conveyance of real property, the duty imposed by law upon the landlord was satisfied by the delivery of possession to the tenant.

Only the covenant of continued quiet enjoyment of the premises was impliedly warranted by the “conveyance” to the tenant by the landlord. As long as the tenant had the quiet (undisturbed) right to possession of the premises, the tenant remained duty bound to pay the rent, regardless of the conditions in the premises.

These concepts, existing at common law, of no duty to provide services by the landlord, led to landlords not providing maintenance or essential services, especially in areas tenanted by persons of low-income.

The law did not provide the tenant with the tools necessary to compel the landlord to provide essential services or make necessary repairs. Courts outside New York were the first to determine that a lease for residential property impliedly contained a warranty that the premises were habitable.

A lease was slowly seen as more a purchase of shelter than a transfer of real property, and so an implied fitness for the use intended (U.C.C. Sales) was seen as a more realistic approach to determine the obligations of landlords and tenants.

Our state moved into the modern era in 1975, well past the rest of the United States. At that time, an appeals court, the Appellate Division, Second Department declared: “…we relegate to the limbo of history the orthodox view of caveat lessee and hold that, unless expressly excepted, there is an implied warranty of habitability when a landlord leases premises for residential use…” [Excerpt from Tonetti v. Penati, 48 A.D.2d 25, 367 N.Y.S.2d 804 (A.D. Second Dept., 1975)]. That court cited with approval the similar warranty of habitability decisions made in jurisdictions outside New York, e.g., Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Iowa, New Jersey, California and New Hampshire.

The New York State legislature, quickly grabbed the warranty of habitability from the judges, and went further to provide that the warranty is implied in every lease for residential property and could not be excluded from a lease by a contrary express lease provision.

“Too many people remain unaware how many bedbugs can hide out in an ordinary picture frame”

New York vs Bed Bugs: Care to consider what might come next? What refinements do you think are necessary in order to comprehend the magnitude of the current situation? We see landlords and tenants struggling to get relief from each other and just chaos all around. Is the law adequate to the challenges faced by landlords and tenants with this pest? What do you see in your own practice? Or, put another way, what holes do you see legislators might try to fill?

Steven W. Smollens: Right now, as summer draws to a close, we are seeing more media attention, television and radio advertising, and other expressions to make the bedbug infestation more obvious and open. There are billboards along the road, and bedbug sniffing dogs appearing on morning news programs and newspaper articles to work on getting the message out. I have not seen a public service advertisement, or heard one on radio, and if I have missed any, then there are not enough. In a city where in any campaign season we are inundated with political literature, that form of attention grabbing saturation may help spread information and recognition of the growing potential of the bedbugs invasion.

Pest Control persons are candid that there is no one sure-fire method for success in any given bedbug problem, and many residents are not able to face-down the direction to empty all closets, clean and bag all clothing, pack and seal up everything else, and are likely to fail the test for preparation. When tenants are informed that the bugs can hide inside radios, computers and other electronic devices, can scurry off to hide in cracks and crevices in walls and floors, and hide out in electric outlets, the expectation of failure is very high, that the tenant will not be able to get the apartment ready for the exterminator.

There will be need for new technology. The insects life cycle has to be interrupted. Used furniture and mattresses have to be located to a place without people. The habits of urban scavengers in rescuing other persons’ discarded sofas and chairs has to stop. Too many people remain unaware how many bedbugs can hide out in an ordinary picture frame.

There is a positive role for government at least in so far as sponsoring and producing Public Service Ads and other hand out literature. This does not mean that the law is not in need for some updating, but the law here should add to the potential of success and not look to punish for failure. There is a public interest in making sure that places where people congregate, shop, ride, teach and learn, are encouraged to be on constant vigilance mode. There is no simple problem as “just one bedbug.”

Property managers and tenants should know it is as dangerous to drag an unenclosed mattress through a building’s public areas, as it would be if the mattress were smoldering. An insect will easily drop off an infested mattress in the building hallway and could easily escape to another apartment. Furniture discards should be arranged in advance. Furniture as well as mattresses should be well-wrapped before disposal.

All that requires more widespread and consistent information. Government should be able to handle that. Community groups and tenant associations should be able to distribute literature and post flyers to spread awareness.

