Effectiveness of sound repellent for mice and rats

Understanding Sound Repellents

How Ultrasonic Devices Work

Frequency Ranges and Their Effects

Acoustic deterrents rely on specific frequency bands to influence rodent behavior. Research shows that mice and rats possess auditory sensitivity from roughly 1 kHz to 80 kHz, with peak hearing around 10–20 kHz. Devices targeting these ranges produce varying outcomes.

Low frequencies (1–5 kHz): Overlap with human speech and environmental noise; rodents exhibit limited aversion, often ignoring signals unless amplitude exceeds 90 dB SPL. Prolonged exposure may lead to habituation without measurable reduction in activity.
Mid frequencies (5–15 kHz): Align with the rodents’ most acute hearing region. Pulsed tones at 70–80 dB SPL cause startle responses, brief avoidance of treated zones, and a measurable decline in foraging within 24 hours. Repeated use can diminish effect after several days, indicating possible adaptation.
Ultrasonic frequencies (20–80 kHz): Beyond human perception, these bands trigger innate alarm mechanisms. Continuous emission at 80–90 dB SPL produces immediate retreat and sustained displacement when combined with intermittent modulation (e.g., 2‑second bursts). Field trials report up to 60 % reduction in rodent presence when ultrasonic output is maintained for at least 12 hours daily. However, some species habituate after 1‑2 weeks, necessitating frequency shifts or intermittent operation to preserve efficacy.

The magnitude of behavioral change correlates with three parameters: frequency proximity to the rodent’s hearing peak, sound pressure level, and temporal pattern. Optimal designs integrate a spectrum that spans the mid‑to‑ultrasonic range, employ variable pulse intervals, and adjust output levels to exceed the auditory threshold without causing equipment fatigue. Continuous monitoring of activity levels is essential to detect habituation and to recalibrate frequency settings accordingly.

Types of Sound Repellent Devices

Acoustic deterrent technology for rodents includes several distinct device categories, each employing specific sound‑generation methods to interfere with the hearing range of mice and rats.

Ultrasonic emitters produce frequencies above 20 kHz, beyond human perception, targeting the auditory sensitivity of rodents. Devices range from plug‑in units for residential use to industrial‑grade models with adjustable output levels.
Broadband noise generators emit a wide spectrum of frequencies, typically from 2 kHz to 30 kHz, creating a continuous acoustic environment that masks natural sounds and induces discomfort. These systems are often installed in warehouses and agricultural facilities where extensive coverage is required.
Vibration‑based devices combine low‑frequency sound with mechanical vibrations transmitted through building structures. The dual stimulus disrupts rodent communication and locomotion, making them unsuitable for environments where pure acoustic output is preferred.
Electronic deterrent systems integrate motion sensors with programmable sound modules. When movement is detected, the system triggers a burst of ultrasonic or broadband noise, conserving energy and limiting exposure to non‑target periods.
Portable handheld units provide on‑demand acoustic repellent for spot treatment. Battery‑powered models emit short pulses of high‑frequency sound, useful for immediate intervention in confined spaces such as basements or storage closets.
Fixed‑installation arrays consist of multiple synchronized emitters mounted on walls or ceilings. Array configurations ensure overlapping coverage, reducing blind spots and maintaining consistent acoustic pressure throughout large facilities.
Smart integrated solutions connect to building management systems, allowing remote monitoring, schedule programming, and data logging of activation events. Integration enhances operational oversight and facilitates compliance with pest‑control protocols.

Each device type presents unique operational parameters—frequency range, power consumption, coverage area, and installation complexity—that influence its suitability for specific environments and rodent control objectives. Selecting an appropriate technology requires matching these characteristics to the targeted setting and the desired level of acoustic deterrence.

Scientific Evidence and Studies

Efficacy Against Mice

Laboratory Findings

Laboratory experiments have quantified the impact of ultrasonic and audible deterrent devices on populations of Mus musculus and Rattus norvegicus. In controlled chambers, exposure to frequencies between 18 kHz and 30 kHz reduced activity levels by 42 % compared with silent controls. When the signal was modulated with intermittent bursts (5 s on, 15 s off), avoidance behavior increased to 58 % and mortality remained unchanged, indicating a non‑lethal deterrent effect.

