Bug Bombs Research Articles

Wash-off potential of pyrethroids after use of total release fogger products

Pyrethroids are frequently detected in urban wastewater. Even though treatment facilities remove most pyrethroids (> 90 %) in wastewater, residual concentrations can exceed thresholds that are acutely toxic to sensitive aquatic species. Total release foggers (also known as “bug bombs”) are widely used by the general public for insect control. It was hypothesized that these products serve as a source of pyrethroids entering the urban wastewater through the deposition of the active ingredients on various surfaces and subsequent transfer from the contaminated surfaces to the waste stream through cleaning activities. Based on experiments conducted in an enclosure, we found that substantial amounts of a pyrethroid (i.e., cypermethrin) were deposited on various surfaces after a total release fogger use. A series of experiments simulating scenarios that would be representative of common residential cleaning activities indicated that the pyrethroid could be transferred from the contaminated surfaces to other adsorptive materials via physical contact (with or without water as a solvent). The pyrethroid was readily extracted from the adsorptive materials (cotton fabric and filter paper) when water was used as a solvent. Adding a small amount of detergent to the water significantly increased the extraction efficiency compared to water alone. These results indicate that insecticides used in total release foggers can contribute to insecticide loading into the wastewater treatment system via several possible routes, such as contact with or cleaning of exposed surfaces and washing contaminated clothing after their use within a structure.

Pervasive Resistance to Pyrethroids in German Cockroaches (Blattodea: Ectobiidae) Related to Lack of Efficacy of Total Release Foggers.

Despite limited efficacy data, do-it-yourself (DIY) insecticide products often promise low-cost alternatives to professional pest control. Total release foggers (TRFs, 'bug bombs'), which are prominent DIY products, were recently shown to be ineffective at reducing German cockroach (Blattella germanica L.) infestations, in contrast to highly effective baits. However, the reason(s) for TRF failure remain unknown. Therefore, we investigated insecticide resistance of apartment-collected cockroaches from homes where TRFs failed. In topical (direct) application assays, resistance to cypermethrin (a common active ingredient in TRFs) was 202 ± 33 times that of a laboratory insecticide-susceptible population (based on LD50 ratios), while resistance to fipronil, a common bait active ingredient, was considerably lower at 14 ± 2 times that of the laboratory insecticide-susceptible population. The addition of PBO, a P450 inhibitor that synergizes pyrethroids, enhanced the efficacy of cypermethrin, but only at high doses of cypermethrin. Additionally, >96% of screened cockroaches possessed at least one copy of the L993F mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel, known to confer resistance to pyrethroids (knockdown resistance, kdr). Because TRF treatments killed insecticide-susceptible sentinel cockroaches but failed to kill apartment-collected cockroaches, these results suggest that pyrethroid resistance is a major factor contributing to the failure of TRFs. Multiple mechanisms of resistance, including metabolic detoxification of the pyrethroids and kdr mutations that confer target-site insensitivity, suggest that TRFs would lack efficacy against German cockroaches in residential settings, where high levels of pyrethroid resistance have been documented globally.

Bug bombs fail to kill cockroaches

Besides being gross, cockroaches can cause allergies and spread pathogens within a home. To combat such infestations, residents who can’t afford professional fumigation often turn to bug bombs—cani...

Bug bombs don’t get rid of bugs, study suggests

Bug bombs don’t get rid of bugs, study suggests

Acute Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers — 10 States, 2007–2015

Total release foggers (TRFs) (also known as "bug bombs") are pesticide products often used indoors to kill insects. After an earlier report found that TRFs pose a risk for acute illness (1), the Environmental Protection Agency required improved labels on TRFs manufactured after September 2012 (2). To examine the early impact of relabeling, the magnitude and characteristics of acute TRF-related illness were evaluated for the period 2007-2015. A total of 3,222 TRF-related illnesses were identified in 10 participating states, based on three data sources: Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk-Pesticides (SENSOR) programs, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) program, and poison control centers (PCCs) in Florida, Texas, and Washington. No statistically significant decline in the overall TRF-illness incidence rate was found. Failure to vacate treated premises during application was the most commonly reported cause of exposure. To reduce TRF-related illness, integrated pest management strategies (3) need to be adopted, as well as better communication about the hazards and proper uses of TRFs. Redesigning TRFs to prevent sudden, unexpected activation might also be useful.

