Structural Pest Management for Stored Product Insects
Stored product insects represent a diverse group of species that can infest raw grains but also can infest structures associated with the milling, processing, storage, and distribution of finished grains and grain-based products. One of the recent developments in managing these insects is documenting the extensive presence of these insects in and around milling, processing, and warehouse facilities (Semaeo et al. 2013), which represents a new awareness of the infestation potential.
Stored product insects represent a diverse group of species that can infest raw grains but also can infest structures associated with the milling, processing, storage, and distribution of finished grains and grain-based products. One of the recent developments in managing these insects is documenting the extensive presence of these insects in and around milling, processing, and warehouse facilities (Semaeo et al. 2013), which represents a new awareness of the infestation potential. Stored product insects cause damage through direct consumption of food products, through contamination due to the presence of insects, insect parts (fragments, hairs, cast skins, etc.), and can harbor allergens that are potentially by-products associated with infestations (Larsen 2008). Equipment and machinery can become infested, resident populations can persist in wall voids, floor cracks, and in hidden areas inside a structure. These infestations are often hidden and difficult to treat with insecticides. The mere presence of insects inside a structure can be a cause for concern. Although exact quantitative losses are difficult to determine, the loss through product rejections, consumer complaints, and potential legal actions resulting from infestations all contribute to economic losses that can be passed on to the consumer. Thus, the various storage industries encountered in the food distribution channel are aware of the importance of insect infestation, potential losses from those infestations, and of integrated management options for control. In this chapter, we will review recent advances in the various components associated with structural pest management of stored product insects, including insecticides, temperature manipulation, environmental controls, and insect-resistant packaging. The chapter is not meant to be an exhaustive list of control options, a complete review of control strategies that are discussed, or an extensive listing of references for each topic. The chapter is meant to guide readers to sources of information for further review, and will focus on the entomological aspects of stored product insects associated with storage of processed grain and grain-based products, topics regarding management of bulk grains in bins and elevators will be found in other chapters of this book. Selected research papers will be referenced, but not described in detail.
Pre-binning Treatments for Stored Grains
An empty grain bin or elevator silo can be considered as a structure, and managing that structure, and the area around the structure, is an important aspect of integrated control programs for stored grains. Grain spillage in and around bins and silos support resident populations of stored product insects, which can quickly infest newly-harvested grains loaded into those bins and silos (Reed et al. 2003; Arthur et al. 2006). While cleaning and removing old grain from a bin or silo is preferred, areas in the bottom portions of a bin, such as underneath the false flooring of a metal bin, are often difficult to clean out without removal of that floor. Fumigation is usually employed as a treatment for those areas, but another option could be some type of heat treatment for disinfestation. A recent series of studies showed the potential for using this strategy (Tilley et al. 2014, 2015), though further research is needed on some aspects, such as the economic advantage for using heat instead of fumigation (Tilley et al. 2007a). In the study evaluating different types of heaters, propane heaters were superior to electric heaters, both in terms of cost and insect control (Tilley et al. 2007b). A field trial in an empty elevator silo also showed potential of using heat, but results also showed how even small amounts of grain can provide insulation from lethal high temperatures (Opit et al. 2011).
Residual insecticides are often used to treat the flooring surface of a grain bin or silo prior to loading new grain into the bin. Residual surface treatments will be discussed later in the chapter, but it should be noted that there are insecticides that be used as a pre-binning treatment on the flooring surface, but not on the grain itself. An example in the United States (US) is the pyrethroid cyfluthrin (Tempo®). In contrast, the organophostate pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic®) is labeled for direct application to corn and sorghum that is to be stored in a bin, but not as a pre-binning flooring treatment. Persistence of a residual insecticide will vary depending on the flooring surface. For example, concrete is a porous surface, and insecticides are not as persistent on concrete compared to metal, which is a relatively non-porous surface (see citations in Arthur 2009). Persistence on any surface can also vary depending on the insecticide (Arthur 2009; Wijayaratne et al. 2012).
