http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083356.htm
Ticks Don't Come Out In The Wash
ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007) ? Before venturing into tick-infested territory, you used a topical repellent on exposed skin and outer clothing. When you returned, you did a body check and threw your clothes in the wash. But clean clothes may not be tick-free clothes.
When he found a live lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) on the agitator of his washing machine, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) entomologist John Carroll decided to find out how tough ticks are. So he bagged up nymphs from two species?the lone star tick and the deer tick, (Ixodes scapularis), the creature that transmits Lyme disease?and put them in the washing machine.
Carroll used a combination of water temperature settings and detergent types to wash the ticks. The majority of lone star ticks survived all the water-detergent combinations with no obvious side effects. Most of the deer ticks lived through the cold and warm water settings as well. But when one type of detergent was used with a hot water setting, only 25 percent of the deer ticks survived.
When it came time to dry, all the ticks of both species died after an hour of tumbling around at high heat. But when the dryer was set to "no heat," about one-third of the deer ticks and more than half of the lone star ticks survived.
Carroll placed the ticks in mesh bags, which kept them from draining away during the rinse cycle and perhaps increased their odds for survival. However, ticks might also survive a sudsy interlude by sheltering in the folds and crevices of a typical load of laundry. Some tick species have been observed to survive hours of submersion in fresh water.
Both adult ticks and nymphs can transmit disease. Carroll?s research reinforces recommendations by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to wash and dry clothes at high temperatures after spending time in areas known to harbor ticks.
Vojnosanit Pregl. 2010 May;67(5):369-74.
[Risk of Lyme disease development after a tick bite]
[Article in Serbian]
Mladenovic J, Cekanac R, Stajkovic N, Krstic M.
Vojnomedicinska akademija, Institut za epidemiologiju, Sektor za preventivnu
medicinu, Crno travska 17, 11 040 Beograd, Srbija. firstname.lastname@example.org
BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite numerous research of Lyme disease (LD), there are still
many concerns about environmental of infectious agent of LD, as well as its
prophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this work was to determine the
risk of LD in relation to the way of removing ticks and duration of tick
attachment. METHODS: In the period from 2000 to 2007 a prospective study was
conducted including persons with tick bite referred to the Institute of
Epidemiology, Military Medical Academy, and followed for the occurrence of early
Lyme disease up to six months after a tick bite. Epidemiological questionnaire
was used to collect relevant information about the place and time of tick bites,
the way of a removing tick, duration of tick attachment, remnants of a tick left
in the skin (parts of the mouth device) and the signs of clinical manifestations
of LD. Duration of tick attachment was determined on the basis of size of
engorged tick and epidemiological data. Removed ticks were determined by the key
of Pomerancev. Professional removing of attached tick was considered to be
removing of tick with mechanical means by healthcare personnel. Fisher's exact
test, Chi squares test and calculation of the relative risk (RR) were used for
data analysis. RESULTS: Of 3 126 patients with tick bite, clinical
manifestations of LD were demonstrated in 19 (0.61%). In the group of subjects
(n = 829) in which a tick was not removed professionally there were 17 (2.05%)
cases with LD, while in the group of respondents (n = 2 297) in who a tick was
removed professionally there were 2 (0.09%) cases with LD after tick bite (RR,
23.55; p < 0.0001). The disease was most frequent in the group of respondents
with incompletely and unprofessionally removed ticks (2.46%). In the groups of
patients with unprofessionally but completely removed ticks LD occurred in
0.89%, while in the group of subjects with a tick removed by an expert, but
incompletely in 0.78% cases. The disease occurred rarely in the group with a
tick removed completely and professionally (0.05%). There was no case of LD in
the group of patients with a tick removed within 24 hours. The longer time of
exposure after 24 hours, the higher absolute risk of disease was reported.
CONCLUSION: In prevention of Lyme disease it is important to urgent remove a
tick, to use a correct procedure of removing and to remove the whole tick
without any remnants.
Reductions in Human Lyme Disease Risk Due to the Effects of Oral Vaccination on Tick-to-Mouse and Mouse-to-Tick Transmission.
Authors: Voordouw MJ, Tupper H, Onder O, Devevey G, Graves CJ, Kemps BD, Brisson D
Citation: Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013(Feb)
Location: 1 University of Neuchātel , Institut de Biologie, Neuchātel, Switzerland .
Abstract Vaccinating wildlife is becoming an increasingly popular method to reduce human disease risks from pathogens such as Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease. To successfully limit human disease risk, vaccines targeting the wildlife reservoirs of B. burgdorferi must be easily distributable and must effectively reduce pathogen transmission from infected animals, given that many animals in nature will be infected prior to vaccination.