New York City has a statute relating to the mandatory eradication of pests insects and rodents. It would seem from a straightforward reading of the statute that there is a shared primary burden on the tenant and the landlord to assure the mandatory eradication of these pests. In some way we may still be of the mindset that every one of us knows the proper way to rid their home of those unwanted annoyances. However the literature associated with pest control suggests that amateurs should not deal with the problem. On the flip side, it should be clear that the landlord has the primary burden for eradication of pests where the problem is beyond any one “dwelling.”

Occupant in control

New York vs Bed Bugs: Finally, what is this business of “occupant in control”!? Please help us out with this. The New York City Housing Maintenance Code, is it a relic from just this era we’ve been discussing? What does this confounding phrase mean?

Steven W. Smollens: I have to agree that there is no sound reason for continuation of arcane language, especially when we need certainty as to who is in charge of pest control and maintenance of the structure. In a positive light, the “occupant in control” should be the same as “owner” and that may bring the attention of the Office of Code Enforcement upon the owner’s registered managing agent, the building’s superintendent, a net lessee of the building owner, a subtenant of a net lessee in control of the entire property. Perhaps it is a way to make more persons and entities associated with “owner” as responsible as the “owner” for keeping “…the premises free from rodents, and from infestations of insects and other pests, and from any condition conducive to rodent or insect and other pest life…”

That expansion to other responsible persons or entities is a means to gain a useful court or agency mandate against a real person or the person or entity actually in charge. I do not see that the term encompasses “tenant.” The Housing Maintenance Code is able to use the word or term “tenant” when it means tenant. So the absence of the word “tenant” from this section implies persons or entities as like the “owner” in control.

Laundry and the motivating power of the bed bug web: Q&A with Richard Naylor

Renee Corea — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:45:46 +0000

First, the study.

Naylor, R. A., and C. J. Boase. 2010. Practical Solutions for Treating Laundry Infested With Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 103 (February): 136-139. doi:10.1603/EC09288.

In keeping with our recent interest in the first line of these research abstracts, here is this one:

The common bed bug, Cimex lectularius (L.) (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) is known to become associated, from time to time, with clothing or linen.

From time to time…

The author surveyed 100 websites offering information on bed bug control in 2007, and found specific, practical information lacking.

Washing

3.2 kg dry weight of laundry, about 7 pounds, washed at 30°C/86°F, 40°C/104°F and 60°C/140°F in a 90-minute cycle wash (that’s the standard cycle in the UK) with a standard laundry detergent. Bed bugs (10 adults, 10 third instar nymphs, 10 eggs) were placed inside clothes pockets, in cotton pouches and sealed with a sandwich bag clip.

The 40°C/104°F cycle killed all adults and nymphs, but 75.6% of the eggs survived.

The 60°C/140°F cycle killed all stages.

Tumble drying

7 pounds of laundry (dry) in dryers set to “hot” and “cool” for 10 minutes and 30 minutes.

The temperature in the “cool” cycle never got above 30°C/86°F.

The 10-minute “hot” cycle did not kill all bed bugs, probably because it took more than 15 minutes to get above 40°C/104°F. (The authors reference the published thermal death point from previous work in the 1930s-40s in the range of 40-45°C/104-113°F.)

30 minutes in the “hot” cycle killed all life stages.

Here is a graph of the temperature logged during these drying cycles. The 40-45°C zone is the (previously published) dead zone, but it took more than 15 minutes.

temperature change over time, hot (A) and cool (B) drying cycles - Naylor & Boase 2010

Cold soaking

7 pounds of laundry in about 15°C/59°F tap water, without detergent.

Almost nothing dies if soaked for two hours. But, interestingly, all adults and nymphs died when soaked for 24 hours.

The eggs, however, survived. All of them.

Dry-cleaning

Professional dry cleaning with perchloroethylene.

100% kill of bed bugs and eggs.

Freezing

A laundry bag of 2.5 kg (about 5 and a half pounds) in a freezer drawer of a standard household freezer with a minimum temperature of -18°C/-0.4°F — a separate test was done with bed bugs placed in pouches in the freezer for two hours at -17°C/1.4°F.

2 hours at -17°C/1.4°F killed all bed bugs and eggs when placed directly (not in clothes) in the freezer. But when a bag of laundry was placed in the freezer, it took about 8 hours for the temperature at the center of the bag to reach -17°C.

