Tag Archives: experiment

Does the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech attract mosquitoes?

This post evaluates the claim on the label, “mosquitoes will gather near them”. Per the company, it is the first step in how the device kills mosquitoes. I.e., the device needs to attract mosquitoes if it is going to work.

mosquitoes will gather

Evaluating the claim

I used a security camera to record activity around the cap area. Here’s a photograph of how I arranged everything:

Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech with security camera

Below is a 15-second time-lapse to show that small insects such as ants were easily visible, even at night. I think they are Prenolepis imparis, which are 3-4 mm long —mosquitoes are larger and thus would be detectable even in flight.

On the day that began filming (September 2nd, 2020) I counted over a dozen mosquitoes (all Aedes albopictus) landing on my arms and legs within 30 seconds. According to the instruction sheet, the device begins to work instantly, as soon as water is added, so an hour of remote, video observation should be a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the attraction claim.

Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech begins working instantly

I collected continuous footage for over a week, ending observations on September 10th. The mosquitoes were still plentiful on that day.

Results

During 183 hours of footage, I couldn’t find a single mosquito on or near the device. Here are the contents. I also posted a photograph to iNaturalist.

Conclusion

I don’t understand how the device can kill mosquitoes.

In related news, I’m aware of three of other people who have used security cameras to assess whether mosquitoes gather around Spartan Mosquito Eradicators. None found mosquitoes.

Footage

In case anyone might be skeptical of my results, I decided to upload all 183 hours of footage onto YouTube. I had to break it into 16 segments due to size limits on YouTube.

Scientists find that Spartan Mosquito Eradicators don’t work

Research conducted in Florida found no evidence that Spartan Mosquito Eradicatiors are effective mosquito-control devices. Here’s the citation:

Aryaprema, V.S., E. Zeszutko, C. Cunningham, E.I.M. Khater, and R.-D. Xue. 2020. Efficacy of commercial toxic sugar bait station (ATSB) against Aedes albopictus. J. Florida Mosquito Control Association 67: 80-83. PDF

Laboratory experiment

Below is a rough reconstruction of the laboratory experiment they conducted. In each of the cages (BugDorm-2120), 100 male and 100 female tiger mosquitoes (Aedes albopictus) were released, then monitored for mortality at 24, 48, and 72 hours.

Schematic of laboratory experiment based on description in Aryaprema et al. 2020.

Below are the cumulative mortality data for the three cages. Result: the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator filled with the provided packet ingredients (treatment) did not result in higher mortality. I.e., there was no evidence the device killed mosquitoes under laboratory conditions.

Field experiment

The researchers also conducted a field experiment using two sites that had large populations of tiger mosquitoes (because of the presence of tires). At each site they deployed five tubes (separated by 4 m), switching whether the tubes were “treatment” or “control” tubes every 2 weeks. A BG-Sentinel trap (without carbon dioxide) was used to quantify mosquito numbers every week.

Schematic of field experiment based on description in Aryaprema et al. 2020.

Below are the weekly numbers of mosquitoes caught in the BG Sentinel traps. Results: there was no evidence that presence of treatment tubes (filled as per company guidelines) reduced the numbers of mosquitoes at the sites.

Conclusions

The scientists concluded that “Both laboratory and field components of our study show that the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator is not effective in reducing abundance of Ae. albopictus.” They speculate that the contents do not attract mosquitoes and that the holes on the device (~3 mm) are too small for mosquitoes to easily reach the fluid inside. They also highlight the need for an experiment to evaluate whether the active ingredient (1% sodium chloride) kills adult mosquitoes. I.e., even if mosquitoes were attracted to Spartan Mosquito Eradicators and could easily get inside, the salt might not be lethal.

Update: the salt experiment has been conducted.

Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech

Here’s a summary of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, the newest device made by the makers of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator, which I reviewed in 2019. Aside from differences in label design, the Pro Tech looks just like the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator and is filled with essentially the same ingredients (water, sugar, and yeast). The major difference is that the active ingredient is boric acid instead of table salt. They come in a box and you just add warm water, shake, and then hang in a tree.

