Hubbry Logo
MothballMothballMain
Open search
Mothball
Community hub
Mothball
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mothball
Mothball
Mothball
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mothballs
A packet of mothballs

Mothballs[1] are small balls of chemical pesticide and deodorant, sometimes used when storing clothing and other materials susceptible to damage from silverfish, mold or moth larvae (especially clothes moths like Tineola bisselliella).

Composition

[edit]

Older mothballs consisted primarily of naphthalene, but due to naphthalene's flammability, many modern mothball formulations instead use 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The latter formulation may be somewhat less flammable, although both chemicals have the same NFPA 704 rating for flammability. The latter chemical is also variously labeled as para-dichlorobenzene, p-dichlorobenzene, pDCB, or PDB, making it harder to identify unless all these names and initialisms are known to a potential purchaser. Both of these formulations have the strong, pungent, sickly-sweet odor often associated with mothballs. Both naphthalene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene undergo sublimation, meaning that they transition from a solid state directly into a gas; this gas is toxic to moths and moth larvae.[2]

Due to the health risks of 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and flammability of naphthalene, other substances like camphor are sometimes used.

Uses

[edit]

Mothballs are stored in air-tight bags made of a non-reactive plastic such as polyethylene or polypropylene (other plastics may be degraded or softened). The clothing to be protected should be sealed within airtight containers; otherwise the vapors will tend to escape into the surrounding environment.[2] Manufacturer's instructions regularly warn against using mothballs for any purpose other than those specified by the packaging, as such uses are not only harmful and noxious, they are also frequently considered illegal.[3][2]

Although occasionally used as snake repellent, mothball use as a rodent, squirrel, or bat repellent is illegal in many areas, and tends to cause more annoyance and hazard to humans than to the target pest.[4][2] However, mothballs continue to be advertised as squirrel repellent and are an ingredient in some commercial vermin and snake repellent products.

Health risks

[edit]

The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that 1,4-dichlorobenzene "may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen". This has been indicated by animal studies, although a full-scale human study has not been done.[5] The National Toxicology Program (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the state of California consider 1,4-dichlorobenzene a carcinogen.[6]

Exposure to naphthalene mothballs can cause acute hemolysis (anemia) in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.[1] IARC classifies naphthalene as possibly carcinogenic to humans and other animals (see also Group 2B).[7] IARC points out that acute exposure causes cataracts in humans, rats, rabbits, and mice. Chronic exposure to naphthalene vapors is reported to also cause cataracts and retinal hemorrhage.[8] Under California's Proposition 65, naphthalene is listed as "known to the State to cause cancer".[9]

Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder revealed a probable mechanism for the carcinogenic effects of mothballs and some types of air fresheners.[10][11]

In addition to their cancer risks, mothballs are known to cause liver and kidney damage.[2]

1,4-Dichlorobenzene is a neurotoxin. It has been abused as an inhalant, causing a variety of neurotoxic effects.[12][13]

Mothballs containing naphthalene have been banned within the EU since 2008.[14][15]

Alternatives

[edit]

As discussed in more detail at Tineola bisselliella, alternatives to mothballs to control clothes moths include dry cleaning, freezing, thorough vacuuming, and washing in hot water.[16] Camphor is also used as a moth repellent, particularly in China.[17] Unlike naphthalene and dichlorobenzene, camphor has medicinal applications and is not regarded as a carcinogen, though it is toxic in large doses. Red cedar wood and oil is also used as an alternative moth repellent.[18]

Pheromone traps are also an effective diagnostic tool and can sometimes be an effective control tool to protect valuable clothing.

[edit]

As a verb, "mothball" has a metaphorical usage, meaning "to stop work on an idea, plan, or job, but leaving it in such a way that work can continue in the future".[19] "Mothballed" is a common adjective to describe ships and aircraft stored for long periods, but not sent for scrapping.

The origins of this use of "mothballed" may have been reports that the ocean liner SS Normandie was "packed in mothballs" when in September 1939 it was 'interned' by the U.S. Government in New York.[dubious – discuss] The papers reported a month later that "fourteen huge barrels of mothballs had been used to preserve carpets, draperies, and upholstery".[20] The ship was at the time expected to remain in New York for the duration of the war, but after the attack on Pearl Harbor, she was converted to a troop ship.

The U.S. Navy planned to store fighting ships in 1945, but keep them ready for rapid return to service. By 1946 these ships were referred to as being "mothballed". The process however did not mention mothballs, but rust preventative coating, sealing compartments, removing equipment, and covering topside equipment, as well as protecting the hull. Mothballed ships were expected to be able to resume active service in just 10 days.[21] United States Navy reserve fleets are still informally referred to as the 'mothball fleet'.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mothball

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A mothball is a small, spherical solid formulation of pesticide chemicals, primarily naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene, designed to repel and kill clothes moths (Tineola bisselliella) and other fabric-damaging insects in stored textiles by sublimating into toxic vapors that disrupt insect respiration and metabolism. These products, registered as insecticides by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, must be used in airtight containers to concentrate the fumigant gases effectively while minimizing human exposure. Though effective against target pests when applied correctly, mothballs pose significant health risks, including hemolytic anemia from naphthalene ingestion—particularly in individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency—and potential carcinogenicity, prompting warnings against misuse such as outdoor application or as general repellents for wildlife. Paradichlorobenzene variants, while less acutely toxic, can still cause gastrointestinal distress, liver damage, and respiratory irritation upon prolonged exposure. Historical formulations occasionally included camphor, but modern commercial products predominantly feature the two synthetic compounds due to their stability and efficacy. Regulatory scrutiny has intensified over illegal naphthalene-based imports resembling candy, underscoring the need for proper labeling and restricted use to prevent accidental poisoning, especially in children and pets.

History

Origins and Early Formulations

, the primary active ingredient in early mothball formulations, was first isolated in 1819 by Scottish chemist through distillation of , yielding a white crystalline solid with a pungent odor. This compound, derived from the and crystallization of byproducts, represented a shift from traditional natural repellents toward chemical methods. Prior to 's widespread adoption, clothes moths () were deterred through non-chemical practices such as regular airing of garments, exposure to sunlight, and storage alongside aromatic materials like cedar wood shavings or herbal sachets containing lavender and , which emitted volatile oils disruptive to moth behavior. By the mid-19th century, naphthalene's repellent properties against insects, including clothes moths, were documented, with applications noted as early as 1850 for fumigation and storage protection. Early formulations consisted of purified naphthalene compressed or molded into small, spherical balls or cakes, designed to sublime slowly at room temperature and release vapors that interfere with moth respiration and reproduction. These balls were placed in sealed closets or storage chests, exploiting naphthalene's volatility to create a localized toxic environment without direct contact. Production standardized around 1821 through methods refined by chemist John Kidd, enabling scalable manufacturing from coal tar sources abundant during the Industrial Revolution. Although —a natural extracted from Cinnamomum camphora trees—had been formed into similar repellent balls in the early 1900s, supplanted it due to greater availability and efficacy against larval stages of clothes moths. These initial naphthalene-based products marked the foundational era of mothballs, predating regulatory registration as pesticides in the United States in 1948, after which commercial production expanded amid growing textile storage needs.

