flying insect management

The Science of Flying Insect Control
Second Edition
Flies as a health hazard
Flies and the law
Principles of fly control
The use of ultraviolet light to attract flies
Monitoring
Choice of units
Siting of units
Fly identification chart
Protocol for fly tests
Fly test results
Product Guide
THE SCIENCE OF FLYING INSECT CONTROL
Contents
Foreword
1
Introduction
2
Flies as a health hazard
3
Classification of health hazards
Flies and the law
Legal requirements
FDA law - The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Principles of fly control
Larval control
Bacteria / Bioremediation
Adult control
Prevention of entry
Trapping
The use of ultraviolet light to attract flies
How does the eye of the fly “trap” the light?
Monitoring
Pests and HACCP
How HACCP affects pest management
HACCP pointers
Choice of units
Types of fly control unit
Construction materials
Types of bulbs
Disposal of flourescent bulbs
Quantum BL ultraviolet tubes
Design features
Siting of units
In large industrial premises
Positioning
In large food stores and supermarkets
In smaller premises,
eg: kitchens, restaurants and smaller shops
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
Fly identification chart
20-21
Protocol for fly tests
22
Fly test results
23-25
Further reading
26-27
Product guide
28-29
Electronic flying insect management units
Mantis glue trap range
28
29
THE SCIENCE OF FLYING INSECT CONTROL
FOREWORD
Marketing or Science?
The science of fly control is a fascinating and complex field of study, with a great deal of scientific research
being gathered over the years. While much of this is based on excellent methodology, a significant amount
is sadly tainted by commercial interests. Until, as an industry, we are able cut through the blurred division
between science and commercialism, fly control science will continue to suffer from three "false friends".
Correct Interpretation
Results from studying the behavior patterns of flies are often interpreted in a rigid and dogmatic fashion.
Above all, fly behavior is complex and patterns of activity vary greatly, depending upon a number of wide
ranging factors, from season of activity, time of day, gender and age, through to food and mating status - the list
is almost infinite.
There exists large volumes of good science based on the behavioral patterns of flies. Valid experiments have shown,
for example, that flies of a certain species, sex and age fly on average at 4 feet (1.2 metres) above the ground. As
a result of such observations certain manufacturers and consultants recommend that fly control units are always
sited at 4 feet from the ground. Such recommendations wrongly imply that the effectiveness of units located at 4
feet will be greater than those at say 6 feet, whereas in fact, the original observation carried no such implication. In
actual fact, flies will be easily attracted by UV light from units placed at 6 feet (1.9 metres). Moreover, from a
purely pragmatic standpoint, most units can be more conveniently and safely located at this height, even in the
busiest kitchen, and be just as highly effective.
Representative Tests
Commercially sponsored tests are often carried out to compare one fly-catching device with another. Such
tests are at best arbitrary and at worst totally misleading because they do mirror reality. For example, how
often in practice do we find two competitive products placed next to each other in a supermarket
or restaurant?
IT’S A FACT
FDA has currently
identified 21 species
of filth flies.
Yet most tests are based on two, three or four units together in one location at one time. The suggestion is
that if a particular unit does not catch the fly first, then it is inferior. Such tests do not stand up to rigorous
scientific analysis and at best may offer only a vague general indication of preference; that preference being only
valid at a particular ‘time’, ‘place’ and within a given ‘set of circumstances’.
To validate such comparative tests, experiments should be designed to show whether a unit performs in an effective
manner, or not, in a given time. A more meaningful test, therefore, would be to use identical conditions created at
the same time in separate test chambers, for example the Roman square test protocol, using flies of the ‘same age’,
ideally over 3 days old.
Testing and Reporting
Even where test results, together with supporting data, have been correctly interpreted, it is not normal for
manufacturers to release the raw data on which their interpretations are made, especially when their interpretation
is used for commercial advantage! We would argue that only when such information is released for scrutiny, does
it achieve some degree of scientific respectability. In short, good scientific methodology should (in addition to being
transparent to all) be capable of replication, verification, validation and refutation.
Commercially sponsored comparative tests, by their very nature, will be set up in ways that flatter the sponsor, with
the results being interpreted with a biased eye. This is particularly true when independent results show there is
really very little difference between the test products.
This is essentially the heart of much of this area of science - the vast majority of the well-made units on the market
perform the task of attracting flying insects extremely well. And, given that there is such variability in the response
of the flying insects during their life and during a 24-hour period, then all the units are in truth, to a greater or lesser
extent, a compromise involving design, price and the catching of as many of the pest flies as is possible.
1
INTRODUCTION
Although the term “flying insects” can encompass almost all insects in some stage of their life cycle, in public
health it has come to mean various species of flies, yellow jackets or wasps and some stored product moths.
The flying insects encountered in urban and industrial premises can be of many types but it is generally
accepted that those which are regarded as pests are those which:
•
•
•
spread disease through contamination;
cause physical damage; and
are regarded as a nuisance.
The insects most associated with the spread of disease in domestic, commercial and industrial premises are
the true pest flies.
There are many thousands of species of flies, however, relatively few interact with humans. Those
that do are among the most destructive of pest species, spreading diseases to man and
domesticated animals as well as contaminating food and packaging.
Yellow jackets are also a classic nuisance pest. Although not perceived to be as destructive as flies,
this is a dangerous assumption. Their living habits are as unsavory as those of flies. They are
attracted to fruit, pastries, unattended soft drinks and can be inadvertently trapped in sandwiches and
as a result are often caught up in these when they are eaten.
Death through stings in the throat is quite common. In fact, death due to wasp and bee stings accounts for 50%
of all fatalities caused by venomous animals.
The spread of aggressive Africanized bees has also shed a “new light” on the importance of control. Special
attention needs to be considered just prior to schools opening for the year.
The increase and ease of international travel in the air and on the oceans means that there are very few
barriers left to stop the spread of insects worldwide.
The mobility of flying insects is the primary reason why their status as pests is so important. This allows
them to visit many diverse and contaminated habitats within the course of their relatively short life span.
IT’S A FACT
Death through yellow
jacket stings in the
throat has been shown
to account for
50% of all fatalities
caused by venomous
animals.
2
FLIES AS A HEALTH HAZARD
Flies have, over the years, been incriminated many times as potential vectors of food poisoning organisms
(Ostrolenk and Welch, 1942).
As early as 1577 Mercurialis observed the habits of flies and how they moved between plague sufferers
and the food of healthy individuals and he suggested that the "virus" of the disease was possibly
transmitted in this way (see Herms, 1944, cited in West, 1951).
During the early eighteenth century suspicions arose as to the role that flies played in the
transmission of dysentery (Greenberg, 1973). These first accounts were based on the links between
maximum seasonal peaks in fly populations and the prevalence of diarrheal disease, especially
dysentery (Levine and Levine, 1991).
Military campaigns at the end of the last century and through into this century's two World Wars, saw
various medical officers and researchers linking the widespread morbidity and mortality among personnel
suffering from enteric diseases with the unsanitary conditions found in camps (Ostrolenk and Welch, 1942;
West, 1951; Greenberg, 1973; Levine and Levine, 1991). These poor conditions led to a proliferation of flies, which
were observed to pass between latrines and mess tents.
In 1899 Vaughan recorded observations of flies crawling over soldiers’ food with particles of lime attached to
their legs and bodies (see West, 1951). He deduced that the flies could only have picked up this lime while
feeding on feces in the camp's latrines.
Thorough studies of the life history of the housefly began at the end of the last century with the work
of Howard (see West, 1951). This led to a proliferation of research, much of which has been
collated and added to by West (1951), and furthered by Greenberg (1971, 1973) in his definitive
works on the associations of flies with disease.
In the last twenty-five years we have seen increasingly sophisticated experiments and studies into the
transmission of food-borne pathogens by flies. Research has included case control epidemiological
studies, fly population suppression studies and field studies into the transmission of pathogens by flies, which
have fed from an infected reservoir (Olsen, 1998).
Most flies breed and feed in unsanitary conditions, where their larvae feed on decaying organic matter. Female flies
choose suitable areas of rotting vegetation and decaying animal matter in which to lay their eggs. Adults
emerge from the pupae in these unsavory sites and in the process can become contaminated with
disease-causing agents. The adults then often move into sensitive areas where human food is prepared,
processed or consumed, to look for their own food!
IT’S A FACT
The potential for contamination of human food with disease-causing agents has been proven over
the years and these agents are able to survive on the outside body surfaces of the flies, particularly
among the numerous hairs. They also survive in the flies' gut and in their blood system.
Flies will breed in rotting
vegetable matter,
decaying animal remains,
the excrement of various
animals and garbage.
Among the most dangerous of the disease-causing bacteria that have been found on flies are Listeria,
Salmonella, Shigella, Cryptosporidium, Klebsiella, Campylobacter, Streptococci, Chlamydia and Escherichia coli.
Recently there have been a number of publications showing evidence for the transfer of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 by flying insects. The most recent of these is when an outbreak of E. coli was reported in a school in Japan
and the pathogens that were isolated from the human sufferers were also isolated from houseflies found at the time
in the kitchen. A further finding of this study was that the E. coli seemed to be contaminating the labellar folds of the
housefly mouthparts and, in fact, actively proliferated there, leading to the conclusion that the flies may have a higher
potential to disseminate the E. coli than had been previously suspected (Iwasa, M., et al., 1999).
A recent study carried out at the University of Florida found that nine pathogens could be discovered on flies in
Florida restaurants. The UF researchers grew cultures from flies collected at the backdoor areas and rear dumpsters
of four restaurants in Gainesville, FL. Within hours, the samples were swarming with nine pathogens. Researchers
found pathogens that can cause peritonitis, diarrhea, typhoid fever, bacillary dysentery and possibly staphylococcus
infection. The flies also carried Escherichia coli and Shigella sonnei.
3
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that shigellosis was one of the three
most common foodborne illnesses diagnosed in 2000. The overall incidence of E. coli O157 infections, which
can be derived from Escherichia coli bacteria, increased as well.
Further studies recently carried out in the UK show that E.coli, when fed to flies, is taken into the fly and
distributed widely within the internal structures with significant numbers of bacteria being found in the foregut,
ovaries, hindgut and abdominal haemolymph. The contamination of the ovaries is intriguing and this may imply
ovariole contamination and subsequent "infection" of the egg and possibly the larvae.
Food poisoning outbreaks can occur from a minute dose of bacteria. In these cases, the disease could easily
have been spread by flying insects, a fact which is rarely understood or appreciated.
Classification of health hazards
Health hazards can be classified as physical, chemical or biological.
Physical
Although pests are not generally considered to be a physical health hazard, some dermestid beetle larvae
(eg Dermestes spp. and Trogoderma spp.) are known to cause illness when swallowed in contaminated food.
In some individuals, anaphylactic shock, leading to death can result from bee or yellow jacket stings; and stings
in the mouth or throat can cause serious respiratory difficulties and even death.
Chemical
Chemical hazards include toxic compounds, toxic chemical elements and allergenic substances.
