CASE STUDY -- Methyl Bromide Alternative

Structural Fumigation Using a Combined Treatment of Phosphine, Heat, and Carbon Dioxide

Summary

A fumigation service company has identified an effective alternative treatment to using methyl bromide to control stored-product insects in flour mills and similar structures (Mueller 1994a). This alternative treatment combines phosphine, heat, and carbon dioxide to eradicate all life stages of common stored-product pests, such as the Angoumois grain moth, red flour beetle, warehouse beetle, and rice weevil (Mueller 1994a). This treatment using phosphine, heat and carbon dioxide was developed and is currently used by a fumigation service company in Indianapolis, Fumigation Service and Supply.

Founded in 1981 by David Mueller, Fumigation Service and Supply (FSS) provides fumigation services for stored products including flour in mills and other dried goods (e.g., dog food, pharmaceuticals, and spices) in processing plants. To educate the community about potential alternatives to pesticide use, FSS hosts workshops to explain the phosphine, heat, and carbon dioxide combined treatment method and publishes a newsletter, Fumigation & Pheromones, which describes the company's research and educational endeavors (Mueller 1994c). FSS currently employs 20 individuals during the summer and 12 during the winter (Mueller 1994b).

Benefits of Combined Treatment

- eradicates all life stages of stored-product insects
- reduces corrosion
- increases penetration

FSS first experimented with methyl bromide alternatives in June 1992 and currently uses methyl bromide for less than 60 percent of its fumigation work. FSS plans to eliminate emissions of methyl bromide completely by January 1, 1997 (Mueller 1994b). In addition, this company is experimenting with other techniques to replace methyl bromide, such as combined carbon dioxide and pressure treatments and related innovative methods to treat commodity imports and exports (Mueller 1994b).

Overview of Methyl Bromide Usage

FSS has been fumigating with methyl bromide since the company's inception. In 1985, the company began treating large food processing plants, thus increasing its use of methyl bromide. However, FSS became concerned about the continued availability of methyl bromide, and began to investigate replacement technologies. Currently, FSS uses methyl bromide for about 56 percent of its fumigation work, phosphine for about 36 percent, and the combined treatment method for about 8 percent (Mueller 1994b).

Description of Combined Treatment

The company has been developing the combined treatment over the past several years, using field trials and laboratory experiments, and has refined the percentages of phosphine, heat, and carbon dioxide to provide the best results. The company initially experimented with separate treatments, but quickly determined that combined methods were more effective.
The combined treatment consists of 50 to 100 ppm phosphine (9 to 18 percent of the standard phosphine concentration), heat (89.6-98.6øF, 32-37øC), and 4 to 6 percent carbon dioxide. Experiments have shown that this combined treatment produces 100 percent mortality within 24 hours or less for the egg, larvae, pupae, and adult stages of stored-product insects, including the Angoumois grain moth, red flour beetle, warehouse beetle, and rice weevil (Mueller 1994a). The process relies on heat and carbon dioxide to increase the susceptibility of pests to phosphine by interfering with insect metabolism (Mueller 1994c).
Using low concentrations of phosphine reduces the chance of corrosion of metallic materials at facilities, a common problem associated with using phosphine. In addition, heat and carbon dioxide help reduce moisture, which tends to contribute to corrosion. Recently, two scientists from Purdue University were awarded a grant to conduct laboratory research to vary the percent of carbon dioxide, phosphine, and heat, in an effort to better understand how this combination technique works. This work is in progress as of publication of this case study.
FSS has patented their combined treatment technique (Patent Number: 5,403,597; April 4, 1995) and expects few hurdles to commercialization. Magnesium phosphide, the phosphine releasing agent, is a registered pesticide product. FSS developed the combined technique based on extensive knowledge of insect control technologies and Integrated Pest Management (IPM), as well as extensive testing of various combination techniques involving heat and inert gases. After fully developing the treatment specifications, FSS received approval from the EPA to use magnesium phosphide as part of their patented combined treatment method. FSS has begun assigning licenses for this combination fumigation technique in countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa (Mueller 1994b).
FSS has presently completed fourteen applications of the phosphine, heat, and carbon dioxide treatment on structures, with an efficacy rate of 100 percent (Mueller 1994b). The company performed a large number of experiments on multiple species of insects to ensure the technique's effectiveness across a broad range of potential insect pest infestations. FSS has conducted extensive corrosion and penetration tests to guarantee that the method works consistently and properly and does not damage structures or equipment. The penetration experiments test the ability for the treatment method to permeate depths of flour, while the corrosion tests examine the resistance of copper to the exposure treatments (Mueller 1994a).

Costs Associated With Combined Treatment

In general, the cost of using the combined treatment is slightly higher than using methyl bromide because more equipment, labor, and technical expertise are required. Fumigating costs vary depending on the size of the facility and the number of times the facility has been treated (see below). However, treatment costs tend to decrease with repeated treatments of the same facility. For example, the initial treatment may require a large input of capital, such as the purchase of thermometers, gas monitoring equipment, and other electronic devices. In addition, heat and labor requirements are higher during the first application of the combined treatment because of the lack of familiarity with the characteristics of the facility. Mr. Mueller estimates that using the combined treatment is 40 percent more expensive than using methyl bromide the first time a facility is fumigated, but only 25 percent more expensive for the second fumigation. Additional applications should continue to reduce application costs (Mueller 1994b).

Comparison of Treatment Costs

Combined Treatment (Phosphine, Heat, CO2)
Cost per 1,000 cubic feet:
First Application - $11.20 14.00
Additional Applications - $10 - 12.50

Methyl Bromide Treatment
Cost per 1,000 cubic feet: $8 - 10

Source: Mueller 1994b.

References

Mueller. 1994a (April 17-23). A new method of using low levels of phosphine in combination with heat and carbon dioxide. As presented in Stored Product Protection: proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. Volume I. E. Highley, E.J. Wright, H.J. Banks and B.R. Champ (eds.). Canberra, Australia.

Mueller. 1994b (December 16, 1994 and February 2, 1995). Personal communication. David Mueller, Fumigation Services & Supply. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Mueller. 1994c (spring). Methyl bromide alternative update. David Mueller, Fumigants & Pheromones. Indianapolis, Indiana.

For more information on this alternative, click here.

Please note that this publication discusses specific proprietary products and pest control methods. Some of these alternatives are now commercially available, while others are in an advanced stage of development. In all cases, the information presented does not constitute a recommendation or an endorsement of these products or methods by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other involved parties. Neither should the absence of an item or pest control method necessarily be interpreted as EPA disapproval.

For more information on this material from Fumigation Service & Supply, Inc. (FSS), an inovator in this field, click here. Note that this site is outside of EPA. Therefore, EPA takes absolutely no responsiblity whatsoever for the content of the web site information or the opinons expressed in the web site.

Case Studies Table of Contents

EPA Methyl Bromide Home Page