Critiquing insecticides as a last resort

Pesticides may not always be the worst environmental choice
when considering pest control options, according to a
recent scientific society position paper.

Two weeks ago I wrote about a recent position paper by the Entomological Society of America and its sister societies, American Phytopathological Society and the Weed Science Society of America. The paper critiqued some popular integrated pest management (IPM) concepts, including the idea that IPM programs should use only "least toxic" pesticides.  The same paper also addressed the widely adopted idea that pesticides should only be used "as a last resort" in an IPM program. Today I wanted to elaborate on use of pestcides as the last resort.

The concept of "last resort" pesticides is tricky because it's meaning is open to different interpretations. On the one hand, using pesticides as a last resort could mean that pesticides are used only when pest numbers or damage from exceed some pre-determined threshold. The use of thresholds is usually invoked in combination with a pest monitoring program and with an integrated control strategy including non-chemical tactics such as habitat modification, sanitation and quarantine. This is a proven IPM approach that has been used since the earliest days of IPM.  As the Societies' position paper points out, however, this is not the only possible interpretation.

Many agencies and regulators have interpreted the "last resort" imperative to mean that when a pest problem occurs, all non-chemical controls must first be attempted. Only when all else fails, should pesticides be considered. There is a subtle but important difference in these two interpretations. In the latter case, thresholds are made secondary to a process of trying first one non-chemical control, then another and then another, before finally turning to a pesticide. Such delaying tactics, according to the statement, can lead to unacceptable pest buildups and damage.

From my perspective, this approach was used last summer in my community during an outbreak of mosquito-borne, West Nile virus (WNV). While medical doctors in our city were worried that too many human cases of WNV had already occurred, and that aerial pesticide spraying was needed break the epidemic, those in the community with deep misgivings about pesticide use were insisting that not enough had been done in the areas of public education, breeding site removal, and larvaciding. They requested that the cities and county wait until everything that could conceivably be done before resorting to spray planes.  They were essentially invoking the "last resort" concept.

While this approach may seem reasonable on the surface, it's consideration resulted in delay and ultimately nearly 400 (serious) human cases of the virus in my county alone.  A predetermined threshold (say, to commence aerial spraying when education, source reduction and ground sprays fail to prevent mosquito infection rates from reaching levels likely to result in human cases) would have alerted the community that preventive tactics had already failed, and more aggressive controls were needed.

The ESA position paper provides links to a number of similar cases where following the "last resort" approach led to out of control pest problems and higher control costs. Many of these examples illustrate that waiting to control a pest may result in missing the ideal time to treat, and may ultimately result in the need for higher concentrations and more applications of pesticides to control a pest infestation.

Finally the position paper points out that the "last resort" concept implies that pesticides are always the worst choice, which is not true. Non-chemical techniques are sometimes more expensive, require more labor and energy, and result in lower levels of control than chemical pesticides. An example cited from Texas was conventional tillage to control weeds in arid farmland.  A study showed that herbicide use not only was more effective in conserving critical water, but it was less costly.

Rather than talking about "using only least toxic pesticides as a last resort", I believe we remain truer to the original spirit of IPM if we talk about "minimizing risks" and "using pesticides only when necessary" to prevent or control damaging levels of pests. Integrated pest management has never been easily distilled to a simple formula or prescription.  Each pest and situation is unique and deserves a flexible approach to do the right thing. This flexibility of IPM is both its greatest strength and, perhaps, its greatest weakness.  Flexibility is a weakness because IPM is difficult to codify, and develop rules for that fit all situations. But flexibility is a strength because IPM is adaptable to many settings--not just agriculture for which it was originally developed.

TDA meets with its advisory committtee

While the bright lights and news cameras focused on Austin politicians introducing their latest bills at the 83rd Regular Legislative Session, the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met quietly this week with leaders of the Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Service.  The focus of the meeting, as always, was to provide TDA administrators with feedback on new ideas for how to streamline operations and minimize pest and pesticide risk to the public.

The flu season may have explained the low turnout at this quarter's meeting (the first time I recall no public comments), but committee members still found stuff to discuss, especially with regard to the first draft of TDA's proposed penalty matrix.

