Food Source Imp pacts on Surface Treatments a s and Aerosols - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Food Source Imp Treatments a

Frank Art USDA-ARS- Manhattan, K

pacts on Surface s and Aerosols

Arthur

• GMPRC

, KS 66502

Integrated Pest

• We generally think of s

scale, then becoming m

• Might see this as going

then to aerosols, and t

• Why this talk in a conferen

fluoride?

Pest Management

f starting on a small g more broad ing from contact sprays, d then fumigation nference with sulfuryl

Contact Ins

• General surface: can b

the facility

• Crack & crevice: direct
• pening
• Spot: usually defined a

restrictions on number

Insecticides

be used anywhere in rect spray band into the ed as 2 ft2 or less, er of “spots”

Factors Affecting

• Insect species vary in

confused flour beetles

• Some insecticides, and

better than others

• Perhaps the biggest fa

food during or after ins

ting Performance

in susceptibility, red and es fairly tolerant nd formulations, are factor is the presence of er insecticide exposure

Red flour be Tribolium c ur beetle (RFB) castaneum

Confused flour Tribolium c ur beetle (CFB) lium confusum

Why These

• Common pests of stored
• These species are genera

kill than smaller beetles

• CFB adults do not fly, R

85°F, minimizes escape

se Species?

• red food

enerally more difficult to eetles , RFB adults fly at ~ 80- ape into facility

Examp

• Studies with cyfluthrin
• Adult red flour beetles

minutes on treated con

• Removed, held for 1 w
• r not given food
• Residual tests conducted

ample 1

rin (Tempo) WP es exposed for 15 - 120

• ncrete

week, either given food cted for 0-10 weeks

Red flour beetle on with cyfluthrin WP,

20 40 60 80 100 60 90 120

Percent Survival Minutes of Exp

With foo Without

• n concrete treated

WP, 3.8 mg [AI]/ft2

2 4 6 8 10 30

Bioassay Week xposure

• od after exposure

ut food after exposure

Examp

• Chlorfenapyr (Phantom
• Termiticide, BASF spon

evaluate residual effica insects

• Red flour beetle and co

are now on the pesticid

ample 2

• m)
• nsored studies to

icacy for stored-product confused flour beetle icide label

Presence

• Red flour beetles expo

with Phantom (differen

• Either given a flour foo

food after exposure

• Increase in survival wit

is maximum label rate,

nce of Food

posed on concrete treated erent rates and times) food source or not given with food; example shown te, 8 hour exposure time

Concrete Exp xposure Arena

% RFB survival,

Days Afte

2 Survival: 0.03 oz/yd

2

20 40 60 80 100

al, 8-h exposure

fter Exposure

4 6

Examp

• Residual studies beta-

Ultra)

• Product is 1lb/gallon a

the strength of the old

• Low and high label rat

about 1.8 mg AI/ft2 (h

ample 3

• cyfluthrin (Tempo SC

active ingredient, half lder formulation rates, high label rate is (half that of old WP)

Tests With Red

• Adults exposed on con

label rate-5, 10, 15, 20

• Knockdown assessed a
• Beetles transferred to P

week with or without f

• Survival assessed at 2,

ed Flour Beetle

• ncrete treated with high

20, 25, and 30 minutes after exposure

• Petri dishes, held for 1

t food 2, 5 and 7 days

Red Flour Beetle

Exposur

10

% "Running"

20 40 60 80 100

etle-2 Days Later

ure Interval (min)

10 20 30

No Flour Flour

Red Flour Beetle

Exposure

10

% "Running"

20 40 60 80 100

etle-5 Days Later

ure Interval (min)

20 30

Red Flour Beetle

Exposure

10

% "Running"

20 40 60 80 100

etle-7 Days Later

ure Interval (min)

20 30

Results For Te

• Similar results to Temp
• Presence of food increa

identical exposure times

• What about residual co

Will see the same effec different insecticide cla

Tempo SC Ultra

po WP and Phantom reased survival at the mes control, longer times? fects, consistent with classes

Aerosols/Fogs/ULV

• Aerosols (Fogs, ULVs)

atomized and applied

• Kill exposed flying or c
• They do not penetrate

packaging, equipment

• Aerosols and fumigant

interchangeably

s/ULV Defined

s) are liquid formulations, ed through a nozzle r crawling insects rate food material, ent, etc. (Not Fumigants) nts sometimes are used

Field Trials

• Active commercial food
• Tests conducted in one

225’L x 75’W x 35’H (6

ld Trials

• d storage facility

ne room, approximately (600,000 ft3)

Partial View of t f the Test Room

ULV Sys

• An installed ULV system

dispensed particle size

• Insecticide was a mixtu

synergists, applications to label specifications f

• Trials conducted on 5 d

red flour beetle and th

System

tem on a timer, ze about 15 microns ixture of 1% pyrethrin+ ns were made according s for this formulation 5 different dates with the the confused flour beetle

Methods of

• 15 positions on the floo

(5 on side walls, 5 in cen

• Ten adult CFB and RFB

(lined filter paper); w o 4-week old larvae and

• Dishes exposed to ULV

controls were held in a

• f Exposure

loor of the testing area center, all front to back) FB exposed in dishes

• r w/o 250 mg of flour;

d pupae with flour LV fog for 2 hours, a separate room

Position of Dishes, between wall and p

20 40 60 40 80

1 6 11 1 2 7 12

X

es, sets 1-5 and 11-15 d pallets, X is nozzles

120 160 200

3 8 13 5 10 15 4 9 14

NORTH

X

Fog distribution suspended fro n from 2 nozzles from the ceiling

RFB Adults

Time Af Percentage Response

20 40 60 80 100

Survival KD Mortality

7-day

ults-No Flour

After Exposure

ays 14-days

CFB Adults

Time After Percentage Response

20 40 60 80 100

Survival KD Mortality

7-days

ults-No Flour

ter Exposure

14-days

Adult Survival: F

Beetle % Survival-7 days

5 10 15 20

CFB

Survival: Flour vs No Flour

tle Species

No Flour Flour

RFB

Sanitatio

• Hard to define, even ha
• However, we can show

the effects of a food so

• How can you clean an

warehouse-you can’t!

• You can clean and mon

Sanitation

harder to quantify

• w in laboratory studies

source n entire mill or food

• nitor vulnerable areas

How do yo

• Vacuum lines excellent
• So is cleaning equipmen

dumpsters, etc.

• Problem on an industria

during the warmer mon

• Still, you can make a ca

you Clean?

ent harborages ent, trash bags, trial setting, especially

• nths

case for sanitation

Why This Talk in This

• Do the concepts relate
• Fumigants penetrate, d

insecticides or aerosols

• Does the presence of f

re-infestation or popula

• How about customer sa

in This Conference

te to fumigation? e, different from surface

• ls-efficacy might be OK

f food material affect ulation rebound er satisfaction?

Summ

• Food material has an o

survival for contact insec

• Could affect overall perf

fumigants, particularly

• We need much more res

sites and commercial fa

mary

• bvious effect on insect

nsecticides and aerosols erformance of rly re-infestation re research in actual field l facilities

For More Info

• frank.arthur@ars.usda.

www.ars.usda.gov/npa

• Phone: 785-776-2783
• www.ars.usda.gov/npa

nformation

da.gov pa/gmprc/spiru/arthur pa/gmprc/spiru