Jumping spider and essential oils

[ob1page]

After some research I've decided to get a jumping spider or so I thought. I just read that essential oil diffusers can kill them. I was going to get one for my office however our admin users a oil diffuser and my office door is next to her desk. She will not stop using it even though people have complained. How close to the diffuser does the cage need to be for it to harm the spider?

 

[Salmonsaladsandwich]

I don't think this is a question that can be easily answered, I suspect it'll be fine if the rooms are fairly large and there's some airflow via air conditioning or whatnot but it's certainly a risk. Can you smell the essential oils from inside your office? If you can't smell it my guess is it would be fine but I don't know.

Could you get away with lying that you have allergic reactions to the oils or something to get her to stop using it? It sounds like it's bothering other people anyway.

Overall though if it's possible to keep the jumper someplace other than your office that's what I'd recommend. Even without the oil diffuser an environment where you don't control the use of chemicals (what if the office got sprayed with pesticides?) isn't ideal for keeping invertebrates.

 

[The Snark]

Consider all essential oils potentially toxic. While there are quite a few 'harmless' ones, toxicity tests on all animals across the spectrum have very rarely been performed. As such, toxicity results are very often specious.
For example, cedarwood and peppermint oils are considered harmless. They aren't as far as invertebrates are concerned. Most animals lack the enzyme secretions humans have that break down the oils.

 

[Stylopidae]

Consider all essential oils potentially toxic. While there are quite a few 'harmless' ones, toxicity tests on all animals across the spectrum have very rarely been performed. As such, toxicity results are very often specious.
For example, cedarwood and peppermint oils are considered harmless. They aren't as far as invertebrates are concerned. Most animals lack the enzyme secretions humans have that break down the oils.

Toxicity tests of essential oils are pretty routinely performed on invertebrates, and the information is usually publicly available because it's typically funded through taxpayers. If it's not, you can find the information either through someone like me who has access to scientific libraries (*cough* DM me for specific papers *cough*) or through sci-hub.

I haven't had reason to read these for a few years, but typically they're sprayed directly on invertebrates at 1% concentration (w/v, I think?). At these concentrations, they're toxic...but diffusers do not spray at these concentrations...they're much lower.

Does that mean they're safe to use around bugs? I mean, probably not. I don't use them for that reason. However, the concentrations you can smell these compounds at are far less than those which have been demonstrated to be toxic to bugs. We're talking parts per million versus 1%.

In toxicology, it's the dose which makes the poison and these companies do not want to spray essential oils at 1% concentration because the smell would be overwhelming. Like, to the point where an office manager wouldn't be able to ignore it overwhelming. The concentration in the canister itself is probably in the 1% range.

There are some which I would consider toxic at essentially any concentration...tea tree oil is very similar to organophosphate insecticides. That's why it tingles, and that's why there are toxicity concerns to people.

However, with diffusers, I'm not convinced these cause actual problems with inverts. I wouldn't use them around expensive spiders, but in this case, I'd keep something like a roach or a cricket around it for a few days and see if there are any problematic effects. I don't think you'd see them.

 

[The Snark]

Toxicity tests of essential oils are pretty routinely performed on invertebrates, and the information is usually publicly available because it's typically funded through taxpayers. If it's not, you can find the information either through someone like me who has access to scientific libraries (*cough* DM me for specific papers *cough*) or through sci-hub.

That summed up the problem quite admirably. The vast distance between the oils NIH and others tests and the rush to make money from hundreds of manufacturers and suppliers. Where is the certifications of company X and their bonafides? The proven assurances of their supply of oils purity? And of course the profiteering from sourcing the supplies vs knock offs with identical labeling and false claims of the contents. IE proof what is in those bottles is the real deal that has undergone testing.

I went through the product line at a large chemical supply house here. From the customer tiny bottles to the bulk supplies, several hundred containers, and none of which had trustworthy labeling and certifications of purity. Just great gobs of sales pitches on packages that anyone could print up with lax or no oversight of WYSIWYG. Many of the bulk supplies were sourced from China with company name brands that cannot be traced, if they had any name brands at all.

Then in addition, while the pure chemicals have undergone NIH testing but what, if anything, controls the purity of what is in the bottle? What watch dogs are there between sources unknown, the middle men like these chemical suppliers here in Thailand, and what ends up in those display cases? What additives such as aromatic vehicles have been added? What fillers? Testing and certification of the pure oil doesn't mean what is in those bottles is of the same purity.

