Next Article in Journal
Phenology, Seasonal Abundance, and Host-Plant Association of Spittlebugs (Hemiptera: Aphrophoridae) in Vineyards of Northwestern Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Identification of Borrelia spp. from Ticks in Pastures Nearby Livestock Farms in Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/insects12111010
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effectiveness of Ethyl Formate as a Fumigant of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Ectobiidae, Blattidae) in Cross-Border Trade Transportation

by
Hyun-Kyung Kim
,
Hanchan Park
,
Seung-Ju Seok
,
Yejin Kyung
and
Gil-Hah Kim
*
Department of Plant Medicine, College of Agriculture, Life and Environment Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(11), 1010; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12111010
Submission received: 27 September 2021 / Revised: 6 November 2021 / Accepted: 7 November 2021 / Published: 9 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Fumigation is one effective cockroach control method. Ethyl formate (EF) has recently been employed as a grain fumigant and has been evaluated as relatively safer than other fumigants. In this experiment, the effects of an ethyl formate fumigant on two species of cockroaches were investigated. Cockroach nymphs and adults had 100% mortality, but the effect on egg hatching inhibition was weak. Therefore, ethyl formate could be used as a fumigant if the control period and its usage should be adjusted considering the developmental stage of the cockroach.

Abstract

Cockroaches cause problems as pests not only locally in residential areas but also internationally, as they can disperse across borders in transport vessels. We investigated the effects of the ethyl formate (EF) fumigant on all developmental stages of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana. For B. germanica eggs, the hatching inhibition rate increased directly proportionately with the increasing treatment concentration of EF, but the 100% control was not observed. P. americana eggs did not show any fumigation effect, even after exposure to 60 mg/L of fumigant in a 12 L desiccator. Adults and nymphs of the two species showed various fumigation effects dependent on the concentration in the 12 L desiccator. When EF was applied at the lethal concentration for 99% mortality (LCT99) values of 35 mg/L for 4 h (78.5 mg·h/L) and 60 mg/L for 2 h (70.8 mg·h/L), respectively, adults and nymphs of both species had 100% mortality in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber with a 20% loading ratio. However, no significant difference from the control was observed in the egg stage of either species of cockroach. The results of this experiment indicate that EF can be used as a fumigant for cross-border transport vessels if the control period occurs during the cockroach developmental stage and continuous refumigation is performed.

1. Introduction

There are approximately 4600 species of cockroach in the world, but only a few species live with people [1,2]. The most common species in human habitats are the German cockroach (Blattella germanica), American cockroach (Periplaneta americana), Australian cockroach (P. australasiae), large brown cockroach (P. brunnea (Burmeister)) and oriental cockroach (Blatta orientalis), which predominate around the world [3,4,5].
These species are not only nuisances in residential areas but also transmit pathogens due to dietary habits and cause allergic disease through their feces [6,7,8,9,10,11]. In addition to human-dominated habitats, cockroaches can be problematic in containers, cargo ships and aircraft that travel between countries [12,13,14,15,16]. Chemical control in the form of baits, traps, foggers, residual applications and occasional fumigation is generally used to control cockroach populations [14,15,17,18,19]. In an enclosed space, such as a container or aircraft, fumigation is one of the methods by which pest populations can be effectively controlled in a short time [20]. Total release foggers (TRFs), as called bug bombs, are widely used to kill insects and contain aerosol propellants for fumigation. Although TRFs are often used to control pests in the indoor environments of residential areas, insecticidal baits are more effective, which suggests that the aerosol particles of TRFs may not reach the niches in which cockroaches reside. Furthermore, the residues created by TRFs are problematic [21,22,23].
Ethyl formate (EF) is a colorless gas that exists in nature. The effects of EF as a fumigant have already been reported for many quarantine pests of plants, such as grape mealybug (Pseudococcus maritimus), long-tailed mealybug (P. longispinus), western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), and onion thrips (Thrips tabaci) [24,25,26]. EF is effective after a short treatment time, and because it metabolizes quickly, it is easily decomposed, leaving little residue [27,28,29,30]. Although the effects of EF fumigation have been researched for many pests, studies on medical pests are insufficient.
In this study, the effects of EF fumigation on B. germanica and P. americana were investigated and the potential use of EF as a control agent in intercountry vehicles was assessed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insects

B. germanica and P. americana were maintained in the insect toxicology laboratory of Chungbuk National University for more than 3 years without exposure to any known insecticides. They were mass reared with dog food (Super Jindo, Daehan Feed. Co. Ltd., Incheon, Korea) in plastic cages (54 × 40 × 27 cm) and were incubated at 28 ± 2 °C and 60 ± 10% relative humidity (R.H.) under 16:8 h light:dark (L:D) conditions.

