Insecticidal action of fumigants in the disinfection of wood and wood products
Abstract
This work is devoted to the search for alternatives to methyl bromide, a universal fumigant whose use has been restricted under the Montreal Protocol. The article presents the results of the effectiveness of fumigants against wood pests. Purpose: to study the toxicity of phosphine and sulfuryl fluoride against pests of wood and wood products. Research objects: insects of the Cetonia, Rhagium, Ips, Monochamus. Research material: the preparative form of phosphine “Magtoxin” (tablet form) produced by Detia Degesch GmbH, sulfuryl fluoride, and wood. Methods: analytical review of the research topic, the current regulatory framework in the field of disinfection; analysis of the biological characteristics of pests; experimental – determination of the effectiveness of fumigants against pests of wood and wood products in laboratory conditions under various disinfection parameters; mathematical and statistical – using computer mathematical functions built into Microsoft Excel 2003. The results. The device developed for measuring high concentrations of phosphine was used at significant gas concentration amplitudes (from 0.1 to 8 g/m3). The developed method of slowing down and stabilizing the release rate of phosphine from tablets made it possible to avoid sudden fluctuations in phosphine concentration, which negatively affected the effectiveness of this fumigant. Phosphine at an exposure of 48 hours and a CT Product of 64.13 h*g ensured 100 % mortality of Ips pests. Conclusions. The effectiveness of phosphine was influenced by an increase in the duration of fumigation and the uniformity of gas concentration. Unlike phosphine, the high insecticidal effect of sulfuryl fluoride was observed even at short exposures (8 hours 40 minutes). Larvae of the genus Cetonia were more tolerant to fumigants than larvae of Rhagium and Monochamus. The results obtained indicate the need for further research, in particular in the direction of comparative effectiveness of fumigants against pests at different stages of development and fumigation parameters.
References
2. Nayak Manoj K., Daglish Gregory J., Phillips Thomas W. & Ebert Paul R. Resistance to the fumigant phosphine and its management in insect pests of stored products: A global perspective. Annual Review of Entomology, 2020. Vol. 65. P. 333-350. doi: 10.1146/annurevento-011019-025047
3. Konemann C. E., Hubhachen Z., Opit G. P., Gautam S. & Bajracharya N. S. Phosphine resistance in Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae) collected from grain storage facilities in Oklahoma, USA. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017.110 (3). P. 1377–1383. doi: 10.1093/jee/tox101
4. Somiahnadar Rajendran. Insect Pest Management in Stored Products Outlooks on Pest Management, 2020. Vol. 31. N. 1. P. 24-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1564/v31_feb_05
5. Jagadeesan Rajeswaran, Singarayan Virgine T. & Nayak Manoj K. A co-fumigation strategy utilizing reduced rates of phosphine (PH3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SF) to control strongly resistant rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae). Pest Management Science, 2021. 77 (9). P. 4009–4015. doi.org/10.1002/ps.6424
6. Dumancas Gerard, Cobbinah Elizabeth & Pham-Bugayong Patrisha J. Sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane). In book: Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-824315-2.00163-9
7. Nayak, M. K., Jagadeesan, R., Kaur, R., Daglish, G. J., Reid, R., Pavic, H., Smith, L. & Collins P. J. Use of sulfuryl fluoride in the management of strongly phosphineresistant insect pest populations in bulk grain storages in Australia. January Indian Journal of Entomology, 2016. 78 (special) :100. DOI: 10.5958/0974-8172.2016.00030
8. Романко, В. О., Дудинська А. Т. Акарицидна дія фтористого судьфурилу. Науковий прогрес та інновації, 2025. 28 (3), 91-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31210/spi2025.28.03.15
9. Boukouvala, Maria, Filintas, Constantin & Kavallieratos Nickolas G. Acaricidal efficacy of diatomaceous earths on different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank). Insects, 2025. 16 (7): 693. DOI: 10.3390/insects16070693
10. Md. Mahbub Hasan, Michael J. Aikins, Wes, Schilling & Thomas, Phillips. Comparison of methyl bromide and phosphine for fumigation of Necrobia rufipes (Coleoptera: Cleridae) and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae). Pests of high-value stored products. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2019. 113 (1). DOI: 10.1093/jee/toz319
11. Subekti N. & Syahadan M. A. Comparison the effectiveness of the fumigants sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine in controlling warehouse pest insects. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2021. 1918(5):05 DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052021
12. Md. Mahbub Hasan, Michael J. Aikins, Wes Schilling & Thomas Phillips. Sulfuryl fluoride as a methyl bromide alternative for fumigation of Necrobia rufipes (Coleoptera: Cleridae) and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae), major pests of animal-based stored products. Journal of Stored Products Research, 2021. 91:101769 DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2021.101769
13. Cottrell Ted E, Aikins Michael J, Thoms Ellen M & Phillips Thomas W. Efficacy of Sulfuryl Fluoride Against Fourth-Instar Pecan Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Pecans for Quarantine Security. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2020. 113(2). 1152–1157 DOI: 10.1093/jee/toaa021
14. Shuai Cao, Shuai Cheng & Jiabin Cai. Research Progress and Prospects of Wood High-temperature Heat Treatment Technology. BioResources, 2022. 17(2):3702-3717 DOI: 10.15376/biores.17.2.Cao
15. Hnatek Jonas, Stejskal Vaclav, Vendl Tomas, Aulicky Radek, Malkova Jarmila & Zouhar Miloslav. Fumigation of Insect-Infested Wooden Logs by EDN Using Two Scenarios of Plastic Tent-Tarpaulin Sealing: Wooden Logs Stacks Placed on Bottom Plastic Sheets or Directly on Underlying. Soil Sustainability, 2021. 13(23), 13377. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313377
16. Hall Matthew KD, Machuca-Mesa Laura M, Uzunovic Adnan & Nayak Manoj K. Phosphine as a possible alternative to methyl bromide for the phytosanitary treatment of wood products. Journal of Stored Products Research, 2025. 113 DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102672
17. Donghun Cho & Min-Goo Park. Primary Efficacy of Co-Fumigation with Methyl Bromide and Phosphine Against Tribolium castaneum and Sitophilus zeamais in Wood Pellets as a Quarantine Treatment. Insects, 2025. 16(2):186 DOI: 10.3390/insects16020186
18. Rajendran Somiahnadar & V. L. Kumar. Sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine as methyl bromide alternatives for fumigation of solid wood packaging International Pest Control, 2008. 50(6):317–320. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285925978_Sulfuryl_fluoride_and_phosphine_as_methyl_bromide_alternatives_for_fumigation_of_solid_wood_packaging_materials
19. Huanwen Chen, Xiaowei Chen, Dan Xie, Qingshan Yang, Fang Niu, Defu Chi & Jia Yu. Integrated Management Strategies for Wood Infested by Hylurgus ligniperda F. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Insects, 2025. 16(11):1154 DOI: 10.3390/insects16111154
20. So-Yeon Kim, Na-Ra Choi & Min-Goo Park. Sulfuryl Fluoride Fumigation as a Quarantine Treatment for the Control of Reticulitermes speratus Kolbe (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) in Wood. Insects, 2024. 15(6):379 DOI: 10.3390/insects15060379
21. Hao Yang, Yuqi Hua, Tao Liu, Siming Fang, Wei Gu & Juan Shi. Alternative fumigation technologies for Bursaphelenchus xylophilus-infected woods: reducing reliance on methyl bromide. Pest Management Science, 2025. 81(8):4611-4620 DOI: 10.1002/ps.8821
22. Stoyanova Antoaneta, Stefanova Marieta Georgieva & Kirechev Damyan. Risk assessment of timber wood fumigation by applying the requirements of ISO 9001: 2015. Conference: 12th International Scientific Conference Wood ema 2019 digitalisation and circular economy: forestry and forestry based industry implications At: Varna, Bulgaria URL: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.woodema.org/proceedings/WoodEMA_2019_Proceedings.pdf
23. Vicent Antonio, Baptista Paula, Berlin Anna & Gonthie Paolo. Commodity risk assessment of debarked conifer wood chips fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride from the US. EFSA Journal, 2025. 23(1) DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9190
24. Мамонтов В. А., Журавчак Т. М., Романко В. О., Анопченко О. М. Знезараження деревини: можливість застосування фосфіну та фтористого сульфурилу. Карантин і захист рослин. 2008. № 8. С. 21–24 URI dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/handle/lib/80525
25. Мамонтов В. А., Романко В. О. Пат. 48293 UA, МПК C01B25/06 (2006.01), G01N7/00 (2006.01) Пристрій для вимірювання високих концентрацій фосфіну.; заявник Закарпатський територіальний центр карантину рослин Інституту захисту рослин Української аграрної академії наук. № u 200910100; заявл. 5.10.2009; опубл. 10.03.2010, Бюл. № 5, 2010 р. URI dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/lib/57472
26. Romanko, V., & Dudynska, A. Synergism of a mixture of phosphine and carbon dioxide in fumigation against bean weevils. Scientific Horizons, 2023. 26(5), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor5.2023.89
27. Романко В. О., Дудинська А. Т. Синергізм суміші фосфіну та вуглекислого газу при фумігації проти хлібних шкідників запасів. Аграрні інновації. 2023. № 1. С. 113–119. https://doi.org/10.32848/agrar.innov.2023.17.15
28. Manar Y., Amin Abeer Omar & Refaat A. Mohamed. Susceptibility of different life stages of Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus chinensis to ECO2FUME gas and its impact on cowpea seeds quality. Research Square, 2021. DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-889770/v2
29. Meenatchi R., Alice R. P. & Paulin P. P. Synergistic effect of phosphine and carbon dioxide on the mortality of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in Paddy. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2018. 10 (7). Р. 503. DOI:10.5539/jas.v10n7p503
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