Cockroaches and some other food-contaminating insects generate benzoquinones and related chemicals under
stress. Insect benzoquinones are suspected of being carcinogenic or mutagenic and are considered a potential
health hazard.
More important, allergic reactions to body parts and the feces of insects and mites are increasingly being
recognized as a food safety issue.
Under
ideal
growth
conditions, just a few
bacteria deposited on
Biological
food by flies can give
rise
To be classified as a food-borne biological hazard, a contaminant must be the causative agent of a disease and
must be actively or passively transmitted by food. The most common are bacterial pathogens.
hours.
Rodents, flies and cockroaches are all recognized by the FDA as contributing factors to the spread of food-borne
pathogens.
Irrespective of the risk from food-borne illness, we should also remember that consumers will not buy or eat food
that is visibly contaminated with pests or body parts. To them, it is academic whether the pest is a health hazard
or not.
In addition to these, there are numerous insect vector / pathogen links, which need confronting but
these are too numerous to be considered here. However, mosquitoes and the many diseases
associated with them should be considered, eg: West Nile virus, Dengue, etc.
West Nile virus has gained particular significance since it was first reported, in the USA, in New
York state in 1999. It is continuing to spread rapidly, being detected most frequently in birds,
horses and humans. People most at risk are the eldery and children or those working where
mosquitoes are actively biting.
4
to
many
live
colonies in a matter of
IT’S A FACT
Correlations have been
found between the
prevalence of flies
and the numbers of
cases of diarrhoea.
FLIES AND THE LAW
Legal requirements
Food hygiene regulations require that food is wholesome and safe and has not been contaminated by flying insect
pests and that you are required to demonstrate ‘due diligence’ that you have taken every precaution against
contamination from flying insect pests. All food preparation and retail premises should be protected against flies.
In the USA, the FD&C Act goes beyond regulating contaminants that cause injury or disease. Sections 402(a)(3) and
402(a)(4) of the Act require that foods be protected from contamination with filth and be produced in sanitary
facilities. Filth includes "contaminants such as rat, mouse or other animal hairs and excreta, whole insects, insect
parts and excreta, parasitic worms, pollution from the excrement of humans and animals, as well as other
extraneous materials which, because of their repulsiveness, would not knowingly be eaten or used".
FDA Law - The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Sections 402(a)(3) and 402(a)(4) define two types of adulteration. These sections apply to pests among many other
types of filth and extraneous materials.
Section 402(a)(3) deems a food adulterated "if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed
substance or if it is otherwise unfit for food." Pests or pest fragments in a product qualify as a "filthy" substance
within the meaning of section 402(a)(3).
Section 402(a)(4) deems a food adulterated "if it has been prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions
whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health."
Pests not only qualify as "filth" under section 402(a)(4) but certain disease-carrying pests may render a product
injurious to health by contaminating the food with pathogens.
A recent review by the FDA’s chief entomologist states that there are 21 species of fly that are a
significant health hazard in food premises.
Code of Federal Regulations
The appropriate vehicles for preventing the spread of food-borne pathogens by pests in a facility are
the facility's pest management program and/or sanitation program, including Sanitation Standard
Operating Procedures (SSOPs).
IT’S A FACT
During a single day a fly,
if undisturbed, may lay
the whole batch of eggs
which are mature in her
ovaries, usually about
100 to 150.
Two separate parts of the Code of Federal Regulations specifically mandate the exclusion of pests from
food-handling and food-processing facilities. These are the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) regulations
(21 CFR Part 110) and the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations (21 CFR Part 123).
The GMP regulations specifically mention flies, for example, as a type of pest requiring exclusion. In addition, the
FDA Food Code deals with the monitoring and exclusion of pests through sanitation programs in at least five
sections (Food Code 6-202-13, 6-202.15, 6-202.16, 6-501.111, 6-501.112).
The GMP regulations, which cover all food processors, specifically require not only good in-plant sanitation but also
elimination of reservoirs and harborage both inside and outside a facility and effective perimeter barriers to prevent
pests from entering the facility. These regulations also call for extra care to be exercised to exclude or exterminate
pests that originate from adjacent grounds that are not under the control of the plant manager.
Advice on good practice - The Food Hygiene Regulations (1995)
Owners of premises where food is stored, prepared or eaten must minimize the number of potential pest access points.
Where open windows and doors will compromise the safety of food by allowing the entry of flying insects, they should
be screened.
Additional proofing and protection against pests and pest baits (which should be laid by competent persons) should
be considered for rodents, crawling and flying insects, etc. Fly control units should not be located immediately above
food or surfaces where food is exposed. They should be mounted at an appropriate height and sited away from other
light sources for maximum efficiency.
5
PRINCIPLES OF FLY CONTROL
Before any detailed strategy is worked out for the control of flying insects, the most fundamentally important task
is to correctly identify the species that is to be controlled.
Setting up control measures that are wholly inappropriate can waste a great deal of time and money because
the insect has not been identified correctly.
Having identified the insect, the key to effective control is to pinpoint within the life cycle a vulnerable stage for
control. This means that it is not worthwhile developing a control strategy for, say, the egg stage of the insect if
that egg stage only lasts a few hours, as it does with flies - the chances of catching the egg are so remote as to
be worthless. When the vulnerable stage or stages have been identified, then a control strategy should begin.
A thorough inspection of the premises and the surrounding area is essential. Ask those working there about
actual and perceived problems. Then complete a thorough survey of all areas, setting your own agenda and
asking your own questions. Useful tools to take would be a spatula, flashlight, screwdriver, etc.
Since the pupae are stationary, locating pupae or pupal casings are key indicators of a breeding site.
It is frequently worthwhile to have a series of questions developed before you commence the survey and make sure
you are not distracted from the task by those in premises. The use of monitoring traps is especially recommended
since these will tell you the extent and age of an infestation as well as its type.
For the flies, the vulnerable stages that should be considered as targets for the control strategies are
the larval stage and the adult stage.
Larval Control
The larvae of most of the flies that are public health pests are found living and feeding in rotting
organic matter, which can be of animal or plant origin. Control strategies can be developed by
chemical treatment of the area and medium in which the larvae are to be found.
It is often also worth considering that the larval feeding areas can be dried out and as soon as this is
done, there is a strong possibility that the larval population will be reduced significantly.
Drain treatments should also be considered, using a control method directed at the drain. If
insecticides are allowed, the use of the correct material to treat the breeding site is critical. The
product has to have the correct clearance and label for control and care has to be taken that no
contamination of the surrounding areas occurs, ie: there is a risk of run-off water being
contaminated with insecticides, leading to the possible contamination of the ground water etc.
Bacteria / Bioremediation
Many of us know bacteria only as "germs," invisible creatures that can invade our bodies and make
us sick. Fact is, there are plenty of good bacteria as well.
IT’S A FACT
The flies also
defecate whilst feeding,
and so further
contaminate the
surface.
Some microbes live on our skin and protect us from many harmful agents. The drier areas, like the back,
have few microbes; moist areas, such as under the arm, in the nose, etc. have many more. Few know that
many bacteria not only coexist with us all the time, but help us do an amazing array of useful things like make
vitamins, break down garbage and even maintain our atmosphere.
Where They’re Found - Bacteria can be found virtually everywhere. They are in the air, the soil and water, and in and
on plants and animals, including us. A single teaspoon of topsoil contains about a billion bacterial cells (and about
120,000 fungal cells and some 25,000 algal cells). The human mouth is home to more than 500 species of bacteria.
Some bacteria (along with archaea) thrive in the most forbidding, uninviting places on Earth, from nearly-boiling
hot springs to super-chilled Antarctic lakes buried under sheets of ice. Microbes that dwell in these extreme
habitats are aptly called extremophiles.
How Long They’ve Been Around - Like dinosaurs, bacteria left behind fossils. The big difference is that it takes
6
a microscope to see them. And they are older.
Bacteria and their microbial cousins the archaea were the earliest forms of life on Earth. And may have
played a role in shaping our planet into one that could support the larger life forms we know today
by developing photosynthesis.
Cyanobacteria fossils date back more than 3 billion years. These photosynthetic bacteria paved the
way for today's algae and plants. Cyanobacteria grow in the water, where they produce much of the
oxygen that we breathe. Once considered a form of algae, they are also known as blue-green algae.
What They Look Like - The human body consists of millions of different cells. A bacterium consists
of a single cell.
A bacterium’s genetic information is contained in a single DNA molecule suspended in a jelly-like substance
called cytoplasm. In most cases, this and other cell parts are surrounded by a flexible membrane that is itself
surrounded by a tough, rigid cell wall. A few species, such as the mycoplasmas, don’t have cell walls.
Even though bacteria have only one cell each, they come in a wide range of shapes, sizes, and colors.
PestWest has co-developed a proprietary bacteria formulation (Bio-Gel) that consumes organic materials in
drains and other areas where greases, fats, carbohydrates, proteins and oils amass. In most cases, this
is where odors develop and complaints emerge from customers by the settling of food particles
throughout the drain systems. As temperatures decline deep within the drain systems, the amounts
IT’S
of grease deposits accumulate.
Organic Breakdown - Bio-Gel bacteria secrete endoenzymes and catalytic breakdown begins.
Selective cell membrane absorbs organics into the cell nucleus where they are consumed and
metabolized. Greases, fats, carbohydrates, proteins and oils are then converted to CO2 + H2O
and are easily "washed" down the system.
A FACT
The mouthparts of the
adult fly are highly adapted,
with a flexible proboscis
with two sucking lobes at
its end, such that the fly
can only feed on
liquid food.
Metabolism and Reproduction - Through binary fission, the cell divides and new cells are created about
every 20 minutes and these "hungry" cells begin the process of consumption of organics as long as the food
source is present. It's important to know that when comparing bacterial counts, that if product "A" has a bacterial
count of 50,000,000,000 and product "B" has a bacterial count of 1 but was specific to the application
needed, product "B" should be the preferred product. The bacterial count issue is a standard but in many
instances irrelevant sales tactic when it comes to comparing bacterial products.
IT’S A FACT
Although bioremediation holds great promise for dealing with intractable environmental problems,
it is important to recognize that much of this promise has yet to be realized. Specifically, much
needs to be learned about how microorganisms interact with different hydrologic environments.
As this understanding increases, the efficiency and applicability of bioremediation will grow rapidly
as an adjunct to structural pest management protocols.
Flies breed out of
doors and are
therefore unaffected
by improvements in
domestic hygiene.
Adult Control
The control of adult flies can be considered in two categories, namely chemical and physical measures.
The chemical treatment of adult fly populations with insecticides has limited use. There may be some occasions
when large numbers of adult flies present require that a space or a perimeter treatment should be carried out but
in general, there is little point in using an insecticide to kill a few flies. It gets expensive and undesirable,
particularly in food preparation and food retail outlets.
Physical measures to control adult flies can be divided into two categories: these are prevention of entry and trapping.
