Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Mothballs deserve respect
Labeling, while deficient, offers hints to risks.
A+ A- Text Size

Labeling, while deficient, offers hints to risks.

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: March 29, 2010

Enlarge
Labels offer clues, but...
Packaging labels on mothballs are helpful in determining safe use, despite some potentially serious omissions, researcher finds.
M. Bernstein, ACS

SAN FRANCISCO I don’t use mothballs — except sometimes to sprinkle down the burrows of animals excavating tunnels beneath the deck floor of my pergola. It’s the most effective stop-work order for wildlife that I’ve found. But I won’t use these stinky crystals inside my home because they scare me. And those fears appear justified, according to Linda Hall of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

At the American Chemical Society spring national meeting, here, last week, she spoke about why moth crystals deserve more respect than they seem to get. And if we get sick using them — as some people do — it may be partly our own fault for not following labeled instructions.

The active ingredient in many, para-dichlorobenzene, can poison the liver, skin, and central nervous system — and is a “possible human carcinogen,” according to the U.S. EPA. But product labels don’t say that, Hall pointed out. They merely instruct consumers to use the moth repellent in an airtight container and to air out treated fabrics.

Yet most people I know (including older family members) have no problem sprinkling these crystals in a far-from-airtight closet or a zippered bag stored in the basement. If you can catch a whiff of their sweet scent, the container isn’t airtight.

Most mothball labels also contain a cryptic warning: Avoid contact with skin — and wash any contaminated clothing. Huh? I thought the whole idea of using mothballs was to have their vapors permeate clothing — especially hard-to-wash wools — so that they won’t be attacked by voracious moth larvae.

Clearly, Hall says, the labeling tends to be vague and somewhat schizoid (my paraphrasing). Then again, what’s on the labels may not matter much, she notes, because in her anecdotal experience people are so comfortable using the chemical that they seldom bother reading the fine print on product packaging.

In California, doctors must report when people are sickened by the pesticide. The state database contains 16 instances of known or suspected poisonings. Which doesn’t sound like much, except that “you have to report to a doctor to get into this database,” Hall points out, so “illnesses may be underreported.” Moreover, she says that the system isn’t designed to capture people who may have been sickened by long-term chronic exposure.

And she knows of no comparable national database to tally para-dichlorobenzene poisonings outside California.

At the meeting, Hall noted that sales in her state of moth crystals containing para-dichlorobenzene run around 600,000 pounds per year, of which 99+ percent are purchased for home use. This means they’re applied by people who must rely on the labels for guidance on safe use.

Yet the labels are deficient. They give minimum-effective-use information, but no safe maximums. For agricultural pesticides, safe upper limits are mandatory, Hall noted. That’s one reason a new rule that mothballs do the same “is under consideration right now by our department,” she said.

Labels also don’t explain how long treated fabrics must be aired out to reduce contamination to safe levels. Cal EPA is conducting tests to quantify such airing-out times, she noted. It’s also measuring “exposures that might come from [treated] closets.” Currently, Hall reported, para-dichlorobenzene is sold in some sachets or embedded in padded hangers — products people would likely use openly in closets. Her agency will also be calculating exposures that might occur when moth crystals are used according to label instructions.

Until such data are in, she recommends that people stick to using no more than the minimum effective amount: one pound per 50 cubic feet. She also recommends only using these products in tightly sealed containers and airing treated goods in well-ventilated areas — outdoors, when possible.

 At the meeting, I asked Hall if any records were kept on pet poisonings. She knew of none. I then mentioned how I came to foreswear para-dichlorobenzene. It was shortly after I had moved to Washington with three cats in tow. One day I heard Phoebe, the shy one, wailing. She was staggering and bumping into walls in a disoriented fashion. When I picked her up, she positively reeked of moth crystals.

The only place I used them was in the basement, inside a self-standing garment box the movers had used. The next day, while scooping the litter, I found her perched atop that garment box.