Key observations from the trials:

Habituation: After 48 h of continuous exposure, rodents exhibited a 22 % decline in avoidance, suggesting that prolonged, unvarying signals lose efficacy.
Species variation: Rats showed a stronger initial response (average 65 % reduction in foraging) than mice (48 % reduction), implying species‑specific auditory sensitivity.
Environmental factors: Efficacy dropped by 15 % in chambers with high ambient noise (>55 dB), highlighting the importance of signal‑to‑noise ratio.
Device placement: Positioning emitters at ceiling level produced the greatest coverage, reducing blind spots and increasing overall deterrence by 9 % relative to floor‑mounted units.

Statistical analysis confirmed significance (p < 0.01) for all measured reductions in activity. The data support the conclusion that acoustic deterrents can produce measurable short‑term suppression of rodent movement, provided that signal patterns are varied, ambient noise is controlled, and devices are strategically installed.

Field Observations

Field investigations of acoustic deterrents for commensal rodents were conducted across agricultural, residential, and industrial sites during peak activity periods. Sites were selected to represent diverse substrate types, structural complexities, and ambient noise levels. Rodent presence was monitored with live‑capture traps, motion‑activated cameras, and passive acoustic sensors before, during, and after device deployment.

Devices emitted frequencies between 18–30 kHz, calibrated to exceed background levels by 10 dB.
Deployment duration ranged from 24 h to 30 days, with power supplied by mains or solar arrays.
Observed species included Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus.
Capture rates declined by 45 % on average in treated zones; untreated control zones showed no significant change.
Camera footage recorded a 38 % reduction in foraging bouts near active emitters.
Ambient noise above 50 dB SPL correlated with diminished deterrent effect, reducing capture reduction to 20 %.

Data indicate that ultrasonic repellents can suppress rodent activity under controlled field conditions, particularly where background sound is low and exposure time exceeds 48 h. Effectiveness varies with species, habitat complexity, and ambient acoustic environment, suggesting that optimal deployment requires site‑specific calibration and periodic performance verification.

Efficacy Against Rats

Controlled Experiments

Controlled experiments provide the most reliable evidence for evaluating acoustic deterrents targeting rodents. Researchers isolate the sound device as the independent variable while keeping environmental conditions—temperature, lighting, food availability, and enclosure size—constant. This isolation eliminates confounding factors and allows direct measurement of changes in rodent activity, capture rates, or mortality.

Typical protocols involve two groups: a treatment cohort exposed to the ultrasonic emitter and a control cohort receiving a sham device that emits no sound. Random assignment of subjects to each cohort prevents selection bias. Data collection spans multiple cycles of exposure, often ranging from 24 hours to several weeks, to capture both immediate and long‑term behavioral responses.

Key metrics recorded during the trials include:

Frequency and duration of foraging bouts.
Number of entries into the treated zone.
Weight gain or loss as an indirect indicator of stress.
Mortality or injury rates.

Statistical analysis, such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) or mixed‑effects modeling, quantifies differences between groups and assesses significance. Reporting includes confidence intervals, effect sizes, and power calculations to demonstrate the robustness of the findings. By adhering to these rigorous design principles, investigators generate reproducible evidence on how well ultrasonic devices reduce rodent presence in targeted environments.

Real-World Applications

Ultrasonic deterrent devices are deployed in settings where rodent intrusion threatens product integrity, infrastructure, or health. Their practical value stems from non‑chemical action, silent operation, and compliance with safety regulations, allowing continuous protection without contaminating environments.

Common implementations include:

Grain silos and feedlots: devices installed on ceilings or walls prevent infestations that could reduce yield and spread disease among livestock.
Food processing plants: integration into ventilation ducts and storage rooms limits contamination risks, supporting compliance with hygiene standards.
Residential complexes: placement in basements, attics, and utility rooms reduces indoor sightings, decreasing reliance on traps or poison.
Municipal facilities: deployment in sewer systems, public parks, and transit stations curtails population growth, mitigating public‑health concerns.
Laboratory and research facilities: use in animal‑housing rooms safeguards experimental subjects from unintended rodent contact.

Effectiveness assessments in field trials reveal consistent reductions in activity levels, measured by motion sensors and trapping counts, across diverse climates and building designs. The data support broader adoption as a primary component of integrated pest‑management programs, complementing sanitation and structural exclusion strategies.

Factors Affecting Effectiveness

Device Placement and Coverage

Optimal Positioning

Effective ultrasonic deterrents rely on precise placement to maximize coverage of target areas. Position devices near known entry points such as gaps under doors, utility openings, and ventilation shafts. Install units at a height of 12–18 inches above the floor, where rodent activity concentrates, and avoid mounting directly on walls that block sound propagation.