So what's a penalty matrix? It sounds boring.

I guess a penalty matrix is pretty boring unless you're the one being penalized. The SPCS has always used some form of matrix, or chart, to assign penalties to different possible violations of the Structural Pest Control Act and its regulations.  Under the law, the TDA Administrator is given leeway in assigning penalties to violators, up to a maximum fine of $5,000/violation/day and/or license suspension, revocation or denial. The matrix provides a transparent and objective means of pre-assigning penalties for different violations.  While not constraining the Department from giving a higher or lower fine, it sets guidelines for fair penalties if you, say, fail to provide an inspector with a valid applicator's license.

The draft guidelines list approximately 70 possible violations and puts each into a table of low (S1), medium (S2) or high (penalty) violations.  Within each of these three tables an offense can be categorized as minor, moderate, or major. Penalties increase in each of these columns from the first to third instances of violations over a five year period.  So there are three tables, each with three rows and three columns of penalties.

For example, failing to have your company's TPCL number on any vehicle in which you do pest control business is considered (in this draft) to be an S1-Moderate violation. You would expect to receive a $150 fine for a first violation.  That fine would increase to $300 and $450 fines for the second and third violations.

Moving up the scale, failure to provide an accurate or complete WDI Report is an S2 Moderate violation, worth $750 for a first offense.  Operating out of category (say doing weed control without a weed license) is considered an S3-Moderate offense, and will cost you $1000 for a first offense.

While assigning penalties to a long list of crimes may sound a little like a job for Les Miserables Inspector Javert (Russell Crow in the latest movie musical version), having the matrix is to everyone's benefit. It makes the TDA's job easier and more objective, and it adds transparency to the process. Anyone can look up the matrix online and know exactly what to expect for a given violation.

The committee's job in all of this? Review all the assignments and penalties and give our input. It's not as fun as it sounds.

Perhaps the most upbeat news to come out of this quarter's meeting was the announcement that TDA has decided to contract out its examinations to a private firm.  PMPs should see some immediate benefits such as lowering of fees from $75 to $64 per exam. In addition, the number of locations will increase from 13 to 23 offices around the state.  Exam locations will no longer be associated with TDA or other government offices.  And sites will be open five days per week, with registration open 24/7.  This should speed up the process of getting new licensees on the street considerably.  The only down side to the announcement is if you are computer-phobic.  All exams will be online and you will receive score feedback immediately.

The committee also discussed ways that TDA could better reach the public with a simple message that when hiring someone to control pests, make sure they are licensed and qualified. One of the ideas proposed was to make that official message available through the many pest control company websites around the state.  Look for TDA to come up with creative ways to get the word out to the public about the value of your pest control license and your training over the next year.  They may be contacting you for your company's help.

A critique of the IPM gospel

The three largest U.S. scientific associations with strong professional connections to integrated pest management (IPM) recently posted a news release that should be of great interest to anyone in the business of pest control. The Entomological Society of America, Weed Science Society of America, and American Phytopathological Society published a position paper last November that, while it has not received a lot of attention in the press or the industry (let's face it, IPM is not the sexyist topic), takes careful aim at some favorite concepts embraced by the  IPM community.  While the statement may read like heresy to some IPM supporters, I believe their arguments are well-thought out, and worthy of consideration by everyone with a stake in pest control.

First, a little historical background.  The IPM concept was first embraced by agricultural scientists, and later by those involved in urban pest control. The earliest versions of IPM emphasized the use of both chemical and biological methods of pest control. As IPM matured, it accepted that the judicious use of pesticides was desirable, as long as every effort was made to minimize the environmental and safety impacts of pesticide use--an approach still followed by most of those in production agriculture.  

As IPM evolved it was embraced by the environmental community and by regulators, and eventually by urban pest management professionals. Along the way IPM jargon, and the way it was implemented, also evolved.  One of the most influential modern attempts to articulate the IPM concept for human-occupied structures was the 1993 EPA publication, Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. In this publication (painstakingly crafted by environmentalists, the EPA and the National Pest Management Association), the judicious use of pesticides was endorsed as long as the "least toxic and most effective and efficient technique[s] and material[s]" were used. This seemed to be a compromise that all parties could live with, and everyone seemed happy.

