Transcript Permethrin Treated Uniforms: Past, Present and Future

U.S. Army Permethrin Treated
Uniforms:
Past, Present and Future
The Search for Protection
• Man’s search for ways to protect himself from
biting arthropods goes back thousands of years.
• The use of topical applications made of things
such as oils, grease, and plant extracts were
used by various cultures.
• Smoke from burning various plants and dung
also provided protection against biting
arthropods.
• While these methods provided some relief, the
search for a better means to protect oneself
against biting arthropods continued.
The Search for Protection
• It was found that certain plants found in certain
regions provided better protection.
• As trade routes opened up the movement of
local repellents moved with traders and
travelers.
• Pyrethrum powders have been used by armies
since Napoleon to combat body and head lice.
• Certain fabric’s were also found to be more
repellent than others.
• The search for new and better repellents
continues still today.
Skin vs. Clothing Repellents
• Skin Repellents
– Variety of types (lotions, sprays) and forms (DEET,
piperidine, and others).
– Applied to the skin they often feel oily, smell and
require frequent reapplication.
• Clothing repellents
– Permethrin is only product labeled for clothing
application.
– Applied directly to clothing it binds to the fabric;
resistance to weathering and washing.
– Little to no odor from permethrin.
Pyrethrum
Pyrethrins
Pyrethroids
Permethrin
Pyrethrum
• Pryethrum is a natural or biotanical insecticide
that is found in the flowers of certain
chrysanthemums.
• It is a highly effective insecticide but is relatively
harmless to mammals.
• The insecticidal component is found in tiny oilcontaining glands on the surface of the seed
case in the flower head.
• Pyrthrum contains pyrethrin I and pyrethrin II
collectively called pyrethrin.
Pyrethrins
• Natural insecticides extracted from the
flowers of chrysanthemum.
• Causes paralysis in insects, but unless
formulated with a synergist does not have
long lasting effects.
• One of the least poisonous insecticides to
mammals.
• Unstable in light or air, rapidly degrading in
sunlight.
Pyrethroids
• Synthetic (human made) forms of
pyrethrins.
• More stable in light and higher insecticidal
activity.
• Inhibit the nervous system of insects.
Permethrin
• A synthetic pyrethroid that repels as well as
knocksdown and kills insects.
• Identified in the 1970’s as a potential clothing
repellent due to its rapid action, resistance to
washing, durability, lack of odor, and safety.
• Permethrin is the only chemical labeled by the
EPA for use on clothing in the United States.
• Odor associated with permethrin is due to the
carrier and not permethrin which is odorless.
Clothing Repellent History
•
•
•
•
1942
– First formal Cooperative agreement between the Army and USDA to develop repellents
against arthropods.
– A large number of chemicals were tested to identify new and better repellents.
1944-1950
– Dimethry phthalate, Rutgers 612 (2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol), Indalone, and the mixture 6-2-2
(60% Dimethyl phthalate; 20% indalone; and 20% Rutgers 612) were used by various
military groups.
– Dimethyl phthalate when applied to clothing prevented chigger attachments. It became
ineffective after a single rinsing in cool water.
– Benzyl benzoate was adopted by the Army as the standard material for treating uniforms. It
was shown to be effective through at least 2 soap and water washings.
– Testing was done on uniform fabric’s to determine fabric resistance to mosquitoes.
1951
– M-1960 (30% each of 2-butyl-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol, N-butylacetanilide, and benzyl
benzoate, and 10% TWEEN 80) adopted as the standard clothing repellent.
– Clothing treated with M1960 proved 100% effective against chiggers, 90% effective against
mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas through more than a week of wear or until washed.
– Retreatment after each washing was necessary to provide good protection against fleas,
ticks and mosquitoes.
1952– USDA and DoD continue to pursue new repellents with greater efficacy and duration of
protection.
Clothing Repellent History
•
•
•
•
•
1978
– Schreck et al study on the “Durability of Permethrin as a Potential clothing Treatment to
Protect Against Blood-feeding Arthropods” found that permethrin applied at a concentration
of 0.125 mg/cm2 caused 100% mortality in arthropods that came in contact with it within 15
minutes.
1982
– Armed Forces Pest Management Board recommends the use of permethrin as a military
clothing treatment to replace M-1960.
1987
– Development of Joint Service Requirements Document (JSOR) for an arthropod repellent
system approved by TRADOC.
– Health Hazard Assessment Report completed by the AEHA (CHPPM) and reviewed by
AFPMB staff identified factory treatment as optimum time for permethrin treatment.
1990
– Arthropod repellent system fielded by USAMMDA. Package included EPA registration for
IDA, 2-gallon sprayer, and factory pad roll permethrin clothing impregnation methods for
BDUs.
1991
– EPA registration granted for 3 methods: pad roll (factory), IDA kit, and 2-gallon sprayer.
– USAF/USN/USMC concur for treatment of BDU uniform family.
– Desert Shield/Storm shifts focus to just the Desert BDU.
Clothing Repellent History
•
1992
–
–
–
•
1994
–
–
–
•
Media stories link permethrin treated BDUs as potential cause of Gulf War Syndrome.
COT study released and support factory impregnation of BDUs.
DLA delayed implementation pending the conduct of an environmental assessment (EA) to
determine health risk to garment workers.
1996
–
–
–
•
OTSG Army commissions the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Toxicology
(COT) to review health risks associated with wear of factory treated uniforms.
16th Army Clothing and Equipment Board (ACEB) recommended, and the Chief of Staff of the
Army (CSA) approved, factory impregnation of DCUs but no contract was implemented.