Prevention of entry
Keeping adults out of premises is one way to control flies but it is also extremely difficult to do effectively.
7
The use of door screens, air curtains and window screens has often been successful but these methods
frequently suffer in their effectiveness because of staff intervention. When fly screens are attached to doors or
windows, it is frequently perceived, rightly or wrongly, that they affect the air circulation. There is always the
tendency for people to prop open screened doors and netted windows to encourage free flow of air, thus
defeating the purpose for which the screens were put in place.
It has been reported that lighting can be varied to manipulate fly populations but this is really a short-term measure
and should be directed at the vulnerable stages of the fly life cycle.
Trapping
If adult flies do enter the premises, then it is generally possible to trap them in a number of ways.
When using traps to control adult flies you are exploiting the senses of the fly. Adult flies navigate throughout
their habitat using, in particular, their sense of sight and their sense of smell. If you make a trap to attract them
visually and then add an odor to it, you are then making use of both the fly’s senses.
Fly traps that use ultraviolet (UV) light as an attractant are the most successful at attracting a wide range of flying
insects and they are becoming the industry standard for fly control throughout the world.
UV fly traps exploit a factor that has been in action for a long time. Insects, for many thousands of years, have
used the UV rays from the sun by which to navigate and almost all insects have a strong visual response to UV
light; that is, their eyes respond to light at the UV end of the spectrum.
This response in many flies has been studied using sophisticated electrophysiological methods. It has been
found that UV rays around 365 nanometres in the spectrum are the most readily detected by most flies that are
considered as public health pests; houseflies, fruit flies, cluster flies, fungus flies etc.
It should be emphasized that this is a safe form of UV; it is not from the shorter wavelengths that cause sunburn or
have germicidal properties. The tubes that are employed in high quality electrical fly traps produce UV rays that are
invisible to the human eye, peaking around the 365 nm wavelength, thus exploiting the visual responses of the insects.
Extensive research goes into the production of these UV
fly-attracting units, to investigate the most attractive color
of bulb, the orientation of the bulbs within the unit,
together with transformer design and glue board
technology. All this research leads to constant changes
and improvements.
One area of current research into improving the catch of
such traps involves, among other things, the incorporation of
an odor attractant. Flies are attracted to many odors, most of
which are foul-smelling to humans but research is underway
to find a suitably attractive combination to both insects and
humans.
Insects have, for many thousands of years, used
ultraviolet rays emitted from the sun to navigate.
They have adapted their visual systems to be
particularly sensitive to the UV end of the light
spectrum.
The electromagnetic spectrum, highlighting the range of
UVA light used in electrical fly control units
Fig 1
8
That insects do not see red is illustrated by the
fact that red flowers are not pollinated by insects
but by the wind, birds or other vertebrate animals.
IT’S A FACT
To liquefy food flies
will use their salivary
juice and also some
regurgitated fluid from
a previous meal.
THE USE OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT TO ATTRACT FLIES
Ultraviolet light is out of the range visible to humans. It is classified as that light which has a wavelength between
100 and 400 nanometres (nm). Blue light, for example, has a wavelength of 450-500 nm, green light 500-560 nm,
orange between 600 and 650 nm and red 650 to 700 nm.
Understanding this fact is important because fluorescent bulbs may give out light but there is no guarantee that the
light is in the correct range.
The UV light bulbs used for fly control have a special coating of phosphors, which when the tube is lit, gives
off UV light. This coating breaks down over a short period of time, usually taken to be one year and when
this happens, the UV light given off is insufficient to attract flying insects. The bulbs, however, can still work
for a further period of time, merely giving off usual light, which does not break down as quickly as UV light.
Ultraviolet light is generally subdivided into three categories:
UVA - 315 - 400 nm, UVB - 280 - 315 nm, UVC - 100 - 280 nm
UVC is the light frequently used for its germicidal properties in sterilizing units, water treatment plants etc,
while UVB is the sun-tanning light emitted from the sun.
It is the UVA wavelengths, which are considered harmless to humans, that are used in electrical fly traps. Research
has shown that the optimum wavelength range for attracting flying insects is 350 - 370 nm.
How does the eye of the fly "trap" the light?
The light is captured in the eyes of insects by structures called OMMATIDIA. Each adult housefly has around 3000
ommatidia in each eye. The outermost section of them can be seen as hexagonal patterns.
Inside the ommatidia
In each of these 3000 ommatidia there are eight sensory cells (known as R1 – R8) each of which contains
the photopigment, which responds to a particular wavelength of light.
Inside the cells
In most insects the cells that contain the photopigments (the chemicals that react to the light rays) are fused
and, therefore, all the cells sample the same point of light. In flies there is a remarkable and unique
modification. Each of the light trapping zones in the sensory cells is separated from its immediate neighbors.
The clever trick is that light from any point is collected by six different ommatidia and, therefore, the intensity
of the image on the retina is greatly enhanced, making the vision of the flies much more sophisticated than that
of almost any other insect.
A special pigment
Within the sensory regions of the flies’ eyes the photopigment that traps the light is unique and not like any other
pigment found in other animals.
Response to UV light
The flies’ eyes are also very special in their response to ultraviolet light. The sensory cells R1 to R8 each have
different sensitivities to the various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, with cells R1 to R6 being particularly
sensitive to ultraviolet light. These cells have a secondary and unique photopigment that reacts to the light in the
ultraviolet range. Ultraviolet light is within the range of 315 – 400 nm (see fig 1 opposite). R7 and R8 are sensitive
to light from other regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, not UV light.
The functional separation of the eyes
Within the eyes of flies there are a number of other unique features.
• Within the eyes of male flies there is a specialized zone in the front, where the two eyes have their greatest
area of binocular overlap, where the cells have lost their ability to see color. These spots are especially
developed so that the males can detect female flies in flight in the immediate vicinity.
• Another specialization is the ability of flies to detect polarized light. The ability is concentrated in certain zones of the eye,
particularly around the margins. The cells that are sensitive to polarized light are also highly sensitive to ultraviolet light.
9
MONITORING
These specializations are linked to the complex behavior of the fly and the highly attuned UV and polarized light
detection are thought to be navigational aids.
What does the fly see?
Research into the physiological processes described above only reveal what the fly’s eye is able to detect. It is
possible to show by these electrical recordings what regions of the eye are sensitive to what wavelengths and
that is all.
Can we ever know what the fly sees?
It is only by elaborate and detailed behavioral experiments that we are able to get clues as to what the fly sees.
The brain of the fly is highly evolved to processing visual information, with around 70% of it being devoted to
visual processing.
Each fly species has different visual sensitivity that changes according to the sex of the fly, its age, its feeding
status, its reproductive stage, etc. Therefore, we will never truly know what the fly sees.
Once a control method or a series of control methods has been implemented, it is essential to monitor the
effectiveness of this. Monitoring is a long-term strategy and should, in fact, be permanent in all food preparation
and retail areas. The effectiveness of control measures can only be ascertained with effective monitoring
strategies, which is why insect light traps are so useful as they control and monitor at the same time.
Pests and HACCP
HACCP is the acronym for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. It is a method of highlighting the points
where contamination of product can occur. Managers and pest management professionals should be aware
of the concept and of the Critical Control Points in production lines as well as how pest management
activities might affect them.
Under a HACCP program, the following measures should be undertaken:
1.
Identify the hazards.
2.
Control the hazards.
3.
Monitor the effectiveness of the controls.
These steps must be outlined in the written HACCP Plan for each food-handling establishment.
Prerequisite Programs
Before a food establishment can institute HACCP procedures, there are many prerequisite programs that must
be already established and in place. These include preventive cleaning and pest management programs.
Sanitary Practices
In order for HACCP systems to work as designed, they must be built on a foundation of sound sanitary practices.
Food processors and retailers must have, and implement, specific written Sanitation Standard Operating
Procedures.
How HACCP affects Pest Management
Pest management has always been an integral part of a food processor's sanitation program. At all
stages in the food process from “farm to fork”, pest management has to be considered. Critical issues
involve the cleanliness of food contact surfaces or equipment as well as the prevention of crosscontamination from contact with unsanitary objects. Proper labeling, storage and use of toxic
compounds is vital. Protection of food, food packaging materials and food contact surfaces from
adulteration by, among a list of items, pesticides, is also a critical factor. Exclusion of pests, such as
flying insects, which can carry and spread disease-causing organisms, is essential to a HACCP program.
IT’S A FACT
Adult flies live for about
1 month in the summer
and under cooler
conditions in
winter may live for
around 2 months.
A preventive pest control program must include flying insect control procedures and schedules, servicing of
equipment records and comprehensive in-plant inspection measures.
10
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will play an increasing role in the food processing industry as more and more
food plant operators strive to meet the requirements of HACCP programs. Non-chemical methods to monitor and
prevent pest infestations will become increasingly important to food safety. Food inspectors will have an increasing
role in helping to prevent food adulteration from pesticide contact, droppings, insect parts and transfer of disease
organisms by pests. New technologies that embrace IPM concepts will help reduce exposure to pest contaminants
while at the same time, reduce the level of pesticide use.
HACCP Pointers
When considering whether pest control requirements have been taken into account in the HACCP
analysis, the following sample questions will give a useful indication.
Are the suppliers to the company audited for their pest control standards?
Does the business have a quarantine area for newly delivered stock?
Is this stock examined before being put into store? Is this recorded?
Is the stock/prepared food examined before being used, served or sold?
Are the premises adequately proofed against pest entry?
Is a window and door closure policy in place at all times?
Is an adequate pest management program in place for the premises? This should include:
•
Proofing measures, such as fly screens, bristle-strip proofing, air curtains and strip curtain doors;
•
Monitoring devices, such as sticky and pheromone traps;
•
Installing fly management systems;
Are there follow-up measures, such as:
i) details of work required to be carried out by the owner or manager of the premises, and
ii) the analysis of catches from monitoring devices to see if management procedures are
working?
Where is the waste area in relation to production/open food? Is it possible for flying pests to enter
buildings directly from unclean areas?
What hygiene and maintenance measures are in place, both inside and outside the premises, especially on
loading docks and around garbage areas?
Do pest management professionals have an input into these measures?
Where appropriate, are delivery vehicles examined for signs of pests? And recorded?
Is an independent audit of the pest management contractor and site carried out?
Are the records available for review?
Professional pest management companies should assist customers by providing full records for inspection by
owners, QA managers and enforcement officers.
These will include a pest sighting/complaints book, details of treatments and follow-up work required by the
customer as well as full Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on pesticides used. Copies must be available at the
premises for inspection.
11
CHOICE OF UNITS
Types of fly control unit
There are several important factors that should be kept in mind when choosing a fly management system.
There are two main types of fly control units on the market - insect electrocutors (also known as electronic fly
killers, EFKs) and insect light traps (ILTs). Both use UV light from special bulbs to attract flying insects. The main
difference is how the insects are caught and killed when attracted to the light source.