Transition to Synthetic Chemicals

The limitations of natural repellents, such as inconsistent efficacy and supply constraints from plant-derived sources like camphor laurel wood, prompted the development of synthetic alternatives in the early 20th century. Camphor, the primary ingredient in initial commercial mothballs around the 1900s, required labor-intensive extraction and was vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions in sourcing from Asia. Naphthalene, a crystalline obtained as a byproduct of during gas production, emerged as a viable synthetic substitute due to its scalability and ability to sublimate into insect-repellent vapors. Standardized for production by chemist John Kidd in 1821 through techniques, naphthalene's industrial output expanded with the growth of in the 19th and early 20th centuries, enabling cost-effective manufacturing. By the 1940s, it replaced as the dominant , leveraging its toxicity to moth larvae and adults via airborne diffusion while benefiting from abundant petrochemical precursors. This shift was formalized in 1948 when received pesticide registration from the , validating its use in commercial formulations after laboratory demonstrations of repellency against clothes moths (). The transition reduced reliance on variable natural yields, ensuring uniform product quality and broader availability for household textile protection. Further refinement came with paradichlorobenzene (1,4-dichlorobenzene), a synthetic chlorinated derivative synthesized via chlorination of , introduced in the early as a safer alternative amid concerns over 's flammability. Like , it sublimes at to release vapors lethal to moths, but its higher ignition point minimized fire risks in storage applications, accelerating adoption in consumer products. This evolution prioritized and efficacy over sourcing, establishing synthetics as the standard until later regulatory scrutiny on .

Post-War Commercialization and Standardization

Following World War II, mothball production scaled up amid postwar economic expansion and rising consumer demand for household pest control products. Naphthalene, the primary active ingredient in many early commercial mothballs, was formally registered as a pesticide by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1948, enabling regulated manufacturing and widespread distribution. This registration supported standardization of formulations for efficacy against clothes moths, with products typically molded into uniform spherical shapes for consistent sublimation. Brands like Enoz, which began producing moth preventives as early as , gained national prominence in the postwar era through advertising and retail availability. The Enoz Chemical Company of marketed naphthalene-based balls for use in storage chests and closets, appearing frequently in newspapers by the late . In 1954, the brand was sold to Rowell Laboratories, reflecting consolidation in the industry and further commercialization. Paradichlorobenzene emerged as a key alternative ingredient during this period, having been registered for pesticidal use in 1942, though its adoption in mothballs accelerated in the as manufacturers sought less odorous options. extended to packaging, with products sold in measured packets or boxes to guide proper dosing in enclosed spaces, minimizing exposure risks while ensuring pest-repellent vapor concentrations. By the mid-1950s, these developments had established mothballs as a staple in American households for seasonal clothing protection.

Chemical Properties

Active Ingredients

The primary active ingredients in commercial mothballs are naphthalene (C10H8) and paradichlorobenzene (also known as , C6H4Cl2), both of which are solid pesticides that sublimate at to release insect-repellent vapors. In the United States, mothball formulations registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consist of very high concentrations—typically over 99%—of either naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene, with minimal inert additives for shaping into balls or flakes. Naphthalene, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon derived from coal tar, was the original active ingredient in mothballs, patented for this use in the late 19th century and widely adopted by the early 20th century for its fumigant properties against clothes moths (Tineola bisselliella). However, its high flammability and potential for acute toxicity, including hemolytic anemia in susceptible individuals, prompted a shift toward paradichlorobenzene in many modern products, especially post-World War II. Paradichlorobenzene, a chlorinated benzene derivative synthesized from benzene and chlorine, sublimes more slowly than naphthalene and is less flammable, making it suitable for enclosed storage applications, though it shares similar neurotoxic risks with prolonged exposure. Less commonly, some mothball products incorporate (C10H16O), a natural extracted from camphor wood, but this formulation is rare in regulated U.S. markets due to lower and regulatory restrictions favoring the more potent synthetic alternatives. All these ingredients function as fumigants by disrupting respiration and nervous systems upon , but their use is strictly limited to airtight containers to prevent unintended environmental release. Products containing unlisted or alternative chemicals, such as ammonia-based substitutes, are illegal under EPA guidelines and lack verified repellent .

Physical and Sublimation Characteristics

Mothballs are manufactured as small, white, spherical or cylindrical solids, typically 10-20 mm in diameter, composed of either naphthalene (C₁₀H₈) or paradichlorobenzene (1,4-dichlorobenzene, C₆H₄Cl₂). Naphthalene forms colorless to white crystalline structures with a strong coal-tar odor, while paradichlorobenzene appears as white crystals exhibiting a pungent, aromatic mothball scent. Both compounds possess densities exceeding that of water—approximately 1.14 g/cm³ for naphthalene and 1.25 g/cm³ for paradichlorobenzene—resulting in insolubility in water and tendency to sink in aqueous media. The primary physical characteristic of mothballs is their ability to undergo sublimation at , transitioning directly from solid to gas phase without melting. sublimes slowly under ambient conditions (20-25°C), driven by a of 0.085 mm Hg at 25°C, with its at 80.2°C and at 217.9°C. Paradichlorobenzene similarly sublimes, albeit more readily due to a higher of about 1.7 mm Hg at 25°C, despite its lower of 53.5°C and of 174°C. This process causes mothballs to gradually diminish in mass and size when exposed to air, with the rate influenced by factors such as , , , and surface area exposure. In enclosed storage, a single mothball may persist for several months, releasing vapors continuously until fully volatilized.