Phosphine is the predominant fumigant used world-wide to control insects in stored bulk grains, but is not extensively used as a structural treatment in the milling and processing industries due to the corrosive effects on electrical wiring (Bond et al. 1984). There are mixtures of phosphine with carbon dioxide, and other forms of phosphine, including cylinderized phosphine (Eco2Fume®) and pure phosphine produced through a generating system. These advances enable more usage of phosphine as a structural treatment outside of the traditional uses in stored grains. Perhaps the biggest issue with phosphine today is the concern regarding development of resistance in several important stored product insect species (Opit et al. 2012a, b; Nayak et al. 2013; Holloway et al. 2016; Gautam et al. 2016). Strategies being implemented to mitigate resistance development include resistance monitoring, extending the fumigation time to increase the CT (concentration × time) product, and using alternative strategies to decrease reliance on phosphine. Resistance development may be of more concern in bulk grains than as a structural treatment because of the different usage patterns.
Methyl bromide (MB) was historically a major component of insect pest management programs for the milling industries. It was identified as an ozone depleting agent, and an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol was signed by a number of developed and developing countries (Fields and White 2002). This agreement mandated the phase-out of MB starting in 2005 for developed countries, with provisions made for Continuing Use Exemptions (CUEs) for mills and processing plants until 2015 (Fields and White 2002; Baltaci 2009). MB is still allowed for quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS). Alternatives to MB were broadly defined by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) to include alternative fumigants, heat treatments, improved insect monitoring, integrated control strategies, and other insecticides, including the use of residual surface treatments and application of aerosol insecticides. In the US, the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, provides a forum for International researchers to present results on alternatives to methyl bromide, and complete copies of the Proceedings of this conference is available from the website of the sponsoring organization, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach (www.mbao.org). Similarly, the Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation Conference, held every four years, has a complete Proceedings, with full-length articles (www.caf.org). The International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection (IWCSPP), also held every four years, has a Proceedings with many papers on fumigation.
The fumigant sulfuryl fluoride (SF), under the trade name Profume®, has been introduced and labeled for use in many countries as an alternative to MB, including the US. It was originally registered by DOW AgroSciences, but in 2015 the marketing rights were sold to Douglas Products (www.douglasproducts.com, Liberty, MO, USA). Campbell et al. (2015a, b) conducted a meta-analysis of structural treatments in wheat and rice mills, using MB, SF, and heat as whole-plant treatments. Results showed that both MB and SF gave similar levels of control, with greater initial reductions in flour beetle populations in wheat mills compared to rice mills. This paper also gave a detailed analysis of the metrics associated with how the beetle populations were assessed using trap catch data.
Fumigants can penetrate into hidden areas inside structures, equipment, and packaged food products and eliminate existing pest infestations. Recent research has documented that while fumigants are effective, population re-colonization and rebound after treatment can affect overall results (Campbell et al. 2010a, b; Buckman et al. 2013; Campbell et al. 2015a, b). The recolonization aspect of fumigation treatments is a topic that has received little historical attention until recently. Since there can be extensive insect populations in and around milling, processing, and storage facilities (Arthur et al. 2015a, b, 2016), potential re-colonization after fumigation is a factor that should be considered in management plans, especially during the warmer months of the year.
Variation among insect species and life stages will also affect fumigation efficacy. There is a general consensus among researchers that the egg stage is the most difficult life stage to kill with any fumigant (Bell and Savidou 1999; Baltaci et al. 2009; Jagadeesan 2014). Monitoring and sampling studies with Tribolium species have shown that most of a resident population within a facility is in the immature stages, and there are also areas where mobile adults may be able to escape exposure, thus contributing to survival and potential population rebound (Campbell et al. 2010a, b). There are also concerns regarding toxicity of the different fumigants to the egg stage, however, multiple factors, including temperature, exposure time, and species variation contribute to fumigant efficacy, so precise comparisons of fumigants are sometimes difficult and conclusions can be erroneous if these other factors are not taken into account. The structure of eggs may also play a role in susceptibility to fumigants. The egg chorion can contain channels known as micropyles and aeropyles, which could enable greater penetration of fumigants compared to eggs with a more solid structure of the chorion, and can partially explain differences in susceptibility to phosphine on eggs among different species (Gautam et al. 2014).