The researchers advise caution about the regional differences in laundry equipment:

[T]here are regional differences in the operation and performance of domestic appliances that stress the importance of understanding the local situation when making recommendations. For example, washing machines in Europe typically heat their water to the user-selected temperature, whereas washing machines in the U.S. and Australia tend to use the household hot water supply and are therefore limited by the temperature of the water coming from the boiler. Furthermore, wash cycles in the U.K. typically last 90-120 min, whereas in the U.S., wash cycles of 20-30 min are much more common (Procter 2000). As Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate, differences in temperature and duration may make the difference between success and failure in terms of clothing disinfestation. These differences emphasize the need for caution when considering adopting advice generated in one country, for use in another.

For comparison of these results with some American laundering tests reported by Potter et al. in 2007, see this PCT article.

Q&A

Richard Naylor is a doctoral student at the University of Sheffield (UK). Take a look at his bed bug photographs here. I particularly like this one:

Bedbug. Copyright Richard Naylor.

He generously answered our questions via email.

New York vs Bed Bugs: Your group regularly produces some of the most fantastically interesting research about bed bugs and yet I have to say it is a joy to ask you about something as simple as laundry. Because in fact it is not so simple… so it is wonderful that you took an interest in this subject. I like that your study shows that people have options (e.g., you can disinfest clothing even if you don’t have access to a dryer), but you note that regional differences in laundry equipment are important to consider. So, with that in mind, if we were to make judgments based on temperature and time (in places where one doesn’t really know the temperature of washers and dryers but can use, say, a household thermometer for some limited testing), what would be a useful rule of thumb? Often people are confused by thermal death points, especially because they seem not to be stable in the literature and have much to do with method and duration of exposure.

Richard Naylor: The important thing does seem to be the temperature, whether washing or drying. 40 degrees [Celsius] seems to be the magic number. In simple terms this is about the temperature of a nice warm bath, so it doesn’t need to be scolding hot. Some washing machines don’t heat their own water and so the maximum temperature they can achieve is the temperature that the boiler is set to. If your hot tap produces water that is slightly too hot to hold your hands under for any length of time, it is probably fine for killing bedbugs. Unfortunately one can’t get round having to know something about their washing machine if they plan to use it for treating bugs. Perhaps it would be simpler to fill the bath with hot water. As long as it is a bit too hot to hold your hands in it should be fine. Hot water penetrates the fabric much quicker than hot air, so time isn’t really a factor as long as all the air is pummeled out of it.

New York vs Bed Bugs: Did you really read 100 bed bug fact sheets on the internet? I am honestly impressed by that diligence because that sounds like torture to me. Did you find great variability in the practical information on offer?

Richard Naylor: Yes I did. A lot of the sites offering advice were run by local councils. The advice wasn’t particularly variable because people just republish the same “knowledge” over and over again. I just kept a tally of every mention of “hot wash”, “tumble-dry” etc. and worked my way down a google search. Every now and then you stumble over a blinder, involving a bloody steak and a roll of sellotape, which keeps the motivation up! I keep a folder on my computer of all the best bedbug misinformation I can find on the web!

New York vs Bed Bugs: Can I ask you what you are working on? What are some of the interesting questions in need of answering?

Richard Naylor: I am currently interested in their ecology and dispersal. We actually know a lot more about the ecology of swallow bugs than we do of bedbugs, simply because when an infestation is discovered, it is normally treated straight away. People don’t want to wait a few weeks for studies to be made and experiments carried out. The solution I have come up with is to build about a dozen 3 meter long arenas complete with blood feeding station and around 200 bedbugs in each. I am trying to understand how they behave in an infestation and to figure out what factors are important in driving their dispersal.

New York vs Bed Bugs: I once saw what looked like a carved wood panel of mating bed bugs at your university’s website (can’t seem to find it again)—I am curious about just how old that is? Is it an artifact of the current interest in bed bugs or is it from much earlier? It is beautiful and I wonder if you’ve always had it.

Richard Naylor: Well spotted. We (though not me) started studying bedbugs at Sheffield University about 15 years ago. Mike [Siva-Jothy] used to be particularly interested in sexual conflict, which is the idea that males and females of a species are purely out to do the best for themselves as they can, often at the expense of the opposite sex. Bedbugs are a prime example, as males will mate with females much more often than the females require to stay fertile and as a result the females live about 25% less long than they would otherwise. We believe that traumatic insemination arose out of sexual conflict as a way of males preventing females from exerting choice over paternity.

Anyway, the carving was commissioned about 6-7 years ago and is made up of lots of images from old books and photographs around the department. The bedbugs are copied from an electron micrograph that we had done of some of our bugs at the time.