Insect electrocutors
These kill the insects by electrocuting them as they fly through a high voltage metal grid situated adjacent to the
bulbs. As they come into contact with the grid, the current passes through the insect, instantly killing it. The dead
insect is caught in a tray suspended immediately below the unit.
These are usually the better choice for large areas such as food processing plants, factories and
supermarket warehouses. They should be used to guard the entry points such as doorways, receiving
and shipping bays and garbage areas. This is because they have a much higher capacity than insect
light traps and can deal with higher levels of infestation. They should not be used inside a building
where there is open food or sensitive areas. They should have shatterproof bulbs for ‘non-glass’
areas in the food industry and splash-proof models should be used in ‘wet areas’ such as slaughter
houses, dairies, fish docks and garbage areas.
Historically it has been felt that the killing grid used in insect electrocutors fragment flies and this type of
unit should be avoided. This was true of some of the earlier lower cost models. However, new design
technology utilized in AC powered models (see design features) ensures that long-term reliability is achieved,
insect shatter minimized and ‘first time’ killing rate increased.
Insect light traps
These catch the flying insects on a glue board where they are captured and held. The boards can be changed
weekly or monthly depending on the intensity of the infestation. They have many advantages, such as silent
operation, lower cost, ease of installation and the ability to keep the boards for proof of ‘due diligence’ and
identification purposes. They are also more effective against smaller sized flies.
ILTs are able to be used in many situations but their main advantage is that they can be used to
protect open food and other sensitive areas.
In smaller areas, such as restaurants and supermarkets, the glue board fly traps are becoming far
more popular. The Uplight is ideal for use in restaurants, behind supermarket counters and in other
food premises where it is preferable for the sticky boards to be out of sight.
It is much better to buy high quality units that will last longer and give fewer problems. These will be less
expensive in the long term.
The main reason why fly control units need to be replaced is that they are not kept clean. If the maintenance
staff on site cannot carry out regular cleaning and servicing themselves then a pest management professional
should do this for them.
Construction materials
There are several different types of construction materials used in the manufacture of fly management systems.
Molded plastic - it is important to choose a unit that utilizes the benefits of UV resistant polycarbonate to give
added strength and to allow for easy cleaning. As most common thermoplastics degrade under the effect of UV
light, many are susceptible to burning and/or becoming brittle and breaking. The addition of fillers and
stabilizers to protect against these effects can introduce other undesirable properties. To ensure sufficient rigidity,
stiffeners are usually designed into the molding. These can make effective cleaning difficult.
Metal - pressed steel or aluminium or even extruded alloy should be avoided. Sheet aluminium has the advantage of
lightness but equipment produced in this material is often flimsy in an attempt to minimize manufacturing costs.
Steel - coated mild steel is most commonly employed in the better fly management units. To protect the material
and provide a durable product, the steel is given additional surface treatments. Low cost treatments may be
plastic-coated sheet but the edges exposed during manufacture can corrode in service. Sharp edges may also
be a problem.
12
Zintec® - zinc-plated steel, which is powder-coated in polyester paint after forming to provide 100% coverage of the
part, is used by major quality manufacturers.
Stainless steel - in the food industry and related applications such as meat and fish processing, stainless steel is
often specified. Various grades are available. The best is 316 “marine” grade, which has the highest chromium and
molybdenum content for maximum corrosion resistance. It is also non-magnetic.
Types of Bulbs
Because we cannot see UV light, it is easy to assume that all “blue light” bulbs offer similar performance.
This is not so. Normally when the output of UV light from a bulb is reduced to 45-50%, the lamp is
considered to be at the end of its useful life. Because of production differences between manufacturers,
some UV bulbs, even when new, can actually give out up to 50% less UV light than bulbs from other
manufacturers. These new bulbs are therefore technically “dead” when supplied.
Bulb life - the ability of a bulb to continue to emit UV over a period of time is of fundamental importance.
Poor selection of manufacturing materials and quality control can produce unreasonably rapid degradation
of UV output. Just because a bulb lights up doesn’t mean that it is producing enough UV to be effective.
Remember we cannot see UV light.
It is therefore important to select bulbs from a supplier or manufacturer who is able to back up its performance claims
with reliable data.
Shatterproof bulbs - in some environments, especially in ‘glass free’ food processing areas, foreign matter such as
broken glass is highly undesirable. In these areas, it is necessary to sleeve the bulbs to make them “shatterproof”. The
choice of material for these sleeves is particularly important - very few materials are available that will transmit UV
effectively and yet possess the necessary mechanical properties to protect against glass escape should the bulb break.
One of the best materials for shatterproof sleeves is FEP (fluorinated ethylene polypropylene). This is expensive but
the best the industry offers and is used to shatterproof high quality UV bulbs. All PestWest shatterproofed bulbs are
coated with FEP for maximum output.
Disposal of Flourescent Tubes
A fluorescent light bulb contains mercury vapor and the inner side of the bulb is coated with fluorescent material.
When the light is turned on the mercury atoms are excited and radiate an ultra violet light which, in turn, causes the
fluorescent material to give off a visible white light.
Mercury is a toxic material, which will attack the neurological system, if inhaled or swallowed. The longer the length
of a bulb the more mercury is required to light it, therefore an 18" bulb will hold correspondingly less mercury than
a 4ft bulb.
Nationwide there are 600 million lamps discarded every year. Each bulb contains enough mercury to
pollute up to 6500 gallons or 30,000 litres of water to a level at which it is unsafe for drinking.
Therefore it is important that used bulbs are disposed of properly to protect public health and the
environment.
IT’S A FACT
Maggots are repelled
by light and will burrow
into the food material,
which they then
consume.
The US EPA is currently initiating a recycling outreach program for lamps (like fluorescent light bulbs and
other hazardous waste lamps). The program will promote lamp recycling and increase awareness of proper
disposal methods in compliance with Federal and State Universal Waste rules. This should be effective in
increasing the amount of lamps recycled in the short-term, as well as have lasting impact over the long-term.
More information on the disposal of used UV bulbs can be found at: www.lamprecycle.org, www.newmoa.org,
www.almr.org and www.nema.org
Quantum BL ultraviolet bulbs
In 1997 PestWest Electronics approached Sylvania Lighting International (SLI) of Erlangen, Germany to develop a
new fly attractant bulb. Until that date the accepted industry standard was the Sylvania BL350 and similar bulbs from
other manufacturers broadly based upon the same product.
13
While these bulbs had served the industry well for many years there was an increasing need for bulbs offering
enhanced performance to meet the needs of modern food production facilities. The technology used in fly control
equipment dates back 50 years and little had changed since then. The phosphors employed in these bulbs emit UV
light centered around 350 nm, which is ideal for attracting flying insects. However, the UV output of these bulbs extends
both above and below the optimum range of 340-380 nm. This results in a significant amount of the electrical energy
fed into the bulb being wasted in the production of UV outside the optimum range for attracting insects.
Based upon the results of their extensive research work at the University of Birmingham, UK, PestWest were
seeking to source a bulb that concentrated more of the electrical input energy into the important attractant
wavelength band of 340-380 nm.
Another little appreciated fact is that the UV emitted by a fluorescent bulb drops steadily from new to about
50% of its original output after 5-8000 hours. Some lower quality products degrade even more rapidly
than this but because we cannot “see” UV it’s easy to be lulled into a false sense of security that the
bulb is doing its job of attracting insects. Sadly this is often far from the truth.
What was wanted was a bulb that was able to maintain its UV output so that it diminished more
slowly than traditional UV bulbs and this formed the second brief to SLI, to develop a bulb that could
offer this benefit as well as improving the insect attracting qualities over traditional bulbs.
Some 2 years and much testing later, the QUANTUM BL bulb was born. Not only did it concentrate much
more of the input energy into that important 340-380 nm band, it maintained this output efficiency over a much
longer period it was also designed to have a lower mercury content than other tubes on the market. Put into
practical terms, this meant that any fly control unit that was fitted with the Quantum BL would perform better
and more effectively for longer than the same unit fitted with standard bulbs. This double benefit was
available without having to buy a new machine or without the burden of increased running costs.
As a commitment to providing the ultimate in fly control equipment, PestWest now installs the
QUANTUM BL range of bulbs as standard to all their Industrial range of fly control models. Such is
the perceived benefit that a number of other manufacturers have attempted to copy the Quantum BL
and offer “Quantum equivalent” bulbs. However these are not produced by SLI and it is worth asking
for the test data to support claims that they are as good.
Design features
Ease of service is significant. A food processing plant can have as many as 50 units suspended in the
production areas. This means that ease of servicing is a fundamentally important factor in the choice of units. If
each unit takes a two-man team 10 minutes each to clean, the work can be achieved in a day and a half. If each
unit takes 20 minutes, the work will take three days.
The servicing fee, however, will be the same.
Units on which the protective grill can be lifted or removed without having to remove screws will be quicker to
service. If the killing grid is spring-loaded and can be removed easily, then changing bulbs can be carried out in
a matter of seconds not minutes. The grid can then be removed from the unit and cleaned easily on site or
exchanged for a reconditioned grid for cleaning later.
Warning lights are now more common and are easily visible from a distance. Most lights merely confirm that
the power is on. There are also other lights that indicate that the grid is working. This will allow safe and easier
inspection from ground level, making servicing and maintenance a quicker process. A further feature of some
units is a counter that records how many insects are electrocuted, although to a hygiene officer, it is the different
species of insects caught in a food plant that is usually more significant than just the number of insects caught.
The time taken to service units is not only of interest to those who carry out the servicing work. It is also important to
the production manager of the processing plant. Industry good practice often requires that production is halted in areas
where servicing is being carried out. A shorter shut-down period is a great advantage to the production manager.
The importance of the power source cannot be overestimated. In order for insect electrocutors to work, they
need high voltage power. Usually the source of the high voltage power is a transformer situated in the roof of the
unit. Transformers have no moving parts but consist of two or more coils of copper wire, one of which is
connected to the mains power source. The secondary coils increase the voltage from the mains supply, usually
110 or 220 volts to a much higher potential, typically between 3500 to 5000 volts. For safety reasons the current
14
available is limited to less than 10 milliamps maximum. Because this type of power supply provides an alternating
voltage, the design of the transformer is critical in determining reliability. In a well-designed unit, any failure is likely to
have been identified during the manufacturer’s quality control procedures. For this reason, it is important to choose
only units that are fitted with a reliable transformer.
The significance of the power in an EFK - the high voltage can be produced in a variety of different ways. It can
either be DC (direct current), AC (alternating current) or a combination of both. In a fly system, the voltage must be
enough to cause a discharge when an insect tries to pass through the grid. There must be sufficient current to kill
a wide range of sizes of insects, yet at the same time the current must be limited to an acceptably safe level.
DC-powered killing grid - often found on cheaper machines, the voltage is often quite high (eg: 6000 15000 volts), although the current can be inadequate to clear the grid, which can mean that machines get
very dirty due to electrostatic effects. Reliability is often suspect due to the way in which the high voltage is
generated.
