Citation
Public Perceptions of Urban Pest Management and the Toxicity of Fatty Acid Salts to Cockroaches

Material Information

Title:
Public Perceptions of Urban Pest Management and the Toxicity of Fatty Acid Salts to Cockroaches
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cockroaches ( jstor )
Fatty acids ( jstor )
Insects ( jstor )
Mortality ( jstor )
Pest control ( jstor )
Pesticides ( jstor )
Pests ( jstor )
Potassium ( jstor )
Soaps ( jstor )
Toxicity ( jstor )
City of Cocoa ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
4/17/2006

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF URBAN PEST MANAGEMENT AND THE TOXICITY
OF FATTY ACID SALTS TO COCKROACHES













By

REBECCA FRANCES WILLIAMS BALDWIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

Rebecca Frances Williams Baldwin

































For my loving family without whose prayers, love and encouragement this would not
have been possible.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their support and encouragement

throughout my tenure at the University of Florida. I would first like to thank my family:

Richie for being my encouragement and shoulder to lean on and my parents and

grandparents for all of their prayers and confidence in me. I would also like to thank my

committee for their patience in molding me into a professional entomologist. I thank Dr.

Phil Koehler, for teaching me that I can succeed in research. I appreciate all the road

trips where great ideas were born. I thank Dr. Faith Oi, for her friendship and instruction

on how to build an extension program. I thank Dr. Norm Leppla and Dr. Marshall

Breeze, for their suggestions and review of my manuscript. I appreciate all of your time

and dedication. My thanks to Dr. Ken Portier for his statistical expertise, to Dr. Mike

Scharf for the use of his lab, and Drs. Mike Scicchitano and Tracy Johns for their revision

of my survey. I would also like to thank Dr. Don Hall and Mrs. Debbie Hall for helping

me to be a successful teacher. Thanks also to all of the friends I have made at the

University of Florida and in Windsor. Their friendships have truly made Florida home.

This dissertation is an answer to prayer and I thank God for this blessing.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................... ........... ....... ........... .. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................... ... ...... ... ................. .x

OBJECT ......... .. ....... ................. ....... ........ ........ xi

ABSTRACT ............... ..................... ......... .............. xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................1

P est Statu s of C ockroaches .............................................................. .....................
Biology and D distribution ............................................................ ...............
M medical Im plications ........................................... .. ... .... ............ ...
Management Measures and Resistance.......................................................5
Integrated Pest M anagem ent Strategies...................................... .....................7
Cultural Methods: Education and Sanitation .......................................... 8
Mechanical Methods: Exclusion and Physical Removal of Cockroaches .....9
Chemical Methods: Traditional ........................................... ...............9
H history of Soap as an Insecticide........................................... .......... ............... 10
T ox city of S o ap ................................................... ................ 10
Chemical Structure of Fatty Acids .................................................. 12
Chemical Structure of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts............................................13
Insecticidal Uses of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts .............................................. 13
Potential Mode of Action of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts............................... 20
State ent of P purpose ....................................................................... ..................... 22

2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PEST PROBLEMS .................................... .........28

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 2 8
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................29
R e su lts ................................................................................................................... 3 1
Demographics................................................ 31
Importance of Categories of Urban Pests.......................................................... 31
Factors Related to a Behavioral Change .................................. ............... 32


v









Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option....................................35
D isc u ssio n .................................................................... ................ 3 6

3 PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD
PESTICIDE U SA GE ................. ............... ............... ........... ... ............... 51

Introduction ................................ ........................... .... ..... ......... 51
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................52
R esults.......................... ............. .. ...................... ...... 54
Responses of Consumers That Utilize Pesticides....................................54
Responses of Consumers That Do Not Utilize Pesticides.............................. 57
Responses of Consumers That Would Never Utilize Pesticides......................58
Responses of All Consumers................. ...................................58
D em graphics ............................................ 58
D iscu ssio n ......... .................................... ............................5 9

4 TOXICITY OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DISHWASHING
DETERGENTS AND HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS ON COCKROACHES
BLA TTELLA GERMANICA (L.), AND PERIPLANETA AMERICANA (L.) .............73

Introduction .............. .... ... ......... ....... ...... ........................ .. 73
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................74
In se c ts ............. ..... ............ ................. .................................................7 4
Im m version A ssay ....... ...... .......... .......... ........................ .. ............ .... .. 75
Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using
Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners........................................76
A n aly sis ............. ................. ................................................................7 8
Results ................. ..... ............ ............. ...............79
Im m version A ssay ....... ...... .......... .......... ........................ .. ............ .... .. 79
Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using
Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners........................................80
D iscu ssion ............... .................................... ............................82

5 TOXICITY AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL
FATTY ACID SALTS ON AMERICAN AND GERMAN COCKROACHES........91

In tro d u ctio n ...................................... ................................................ 9 1
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................93
Insects ................................... ........................... ..... ..... ........ 93
T re a tm e n ts ..................................................................................................... 9 3
Immersion Bioassay ............................. .......... ............ ............... 94
Neurophysiology Bioassay -- Equipment........................................95
Neurophysiology Bioassay -- Insect Preparation and Recording........................95
A n a ly sis .............................................. .. ................. ................ 9 7
R e su lts ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. .................................................... 9 7
D iscu ssio n ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. .......... ......................................10 0









6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .........................................................................107

APPENDIX: PEST MANAGEMENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT..............................110

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................ .................... 119

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................. ...............130
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Insecticide classes and modes of action. ....................................... ............... 6

1-2 C om m on potassium salts ........................................................................... ...... 13

1-3 Selected references testing various soap solutions against arthropods ..................23

2-1 Demographic profile of the 600 participants in the Florida perceptions of pests
survey ..............................................................................39

2-2 Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people
allergic to insects and insect bites. ........................................ ....................... 40

2-3 Response to the question, "Which of the following categories of insect pests ....41

2-4 Pesticide users' reasons for purchasing pest control products or services and
their im portance (N =492) ......................................................... ............... 42

2-5 Responses for pest factors influencing purchase of pest control products or
services based on gender. ............................................... ............................... 43

2-6 Non-pesticide users rank of the importance of some reasons for purchasing pest
control products or services (n=59)............................................... ............... 45

2-7 Response from non-pesticide users to the question, "How likely are you to take
that (pest control) action to solve a problem?" (n=59)..............................46

2-8 Response of people who would never use pesticides to the question: "How likely
would you be to take the following actions to solve a pest problem in or around
your hom e?" (n=48) ......................... ....... ... .. ...... ...............48

2-9 Comments specified by people who indicated they would never use pesticides
(n= 4 8). ............................................................................... 4 9

3-1 Demographic responses for willingness to use over-the-counter pesticides............64

3-2 Formulation preference of over-the-counter pesticide users (N=387).....................65

3-3 Demographic responses for willingness to use professional pest control products
or services............................................................................................. .66









3-4 Importance of purchasing variables from pesticide users for over-the-counter
and professional pest control services (n=387)........................................... ........... 67

3-5 Demographic responses for factors influencing purchase of over-the-counter
p esticid es. ......................................................... ................ 6 8

3-6 Demographic responses for factors influencing purchase of professional pest
control products or services........................................................... ............... 69

3-7 Importance of purchasing variables from non-pesticide users for over-the-
counter and professional pest control services (n=59). ........................................70

3-8 Demographic profile of the 600 participants in the Florida perceptions of pest
m anagem ent survey .................. ................................................. 71

3-9 Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people
allergic to insects and insect bites. ........................................ ....................... 72

4-1 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when
exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid by immersion................... ................85

4-2 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when
exposed to different formulations of dishwashing liquid by immersion..................86

4-3 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and American cockroach
males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid (formula 47937) (n=25)..87

4-4 Toxicity of Palmolive dishwashing liquid to adult male German and American
cockroaches with two application techniques. ................... ................ ........ 88

4-5 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and American cockroach
males when exposed to household cleaners by a spray or immersion application
(n= 2 5). ............................................................................... 89

5-1 Toxicity of sodium and potassium laurate to adult male German and American
cockroaches. ........................................................................10 1

5-2 Toxicity of fatty acid salts (FAS) to adult male German or American
cockroaches. .........................................................................102















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Representative fatty acid salt chains, Cs and C18. ........................................... 12

4-1 German cockroach, Blattella germanica, posture following a 30 s exposure to
1.4% Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid. .............................................79

5-1 Spontaneous electrical activity from representative P. americana neural
preparation. Baseline electrical activity in physiological saline (A),
physiological saline disturbance (B), baseline electrical activity in physiological
saline (C), potassium laurate (1 ml at 0.75%) in physiological saline (D). The
threshold was set at 500 baseline counts per min.............................104

5-2 Spontaneous electrical activity for three American cockroaches, A, B, and C
before and after treatment with 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%). ..........................105

5-3 Change in electrical bursting activity from baseline to the first and last 2.5 min
after treatment of 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%) ............................................106
















OBJECT

Object page

4-1 Cockroach exposure to 1.4% Palmolive dishwashing liquid or water (6.46 MB,
soap_exposurevideo.w m v. 1:21.)................................................. ....... ........ 79















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF URBAN PEST MANAGEMENT AND THE TOXICITY
OF FATTY ACID SALTS TO COCKROACHES

By

Rebecca Frances Williams Baldwin

December 2005

Chair: Philip G. Koehler
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

To better understand the public's perceptions of urban pests and urban pest

management strategies a computer aided telephone survey of 600 Florida residents was

conducted. Insect pests were considered somewhat or very harmful by 68% of the

population. Crawling pests were the most costly (50%) and difficult (42%) to control.

The majority of the population (82%) used pesticides with 79% using over-the-counter

pest control products and 54% hiring professional pest control services.

Toxicity of commercially available fatty acid salt blends, including dishwashing

liquids and household cleaners, was investigated by a spray or immersion application

against adult male German and American cockroaches. German cockroach nymphs and

adults were both equally susceptible to a 1.4 % soap solution (94-100% mortality). All

formulations of soaps (1%) and cleaners with an immersion application were equally as

toxic to adult cockroaches achieving 83-100% mortality. The LC5o value for

dishwashing liquid against German cockroaches was 0.54% with a spray application and









0.56% with an immersion application. The LC5o value was 0.24% for the immersion

application, but the spray application was ineffective against American cockroaches.

There was no difference in cockroach mortality between different brands or formulations

of dishwashing liquids. Cockroaches that were knocked down immediately after

exposure remained so and were dead at 24 h.

Soaps were further tested against American and German cockroaches by evaluating

the individual fatty acid salts which make up the active ingredient of soap solutions.

Even-numbered fatty acid salts, Cs C18, were evaluated for toxicity by a 30 s immersion.

There was no difference between potassium (LC5o 0.49%) and sodium (0.42%) laurate on

the mortality of German cockroaches or between American cockroaches (LC5o of 0.28%

and 0.18% respectively). Potassium oleate was the most toxic to both American (LC5o

0.17%) and German (LC5o 0.36%) cockroaches. Neurophysiological recordings of

spontaneous electrical activity of American cockroaches exposed to potassium laurate

(0.75%) indicated that the fatty acid salt had an effect on the nervous system.

Spontaneous electrical bursts increased 5 times that of baseline activity for two minutes

post exposure and then quieted. The quieting of electrical activity corresponded with the

apparent death of the specimen 2.5 minutes post soap exposure.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Periplaneta americana (L.), and Blattella germanica (L.), are two of the most

common species of domiciliary pests. These cockroach species are among the most

prolific and most repulsive pests found in association with humans. When asked what

they disliked most about cockroaches, public housing residents in Virginia and Maryland

said that just having them was the thing that bothered them the most, and the presence of

cockroaches was a source of embarrassment (Wood et al. 1981).

Pest Status of Cockroaches

Biology and Distribution

The phylogeny of cockroach families has been analyzed both morphologically and

genetically and relationships have not been positively concluded (Grandcolas and

D'Haese 2001). The most commonly used cockroach taxonomic classification divides

the order Blattodea into five families, two of which are the Blattidae and Blattellidae

(McKittrick 1964). The family Blattidae contains the peridomestic cockroaches,

including the American cockroach. The family Blattellidae contains the domestic

cockroaches including as a representative, the German cockroach. These pest

cockroaches, erroneously named American and German, originated in Africa. As man

left the cradle of civilization and began to disperse throughout the world, he inadvertently

carried these close associates as stowaways on trade ships (Comwell 1968). Over time

these cockroaches continued their journey with man and are now worldwide in their

distribution.









American cockroaches are large ranging from 28-44 mm in length and are capable

of flight. These cockroaches are gregarious and exhibit aggregation through both

pheromone and tactile stimuli from conspecifics (Burk and Bell 1973). Before becoming

adults, they molt from 6-14 times depending on physical and environmental conditions

and may live an average of a year or more. At peak reproductive capacity, the female

may deposit two oothecae a week, and usually produces 10 to 15 oothecae in a lifetime.

Each ootheca contains up to 18 eggs with an average hatch of 12 nymphs per ootheca

which is a contributor to their pest status. The American cockroach is oviparous,

depositing or gluing her sclerotized egg case onto a substrate (Roth and Willis 1958).

American cockroaches are opportunistic feeders that prefer warm moist environments

and are active at night. American cockroaches may excite allergic reactions in humans

(Bell and Adiyodi 1981). Allergens associated with American cockroaches include

periplanone A-D (Kang et al. 1989).

Cockroaches are easy to breed and keep in the laboratory. This makes them model

organisms for biological research (Guhl 1999). Cockroaches are the most frequently

used biological model for studies in insect behavior and physiology (Gordon 1996), and

have been extensively studied as a neurophysiological model (Scharrer 1987).

Adult German cockroaches are 15 mm in length, and although they have fully

developed wings, are incapable of flight. These cockroaches are shorter lived than

American cockroaches with a lifespan of 210 days for females and 115 days for males.

These pest cockroaches undergo five to seven molts depending on environmental

conditions. Once reaching adulthood, the female German cockroach attracts the male

with a sex pheromone, the volatile compound, blattellaquinone (Nojima et al. 2005), and









while she may mate multiple times, only one mating is needed for the production of

viable offspring throughout her lifetime (Cochran 1979). The German cockroach is

classified as ovoviviparous by some and oviparous by others (Roth and Willis 1958).

The female extrudes the ootheca and then rotates and withdraws it partially into her

abdomen. She carries the egg case for about 30 days, and then deposits it several hours

before hatch. An ootheca may contain as many as 46 eggs and may hatch 35-40 nymphs

(Rust et al 1995). German cockroaches are gregarious and aggregrate based on olfactory

cues from cuticular hydrocarbons (Rivault et al. 1998).

Medical Implications

Humans have historically combated cockroaches in their domiciles (Roth and

Willis 1960). German and American cockroaches are commonly found in homes,

restaurants, schools, cafeterias, health care centers, nursing homes, zoo, warehouses and

other public areas. Not only are these cockroaches nuisance pests, but they are of

medical significance as well. Since World War II, many studies have been done to

investigate the transmission of infectious agents from cockroaches to humans (Roth and

Willis 1957). Recent studies have shown pathogenic Escherichia coli F18 from swine

can survive in cockroach feces for up to eight days (Zurek and Schal 2004) and viable

Salmonella enterica can be recovered from inoculated cockroach cuticle five days after

exposure (Branscome 2004). Historical studies have shown that some Salmonella spp.

could be recovered from cockroaches up to 72 days after inoculation and that Salmonella

could survive on human foodstuffs for up to four years (Olson and Rueger 1950, Rueger

and Olson 1969).

Cockroaches, especially German cockroaches, inhabit kitchens and bathrooms

where moisture is provided (Cornwell 1968). Humans can be exposed to the pathogens









carried by cockroaches if food, eating utensils, or hygienic items such as toothbrushes

become contaminated. Cockroaches can also contaminate human food and habitation

through their excrement and molted skins. Their presence can cause respiratory and

psychological problems as well (Brenner 1995, Codina et al. 2002, Kang et al 1992 and

Kellert 1993).

Sensitivity to cockroach allergens is directly related to the magnitude of exposure

to cockroach infestations in the living environment (Kang et al. 1989). It has been

demonstrated that dust samples from inner-city and low-income homes contain high

levels of German cockroach allergens, Bla g 1 and Bla g 2 (Arbes et al. 2004,

Rosenstreich et al. 1997). Cockroach allergens are measured in units per gram of dust,

and the threshold for cockroach allergens is 8 units per gram. Allergen levels above the

threshold are considered to be high. Cockroach allergens have been implicated in many

cases of asthma, especially in children (Arlian 2002, Jones 1998). Rosenstreich et al.

(1997) looked at asthmatic children in eight inner city areas in the United States. They

found that 85% of the homes with asthmatic children had detectible levels of cockroach

allergens and 50.2% had high levels of the allergen in bedroom dust. When screened for

allergies to cockroaches, 36.8% of the asthmatic children tested positive.

These allergens are prevalent not only in homes, but also in schools. Sarpong et al.

(1997) found that 69% of schools tested in Baltimore, MD, had detectible levels of Bla g

1 with significantly higher levels in food service areas than in classrooms. Besides

having an adverse health effect, these allergens have an economic impact as well.

Children with cockroach allergies have significantly more missed days of school (7.65 as

opposed to 5.67 over a three month period) and their caregivers have to change their









plans more often (15.52 times a year versus 9.13) than children without cockroach

allergies or who are not exposed to cockroach allergens (Rosenstreich et al. 1997). The

missed school days not only result in the child falling behind in course work, but result in

missed work days for parents. This study also showed that allergic children who were

exposed to the cockroach allergens in their homes had significantly more unscheduled

medical visits (2.56 as opposed to 1.44) each year and spent significantly more time in

the hospital (0.37 versus 0.11 visits) than other children.

Management Measures and Resistance

While cockroach infestations can have adverse health effects on humans, the

measures used to control the infestation may also result in additional health risks.

Treatment of infestations may inappropriately include insecticidal spraying of baseboards

resulting in unnecessary pesticide exposure. Cockroaches are nocturnal and prefer to

inhabit small cracks and crevices of structures. Inappropriate and unnecessary

applications of insecticides often result in insecticide resistance (Rust and Reirson 1981,

Valles 2004). Resistance to organophosphates and carbamates was first documented in

the 1950's and 1960s, and cockroaches, mainly German cockroaches, have demonstrated

some form of resistance to most insecticide classes, used against them since (Cornwell

1976, Koehler and Patterson 1986). Because cockroaches have developed resistance to

several insecticide classes, many pest management professionals utilize a chemical

rotation system to manage the resistance. In this system, chemicals are rotated by class,

and in addition, suitable mixtures of chemicals are used (Cochran 1995). Cockroaches

have yet to develop resistance to insect growth regulators and some of the traditional

cockroach controls including the slow acting inorganic insecticides such as boric acid and

diatomaceous earth. Cockroaches are, however, resistant to many of the plant derived









botanical insecticides such as pyrethrum and the synthetic pyrethroids (Valles 2004).

Cockroaches are also demonstrating resistance to fipronil (Holbrook et al. 2003).

Fipronil was introduced as a cockroach bait in 1999, so the resistance is likely a cross-

resistance in cockroach strains resistant to cyclodienes which have a similar mode of

action (Holbrook et al. 2003) (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. Insecticide classes and modes of action.


Insecticide Insecticide Class Mode of Action

Diatomaceous Earth Inorganic Water balance disruption
Boric Acid Inorganic Feeding disruption
Silicia Gel Inorganic Water balance disruption
Pyrethrum Botanical Sodium channel modulator
Rotenone Botanical Site I electron transport inhibitor
Permethrin Pyrethroid Sodium channel modulator
Bifenthrin Pyrethroid Sodium channel modulator
Chlorpyrifos Organophosphate Acetylcholine esterase inhibitor
Propoxur Carbamate Acetylcholine esterase inhibitor
Hydroprene Insect Growth Regulator Juvenile hormone analog
Pyriproxyfen Insect Growth Regulator Juvenile hormone mimic
Hydramethylnon Amidinohydrazone Site II electron transport inhibitor
Abamectin Macrocyclic lactone glycoside Chloride channel activators
Sulfluramid Sulphonamide Uncouples oxidative phosphorylation
Fipronil Phenylpyrazole GABA chloride channel blocker
Thiamethoxam Neonicotinoid Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
agonists/antagonists
Imidacloprid Neonicotinoid Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
agonists/antagonists



Since the 1980's, targeted applications of pesticides in a bait formulation have been

used to reduce pesticide application and combat pesticide resistance. Bait formulations to

manage cockroaches is a preferred form of pest control because the bait is placed in

enclosed stations or targeted in crack and crevice areas minimizing exposure. Since most

bait formulations are not aerosolized, the adverse health effects associated with spray









applications of pesticide are also reduced. Abamectin, fipronil, imidacloprid,

hydramethylnon, and sulfluramid are each available in cockroach bait formulations

(Barcay 2004). Since baiting has become the predominant form of cockroach control, the

phenomenon of behavioral aversion to the bait formulation has been documented

(Bieman et al. 1993, Silverman and Bieman 1993, Silverman and Ross 1994, Wang et al.

2004). This resistance is different from the metabolic resistance where the insect

detoxifies the chemical. The resistance lies in the behavior of the cockroach that reduces

its exposure to a toxic substance. The cockroach is averse to feeding on the bait matrix,

usually containing glucose, thus the toxicant is not or is sparingly ingested, resulting in

low to no mortality (Valles 2000).

Integrated Pest Management Strategies

Integrated pest management was first put into practice by the agricultural

community in an effort to protect crops (Stern et al 1959). In the 1980's the idea of

integrated control migrated to the urban environment (Kramer 2004). In 1996, Congress

passed the Food Quality Protection Act. This act, in part, stated that federal agencies

must undertake integrated pest management (IPM) (USFDA 1996). In the urban

environment, integrated pest management advocates sanitation and exclusion along with

the judicious use of insecticides (Rust 1994). Cockroach integrated pest management

models differ greatly according to the location and building situation (Zungoli and

Robinson 1986). The cockroach integrated pest management strategy that follows is a

general model that can be used in most other urban pest situations. For an existing

cockroach infestation, the first step of an integrated pest management program is to

identify the pest species. Knowing the species of the cockroach will provide information

on the biology and behavior of the organism which is critical in being able to manage the









population with the least environmental impact. Infestations can be confirmed visually or

through the use of sticky traps as monitors. Sticky traps come in various shapes with or

without pheromone lures. Cockroaches respond to odors from a distance, so traps may be

enhanced by the addition of foodstuffs such as peanut butter, distiller's grain, or boiled

raisins (Nalyanya and Schal 2001, Rust and Reirson 1981). After a set amount of time,

the traps should be checked for the life stage, and numbers of a given species. The

cockroach trap count will give an estimate of the population in the immediate area. The

presence of nymphs will indicate whether the cockroaches have an established breeding

population in the area. Once the presence and location of an infestation has been

determined, a treatment plan can be formed.

Cultural Methods: Education and Sanitation

Cultural practices involve factors that are influenced by people and their

environment (Kramer 2004). Integrated pest management is people management. The

first step in an integrated pest management treatment is to educate the clientele. The

inhabitants of the area should be educated about the pest biology and behavior in relation

to the problem. They should also be informed about monitoring and treatment measures

that are planned to meet their pest problem (Rust 1994). It is important to know the

attitudes and perceptions of the clientele so an effective management strategy can be

implemented. Many times this is assessed by a survey of the inhabitants of the area

(Robinson et al. 1981, Zungoli and Robinson 1986). To have successful management of

a pest, clients must be educated on how clutter contributes to pest problems (Schal and

Hamilton 1990).

Cockroaches need food, water and harborage to survive, so sanitation is an integral

part of the integrated management process. Sanitation includes removing clutter,









particularly cardboard in which cockroaches can thrive. Schal (1988) demonstrated that

poor sanitation, including the presence of clutter, was positively correlated with

cockroach population density. Sanitation also includes removing access to food and

water. For example, any open containers of food should be placed in sealable plastic

containers and all trash should be removed daily. Finally, sanitation also includes good

housekeeping practices. Areas under and around furniture should be cleaned of any food

debris, and grease should be cleaned from cooking areas. The method of cleaning is an

important factor in allergen control. Cockroach allergens are extremely stable

compounds, and may last years in the environment (Brenner et al. 1998).

Mechanical Methods: Exclusion and Physical Removal of Cockroaches

To exclude the cockroaches, cracks and escutcheon plates should be caulked and

doors and windows fitted with weather stripping and door sweeps. Once the area has

been cleaned and sealed, it is important to continue monitoring as there may be a

reintroduction of the pest (Barcay 2005).

Chemical Methods: Traditional

Studies have been completed comparing traditional and integrated models of

cockroach management in schools and public housing. Although the authors concluded

that the integrated model proved more expensive, it was significantly more effective in

suppressing and maintaining management of cockroach populations (Miller and Meek

2004). The expense evaluation in this study did not take into account the cost of "call-

back" visits, so the actual cost of integrated pest management may very well be less

expensive than traditional models. Williams et al. (2005) demonstrated that the labor

costs for integrated pest management in public schools ($6.660.47) was higher than the









labor costs for a conventional program ($4.690.34); however, the cost of materials was

less for the integrated program ($1.910.34 versus $2.800.29).

Many public buildings, including schools, are considered sensitive environments.

The utmost care should be taken when dealing with a cockroach problem so that

cockroaches and their allergens are removed without endangering the inhabitants of the

building. One potential tool that could be used as a stop-gap cockroach control in these

sensitive environments is soap.

History of Soap as an Insecticide

There is documentation that soaps were used as insecticides in Europe as far back

as 1787 (Matsumura 1980, Shepard 1951). In 1935, Dills and Menusan relayed that there

were several thousand references in literature on the use of soaps as insecticides. Prior to

1900, fish or whale oil soaps were the most commonly used insecticidal soaps (Puritch

1981). Soaps have changed a lot since then, yet they still prove to be an effective control

of certain insect pests.

Toxicity of Soap

Soaps are salts of fatty acids. Fatty acids are long hydrocarbon chains that are

naturally derived from plant oils and animal tallow (Puritch 1981). Plants and animals

have differing amounts and combinations of fatty acids. For example, caprylic, capric,

lauric and myristic acids are all constituents of coconut oil (Pryde 1979). Some plant oils

have a large proportion of one fatty acid. Peanut oil is 51% oleic acid, coconut oil is 48%

lauric acid, while palm oil is 47% palmitic acid. Corn, sunflower and safflower oil are

made mainly of linoleic acid. Animal fat such as lard contains 44% oleic acid while beef

tallow is 44% linoleic acid. Tallow also contains 29% palmitic and 19% stearic acid









(Weiss 1970). These insoluble fatty oils are distilled or pressed from their source and are

exposed to a metal radical or organic base to produce soap (Willcox 1993).

As of 1992, there were 24 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registrations

for soap salts (EPA 1992). There are three documented active ingredients of soluble soap

salts; sodium, ammonium and potassium. Potassium salts are soft soaps that have listed

uses as insecticides, acaricides, herbicides, and algaecides (Ware 1994).

Not all commercially available insecticidal soaps are pure fatty acid salts; some

contain other active ingredients such as pyrethrum or neem (Quarles 2003). These

combination insecticidal soaps must be registered for each active ingredient. The

majority of the registered fatty acid salts include Cs-C18 potassium laurate, potassium

myristate, potassium oleate, and potassium ricinoleate. These salts may be used singly or

as mixtures as the EPA considers all potassium fatty acid salts to be the same active

ingredient. Potassium fatty acid salts are generally recognized as safe by the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), and the EPA has exempted them from tolerance levels for

all raw agricultural commodities. These soft soaps, such as oleic acid, have an oral LD50

of 74,000 mg/kg which places them in the lowest toxicity category, Category IV (Nautral

Toxins Research Center [NPTN] 2004). These potassium fatty acid salts also have low to

very low dermal toxicity, and may cause mild irritation if applied directly to the eyes.

These salts have a half-life of less than a day and are readily broken down by soil

microbes (EPA 1992). Naturally occurring fatty acids are found in every human cell

membrane and are a normal part of the human diet (Puritch 1981). While they may cause

vomiting if ingested, these fatty acids pose no known health risks (EPA 1996) and are not

toxic to birds (EPA 1992).









Chemical Structure of Fatty Acids

Fatty acids are carboxylic acids. They are made of long unbranched hydrocarbon

chains ending with a carboxyl group (Figure 1-1).




0


OH

Capryllic acid O


OH
Stearic acid

Figure 1-1. Representative fatty acid salt chains, C8 and C1s.



Most naturally occurring fatty acids contain an even number of carbons in their

chain with C16 and C8i being the most common (Weiss 1970). These chains are building

blocks for more complex fatty acids that are used as energy stores in many organisms.

Fatty acids may be saturated or unsaturated with unsaturated fatty acids being the most

abundant in living organisms.

Shorter fatty acid chains are water soluble but become less so as the chain

lengthens (Siegler and Popenoe 1925, Shepard 1951). The longer chains are viscous and

form a gel in water. To increase solubility of fatty acids, a cation in the form of a mineral

salt, potassium, sodium, or ammonium, must be added (E.g. potassium caprylate CH3-

CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-COO-K+). The addition of the salt causes hydrolysis of

the carboxyl end of the fatty acid resulting in a bond with the salt. This formation of the

fatty acid chain and mineral salt is commonly called a fatty acid salt or soap salt.









Chemical Structure of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts

The fatty acids that are most commonly used in soap production are saturated,

straight chain, monocarboxylic groups with even numbered carbon members (Puritch

1981). After the fatty acid is saponified with potassium hydroxide, a potassium fatty acid

salt is precipitated (Table 1-2).

Table 1-2 Common potassium salts.

Technical Name Structural Name Chemical Formula Molecular Weight

K caprylate octanoic acid CsH15KO2 182
K capryate decanoic acid C1oH19K02 210
K+ laurate dodecanoic acid C12H23KO2 238
K+ myristate tetradecanoic acid C14H27K02 266
K palmitate hexadecanoic acid C16H31KO2 294
K stearate octadecanoic acid C18H35K02 322
K+ oleate 9-octadecanoic acid C18H33KO2 320
K+ ricinoleate ricinoleic acid C18H33KO3 336

All examples are saturated except for K+ oleate (unsaturated) and K+ ricinoleate
(unsaturated alcohol).


The carboxyl end of the soap salt is hydrophilic and carries a negative charge. The

soap has a pH of 10 and is generally used as a cleaner (Willcox 1993). When in water,

the negatively charged hydrophilic ends of the soap salts repel each other forming a

spherical structure called a micelle. Non-polar soil or oil particles become suspended in

the micelle and are held in solution (Knowlton 1993). This action is known as surface

active, or surfactant. Although the mode of action is unclear when used as an insecticide,

fatty acids and their salts have been shown to have insecticidal properties.

Insecticidal Uses of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts

There is documented use of soaps as insecticides from as early as 1781 (Shepard

1951). From 1880's through the early 1900's, cottonseed oil soaps and fish oil soaps









were used by C.V. Riley, Albert Koebele, and Quayle to control scale insects. In 1925,

Siegler and Popenoe documented that between 90 and 99% ofAnuraphis sanburni Gill,

black chrysanthemum aphids, were killed with caproic, capric, and lauric fatty acid

sprays. Myristic acid, however, demonstrated significantly less toxicity. These sprays

were mixed with equal parts benzol and gasoline to increase the solubility of the fatty

acid salt. Powdered glue was also added to some of the solutions as a colloidal stabilizer.

The mortality as a result of the above additives was not documented. It was noted that

soap salts, potassium, sodium, and ammonium, required higher concentrations to meet

the same mortality as the fatty acids plus additives. This was later found that fatty acid

salts could produce mortality rates as high or higher than the fatty acids alone (Puritch

1975). Siegler and Popenoe noted that aphid exposure to the soap salts resulted in

paralysis where the dead insect remained attached to the plant by their inserted beaks.

After comparing fatty acids to fatty acid salts, the authors surmised that the free fatty

acids were the toxic agents and were absorbed through the insect membranes and

tracheae.

In 1929, Van der Meulen and Van Leeuwen found that sodium and potassium soap

salts from an assortment of animal and plant sources produced various amounts of

mortality to the Japanese beetle, Popilliajaponica Newman. The highest mortalities

were found from palm oil, beef tallow, and coconut oil (65-85% mortality). Beetles were

treated with a drenching spray in cages with foliage, and mortality was recorded at 24 h.

In 1930, the efficacy of resin fish oil soap (6%) and a commercial soap, Crystal

Cocoa (2%), on harlequin bugs, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn), Colorado potato beetles,

Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), and an aphid species was tested by dipping or spraying









the insects (Fulton 1930). The author theorized that the soap solution covered the

spiracles with a film that blocked the air supply to the insects. In order to test this

hypothesis, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) were submerged in water for 25 minutes. All

insects fully recovered and had no ill effects from the treatment. In comparison, after a

five second soap exposure, 92% of the insects were killed. To further investigate the

hypothesis, India ink, as a dye marker, was added to the soap solution to visualize the

penetration of the soap solution into the insect. Insects that died after soap exposure had

ink that penetrated deep into the thoracic spiracles. The author concluded that soap did

not cause mortality by blockage. He did note that since "soap is always on hand in the

household there is no reason why it should not be more extensively used as an insecticide

for home gardens" (Fulton 1930, p. 630).

One of the most thorough studies of fatty acids and their soaps was performed by

Dills and Menusan (1935). One important issue that they addressed was the formulation

changes in commercially available soaps. They found that soaps available in New York

during the time of the study ranged from 30-70% water by weight. They stated that the

use of soaps are not reliable because of product changes and that studies are of transient

value because they must be repeated each time a new brand appears on the market.

Instead of evaluating commercial soaps, this study evaluated fatty acids and their

potassium salts against the rose aphid, Macrosiphum rosae L., and the bean aphid, Aphis

rumicus L. Because fatty acids have low solubility in water, sulphonated cod oil was

added to the solution as an emulsifier. Aphids exposed to cod oil (0.5%) alone resulted in

9% mortality. Aphids exposed to capric acid (0.17%) and cod oil (0.5%) or lauric acid

(0.17%) and cod oil (0.5%) resulted in the highest mortality at 45% and 42%









respectively; however, there was some phytotoxicity. The fatty acids that were the most

toxic to the insects, lauric and capric acids, also caused plant injury to tomato,

Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L. potato, Solanum

tuberosum L., bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. cabbage, Brassica oleracea L. and nasturtium,

Tropaeolum minus L. Aphids exposed to 0.5% potassium oleate and 0.5% potassium

laurate resulted in 89% and 67% mortality respectively.

The authors also compared potassium oleate with sodium oleate at concentrations

from 0.125 to 1%. Mortality of 98% was reached with concentrations >0.5%. The order

of toxicity of the potassium soaps at 0.5%: oleate > laurate > caprate > caprylate >

myristate > palmitiae. There was no significant mortality of aphids exposed to potassium

caproate and potassium stearate when compared to controls.

Dills and Menusan (1935) also attempted to relate the toxicity of soaps to their

surface tension measurements. Surface tension was measured by the drop weight method

and the angle of contact was measured. The angle of contact is the angle between the

solid surface and the tangent to the liquid surface. It was concluded that neither the

surface tension nor the contact angles were good indicators of effectiveness of the soaps

as contact insecticides. To verify tracheal penetration of the soap, the authors submerged

aphids in 0.5% potassium oleate with carbon black dye. They observed tracheal

penetration into the large tracheae.

Richards and Weygandt (1945) used various solvents, including kerosenes, mineral

oils, hexane, pentane, and others, to trace penetration of substances into the nervous

system of mosquito larvae. Detergents including Tergitol #7, and a fatty acid, oleic acid,

were introduced into the respiratory siphon. None of the detergents migrated to the









nervous tissue of the insect. The oleic acid had good diffusion into the tracheae but had

less, or erratic penetration into the nervous tissue. Soaps as an insecticide and spreading

agent was evaluated in 1956 (Srivastava and Srivastava 1956). A spreading agent

increases the surface area of a liquid allowing the liquid to wet or stick to a surface.

When plants containing the mustard aphid, Siphocoryne indo-brassicae Das.were sprayed

with a 4% solution of soap (unknown type), 100% mortality was achieved. When applied

to leaves, the minimum percentage of soap needed for complete wetting was 0.2-0.5%

and the surface tension of 25.23 dynes/cm spread successfully on most plants.