Mechanism of Pest Repellence and Toxicity

Mothballs primarily contain or paradichlorobenzene, which exert their effects through sublimation, transitioning from solid to vapor at and releasing pesticidal gases in enclosed spaces. This vapor accumulation is essential for efficacy, as open-air exposure results in insufficient concentrations for lethality, shifting the action toward repellence via sensory irritation rather than direct toxicity. In airtight containers, the vapors reach levels toxic to clothes moths () and their larvae, targeting eggs and preventing fabric damage by keratinophilic insects. Naphthalene's toxicity to insects involves activation of cytochrome P450 enzymes in neuronal channels, leading to acute neural cell damage and disruption of nervous system function. This mechanism induces , particularly in vulnerable life stages like neonates, by depleting antioxidants such as , causing metabolic interference and death at high vapor concentrations. Paradichlorobenzene functions similarly as a fumigant, releasing vapors that interfere with respiration and activity, though specific enzymatic pathways are less documented compared to . At sublethal doses, both compounds repel moths through volatile emissions that act as olfactory deterrents, triggering avoidance behaviors in adult insects sensitive to these aromatic hydrocarbons. Efficacy depends on sustained , with sublimating faster under humid conditions, enhancing repellence but risking faster dissipation. While effective against moths, these chemicals show limited toxicity to non-target pests like or due to lower sensitivity.

Approved Uses

Fabric and Textile Protection

Mothballs are registered pesticides approved by the (EPA) for protecting clothing and other made from natural fibers, such as , , , and feathers, from damage by clothes moths () and carpet beetles. These pests primarily target keratin-rich materials, with larvae feeding on and creating holes in fabrics during storage. The approved application involves placing mothballs in sealed, airtight containers or enclosed storage spaces like drawers, closets, chests, or trunks to allow the sublimation of active ingredients—naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PD)—to generate concentrated vapors that kill adult moths, eggs, and larvae by interfering with their respiration and . Product labels specify usage rates, often around 1-3 balls per of space, depending on the , to ensure while minimizing exposure. Open-air use, such as scattering in attics or gardens, is illegal, ineffective due to vapor , and poses unnecessary risks. After storage, textiles must be aired out thoroughly—typically for several days in —to dissipate residual odors and chemicals before wearing or use, as PD and naphthalene can cling to fabrics and cause irritation or allergic reactions upon direct contact. Mothballs are intended for long-term or seasonal storage rather than active wardrobes, and combining with or freezing infested items enhances control. Regulatory oversight requires strict adherence to label directions, with violations treated as pesticide misuse under .

Limited Industrial and Storage Applications

Mothballs, formulated with or paradichlorobenzene, are approved for use in protecting stored natural fiber textiles from clothes moths () and related fabric pests in enclosed storage areas, extending to limited commercial contexts such as garment warehouses or self-storage units where items like woolens or furs are sealed in airtight containers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restricts their application to indoor, sealed environments—typically garment bags, chests, or boxes—to contain sublimating vapors and prevent unintended exposure, with typical dosages ranging from 0.25 to 0.37 pounds per 12 cubic feet of storage space. This confines industrial-scale deployment to scenarios mirroring household storage, such as temporary holding of seasonal apparel in textile processing facilities, where efficacy relies on vapor saturation without leakage. In archival and settings, mothballs have seen historical but now curtailed use for safeguarding animal-based textiles like rugs or costumes, with residues persisting in collections treated prior to the when alternatives gained favor. Regulatory labels prohibit broader industrial applications, such as open-air warehouses or in non-textile storage, due to risks of vapor dispersal leading to human , environmental , and off-label violations punishable by fines up to $10,000 per incident. Modern professional storage increasingly favors non-chemical methods like controlled freezing at -30°C for 72 hours or , rendering mothball use marginal in regulated industries.

Efficacy Evidence

Laboratory and Field Studies on Moth Control

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that paradichlorobenzene (PDB), a primary in modern mothballs, exhibits fumigant against larvae of the webbing clothes moth (), the predominant species damaging keratinous fabrics. In controlled exposure experiments, larvae subjected to PDB vapors achieved approximately 90% mortality after nine days at around 21°C, indicating dose- and time-dependent lethality through respiratory inhibition and narcotic effects on the . Effectiveness diminishes at lower temperatures, with reduced vapor release and slower intoxication rates observed below 15°C, underscoring the need for ambient conditions conducive to sublimation for optimal control. Earlier investigations into , an alternative ingredient, revealed limited repellent or toxic action against T. bisselliella larvae when applied in small quantities within unsealed environments. In one setup approximating room-scale , over 50% of larvae remained active and uninjured within six inches of treated material after two days of exposure, suggesting insufficient vapor concentrations for practical deterrence or kill in open or poorly confined spaces. These findings align with mechanistic understandings of both chemicals, where sustained high vapor levels—achievable only in airtight containers—are required to disrupt larval feeding and development, as larvae are the primary fabric-damaging stage. Field studies on mothball efficacy remain sparse, with most evidence derived from applied storage trials rather than controlled outdoor or large-scale deployments. Practical evaluations in sealed closets or chests confirm control of T. bisselliella infestations when mothballs are used per label rates (e.g., 6-10 balls per ), achieving near-complete suppression of larval survival over months-long storage periods by maintaining lethal vapor thresholds. However, efficacy wanes in ventilated areas, where dilution prevents accumulation, mirroring lab limitations and emphasizing integrated approaches like prior cleaning and sealing over reliance on chemical sublimation alone. No recent peer-reviewed field trials quantify long-term population reductions, reflecting a shift toward non-chemical alternatives amid concerns, though foundational data affirm targeted utility against fabric pests.

Factors Influencing Performance

The efficacy of mothballs, which rely on the sublimation of active ingredients like or paradichlorobenzene into toxic vapors that repel or kill larvae, is highly dependent on environmental conditions that influence vapor concentration. Higher temperatures accelerate the sublimation rate, leading to faster release of fumes; for paradichlorobenzene, the average sublimation rate is 1.6–4.6 × 10⁻³ g/h at 21–24°C, while sublimes more slowly at but increases with , potentially achieving equilibrium concentrations sufficient for mitigation in sealed spaces. Ventilation or air circulation significantly diminishes performance by diluting vapors below lethal thresholds for moths (typically requiring concentrations of 10–50 ppm for extended exposure), rendering open-air use ineffective as fumes dissipate rapidly rather than accumulating. has a lesser-documented role, though elevated levels may indirectly reduce efficacy by altering larval behavior or slowing sublimation in some formulations, with monitoring recommended in controlled storage to maintain optimal conditions around 40–50% relative humidity. Usage practices critically determine performance outcomes. Airtight enclosures, such as sealed chests or garment bags, are essential to trap vapors and sustain concentrations lethal to (webbing clothes moth) larvae, which require 2–3 weeks of exposure at effective levels; failure to seal allows escape of up to 90% of emitted vapors, nullifying . The quantity of mothballs must match the enclosed volume—typically 1–2 per —to achieve threshold concentrations without excess waste, while improper placement (e.g., not in direct contact with fabrics) or insufficient duration reduces kill rates below 80% in field tests. Duration of treatment influences success, as larvae in pupal stages may survive short exposures, necessitating prolonged sealing (at least 72 hours post-sublimation detection via odor). Variations in product composition also affect reliability. Paradichlorobenzene sublimes more readily at ambient temperatures than naphthalene, providing quicker vapor buildup and higher initial efficacy against moths in standard storage (equilibrium reached in days versus weeks), though naphthalene persists longer in cooler conditions due to lower volatility. Mothball size and shape influence surface area exposure, with smaller or irregular forms increasing sublimation by 20–50% compared to uniform spheres, potentially enhancing short-term performance but hastening depletion. Impurities or degraded formulations, common in older products, can lower vapor purity and reduce repellence by 30% or more, underscoring the need for fresh, labeled pesticides compliant with EPA registration standards.