AC-powered killing grid - it is generally accepted that this is the better method. The voltage is generated at 3000 to
6000 volts from the mains power via a transformer, which is designed to limit the current to between 5 and 10 mA. Because
AC high voltage is more difficult to contain, the correct design of the transformer is vital for long-term reliability.
To reduce manufacturing costs, some transformers have a capacitor incorporated into their design. The
different discharge characteristics produced by these can result in parts of flying insects being ejected from
the fly machine. Secondary infestation to the catch trays by scavenging beetles and spiders has been noted
on occasions.
The ‘first time’ killing rate on a AC-powered killing grid is usually much higher than a DC-powered one,
reducing the risk of stunned insects spinning in the catch tray and therefore decreasing the amount of insect
debris thrown out.
IT’S A FACT
Mature maggots will
often wander in search
of cooler places to
pupate and may travel
as far as fifty yards
from their
deposition site.
Food safety is always a major consideration. Standard practice in the food industry forbids small loose items in a
production area in case they get into the food. Loose screws or other fittings are a constant threat to production. Units
that are designed so that screws and other fittings etc remain attached to the body when undone are therefore
preferable.
Glue board technology has improved greatly during the past few years. There are two main families of
adhesives.
Soft glues (eg: those made from polybutenes) are very sticky and have good UV resistance. However, they
are messy to use and unsuitable for areas of high temperature or humidity. While the technology is
improving, they are prone to “creep” and are therefore not recommended for use in a vertical position.
Hard glues (eg: those made by the hot melt process) also have very good tack and cohesive properties.
However, while their performance is much more stable against temperature and humidity than other types, they are
more likely to “dry out” or “cure” when exposed to UV light.
It is preferable to use boards with “hard” glues, although there is still a problem in that UV from bulbs greater than 20
watts begin to “cure” the surface after a short time and they lose their effectiveness. As a result, it has not been possible
to produce larger, traditional fly traps for use in industrial or commercial areas. However, all PestWest ILTs (except
Mantis Uplight) are available fitted with ReflectobaktTM sleeve technology, a device that prevents the UV light from
drying the boards, making them more effective for longer periods of time.
Insect light traps are usually of lower cost than EFKs and were initially developed to counter the fear of many in the food
industry that when flies are killed in EFKs, they explode and body parts are scattered over the food. While this is true of
EFKs that use DC power, research has indicated that it is significantly less of a problem in units that use AC power.
Stock levels are always a significant factor that concern financial controllers. Using combination units that are supplied
for installation as either wall-mounted or suspended models have an advantage. Similarly, using fly traps that use a
standard one-size sticky board in all models will reduce the need to stock several sizes. Interchangeable bulbs, starters
and the ReflectobaktTM sleeves also increase productivity and profitability.
Service companies should carefully weigh up all the above factors before deciding on which units to choose in their
servicing program.
15
SITING OF UNITS
One of the most difficult aspects when introducing a fly management system is deciding on how many units
should be placed in premises and where they will give the best performance. The formula that ‘unit A’ covers a
given area of square feet is difficult to prove; as the increase in competitive light decreases the area of coverage.
Conversley, decreasing the amount of competitive light will increase the area of coverage.
The following criteria should be followed:
In large industrial premises
1. Check who is going to accompany you on the survey. It
would be ideal for this to be a senior member of staff or
quality control staff. In general, those from
IT’S A FACT
maintenance are more important as understanding
the difference between a sanitation and a
Flies become
maintenance issue and having the appropriate
sexually mature a day or
two after emergence from
personnel available is critical.
the pupae and begin to
2. On the initial survey of the site, the intention
lay their eggs about four
should be to obtain information, not to give a
days after mating.
commentary on what the recommendations are
going to be. Always take a note-pad to record
observations and appropriate notes. Typical information to
obtain includes:
a) What is the approximate area of each site?
b) Where are the doors to the outside of the building and
how often are they open?
c) Are there any flying insect breeding sites nearby,
eg: stock farms, chicken rearing sheds, waste
dumps, water etc?
d) Does the site give off an odor that may be
attractive to flying insects, eg: jam, confectionery,
slaughter house, recycling area, etc?
e) How high are the convenient hanging points for double-sided, suspended fly control units, which are
the most economical to use? If possible, excessive chain lengths should be avoided, especially near doors
where wind and drafts and air handling vents can cause problems.
f) Where are the critical areas of contamination within the plant? In a food factory, it is generally where the ingredients
or processed foods are exposed. In these areas, special note should be made of correct locations to site units. Check
with the maintenance staff whether the pipes or girders are strong enough to hang units and if electricity can be
connected.
g) Make note of areas where there is a lot of washing water present or likely to be present and decide whether a
splashproof-rated machine is necessary.
h) In areas of high dust content, inquire whether the plant machinery is ‘explosion-proofed’. If it is, then an explosionproofed unit with an appropriate rating must be used and note should be taken of overhead lighting fixtures, electrical
outlets, etc to gain the appropriate rating required.
i) Note areas where there is high humidity or there is a corrosive atmosphere, eg: peppermint in a confectionery
plant. In these cases, it is essential to recommend a 316 stainless steel unit.
j) During the survey, ask people where they have experienced problems of flying insects. Staff who work in a
particular area will often know much more than the management.
k) Where there is screening on the windows or doors, check that they are intact and inquire whether they are
opened in hot weather. It is very common to find that they are opened because people believe that screening
reduces the flow of cool air.
l) Any area where products are wrapped and packaged is particularly vulnerable and should be carefully
protected.
16
Having finished the survey, it is good practice to ask to be left alone to assess the findings.
You should also find out during the survey:
1)
Why have they called you in?
2)
Have they had criticism from an inspection?
3)
Have they had requirements set by customers?
4)
Are there any changes in legislation or codes of practice applicable to the site?
5)
Who is going to do the maintenance on the units?
6)
What budget has been set?
7)
Is there positive or negative air pressure?
8)
What type of lighting is installed in the premises? (eg: mercury vapor, sodium vapor?)
9)
When will the corrective actions be taken into the sanitation or maintenance program?
All this information can be useful when sitting down to review the survey findings.
Positioning
There are no absolute rules about the positioning of fly control units but units need to be positioned in such a way
to draw flies away from the sensitive areas, rather than towards them. Contrary to popular belief, the ideal height of
placement is about 6 feet above the ground, as this is the height at which pest fly species frequently settle. Units
placed any lower would simply draw flies into the food preparation zone. The following should also be noted:
1) Always hang units where they can be easily accessed for servicing, eg: it is undesirable to hang a unit over
machinery that has to be switched off before it can be serviced. In sophisticated systems, a Personal Digital Assistant
(PDA) or Palm Pilot are used to monitor catch density and servicing frequency. Bar codes are assigned to each
unit and scanned, designating location and information specific to the trap, which is documented.
2) Make sure units are not positioned where they might be damaged, eg: by a forklift truck. Similarly, avoid
mounting units in areas where they may present a hazard to people, eg: cleaners, maintenance staff etc.
3) The general principle of siting is to intercept the flies before they enter critical areas and those that do
are attracted away from the products towards the fly control machines.
IT’S A FACT
During the process of
regurgitation, it quite often
happens that a drop of the
fly’s vomit falls from the
end of the proboscis to the
surface on which it is
resting
4) It is essential to protect the doors, open windows, access points etc, sometimes using more than one machine
at a particular opening, offsetting them slightly so that they do not attract flies from outside, especially at night. To
protect doors, it is preferable to use a machine with an electrical killing grid since these sites are not critical
contamination areas and this type of machine has an almost limitless capacity. Air movement in this area will be high
and therefore it is an advantage to use a machine with a draft deflector to avoid the catch being blown out of the tray.
5)
In critical open food areas, do not place a unit directly over food for the following reasons:
a)
It would normally be difficult to service;
b)
There is a risk, however slight, that debris can come out of the machine and contaminate the food; and
c)
The desired effect is to attract flies away from the food.
Units should be positioned to one side of critical areas. However, when positioning close to food processing, it is
recommended that the new high-powered industrial sticky traps should be used.
It is important to ask whether the customers are going to monitor and analyze the catch at certain points. If so, then
a glue trap unit should be installed.
In the break rooms, kitchens and quality control rooms, it might be more appropriate to use smaller machines.
Once the survey has established how many units are required to cover the doors and critical areas, a few units at a
much lower density should be placed in general areas.
It is recommended that the customer is told, in writing, how many units are needed, of what type they should be and
where to place them to do the job effectively. If the customer then says that the budget is not available to do the job
properly, a choice has to be made to make best use of what can be afforded.
In large areas, choose a unit with an output of at least 40 watts and preferably 80 watts. Where feasible, units that
attract on both sides, ie: suspended units, should be used. It must be remembered that flies in a roof height of
17
50 feet will fly at a much higher average than in a room with, say, a height of 9 or 10 feet. Therefore, the units
should be suspended higher up, eg: around 15 feet. Because of the availability of suspension points, this is not
usually a problem. However, in critical areas, they should be placed lower.
Do not place units near air handling blower outlets.
It should be emphasized that it is much better to buy high quality machines, which will last longer and give fewer
problems. Over a period of time, the high quality machine will be less expensive than the cheaper type.
The main reason why quality machines need to be replaced in, for instance, under 7 or 8 years is that they are
not kept clean. If the maintenance staff on site cannot carry out regular cleaning and servicing themselves, ideally
a pest control company should do it for them.
When siting units in a damp or corrosive atmosphere (for example, dairies, dock side fisheries, vegetable
processing plants, etc), it is imperative that they are manufactured from a high grade stainless steel. Not all
stainless steels can withstand hostile conditions and these will soon show signs of rust and other contamination.
If this happens, the customer will not be happy and may insist on the supplier replacing them with the higher
grade.
It is sometimes better for customers to fit stainless steel in non-hostile areas because the units have a more
professional appearance and their bodywork will last longer.
In areas close to food, it is essential that shatterproof bulbs are used in the units. These should be bulbs covered
with FEP. This allows UV light to pass through it with minimum loss of intensity and can withstand the heat.
Cheaper materials are sometimes available but bulbs covered with them can block the intensity of the UV light
and reduce the attractivity of the units. All Nemesis® Ultima units are manufactured with shatterproof bulbs
protected by FEP.
Ensure that all units are wired in so that they are not switched off with any other general lighting. The units should
be kept on 24 hours a day, all year. Be sure units are not switched off by a ‘master switch’ at the end of the day.
In large food stores and supermarkets
When dealing with large food stores and
supermarkets, many of the principles given for
large industrial areas still apply. However, because
this is fly control in the public eye, there are a
number of differences. In the receiving and storage
areas “out the back”, the larger machines, whether
they are electronic or sticky board type, should be
used but in the areas where the public are present,
more discretion is needed.
It would always be advisable to cover the main
public entry doors with a suspended unit or
strategically place high-powered wall-mounted unit,
whether electronic or the glue board type. After all,
this is probably the main entry point of the flies.
