{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022364217252396165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR DURABLES AND TIMBER

Methyl bromide (MB) has a number of desirable features as a fumigant for durable commodities and timber including a rapid speed of treatment, low infrastructure requirements, recognition by quarantine authorities, broad registration for use, good penetrant ability, and rapid airing after exposure. There is, however, a range of existing and potential alternatives to MB which, alone or in combination, could be adopted to replace the few remaining non-QPS uses of MB. The strengths and weaknesses of each alternative are discussed in the paper. Change inevitably brings some costs and difficulties as new techniques are learned and adapted to fit the prevailing commercial and regulatory environments. The change may be minor if the alternative rapid-acting fumigants (e.g. sulfuryl fluoride) become registered on foodstuffs and available soon. If non-chemical techniques, such as heating are adopted, there may be substantial investment and changes in procedure needed. However there is also an opportunity as MB is not an ideal fumigant. Adoption of alternative pest management systems may end up providing better and cheaper processes for disinfestation and protection of durables and timber.