The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 prompted new

research on soaps as insecticides. After an application of a 0.1% coconut oil soap spray,

Aphis gossypii Glover was reduced by 79% and A. spiraecola Pagenstecher by 72% on

roadside plantings in California (Pinnock et al. 1974). One study found that 1% solutions

of C10 capric and C1s:1 oleic acid were most effective on balsam woolly aphids, Adelges

piceae (Ratzburg) (Puritch 1975). To increase solubility of the fatty acids, 0.1% Tween,

a non-ionic surfactant, was added to the solutions. Unlike the results of Dills and

Menusan (1935), when compared with the potassium fatty acid salts, the potassium soaps

performed better than the fatty acids alone. Potassium oleate LC5o was 0.20%. Puritch

continued research on the effect of potassium salts of fatty acids on forest insect pests

(Pruitch 1975, Pruitch 1978). Similar results were found with the highest mortality, 80-

100%, at a 1% solution of C10 potassium caprate and C1s:i potassium oleate. Insects

tested included the balsam woolly aphid, Adelgespiceae (Ratzburg), spruce gall aphid

Adelges cooleyi (Gillette), western blackheaded budworm, Acleris gloverana

(Walsingham), western spruce budworm, Choristonerua occidentalis Freeman, false









hemlock looper, Nepytiafreemani Monroe, forest-tent caterpillar, Malaacosoma disstria

Hubner, and the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyiapseudotsugata McDonnough.

Interestingly, Puritch (1978) demonstrated that immersions of yellow mealworm,

Tenebrio molitor L. pupae in 5% solutions of oleic acid, linoleic acid, potassium oleate,

and potassium linoleate caused early death. The author described the growth inhibition

as "juvenile hormone-like" (Puritch 1978 p 108). In 1979, Ivory dishwashing liquid

(Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH), Acco Highway Plant Spray soap (38.5%

coconut oil soap) (Acme Chemical Co., Blue Bell, PA), Shaklee's Basic laundry bar

soap (Shaklee, Pleasantville, CA) and Tide detergent (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati,

OH) were tested on thrips Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis (Bouche), mites, Panonychus citri

(McGregor), psyllids, Psylla uncatoides (Ferris and Klyver) and aphids, Myzuspersicae

(Sulzer), Aphis citricola (van der Goot), and A. fabae in the home landscape (Moore et al.

1979). Ivory dishwashing liquid at 1-2% provided the most consistent results. It was

noted that soaps do not provide any residual activity and must be applied often.

Osborne provided a series of studies throughout the 1980s using soaps to control

mites and plant diseases (Chase and Osborne 1983, Osborne 1982, Osborne 1984,

Osborne and Henley 1982, Osborne and Petitt 1985). Lindquist (1981) showed a

reduction in the citrus mealybug on greenhouse plants when exposed to several soaps

including Safer's Insecticidal Soap and Murphy's Oil Soap. Koehler et al. (1983)

found that Ivory dishwashing detergent, Acco Highway Plant Spray soap and

Safer's Insecticidal Soap significantly reduced numbers of whiteflies on vegetable

plants. The reduction of pest numbers by the soaps was no different from an application

of malathion. The authors noted that application at frequent intervals, weekly depending









on crop, is necessary for maximum efficacy. Safer soap applications (weekly for six

weeks) led to reduction in harvest weight (23%) of cabbage.

Other solutions that have been tested include: a 4% solution of Fossil Flower's

insecticidal soap against the spruce budworm (Smith and Hubbes 1988), various cooking

oils and liquid detergents against vegetable and cotton pests (Butler and Henneberry

1990, and Butler et al. 1993), a 4% solution of Impede insecticidal soap against thrips

(Oetting and Latimer 1995), Safer's insecticidal soap against deer ticks (Patrican and

Allan 1995), a 2% solution of M-pede insecticidal soap against psyllids (Weissling et al.

1997), Safer's insecticidal soap against aphids on lettuce (Fournier and Brodeur 2000),

and Savona insecticidal soap against whiteflies (Javed and Matthews 2002).

It has been determined that certain fatty acids can inhibit the growth of some

crickets (McFarlane and Henneberry 1965). In one study with mosquito larvae, it was

shown that fatty acid esters were not effective as insecticides (Maxwell and Piper 1968).

A 1955 test of short chain fatty acids demonstrated that the injection of sodium salts into

various animals including dogs, rats, mice and frogs resulted in a comatose state for

several minutes (Samson and Dahl 1955). A 1999 study showed that octanoic acid acts as

an inhibitor to oviposition of Drosophila melanogaster Meigen and is an ovipostition

stimulant to D. sechellia (Legal et al. 1999).

The majority of the studies involving the use of fatty acids and their salts as

insecticides use them against soft- bodied insects. A few of the previously mentioned

studies from 1929 and 1930 tested soaps on hard-bodied insects such as harlequin bugs,

Colorado potato beetles and Japanese beetles (Fulton 1930, and Van der Meulen and Van

Leeuwen 1929). Attempts were not made on more sclerotized insects again until the









1980s. Abbasi et al. (1984) tested two commercially available soaps, Chandrika and

Surf against crickets, Gryllus sigillatus (Walker), and cockroaches, Periplaneta

Americana L. When used as a contact insecticide by splashing, a 0.5% solution of the

Chandrika or Surf soaps achieved 100% mortality of crickets, and a 2% solution

achieved 100% mortality in cockroaches. The authors theorized that the soaps cause

spiracle blockage, and they noted that a soap-water spray may prove a safe and

economical solution to insect pests. In 2002, Szumlas examined the behavioral responses

and mortality of German cockroaches after exposure to Dawn dishwashing liquid

(Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH). Szumlas (2002) found an overall LD50 of 0.4%

and determined that females were more difficult to kill than nymphs or males. For a

listing of selected studies using soaps against arthropods refer to Table 1-3. Females

exposedby a drenching spray to soap concentrations greater than 1% resulted in 95%

mortality. For all cockroach stages, exposure to concentrations of 3% soap solution

resulted in 100% mortality within 72 h. The author suggests that the mode of action is

asphyxiation due to spiracle or tracheae blockage.

Potential Mode of Action of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts

The two most probable modes of action include cuticle disruption or spiracle

blockage. Research has shown that fatty acids and their salts are contact only

insecticides. They provide no residual activity.

Cuticle disruption

Olkowski et al. (1996) states that the mode of action of pesticidal soaps is

dehydration after contact. The fatty acid penetrates the cuticle and disrupts the cellular

integrity causing leakage and collapse. Insects susceptible to soap are often instantly

paralyzed after contact. The Olympic Horticultural Products Insecticidal Soap 49.52









CF label states that the mode of action is a disruption of the outer waxy layer that causes

damage to the cuticle. The result is desiccation and death. Puritch (1981) agrees with

this theory stating that the soap disrupts the lipoprotein matrix of the cellular membranes

resulting in leakage and cellular death.

Spiracle blockage and asphyxiation

Ware (1994) combines two theories. The first that the cuticle is disrupted causing

the breakdown of cellular membranes and the second that due to the reduction of surface

tension, water rushes into the spiracles reducing oxygen availability to the insect. It

seems that the majority of researchers lean towards the mechanical blockage of the

spiracles or tracheae as the source of mortality in insects (Abbasi et al. 1984, Dills and

Menusan 1935, Fulton 1930, Richards and Weygandt 1945, Szumals 2002). This theory

seems plausible because soap is able to enter and may be actively pumped in through the

respiratory system of the insect. Under normal conditions, water cannot enter the

spiracles of insects. Cockroaches undergo discontinuous gas exchange where the

spiracles open and close in a gas exchange cycle (Lighton 1996). Insects also actively

respire using muscles to pump air in and out of the tracheal system (Slama 1999,

Westneat 2003). Because of this air exchange system, many insects are able to close

their spiracles, and some have a ring of hydrophobic hairs surrounding the spiracular

opening. Besides physical structures, the chemical nature of water also aids in the

waterproofing of the insect respiratory system. Water has a high surface tension so

cannot enter the tracheal system of insects. When the surface tension is reduced to half

of that of water by an emulsion, the solution may enter the tracheae. A soap solution

would be an example of this (Behrens 1964, Wilcoxon and Hartzell 1931). Once inside,









the liquid can spread along the walls of the tracheal tubes (Brown 1951). Tattersfield and

Gimingham (1927) note that rapid paralysis occurs after soap solutions enter the tracheal

system. They attribute this to haemolytic action.

In summary, cockroaches in the urban environment pose a health risk to humans

via their allergens and potential to spread communicable disease. Environmental and

health concerns have led many to combat the cockroach problem by way of an integrated

pest management system including identification and monitoring, sanitation and

exclusion, education, and chemical control. Potassium fatty acid salts have insecticidal

properties and may serve as a stop-gap measure to control cockroaches in sensitive

environments.

Statement of Purpose

The goals of this research were to first determine general views and behaviors of

the Florida population towards common insect pests and pesticide usage. Secondly, to

determine the toxicity of commercial blends of fatty acid salts by a comparative bioassay.

The assay considered knockdown and mortality by formulation type, application method,

life stage and cockroach species. Thirdly, to determine the toxicity of individual fatty

acid salt chains by comparison of increasing concentrations. Lastly to determine the

mode of action of potassium fatty acid salts through electrophysiological examination.












Table 1-3. Selected references testing various soap solutions against arthropods.


Common Name


rosy apple aphid
green apple aphid
bean aphid
black chrysanthemum aphid
black cherry aphid
aster aphid


bean aphid


Van der Meulan and Van Leeuwen 1929
Popilliajaponica Newman Japanese beetle




Fulton 1930
Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) harlequin bug

Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) Colorado potato beetle
Unknown aphid from Lactuca lettuce

Fleming and Baker 1934 In Shepard 1951
Popilliajaponica Newman Japanese beetle


% soap


soap


% mortality


0.00008% capric and lauric acids


Author and Date Insect
Siegler and Popenoe 1925
Anuraphis roseus Baker
Aphis pomi DeGreer
Aphis rumicis Linn
Anuraphis sanburni Gill
Myzus cerasi Fab
Macrosiphum rudbeckiae Fitch

Tattersflield and Gimingham 1927
Aphis rumicis L.


caprylic acid




fatty acids and salts


(sodium) coconut oil
(sodium) palm oil
(potassium) palm oil
(potassium) beef tallow


Crystal cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.)
resin fish oil soap
Crystal cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.)
Crystal cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.)


0.002%




0.5%


0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%


2.00%
6.00%
2.00%
2.00%


>96%

>90%




100%


85%
73%
70%
68%


92%
high
50%
97%













Table 1-2 continued.
Author and Date Insect
Dills and Menusan 1935
Aphis rumicis L.










Macrosiphum rosae (L.)
Hyalopterus arundinis Fab.
Thrips tabaci (Lindeman).


Srivastava and Srivastava 1956
Siphocoryne indo-brassicae Das.

Pinnock et al. 1974
Aphis gossypii Glover


Aphis spiraecola Pagenstecher


Common Name


bean aphid










rose aphid
plum aphid
onion thrips


mustard aphid


melon aphid


green citrus aphid


% soan


0.17%
0.17%
0.50%
1.00%
0.05%
1.00%
0.05%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
0.05%
1.00%
1.00%


4.00%


1.00%
0.05%
0.01%
1.00%
0.05%
0.01%


soan


capric acid + 0.25% cod oil
lauric acid + 0.25% cod oil
sodium oleate
sodium oleate
potassium oleate
sodium oleate
oleic acid
coconut oil soap
palm oil soap
cottonseed oil soap
oleic acid
coconut oil soap
olive oil soap


soap


coconut oil soap
coconut oil soap
coconut oil soap
coconut oil soap
coconut oil soap
coconut oil soap


,% mortality


45%
42%
82%
98%
81%
98%
85%
99%
100%
100%
89%
97%
80%


100%


79%
60%
75%
72%
72%
47%


__________ ______ ______P ____P _________













Table 1-2 continued.
Author and Date Insect
Puritch 1975
Adelges piceae (Ratzburg)


c rmm rn NTHmp


balsam woolly adelgid


o man n


1.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.50%
0.1%


Puritch 1987
Adelgespiceae (Ratzburg) balsam woolly aphid 1.00%
Adelges cooleyi (Gillette) spruce gall aphid 1.00%
Acleris gloverana (Walsingham) western blackheaded budworml.00%
Choristoneura occidentalis Freemanwestern spruce budworm 1.00%
Nepytiafreemani Monroe false hemlock looper 1.00%
Malacosoma disstria Hubner forest-tent caterpillar 1.00%
Orgyiapseudotsugata McDonnough Douglas-fir tussock moth 1.00%
Tenebrio molitor L. yellow mealworms 5.00%


Moore et al. 1979
Helitlil i,,\ haemorrhoidali (Bouche)
Panonychus citri (McGregor)
Psylla uncatoides (Ferris and Klyver)
Myzus persicae (Sulzer)
Aphis citricola (van der Goot)
Aphis fabae


greenhouse thrips
citrus red mite
acacia psyllid
green peach aphid
brown citrus aphid
black bean aphid


1.00%
1.00%
3.00%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%


man


Potassium oleate
Potassium caprate
Potassium caprate
Potassium oleate
Potassium caprate
Potassium oleate


Potassium caprate
Potassium caprate
Potassium oleate
Potassium laurate
Potassium caprate
Potassium oleate
Potassium oleate
Potassium oleate


Acco Plant Spray
Ivory
Ivory
Ivory
Ivory
Ivory


Lindquist 1981
Planococcus citri


Safer's Insecticidal Soap 90%


o/, mnrtalitxr


98%
30%
34%
89%
39%
23%


93%
82%
91%
99%
99%
64%
98%
100%


99%
85%
43%
98%
98%
98%


C'nmmnn NI*IIIUnmp 0/ vul mnrtnlLII L


citrus mealybug 0.06%












Table 1-2 continued.
Author and Date Insect Comr
Osborne and Henley 1982
Tetranychus urticae Koch

Koehler et al. 1983
Trialeurodes vaporariourm (Westwood)


Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)



Tetranychus urticae Koch



Osborne 1984
Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot

Abbasi et al. 1984
Gryllus sigtllatus (L.)
Periplaneta Americana (L.)

Smith and Hubbes 1988
Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens)

Butler and Henneberry 1990
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
Tetranychus spp.


nmn Namp


o smnn


two-spotted spider mite 3.13%


greenhouse whitefly


potato aphid



two-spotted spider




predatory mite


house cricket
American cockroach


spruce budworm


38.5%
50.5%

38.5%
50.5%


38.5%
50.5%


0.01%


0.5%
2.0%


4.0%


sweetpotato whitefly 6.0%
spider mites 6.0%


soan


Safer's Insecticidal Soap


Ivory
Acco Plant Spray
Safer's Insecticidal Soap
Ivory
Acco Plant Spray
Safer's Insecticidal Soap

Ivory
Acco Plant Spray
Safer's Insecticidal Soap


Insecticidal soap


Chandrika and Surf
Chandrika and Surf


Fossil Flower's Insecticidal Soap


Dawn, Dove, Ivory, Joy + oils
Dawn, Dove, Ivory, Joy + oils


u( to} % mortality


89%


99%
95%
89%
34%%
37%
40%

58%
32%
11%


100%


100%
100%


100%


99%
99%


npVnjj u ju ju \p pV I y












Table 1-2 continued.
Author and Date Insect C
Butler et al. 1993
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
Getting and Latimer 1995
Neoseiulus cducumeris (Oudermans)


Patrican and Allan 1995
Ixodidae scapularis Say


Wessling et al. 1997
Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster)

Foumier and Brodeur 2000
Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)
Myzus persicae (Sulzer)
Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley)


Javed and Matthews 2002
Trialeurodes vaporariorum

Szumlas 2002
Blattella germanica (L.)


common Name


sweetpotato whitefly

thrips predator


deer tick


pear psylla


potato aphid
green peach aphid
lettuce aphid


whitefly


% soan


1.0%

4.0%


40%


2.0%


0.25-5%
0.25-5%
0.25-5%


soan


insecticidal soaps and detergents

insecticidal soap


Safer's Insecticidal Soap


M-Pede Insecticidal Soap


Safer's Insecticidal Soap
Safer's Insecticidal Soap
Safer's Insecticidal Soap


insecticidal soap


Dawn 100%


-% mortality


100%

<50%


100%


N/A


100%
100%
100%


69%


. . . .. .. .. ------ ... . --


German cockroach 3.0%














CHAPTER 2
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PEST PROBLEMS

Introduction

Historically, insects have been an influential part of human culture. Insect

influence can be found in our language, art, history, philosophy and religion (Hogue

1987, Berenbaum 2001, Capinera 2003, Capinera 2005, Cherry 2002, Rutledge 2003.)

While insects are a cultural influence, many observe them with aversion, fear and

loathing (Kellert 1993).

Surveys concerning insects and their control have been utilized by urban

entomologists to gauge public opinion for more than a quarter of a century. Frankie and

Levenson (1978) compared how city and rural residents of Texas related to insects.

Wood et al. 1981 surveyed attitudes towards and knowledge of cockroaches in public

housing in Virginia and Maryland. Levenson and Frankie (1983) studied attitudes about

pests and pesticides used. They compared socioeconomic groups from Texas, California

and New Jersey. In 1983, Bennett et al. surveyed people in Indiana about their pattern of

pesticide use in homes. In Arizona, Byrne et al. (1984) surveyed public attitudes towards

arthropods both in and outside the home. Zungoli and Robinson (1984) surveyed public

housing residents in Virginia and Maryland for their attitudes regarding the asthetic

injury caused by cockroaches. Kellert (1993) surveyed people of Connecticut about their

basic values regarding invertebrates and their conservation. In 1995, Hahn and Ascerno

surveyed the Minnesota public for their perceptions of urban arthropods and in 1998,

Potter and Bessin conducted a telephone survey in Kentucky to determine attitudes









towards urban arthropods and their perceptions about pest control practices. The state of

Florida, with all of its pest pressures has only been addressed in a few questions by The

Agriculture Institute of Florida annual survey (Agriculture Institute 1999). Although

many of these studies have addressed the public's attitude towards insect pests, few have

addressed behavioral response toward the insects. The objectives of this study were to

address the importance of categories of urban pests, determine thresholds where

participants exhibit behavioral changes to take action against a pest, and to evaluate the

likelihood that people would consider using homemade products such as soap to solve a

pest problem.

Materials and Methods

A survey was conducted 27 March to 4 May 2004 through the office of the Florida

Survey Research Center (FSRC) at the University of Florida. The survey was delivered

using a computer aided telephone interview (CATI) with a random-digit dialing (RDD)

system. The telephone sample was obtained by generating random telephone numbers

from existing area codes and prefixes from areas throughout the state of Florida. The

FSRC makes every effort to complete survey interviews from the initial random list of

telephone numbers. If an initial call resulted in no answer, a systematic call back system

was used where the number was called at a different time on a different day of the week

until a person was reached. If no one was reached after four attempts, that number was

deleted from the list and was replaced with a new number. If the call was answered, but

the person was unable to complete the interview at that time, every effort was made to

schedule a more convenient time for the interview. Calls were scheduled at different

times of the day on weekdays and weekends to evenly sample employed persons.

Interviewers were FSRC employees who had been trained in telephone interview









techniques, and interviews at the FSRC were randomly monitored by a manager for

quality control. Interviewers had no previous entomological training and were only

allowed to expand on instrument questions with provided examples. The survey

instrument was pilot tested prior to actual data collection to ensure that the questions and

delivery methods were appropriate.

Interviews (n=600) were successfully completed from a total of 4501 calls to active

phone numbers. There were 1394 refusals for a response rate of 44.9% and a completion

rate of 13.3%. The remainder of calls resulted in no answer after 4 attempts. The survey

instrument consisted of 54 base questions with 62 secondary and 16 demographic

questions (Appendix A). The average interview time was 12 min 38 sec. After

completion, responses were split into two sections, one of questions dealing with insect

pests and one with pesticide usage. The FSRC monitors gender and race to ensure that

residents of the state are accurately represented. All interviews were made of persons

over 18 years of age.

Frequency tables were generated for each survey question and associations among

demographic variables were tested with a Pearson's chi-square test of homogeneity (SAS

Institute 2001). It is important to note that a small number of participants chose not to

answer certain questions or responded with "don't know." Percent response for each

question not totaling 100% indicates a number of"no response" or "do not know"

responses. "Do not know" and "no response" categories were omitted from the chi-

square analysis.









Results

Demographics

The survey population consisted of 61% females and 39% males. Ninety-five

percent maintained full-time residency in Florida. A quarter of the survey population had

moved to the state in the last decade, and 81% were homeowners. Pets were owned by

57% of the population and 78% kept them inside the home. Fifty-eight percent y of the

population had an income greater than fifty thousand dollars per year. The average age

of the survey participant was 49, and 44% of the population had a college degree (Table

2-1).

The average number of adults per home was 2.01 and the average number of

children per home was 1.99. Thirty-six percent of homes contained children under the

age of 5. One quarter of the population indicated that they were allergic to insects or

insect bites and 14% indicated that they had allergies or were chemically sensitive to

pesticides. More women than men indicated that they were both chemically sensitive to

pesticides and allergic to insects and insect bites (Table 2-2).

Importance of Categories of Urban Pests

To begin the survey, a question was asked to allow the interviewee to focus their

thoughts on the survey topic. The initial question was, "How harmful do you think insect

pests are to your household?" Insect pests being very harmful was indicated by 16% of

the survey population, 52% said they were somewhat harmful, 30% said they were not at

all harmful. Two percent said that they did not know how harmful insect pests were to

their household.

Insect pests were divided into four categories, crawling, flying, wood destroying,

and lawn and tree pests. Examples of crawling insects included ants and cockroaches,









flying insects included mosquitoes, flies, and wasps, wood destroying insects included

termites and lawn and tree insects included fire ants, mole crickets, and chinch bugs. A

second question was asked in three parts. "Which of the four categories of insect pests is

the most difficult for you to control, do you think is most harmful to people's health, and

do you spend the most money trying to control?" There were no significant differences

in response to these questions based on gender or the presence of children less than 5

years of age in the home. Forty-two percent of the survey respondents felt that crawling

pests were the most difficult to control followed by 22% that said lawn and tree pests

were most difficult. Half (50%) said that flying insect pests were the most harmful

followed by 30% that said crawling insects. Fifty percent of the population believed that

they spent more money controlling crawling pests than any other pest category (Table 2-

3). This question addressed the perception of how much money a person spent on insect

control and did not quantify how much money was actually spent.

After the initial questions, the sample of interviewees (N=600) was divided into

those who indicated that they used pesticides (82%), those that do not use pesticides

(18%) and of those non-pesticide users, those who would never use pesticides (8%).

Factors Related to a Behavioral Change

Of consumers who use pesticides, the primary factor for purchasing pest control

products was seeing insect damage in or around the home (89%) followed by knowledge

that insect pests posed a health hazard (88%) or feeling pests were a danger to the

household (85%) (Table 2-4). Of the survey population that responded "very important"

for the following categories of pest factors influencing their purchase of pest control,

72% responded that seeing live insects was very important; 51% responded that knowing

there was a potential for insect damage in or around their homes was very important;









74% responded that knowing there was a health hazard associated with pests was very

important and 76% responded that feeling pests posed a danger to their family was very

important. Additionally, roughly twice as many women when compared with men felt

that seeing live insects was a very important factor when deciding to purchase pest

control (Table 2-5).

In contrast to participants who use pesticides, participants who do not use

pesticides felt that their primary factor for purchasing pest control products and services

was feeling that insect pests posed a danger to the family (86%), followed by seeing

insect damage in or around the home (82%), and knowledge that insect pests posed a

health hazard (82%) (Table 2-6).

After determining what insect related factors prompted the typical non-pesticide

user to take action, the action the non-pesticide would take against the insect pest was

identified. Respondents were asked to rank how likely they would be to take a certain

action against a particular category of insect pests. When asked how non-pesticide users

would deal with flying insects, their most likely pest control action would be to repair or

install screens on windows and doors (68%), and the second most likely action was

physical removal of the pest (59%) (Table 2-7).

When asked how they would solve a problem with termites, non-pesticide users

would be more likely to repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact (73%) and

then would be likely to apply a long lasting soil or slab treatment (68%). Interestingly,

32% said that they would likely physically remove the termites (Table 2-7).

The likely action against crawling insects would be exclusion by applying caulking

to cracks (79%) and secondarily to spot treat as needed (63%). Lawn and tree insects









would likely be dealt with by spot treating areas as needed (59%) and testing and

fertilizing soil to maintain healthy plants (55%) (Table 2-7).

Eight percent (N=48) of the survey population indicated that they would never use

pesticides. This group was asked how they dealt with certain groups of insect pests.

Choices such as physical removal by stomping, swatting, sweeping, or trapping, or

exclusionary measures such as caulking cracks, screening windows and doors, and

repairing wood damage, or maintaining healthy plants, were given. In open-ended

questions, respondents were also allowed to comment on other actions they were likely to

take to combat the pests. For each pest category, respondents indicated that they were

most likely to perform some exclusionary measures to keep pests out (78% for flying

insect pests, 67% for termites, 67% for crawling pests, and 50% for lawn and tree pests).

They were also likely to physically remove the insect pest (59% for flying insect pests,

35% for termites, 63% for crawling pests, and 35% for lawn and tree pests) (Table 2-8).

Those who would never use pesticides were asked if they used other method of

controls, besides physical removal or exclusion. For flying insect control, 14% (N=7)

would use another control method with 86% being likely or very likely to choose that

alternative option. For termite control, 37% (N=18) would try another control method

with 89% likely or very likely to choose that option. For crawling insects, 25% (N=12)

would choose another control method with 100% being likely to choose that option, and

for lawn and tree insects 15% (N=8) would select an alternative control option with 100%

likely or very likely to try that option.

When asked in an open-ended question about which control method they would use

instead of exclusion or physical removal, although they claimed they would never use









pesticides, many indicated some sort of chemical control. Fifty-seven percent (N=4)

would choose a professional or pesticide option for flying insects. Ninety-four percent

(N=17) would hire a professional or use a pesticide to control termites. Half (50%, N=6)

would use pesticides to control crawling pests, and 100% (N=8) would use a professional

or pesticide to control lawn and tree pests. Some alternative options that were listed by

the survey population included, sanitation, light traps, spraying with hair spray, spraying

with Lysol, using boric acid, and biological control by allowing pets to eat the pests

(Table 2-9).

Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option

All respondents were asked whether they had tried any kind of homemade product,

including soaps and cleaners, to control insect pests. Forty-two percent of the survey

population (N=253) had tried a homemade pest control product. Seventy percent

(N=177) of those had tried their homemade product to control crawling insects. Fewer

had tried to control lawn and tree insects, 28% (N=72), flying insects, 15% (N=38) and

wood destroying insects, 6% (N=14). In an open-ended question asking what other

insects they had used the homemade product to control, 6% (N=15) of the survey

population indicated that they had attempted control of garden pests including aphids and

another 6% (N=15) had attempted flea control. When asked how effective these

homemade treatments were, 48% (N=122) felt that they were effective or very effective,

26% (N=65) were neutral in their opinion and 23% (N=59) felt they were ineffective.

More pet owners (64.5%) were more likely to have tried a homemade pest control

solution than respondents who did not own pets (35.5%) (x2=8.05, df=l, P=0.0045).

To determine which insect pests were problematic within the last year, respondents

were asked which category of insect pests they had combated in the last year. Crawling









pests were the primary problem, 71% (N=428), followed by lawn pests, 55% (N=335),

flying pests, 38% (N=230), garden pests, 27% (N=159), stored product pests, 13%

(N=80) and termites, 10% (N=59).

Discussion

Sixty-eight percent of the Florida population felt that insect pests were somewhat

or very harmful to their household. Previous surveys found that people have an aversion

to insects in their home and they would like to completely eliminate cockroaches from

existence (Kellert 1993). Byrne et al. (1984) found that 88% of an Arizona survey

population was afraid or disliked arthropods indoors, yet the arthropods listed by

respondents were not structurally damaging, and few presented a health hazard.

Similarly, Hahn and Ascerno (1991) found that 86% of a Minnesota population disliked

or were afraid of indoor arthropods. A possible explanation for the difference in the

populations is that the Arizona and Minnesota studies focused on indoor arthropods,

while this survey asked only about insect pests and did not specify a location. Also, the

term pest was not defined for the survey participant, so the answers were based on the

person's perception of a pest.

The most important category of urban pest in my survey, based on perceived cost

and difficulty to control, was the crawling pest. Additionally, 71% of the survey

population in my study reportedly had a problem with crawling insects in the previous

year. This response rate may be due to a low tolerance for crawling insects. Potter and

Bessin (1998) found that the tolerance for indoor arthropods in Kentucky was low. For

example, the tolerance for crawling insects such as cockroaches was 0-1.

Many public-health related issues, such as sting or bite reaction, and disease

transmission are associated with flying insects. The Florida survey population perceived









flying insects as the most harmful category of insect pests. Pest control companies are

beginning to adapt to this perception and are including public-health related pest control

to their services (McKenna 2005).

Many times surveys only establish attitudes and do not reveal the behaviors of the

survey population. Because behavior is less likely to be influenced by extraneous

variables, it is considered to be a "true" indicator of a person's attitude (Levenson and

Frankie 1983). When something is of concern to a person, there is a threshold that is met

before action is taken. The action in this case is the behavior. Pesticide users and non-

pesticide users had differing thresholds when taking action against insect pests. Pesticide

users felt that seeing insect damage in or around the home was the primary impetus for

taking action against insect pests by purchasing pest management products or services.

Non-pesticide users indicated that they took action when they felt that insect pests posed

a danger to the family. This survey revealed that those participants who indicated that

they would never use pesticides would in fact resort to pesticides when faced with a pest

problem.

Potter and Bessin (1998) reported that 96.2% of their survey population could not

define integrated pest management in the context of pest control. Furthermore, 66% of

the survey population would be more inclined to use naturally derived products in their

homes (Potter and Bessin 1998). While the public may not be able to define integrated

pest management, my survey indicated that a portion of the population is practicing it.

Besides pesticides, the Florida survey population seemed willing to try alternative control

strategies including exclusion and homemade products. Controlling insect pests, mainly

crawling pests, with an alternative control method was important enough that 42% of the









total survey population had created and used some form of homemade pest control

product. Nearly half of the homemade pest control users felt that their method was

effective.

Conservatively, more than 20% of pest control companies in the United States are

located in the state of Florida (FDACS 2005, NPMA 2005). Therefore, the motivations

regarding pest management practices of the Florida population have economic

implications. People are motivated by perceived damage or danger to their home or

family to act against insect pests. In 2002, $5.65 billion dollars were spent in the United

States on professional pest control services and currently termites are estimated to cause

over $2.5 billion dollars in damage each year (FPMA 2005). For extension

entomologists and the pest control industry to properly educate their clientele about

reduced risk approaches to pest problems, knowledge of the attitudes and perceptions of

the Florida population is important.









Table 2-1. Demographic profile of the 600
survey.


participants in the Florida perceptions of pests


Demographic N % respondents


Gender
Male
Female
Age
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-65
>65
Education level
High School degree
Technical/Vocational school
Some college
College degree
Post graduate
Florida residency (years)
<5
5-9
10-19
20-29
>30
Annual household income ($)
<25,000
25,001- 50,000
50,001 75,000
75,001-100,000
>100,001
Domicile
Own
Rent


232
368


38.67
61.33

19.18
29.81
19.84
15.67
15.50

5.34
21.33
3.33
23.67
29.33
15.00

12.39
11.99
18.50
20.00
35.83

18.33
23.50
15.33
10.67
13.83

80.50
18.50


74
72
111
120
207


483
111


Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "do not
know" or "refuse to answer" responses.












Table 2-2. Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people allergic to insects and insect bites.

% Response

Yes No x2 df P


Insect allergies

Total population

Gender (n=582)

Male

Female

Chemically sensitive

Total population

Gender (n=555)

Male

Female


25.33



15.77

32.50


13.83


8.64

19.10


71.67


84.23

67.50


19.93


<0.0001


78.67


91.36

80.90


11.44


0.0007












Table 2-3. Response to the question, "Which of the following categories of insect pests ...

Which of the following categories. .. N pest category % responses

is most difficult to control? 589 flying 14.83

crawling 41.67

wood destroying 15.83

lawn and tree 22.17

is most harmful? 566 flying 49.67

crawling 29.67

wood destroying 7.83

lawn and tree 5.50

costs more to control? 580 flying 9.50

crawling 49.50

wood destroying 16.67

lawn and tree 17.17

Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of"no response" or "do not know" responses.












Table 2-4. Pesticide users' reasons for purchasing pest control products or services and their importance (N=492).

% Response1

Question important2 neutral not important3

Seeing live insects in or around your home 85.16 9.35 5.08

Seeing dead insects in or around your home 56.09 20.33 22.16

Seeing insect damage in or around your home 89.03 4.88 4.67

Knowing the potential for insect damage in or around your home 71.34 19.51 7.73

Knowing there is a health hazard associated with pests 87.60 6.71 4.88

Feeling pests pose a danger to your family 84.96 7.32 6.71

IPercent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services.
2Survey categories "very important" and "somewhat important" were combined
3Survey categories "not important" and "somewhat unimportant" were combined












Table 2-5. Responses for pest factors influencing purchase of pest control products or services based on gender.

% Response

Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P
important unimportant important important


Seeing live insects

Gender (n=490)

Male

Female

Percent of total

Knowing there is a potential

Gender (n=485)

Male

Female

Percent of total


50.00 46.15 54.35

50.00 53.85 45.65

2.45 2.65 9.39

for insect damage in or around your home


29.41

70.59

3.51


47.62

52.38

4.33


48.96

51.04

19.79


53.03

46.97

13.47






49.02

50.98

21.03


33.99

66.01

72.04






30.92

69.08

51.34


14.59 4 0.0056










16.45 4 0.0025












Table 2-5 continued


% Response

Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P
important unimportant important important

Knowing there is a health hazard associated with pests

Gender (n=488)

Male 70.00 42.86 57.58 50.00 34.35

Female 30.00 57.14 42.42 50.00 65.65 15.73 4 0.0034

Percent of total 2.05 2.87 6.76 14.34 73.98

Feeling that pests pose a danger to your family

Gender (n=487)

Male 64.29 42.11 61.11 52.08 34.59

Female 35.71 56.89 38.89 47.92 65.41 17.61 4 0.0015

Percent of total 2.87 3.90 7.39 9.86 75.98

Response columns for male and female total 100%.












Table 2-6. Non-pesticide users rank of the importance of some reasons for purchasing pest control products or services (n=59).

%Response1

Question important2 neutral not important3

Seeing live insects in or around your home 67.86 19.64 10.72

Seeing dead insects in or around your home 55.36 16.07 28.57

Seeing insect damage in or around your home 82.15 8.93 8.93

Knowing the potential for insect damage in or around your home 64.29 16.07 16.07

Knowing there is a health hazard associated with pests 82.14 10.71 5.36

Feeling pests pose a danger to your family 85.71 7.14 7.14

Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services.
2Survey categories "very important" and "somewhat important" were combined
3Survey categories "not important" and "somewhat unimportant" were combined












Table 2-7. Response from non-pesticide users to the question, "How likely are you to take that (pest control) action to solve a
problem?" (n=59)

% response1


Insect Problem Pest Control Solution

Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps)

Apply a long lasting spray

Fog the area as needed

Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping

Repair or install screens on windows or doors

Termites

Apply a long lasting soil or slab treatment

Spot treat or bait as needed

Physical removal by stomping, sweeping or trapping

Repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact


likely neutral not likely'


33.92

35.71

58.93

67.85



67.86

62.50

32.15

73.21


25.00

16.07

16.07

10.71


3.57

16.07

10.71

8.93


41.08

48.21

23.22

21.43


19.65

16.07

53.57

14.29











Table 2-7 continued


% response'

Insect Problem Pest Control Solution likely2 neutral not likely3

Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants)

Apply a long lasting spray 51.78 19.64 26.78

Spot treat or bait as needed 62.50 12.50 19.64

Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping 58.93 21.43 19.65

Apply caulking to cracks to prevent insect entrance 78.57 10.71 10.72

Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants)

Apply a long lasting spray 48.22 25.00 19.65

Spot treat the area as needed 58.93 19.64 17.86

Physical removal by trapping 25.00 21.43 51.79

Test and fertilize soil to maintain plant health 55.35 17.86 21.43

IPercent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses.
Respondents were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services.
2Survey categories "very likely" and "somewhat likely" were combined
3Survey categories "not likely" and "somewhat unlikely" were combined












Table 2-8. Response of people who would never use pesticides to the question: "How likely would you be to take the following
oitca ns to solve a est problem in or aro )


% response


Insect Problem Pest Control Solution likely neutral not likely

Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps)

Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping 59.18 10.20 28.57

Repair or install screens on windows or doors 77.55 6.12 14.28

Termites Physical removal by stomping, sweeping or trapping 34.69 10.20 51.02

Repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact 67.34 8.16 20.41

Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants)

Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping 63.27 12.24 22.45

Apply caulking to cracks to prevent insect entrance 67.35 12.24 16.32

Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants)

Physical removal by trapping 34.70 8.16 51.02

Test and fertilize soil to maintain plant health 46.93 10.20 38.77

'Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. 2Survey categories "very likely" and "somewhat likely"
were combined. 3Survey categories "not likely" and "somewhat unlikely" were combined.