Box of Spartan Mosquito Pro Techs

How it is supposed to work

The company says the Pro Tech is an attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) device, with the lure presumably being the sugar. I write “presumably” because the inventors have said that it is the carbon dioxide (produced by the yeast) that lures mosquitoes to the Eradicator, and the companied hasn’t voiced any change in view for the Pro Tech. Regardless, it is the boric acid that is supposed to kill the mosquitoes, and it certainly would do that if any mosquitoes ingest the solution inside the tube. Here’s the full sequence of events that are said to occur (important steps are bolded):

  1. mosquitoes are attracted to the tubes
  2. mosquitoes land on the tubes
  3. mosquitoes crawl around until they find the 5/32″ holes in the cap
  4. mosquitoes squeeze though the holes
  5. mosquitoes walk down sides of tube toward liquid
  6. mosquitoes ingest some of the liquid
  7. mosquitoes walk back up sides of tube
  8. mosquitoes find holes
  9. mosquitoes squeeze through holes
  10. mosquitoes fly away
  11. mosquitoes die

Steps 7-10 would not be required, of course, but Spartan Mosquito says that mosquitoes do, in fact, exit the tubes, leaving no trace.

So does any of the above actually happen? As of February, 2021, the company’s website has no photographs showing mosquitoes at any of the above 11 steps on Pro Techs deployed outside. I don’t know whether they’ve tried to get such photographs but my guess is that they haven’t. I suspect the company realized that people bought millions of Spartan Mosquito Eradicators without any supporting data or photographic proof that the devices work. There really is no reason why they’d change up that successful strategy.

Efficacy

Per the labelling, the Pro Tech “kills mosquitoes”. It’s unclear whether the number actually killed would make a dent in thousands of mosquitoes that inhabit a typical yard, though. All we know for sure is that more than one mosquito is killed.

Hopefully, scientists will eventually perform experiments on the Pro Tech like they did on the Eradicator (they found that devices don’t work). Until those trials are complete, the only third-party test of whether the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech works is one I did in my yard. In that test (NB: on a single Pro Tech), I found that the device attracted and killed ants and fruit flies but not mosquitoes. It failed at step 1.

If my results are generalizable to other yards (and to different species of mosquitoes), the question becomes, how was the device was able to secure an EPA registration? I’m wondering whether the data the company submitted to the EPA were from experiments using caged mosquitoes in a laboratory. With cage experiments, mosquitoes would be trapped inside with only a Pro Tech, so one might (possibly) find mosquitoes dead in the cage just because of boric acid fumes. Also, if mosquitoes are trapped inside a cage with the only water source being a tube of boric acid solution, several mosquitoes might eventually go inside the tubes and die there. Both those mechanisms would be major flaws of cage experiments. When I asked the EPA staff whether Spartan Mosquito’s data were actually from outside experiments (the box asserts they kill mosquitoes outside), they held a meeting on the topic and then declined to answer. Here’s a line from the URL they sent me: “When appropriate, laboratory colony or caged wild mosquitoes can be used.”

Indeed, the company admits that field trial data were not even needed to secure the EPA registration:

The major issue with cage experiments of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs) is that they do not test whether the device can compete with all the attractive nectar and fruit in the real world. I.e., mosquitoes will likely have numerous sources of sugar in a yard and may not seek out the ATSB (why would they?). This flaw is not my insight, by the way — most journal articles on ATSB devices mention this issue. I’m not sure whether the EPA even considered this problem during the evaluation of the Pro Tech’s experimental data. They should have, of course.

By the way, the name, “Pro Tech”, is presumably to signify to consumers that the device is “professional technology”. The name choice is interesting because the EPA has specifically prohibited the phrase “Pro Tech” in pesticide names because it implies to consumers the product has extreme efficacy. I’m not sure how the company convinced the EPA to allow its use, especially given the lack of extreme efficacy (device merely “kills mosquitoes”).

If it turns out that the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech doesn’t kill mosquitoes outside (the claim on the label), the company might be at risk for getting sued, again, for false advertising.

Where it can be sold

Interestingly, California and Maryland don’t seem to allow sales of the Pro Tech. The device has a “conditional” registration in Maine, though I’m not sure what that means.

How it passed regulatory hurdle

Given all of the above, I was not surprised to learn that the EPA registration decision was not just based on experimental data. Spartan Mosquito apparently pitched to the EPA that the device should be fast-tracked given how dangerous mosquitoes are. Evidence for that is from a radio segment featuring Jeremy Hirsch, the inventor and founder. During the interview the host said, “Hirsch is attempting to get an early green-light because mosquitoes are so dangerous”.

How, exactly, does one convince the EPA that a pesticide be rushed through? It turns out that Spartan Mosquito hired a major lobbying firm (Gunster Strategies Worldwide) to get this done. Below is a document from Gunster Strategies that spells it all out:

Gunster Strategies' plan to push through Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech registration process at the Environmental Protection Agency

I haven’t been able to find any documentation on whether Gunster Strategies Worldwide had registered as a lobbyist of the EPA. Spartan Mosquito is not listed among companies lobbying the EPA in either 2019 or 2020.