Even air curtains won’t keep them out. The main
critical areas in a food store are where there is
open food. The latest trend is for these to be on the
increase and these can contain meat, bread, fish,
pizza, cakes, salad, vegetables, fruit etc. Generally
speaking, it is advisable to use insect light traps in
this type of layout because they are silent, have no
chance of “fall-out” and, particularly in the case of
the Uplight, are very discreet.
The Uplight unit has many advantages in this type
of store but remember that more of them may need
to be used. In these open food areas, especially
18
around the fruit, vegetable and salad counters, fruit flies (Drosophila spp) are likely to be concentrated.
Insect light traps are far superior to the electronic type in catching this type of fly. If possible, fit a unit in a
low position in the area where this produce is displayed.
Use black glue boards in public areas as they hide the catch. Research has shown that there is no
statistical difference in catch by varying the color of glue boards (see test results). Leave the fly control units
on 24 hours a day all year. Remember the blue lights have an added advantage of being excellent security
lights.
Changes in pest management practices (eg, baiting) have escalated the number of small flies in
restaurants, etc.
In smaller premises, eg: kitchens, restaurants and smaller shops
Again, the general principles and much of the advice already given apply to the above areas.
Protect the doors where the flies are
likely to enter, especially back doors
where garbage cans are kept.
Open food areas are obviously critical
but try not to hang the units over these.
However, if there is no choice because of
the lack of space, use an appropriate
insect light trap.
Try to hang the units so that they are not
facing a window through which sunlight
comes in. It is better that they are at right
angles to it so that they are not
competing with output from the sun.
Ensure that units hang in a position where they are not in the way and people cannot hit their heads on
them.
It is usual in a room with a height up to 15 feet to hang the units at 6’6” or slightly higher in order to attract
the flies away from the height where the food is.
In restaurants and bars, an Uplight is often the best type as the catch is hidden and are therefore more
discreet. They may not be quite as attractive to flying insects as an open bulb(s) unit but they have the clear
advantage that they allow fly control where not previously allowed by proprietors.
Because glue board traps are particularly effective against fruit flies (Drosophila spp), they may be placed
lower in bars (behind the counter) and near salad and fruit display areas. They should not however be
placed among the food display, since the unit should draw the flying insects away from the food and not
towards it.
As with all fly management programs finding and removing/drying out of the fly breeding areas is a key
component of elimination.
Other suggested areas of use are:
Zoos
Casinos
Delis
Rest stops
Theme parks
Barns
Malls
Kennels
Restaurants
Outdoor cafés
Cruise ships
Flour mills
Confectionary factories
Hospitals
Convenience stores
Pet stores
Airports
Pharmaceutical plants
Plastics manufacturing
Schools
Hotels
Toll booths
Dairies
Packing houses
Food production
Cheese manufacturing
Supermarkets
For more information on fly management systems, log on to pestwest.com or email
[email protected]
19
EASY IDENTIFICATION CHART
Common Housefly
Musca domestica
Features
6-8mm
Thorax gray with four longitudinal dark stripes. Sides of abdomen are yellowish
and may be transparent. A dark band covers the final abdomen segments.
During her lifetime, the female will produce 400 - 750 eggs. Food requirements of
adult flies are mainly for carbohydrates taken in liquid form having been dissolved
by regurgitated digestive juices.
Control
PestWest fly control units will effectively control houseflies.
Lesser Housefly
Fannia canicularis
5-6mm
Features
Gray thorax with 3 indistinct longitudinal stripes. Abdomen has extensive area of
yellow at base.
Control
Application of residual insecticides and ULV application to breeding sites and areas
where the flies congregrate will prove effective. PestWest insect light traps and
insect electrocutors are effective at controlling the Lesser Housefly.
Blowfly
Calliphora spp.
Features
9-13mm
Thorax and abdomen black/blue in color and often with a metallic appearance.
Wingspan 18-20mm.
Blowflies are attracted to rotting animal remains and any decaying organic matter
on which to lay eggs.
Control
All PestWest fly control units are very effective in controlling these pests.
Cluster Fly
Pollenia rudis
Features
10mm
Large flies, wingspan up to 20mm. Thorax distinctive dark gray/olive color covered
in golden hairs.
Control
Primarily an outdoor pest but will overwinter in buildings in large numbers.
Perimeter treatments should be performed late summer. Once inside, localized
areas should be treated with dust/mist applications of insecticide. PestWest units
are very effective in controlling cluster flies.
Mushroom/Fungus Fly
Sciara thomae
5-6mm
Features
Small insects, wingspan 14-15mm. Black head, thorax and abdomen. Thorax has
humped appearance. Eggs are deposited in soil and rotting vegetation.
Control
Find the source of the infestation and if possible remove it, before using a residual
insecticide. Mantis glue traps are extremely effective at controlling mushroom flies.
20
EASY IDENTIFICATION CHART
Fruit Fly
Drosophila spp.
3mm
Features
Small yellowish brown with darkly striped abdomen. Prominent red eyes. Attraction
to alcohol, yeasts and waste fruit means they are frequently found in such areas
and can build up to very large numbers.
Control
Mantis glue traps are extremely effective at controlling these smaller insects.
Mosquitoes
Culex spp.
Features
7-15mm
Slender, long-legged insect with forward-pointing, piercing and sucking mouthparts. Wingspan 7-15mm. The adult females are invariably blood-feeding while the
males obtain their food from nectar, if at all.
Control
PestWest units are very effective at catching mosquitoes. Insect electrocutors are
better suited to handle large volumes of mosquitoes outdoors.
Yellow Jacket
Vespula spp.
Features
Black head and thorax, black and yellow patterning on abdomen. Many thousands
of individuals are associated with each nest, with the workers feeding on nectar,
15-20mm
sweet materials and, at certain times, insect larvae and other animal pieces.
Control
PestWest glue traps and insect electrocutors are particularly effective at attracting
and controlling yellow jackets.
Scuttle Fly / Phorid Fly
Megaselia spp.
3-4mm
Features
Thorax dark brown/tan with distinctive humped appearance.
Control
When flies occur indoors the usual source of infestation is blocked drains. Rotting
food debris will also support an infestation. Improvements in sanitation and
drainage using bioremediation will help control an infestation. If there is a broken
drainage system it must be repaired. Mantis glue traps and insect electrocutors are
extremely effective at attracting and controlling these pests.
Biting Midge
Culicoides spp.
1.2 1.5mm
Features
Dark brown/black in color. Wingspan 3-4mm. Will swarm in large numbers and
inflict bites. The flies breed in waterlogged soil particularly in peaty areas.
Control
Insect repellents should be used when outdoors to prevent bites. The larvae
develop in mud, at the surface of ponds and in ditches. Draining wet ground would
prove an effective measure however, it is not always practical. Mantis glue traps
will attract and control midges.
21
PROTOCOL FOR FLY TESTS
METHOD - General
All electric fly traps are left to run for 100 hours before commencement of evaluations to allow the output of the fluorescent tubes
to normalize. Machines used in comparative tests contain the same age of tubes and starters. This is important as UV output
decreases with age of tube.
The test facilities used in West Yorkshire, UK, consist of three rooms, situated next to each other, measuring 71” x 71”, with a
height of 96” (see Figure 1). Machines are tested individually (in separate rooms) but simultaneously in identical test rooms.
They are tested separately for two main reasons. Firstly, in a field situation, it is unlikely that two machines would be operating
in such close proximity. Secondly, the overlapping flickering of the UV from two units in close proximity is likely to confuse the
flies and confound the results.
71”
Figure 1: Overhead view of the test room facility. All rooms are identical in dimensions and have a ceiling
height of 96”. The central table stands at a height of 28” and wall flytrap units can be mounted on the back
walls of the rooms at a height of 61”.
71”
There are no windows in the evaluation rooms. Light is provided throughout the evaluations with overhead
strip lighting fitted with white light fluorescent tubes. The walls of the test rooms are painted white and are
non-reflective. All test rooms contain a circular table, placed centrally, on which fly control machines can
be rested. Wall brackets can also be fitted to the rear wall where necessary for those machines
promoted as wall units.
Unit 1
Table
Test Room 1
Fig 1
The walls of the test rooms are washed down with warm water and a clean cloth prior to starting each test to ensure that no
contaminants can affect the outcome of the results. The floor is swept after each replicate to ensure removal of any dead flies.
Temperature of the test rooms is also monitored. If the temperature of the room drops below 20oC/68oF the flies may become
fairly inactive due to the low temperature, so evaluations generally are not carried out in test rooms with temperatures below
20oC/68oF.
Replicates of each test using 3 comparable units are carried out a minimum of six times and replicates using two comparable units are
carried out a minimum of four times, rotating the fly killing units between each room. This ensures all possible combinations are tested.
For example, for a four replicate test:
Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Replicate 3
Replicate 4
Room 1 Unit A
Room 1 Unit B
Room 1 Unit A
Room 1 Unit B
Room 2 Unit B
Room 2 Unit A
Room 2 Unit B
Room 2 Unit A
The common housefly, Musca domestica, is used for all tests. These are reared under laboratory conditions to pupae then
through to adulthood. They are fed on a diet of sugar and water is provided on soaked cotton wool balls. The age of the flies
may affect their activity; young flies tend to be more active and older flies less so. It is therefore important to use flies of the same
age in all replicates. Two to six day old flies are used in these tests. Reaction to UV changes with age and if mated, meaning
that younger flies are more susceptible to the traps. Natural death rate is higher with older flies, which is another problem if they
are used in tests, as it may be unclear whether flies found dead, but not in the fly control machines, have been killed by the unit
and ejected or died of natural causes. Around 100 common houseflies are released into each of the test rooms at the beginning
of each replicate and the time of release is recorded as time zero hours.
When testing two different units, it is important to note any difference in wattage. It is best to try to compare machines with the
same or similar wattages but if this is not possible, then it should be accounted for in the analysis, as it could affect the results.
Similarly, in the case of the glue board units, the area of the glue boards may be different when comparing two different traps
and this too may affect the results and therefore should be noted.
Fly Control Tests
For fly control unit tests, all models are sited centrally in each test room, resting on the table, height 28” above the floor of the
test room. Like the walls of the rooms, the tabletop should be wiped clean with a cloth and water after each test.
For these evaluations, the flies are released altogether underneath the tables in the test rooms at zero time. The temperature of
each room is also taken.
The numbers of flies in the catch tray is recorded after each half hour. The tests are run for two to six hours or until all flies have been
caught. Caught flies are left in the catch tray, as the presence of already controlled flies may affect the attraction of the units.
GLUE BOARD UNIT TESTS
For tests involving glue board units, machines are wall mounted at a height of 61”, attached via a fixing bracket to the center of the
back wall (opposite the doorway at a height of 61”). For double-sided glue board traps, such as the Mantis 4x4, the units are placed
centrally as with double-sided insect electrocutor units. For tests involving wall-mounted units, the flies are released in one corner of
the room and the equivalent corner in all test rooms. For those placed on the central table, the flies are released underneath the table.