Table 2-9. Comments specified by people who indicated they would never use pesticides (n=48).

Insect Problem Control Solution Number of responses % of never use population

Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) (N=7)

Use a light trap 1 2.08

Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide 4 8.33

Remove food sources 1 2.08

Spray with hair spray 1 2.08

Termites (N=18)

Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide 17 35.42

Alternative recourse 1 2.08

Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) (N=12)

Clean area and eliminate food source 3 6.25

Spray with Lysol 1 2.08

Use boric acid 1 2.08

Let cat eat the insects 1 2.08

Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide 6 12.50






50





Table 2-9 continued.


Insect Problem Control Solution Number of responses % of never use population

Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) (N=8)

Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide 8 16.67

These comments were open ended responses given when asked what other action they would take in controlling a particular category
of insect pests.














CHAPTER 3
PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE
USAGE

Introduction

To combat arthropods in or around their home and to improve aesthetics, people

rely on pesticides (Potter and Bessin 1998). Bennett et al. (1983) in Indiana, and Byrne

and Carpenter (1983) in Arizona, found that 78 and 87.1% of their survey population,

respectively, used pesticides in or around their homes. Florida, with its temperate and

tropical ecosystems, has pest pressures year round. The Agriculture Institute of Florida

found that 82.2% of the Florida public felt that the home use of pesticides for pest control

was important to their lifestyle, and nearly half of those indicated that they hired

professional services to manage their pest problems (Ag Institute 1999).

In a state with over 17 million residents, these factors have lead to a booming pest

control industry. In 2005, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

listed 2500 pest control companies with 4300 certified operators and 250 special

identification card holders. For pests to be managed effectively and pesticides to be used

safely, consumers must understand what the pest problem is and what options they have

in solving it.

Understanding how the public feels about science and technology can help us to

determine how public policy is decided (Weiss and Rajotte 2001). As an example, in

September 2005, Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat-NJ) reintroduced legislation to the

United States Senate for the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). This









potential law would restrict the use of pesticides in and around schools and would require

schools to notify parents prior to pesticide applications (US Senate 2005). School

integrated pest management (IPM) programs have increased in many states because of

children's environmental health concerns. Integrated pest management is the process of

using a variety of technological and management practices to achieve long-term,

environmentally sound pest suppression. Nine percent of the 2004 growth market for

pest control was in IPM contracts (McKenna 2005) with a vast majority of the companies

claiming they offer some form of IPM service.

Knowing the audience is a basic principle of marketing (Frankie et al. 1996). For

IPM practices to work in home pest control, the audience perceptions must be addressed.

The objective of this study was to evaluate pesticide use patterns and satisfaction with

non-chemical control methods.

Materials and Methods

A survey was conducted 27 March to 4 May 2004 through the office of the Florida

Survey Research Center (FSRC) at the University of Florida. The survey was delivered

using a computer aided telephone interview (CATI) with a random-digit dialing (RDD)

system. The telephone sample was obtained by generating random telephone numbers

from existing area codes and prefixes from areas throughout the state of Florida. The

FSRC makes every effort to complete survey interviews from the initial random list of

telephone numbers. If an initial call resulted in no answer, a systematic call back system

was used where the number was called at a different time on a different day of the week

until a person was reached. If no one was reached after four attempts, that number was

deleted from the list and was replaced with a new number. If the call was answered, but

the person was unable to complete the interview at that time, every effort was made to









schedule a more convenient time for the interview. Calls were scheduled at different

times of the day on weekdays and weekends to evenly sample employed persons.

Interviewers were FSRC employees who had been trained in telephone interview

techniques, and interviews at the FSRC were randomly monitored by a manager for

quality control. Interviewers had no previous entomological training and were only

allowed to expand on instrument questions with provided examples. The survey

instrument was pilot tested prior to actual data collection to ensure that the questions and

delivery methods were appropriate.

Interviews (N=600) were successfully completed from a total of 4501 calls to

active phone numbers. There were 1394 refusals for a response rate of 44.9% and a

completion rate of 13.3%. The remainder of calls resulted in no answer after 4 attempts.

The survey instrument consisted of 54 base questions with 62 secondary and 16

demographic questions (Appendix A). The average interview time was 12 min 38 s.

After completion, responses were split into two sections, one of questions dealing with

insect pests and one with pesticide usage. The FSRC monitors gender and race to ensure

that residents of the state are accurately represented. All interviews were made of

persons over 18 years of age.

Frequency tables were generated for each survey question and associations among

demographic variables were tested with a Pearson's chi-square test of homogeneity (SAS

Institute 2001). It is important to note that a small number of participants chose not to

answer certain questions or responded with "don't know." Percent response for each

question not totaling 100% indicates a number of"no response" or "do not know"









responses. "Do not know" and "no response" categories were omitted from the chi-

square analysis.

Results

Responses of Consumers That Utilize Pesticides

Eighty-two percent of people use pesticides in their home or yard. Indoor pesticide

use was indicated by 34% of pesticide users, outdoor use by 43% and pesticide use both

indoors and outdoors by 23%. The percent of pesticide users that sometimes use

pesticides indoors was 75%, and 71% outdoors. About 22% and 25% respectively used

pesticides often in those locations.

Of the survey population that said they did not used pesticides (18% of the total

survey population), 86% believed that they were chemically sensitive. Interestingly, of

the survey population that said they did use pesticides (82% of the total survey

population), 68% also said that they believed themselves to be chemically sensitive

(x2=16.13, df=l, P<0.0001).

Of those surveyed who use pesticides, 79% use over-the-counter (OTC) pesticides

and 54% use professional services. That implies that a quarter of consumers use both

over-the-counter pesticides and professional services to control their pest problems. The

majority of all survey respondents expressed a willingness to use over-the-counter

pesticides at all income levels (Table 3-1). More over-the-counter pesticide users have

used spray pesticides (89%) and have used a spray formulation most often (56%) than

other common over-the-counter formulations (Table 3-2). These over-the-counter

pesticide users (82%) indicated that they use over-the-counter products less than once per

month. The majority of those who utilize professional services have scheduled service,

monthly (24%), quarterly (18%) or annually (17%). Another 33% of professional pest









control consumers have irregular service less than 12 times a year and about 5% require

pest control services more than once per month.

To establish important factors that influence consumers to employ either over-the-

counter or professional pest control services, the interviewees were asked the importance

of cost, convenience, odor and residue, effectiveness, safety, and manufacturer reputation

in the decision for them to purchase products. The most important factor in purchasing

both over-the-counter pesticides and professional pest control services was effectiveness

in killing pests. Of those respondents willing to purchase professional pest control

products or services, 60% had incomes >$25,000 (Table 3-3).

Effectiveness in killing pests, safety for household members, odor and residue, and

convenience each had similar ratings when comparing over-the-counter versus

professional services. Cost and reputation of the manufacturer were important factors to

81.7% of respondents when purchasing professional services. Of respondents purchasing

over-the-counter products, 58.9% said that reputation of the manufacturer was an

important variable (Table 3-4).

Of people who believed they suffered from allergies to insects, 45.1% responded

that cost was a very important factor influencing the purchase of over-the-counter

pesticides. Of the survey population, both males (74.5% of all males) and females

(89.1% of all females) rated safety of household members as a very important factor

influencing the purchase of over-the-counter pesticides. Finally, of all the females in the

survey population, 66.4% rated odor and residue as a very important factor in influencing

the purchase of over-the-counter pesticides; while 41.8% of all males rated odor as very

important (Table 3-5).









Both male (77.1% of all male respondents) and female (89.8% of all female

respondents) believed that safety of household members was a very important factor in

influencing the purchase of professional pest control products or service. (Table 3-6).

Of those stating that they used over-the-counter pesticide, 83% indicated that they

spot treated a pest prone area, 57% repaired screens or cracks, 43% applied a residual

spray and 41% physically removed the pest. Physically removing the pest was deemed

an effective method of pest control by 76% of those stating that they used over-the-

counter pesticides. Of over-the-counter pesticide users, 70% indicated that they were

likely to read all of the label instructions on a pesticide that they had never previously

used.

Professional pest control users indicated that 70% of the time believed that

professionals used residual sprays, 52% spot treated pest prone areas, 12% physically

removed the pest, and 15% made repairs to screens or caulk cracks. Although only 12%

physically removed the pest by vacuuming or trapping, it was deemed an effective pest

control method by 48% those who used professional pest control services or products.

Since IPM strategies focus on excluding pests, consumers who hire professional

pest control services were asked if they would consider hiring a professional service to

repair window screening and wood damage and caulk cracks to exclude pests. Fifty-five

percent said that they would likely hire such a service with 20% being neutral to the

concept and 23% saying that they were unlikely to employ such a service. The

professional pest control consumers were then asked how satisfied they would be if their

professional service could control their pest problem without spraying any pesticides.









Only 3% said they would not be satisfied with 87% saying they would be satisfied with

an effective pest control strategy without utilizing pesticidal sprays.

Responses of Consumers That Do Not Utilize Pesticides

Interviewees who indicated that they do not use pesticides (18% of the survey

population) were divided on whether they would, 55%, or would never, 45%, use

pesticides. Those who said that they would consider using pesticides indicated a

preference for outdoor use (64%) over indoor use (22%). If needed, 42% said that they

would use pesticides to control crawling insects, 24% indicated use to control lawn and

tree pests, 17% to control wood destroying pests and 12% to control flying pests. Non-

pesticide users said that they would consider the use of over-the-counter pesticides (81%)

and professional pest control services (69%) if they judged that pest control was

necessary.

To ascertain what would persuade non-pesticide users to purchase over-the-counter

pesticides or professional pest control services, interviewees were asked to rate the

importance of cost, convenience, odor and residue, effectiveness, safety, and

manufacturer reputation. The most important factor in purchasing both over-the-counter

pesticides and professional pest control services was effectiveness in killing pests (92 and

88%, respectively). The second influencing factor was safety of household members (88

and 93%, respectively). Odor and residue, convenience and cost were more important

factors when deciding to purchase professional pest services (over over-the-counter

products 88, 73, 54% and 60, 50, and 29% respectively) (Table 3-7). The non-pesticide

users specified that 56% would be willing, 20% were neutral and 24% would be

unwilling to hire a professional pest control service to repair window screening, fix wood

damage and caulk cracks.









Responses of Consumers That Would Never Utilize Pesticides

Consumers that indicated that they would never use pesticides (n=48, 8% of the

survey population) were asked to select all applicable reasons for their concern from a list

or provide an open ended response detailing their reasons for not using pesticides. The

instrument-provided list of responses included, allergies or chemical sensitivity, safety

concerns, health concerns, or no need of pesticides. Health and safety were equally

weighted as primary concerns, 35.4%. Fewer respondents indicated that they did not

need pesticides (19%) or were chemically sensitive or allergic to pesticides (16.7%). In

the open ended comments, 8% indicated environmental concerns associated with

pesticide use, 4% expressed concern over using pesticides with children living in the

home and 4% stated that a lack of pesticide knowledge deterred their use of pesticides.

Other comments included the use of oatmeal for pest control, allowing pets to eat the

insects, and not having a desire to kill any insect.

Responses of All Consumers

A final question was asked to the interviewee asking them if they would regard as

credible, a pest control company that advertised pest elimination that was health-

conscious and environmentally friendly. Responses were that 39% of the survey

population would consider that statement to be credible, 31% were neutral and 26%

considered it to be unrealistic.

Demographics

The survey population consisted of 61% females and 39% males. The majority of

the population, 95%, were full-time residents of Florida. A quarter of the survey

population had moved to the state in the last decade, and 81% were home owners. Pets

were owned by 57% of the population with 78% keeping them inside the home. The









majority of the population, 58%, had an income greater than $50K per year. The average

age of the survey participant was 49, and 44% of the population had a college degree

(Table 3-8).

The average number of adults per home was 2.01 and the average number of

children per home was 1.99. There were 36% of homes with children under the age of 5.

One quarter of the population indicated that they were allergic to insects or insect bites

and 14% indicated that they had allergies or were chemically sensitive to pesticides

(Table 3-8). Of the women respondents 32.5% indicated that they had insect allergies,

compared with 15.8% of male respondents. Of the women respondents 19.1% indicated

that they were chemically sensitive to pesticides, compared with 8.6% of male

respondents (Table 3-9).

Discussion

This survey was designed to not only judge the attitudes of the population, but to

also gauge the behavior. Indicators of behavior are considered to be the "truest" measure

of a person's attitude (Leavenson and Frankie 1983). Indicators used in this survey were,

for example, formulations of pesticides used as opposed to just pesticide use in general

and what actions are taken to combat pests as opposed to, "do you take action?"

This study indicated that a large portion of the public utilizes pesticides (82%).

The large percentage of pesticide users is not out of line with previous studies throughout

the United States. Frankie and Leavenson (1978) found that an average of 66% of the

Texas survey population used insecticides indoors and 47% outdoors. In a different

study, Leavenson and Frankie, 1983, documented that 62% of Texans used pesticides

indoors with an average of 10 applications per year, and 52% used pesticides outdoors.

Bennett et al. (1983) found that pesticide use was the most common pest control method









used in the home and that an average of 79% of the Indiana survey population used

pesticides. In 1999, the Florida Agriculture Institute documented that 82% of the Florida

public considered home use of pesticides to be very or somewhat important to their

lifestyle.

Based on willingness to use pesticides, you would surmise that the population had a

positive demeanor regarding pesticides. This is a perception that is difficult to access

because people are sensitive when it comes to infestations and there are psychological

influences in their actions against insect pests (Majekodunmi et al. 2002). Byrne and

Carpenter (1986) concluded that homeowners do not weigh the risks and benefits of

pesticide use when confronted with a pest problem. Since most people, 86%, dislike or

are afraid of arthropods in the home (Hahn and Ascerno 1995), it would make sense that

they would forgo apprehension of pesticide use to remove the pest problem. In any case,

whether people consider pests to be harmful or not, most are willing to use pesticides

both indoors (57%) and outdoors (66%) to control them.

Of a variety of pest control methods, people considered physical removal of pests

to be the most effective, although not the most frequently employed, method of pest

control. This was true of both over-the-counter and professional pest control users. All

label instructions for a novel pesticide were said to be read before use by 70% of the

survey population. This number may be skewed because of the inhibition of people to

admit that they have not read the instructions for a potentially dangerous substance they

are using in their home.

Frankie and Leavenson (1978) documented that 90% of the population felt that

pesticides did good with only 16% believing that pesticides could do harm. Although









pesticides, especially spray formulations, are still primarily used, pesticide applicators

may soon add screening and caulking to their service vehicle. Fifty-five percent of the

Florida survey population indicated that they would hire a professional to make repairs,

including screening and caulking, to exclude insect pests. Eighty-seven percent specified

that they would be satisfied with a professional pest control service that could effectively

control pests without using pesticidal sprays. Although the population seems willing

shift from pesticidal spray formulations they are still guarded when it comes to certain

pest control claims. Only 39% of interviewees believed that a pest control company

could do an effective job while being environmentally friendly and health conscious.

Spray and bait formulations are the most popularly used formulation types amongst

this population. When considering factors that may influence purchase of over-the-

counter or professional pest control services, pesticide users and non-pesticide users alike

felt that effectiveness in killing pests and safety for household members were the two

primary influences. Cost was less of an influence for over-the-counter purchases than for

professional services and was even less of a factor for non-pesticide users than pesticide

users. Reputation of the manufacturer was more of a purchasing influence for

professional services for both pesticide and non-pesticide users. It is important to note

that the term manufacturer was not defined to the interviewee and could mean either the

chemical manufacturer or the service provider.

A small percentage by comparison, 18%, signified that they were not pesticide

users. Of that 18%, nearly half, 45% (8% of total population), indicated that they would

never use pesticides. Health and safety were the primary reasons for this group's

unwillingness to utilize pesticides.









This survey only reached homes with had active telephones. There were a larger

proportion of female respondents (61%) than the Florida census indicated for the state

population (51.2%) (US census 2000). One quarter of the survey population indicated an

allergy to insects or insect bites and 14% considered themselves chemically sensitive.

More women than men indicated that they were both chemically sensitive to pesticides

and allergic to insects and insect bites. The survey population was well educated with

44.33% having college degrees as compared to only 23.3% of the Florida population. A

higher percentage of the survey population was homeowners, 80.5%, as compared to

70.1% in the 2000 Florida census population.

Most consumers, regardless of their age, residential status, or educational level,

mainly rely on pesticides to remediate their pest problems. Not only does a high

percentage (79%) of the Florida population use over-the-counter pesticides, but a large

number (54%) hire professional services to combat their pest problems. Both pesticide

users and the non-pesticide users agree that effectiveness is the number one determinant

for purchasing pest control services be it over-the-counter or professional. Those who do

purchase professional pest control services consider cost and manufacturer reputation in

their decision to purchase the service. No matter what pesticide formulation is used by

either homeowners with over-the-counter products or professionals with professional

grade products, consumers consider physical removal of the pest to be the most effective

method of pest control. While that statement seems like it would lead you to the

conclusion that consumers would embrace a more environmentally friendly type of pest

control, less than half (39%) of the survey population believed that a pest control






63


company that advertised pest elimination that was health-conscious and environmentally

friendly was credible.












Table 3-1. Demographic responses for willingness to use over-the-counter pesticides.

% Response

Yes No x2 df P


Income Range (n=319)

$25-34,999

$35-49,999

$50-74,999

$75-99,999

>$100,000


92.11

83.75

81.01

79.63

64.71


7.89

16.25

18.99

20.37

35.29


13.74


0.0082












Table 3-2. Formulation preference of over-the-counter pesticide users (N=387).

Formulation n % responses for use % used most often

Sprays 345 89.14 56.32

Baits 172 44.40 8.30

Traps 87 22.50 4.69

Granular Products 169 43.67 24.19

Dusts 84 21.70 6.50

Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple formulations.












Table 3-3. Demographic responses for willingness to use professional pest control products or services.

% Response

Yes No x2 df P

Household income (n=428)

<$25,000 39.74 57.14

>$25,000 60.26 42.86 7.77 1 0.0053












Table 3-4. Importance of purchasing variables from pesticide users for over-the-counter and professional pest control services
(n=387).

% response over-the-counter % response professional

Variable important neutral not important important neutral not important

cost 40.83 34.37 24.03 58.93 27.00 13.68

convenience 68.22 20.16 10.83 69.97 18.63 10.26

odor and residue 74.67 11.63 13.18 78.32 11.03 9.50

effectiveness in killing pests 96.64 2.07 1.29 95.81 1.90 1.90

safety for household members 92.24 3.88 3.88 94.68 2.66 2.66

reputation of the manufacturer 58.91 22.74 17.57 81.74 10.65 6.84

Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple influences.












Table 3-5. Demographic responses for factors influencing purchase of over-the-counter pesticides.

% Response

Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P
important unimportant important important


Importance of cost

Insect allergies (n=372)

Yes

No

Safety for household members

Gender (n=387)

Male

Female

Importance of odor and residue

Gender (n=385)


Male


14.71

15.19






1.27

2.17


8.97

2.62


Female


3.92

11.11






3.82

0.87


14.10

3.93


29.41

36.67






5.10

3.04


16.03

8.73


6.86

12.96






15.29

4.78


19.23

18.34


45.10

24.07






74.52

89.13


41.67

66.38


18.73 4 0.0009








19.14 4 0.0007


33.45 4 <0.0001












Table 3-6. Demographic responses for factors influencing purchase of professional pest control products or services.

% Response

Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P
important unimportant important important

Importance of safety for household members

Gender (n=263)

Male 1.04 1.04 2.08 18.75 77.08

Female 1.80 1.20 2.99 4.19 89.82 15.18 4 0.0043












Table 3-7. Importance of purchasing variables from non-pesticide users for over-the-counter and professional pest control services
(n=59).

% response over-the-counter % response professional

Variable important neutral not important important neutral not important

cost 29.16 22.92 47.91 53.66 29.27 17.08

convenience 50.00 27.08 20.84 73.17 21.95 4.88

odor and residue 60.41 16.67 20.84 87.81 9.76 2.44

effectiveness in killing pests 91.67 6.25 2.08 95.12 0.00 4.88

safety for household members 87.50 6.25 4.17 92.68 0.00 7.32

reputation of the manufacturer 54.15 20.83 20.84 85.36 9.76 4.88

Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "no response" or "do not know" responses. Respondents
were allowed to select multiple influences.









Table 3-8. Demographic profile of the 600
management survey.


participants in the Florida perceptions of pest


Demographic N % respondents


Gender
Male
Female
Age
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-65
>65
Education level
High School degree
Technical/Vocational school
Some college
College degree
Post graduate
Florida residency (years)
<5
5-9
10-19
20-29
>30
Annual household income ($)
<25,000
25,001- 50,000
50,001 75,000
75,001-100,000
>100,001
Domicile
Own
Rent


232
368


38.67
61.33

19.18
29.81
19.84
15.67
15.50

5.34
21.33
3.33
23.67
29.33
15.00

12.39
11.99
18.50
20.00
35.83

18.33
23.50
15.33
10.67
13.83

80.50
18.50


74
72
111
120
207


483
111


Percent response for each question not totaling 100% indicates a number of "do not
know" or "refuse to answer" responses.












Table 3-9. Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people allergic to insects and insect bites.

% Response

Yes No x2 df P


Insect allergies

Total population

Gender (n=582)

Male

Female

Chemically sensitive

Total population

Gender (n=555)

Male

Female


25.33



15.77

32.50


13.83


8.64

19.10


71.67


84.23

67.50


19.93


<0.0001


78.67


91.36

80.90


11.44


0.0007














CHAPTER 4
TOXICITY OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DISHWASHING DETERGENTS
AND HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS ON COCKROACHES BLATTELLA GERMANICA
(L.), AND PERIPLANETA AMERICANA (L.)

Introduction

Concern over health implications from the use of residual and broad spray

treatments for management of cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.) and Periplaneta

americana (L.), in sensitive environments has expedited research on insecticides of low

mammalian toxicity. For over 200 years, soaps, especially potassium salts, or soft soaps

have been reported to exhibit insecticidal properties. Most of the research has been

conducted on soft-bodied insects such as whiteflies (Butler et al. 1993, Javed and

Matthews 2002), aphids (Fournier and Brodeur 2000, Fulton 1930, Pinnock et al. 1974),

scales (Riehl and Carman 1953), mites (Osborne 1984), thrips (Oetting and Latimer

1995), mealybugs (Lindquist 1981), and ticks (Patrican and Allan 1995). In the 1920's

and 1930's, research was done on heavily chitinized insects such as Japanese beetles (van

der Meulen and Van Leeuwen 1929), harlequin bugs (Fulton 1930), and Colorado potato

beetles (Fulton 1930). With the discovery of pesticides, such as DDT in 1939, research

on the insecticidal properties of soaps was intermittent and did not appear to resurface in

the literature again until the 1970's and 80's where it was used against various plant pests

(Pinnock et al. 1974, Puritch 1975, 1978; Osborne and Henley 1982). Soft soaps were

registered as pesticides in 1947. Currently soft soaps, including potassium salts of fatty

acids, are considered to be insecticides, acaricides, herbicides, and algaecides. As a food









substance, they are generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA).

With the need for least hazardous pest management in sensitive environments,

soaps and detergents should be more extensively investigated as a pest management

option. Comparing the toxicity of several dishwashing liquid brands, formulations, and

application methods has not been previously reported. Additionally, the toxicity of

household cleaners against cockroaches has not been documented. The purpose of this

study was to determine the knockdown and mortality of German and American

cockroaches after exposure to commercially available household dishwashing detergents

and cleaners with different application methods.

Materials and Methods

Insects

B. germanica and P. americana were reared in plastic tubs with harborage. Dry

food (Lab Diet 5001 rodent Diet, PMI Nutrition International, Inc., Brentwood, MO) and

water were provided ad libitum. Cockroaches were maintained at 23.6 2.50C and 51 +

16% RH with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D). Adult males, B. germanica and P.

americana, and gravid females, B. germanica, were randomly selected and removed from

the colony with featherweight forceps, separated by sex, and held in separate cloth-

covered Mason glass jars (0.946 liter) with food and water. Cloth covers were held in

place by a rubber band. Adult males were removed from the colony within 24 h of trial.

After the nymphs emerged, adult females were discarded and first and second instar

nymphs were held until trial.









Immersion Assay

The toxicity of commercially available dishwashing detergents and household

cleaners was tested using a modified Cornwell immersion technique against German

cockroaches (Comwell 1976). The PVC immersion apparatus (15 by 10 cm diam.) was

coated with a 1:1 mixture of petroleum jelly/mineral oil within approximately 5 cm of the

upper interior rim of to prevent cockroaches from escaping. The lower end of the

apparatus was covered with nylon mesh (Intex strainer, Reaves and Co., Durham, NC)

and held in place by a rubber band. Unanesthetized cockroaches were removed from the

holding jar and placed into the immersion apparatus. The fluid level in the reservoir

came to just below the petroleum jelly coating to ensure that the cockroaches would be

fully wetted. Upon initiation of the trial, the apparatus was lowered into the solution then

gently shaken to ensure that all cockroaches were submerged. After a 30 s immersion,

the apparatus was lifted from the reservoir and allowed to drain for 15 s. The

cockroaches were removed with featherweight forceps to clean, cloth-covered jars

containing food, water, and harborage as previously described.

The toxicity of Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid (product no. 47937)

(Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY) was tested on adult male German cockroaches. The

soap was mixed at 0.33%, 0.7%, 1.4 % (vol:vol) with tap water for a total volume of 400

ml. Tap water was selected because it would be the most likely solvent a homeowner

would use. Tap water was used as the untreated control. Soap solutions were stirred for

30 s. Excess foam was skimmed from the liquid surface prior to trial. Solutions were

mixed at ambient temperature and a fresh solution was mixed for each repetition.

Six replications of 10 male adults were run at 0.33% and 0.7%, while 11

replications of 10 male adults were run at 1.4%. Cockroaches were immersed for -30 s.









Percent knockdown immediately after immersion and mortality at 1, 3 and 24 h were

recorded. Knockdown was defined as the inability of the cockroach to right itself

immediately after exposure and mortality was defined as having no response to probing

at the specified observation interval. The immersion apparatus, mesh, and reservoir were

each emptied and triple rinsed with tap water between each trial.

In order to compare the relative toxicity of dishwashing detergents to nymphs and

adults, Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid (product no. 47937) was tested on

German cockroach nymphs and adult males. Five replications of 10 early instar nymphs

and adult males each were tested at 1.4%. Nymphs were tapped into the immersion

apparatus while adults were removed with featherweight forceps.

In order to determine the toxicities between commercially available soap

formulations, three formulations of Palmolive dishwashing soap, (product nos. 356140,

47937 and 359140), and one formulation each of Joy (product no. 36045) (Proctor and

Gamble, Cincinnati, OH), and Dawn (product no. 33154) (Proctor and Gamble,

Cincinnati, OH) were compared at a concentration of 1.0%. Five replications of 5 adult

male German cockroaches were tested.

Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using Dishwashing
Soap and Household Cleaners.

The Comwell immersion technique was compared with a spray technique to further

test the toxicity of Palmolive Green Apply(product no. 47937) and to establish toxicity

of household cleaners including, Formula 409 (product no. 00628) (Clorox Co., Oakland,

CA), Fantastik (product no. 10294) (S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., Racine, WI), Fantastik

Orange Action (product no. 18292) (S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., Racine, WI), Dawn









Power Dissolver (product no. 376320) (Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) and Greased

Lightning (product no. 19853) (A & M Cleaning Products, Inc., Clemson, SC).

Adult male German cockroaches and adult male American cockroaches were tested

using the two application types at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8% concentrations of

Palmolive (47937), and 100% concentration of the cleaners except Dawn Power

Dissolver which, due to its viscosity, was tested at 50% concentration. Soap solutions

and cleaners, 100 ml each, were prepared in deli cups (473 ml) and cockroaches were

immersed using a modification of the previously described method. Modifications to the

previously described immersion assay design included using a PVC compression couplet

(Size 50-2, American Value, Greensboro, NC) as an immersion apparatus. To prepare

the immersion apparatus, gaskets and one couplet nut were removed and discarded. The

remaining couplet nut was fitted with nylon mesh (M-D Building Products, Greensboro,

NC) over the external opening using hot glue. The mesh fitted couplet nut was then

reattached to the PVC shaft. This modified compression couplet was used as the

immersion apparatus and its use allowed for easier removal of the test subjects after

treatment.

In the airbrush technique, the cockroaches were placed into a petroleum

jelly/mineral oil rimmed deli cup (473 ml) which was placed on a 10 by 10 cm square.

The airbrush well was filled with 2 ml of solution and the line purged of air. The

airbrush (Paasche Type H, Chicago, IL) was calibrated to distribute 2 ml of water over 10

s. Starting with the top left corer of the square, the solution was emptied over the deli

container in a zigzag pattern. This amount of solution allowed for runoff with minimal

pooling. The airbrush was triple rinsed with 1 ml acetone and then tap water between









each trial. Upon completion of each trial, cockroaches were tapped into plastic deli

containers (236.6 ml) supplied with filter paper for substrate and food and water ad

libitum. Five replications of 5 cockroaches were made for each.

Analysis

Control mortality was adjusted with Abbott's correction for both treatment

knockdown and treatment mortality (Abbott 1925). Data that did not meet the

assumptions for an analysis of variance (ANOVA) were ranked. Normality was tested

with the Shapiro-Wilk test (P=0.05).

In the case of the immersion assay, percent knockdown and mortality by

concentration were analyzed by analysis of variance. When P-values were significant,

means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test (a=0.05). Time observations were

analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance where time after treatment and soap

concentration were the main effects. Knockdown and mortality of nymphs compared

with adults was analyzed by a t-test and analysis of variance was run to determine

variability between soap formulations.

In the modified Palmolive concentration trial, for each species of cockroach and

application type, LC5os were estimated by probit analysis. Significant differences were

determined by non-overlap of the 95% confidence intervals (CI). To determine if soap

caused mortality in each cockroach species, data were analyzed by a two-way analysis of

variance with application method and concentration as the main effects. When P-values

were significant, means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test (a=0.05).

Knockdown and mortality for each cockroach species were analyzed for the

household cleaners by a three-way analysis of variance with cleaner, application type and

species as the main effects. If interactions were present, data were analyzed by a two-









way analysis of variance with cleaner and species by application as the main effects.

When P-values were significant, means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test

(a=0.05). All data analyses were performed with SAS (P = 0.05; SAS Institute 2001).

Results

Immersion Assay

Cockroaches exhibited escape behavior when submerged in the soap solutions.

Upon wetting, cockroaches arched their abdomens, lifted their wings, and sank to the

bottom of the container (Fig. 4-1). After a few seconds, air bubbles escaped from the

spiracles. Cockroaches in the water controls did not exhibit this behavior and remained

at the surface (Object 4-1).















Figure 4-1. German cockroach, Blattella germanica, posture following a 30 s exposure to
1.4% Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid.

Object 4-1. Cockroach exposure to 1.4% Palmolive dishwashing liquid or water (6.46
MB, soap_exposurevideo.wmv.1:21.)

In the immersion test with Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid as the

toxicant, soap concentration was the only significant main effect for both knockdown

(F=24.67, df=2; P<0.0001) and mortality (F=18.94; df=2; P<0.0001) (Table 4-1). There









were no significant differences in cockroach knockdown or mortality between

observation times nor was there a significant interaction between time and concentration.

There were no significant differences in knockdown or mortality between nymphal

versus adult male German cockroaches. Mean knockdown for nymphs was 98.891.11%

and mean mortality was 98.981.02%. Mean knockdown for adult males was

94.322.16% and mean mortality was 96.132.16%. There were no significant

differences between soap formulations for knockdown or mortality (Table 4-2).

Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using Dishwashing
Soap and Household Cleaners.

In the modified toxicity assay for German cockroaches immersed in Palmolive

Green Apple dishwashing soap, there was no significant interaction between application

method and soap concentration. When knockdown was the response variable, the main

effects, application method (F= 11.16, df=l, P=0.0018) and soap concentration (F=23.90,

df=4, P=<0.0001) were significant. When mortality was the response variable, the main

effects, application method ((F=5.40, df=l, P=0.0253) and soap concentration (F=30.05,

df=4, P=<0.0001) also were significant (Table 4-3).

In the modified toxicity assay for American cockroaches immersed in Palmolive

Green Apple dishwashing soap, there was a significant interaction between application

method and soap concentration for response variable knockdown (F=24.86, df=4,

P=<0.0001) and mortality (F=13.16, df=4, P=<0.0001). Because interactions were

significant, one-way analyses of variance were done by application method with soap

concentration as the main effect. There was no knockdown when spraying was the

application method for all soap concentrations. There was no significant mortality with

spray as the application type for all soap concentrations.









The highest knockdown (100%) and mortality (84.004.00%) was achieved

through the immersion application against American cockroaches. The airbrush spray

application against American cockroaches was the least effective application method

achieving 0% knockdown and only 8.004.90% mortality at the highest soap

concentration of 0.8%.

Probit analyses for German cockroaches indicated that the KD50 concentration

values were lower than the LC5o values for both the spray (KD50 = 0.3655, LC5o =

0.5399) and immersion (KD5o= 0.1666, LC5o = 0.5602) application types. There was no

significant difference between application types for German cockroach mortality

although it took a significantly lower soap concentration to achieve knockdown with the

immersion application. When compared with the concentration needed to achieve LC5o

for German cockroaches (LC5o = 0.56%), it took a significantly lower concentration of

soap to achieve LC5o for American cockroaches using the immersion application (LC5o =

0.24%) (Table 4-4).

When comparing the toxicity of household cleaners, there was no significant three-

way interaction between cleaners, application type and species for knockdown or

mortality. Interestingly, the only significant interaction was between species and

application type (F=12.56, df=l; P=0.0007) and the only significant main effects were

species (F=10.99, df=l; P 0.0014) and application type (F=12.56, df=2; P<0.0001). For

both knockdown and mortality, the combined variable species-application type and

cleaner became the main effects for a two-way analysis of variance where the interaction

was not significant. The combined variable species-application type was significant for

knockdown (F=29.7, df=3; P=<0.0001) and mortality (F=12.04, df=3; P=<0.0001).









Means separation using SNK indicated that American cockroaches that were sprayed

were significantly lower in knockdown (56.8%) and mortality (75.2%) when compared

with all other combinations of cockroach species and application methods (99-100%).

Discussion

Historically, soaps were only considered effective against soft bodied insects.

However, Abbasi (1984) reported that a splash of commercially available soaps would

kill American cockroaches at a 1-2% solution. Szumlas (2002) reported that the LC50 for

Dawn Ultra dishwashing liquid sprayed on German cockroaches was 0.4% and soap

concentrations higher than 1% achieved a 95% or greater knockdown or mortality.

The results from this study are in close agreement with Szumlas (2002) and Abbasi

(1984). However, this study differed from the others in that soaps and cleaners used were

quantified. The close agreement of the LC50s between the current and Szumlas' (2002)

study indicates that the airbrush technique is a valid method for delivering a measurable

dose of soap or cleaner as a toxicant.

The LC5o for a 2 ml spray on German cockroaches was 0.54% and was 0.56%

when exposed by immersion for 30 s. The LC5o for American cockroaches exposed by

immersion was 0.24%, less, but not significantly less, than the LC5o (0.56%) for the

German cockroaches. To achieve 95% mortality with an immersion application, soap

solutions at 2.07% are needed for German cockroaches and 1.75% for American

cockroaches respectively. Both adult and nymphal cockroaches were equally affected by

the soap concentrations, and after the 30 s immersion period, cockroaches that were

knocked down remained so and never recovered.