Comparative Analysis with Non-Chemical Methods

Non-chemical methods for controlling clothes moths () primarily emphasize prevention through sanitation, physical barriers, and temperature manipulation, contrasting with the toxic vapor-based eradication provided by mothballs containing or paradichlorobenzene. Sanitation involves regular vacuuming of storage areas to remove eggs and larvae, or washing infested fabrics at high temperatures (above 50°C), and inspecting secondhand items before storage, which addresses the root causes of infestations such as dirt and lint that attract moths. Physical controls include airtight containers or bags to deny access and freezing items at -17°C for at least 72 hours to kill all life stages without residues. These approaches rely on disrupting the moth life cycle mechanically rather than chemically, proving highly effective for prevention when consistently applied, as evidenced by extension service guidelines that prioritize them over pesticides to avoid resistance development and human exposure risks. Natural repellents, such as cedar blocks or chips derived from species and herbal sachets containing lavender ( spp.), cloves, or , offer repellent effects through volatile oils like cedrol or , which deter adult moths from laying eggs. However, peer-reviewed tests from the early demonstrated that cedar oils, alongside , provided inefficient repulsion against adult clothes moths, with limited penetration to kill hidden larvae or eggs. More recent assessments confirm that while fresh cedar repels adults and some larvae via oil evaporation, efficacy diminishes over 1-2 years as oils deplete, failing to eradicate established infestations compared to mothballs' sustained toxicity in sealed environments. Herbal alternatives similarly repel but do not kill, requiring frequent replacement and integration with sanitation for marginal success, as standalone use often allows breakthrough infestations. In terms of overall performance, mothballs excel in airtight settings by fumigating and killing all stages within days to weeks, achieving near-complete control in conditions, whereas non-chemical methods prioritize long-term prevention but demand proactive vigilance and may not fully eliminate active outbreaks without supplementation. Field observations indicate that combining non-chemical strategies—such as vacuuming followed by freezing—yields comparable or superior sustained results to mothballs in non-sealed storage, avoiding chemical persistence and hazards like vapor . Cost-wise, non-chemical options like cedar (initial $10-20 per chest equivalent) or freezing (using household freezers) are often cheaper over time than repeated mothball purchases, though labor-intensive. Limitations of non-chemical methods include inconsistent repellent potency against resilient larvae and the need for modification, underscoring mothballs' role in acute scenarios despite their regulatory restrictions to sealed use only.
Method TypeKey AdvantagesKey LimitationsEvidence of Efficacy
Sanitation & Physical ControlsNo toxicity; addresses sources; prevents reinfestationRequires ongoing effort; ineffective alone for heavy infestationsEssential for control per university extensions; kills via mechanical means
Natural Repellents (Cedar, Herbs)Pleasant odor; low cost initially; eco-friendlyRepels adults but spares larvae/eggs; efficacy fadesInefficient against adults per entomology journals; supplementary at best
Mothballs (Chemical Baseline)Kills all stages rapidly in sealed spacesHealth/environmental risks; ineffective open-airProven fumigant but label-restricted

Health Risks

Acute Exposure Effects

Acute exposure to mothballs, which contain either naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDB) as active ingredients, typically manifests through inhalation of vapors, accidental ingestion, or dermal contact, with effects varying by chemical and route. Inhalation of naphthalene vapors at high concentrations can cause immediate irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat, alongside systemic symptoms like headache, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue. Ingestion of naphthalene-based mothballs, often reported in pediatric or accidental cases, leads to gastrointestinal distress including vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, frequently progressing to hemolytic anemia within hours to days, characterized by red blood cell destruction, jaundice, and dark urine. This hemolysis peaks 3-5 days post-exposure and is exacerbated in individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, potentially resulting in methemoglobinemia, acute kidney injury, and renal failure due to pigment load. Severe neurological involvement may include confusion, convulsions, drowsiness, tachycardia, hypotension, and coma, as documented in case reports of high-dose ingestion. For PDB-containing mothballs, acute effects are generally less severe but include irritation upon , with symptoms of eye, throat, and discomfort that typically resolve upon removal from exposure. Dermal contact may cause skin irritation, while —less common due to the compound's pungent odor—can induce , , and in rare instances, or , particularly in G6PD-deficient patients, alongside potential liver and strain. Unlike , PDB exposures rarely escalate to profound hematologic crises unless involving massive doses, with most incidents managed supportively without long-term sequelae. Overall, severity correlates with dose, duration, and individual susceptibility, with posing higher risks for hematologic emergencies based on clinical evidence from poison control data.

Chronic and Genetic Vulnerabilities

Chronic exposure to , the primary active ingredient in many mothballs, has been linked to cataracts and damage in both workers and subjected to prolonged or occupational contact. In s, long-term is associated with nasal , , and reductions in function, as observed in occupational cohorts exposed to airborne concentrations. Animal studies further indicate chronic naphthalene exposure induces olfactory epithelial and in the nasal passages of mice at concentrations of 10-30 ppm. While naphthalene is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (), epidemiological evidence for cancer in humans remains limited, with most data derived from bioassays showing tumor formation primarily in respiratory tissues. For paradichlorobenzene (PDCB), the alternative in some mothballs, chronic exposure in humans manifests as hepatic effects, dermatological changes, and disturbances, including and , based on occupational monitoring data. studies demonstrate PDCB's potential for carcinogenicity, with exposures leading to liver and tumors in mice and rats at doses exceeding 100 mg/m³ over 2 years. , encompassing multi-organ involvement like renal and pulmonary damage, has been documented in case series of prolonged PDCB exposure via or vapor . Genetic vulnerabilities heighten risks from exposure, particularly in individuals with (G6PD) deficiency, an X-linked enzymatic disorder prevalent in populations of African, Mediterranean, or Southeast Asian descent affecting up to 400 million people worldwide. In G6PD-deficient patients, triggers leading to acute , with documented cases including severe in infants from mothball inhalation or ingestion, often requiring transfusion. This vulnerability arises because deficient G6PD impairs red blood cell protection against naphthalene-induced oxidants, resulting in formation and erythrocyte fragmentation even at low exposure levels, as evidenced in neonatal cohorts exposed via maternal use or environmental vapors. No equivalent well-established has been identified for PDCB, though general susceptibility to its neurotoxic effects may vary with metabolic polymorphisms, warranting caution in at-risk groups.