Extensive historical research has been conducted using modified atmospheres to kill insect pests of stored products (Navarro et al. 2012). In general, modified atmospheres use a mixture of gases, which can include nitrogen and carbon dioxide, to reduce the oxygen content down to levels of around 1–2% (Navarro et al. 2012). Other recent developments include the use of ozone for disinfestation of bulk grains (McDonough et al. 2011; Jian et al. 2013; Isikber and Athanassiou 2015; Savi et al. 2015). Although modified atmospheres are an effective control strategy, the costs for sealing and application often limit their use for structural management of bins containing raw grains. When modified atmospheres are used in structural control inside mills and warehouses, it is often in conjunction with fumigations as more of an additive or supplemental control. Large bags or cocoons can be effectively utilized for hermetic of storage grains that are stored on the ground on in bulk bags (DeGroote et al. 2013; Moussa et al. 2014). Hermetic storage of cowpeas and other crops has proven to be effective in storing grains in sub-Saharan Africa using the Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) bags (Njoroge et al. 2014; Sudini et al. 2015; Martin et al. 2015).
Heat and Cold
The use of heat as a control strategy for mills and warehouses was first mentioned by Dean (1911, 1913), however; there was comparatively little scientific research in the US until the late in the twentieth century (Subramanyam et al. 2011). Much of the recent research includes work on field applications of heat to control insects in flour mills (Brijwani et al. 2012a, b; Campolo et al. 2013), and also research to identify the life stages of stored product insects that are most tolerant to heat (Mahroof et al. 2006; Yu et al. 2011). Models have also been constructed to predict temperature/exposure times necessary to control life stages of different species (Boina et al. 2008; Yan et al. 2014).
In the USA, the use of cold is more restricted to small-scale applications within a facility, rather than as a whole-plant treatment (Johnson and Valero 2003; Arthur et al. 2015a, b). In other parts of the world where there is an extensive winter season, it may be possible to use cold as a whole-plant treatment. However, the effect of freezing temperatures on equipment has not been investigated. Also, the even distribution of the cold temperatures throughout the facility may be an issue, and supplemental air movement may be required. A recent review by Andreadis and Athanassiou (2017) discusses the cold tolerance of stored product insects and provides examples of different species.
Recent research has also focused on examining the susceptibility of different insect life stages to cold, similar to work done for heat. Life stages of individual species vary in susceptibility to cold; Arthur et al. (2016) examined susceptibility of T. castaneum and T. inclusum, and showed that the latter species was far more tolerant, particularly in the larval stage. Also, if cold is being considered as a disinfestation strategy, for example to eliminate infestations inside bagged processed food such as flour, penetration of cold will depend on a number of factors, including the bulk mass of the commodity. One study of distribution of cold temperature through a stack of palletized flour bags showed that the outer peripheral bags cooled much more quickly that the center bags, which also affected resulting efficacy on eggs of T. castaneum (Flinn et al. 2015).
The use of aerosols (also called fogging, space sprays, or ultra-low volume sprays), involves dispensing a liquid insecticide formulation through a mechanical device in the form of fog or mist (Peckman and Arthur 2006). These systems can either be installed in the headspace of a milling facility or portable systems brought into the facility. Aerosols do not penetrate through commodities, so they confer control by the deposition of particles generated by the application system onto surfaces (Arthur et al. 2014a, b). Aerosols are expected to disperse throughout the area where they are applied, and hence can be considered as structural treatments. The cost of aerosol applications is less compared to fumigation or heat treatment, and there is increasing interest in aerosols as a replacement for methyl bromide (Boina and Subramanyam 2012).
Common aerosols used as part of management programs in the US include dichlorvos and pyrethrins applied alone or with an insect growth regulator (IGR) (Arthur 2012). The IGR gives residual control of immature stages (Sutton et al. 2011; Arthur 2015a, b). Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide, with excellent vapor toxicity and disperses well in structures, but is highly volatile and only gives short residual control of insects (Subramanyam et al. 2014). New label restrictions on the use of this product in the USA may limit applications to mechanical release from the outside. Pyrethrin is a natural insecticide produced by grinding dried flowers of certain species of the chrysanthemum plants. Synergized pyrethrins can be applied alone or with IGRs to provide increased residual activity (Sutton et al. 2011).
