9|Page

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Presented this chapter are the review of the related literature and studies after

thorough done by the researcher which were relevant to the proposed study. This review

will focuses on identifying similar work done within the area, and to examine existing

findings and suggest further studies. This will also present synthesis, theoretical

framework, and conceptual paradigm.

RELATED LITERATURE

Pest is any of various organisms, such as fungi, insects, rodents, and plants that

harm crops or livestock or otherwise interfere with the wellbeing of human beings. Pests

are controlled by the use of pesticides and biological control methods. (Dictionary of

Biology, 2006)

Pest control refers to the regulation or management of a species defined as a pest,

usually because it is perceived to be detrimental to a person's health, the ecology or

the economy. (10:33 pm 1/30/2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_control)

The house mouse, Mus musculus, found throughout the world, is the most familiar

of the mice;many of its races live commensally with humans and are serious pests, while

others live in thewild. It usually measures about 6 in. (15 cm) long and weighs under 1 o
 10 | P a g e

z (28 grams)It has grayto brown fur, large rounded ears, a pointed muzzle, and a naked sc

aley tail. An omnivorousfeeder, it causes great destruction and contamination of food sup

plies. Its nests are built ofavailable chewable materials, such as clothing and paper. It ma

y carry human diseases, such astyphoid and spotted fever. Females produce litters of four

to eight young after a gestation periodof three weeks; under favorable conditions they bre

ed throughout the year. The young mature intwo months. House mice, particularly albino

strains, are extensively used in biological andmedical experimentation and are also somet

imes kept as pets. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. | 2015)

Mice have been known to spread some nasty diseases to humans such as

Salmonella, Listeria, which can cause food poisoning. One of the most common disease

that came from mice is leptospirosis. Leptospirosis is an endemic zoonosis in the

Philippines, an average of 680 leptospirosis cases every year and 40 deaths from the

disease reported every year. Leptospirosis is seasonal. Peak incidence during the rainy

months of July to October (Mella, 2010)

Moderate to high mouse numbers damage crops, stored grain and fodder, farm

infrastructure and equipment. Mice can affect horticulturists, viticulturists, graziers, rural

businesses, intensive livestock facilities and wool stores. Mice can spoil food with faeces

and urine and can transmit diseases and parasites to humans and livestock (eg

salmonella).

In Australia direct and indirect costs of serious plagues can exceed A$100 million

nationally. Individual farms can suffer partial or complete crop loss.

 11 | P a g e

n cropping areas, mice target most major crops including cereals, legumes, pulses,

sorghum and maize. High-protein vegetable crops including peas, beans and chickpeas

are also at risk along with intensive vegetable crops such as zucchini, tomatoes,

eggplants, capsicums and melons. Summer and winter cereal crops are vulnerable at

several stages of development including at sowing, at flowering and during the doughy,

milky or podding stages through to pre-harvest mature crops.

Crop damage is often unnoticed until it is severe. Sometimes mouse damage is

misdiagnosed as snail or slug damage, or the effect of moisture stress or disease.

Signs of mouse activity include chewed stems, damage to seed heads and/or

debris at the base of the plant. In cereal crops such as wheat, mice chew the growing

stems of the plant to feed on sap, stopping development of the head or causing the stem to

collapse.

Mice can drop seed heads by chewing through the top node at flowering and also

attack the maturing heads. This can cause losses of up to 50% at pre-harvest stage.

(Somerton, 2011)

These nibbling nuisances have a compulsive need to gnaw in order to keep their

incisor teeth worn down to a constant length. Electric cables, water and gas pipes,

packaging and woodwork may all be seriously damaged by mice - many instances of

electrical fires and floods have been attributed to them.

 12 | P a g e

Mice are well recognised for invading households, poultry runs and buildings

where they consume and foul food sources and chew insulation, electrical wiring, vehicle

parts and all manner of infrastructure. Mice can also cause damage in crop paddocks

immediately after sowing by digging into loose soil to find larger seeds such as maize,

sunflower, wheat, oats, barley, pulses, pumpkin and marrow. They also eat the newly

sprouted seedlings before and after they emerge from the soil. The impact of mice is not

as great on plants beyond the seedling stage, at least not until seeds or grains begin to

mature. Plants such as wheat are then damaged by mice gnawing at the nodes on the

stems causing developing seed heads to fall. In maturing crops of wheat, oats, barley,

pulses, sorghum and maize, losses of up to 30 per cent have been reported. Heavy losses

can also occur in vineyards and vegetable crops from eating and fouling of produce.