Evidence from Epidemiological Data

Epidemiological surveillance from poison control centers indicates that mothball exposures are common, particularly among children, with the National documenting 1,445 incidents in 2008, the majority involving individuals under age 6 and approximately 20% necessitating intervention for acute effects such as and . Similar patterns persisted in prior years, with 1,504 cases in 2007 and 1,617 in 2006, often stemming from accidental ingestion mistaken for , and heightened severity in (G6PD)-deficient populations prevalent among African and Asian descent groups. Outcomes typically manifest 1-2 days post-exposure, with no fatalities reported in 2008 NPDS data but isolated case reports noting mortality from massive ingestions. Cross-sectional and case-control studies provide evidence of noncancer effects from environmental exposure, frequently attributable to mothball use in homes. In a cohort of 113 five-year-old children in , urinary metabolites ( and ) showed dose-dependent associations with chromosomal aberrations, including translocations that doubled in likelihood (odds ratios of 1.55 and 1.92, respectively), serving as biomarkers for potential and elevated adult cancer risk despite no leukemia-specific findings in this pediatric sample. Multiple investigations link urinary naphthalene biomarkers to childhood , such as a Taiwanese cross-sectional analysis of 453 kindergarteners associating higher metabolite levels with increased asthma prevalence, though results are mixed and confounded by co-exposures like tobacco smoke. A case-control study further tied mothball ingestion directly to acute in pediatric cases. Data on paradichlorobenzene (PDCB), the alternative mothball , derive from indoor air monitoring and studies, revealing elevated concentrations in a subset of U.S. residences ( 0.36 µg/m³ indoors, with 4% exceeding 91 µg/m³). Cross-sectional evidence associates chronic PDCB inhalation with increased counts and reduced pulmonary function (e.g., lower FEV1), particularly in asthmatic children from urban low-income areas where mothball use correlates with higher exposure. Human cancer for both compounds remains sparse and inconclusive, with no large-scale cohort studies establishing causation; rare case series report laryngeal or colorectal tumors in occupationally exposed workers, but population-level incidence data show no clear excess attributable to mothball sources. Overall, while acute underscores pediatric vulnerability, chronic risk assessments are hampered by cross-sectional designs, nonspecific biomarkers, and small samples, limiting beyond associations observed in high-exposure subgroups.

Environmental Considerations

Chemical Persistence in Ecosystems

Naphthalene, a primary in many mothballs, displays variable across environmental media, with rapid dissipation in air but potential for longer retention in soils and sediments. Its atmospheric ranges from 5.8 hours to less than one day, driven by and hydroxyl radical reactions. In biologically active soils, microbial degradation and volatilization limit to approximately 2.4–34.7 days, though can extend beyond 80 days in low-microbial or sterile conditions lacking competing contaminants. Aquatic vary widely, from 0.8 days in polluted, acclimated waters via to up to 1,700 days in unpolluted systems, with volatilization (half-life ~12 days in winter conditions) and to organic-rich sediments reducing overall accumulation except near point sources. Paradichlorobenzene (p-DCB), the alternative active ingredient in some mothballs, exhibits slower atmospheric degradation with a of about 31 days through reactions with atmospheric chemicals. In soils, p-DCB adsorbs strongly to particles, undergoes bacterial degradation, and may be taken up by , though specific half-lives depend on microbial activity and are generally on the order of weeks to months. Aquatic fate mirrors this, with volatilization to air or binding to sediments predominating; occurs under aerobic or denitrifying conditions, and detections in occur primarily near contamination sites such as waste disposal areas. Both compounds' persistence is modulated by environmental factors including temperature, , organic carbon content, and microbial acclimation, which accelerate breakdown in contaminated compared to pristine ones. While not highly recalcitrant, releases from improper mothball disposal—such as leaching from storage sites—can result in detectable residues in soils and waters, with low-level transport via air deposition contributing to diffuse exposure. is limited by rapid in organisms, preventing widespread trophic magnification.

Impact on Non-Target Species

Naphthalene, the active ingredient in some mothballs, exhibits moderate toxicity to aquatic non-target species, including various fish, water fleas (Daphnia magna), and Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), with laboratory studies demonstrating adverse effects such as reduced survival and impaired reproduction at concentrations as low as 1-10 mg/L. Paradichlorobenzene (PDB), used in other formulations, shows moderate to low toxicity to fish, with species-specific variations in sensitivity; for instance, acute exposure tests indicate LC50 values ranging from 2.5 mg/L in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to higher thresholds in less sensitive species. These compounds can enter aquatic ecosystems through wastewater discharge or improper outdoor disposal, where naphthalene's persistence in sediments (half-life exceeding 80 days in soil) exacerbates bioaccumulation risks in filter-feeding invertebrates and fish tissues. Terrestrial wildlife faces lower direct risks under labeled indoor use, as naphthalene is practically non-toxic to birds like bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) via oral exposure, and overall avian hazards are deemed low by regulatory assessments due to limited environmental dispersal. However, PDB demonstrates sublethal effects in birds, including mortality (3/10 ducks in a 35-day dietary study at 0.5% concentration) and growth inhibition in survivors, highlighting potential impacts on waterfowl exposed via contaminated food sources. For mammals, naphthalene poses risks of and organ damage in sensitive species, akin to effects observed in dogs and cats upon ingestion, though wild mammals encounter it mainly through or water contamination from off-label outdoor applications, which are prohibited and amplify non-target exposure. Invertebrates and soil organisms represent additional non-target concerns; naphthalene can disrupt microbial communities, reducing bacterial abundance and potentially altering processes in forest , as evidenced by field experiments showing decreased active microbe populations post-application. Earthworms exhibit low sensitivity to naphthalene, but broader effects arise from volatilization and leaching, contaminating air, , and —pathways that regulatory bodies like the EPA note increase hazards when mothballs are misused as wildlife deterrents rather than confined to enclosed storage. Overall, while is concentration-dependent and real-world exposures are often mitigated by product labeling, empirical data underscore elevated risks to aquatic biota and select terrestrial species from environmental persistence and illicit uses.