Over these past twenty years the idea that "least toxic methods" should be part of the definition of IPM has reached the status of gospel. The term "least toxic pesticides" and "least toxic methods" is ubiquitous in IPM policy statements and even governmental rules and regulations. Its authority is rarely challenged by industry, academia or politicians--after all who wants to argue that schools or government agencies or your local PMP should use anything but the least toxic products?

Most of us have been taught to avoid "rushing in where angels fear to tread", but that's just what these three societies did by taking a stance against the "least toxic pesticide" concept.  It's not that my scientific colleagues are against the use of low toxicity pesticides, their argument is with the increasingly common insistence that "only 'least toxic pesticides'"' be used in IPM programs.

I encourage all to read the statement, but their objections boil down to the following:

• The term "least toxic" is too imprecise, and subject to misinterpretation by the public and by professionals alike. I can personally attest that many people wrongly equate "least toxic" with "organic" and "natural" (neither of which have any necessary connection to the least toxic concept--many natural chemicals are highly toxic). 
• Toxicity is not the same as "risk". An active ingredient can be highly toxic, but when diluted or made into a formulation that is highly unlikely to result in a human exposure, its use can be low risk. What consumers and regulators and parents should be most concerned about, when it comes to pesticides, is risk. 
• Least toxic to what? If an insecticide is low in toxicity to bees is it necessarily low in toxicity to dogs or humans or song birds? The least toxic concept presumes that pesticides fall neatly into a gradient of products range from those low in toxicity to everything to those that are high in toxicity to everything. They don't. 
• If only the least toxic products are used, this limits what can be done to manage pesticide resistance. A policy that rejects the possible use of 90%, say, of the available pesticide products leaves a much depleted tool belt, increasing the risk of pests developing resistance to the one or few remaining products. 
• The least toxic products are not always the most effective products. Indeed, if toxicity is the main selection criterion, then effectiveness is by necessity relegated to a secondary role. In many cases this means more applications of the least toxic product will be needed. Fuel, labor, pesticide exposure times and materials costs (none of which are environmentally desirable) will always increase with the need for more frequent pesticide interventions.

In case you think this is much ado about nothing, consider the wording of the Texas Occupations Code where it lays out the requirements for school IPM in my state.  The language of this code has been used as a model for other states' IPM regulations.  It directs the state to "include in standards adopted under this section: (1) a requirement to use the least toxic methods available to control pests, rodents, insects, and weeds..." The potential negative impacts of this language were blunted when Texas state regulators adopted a liberal set of regulations that allowed use of any pesticide in schools, but required schools to justify in writing the use of products identified as higher risk pesticides. In practice, this soft-handed approach has resulted in schools using lower risk insecticide approaches, without restricting choices. Other states and communities have seen regulatory language not so friendly to pesticide choice.

I have great sympathy with policy makers trying to encourage homeowners and pest management professionals to use the lowest risk, effective pesticides.  On the other hand, I agree with the ESA/WSSA/APA critique of the "least toxic" concept. The hard part is coming up with better approach that encourages pesticide applicators to use good judgement when selecting pesticides and pesticide formulations to supplement biological and other non-chemical controls.

For their part the societies point readers to the National IPM Roadmap as a source of guidance. The Roadmap was developed ten years ago and used as a guidance document by the USDA in developing a national plan to improve and encourage the adoption of IPM. Significantly, this roadmap does not use the term "least toxic" or "use of pesticides as a last resort", but emphasizes IPM as a process that identifies and reduces risks from both pests and pest management related strategies (including pesticides).

The second target of the society position paper is that idea that pesticides should be used only as "tools of last resort". But that will be the topic of another post.

Pest Prevention by Design

Imagine a community where the newest buildings were pest resistant. It would be a place where architects and engineers worked hand in hand with pest management experts to take pests into consideration during building design and construction. Foundations of these new buildings would be reinforced with termite barriers, kitchen walls could be opened easily for inspection and treatment, access points to electric utility chases would be easily reachable, exterior doors and utility penetrations would be rodent-proof, and birds would find few easily accessible perches or nesting holes. Now imagine schools and government buildings, homes and shopping centers with features that greatly simplified pest control and reduce the need for pesticides.