2.2. Fumigant

Ethyl formate (C3H6O2, 99.6%) as a colorless liquid, was supplied by Fuoviders Inc. (Asan, Korea).

2.3. Fumigation Experiments

Fumigation experiments involving EF and the two cockroach species were conducted using a 12 L desiccator (Duran, Mainz, Germany) and a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber modified according to Cho et al. (2020). Ten cockroaches of each adult and nymph developmental stage were placed in a breeding dish (9 × 5 cm) containing food; the dish was placed in a 12 L desiccator, which was sealed with vacuum grease (high-vacuum grease, Dow Corning, Midland, TX, USA). Adults and nymphs were inoculated without distinction between males and females. EF was placed on filter paper (90 mm I.D.) in the desiccator using a 100 µL gastight syringe (Hamilton, NV, USA). Various amounts (10–70 mg/L) of the fumigant were applied, and the experiments were conducted at 20 °C for exposure periods of 2 h and 4 h. Adults and nymphal mortality were observed 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after treatment.
Each breeding dish containing cockroaches was placed in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber (230 × 50 × 50 cm) with timber at a loading ratio of 20%. The breeding dishes were placed at the top, middle and bottom of the fumigation chamber. The EF concentrations were 35 mg/L and 60 mg/L, which the treatment concentrations were selected by statistically estimating the 99% lethal concentration and time value (LCT99) of the adult and nymph stages, with 2 h and 4 h of exposure at 20 °C, respectively, in the 12 L desiccator experiment.
The hatching rate (%) was determined using the number of hatched egg sacs (ootheca). The hatching inhibition rate (%) was determined by inoculating 5 egg sacs in each breeding dish until 10 weeks after treatment and was calculated as [(number of hatched nymphs in the control–number of hatched nymphs in the treatment)/number of hatched nymphs in the control] × 100. The experimental conditions were the same as those in the adult and nymphal fumigation test (i.e., a 12 L desiccator and 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber were used). The fumigation treatment was conducted at 20 °C with 4 h exposure.
The control was not treated with any fumigant. All the experiments were repeated 3 times, and the dishes were incubated after treatment at 28 ± 2 °C and 60 ± 10% R.H. with a 16:8 h (L:D) photoperiod.

2.4. Gas Concentration and Sorption Measurement

From the 12 L desiccators, 50 mL of EF gas was collected in Tedlar gas sampling bags (1 L, SKC, Dorset, UK) using a syringe (100 mL, Hamilton, NV, USA). The concentration and time (CT) values were calculated by collecting gases at 30 min and 1, 2 and 4 h after EF treatment (AFHB/ACIA, 1989). The concentrations were analyzed using gas chromatography (Agilent Technology 6890N, FID, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with the GC conditions described in Kyung et al. (2019). Briefly, the injector temperature of the flame ionization detector (FID) was 200 °C, the detector temperature was 240 °C, the oven temperature was 100 °C, and an HP-5 column was utilized (0.32 mm × 30 m, Agilent Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
The sorption rate of EF was determined using a 12 L desiccator with 0%, 2% and 20% timber loading ratios (w/v). EF was applied at concentrations of 35 and 60 mg/L, and the experiments were conducted at 20 °C for 4 h and 2 h, respectively. The gas concentrations for sorption were determined at 30 min, 1 h, 2 h and 4 h after treatment. C/C0 values were calculated as the concentration at each time point after treatment (C) divided by the initial concentration after treatment (C0). There were no timber blocks in the 12 L desiccators in the control treatment.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The hatching inhibition rate and mortality of B. germanica and P. americana eggs due to EF fumigation were compared and analyzed using Tukey’s test (SAS Institute, 2009). The LCTs of EF for B. germanica and P. americana adults and nymphs were calculated using probit analysis [31].

