Evaluation of Low-Energy Microwaves Technology (Termatrac) for Detecting Western Drywood Termite in a Simulated Drywall System

Abstract

Detecting drywood termites in structures is very challenging. Microwaves technology (Termatrac T3i) is a nondestructive method for detecting drywood termites in structures. Termatrac device and its mobile application provide a bar as well as a line graph when detecting insect movements, but interpreting these graphs is very subjective. In this paper, Termatrac's output signal is quantified using a new method to study the effect of wall layers, wood type, and termite density on signal strength measured as area under curve in a simulated drywall system in laboratory. Two experiments were conducted on Termatrac T3i at its maximum sensitivity (Gain: 10). In experiment I, HEXBUG Nano was used as a source of movement/vibration and two wood types were used in which the wall layers significantly predicted signal strength, but wood type did not. In experiment II, two different densities of live western drywood termites, Incisitermes minor (Hagen) (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae), were used to study the effect of termite density on signal strength. Interestingly, termite density did not significantly predict signal strength. The maximum reliable wood depth for detecting termites was 5 cm. Microwaves produced by Termatrac also showed good penetration into drywall and produced detectable signals even on a single drywood termite which confirms manufacturer's claim. Suggestions on using and improving microwaves technology for detecting termites is provided which can potentially be applied to other types of insects and noninsect animals.

Heat Technology Aiming to Mitigate Structural Heat Sinks for Drywood Termite (Blattodea: Kalotermitidae) Management

“…Taravati (2018) [26] has reported some limitations with Termatrac that may cause false-negative inspection results (i.e., detection of nontermite objects, movement by the person holding the device, reduced sensitivity with an increasing depth of the building materials, and termite inactivity during an inspection). In this study, in addition to inspection with Termatrac, the treatment zone was also thoroughly visually inspected for drywood termite frass (fecal pellets) and "kick-out holes.…”

“…Careful observations of fluctuations in the output signal were conducted. All factors that may generate false-positive results on Termatrac were considered following Taravati (2018) [26]. Heat treatments were subsequently conducted only in those parts of the condominium units (e.g., kitchens) with apparent termite activity.…”

An In-Situ Assessment of Wood-in-Service Using Microwave Technologies, with a Focus on Assessing Hardwood Power Poles

“…It is a radar based system, which responds to movement [ 12 ]. The maximum reliable wood depth for detecting termites was 5 cm [ 13 ], which is limiting for evaluation of larger wooden structures, such as power poles. Evaluation of the Termatrac ® system revealed that operator skill was critical in establishing its efficacy in termite detection.…”

The Status of Damage and Monitoring of Subterranean Termite (Reticulitermes spp.) (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) for Wooden Cultural Heritage in Korea

“…(Su and Scheffrahn 1988, Grace et al 1989, Su et al 1993 (Buchli, 1956;Shimizu, 1970;Su, 1991 (Erhorn, 1934;Greaves, 1962;King, 1969 (Su, 1988(Su, , 1993Thorne et al, 1996;Tsunoda et al, 1998Tsunoda et al, , 1999 Sattar et. al., 2007 (Barway et al, 2015;Taravati, 2018 (Fujii, 1975;Su et al, 1983Su et al, , 1988Grace et al, 1989;Grace and Abdallay, 1990;Forschler, 1994;Thorne et al, 1996;Evans, 2000;Atkinson, 2000Atkinson, , 2004aAtkinson, , 2004bNobre et al, 2007 (Su, 1988(Su, , 1993Forschler and Townsend, 1996;Thorne et al, 1996;Tsunoda et al, 1998Tsunoda et al, , 1999Evans et al, 1999;Messenger et al, 2005 (Su, 1988(Su, , 1993Forschler and Townsend, 1996;Thorne et al, 1996;Tsunoda et al, 1998Tsunoda et al, , 1999…”

“…하지만 측정 당시 해당 장치에 대한 측정 간격 및 방법 등 측정 조건이 결과보고서에 기재되어 있지 않아 기관별 측정 자료 결과에 대한 표준화가 어려울 것으로 판단되어 이에 대한 측정 당시 기준들을 보고서에 명시해야 할 것으로 사료된다. 또한 해당 2세대 모델의 건 재흰개미 탐지 최대 깊이에 관한 기준 연구는 3.5∼5.0 cm 범위로 수행되었으나(Lewis et al, 1998;Taravati, 2018) 상 대적으로 건재흰개미보다 함수율이 높은 목재를 가해하 는 지중 흰개미 가해 환경에 따른 수종별 최대 탐지 깊이 및 범위 연구가 진행되지 않은 실정이다.…”