 

[HooahArmy]

Sorry I tried to help and was also stuck with the autocorrect on my laptop. Please pardon the trouble. I will not bother you again.

 

[Stylopidae]

That summed up the problem quite admirably. The vast distance between the oils NIH and others tests and the rush to make money from hundreds of manufacturers and suppliers. Where is the certifications of company X and their bonafides? The proven assurances of their supply of oils purity? And of course the profiteering from sourcing the supplies vs knock offs with identical labeling and false claims of the contents. IE proof what is in those bottles is the real deal that has undergone testing.

The papers I've read all use HPLC-quality oils, which are typically much higher quality than those used in consumer products. I cannot speak for synergistic effects caused by mixes, nor can I speak on the subject of additives.

These are both extremely relevant points, and would be very difficult-if not impossible-for any reasonable person to suss out. The fragrance industry is very secretive, and all scents on the market should be assumed to be proprietary mixes with proprietary additives.

So far as I know-and I could be wrong on this-with the exception of citronella and similar repellent compounds-there is no toxicity testing for invertebrates for household uses such as these.

However, there's a very wide gulf between the ~1% standard rate and the household concentration.

As I'll say time and time again below, it's the dose which makes the poison.

IMO, that's why a bioassay (e.g. a few well placed tubs of crickets/roaches/mealworms) would be the best approach to assess safety. If there's interest, I'd be happy to go over methodology...it's not hard. I'm also in need of a dataset to keep my R skills up to code, and this experiment would be perfect for that. I'd be happy to analyze the data.

That being said, essential oils tend to exert insecticidal activities at relatively high amounts if we compare them to something like permethrin. I'm skeptical as to whether a diffuser would be able to harm a spider.

Hey there! I am a chemical, toxin, and poison specialist by trade and I'm going to copy an answer I posted for another user a few months back who was wondering too about essential oils:

I will write in detail to aid every reader who might also have questions about the oils too.

I mean, we need dosage information...which you never even come close to supplying.

Original Post:
Aromatherapy diffusers and essential oils work by entering the air at a molecular level. These oils smell nice because they are 'volatile oils', meaning that they are capable of becoming airborne and reaching your nose. While a dose of oil in the room might smell nice to you, its presence can be very irritating and even harmful to animals. Studies have shown that small mammals exposed to large amounts of airborne essential oils are more likely to develop upper respiratory infections. Why? It's because the critters, like mice, are small, and the buildup of oils in their lungs is more significant per size as compared to a big ol' human. Pets like dogs and cats who can smell vastly better than we do find the scent of the oils annoying. Cats are known to vacate a room where the oils have been used, often for days or even weeks. Some essential oils like peppermint and citrus are even natural repellents for dogs, cats, rats, and mice, due to their pungency.

What concentration? Is it similar to the concentrations given off by consumer products? Because classifying it as 'large amounts of essential oils' makes it sound like we're talking doses far beyond what consumer products put into the air.

Toxicology 101: Dose makes the poison.

What doses are we talking about?

Now this brings us to the invertebrates! Inverts breathe either through spirochetes (pores on body) or through book lungs like Ts. They do not metabolize toxins out of their bodies like mammals do, nor can thy cough or sneeze when oil buildup from the air begins to gunk their breathing system. Oils are also hydrophobic (does not dissolve in water), and thus takes much more time to break down in the body than something water-based. If a T were to 'inhale' oils in their book lungs, those oils could stay for a very long time, make them ill, or even cover their lungs so much, they are unable to properly take in oxygen.

Again. What concentration? Because dose makes the poison, and consumer products put essential oils into the air at the parts per million range.

What you've described here is akin to drowning-and I agree that putting oil directly into the booklungs would be fatal. I'd say the same for water. However, water is essential for the health of tarantulas.

In reality, many essential oils have neurotoxic effects at concentrations far below what it would take for them to drown. As I said in my original post, 1% W/V essential oils can be toxic if topically applied. This is not drowning; these chemicals have biological effects far below those concentrations.

However, at consumer levels-and those concentrations are key to this debate-they likely pose little threat.

Am I wrong on this? I mean, maybe, but you're talking about drowning and the original poster was more concerned with the neurotoxic effects.

So prove me wrong here.