Out it — and moth crystals — went. Several months later, Phoebe began to waste away and nothing the vet did stalled the process. I mentioned the moth crystals and the vet agreed it was a suspicious — albeit tenuous — link. In short order, Phoebe was dead. And moth crystals never again entered my home.

Hall acknowledges that it sounded like Phoebe had suffered acute intoxication from the moth repellent. In fact, she noted reports of similar neurological symptoms in French teens. They had difficulty walking and riding after using the sweet scented crystals as a source of an inexpensive high.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Hall, L.M. 2010. Instructions on Household Pesticide Labels: Comparison with Agricultural Pesticide Labels. San Francisco: American Chemical Society spring national meeting. Division of Agrochemicals, Abst. 112(March 22).

Yoshida, T., K. Andoh, and M. Fukuhara. 2002. Urinary 2,5-dichlorophenol as Biological Index for p-Dichlorobenzene Exposure in the General Population. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 43(Nov. 1). doi:10.1007/s00244-002-1228-x

Rumchev, K., et al. 2004. Association of Domestic Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds with Asthma in Young Children. Thorax 59:746. doi:10.1136/thx.2003.013680

Comments (3)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • When I was learning undergraduate organic chemistry (Morrison & Boyd) one of the things we learned early on was that halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons were chemically active and dangerous to organisms. I was house sitting at the time and in a place that had moth balls prominently placed in the closets. It seemed to me that paradichlorobenzene fit exactly into the description and - even though they were a consumer prouct - I never used them again.
    Daniel O'Donnell Daniel O'Donnell
    Mar. 29, 2010 at 8:54pm
  • Paradichlorobenzene has crept into many products we meet on close circumstances every day.

    It is not only a fumigant for insects and rodents but it controls black molds and wet biofilms too. In fact its wet-biofilm application is arguably more pervasive than its use in pest control today.

    Prowl any supermarket and note the shelf space given to "freshener crystals" or "mothballs". You may find three or four stocking positions, seldom more than two linear feet of shelf space largely given to obscure brands. Then look for wet-surface deodorizers, leave-in-place cleansers. You'll often find an entire module, some twenty linear feet of shelving with numerous high-profile brand names.

    How many Americans can remember having a thing like a bar of soap clipped inside the family toilet tank or bowl? Can you be an American male without knowing what a urinal cake smells like? Stop and think about how a well-kept public restroom smells -- is there a bleachy, almost vanilla note in the mix? It's all paradichlorobenzene, and we've so come to think of it as "clean" and "sweet" that many goods contain a trace strictly as a perfume!

    As for how long it would take to "air out" materials exposed to paradicholorbenzene, I offer this anecdote:

    Twenty years ago a family friend gave me a liquor box packed full of vintage National Geographics. They had been stored for perhaps twenty years in an attic where paradichlorobenzene had been present, had never come in direct contact with the substance but smelled heavily of it. Last year, realizing that I had no use for them and yet not wanting to simply toss them in the recycle, I took them to a local bookstore that buys vintage magazines. They took one whiff and refused; even nineteen years after exposure, every page of those magazines reeked of paradichlorobenzene. I took them home and tried airing them out in my attached garage; but even four months later, hung on wires in midair, they still stank from cover to cover. So I boxed them up again so they wouldn't stink so much.

    My personal suspicion is that tumbling an exposed item in a clothes dryer set at 'High' for an hour will remove more dichlorobenzene than any amount of "airing out" at room temperature. I should give it a try with a National Geographic sometime....
    John Turner John Turner
    Mar. 30, 2010 at 12:44pm
  • The research done by the author is appreciated but if the product is found to be too toxic for her to use indoors she might consider being less willing to use it outside where it may contaminate the environment as well. Whatever she is trying to kill outside is likely eaten by other non invasive species and it would be unfortunate to affect the larger food chain as well.
    Charlie Ranger Charlie Ranger
    Apr. 3, 2010 at 1:13pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us