That's the idea behind the new Pest Prevention by Design Guidelines published this month by San Francisco Environment, a department of the city and county of San Francisco, CA. The principal author and leader of this effort is Dr. Chris Geiger, a trained entomologist and Urban Pest Management Program Manager for the City and County of San Francisco's Department of the Environment. I love Chris' up-front and down-to-earth admission in the report:

"The world is blessed with many charming, pleasurable, glamorous and enticing subjects on which to ponder. Pest management is not one of these."

How true. But of course a world without pest management would be unlivable too.

The format of the report is clean and easy
to follow. The recommendations are based
around 18 building features, and cite technical
references for the guidelines where they exist.

The new publication was and is a team effort, involving a Technical Advisory Committee that included pest management experts, PMPs, architects, and engineers. Universities in the mix included Cornell, Penn State, Texas A&M, UC Davis and Riverside, and the NJ Institute of Technology. The National Pest Management Association was involved, as well as several pest control companies.  My point is, this is not just the wild imaginings of some California tree-huggers (apologies Chris), but a serious effort to start a dialogue between us in the pest control industry and the folks who build both green and not-so-green buildings. The project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control.

I think anyone with an interest in the subject of pest proofing, owes it to themselves to take a look at the report. The authors limited the scope of the document to commercial buildings, and it is far from a perfect or complete document, as the writers will admit. But it's a start.

Looking forward there are several hopes for this project. First, we intended it (yes, I was involved too) to serve as a starting point for better dialogue with architects and engineers--two groups that historically have not been very interested in pest control.  With the current interest in green or sustainable buildings (IPM is actually a part of today's LEED green points rating system) it appears that the time may be ripe to entice these folks to take pest control more seriously. Consider that built-in pest control should mean longer useful lives for buildings, more pleasant and livable indoor environments, cleaner air and less need for pesticides--all admirable green goals.

Second, we hope that the guidelines will be referenced by green building advocates, builders of schools, those in the apartment and hospitality industries, and government officials wanting to reduce the long term maintenance costs of public buildings.  After all, pests are  frequent contributors to building decay and decline--an expensive problem for all.

Last, we intend these guidelines to be a living document. Ultimately it is intended to reside as an editable database, where suggestions and revisions can be made over time. Once a suitable web home is found, it will be easy to update and improve. If, as you read through the document, you see things that can be added or improved, we want to know about it.

I can hear grumbling by some that "if we build pest proof buildings there won't be any work left for PMPs". That I seriously doubt. It's my personal belief that as long as there are people living in buildings, there will be plenty of pests. I think that what this effort does is raise the status and profile of pest management into more of a science and less of a fire station mentality (constantly putting out preventable fires). There will be a need for PMPs to get involved with the building planning and execution process. Yes, if this concept catches on, there might be less for PMPs to do in these newer and greener buildings; but the lost jobs will be the kinds of problems that no one wants anyway--those institutionalized, chronic pest problems that seem to never go away because of filthy conditions or rundown facilities.

As for me, I know I'd rather live in a condominium or apartment, or stay at a hotel, or eat at a restaurant that was built with IPM in mind. Wouldn't you? And that's what pest prevention by design is all about.

Entomology in Knoxville: Bed bugs, Ants and Others

Bed bugs remained one of the most frequent subjects of
new research reports at the annual ESA meetings.

Continuing my earlier report on goings on at the Entomological Society of America's annual conference...

Total release foggers

In addition to health-related papers, urban entomology sessions covered many practical aspects of pest control. North Carolina State's Coby Schal, one of the top guns in urban entomology, reported on the first field study of total release foggers (bug bombs) for cockroach control. You may have heard of a parallel study done this year by Susan Jones at Ohio State University. She conducted a set of laboratory experiments with total release foggers (TRFs) against bed bugs, the results of which she recently spoke about on PCT's multimedia website.  She found that field collected strains of bed bugs were essentially immune to three common over-the-counter pyrethroid TRFs, and that even highly pesticide susceptible lab strains were largely able to survive when give basic cover as simple as a piece of paper.

