Non-Toxic Pest Management Techniques

and libraries. The Fumigants and Pheromones Technical Seminar in Indianapolis in December 1994 also had a one-day session devoted to the practice of IPM in museums. Being part of a consumer demand-driven industry, we must accept this trend and modify our methods accordingly.

The main focus of IPM has been on the lessening of our dependence on chemical pesticides. There is an abundance of natural, botanical and biorational materials already in the marketplace that can be used effectively. The uses of growth regulators and chitin synthesis inhibitors for termite control will enable PCOs to provide termite control services that are considered safe for the environment as well as ethnographic objects. The use of monitoring traps with and without pheromones has proven to be a very effective and time-saving tool for finding infestations. With the advent of a commercially available clothing moth pheromone trap, this methodology will prove to be even more effective.

In this niche market, museum research institutions such as the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) and the J. Paul Getty Conservation Center have led the way in researching innovative and least-toxic alternatives to eradicate insect problems in collections. Some of this work is starting to bear fruit that will reduce the amount of work the average PCO will see from these accounts. It's important to remember that these accounts tend to have personnel who are well-versed in pesticides and IPM, oftentimes more so than our own technicians. The newest techniques for insect eradication may at times seem odd and a bit difficult to understand.

SUFFOCATING THEM. One of these techniques is the use of low-oxygen atmospheres to kill pests. Similar to a fumigation, the infested object is enclosed in an air-tight space, and the oxygen is either bound up by an oxygen absorber or replaced with an inert gas. In this manner, the object being treated is not placed into different environmental extremes that could damage it, but the infestation is eradicated. More and more, conservators are relying on research conducted by museum research institutions showing that fumigants will react with certain metals, discolor certain pigments, and damage certain fabrics and other materials.

Libraries have been using the technique of freezing to kill insects and stabilize mold infestations since the 1940s. Many institutions have this method written into their disaster plans. More detailed work has been produced by reputable institutions on this process in the last three years, proving the efficacy of low temperatures.

Boric acid and diatomaceous earth are two products that have come back into play. These materials are inorganic, and very acceptable for IPM programs. Recently, the use of fungi for cockroach control has become a marketable pesticide. Due to the cost, 10 years ago we would have never dreamed of treating a facility for cockroaches with a fungal pathogen.

Lastly, more work is being devoted to the use of natural predators and parasites to control structure-infesting pests. This methodology lends itself well to the concept of an IPM program.

The placement of traps and proper follow-up will make or break many accounts. Too often, the quick sell is easy, and the long-term commitment to the maintenance of an IPM program is too time-consuming. Many PCOs say they have done or are doing IPM at certain facilities, but in reality they have fallen back onto the spraying-only treadmill. Once the program is implemented, inspections must be continued on a routine basis. If monitoring traps are used, they should be inspected and replaced when necessary. Too often pest management programs fail in the maintenance inspection phase of the program. The result? Back to applying a preventive spraying for all pests, everywhere.

The use of pheromones to monitor for pest activity has been in place for many years, and a large amount of time has been spent investigating their efficacy. With all the positive results obtained, many facilities are switching to these types of early detection methods. Even though the traps are expensive and labor-intensive, the cost should be passed on to the customer.

TAKING THE BAIT. Most museums and libraries prefer a safer alternative to the emulsifiable concentrates and aerosols used in the past. The use of baits for ants and roaches has gained favor with these groups. Applying granules around an account for general insect control has been shown to be generally not very effective. Most facilities will not allow that practice to continue. The use of dusts is moderate due to problems with whether the dust is very basic or acidic in nature, thus potentially causing degradation of the objects if the dust deposits on them. When sprays are applied, there must be a clearly defined reason. Preferred formulations include wettable powders and microencapsulates.

Reporting to the customer what the technician did and what he found is extremely important in IPM accounts. The customer will not see the technician spraying and conducting other activities associated with pest control. Customers may not understand this aspect of the program. To this end, the technician and the company must maintain the integrity of the inspection, reporting their findings to the IPM coordinator on site. This is crucial to retaining these accounts. The accounts that utilize or request IPM services tend to talk to one another. They may be part of the same environmental group. If a pest control company fails in its IPM program through lackluster performance or simple lack of communication, that company may no longer get the same amount of IPM business in the future.

Still more museums are adopting strict IPM protocols for object loans, routine inspection and monitoring of the collections, and specific passive treatments. While some of the smaller facilities may be satisfied with regular pest control services, over the next few years this will slowly change to a desire for IPM programs.

These are not new techniques. We have slowly refined them over the years. The use of traditional pesticides has not lost its place, but our view of what we try first must change. With the hundreds of products out there, each situation will have its own set of products to be used. In museums and libraries, these products will be the biorationals, inorganics and botanical pesticedes. Placement will be in the form of baits, dusts and microencapulates. We must inspect, identify and conduct the proper treatment methods in conjunction with prior communication with the client. Each program and facet of these programs must be re-evaluated routinely and modified to meet changing needs and situations.

The pest control industry must learn how to work with these facilities if we hope to retain their business. It would be a sorry item to note if museum conservators and library preservationists knew more about pest control and IPM techniques than the pest control industry did.

Jim Harmon, a board Certified Entomologist, is director of pest management services for Tallon Termite & Pest Control, Long Beach, Calif.