What’s working for bed bug control in multifamily housing: a new report from NCHH

Renee Corea — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:54:18 +0000

The National Center for Healthy Housing, with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, has published a report on the actual practice of bed bug control: What’s Working for Bed Bug Control in Multi-Family Housing: Reconciling best practices with research and the realities of implementation (PDF).

The report is authored by Allison Taisey and Tom Neltner. It is intended for an audience of “health professionals, housing professionals, and pest management professionals seeking to plan for or respond to a bed bug infestation in multi-family housing. It is not a best management practices document” — this is important to understand I think. Practices are evolving and there is so much that is not known.

Don’t miss the case studies.

You can find other resources on the Healthy Homes Training website of the NCHH: Pest Control in Affordable Housing – Integrated Pest Management.

click to download PDF

Bed bugs make the home page of the NYC Department of Health

Renee Corea — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:25:26 +0000

You have to see this.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has published a new bed bug guide, Preventing and Getting Rid of Bed Bugs Safely (PDF), available in English as a printed booklet by calling 311, and in Spanish (PDF) and Chinese (PDF) on the web.

This guide is a part of the Health Department’s Healthy Homes guides. It uses spare and easy-to-follow text and drawings like this one:

Infested with bedbugs - graphic from DOHMH Healthy Homes bed bug guide

Not to understate things but you must realize that this is a vast improvement on the city’s previous bed bug fact sheet.

Here are some key messages that I like in this new publication:

It tells you one of the most important things you should know about bed bugs:

Some people do not react to bed bug bites.

It tells you that bed bugs are not your fault:

If you have bed bugs, you shouldn’t feel ashamed. Anyone can get bed bugs. Notify your landlord and neighbors. The sooner everyone responds, the more successful everyone will be.

It tells you not to use foggers and bombs in the only language that will mean anything to you in your desperate state:

Do not use pesticide bombs or foggers to control pests. They can make conditions worse.

It tells you that your efforts will help but does not lie to you and doesn’t shame you for not being able to get rid of bed bugs solely with a vacuum cleaner (like so many others do):

Cleaning and disinfecting will help to reduce bed bugs and their spread but may not get rid of them totally.

It recommends to landlords that they:

Notify tenants, and inspect all units adjacent to, above and below apartments found to have bed bugs.

If you’ve been around the bed bug block, I know exactly what you are thinking. I do. So here are some suggestions for you.

If you think the guide leaves out important information, or you have specific tips to share, take out a red pen! Call 311 and order a copy of the guide and then annotate it with your best tips and information before you give it to your friend, neighbor, acquaintance down the street. But please do share it. If you know there are bed bug problems in your neighborhood, share this guide with others. Spread the word and be a part of the solution and all that.

Now there is finally a city publication that can serve as a basic guide both to build awareness and to help the newly exposed.

Please share and build upon this effort. We’re all in this together. (Okay, I’ll stop before I tell you how moved I was to see this on the Health Department’s website.)

Please note that this guide, like the HPD bed bug course, was not developed by the Bed Bug Advisory Board. The advisory board is not a task force, remember?

Still, this is such important progress. You have no idea. Or maybe you do, and so I hope you will appreciate what this represents.

Here’s a screenshot of this I-never-thought-I’d-see-it development:

New bed bug guide on the city's Health Department website - February 5, 2010

The active spread of bed bugs in buildings: the stakes for cities

Renee Corea — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:48:15 +0000

A new article in the Journal of Economic Entomology should have important implications for policy making—if we are smart enough as a society to appreciate the stakes.

Wang, C., K. Saltzmann, E. Chin, G. W. Bennett, T. Gibb. 2010. Characteristics of Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae), Infestation and Dispersal in a High-Rise Apartment Building. Journal of Economic Entomology 103(1):172-177 DOI: 10.1603/EC09230

First let me get this out of the way. Check out this first sentence from the abstract:

Bed bugs, Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae), are a fast-growing urban pest of significant public health importance in the United States and many other countries.

Significant public health importance. I think of this phrase every day. May it one day mean what it says, yes?

Dr. Wang and colleagues studied a bed bug infestation in a 233-unit building for low-income elderly and disabled tenants in Indianapolis. The infestation is believed to have started with one tenant moving in, but it had already spread to more than 10 apartments by the time building management learned about it. Bed bugs spread in this building between 2006-2008 and a variety of treatments were tried, including educational efforts and treatments by the researchers themselves in 24 apartments from 2007-2008.

