Impact of sporicidal fumigation with methyl bromide or methyl iodide on electronic equipment

Abstract

The effect of sporicidal fumigation with methyl bromide or methyl iodide on the functionality of valuable electronic equipment was evaluated using desktop computers as surrogates under target conditions of 200-250 mg/L fumigant for 48 h at 24-30 °C and 75-85% RH. Methyl iodide fumigation damaged light-emitting diodes and optical films in computer displays that were powered-on during fumigation. After five months of post-fumigation operation, five out of six methyl-bromide-fumigated and all six methyl-iodide-fumigated DVD ± RW optical drives failed. Deterioration of rubber spacers critical to maintaining correct disc geometry caused the failure. Metal coupons, included to measure corrosion, showed no significant differences in weight gain between control and fumigation conditions. Relative humidity sensors exhibited a substantial and some-times irreversible reduction in sensitivity during and after methyl iodide fumigation. Methyl bromide and methyl iodide can cause damage to electronic equipment, but damage seems to be limited to organic materials rather than corrosion of metal surfaces.

Ethyl Formate as a New Sanitary Treatment for Disinfesting the Hitchhiking Insect Pest Halyomorpha halys on Imported Nonfood Agricultural Machinery

“…In addition to this damage, MI fumigation resulted in further damage on LCD displays [33]. Based on these results, MB fumigation, rather than MI fumigation, was suggested to control fungal contamination on electronics [33]. Compared with the results of that study, our results demonstrated that EF is a suitable fumigant to control insect infestation on imported agricultural machinery, causing small amounts of damage to machine running.…”

“…These two fumigants did not coretal surface of the electronics, but they caused severe damage to rubber mateelectronics. In addition to this damage, MI fumigation resulted in further dam-D displays [33]. Based on these results, MB fumigation, rather than MI fumiga- 3 shows the measurement results of the electrical characteristics of the treated sample with a difference in the amount of fumigation from the sample before fumigation.…”

“…These two fumigants did not corrode the metal surface of the electronics, but they caused severe damage to rubber materials in the electronics. In addition to this damage, MI fumigation resulted in further damage on LCD displays [33]. Based on these results, MB fumigation, rather than MI fumigation, was suggested to control fungal contamination on electronics [33].…”

“…The measured value ed a decrease in battery performance according to the test. Therefore, after the test, the results of the solenoid operation test and no-load test of the motor are be normal, and the effect of fumigation on the basic performance of the motor stingly, a study reported that MB and methyl iodide (MI) exhibit sporicidal acelectronic equipment during fumigation [33]. These two fumigants did not coretal surface of the electronics, but they caused severe damage to rubber mateelectronics.…”

“…According to the test, the normal conditions were satisfied (Table 3). Interestingly, a study reported that MB and methyl iodide (MI) exhibit sporicidal activities on electronic equipment during fumigation [33]. These two fumigants did not corrode the metal surface of the electronics, but they caused severe damage to rubber materials Appl.…”