Provent-a-mite Patent info...READ!

[Hennek]

If you use provent-a-mite, I HIGHLY suggest you read this. The thing that stands out is the DIRECT test, where they sprayed permethrins (provent-a-mite) directly onto an animal for a given number of seconds. The result was anything longer than 2 seconds resulted in PERMANENT DAMAGE to the snake and DEATH if sprayed longer than 3 seconds!

Look at Table 1!!!!!!

Another thing to mention is that they did NOT test any python species.

On the plus side, the "research" they did indicated (although it did not prove) that there was no "noticeable" neurological damage if the container is sprayed (6 sec) and then allowed to ventilate for 5 minutes before introducing the animal.

The moral of the story is be careful with this stuff...it APPEARS to be safe if used properly, but do NOT spray it directly onto any animal!

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=CR76&S1=3,944,662.UREF.&OS=ref/3,944,662&RS=REF/3,944,662

or

http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06121318&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fn ph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1 %2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DCR7 6%2526S1%3D3,944,662.UREF.%2526OS%3Dref%2F3,944,66 2%2526RS%3DREF%2F3,944,662&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=3AAEB85E2D0B

[Hennek]

It appeared that it was ok (no noticeable effects), but they didn't specify how much spray was on the cloth.

The thing I dislike is the method they used to determine neurological damage. I'll assume that the observers were vetrinarians, but that still is a VERY qualititative test...not very scientific.

[rcrowley]

The claim that the Provent-a-mite caused fatality in the animals is incorrect. I read the report and the section "U.S. Pat. No. 3,370,571 (Feb. 27, 1968) discloses apparatus for spraying livestock to control flying insect pests. The apparatus operates to apply pesticides using an aqueous solution that evaporates or drains off quickly. Pesticides suited for application using the apparatus of the '571 patent may be fatal to reptiles, however, since aqueous solutions are absorbed through reptile skin and the vapors would likely be inhaled. This can result in various health problems, or death of the reptile." indicates that a non-reactive additive must be used instead of water based otherwise death occurs.

Provent is not reactive and stable which is what the patent is for. Many people use an over the counter treatment called Nix which uses water because it has the same basic ingredient as provent a mite. The patent is for the formulation with an inert that makes it safe.

Just clarifying ... There is no better product out on the market for treating infestations. I used it for many years as well as other animal rescuers with great results.

[Hennek]

Rich, I've read your post 5 times and still don't get your arguement.

"indicates that a non-reactive additive must be used instead of water based otherwise death occurs. "
Huh? Nix is a water based permethrin solution and death does not occur.

If what you are trying to say is that permethrin isn't absorbed through the skin, I completely agree with you...but when inhaled it is harmful. They also haven't proven that it can't be absorbed through the stomach or mouth (i.e. the result of tounge flicking).

Yes, they cite patent "571", but I went back and read patent "571" and don't see why it was cited. It doesn't use permethrin, it doesn't use the same dispensing apparatus as provent-a-mite, which doesn't use an aqueous solution, and NOWHERE in the patent is the word reptile even MENTIONED. The ONLY reason patent #571 is mentioned is to show how their invention differs from it (so they aren't proposing something that has already been patented).

"Provent is not reactive and stable which is what the patent is for."
1. Stability isn't the question here. A compound can be very stable yet still deadly.
2. Permethin is not an exceptionally stable compound for two reasons. Firstly it is an electron deficient ester, which are prone to hydrolysis. Secondly it has a cyclopropyl ring in it's structure, which are also reactive due to the large ring strain.

I don't doubt for an instance that Provent-A-Mite kills mites, but what scares me is that no testing has been done on the effects of oral injestion of permethrin. Since permethrin has such a low volitility, it's going to stay on the bedding indefinitely until washed off. How is it affecting the snakes when injested either when the snake is fed (rubbing onto the feeder animal) or even when the snake tounge flicks?

What also scares me is that people may either spray it directly onto the animal or put the animal back into it's enclosure without allowing all the vapours to disappate. Either of these actions can cause harm as shown by the testing done for the patent.

[rcrowley]

After reading what I wrote, I realized it was a bit confusing. My point was simply pointing out that I read the patent to state that the active ingredient is deadly when in an aqueous solution. The product uses the active ingredient with a non-aqueous solution that reduces the risk. I agree the active ingredient has inherit risk associated with its properties. It is a poison after all no matter how you look at it. I was just trying to point out (poorly on my part) that the risks are minimal and though the risks increase if you do not follow the instructions, the product is much safer and effective than other options at this time.

To be honest, I hate using any chemical around my critters. This includes pest strips, cleaning solutions, etc, but sometimes you have to. I currently use Quatricide and dilute bleach regularly and even that makes me nervous.

Thanks for the debate! I needed the mental excercise after this week of financial B.S.

[Hennek]

Hmm...honestly Rich I think you may have read the patent wrong. I say this as with most chemicals, with absorption through the skin, it is usually irrevalent whether they are in aqueus solutions or not (the one big exception being if the chemical was in dimethylsulfoxide...aka liquid needles). Another reason is that Nix is an aqueus solution of permethrin. I think the two main issues with Provent-a-mite (permethrin) is that it all depends on mode of entry as well as the "innertness" of the innert chemicals. The fact is, the propellant used in P.A.M., when inhaled, may be the culprit here. I know that HFC's (hydrofluorocarbons) are quite stable and commonly used in things like keyboard cleaners (the air in a can stuff), but can cause brain damage if abused.

I totally agree with you on the whole nervous with chemicals around your animals thing. I work in a chemistry research lab day in day out, reading hundreds of MSDS's, and I think I'll probably get cancer by the age of 40 with all the nasty chemicals I work with. I wouldn't worry about bleach though...as long as you let it completely dry it's not harmful.

Nothing better than a good debate with someone who doesn't turn it into a flaming pissing match. Take care.