From December 2008 to April 2009 the researchers conducted inspections of apartments with reported infestations and interviewed the tenants. Bed bugs were counted and removed and Climbup Interceptors were installed. Adjacent apartments were then inspected and, not surprisingly, there were a number of apartments that could not be inspected. Apartments across the hall were also inspected:

After an apartment was identified as having bed bugs, the two adjoining units and the two units immediately across the hallway from the infested unit were also inspected. If no bed bugs were found, the apartments were inspected again 1-3 mo later to confirm the absence of bed bugs. Residents from ≈ 15% of the apartments declined the inspection services, citing their belief that bed bugs were not present.

Across the hall dispersal

The researchers found a way to test their across-the-hall dispersal hypothesis by placing two interceptors baited with a chemical lure outside five infested apartments. The article addresses the question of using lures in these traps thus:

Although chemical lures were used in the interceptors to detect bed bug dispersal, a separate study in nine apartments indicated that the presence of lures did not significantly increase the number of trapped bed bugs (our unpublished data). Thus, we considered the counts from interceptors placed at entry doors or in the hallways to be random catches of bed bugs that were passing through those areas.

bed bug interceptors outside apartment door - Wang et al. (2010)

In any case, management objected to the traps in the hallways and so they were removed after 7 days. They were then placed behind the front doors of eight infested apartments:

Three of the five pairs of interceptors placed in the hallways trapped two bed bugs per pair after 1 wk, supporting our hypothesis that bed bugs used hallways as a route for dispersal. The mean visual counts from these five apartments before placing the interceptors were 196.4 ± 58.7 per apartment. The average number of bed bugs detected at entry doors over 4 wk period was 6 ± 2 (n = 8 ) and the maximum was 42. Among the 138 bed bugs examined that were caught at entry doors (dispersing), 30% were nymphs, including first instars. Some of the first instars were from eggs laid by trapped adult females as evidenced by the presence of empty eggs in interceptors. The difference between the proportion of nymphs at entry doors versus under furniture indicates that adult bed bugs were 9 times more likely to disperse than nymphs.

It’s not all active dispersal though—who would have thought one could write that after all these years—because standard mechanisms of the spread were observed too, including an infested wheelchair used in common areas, the introduction of infested furniture, “not wrapping infested furniture in plastic before removal from the building” and visits by residents and “guests harboring bed bugs on their clothing or belongings.”

The characteristics of a building-wide infestation

The facts gleaned about this infestation in this building:

three years after the first suspected introduction, 45% of the building’s apartments were known to be infested, 101 apartments as of April 2009
in the apartments visually inspected, there were 53 identified infestations; of these, 53% were adjacent apartments on the same floor and 45% were apartments across the hall
in 40 apartments with a history of reported infestations, only 12 residents were aware of bed bugs; of these 40 apartments, 24 were still infested
of 40 residents surveyed, 50% received bed bug treatments provided by the building management, 40% tried to control the infestation on their own with chemicals, 35% threw away furniture and 20% used store- or internet-bought pyrethroid-based sprays or foggers. Otherwise, alcohol, bleach and boric acid were used—as well as laundering, covering cracks with tape, placing blankets under doors and using mattress encasements

Information gleaned from interceptor traps in 20 infested apartments:

while there was a 77% reduction in bed bug counts, after 12 weeks there were still bed bugs in 11 of 20 apartments
78% of the trapped bed bugs were nymphs
89% of trapped bed bugs were in the outer well of the interceptor “suggesting movement into the trap from the room” and that “most of the bed bugs missed by visual inspections were not on the furniture”
more than 98% of trapped bed bugs were already dead when counted

This last item is interesting but I’m not sure what to make of it because, in fact, one of the conclusions of this study is that pest control efforts in this building were ineffective at eradicating the bed bugs. This may simply be that elusive line between mitigation and eradication. Unless they’re dying of fright? (Sort of joking but sort of serious—is there any possibility that being trapped makes them, well, not spry let’s say.)

Prospects

The researchers underscore what to me is an astonishing fact, that 50% of residents in infested apartments were unaware of their own infestations, this despite each tenant receiving a bed bug educational brochure and having the opportunity to attend a seminar.

This is in part what I believe this means: education alone will not solve the problem of bed bugs in our cities. Even assuming a significant investment in educational resources (an insurmountable if at present), there will not be a way to reach everyone.