In regards to the op-eds mentioned in scheme, it appears that a health official in Togo was one of the writers, though it came in the form of a press release. It would be interesting to know who actually wrote that press release and also whether Dr Tinah was paid in some way.

I’m still trying to figure out who the firm payed to write letters to EPA officials. I would also like to know which administrators at the EPA were targeted.

Although not mentioned in the strategy document, Spartan Mosquito and one of its founders gave approximately $10,000 to the Cindy Hyde-Smith, the senator who chairs the committee with EPA oversight. I don’t think they donated to any other senator. It would be interesting to know whether Senator Hyde-Smith was one of the persons who called EPA officials about the Pro Tech.

I’m not sure how it fits into categories listed above, but it’s possible that two companies (see below) were created for the sole purpose of influencing the Pro Tech’s registration. Both companies claimed to be non-profits that highlighted their goal of helping people in dire need. But they were both singularly interested in promoting Spartan Mosquito. So my guess is they were involved somehow.

Innovative Mosquito Control, Inc

Innovative Mosquito Control (INMOCO) purports to be a public benefit corporation devoted to fighting malaria in Africa. As part of this effort it claims to have partnered with Spartan Mosquito to promote/supply the company’s tubes to the region. Its CEO and President is Omar Arouna (2nd from left in photograph below), a lobbyist based in D.C. who typically charges $1,500/hr for consulting and social media campaigns. There’s no further information on who works at the company or whether it even has employees. Contributing to the lack of information is that fact that the business was set up in Delaware, a state popular among companies that want to keep the true owner secret. And the company’s website was housed on a server in the U.S. Virgin Islands, also famous for companies that want to obscure their operations. It all seems needlessly secretive for a company that is ostensibly fighting malaria. But here’s the interesting part: Mr Arouna has worked with Gunster Strategies on several occasions. And as a minor fact, both INMOCO and Gunster Strategies use Wix for websites. It seems likely that they collaborated on this scheme.

Dr. Atcha-Oubou Tinah, MD-MPH (Coordinator of the Togolese National Malaria Control Program), Omar Arouna (President and CEO Innovative Mosquito Control Incorporated, Dr Moustafa Mijiyawa (Togolese Minister of Health and Public Hygiene, Chair of the Africa CDC Governing Board), & Jeremy Hirsch (Founder and Chairman of the Board, Spartan Mosquito).

What’s also fishy is that soon after the Pro Tech got its registration from the EPA, INMOCO’s website was taken down and its Facebook page (which has zero followers) has had no further posts. And Mr Arouna’s LinkedIn profile is devoid of any mention of the company he heads. It’s as if the whole operation was created just to give the illusion that Spartan Mosquito was going to rid the world of malaria, which in turn could be used to manipulate somebody at the EPA.

West Nile Education, Eradication & Prevention

WEEP & Recover, a Mississippi non-profit, was also set up in the months before the EPA’s consideration of the Pro Tech. It’s run by James Hendry, probably most famous for his other non-profit, Mississippi for Family Values (which got him onto Oprah, I gather). The WEEP & Recover website and Facebook page are full of slick graphics and videos, most of which feature Spartan Mosquito and, notably, include no other mosquito-control company or strategy.

Functionally, WEEP & Recover is an advertising arm of Spartan Mosquito. The videos, graphics, and website design are all provided by the branding firm, Unify by Bread. Unify by Bread also produced a heartwarming video about hardware store staff that used Spartan Mosquito products as backdrops. It would be interesting to know who is funding WEEP & Recover and Unify by Bread. The bills are likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Another huge reason to suspect WEEP & Recover is a sham non-profit is that Mississippi already had a well-established, respected non-profit devoted to West Nile education and prevention: Mosquito Illness Alliance. The Mosquito Illness Alliance, however, has long viewed Spartan Mosquito’s devices as ineffective, and it was not shy about telling the public about that fact.

By the way, James Hendry and Spartan Mosquito also worked together to make April 13-19 “Mississippi Mosquito & West Nile Virus Awareness Week”, an effort that apparently has died in committee (FYI, bill was also plagiarized). But proposing it was a PR coup and photo op for Spartan Mosquito because it all went down in the months before the EPA considered the Pro Tech. I wonder whether it was suggested by Gunster Strategies. Here’s the staged photograph, linked to the post on Spartan Mosquito’s Facebook page (a post the company has decided to hide).


I suspect there’s more to be discovered about how the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech got its EPA registration. If anyone has further information, please contact me.