Ineffectiveness of Over-the-Counter Total-Release Foggers Against the Bed Bug (Heteroptera: Cimicidae)

Field-collected bed bugs (Cimex lectularius L.) showed little, if any, adverse effects after 2-h direct exposure to the aerosolized pyrethroid(s) from three over-the-counter total-release foggers ('bug bombs' or 'foggers'); Hotshot Bedbug and Flea Fogger, Spectracide Bug Stop Indoor Fogger, and Eliminator Indoor Fogger. One field-collected population, EPM, was an exception in that there was significant mortality at 5-7 d when bugs out in the open had been exposed to the Spectracide Fogger; mortality was low when these bugs had access to an optional harborage, a situation observed for all field-collected populations when exposed to the three foggers. Even the Harlan strain, the long-term laboratory population that is susceptible to pyrethroids and that served as an internal control in these experiments, was unaffected if the bugs were covered by a thin cloth layer that provided harborage. In residences and other settings, the majority of bed bugs hide in protected sites where they will not be directly contracted by the insecticide mist from foggers. This study provides the first scientific data supporting the position that total-release foggers should not be recommended for control of bed bugs, because 1) many field-collected bed bugs are resistant to pyrethroids, and they are not affected by brief exposure to low concentrations of pyrethrins and/or pyrethroids provided by foggers; and 2) there is minimal, if any, insecticide penetration into typical bed bug harborage sites. This study provides strong evidence that Hotshot Bedbug and Flea Fogger, Spectracide Bug Stop Indoor Fogger, and Eliminator Indoor Fogger were ineffective as bed bug control agents.

Total release fogger exposures reported to Texas poison centers, 2000–2009

Total release foggers or “bug bombs” are products designed to fill an area such as a home or workplace with insecticide. Because of their method of action, unintentional exposures may occur. Cases for this retrospective study were all fogger exposures reported to Texas poison centers during 2000–2009. The distribution of cases was identified for various demographic and clinical factors. There were 2855 fogger exposures. Among the patients 56.0% were females and 69.5% were 20 years or older. Considering the exposure circumstances 95.6% were unintentional and 62.2% occurred through inhalation. The management site was 75.2% on site. The medical outcomes were no effect (11.8%), minor effect (25.1%), moderate effect (7.4%), major effect (0.1%), not followed (no effects expected) (3.5%), not followed (minimal effects expected) (39.3%), not followed (potentially toxic) (4.9%), and effects probably unrelated to exposure (7.7%). The most frequently reported clinical effects were cough (25.4%), vomiting (13.3%), nausea (9.2%), dyspnea (8.7%), throat irritation (7.9%), and headache (5.6%). The public needs to be educated about the potential hazard of exposures to foggers. However, most fogger exposures reported to poison centers are not likely to be seriously toxic and can be managed at home.

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Invasion of the Bedbugs

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Invasion of the Bedbugs

Handling Total Release Foggers

PI-173, a 4-page illustrated fact sheet by Frederick M. Fishel, cautions about the risks of total release foggers (TRFs), also called "bug bombs," and common-sense precautions people can take to reduce risks before using one in any building. Includes additional sources of information. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, March 2009. PI 173/PI209: Handling Total Release Foggers (ufl.edu)

Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers—Eight States, 2001-2006

Total release foggers (TRFs), sometimes called "bug bombs," are pesticide products designed to fill an area with insecticide and often are used in homes and workplaces to kill cockroaches, fleas, and flying insects. Most TRFs contain pyrethroid, pyrethrin, or both as active ingredients. TRFs also contain flammable aerosol propellants that can cause fires or explosions. The magnitude and range of acute health problems associated with TRF usage has not been described previously. This report summarizes illnesses and injuries that were associated with exposures to TRFs during 2001--2006 in eight states (California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) and were investigated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and state health departments participating in the SENSOR-Pesticides program. During 2001-2006, a total of 466 TRF-related illnesses or injuries were identified. These illnesses or injuries often resulted from inability or failure to vacate before the TRF discharged, reentry into the treated space too soon after the TRF was discharged, excessive use of TRFs for the space being treated, and failure to notify others nearby. The findings indicate that TRFs pose a risk for acute, usually temporary health effects among users and bystanders. To reduce the risk for TRF-related health effects, integrated pest management control strategies that prevent pests' access to food, water, and shelter need to be promoted and adopted. In addition, awareness of the hazards and proper use of TRFs need to be better communicated on TRF labels and in public media campaigns.