Regulatory Frameworks and Compliance

In the United States, mothballs containing naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene are classified and regulated as pesticides by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA mandates that products be registered, with approved uses limited to controlling clothes moths and other fabric pests in sealed, airtight containers such as garment bags or storage chests to prevent vapor release into ambient air. Off-label applications, including outdoor use or repelling animals like snakes or rodents, are prohibited and considered illegal, as they violate FIFRA labeling requirements and pose risks to human health, pets, and the environment. Following reregistration reviews, the EPA imposed additional mitigations, such as prohibiting loose or unpackaged mothballs to reduce child exposure risks, given their resemblance to candy. Products must include child-resistant packaging and clear warnings against use near food or in open areas. Internationally, regulatory approaches vary, with several jurisdictions imposing stricter controls or outright bans due to toxicity concerns. In the , naphthalene-based mothballs were banned for most consumer applications in 2008 under the REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, which restricts substances posing carcinogenicity or risks, limiting residual uses to industrial settings with stringent exposure controls. prohibited mothball products containing naphthalene, paradichlorobenzene, or in 2014, citing acute poisoning hazards to children. In , mothballs are scheduled as poisons under the Poisons Standard (SUSMP), requiring cautionary labeling and restricting sales to supervised outlets, while emphasizes label-directed use in enclosed spaces without formal bans but with health advisories from . Compliance entails strict adherence to product labeling, which must specify enclosed use, ventilation post-exposure, and disposal as to avoid environmental release. Violations, such as unregistered imports or misuse, trigger enforcement by agencies like the EPA or state departments of , including fines and product seizures; for instance, Florida's Department of Agriculture prohibits outdoor applications as label violations. Manufacturers must report adverse incidents under FIFRA, and ongoing monitoring addresses persistent risks, with the EPA's 2020 interim decision on paradichlorobenzene reinforcing label restrictions. Users are required to follow principles, prioritizing alternatives when feasible to minimize regulatory non-compliance.

Alternatives and Innovations

Synthetic Substitutes

Paradichlorobenzene (PDB), a chlorinated aromatic , functions as the primary synthetic substitute for in mothball formulations. Developed in the early and introduced commercially around the , PDB sublimes at room temperature, releasing vapors that repel and kill larval stages of clothes moths () in enclosed storage spaces, similar to naphthalene but with lower volatility and a distinct profile. Unlike naphthalene, which is derived from and poses risks of in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD)-deficient individuals, PDB exhibits reduced acute mammalian toxicity, though both compounds are classified as possible human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers PDB-based products as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), mandating their use solely in airtight containers to minimize human exposure via inhalation or dermal contact. Efficacy studies indicate PDB disrupts moth respiration and nervous function at concentrations of 10-50 ppm in sealed environments, achieving near-complete larval mortality within weeks, though effectiveness diminishes in unsealed areas due to rapid dispersion. Manufacturers produce PDB in compressed ball or flake form, often at 99-100% purity, ensuring consistent vapor release rates of approximately 0.1-0.5 mg/hour per gram at 25°C. Other synthetic chemicals occasionally employed as mothball alternatives include (2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate), an used in resin strips for , which inhibits in insects but requires careful handling due to its volatility and neurotoxic potential to non-target organisms. products, EPA-approved for enclosed spaces, provide moth control via continuous low-level vapor emission but are not formulated as traditional balls and carry higher risks of residue on fabrics. Synthetic pyrethroids, such as , appear in spray-on fabric treatments rather than sublimating solids, offering residual protection for up to 6 months but lacking the passive, long-term of mothballs. Despite these options, PDB remains dominant in commercial mothball products due to cost-effectiveness and established efficacy, with U.S. sales exceeding millions of units annually as of 2020 data from registries. Innovations in synthetic substitutes include laboratory-synthesized , such as (Z,Z)-7,11-hexadecadienal mimics, deployed in traps to interfere with male moth cues, reducing populations without direct chemical contact; field trials reported up to 90% egg-laying suppression in treated wardrobes. These non-fumigant synthetics address limitations of PDB and , such as odor persistence and environmental persistence—PDB's in soil exceeds 100 days—while complying with EPA minimum-risk guidelines for reduced . However, adoption lags due to higher costs and need for periodic replacement, with traps comprising less than 10% of moth control per industry estimates.

Natural Repellents and Preventive Strategies

Preventive measures form the cornerstone of moth control without relying on chemical mothballs, emphasizing sanitation and environmental modifications to disrupt the lifecycle of clothes moths ( and Trogoderma spp.). Regular vacuuming of closets, carpets, and storage areas removes eggs and larvae, as adult moths do not feed but females lay up to 200 eggs on natural fibers. Washing or dry-cleaning infested items at temperatures exceeding 120°F (49°C) kills all life stages, while freezing garments at 0°F (-18°C) for 72 hours eliminates larvae without damage to most fabrics. Storing woolens and silks in airtight or containers prevents adult moths from accessing breeding sites, outperforming fabric bags that moths can penetrate. Maintaining low below 50% relative humidity in storage areas inhibits larval development, as moths thrive in damp conditions; dehumidifiers or packets achieve this effectively. Illuminating closets with white LED lights deters moths, which prefer darkness, and periodic airing of garments exposes hidden infestations. traps, using synthetic sex attractants, capture moths to reduce breeding without broad-spectrum killing, though they do not address larvae and require replacement every 2-3 months. These strategies, when combined, prevent reinfestation more reliably than repellents alone, as evidenced by protocols. Natural repellents, such as cedarwood blocks or chips from Cedrus or Thuja species, release thujaplicins and cedrol that volatilize to deter adult moths via olfactory disruption, with efficacy lasting 2-3 months before sanding or replacement is needed. However, cedar does not kill eggs or larvae and shows limited standalone protection against established infestations, as larvae ignore the scent to feed on keratin. Essential oils like lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) and peppermint (Mentha piperita) contain linalool and menthol, which exhibit repellency in lab tests against some arthropods, but field evidence against clothes moths is anecdotal and fades rapidly, requiring frequent reapplication. Studies indicate these oils provide temporary deterrence at best, inferior to sanitation, and may mask rather than resolve problems. Other botanicals, including rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and cloves (Syzygium aromaticum), have been tested for properties on , but peer-reviewed data confirms inconsistent results, with no eradication of larvae. Sachets of dried or oils should supplement, not replace, ; overuse risks fabric staining or allergic reactions without proportional benefits. For maximal efficacy, integrate natural scents with physical barriers and monitoring, acknowledging their role as adjuncts in evidence-based prevention rather than cures.