Most previous published research with aerosol and particle size focused on aerosols applied for mosquito control, which evaluated particle sizes in terms of the ability of aerosols to control flying mosquitoes (Bonds 2012). Optimum particle size estimates ranged from 5 to 30 µm, but there were no data translating this estimate to control of stored-product insects. Arthur et al. (2015a, b) conducted studies in a vertical-flow aerosol application chamber to examine differences between particles of 1% active ingredient [AI] dispensed at 2 µm versus 16 µm, using different post-exposure techniques and adults of T. confusum as the target species and life stage. The smaller particle size was largely ineffective even though in some trials the actual concentration of insecticide was equal to or greater than the concentration dispensed at 16 µm.
The importance of cleaning and sanitation in conjunction with insecticide application is receiving more emphasis. Accumulated food dusts and spillage can compromise the effectiveness of residual surface treatment and aerosols (Arthur 2008; Arthur and Campbell 2008; Toews et al. 2010), while providing shelter and nutrition and enable survivors of treatments to recover from exposure. Recent studies show the presence of food material dramatically increased survival of different life stages of confused flour beetles exposed to aerosols in a simulated field exposure (Kharel et al. 2014a, b). In addition, in Arthur et al. (2014a, b), efficacy of the 16 µm pyrethrin aerosol was reduced when adult confused flour beetles were provided with a food source after they were exposed. Therefore, it is important in assessing insecticide efficacy to also consider the interaction with level of sanitation.
Field tests with pyrethrin aerosols indicated that they were an effective control strategy (Arthur 2008; Arthur and Campbell 2008; Arthur et al. 2013b), but there were no assessments of how aerosols were distributed in actual practice. Simulated field studies in experimental sheds show that barriers and obstructions can reduce dispersal of aerosols (Tucker et al. 2014, Tucker et al. 2015 Kharel et al. 2015). Similar results were obtained in a field study utilizing multiple floors of a flour mill, utilizing the same techniques as the paper cited above (Campbell et al. 2014). Also in the field, there was considerable variation in efficacy, depending on where bioassay arenas were located in the mill. Results showed that there were zones within each floor that received less aerosol compared to the more open areas on each floor. Further research is needed to quantify deposition of aerosol particles in field sites.
Contact Surface Sprays
Residual liquid-based insecticides can be applied as sprays for general surface treatment to a flooring surface, but must leave sufficient residues to kill immature or adult life stages of insects encountering those treated surfaces. Common insecticides used in the US are the pyrethroids cyfluthrin and deltamethrin, along with the insect growth regulators methoprene and pyriproxyfen (Arthur 2012). The effectiveness of these spray treatments depends on a variety of factors, including the composition of the specific treated surface. There is a considerable body of research on efficacy of residual treatments on different surfaces, using a variety of stored product insects as the test species (Arthur 2012; Wijarantne 2012). Residual efficacy is usually greater on non-porous surfaces such as metal or floor tile, compared to more porous surfaces such as concrete (Wijarantne 2012). In addition, it is rare that an entire flooring surface would be treated, thus residual spray treatments may offer limited control of species or life stages that may not have direct or limited access to the treated surface.
Research with adult flour beetles show that the presence of food material, either while the adult is exposed or after it is removed from a treated surface, severely compromises the efficacy of contact insecticides (Arthur 2009, 2013, 2015a, b). Flour residues within milling facilities can be correlated with increased capture of T. castaneum (Semaeo et al. 2012). Adults can often be knocked down after exposure on a treated surface, but exhibit varying levels of recovery and survival, if removed from that treated surface (Arthur 2015a, b; Agrafioti et al. 2015). The level of knockdown, and resulting recovery, are often correlated, and can be measured by indices that attempt to relate knockdown and potential recovery (Agrafioti et al. 2015). Recent studies also show there is variation between standard laboratory strains used in research studies and field strains when they are exposed on a treated surface, in general; the field strains are more tolerant and there is variation in the response of those field strains to residual surface treatments (Seghal et al. 2014).
