The repeated use of biocidal products, including household insecticides and disinfectants, has led people to seek safer alternatives, such as light traps, ultrasound generators, or repellent lamps. By appearances, these physical/non-chemical alternatives seem appealing to many consumers and are gaining more attention. However, unlike biocidal products, these alternatives are not subject to mandatory approval and registration processes, and no standards for efficacy and safety are in place. Given the increasing numbers of insect traps on the market, there is an urgent need to investigate their efficacy. In the present study, we examined the attraction activity of ten commercially available insect trap products. They varied in size, structure, trapping methods (fan or sticky pad), and attractants. Their efficacies were assessed under both laboratory condition (1.8m x 1.8m x 1.8m) and semi-field room condition (4m x 6m x 2m). Ul*****APTM demonstrated the highest capture rate (%), leading us to further study the role of its attractant. Notably, the capture rate increased by 28.9% when the CO2 attractant was used, displaying statistical differences (P = 0.032). For practical application in the field, consumer acceptance and satisfaction were monitored using 20 participants. The potential of insect traps as viable alternatives to biocidal products is discussed.

• Min Geun Son(Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul University, Seoul 08826, South Korea) Corresponding author
• Jun-Hyung Tak(Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul University, Seoul 08826, South Korea, Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Science, Seoul National University)