Physico-chemical protective measures employed in various countries all over the World for the preservation of woolens clothes moths &amp; carpet beetles are reviewed

Banerjee, J.

Parthasarathy, L. M.

Prakash, Om

English

Defence Science Journal

PRESERVATION OF WOOLLENS AGAINST CLOTHES MOTHS & CARPET BEETLES Defence Materials and Stores Research & Development Establishment, Kanpur-208013 (Received 6 January 1979) physico-chemical protective measures employed in various countries all over the World for the preservation of woollens against clothes moths & carpet beetles are reviewed. Since times immemorial clothes moths and carpet beetles have been causing serious economic losses to carpets, feathers, hair, silk, leather, fur and fur lined aviator's garments, helmets,"boots, blankets and other products of animal origin. The most important species of insects destroying wool are woolly bears (Anthrenus flavipes), buffalo carpet beetle (Anthrenus scrophulariae), black carpet beetle (Attagenus piceus), webbing clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella), carpet moth (Trichophaga tapetzella) and case-bearing clothesmoth (Tinea pellionella). The losses due to these insects have been estimated by U.S.A. entomologists to be from 200 million to 500 million dollars annually1. Total estimate of losses during storage in India are not available so far. However, in the Defence Services2, a loss of Rs. 1.23 lakhs was reported in the year 1952. Since 1920 much has been learnt about the bibnomics of clothes moth and carpet beetles. Moth-proofing solutions were studied for several years, and it was observed that a thorough treatment of fabrics with sili- cofluoride solution gave a worthwhile degree of protection1. Hartley3 et. al. also reported that fluorine at the rate of 0.2-0.3 % gave adequate protection to woollen clothes. Some of the fungicides i.e. sodium fluoride, salicylanilide, sodium fluosilicate, and P-naphthol were recommended for the preservation of woollens against these pests4. Systematic work on devising control measures against these insects appear to have been initiated between 1920 and 1940, and great emphasis was placed on the de~elopment of more effective space sprays and con- tact spraysl. During World War 11, very large quantities of felt were treated with sodium salt of &nitro-&- naphthol (Martius Yellow) and dinito-0-cresol at the rate of 0.03 %, and it was observed by Hartley3 et. al. that dinitro-o-cresol was more effective against these insects. A new era in the preservation of woollens began only after 1947 with the introduction of chlorinated organic insecticides. Prior to this, use of thick cedar chests and usual mechanical methods such as brushing, shaking, heating, airing and sunning of susceptible fabrics, etc. for controlling the insects were recommend- ed 5' 6. Similar observations were recorded by Fernald & Shepard7. Arsenical compounds are very effective in killing larvae. There use is, however, objectionable because of their toxicity to humans, and American medical authorities have advised abandonment of these compounds'. A number of chemicals/insecticides that have been recommended for preservation of woollens are given in Table 1. Application of paradichlorobenzene crystals or naphthalene flakes at the rate of 453 graml2.83 cu m of space is being used for the preservation of woollens with encouraging results1> 6$ 7'  s. PradhanQ et. a[, have