There was no difference in knockdown or mortality between five soaps or five

cleaners formulations using two application types tested. The airbrush spray application









was equally as effective as the immersion application for German cockroaches, but was

less effective for American cockroaches. All cleaners tested achieved 92-100% mortality

for the German cockroaches by both the spray and immersion applications. As an

immersion application, 100% mortality was achieved for the American cockroaches. The

spray application was less effective for American cockroaches with some cleaners

achieving only 38% mortality and others reaching 100% mortality.

Soap solutions act as contact insecticides and have no residual activity. The blend

of fatty acid salts in commercially available formulations is proprietary information, but

the soft soaps that make up these formulations are made of sodium or potassium fatty

acid salts. A problem with using commercially available soaps is that the formulations

often change. In fact, by the conclusion of this study, the Fantastik Orange Action

formulation had been replaced on the store shelves with Fantastik Lemon. Because of

the rapid knockown, my hypothesis is that soaps and cleaners act as nerve toxicants that

result in paralysis and death of the insect. Other mode-of-action theories include spiracle

blockage, cellular disruption and cuticle dessication (Olkowski and Olkowski 1996,

Puritch 1981, Ware 1994), but these modes of action would not result in such rapid death.

Soap solutions, due to their low mammalian toxicity, have potential for use as a pest

management options in sensitive environments such as occupied hospital rooms, in

classrooms with children, and in daycare centers while children are present. Dishwashing

liquid and household cleaners are readily available and are common items already found

in the home. The results of this study indicate that different brands and formulations

knocked-down and killed cockroaches equally effectively. Not only were the soaps

effective against adult cockroaches, but they were equally as effective against the






84


cockroach nymphs, which make up the majority of household cockroach populations.

The effectiveness is further supported in the fact that there was little if any recovery of

the cockroaches after the initial knockdown. Soaps are inexpensive and concentrations of

soap needed to knockdown or kill pest cockroaches are very low. This results in not only

an effective, but economical pest management option. While soap solutions may not

completely replace the currently used pesticidal baits and sprays, they have a place as a

sanitation tool that may aid in cockroach management.












Table 4-1. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid by
immersion.

Palmolive Green Apple n % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE

0.33% 60 11.67 6.54a 10.48 6.21a

0.7% 60 98.25 1.75b 85.00 15.00b

1.4% 110 96.26 2.09b 96.26 2.09b

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Student Newman-Keuls test
[SAS Institute 2001]). Control mortality was 2.5% for both KD and M and was adjusted by Abbott's formula.












Table 4-2. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when exposed to different formulations of dishwashing
liquid by immersion.

Soap formulation n % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE

Palmolive Green Apple (47937) 25 100 + 0.00 100 + 0.00

Palmolive Anti-Bacterial (359140) 25 95.83 4.17 96.00 + 4.00

Palmolive Original (356140) 25 100 + 0.00 100 + 0.00

Dawn Plus Ultra (33154) 25 100 + 0.00 100 + 0.00

Lemon Joy (36045) 25 100 0.00 96.004.00
00
Control mortality was 4% for KD and 0% for M. Control mortality was adjusted by Abbott's formula.













Table 4-3. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and American cockroach males when exposed to Palmolive
dishwashing liquid (formula 47937) (n=25).

German Cockroaches American Cockroaches

Application % Palmolive % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE

Immersion 0.05% 4.00 + 4.00a 0.00 + 0.00a 24.00 + 7.48a 12.00 + 8.00a

0.1% 36.00 + 11.66b 4.00 + 4.00a 80.00 + 6.32b 20.00 + 8.94a

0.2% 64.00 + 4.00c 4.00 + 4.00a 84.00 + 4.00b 44.00 + 9.80b

0.4% 72.00 + 10.20c 36.00+ 11.66b 88.00 + 8.00bc 68.00 4.90c

0.8% 96.00 + 4.00d 68.00 + 10.2c 100.00 + 0.00c 84.00 + 4.00c

Airbrush Spray 0.05% 0.00 + 0.00a 3.33 + 3.33a 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 + 0.00

0.1% 12.00 + 12.00a 7.50 + 7.50a 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 + 0.00

0.2% 24.00 7.48ab 22.50 + 11.30a 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 + 0.00

0.4% 68.00 + 8.00b 58.33 + 6.50b 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 + 0.00

0.8% 68.00 + 18.55b 79.11 + 11.41b 0.00 +0.00 8.00 4.90

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Student Newman-Keuls test
[SAS Institute 2001]). German cockroach control mortality was 0% for KD and 4% for M and was adjusted by Abbott's calculation before analysis. The
American cockroach assay had 0% control mortality.




Full Text

PAGE 1

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF URBAN PEST MANAGEMENT AND THE TOXICITY OF FATTY ACID SALTS TO COCKROACHES By REBECCA FRANCES WILLIAMS BALDWIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Rebecca Frances Williams Baldwin

PAGE 3

For my loving family without whose prayers, love and encouragement this would not have been possible.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the following people for their support and encouragement throughout my tenure at the University of Florid a. I would first like to thank my family: Richie for being my encouragement and shoulder to lean on and my parents and grandparents for all of their pr ayers and confidence in me. I would also like to thank my committee for their patience in molding me into a professional entomologist. I thank Dr. Phil Koehler, for teaching me that I can succeed in research. I appreciate all the road trips where great ideas were bor n. I thank Dr. Faith Oi, for her friendship and instruction on how to build an extension program. I thank Dr. Norm Leppla and Dr. Marshall Breeze, for their suggestions and review of my manuscript. I apprec iate all of your time and dedication. My thanks to Dr. Ken Portier for his statistical expe rtise, to Dr. Mike Scharf for the use of his lab, and Drs. Mike Scicchitano and Tracy Johns for their revision of my survey. I would also like to thank Dr. Don Hall a nd Mrs. Debbie Hall for helping me to be a successful teacher. Thanks also to all of the friends I have made at the University of Florida and in Windsor. Their friendships have truly made Florida home. This dissertation is an an swer to prayer and I th ank God for this blessing.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x OBJECT......................................................................................................................... ....xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................1 Pest Status of Cockroaches...........................................................................................1 Biology and Distribution.......................................................................................1 Medical Implications.............................................................................................3 Management Measures and Resistance.................................................................5 Integrated Pest Management Strategies.................................................................7 Cultural Methods: Educa tion and Sanitation.................................................8 Mechanical Methods: Exclusion and Physical Removal of Cockroaches.....9 Chemical Methods: Traditional......................................................................9 History of Soap as an Insecticide................................................................................10 Toxicity of Soap..................................................................................................10 Chemical Structure of Fatty Acids......................................................................12 Chemical Structure of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts..............................................13 Insecticidal Uses of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts.................................................13 Potential Mode of Action of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts....................................20 Statement of Purpose..................................................................................................22 2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PEST PROBLEMS....................................................28 Introduction.................................................................................................................28 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................29 Results........................................................................................................................ .31 Demographics......................................................................................................31 Importance of Categories of Urban Pests............................................................31 Factors Related to a Behavioral Change.............................................................32

PAGE 6

vi Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option......................................35 Discussion...................................................................................................................36 3 PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BE HAVIORS TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE..................................................................................................51 Introduction.................................................................................................................51 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................52 Results........................................................................................................................ .54 Responses of Consumers That Utilize Pesticides................................................54 Responses of Consumers That Do Not Utilize Pesticides...................................57 Responses of Consumers That Would Never Utilize Pesticides.........................58 Responses of All Consumers...............................................................................58 Demographics......................................................................................................58 Discussion...................................................................................................................59 4 TOXICITY OF COMMERCIAL LY AVAILABLE DISHWASHING DETERGENTS AND HOUSEHOLD CL EANERS ON COCKROACHES BLATTELLA GERMANICA (L.), AND PERIPLANETA AMERICANA (L.).............73 Introduction.................................................................................................................73 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................74 Insects..................................................................................................................74 Immersion Assay.................................................................................................75 Comparison of Modified Immersi on and Spray Applications using Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners....................................................76 Analysis...............................................................................................................78 Results........................................................................................................................ .79 Immersion Assay.................................................................................................79 Comparison of Modified Immersi on and Spray Applications using Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners....................................................80 Discussion...................................................................................................................82 5 TOXICITY AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGI CAL EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL FATTY ACID SALTS ON AMERICAN AND GERMAN COCKROACHES........91 Introduction.................................................................................................................91 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................93 Insects..................................................................................................................93 Treatments...........................................................................................................93 Immersion Bioassay............................................................................................94 Neurophysiology Bioassay -Equipment............................................................95 Neurophysiology Bioassay -Insect Preparation and Recording........................95 Analysis...............................................................................................................97 Results........................................................................................................................ .97 Discussion.................................................................................................................100

PAGE 7

vii 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.........................................................................107 APPENDIX: PEST MANAGEME NT SURVEY INSTRUMENT................................110 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................130

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Insecticide classes and modes of action.....................................................................6 1-2 Common potassium salts..........................................................................................13 1-3 Selected references testing various soap solutions against arthropods....................23 2-1 Demographic profile of the 600 participan ts in the Florida perceptions of pests survey.......................................................................................................................39 2-2 Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people allergic to insects and insect bites............................................................................40 2-3 Response to the question, "Which of the following categories of insect pests . ...41 2-4 Pesticide users reasons for purchasi ng pest control products or services and their importance (N=492).........................................................................................42 2-5 Responses for pest factors influencin g purchase of pest control products or services based on gender..........................................................................................43 2-6 Non-pesticide users rank of the import ance of some reasons for purchasing pest control products or services (n=59)..........................................................................45 2-7 Response from non-pesticide users to the question, "How lik ely are you to take that (pest control) action to solve a problem? (n=59).............................................46 2-8 Response of people who would never use pesticides to the qu estion: "How likely would you be to take the following actions to solve a pest problem in or around your home? (n=48).................................................................................................48 2-9 Comments specified by people who indi cated they would never use pesticides (n=48).......................................................................................................................49 3-1 Demographic responses for willingness to use over-the-counter pesticides............64 3-2 Formulation preference of over-the -counter pesticide users (N=387).....................65 3-3 Demographic responses for willingness to use professional pest control products or services.................................................................................................................66

PAGE 9

ix 3-4 Importance of purchasing variables fr om pesticide users for over-the-counter and professional pest control services (n=387)........................................................67 3-5 Demographic responses for factors in fluencing purchase of over-the-counter pesticides..................................................................................................................68 3-6 Demographic responses for factors infl uencing purchase of professional pest control products or services......................................................................................69 3-7 Importance of purchasing variables from non-pesticide users for over-thecounter and professional pest control services (n=59).............................................70 3-8 Demographic profile of the 600 participan ts in the Florida perceptions of pest management survey..................................................................................................71 3-9 Demographic differences between chemically sensitive people and people allergic to insects and insect bites............................................................................72 4-1 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid by immersion......................................85 4-2 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when exposed to different formulations of dishwashing liquid by immersion..................86 4-3 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and American cockroach males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid (formula 47937) (n=25)..87 4-4 Toxicity of Palmolive dishwashing li quid to adult male German and American cockroaches with two ap plication techniques..........................................................88 4-5 Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and American cockroach males when exposed to household cleane rs by a spray or immersion application (n=25).......................................................................................................................89 5-1 Toxicity of sodium and potassium laur ate to adult male German and American cockroaches............................................................................................................101 5-2 Toxicity of fatty acid salts (FAS ) to adult male German or American cockroaches............................................................................................................102

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Representative fatty acid salt chains, C8 and C18.....................................................12 4-1 German cockroach, Blattella germanica posture following a 30 s exposure to 1.4% Palmolive Green A pple dishwashing liquid................................................79 5-1 Spontaneous electrical ac tivity from representative P. americana neural preparation. Baseline electrical act ivity in physiological saline (A), physiological saline disturbance (B), base line electrical activ ity in physiological saline (C), potassium laurate (1 ml at 0.75%) in physiological saline (D). The threshold was set at 500 baseline counts per min...................................................104 5-2 Spontaneous electrical activity for three American cockroaches, A, B, and C before and after treatment with 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%)...........................105 5-3 Change in electrical bursting activity fr om baseline to the first and last 2.5 min after treatment of 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%).................................................106

PAGE 11

xi OBJECT Object page 4-1 Cockroach exposure to 1.4% Palmolive dishwashing liquid or water (6.46 MB, soap_exposure_video.wmv.1:21.)............................................................................79

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF URBAN PEST MANAGEMENT AND THE TOXICITY OF FATTY ACID SALTS TO COCKROACHES By Rebecca Frances Williams Baldwin December 2005 Chair: Philip G. Koehler Major Department: Entomology and Nematology To better understand the pub lics perceptions of urban pests and urban pest management strategies a computer aided te lephone survey of 600 Florida residents was conducted. Insect pests were considered somewhat or very harmful by 68% of the population. Crawling pests were the most costly (50%) and di fficult (42%) to control. The majority of the population (82%) used pe sticides with 79% using over-the-counter pest control products and 54% hiring pr ofessional pest control services. Toxicity of commercially available fatty acid salt blends, including dishwashing liquids and household cleaners, was investig ated by a spray or immersion application against adult male German and American cockroaches. German cockroach nymphs and adults were both equally sus ceptible to a 1.4 % soap soluti on (94-100% mortality). All formulations of soaps (1%) and cleaners with an immersion application were equally as toxic to adult cockroaches achieving 83-100% mortality. The LC50 value for dishwashing liquid against German cockroach es was 0.54% with a spray application and

PAGE 13

xiii 0.56% with an immersion application. The LC50 value was 0.24% for the immersion application, but the spray app lication was ineffective agains t American cockroaches. There was no difference in cockroach mortalit y between different brands or formulations of dishwashing liquids. Cockroaches th at were knocked down immediately after exposure remained so and were dead at 24 h. Soaps were further tested against Ameri can and German cockroaches by evaluating the individual fatty acid salts which make up the active ingredient of soap solutions. Even-numbered fatty acid salts, C8 C18, were evaluated for toxicity by a 30 s immersion. There was no difference between potassium (LC50 0.49%) and sodium (0.42%) laurate on the mortality of German cockroaches or between American cockroaches (LC50 of 0.28% and 0.18% respectively). Potassium oleate wa s the most toxic to both American (LC50 0.17%) and German (LC50 0.36%) cockroaches. Neurophysiological recordings of spontaneous electrical activit y of American cockroaches exposed to potassium laurate (0.75%) indicated that the fa tty acid salt had an effect on the nervous system. Spontaneous electrical bursts increased 5 tim es that of baseline activity for two minutes post exposure and then quieted. The quieting of electrical activity corresponded with the apparent death of the specimen 2.5 minutes post soap exposure.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Periplaneta americana (L.), and Blattella germanica (L.), are two of the most common species of domiciliary pests. Th ese cockroach species are among the most prolific and most repulsive pe sts found in association with humans. When asked what they disliked most about cockroaches, public housing residents in Virginia and Maryland said that just having them was the thing that bothered them the most, and the presence of cockroaches was a source of emba rrassment (Wood et al. 1981). Pest Status of Cockroaches Biology and Distribution The phylogeny of cockroach families has been analyzed both morphologically and genetically and relationships have not been positively concluded (Grandcolas and DHaese 2001). The most commonly used co ckroach taxonomic classification divides the order Blattodea into five families, two of which are the Blattidae and Blattellidae (McKittrick 1964). The family Blattidae c ontains the peridomestic cockroaches, including the American cockroach. The fa mily Blattellidae contains the domestic cockroaches including as a representativ e, the German cockroach. These pest cockroaches, erroneously named American and German, originated in Africa. As man left the cradle of civilization and began to disperse throughout the world, he inadvertently carried these close associates as stowaway s on trade ships (Cornwell 1968). Over time these cockroaches continued their journey with man and are now worldwide in their distribution.

PAGE 15

2 American cockroaches are large ranging from 28-44 mm in length and are capable of flight. These cockroaches are gregar ious and exhibit aggregation through both pheromone and tactile stimuli from conspeci fics (Burk and Bell 1973). Before becoming adults, they molt from 6-14 times depending on physical and environmental conditions and may live an average of a year or more. At peak reproductive capacity, the female may deposit two oothecae a week, and usually produces 10 to 15 oothecae in a lifetime. Each ootheca contains up to 18 eggs with an average hatch of 12 nymphs per ootheca which is a contributor to th eir pest status. The American cockroach is oviparous, depositing or gluing her sclerotized egg cas e onto a substrate (Roth and Willis 1958). American cockroaches are opportunistic feeder s that prefer warm moist environments and are active at night. American cockroach es may excite allergic reactions in humans (Bell and Adiyodi 1981). Allergens associ ated with American cockroaches include periplanone A-D (Ka ng et al. 1989). Cockroaches are easy to breed and keep in the laboratory. This makes them model organisms for biological research (Guhl 1999) Cockroaches are the most frequently used biological model for studies in ins ect behavior and physiology (Gordon 1996), and have been extensively studied as a neurophysiological mode l (Scharrer 1987). Adult German cockroaches are 15 mm in length, and although they have fully developed wings, are incapable of flight. These cockroaches are shorter lived than American cockroaches with a lifespan of 210 days for females and 115 days for males. These pest cockroaches undergo five to seven molts depending on environmental conditions. Once reaching adulthood, the fema le German cockroach attracts the male with a sex pheromone, the volatile compound, bl attellaquinone (Nojim a et al. 2005), and

PAGE 16

3 while she may mate multiple times, only one mating is needed for the production of viable offspring throughout her lifetime (C ochran 1979). The German cockroach is classified as ovoviviparous by some and ovi parous by others (Roth and Willis 1958). The female extrudes the ootheca and then ro tates and withdraws it partially into her abdomen. She carries the egg case for about 30 days, and then deposits it several hours before hatch. An ootheca may contain as many as 46 eggs and may hatch 35-40 nymphs (Rust et al 1995). German cockroaches are gregarious and aggregra te based on olfactory cues from cuticular hydrocarbons (Rivault et al. 1998). Medical Implications Humans have historically combated co ckroaches in their domiciles (Roth and Willis 1960). German and American cockroaches are commonly found in homes, restaurants, schools, cafeterias, health car e centers, nursing home s, zoo, warehouses and other public areas. Not only are these cock roaches nuisance pests, but they are of medical significance as well. Since Worl d War II, many studies have been done to investigate the transmission of infectious ag ents from cockroaches to humans (Roth and Willis 1957). Recent studies have shown pathogenic Escherichia coli F18 from swine can survive in cockroach feces for up to ei ght days (Zurek and Schal 2004) and viable Salmonella enterica can be recovered from inoculated cockroach cuticle five days after exposure (Branscome 2004). Historical studies have shown that some Salmonella spp. could be recovered from cockroaches up to 72 days after inoculation and that Salmonella could survive on human foodstu ffs for up to four years (Olson and Rueger 1950, Rueger and Olson 1969). Cockroaches, especially German cockro aches, inhabit kitche ns and bathrooms where moisture is provided (Cornwell 1968). Humans can be exposed to the pathogens

PAGE 17

4 carried by cockroaches if food, eating utensils or hygienic items such as toothbrushes become contaminated. Cockroaches can al so contaminate human food and habitation through their excrement and molted skins. Their presence can cause respiratory and psychological problems as well (Brenner 1995, Codina et al. 2002, Kang et al 1992 and Kellert 1993). Sensitivity to cockroach allergens is direc tly related to the magnitude of exposure to cockroach infestations in the living environment (Kang et al. 1989). It has been demonstrated that dust samples from inne r-city and low-income homes contain high levels of German cockroach allergens, Bla g 1 and Bla g 2 (Arbes et al. 2004, Rosenstreich et al. 1997). Cockroach allergen s are measured in units per gram of dust, and the threshold for cockroach allergens is 8 units per gram. Allergen levels above the threshold are considered to be high. Cockroach allergens have been implicated in many cases of asthma, especially in children (Arlian 2002, Jones 1998). Rosenstreich et al. (1997) looked at asthmatic child ren in eight inner city areas in the United States. They found that 85% of the homes with asthmatic ch ildren had detectible levels of cockroach allergens and 50.2% had high levels of the allergen in bedroo m dust. When screened for allergies to cockroaches, 36.8% of the as thmatic children test ed positive. These allergens are prevalent not only in homes, but also in schools. Sarpong et al. (1997) found that 69% of schools tested in Balt imore, MD, had detectible levels of Bla g 1 with significantly higher le vels in food service areas th an in classrooms. Besides having an adverse health effect, these alle rgens have an economic impact as well. Children with cockroach allergies have signifi cantly more missed days of school (7.65 as opposed to 5.67 over a three month period) and their caregivers have to change their

PAGE 18

5 plans more often (15.52 times a year vers us 9.13) than children without cockroach allergies or who are not exposed to cockroach allergens (Rosenstreich et al. 1997). The missed school days not only result in the child falling behind in course work, but result in missed work days for parents. This study al so showed that allerg ic children who were exposed to the cockroach allergens in thei r homes had significantly more unscheduled medical visits (2.56 as opposed to 1.44) each year and spent significantly more time in the hospital (0.37 versus 0.11 vi sits) than other children. Management Measures and Resistance While cockroach infestations can have adverse health effects on humans, the measures used to control the infestation may also result in additional health risks. Treatment of infestations may inappropriately include insecticidal spraying of baseboards resulting in unnecessary pestic ide exposure. Cockroaches are nocturnal and prefer to inhabit small cracks and crevices of st ructures. Inappropr iate and unnecessary applications of insecticides often result in insecticide resistance (Rust and Reirson 1981, Valles 2004). Resistance to organophosphate s and carbamates was first documented in the 1950s and 1960s, and cockroaches, mainly German cockroaches, have demonstrated some form of resistance to mo st insecticide classes, used against them since (Cornwell 1976, Koehler and Patterson 1986). Because cock roaches have developed resistance to several insecticide classes, many pest mana gement professionals utilize a chemical rotation system to manage the resistance. In this system, chemicals are rotated by class, and in addition, suitable mixtures of chemi cals are used (Cochran 1995). Cockroaches have yet to develop resistance to insect gr owth regulators and some of the traditional cockroach controls including the slow acting in organic insecticides su ch as boric acid and diatomaceous earth. Cockroaches are, however resistant to many of the plant derived

PAGE 19

6 botanical insecticides such as pyrethrum and the syntheti c pyrethroids (Valles 2004). Cockroaches are also demonstrating resist ance to fipronil (H olbrook et al. 2003). Fipronil was introduced as a cockroach bait in 1999, so the resistance is likely a crossresistance in cockroach strains resistant to cyclodienes which have a similar mode of action (Holbrook et al. 2 003) (Table 1-1). Table 1-1. Insecticide cla sses and modes of action. Insecticide Insecticide Class Mode of Action Diatomaceous Earth Inorganic Water balance disruption Boric Acid Inorganic Feeding disruption Silicia Gel Inorganic Water balance disruption Pyrethrum Botanical Sodium channel modulator Rotenone Botanical Site I electron transport inhibitor Permethrin Pyrethroid Sodium channel modulator Bifenthrin Pyrethroid Sodium channel modulator Chlorpyrifos Organophosphate A cetylcholine esterase inhibitor Propoxur Carbamate Acetylcholine esterase inhibitor Hydroprene Insect Growth Regul ator Juvenile hormone analog Pyriproxyfen Insect Growth Regul ator Juvenile hormone mimic Hydramethylnon Amidinohydrazone Site II electron transport inhibitor Abamectin Macrocyclic lactone glyc oside Chloride channel activators Sulfluramid Sulphonamide Uncouples oxidative phosphorylation Fipronil Phenylpyrazole GAB A chloride channel blocker Thiamethoxam Neonicotinoid Ni cotinic acetylch oline receptor agonists/antagonists Imidacloprid Neonicotinoid Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists/antagonists Since the 1980s, targeted app lications of pesticides in a bait formulation have been used to reduce pesticide application and combat pesticide re sistance. Bait formulations to manage cockroaches is a preferred form of pest control because th e bait is placed in enclosed stations or targeted in crack and crevice areas minimizing exposure. Since most bait formulations are not aerosolized, the adve rse health effects a ssociated with spray

PAGE 20

7 applications of pesticide are also re duced. Abamectin, fipronil, imidacloprid, hydramethylnon, and sulfluramid are each available in cockroach bait formulations (Barcay 2004). Since baiting has become the pr edominant form of cockroach control, the phenomenon of behavioral aversion to th e bait formulation has been documented (Bieman et al. 1993, Silverman and Bieman 1993, Silverman and Ross 1994, Wang et al. 2004). This resistance is di fferent from the metabolic resistance where the insect detoxifies the chemical. The resistance lies in the behavior of the cockroach that reduces its exposure to a toxic substance. The cockro ach is averse to feeding on the bait matrix, usually containing glucose, thus the toxicant is not or is sparingly ingested, resulting in low to no mortality (Valles 2000). Integrated Pest Mana gement Strategies Integrated pest management was firs t put into practice by the agricultural community in an effort to protect crops (S tern et al 1959). In the 1980s the idea of integrated control migrated to the urba n environment (Kramer 2004). In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act. This ac t, in part, stated that federal agencies must undertake integrated pest management (IPM) (USFDA 1996). In the urban environment, integrated pest management advocates sanitation a nd exclusion along with the judicious use of insectic ides (Rust 1994). Cockroach integrated pest management models differ greatly according to the lo cation and building si tuation (Zungoli and Robinson 1986). The cockroach integrated pest management strategy that follows is a general model that can be used in most ot her urban pest situations. For an existing cockroach infestation, the first step of an integrated pest management program is to identify the pest species. Knowing the speci es of the cockroach will provide information on the biology and behavior of the organism whic h is critical in being able to manage the

PAGE 21

8 population with the least environm ental impact. Infestations can be confirmed visually or through the use of sticky traps as monitors. Sticky traps come in various shapes with or without pheromone lures. Cockroaches respond to odors from a distance, so traps may be enhanced by the addition of foodstuffs such as peanut butter, distil lers grain, or boiled raisins (Nalyanya and Schal 2001, Rust and Re irson 1981). After a set amount of time, the traps should be checked for the life st age, and numbers of a given species. The cockroach trap count will give an estimate of the population in the immediate area. The presence of nymphs will indi cate whether the cockroaches have an established breeding population in the area. Once the presence a nd location of an infestation has been determined, a treatment plan can be formed. Cultural Methods: Education and Sanitation Cultural practices involve factors that are influenced by people and their environment (Kramer 2004). Integrated pest management is people management. The first step in an integrated pest management treatment is to educate the clientele. The inhabitants of the area should be educated about the pest bi ology and behavior in relation to the problem. They should also be inform ed about monitoring and treatment measures that are planned to meet their pest problem (Rust 1994). It is important to know the attitudes and perceptions of the clientele so an effective management strategy can be implemented. Many times this is assessed by a survey of the inhabitants of the area (Robinson et al. 1981, Zungoli and Robinson 1986). To have successful management of a pest, clients must be educated on how clutte r contributes to pest problems (Schal and Hamilton 1990). Cockroaches need food, water and harborage to survive, so sanitation is an integral part of the integrated management proce ss. Sanitation includes removing clutter,

PAGE 22

9 particularly cardboard in whic h cockroaches can thrive. Sc hal (1988) demonstrated that poor sanitation, including the presence of clutter, was positively correlated with cockroach population density. Sanitation also includes removing access to food and water. For example, any open containers of food should be placed in sealable plastic containers and all trash shoul d be removed daily. Finally, sanitation also includes good housekeeping practices. Areas under and around fu rniture should be cleaned of any food debris, and grease should be cleaned from cooking areas. Th e method of cleaning is an important factor in allergen control. Cockroach alle rgens are extremely stable compounds, and may last years in the environment (Brenner et al. 1998). Mechanical Methods: Exclusion and Ph ysical Removal of Cockroaches To exclude the cockroaches, cracks and escutcheon plates should be caulked and doors and windows fitted with weather stripping and door sweeps. Once the area has been cleaned and sealed, it is important to continue monitoring as there may be a reintroduction of the pe st (Barcay 2005). Chemical Methods: Traditional Studies have been completed comparing traditional and integrated models of cockroach management in schools and public housing. Although th e authors concluded that the integrated model proved more expens ive, it was significantly more effective in suppressing and maintaining management of cockroach populations (Miller and Meek 2004). The expense evaluation in this study di d not take into account the cost of callback visits, so the actual cost of integr ated pest management may very well be less expensive than traditi onal models. Williams et al. ( 2005) demonstrated that the labor costs for integrated pest management in public schools ($6.66.47) was higher than the

PAGE 23

10 labor costs for a conventional program ($4.69 0.34); however, the cost of materials was less for the integrated progr am ($1.91.34 versus $2.80.29). Many public buildings, including schools, ar e considered sensitive environments. The utmost care should be taken when d ealing with a cockroach problem so that cockroaches and their allergens are removed without endangering the inhabitants of the building. One potential tool th at could be used as a stop-ga p cockroach control in these sensitive environments is soap. History of Soap as an Insecticide There is documentation that soaps were used as insecticides in Europe as far back as 1787 (Matsumura 1980, Shepard 1951). In 19 35, Dills and Menusan relayed that there were several thousand references in literature on the use of soaps as insecticides. Prior to 1900, fish or whale oil soaps were the most commonly used insecticidal soaps (Puritch 1981). Soaps have changed a lot since then, yet they still prov e to be an effective control of certain insect pests. Toxicity of Soap Soaps are salts of fatty acids. Fatty ac ids are long hydrocarbo n chains that are naturally derived from plant oils and animal tallow (Puritch 1981). Plants and animals have differing amounts and combinations of fa tty acids. For example, caprylic, capric, lauric and myristic acids are a ll constituents of coconut oil (Pryde 1979). Some plant oils have a large proportion of one fatty acid. Peanut oil is 51% oleic aci d, coconut oil is 48% lauric acid, while palm oil is 47% palmitic acid. Corn, sunflower and safflower oil are made mainly of linoleic acid. Animal fat such as lard contains 44% oleic acid while beef tallow is 44% linoleic acid. Tallow also contains 29% palmitic and 19% stearic acid

PAGE 24

11 (Weiss 1970). These insoluble fatty oils are di stilled or pressed from their source and are exposed to a metal radical or organic base to produce soap (Willcox 1993). As of 1992, there were 24 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registrations for soap salts (EPA 1992). There are three docu mented active ingredients of soluble soap salts; sodium, ammonium and potassium. Potassi um salts are soft soaps that have listed uses as insecticides, acaricides, he rbicides, and algaecides (Ware 1994). Not all commercially available insecticidal soaps are pure fatty acid salts; some contain other active ingredients such as pyr ethrum or neem (Quarles 2003). These combination insecticidal soaps must be re gistered for each active ingredient. The majority of the registered fatty acid salts include C8-C18 potassium laurate, potassium myristate, potassium oleate, and potassium ricino leate. These salts may be used singly or as mixtures as the EPA considers all potassi um fatty acid salts to be the same active ingredient. Potassium fatty acid salts are generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the EPA has exempted them from tolerance levels for all raw agricultural commodities. These soft soaps, such as oleic acid, have an oral LD50 of 74,000 mg/kg which places them in the lowest toxicity category, Category IV (Nautral Toxins Research Center [NPTN] 2004). These potassium fatty acid salt s also have low to very low dermal toxicity, and may cause mild irritation if applied directly to the eyes. These salts have a half-life of less than a day and are readily broken down by soil microbes (EPA 1992). Naturally occurring fa tty acids are found in every human cell membrane and are a normal part of the human diet (Puritch 1981). While they may cause vomiting if ingested, these fa tty acids pose no known health risks (EPA 1996) and are not toxic to birds (EPA 1992).