3. Results

3.1. Inhibitory Effects of EF on Hatching

The inhibitory activity of EF on the hatching of egg sacs from two species of cockroaches was investigated in a 12 L desiccator (Table 1).
The hatching inhibition of the eggs from the two cockroach species revealed that fumigation with EF does not yield 100% mortality. The hatching rate of B. germanica egg sacs decreased with increasing treatment concentration. However, the hatching rate of P. americana egg sacs was 86.7%, even at 60 mg/L, which was not significantly different from that in the control. The hatching inhibition rate according to the number of nymphs was 96.8% for B. germanica and 13.9% for P. americana in the 60 mg/L treatment. Even the 60 mg/L EF treatment in the 12 L desiccator did not result in 100% control of the eggs from either cockroach species.
The effects of EF fumigation on eggs from 2 cockroach species were observed in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber (Table 2). A 100% control effect was not observed for the eggs of either species when treated with the LCT99 values (78.5 mg·h/L) associated with the adult and nymphal cockroaches. There was also no significant difference in the effect of fumigation according to the location of the fumigation chamber.

3.2. Effects of EF Fumigation on Adults and Nymphs

The effects of fumigation were investigated in adults and nymphs of two cockroach species (Figure 1).
The mortalities of adult and nymphal B. germanica were observed after 2 and 4 h of EF exposure (Figure 1A). In the 18 mg/L EF treatment group, the mortality of B. germanica adults and nymphs decreased after 8 h and 2 h of EF exposure, respectively. Then, over time, the mortality increased again. However, the mortality of treated adults after 4 h was not significantly different from those immediately after treatment or up to 96 h after treatment, while the mortality of B. germanica nymphs decreased in the 12 mg/L treatment. Both developmental stages were treated with 15 mg/L for 4 h and showed 100% mortality.
Mortality of P. americana adults and nymphs was observed according to exposure time and EF concentration (Figure 1B). EF concentrations of more than 60 mg/L were needed to yield 100% mortality of P. americana adults and nymphs 24 h after treatment. Adults (30 mg/L) and nymphs (35 mg/L) showed 100% mortality after 4 h of EF exposure, and as the fumigant concentration decreased, the effects of EF on the nymphs decreased, although the symptoms appeared similar to those achieved by knockdown.
The effects of EF fumigation on the adults and nymphs of two species of cockroach were investigated in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber containing timber blocks with a 20% loading ratio (w/v) (Table 3). In the adults and nymphs of both B. germanica and P. americana, the LCT99 (78.5 mg·h/L) for EF for an exposure period of 4 h led to 100% mortality after 24 h. In addition, EF fumigation was 100% effective against all the insects, even given exposure to the LCT99 (70.8 mg·h/L) for 2 h. Regardless of the spatial location of the fumigation chamber, EF fumigation was 100% effective against both cockroach species.

3.3. Timber Sorption Rate of EF

The sorption rates of timber blocks exposed to EF for 2 h and 4 h were analyzed (Figure 2).
When timber blocks were treated with 35 mg/L of EF at loading ratios of 2% and 20%, the concentration (C/C0) decreased by 0.9 and 0.88, respectively, after 4 h of exposure. When an EF concentration of 60 mg/L and loading ratios of 2% and 20% were used, the concentrations were 0.94 and 0.85, respectively, after 2 h of exposure. However, in the high-dose treatment, a high sorption rate was observed in the timber with a high loading ratio (20%). The EF concentrations in the control (without timber) did not show a significant reduction according to the treatment doses.