Recent Developments in Eco-Friendly Formulations

In 2025, researchers developed biodegradable pest-repellent balls using waste combined with herbal plant residues from peels, cloves, , lemongrass, and as a direct substitute for naphthalene-based mothballs. These formulations demonstrated effective repellency against household pests, including moths, while adhering to principles through and reduced environmental persistence compared to synthetic alternatives. Testing revealed varying monthly longevity among variants, ordered as orange > > > lemongrass > , with cinnamon-based balls exhibiting the highest biodegradability due to faster rates. This innovation addresses both efficacy and ecological concerns by minimizing non-degradable residues in storage areas. Parallel advancements include microencapsulated finishes for fabrics, incorporating eucalyptus, lavender, and citronella to repel moths such as Anthrenus fl without relying on persistent chemicals. These treatments release repellents gradually, extending protection while maintaining fabric integrity and biodegradability. Commercially, products like the PT19 moth repellent, launched in 2024, utilize natural essences including cedarwood oil and other plant-derived oils to create barriers against moths in textiles and furnishings. Such formulations prioritize low and renewability, reflecting broader industry shifts toward organic alternatives amid regulatory pressures on traditional mothballs. Market data from 2024-2025 highlights increasing adoption of plant-based repellents, with global natural mothball segments growing due to consumer demand for non-toxic, eco-conscious options that avoid the risks of .

Misuse and Controversies

Prevalent Off-Label Applications

A prevalent off-label application of mothballs involves their outdoor placement to deter snakes, with users scattering them in yards, gardens, or near structures in the belief that naphthalene vapors repel reptiles. This practice persists despite lacking efficacy, as snakes do not respond to the chemical in concentrations achieved outdoors, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not approved mothballs for such control. Similarly, mothballs are frequently misused to repel such as mice, rats, and squirrels by placing them in attics, crawlspaces, or open areas, under the misconception that the fumigant action extends to mammals. These applications violate labeling under the Federal Insecticide, , and Act (FIFRA), as mothballs are registered solely for indoor control of fabric-damaging insects like clothes moths and . Outdoor deterrence often fails due to insufficient vapor persistence and can contaminate soil and water. Other documented off-label uses include deploying mothballs in gardens against various or small mammals, or indoors in air ducts and HVAC systems for odor masking or general pest repulsion beyond labeled targets. Such practices, while widespread among consumers, pose health risks from or and contribute to unintended exposure in non-target species. The National Pesticide Information Center reports that these misapplications frequently lead to environmental release of , a probable .

Scientific Debates on Risk Assessment

Scientific debates surrounding the risk assessment of mothballs, primarily those containing naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDCB), center on the extrapolation of animal carcinogenicity data to humans, species-specific metabolic differences, and the magnitude of risks from chronic low-level exposures during misuse. Naphthalene induces nasal tumors in rats and pulmonary tumors in mice at high doses, prompting the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify it as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in 2002, based on limited animal evidence and inadequate human data. However, critics argue that these effects stem from rodent-specific bioactivation pathways involving cytochrome P450 enzymes that generate cytotoxic metabolites more readily in rats than in humans, who primarily conjugate naphthalene via alternative routes like sulfation, potentially rendering the tumors irrelevant for human risk models. The U.S. National Toxicology Program's 15th Report on Carcinogens (2021) lists naphthalene as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, yet this has faced scrutiny for over-relying on animal data without robust epidemiological support, as occupational cohort studies show no consistent elevation in respiratory or other cancers. For PDCB, IARC's Group 2B derives from liver adenomas and carcinomas in mice, but debates highlight its non-genotoxic profile and promotional rather than initiational mechanism, questioning the applicability of linear low-dose extrapolation in risk assessments. Quantitative models, such as those by the U.S. Agency (EPA), estimate lifetime cancer risks from indoor vapors at 10^-4 to 10^-5 for typical misuse scenarios like open-air placement for pest repulsion, but these assume worst-case exposures and ignore ventilation variability, leading some toxicologists to contend that probabilistic assessments better reflect real-world . Acute risks, including in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient individuals from or , are less contested empirically but fuel debates on whether misuse prevalence—evident in poison control data showing disproportionate incidents—justifies precautionary bans over targeted . Regulatory divergences underscore these tensions: the prohibited naphthalene mothballs in 2008 citing child poisoning vulnerabilities and environmental persistence, while U.S. assessments permit conditional use with labeling, reflecting optimism in exposure controls despite documented neurotoxic outcomes like from chronic inhalation abuse. Proponents of stricter measures invoke the , arguing that uncertainty in long-term vapor risks to sensitive populations warrants phase-outs, whereas opponents emphasize first-principles favoring metabolic over default animal extrapolations to avoid unnecessary restrictions. Ongoing research into biomarkers of exposure, such as urinary naphthol levels, aims to refine these assessments, but consensus remains elusive amid biases in regulatory science favoring conservative identification over nuanced probability-based evaluations.

Policy and Cultural Critiques

Critics of mothball policies contend that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, which classify and paradichlorobenzene as pesticides requiring labeled use only, inadequately address chronic exposure risks despite evidence of naphthalene's probable carcinogenicity and hemolytic effects in susceptible individuals. Off-label applications, illegal under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, remain prevalent, prompting calls for stricter federal bans or enhanced enforcement, as interim registration reviews have not led to outright prohibitions. Some states, including , have imposed more restrictive measures by denying registration for indoor residential naphthalene use, underscoring critiques that national policies lag behind localized evidence of indoor and ecosystem persistence. Environmental advocates argue that regulatory frameworks undervalue long-term ecological impacts, such as naphthalene's in soil and water, which contravenes precautionary principles amid recurring incidents reported to poison control centers. For paradichlorobenzene, EPA assessments deem it low-risk for non-cancer effects but debate persists over emission thresholds in confined spaces, where concentrations can exceed odor and health guidelines. Culturally, mothball use embodies a entrenched reliance on chemical preservatives in storage, particularly in humid climates, where habitual placement in wardrobes ignores vapor hazards like headaches, , and organ damage. In regions with high glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency prevalence, such as parts of , ingestion—often from misidentification as edible —amplifies risks, reflecting inadequate public awareness amid traditional practices. This pattern extends to broader misuse in landscapes, vehicles, and attics for odor control or pest deterrence, critiqued as a symptom of disregard for labels in favor of perceived . Such behaviors persist despite warnings, highlighting a cultural normalization of synthetic interventions over non-chemical alternatives like cedar or ventilation.