However, if you still would like to use essential oils for your own benefit, you can always wear it diluted and dabbed on your person or clothing, or on one of those neat bracelets or medallions that keep them close to you without releasing too much into the air. After touching essential oils, always wash your hand with grease-cutting soaps like dish soap, to fully free your skin from their presence before you touch a critter buddy.

Essential oil diffusers work by diluting the essential oils into the air, at concentrations far less than what it would take for the tarantula to drown in them.

I agree that topically applied essential oils might be unhealthy for invertebrates because there's actual scientific evidence for that for concentrations which are topically applied. However, the original question was about diffusers, and this does nothing to address that specific concern.

The question is whether they diffuse oils into the air at concentrations which would have neurotoxic effects, and based on the invertebrate dosing literature, the answer is no.

Key Points:
- Essential oils work by evaporating and entering the air. If you can smell it in the room with your critter friends, they are being exposed to it too!
- Invertebrates and other creatures with non-vertebrate-like lungs are more sensitive to essential oils.
- Small vertebrates and those with sensitive noses can also be irritated by essential oils.
- If you must use an essential oil opt to dilute an dab on skin, or use a small carrying jewelry piece, versus an atmosphere diffuser.

If anyone is curious about anything regarding toxins, chemicals, or even radiation, feel free to ask an I will do my best to answer!

Sorry, but you have not provided any relevant information.

In fact, I'd argue this advice may be harmful because direct contact (depending on the application method, location, and timing) might actually expose the tarantula to a higher dose of essential oil than they'd get from a diffuser a room or two away.

 

[Stylopidae]

Now this brings us to the invertebrates! Inverts breathe either through spirochetes (pores on body) or through book lungs like Ts.

Also, and I know I'm being super petty here, and it's not really relevant to anything I wrote above, but it's going to genuinely bother me if I don't point this out:

Spirochaetes are a type of bacteria. Insects breathe through spiracles.

 

[darkness975]

I won't let that anywhere near my inverts.

 

[The Snark]

In reality, many essential oils have neurotoxic effects at concentrations far below what it would take for them to drown.

And that is the major problem. Neurotoxins and their effects do not conform to simple LD 50 tests. Neurotoxins can and do cause debilitating long term effects that are impossible to measure. They rarely cause cellular deaths, Rather they alter the electro-chemistry of the neurons and this alteration may be for the rest of the animals life. Neurotoxins also have effects on the immune system. How much exposure and what degree of effect are only grossly estimated as they cannot be accurately measured most of the time. Additionally, neurotoxic effects may be cumulative.
Bottom line; if the potential is possible for neurotoxins to be present, avoid them. It's dicing with a dangerous unknown.

 

[Stylopidae]

And that is the major problem. Neurotoxins and their effects do not conform to simple LD 50 tests. Neurotoxins can and do cause debilitating long term effects that are impossible to measure. They rarely cause cellular deaths, Rather they alter the electro-chemistry of the neurons and this alteration may be for the rest of the animals life. Neurotoxins also have effects on the immune system. How much exposure and what degree of effect are only grossly estimated as they cannot be accurately measured most of the time. Additionally, neurotoxic effects may be cumulative.
Bottom line; if the potential is possible for neurotoxins to be present, avoid them. It's dicing with a dangerous unknown.

I have a fairly strong background in insect toxicology, and I've even worked on the human side of that equation as well. I'm familiar with the concept of chronic effects.

There are, however, safe levels of exposure because there are levels where the compounds are broken down before they reach their molecular targets.

Phidippus audax is routinely found in cotton fields where they're spraying dicrotophos, and while this is undoubtedly not good for them...they survive.

On that basis alone, there is no reason to think they'd be killed by a Glade plug-in.

 

[The Snark]

Phidippus audax is routinely found in cotton fields where they're spraying dicrotophos, and while this is undoubtedly not good for them...they survive.

The point being, with neurotoxins it isn't live or die but a large range of in between neurological conditions, They survive. Okay, They are still in the gene pool, but what effect will that have using a neurotoxin time base which extends throughout the life span of the animal and is likely to have adverse effects upon future generations?