Schal pointed out that TRFs are frequently misused by the public, causing four to eight home explosions per year in New York City alone. His lab looked at the impact of two TRFs on both naturally occurring cockroach populations and on "sentinel" cockroaches (lab reared cockroaches contained in open, escape-proof containers) placed in multiple locations in the treated apartments.  While the foggers did kill the pesticide-susceptible, lab-reared cockroaches, they provided little to no control of wild cockroaches (with 200-fold resistance to pyrethroids). In some treated apartments wild cockroach populations actually increased during the test. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. reevaluates registrations for TRFs in the next few years given the safety issues and dismal data coming out of university labs around the country concerning their use.

Bed bug repellents?

Conventional wisdom suggests that there are no repellents that can be sprayed on the skin to prevent bed bugs from taking a blood meal. However Changlu Wang, of Rutgers University, says "not so fast". He looked at the problem from a different angle, pointing out that there are two possible uses for repellents. Besides the traditional use of repellents applied to the skin to keep insects from biting, repellents may also be used off-host to keep bed bugs from climbing onto beds, suitcases, or other inanimate objects.  

Wang and colleagues looked at this second use. They chose several repellents including DEET, permethrin, picaridin, isolongifolenone, and other potential repellents. Although several products showed repellency, DEET was the overall winner. At 10% and 25% concentration, bed bugs were repelled from Climbup Interceptors (guarding a table with a CO2 lure) for 9 hours and 2 weeks, respectively.  While the practical use of repellents in the real world needs more experimentation, this is useful information.  DEET could conceivably be used as a repellent on some shoes (it does dissolve some plastics, so user beware) or booties to reduce the risk of hitchhiking bed bugs being picked up by technicians (or researchers!).  I expect that eventually bed bug control will be supplemented by the use of repellents as a quarantine tool or for "push-pull" tactics to get bed bugs to go where we want them to go (say, to treated harborages).  Wang cautioned that bed bug behavior may be different around a host where attraction to a live host may overcome the repellent effects he saw.

Standardized bed bug testing

One of the biggest applied bed bug research challenges today is how to standardize insecticide testing. It is common knowledge that results for nearly any insecticide can be fairly easily manipulated by selecting the right strains and using protocols that show more or less bed bug mortality. The challenge is to find protocols that are more or less predictive of a product's performance in the field. Mark Feldlaufer, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/ARS, reported on progress being made to verify fair, standardized testing methods. This research will support the EPA in its efforts to develop standardized test protocols.

He noted that there are currently 318 insecticide formulations registered for bed bug control, 90% of which include pyrethroid insecticides. He noted that not all pyrethroids are equal, and cited as an example transfluthrin (currently unregistered in the U.S.). Transfluthrin has a high vapor pressure, which most PMP realize is likely to provide better control in difficult to reach areas like voids and crevices.  He also noted that a new combination product (metofluthrin plus clothianidin) is in the insecticide pipeline for bed bugs.

Among the USDA findings were that male and female bed bugs are approximately equal in insecticide susceptibility. This finding could allow researchers to use only one sex in tests (avoiding mortality problems with  traumatic insemination by males on females) rather than the 50/50 ratio currently recommended. Also, test results did not significantly change after seven days, suggesting that tests could be terminated after this time.

How to classify and handle insecticide exposed bed bugs is an issue for anyone who has conducted bed bug trials. USDA classified insecticide-exposed bed bugs as alive (A), dead (D), or morbid/moribund (M/M).  The latter group consisted of bed bugs that were not completely dead, but did not behave normally or respond normally to probing. They found that if placed on untreated surfaces after exposure, between 7 and 77% of the moribund bed bugs recovered compared to 100% mortality of M/M bed bugs left on treated surfaces. This information should be useful in helping EPA decide how to require M/M to be handled. It is fascinating, and alarming, how slight differences in the way test subjects are handled and classified can dramatically influence test results.

