Not really, thermobarics cause extensive burns and lung damage to the injured.
Though it's a bit of a silly idea to me; what's the real difference between burns from WP/napalm and sulphur mustard or Lewisite? Or the lung damage from a thermobaric explosion or chloropicrin? Or being blinded by a laser or phosgene?
Lung damage!?? Well, if you're not immolated in the blast itself, the pressure wave will liquidise all your internal organs leading to near - instantaneous death, so yeah - I suppose that counts as lung damage. Of course, if you're unlucky enough to be at the back of a cave / tunnel complex, rather than out in the open, you might just fall victim to good, ole' fashioned asphyxia, too. And, for the record, all weapons - from bullets to block busters - have secondary, non - lethal effects outside of certain parameters / radii. Further, what do you suppose the injuries to the survivor of a napalm attack might look like - do you suppose they perhaps involve extensive burns and lung damage??
The fact remains that the most efficient / humane way of dealing with the OP (which, by the way, doesn't mention area denial - which would be short - lived anyhow) would be to choose FAE.
If you don't understand the 'real' difference in weapons effects (and, indeed, legality) of the substances and mechanisms you posit, may I suggest you avoid a career in either military planning or procurement?