Goddard Jerome
Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology, and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Box 9775, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Insects. 2014 Nov 28;5(4):942-51. doi: 10.3390/insects5040942.
Bed bugs are resurging throughout the world, and, thus, effective pest control strategies are constantly needed. A few studies have evaluated 25(b) and other natural, or so-called "green" products, as well as over-the-counter insecticides for bed bugs, but additional studies are needed to determine efficacy of bed bug control products. This double-blinded research project was initiated to examine long-term effectiveness of six commercially available natural or "green" insecticides against bed bugs and to compare them with three known traditional residual products. Water was used as a control. Products were evaluated against both susceptible and resistant strains of bed bugs (1200 bugs each), and two different substrates were used. Temprid(®) (Bayer Corporation, Monheim, Germany), Transport(®) (FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA, USA), Invader(®) (FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA USA), Cimexa(®) (Rockwell Laboratories, Kansas City, MO, USA), and BBT-2000(®) (Swepe-Tite LLC, Tupelo, MS, USA) were the only products which showed any substantial (>40%) bed bug control upon exposure to treated substrates after the six-month waiting period, although results with the resistant bed bug strain were much reduced. Alpine dust(®) (BASF Corporation, Florham Park, NJ, USA) killed 27% of bed bugs or less, depending on strain and substrate. EcoRaider(®) (North Bergen, NJ, USA) and Mother Earth D(®) (Whitmire Microgen, Florham Park, NJ, USA) (diatomaceous earth) produced 11% control or less. Cimi-Shield Protect(®) (Pest Barrier, Carson, CA, USA) showed no activity against bed bugs in this study. Analysis using SAS software showed a three-way interaction between treatment, substrate, and bed bug strain (Numerator DF 9; Denominator DF 80; F = 4.90; p < 0.0001).
臭虫正在全球范围内再度肆虐,因此,始终需要有效的害虫防治策略。一些研究评估了25(b)以及其他天然或所谓的“绿色”产品,还有用于防治臭虫的非处方杀虫剂,但仍需更多研究来确定臭虫防治产品的效果。启动该双盲研究项目是为了检验六种市售天然或“绿色”杀虫剂对臭虫的长期有效性,并将它们与三种已知的传统残留产品进行比较。以水作为对照。针对臭虫的敏感菌株和抗性菌株(各1200只臭虫)对产品进行了评估,并使用了两种不同的基质。Temprid®(拜耳公司,德国蒙海姆)、Transport®(富美实公司,美国宾夕法尼亚州费城)、Invader®(富美实公司,美国宾夕法尼亚州费城)、Cimexa®(罗克韦尔实验室,美国密苏里州堪萨斯城)和BBT - 2000®(斯威普泰特有限责任公司,美国密西西比州图珀洛)是仅有的在六个月等待期后接触处理过的基质时显示出任何显著(>40%)臭虫防治效果的产品,不过对臭虫抗性菌株的防治效果大幅降低。Alpine dust®(巴斯夫公司,美国新泽西州弗洛勒姆帕克)杀死的臭虫比例为27%或更低,具体取决于菌株和基质。EcoRaider®(美国新泽西州北卑尔根)和Mother Earth D®(惠特迈尔微生物公司,美国新泽西州弗洛勒姆帕克)(硅藻土)的防治率为11%或更低。Cimi - Shield Protect®(害虫屏障公司,美国加利福尼亚州卡森)在本研究中对臭虫没有防治效果。使用SAS软件进行的分析显示,处理、基质和臭虫菌株之间存在三向交互作用(分子自由度9;分母自由度80;F = 4.90;p < 0.0001)。