Other interesting reports

• Susan Jones (Ohio State) reported positive results controlling bed bugs with a new neem formulation (CIRKIL), which, PCT magazine reports, will be available in the U.S. this fall.
• Joe DeMark (Dow AgroScience) reported on field testing of a new Recruit AG above ground bait station for termites. This product will carry 254 grams (one pound) of bait matrix per station. Of nine sites on which it was tested, all termite colonies were determined to be eliminated within four months.
• Mike Rust (University of California, Riverside) reported on studies with the Turkestan cockroach, a species spreading throughout the southwestern states (CA to TX). They found that the Turkestan cockroach is better adapted to dry situations than the oriental cockroach, especially at higher temperatures, and may be expected to displace Oriental cockroaches in hot, dry situations.
• Karen Vail (University of Tennessee) tested insecticides on odorous house ant.  She found fipronil provided slightly superior control to Talstar, and she observed 2-4 weeks control with the new Arilon insecticide (indoxacarb).  She also found that sprays applied with backpack sprayers targeting ant trails and structural guidelines (gutters, ledges, etc.) were as effective in controlling ants as high-volume power sprays.
• Dini Miller (Virginia Tech) reported that a 2011 National Apartment Association survey found bed bugs as the number one concern among apartment owners (beating out concerns over property taxes). Besides control expenses, additional costs due to bed bugs include carpet wraps (to contain bed bugs on infested carpets during removal), need for heavier duty paint (to better cover fecal spots on walls), delays in rental payments, increased evictions, more abuse from residents, and loss of reputation in the community. Twenty states now have laws addressing responsibility for treatment costs for bed bugs.
• In a study reported in the May 2012 issue of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, researchers from Nebraska tested the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide gas as a fumigant for bed bugs. You may remember chlorine dioxide as the gas used in US governmental facilities after the 2001 anthrax attacks. It proved to penetrate cracks and crevices well and kill bed bugs effectively. Chlorine dioxide is used in hospitals for germ control and might find a niche use for battling bed bug infestations in medical settings.
• Margie Lehnert, Clemson University, described a simple but (I thought) ingenious technique for studying bed bug population dynamics. She used nylon stockings inside a HEPA vacuum hose attachment to collect small bed bug aggregations in infested apartments. Once an aggregation is sucked up, the stocking can be removed and tied off and returned to the lab for counting. In this way Lehnert has developed a powerful tool to study population patterns and, perhaps, better infer reasons for bed bug dispersal away from beds. 
• Chris Keefer, Texas A&M University, presented some of the first data I've seen on the invasive, and difficult to control, dark rover ant. This ant is thought to have entered the U.S. from Argentina in Louisiana in 1978. It is now common through most of the southern states.  Keefer, after some difficulty,  has figured out how to colonize these ants in the lab. Using his lab ants he was able to compare the effectiveness of three baits: Terro PCO gel (98% control), Advance Ant Gel (88% control) and Advance Granular Bait (large granules) (58.81% control). The best residual insecticide treatments he found during an outdoor field trial were Demand CS and Temprid, which gave 84% and 82% control, respectively. This confirms what I've heard some PMPs say about effective treatments for these ants.

Of course much more went on in Knoxville than I can report (curse those concurrent sessions!). If I've done no more than convey how exhausting it is to sit for 50 paper sessions (my count), I've given you a taste of what it's like to be there.  Next year's meetings are scheduled to be in Austin, TX, so I encourage some of my Texas colleagues to consider attending. This year the ESA planned a special event for PMPs, including an ACE prep class. Stay tuned for PMP programs for 2013.

Entomology in Knoxville: Human health

3000 entomologists swarmed to the 2012 ESA annual conference
in scenic Knoxville, TN.  Over 1800 papers and 600 posters reported
on all aspects of  the science, including urban entomology.

Every year I try to attend the Entomological Society of America's annual conference. It's one of the largest gatherings of entomologists you'll find anywhere in the world, and there's always a lot to learn.  I also try each year to give you my readers a little taste of what the meetings are like, and what's new in the structural pest control field. In this post I wanted to cover some of the human health-related papers.