4. Discussion

Cockroaches are accidentally transported across geographic boundaries, and they cause damage not only in residential spaces but also contribute to the destruction of goods and threaten human health. Cockroach control is essential not only for housing but also for galleys and mess rooms for crew and passengers on ships or aircraft [15,16,19]. The use of fumigants is one of the alternative approaches for controlling their populations. Various fumigants are used in quarantine settings, and some have disadvantages: phosphine (PH3) damages copper, sulfuryl fluoride (SF) has comparatively low effectiveness at the egg stage, and chlorine dioxide is not suitable for plastics [20,32,33,34,35]. In the study on cockroach control using atmospheric conditions, treatment of B. orientalis and P. americana with 60% CO2 had small effects on ootheca, resulting in the need for longer treatment times [36,37]. In addition, the control of B. germanica and P. americana through hypoxia mediated by nitrogen gas was studied, but this approach is difficult to apply due to the risk of explosion [38]. For pest control in stores of dried fruits and cereals, EF has been used; this fumigant leaves almost no residue and has a shorter treatment time than other fumigants [24,27,29,30]. The characteristics of EF may make it suitable for cockroach control.
The effectiveness of fumigants will depend on the developmental stage of the insects [26]. The eggs and pupae of B. orientalis and P. americana were more tolerant than other developmental stages to a CO2 treatment; those of F. occidentalis, Phthorimaea operculella, Carposina niponensis and Rhynchophorus ferrugineus to a PH3 treatment; and those of Tetranychus urticae to an EF treatment [36,37,39,40,41,42,43]. It was also observed in this study that the EF treatment had a very small inhibitory effect on oothecal hatching. Since the eggs of cockroaches are protected by egg cases, cockroach control using fumigants should consider the hatching period [44]. The incubation period of eggs is 17.2 days for B. germanica and 34 days for P. americana, and the nymphal development periods are 40 and 165 days, respectively [45]. EF has a small effect on the eggs of both species of cockroach, but it is effective as a fumigant against nymphs and adults; therefore, effective control is possible if refumgation is performed considering the hatching time and developmental period of nymphs. When the EF exposure time was increased, the effectiveness was higher, even at a low concentration. However, decreased mortality of adults and nymphs was observed at low concentrations. In particular, the mortality of nymphs decreased compared with that of adults over time when the two groups were treated with a concentration below a certain level. Although EF treatment showed some effectiveness against the nymphs and adults of the two species of cockroaches studied, 100% control required treatment at a certain concentration or higher. The EF concentration needed for 100% control is thought to have a knockdown effect, indicating that this treatment concentration is very important for 100% control of cockroaches. Cockroach control using EF will be effective when specific doses are applied through a continuous control strategy, with refumgation being performed after a certain period of time in consideration of cockroach life cycles. Therefore, the results of this study might be helpful because they demonstrate that EF may be one of the fumigants that can be used as a cockroach control agent in transportation settings.

5. Conclusions

Our study on the fumigation effects of EF on B. germanica and P. americana found that adults and nymphs were highly susceptible to EF; however, the egg stage in both cockroaches had a very low hatching inhibition rate. Thus, ethyl formate can be used as a fumigant for cross-border transport vessels if continuous refumigation considering developmental stages is performed.