PAGE 25

12 Chemical Structure of Fatty Acids Fatty acids are carboxylic acids. They are made of long unbranched hydrocarbon chains ending with a car boxyl group (Figure 1-1). Figure 1-1. Representative fatty acid salt chains, C8 and C18. Most naturally occurring fatty acids cont ain an even number of carbons in their chain with C16 and C18 being the most common (Weiss 1970). These chains are building blocks for more complex fatty acids that are used as energy stores in many organisms. Fatty acids may be saturated or unsaturated with unsaturated fatty acids being the most abundant in living organisms. Shorter fatty acid chains are water sol uble but become less so as the chain lengthens (Siegler and Popenoe 1925, Shepard 1951). The longer chains are viscous and form a gel in water. To increase solubility of fatty acids, a cation in the form of a mineral salt, potassium, sodium, or ammonium, must be added (E.g. potassium caprylate CH3CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-COO-K+). The addition of the salt causes hydrolysis of the carboxyl end of the fatty acid resulting in a bond with the salt. This formation of the fatty acid chain and mineral sa lt is commonly called a fatty acid salt or soap salt. O OH O OH Capryllic acid Stearic acid

PAGE 26

13 Chemical Structure of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts The fatty acids that are most commonly used in soap production are saturated, straight chain, monocarboxylic groups with even numbered carbon members (Puritch 1981). After the fatty acid is saponified w ith potassium hydroxide, a potassium fatty acid salt is precipitated (Table 1-2). Table 1-2 Common potassium salts. Technical Name Structural Name Chemical Formula Molecular Weight K+ caprylate octanoic acid C8H15KO2 182 K+ capryate decanoic acid C10H19KO2 210 K+ laurate dodecanoic acid C12H23KO2 238 K+ myristate tetradecanoic acid C14H27KO2 266 K+ palmitate hexadecanoic acid C16H31KO2 294 K+ stearate octadecanoic acid C18H35KO2 322 K+ oleate 9-octadecanoic acid C18H33KO2 320 K+ ricinoleate ricinoleic acid C18H33KO3 336 All examples are saturated except for K+ oleate (unsaturated) and K+ ricinoleate (unsaturated alcohol). The carboxyl end of the soap salt is hydrophi lic and carries a ne gative charge. The soap has a pH of 10 and is generally used as a cleaner (Willcox 1993). When in water, the negatively charged hydrophilic ends of the soap salts repel each other forming a spherical structure called a micelle. Non-polar soil or oil particles become suspended in the micelle and are held in solution (Knowlt on 1993). This action is known as surface active, or surfactant. Although th e mode of action is unclear wh en used as an insecticide, fatty acids and their salts have been s hown to have insecticidal properties. Insecticidal Uses of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts There is documented use of soaps as inse cticides from as early as 1781 (Shepard 1951). From 1880s through the early 1900s, cottonseed oil soaps and fish oil soaps

PAGE 27

14 were used by C.V. Riley, Albert Koebele, a nd Quayle to control scale insects. In 1925, Siegler and Popenoe documented that between 90 and 99% of Anuraphis sanburni Gill, black chrysanthemum aphids, we re killed with caproic, ca pric, and lauric fatty acid sprays. Myristic acid, however, demonstrated significantly less toxicity. These sprays were mixed with equal parts benzol and gasolin e to increase the solubility of the fatty acid salt. Powdered glue was also added to some of the solutions as a colloidal stabilizer. The mortality as a result of the above additives was not documented. It was noted that soap salts, potassium, sodium, and ammonium required higher concentrations to meet the same mortality as the fatty acids plus a dditives. This was later found that fatty acid salts could produce mortality rates as high or higher than the fatty acids alone (Puritch 1975). Siegler and Popenoe noted that aphid exposure to the soap salts resulted in paralysis where the dead insect remained att ached to the plant by th eir inserted beaks. After comparing fatty acids to fatty acid sa lts, the authors surmised that the free fatty acids were the toxic agents and were ab sorbed through the insect membranes and tracheae. In 1929, Van der Meulen and Van Leeuwen found that sodium and potassium soap salts from an assortment of animal a nd plant sources produced various amounts of mortality to the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman. The highest mortalities were found from palm oil, beef tallow, and co conut oil (65-85% mortality). Beetles were treated with a drenching spray in cages with foliage, and mortality was recorded at 24 h. In 1930, the efficacy of resin fish oil soap (6%) and a commercial soap, Crystal Cocoa (2%), on harlequin bugs, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn), Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), and an aphid species was test ed by dipping or spraying

PAGE 28

15 the insects (Fulton 1930). The author theo rized that the soap solution covered the spiracles with a film that bloc ked the air supply to the insect s. In order to test this hypothesis, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn ) were submerged in water for 25 minutes. All insects fully recovered and had no ill effects from the treatment. In comparison, after a five second soap exposure, 92% of the insect s were killed. To further investigate the hypothesis, India ink, as a dye marker, was added to the soap solution to visualize the penetration of the soap solution into the insect. Insects that died after soap exposure had ink that penetrated deep into the thoracic spir acles. The author concluded that soap did not cause mortality by blockage. He did note that since soap is always on hand in the household there is no reason why it should not be more extensively used as an insecticide for home gardens (Fulton 1930, p. 630). One of the most thorough studies of fatty acids and their soaps was performed by Dills and Menusan (1935). One important issu e that they addressed was the formulation changes in commercially available soaps. They found that soaps available in New York during the time of the study ranged from 30-70% water by weight. They stated that the use of soaps are not reliable because of produc t changes and that studies are of transient value because they must be repeated each time a new brand appears on the market. Instead of evaluating commercial soaps, th is study evaluated fatty acids and their potassium salts against the rose aphid, Macrosiphum rosae L., and the bean aphid, Aphis rumicus L. Because fatty acids have low solubi lity in water, sulphonated cod oil was added to the solution as an emul sifier. Aphids exposed to co d oil (0.5%) alone resulted in 9% mortality. Aphids exposed to capric acid (0.17%) and cod oil ( 0.5%) or lauric acid (0.17%) and cod oil (0.5%) resulted in the highest mortalit y at 45% and 42%

PAGE 29

16 respectively; however, there wa s some phytotoxicity. The fatt y acids that were the most toxic to the insects, lauric and capric aci ds, also caused plant injury to tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L. potato, Solanum tuberosum L., bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. cabbage, Brassica oleracea L. and nasturtium, Tropaeolum minus L. Aphids exposed to 0.5% po tassium oleate and 0.5% potassium laurate resulted in 89% and 67% mortality respectively. The authors also compared potassium oleate with sodium oleate at concentrations from 0.125 to 1%. Mortality of 98% was reached with concentrations 0.5%. The order of toxicity of the potassium soaps at 0.5% : oleate > laurate > caprate > caprylate > myristate > palmitiae. There was no significant mortality of aphids exposed to potassium caproate and potassium stearate when compared to controls. Dills and Menusan (1935) also attempted to relate the toxicity of soaps to their surface tension measurements. Surface tensi on was measured by the drop weight method and the angle of contact was measured. The angle of contact is the angle between the solid surface and the tangent to the liquid su rface. It was concluded that neither the surface tension nor the contact angles were good indicators of effectiveness of the soaps as contact insecticides. To verify tracheal penetration of the soa p, the authors submerged aphids in 0.5% potassium oleate with carbon black dye. They observed tracheal penetration into the large tracheae. Richards and Weygandt (1945) used various solvents, including kerosenes, mineral oils, hexane, pentane, and others, to trace penetration of substances into the nervous system of mosquito larvae. Detergents incl uding Tergitol #7, and a fatty acid, oleic acid, were introduced into the respiratory siphon. None of the detergents migrated to the

PAGE 30

17 nervous tissue of the insect. The oleic ac id had good diffusion into the tracheae but had less, or erratic penetration into the nervous tissue. Soaps as an insecticide and spreading agent was evaluated in 1956 (Srivastava a nd Srivastava 1956). A spreading agent increases the surface area of a liquid allowing the liquid to wet or st ick to a surface. When plants containing the mustard aphid, Siphocoryne indo-brassicae Das.were sprayed with a 4% solution of soap (unknown type), 100% mortality was achieved. When applied to leaves, the minimum percen tage of soap needed for complete wetting was 0.2-0.5% and the surface tension of 25.23 dynes/cm spread successfully on most plants. The creation of the Environmental Prot ection Agency in 1970 prompted new research on soaps as insecticides. After an application of a 0.1% coconut oil soap spray, Aphis gossypii Glover was reduced by 79% and A. spiraecola Pagenstecher by 72% on roadside plantings in California (Pinnock et al. 1974). One study found that 1% solutions of C10 capric and C18:1 oleic acid were most effec tive on balsam woolly aphids, Adelges piceae (Ratzburg) (Puritch 1975). To increase solubility of the fatty acids, 0.1% Tween, a non-ionic surfactant, was added to the so lutions. Unlike the results of Dills and Menusan (1935), when compared with the potas sium fatty acid salts, the potassium soaps performed better than the fatty acids alone. Potassium oleate LC50 was 0.20%. Puritch continued research on the effect of potassium salts of fatty acids on forest insect pests (Pruitch 1975, Pruitch 1978). Similar results were found with the highest mortality, 80100%, at a 1% solution of C10 potassium caprate and C18:1 potassium oleate. Insects tested included the balsam woolly aphid, Adelges piceae (Ratzburg), spruce gall aphid Adelges cooleyi (Gillette), western blackheaded budworm, Acleris gloverana (Walsingham), western spruce budworm, Choristonerua occidentalis Freeman, false

PAGE 31

18 hemlock looper, Nepytia freemani Monroe, forest-tent caterpillar, Malaacosoma disstria Hubner, and the Douglas -fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata McDonnough. Interestingly, Puritch (1978) demonstrat ed that immersions of yellow mealworm, Tenebrio molitor L. pupae in 5% solutions of olei c acid, linoleic acid, potassium oleate, and potassium linoleate caused early death. The author desc ribed the growth inhibition as juvenile hormone-like (Puritch 1978 p 108). In 1979, Ivory dishwashing liquid (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH), A cco Highway Plant Spray soap (38.5% coconut oil soap) (Acme Chemical Co., Blue Bell, PA), Shaklees Basic laundry bar soap (Shaklee, Pleasantville, CA) and Tide detergent (Proctor a nd Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) were tested on thrips Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis (Bouche), mites, Panonychus citri (McGregor), psyllids, Psylla uncatoides (Ferris and Klyver) and aphids, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Aphis citricola (van der Goot), and A. fabae in the home landscape (Moore et al. 1979). Ivory dishwashing liqui d at 1-2% provided the most consistent results. It was noted that soaps do not provide any residua l activity and must be applied often. Osborne provided a series of studies throughout the 1980s using soaps to control mites and plant diseases (Chase and Osborne 1983, Osborne 1982, Osborne 1984, Osborne and Henley 1982, Osborne and Pe titt 1985). Lindquist (1981) showed a reduction in the citrus mealybug on greenhouse plants when exposed to several soaps including Safers Insecticidal Soap and Murphys Oil Soap Koehler et al. (1983) found that Ivory dishwashing detergent, Acco Highway Plant Spray soap and Safers Insecticidal Soap significantly re duced numbers of whiteflies on vegetable plants. The reduction of pest numbers by the soaps was no different from an application of malathion. The authors noted that application at frequent intervals, weekly depending

PAGE 32

19 on crop, is necessary for maximum efficacy. Safer soap applications (weekly for six weeks) led to reduction in harves t weight (23%) of cabbage. Other solutions that have been tested include: a 4% solution of Fossil Flowers insecticidal soap against th e spruce budworm (Smith and Hubbes 1988), various cooking oils and liquid detergents against vegeta ble and cotton pests (B utler and Henneberry 1990, and Butler et al. 1993), a 4% solution of Impede insecticidal soap against thrips (Oetting and Latimer 1995), Safers insecticidal soap against deer ticks (Patrican and Allan 1995), a 2% solution of Mpede insecticidal soap agai nst psyllids (Weissling et al. 1997), Safers insecticidal soap against aphi ds on lettuce (Fournier and Brodeur 2000), and Savona insecticidal soap against whiteflies (Javed and Matthews 2002). It has been determined that certain fatt y acids can inhibit the growth of some crickets (McFarlane and Henneberry 1965). In one study with mosquito larvae, it was shown that fatty acid esters were not effec tive as insecticides (M axwell and Piper 1968). A 1955 test of short chain fatty acids demonstrat ed that the injection of sodium salts into various animals including dogs, rats, mice and frogs resulted in a comatose state for several minutes (Samson and Dahl 1955). A 1999 study showed that octanoic acid acts as an inhibiter to oviposition of Drosophila melanogaster Meigen and is an ovipostition stimulant to D. sechellia (Legal et al. 1999). The majority of the studies involving th e use of fatty acids and their salts as insecticides use them against softbodied in sects. A few of the previously mentioned studies from 1929 and 1930 tested soaps on hard -bodied insects such as harlequin bugs, Colorado potato beetles and Japanese beet les (Fulton 1930, and Van der Meulen and Van Leeuwen 1929). Attempts were not made on more sclerotized insects again until the

PAGE 33

20 1980s. Abbasi et al. (1984) tested two commercially ava ilable soaps, Chandrika and Surf against crickets, Gryllus sigillatus (Walker), and cockroaches, Periplaneta Americana L. When used as a contact insectic ide by splashing, a 0.5% solution of the Chandrika or Surf soaps achieved 100% mo rtality of crickets, and a 2% solution achieved 100% mortality in cockroaches. The authors theorized that the soaps cause spiracle blockage, and they noted that a soap-water spray may prove a safe and economical solution to insect pests. In 2002, Szumlas examined the behavioral responses and mortality of German cockroaches af ter exposure to Dawn dishwashing liquid (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) Szumlas (2002) found an overall LD50 of 0.4% and determined that females were more difficu lt to kill than nymphs or males. For a listing of selected studies using soaps agai nst arthropods refer to Table 1-3. Females exposedby a drenching spray to soap concentr ations greater than 1% resulted in 95% mortality. For all cockroach stages, exposur e to concentrations of 3% soap solution resulted in 100% mortality within 72 h. The author suggests that the mode of action is asphyxiation due to spiracle or tracheae blockage. Potential Mode of Action of Potassium Fatty Acid Salts The two most probable modes of action include cuticle disruption or spiracle blockage. Research has shown that fatty acids and their salts are contact only insecticides. They provide no residual activity. Cuticle disruption Olkowski et al. (1996) states that the mode of action of pesticidal soaps is dehydration after contact. The fa tty acid penetrates the cuticle and disrupts the cellular integrity causing leakage and collapse. Insect s susceptible to soap are often instantly paralyzed after contact. The Olympic Ho rticultural Products Insecticidal Soap 49.52

PAGE 34

21 CF label states that the mode of action is a disruption of the outer waxy layer that causes damage to the cuticle. The result is desicc ation and death. Puritc h (1981) agrees with this theory stating that the soap disrupts the lipoprotein matrix of the cellular membranes resulting in leakage and cellular death. Spiracle blockage and asphyxiation Ware (1994) combines two theories. The fi rst that the cuticle is disrupted causing the breakdown of cellular membranes and the se cond that due to the reduction of surface tension, water rushes into the spiracles re ducing oxygen availability to the insect. It seems that the majority of researchers lean towards the mechanical blockage of the spiracles or tracheae as the source of mortal ity in insects (Abbasi et al. 1984, Dills and Menusan 1935, Fulton 1930, Richards and We ygandt 1945, Szumals 2002). This theory seems plausible because soap is able to en ter and may be actively pumped in through the respiratory system of the insect. Unde r normal conditions, water cannot enter the spiracles of insects. Cockroaches undergo discontinuous gas exchange where the spiracles open and close in a gas exchange cycle (Lighton 1996). Insects also actively respire using muscles to pump air in a nd out of the tracheal system (Slama 1999, Westneat 2003). Because of this air excha nge system, many insects are able to close their spiracles, and some have a ring of hydrophobic hairs surr ounding the spiracular opening. Besides physical structures, the chem ical nature of water also aids in the waterproofing of the insect respiratory sy stem. Water has a high surface tension so cannot enter the tracheal system of insects. When the surface tensi on is reduced to half of that of water by an emulsion, the soluti on may enter the tracheae. A soap solution would be an example of this (Behrens 1964, Wilcoxon and Hartzell 1931). Once inside,

PAGE 35

22 the liquid can spread along th e walls of the tracheal tubes (Brown 1951). Tattersfield and Gimingham (1927) note that rapid paralysis occurs after soap solutions enter the tracheal system. They attribute this to haemolytic action. In summary, cockroaches in the urban e nvironment pose a health risk to humans via their allergens and potent ial to spread communicable disease. Environmental and health concerns have led many to combat the cockroach prob lem by way of an integrated pest management system including iden tification and monitoring, sanitation and exclusion, education, and chemical control. Potassium fatty acid salts have insecticidal properties and may serve as a stop-gap measure to control cockroaches in sensitive environments. Statement of Purpose The goals of this research were to firs t determine general views and behaviors of the Florida population towards common insect pests and pesticide usage. Secondly, to determine the toxicity of comme rcial blends of fatty acid salt s by a comparative bioassay. The assay considered knockdown and mortalit y by formulation type, application method, life stage and cockroach species. Thirdly, to determine the toxicity of individual fatty acid salt chains by comparison of increasing c oncentrations. Lastly to determine the mode of action of potassium fatty acid salts through electrophysio logical examination.

PAGE 36

23Table 1-3. Selected references testing va rious soap solutions against arthropods. Author and Date Insect Common Name % soap soap ~ % mortality Siegler and Popenoe 1925 Anuraphis roseus Baker rosy apple aphid Aphis pomi DeGreer green apple aphid 0.00008% capric and lauric acids >96% Aphis rumicis Linn bean aphid Anuraphis sanburni Gill black chrysanthemum aphid 0.002% caprylic acid >90% Myzus cerasi Fab black cherry aphid Macrosiphum rudbeckiae Fitch aster aphid Tattersflield and Gimingham 1927 Aphis rumicis L. bean aphid 0.5% fatty acids and salts 100% Van der Meulan and Van Leeuwen 1929 Popillia japonica Newman Japanese beetle 0.45% (sodium) coconut oil 85% 0.45% (sodium) palm oil 73% 0.45% (potassium) palm oil 70% 0.45% (potassium) beef tallow 68% Fulton 1930 Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) harlequin bug 2.00% Crysta l cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.) 92% 6.00% resin fish oil soap high Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) Colorado potato beetle 2.00% Crystal cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.) 50% Unknown aphid from Lactuca lettuce 2.00% Crystal cocoa soap (Palmolive-Peet Co.) 97% Fleming and Baker 1934 In Shepard 1951 Popillia japonica Newman Japanese beetle ------------------------

PAGE 37

24Table 1-2 continued. Author and Date Insect Common Name % soap soap ~% mortality Dills and Menusan 1935 Aphis rumicis L. bean aphid 0.17% capric acid + 0.25% cod oil 45% 0.17% lauric acid + 0.25% cod oil 42% 0.50% sodium oleate 82% 1.00% sodium oleate 98% 0.05% potassium oleate 81% 1.00% sodium oleate 98% 0.05% oleic acid 85% 1.00% coconut oil soap 99% 1.00% palm oil soap 100% 1.00% cottonseed oil soap 100% Macrosiphum rosae (L.) rose a phid 0.05% oleic acid 89% Hyalopterus arundinis Fab. plum aphid 1.00% coconut oil soap 97% Thrips tabaci (Lindeman). onion thrips 1.00% olive oil soap 80% Srivastava and Srivastava 1956 Siphocoryne indo-brassicae Das. mustard aphid 4.00% soap 100% Pinnock et al. 1974 Aphis gossypii Glover melon aphid 1.00% coconut oil soap 79% 0.05% coconut oil soap 60% 0.01% coconut oil soap 75% Aphis spiraecola Pagenstecher green citrus aphid 1.00% coconut oil soap 72% 0.05% coconut oil soap 72% 0.01% coconut oil soap 47%

PAGE 38

25Table 1-2 continued. Author and Date Insect Common Name % soap soap ~ % mortality Puritch 1975 Adelges piceae (Ratzburg) balsam woolly adelgid 1.00% Potassium oleate 98% 1.50% Potassium caprate 30% 1.00% Potassium caprate 34% 0.50% Potassium oleate 89% 0.50% Potassium caprate 39% 0.1% Potassium oleate 23% Puritch 1987 Adelges piceae (Ratzburg) balsam woolly aphid 1.00% Potassium caprate 93% Adelges cooleyi (Gillette) spruce gall aphid 1.00% Potassium caprate 82% Acleris gloverana (Walsingham) western blackheaded budworm1.00% Potassium oleate 91% Choristoneura occidentalis Freemanwestern spruce budworm 1.00% Potassium laurate 99% Nepytia freemani Monroe false hemlock looper 1.00% Potassium caprate 99% Malacosoma disstria Hubner forest-tent caterpillar 1.00% Potassium oleate 64% Orgyia pseudotsugata McDonnough Douglas-fir tussock moth 1.00% Potassium oleate 98% Tenebrio molitor L yellow mealworms 5.00% Potassium oleate 100% Moore et al. 1979 Heliothrips haemorrhoidali (Bouche) greenhouse thrips 1.00% Acco Plant Spray 99% Panonychus citri (McGregor) citrus red mite 1.00% Ivory 85% Psylla uncatoides (Ferris and Klyver) acacia psyllid 3.00% Ivory 43% Myzus persicae (Sulzer) green peach aphid 1.50% Ivory 98% Aphis citricola (van der Goot) brown citrus aphid 1.50% Ivory 98% Aphis fabae black bean aphid 1.50% Ivory 98% Lindquist 1981 Planococcus citri citrus mealybug 0.06% Safers Insecticidal Soap 90%

PAGE 39

26Table 1-2 continued. Author and Date Insect Common Name % soap soap (up to) % mortality Osborne and Henley 1982 Tetranychus urticae Koch two-spotted spider mite 3.13% Safers Insecticidal Soap 89% Koehler et al. 1983 Trialeurodes vaporariourm (Westwood) greenhouse whitefly ----Ivory 99% 38.5% Acco Plant Spray 95% 50.5% Safers Insecticidal Soap 89% Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) potato aphid ----Ivory 34%% 38.5% Acco Plant Spray 37% 50.5% Safers Insecticidal Soap 40% Tetranychus urticae Koch two-spotted spider ----Ivory 58% 38.5% Acco Plant Spray 32% 50.5% Safers Insecticidal Soap 11% Osborne 1984 Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot predatory mite 0.01% Insecticidal soap 100% Abbasi et al. 1984 Gryllus sigtllatus (L.) house cricket 0.5% Chandrika and Surf 100% Periplaneta Americana (L.) American cockroach 2.0% Chandrika and Surf 100% Smith and Hubbes 1988 Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens) spruce budworm 4.0% Fossil Flowers Insecticidal Soap 100% Butler and Henneberry 1990 Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) sweetpotato whitefly 6.0% Dawn, Dove, Ivory, Joy + oils 99% Tetranychus spp. spider mites 6.0% Dawn, Dove, Ivory, Joy + oils 99%

PAGE 40

27Table 1-2 continued. Author and Date Insect Common Name % soap soap ~% mortality Butler et al. 1993 Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) sweetpotato whitefly 1.0% insecticidal soaps and detergents 100% Oetting and Latimer 1995 Neoseiulus cducumeris (Oudermans) thrips predator 4.0% insecticidal soap <50% Patrican and Allan 1995 Ixodidae scapularis Say deer tick 40% Safers Insecticidal Soap 100% Wessling et al. 1997 Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster) pear psylla 2.0% M-Pede Insecticidal Soap N/A Fournier and Brodeur 2000 Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) potato aphid 0.25-5% Safers Insecticidal Soap 100% Myzus persicae (Sulzer) green peach aphid 0.255% Safers Insecticidal Soap 100% Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley) lettuce aphid 0.25-5% Safers Insecticidal Soap 100% Javed and Matthews 2002 Trialeurodes vaporariorum whitefly ----insecticidal soap 69% Szumlas 2002 Blattella germanica (L.) German cockroach 3.0% Dawn 100%

PAGE 41

28 CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PEST PROBLEMS Introduction Historically, insects have been an infl uential part of human culture. Insect influence can be found in our language, ar t, history, philosophy and religion (Hogue 1987, Berenbaum 2001, Capinera 2003, Capine ra 2005, Cherry 2002, Rutledge 2003.) While insects are a cultural influence, many observe them with aversion, fear and loathing (Kellert 1993). Surveys concerning insects and their control have been utilized by urban entomologists to gauge public opinion for more than a quarter of a century. Frankie and Levenson (1978) compared how city and rural residents of Texas related to insects. Wood et al. 1981 surveyed att itudes towards and knowledge of cockroaches in public housing in Virginia and Maryland. Levenson and Frankie (1983) studi ed attitudes about pests and pesticides used. They compared socioeconomic groups from Texas, California and New Jersey. In 1983, Bennett et al. survey ed people in Indiana a bout their pattern of pesticide use in homes. In Arizona, Byrne et al. (1984) surveyed public attitudes towards arthropods both in and outside the home. Zungoli and Robinson (1984) surveyed public housing residents in Virginia and Maryland fo r their attitudes rega rding the asthetic injury caused by cockroaches. Kellert (1993) su rveyed people of Connecticut about their basic values regarding inve rtebrates and their conservation. In 1995, Hahn and Ascerno surveyed the Minnesota public for their pe rceptions of urban arthropods and in 1998, Potter and Bessin conducted a telephone surv ey in Kentucky to determine attitudes

PAGE 42

29 towards urban arthropods and their perceptions about pest control prac tices. The state of Florida, with all of its pest pressures has only been addressed in a few questions by The Agriculture Institute of Florida annual su rvey (Agriculture Institute 1999). Although many of these studies have addressed the publics attitude towards insect pests, few have addressed behavioral response toward the inse cts. The objectives of this study were to address the importance of categories of ur ban pests, determine thresholds where participants exhibit behavioral changes to ta ke action against a pest and to evaluate the likelihood that people would cons ider using homemade products such as soap to solve a pest problem. Materials and Methods A survey was conducted 27 March to 4 Ma y 2004 through the office of the Florida Survey Research Center (FSRC) at the Univer sity of Florida. The survey was delivered using a computer aided telephone interview (CATI) with a randomdigit dialing (RDD) system. The telephone sample was obtain ed by generating random telephone numbers from existing area codes and prefixes from areas throughout the stat e of Florida. The FSRC makes every effort to complete survey interviews from the initial random list of telephone numbers. If an initia l call resulted in no answer, a systematic call back system was used where the number was called at a di fferent time on a different day of the week until a person was reached. If no one was r eached after four attempts, that number was deleted from the list and was replaced with a new number. If the call was answered, but the person was unable to complete the intervie w at that time, every effort was made to schedule a more convenient time for the interview. Calls we re scheduled at different times of the day on weekdays and weekends to evenly sample employed persons. Interviewers were FSRC employees who ha d been trained in telephone interview

PAGE 43

30 techniques, and interviews at the FSRC were randomly monitored by a manager for quality control. Interviewers had no prev ious entomological tr aining and were only allowed to expand on instrument questions with provided examples. The survey instrument was pilot tested prior to actual data collection to ensure that the questions and delivery methods were appropriate. Interviews (n=600) were successfully completed from a total of 4501 calls to active phone numbers. There were 1394 refusals for a response rate of 44.9% and a completion rate of 13.3%. The remainder of calls resulted in no answer after 4 attempts. The survey instrument consisted of 54 base questi ons with 62 secondary and 16 demographic questions (Appendix A). The average inte rview time was 12 min 38 sec. After completion, responses were split into two sect ions, one of questions dealing with insect pests and one with pesticide usage. The FSRC monitors gender and race to ensure that residents of the state are accurately represen ted. All interviews were made of persons over 18 years of age. Frequency tables were generated for each survey question and associations among demographic variables were tested with a Pear sons chi-square test of homogeneity (SAS Institute 2001). It is important to note that a small number of part icipants chose not to answer certain questions or responded with dont know. Percent response for each question not totaling 100% i ndicates a number of no response or do not know responses. Do not know and no respons e categories were omitted from the chisquare analysis.

PAGE 44

31 Results Demographics The survey population consisted of 61% females and 39% males. Ninety-five percent maintained full-time residency in Flor ida. A quarter of the survey population had moved to the state in the last decade, and 81% were homeowners. Pets were owned by 57% of the population and 78% kept them inside the home. Fifty-eight percent y of the population had an income greater than fifty thousand dollars per year. The average age of the survey participant was 49, and 44% of the population had a college degree (Table 2-1). The average number of adults per ho me was 2.01 and the average number of children per home was 1.99. Th irty-six percent of homes contained children under the age of 5. One quarter of the population indicate d that they were allergic to insects or insect bites and 14% indicated that they had allergies or were chemically sensitive to pesticides. More women than men indicated th at they were both chemically sensitive to pesticides and allergic to insect s and insect bites (Table 2-2). Importance of Categories of Urban Pests To begin the survey, a question was asked to allow the interviewee to focus their thoughts on the survey topic. The initial ques tion was, How harmful do you think insect pests are to your household? Insect pests being very harmful was indicated by 16% of the survey population, 52% said they were some what harmful, 30% said they were not at all harmful. Two percent said that they di d not know how harmful insect pests were to their household. Insect pests were divided into four ca tegories, crawling, flying, wood destroying, and lawn and tree pests. Examples of craw ling insects included ants and cockroaches,

PAGE 45

32 flying insects included mosquitoes, flies, and wasps, wood destroying insects included termites and lawn and tree insects included fire ants, mole crickets, and chinch bugs. A second question was asked in three parts. Which of the four categories of insect pests is the most difficult for you to control, do you think is most harmful to peoples health, and do you spend the most money trying to contro l? There were no significant differences in response to these questions based on gende r or the presence of children less than 5 years of age in the home. Fo rty-two percent of the survey respondents felt that crawling pests were the most difficult to control fo llowed by 22% that said lawn and tree pests were most difficult. Half (50%) said that flying insect pests were the most harmful followed by 30% that said crawling insects. Fifty percent of the population believed that they spent more money controlling crawling pe sts than any other pe st category (Table 23). This question addressed the perception of how much money a pe rson spent on insect control and did not qua ntify how much money was actually spent. After the initial questions, the sample of interviewees (N=600) was divided into those who indicated that they used pesticides (82%), thos e that do not use pesticides (18%) and of those non-pesticide users, thos e who would never use pesticides (8%). Factors Related to a Behavioral Change Of consumers who use pesticides, the prim ary factor for purchasing pest control products was seeing insect damage in or around the home (89%) followed by knowledge that insect pests posed a health hazard (88 %) or feeling pests were a danger to the household (85%) (Table 2-4). Of the survey population that responded very important for the following categories of pest factors in fluencing their purchase of pest control, 72% responded that seeing live insects was very important; 51% responded that knowing there was a potential for insect damage in or around their homes was very important;

PAGE 46

33 74% responded that knowing there was a health hazard associated with pests was very important and 76% responded that feeling pest s posed a danger to their family was very important. Additionally, roughly twice as many women when compared with men felt that seeing live insects was a very importa nt factor when deciding to purchase pest control (Table 2-5). In contrast to participants who use pesticides, participants who do not use pesticides felt that their primary factor for purchasing pest control products and services was feeling that insect pests posed a dange r to the family (86%), followed by seeing insect damage in or around the home (82%), and knowledge that insect pests posed a health hazard (82%) (Table 2-6). After determining what insect related f actors prompted the typical non-pesticide user to take action, the action the non-pestic ide would take against the insect pest was identified. Respondents were asked to rank how likely they would be to take a certain action against a particular cate gory of insect pests. When asked how non-pesticide users would deal with flying insects, their most likely pest control action would be to repair or install screens on windows and doors (68%), and the second most likely action was physical removal of the pest (59%) (Table 2-7). When asked how they would solve a probl em with termites, non-pesticide users would be more likely to re pair damage and eliminate w ood to ground contact (73%) and then would be likely to apply a long lasting so il or slab treatment (68%). Interestingly, 32% said that they would likely physically remove the termites (Table 2-7). The likely action against crawling insects would be exclusion by applying caulking to cracks (79%) and secondarily to spot treat as needed (63%). Lawn and tree insects

PAGE 47

34 would likely be dealt with by spot treati ng areas as needed (59%) and testing and fertilizing soil to maintain healthy plants (55%) (Table 2-7). Eight percent (N=48) of the survey populat ion indicated that they would never use pesticides. This group was asked how they d ealt with certain groups of insect pests. Choices such as physical removal by st omping, swatting, sweeping, or trapping, or exclusionary measures such as caulking cracks, screening windows and doors, and repairing wood damage, or maintaining hea lthy plants, were given. In open-ended questions, respondents were also allowed to co mment on other actions they were likely to take to combat the pests. For each pest ca tegory, respondents indicated that they were most likely to perform some exclusionary m easures to keep pests out (78% for flying insect pests, 67% for termites, 67% for crawli ng pests, and 50% for lawn and tree pests). They were also likely to physically remove th e insect pest (59% for flying insect pests, 35% for termites, 63% for crawling pests, and 35% for lawn and tree pests) (Table 2-8). Those who would never use pesticides were asked if they used other method of controls, besides physical removal or exclus ion. For flying insect control, 14% (N=7) would use another control method with 86% be ing likely or very likely to choose that alternative option. For termite control, 37% (N=18) would try a nother control method with 89% likely or very likely to choose th at option. For crawling insects, 25% (N=12) would choose another control method with 100% being likely to c hoose that option, and for lawn and tree insects 15% (N=8) would sele ct an alternative control option with 100% likely or very likely to try that option. When asked in an open-ended question a bout which control method they would use instead of exclusion or physical removal, although they claimed they would never use

PAGE 48

35 pesticides, many indicated some sort of chem ical control. Fifty-seven percent (N=4) would choose a professional or pesticide opti on for flying insects. Ninety-four percent (N=17) would hire a professional or use a pest icide to control termites. Half (50%, N=6) would use pesticides to control crawling pe sts, and 100% (N=8) would use a professional or pesticide to control lawn a nd tree pests. Some alternativ e options that were listed by the survey population included, sanitation, light traps, sprayi ng with hair spray, spraying with Lysol, using boric acid, and biological control by allowing pets to eat the pests (Table 2-9). Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option All respondents were asked whether they had tried any kind of homemade product, including soaps and cleaners, to control insect pests. Forty-two percent of the survey population (N=253) had tried a homemade pe st control product. Seventy percent (N=177) of those had tried their homemade pr oduct to control craw ling insects. Fewer had tried to control lawn and tree insects, 28% (N=72), fl ying insects, 15% (N=38) and wood destroying insects, 6% (N=14). In an open-ended question asking what other insects they had used the homemade product to control, 6% (N=15) of the survey population indicated that they had attempted c ontrol of garden pests including aphids and another 6% (N=15) had attempted flea cont rol. When asked how effective these homemade treatments were, 48% (N =122) felt that they were e ffective or very effective, 26% (N=65) were neutral in th eir opinion and 23% (N=59) fe lt they were ineffective. More pet owners (64.5%) were more likely to have tried a homemade pest control solution than respondents who did not own pets (35.5%) ( x2=8.05, df=1, P =0.0045). To determine which insect pests were probl ematic within the last year, respondents were asked which category of in sect pests they had combated in the last year. Crawling

PAGE 49

36 pests were the primary problem, 71% (N=428) followed by lawn pests, 55% (N=335), flying pests, 38% (N=230), garden pests, 27% (N=159), stored product pests, 13% (N=80) and termites, 10% (N=59). Discussion Sixty-eight percent of the Fl orida population felt that in sect pests were somewhat or very harmful to their household. Previous surveys found that people have an aversion to insects in their home and they would like to completely eliminate cockroaches from existence (Kellert 1993). Byrne et al. ( 1984) found that 88% of an Arizona survey population was afraid or disliked arthropods indoors, yet the arthropods listed by respondents were not structurally damagi ng, and few presented a health hazard. Similarly, Hahn and Ascerno (1991) found that 86% of a Minnesota population disliked or were afraid of indoor arthropods. A po ssible explanation for the difference in the populations is that the Arizona and Minneso ta studies focused on indoor arthropods, while this survey asked only about insect pests and did not specify a location. Also, the term pest was not defined for the survey pa rticipant, so the answ ers were based on the persons perception of a pest. The most important category of urban pest in my survey, based on perceived cost and difficulty to control, was the crawli ng pest. Additionally, 71% of the survey population in my study reportedly had a problem with crawling insects in the previous year. This response rate may be due to a lo w tolerance for crawling insects. Potter and Bessin (1998) found that the to lerance for indoor ar thropods in Kentucky was low. For example, the tolerance for crawling insects such as cockroaches was 0-1. Many public-health related i ssues, such as sting or bite reaction, and disease transmission are associated with flying inse cts. The Florida survey population perceived

PAGE 50

37 flying insects as the most harmful category of insect pests. Pest control companies are beginning to adapt to this pe rception and are including public-h ealth related pest control to their services (McKenna 2005). Many times surveys only establish attitudes and do not reveal the behaviors of the survey population. Because behavior is less likely to be influenced by extraneous variables, it is considered to be a true i ndicator of a persons attitude (Levenson and Frankie 1983). When something is of concern to a person, there is a threshold that is met before action is taken. The action in this ca se is the behavior. Pesticide users and nonpesticide users had differing thresholds when ta king action against insect pests. Pesticide users felt that seeing insect damage in or around the home was the primary impetus for taking action against insect pests by purchasi ng pest management products or services. Non-pesticide users indicated th at they took action when they felt that insect pests posed a danger to the family. This survey revealed that those participants who indicated that they would never use pesticides would in fact resort to pesticides when faced with a pest problem. Potter and Bessin (1998) reported that 96.2% of their survey population could not define integrated pest management in the cont ext of pest control. Furthermore, 66% of the survey population would be more inclined to use naturally derived products in their homes (Potter and Bessin 1998). While the public may not be able to define integrated pest management, my survey indicated that a portion of the populati on is practicing it. Besides pesticides, the Florida survey population seemed willing to try alternative control strategies including exclusion and homemade products. Controlling insect pests, mainly crawling pests, with an alte rnative control method was impor tant enough that 42% of the

PAGE 51

38 total survey population had created and used some form of homemade pest control product. Nearly half of the homemade pest control users felt that their method was effective. Conservatively, more than 20% of pest co ntrol companies in the United States are located in the state of Florida (FDACS 2005, NPMA 2005). Therefore, the motivations regarding pest management practices of the Florida population have economic implications. People are motivated by perc eived damage or danger to their home or family to act against insect pests. In 2002, $5.65 billion dollars were spent in the United States on professional pest control services and currently termites are estimated to cause over $2.5 billion dollars in damage each year (FPMA 2005). For extension entomologists and the pest c ontrol industry to properly ed ucate their clientele about reduced risk approaches to pest problems, knowledge of the attitudes and perceptions of the Florida population is important.

PAGE 52

39 Table 2-1. Demographic profile of the 600 partic ipants in the Florida perceptions of pests survey. Demographic N % respondents Gender Male 232 38.67 Female 368 61.33 Age 18-29 93 19.18 30-39 94 29.81 40-49 119 19.84 50-65 179 15.67 >65 115 15.50 Education level
PAGE 53

40Table 2-2. Demographic differences between chemically sensitiv e people and people allergic to insects and insect bites. % Response Yes No x2 df P Insect allergies Total population 25.33 71.67 Gender (n=582) Male 15.77 84.23 Female 32.50 67.50 19.93 1 <0.0001 Chemically sensitive Total population 13.83 78.67 Gender (n=555) Male 8.64 91.36 Female 19.10 80.90 11.44 1 0.0007

PAGE 54

41Table 2-3. Response to the question, "Which of th e following categories of insect pests . Which of the following categories. . N pest category % responses is most difficult to control? 589 flying 14.83 crawling 41.67 wood destroying 15.83 lawn and tree 22.17 is most harmful? 566 flying 49.67 crawling 29.67 wood destroying 7.83 lawn and tree 5.50 costs more to control? 580 flying 9.50 crawling 49.50 wood destroying 16.67 lawn and tree 17.17 Percent response for each question not to taling 100% indicates a number of no response or do not know responses.