Current research with contact insecticides on treated surfaces is focusing more on aspects such as knockdown and recovery of adult insects exposed for short time intervals on treated surfaces (Athanassiou et al. 2011a, b, 2013; Agrafioti et al. 2015), and residual efficacy of IGRs on different surfaces (Arthur et al. 2009; Fontenot et al. 2013). The IGRs present a challenge, since they do not generally affect adult insects, thus immature stages must be exposed on a treated surface to evaluate the IGRs. Food material has to be provided to those exposed immatures. However, the IGRs methoprene and pyriproxyfen, which are used as residual surface treatments in the US in addition to being used as aerosols, offer excellent residual control (Arthur et al. 2009). One caution is that there is evidence that the presence of a flour food source will tend to absorb residues from a treated surface, thus reducing potential residual efficacy towards exposed adults (Arthur et al. 2015c). However, in studies in which larvae have been exposed on a surface treated with an IGR, and a flour food source provided to those larvae, it is apparent that the flour absorbs residues from the treated surface (Arthur and Fontenot 2012; Arthur 2015b, 2016). Some of the recent advances with residual treatments applied to various surfaces are new data on insects that can be considered emerging pests of stored products, including psocids (Nayak et al. 2014). Studies indicate that psocids are harder to kill with contact insecticides and aerosols compared to stored product beetles, and application rates that will kill stored product beetles do not give the same level of control with psocids (Nayak et al. 2014).
Repellents are often used for personal protection against biting insects, but the odor associated with these types of products may likely limit their uses around processed food material. Repellants for stored product insects have been examined frequently over the years, often by simply treating half of a treatment arena with a repellent, and recording presence/absence of insects on either the treated or untreated portions of the arena at selected post-treatment intervals. New research with repellents focuses more on behavioral aspects of repellents, rather than traditional methodologies such as recording presence or absence (Arthur et al. 2011). There are several excellent reviews that discuss using of natural product tested for either direct control of stored product insects or use as a repellent (Isman et al. 2011; González et al. 2013; Kedia et al. 2015), however; to date there has been limited commercial development of natural products/essential plant oils for use in structural applications to control stored product insects.
Mating Disruption Strategies
Pheromones are chemical secreted by insects to attract members of their own species. They can be aggregation pheromones, which attract males and females, or sex pheromones, which are generally produced by the female to attract the male for mating. Several pheromones have been synthesized and commercialized, and one of the primary products is the sex attractant Plodia interpuctella, the Indianmeal moth, commonly known as ZETA (Athanassiou et al. 2016). It also attracts four other moth species as well. It has been extensively used in monitoring programs for P. interpunctella (Athanassiou et al. 2016).
This pheromone is now being used as a control strategy, under the broad term of mating disruption. The concept is that a number of pheromone dispensers are placed inside a structure, and multiple pheromone plumes are generated, thus confusing the males and making it difficult for them to locate the female. There are several recent studies that show success using this strategy, as assessed by moth populations before and after a disruption effort has been initiated (Savodelli and Trematerra 2011; Trematerra et al. 2013; Athanassiou et al. 2016). There are several commercial products available in the US, all with different release rates of the pheromone, variation in recommendations for numbers and spacings, and other instructions for usage, but they are all based on the standard ZETA pheromone. There is excellent potential for the expansion of this strategy for control of P. interpunctella in a variety of situations. Currently, research is being conducted on mating disruption for other stored product insects (Mahroof et al. 2014), and other products could be introduced into the market for use in control programs.