(Strattford, 2010)

Mice can ruin an organisation's reputation. If clients and customers spot evidence

of rodent infestation in the premises you manage, they are unlikely to want to do business

with you. (11:08 pm 1/30/2016 http://www.bpca.org.uk/pages/?page_id=201 )

There are many methods on getting rid of mice in your house or on farm. They

involve using traps; rodenticide or rat poison but there is no ideal methods on how to

keep this pest away since every of the mention methods are overused that sometimes

mice can adapt to this.

Ultrasounds are sound waves with frequencies higher than the upper audible limit

of human hearing. Ultrasound is no different from 'normal' (audible) sound in its physical
 13 | P a g e

properties, except in that humans cannot hear it. This limit varies from person to person

and is approximately 20 kilohertz (20,000 hertz) in healthy, young adults. Ultrasound

devices operate with frequencies from 20 kHz up to several gigahertz.

Early civilizations including the ancient Chinese used a number of mechanically

operated sensory repellent devices to ward off rodent infestations in agricultural crops

and in buildings. Many were operated by wind and water power; and they generated

movement, sound, and vibrational repellent mechanisms. Such devices have always

appealed to homeowners and farmers as a way to safely and easily protect stored food

from consumption and contamination by rodents. The use of sonic and ultrasonic stimuli

to repel or control rodents stems, in part, from a phenomenon known as the audiogenic

seizure response. As first described by Donaldson (Lehrnann and Busnel 1963) in 1914,

the response involves physiological stressor signs shown by rats when stimulated by

intense sonic and ultrasonic energy such as that generated by jangling keys. Several

hundred reports have been published related to the effect which is characterized by (1) a

latent period of an initial startle jump reaction followed by rapid movements of the rat

around in a cage; (2) rapid, violent, and nondirected running; and (3) clonic-tonic

convulsions, followed by (4) a complete recovery or death. The reaction has been

observed in rats, mice, rabbits, chickens, dogs, and goats. Repeated seizures induced by

these means can lead to cerebral hemorrhages with certain mouse strains being extremely

susceptible to this lethal effect. In rats, age is a critical factor with the peak reaction

sensitivity occurring at 3 weeks and almost no sensitivity at 20 months. In mice, maximal

sensitivity to the reaction occurs at around 30 days, thereafter decreasing through 50 days
 14 | P a g e

of age. Frings (1948) suggested the use of ultrasound as a means of repelling wild rodents

based upon the audiogenic seizure phenomenon. Twenty years later, however, Greaves

and Rowe (1969) noted that only two scientific papers had been published that were

aimed at assessing sonic-acoustic or ultrasonic stimuli as a means of repelling rodents.

Marsh et al. (1962), in one of these reports, described negative results with a 15-16

kilohertz (KHz) generator producing less than 100 decibels (dB) in three grain elevator

structures. Likewise, Sproke et al. (1967) were unable to demonstrate consistent rodent

repellency using sonic/ultrasonic generators in the 1.8-48 KHz range at 60-140 dB.

(10:38am,1/31/2016http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&co

ntext=nwrcrepellants)

RELATED STUDIES

Mice and rats have long been recognized as disease carriers and as extremely

dangerous and destructive pests. Indeed the common rat has been called the most

injurious and universal pest of the human race. Rats, for example, are responsible for

heavy damage to foodstuffs in storage area.

An ultrasonic pest repeller (UPR) was constructed to repel pest like rodent from

home in order to prevent damage and possible infections or diseases caused by rodents.

Rodents can perceive ultrasonic sound of frequencies within the range of 20 to 65 kHz.

Our UPR when tested emit varying ultrasonic frequencies approximately within the range

of 20 to 50 kHz. We found that these varying frequencies are like sound produced by
 15 | P a g e

Jackhammer and causes auditory stress to rodents and discourages them from habituating

within the environment where this sound is effective. Ultrasonic frequencies are

frequencies above 20 kHz. This work was simulated with electronics simulator software

called PROTEUS to study and ensure its operating characteristics before construction.

(Onah, 2013)

This device is more humane and sanitary to use in home as they do not involve

traps and poisons which are harmful to man. Also, the varying ultrasonic frequencies

emitted are inaudible to man.