PAGE 55

42Table 2-4. Pesticide users reasons for purchasing pest co ntrol products or services and their importance (N=492). % Response1 Question important2 neutral not important3 Seeing live insects in or around your home 85.16 9.35 5.08 Seeing dead insects in or around your home 56.09 20.33 22.16 Seeing insect damage in or around your home 89.03 4.88 4.67 Knowing the potential for insect damage in or around your home 71.34 19.51 7.73 Knowing there is a health hazard associ ated with pests 87.60 6.71 4.88 Feeling pests pose a danger to your family 84.96 7.32 6.71 1Percent response for each quest ion not totaling 100% indicates a number of no response or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. 2Survey categories very important and somewhat important were combined 3Survey categories not important and somewhat unimportant were combined

PAGE 56

43Table 2-5. Responses for pest factors influencing purchase of pest control products or services based on gender. % Response Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P important unimportant important important Seeing live insects Gender (n=490) Male 50.00 46.15 54.35 53.03 33.99 Female 50.00 53.85 45.65 46.97 66.01 14.59 4 0.0056 Percent of total 2.45 2.65 9.39 13.47 72.04 Knowing there is a potential for inse ct damage in or around your home Gender (n=485) Male 29.41 47.62 48.96 49.02 30.92 Female 70.59 52.38 51.04 50.98 69.08 16.45 4 0.0025 Percent of total 3.51 4.33 19.79 21.03 51.34

PAGE 57

44Table 2-5 continued % Response Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P important unimportant important important Knowing there is a health hazard associated with pests Gender (n=488) Male 70.00 42.86 57.58 50.00 34.35 Female 30.00 57.14 42.42 50.00 65.65 15.73 4 0.0034 Percent of total 2.05 2.87 6.76 14.34 73.98 Feeling that pests pose a danger to your family Gender (n=487) Male 64.29 42.11 61.11 52.08 34.59 Female 35.71 56.89 38.89 47.92 65.41 17.61 4 0.0015 Percent of total 2.87 3.90 7.39 9.86 75.98 Response columns for male and female total 100%.

PAGE 58

45Table 2-6. Non-pesticide users rank of the importance of some r easons for purchasing pest contro l products or services (n=59). %Response1 Question important2 neutral not important3 Seeing live insects in or around your home 67.86 19.64 10.72 Seeing dead insects in or around your home 55.36 16.07 28.57 Seeing insect damage in or around your home 82.15 8.93 8.93 Knowing the potential for insect dama ge in or around your home 64.29 16.07 16.07 Knowing there is a health hazard associated with pests 82.14 10.71 5.36 Feeling pests pose a danger to your family 85.71 7.14 7.14 1Percent response for each quest ion not totaling 100% indicates a number of no response or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. 2Survey categories very important and somewhat important were combined 3Survey categories not important and somewhat unimportant were combined

PAGE 59

46Table 2-7. Response from non-pesticide users to the question, "How likely are you to take that (p est control) action to solve a problem? (n=59) % response1 Insect Problem Pest Control Solution likely2 neutral not likely3 Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) Apply a long lasting spray 33.92 25.00 41.08 Fog the area as needed 35.71 16.07 48.21 Physical removal by swatti ng, sweeping or trapping 58.93 16.07 23.22 Repair or install screens on windows or doors 67.85 10.71 21.43 Termites Apply a long lasting soil or slab treatment 67.86 3.57 19.65 Spot treat or bait as needed 62.50 16.07 16.07 Physical removal by stomping, sweeping or trapping 32.15 10.71 53.57 Repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact 73.21 8.93 14.29

PAGE 60

47Table 2-7 continued % response1 Insect Problem Pest Control Solution likely2 neutral not likely3 Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) Apply a long lasting spray 51.78 19.64 26.78 Spot treat or bait as needed 62.50 12.50 19.64 Physical removal by swatti ng, sweeping or trapping 58.93 21.43 19.65 Apply caulking to cracks to pr event insect entrance 78.57 10.71 10.72 Lawn and tree insects (mole cric kets, chinch bugs, fire ants) Apply a long lasting spray 48.22 25.00 19.65 Spot treat the area as needed 58.93 19.64 17.86 Physical removal by trapping 25.00 21.43 51.79 Test and fertilize soil to maintain plant health 55.35 17.86 21.43 1Percent response for each que stion not totaling 100% indicates a number of no response or do not know responses. Respondents were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. 2Survey categories very likely and somewhat likely were combined 3Survey categories not likely and somewhat unlikely were combined

PAGE 61

48Table 2-8. Response of people who would neve r use pesticides to the que stion: "How likely would you be to take the following actions to solve a pest problem in or around your home? (n=48) % response Insect Problem Pest Control Solution likely neutral not likely Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping 59.18 10.20 28.57 Repair or install screens on windows or doors 77.55 6.12 14.28 Termites Physical removal by stompi ng, sweeping or trapping 34.69 10.20 51.02 Repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact 67.34 8.16 20.41 Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) Physical removal by swatting, sweeping or trapping 63.27 12.24 22.45 Apply caulking to cracks to pr event insect entrance 67.35 12.24 16.32 Lawn and tree insects (mole cric kets, chinch bugs, fire ants) Physical removal by trapping 34.70 8.16 51.02 Test and fertilize soil to maintain plant health 46.93 10.20 38.77 1Percent response for each quest ion not totaling 100% indicates a number of no response or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. 2Survey categories very likely and somewhat likely were combined. 3Survey categories not likely and somewhat unl ikely were combined.

PAGE 62

49 49Table 2-9. Comments specified by people who indicat ed they would never use pesticides (n=48). Insect Problem Control Solution Numb er of responses % of never use population Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) (N=7) Use a light trap 1 2.08 Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide 4 8.33 Remove food sources 1 2.08 Spray with hair spray 1 2.08 Termites (N=18) Call an exterminator/professiona l or use a pesticide 17 35.42 Alternative recourse 1 2.08 Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) (N=12) Clean area and eliminate food source 3 6.25 Spray with Lysol 1 2.08 Use boric acid 1 2.08 Let cat eat the insects 1 2.08 Call an exterminator/professiona l or use a pesticide 6 12.50

PAGE 63

50 50Table 2-9 continued. Insect Problem Control Solution Numb er of responses % of never use population Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets chinch bugs, fire ants) (N=8) Call an exterminator/professiona l or use a pesticide 8 16.67 These comments were open ended responses given when asked what ot her action they would take in c ontrolling a part icular categor y of insect pests.

PAGE 64

51 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR S TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE Introduction To combat arthropods in or around their home and to improve aesthetics, people rely on pesticides (Potter and Bessin 1998). Bennett et al. (1983) in Indiana, and Byrne and Carpenter (1983) in Arizona, found that 78 and 87.1% of their survey population, respectively, used pesticides in or around th eir homes. Florida, with its temperate and tropical ecosystems, has pest pressures year round. The Agriculture Institute of Florida found that 82.2% of the Florida public felt that the hom e use of pesticides for pest control was important to their lifestyle, and nearly half of those indicated that they hired professional services to manage their pest problems (Ag Institute 1999). In a state with over 17 million residents, these factors have lead to a booming pest control industry. In 2005, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services listed 2500 pest control companies with 4300 certified operators and 250 special identification card holders. For pests to be ma naged effectively and pesticides to be used safely, consumers must understand what the pest problem is and what options they have in solving it. Understanding how the public feels about sc ience and technology can help us to determine how public policy is decided (Wei ss and Rajotte 2001). As an example, in September 2005, Senator Frank Lautenberg (Dem ocrat-NJ) reintroduced legislation to the United States Senate for the School Envi ronmental Protection Act (SEPA). This

PAGE 65

52 potential law would restrict th e use of pesticides in and around schools and would require schools to notify parents prior to pesticid e applications (US Senate 2005). School integrated pest management (IPM) programs have increased in many states because of childrens environmental health concerns. Integrated pest ma nagement is the process of using a variety of technologi cal and management practices to achieve long-term, environmentally sound pest suppression. Nine percent of the 2004 growth market for pest control was in IPM contra cts (McKenna 2005) with a vast majority of the companies claiming they offer some form of IPM service. Knowing the audience is a basic principle of marketing (Frankie et al. 1996). For IPM practices to work in home pest control, the audience pe rceptions must be addressed. The objective of this study wa s to evaluate pesticide use patterns and satisfaction with non-chemical control methods. Materials and Methods A survey was conducted 27 March to 4 Ma y 2004 through the office of the Florida Survey Research Center (FSRC) at the Univer sity of Florida. The survey was delivered using a computer aided telephone interview (CATI) with a randomdigit dialing (RDD) system. The telephone sample was obtain ed by generating random telephone numbers from existing area codes and prefixes from areas throughout the stat e of Florida. The FSRC makes every effort to complete survey interviews from the initial random list of telephone numbers. If an initia l call resulted in no answer, a systematic call back system was used where the number was called at a di fferent time on a different day of the week until a person was reached. If no one was r eached after four attempts, that number was deleted from the list and was replaced with a new number. If the call was answered, but the person was unable to complete the intervie w at that time, every effort was made to

PAGE 66

53 schedule a more convenient time for the interview. Calls we re scheduled at different times of the day on weekdays and weekends to evenly sample employed persons. Interviewers were FSRC employees who ha d been trained in telephone interview techniques, and interviews at the FSRC were randomly monitored by a manager for quality control. Interviewers had no prev ious entomological tr aining and were only allowed to expand on instrument questions with provided examples. The survey instrument was pilot tested prior to actual data collection to ensure that the questions and delivery methods were appropriate. Interviews (N=600) were successfully completed from a total of 4501 calls to active phone numbers. There were 1394 refu sals for a response rate of 44.9% and a completion rate of 13.3%. The remainder of calls resulted in no answer after 4 attempts. The survey instrument consisted of 54 base questions with 62 secondary and 16 demographic questions (Appendix A). The average interview time was 12 min 38 s. After completion, responses were split into tw o sections, one of questions dealing with insect pests and one with pesticide usage. The FSRC monitors gender and race to ensure that residents of the state are accurately represented. All interviews were made of persons over 18 years of age. Frequency tables were generated for each survey question and associations among demographic variables were tested with a Pear sons chi-square test of homogeneity (SAS Institute 2001). It is important to note that a small number of part icipants chose not to answer certain questions or responded with dont know. Percent response for each question not totaling 100% i ndicates a number of no response or do not know

PAGE 67

54 responses. Do not know and no respons e categories were omitted from the chisquare analysis. Results Responses of Consumers That Utilize Pesticides Eighty-two percent of people us e pesticides in their home or yard. Indoor pesticide use was indicated by 34% of pesticide users, outdoor use by 43% a nd pesticide use both indoors and outdoors by 23%. The percent of pesticide users that sometimes use pesticides indoors was 75%, and 71% outdoors. About 22% and 25% respectively used pesticides often in those locations. Of the survey population that said they di d not used pesticides (18% of the total survey population), 86% believed that they were chemically sensitive. Interestingly, of the survey population that sa id they did use pesticides (82% of the total survey population), 68% also said that they believed themselves to be chemically sensitive ( x2=16.13, df=1, P <0.0001). Of those surveyed who use pesticides, 79% use over-the-counter (OTC) pesticides and 54% use professional services. That im plies that a quarter of consumers use both over-the-counter pesticides and professional services to contro l their pest problems. The majority of all survey respondents expre ssed a willingness to use over-the-counter pesticides at all income levels (Table 3-1) More over-the-counter pesticide users have used spray pesticides (89%) and have used a spray formulation most often (56%) than other common over-the-counter formulations (Table 3-2). These over-the-counter pesticide users (82%) indicated that they use over-the-counte r products less than once per month. The majority of those who utilize pr ofessional services have scheduled service, monthly (24%), quarterly (18%) or annually (17%). Another 33% of professional pest

PAGE 68

55 control consumers have irregul ar service less than 12 times a year and about 5% require pest control services more than once per month. To establish important factors that influe nce consumers to employ either over-thecounter or professional pest co ntrol services, the interviewe es were asked the importance of cost, convenience, odor and residue, effec tiveness, safety, and ma nufacturer reputation in the decision for them to purchase products. The most important factor in purchasing both over-the-counter pesticides and professional pest contro l services was effectiveness in killing pests. Of those respondents w illing to purchase professional pest control products or services, 60% had in comes >$25,000 (Table 3-3). Effectiveness in killing pests, safety for household members, odor and residue, and convenience each had similar ratings when comparing over-the-counter versus professional services. Cost and reputation of the manufacturer were important factors to 81.7% of respondents when purchasing professi onal services. Of respondents purchasing over-the-counter products, 58.9% said that reputation of the manufacturer was an important variable (Table 3-4). Of people who believed they suffered from allergies to insects, 45.1% responded that cost was a very important factor influencing the purchase of over-the-counter pesticides. Of the survey population, bot h males (74.5% of all males) and females (89.1% of all females) rated safety of hous ehold members as a very important factor influencing the purchase of over-t he-counter pesticides. Finally, of all the females in the survey population, 66.4% rated odor and residue as a very importa nt factor in influencing the purchase of over-the-counter pesticides; wh ile 41.8% of all males rated odor as very important (Table 3-5).

PAGE 69

56 Both male (77.1% of all male responde nts) and female (89.8% of all female respondents) believed that safety of househol d members was a very important factor in influencing the purchase of prof essional pest control products or service. (Table 3-6). Of those stating that they used over-the-c ounter pesticide, 83% indicated that they spot treated a pest prone area, 57% repaired screens or cr acks, 43% applied a residual spray and 41% physically removed the pest. Physically removing the pest was deemed an effective method of pest control by 76% of those stating that they used over-thecounter pesticides. Of over-the-counter pest icide users, 70% indicated that they were likely to read all of the label instructions on a pesticide that they had never previously used. Professional pest control users indicate d that 70% of the time believed that professionals used residual sprays, 52% spot treated pest prone areas, 12% physically removed the pest, and 15% made repairs to screens or caulk cracks. Although only 12% physically removed the pest by vacuuming or trapping, it was deemed an effective pest control method by 48% those who used profession al pest control services or products. Since IPM strategies focus on excluding pests, consumers who hire professional pest control services were asked if they woul d consider hiring a pr ofessional service to repair window screening and wood damage and cau lk cracks to exclude pests. Fifty-five percent said that they would likely hire such a service w ith 20% being neutral to the concept and 23% saying that they were unl ikely to employ such a service. The professional pest control consumers were then asked how satisfied they would be if their professional service could control their pest problem without spra ying any pesticides.

PAGE 70

57 Only 3% said they would not be satisfied w ith 87% saying they would be satisfied with an effective pest control strategy wit hout utilizing pesticidal sprays. Responses of Consumers That Do Not Utilize Pesticides Interviewees who indicated that they do not use pesticides (18% of the survey population) were divided on whether they would, 55%, or would never, 45%, use pesticides. Those who said that they w ould consider using pesticides indicated a preference for outdoor use (64%) over indoor use (22%). If needed, 42% said that they would use pesticides to control crawling ins ects, 24% indicated use to control lawn and tree pests, 17% to control wood destroying pest s and 12% to control flying pests. Nonpesticide users said that they would consider the use of over-the-count er pesticides (81%) and professional pest control services (69 %) if they judged that pest control was necessary. To ascertain what would persuade non-pest icide users to purcha se over-the-counter pesticides or professional pest control services, interviewees were asked to rate the importance of cost, convenience, odor a nd residue, effectiveness, safety, and manufacturer reputation. The most important factor in purchasing both over-the-counter pesticides and professional pest control servic es was effectiveness in killing pests (92 and 88%, respectively). The second influencing f actor was safety of household members (88 and 93%, respectively). Odor and residue, convenience and cost were more important factors when deciding to purchase professi onal pest services ( over over-the-counter products 88, 73, 54% and 60, 50, and 29% respec tively) (Table 3-7). The non-pesticide users specified that 56% would be willi ng, 20% were neutral and 24% would be unwilling to hire a professional pest control service to repair window screening, fix wood damage and caulk cracks.

PAGE 71

58 Responses of Consumers That Would Never Utilize Pesticides Consumers that indicated that they woul d never use pesticides (n=48, 8% of the survey population) were asked to select all applicable reasons for their concern from a list or provide an open ended res ponse detailing their reasons fo r not using pesticides. The instrument-provided list of re sponses included, allergies or chemical sensitivity, safety concerns, health concerns, or no need of pe sticides. Health and safety were equally weighted as primary concerns, 35.4%. Fewe r respondents indicated that they did not need pesticides (19%) or were chemically sens itive or allergic to pe sticides (16.7%). In the open ended comments, 8% indicated e nvironmental concerns associated with pesticide use, 4% expressed concern over usin g pesticides with children living in the home and 4% stated that a lack of pesticid e knowledge deterred thei r use of pesticides. Other comments included the use of oatmeal fo r pest control, allowing pets to eat the insects, and not having a de sire to kill any insect. Responses of All Consumers A final question was asked to the interview ee asking them if they would regard as credible, a pest control company that adve rtised pest elimination that was healthconscious and environmentally friendly. Responses were that 39% of the survey population would consider that statement to be credible, 31% were neutral and 26% considered it to be unrealistic. Demographics The survey population consisted of 61% fema les and 39% males. The majority of the population, 95%, were full-time residents of Florida. A quarter of the survey population had moved to the state in the last decade, and 81% were home owners. Pets were owned by 57% of the population with 78% keeping them inside the home. The

PAGE 72

59 majority of the population, 58%, had an income greater than $50K per year. The average age of the survey particip ant was 49, and 44% of the population had a college degree (Table 3-8). The average number of adults per ho me was 2.01 and the average number of children per home was 1.99. There were 36% of homes with children under the age of 5. One quarter of the population indi cated that they were allergic to insects or insect bites and 14% indicated that they had allergies or were chemically sensitive to pesticides (Table 3-8). Of the women respondents 32.5% in dicated that they ha d insect a llergies, compared with 15.8% of male respondents. Of the women respondents 19.1% indicated that they were chemically sensitive to pesticides, compared with 8.6% of male respondents (Table 3-9). Discussion This survey was designed to not only judge the attitudes of the population, but to also gauge the behavior. Indica tors of behavior are considered to be the truest measure of a persons attitude (Leavenson and Frankie 19 83). Indicators used in this survey were, for example, formulations of pesticides used as opposed to just pe sticide use in general and what actions are taken to combat pest s as opposed to, do you take action? This study indicated that a la rge portion of the public util izes pesticides (82%). The large percentage of pesticide users is no t out of line with prev ious studies throughout the United States. Frankie and Leavenson ( 1978) found that an average of 66% of the Texas survey population used insecticides indoors and 47% outdoors. In a different study, Leavenson and Frankie, 1983, documented that 62% of Texans used pesticides indoors with an average of 10 applications per year, and 52% used pesticides outdoors. Bennett et al. (1983) found that pesticide us e was the most common pest control method

PAGE 73

60 used in the home and that an average of 79% of the Indiana survey population used pesticides. In 1999, the Florida Agriculture In stitute documented that 82% of the Florida public considered home use of pesticides to be very or somewhat important to their lifestyle. Based on willingness to use pesticides, you would surmise that the population had a positive demeanor regarding pesticides. This is a perception that is difficult to access because people are sensitive when it comes to infestations and there are psychological influences in their actions against insect pests (Majekodunmi et al. 2002). Byrne and Carpenter (1986) concluded th at homeowners do not weigh the risks and benefits of pesticide use when confronted with a pest pr oblem. Since most people, 86%, dislike or are afraid of arthropods in the home (Hahn and Ascerno 1995), it would make sense that they would forgo apprehension of pesticide use to remove the pest problem. In any case, whether people consider pests to be harmfu l or not, most are willing to use pesticides both indoors (57%) and outdoors (66%) to control them. Of a variety of pest control methods, pe ople considered physical removal of pests to be the most effective, although not the most frequently employed, method of pest control. This was true of both over-the-counter and professional pest control users. All label instructions for a novel pesticide were said to be read before use by 70% of the survey population. This number may be skew ed because of the inhibition of people to admit that they have not read the instructi ons for a potentially dangerous substance they are using in their home. Frankie and Leavenson (1978) documented that 90% of the population felt that pesticides did good with only 16% believing that pesticides c ould do harm. Although

PAGE 74

61 pesticides, especially spray formulations, ar e still primarily used, pesticide applicators may soon add screening and caulkin g to their service vehicle. Fifty-five percent of the Florida survey population indicated that they would hire a professional to make repairs, including screening and caulking, to exclude inse ct pests. Eighty-seven percent specified that they would be satisfied w ith a professional pest control service that could effectively control pests without using pesticidal sp rays. Although the population seems willing shift from pesticidal spray formulations they are still guarded when it comes to certain pest control claims. Only 39% of intervie wees believed that a pest control company could do an effective job while being envi ronmentally friendly and health conscious. Spray and bait formulations are the most popularly used formulation types amongst this population. When considering factors that may influence purchase of over-thecounter or professional pest co ntrol services, pesticide user s and non-pesticide users alike felt that effectiveness in killing pests a nd safety for household members were the two primary influences. Cost was less of an infl uence for over-the-counter purchases than for professional services and was even less of a factor for non-pesticide users than pesticide users. Reputation of the manufacturer was more of a purchasing influence for professional services for both pesticide and non-pe sticide users. It is important to note that the term manufacturer was not defined to the interviewee and could mean either the chemical manufacturer or the service provider. A small percentage by comparison, 18%, si gnified that they were not pesticide users. Of that 18%, nearly half, 45% (8% of total population), indicated that they would never use pesticides. Health and safety were the primary reasons for this groups unwillingness to utilize pesticides.

PAGE 75

62 This survey only reached homes with had active telephones. Th ere were a larger proportion of female respondents (61%) than the Florida census indicated for the state population (51.2%) (US census 2000). One quarter of the survey population indicated an allergy to insects or insect bites and 14% considered themse lves chemically sensitive. More women than men indicated that they we re both chemically sensitive to pesticides and allergic to insects and insect bites. The survey population was well educated with 44.33% having college degrees as compared to only 23.3% of the Florida population. A higher percentage of the survey populati on was homeowners, 80.5%, as compared to 70.1% in the 2000 Florida census population. Most consumers, regardless of their age, residential status, or educational level, mainly rely on pesticides to remediate their pest problems. Not only does a high percentage (79%) of the Flor ida population use over-the-counter pesticides, but a large number (54%) hire professional services to co mbat their pest problems. Both pesticide users and the non-pesticide user s agree that effectiveness is the number one determinant for purchasing pest control services be it ove r-the-counter or profe ssional. Those who do purchase professional pest control services c onsider cost and manufact urer reputation in their decision to purchase the service. No matter what pesticide formulation is used by either homeowners with over-the-counter pr oducts or professionals with professional grade products, consumers consider physical rem oval of the pest to be the most effective method of pest control. While that stat ement seems like it would lead you to the conclusion that consumers would embrace a more environmentally friendly type of pest control, less than half (3 9%) of the survey population be lieved that a pest control

PAGE 76

63 company that advertised pest elimination th at was health-conscious and environmentally friendly was credible.

PAGE 77

64Table 3-1. Demographic responses for willi ngness to use over-the-counter pesticides. % Response Yes No x2 df P Income Range (n=319) $25-34,999 92.11 7.89 $35-49,999 83.75 16.25 $50-74,999 81.01 18.99 $75-99,999 79.63 20.37 >$100,000 64.71 35.29 13.74 4 0.0082

PAGE 78

65Table 3-2. Formulation preference of ove r-the-counter pesticide users (N=387). Formulation n % responses for use % used most often Sprays 345 89.14 56.32 Baits 172 44.40 8.30 Traps 87 22.50 4.69 Granular Products 169 43.67 24.19 Dusts 84 21.70 6.50 Percent response for each question not tota ling 100% indicates a number of no res ponse or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple formulations.

PAGE 79

66Table 3-3. Demographic responses for willingness to us e professional pest contro l products or services. % Response Yes No x2 df P Household income (n=428) <$25,000 39.74 57.14 >$25,000 60.26 42.86 7.77 1 0.0053

PAGE 80

67Table 3-4. Importance of purchasing variable s from pesticide users for over-the-counter and professional pest control services (n=387). % response over-the-counter % response professional Variable important neutral not im portant important neutral not important cost 40.83 34.37 24.03 58.93 27.00 13.68 convenience 68.22 20.16 10.83 69.97 18.63 10.26 odor and residue 74.67 11.63 13.18 78.32 11.03 9.50 effectiveness in killing pests 96.64 2.07 1.29 95.81 1.90 1.90 safety for household members 92.24 3.88 3.88 94.68 2.66 2.66 reputation of the manufacturer 58.91 22.74 17.57 81.74 10.65 6.84 Percent response for each question not tota ling 100% indicates a number of no res ponse or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple influences.

PAGE 81

68Table 3-5. Demographic responses for factors infl uencing purchase of over-t he-counter pesticides. % Response Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P important unimportant important important Importance of cost Insect allergies (n=372) Yes 14.71 3.92 29.41 6.86 45.10 No 15.19 11.11 36.67 12.96 24.07 18.73 4 0.0009 Safety for household members Gender (n=387) Male 1.27 3.82 5.10 15.29 74.52 Female 2.17 0.87 3.04 4.78 89.13 19.14 4 0.0007 Importance of odor and residue Gender (n=385) Male 8.97 14.10 16.03 19.23 41.67 Female 2.62 3.93 8.73 18.34 66.38 33.45 4 <0.0001

PAGE 82

69Table 3-6. Demographic responses for fact ors influencing purchase of professiona l pest control products or services. % Response Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very x2 df P important unimportant important important Importance of safety for household members Gender (n=263) Male 1.04 1.04 2.08 18.75 77.08 Female 1.80 1.20 2.99 4.19 89.82 15.18 4 0.0043

PAGE 83

70Table 3-7. Importance of purchasing variable s from non-pesticide users for over-the-count er and professional pest control servi ces (n=59). % response over-the-counter % response professional Variable important neutral not impor tant important neutral not important cost 29.16 22.92 47.91 53.66 29.27 17.08 convenience 50.00 27.08 20.84 73.17 21.95 4.88 odor and residue 60.41 16.67 20.84 87.81 9.76 2.44 effectiveness in killing pests 91.67 6.25 2.08 95.12 0.00 4.88 safety for household members 87.50 6.25 4.17 92.68 0.00 7.32 reputation of the manufacturer 54.15 20.83 20.84 85.36 9.76 4.88 Percent response for each question not tota ling 100% indicates a number of no res ponse or do not know responses. Responden ts were allowed to select multiple influences.

PAGE 84

71 Table 3-8. Demographic profile of the 600 partic ipants in the Florida perceptions of pest management survey. Demographic N % respondents Gender Male 232 38.67 Female 368 61.33 Age 18-29 93 19.18 30-39 94 29.81 40-49 119 19.84 50-65 179 15.67 >65 115 15.50 Education level
PAGE 85

72Table 3-9. Demographic differences between chemically sensitiv e people and people allergic to insects and insect bites. % Response Yes No x2 df P Insect allergies Total population 25.33 71.67 Gender (n=582) Male 15.77 84.23 Female 32.50 67.50 19.93 1 <0.0001 Chemically sensitive Total population 13.83 78.67 Gender (n=555) Male 8.64 91.36 Female 19.10 80.90 11.44 1 0.0007

PAGE 86

73 CHAPTER 4 TOXICITY OF COMMERCIALLY AVAI LABLE DISHWASHING DETERGENTS AND HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS ON COCKROACHES BLATTELLA GERMANICA (L.), AND PERIPLANETA AMERICANA (L.) Introduction Concern over health implications from the use of residual and broad spray treatments for management of cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.) and Periplaneta americana (L.), in sensitive environments has expe dited research on insecticides of low mammalian toxicity. For over 200 years, soaps, especially potassium salts, or soft soaps have been reported to exhibit insecticidal pr operties. Most of the research has been conducted on soft-bodied insects such as whiteflies (Butler et al. 1993, Javed and Matthews 2002), aphids (Fournier and Brode ur 2000, Fulton 1930, Pinnock et al. 1974), scales (Riehl and Carman 1953), mites (O sborne 1984), thrips (Oetting and Latimer 1995), mealybugs (Lindquist 1981), and ticks (P atrican and Allan 1995). In the 1920s and 1930s, research was done on heavily chitini zed insects such as Japanese beetles (van der Meulen and Van Leeuwen 1929), harlequi n bugs (Fulton 1930), and Colorado potato beetles (Fulton 1930). With the discovery of pesticides, such as DDT in 1939, research on the insecticidal properties of soaps was intermittent and did not appear to resurface in the literature again until the 1970s and 80s where it was us ed against various plant pests (Pinnock et al. 1974, Puritch 1975, 1978; Osborne and Henley 1982). Soft soaps were registered as pesticides in 1947. Currently so ft soaps, including potassium salts of fatty acids, are considered to be in secticides, acaricides, herbicides, and algaecides. As a food

PAGE 87

74 substance, they are generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). With the need for least hazardous pest management in sensitive environments, soaps and detergents should be more extens ively investigated as a pest management option. Comparing the toxicity of several dishwashing liquid brands, formulations, and application methods has not been previously reported. Additionally, the toxicity of household cleaners against cockroaches has not been documented. The purpose of this study was to determine the knockdown and mortality of German and American cockroaches after exposure to commercially available household dishwashing detergents and cleaners with differe nt application methods. Materials and Methods Insects B. germanica and P. americana were reared in plastic tubs with harborage. Dry food (Lab Diet 5001 rodent Diet, PMI Nutri tion International, In c., Brentwood, MO) and water were provided ad libitum Cockroaches were maintained at 23.6 2.5C and 51 16% RH with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D). Adult males, B. germanica and P. americana, and gravid females, B. germanica were randomly selected and removed from the colony with featherweight forceps, sepa rated by sex, and held in separate clothcovered Mason glass jars (0.946 liter) with f ood and water. Cloth c overs were held in place by a rubber band. Adult males were remove d from the colony within 24 h of trial. After the nymphs emerged, adult females we re discarded and first and second instar nymphs were held until trial.

PAGE 88

75 Immersion Assay The toxicity of commercially availabl e dishwashing detergents and household cleaners was tested using a modified Corn well immersion technique against German cockroaches (Cornwell 1976). The PVC imme rsion apparatus (15 by 10 cm diam.) was coated with a 1:1 mixture of petroleum jelly/m ineral oil within appr oximately 5 cm of the upper interior rim of to prevent cockroach es from escaping. The lower end of the apparatus was covered with nylon mesh (Inte x strainer, Reaves and Co., Durham, NC) and held in place by a rubber band. Unanesthe tized cockroaches were removed from the holding jar and placed into the immersion appa ratus. The fluid level in the reservoir came to just below the petroleum jelly coati ng to ensure that the cockroaches would be fully wetted. Upon initiation of the trial, the apparatus was lowered into the solution then gently shaken to ensure that all cockroach es were submerged. After a 30 s immersion, the apparatus was lifted from the reservoi r and allowed to drain for 15 s. The cockroaches were removed with featherwei ght forceps to clean, cloth-covered jars containing food, water, and harbor age as previously described. The toxicity of Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid (product no. 47937) (Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY) was tested on adult male German cockroaches. The soap was mixed at 0.33%, 0.7%, 1.4 % (vol:vol ) with tap water for a total volume of 400 ml. Tap water was selected because it w ould be the most likely solvent a homeowner would use. Tap water was used as the untreated control. Soap solutions were stirred for 30 s. Excess foam was skimmed from the liqui d surface prior to trial. Solutions were mixed at ambient temperature and a fres h solution was mixed for each repetition. Six replications of 10 male adults were run at 0.33% and 0.7%, while 11 replications of 10 male adults were run at 1.4%. Cockroaches were immersed for ~30 s.

PAGE 89

76 Percent knockdown immediately after immersion and mortality at 1, 3 and 24 h were recorded. Knockdown was defined as the in ability of the cockroach to right itself immediately after exposure and mortality was defined as having no response to probing at the specified observation inte rval. The immersion apparatus, mesh, and reservoir were each emptied and triple rinsed wi th tap water between each trial. In order to compare the relative toxicity of dishwashing detergents to nymphs and adults, Palmolive Green Apple dishwash ing liquid (product no. 47937) was tested on German cockroach nymphs and adult males. Fi ve replications of 10 early instar nymphs and adult males each were tested at 1.4% Nymphs were tapped into the immersion apparatus while adults were remove d with featherweight forceps. In order to determine the toxicities between commercially available soap formulations, three formulations of Palmo live dishwashing soap, (product nos. 356140, 47937 and 359140), and one formulation each of Joy (product no. 36045) (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH), and Dawn (p roduct no. 33154) (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) were compared at a concentration of 1.0%. Fi ve replications of 5 adult male German cockroaches were tested. Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners. The Cornwell immersion technique was compared with a spray technique to further test the toxicity of Palmolive Green Appl y(product no. 47937) and to establish toxicity of household cleaners including, Formula 409 (product no. 00628) (Clorox Co., Oakland, CA), Fantastik (product no. 10294) (S.C. Johns on and Son, Inc., Racine, WI), Fantastik Orange Action (product no. 18292) (S.C. Johns on and Son, Inc., Racine, WI), Dawn

PAGE 90

77 Power Dissolver (product no. 376320) (Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) and Greased Lightning (product no. 19853) (A & M Cleaning Products, In c., Clemson, SC). Adult male German cockroaches and adult male American cockroaches were tested using the two application types at 0. 05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8% concentrations of Palmolive (47937), and 100% concentrati on of the cleaners except Dawn Power Dissolver which, due to its viscosity, was te sted at 50% concentra tion. Soap solutions and cleaners, 100 ml each, were prepared in deli cups (473 ml) and cockroaches were immersed using a modification of the previous ly described method. Modifications to the previously described immersion assay desi gn included using a PVC compression couplet (Size 50-2, American Value, Greensboro, NC) as an immersion apparatus. To prepare the immersion apparatus, gaskets and one c ouplet nut were remove d and discarded. The remaining couplet nut was fitted with nylon mesh (M-D Building Products, Greensboro, NC) over the external opening using hot glue The mesh fitted couplet nut was then reattached to the PVC shaft. This modi fied compression couplet was used as the immersion apparatus and its use allowed for easier removal of the test subjects after treatment. In the airbrush technique, the cockro aches were placed into a petroleum jelly/mineral oil rimmed deli cup (473 ml ) which was placed on a 10 by 10 cm square. The airbrush well was filled with 2 ml of solution and the line purged of air. The airbrush (Paasche Type H, Chicago, IL) was ca librated to distribute 2 ml of water over 10 s. Starting with the top left corner of the square, the solution was emptied over the deli container in a zigzag pattern. This amount of solution allowed for runoff with minimal pooling. The airbrush was triple rinsed w ith 1 ml acetone and then tap water between

PAGE 91

78 each trial. Upon completion of each trial, cockroaches were tapped into plastic deli containers (236.6 ml) supplied with filter paper for substrate and food and water ad libitum Five replications of 5 cockroaches were made for each. Analysis Control mortality was adjusted with Abbotts correction for both treatment knockdown and treatment mortality (Abbott 1925). Data that did not meet the assumptions for an analysis of variance ( ANOVA) were ranked. Normality was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test (P=0.05). In the case of the immersion assa y, percent knockdown and mortality by concentration were analyzed by analysis of variance. When P-values were significant, means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test ( =0.05). Time observations were analyzed by a two-way analysis of varian ce where time after treatment and soap concentration were the main effects. K nockdown and mortality of nymphs compared with adults was analyzed by a t-test and analysis of variance was run to determine variability between soap formulations. In the modified Palmolive concentration trial, for each species of cockroach and application type, LC50s were estimated by probit analysis Significant differences were determined by non-overlap of the 95% confidence intervals (CI). To determine if soap caused mortality in each cockroach species, da ta were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance with application method and concentrat ion as the main effects. When P-values were significant, means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test ( =0.05). Knockdown and mortality for each cockroach species were analyzed for the household cleaners by a three-way analysis of variance with cleaner, application type and species as the main effects. If interactions were present, data were analyzed by a two-

PAGE 92

79 way analysis of variance with cleaner and sp ecies by application as the main effects. When P-values were significant, means were compared by Student Newman-Keuls test ( =0.05). All data analyses were performed with SAS ( P = 0.05; SAS Institute 2001). Results Immersion Assay Cockroaches exhibited escape behavior when submerged in the soap solutions. Upon wetting, cockroaches arched their abdomens, lifted their wings, and sank to the bottom of the container (Fig. 4-1). After a few seconds, air bubbles escaped from the spiracles. Cockroaches in the water controls did not exhibit this behavior and remained at the surface (O bject 4-1). Figure 4-1. German cockroach, Blattella germanica posture following a 30 s exposure to 1.4% Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid. Object 4-1. Cockroach exposure to 1.4% Palm olive dishwashing liquid or water (6.46 MB, soap_exposure_video.wmv.1:21.) In the immersion test with Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing liquid as the toxicant, soap concentration was the only significant main effect for both knockdown ( F =24.67, df=2; P <0.0001) and mortality ( F =18.94; df=2; P <0.0001) (Table 4-1). There

PAGE 93

80 were no significant differences in co ckroach knockdown or mortality between observation times nor was there a significant in teraction between time and concentration. There were no significant differences in knockdown or mortality between nymphal versus adult male German cockroaches. Mean knockdown for nymphs was 98.89.11% and mean mortality was 98.98.02%. Mean knockdown for adult males was 94.32.16% and mean mortality was 96.13. 16%. There were no significant differences between soap formulations for knockdown or mortality (Table 4-2). Comparison of Modified Immersion and Spray Applications using Dishwashing Soap and Household Cleaners. In the modified toxicity assay for Germ an cockroaches immersed in Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing soap, there was no significant interaction between application method and soap concentration. When knoc kdown was the response variable, the main effects, application method ( F =11.16, df=1, P =0.0018) and soap concentration ( F =23.90, df=4, P =<0.0001) were significant. When mortality was the response variable, the main effects, application method (( F =5.40, df=1, P =0.0253) and soap concentration ( F =30.05, df=4, P =<0.0001) also were signi ficant (Table 4-3). In the modified toxicity assay for Amer ican cockroaches immersed in Palmolive Green Apple dishwashing soap, there was a si gnificant interaction between application method and soap concentration fo r response variable knockdown ( F =24.86, df=4, P =<0.0001) and mortality ( F =13.16, df=4, P =<0.0001). Because interactions were significant, one-way analyses of variance we re done by application method with soap concentration as the main effect. Th ere was no knockdown when spraying was the application method for all soap concentrations. There was no significant mortality with spray as the application type for all soap concentrations.