We assessed the efficacy of an easily distributable oral bait vaccine based on the immunogenic outer surface protein A (OspA) to protect uninfected mice from infection and to reduce transmission from previously infected white-footed mice, an important reservoir host of B. burgdorferi. Oral vaccination of white-footed mice effectively reduces transmission of B. burgdorferi at both critical stages of the Lyme disease transmission cycle. First, oral vaccination of uninfected white-footed mice elicits an immune response that protects mice from B. burgdorferi infection. Second, oral vaccination of previously infected mice significantly reduces the transmission of B. burgdorferi to feeding ticks despite a statistically nonsignificant immune response.
We used the estimates of pathogen transmission to and from vaccinated and unvaccinated mice to model the efficacy of an oral vaccination campaign targeting wild white-footed mice. Projection models suggest that the effects of the vaccine on both critical stages of the transmission cycle of B. burgdorferi act synergistically in a positive feedback loop to reduce the nymphal infection prevalence, and thus human Lyme disease risk, well below what would be expected from either effect alone. This study suggests that oral immunization of wildlife with an OspA-based vaccine can be a promising long-term strategy to reduce human Lyme disease risk.
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/ ... 418948.php
Luring mice to combat Lyme disease
Updated 11:11 pm, Monday, April 8, 2013
1 of 6
View: Larger | Hide
Assistant professor Neeta Connally holds a rodent targeted tick control device in her lab at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, Conn. Monday, April 8, 2013. Photo: Michael Duffy / The News-Times
The fight against Lyme disease involves spraying yards, killing deer and checking daily for ticks to make sure no blood-seeking travelers are residing on our bodies.
But what about the great, scurrying reservoir of Lyme bacteria -- white-footed mice?
A scientific study is underway to learn whether treating backyard mice with an insecticide, delivered in a black plastic bait box, can reduce the number of human cases of Lyme disease.
"We know it can reduce the number of ticks and the number of mice carrying Lyme disease," said Neeta Connally, assistant professor of biological and environmental science at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury. "The purpose of the study is to see if it can reduce the number of Lyme disease cases in humans."
The work is being conducted by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the Connecticut Emerging Diseases Program, which is run by the Yale University School of Public Health and the state Department of Public Health, and Western.
In the second year of a three-year study, the CDC is seeking 500 homeowners in 15 towns in Fairfield and Litchfield counties including Bethel, Bridgewater, Brookfield, Easton, Monroe, New Fairfield, New Milford, Newtown, Ridgefield, Roxbury, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, Wilton and Woodbury.
"I don't think we'll have any trouble," Connally said about finding willing participants.
Treating mice to stop a human disease is an indication of how complicated Lyme disease can be.
The black-legged ticks that carry and spread the bacteria that causes the disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, need three meals of blood during their lives. Their first comes in the larval stage. If they feed on white-footed mice, or other small rodents at this stage, their meal may include the Lyme bacteria.
Their next meal comes in the following spring or summer when ticks are nymphal stage -- tiny, poppy-seed size insects. If they latch onto a human being for this feeding, they can transmit the bacteria.
Most humans get Lyme disease in late spring and early summer from nymphal ticks.
Their final blood meal comes in the fall. By then, the ticks are adults. While they can still spread Lyme disease at this stage, they're much easier to see and to remove.
The bait boxes are intended to break the chain of transmission at the mouse level.
They look like little mazes. The mice walk into them, lured by the food in the box. To get to the food, the mice have to walk though soft fabric wicks treated with Fipronil, the insecticide commonly used on pets to kills ticks. The wicks brush the mice and kill the ticks on them.
Connally said the federal Environmental Protection Agency has approved the use of Fipronil.
"It's already on the market," she said.
Mouse bait boxes have been commercially available for years. Kirby Stafford, an entomologist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven, used them in studies on tick control on Mason's Island in Stonington and found they caused a marked reduction in overall tick numbers and the number of ticks infected with the Lyme bacteria.
"You are treating the transmission system," he said.
The ongoing study, however, looks at the next step, whether the bait boxes can reduce the number of human cases of Lyme disease.
To do that, the study will be a double-blind study, the method considered the gold standard of scientific research.
Half of the families that enroll in the study will receive bait boxes with Fipronil. The other half will get boxes with a placebo.