reported that neem seed kernel possess extraordinary gastatory repellent properties, much higher than neem leaves, against the desert and migratory locusts. It is an age old practice still prevalent in some parts of rural India, to mix dry leaves of neem (Azadiraachta indica) along with woollen articles for protection, against clothes moths and carpet beetles, but as no systematic studies have been done in India, therefore the effect of neem has not been fully established as yet. According to Parker1° et. al,, when woollen cloth treated with 0.8 or 1 .2 % of their weight of toxaphene was exposed to larvae of Attagenus picues and Anthrenus vorax for two weeks at 26.70C and 50.60 % relative humidity, no loss in efficiency was observed. Weinman'' et. al. reported that mixtures of penta- chlorophenol and benzene, pentachlorophenol and acetone or other soluble solvents at the rate of 0.5-5 % gave a very effective control (for 9-15 months) against carpet beetle and killed the larvae more quickly than similar dosages of DDT. It was also observed that propyl, n-butyl and primary amyl ethers of penta- chlorophenol or ally1 ether or butyl ether were highly toxic and repellent to cloth moths larvae. L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~  tried to kill the clothes moths and carpet beetles by fumigation with naphthalene, cedar products, camphor or paradichlorobenzev and obtained effective control. He had also suggested that inorganic fluosilicates, cinchona alkaloids and aluminium fluoformate can be used as stomach poisons to kill the clothes moths. 147 P R A K ~ B  et. al. : Preservation of ~oo'ficns C.O:N C L U-S-I 0 N Prom the above literature it is apparent that vast amount of research work has been carried out during the past decade. Laboratory and field trials have been made by many workers throughout the world, many of which are highly valuable. Treatment with martius yellow (sodium salt of a-dinitro naphthol), 2 % solu- tion of. sodium or chromium fluoride, synthetic pyrethroids, especially cypermethrin, permethrin, moth- proofing materials e.g. &!an CN (penta chloro-di-hydroxy triphenyl methane), Mitin FF (halogen- substituted acylamino sulfonic acid, Amuno (organic fluoride), DDT (2 : 2 bis-p-chloropheynyl, 1 : 1 : 1 trichloroethane), packing with paradichlorobenzene, naphthalene, camphor, etc, would help in protecting these stores. If ,  however, they are already infested with woolly bears and clothes moths they should be dis- infested by exposure to hot air or steam or fumigation with carbon tetrachloride. F U T U R E  C O U R S E  O F  A C T I O N  It may be observed that a number of synthetic insecticides have been used to control the pests of woollen materials. In view of the hazards associated with synthetic insecticides, use of plant products merit consi- deration. Systematic work on the use of Aluminium phosphide tablets for fumigation of infested materials and the minimal dosage of naphthalene required for different periods of storage would be necessary. In view of the ban imposed on the use of dieldrin for moth-proofing of woollens, other moth-proofing agents need also to be studied for finding out a suitable substitute. (a) Inorganic Insecticides Aluminium fluoformate12, chromium fluoride43, sodium flouride" 4" 48, sodium silico-fl uoride4J sodium fluosilicateb silico fluoride \ solution1. (b) ~hlorinatid Hydrocarbon Compounds I Aldrinz7, a BHC (benzene hexachloride)12> z09 27, chlordecone (kep~ne)~Z, chlordanel> 12> 203 27, DDT (dichlorodjpheryl trichloroethane)ll 12' 14' 17' "' 28, DDD (dichloro diphenyl dich1oroethane)27, endrinZ71 endosulfan 7, heptachlorz7, lindane (gemmexane)l9 13, mirex (dodecachloro octa hydro-1' 3, 4-metheno 2H cyclobuta (cd) ~entalane)~', methoxychlorl, naphthalene flakes1* 5' 6 y  28, paradichlorobenzene crys- talsl' 5 3  6, 28, toxaphene (octachloro-camphane)l0> lZ7 ".