Maintain a clear line of sight between the emitter and the surrounding space. Objects that absorb or reflect ultrasonic waves—dense furniture, thick curtains, and solid barriers—should be kept at least 6 inches away. When multiple units are required, arrange them in overlapping zones, ensuring the distance between emitters does not exceed the manufacturer’s specified effective radius (typically 20–30 ft). Overlap prevents dead zones while avoiding excessive signal saturation.

Key considerations for optimal positioning:

Identify high‑traffic pathways and place emitters within 2 ft of those routes.
Secure devices on stable surfaces to prevent vibration loss.
Verify that power sources are accessible without compromising placement integrity.
Conduct periodic spot checks to confirm that rodents are not adapting to static locations.

By adhering to these placement principles, ultrasonic repellents achieve consistent exposure, improving overall deterrent performance against both mice and rats.

Obstacles and Attenuation

Sound‑based deterrents depend on delivering frequencies that rodents find aversive. Physical barriers, competing noises, and the acoustic properties of the environment interfere with signal transmission, limiting the device’s reach.

Solid walls, especially those made of concrete, brick, or dense insulation, reflect or absorb ultrasonic energy, creating shadow zones where the signal drops below behavioral thresholds.
Open spaces with high ceilings increase the travel distance, causing exponential loss of intensity.
Ambient noises from HVAC systems, appliances, or external traffic raise the background sound level, reducing the contrast between the deterrent and the surrounding acoustic field.
Rodent habituation to repeated exposure can raise the effective threshold, requiring higher sound pressure levels for the same deterrent effect.

Attenuation follows predictable physical laws. Higher frequencies suffer greater air absorption; a 30 kHz tone loses roughly 1 dB per meter under typical indoor conditions, while lower ultrasonic bands attenuate more slowly. Materials with high acoustic impedance mismatch, such as metal panels or laminated glass, cause additional reflection losses. The inverse‑square law governs intensity reduction with distance, meaning a signal that is 90 dB at 1 m falls to 84 dB at 2 m, assuming free‑field propagation. Surface roughness and porous layers introduce scattering, further diminishing the effective field.

Mitigating these factors requires strategic placement near entry points, use of multiple emitters to create overlapping coverage, and selection of frequencies that balance penetration depth with rodent sensitivity. Continuous monitoring of ambient sound levels helps adjust output to maintain a sufficient signal‑to‑noise ratio.

Rodent Species and Behavior

Adaptability of Pests

Mice and rats exhibit high physiological and behavioral plasticity that directly influences the performance of ultrasonic deterrents. Their auditory system can adjust to repeated exposure, reducing sensitivity to specific frequencies and diminishing repellent impact over time. Genetic diversity within populations contributes to variable hearing thresholds, allowing some individuals to remain unaffected by standard sound outputs.

Key aspects of pest adaptability include:

Habituation: Continuous emission of a single frequency leads to decreased startle response, enabling rodents to ignore the stimulus.
Frequency shift: Species can alter vocalization patterns, potentially developing tolerance to the repellent’s range.
Environmental masking: Background noises from machinery or human activity can obscure ultrasonic signals, lowering detection probability.
Population turnover: New generations lacking prior exposure may respond initially, but rapid reproduction cycles reintroduce tolerant individuals.

Effective management therefore requires rotating frequencies, integrating supplementary control methods, and periodically reassessing acoustic parameters to counteract the inherent adaptability of rodent pests.

Behavioral Responses to Ultrasound

Ultrasound devices aim to modify rodent activity by exploiting the species’ sensitivity to high‑frequency sound. Laboratory experiments consistently show that exposure to frequencies above 20 kHz triggers immediate avoidance in both mice and rats. Animals typically retreat from the source within seconds, reduce foraging time in the vicinity, and increase locomotor speed while moving away.

Observed behavioral patterns include:

Sudden cessation of grooming or nesting when ultrasound begins.
Rapid displacement to the opposite side of the enclosure, often accompanied by heightened vigilance.
Decreased entry into zones where the emitter is active, persisting for several minutes after the signal stops.
Repeated scanning of the environment, marked by frequent head turns and whisker movements, indicating auditory detection.

Field trials confirm that these responses translate to reduced presence of rodents in treated areas. Continuous emission maintains low occupancy, whereas intermittent pulses produce temporary avoidance followed by re‑entry once the signal ceases. The magnitude of the effect correlates with sound pressure level; intensities above 80 dB SPL produce the most reliable deterrence, while lower levels yield inconsistent outcomes.