References

  1. http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/mothball/index.html
  2. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Naphthalene
  3. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/naphgen.html
  4. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/naphthalene.pdf
  5. https://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/mothball/health.html
  6. https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/envepi/Pest/Documents/Mothball_Fact_Sheet.pdf
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28541143/
  8. https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/avoid-illegal-household-pesticide-products
  9. https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/naphthalene/7362.article
  10. http://the-history-girls.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-bitter-and-unrelenting-enemy-by-susan.html
  11. https://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-06/1182178010.Sh.r.html
  12. https://www.rinse.com/blog/care/how-to-use-mothballs/
  13. https://community.goodsam.com/discussions/traveltrailerforum-board/mothballs-the-real-story-/738984
  14. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/naphgen.pdf
  15. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/06/06/safe-alternatives-toxic-mothballs.aspx
  16. https://drkilligans.com/blogs/pest-control/people-vs-clothing-moths-a-brief-history
  17. http://insidetheconservatorsstudio.blogspot.com/2014/10/mothballs-yuck.html
  18. https://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/mothball/index.html
  19. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/PI289
  20. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/naphtech.html
  21. https://www.brandlandusa.com/2010/05/21/enoz-americas-classic-brand-of-moth-balls/
  22. https://stopandshop.com/groceries/laundry-paper-cleaning/laundry/miscellaneous-laundry-needs/moth-balls/enoz-moth-ball-packets-lavender-6-oz-pkg.html
  23. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/PDBgen.html
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3850774/
  25. https://www.orkin.com/ask-orkin/mothballs-used-to-repel-pests
  26. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/1_4-Dichlorobenzene
  27. https://www.chemicalbook.com/ProductChemicalPropertiesCB2472212_EN.htm
  28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590832/table/naphthalene_t01/
  29. https://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim363.htm
  30. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/1-4-dichlorobenzene.pdf
  31. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-pdf/46/4/418/11604680/418_1_online.pdf
  32. https://npic.orst.edu/faq/mothball.html
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9253724/
  34. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/PDBtech.html
  35. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/news/use-mothballs-safely-sparingly-control-clothes-moths
  36. https://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/mothball/regulation.html
  37. https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/33195/file/Mothballs-Brochure.pdf
  38. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/extd8/files/documents/pnw606.pdf
  39. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/how-to-get-rid-of-clothes-moths/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2922736/
  41. https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e0ce7e4b-d291-4200-8226-ec49c88b9aa7/content
  42. https://saskmuseums.org/mothballs-poison/
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964830500000342
  44. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/64/4/989/2210261
  45. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/22/3/570/2200763
  46. https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Mothball_Odors.php
  47. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IG090
  48. https://www.highmountainco.com/unraveling-the-world-of-paradichlorobenzene-and-mothballs/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3501547/
  50. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3152&context=etd
  51. https://toxicfreefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/clothingmoth.pdf
  52. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/20800/pnw606-e.pdf
  53. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/27/2/401/850331
  54. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/28/2/493/767317
  55. https://www.moth-prevention.com/blogs/the-art-of-prevention/does-cedar-kill-moths
  56. https://www.pestxpert.com.au/should-you-use-mothballs-or-is-there-a-better-moth-repellent/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6191007/
  58. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001236.htm
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6429769/
  60. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002477.htm
  61. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=1206&toxid=126
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3994922/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8742304/
  64. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002902.htm
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4576617/
  66. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-67.pdf
  67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK615482/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8274693/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16276058/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6607730/
  71. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252322
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347663802218
  73. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/children-exposed-naphthalene-show-signs-chromosomal-damage
  74. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67-c5.pdf
  75. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0113-0027/content.pdf
  76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11629-020-5985-7
  77. https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/1312.htm
  78. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-labels/pesticide-labeling-questions-answers
  79. https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.001.863
  80. https://www.epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/alerts/caution-notice/
  81. https://www.aussiepharmadirect.com.au/blogs/news/still-using-mothballs-here-s-why-it-s-time-to-stop
  82. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/challenge/batch-1/naphthalene.html
  83. https://vtpp.ento.vt.edu/content/dam/vtpp_ento_vt_edu/Mothball%2520Brochure1%2520%281%29%2520Ready%2520to%2520print.final.pdf
  84. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0117-0021/content.pdf
  85. https://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/mothball/chemprop.html
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207421000352
  87. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/13/scientists-artificial-pheremone-stop-moths-ruining-clothes
  88. https://www.consumerreports.org/pest-control/how-to-get-rid-of-clothes-moths-a3403805062/
  89. https://indoormood.com/get-rid-of-clothes-moths-naturally/
  90. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/56116/cedarwood-oil-MRP-NYSIPM.pdf
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6189689/
  92. https://journal.hibiscuspublisher.com/index.php/JOBIMB/article/view/1080
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394882366_Eco-Friendly_Pest_Balls_from_Waste_Cooking_Oil_and_Herbal_Plant_Residues_as_a_Substitute_for_Naphthalene
  94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377583420_Sustainable_moth_repellent_finishing_for_wool
  95. https://tenkabest.com/en/2024/07/22/new-pt19-moth-repellent-in-tenka-best/
  96. https://datahorizzonresearch.com/mothballs-market-52597
  97. https://news.clemson.edu/do-not-use-mothballs-to-repel-snakes-say-state-pesticide-regulators/
  98. https://a-z-animals.com/animals/snake/do-mothballs-keep-snakes-away/
  99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/10408444.2010.499504
  100. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67-c1.pdf
  101. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1006D7B.TXT
  102. https://www.marshallindependent.com/opinion/local-columns/2021/09/what-happened-to-the-mouth-balls/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6620615/
  104. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67.pdf
  105. https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1322.pdf
  106. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0113-0034/content.pdf
  107. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138704/
  108. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2012.694399
  109. https://www.indoordoctor.com/blog/the-dangers-of-breathing-toxic-mothball-odors-in-your-home/
  110. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02885.x
  111. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51688964_Health_risks_of_using_mothballs_in_Greater_Accra_Ghana
  112. https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/clayco/2018/01/17/methodical-misuse-moth-balls/
  113. https://www.[linkedin](/page/LinkedIn).com/pulse/20141029150841-84607858-mothballs-do-not-belong-anywhere-period
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.