None of the people involved with the project, the CDC, Connally and her students at Western, the state Department of Public Health or the Yale School of Public Health, will know which families get the bait boxes with the insecticide and which get the placebo, until the study ends and the researchers start analyzing the data.
Dr. Randall Nelson, an entomologist and epidemiologist with the state Health Department, said other studies are underway to find the best method of controlling the spread of Lyme disease.
The CDC is funding a $900,000 study in Redding, to be carried out by the agricultural experiment station, that will look at the best combinations of methods to stop the disease.
Nelson said the bait box study is focused on scurriers.
"The concept of using bait boxes is not new, but the specific focus is," he said. "We want to look at mice and the part they play in the environment."
Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/ ... z2PwkdYqnI
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... r-on-ticks
August 27, 2013
A New Weapon in the War on Ticks
By Jason Fagone
In 2006, a friend of James Squire handed him a child’s toy, a remote-controlled vehicle with tank tracks instead of wheels, that he had picked up for free at a conference, and suggested that Squire find something interesting to do with it. Squire stared at it for a while. He soon found himself thinking about ticks. He’d recently discovered a few of the small arachnids on the skin of his eighteen-month-old son and had plucked several from his dog. Meanwhile, Lyme disease seemed to be exploding. He wondered if he could make a robot that would roam the outdoors and kill ticks.
There aren’t many good ways to kill ticks: one of the most common is the blunt-force use of permethrin, a pest-control agent that is available in granule form for spreading on lawns. But permethrin is known to sicken cats and fish, and the Department of Defense has funded research into whether it played a role in Gulf War syndrome. Another option is to deploy guinea hens, large birds that resemble pheasants and like to eat ticks, which some landowners buy to keep on their lawns.
Squire, a reedy, energetic forty-five-year-old man, is a prolific inventor who teaches electrical engineering at the Virginia Military Institute. Although he graduated from West Point and was an Army intelligence officer in the Gulf War, he’s always been more nerd than soldier; at West Point, his cadet buddies used to make fun of him for leaving his calculator out in his messy, book-strewn dorm room, which they called “the de-militarized zone.” One of Squire’s inventions is a system for communicating with miners trapped deep underground; it uses acoustic speakers to produce seismic waves that ripple through soil and rock. Another creation, a modified karate mat, is embedded with microchips to help students train more effectively.
After receiving the tank toy, seven years ago, Squire huddled with David Livingston, a friend and officemate at V.M.I. and a professor of electrical and computer engineering, to brainstorm designs for a mobile robot that could destroy ticks. “Our first ideas were what most people would try to come up with,” Livingston said. “Build an arm to grab the ticks, or squash them.” Then Squire called Daniel Sonenshine, a tick expert at nearby Old Dominion University, who had written one of the most comprehensive texts in the field, the two-volume “Biology of Ticks.” He said that Squire was thinking about the problem all wrong.
Ticks are amazing hunters. They can smell the exhaled carbon dioxide of a mammal five minutes after the mammal has passed by, and they can also sense minute changes in temperature caused by the motion of a potential host. (“They remind me of ‘The Predator,’ ” Squire said, referring to the 1987 alien-hunter film.) Sonenshine told Squire and Livingston that a smarter approach would be “biomimicry”: instead of hunting ticks, the robot should be hunted by them.
So Squire, Livingston, and another V.M.I. colleague, a mechanical engineer named Jay Sullivan, tried to build a robot that would make the ticks think the robot was alive. The system began with a perforated tube that oozed carbon dioxide, which was placed in the ecotone between groomed lawn and the woods, where ticks like to hang out. Ideally, ticks would sniff the leaking carbon dioxide and run toward the tube. Inside the tube was a small wire that sent out a pulsating magnetic field.
This was where the tick robot, the size of a twenty-pound dog, came in. A miniaturized version of a type of rugged off-road vehicle called a rock crawler, it had four wheels and a front-mounted plow to push aside vines. Sensing the magnetic field, it drove toward the tube then crawled slowly around, dragging a square piece of white denim—the material excites ticks. The denim was impregnated with permethrin, but in a way that wouldn’t leave any behind in the environment; the ticks would simply attach themselves to the denim, thinking that it was a living host. Within a few minutes, they’d figure out that the robot wasn’t alive, but not before absorbing enough permethrin to kill them.
Squire tested the robot for the first time in his own back yard. He caught zero ticks. He thought the robot was a failure until he called Sonenshine, who told him that he’d simply missed the season when young, so-called nymphal ticks emerge. Sonenshine invited Squire and his colleagues to his lab. Sonenshine grabbed a vial full of what looked like tiny pulsing black jelly beans—hungry nymphal ticks. He went outdoors and emptied fifty from the vial into a field where Squire, Livingston, and Sullivan set the robot to work. It picked up forty-five of the fifty ticks. It might have picked up more, but at least one had already crawled up a student’s leg.