Physiological studies reveal that ultrasonic exposure activates the cochlear hair cells of rodents, generating neural signals that elicit a startle reflex. This reflex is mediated by the superior colliculus and periaqueductal gray, regions governing rapid escape behavior. Repeated activation can lead to habituation if the stimulus lacks variability, underscoring the importance of frequency modulation in practical applications.

Overall, behavioral data demonstrate that ultrasound provokes a clear avoidance response in mice and rats, supporting its role as a non‑chemical control method. Effectiveness hinges on appropriate frequency selection, adequate sound pressure, and sustained variability to prevent habituation.

Environmental Conditions

Temperature and Humidity

Temperature influences the propagation of ultrasonic waves used to deter rodents. Higher ambient temperatures increase the speed of sound, shifting the frequency band of emitted signals upward. This shift can move the device’s output out of the optimal range for mouse and rat hearing, reducing repellent effectiveness. Conversely, cooler conditions slow sound transmission, potentially enhancing the overlap between emitted frequencies and the target species’ auditory sensitivity.

Humidity affects acoustic attenuation. Moist air absorbs ultrasonic energy more rapidly than dry air. Relative humidity above 70 % can diminish signal intensity by up to 30 % over distances of one meter, limiting coverage area. Low humidity preserves wave strength, allowing the device to maintain deterrent levels across a larger zone.

Key considerations for field deployment:

Measure ambient temperature and adjust device frequency settings or select models with adaptive frequency control.
Monitor relative humidity; in high‑moisture environments, increase device density or supplement with additional deterrent methods.
Conduct periodic calibration under prevailing climatic conditions to verify that emitted sound remains within the species‑specific hearing range.

Understanding these environmental variables enables precise configuration of acoustic deterrents, ensuring consistent performance across diverse settings.

Competing Noises

Competing noises can diminish the performance of ultrasonic devices designed to deter rodents. Ambient sounds that overlap the frequency range of the repellent interfere with the signal, reducing the perceived threat to mice and rats.

Typical sources of interference include:

Household appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, and HVAC systems that emit broadband noise.
Outdoor equipment like lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and construction tools producing high‑frequency bursts.
Communication devices, including Wi‑Fi routers and Bluetooth transmitters, which generate electromagnetic interference affecting ultrasonic output.

The presence of these sounds alters the acoustic environment, causing the deterrent waveform to lose its distinct pattern. Rodents may habituate to the distorted signal, rendering the device ineffective.

Mitigation strategies involve:

Conducting a spectral analysis of the target area to identify dominant competing frequencies.
Relocating the repellent unit to positions with minimal overlap, such as insulated corners or elevated mounts.
Selecting devices with adaptive frequency modulation that can shift away from detected background noise.

Continuous monitoring of ambient sound levels ensures that the deterrent maintains a clear acoustic margin, preserving its ability to discourage rodent activity.

Limitations and Criticisms

«The "Wall Effect"»

The “Wall Effect” describes how solid surfaces modify the acoustic field generated by ultrasonic deterrents aimed at rodents. When a device emits a high‑frequency tone, the sound wave encounters walls, ceilings, and floor panels. Materials such as plaster, wood, or concrete reflect a portion of the energy, while porous surfaces absorb it. The result is a pattern of zones where intensity is reduced, creating blind spots that rodents can exploit.

Reflection and absorption depend on frequency, angle of incidence, and surface impedance. Higher frequencies (>30 kHz) experience greater attenuation through drywall and insulation, limiting propagation distance to a few meters. Conversely, lower ultrasonic ranges (15–20 kHz) travel farther but may fall within the audible range of some rodent species, reducing deterrent efficacy.

Practical implications include:

Device placement: Position units at least 0.5 m from walls to allow the primary lobe to develop before encountering a surface.
Multiple emitters: Overlap coverage areas to compensate for dead zones created by reflections.
Material consideration: In rooms with heavy acoustic damping (e.g., carpeted floors, acoustic tiles), increase emitter density or select devices with adjustable frequency bands.
Testing protocol: Use a calibrated microphone to map sound pressure levels at various points; identify regions below the deterrent threshold (typically 80 dB SPL at the target frequency).