The catch is recorded as the number of flies stuck to the glue board at each recording time. Counts are taken every half an hour and
hour, or until all flies have been caught. The same glue board is used for the duration of the replicate and the flies are not removed after
each count. New glue boards are used in each machine for each replicate.
NOTES: Competitors report that speed of catch is a crucial factor in the effectiveness of a fly control unit and certainly our tests
have shown that the greatest number of flies is caught within the first two to three hours. However, speed of catch will vary and
will undoubtedly be influenced by the size of the test arena and temperature.
Some tests run at different establishments have used clingwrap to cover the walls, which can be discarded after each replicate. The
problem with this is that this application will make the walls much more reflective, which may affect the results.
22
FLY TEST RESULTS
Sylvania Quantum BL shatterproof ultraviolet bulbs vs. Competitor A,
shatterproof UV bulbs in the Mantis 1x2 glue trap fly control unit:
These tests were carried out to compare the catch results of the Quantum BL shatterproof ultraviolet bulbs against the
shatterproofed bulbs of Competitor A.
Competitor A bulbs are supplied shatterproofed with a metalized polyester reflective backing. The material of the shatterproof
sleeve is unknown. The Quantum BL bulbs are coated with a sleeve, which is supplied by Sylvania International and is made
of FEP (fluorinated ethylene polypropylene).
Both sets of bulbs were of the same wattage and age. In the initial test a Mantis 1x2 wall-mounted unit was used. In the second
test a Mantis Uplight fly control unit was used. All other test variants were as stated in the protocol.
Four replicates were carried out, with a known number# of M. domestica released into each test room at the beginning of
each replicate.
RESULTS:
Mean catches of the Mantis 1x2 glue trap fly control unit:
Time (Hours)
Quantum BL bulbs
Competitor A bulbs
1
34%
13%
2
53%
22%
3
61%
37%
6
82%
55%
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
In three out of four replicates the Quantum BL bulbs performed better than the Competitor A bulbs, in terms of catch after 6
hours*.
This experiment showed that the Quantum BL bulbs caught significantly more flies than Competitor A bulbs. It is suggested that
this performance can be attributed to the effects of the shatterproof sleeving on the two bulb types, the sleeving used in the
competitor tubes having a detrimental effect on the catch of the units.
*x 2(1) 4.7, d.f.1 P<0.05 with Yates’ Correction;
x 2(2) 58.8, d.f.1 P<0.01 with Yates’ Correction; x 2(3) 4.5, d.f.1 P<0.05 with
Yates’ Correction.
# Number of M.domestica released was between 83 and 138. Percentages are calculated on actual number of flies released.
Sylvania Quantum BL shatterproof bulbs vs. Competitor A shatterproof bulbs,
fitted in Mantis Uplight fly control unit:
These tests were carried out to compare the catch results of the Quantum BL shatterproof bulbs against the shatterproofed
ultraviolet bulbs of Competitor A.
Competitor A bulbs are supplied with a shatterproofed with a metalized polyester reflective backing. The material of the
shatterproof sleeve is unknown.
The Quantum BL bulbs are coated with a sleeve, which is supplied by Sylvania International and is made of FEP (fluorinated
ethylene polypropylene).
A known number# of M. domestica were released into each test room at the beginning of each replicate.
RESULTS:
Average percentage catch of the Mantis Uplight fly control unit:
Time (Hours)
Quantum BL bulbs
Competitor A bulbs
2
54%
38%
6
76%
54%
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
After two hours, in three out of four replicates there is no significant difference in catch of the two bulb types and in one
replicate, the unit fitted with Quantum BL bulbs performed significantly better than the unit fitted with Competitor A bulbs. After
six hours, two out of four replicates showed the units fitted with Quantum BL bulbs to catch significantly more flies**.
*x 2 76.0, d.f.1 P<0.01 with Yates’ Correction.
**x 2(1) 3.9, d.f.1 P<0.05 with Yates’ Correction;
x 2(2) 65.0, d.f.1 P<0.01 with Yates’ Correction.
# Number of M.domestica released was between 87 and 138. Percentages are calculated on actual number of flies released.
23
FLY TEST RESULTS
WHITE VS. STANDARD BLACK GLUE BOARDS IN THE MANTIS 1X2 UNIT:
Claims have been made by a competitor that the color of the glue boards used in the PestWest Mantis 1x2 unit affects the
performance of the unit in catching flies, specifically that the unit performs better when fitted with white glue boards as opposed
to the standard black glue boards. Black glue boards are promoted for use in PestWest machines so that trapped flies are not
so apparent. On white boards, however, black flies are much more noticeable. The aim of these tests is to determine whether
there is a significant difference in the fly catching abilities of machines fitted with white, as opposed to black sticky boards.
RESULTS:
Six replicates of this test were performed, with a known number# of M. domestica released into each test room on each
replicate. In four out of six replicates, no significant difference was found between the catch of the units fitted with white boards
compared to the unit fitted with the standard black boards. On another replicate, the black boards caught significantly more flies
in the first half an hour**, but no significant difference in catch was found after this point. Interestingly, there was never found to
be any significant difference in catch after two hours.
Whilst the percentage catch per replicate was quite variable, when we looked at the average percentages, it could be seen that
the black boards did catch a higher average percentage of flies at all stages. As these data are percentages they cannot be
subjected to any statistical analysis. Average percentage catch is shown in the table below:
Glue Board Color
Time (Hours)
Black
White
0.5
46.5%
41.8%
1
59.7%
58.0%
1.5
68.3%
67.5%
2
75.3%
73.2%
CONCLUSION
These results seem to suggest that there is little difference between the attractiveness of Mantis 1x2 units fitted with black boards
compared to those using white. Certainly, it was not found that the use of white boards greatly improved the performance of the
units. It is quite likely that the UV is a significant enough lure to attract the target flies and that the changing of board color does
not have a large effect because of this.
*(x 2(1) 3.88, d.f.1, P<0.05 with Yates’ Correction,
**(x 2 8.25, d.f.1, P<0.01 with Yates’ Correction)
x 2(2) 6.30, d.f.1, P<0.01 with Yates’ Correction, x 2(3) 4.33, d.f.1, P<0.05)
# Number of M. domestica released was between 68 and 96. Percentages are calculated on actual number of flies released.
24
FLY TEST RESULTS
THE EFFECT OF CHANGING GRILL AREA OR GRILL REMOVAL ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE MANTIS 1X2 FLY CONTROL UNIT
A competitor has claimed that removal of the safety grill from the Mantis 1x2 units enhances the catch achieved by the unit and
that even the removal of every other bar can have a beneficial effect on the percentage of flies caught. This experiment was
designed to test these claims.
RESULTS:
Six replicates of the test were performed and the machines tested simultaneously but in different rooms. A known number of
Musca domestica were released into each test room at the start of each replicate#.
In four out of six replicates, the unit fitted with a full grill caught significantly** more flies than the unit with the grill removed, at
all times. The unit fitted with a grill with every other bar removed caught more flies in three replicates, than the unit with the grill
removed. In two more of the replicates, the half grill unit caught significantly more flies than the unit with no grill after an hour
and a half and then two hours. Little difference was found between the catches of the machines fitted with full grills compared
to half grills. Machines with the grill removed entirely were never found to catch significantly more flies than the units fitted with
half or full grills.
CONCLUSION
When we look at the average percentage catch of the different grill conditions (see table below), we can see that while there is
little difference between the catches of the machines fitted with the half grills and full grills, they seem to catch a much higher
percentage of flies than units with the grill removed.
It is clear that the use of safety grills on the Mantis 1x2 units does not significantly decrease the catch of the machines.
Conversely, it was seen that the use of a grill can significantly enhance the attraction of the machines to the target flies. The grill
may help to attract flies to the unit as flies are known to be attracted to lines and edges and the wires of the grill provide many
of these. The flies may see the grill as a good resting site and as they move around in the region of the grill are likely to become
trapped on the glue boards close behind.
The coverage and number of bars make little difference. Certainly, the removal of every other bar did not seem to make a great
difference to the catch of the units in this experiment. Further tests would help to determine any optimum grill spacing.
Grill Condition
Time (Hours)
Full Grill
Half Grill
No Grill
0.5
32.8%
27.5%
16.3%
1
46.9%
43.9%
26.3%
1.5
56.5%
57.8%
37.5%
2
64.5%
64.9%
46.2%
#Number of M. domestica released was between 90 and 108. Percentages are calculated on actual number of flies released.
**Actual significance values are not given here due to the large number of tests performed and values obtained. All data was
subjected to analysis in the form of x 2 tests, at d.f.1, with Yates’ Correction.
All work carried out at test facility of Killgerm Group UK and completed by:
Hannah Groves BSc.(Hons) M.Res and
Nicola Chamberlain BSc.(Hons) under the supervision of
Prof. Moray Anderson, BSc.(Hons) PhD, FRES, CBiol, FIBiol
25
FURTHER READING
Bidawid, S. P., Edeson, J. F. B., Ibrahim J. and Matossian, R. M. (1978) The Role of Nonbiting Flies in the Transmission of Enteric
Pathogens (Salmonella species and Shigella species) in Beirut, Lebanon, In Annals of Tropical Medicine Parasitology,
72, pp. 117-121.
Busvine, J. R. (1966) Insects and Hygiene - The biology and control of insect pests of medical and domestic importance, London:
Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Chapman, P. A., Siddons, C. A., Wright, D. J., Norman, P., Fox, J. and Crick, E. (1993) Cattle as a possible source of
verocytotoxin producing E. coli 0 1 57 in man, In Epidemiol. Infect., Ill, pp. 439-47.
Chavasse. D. C., Blumenthal, U. and Kolsky, P. (1994) Fly control in prevention of diarrhoeal disease, In The Lancet,
344. p. 123 1.
Chavasse, D. C., Shier, R. P., Murphy, 0. A., Huttly, S. R. A., Cousens, S. N. and Akhtar (1999) Impact of fly control on childhood
disease in Pakistan: community-randomised trial, In The Lancet. 353, pp. 22-25.
Cohen, D., Green, M., Block, C., Slepon, R., Arnbar, R., Wasserman, S. S. and Levine, M. M. (1991) Reduction of transmission
of shigellosis by control of houseflies (Musca domestica), In The Lancet, 337, pp. 993-997.
Cox. G. L., Lewis, F. C. and Glynn, E. E. (1912) The Number and Varieties of Bacteria Carried by the Common House-Fly in
Sanitary and Insanitary City Areas, In Journal of Hygiene, 12, pp. 290-312.
DeCapito, T. (1963) Isolation of Salmonella from Flies, in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, 12, p. 892.
Echeverria, P., Harrison, B. A., Titapat, C. and McFarland, A. (1983) Flies as a source of Enteric Pathogens in a Rural Village in
Thailand, In Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 46, pp. 32-36.
Fotedar, R., Banerjee, U., Singh, S., Shriniwas and Verma, A. K. (1992) The housefly (Musca domestica) as a carrier of
pathogenic micro-organisms in a hospital environment, In Journal of Hospital Infection, 20, pp. 209-215.