Insect Resistant Packaging
This chapter focuses on structural pest management for stored product insects, but one overlooked aspect of management is insect-resistant food packing for protection and even control of insects. Stored product insects that can infest packaged goods can be categorized as penetrators, those insect species that can penetrate through a package, and invaders, species that required a flaw in the package to gain access to the contents (Highland 1991). Examples of penetrators are larvae of P. interpunctella (Borwditch 1997), adults of Sitophilus spp. and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.), larvae and adults of Lasioderma serricorne (F.), and Stegobium paniceum (L.), and dermestids, including Trogoderma variabile Ballion, the warehouse beetle (Highland 1991; Mowery et al. 2002; Hou et al. 2004; Mullen et al. 2012). Many research papers cite the Highland (1991) book chapter as the source of the classification system for invaders and penetrators. These insects produce different types of damage, such as scars, scratches, and holes, which vary with species and with packaging materials, (Ruidavets et al. 2007; Chung et al. 2011). Entrance and exit holes can often be determined, and the papers cited above have electron micrographs showing the different types of damage indicators produced by invaders and penetrators.
Physical measures of package strength, such as tensile strength, thickness of the film, differentiation between layers, and elongation values are important measures regarding susceptibility to penetration by insects. Chung et al. (2011) evaluated four different types of packaging materials of varying thickness, in which pinholes had been made in the films to provide access. Tribolium castaneum adults could not penetrate any of the materials, while penetration of P. interpunctella larvae varied with physical characteristics of the film. The film with the highest elongation value and lowest tensile strength gave the best protection against P. interpunctella. The specific type of package can also be an important factor in assessing susceptibility of a package. In tests by Lu and Ma (2015), eggs and adults of L. serricorne were released on wheat flour packaged in five common bag types: vacuum plastic bags, Kraft paper bags, nonwoven cloth bags, aluminum foil bags, and woven plastic bags. The greatest penetration of adults was in nonwoven cloth bags. Little penetration occurred in aluminum foil and plastic bags. Flaws in packaging sealing and air holes in materials can also facilitate entry by stored product insects. Studies with weevils and penetration of packaging containing pasta showed that weevils could enter carton boxes that were not well sealed, and air vents in polypropylene facilitated entry (Trematerra and Savoldelli 2015).
Different repellents have been added to packaging films, with varying degrees of success and efficacy, but to date there has been limited commercial applications utilizing repellents. Hou et al. (2004) designed a laboratory testing methodology for evaluating different repellents applied to paper envelopes to simulate a package, and assessing penetration through the treated paper. DEET was the most effective repellent, followed by Neem, but protein pea flour did not deter insect entry into the envelopes. However, in a test in which solutions of protein-enriched pea flour was applied to polyethylene sheeting at concentrations ranging from 0 to 10%, the highest concentration of 10% prevented penetration of adult R. dominica and S. oryzae through the sheeting (Mohan et al. 2007). There have been several recent tests using different forms of cinnamon oil as a repellent. Micro-encapsulated cinnamon oil imprinted on polypropylene film repelled P. interpuctalla larvae, and in addition had no effect on physical properties of the packaging or on sensory perception of packaged candy products (Kim et al. 2013; Jo et al. 2015). Cinnamon extract was also an effective repellent for P. interpunctella (Na et al. 2008). Other compounds tested for repellent activity in packaging include propryonic acid and (E)-2-hexenal. Both reduced populations of Sitophilus granarius (L.), the granary weevil, in treated packaging relative by 85–90% in treated packaging relative to controls (Germinara et al. 2010, 2012).
There have been several recent research studies utilizing various commercial insecticides that have been either incorporated into or impregnated onto various packaging materials. Packaging treated with the insect growth regulator (IGR) methoprene is commercially available in the US (Arthur 2016). Initial trials with different materials showed when late-stage larvae of T. castaneum or T. confusum were exposed on packaging that had been treated with concentrations of 0.1–0.5% active ingredient (AI) of methoprene, they could not emerge as morphologically-normal adults. Development was arrested at either the larval stage or the pupal stage, and both the outside and inside surfaces of the packaging showed activity (Arthur 2016). Further expanded tests confirmed susceptibility of T. castaneum to the treated packaging at a 0.1% AI concentration of methoprene, however, late-stage larvae of T. variabile, were less susceptible to the methoprene-treated packaging compared to T. castaneum (Scheff et al. 2016). If the egg stage was exposed on the treated packaging, few adults of either species were able to complete development, and again development was arrested at either the larval or pupal stages. New research also shows efficacy of the pyrethrin deltamethrin incorporated into packaging material manufactured by Vestergaard (Lausanne, Switzerland). The material has a broad range of toxicity on a variety of stored product beetle species (Paudyal et al. 2016, 2017), and can offer long-term protection from entry into the packaged product. However, regardless of the effectiveness of repellents or chemical treatments incorporated into the packaging, faulty and inadequate sealing of the package is a primary mode of entry for insect and mite pests (Ruidavets et al. 2007; Hubert et al. 2014; Athanassiou et al 2011c).