Understanding the interaction between ultrasonic output and structural elements is essential for achieving consistent rodent deterrence across varied environments. By accounting for the “Wall Effect,” operators can optimize placement strategies, mitigate signal loss, and enhance overall performance of acoustic repellent systems.

Habituation and Tolerance

Habituation describes the progressive decline in a rodent’s behavioral response to a continuous acoustic stimulus. When a sound repellent emits a constant frequency, mice and rats initially exhibit avoidance, but repeated exposure reduces the startled reaction as the auditory system classifies the signal as non‑threatening. Neural adaptation in the auditory cortex and diminished activation of the amygdala underlie this process, allowing the animal to conserve energy by ignoring irrelevant cues.

Tolerance refers to the physiological adjustment that raises the intensity threshold required to elicit a repellent effect. Prolonged exposure to the same sound level can induce changes in auditory sensitivity, such as up‑regulation of hair‑cell gain control mechanisms, resulting in a need for higher decibel output to achieve the same deterrent outcome. Tolerance development accelerates when the acoustic environment lacks variability and when the stimulus duration exceeds the animal’s short‑term memory window.

Both phenomena compromise the long‑term reliability of ultrasonic or high‑frequency devices. Evidence from laboratory trials shows that efficacy drops by 30‑50 % after two weeks of uninterrupted operation, correlating with measurable shifts in startle latency and reduced avoidance distance.

Mitigation strategies include:

Rotating frequencies within the device’s operational range every 24–48 hours.
Implementing intermittent playback cycles (e.g., 5 minutes on, 15 minutes off) to prevent continuous exposure.
Combining acoustic deterrents with tactile or olfactory repellents to create multimodal stressors.
Periodically increasing sound pressure level within safe limits to counter adaptive thresholds.

Adopting these practices restores responsiveness, prolongs deterrent performance, and reduces the likelihood that rodents will become desensitized to acoustic control measures.

Inaudible to Humans?

Concerns for Pets

Ultrasonic devices designed to deter mice and rats emit frequencies that are inaudible to most humans but can be perceived by many domestic animals. Cats, dogs, and small mammals such as rabbits or guinea pigs may experience discomfort, agitation, or temporary hearing loss when exposed to the same sound spectrum. The intensity and duration of the emitted waves determine the severity of the response; higher volume and continuous operation increase the risk of adverse effects.

Key concerns for pet owners include:

Potential stress or anxiety in cats and dogs, manifested by pacing, vocalization, or avoidance behavior.
Possible hearing damage in animals with sensitive auditory ranges, especially small pets.
Interference with training cues or commands that rely on audible signals.
Reduced effectiveness of the device if pets adapt to the sound, leading owners to increase output levels and amplify risks.

Selecting a device with adjustable frequency ranges, timed cycles, and pet‑specific safety features can mitigate these issues while maintaining rodent deterrence. Regular monitoring of pet behavior after installation provides early detection of negative reactions and informs necessary adjustments.

Alternatives and Integrated Pest Management

Mechanical Traps

Mechanical traps remain a primary control method for rodent infestations, offering immediate capture and mortality without reliance on electronic deterrents. Their design varies from snap‑type devices, which deliver a rapid lethal force, to live‑catch cages that enable humane removal. Construction materials—stainless steel, cast iron, or polymer—affect durability and resistance to gnawing, while trigger mechanisms (spring‑loaded, pressure‑sensitive, or treadle) determine sensitivity to the weight and movement patterns of mice and rats.

When assessing traps against ultrasonic deterrents, several performance criteria emerge:

Capture rate: percentage of placed traps that secure a rodent within a defined period.
Time to capture: average elapsed hours from deployment to successful kill or containment.
Non‑target impact: incidence of unintended captures of birds, reptiles, or beneficial insects.
Maintenance demand: frequency of bait replenishment, trap cleaning, and component replacement.

Empirical studies show that well‑baited snap traps achieve capture rates exceeding 80 % within 48 hours under moderate infestation levels, whereas ultrasonic devices often produce variable results, with efficacy dropping sharply in cluttered environments that attenuate sound waves. Mechanical traps also function independently of power sources, eliminating concerns about battery life, signal interference, or acoustic habituation among rodents.

Effective deployment follows a systematic protocol:

Identify high‑traffic pathways by inspecting gnaw marks, droppings, and fresh burrows.
Position traps perpendicular to walls, with the trigger end facing the anticipated approach direction.
Use attractants—peanut butter, sunflower seed, or commercial rodent lures—to increase encounter probability.
Monitor and reset traps at least twice daily to prevent decomposition and reduce predator attraction.
Record capture data to refine placement density and assess overall control progress.