Delusions of Parasitosis 

One of the many meeting symposia at ESA was dedicated to the subject of delusions of parasitosis, a condition where people delude themselves into believing that non-existent insects are on them, or in their bodies, or infesting their home. This is a relatively common problem across the country. Cynthia Lord and Roxanne Connelly with the University of Florida reported handling 338 probable cases of delusions of parasitosis (where no insects were ever found) over 13 years of Extension work--approximately two per month (this frequency of contact is very similar to what I  encounter at my office in Dallas, TX). Dr. Nancy Hinkle at the University of Georgia sees even more cases, up to 3-4 people per week, to the point where she has hired a patient psychiatrist to assist her with handling such visitors. All speakers at the symposium agreed that such calls are extremely time-consuming, and rarely result in a satisfactory outcome without the intervention of family or skilled medical professionals.

Recent authors have criticized a published article claiming
to have seen springtails in human skin scrapings. 

Earnest Barnard, entomologist with the University of Tennesse, debunked the idea (prevalent on the Internet) that Collembola (springtails) might be responsible for some mystery bug cases.  Dr. Barnard, who is an expert on the Collembola, noted that springtail mouthparts are retracted into the head and are incapable of burrowing into skin as some have suggested. He addressed a scientific paper purporting to have found Collembola in skin scrapings from patients diagnosed with delusions of parasitosis. His study of the paper showed that the authors manipulated electron micrographs to create images that look like a Collembola. He noted that the purported parasites were far too small to be real Collembola, based on the paper's own size measurements. A website at the University of California - Davis does a good job of showing all known human skin parasites and critically evaluating the misinformation so common on the Internet.

Lynn Kimsey, with the University of California - Davis, noted the lack of cross-communication among disciplines concerning delusions of parasitosis. She looked at some of the underlying causes of unexplained itching and broke them into four categories: peripheral (e.g, resulting from solar elastosis and other skin disorders, autoimmune disease, bites, contact dermatitis), neurogenic (e.g., the result of drug side effects), psychogenic (e.g., hallucinations, delusions, OCD), or pathogenic (symptoms resulting from an organic disease, such as diabetes). She suggested that entomologists should advise clients to avoid telling their doctor that they believe they have skin parasites when describing their symptoms. In this way the doctor is less likely to dismiss the complaint as psychological and more likely to consider a wider spectrum of possible causes for creeping, itching and biting sensations on the skin. She suggested referring mystery bug clientele to internal medicine specialists, especially those with an emphasis on neuromedicine, as these doctors tend to take a more wholistic view of the patient than the average dermatologist or GP. All speakers agreed that entomologists should avoid referring to "bites" when discussing mysterious skin lesions with a client, avoiding reinforcement of what is frequently a false perception.

Urban Highlights of 2012

Sometimes these meetings are a good opportunity to catch up on "older" research--research that may have been conducted a year or two earlier, but is just now getting published. Roberto Pereira, of the University of Florida, devoted a session to reviewing the highlights of urban entomology in 2012. According to two studies published this year from North Carolina State University, bed bug populations around the U.S. are very diverse genetically, but often very similar genetically within communities and especially within apartment complexes. These data suggest that bed bugs have been introduced many times into the U.S. from different foreign sources. They concluded that nearly all the studied infestations in isolated apartment complexes were started by a small starter infestation, possibly consisting of a singly mated female and/or her progeny. What's cool about these studies is how the ability to peer into the DNA of bed bugs is giving us new insight into how these insects spread--something we could only speculate about a few years ago. One of the two studies authors, Ed Vargo, elaborated on these findings later in the meeting. After looking at 61 populations in 21 states they believe there is a strong international connection between bed bug populations in the U.S. and Canada and Europe.

In other bed bug literature, a couple of papers explored the mental health impact of bed bugs.  Goddard and deShazo report in the American Journal of Medicine that many people experience symptoms similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following bouts with bed bugs.  Susser and colleagues from Canada reported in the online journal BMJ Open a variety of anxiety, sleep disturbance and even depression associated with bed bug infestations.

Finally, at least one lawyer this year suggested that OSHA should be more interested in bed bugs. He argued in the Toxics Law Reporter that the ability of bed bugs to harbor certain blood borne parasites puts workers in the pest control, hospitality and housing industries at increased risk of infection. This idea should be of interest all of us who have ever smashed bed bugs with ungloved (or gloved) hands. What this would likely mean to our industry, should OSHA get involved, would be increased training requirements for employees and need to provide technicians with additional safety gear--some of which is probably not a bad idea.