Identification of gene targets of developmental neurotoxicity focusing on DNA hypermethylation involved in irreversible disruption of hippocampal neurogenesis in rats - PubMed

We have previously found that maternal exposure to 6-propyl-2-thiouracil (PTU), valproic acid (VPA), or glycidol (GLY) has a sustained or late effect on hippocampal neurogenesis at the adult stage in rat offspring. Herein, we searched for genes with hypermethylated promoter region and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Stylopidae]

Identification of gene targets of developmental neurotoxicity focusing on DNA hypermethylation involved in irreversible disruption of hippocampal neurogenesis in rats - PubMed

We have previously found that maternal exposure to 6-propyl-2-thiouracil (PTU), valproic acid (VPA), or glycidol (GLY) has a sustained or late effect on hippocampal neurogenesis at the adult stage in rat offspring. Herein, we searched for genes with hypermethylated promoter region and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'm sorry, but what does this paper have to do with air freshners?

 

[regalpaws]

I do use essential oils on occasion. Its set in one side of my room and my spoods are on the other. I always make sure I have a fan on anyways, and there is always ample airflow. I never have the diffuser on constantly and I am very sparing on the oils; using 1-3 drops. It has never seemed to hurt any of my 13 spoods.

 

[The Snark]

air freshners?

Air fresheners? Let's call it like it is. Diffusers are smog generators introducing gaseous substances and particulates into the air. Some of the crud may be neurotoxic.
BTW, spiders are naturally resistant to most forms of pesticides.

 

[ratluvr76]

wrong button so deleted the text of this message. I will reply again seperately

 

[ratluvr76]

.....
There are, however, safe levels of exposure because there are levels where the compounds are broken down before they reach their molecular targets.

Phidippus audax is routinely found in cotton fields where they're spraying dicrotophos, and while this is undoubtedly not good for them...they survive.

On that basis alone, there is no reason to think they'd be killed by a Glade plug-in.

Is there such a thing as "safe levels" of exposure of any toxin to any animal?
I know there are several species of insect, arachnid, and other invertebrates that survive elevated levels of toxins, however, this is, as has been stated "not ideal".

The problem when it comes to captive bred populations, particularly ones that are generationally very distant from the first wild caught specimens that spawned the captive bred populations, (whether speaking of inverts or not), is that they do not have the benefit of generational exposure and related tolerance that our captive bred T's do not have.

The essential oils issue is one that, while the levels of toxins may be TOLERABLE for them, if there is any chance that a toxin causes discomfort, then they should be avoided. Our choice to keep any animal makes us stewards of their health, and their well-being. Any unnecessary discomfort that can be avoided, should be avoided. After all, "tolerable" or "survivable" or not; a negative effect is still a negative effect - no matter how you look at it.

Respectfully and IMHO of course.

 

[Stylopidae]

Is there such a thing as "safe levels" of exposure of any toxin to any animal?
I know there are several species of insect, arachnid, and other invertebrates that survive elevated levels of toxins, however, this is, as has been stated "not ideal".

So here's where we get into some real toxicology stuff...and I'm willing to get really into the weeds on this if we need to.

There's this concept called a 'reference dose' (RfD) which is the maximum acceptable oral intake for a pesticide. It does not apply to inhalation doses (which is what this thread is based on) nor dermal doses.

The RfD is the level at which no observable effects-either chronic or acute-are able to be detected through oral doses. Some of these studies can last two years or more, so they're really trying to find effects. Typically they use lab rats, but in some cases they use beagles because they're more sensitive to certain pesticides. They essentially use the most sensitive model they can find.

For adult human food, the pesticide tolerances are set to be 10x lower than the RfD. For baby food, the tolerances are set to 100x lower than the RfD. If testing finds a batch of produce exceeds these levels, it is not allowed for sale.

There are no RfD equivalent for inverts, but inverts do just fine on pet food (which has lower tolerances than human food) as well as human food.

The problem when it comes to captive bred populations, particularly ones that are generationally very distant from the first wild caught specimens that spawned the captive bred populations, (whether speaking of inverts or not), is that they do not have the benefit of generational exposure and related tolerance that our captive bred T's do not have.

So, wild spiders are exposed to many different types of toxins in their environment through their prey. In the wild, they're probably eating stuff that has some kind of defensive chemistry. If it doesn't have defensive chemistry, it's likely gut-loaded with something that does. However, in captivity we feed stuff which has minimal defensive chemistry. The flipside of this is that the stuff we feed spiders has at least some detectable level of pesticide in it. So either way, spiders are eating toxins in both the wild or captivity.

Now, we're REALLY good at detecting pesticides. We can detect a single molecule of pesticide per sample in many cases. Detectability does not equal harm.