At some point, you have to have access to all infested locations and then you have to kill all the bed bugs, with something—whatever it is, it must be inexpensive and widely deployable.

Impossible?

What else does this study show us?

This is what the researchers say:

Several of the surveyed apartments in this study were infested for more than two years. The active and passive bed bug dispersal mechanisms observed during this study and the rapid spread of bed bug infestations suggest an urgent need for more effective bed bug monitoring and intervention programs to curb the exploding problem of bed bug infestations. Without such efforts, bed bug infestations will continue to spread in our society and likely become much more widespread in low-income housing in the years to come. Bed bugs cause more than discomfort and pain. Bed bug infestations have economic, social, and legal ramifications (Potter 2006). Thus, it is critical to act early to prevent bed bug infestations from becoming chronic and incurring much greater health and economic consequences.

These are the facts on the ground. From people who know what they’re talking about, not wishful thinkers or would be social engineers.

Clearly, I believe that while many are beginning to recognize the need to act, no one really wants to. It will just take too much money.

But what happens then if we continue on this particular bed bug road?

_______________________

Active dispersal is an intriguing topic that is near to my heart. Here are some other posts on this subject:

And here are previous posts about the research of Dr. Wang and colleagues:

DE vs chlorfenapyr (sorry, an unfortunate title)
Baited pitfall traps for bed bugs
Detecting bed bugs using bed bug monitors, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

Letter in support of the Community Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell

Renee Corea — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:54:30 +0000

Below is our letter in support of the Community IPM Program — links added in this online version. Please take a moment to review the appeal (PDF) by Dr. Donald Rutz, director of the NYS IPM Program, and please consider writing a supportive letter to save the program. As always, many thanks…

February 3, 2010

The Honorable Antoine Thompson
Chairman
Senate Environmental Conservation Committee
Legislative Office Building, Room 902
Albany, New York 12247

Dear Senator Thompson,

I am writing to you in support of the Community Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University.

As a co-founder of New York vs Bed Bugs, a policy advocacy organization in New York City, I have worked closely with an IPM Specialist at the Community Integrated Pest Management Program, Dr. Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann, most recently on the New York City Bed Bug Advisory Board which Dr. Gangloff-Kaufmann chairs.

Bed bugs are rapidly spreading in New York City, as in other North American cities, causing extraordinary physical, psychological and financial distress wherever they appear; and severely straining the budgets and resources of families, property owners, social and health services providers, business owners and government agencies.

Current bed bug control methods and practices are variously difficult, ineffective and, crucially, unaffordable. There are no programs or resources available to the majority of New York residents who are affected by bed bug infestations. It is particularly troubling that the most vulnerable populations are at higher risk for suffering entrenched bed bug infestations.

In a period of deepening economic austerity, the prospects for bed bug control in New York City are realistically bleak. In this challenging landscape, therefore, the work of the Community Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University is vital. The Community Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University has worked to develop and deliver educational resources to combat bed bug infestations in New York City and New York State. In 2008 it produced Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Bed Bugs in Shelters and Group Living Facilities, a publication that has had a significant impact far beyond its intended audience, becoming an extremely valuable resource for all affected New Yorkers. The Program has a comprehensive website about bed bugs and delivers bed bug management education and advice through various channels, including innovative tools such as informational wallet cards [PDF] targeting the needs of travelers and college students. This combination of attention to an emergent public health pest problem and concerted effort at producing useful guidance and educational materials, especially for underserved populations, is a critical response that is singular in the state, with no other organizations taking on this task.

I urge you to restore the Community Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University to its historic funding level of $400,000. Please take steps to preserve one of the few pest management education resources available to New York residents at a time when they are ill-equipped to cope with an unprecedented resurgence of bed bug infestations.

Respectfully,

Renee Corea
New York vs Bed Bugs

cc: Donald A. Rutz, Director, NYS IPM Program

Bed bug treatment specs from ONPHA

Renee Corea — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:59:51 +0000

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has posted bed bug management specifications which were developed in collaboration with hsi solutions. This is a great communication and education tool for their residents and property managers — but there’s also generosity at play here for the rest of us who can now read this example of clearly thought-out bed bug treatment contract specifications.

The items are:

Bed Bug Pest Management Services;
Expected Service Levels and Treatment; and
Minimum Warranty (PDF).

