Using Borax to kill fleas?

[dawndenise]

Sounds like you're on top of what has to be done. Hopefully some really cold weather will help. Just skip the borax, IMHO.

[waterbear]

Boric acid is sold as a treatment to kill fleas in carpets and upolstery. My vet recommeded it and it works! He said it would be safe for use with my animals, probably safer than the insecticide based sprays made for treating carpets and furniture! Fogging was not an option for me because of my birds and marine fish! You just sprinkle it on heavily, work it in with a broom, let it sit for a week and then vacuum it up. It kill both the adults and destroys the eggs. My cat and 3 dogs all were on the treated carpets and suffered no ill effects. I bought the boric acid at the hardware store in a shaker container and it was labeled for killing fleas. I would use it again if I needed it!
BTW, it is NOT meant to be applied directly on your pets.

Edit: I use Frontline on all of my pets also. Also, in the link above given by Dawndenise it does state that borates are one of the least toxic pesticides available! I read the whole article several times and the one quote taken out of context above. The actual quote was not from the above article but was a quote that was included in the article from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cooperative Extension and the FULL quote reads (empahsis mine):

“Although boric
acid is relatively safe to humans and
other mammals, it can be harmful if
accidentally ingested and must be kept
away from food, children and pets.
Care must be taken not to breathe in
the dust when you apply it. Like other
dust formulations, it should be used
in places where it will not move
around.”

[CarlD]

Boric Acid is different stuff than Borax. And it IS a bug-killer. It's also a very soothing eye-wash in the correct concentration.

[chem geek]

Borax in water becomes Boric Acid plus Sodium Hydroxide and raises the pH. So ingesting Borax would be somewhat similar to ingesting Boric Acid as far as the toxicity related to Boric Acid is concerned, though the pH would be alkaline instead of acidic.

This link is to an EPA report on the toxicity of Boron compounds. The dog study had some disputes in that even some dogs in the control group had some effects, but generally the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was on the order of 9 mg B/kg-day and the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) was 13.3 in the newer study. A 9 kg dog (around 20 pounds) could consume 81 mg Boron per day with no observed effect and that is equivalent to 463 mg Boric Acid per day and is roughly 0.32 milliliters in volume of solid substance (powder might be about double this volume) and is about 1/15th of a teaspoon.

If you disperse the Boric Acid as a powder on a rug, then the dog would have to be licking it up a lot to get even a small amount. I suspect it doesn't taste good (think the tart taste from the acidity of lemon juice). Even if the dog were to consume this Boric Acid, the main effect is testicular atrophy and this was only after daily consumption over many months. So the risk is quite low, in my opinion, especially for a one-week exposure. This is a little different than dogs drinking pool water at 50 mg/liter (and that's mg/l Boron or about 285 mg/l Boric Acid) every day. There was another reference that I can't find right now that said there was a lower spleen to body weight ratio in dogs at a 0.44 mg/kg/day so that's why I had previously cautioned (i.e. in this post) having dogs drink from a pool with borates every day.

Richard

[waterbear]

Boric Acid is different stuff than Borax. And it IS a bug-killer. It's also a very soothing eye-wash in the correct concentration.

If you read the article in the link above in Dawndenise's post you will see that seven different borate compounds, including boric acid, sodium tetraborate in both the pentahydrate form (Supreme, etc.) and the decahydrate form (20 mule team) are listed as being registered pesticides in the US.

[dawndenise]

My intent was not to misquote or to alter the meaning of the quote but I will agree that waterbear's citing is more complete.

I was concerned that in a 6 or 7 page article, that the cautionary portion pertaining to pets would otherwise get missed in the midst of an article carrying many phrases such as "least toxic," "naturally occurring," and "inert ingredients." The caution was still there and, IMO, needed to be highlighted.