Author Contributions

Investigation, H.P. and Y.K.; formal analysis, S.-J.S. and H.-K.K.; writing—original draft, H.-K.K.; supervision, G.-H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beccaloni, G.W. Cockroach Species File Online. Version 5.0/5.0. 2014. Available online: http://Cockroach.SpeciesFile.org (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  2. Memona, H.; Manzoor, F.; Anjum, A. Cockroaches (Blattodea: Blattidae): A reservoir of pathogenic microbes in human-dwelling localities in Lahore. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sriwichai, P.; Nacapunchai, D.; Pasuralertsakul, S.; Rongsriyam, Y.; Thavara, U. Survey of indoor cockroaches in some dwellings in Bangkok. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2002, 33, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Chompoosri, J.; Thavara, U.; Tawatsin, A.; Sathantriphop, S.; Yi, T. Cockroach surveys in the Northern region of Thailand and Guangxi Province of China. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2004, 35, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  5. Memona, H.; Manzoor, F.; Riaz, S. Species diversity and distributional pattern of cockroaches in Lahore, Pakistan. J. Arthropod-Borne Dis. 2017, 11, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Gore, J.C.; Schal, C. Cockroach allergen biology and mitigation in the indoor environment. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 439–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Smith, T.S.; Hogan, M.B.; Welch, J.E.; Corder, W.T.; Wilson, N.W. Modern prevalence of insect sensitization in rural asthma and allergic rhinitis patients. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2005, 26, 356–360. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sohn, M.H.; Kim, K.E. The cockroach and allergic diseases. Allergy Asthma Immunol. Res. 2012, 4, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hamu, H.; Debalke, S.; Zemene, E.; Birlie, B.; Mekonnen, Z.; Yewhalaw, D. Isolation of intestinal parasites of public health importance from cockroaches (Blattella germanica) in Jimma Town, Southwestern Ethiopia. J. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 2014, 186240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wada-Katsumata, A.; Zurek, L.; Nalyanya, G.; Roelofs, W.L.; Zhang, A.; Schal, C. Gut bacteria mediate aggregation in the German cockroach. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 15678–15683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pomés, A.; Mueller, G.A.; Randall, T.A.; Chapman, M.D.; Arruda, L.K. New insights into cockroach allergens. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2017, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hughes, J.H. Aircraft and Public Health Service. Foreign Quarantine Entomology. Public Health Rep. 1949, 64 (Suppl. 210), 38. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eads, R.B.; Campos, E.G.; Trevino, H.A. Quarantine problems associated with the importation of bananas from Mexico. J. Econ. Entomol. 1966, 59, 896–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Norman, K.N.T. The persistence of methyl bromide residues in rice, dried fruit, seeds and nuts following laboratory fumigation. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 154–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oldenburg, M.; Baur, X. Cockroach infestation on seagoing ships. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2008, 63, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oldenburg, M.; Latza, U.; Baur, X. Occupational health risks due to shipboard cockroaches. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2008, 81, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tee, H.; Lee, C. Sustainable cockroach management using insecticidal baits: Formulations, behavioral responses and issues. In Urban Insect Pests-Sustainable Management Strategies; Dhang, P., Ed.; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; pp. 65–85. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhu, F.; Lavine, L.; O’Neal, S.; Lavine, M.; Foss, C.; Walsh, D. Insecticide resistance and management strategies in urban ecosystems. Insects 2016, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. World Health Organization (WHO). Methods and Operating Procedures for Aircraft Disinsection: Report of a WHO Consultation; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bond, E.J.; Dumas, T.; Hobbs, S. Corrosion of metals by the fumigant phosphine. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1984, 20, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miller, D.M.; Meek, F. Cost and efficacy comparison of integrated pest management strategies with monthly spray insecticide applications for German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) control in public housing. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Williams, G.M.; Linker, H.M.; Waldvogel, M.G.; Leidy, R.B.; Schal, C. Comparison of conventional and integrated pest management programs in public schools. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 1275–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. DeVries, Z.C.; Santangelo, R.G.; Crissman, J.; Mick, R.; Schal, C. Exposure risks and ineffectiveness of total release foggers (TRFs) used for cockroach control in residential settings. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Simpson, T.; Bikoba, V.; Tipping, C.; Mitcham, E.J. Ethyl formate as a postharvest fumigant for selected pests of table grapes. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 1084–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van Epenhuijsen, C.; Hedderley, D.; Somerfield, K.; Brash, D. Efficacy of ethyl formate and ethyl acetate for the control of onion thrips (Thrips tabaci). N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2007, 35, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cho, S.W.; Kim, H.K.; Kim, B.S.; Yang, J.O.; Kim, G.H. Combinatory effect of ethyl formate and phosphine fumigation on Pseudococcus longispinus and P. orchidicola (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) mortality and phytotoxicity to 13 foliage nursery plants. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2020, 23, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Desmarchelier, J.M.; Johnston, F.M.; Vu, L.T. Ethyl formate, formic acid and ethanol in air, wheat, barley and sultanas: Analysis of natural levels and fumigant residues. Pestic. Sci. 1999, 55, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Emekci, M.; Navarro, S.; Donahaye, E.; Rindner, M.; Azrieli, A. Respiration of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) at reduced oxygen concentrations. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vu, T.L.; Ren, Y.L. Natural levels of ethyl formate in stored grains determined using an improved method of analysis. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ren, Y.; Mahon, D. Fumigation trials on the application of ethyl formate to wheat, split faba beans and sorghum in small metal bins. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2006, 42, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. SAS Institute. SAS Institute SAS User’s Guide, Statistics Version 9, 1st ed.; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Annis, P.C.; Waterford, C.J. Alternatives-Chemicals. In The Methyl Bromide Issue; Bell, C.H., Price, N., Chakrabarti, B., Eds.; Wiley and Sons.: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 275–321. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bell, C.H.; Wontner Smith, T.J.; Savvidou, N. Some properties of sulphuryl fluoride in relation to its use as a fumigant in the cereals industry. In Advances in Stored Product Protection, Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, York, UK, 22–26 July 2002; Credland, P.F., Armitage, D.M., Bell, C.H., Cogan, P.M., Highley, E., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 910–915. [Google Scholar]
  34. Athanassiou, C.G.; Phillips, T.W.; Aikins, M.J.; Hasan, M.M.; Throne, J.E. Effectiveness of sulfuryl fluoride for control of different life stages of stored-product psocids (Psocoptera). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compatibility of Material and Electronic Equipment with Methyl Bromide and Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation. 2012. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=246831 (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  36. Newton, P. Direct effects of increasing carbon dioxide on pasture plants and communities. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 1991, 34, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gannon, B.; Le Patourel, G.; Young, R. Effect of carbon dioxide on the Oriental cockroach, Blatta orientalis. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2001, 15, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reierson, D.A.; Rust, M.K.; Kennedy, J.M.; Daniel, V.; Maekawa, S. Enhancing the effectiveness of modified atmospheres to control insect pests in museums and similar sensitive areas. Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Insect Pests in the Urban Environment, Edinburgh, Scotland, 7–10 July 1996; Wildey, K.B., Ed.; Heriot-Watt University: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1996; pp. 319–327. [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu, B.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y. Toxicity of phosphine to Carposina niponensis (Lepidoptera: Carposinadae) at low temperature. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1988–1993. [Google Scholar]
  40. Llácer, E.; Dembilio, O.; Jacas, J. Evaluation of the efficacy of an insecticidal paint based on chlorpyrifos and pyriproxyfen in a microencapsulated formulation against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kim, H.K.; Lee, S.W.; Kim, J.I.; Yang, J.O.; Koo, H.N.; Kim, G.H. Synergistic effects of oxygen on phosphine and ethyl formate for the control of Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 2572–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kyung, Y.; Kim, H.K.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, B.S.; Yang, J.O.; Lee, B.H.; Koo, H.N.; Kim, G.H. Efficacy and phytotoxicity of phosphine as fumigants for Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on asparagus. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2644–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lee, J.S.; Kim, H.K.; Kyung, Y.; Park, G.H.; Lee, B.H.; Yang, J.O.; Koo, H.N.; Kim, G.H. Fumigation activity of ethyl formate and phosphine against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on imported sweet pumpkin. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 1625–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Williams, C.L. Effect of Fumigation on Cockroaches on Ships. Public Health Rep. 1931, 46, 1680–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schal, C.; Gautier, J.Y.; Bell, W.J. Behavioural ecology of cockroaches. Biol. Rev. 1984, 59, 209–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 12 01010 g001a 550Insects 12 01010 g001b 550
Figure 1. Fumigation effects of EF on B. germanica (A) and P. americana (B) adults and nymphs in a 12 L desiccator according to concentration and exposure time.