PAGE 94

81 The highest knockdown (100%) and mo rtality (84.00.00%) was achieved through the immersion application against Amer ican cockroaches. The airbrush spray application against American cockroaches was the least effectiv e application method achieving 0% knockdown and only 8.00.90% mortality at the highest soap concentration of 0.8%. Probit analyses for German cockroaches indicated that the KD50 concentration values were lower than the LC50 values for both the spray (KD50 = 0.3655, LC50 = 0.5399) and immersion (KD50 = 0.1666, LC50 = 0.5602) application types. There was no significant difference between application types for German cockroach mortality although it took a significantly lower soap c oncentration to achieve knockdown with the immersion application. When compared with the concentration needed to achieve LC50 for German cockroaches (LC50 = 0.56%), it took a significa ntly lower concentration of soap to achieve LC50 for American cockroaches usi ng the immersion application (LC50 = 0.24%) (Table 4-4). When comparing the toxicity of household cleaners, there was no significant threeway interaction between cleaners, applic ation type and species for knockdown or mortality. Interestingly, the only signif icant interaction was between species and application type ( F =12.56, df=1; P =0.0007) and the only significant main effects were species ( F =10.99, df=1; P= 0.0014) and application type ( F =12.56, df=2; P <0.0001). For both knockdown and mortality, the combined variable species-application type and cleaner became the main effects for a two-wa y analysis of variance where the interaction was not significant. The combined variable species-application type was significant for knockdown ( F =29.7, df=3; P =<0.0001) and mortality ( F =12.04, df=3; P=< 0.0001).

PAGE 95

82 Means separation using SNK indicated that American cockroaches that were sprayed were significantly lower in knockdown (56.8 %) and mortality (75.2%) when compared with all other combinations of cockroach species and a pplication methods (99-100%). Discussion Historically, soaps were only considered effective against soft bodied insects. However, Abbasi (1984) reported that a spla sh of commercially available soaps would kill American cockroaches at a 1-2% solu tion. Szumlas (2002) reported that the LC50 for Dawn Ultra dishwashing liquid sprayed on German cockroaches was 0.4% and soap concentrations higher than 1% achieved a 95% or greate r knockdown or mortality. The results from this study are in close agreement with Szumlas (2002) and Abbasi (1984). However, this study differed from the ot hers in that soaps and cleaners used were quantified. The close agreement of the LC50s between the current and Szumlas (2002) study indicates that the airbrush technique is a valid method for delivering a measurable dose of soap or cleaner as a toxicant. The LC50 for a 2 ml spray on German cockroaches was 0.54% and was 0.56% when exposed by immersion for 30 s. The LC50 for American cockroaches exposed by immersion was 0.24%, less, but not significantly less, than the LC50 (0.56%) for the German cockroaches. To achieve 95% morta lity with an immersion application, soap solutions at 2.07% are needed for Germ an cockroaches and 1.75% for American cockroaches respectively. Both adult and nymphal cockroaches were equally affected by the soap concentrations, a nd after the 30 s immersion pe riod, cockroaches that were knocked down remained so and never recovered. There was no difference in knockdown or mortality between five soaps or five cleaners formulations using two application t ypes tested. The airbrush spray application

PAGE 96

83 was equally as effective as the immersion ap plication for German cockroaches, but was less effective for American cockroaches. All cleaners tested achie ved 92-100% mortality for the German cockroaches by both the spra y and immersion app lications. As an immersion application, 100% mortality was ach ieved for the American cockroaches. The spray application was less effective for Am erican cockroaches with some cleaners achieving only 38% mortality and ot hers reaching 100% mortality. Soap solutions act as contact insecticides and have no residual activity. The blend of fatty acid salts in commercially available formulations is proprietary information, but the soft soaps that make up these formulati ons are made of sodium or potassium fatty acid salts. A problem with usi ng commercially available soaps is that the formulations often change. In fact, by the conclusion of this study, the Fantastik Orange Action formulation had been replaced on the store sh elves with Fantastik Lemon. Because of the rapid knockown, my hypothesis is that soap s and cleaners act as nerve toxicants that result in paralysis and death of the insect. Other mode-of-action th eories include spiracle blockage, cellular disrupti on and cuticle dessication (Olkowski and Olkowski 1996, Puritch 1981, Ware 1994), but thes e modes of action would not result in such rapid death. Soap solutions, due to their low mammalian toxicity, have potential for use as a pest management options in sensitive environments such as occupied hospital rooms, in classrooms with children, and in daycare cent ers while children are present. Dishwashing liquid and household cleaners are readily available and are common items already found in the home. The results of this study indi cate that different br ands and formulations knocked-down and killed cockroaches equally effectively. Not only were the soaps effective against adult cockroaches, but they were equally as effective against the

PAGE 97

84 cockroach nymphs, which make up the majo rity of household cockroach populations. The effectiveness is further supported in the fact that there was little if any recovery of the cockroaches after the init ial knockdown. Soaps are inexpe nsive and concentrations of soap needed to knockdown or kill pest cockroach es are very low. This results in not only an effective, but economical pest manageme nt option. While soap solutions may not completely replace the currently used pesticidal baits and sprays, they have a place as a sanitation tool that may aid in cockroach management.

PAGE 98

85Table 4-1. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockro ach males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid by immersion. Palmolive Green Apple n % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE 0.33% 60 11.67 6.54a 10.48 6.21a 0.7% 60 98.25 1.75b 85.00 15.00b 1.4% 110 96.26 2.09b 96.26 2.09b Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Student Newman-Keuls test [SAS Institute 2001]). Control mortality was 2.5% for both KD and M and was adjusted by Abbotts formula.

PAGE 99

86Table 4-2. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German cockroach males when exposed to differe nt formulations of dishwashin g liquid by immersion. Soap formulation n % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE Palmolive Green Apple (47937) 25 100 0.00 100 0.00 Palmolive Anti-Bacterial (359140) 25 95.83 4.17 96.00 4.00 Palmolive Original (356140) 25 100 0.00 100 0.00 Dawn Plus Ultra (33154) 25 100 0.00 100 0.00 Lemon Joy (36045) 25 100 0.00 96.00 4.00 Control mortality was 4% for KD and 0% for M. C ontrol mortality was adjusted by Abbotts formula.

PAGE 100

87Table 4-3. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German a nd American cockroach males when exposed to Palmolive dishwashing liquid (formula 47937) (n=25). German Cockroaches American Cockroaches Application % Palmolive % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE Immersion 0.05% 4.00 4.00a 0.00 0.00a 24.00 7.48a 12.00 8.00a 0.1% 36.00 11.66b 4.00 4.00a 80.00 6.32b 20.00 8.94a 0.2% 64.00 4.00c 4.00 4.00a 84.00 4.00b 44.00 9.80b 0.4% 72.00 10.20c 36.00 11.66b 88.00 8.00bc 68.00 4.90c 0.8% 96.00 4.00d 68.00 10.2c 100.00 0.00c 84.00 4.00c Airbrush Spray 0.05% 0.00 0.00a 3.33 3.33a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1% 12.00 12.00a 7.50 7.50a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2% 24.00 7.48ab 22.50 11.30a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.4% 68.00 8.00b 58.33 6.50b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8% 68.00 18.55b 79.11 11.41b 0.00 0.00 8.00 4.90 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P=0.05, Student Newman-Keuls test [SAS Institute 2001]). German cockroach control mortality was 0% for KD and 4% for M and was adjusted by Abbotts calculation before analysis. The American cockroach assay had 0% control mortality.

PAGE 101

88Table 4-4. Toxicity of Palmolive dishwashing liquid to adult male German and American cock roaches with two application techniques. Knockdown Mortality Application Species n Slope SE KD50 95% CI x2 Slope SE LC50 95% CI x2 Spray German 150 2.02 0.43 0.37% 0.26750.5348 3.37 2.65 0.49 0.54% 0.41620.7843 0.22 Immersion German 150 2.35 0.37 0.17% 0.12600.2158 4.42 2.89 0.57 0.56% 0.43750.8010 2.03 American 150 2.07 0.85 ----------------------6.96 1.90 0.32 0.24% 0.1758-5.309 0.34 Significant differences determined by nonoverlap of th e 95% confidence intervals [SAS Institute 2001].

PAGE 102

89Table 4-5. Percent knockdown and mortality of adult German and Am erican cockroach males when e xposed to household cleaners by a spray or immersion application (n=25). Species Application cleaner % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE German Spray 409 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik Orange Action 96 4.00 100 0.00 Dawn Power Dissolver (50%) 100 0.00 96 4.00 Greased Lightning 100 0.00 100 0.00 German Immersion 409 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik Orange Action 100 0.00 96 4.00 Dawn Power Dissolver (50%) 100 0.00 100 0.00 Greased Lightning 100 0.00 100 0.00

PAGE 103

90Table 4-5 continued. Species Application cleaner % Knockdown SE % Mortality SE American Spray 409 60 18.97 56 17.20 Fantastik 72 17.44 92 4.90 Fantastik Orange Action 48 19.60 64 14.70 Dawn Power Dissolver (50%) 32 10.20 84 16.00 Greased Lightning 72 19.60 80 20.00 American Immersion 409 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik 100 0.00 100 0.00 Fantastik Orange Action 100 0.00 100 0.00 Dawn Power Dissolver (50%) 100 0.00 100 0.00 Greased Lightning 100 0.00 100 0.00

PAGE 104

91 CHAPTER 5 TOXICITY AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL FATTY ACID SALTS ON AMERICAN AND GERMAN COCKROACHES Introduction Cockroaches are urban pests th at can be difficult to control especially in sensitive environments. Concern over health implicat ions from the use of residual and broad insecticidal spray treatments for control of cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.) and Periplaneta americana (L.), in sensitive environments has necessitated research on lowimpact insecticides. Commercially available fatty acid salt blends, such as dishwashing liquids and household cleaners, have been te sted in this capacity and proved to be effective against pest cockroaches (Abba si 1984, Szumlas 2002, Baldwin 2005). Besides cockroaches, commercial soaps have proven an effective toxicant on other hard-bodied insects such as beetles (van der Meul en and Van Leeuwen 1929), bugs (Fulton 1930), crickets (Abbasi 1984), and ants (Baldwin 2005). Because commercial soap formulations ar e proprietary and may often be changed, it is difficult to predict their toxicity. To quantify the toxicity of individual fatty acids and their salts, Siegler and Popenoe 1925, Dills and Menusan 1935, Puritch 1975 and Puritch 1978 tested individual fatty acids and their salts on soft-bodied aphids. It was found through the aphid studies that the toxicity of the satura ted fatty acids increases as the chain length increases peaking at C10 and then decreases until another peak at both the saturated and unsaturated C18 chains.

PAGE 105

92 Fatty acids are hydrocarbon ch ains that are natu rally derived from plant oils and animal tallow (Puritch 1981). The hydrocarbon chai n of a fatty acid ends with an acidic carboxyl group that is readily hydrolyzed in the presence of bases such as sodium or potassium hydroxide. The addition of a salt ca tion to the fatty acid chain forms a soap salt. This saponification process increases the water solubility of the fatty acid. While soaps have proven to be toxic to certa in insect pests, scie ntists are unsure of their mode(s) of action. Severa l theories on the mode of action of fatty acid salts include spiracle blockage (Fulton 1930, Dills a nd Menusan 1935, Richards and Weygandt 1945, Abbasi et al. 1984, Ware 1994 and Szumals 2002) and cuticle disruption and dehydration (Olkowski and Olkowski 1996, Puritch 1981, and Wa re 1994). In any case, research has shown that fatty acids and their salts are contact-only insecticid es and do not provide residual pesticidal activity. The fatty acids that are most commonly us ed in soap production are composed of saturated, straight chain, monocarboxylic groups with even numbered carbon members. With this in mind, the first objective of this study was to determine the importance of the cation in the toxicity of fatty acid salts to two pest cockroach species, B. germanica and P. americana The second objective was to determin e which potassium fatty acid salts, having even numbers of carbon atoms (C10C18), elicit the most to toxicity against German and American cockroaches. The fi nal objective of this study was to use neurophysiological techniques to investigate American cockro ach neural responses to a fatty acid salt.

PAGE 106

93 Materials and Methods Insects German cockroaches, B. germanica, and American cockroaches, P. americana were reared at the University of Florida (Gai nesville, FL) in plas tic tubs (57 L). Harborage consisted of rolle d corrugated cardboard for B. germanica and PVC tubes for P. americana Dry food (Lab Diet 5 001 rodent Diet, PMI Nutri tion International, Inc., Brentwood, MO), and water were provided ad libitum Cockroaches were maintained at 23.6 2.5C, at 51 16% RH and at a phot operiod of 12:12 (L:D). Adult males, B. germanica and P. americana, were randomly selected and removed from the colony with featherweight forceps. Cockroaches were held in separate cloth-c overed glass jars (4 liter) with food, water, and cardboard harbor age for up to 72 hours until trial. Cloth covers were held in place by a rubber band. Treatments Soaps tested included potassium caprylate (C8), sodium caprylate (C8), potassium laurate (C10), sodium laurate (C10), potassium caprate (C12), potassium myristate (C14), potassium palmitate (C16), potassium stearate (C18, saturated), potassium oleate (C18, unsaturated), and potassium ricinoleate (C18, unsaturated alcohol). Sodium salts (98-99% purity) were obtained through Acros Organics (Morris Plains, NJ) and potassium salts (99-100% purity) through the Viva Corporation (Mumbai, India). All tested fatty acid salts were creamy-white to white in color and powder in form. Fatty acid salt powders were added to warm deionized water (51.7 C). Soap solutions, 200 ml each, were prepared in de li cups (473 ml) by serial dilution at concentrations of 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0%. Solu tions were stirred with a glass stir rod until dissolution, and were allowed to cool to ambien t temperature before use in

PAGE 107

94 testing. Deionized water was used as the contro l. Prepared solutions in their respective deli cup comprise the immersion reservoir. Fresh solutions were prepared for each replicate. Immersion Bioassay The toxicity of individual fatty acid sa lts was tested using a modified Cornwell immersion technique against German and Am erican cockroaches (Cornwell 1976). A modified PVC compression c ouplet (Size 50-2, American Value, Greensboro, NC) was used as the immersion apparatus. To prepar e the immersion apparatus, gaskets and one couplet nut were removed from the compre ssion couplet and discar ded. The remaining couplet nut was fitted with nylon mesh (M -D Building Products, Greensboro, NC) over the external opening using hot glue. The in side edge (3.81 cm) of the PVC shaft was coated with a 1:1 mixture petroleum jelly/ mineral oil to prevent cockroaches from escaping. The mesh-fitted couplet nut was then reattached to the uncoated end of the PVC shaft. This modified compression coupl et allowed for easy removal of the test subjects after treatment. A separate immersi on apparatus was used for each fatty acid salt to prevent contamination. Each fatty acid salt concentration and water control was tested separately against German (n=5) and American (n=3) cockroach es. Cockroaches, one species at a time, were removed from their holding containers and placed into the immersion apparatus. Each immersion apparatus was then lowered co nsecutively into the reservoir containing the corresponding concentration of the fatty acid salt solution. After a 30 s immersion, each apparatus was raised from the reservoi r and allowed to drain on a paper towel. Cockroaches were then removed, by tapping, to plastic observation containers (236.6 ml) and were supplied with food and water ad libitum

PAGE 108

95 Knockdown (KD) after 30 s immersion a nd mortality (M) 24 h after immersion were recorded. Knockdown was defined as the inability of the cockroach to right itself immediately after exposure, and mortality wa s defined as having no response to probing 24 h after exposure. Each immersion apparatu s was triple rinsed with tap water between each repetition. Five repetitions of 3 cockro aches were made for American cockroaches and 4 repetitions of 5 cockroaches were made for German cockroaches for each fatty acid soap concentration. A total of 1200 German and 900 American cockroaches were tested. Neurophysiology Bioassay -Equipment Methods followed those of Scharf & Sieg fried (1999) and Durham et al. (2002). A suction-type recording electrode fitted w ith a 1l microdispenser capillary tube (Drumond Scientific, Broomall, PA) was pulled to a fine point with a micropipette puller (Pul-1; World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL) and used for all neurophysiological recordings. The recording and reference elect rodes were made from silver wire (0.68 mm dia) and were connected to a different ial amplifier (EX-1; Dagan Corporation, Minneapolis, MN). The differential amplifie r was interfaced with a computerized fourchannel chart recorder (C hart 5 version 5.2; ADIstruments, Milford, MA) through PowerLab hardware (PowerLab 4sp; ADIstruments). Neurophysiology Bioassay -Insect Preparation and Recording One adult male American cockroach wa s used in each recording session. The cockroaches were removed from the colony w ithin three hours of the recording session and all recordings were made on live specime ns. The specimen was prepared by clipping the wings to expose the abdomen and then pinning the cockroach, dorsal side up, through the pronotum to a recording chamber. The re cording chamber consisted of a wax-filled square polystyrene dish (100 x 100 x 15 mm; Fi sher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) with a 60

PAGE 109

96 x 30 x 5 mm depression to hold the specimen. A vertical incisi on was made dorsally from the terminalia to the metathorax and then horizontally across the 1st terga to the lateral pleura on each side. The exoskeleton was then gently pulled apart at the site of the vertical incision and pinned back to form a pocket exposing the internal organs. The specimen was bathed in physiological sali ne (185 mM sodium chloride, 10 mM potassium chloride, 5 mM calcium chloride 5 mM magnesium chloride, 5 mM HEPES sodium salt, and 20 mM glucose, pH 7.1) to maintain favorable osmotic conditions for nervous system function. Excess fat bodies we re rinsed from the abdominal pocket with physiological saline and the digestive system gently moved and secured to the side to expose the ventral nerve cord. A segment of the paired longitudinal nerve cord between the 7th and 9th abdominal ganglia was raised with a pin and one half of the paired nerve cord was severed leaving the othe r half of the pair intact. By use of a micromanipulator, the severed end of the nerve co rd was carefully suctioned into the capillary tube of the recording electrode The reference electrode attached to a metal pin, was placed in contact with the physiological saline near the severed nerv e cord. The abdominal pocket remained filled with physiological saline throughout recording. Standard electrophysiological techniques were used in the baseline and treatment recordings of spontaneous el ectrical activity from the ve ntral nerve cord preparation (Scharf and Siegfried 1999, Durham et al. 2001 ). The recording chamber was screened with an aluminum foil barrier to reduce poten tial environmental e ffects. The counter function of the software was set to obtain ~ 500 threshold-surpassing el ectrical bursts per minute. The potassium laurate treatment wa s prepared by dissolving the soap salt in physiological saline. The solution was stirred immediately prior to testing to minimize

PAGE 110

97 settling. For each cockroach preparation, base line data was recorded for 5 min and then was briefly stopped while 1 ml of 0.75% potassium laurate was added to the physiological saline in the abdominal pocket. Immediately after the addition of the soap solution, recording was resumed for 5 min. Due to physiological differences between cockroach individuals, the baseline data serv ed as the control for each preparation. An additional saline disturbance control was also tested where 1 ml phys iological saline was added in place of the soap treatment. Thr ee replicates were performed using potassium laurate as the treatment. Analysis In the immersion bioassa y, control mortality (5%) wa s adjusted with Abbotts formula for German cockroaches in the sodium caprylate, potassium capric and potassium oleate treatments (Abbott 1925). The remaining trials with German cockroaches and all trials with American cock roaches resulted in 0% control mortality. KD50 and LC50 values were estimated by Probit analysis (SAS Institute 2001). Significant differences were determined by non-overlap of the 95% confidence intervals (CI), and Pearson chi square values indicat ed goodness-of-fit. In the neurophysiology bioa ssay, the effect of potassi um laurate on spontaneous electrical activity was quan tified by comparison of the ch ange in counts every 30 sec from the average baseline count. Neurological effects were quantified by comparing the baseline count to the post disturbance count every 30 sec. Results When comparing the sodium and potassium ions on the same fatty acid chain, the sodium laurate was slightly more toxic, but not signifi cantly more toxic than the potassium laurate within a species. When co mparing species, it took significantly more

PAGE 111

98 potassium laurate to kill German cockroach es, about twice as much, as needed for American cockroaches. Both the sodium and potassium treatments were more toxic to American cockroaches than to German cockroaches as exhibited by non-overlap of confidence intervals (Table 5-1). There was difficulty in testing some of th e salts. Several of the soaps, sodium caprylate, potassium palmitiate and potassium st earate resulted in a poor Probit model fit. The poor fit was due to lack of mortality at concentrations <2%, not because of uncontrolled experimental conditions. These soaps are fairly insoluble in water and readily precipitated out of solu tion at concentrations above 2% These three soaps, due to their non-practicality of use, were discarded from the study. For the remainder of the study, only potassium salts were tested. When comparing the potassium soap salts, potassium oleate was the most toxic to both male German and male American cockro aches. Potassium laurate was equally as toxic as potassium oleate to German cockro aches, and all potassium soaps tested, with the exception of potassium caprylate, were equa lly as toxic to American cockroaches as seen by the nonoverlap of confid ence intervals (Table 5-2). The high pesticid ial activity on American cockroaches, 100% mortality at >1% soap concentration, caused a poor Probit model fit for C8 potassium caprylate. According to the Probit model, potassium ricinoleate, caprate, and capryla te were all equally as toxi c to German cockroaches. These soaps achieved 70-90% mortality, but we re less toxic than th e potassium oleate or laurate which achieved 89-95% mortality at 2% concentration. Although potassium myristate achieved 65% mortal ity at 2% concentration, it was not a good Probit fit having extremely wide confidence intervals. All te sts on American cockroaches with potassium

PAGE 112

99 salts resulted in 100% mortal ity at a 2% soap concentration. Tests on German cockroaches resulted in a range of 65% mo rtality with potassium myristate to 95% mortality with potassium laurat e at a 2% soap concentration. Neurophysiological recordings of spontane ous electrical activity from isolated sections of the ventral nerve cord of adult male American cockroaches are presented in Fig. 5-1. Recordings A and C are representative of cockroach baseline electrical activity. Recording B illustrates that the addition of 1 ml physiological saline does not elicit neurological activity changes from baseline electri cal activity. Recording D is representative of the increase in electrical bursts immediat ely after the potassium laurate treatment was added to the cockroach preparation. Variation in baseline electr ical activity between cockroach nerve preparations was encountered. Baseline electrical bursts over fi ve minutes ranged from 170 to 650 bursts depending on the individual cockroach specimen. The data from the three cockroach preparations was pooled and an average ch ange from baseline was calculated for each 30 sec. interval of baseline electrical activity. The average baseline electrical burst over 5 min was 4.98. Upon addition of the treatment, there was an increase in bursting activity in each specimen tested (Fig. 5-2). The bursts ranged from 505 to 829 over a five minute interval. The increas e in bursts was contained to the first 2 to 2.5 min and was then followed by a reduction in activity. This suppr ession of electrical ac tivity was slightly lower than the baseline average, and it corres ponded with the apparent onset of death in the specimen. The average change from ba seline post treatment for the three specimens was 25.39 counts for the first 2.5 min and 4.89 for the subsequent 2.5 min of recording (Fig. 5-3).

PAGE 113

100 Discussion Consumers are in a constant battle with trying to c ontrol insect pests while remaining environmentally and health conscious. The use of soap salts as a pest control tool is a viable option to meet the need for a least toxic pesticide. Abbasi et al. (1984) and Szumlas (2002) demonstrated that comm ercially available dishwashing soaps can cause mortality to German cockroaches. Mo rtality from soap exposure was also shown herein for both German and American cockro aches exposed to individual fatty acid salt chains. There was no difference in toxicity between sodium or potassium salts indicating that while aiding in solubilit y, the cation does not play an im portant role in toxicity. In my study, there was no peak of t oxicity for American cockroaches; each potassium fatty acid salt C10 to C 18 was equally as toxic. German cockroaches had a different pattern of mortality fo r the fatty acid salt chains than the American cockroaches. There was high mortality 84-95% at C8-C12 then there was a drop in mortality until a second peak at C18. Due to its ease in solubility and high mort ality to American cockroaches, potassium laurate was chosen as the toxicant for th e neurophysiological study. Based on personal observations and documented by Dills and Me nusan (1935), the mode of entry of the fatty acid salts is through the tracheal system yet the mode of acti on for soaps has been debated for nearly a century. The results from this present study indicated that indeed potassium and sodium salts are toxic to cockroaches and th e neurophysiological recordings support the h ypothesis that the soaps act, at le ast partially, via a neurological mode of action.

PAGE 114

101Table 5-1. Toxicity of sodium and potassium laurate to adult male German and American cockroaches. Knockdown Mortality Species Slope SE KD50 (95% CI) x2 P Slope SE LC50 (95% CI) x2 P soap salt German (n=100) potassium laurate 2.95 0.56 0.55% (0.406-0.712) 3.05 0.22 3.08 0.60 0.49% (0.361-0.629) 1.31 0.52 sodium laurate 5.04 1.04 0.42% (0.341-0.515) 0.68 0.41 5.04 1.04 0.42% (0.341-0.515) 0.68 0.41 American (n=75) potassium laurate 5.36 1.16 0.30% (0.241-0.381) 3.22 0.20 5.15 1.13 0.28% (0.220-0.351) 0.86 0.65 sodium laurate 3.26 0.83 0.18% (0.118-0.246) 0.59 0.74 3.72 0.94 0.18% (0.121-0.235) 0.22 0.90 Significant differences determined by non-overlap of the 95% confidence intervals [SAS Institute 2001].

PAGE 115

102Table 5-2. Toxicity of fatty acid salts (FAS) to adult male Ge rman or American cockroaches. Knockdown Mortality Species Slope SE KD50 (95% CI) x2 P Slope SE LC50 (95% CI) x2 P FAS German (n=100) potassium caprylate 3.06 0.59 0.85% (0.623-1.252) 1.97 0.16 2.63 0.48 0.83% (0.598-1.280) 3.85 0.15 potassium laurate 2.95 0.56 0.55% (0.406-0.712) 3.05 0.22 3.08 0.60 0.49% (0.361-0.629) 1.31 0.52 potassium caprate 3.49 0.81 1.15% (0.899-1.557) 1.90 0.17 3.39 0.67 1.20% (0.939-1.630) 4.51 0.11 potassium myristate 0.89 0.45 0.56% (--------------) 0.14 0.71 1.51 0.68 0.93% (--------------) 0.04 0.84 potassium oleate 2.57 0.53 0.28% (0.200-0.377) 3.09 0.21 2.12 0.38 0.36% (0.249-0.491) 2.28 0.52 potassium ricinoleate 1.86 0.47 0.86% (0.582-1.375) 1.22 0.54 1.74 0.36 0.84% (0.586-1.386) 0.62 0.89 American (n=75) potassium laurate 5.36 1.16 0.30% (0.241-0.381) 3.22 0.20 5.15 1.13 0.28% (0.220-0.351) 0.86 0.65 potassium caprate 4.53 0.97 0.28% (0.217-0.358) 0.14 0.93 4.26 0.90 0.30% (0.236-0.393) 0.38 0.83 potassium myristate 4.12 1.09 0.20% (0.145-0.258) 2.22 0.14 4.63 1.16 0.21% (0.160-0.269) 1.66 0.20 potassium oleate 1.44 0.65 0.07% (0.001-0.171) 1.97 0.16 2.27 0.92 0.17% (0.004-0.288) 0.21 0.16

PAGE 116

103Table 5-2 continued. Knockdown Mortality Species Slope SE KD50 (95% CI) x2 P Slope SE LC50 (95% CI) x2 P FAS potassium ricinoleate 4.25 1.30 0.15% (0.091.191) 0.34 0.56 2.90 0.77 0.17% (0.097.235) 0.76 0.68 Significant differences determined by non-overl ap of the 95% confidence intervals [SAS Institute 2001]. Potassium myristate ha d extremely wide CI.

PAGE 117

104 A B C D Figure 5-1. Spontaneous electrical activity from representative P. americana neural preparation. Baseline electrical act ivity in physiological saline (A), physiological saline disturbance (B), baseline electrical activity in physiological saline (C), potassium la urate (1 ml at 0.75%) in physiological saline (D). The threshold was se t at 500 baseline counts per min. Baseline (5 min) Saline Disturbance (5 min) Baseline(5min) Treatment(5min) 1000 mV -1000 2000 mV -2000

PAGE 118

105 Cockroach A Cockroach B Cockroach C. Figure 5-2. Spontaneous electri cal activity for three American cockroaches, A, B, and C before and after treatment with 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%). 0 5 10 15 20 25 00.511.522.533.544.55 00.511.522.533.544.55 Baseline timeTreatment time 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 00.511.522.533.544.55 00.511.522.533.544.55 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 00.511.522.533.544.55 00.511.522.533.544.55 Baseline timeTreatment time Spontaneous Electrical Activity Change from avg. baseline Spontaneous Electrical Activity Baseline timeTreatment time Spontaneous Electrical Activity Change from avg. baseline Change from avg. baseline

PAGE 119

106 Change in average electrical burst0 10 20 30 40 50 60Burst Count Treatment added Baseline 5 min Treatment 0-2.5 min2.5-5 min Figure 5-3. Change in electrica l bursting activity from baselin e to the first and last 2.5 min after treatment of 1 ml potassium laurate (0.75%).

PAGE 120

107 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A survey was conducted to determine the publics perceptions of urban pests and pest management practices in and around the home. People who regularly use pesticides determine whether they need to take action against an insect pest by the presence of insect damage. People who consider themselv es non-pesticide users take action if they have the feeling that the insect may be a danger to the household. Crawling insects such as ants and cockroaches are considered the primary pests and are the most difficult and costly to control of the urban insects. The majority of people use pesticides to combat their pest problems and they employ over-the-c ounter pest control products as well as hiring professional services. Pe ople treat both the inside and outside of their homes with pesticides and typically use some form of pe sticide at least every other month. Although pesticide use is prevalent, the most effective form of pest control was considered to be physical removal of the pest. One in five pe ople would prefer an a lternative to pesticide use, and many would consider environmentally fr iendly pest control to be a credible pest management option. Many people had attempte d household pest control with a soap or borax solution. The toxicity of commercially availabl e soaps Palmolive, Dawn and Joy, and household cleaners 409, Fantastik, Fantasti k Orange, Dawn Power Dissolver, and Greased Lightning against adult male German, Blattella germanica (L.), and American ( Periplaneta americana ), cockroaches was investig ated. Immersion and spray applications were evaluated at a 30 s exposur e. Soaps at a 1.4 % concentration killed

PAGE 121

108 both German cockroach nymphs and adults after a 30 s exposure. Adult cockroaches from both cockroach species, American and Ge rman, were susceptible to the soaps and cleaners by immersion at a 1% concentration. All brands and formulations of the soaps and cleaners were toxic to cockroaches. A sp ray application of th e soaps was effective against German cockroaches, but not American cockroaches. To further investigate the toxicity of the soaps, the soap active ingredients, fatty acid salts, were tested by 30 s immersion against adult male German and American cockroaches. Sodium and potassium salts we re both equally toxic to cockroaches. Because potassium salts have higher water solubility, they were used in the study. Potassium oleate, C18, proved to be the most toxic of th e potassium fatty acid salts to both cockroach species. Potassium salts with carbon chains of 8-18 are each toxic to American cockroaches. German cockroaches were susceptible to potassium salts with carbon chains of 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 (unsaturated). C16 and C18 (saturated) were not toxic to German cockroaches. To test the mode of action of the fatty acid salts, neurophysio logical tests were performed. Neural preparati ons in physiological saline were made using American cockroaches, and spontaneous elec trical activity was recorded. After th e application of 1 ml of a potassium laurate solution (0.75%) in physiological saline to the preparation, spontaneous electrical activit y increased over a two minute time period and then quieted. The reduction in nervous activity corresponded with the apparent onset of death in the cockroach specimen, leading to the conclusi on that soaps cause a breakdown of the nervous system resulting in the death of the organism.

PAGE 122

109 Soaps are inexpensive and concentrations of soap needed to knock down or kill pest cockroaches are very low. They are naturally derived, work quickly and have no residual activity, giving them as pects of an environmentally fr iendly pest control option. Consumers are willing to try a lternative pest controls like soaps. Soaps as part of a sanitation program may be an effect ive aid in cockroach control.