(c) Organophosphorus Insecticides Chlorpyrifo~3~~ iodofenphosz6, malathion33. (d) Phenol & Nitro Compounds 8-naphthol4, D.A.N. (martiu's yellow)3, D.N.O.C. (dinitro-ortho-cre~ol)~, pentachloropheno143 salicylanilide4. (e) Microbial Insecticides Bactospein-PM dipel TM34. (f) Organometallic Compound Triphenyltin chloride30. (g) Organic Thiocynate Lethane (n-butyl carbinol thio~yanate)~~. \ (A) Amide Compounds Phenyl thioureaz9, triphenyl methane". ( j )  Quaternary Ammonium Compound Hyamine-350OZ3. (k) ~ ~ t a n i c a l  Insecticides ~ l l ~ t h ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~  48, barthrinZ4, camphorz8, cinchona alkaloids12, cedar oil7, cypermethrin42, dim,, thrin24, permethrin43, piperonyl butoxidezO, pyrethrum5' 12, pyrethrinZ0' 48, pyrethrin & piperonyl butoxide31, pyrethroid45' 46, NRDC 143 (new synthetic pyre thr~id)~~? 50, rotenonelZ' Is. . , - Carbon disulphide6, carbon tetrachloride7> ethylene dibromide & carbon tetrachloride7, hydro cya. nit acid gas5' 48. (m) Moth-Proofing Insecticides Amuno (organic EQ 53 (25 % DDT, 1 % non ionic emulsifier and 65 % aromatic hydro- carbon solvent)17, eulan-CN (penta chloro-dihydroxy t r i p h e ~ y l  methane sulfonic acid)43, imidazole21, mitin FF (sodium salt of N - 3 - 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n y l ) - N - 2 - ( 2 - S u l p h o - 4 - c ~ n y l - ~ r e a ~ ~  43 penta-chloro-phenol hydrogen-phosphate16. (n) Miscellaneous Dieldrin & petroleum etherl8, diphenyl urea & pyridane basesTg, diphenyl urea & chloro benzenes13 DDT & lindane4?, malathion & r e g ~ l a i d ~ ~ ,  malathion & tween malathion & m ~ l t i f i l m ~ ~ ,  naphtha- lene & insecticidal organo phosphate35, naphthalene & phosphoric acid ester derivatives  insecticide^^^, pentachloro-phenol & benzene or acetone or other soluble solventl1, propjrl, n-butyl & primary amyl ethers, of pentachloro-phenolll, pyrethrin & acetone solution31> 47, pyrethin & odourless kerosene & lindane47, R 15396/phosvel/ethyl-phosvel/ekalux & imidan/trithiom/B 1 1 1 6337. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S  The authors are thankful to Dr. H. B. Mathur, Director, Defence Materials and Stores Research & Development Establishment, K a n p u r  for giving permission to publish this review and to Shri R. N. Tandan,  Assistant Director for help rendered during the preparation of this review. R E F E R E N C E S  1. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. The Year Book of Agriculture', (Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi) 1969, p. 146, 470-474. 2. Government of India, Ministry of Defence, SSP0 'Annual' Report, 1952. 3. HARTLEY, ELASWORTH '& BARRITT., J. SOC. D y ~ e s  Col., 59 (1943), 266. 4. YEAGER CHARLES, C., Fungicides in Industry' (Ventron Corp. Beverly, Massachusetts), 1977, p. 380. 5. AUSTEN & HUGHES, (Clothes Moths and House Moths' (British Museum), 1951 p. 21. 