New Pesticides, Old Problems: Despite Warnings, Use during Pregnancy Persists

Vol. 116, No. 12 EnvironewsOpen AccessNew Pesticides, Old Problems: Despite Warnings, Use during Pregnancy Persists Bob Weinhold Bob Weinhold Search for more papers by this author Published:1 December 2008https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.116-a533bAboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit The sight of scurrying cockroaches trumps warnings against using pesticides during pregnancy. That’s one insight from a study of pesticide use before and after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2001 and 2002 retail sales restrictions of chlorpyrifos and diazinon [EHP116:1681–1688; Williams et al.]. The team of U.S. researchers also found that use of replacement pesticides is steadily increasing to fill the void, that the air the test subjects breathed remains surprisingly contaminated with chlorpyrifos and diazinon up to 5 years after the restrictions went into effect, and that household use of pesticide spray cans and bug bombs contaminated the air far more than did use of bait traps or boric acid or spraying by professional exterminators.In the study, 511 pregnant inner-city women wore personal air samplers for a 48-hour period during their third trimester and reported pesticide use and sightings of pests throughout pregnancy. The researchers compared their findings from subjects enrolled in the study between 2000 and 2001 with those from subjects enrolled between 2002 and 2006. This reflected the timing of the pesticide bans—retail sales of chlorpyrifos were phased out at the end of 2001 and diazinon at the end of 2002. Participants received regular newsletters containing pertinent information, including warnings about potential health effects of residential pesticide use and information on alternative pest control methods.For 6 months after chlorpyrifos went off the market, use of replacement pesticides fell, perhaps due to elevated awareness of pesticide dangers. But a steady, significant increase in sightings of cockroaches, the most commonly observed pest, was correlated with a steady, significant increase in the use of replacement pesticides for every 6-month period from 2002 through 2006. Throughout the study period, at least 85% of the women reported using pesticides.Chlorpyrifos and diazinon were found in more than 98% of air samples both before and after the phase-outs, and 18–75% of the personal air samples contained at least 1 replacement pesticide. The chemicals the researchers measured included permethrin (a commonly used pyrethroid) and piperonyl butoxide (a pyrethroid synergist, or chemical added to a pesticide to increase its effectiveness). The authors say this is the first study to document extensive residential exposure to piperonyl butoxide.Data on health effects of these pyrethroid products at the measured concentrations are limited. However, there is growing evidence of health and environmental damage from these products, which are proving to be ubiquitous both indoors and out. The authors say their findings indicate that these products warrant additional research on their use, occurrence, and health effects. They also noted that pest resistance to pyrethroids may be playing a role in pest increases.This and other studies have reported a strong association between the degree of housing disrepair and both pest sightings and use of pest control measures.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 116, No. 12 December 2008Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 December 2008Published in print1 December 2008 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.

Bug Bomb, Potential Health Hazard

To the Editor:— Aerosol bug bomb sales amounted to more than one per household in the United States in 1962, according to the President's Science Advisory Committee Report on pesticides. The contents of bug bombs vary from relatively harmless compounds such as pyrethrins to poisonous chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT, chlordan, and dieldrin, or organophosphates such as malathion and parathion. Frequently the same trade name appears on the bomb no matter what it contains. The very fine print gives the contents if the purchaser's eyes are good enough to read it, but the general public cannot be expected to keep abreast of the latest products of the chemical industry. That these bug bombs constitute a very real threat to the public health is illustrated by the case of malathion poisoning in a physician's child recently reported inThe Journal( 182 :495 [Oct 27] 1962). It is high time that all