PAGE 123

110 APPENDIX A PEST MANAGEMENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT Hello, my name is %name and I am calli ng you from the Florida Survey Research Center at the University of Florida. In cooperation with the Res earchers in the Urban Entomology Center at the University of Florida, we are conducting a survey about peoples opinions of insects and the use of pe sticides in and around the home. This is not a sales call and your answers ar e confidential. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. You may stop this interview at any time. May I pleas e speak to the person in your household who is 18 or ol der and has the next birthday? Ill begin by asking you a few general quest ions about your views on common insect pests like mosquitoes, cockroaches, termites, ants and garden pests. 1. How harmful do you think insect pests are to your household? Would you say that insect pests are very harmful, somewhat harm ful, or not at all harmful? [VH, SH, NH, DR] 2. Which of the following categories of insect pests _____? [Flying insects such as flies and wasps; Crawling insects such as cockroaches and an ts; Wood destroying insects such as termites; Lawn and tree insects such as chinch bugs and fire ants; None; DK; R] A. is the most difficult for you to control? B. do you think is most harmful to peoples health? C. do you spend the most money trying to control? Now, Id like to ask you about pesticides. 3. Do you use pesticides in your home or lawn? [YNDR] IF NO: GO TO Q7 IF YES: 3A. Where are you most likely to use pest icides, indoors or outdoors? [indoors, outdoors, same amount for each, DR] IF Indoors: 3B. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is very often, how often would you say you use pesticid es indoors? [1-5, DR] IF Outdoors: 3C. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is very often, how often would you say you use pesticid es outdoors? [1-5, DR]

PAGE 124

111 Now, Id like you think about pesticides th at you may buy in the store and use in your home. 4. Do you use over the counter pesticides that you can purchase in a store and use in your home [Prompt if needed: such as Raid, Amdro, or Round-up]? [YNDR] IF NO: GO TO Q5 IF YES: 4A. How many times a year do you use th ese over the counter pest control products? [#, DR] 4B. Ill read you a list of different types of over the counter pesticides, please tell me which of these formulations youve used. And which of these do you use most often? [MMI: Sprays ; Baits; Traps; Granular Products; Dusts; DK; R] 4C. Next, Ill read you a list of factors that may influe nce your purchase of over the counter pesticides. Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 4C1. How important is cost when purc hasing over the counter pest control products? [1-5, DR] 4C2. convenience? [1-5, DR] 4C3. odor and residue? [1-5, DR] 4C4. effectiveness in killing pests? [1-5, DR] 4C5. safety for household members? [1-5, DR] 4C6. reputation of the manufacturer? [1-5, DR] 4D. Ill read you a list of diffe rent ways to deal with household pests. Please tell me which of these kinds of pest c ontrol treatments youve done yourself: [checkbox MMI: Applied a long lasting spray to cover a large ar ea; Spot treated a small area as needed; Physically rem oved a pest by trapping or vacuuming; Repaired screens or caulked in cracks to prevent insects from entering your home] IF More Than One: In your opinion, which of these is most effective? 4E. Assume that you have purchased an ove r the counter pesticide to use in and around your home that youve never used before. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very unlikely and 5 very likel y, please tell me how likely it is that you would read all of the instructions on the pest control pro ducts label before using it. [1-5, DR]

PAGE 125

112 Now, Id like you to think about pesticide tr eatments that may be applied in or around your home by a professional. 5. Do you use professional pesticide services [Prompt if needed: such as Orkin or Terminix]? [YNDR] IF YES: 5A. How many times in the past year did a professional pesticide company service your home? [#, DR] 5B. Next, Ill read you a lis t of factors that may in fluence your purchase of professional pest control services. Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 5B1. How important is cost when pu rchasing professional pest control services? [1-5, DR] 5B2. convenience? [1-5, DR] 5B3.odor and residue? [1-5, DR] 5B4. effectiveness in killing pests? [1-5, DR] 5B5. safety for household members? [1-5, DR] 5B6. reputation of the service provider? [1-5, DR] 5C. Ill read you a list of different ways th at professionals can deal with pests in your home. Please tell me which of the fo llowing kinds of pest control treatments youve had a professional do in you r home: [checkbox MMI: Applied a long lasting spray to cover a large area; Spot treated a small area as needed; Physically removed a pest by trapping or vacuuming; Repaired screens or caulked in cracks to prevent insects from entering your home] IF More Than One: In your opinion, which of these is most effective? IF No Use of Repair/Caulking: 5C1. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very unlikely and 5 is very likely, how likely would you be to use a professional service to repair window screening, caulk cracks, and repair wood damage in order to exclude pests from entering your house? [1-5, DR] 5D. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is completely unsatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, how satisfied do you think you woul d be with a professional pest control service if they could control a pest pr oblem in your home without spraying any pesticides? [1-5, DR]

PAGE 126

113 IF YES to Q4 AND/OR Q5: 6. Ill read you a list of reasons that people often gi ve for purchasing pest control products or services. Please tell me how important each of these is to you, using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is not im portant and 5 is very important. A. How important is seeing live insects in or around your home in your decision to purchase pest control? [1-5, DR] B. Seeing dead insects in or around your home? [1-5, DR] C. Seeing insect damage in or around your home? [1-5, DR] D. Knowing that there is pot ential for insect damage in or around your home? [15, DR] E. Knowing that there is a health haza rd associated with pests? [1-5, DR] F. Feeling that pests pose a da nger to your family? [1-5, DR] [ GO TO Q20 ] IF NO TO Q3 (Do NOT Use Pesticides): 7. Would you use ever use pesticides in or around your home? [YNDR] IF NO: GO TO Q15 IF YES: 7A. Where would you be most likely to use pesticides, indoors or outdoors? [indoors, outdoors, DR] IF Indoors: 7B. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is very often, how often would you say you use pesticid es indoors? [1-5, DR] IF Outdoors: 7C. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is never and 5 is very often, how often would you say you use pesticid es outdoors? [1-5, DR] 7D. What pests would you be most likely to use pesticides on? [Flying insects such as flies and wasps; Crawling ins ects such as cockro aches and ants; Wood destroying insects such as te rmites; Lawn and tree insect s such as chinch bugs and fire ants; None; DK, R]

PAGE 127

114 Now, Id like you think about pesticides th at you may buy in the store and use in your home. 8. Would you ever use over the counter pestic ides that you can purchase in a store and use in your home [Prompt if needed: such as Raid, Amdro, or Round-up]? [YNDR] IF YES: 8A. Next, Ill read you a list of factors that might in fluence your decision to purchase over the counter pesticides. Pl ease rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 8A1. How important would cost be in your decision to purchase over the counter pest control products? [1-5, DR] 8A2. convenience? [1-5, DR] 8A3. odor and residue? [1-5, DR] 8A4. effectiveness in killing pests? [1-5, DR] 8A5. safety for household members? [1-5, DR] 8A6. reputation of the manufacturer? [1-5, DR] Now, Id like you to think about pesticide tr eatments that may be applied in or around your home by a professional. 9. Would you ever use professional pesticide serv ices [Prompt if needed: such as Orkin or Terminix]? [YNDR] IF YES: 9A. Ill read you a list of f actors that might influence your decision to purchase professional pest control services. Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 9A1. How important would cost be in your decision to purchase professional pest control products? [1-5, DR] 9A2. convenience? [1-5, DR] 9A3. odor and residue? [1-5, DR] 9A4. effectiveness in killing pests? [1-5, DR] 9A5. safety for household members? [1-5, DR] 9A6. reputation of the service provider? [1-5, DR] 9B. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very unlikely and 5 is very likely, how likely would you be to use a professional service to repair window screen ing, caulk cracks, and repair wood damage in order to exclude pests from entering your house? [1-5, DR]

PAGE 128

115 IF YES to Q8 AND/OR Q9: 10. Ill read you a list of reasons that people often gi ve for purchasing pest control products or services. Please tell me how important each of these would be in your decision, using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. A. How important would seeing live ins ects in or around your home be in your decision to purchase pest control? [1-5, DR] B. Seeing dead insects in or around your home? [1-5, DR] C. Seeing insect damage in or around your home? [1-5, DR] D. Knowing that there is pot ential for insect damage in or around your home? [15, DR] E. Knowing that there is a health haza rd associated with pests? [1-5, DR] F. Feeling that pests pose a da nger to your family? [1-5, DR] Now, Id like to ask you about soluti ons for specific types of pests. 11. Ill read you a list of pest control solutions. Using a s cale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not likely and 5 is very likely, pl ease tell me how likely it is that you would take that action to solve a problem with flying insect s (like flies, mosquitoes, wasps) in or around your home. A. How likely would you be to apply, or ha ve applied, a long lasting broadcast spray? [1-5, DR] B. Fog the area as needed? [1-5, DR] C. Physically remove the flying insects by swatting, sweeping, or trapping? [1-5, DR] D. Repair or install screens on windows or door? [1-5, DR] 12. Using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would rate these actions to solve a problem with termites in or around your home? A. How likely would you be to apply, or have applied, a long lasting soil or slab treatment? [1-5, DR] B. Treat or bait as needed? [1-5, DR] C. Physically remove the termites by stom ping, sweeping, or trapping? [1-5, DR] D. Repair damage and eliminate untreated wood to ground contact? [1-5, DR] 13. Using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would you rate these actions to solve a problem with crawling insects (like cockro aches, fleas, or ants) in or around your home? A. How likely would you be to apply, or ha ve applied, a long lasting broadcast spray? [1-5, DR] B. Treat or bait as needed? [1-5, DR] C. Physically remove the crawling insect s by stomping, sweeping, or trapping [15, DR] D. Apply caulking to crack to prevent in sects from entering your home? [1-5, DR]

PAGE 129

116 14. Again, using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would you rate these actions to solve a problem with lawn and tree insects ( like mole crickets, chinch bugs, and fire ants) around your home? A. How likely would you be to apply, or ha ve applied, a long lasting broadcast spray? [1-5, DR] B. Spot treat the area as needed? [1-5, DR] C. Physically remove the lawn or tree insects by trap ping? [1-5, DR] D. Test and fertilize soil to maintain healthy plants? [1-5, DR] [ GO TO Q20 ] IF NO TO Q3 AND Q7 (Do NOT Use, Would NOT Use): 15. Why dont you use pesticides? [Mark all th at apply; Do NOT Read.] [Checkbox: Chemically Sensitive/Allergic, Safety Con cerns, Health Concerns Dont Need Them; Other (describe); DK; R] Id like to ask you about solutions for specific types of pests. 16. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not lik ely and 5 is very likely, please tell me how likely it is that you woul d take each of the following actions to solve a problem with flying insects (like flies, mosqui toes, wasps) in or around your home. A. Physically remove the flying insects by swatting, sweeping, or trapping? [1-5, DR] B. Repair or install screens on windows or door? [1-5, DR] C. Other? (Describe) [1-5, DR] 17. Using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would you rate these actions to solve a problem with termites in or around your home? A. Physically remove the termites by stom ping, sweeping, or trapping? [1-5, DR] B. Repair damage and eliminate untreated wood to ground contact? [1-5, DR] C. Other? (Describe) [1-5, DR] 18. Using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would you rate these actions to solve a problem with crawling insects (like cockro aches, fleas, or ants) in or around your home? A. Physically remove the crawling insect s by stomping, sweeping, or trapping [15, DR] B. Apply caulking to crack to prevent in sects from entering your home? [1-5, DR] C. Other? (Describe) [1-5, DR]

PAGE 130

117 19. Again, using the same scale [Repeat if needed], how would you rate these actions to solve a problem with lawn and tree insects ( like mole crickets, chinch bugs, and fire ants) around your home? A. Physically remove the lawn or tree insects by trap ping? [1-5, DR] B. Test and fertilize soil to maintain healthy plants? [1-5, DR] C. Other? (Describe) [1-5, DR] ALL RESPONDENTS : 20. Have you ever used homemade solutions, like soap or borax, to solve a pest problem? [YNDR] IF YES: 20A. Which of the following types of pe sts did you use homemade solutions to control? [Checkbox: Flying insects (such as flies and wasps); Cr awling insects (such as cockroaches or ants); Wood destroying insects (termites); La wn and tree insects (chinch bugs, mole crickets ); Other (describe); DR] 20B. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all effective and 5 is very effective, how effective would you say these homemade solutions were in solving your pest problem? [1-5, DR] 21. Ill read you a list of common pest problems. Please tell me which of these youve had a problem with in the past year. A. Flying insects (flies, gnats, wa sps, yellowjackets) [YNDR] B. Crawling insects (cockroaches, fl eas, ants, silverfish) [YNDR] C. Termites [YNDR] D. Stored product pests (weevils, grain beetles, moths) [YNDR] E. Lawn pests (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) [YNDR] F. Garden pests (caterpillars, aphids) [YNDR] 22. Suppose that representatives from the pest control industry told you that they could eliminate pests in your home while bei ng health-conscious and environmentallyfriendly. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all credible and 5 is very credible, how would you eval uate this statement? Finally, I just have a few demographi c questions for statistical purposes. 23. Gender {dont ask, just record} [male, female] 24. Are you a seasonal or full-time resident of Florida? [Seasonal, Full-time, DR] 25. In what year did you begin living in Florida, either fullor part-time? [year, DR] 26. Do you own your home or rent? [own, rent, DR]

PAGE 131

118 27. Do you have a pet? [YNDR] IF YES: 23A. Does your pet spend the majority of its time inside or outside? [inside, outside, DR] 28. Is your familys total yearly income befo re taxes is less than $25,000 or more than $25, 000? [less, more, DK, R] IF More than $25,000: 28A. And is that: [$25,000 to $35,000; $35,001 to $50,000; $50,001 to $75,000; $75,001 to $100,000; more than $100,00; DK; R] 29. In what year were you born? [year, DR] 30. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [8th grade or less; Some high school; High school graduate; Technical / Vocational; Some college; College graduate; Graduate / Prof essional School; Refused] 31. Including yourself, what is the total number of adults over the age of 18 in your household? [#, R] 32. And, how many children under the age of 18 live in your household? [#, DR] IF 1 or More: 29A. Are any of these children age 5 or under? [YNDR] 33. Are you allergic to any insect s or insect bites? [YNDR] 34. Are you chemically sensitive or allergic to any pesticides? [YNDR] 35. Do you have any questions regarding this study or your rights as a participant? [YNDR1289] %if q35=1 For questions regarding this study you may c ontact Dr. Mike Scicch itano at the Florida Survey Research Center toll free at 866-3923475. For questions rega rding your rights as a participant you may contact th e University of Florida Inte rnal Review Board at 352392-0433. That concludes our survey. Thank you for your time and participation.

PAGE 132

119 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbasi, S.A., P.C. Nipaney and R. Soni. 1984. So ap solution as an environmentally safe pesticide for household insects. Comp. Physiol. Ecol. 9:46-48. Abbott, W.S. 1925. A method for computing eff ectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18:265-267. Agriculture Institute of Florida, Inc. 1999. Agri culture Institute Consumer Survey. Citrus Vegetable Mag. A1-A8. Arbes, S.J., M. Sever, J. Metha, J.C. Gore C. Schal, B. Vaughn, H. Mitchell and D.C. Zeldin. 2004. Abatement of cockroach alle rgens (Bla g1 and Bla g 2) in lowincome urban housing: Month 12 continua tion results. Environ. Occ. Dis. Jan:109 -114. Arlian, L.G. 2002. Arthropod allergens and human health. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47:395433. Barcay, S.J. 2004. Cockroaches. In Moreland, D. [Ed.], Handbook of pest control Mallis. 9th Ed. GIE Media, Inc. Cleveland. Barcay, S.J. 2005. IPM for cockroach infe stations. Pest Control Technol. 6:44-48. Bell, W.J. and K.G. Adiyodi. 1981. The American cockroach. Chapman and Hall. New York. Behrens. 1964. The physical and chemical prope rties of surfactants and their effects on formulated herbicides. Weeds 12:255-258. Bennett, G.W., E.S. Runstrom and E.A. Wi eland. 1983. Pesticide use in homes. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 29:31-38. Berenbaum, M. 2001. Caught in the net. Am. Entomol. 47(1):4-5. Bieman, D., J. Silverman, Y.R. Mehra, D. S. Lesiewicz, and J. Tomeu. 1993. A sweet solution. Pest Control Technol. 9. Branscome, D. 2004. Interactions of enteri c bacteria with American cockroaches ( Periplaneta americana ) and pharaoh ants ( Monomorium pharaonis ). PhD. Disseration, University of Florida 81 pp.

PAGE 133

120 Brenner R.J. 1995. Economics and medical importance of German cockroaches. pp. 8691. In M.K. Rust, J.M. Owens, and D.A. Reirson [eds.], Understanding and controlling the German cockroach. Oxford University Press, New York. Brenner, R. 1998. Curbing cockroaches and their allergens. Agri. Res. Mag. 46(6). Brenner, R.J., D. Focks, M. Anderson, E. Horowitz, A. Togias, R. Kramer, G. Williams, G. Weichmann, and D. Milne. 1999. Sp acial environment assessment and mitigation of German cockroach (Blattari a: Blattellidae) and allergens using polyclonal detection assays and prec ision targeting software. Proc. 3rd. Intl Conf. on Urban Pests. Prague, Czech Republic, 19-22. Brown, A.W.A. 1951. Insect control by ch emicals. Chapman & Hall, New York. Burk, T. and W.J. Bell. 1973. Cockroach a ggregation pheromone: inhibition of locomotion. J. Kansas Entomol Soc. 46:36-41. Butler, G.D. and T.J. Henneberry. 1990. Pest control on vegetables and cotton with household cooking oils and liquid dete rgents. Southwest. Entomol. 15(2):123-131. Butler, G.D., T.J. Henneberry, P.A. Stansly, an d D.J. Schuster. 1993. Insecticidal effects of selected soaps, oils and detergents on the sweetpotato whit efly: (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Florida Entomol. 76(1):161-167. Byrne, D.N., and E.H. Carpenter 1986. Attitude s and actions of urbanites in managing household arthropods, pp. 13-24. In G.W. Bennett and J.M. Owens [eds.]. Advances in urban pest manage ment. Van Nostrand, Reinhold, N.Y.. Byrne, D.N., E.H. Carpenter, E.M. Thoms, and S.T. Cotty 1984. Public attitudes toward urban arthropods. Bull. Entomol. Soc.Am. 30:40-44. Capinera, J.L. 1993. Insects in art and religion: the American southwest. Am. Entomol. 39(4):221-229. Capinera, J.L. 1995. Humpbacked flute play er and other entomomorphs from the American southwest. Am. Entomol. 83-88. Chapman, R.F. 1982. The Insects: structure and function. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Chase, A.R. and L.S. Osborne. 1983. Influence of an insecticidal so ap on several foliar diseases of foliage plants. Plant Disease 67:1021-1023. Cherry, R. 2002. The functions of insects in mythology. Am. Entomol. 48(3): 134-136.

PAGE 134

121 Cochran, D.G. 1979. A genetic determination of insemination frequency and sperm precedence in the German cockroach. Ent. Exp. App. 26:259-266. Cochran, D.G. 1995. Insecticide resistance. Pp 176-178. In M.K. Rust, J.M. Owens, and D.A. Reirson [eds.], Understanding a nd controlling the German cockroach. Oxford University Press, New York. Codina, R. C. Jaen, and R. F. Lockey. 2002. Cockroach debris in purchased flour. Allergy Net. 57:260-271. Cornwell, P.B. 1968. The cockroach vol. 1. Hutchinson, London. Cornwell, P.B. 1976. The cockroach vol. 2. Hutchinson, London. Dills, L.E. and H. Menusan. 1935. A study of some fatty acids and their soaps as contact insecticides. Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute 7:63-82. Durham, E.W., M.E. Scharf, and B.D. Si egfried. 2001. Toxicity and neurophysiological effects of fipronil and its oxidative su lfone metabolite on European corn borer larvae (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Pe sticide Biochem. Physiol. 71:97-106. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Reregist ration eligibility docum ent: soap salts. EPA-738-F-92-013. Environmental Protection Agency 1996. Fatty ac ids (amm.salts) proposed tolerance 40 CFR Part 180. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/prof iles/miscpesticides/alphaalkylmetaldehyde/fatty-acid-ammsalt.htm. Last accessed July 19, 2004. Florida Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services 2005. Licensed pest control Companies. http://www.safepesticideuse.com/search/CompanySearch.asp Last accessed November 15, 2005. Florida Pest Management Associ ation Inc. 2005. Industry FAQ. http://www.fpca.org/pmps /industry_fact_sheet.htm Last accessed November 15, 2005. Fournier, V. and J. Brodeur. 2000. Dose-res ponse susceptibility of pest aphids (Homoptera: Aphidae) and th eir control on hydroponically grown lettuce with the entomopathogenic fungus Verticillium lecanii, azadirachtin and insecticidal soap. Environ. Entomol. 29(3):568-578. Frankie, G.W., J.I. Gieshop, J.K. Grace and J.B. Fraser. 1996. Education, information transfer, and information exchange, pp.163-184. In G.W. Bennett and J.M. Owens [eds.]. Advances in urban pest mana gement. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

PAGE 135

122 Frankie, G.W and H. Leavenson. 1978. Insecticid e problems and insecticide use: public opinions, information, and behavior. Pp. 359-399. In G. W. Frankie and C.S. Koehler [eds.]. Perspectives in urban entomology. Academic, New York. Fulton, B.B. 1930. The relation of evaporation to killing efficiency of soap solutions on the harlequin bug and other inse cts. J. Econ. Entomol 23:625-630. Grandcolas, P., C. DHaese. 2000. The phylogeny of cockroach families: is the current molecular hypothesis robus t?. Cladistics. 17:48-55. Guhl, W. 1999. The possibility of testing anti parasitical substances using the cockroach as a model. Parasitol. Res. 85:945-947. Guthrie, D.M. and A.R. Tindall. 1968. Th e biology of the cockroach. Edward Arnold Publishers, London. Hahn, J.D. and M.E. Ascerno. 1991. Public atti tudes toward urban arthropods in Minnesota. Am. Entomol. 37: 179-184. Hogue, A. 1987. Cultural Entomology. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 32:181-199. Holbrook, G.L., J. Roebuck, C.B. Moore, M. G. Waldvogel, and C. Schal. 2003. Origin and extent of resistance to fipronil in the German cockroach, Blattella germinica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 96:1548-1558. Javed, M.A. and G.A. Matthews. 2002. Biores idual and integrated pest management status of a biorational agen t and a novel insecticide ag ainst whitefly and its key parasitoids. International J. Pest Management 48(1):13-17. Jones, A.P. 1998. Asthma and domestic ai r quality. Social Sci. Med. 47(6):755-764. Kang, B.C., J.L. Chang, and J. Johnson. 1989. Char acterization and partia l purification of the cockroach antigen in rela tion to housedust mite (D.f .) antigens. Ann. Allergy. 63(3):207-12. Kang, B.C., C.W. Wu and J. Johnson. 1992. Char acteristics and diagnoses of cockroachsensitive bronchial asthma. Ann. Allergy 68(3):237-44. Kellert, S.R. 1993. Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conser vation Biology 7(4) 845:855. Knowlton, J.L. 1993. In Pouchers perfumes, cosmetics and soaps. Volume 3: Cosmetics. Chapman and Hall, London.

PAGE 136

123 Koehler, C.S., L.W. Barclay, and T.M. Kret chun. 1983. Soaps as insecticides. California Agriculture 5:11-13. Koehler, P.G. and R.S. Patterson. 1986. A comp arison of insecticide susceptibility in seven nonresistant strains of the German cockroach Blattella germanica (Dictyoptera:Blattellidae). J.Med. Entomol. 23(3):298-299. Kramer, R. 2004. Integrated pest management. In Moreland, D. [Ed.], Handbook of pest control Mallis. 9th Ed. GIE Media, Inc. Cleveland. Lavin, D. and D.W. Maynard. 2001. Standa rdization vs. rapp ort: respondent laughter and intervierer reaction duri ng telephone surveys. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66:453-479. Lavrakas, P.J. 1993. Telephone survey methods: sampling, selection, and supervision volume 7 Applied Social Res earch Methods Series. Sage Publishers, London. Leavenson, H. and G.W. Frankie. 1983. A st udy of homeowner attit udes and practices toward arthropod pests and pesticides in three U.S. metropolitan areas. pp 67-106. In G. W. Frankie and C.S. Koehler [eds .]. Urban entomology: interdisciplinary perspectives. Praeger, New York. Legal, L. B. Moulin, and J.M. Jallon. 1999. Th e relation between structures and toxicity of oxygenated aliphatic compounds homologous to the insecticide octanoic acid and the chemotaxis of two species of Drosophilia Pesticide Biochem. and Psych. 65(2):90-101. Lighton, J.R.B. 1996. Discontinuous gas exchan ge in insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 41:309-324. Lindquist, R.K. 1981. Controlling the citrus mealybug on greenhouse foliage plants. Ohio Florists Association Bulletin 622:6-8. Majekodunmi, A., M.T. Howard, and V. Sh ah. 2002. The perceived importance of cockroach [ Blatta orientalis (L.) and Blatella germanica (L).] infestation to social housing residents. J.Envoron. Health Res. 1(2):27-34. Matsumura, F. 1980. Toxicology of ins ecticides. Plenum Press, New York. Maxwell, K.E. and W.D. Piper 1968. Molecula r structure of nonionic surfactants in relation to laboratory ins ecticidal activity. J. Ec on. Entomol. 61(6):1633-1636. McFarlane and Henneberry. 1965. Inhibition of gr owth by fatty acids. J. Insect Phys. 11:1247-1252.

PAGE 137

124 McGovran, E.R. 1929. Increasing the effectiv eness of the nicotin e insecticidal unit charge. J. N.Y. Entom. Soc. 37:513-531. McKenna, L. 2005. State of the Indus try. Pest Control Tech. 10:2-:23. McKittrick, F.A. 1964. Evolutionary studies of cockroaches. Corne ll Univ. Agri. Exp. Sta. Memoir 389:16-18. Miller, D.M. and F. Meek. 2004. Cost and e fficacy comparison of integrated pest management strategies with monthly spra y insecticide applications for German cockroach (Dictyoptera:Blattellidae) cont rol in public housin g. J. Econ. Entomol. 97(2):560-569. Moore, W.S., J.C. Profita, and C.S. Koeh ler. 1979. Soaps for home landscape insect control. California Agri. 6:13-14. Nalyanya, G. and C. Schal. 2001. Evaluation of attractants for mon itoring populations of the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Bl attellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94:208-214 National Pesticide Telecommunications Netw ork. 2001. Potassium salts of fatty acids Technical Fact Sheet. Organ State University. http://nptn.orst.edu last accessed September 1, 2005. Nautral Toxins Research Center 2004. Texas A&M University. http://ntri.tamuk.e du/cell/lipid.html last accessed July 19, 2004. Nojima, S., C. Schal, F.X. Webster, R. G. Santangelo, and W.L. Roelofs. 2005. Identification of the sex pherom one of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica. Science. 307: 1104-1106. Oetting, R.D. and J.G. Latimer. 1995. Effects of soaps, oils, and plant growth regulators (PGRs) on Neoseiulus cucumeris (Oudemans) and PGRs on Orius insidious (Say). J. Agri. Entomol. 12(2-3):101-109. Olkowski, W., S. Daar, and H. Ollkowski. 1996. Common-sense pest control. Taunton Press, Newton, CT. Olson T.A. and M.E. Rueger. 1950. Experimental inoculation of Salmonella oranienburg through cockroaches. Public Health Reports 65:531-540. Olympic Horticultural Products Insectic idal Soap 49.52 1998. Technical Bulletin 210. http://www.hortnet.com/olympic/ last accessed June 20, 2005. Osborne and Henley. 1982. Evaluation of Safer Agro-Chems insecticidal soap for the control of mites in the interior environment. Foliage Digest 5(4):10-11.

PAGE 138

125 Osborne L. 1982. Is soap a viable method for controlling Tetranychus urticae on plants in the interior environment? Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 95:149-151. Osborne, L.S. 1984. Soap spray: an alternative to a conventional acarici de for controlling the two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetr anychidae) in greenhouses. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:734-737. Osborne, L.S. and F.L. Petitt. 1985. Insect icidal soap and the predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis used in management of the twospotted spider mite on greenhouse grown foliage plants J. Econ. Entomol. 78:687-691. Page, K.L. 2003. When bugs are busting. J.Exp. Biol. 206:934-935. Patrican, L.A. and S.A. Allan. 1995. Laboratory evaluation of desiccants and insecticidal soap applied to various substrat es to control the deer tick Ixodes scapularis. J. Med. Vet. Entomol. 9:293-299. Pinnock, D.E., R.J. Brand, J.E. Milstead, and N.F. Coe. 1974 Suppression of populations of Aphis gossypii and A. spiraecola by soap sprays. J. Econ. Entomol. 67:783784. Potter M.F. and R.T. Bessin. 1998. Pest control, pesticides, and the public: attitudes and implications. Am. Entomol. 44(3):142-147. Pridgeon, J.W., A.G. Appel, W.J. Moar a nd N. Liu. 2002. Variability of resistance mechanisms in pyrethroid resistant German cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blatellidae). Pesticide Bi ochem. Physiol. 73:149-156. Pryde, E.H. 1979. Fatty acids. The American Oil Chemists Society, Champaign, IL. Puritch, G.S. 1981. Pesticidal soaps and adj uvants what are they and how do they work? Proceedings of the 23rd annual Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association Growers Short Course, Abbotsford, B.C. Puritch, G. S. 1978. Biocidal effects of fatty aci d salts on various forest insect pests. The American Oil Chemists Society, Champain, IL. Puritch, G.S. 1975. The toxic effects of fatty aci ds and their salts on the balsam woolly aphid, Adelges picese (Ratz). Canadian J. Forest Res. 5:515-522. Quarles, W. 2003. 2004 Directory of least-toxi c pest control products. IPM Practitioner 25(11):1-28. Richards, A.G. and J.L. Weygandt. 1945. The sel ective penetration of fat solvents into the nervous system of mosquito larvae. J. New York Entomol. Soc. 23:153-165.

PAGE 139

126 Riehl, L.A. and G.G.Carman 1953. Narrow-cut petroleum fractions of naphthenic paraffinic composition for control of Calif ornia red sacle. J. Econ. Entomol. 46:100713. Rivault, C., A. Cloarec, L. Sreng. 1998. Cutic ular exracts inducing aggregation in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.) J. Insect Physiol. 44:909-918. Robinson, W.H., P.A. Zungoli, F.E.Wood, and S.K. Kraft. 1981. Pest Control Technol. 5:38-41. Rosenstreich, D.L., P. Eggleston, M. Kattan, D. Baker, R.G. Slavin, P. Gergen, H. Mitchell, K. McNiff-Mortimer, H. Ly nn, D. Ownby, F. Malveaux. 1997. The role of cockroach allergy and exposure to cock roach allergen in causing morbidity among inner-city children with as thma. New Eng. J. Med. 226:1356-1363. Roth, L.M. and E.R. Willis. 1957. The medical and veterinary importance of cockroaches. Smithsonian Misce llaneous Collection 134(10):1-47. Roth, L.M. and E.R. Willis. 1958. An analysis of oviparity and viviparity in the Blattaria. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 83:221-238. Roth, L.M. and E.R. Willis. 1960. The biotic associations of cockroaches. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 141:16-20. Roy, D. N., S.M. Ghosh, and R.N. Chopra. 1943. The mode of action of pyrethrum on the cockroach Periplaneta americana An. Appl. Biol. 30:42-47. Rueger, M.E., and T.A. Olson. 1969. Cockroac hes (Blattaria) as vectors of food poisoning and food infection organisms. J. Med. Ent. 6:185-189. Rust, M. K. 1994. Implementing cockroach IP M programs. Proc. National Conf. Urban Entomol. Rust, M.K., J.M. Owens and D.A. Reir son. 1995. Understanding and controlling the German cockroach. Oxford University Press. New York. Rust, M.K. and D.A. Reirson. 1981. Attraction a nd performance of insectidal baits for German cockroach control. International Pest Control: 106-109. Rutledge, L.C. 2003. Emily Dickinsons ar thropods. Am. Entomol. 49(2): 70-74. Scharrer, B. 1987. Insects as models in neur oendocrine research. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 32:1-16. Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) Institute. 2001. Statistical analysis software program, version 8.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

PAGE 140

127 Samson and Dahl. 1955. Coma induced by short ch ain fatty acids. American Physiol. Soc. Fed. Proc. 14:129. Sarpong SB, Wood RA, Karrison T, Eggleston PA 1997. Cockroach allergen (Bla g 1) in school dust. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 99:486 92 Schal, C. 1988. Relation among efficacy of insect icides, resistance levels, and sanitation in the control of the Garman cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blat tellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 81:536-544 Schal, C. and R.L. Hamilton. 1990. Integrated suppression of synanthropic cockroaches. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 35:521-552. Scharf, M.E. and B.D. Siegfried. 1999. Toxi city and neurophysiol ogical effects of fipronil and fipronil sulfone on West ern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 40:150-156. Shepard, H.H. 1951. The chemistry and action of insecticides. McGraw-Hill, New York. Siegler, E.H., and C.H. Popenoe. 1925. The fatty acids as contact inse cticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 18:292-299. Silverman, J. and D.N. Bieman. 1993. Gluc ose aversion in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica J Insect Phys iol. 39:925-933. Silverman, J. and M.H. Ross. 1994. Behavioral resistance of field-collected German cockroaches (Blatodea: Bla ttellidae) to baits containing glucose. Physiol. Chem. Ecol. 23:425-430. Slama, K. 1999. Active regulation of insect respiration. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 92(6): 916929. Smith,S.M. and M. Hubbes. 1988. Evaluation of the toxicological effects and field efficacy of an insecticidal soap against the spruce budworm (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae). Proc. En tomol. Soc. Ontario. 119:53-62. Srivastava U.S. and P.D. Srivastava. 1956. Soap as spreader and insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 49(2):266. Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101. Szumals, D.E. 2002. Behavioral responses and mortality in German cockroaches (Blattodea: Blatellidae) after exposure to dishwashing liquid. J. Econ. Entomol. 95(2):390-398.

PAGE 141

128 Tattersfield, F. and C.T. Gimingham. 1927. Studies on contact insecticides. Part IV. The insecticidal action of the fatty acids, their methyl esters, and sodium and ammonium salts. Ann. App. Biol. 14:331-358. United States Census Bureau. 2000. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html Last accessed September 25, 2005. United States Food and Drug Ad ministration. 1996. Food quality and protection act. Sect. 303. http://www.fda.gov/apacom/laws/foodqual/fqpa3.htm Last accessed September 6, 2005. United States Senate. 2005. http://www.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005908628.html Last accessed September 16, 2005. Valles, S. 2000. What makes roaches re sistant?. Pest Control Mag. 4:58-61. Valles, S.M. 2004. Effects of cypermethrin selection on expression of insecticide resistance mechanisms in the German co ckroach (Blattaria:Blattellidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 39(1):84-93. Van der Meulen, P.A., and E.R. Van Leeuwen. 1929. A study of the insecticidal properties of soap against the Japanese beetle. J. Econ. Entomol. 22:812-814. Wang, C.M., M. E. Scharf and G.W. Be nnett.2004. Behavioral and physiological resistance of the German cockroach to ge l baits (Blattodea: Blatellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 97(6):2067-2072. Ware, G.W. 1994. The pesticide bBook. Sh epard Poorman Graphics. Fresno, CA. Weiss, T.J. 1970. Food oils and their uses. AVI Publishing Comapany, Inc. Connecticut. Weiss, R. and EG Rajotte. 2001. IPM, science and science education: the best of three worlds. Amer. Entomol. 47(2)74-77. Weissling, T.J. T.M. Lewis, L.M. McD onough, and D.R. Horton. 1997 Reduction in pear psylla (Homoptera:Psyllid ae) oviposition and feeding by foliar application of various materials. Canadian Entomol. 129:637-643. Westneat, M.W., O. Betz, R.W. Blob, K. Fezzaa, W.J. Copper, and W. Lee. 2003. Trachael respiration in insects visualized with synchrotron x-ray imaging. Science 299: 558-560.

PAGE 142

129 Wilcoxon F. and A. Hartzell. 1931. Some factor s affecting the efficiency of contact insecticides. I. Surface for ces as related to wetting and tracheal penetration. Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute 3:1-12. Willcox. 1993. In PoucherÂ’s perfumes, cosmetics and soaps. Volume 3: Cosmetics. Chapman and Hall London. Williams, D. F., H.L. Collins, and D.H. Oi. 2001. The red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera:Formicidae) An historical perspective of treatment programs and the development of chemical baits fo r control. Am. Entomol. 47(3): 146-159. Williams, G.M., H.M. Linker, M.G. Waldvogel, R.B. Leidy, C. Schal. 2005. Comparison of conventional and integrat ed pest management programs in public schools. J Econ Entomol. 98(4):1275-83. Wood, F.E., W.H. Robinson, S.A. Kraft and P. A. Zungoli. 1981. Survey of attitudes and knowledge of public housing residents toward cockroaches. Ent. Soc. Amer. Bulletin 27(1):9-13. Zungoli, P.A. and W.H. Robinson. 1984. Feasibility of establishing an aesthetic injury level for German cockroach pest management programs. Environ. Entomol. 13: 1453-1458. Zungoli, P.A. and W.H. Robinson. 1986. Contro lling cockroaches the IPM way. Pest Management 7:22-24. Zurek, L. and C. Schal. 2004. Evaluation of the German cockroach ( Blattella germanica ) as a vector for verotoxigenic Escherichia coli F18 in confined swine production. Vet. Micro. 101(4):263-267.

PAGE 143

130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rebecca Frances Williams Baldwin was born in West Monroe, Louisiana, April 14, 1975, the daughter of Malcom Glenn and Mary Frances Wade Williams. She is the granddaughter of James Chester and Frances Elaine Odom Williams and Benjamin Larkin and Frances Louise Durden Wade. Sh e has two siblings, Eric Glenn Williams and Jennifer Renee Williams Speights. After gr aduating from West Monroe High School in 1993, she entered the baccalaureat e program at Northeast Louisiana University. On May 30, 1998, she married Richard Edward Baldwin of Chalmette, Louisiana. In August of 1998, she received her Bachelor of Genera l Studies degree and honors diploma and entered the graduate program in biology at th e University of Louisi ana at Monroe. She graduated with her Master of Science de gree in December 2000. Rebecca began her doctoral studies in the Entomology and Nema tology Department at the University of Florida in January of 2001. While at the Univ ersity of Florida, Rebecca taught Principles of Entomology and Graduate Survey of En tomology and their corresponding labs. She also assisted in teaching the labs for Ins ect Classification and Medical and Veterinary Entomology. While at UF, Rebecca was a me mber of the Entomology and Nematology Student Organization, the Urba n Entomological Society, and the Linnaean Team, was cochair of the School IPM advisory board a nd worked with the departmental outreach program.