6. METCALF, C. L. & FLINT, W. P., 'DESTRUCTIVE and Useful Insects' (Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1967), p. 916. - 7. FERNALD, H. T. & SHEPARD, H. H., 'Applied Entomology' (McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York), 1955, p. 225-233. 8. HUNTER, L., 'DOMESTIC PESTS' (John Bale, Sons & Curnow Ltd.), 1938, p. 166. 9. PRADHAN, S., JOTWANI, M. G. & RAI, B. K., Bull. Reg. Rs. Lab. 1 (1963), 149-151. 10. PARKER, W. L. & BEACHER, J. G., Rev. Appl. Ento., 36 (1948), 395-396. 11. WEINMAN, C. J. & DECKER, G. C., J. Econ. Ento.., 40 (1947), 74-78. 12. LESSER, M. A., Rev. Appl. Ento., 39 (1951), 4-5, 13. TOCZYDLOWSKI, A. H. & MOORE, S., J. Econ. Ento, 44 (1951), 1016. 14. LAUDANI, H. & PATTERSON, W. J., J. Econ. Entn., 46 (1953), 1095. 15. FERGUSON, G. R. & OTT, D. J., Rev. Appl. Ento., 42 (1954), 289. . . 16. HIGGINS, E. B. & ALFRED, E. R., Textiles and Cordage, 13 (1955), 3506. 17. LAUDANI, H., CLARK, P. H., WILLIAMS, H. L. & DALE, W. E., Rev. Appl. Ento., 45 (1957), 254. 18. L m o ~ ,  M. & HOPE, R. J., Textiles and Cordage, 13 (1956), 11879. 19. SCHETTY, G. & et. al., U. S. Pat. 2 (1956), 4. 20. LAMB, K. P., Rev. Appl. Ento., 50 (1962), 587. 21. PENCE, R. J., J. Econ. Ento., 56 (1963), 1-7. 22. PENCE, R. J. & VIRAY, M. S., J. Econ. Ento., 58 (1965), 916-920. 23. BRY, R. E. & et. al. Rev. Appl. Ento., 55 (1967), 322. 24. BRY, R. B., Rev. Appl. Ento., 55 (1967), 33. 25. BRY, R. E. J. Econ. Ento., 61 (1968), 1194-1197. 26. BRY, R. E. & et. ul, Rev. Appl. Ento., 59 (1971), 548. 27. 'ADVISORY ~ M M I T T E E  ON PESTICIDES AND OTHER TOXIC CHEMICALS'--LONDON, Rev. Appl. Ento., 59 (1971), 548. 28. ANDRASI, G, & HALASJ, A., Chem. Abst., 76 (1972), 61. 29. HOSKINSON, R. M. &RUSSELL, I. M., Chem. Abst., 79 (1973), 78. 30. HOSKINSON, R. M. & RUSSELL, I. M., Chem. Abst., 81 (1974), 111, 31. BRY. R. E. & LANG, J. H., Chem. Abst., 82 (1975), 123. 32. HOSKINSON, R. M. & RUSSELL, I. M., J. Text. Inst., 64 (1973), 412. 33. BUTLER, L., J. Econ. Ento., 67 (1974), 571. 34. DOBRIVOJEVIC, K., & INJAC., M., Chem. Abst., 85 (1976), 152. 35. VERMES, E. & et. al. Chem. Abst., 86 (1977), 132. 36. VERMES; E. & et. al. Chem. Abst., 84 (1976), 107. 37. HOSKINSON, R. M. & et. al., Chem. Abst., 84 (1976), 68. 38. BILLINGS, J. Econ. Ento., 27 (1934), 401. 39. BOTTIMER, J. Econ. Ento., 22 (1929), 570. 40. COMPARE ROARK, 'Index of Patented Moth-proofing Methods' (U.S. Deptt. of Agr.), 1931, p. 1933-1936. 41. MAYFIELD, R. J., & RUSSELL, L. M., Chem. Abst. 88 (1978), 62. 42. BREESE, M. H. Pesticide Science, 8 (1977): 264. 43. BERGEN, W. V. & MAUERSBERGER, H. R., American Wool Handbook' (Textile Book Publishers, Inc., New York), 1947, p. 799.802. 44. RAO, N. P., Everyman's Science, 2 (1967), 54-58. 45. WINNEY, R., Int. Pest Control, 18 (1976), 11. 46. CARTER, S. W., CHADWICK, P. R. & WICKHAM, J. C., J. Stored-Prod. Res., 11 (1975), 135. 47. TIITANEN, K., Pyrethrum Post, 11 (1971), 15. 48. 'Armed Forces Manual on Pest Control,' (Department of National Defence, Canada), (1960). 49. ELLIOT, M., FARNHAM, A. W., JANES, :N. F., NEEDHAM, P. H., PULMAN, D. A. & STEVENSON, J. H., ~ a t k r e ,  246. (1973), 169. 50. CARTER, S. W., and HERSH, P. A., J. Text. Inst., 67 (1976), 77. 79-M/S828rmy~425-15-9-79-- GIPS 4 \ 150 

Preservation of Woollens Against Clothes Moths & Carpet Beetles

https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/download/6503/3559

Preservation of Woollens Against Clothes Moths & Carpet Beetles

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Defence Science Journal