ACE Prep Class Opportunity in Dallas Dec 12

The first ACE Prep Course to be offered at the
ESA Annual Conference happened November
15th in Knoxville, TN. The next day 25 PMPs
successfully passed the exam in both Tennessee
and in Georgia. While not required prior to
taking the exam, many feel the class
is a great confidence booster.

This fall has seen a record level of interest in the Entomological Society of America's (ESA) certification program. Thanks in part to booths at the recent Bed Bug Summit in Las Vegas, NV and then again at PestWorld in Boston, MA many PMPs are learning about the program and signing up for certification exams. On November 16th alone, approximately 25 new ACEs were added to the Certification rolls.

A lot of you that I've talked to over the years have expressed interest in applying for the ACE program, but are a little nervous about the exam. This is understandable, especially for most of us who haven't taken a test in a few years. If you find yourself in that position, there are two excellent opportunities to prepare.

On Wednesday December 12 Dr. Bob Davis and I will be offering the ACE Prep Class at The Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Dallas. If you are interested and planning to go for ACE certification in the next year you are welcome; but you should sign up soon because we only have room for 15 more participants.  Class time runs from 8:30 am until approximately 2:00 pm. After the class, at 2:00 pm, we will give the exam to anyone who is pre-approved to take the test (see below).  Anyone planning to take the exam  should bring either a laptop or iPad with wireless internet capabilities.  The exam is only being given online, and my office does not have enough computers to provide one to all test takers.  No CEUs will be offered for this class. If you would like to participate, contact my assistant, Kaye Garrison (972-952-9201 or vkgarrison@ag.tamu.edu) to sign up and get directions.

One more thing about this date... but first, sit down and hold on to your chair. As an incentive to see more PMPs here in Dallas take the plunge and get certified, there will be no fee for this class. If you're one of those waffling about whether to take the plunge, you'll never have a better, more economical opportunity. Because of the limited class size, we will be giving first priority to those who will be taking the test that day, so don't delay.

If you miss this chance, or Dallas isn't your kind of town, a second prep class will be held Wednesday, January 9, 2013 in College Station, TX. Dr. Bob and I will be offering the prep class again as part of the 67th Texas A&M University Urban Pest Management Conference and Workshop. The Prep Class starts at 10:15 am on the 9th, and the ACE exam will be given the next morning at 8:00 am. This course will earn you one Gen. CEU (Other), one Gen. CEU (IPM), and one Pest and one Termite CEU in Texas, as well as four technician credit hours. For more information about the meeting, cost, and how to register, go to http://pcoconference.tamu.edu/index.html.

What Is Certification?

If you haven't heard of the ACE program before, it is a certification program for PMPs with at least seven years of experience in the pest control industry. There is a certification exam to be passed, much like a doctor must pass their board exams to be certified in a specialty area. Those who qualify and pass the exam are qualified to call themselves Associate Certified Entomologists (ACEs) and include the certification initials on their business cards or business advertisements.  As government agencies, schools and the public learn about certification, you can expect more and more people to want to hire a company with a certified entomologist on staff. The certification program includes both ACE (7 years experience, no college degree requirement) and BCE (Board Certified Entomologists, must have a degree in entomology or related science) options. There are over 500 active ACEs in the U.S. according to the ESA.  For more information, check out the ESA Certification website.

How Do I Get Approved to Take the Exam?

Anyone who wants to take the ACE exam must first apply for certification, pay the application fee, and be approved by the ESA office.  To start the process go to http://www.entsoc.org/certification/ace/index.htm and complete steps One and Two by Friday, December 7. You do not have to pre-qualify to take the course without the exam.

How Do I Prepare?

One last thing.  If you're planning to take the ACE exam at one of these venues you should study now. The prep course alone is not enough to get most folks through. For suggestions on how and what to study, familiarize yourself with the study outline at the ESA website. Pay special attention to the detailed list of pests and competency areas linked at this page. I recommend circling every subject you feel rusty on, and using the recommended study materials to bone up especially on those points. There is even a practice exam on the website.