From the warranty:

Warranty for Unit Treatment

The warranty for unit treatment, planned or demand, shall be three (3) months from the service date. The warranty is also dependent on specific factors that may compromise the service effectiveness, such as adjacent infestations and other factors such as extremely heavy infestation, or conditions requiring further services. Unless such factors are identified by the Pest Control Service Provider (PCSP) to the Housing Provider before or at the time of treatment, the warranty shall be in force for the period noted.

From the expected service levels:

Adjacent Unit Inspections

Units immediately adjacent to the treated unit on the same floor shall be inspected at the same time as the treatment of the unit is undertaken. This will require preparation and advance notice to the tenant by the Housing Provider.

I think there are IPM contract recommendations out there but I have not seen one specific to bed bugs, so I hope this is helpful for those of you who are considering your own RFQs or negotiating contracts.

ONPHA also has a bed bug list-serv for their member property managers. Very cool.

An evening of bed bugs, cont’d

Renee Corea — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:11:10 +0000

Lou Sorkin began his lecture at last week’s special meeting of the New York Entomological Society by recounting a few choice tales of insect gourmandism—like the one about the tarantula tempura served at one of The Explorers Club’s annual banquets. Someone forgot to pluck their urticating defensive hairs and a call from the health department ensued. I heartily wish I could share much more with you (no, really) but I think I busied myself with some papers at Lou’s mention of the depilatory quality of cooked tempura batter. Don’t serve Lou mealworms is the only advice I can muster; unlike urticating hairs, mealworms make him sick!

The Great Lou

Lou is famously exacting about public education materials about bed bugs. We are all better for his insistence over several years on highlighting the differences in appearance between the life stages of bed bugs. He spent considerable time on life stage drawings and photographs (beware the missing instar) and showed us (approvingly) Stephen Doggett’s update to his famous bed bug life stages (which you can see on page 16 of the latest draft of the Code of Practice) which was produced by photographing each bed bug individually and referencing the immature stages descriptions in Usinger for each instar. Lou clearly believes—and continues to persuade many of us—that accuracy and comprehensiveness in these matters is key in public education messaging.

He showed us innumerable photographs of bed bugs and bed bug harborage sites in all their glory, from the expected to the unexpected, his words and choice of photos cautioning in so many ways against the sort of received wisdom we have been exposed to for years (not 5 eggs a day, not only nocturnal, not just clover-leaf inspections…). Alert-looking bed bugs next to dead bed bugs, numerous barely-distinguishable immature bed bugs next to one or two adults (“you are not close enough”), heartbreaking advanced infestations, across-the-hall dispersal, the limited effectiveness of vacuuming—for both eggs and bed bugs, noting that he often plays with bed bugs and paint brushes (Lou!) and often they do not budge. I am so grateful for Lou touching on all these subjects, even if it was to a roomful of pest control pros. I wish more of you had come.

It was an interactive evening of bed bugs

Lou gave each person in the audience a loupe as a gift (like the one he gave me recently). And he had these for everyone to practice on:

Live bed bug display boxes

You all know about the value of a notched MetroCard as an inspection tool:

Notched MetroCards - a Lou Sorkin bed bug inspection trick

“Grade School Bed Bug Project?”

These are two slides from Lou’s presentation which describe inexpensive monitoring ideas that you can use at home:

Folded paper passive bed bug collector - click for larger size

Improvised sticky traps:

Examples of sticky tape monitors - click for larger size

Materials: “blue painter’s tape and 2 kinds of double-sided carpet tape plus using the backing of the tape as a cover.”

Vajra Kilgour

Vajra Kilgour is Vice Chair of Metropolitan Council on Housing and associate producer of WBAI 99.5 FM’s Housing Notebook. (Both Lou and Catharine Grad appeared on the program on January 4 to discuss bed bugs—read Bedbugger’s take and recap here.) Ms. Kilgour spoke about Met Council’s hotline (Q: “My landlord says I brought them in and I’m responsible.” A: “Your landlord is lying.”), Met Council’s bed bug fact sheet which she is personally working on developing, and legislative work. She noted that “laws can make a difference; there is less lead poisoning in NYC.”

She suggested that in the hard struggle to persuade landlords to do what they are legally required to do—maintain apartments in habitable conditions—the strongest action that tenants can take is to organize. She talked about the desperation of people who suffer from bed bugs—housing court litigants that are “bitten from head to toe”—and the people who simply cannot afford to heat-dry all their clothes, much less afford dry cleaners or throwing anything away.