Integration with sound‑based repellents can enhance a multi‑modal strategy, provided that traps are placed in zones where acoustic coverage is weak or where rodents exhibit avoidance of ultrasonic fields. In such hybrid applications, mechanical traps serve as a verification tool, confirming that the deterrent does not merely mask presence but fails to achieve population reduction.

Chemical Rodenticides

Chemical rodenticides constitute the primary pharmacological approach to controlling Mus musculus and Rattus spp. Their action relies on acute toxicity or delayed physiological disruption, typically via anticoagulant, neurotoxic, or metabolic pathways. Anticoagulants, such as brodifacoum and difenacoum, inhibit vitamin K epoxide reductase, leading to fatal hemorrhage after several days of ingestion. First‑generation agents (warfarin, chlorophacinone) require repeated doses; second‑generation compounds achieve lethality after a single feeding, reducing bait consumption but increasing persistence in the environment.

Neurotoxic rodenticides, exemplified by bromethalin, interfere with mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, causing cerebral edema and rapid death. Metabolic poisons, including zinc phosphide, release phosphine gas in the acidic stomach, producing systemic cellular toxicity. Each class presents distinct advantages and limitations concerning speed of action, bait acceptance, and non‑target risk.

When evaluating chemical control against acoustic deterrents, several factors emerge:

Speed of population reduction – Rodenticides produce measurable mortality within 24–72 hours; sound devices often yield only temporary displacement.
Resistance development – Repeated exposure to anticoagulants selects for VKORC1 gene mutations, diminishing efficacy; acoustic habituation can also occur but typically requires lower exposure thresholds.
Safety considerations – Toxicants demand strict placement, secondary‑poisoning mitigation, and compliance with regulatory frameworks (e.g., EPA registration, EU Biocidal Products Regulation). Acoustic systems avoid chemical exposure but may affect pet and wildlife auditory health.
Regulatory constraints – Many jurisdictions impose usage limits, licensing, and record‑keeping for rodenticides, whereas sound repellents generally face fewer legal barriers.

Integrated pest management protocols often combine chemical baiting with environmental sanitation and, where appropriate, acoustic deterrents to exploit complementary mechanisms. Chemical interventions remain indispensable for rapid knock‑down of established infestations, while sound repellents serve as supplementary tools for prevention and monitoring.

Exclusion and Sanitation

Acoustic deterrents rely on a hostile auditory environment to discourage rodents, yet their performance deteriorates when entry points and food sources remain accessible. Sealing gaps, cracks, and openings eliminates pathways that allow mice and rats to bypass ultrasonic zones, forcing the animals to encounter the sound field. Durable materials such as steel mesh, concrete, or expanding foam provide long‑term barriers; regular inspections detect new breaches caused by structural movement or weathering.

Sanitation complements exclusion by removing attractants that motivate rodents to explore protected areas. Key actions include:

Storing grain, pet food, and waste in sealed containers.
Cleaning floors, countertops, and equipment to eliminate spillage.
Disposing of garbage in tightly closed bins and removing litter promptly.
Maintaining drainage to prevent water accumulation that could serve as a drinking source.

When exclusion and sanitation are consistently applied, the acoustic system operates under optimal conditions, reducing the likelihood that rodents will find refuge or food despite the presence of sound repellent technology.

Recommendations for Use

Sound‑emitting devices can deter mice and rats when applied correctly. Follow these guidelines to maximize efficacy.

Position units near entry points, nesting sites, and along travel corridors. Install at least 30 cm from walls to avoid acoustic dead zones.
Set frequency range between 18 kHz and 24 kHz, covering the hearing spectrum of both species. Verify that the device emits continuous tones or intermittent bursts, depending on manufacturer specifications.
Operate devices 24 hours a day for a minimum of two weeks before assessing results. Early cessation reduces long‑term impact.
Maintain clear line of sight to the emitting source; avoid obstruction by furniture, insulation, or stored items.
Replace batteries or power supplies according to the producer’s schedule; most units require renewal every 3–6 months.
Combine acoustic deterrents with traps, sealing of gaps, and sanitation measures. Integrated approaches prevent re‑infestation.
Record activity levels weekly using motion sensors or tracking plates. Adjust placement or frequency if rodent signs persist.

Adhering to these practices ensures consistent acoustic exposure, improves deterrence, and supports overall rodent management programs.