One known technique for repelling rodents and other pests involves the radiation

of ultrasonic energy. Thus in the US. Pat. No. 2,922,999 to Carlin, a directional beam of

high intensity ultrasonic energy is produced to scare away noxious fauna without in any

way disturbing human beings.

Most humans are responsive to sounds ranging in frequency between about Hz

and 17 KHz, although some individuals can hear somewhat higher frequencies. In

humans the frequency range of greatest sensitivity is considered to be about 1 to 4 KHz.

Rats and mice on the other hand are responsive to frequencies well above the upper level

for humans, the range of greatest sensitivity being about 22 to 30 KHZ. Smaller pests,

such as mosquitos and cockroaches apparently are capable of hearing sound having a

much higher frequency.

 16 | P a g e

It has been determined that rats may be put under severe conditions of stress when

subjected to ultrasonic energy in the range of 18 KHz to 30 KHz, and will make a

strenuous effort to flee such intolerable sound waves. Known ultrasonic systems for

repelling pigeons, rats, insects and other pests, such as the systems disclosed in US. Pat.

Nos. 3,058,103, 3,277,861, 3,503,039 and 3.636.559 have exploited this phenomenon and

have employed ultrasonic sound generators to irradiate an infested area. It has been found

that the sounds produced by known systems in causing the animals to withdraw from a

given area have only a temporary effect.

The repellant effect of ultrasonic energy having a predetermined frequency is

generally short-lived, for after a period of time, the rats or other animals will reenter the

irradiated area. If, however, the frequency of the ultrasonic energy is changed, the pests

will generally be again repelled for a relatively short period and then reappear. The

reason why this happens is that prolonged exposure to a given sound frequency renders

the animal effectively deaf or immune to that sound. This phenomenon is sometimes

referred to as slotted deafness or deafness immunity.

Because of such immunity, an ultra-high frequency sound which is initially

effective as a repellant will gradually begin to lose it effectiveness. In order to overcome

the undesirable effects of deafness immunity, attempts have been made to constantly vary

the frequency of the radiated energy. But because such variations in frequency are regular

with respect to time, the rodents are able to accommodate themselves to such radiation

and tend to reappear. (Cilliers et al., 2006)

 17 | P a g e

"Ultrasound and Arthropod Pest Control" (2001), an extensive Kansas State

University study, confirmed that ultrasonic sound devices do have both a repellent effect

as well as reduces mating and reproduction of insects. However, the results were mixed,

and ultrasonic sound had little or no effect on some pests. Ultrasonic devices were highly

effective on crickets, while the same devices had little repellent effect on cockroaches.

Additionally, the results were mixed: some devices were effective, while others had no

effect depending on the test subject. The study also concluded there was no effect

on ants or spiders in any of the tests. They concluded, based on the mixed results, that

more research is needed to improve these devices.

A 2002 study sponsored by Genesis Laboratories, Inc. (the maker of the Pest-A-

Cator/Riddex series of electronic repellent devices) does lend some credence to the

ability of electronic repellent devices to repel certain pests in controlled environments.

“Preliminary study of white-footed mice behavior in the test apparatus demonstrated a

significant preference for the non-activated chamber among both sexes.”

In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission required Global Instruments, the maker

of the Pest-A-Cator/Riddex series of electromagnetic pest control devices, to discontinue

any claims for their efficacy until they are backed by credible scientific evidence. This

ban continues to be in effect.

In 2009, Victor Pest obtained positive results from independent researchers which

resulted in two ultrasonic devices' being granted registration by the Canadian EPA

(PMRA). The results from the tests were: the device “successfully repelled the rodents
 18 | P a g e

from the protected area in 13 of the 17 sites. This represents a 81.3% success rate...the

average number of days before rodent activity was stopped was six days" (Subi, 2009)

According to the study report of Professor Tim Leighton at the Institute of Sound

and Vibration Research], University of Southampton, U.K, commercial products which

exploit the discomforting effects of in-air ultrasound may cause shifts in the hearing

threshold too. Studies show Effects on pest shows that, this wave have both a repellent

effect as well as reduce mating and reproduction of insects. The ultrasonic sound had

little or no effect on some pests. This is highly effective on crickets, while it had little

repellent effect on cockroaches. There is no scientific evidence that ultrasound repels

mosquitoes.