This chapter summarizes the various control strategies that can be used for structural management of stored product insects. It is not mean to be an exhaustive review of those various components, and focuses more on broad trends and applications rather than detailed examinations of research studies. Similarly, references are included for specific examples, and inclusion of a reference does not necessarily denote preference over similar studies that could potentially be included. Many of the cited references in turn contain citations of historical research and more detailed information than can be presented in this chapter. Readers are provided with means to conduct detailed literature searches on a specific topic.
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
- Andreadis SS, Athanassiou CG (2017). A review of insect cold hardiness and its potential in stored product insect control. Crop Prot 91:93–99Google Scholar
- Arthur FH (2008) Aerosol distribution and efficacy in a commercial food warehouse. Insect Sci 15:133–140Google Scholar
- Arthur FH, Campbell JF (2008) Distribution and efficacy of pyrethrin aerosol to control Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in food storage facilities. J Stored Prod Res 44:58–64Google Scholar
- Arthur FH, Fontenot EA (2012). Methodology for evaluating residual activity of methoprene and novaluron as surface treatments to control Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum. J Insect Sci 12.95 Available online: http://www.insectscience.org/12.95
- Arthur FH, Lui S, Zhao B, Phillips TW (2009) Residual efficacy of pyriproxyfen and hydroprene applied to wood, metal and concrete for control of stored-product insects. Pest Manag Sci 65:791–797Google Scholar
- Arthur FH, Hagstrum DW, Flinn PW, Reed CR, Phillips TW (2006) Insect populations in grain residues associated with commercial Kansas grain elevators. J Stored Prod Res 42:226–239Google Scholar
- Athanassiou CG, Ruidavets J, Kavallieratos NG (2011c) Preventing stored product insect infestations in packaged-food products. Stewart Postharvest Rev 3:8Google Scholar
- Bell CH, Savidou N (1999) The toxicity of Vikane* (sulfuryl fluoride) to age groups of eggs of the Mediterranean flour moth (Ephestia kuehniella). J Stored Prod Res 35:233-247Google Scholar
- Boina DR, Subramanyam Bh (2012) Insect management with aerosols in food-processing facilities. In: Parveen F (ed) Insecticides: advances in integrated pest management. InTech, NY, NY, USA. pp 195–212Google Scholar
- Bonds JAS (2012) Ultra-low-volume space sprays in mosquito control: a critical review. Med Vet Entomol 26:121–130Google Scholar
- Bond EJ, Dumas T, Hobbs S (1984) Corrosion of metals by the fumigant phosphine. J Stored Prod Res 20:57–63Google Scholar
- Brijwani M, Subramanyam Bh, Flinn P, Langemeir M, Hartzer M, Hulasare R (2012b) Susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum life stages exposed to elevated temperatures during heat treatments of a pilot flour mill: influence of sanitation, temperatures attained among mill floors, and costs. J Econ Entomol 105:709–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Browditch TG (1997) Penetration of polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene packaging films by Ephestia cautella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae, and Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) adults. J Econ Entomol 90:1028–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Campbell JF, Buckman KA, Fields PG, Subramanyam B (2015a) Evaluation of structural treatment efficacy against Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) using meta-analysis of multiple studies conducted in food facilities. J Econ Entomol 108:2125–2140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Campbell JF, Buckman KA, Fields PG, Subramanyam B (2015b) Evaluation of structural treatment efficacy against Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) using meta-analysis of multiple studies conducted in food facilities. J Econ Entomol 108:2125–2140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Campolo O, Verdone M, Laudani F, Malacrinò A, Chiera E, Palmeri V (2013). Response of four stored products insects to a structural heat treatment in a flour mill. J Stored Prod Res 54:54–58Google Scholar