The value of a strong tenant association is one important take-away message from Ms. Kilgour’s presentation.

Catharine A. Grad

Catharine Grad (Grad & Weinraub, LLP) spoke about the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. She said that “a landlord has the obligation to eradicate bed bugs in a building; that is the law.” However, she urged the PMPs in attendance not to casually tell people (tenants) to move out or break their leases.¹ “You have to show that the situation is intolerable to move out,” and “if the situation is being treated, you can’t break the lease—it’s a question of magnitude.”

Tenants are obligated to provide access to their apartments and risk eviction for their refusal. She recognized that when landlords provide inadequate pest control services, tenants must still provide access and “work with” even incompetent pest control professionals or risk becoming part of the problem.

When pressed about alternatives to going to court by a member of the audience who had spent thousands of dollars in litigation, Ms. Grad said that court is “a blunt tool, far from a perfect tool” that takes a long time, but there are effectively no alternatives (“the alternative to court is to get a consensus in a community that is strong enough to compel landlords and tenants to act responsibly”) and so landlords and tenants should not wait. Landlords who cannot gain access to infested apartments should begin court actions as soon as possible, and the same goes for tenants who cannot get their landlords to act responsibly.

She said it would be helpful for landlords and tenants to have “more specific directives” about how to proceed with infestations.

Megan Quenzer

Megan Quenzer’s perspective was precisely that of a tenant receiving inadequate bed bug pest control in her building. A new PMP who apparently knows what he’s doing has improved the situation, but the infestation in the building remains and Ms. Quenzer believes the bed bugs are simply moving from apartment to apartment through the walls, returning to apartments where they were thought to be eradicated.

She stressed the need for community education, for landlords as well as tenants (“everybody needs to be educated”), and expressed the hope that the city will track infestations and regulate bed bug services. She spoke of the efforts in other cities, particularly in Boston, and held her ground in the face of some persistent questioning by some in the audience about the futility of control efforts in the face of tenant introductions. It was also interesting, and sad I suppose, that some in the audience urged her to simply move out.

I am always seriously impressed by people who overcome the stigma of bed bug infestations (or are simply impervious to it) and speak publicly about their own experiences. I think Ms. Quenzer reached the pest control professionals in the room.

An audience of PMPs

The audience as I said was mostly from the pest control community, but I was happy to see Council Member Gale Brewer and Sharon Heath from the Department of Health. Some of the industry folks in attendance were Cesar Soto (Freedom Pest Control), Tim Wong (M&M), Natalie Raben (M&M), John Furman (Boot A Pest), John and Sue Russell (Action Termite & Pest Control), Todd Lorah (Action Termite & Pest Control), Kitty Lee (Residex), Gil Bloom (Standard Pest), Rick Cooper (Cooper Pest), and many others.

Killer Who?

A note, however. The fact that the audience was overwhelmingly from the industry created an interesting dynamic when the guest speakers (a tenant advocate, a tenant lawyer and a tenant!) spoke in the second half of the evening. It’s useful to understand things as they really are and so I will quote one thing said by an anonymous PMP at the meeting:

“People go on the internet and become geniuses.”

Well.

Guess what, though, surprisingly, there was little back and forth about dogs! Or maybe I’m conditioned to expect the arguing about dogs that in any case did not materialize.

Bed bugs will not go away on their own

During his presentation Lou showed us this public education poster developed by WoodGreen Community Services in Toronto that I think would be a fitting way to end this post:

Bed bug education poster, WoodGreen Community Services

Source: All About Bed Bugs: An Information Guide (PDF)

Please tell someone about bed bugs.

Finally, I want to share what one person who was in attendance said. His reaction to what he heard during the meeting was, “this is so depressing.” Yes, it is in so many ways. But please remember what Dr. Stephen Hwang told us recently, because we truly can afford neither complacency nor hopelessness.

Heartfelt thanks to Lou. For more Lou, check out our interview from last year.

This caution about giving improper advice to tenants cannot be stressed enough. I think that it is extremely important to understand that withholding any part of the rent and other actions such as breaking the lease, especially when undertaken without proper legal advice, expose the tenant to the risk of being sued by their landlords. Tenants can and should take their landlords to housing court instead. “HP” proceedings for repairs, I learned at a legal clinic offered by the West Side SRO Law Project recently that I have been meaning to tell you about, do not expose tenants to this risk and should therefore be recommended first.