Figure 1. Fumigation effects of EF on B. germanica (A) and P. americana (B) adults and nymphs in a 12 L desiccator according to concentration and exposure time.
Insects 12 01010 g001aInsects 12 01010 g001b
Insects 12 01010 g002 550
Figure 2. Concentrations of EF given different timber loading ratios (0, 2 and 20%) during fumigation in a 12 L desiccator with 35 mg/L and 60 mg/L for 4 h and 2 h, respectively.
Figure 2. Concentrations of EF given different timber loading ratios (0, 2 and 20%) during fumigation in a 12 L desiccator with 35 mg/L and 60 mg/L for 4 h and 2 h, respectively.
Insects 12 01010 g002
Table
Table 1. Inhibitory effects of ethyl formate on the hatching rates of B. germanica and P. americana egg sacs for 10 weeks after a 4 h exposure in a 12 L desiccator.
Table 1. Inhibitory effects of ethyl formate on the hatching rates of B. germanica and P. americana egg sacs for 10 weeks after a 4 h exposure in a 12 L desiccator.
SpeciesConcentration (mg/L)CT
(mg·h/L)		naHatched Ootheca (%, Mean ± SE) bNo. of Hatched NymphsHatching Inhibition Rate (%, Mean ± SE)
B. germanica70219.6156.7 ± 6.7 c1397.4 ± 2.6 bc
60178.9156.7 ± 6.7 c1696.8 ± 3.2 c
50137.51546.7 ± 6.7 b15468.5 ± 4.4 bc
40115.21553.3 ± 13.3 b17464.2 ± 9.4 abc
3077.41573.3 ± 6.7 ab26546.0 ± 8.8 ab
2050.01580.0 ± 11.5 ab35527.9 ± 13.1 a
1027.51573.3 ± 6.7 ab31336.2 ± 5.7 a
Control15100.0 ± 0.0 a492-
P. americana60178.91586.7 ± 6.7 a13713.9 ± 11.7 a
40115.215100.0 ± 0.0 a1516.6 ± 1.2 a
3077.41580.0 ± 11.5 a13417.8 ± 12.0 a
1027.51586.7 ± 6.7 a12820.4 ± 7.6 a
Control15100.0 ± 0.0 a162-
a Total number of B. germanica and P. americana egg sac (ootheca) tested. b The means within each cockroach followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05 (Tukey’s test).
Table
Table 2. Inhibitory effects of ethyl formate on the hatching rates of B. germanica and P. americana egg sacs for 10 weeks after a 4 h exposure in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber containing a timber block with a loading ratio of 20%.
Table 2. Inhibitory effects of ethyl formate on the hatching rates of B. germanica and P. americana egg sacs for 10 weeks after a 4 h exposure in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber containing a timber block with a loading ratio of 20%.
Concentration (mg/L)SpeciesnaLocationHatched Ootheca (%, Mean ± SE) bNo. of Hatched NymphsHatching Inhibition Rate (%, Mean ± SE)CT (mg·h/L)
35B. germanica15Top80.0 ± 11.5 a28734.7 ± 5.6 a78.5
15Middle66.7 ± 6.7 a27237.6 ± 10.2 a
15Bottom73.3 ± 6.7 a26140.7 ± 6.2 a
15Control93.3 ± 6.7 a445-
P. americana15Top80.0 ± 11.5 a13111.1 ± 4.8 a
15Middle73.3 ± 6.7 a11322.2 ± 6.7 a
15Bottom80.0 ± 0.0 a1394.4 ± 8.8 a
15Control86.7 ± 6.7 a148-
a Total number of B. germanica and P. americana egg sac (ootheca) tested; b The means within each cockroach followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05 (Tukey’s test).
Table
Table 3. Fumigant toxicity of ethyl formate against B. germanica and P. americana nymphs and adults in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber 2 h and 4 h exposure containing timber block with a loading ratio of 20%.
Table 3. Fumigant toxicity of ethyl formate against B. germanica and P. americana nymphs and adults in a 0.65 m3 fumigation chamber 2 h and 4 h exposure containing timber block with a loading ratio of 20%.
Exposure TimeConcentration (mg/L)SpeciesStagenLocationMortalityCT
(mg·h/L)
4 h35B. germanicaAdult30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a78.5
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
Nymph30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 6.7 b
P. americanaAdult30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
Nymph30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
2 h60B. germanicaAdult30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a70.8
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
Nymph30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
P. americanaAdult30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
Nymph30Top100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Middle100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Bottom100.0 ± 0.0 a
30Control6.7 ± 3.3 b
Mortality (%, mean ± SE), followed by the different letters within columns, was significantly different at p < 0.05 by Tukey’s test (SAS Institute 2009).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, H.-K.; Park, H.; Seok, S.-J.; Kyung, Y.; Kim, G.-H. Effectiveness of Ethyl Formate as a Fumigant of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Ectobiidae, Blattidae) in Cross-Border Trade Transportation. Insects 2021, 12, 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12111010

AMA Style

Kim H-K, Park H, Seok S-J, Kyung Y, Kim G-H. Effectiveness of Ethyl Formate as a Fumigant of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Ectobiidae, Blattidae) in Cross-Border Trade Transportation. Insects. 2021; 12(11):1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12111010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Hyun-Kyung, Hanchan Park, Seung-Ju Seok, Yejin Kyung, and Gil-Hah Kim. 2021. "Effectiveness of Ethyl Formate as a Fumigant of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Ectobiidae, Blattidae) in Cross-Border Trade Transportation" Insects 12, no. 11: 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12111010

APA Style

Kim, H. -K., Park, H., Seok, S. -J., Kyung, Y., & Kim, G. -H. (2021). Effectiveness of Ethyl Formate as a Fumigant of Blattella germanica and Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Ectobiidae, Blattidae) in Cross-Border Trade Transportation. Insects, 12(11), 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12111010

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop