ESA Reno Nevada 2008

8/14/2019 ESA Reno Nevada 2008

1/33

Efficacy of Flameless Catalytic InfraredRadiation Energy Against Different Life

Stages of Insects

Khamis Moses, Bhadriraju Subramanyam, Dogan Hulya and

Gwirtz JeffDepartment of Grain Science and Industry

Kansas State University

Manhattan, KS 66506


2/33

Introduction

Hypothesis: How do different ages of stored productinsects respond to flameless catalytic infraredradiation?

Objective 1: Age Grading of internal insects usingFaxitron and X-ray microtomography

Materials and method

Results

Objective 2: Infrared treatment

Materials and method

Results

Conclusion


3/33

Infrared Energy Electromagnetic spectrum; radiation energy with

wavelength longer than visible light but shorter thanmicrowave Water molecules absorb highest mid-infrared (2.8 m

and 7 m) energy

Differential heating: insects vs grain


4/33

Current Pest Management Problems Ban on organophosphates pesticides (phosphine)

Development of insect resistance to some of theavailable pesticides

Pesticides residues in foods

Lack of international consensus on some pesticidesuse

Ineffectiveness of some pesticides against certainlife stages of insects


5/33

Previous research

Old infrared heaters used natural gas or propane gas

combusted over ceramic panels with temperaturesclose to 926C

Such high temperatures are unsafe for grain handlingfacilities

No sufficient research to determine how thedifferent insects ages were affected by infraredradiation

Banjo thermometer was used to read graintemperature.

Wheat, wheat product qualities were not evaluated


6/33

Infrared for stored grain insect control

Flameless infrared energy is a

green

technology,there are no regulated emissions, only products arewater, heat and carbon dioxide

Kills external and internal stored-grain insects

Kills microorganisms

It is a rapid method (insects are killed in less than60s)

Flameless catalytic infrared heater is cheaper


7/33

Research objectives Determine factors affecting efficacy of infrared

radiation against eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults ofthree stored-grain insect species

Evaluate effects of infrared radiation on wheatgermination

Evaluate effects of infrared on mold counts

Evaluate effect of infrared radiation on quality of

wheat and wheat flour and products made frominfrared-exposed grain

Conduct an economic analysis of treatmenteffectiveness


8/33Faxitron

Age grading


9/33

Pupae of Lesser grain borer


10/33


11/33

Tunnel width (mm)Lesser grain borer Rice weevil

__________________________________

Age (Days)

7 0.24 0.03* 0.26 0.0114 0.34 0.01 0.57 0.0321 0.40 0.02 0.72 0.0124 0.53 0.0 1.39 0.0128 0.61 0.02 Emerged

* Observed on the eighth and ninth day


12/33

X-ray microtomography Skyscan

Source: www.microphotonic.com


13/33


14/33

Pupae of LGB with XMT


15/33

Pupae of RW with XMT


16/33

Development time for LGB and RW

Number of Days

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

N

umberofAdults

Emerged

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rice weevil

Lesser grain borer


17/33

Factors evaluated where;-

Different insects ages (Eggs to adults)

Distance of grain from surface heater, (8.0 and 12.7cm)

Quantities of grains (113.5 and 227.0 g)

Exposure time (45 and 60 seconds)

Infrared treatment and insects mortality


18/33

Bench top infrared heater

Materials and methods

A Company based in Independence KS;www.catalticdrying.comdesigns commercial scaleflameless catalytic heaters for specific uses
http://www.catalticdrying.com/http://www.catalticdrying.com/


19/33

Typical Temperature Profile

Temperature vs Time (45s)

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Temperature(0C)

40

60

80

100

120

140

T1D1W1

T1D1W2

T1D2W1

T1D2W2

Temperature vs Time (60s)

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature(0C)

40

60

80

100

120

140T2D1W1

T2D1W2

T2D2W1

T2D2W2

d l h d f


20/33

Mean no. adults that emerged fromcontrol

Age (days) Grain qty (g) R. dominica T. castaneum S. oryzae

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

0 113.5 443 32.6 43 5.9 271 18.0

0 227 582 13.5 49 3.4 340 28.2

7 113.5 241 22.5 100 1.0 221 15.8

7 227 541 24.1 101 1.0 347 21.714 113.5 302 22.4 100 2.0 254 13.8

14 227 502 17.2 98 4.0 336 23.4

21 113.5 145 52.2 100 0.3 225 22.6

21 113.5 240 33.2 103 1.0 381 17.4

24 113.5 231 62.1 99 1.0 249 46.7

24 227 451 40.0 102 2.0 374 11.9

28 113.5 256 51.2 360 31.0

28 227 490 11.9 412 15.6

** n =3


21/33

Mortality for all ages

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

75

8085

9095

100105

110115

0

10

20

30

40

ProbabilityofDeath

Temp

eratur

e(0C)

Age(Days)

Lesser Grain Borer

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


22/33

Factors and their interactions

Effect DF ChiSq Pr>ChiSq_______________________________________________

Age 6 642.6


23/33

Odds of deathLesser grain borer

Age (Days)

0 10 20 30 40

OddsRatios

0

1

2

3

4


24/33

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

75

8085

9095

100105

110115

0

510

1520

25

ProbabilityofDea

th

Temp

eratur

e(0C)

Age(Days)

Red Flour Beetle

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


25/33

Red flour beetle

Effect DF ChiSq Pr>ChiSq____________________________________________

Age 5 26.7


26/33

Red flour beetle

Age (Days)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

OddsRatio

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


27/33

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

7580

8590

95100

105110

115

0

10

20

30

40

ProbabilityofD

eath

Temp

eratur

e(

0C)

Age(Days)

Rice Weevil

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


28/33

Rice weevil

Effect DF ChiSq Pr>ChiSq_______________________________________________

Age 6 1404.5


29/33

Rice weevil

Age (Days)

0 10 20 30 40 50

OddsRa

tio

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


30/33

Insects mortality

It is a function of temperature

Longer treatment time, shorter distance and smallquantity of grain all influenced the attained temperatureand mortality

Overall (by species), lesser grain borerwas the mosttolerant to infrared treatment, followed by, red flour

beetle then rice weevil Eggs of rice weevil were the most tolerant to infraredradiation

Old larvae of all species more tolerant to infrared energythan young ones

Pharate adults of lesser grain borer were more resistantthan the adults


31/33


32/33

Acknowledgement

Research was funded by USDA/CSREES-NC-IPMgrant


33/33

Thank You

Documents

ESA Reno Nevada 2008