- Gautam SG, Opit GP, Hosoda E (2016). Phosphine resistance in adult and immature life Stages of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 109:2525–2533Google Scholar
- Highland HA (1991) Protecting packages against insects. In: Gorham JR (ed) Ecology and management of food-industry pests. Assoc Official Anal Chemists, Arlington, pp 345–356Google Scholar
- Johnson JA, Valero KA (2003) Use of commercial freezers to control cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), in organic garbanzo beans. J Econ Entomol 96:1952–1957Google Scholar
- Kharel K, Arthur FH, Campbell JF, Zhu KY, Subrmanyam Bh (2015) Influence of temperature and artificially-created physical barriers on the efficacy of synergized pyrethrin aerosol. J Stored Prod Res 60:36–42Google Scholar
- Larsen Z, Subramanyam B, Hermann H (2008) Stored-product insects associated with eight feed mills in the Midwestern United States. J Econ Entomol 101:998–1005Google Scholar
- Mullen MA, Vardeman J, Bagwell J (2012) Insect resistant packaging. In: Hagstrum, Phillips TW, Cuperus GW (eds) Stored product protection, circular S156, Kansas State University, pp 135–142 http://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/S156.pdf
- Navarro N, Timlick B, Demianyk CJ, White NDG (2012). Controlled or modified atmospheres. Chapter 16 in: Stored Product Protection (Eds. Hagstrum D.W, Phillips T.W., Cuperus G.). Pub. #S156, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USAGoogle Scholar
- Nayak MK, Holloway JC, Emery RN, Pavic H, Bartlett J, Collins PJ (2013) Strong resistance to phosphine in the rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae): its characterisation, a rapid assay for diagnosis and its distribution in Australia. Pest Manag Sci 69:48–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Njoroge AW, Affognon HD, Mutungi CM, Manono J, Lamuka PO, Murdock LL (2014). Triple bag hermetic storage delivers a lethal punch to Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in stored maize. J Stored Prod Res 58:12–19Google Scholar
- Opit GP, Arthur FH, Throne JE, Payton ME (2012). Susceptibility of stored-product psocids to aerosol insecticides. J Insect Sci 12(139): 14Google Scholar
- Paudyal S, Opit GP, Arthur FH, Bingham G, Gautam SG (2016) Contact toxicity of deltamethrin against Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) adults. J Econ Entomol 109:1943–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paudyal S, Opit GP, Arthur FH, Bingham GV, Payton ME, Osekre EA, Danso JK, Manu N, Nsiah EP (2017). Field evaluation of the long-lasting treated storage bag, deltamethrin incorporated, (ZeroFly® Storage Bag) as a barrier to insect pest infestation. J Stored Prod Res 70:44–52Google Scholar
- Reed CR, Hagstrum DW, Flinn PW, Allen RF (2003) Wheat in bins and discharge spouts, and grain residues on floors of empty bins in concrete grain elevators as habitats for stored-grain beetles and their natural enemies. J Econ Entomol 96:996–1004Google Scholar
- Peckman PS, Arthur FH (2006) Insecticide space treatments in food plants. In: Heaps J (ed) Insect management for food storage and processing, 2nd edn. AACC, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp 175–182Google Scholar
- Savoldelli S, Trematerra P (2011) Mass-trapping, mating-disruption and attracticide methods for managing stored-product insects: success stories and research needs. Stewart Posthar Rev 7(3): 1–8Google Scholar
- Scheff D, Subramanyam Bh, Arthur FH (2016) Effect of methoprene impregnated polymer packaging on fecundity, egg hatchability, and egg-to-adult development of Tribolium castaneum and Trogoderma variabile. J Stored Prod Res 69:227–234Google Scholar
- Subramanyam Bh, Mahroof R, Brijwani M (2011) Heat treatment of grain-processing facilities for insect management: a historical overview and recent advances. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 3:1Google Scholar
- Toews MD, Campbell JF, Arthur FH (2010). The presence of flour affects the efficacy of aerosolized insecticides used to treat the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. J Insect Sci 10(196):14Google Scholar