Decision on factory treatment of BDUs was deferred pending results of the COT study.
Based on EA report, DLA decides not to impregnate BDU uniform fabric at factory due to
concerns of exposure of garment works to permethrin.
DLA recommends treating only contingency uniforms; AFPMB concurs with recommendation.
AFPMB recommends that DLA procure permethrin treated contingency uniforms (hot
weather BDUs and Desert BDUs).
1997
–
–
Immersion and metered addition factory permethrin treatment methods evaluated for the
treatment of BDUs. The metered addition method was found to be cost effective and
practical for the permethrin treatment of mass quantities of BDUs.
Initiated garment label modification and application for EPA amended registration.
Clothing Repellent History
•
•
•
•
•
1998
– AFPMB has factory treatment label amended by EPA to treat already manufactured BDUs.
– DLA assigns NSN for treated DCUs and BDUs in preparation for stocking both treated and
untreated uniforms.
– Operational testing and user evaluations at Ft. Polk, LA confirms effectiveness and user
acceptance of factory treated uniforms (completed in 1999).
1999
– The cost of factory treatment of BDUs is POM’d and approved for implementation in 2004.
2001
– All U.S. Military Academy (USMA) Cadets use either IDA Kits or Aerosol to treat BDUs.
USMA unable to execute a contract fast enough to factory treat BDUs.
2002
– Contract for factory treatment of uniforms is executed and all USMA cadets issued factory
treated uniforms.
2003/4
– Money POM’d for factory treatment of BDUs is cancelled due to fielding of new Advanced
Combat Uniform (ACU).
– Process returns back to determining if ACU can be treated with permethrin.
– Another Commercial Civilian Permethrin Factory Treatment Method approved by EPA:
Civilian pants, shirts – line of treated children’s clothing
– User Evaluation of Factory treated permethrin ACU conducted at JRTC by 1st and 3rd BCT,
101AA, Ft. Campbell.
Clothing Repellent History
•
•
2005
– ACU replaces BDU as field uniform.
– Marines implement a contract to factory treat the MCCUU uniform.
– Army Test and Evaluation Command (AETC) publishes Capabilities and Limitations Report
on Permethrin Treated Battle Dress Uniforms. March 05
– PEO Soldier express concerns that the existing safety documentation does not adequately
address that permethrin treated uniforms are safe for:
• Long term wear (assuming 20 years daily wear)
• For pregnant and nursing mothers
• Pose no hazard to anyone else when they are washed with other clothing.
– TSG provided an updated assessment on Safety of Permethrin Treated Uniforms. (21June
05)
– EPA publishes report on Permethrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. (19 July
05)
– PEO Soldier develops testing methods and standards for evaluating the effectiveness of
treated uniforms.
– Vice Chief of Staff Army (VCSA) Memo indicates that once PEO Soldier testing and
validation methods are developed and documented, then DLA will modify the ACU contract to
add permethrin treatment. (19 Sep 05)
2007
– Fire retardant ACU (FRACU) are developed in response to Operational Needs Statement
from CENTCOM.
– FRACU are not tested for ability to be treated with permethrin prior to fielding.
Current
•
2008
– FRACU are fielded as deployment uniform.
– PEO Soldier determines that FRACU cannot be treated by 2-gallon sprayer, IDA kit, or
aerosol can due to inadequate binding of permethrin to fabric and bite protection not meeting
requirements.
– Permethrin application determined NOT to affect fire retardant qualities of FRACU fabric.
– TRADOC changes the Soldier as a System core Soldier Capabilities Production Document
(CPD) to add factory permethrin treatment for field uniforms.
– TSG issues memorandum on the Safety of Permethrin Treated Uniforms.
– DA G4 releases FOUO instructing that service members are not to treat FRACU with IDA
kits, 2 gallon sprayers, or aerosol cans due to uneven absorption to by the FRACUs.
– PEO Soldier is evaluating factory treatment of FRACU.
– Currently there is no approved method to treat FRACU or other NOMEX type uniforms with
permethrin.
– Based on testing of factory treated FRACU it was determined that the uniforms could be
treated to the 0.125 mg/cm2 application rate; however, the bite protection was below the
initial requirement of 96% and well below the 90% at 50 launderings. After discussions it
was agreed to recommend to TRADOC that 80% bite protection at 50 laundering be
accepted as the threshold for the FRACU. PEO Soldier is continuing to evaluate other
FRACU fabric for treatment and bite efficacy but this will allow movement forward in treating
FRACU for deploying forces.
Current
• 2008 con’t:
– Based on previous testing of factory treated FRACU, the bite protection
did not improve above ~75%. After input from FORSCOM, AMEDD,
and TRADOC recommendation made to lower threshold to 70% in order
to move effort forward.
– Army Uniform Board (AUB) meet 15 Dec 2008 with the factory
treatment of uniforms as a agenda item. The AUB voted to implement
the factory treatment of FRACU by 2010 and ACU by 2012.
– DA approved the recommendation to lower the bite protection threshold
to 70% for the FRACU.
– PEO Soldier conducting quality assurance (QA) evaluation of
companies seeking to factory treat FRACU with permethrin (FRACU-P).
Once QA is completed the next step is for a contract to be released for
bid and companies to be awarded the contract. Projected issue of
FRACU-P is 2nd/3rd QTR FY 2010.
– Uniform permethrin treatment matrix is now available at
http://www.afpmb.org/coweb/ppm.htm This chart will tell you what
uniforms can be treated or not treated by the various methods.
Questions?
If you have questions please contact the
AFPMB by using the “contact us” link on
our home page or call 301-295-8312.