Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter Ii Review of Related Literature
Chapter Ii Review of Related Literature
CHAPTER II
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
and 17 KHz, although some individuals can hear somewhat higher frequencies. In
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
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
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
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
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
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
In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission required Global Instruments, the maker
any claims for their efficacy until they are backed by credible scientific evidence. This
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
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
mosquitoes.
Three commercial ultrasonic devices (A, B, and C) were tested for their ability to
Plexiglas® enclosures. Device A generated peak frequencies at 26 kHz and 34 kHz, and
μPa/ 20 μPa]). Device B generated peak frequencies at 27 kHz and 35 kHz, and
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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