The thousand-foot view on this is that spiders detoxify these compounds through enzymes called 'Cytochrome P450s', and captive spiders do not lose these enzymes through captive breeding. Those detoxification enzymes are still there, and still intact. Mealworms have them, Drosophila has them...they're ubiquitous.

Spiders are quite good at detoxifying compounds, because as generalist predators they wouldn't be alive in the wild without this ability.

The essential oils issue is one that, while the levels of toxins may be TOLERABLE for them, if there is any chance that a toxin causes discomfort, then they should be avoided. Our choice to keep any animal makes us stewards of their health, and their well-being. Any unnecessary discomfort that can be avoided, should be avoided. After all, "tolerable" or "survivable" or not; a negative effect is still a negative effect - no matter how you look at it.

Respectfully and IMHO of course.

Tarantulas tend to navigate their environment through touch and taste, while jumping spiders tend to navigate through sight. Their sense of smell is probably on par with ours, or maybe a little less. I haven't been able to get a good sense of that from the available literature, but it's clear that smell is usually a secondary sense (except when it comes to mating).

Either way, just because we can smell an essential oil does not necessarily mean that the spider will have a negative reaction to the stimuli.

As I said in my original post, people tend to assume the possibility of harm where it's likely that none exists.

 

[ratluvr76]

So here's where we get into some real toxicology stuff...and I'm willing to get really into the weeds on this if we need to.

There's this concept called a 'reference dose' (RfD) which is the maximum acceptable oral intake for a pesticide. It does not apply to inhalation doses (which is what this thread is based on) nor dermal doses.

The RfD is the level at which no observable effects-either chronic or acute-are able to be detected through oral doses. Some of these studies can last two years or more, so they're really trying to find effects. Typically they use lab rats, but in some cases they use beagles because they're more sensitive to certain pesticides. They essentially use the most sensitive model they can find.

For adult human food, the pesticide tolerances are set to be 10x lower than the RfD. For baby food, the tolerances are set to 100x lower than the RfD. If testing finds a batch of produce exceeds these levels, it is not allowed for sale.

There are no RfD equivalent for inverts, but inverts do just fine on pet food (which has lower tolerances than human food) as well as human food.



So, wild spiders are exposed to many different types of toxins in their environment through their prey. In the wild, they're probably eating stuff that has some kind of defensive chemistry. If it doesn't have defensive chemistry, it's likely gut-loaded with something that does. However, in captivity we feed stuff which has minimal defensive chemistry. The flipside of this is that the stuff we feed spiders has at least some detectable level of pesticide in it. So either way, spiders are eating toxins in both the wild or captivity.

Now, we're REALLY good at detecting pesticides. We can detect a single molecule of pesticide per sample in many cases. Detectability does not equal harm.

The thousand-foot view on this is that spiders detoxify these compounds through enzymes called 'Cytochrome P450s', and captive spiders do not lose these enzymes through captive breeding. Those detoxification enzymes are still there, and still intact. Mealworms have them, Drosophila has them...they're ubiquitous.

Spiders are quite good at detoxifying compounds, because as generalist predators they wouldn't be alive in the wild without this ability.



Tarantulas tend to navigate their environment through touch and taste, while jumping spiders tend to navigate through sight. Their sense of smell is probably on par with ours, or maybe a little less. I haven't been able to get a good sense of that from the available literature, but it's clear that smell is usually a secondary sense (except when it comes to mating).

Either way, just because we can smell an essential oil does not necessarily mean that the spider will have a negative reaction to the stimuli.

As I said in my original post, people tend to assume the possibility of harm where it's likely that none exists.

Thank you for the clarification. I am always open to discussion of my beliefs/assumptions and always wanting to learn. Your reply was very thorough and put in language I can understand.
I also appreciate the respectful way you delivered the info. very helpful.

 

[The Snark]

There's this concept called a 'reference dose' (RfD)

And here is where we get to see the hair splitting and words 'unreasonable and overly restrictive' are tossed about by Monsanto and friends and enemies
RfD does not take into account cumulative effects over time or lifetime exposure. Numerous law suits have been filed by the chemical manufacturers to ignore this gigantic herd of elephants in the room. Only what is established as RfD, immediate non lethal dosage level, is used as reference in establishing the safety of the chemical.

One consumer advocacy group pointed out this is akin to firing a gun at a person and if the bullet does not strike a vital organ it is considered safe.