Encouraged, the team continued to tweak the robot’s design. Last year, they decided that it was ready for a more rigorous test, at the Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, a hundred-and-forty-two-acre sanctuary in Portsmouth, Virginia. The preserve is so tick-infested—in particular by “lone star” ticks, which are extremely aggressive and cause ehrlichiosis, a set of bacterial diseases similar to Lyme—that local schools no longer book field trips there. “More than forty per cent of the ticks we collect in a year, we collect from this one site,” said Holly Gaff, a tick biologist at Old Dominion.
When Gaff first heard about the robot, she thought it would never work. But she agreed to supervise a test anyway. She picked spots on three trails at the preserve. At each spot, she dragged a white denim cloth across some vegetation to collect ticks. A graduate student painted the ticks with fingernail polish, so Gaff would later be able to distinguish them from dirt. Then she released the ticks and the robot. After the robot traversed the area, she collected the ticks by hand, using the white denim cloth again. On certain runs, as a control Gaff attached a non-treated plastic cloth to the robot. On the other runs, she used the cloth soaked with permethrin. She repeated the procedure four times, every other week. Examining the data, she found that the robot with the non-treated cloth had not affected the tick population at all, but the robot with the treated cloth had reduced the tick density in the area by between seventy-five and ninety per cent after just an hour. After four hours, it had killed nearly a hundred per cent of the ticks. “We were able to sit down in this park and have lunch without ticks crawling up our legs,” Gaff said. “You would never sit in this park.”
A number of technical and practical hurdles remain before the tick robot begins exterminating ticks en masse. For one, it won’t be fully tested in a residential area until late next spring, the height of nymphal-tick season in Virginia, when it will be let loose in lots that resemble suburban back yards. (In fact, several technology-licensing experts have told Squire that his tick robot can’t possibly work, because if it did somebody would have already invented it.)
Perhaps most important, the technology faces a pest-control industry that’s historically conservative when it comes to innovation: according to Elizabeth Baker, an assistant professor at the Wake Forest Schools of Business who is helping Squire and his colleagues commercialize the robot, “The pest people and the robot people don’t talk to each other.” So even if Squire makes the robot easy enough for exterminators to operate and inexpensive enough for them to be willing to purchase it (he believes he can manufacture the robot for a thousand dollars apiece), the robot might be a radical solution for a field that’s simply not seeking one at the moment. But if tick-borne illnesses like Lyme continue to attract attention, particularly with C.D.C.’s report, last week, noting a ten-fold increase in Lyme diagnoses, the hunt for new ways to kill ticks may take on a new urgency, even in a field that would rather take it slow.
Jason Fagone is a contributing editor at Wired and the author of “Ingenious,” a book about inventors and cars, which will be out in November.
Photograph: Stephanie Klein-Davis/The Roanoke Times/AP.
Suomesta saatava tuote vaatteiden käsittelyyhn
https://varuste.net/Bio+Kill+-permetrii ... ?_tu=16850
Permethrin Fact Sheet: Did you know?
Download the Permethrin Fact Sheet PDF
What is permethrin?
It is a stable (synthetic) form of an insecticidal compound produced by the chrysanthemum flower.
It is commonly used to treat lice (Nix 1% shampoo) and scabies infections (5% cream).
It biodegrades quickly in contact with soil and water.
It is odorless and will not stain clothing.
How well does it work?
It has been used as a clothing treatment to prevent bites from ticks, flies, and mosquitoes since the 1970s, and used by the military since the 1990s.
It provides a quick tick knock-down effect – both repels and kills.
A URI study found that people wearing permethrin-treated sneakers and socks were 73.6 times less likely to have a tick bite than those wearing untreated footwear.
Each at-home treatment lasts for roughly 3-4 weeks (with washing!).
Commercially-treated clothes can last up to 70 washes.
Should I be concerned about using this chemical?
Permethrin is over 2,250 times more toxic to ticks than humans.
Put directly on the skin, typically less than 1% of active ingredient is absorbed into the body; DEET can be absorbed at over 20 times that rate.
Exposure risk of permethrin-treated clothing to toddlers is 27 times below the EPA's Level of Concern (LOC).
A 140-pound person would have no adverse health effects if exposed to 32 grams of permethrin/day. There is less than 1 gram of permethrin in an entire bottle of clothing treatment.