Three commercial ultrasonic devices (A, B, and C) were tested for their ability to

repel the German cockroach, Blattella germanica(L.) (Blattodea: Blattellidae), in

Plexiglas® enclosures. Device A generated peak frequencies at 26 kHz and 34 kHz, and

produced a 95 ± 1 dB sound pressure level (SPL) at 50 cm distance (0 dB = 20 log10[20

μPa/ 20 μPa]). Device B generated peak frequencies at 27 kHz and 35 kHz, and

produced a 92 ± 4 dB SPL. Device C generated a wide range of frequencies between 28–

42 kHz and produced an 88 ± 2 dB SPL. Ultrasound from any of the three devices did

not demonstrate sufficient repelling ability against the German cockroach in the tests.

The result failed to provide evidence that ultrasonic technology could be used as an

effective pest management tool to repel or eliminate the German cockroach. (Huang and

Subramanyam, 2006)
 19 | P a g e

An independent research University "University of Nebraska - Lincoln" had

conducted a detailed research in the year 1984 to assess the efficacies of ultrasonic

rodent repellent devices in the laboratory where no other rodent control was conducted at

the study sites other than the application of ultrasonic devices. Test Report concludes

that "Rodents under test could either leave the buildings or move to alternate non-

ultrasonically treated areas. (Schumake, 2008)

Electronic devices for use in rodent and insect control in Canada must be

registered (PCP Certified) as part of the Canadian Pest Control Products Act and

Regulations (Laidlaw 1984). A minimum of 10 field test sites that contain existing

rodent infestation is required. Due to unpredicted events such as a change in property

owners or the initiation of other rodent control methods, it is advisable to select a few

extra sites so that ultrasonic evaluations are obtained with unconfounded data for at least

10 sites. Baseline monitoring of each building site is to be conducted for 7 days with

rodent tracking boards. Other acceptable measures of rodent activity include food

consumption, fecal dropping counts, counts of tunnel openings after closure, and candy

drop removal. Two measures are required for each location. For a 3- to 6-week period,

ultrasonic (or other electronic) devices are installed and operated with the monitoring

measures continued each day. The devices are then turned off so that daily activity

measures can be taken for another 2-week period (return-to-baseline). Raw data are

submitted to the Pesticide Division for a review by the evaluation officer. If it is

determined that sufficient and consistent repellency has been verified at the field test

sites, the evaluation office will issue a registration number with the stipulation that the
 20 | P a g e

device must be labeled for restricted use (i.e., "For use with, and in conjunction with

normal control practice"). Several devices have been registered for sale in Canada under

the PCP Field Protocol, after manufacturers provided their own field efficacy data. As

long as device buyers are satisfied with the product andlor are unaware of a problem that

develops with efficacy, the devices remain registered throughout the Canadian

Provinces.

An alternate field test protocol Jackson et al. 1989) has been designed to verify

that ultrasonic devices can alter rodent behavioral patterns to "enhance" efficacies of

other rodent control methods and to prevent them from entering "protected areas" in

structures. This design requires that the individual structures be large enough to allow

for some locations (rooms or areas) to be ultrasound-treated while other locations are left

without ultrasound treatment. This is analogous to the EPAIFWS Enclosure Test

Protocol previously described, but with a natural rodent infestation in a structure. The

two kinds of conditions operating simultaneously could involve two separate buildings,

but both should contain comparable resources (i.e., food, water, shelter). The Modified

Protocol, basically in agreement with both of the other Field Protocols described

previously, requires either food consumption measures or tracking tile measures of

rodent activity, (10:20 pm, 1/31/2015

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=nwrcrepellant

s)
 21 | P a g e

SYNTHESIS

The study of Cilliers is the most similar to the study of the researcher among

other related studies. The similarities of the two researches are the aim to find a safer and

alternative solution for getting rid of pests in a more humane and sanitary way, and to

lessen the use of dangerous chemical or rodenticides. Some study shows that using

chemicals in getting rid of pests has faster results than using electronic mouse repellent

but there are also disadvantage in using this method, by using chemicals it may harm

human and pets. It can also pollute the air, the water and the soil. Both studies aim to

make device produces ultrasound that will repel mice to prevent further damage in the

property and to decrease the case of mice related diseases.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

It has been theorized by various pest control equipment companies that ultrasonic

sound emission may be effective in repelling nuisance animal and insect pests. The

theory is that a device that produces pulses of sound at very high frequency, above that of

human hearing, will act as a deterrent in the event of pest infestations, both because the

pests cannot tolerate the sound, and also because the sound might interfere with their

ability to communicate with members of the same species.

22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e