Greenberg, B. (1971) Flies and Disease - Volume I Ecology, Classification and Biotic Associations, Princeton University Press.
Greenberg, B. (1973) Flies and Disease - Volume II Biology and Disease Transmission, Princeton University Press.
Greenberg, B., Varela, G., Bornstein, A. and Hernandez, H. (1963) Salmonellae from Flies in a Mexican Slaughterhouse, In The
American Journal of Hygiene, 77, pp. 177-183.
lwasa, M., Makino, S., Asakura, H., Kobori, H. and Morirnoto, Y. (1999) Detection of Escherichia coli 0 1 5 7:H7 from Musca
domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) at a Cattle Farm in Japan, In Journal of Medical Entomology, 36, pp. 108-112.
Khafil, K., Lindblom, G. B., Mazhar, K. and Kaijser, B. (1994) Flies and water as reservoirs for bacterial enteropathogens in urban
and rural areas in and around Lahore, Pakistan, In Epidemiol. Infect., 113, pp. 435-444.
Knight, S. M., Toodayan, W., Caique, W. C., Kyi, W., Bames, A. and Desmarchelier, P. (1992) Risk Factors for the Transmission
of Diarrhoea in Children: A Case-Control Study in Rural Malaysia, In International Journal of Epidemiology, 21, pp. 812-818.
Levine, 0. S. and Levine, M. M. (1991) Houseflies (Musca domestica) as Mechanical Vectors of Shigellosis, In Reviews of
Infectious Diseases, 13, pp. 688-696.
Lindsay, D. R., Stewart. W. H. and Watt, J. (1953) Effect of Fly Control on Diarrheal Disease in an Area of Moderate Morbidity,
In Public Health Reports, 68, pp. 361-367.
McClary, A. (1982) "Swat the Fly": popular Magazines and the Anti-Fly Campaign, In Preventative Medicine, 11, pp. 373-378.
26
McGuire, C. D. and Durant, R. C. (1957) The Role of Flies in the Transmission of Eye Disease in Egypt, In American Journal of
Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, 6, pp. 569-575.
Nicoll, W. (1911) On the Varieties of Bacillus coli Associated With the house-Fly (Musca domestica), In Journal of Hygiene,
1 1, pp. 381-389.
Olsen, A. R. (1 99 8) Regulatory Action Criteria for Filth and Other Extraneous Materials 111. Review of Flies and Foodborne
Enteric Disease, In Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 28, pp. 199-211.
Ostrolenk, M. and Welch, H. (1942) The House Fly as a Vector of Food Poisoning Organisms in Food Producing Establishments,
In American Journal of Public Health, 32, pp. 487-494.
Peffly, R. L. and Labrecque, G. C. (1956) Marking and Trapping Studies on Dispersal and Abundance of Egyptian House Flies,
In Journal of Economic Entomology, 49, pp. 214-217.
Pickens, L. G., Morgan, N. 0., Hartsock, J. G. and Smith J. W. (1967) Dispersal Patterns and Populations of the House Fly
Affected by Sanitation and Weather in Rural Maryland, In Journal of Economic Entomology, 60, pp. 1250-1255.
Pickens L. G. (1989) Factors affecting the distance of scatter of house-flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from electrocuting traps, In
Journal of Economic Entomology, 82, pp. 149-151.
Rahn, K., Renwick S. A., Johnson, R. P., Wilson, J. B., Clarke, R. C., Alves, D., MeEwen, S., Lior, H. and Spika J. (1997)
Persistence of Escherichia coli 0157: H7 in dairy cattle and the dairy farm environment, in Epidemiol. Infect. . 119, pp. 251-259.
Rosef, 0. and Kapperud, G. (1983) House Flies (Musca domestica) as Possible Vectors of Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni,
In Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 45, pp. 381-383.
Skidmore, P. (1985) The Biology of the Muscidae of the World, DR W. Junk Publishers.
Sramova, H., Daniel, M.. Absolonova, V., Dedicova, D., Jedlickova, Z., Lhotova, H., Petras, P. and Subertova V. (1992)
Epidemiological role of arthropods detectable in health facilities, In Journal of Hospital Infection, 20, pp. 281-292.
Torrey, J. C. (1912) Numbers and Types of Bacteria Carried by City Flies, In Journal of Infectious Disease, 10, pp. 166-177.
West, L. S. (1 95 1) The Housefly: Its Natural History, Medical Importance and Control, Ithaca, New York: Comstock
Publishing Company.
U.S. Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-054-95.
The Science of Flying Insect Control
Copyright 2002 PestWest Electronics Limited
All rights reserved. All images contained in this publication remain the property of PestWest Electronics Limited and may not be
duplicated in any way without the written consent of PestWest Electronics Limited, except in the form of brief excerpts or
quotations for the purpose of promoting PestWest Electronics products. This information contained herein may not be
duplicated in other books, databases or any medium without the written consent of PestWest Electronics Limited. Making copies
of this publication or any portion for any purpose other than to promote PestWest products is a violation of United States,
Canadian and European copyright laws.
27
Electronic Flying Insect Management Units
Unique transformer - reduces shattering of insects. Hands-free guard opening - for easy service.
‘Power-on’ and ‘grid-on’ warning lights - inspection at a distance. Catch tray with draft deflector - keeps dead insects in machine.
Spring-loaded killing grid - easy cleaning. Wrap around guard - 360 degree protection.
Quantum BL shatterproof UV tubes - maximum attraction. Choice of mounting option for ease of placement.
White powder-coated zintec steel UV resistant finish for long life and durability
>>
Ideal for areas such as kitchens, deli’s, fast food and food processing areas. Robust
and compact. 22-watt circline Quantum BL shatterproof UV tube.
Height: 17”
Width: 14”
Depth: 6”
Weight: 15lb
>>
Compact and high powered, ideal for use in food manufacturing, processing and foodrelated areas. Features three 15-watt Quantum BL shatterproof UV bulbs.
Height: 17”
Width: 21”
Depth: 6”
Weight: 20lb
>>
WORLD CLASS
Ideal for food manufacturing, processing and packaging factories. Two 40-watt Quantum BL
shatterproof bulbs.
Height: 17”
Width: 27”
Depth: 6”
Weight: 22lb
>>
Budget-priced unit ideal for shops, cafés and fast food restaurants. 360o all-round protection zone.
Two 15-watt powerful Quantum BL bulbs. Unit can be wall-mounted, freestanding or ceiling-suspended,
available in white powder-coated on zintec steel for durability and long life.
Height: 13”
Width: 181/2”
>>
Depth: 41/2”
Weight: 12lb
80 stainless steel and white
Industrial sized electronic fly machines, constructed in either 316 polished marine grade stainless steel
with 316 grade guards and grid or white powder-coated on zintec steel with chrome guards and grids.
• 360º coverage - all round protection.
• 2 x 40-watt high efficiency PestWest Quantum BL shatterproof bulbs - maximum attraction.
• Splashproof, shatterproof and draftproof.
• Self-cleaning grid - virtually no maintenance.
• Extra wide catch tray with anti-crawl-out design.
• Can be wall or ceiling-mounted.
• Patented grid warning light indicates the system is working properly.
• Easy to maintain and service, no special tools required.
Height: 18”
Width: 261/2”
Depth: 81/4”
Weight: 28lb
All PestWest fly management systems are UL marked, independently tested and meet or
exceed Food Industry standards. PestWest units come with a 3-year guarantee (except bulbs,
glue boards and starters) and are fitted with PestWest Quantum BL bulbs as standard 40% more powerful than standard UV bulbs.
Toll free: 1.866.IPM.PEST • Fax: 1.866.DIPTERA
www.pestwest.com
FLYING INSECT
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS THAT MEET AND
EXCEED FOOD INDUSTRY
REQUIREMENTS.
Mantis Glue Trap Flying Insect Management Units
Large full-size glue boards to effectively catch even the smallest flying insects. Easy access to boards and bulbs for no-tool quick and
easy service. Insects are caught intact allowing for easy identification. Reflectobakt® sleeves extend glue board life and allows a
slimmer design than competitive models for more placement options. Will catch all photo-positive insects.
>>
Portable insect light trap ideal for use in a variety of sensitive areas. Excellent at catching flying
insects of all shapes and sizes. Black adhesive boards add discreetness by concealing catch.
• Attractive, ultra-slim, wall-mounted unit (freestanding bracket available), compact and unobtrusive,
can be put in more places - easy to clean.
• 2 x 15-watt powerful Quantum BL bulbs give 180° coverage and optimum performance.
• Open front design lets out more light, which means more catch.
• Easy to remove bottom tray and drop-down guard - quick and easy no-tool service.
• Durable white powder-coated zintec steel1 or brushed stainless steel for long life.
Width: 19”
Depth: 2 /2”
Weight: 10lb
Height: 121/2”
>>
Ceiling-suspended; able to protect large open areas. Double-sided extra large capture area. Can be
placed above aisles with no possibility of fly fallout. Full-size black adhesive boards add discreetness
by concealing catch.
• 360° protection from 4 x 15-watt powerful PestWest Quantum BL bulbs.
• Open front design lets out more UVA light, which means more catch.
• Quick and easy no-tool service - removable bottom tray and drop-down guards.
• White powder-coated zintec steel or brushed stainless steel for long life, durability and easy
cleaning.
Width: 19”
Depth: 5”
Weight: 13lb
Height: 121/2”
>>
Attractive, wall-mounted unit; the perfect choice for areas where flying insect management should be
discreet, e.g. eating and public areas. (Reflectobakt® not available on this system).
• Disguised as a wall light, can be painted, wallpapered or decorated to match existing décor.
• Adhesive board, catch and lamp are hidden from view.
• Full-size glue board and 15-watt Quantum BL bulb.
• Cover drops down for no-tool quick and easy service.
steel for easy cleaning.
• Beige powder-coated zintec
Depth: 61/2”
Weight: 8lb
Height: 8”
Width: 181/2”
>>
white and
High capacity industrial size glue traps. Designed to protect large open areas. Ex model designed to
protect areas where potentially explosive dusts may be present e.g. sugar processing factories and
flour areas.
• Advanced electronic ballast means lower running costs.
• Designed to be suspended providing 360° attraction.
• 4 x 40-watt Quantum BL shatterproof bulbs with ReflectobaktTM sleeves.
• Extra large capture area, double-sided glue board. White powder-coated zintec or 316 marine
polished stainless steel.
Width: 25”
Depth: 61/2”
Weight: 26lb White
Height: 241/2”
34lb Stainless Steel
UL
®
All PestWest fly
management systems
carry a UL listing
Cert: 8522
Toll free: 1.866.IPM.PEST • Fax: 1.866.DIPTERA
www.pestwest.com
PestWest reserve the right to change specifications as required.
REF: US/DS/0803
Toll free: 1.866.IPM.PEST
Fax: 1.866.DIPTERA
www.pestwest.com
SC2 0903