Permethrin is pregnancy category B (showing no evidence of harm to fertility or fetus).
**Caution: Permethrin won’t hurt humans or dogs but it is harmful to bees, fish, and aquatic insects – do not spray clothing near flowers or water sources. Do not allow cats near permethrin-treated clothing until it has fully dried.
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2011/06/2 ... -punkeilta
Vaatteet, jotka suojaavat hyttysiltä ja punkeilta
Vaatteiden suojausaineena käytettävä permetriini tunnetaan jo 90-luvun alkupuolelta erityisesti hyttysverkkojen käsittelyssä. Aineen tarkoituksena on torjua moskiittoja malaria-alueilla.
Nykyisin permetriinillä käsitellään hyttysverkkojen lisäksi myös ulkoiluvaatteita. Hyttysten lisäksi vaatteet torjuvat myös punkit ja hirvikärpäset. Punkien levittämään borrelioosiin ei ole rokotetta, joten vaatteet ovat ainoa tapa suojautua. Tämä onkin ehkä riittävän suuri syy käyttää permetriiniä. Kyseessä ei nimittäin ole mikä tahansa aine, vaan hermomyrkky.
Permetriini on ihmiselle vaaraton hermomyrkky, mutta se tappaa ja karkottaa tehokkaasti hyttysiä, hirvikärpäsiä ja punkkeja. Erityisen haitallista se on vesieliöille, kuten kaloille. Permetriini käsittelyä ei pidäkään tehdä vesistön äärellä. Jos kotona on akvaario, niin peitä se ennen käsittelyä tai tee käsittely toisessa huoneessa. Vaatteista aine ei kuitenkaan liukene veteen.
Valmiiksi käsitellyt vaatteet ovat hajuttomia ja käsittelyn pitäisi kestää koko vaatteiden elinkaaren eli 50-70 pesukertaa. Vaatteet voi käsitellä myös itse. Tämä kertakäsittely kestää noin kuusi viikkoa pesukerroista huolimatta.
Näin käsittelet vaatteet permetriinillä:
1. Valitse hyvin tuulettuva tila tai tuulelta suojassa oleva paikka ulkosalla.
2. Levitä käsiteltävä vaate lattialle tai ripusta vaateripustimelle niin, että kutakin vaatekappaletta on helppo suihkuttaa kummaltakin puolen ja antaa kuivua.
3. Permetriinin vaikutus säilyy jopa kuusi viikkoa viikottaisista pesuista huolimatta.
4. Suihkuta vaatetta kummaltakin puolelta vähintään 30 sekuntia 15-20 cm etäisyydeltä. Suihkuta hitaasti edestaisin liikkein niin, että vaate kostuu kauttaaltaan. Suihkuta huolellisesti erityisesti hihansuut, vetoketjukohdat, kaulukset, lahkeet ja kaikki aukkokohdat sekä kenkien reunat, joista hyttyset pääsevät sisälle.
5. Ripusta vaate kuivumaan muutamaksi tunniksi. Erittäin kosteissa olosuhteissa neljän tunnin kuivatus saattaa olla tarpeen.
6. Käsitellyt vaatteet voidaan pakata normaalisti. Retkiolosuhteita silmälläpitäen käsitellyt vaatteet voidaan sulkea muovipussiin, jotta ne pysyisivät kuivina.
7. Vuodeverkot, teltat, makuupussit ja alustat voidaan myös käsitellä permetriinillä. Suihkuta vuodeverkko kauttaaltaan reilun kosteaksi. Vamuuden vuoksi voit sulkea vuodeverkko muutamaksi tunniksi muovipussiin ”muhimaan”, jotta permetriini leviäisi tasaisesti. Tämän jälkeen ripusta kuivumaan. Makuupussi suihkutetaan ulkopuolelta kauttaaltaan kunnes ulkopinta on sen verran kostea, että väri tummenee hieman. Makuupussia ei tarvitse suihkuttaa sisältäpäin. Ripusta kuivumaan kahdeksi tunniksi (kosteissa olosuhteissa neljäksi tunniksi).
8. Synteettisen polyuretaanipäällysteisen nylonteltan oviläpät ja ovet voidaan käsitellä permetriinillä. Pystytä teltta ulos ja suihkuta kaikki teltan läpät ja ovet kosteiksi. Anna kuivua vähintään kaksi tuntia.
9. Vältä permetriinihuurun hengittämistä. Pese heti ja huolellisesti pois iholle joutunut permetriini.