Case Study 1: 

Pest resistant to chemicals

An F&B outlet recently engaged our services to solve their cockroach problem in their kitchen. They have been issued with a warning from the National Environment Agency (NEA) and even after 2 flush-out exercise from their previous pest control contractor, their problem still exist.

Upon investigation, we realized that for the past 2 years, their pest control contractor have been using the same residual chemicals in their premises and over time the cockroaches have build up a resistant to the chemicals.

We decided to go into baiting whereby only targeted areas will be baited but still a flush-out exercise using residual chemicals must be carried out first to bring down the level of infestation to a threshold or acceptable level. We carried out the flush-out exercise similar to their past contractor, however, we utilized a different type of chemical available and approved by the NEA to prevent similar resistant.

A week followed and we managed to bring down the level of infestation to what is accepted. We carried out a full baiting programme for the next 2 weeks and after a month; we have a zero infestation level in the said premises.

From this exercise, we would advise clients to ensure that the chemicals used by their operators to be change once every 6 months to prevent pest resistant to chemicals.

Case Study 2:

Mosquito breeding

After several fogging exercises, the client still encountered mosquito activities within their premises. A call was made to our Operations Department to engage our services and a team of Quality Control Executives were assigned to the client’s needs. A thorough inspection was carried out both within and outside the client’s premises and breeding sites was located at a vacant land next to the client’s place.

Upon investigation, we were made known that their previous pest control contractor have been carrying out weekly fogging exercise in their premises without carrying out any form of larvaciding or inspection for potential mosquito breeding ground within their premises and surrounding areas.

This residence is situated just next to an open vacant land which does not come under their jurisdiction of control but under the care of the Public Works Department (PWD). All along they have always believe that by carrying out a fogging exercise on a weekly frequency, they have overcome the odds of having mosquitoes in their premises after taking into consideration that a mosquito will take between 7 to 10 days from an egg to reach into an adult mosquito.

What they do not know and was never recommended to them by their past pest control contractor is that fogging only get rid of adult mosquitoes and other flying insects but will not get rid of the larvae or the pupae stage of a mosquito. Taking into consideration of the mosquito biology whereby the adult mosquito will be able to travel half a mile from their breeding site, larvaciding of all potential breeding area consisting of standing water must be look into.

A point to note from this exercise is that during any fogging treatment, any flying insects that come in contact with the fog will die. However, once the fog disappeared, there is no more control. Larvaciding to all standing water is a must if you want to get rid of mosquito activities within your premises and that includes the surrounding area that does not come within your jurisdiction of control.

Case Study 3:

Rodent’s Infestation

We were engaged to look into the recurring problem that the client is facing with rodents at their premises. They have been getting their computer cables bitten off and even after 6 services within a 3-month period, their problem still recurred. This is a 2-storey commercial building and the client is a tenant in two adjoining units.

A team of QC’s were assigned to carry out an inspection and what we found were very alarming. The building was very run down and a lot of the units were vacant. The landlord did not engage a pest control contractor and the tenant will have to bear the cost of engaging one only for their unit of occupation. The surrounding area of the building is covered with overgrown vegetation and rodent’s droppings can be seen everywhere even in places such as the main entrance of the building which is quite posh.

A programme was put in place where a combination of methods consisting of baits, traps and proofing (point of entry) were used. The area covers not only the units occupied by the client but also the surrounding area of the building which was later agreed upon to be bear by the landlord. After an intensive programme consisting of 8 services within a 1-month period, we removed a total of 138 rodents, both consisting of Roof rat also known as Rattus rattus and Norway rat or Rattus norvegicus.

From this exercise, we learned that in order to solve the problem of having rodents in one place, we must ensure that inspection be carry out in areas that is out of our boundary, taking into consideration that rat’s activities pattern covers a radius of about 50 feet and mouse about 20 feet.

Case Study 4:

Termite infestation after Corrective Treatment

We were engaged by one of the hospital in Singapore to carry out pest control services for the next 2 years. During our 1st month there, we have encountered numerous callbacks for termite’s infestation.

Upon investigation, we realized that prior to us taking over the job, there was a corrective treatment being done to all the existing buildings for prevention of termites only 3 months ago. However, the past pest control contractor did not carry out any inspection to see whether there are existing infestations within the buildings prior to carrying out the work.

The purpose of carrying out corrective treatment is to provide an anti-termite barrier all around the building and under all the walls/ground beams to prevent new infestation from coming into the premises. However, prior to each treatment, we must eradicate all existing infestation within the building. You must be made known that corrective treatment will not in any way get rid of existing colonies within the building itself.

Due to the recurring infestation found, we recommended the use of a tracking device known as “Termatrac” to locate all existing termite’s activities. Termatrac is a device used to detect termites through timber, plastic board, brick or masory with no interference to the building material. It requires no drilling, tapping or prodding and is the answer to termite detection without termite defection. We have managed to eradicate all existing termite’s infestation using this device and is still monitoring the whole situation closely today.