Next Article in Journal
Pharmacological Mechanism of Ketamine in Suicidal Behavior Based on Animal Models of Aggressiveness and Impulsivity: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Pentoxifylline Effects on Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Cytokine Storm Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Mentha aquatica L. Essential Oil (Linalool/Linalool Acetate Chemotype) against Insect Vectors and Agricultural Pests

1
Chemistry Interdisciplinary Project (ChIP), School of Pharmacy, University of Camerino, Via Madonna delle Carceri, 62032 Camerino, Italy
2
Crop Research Institute, Drnovska 507, 161 06 Prague, Czech Republic
3
Department of Plant Protection, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic
4
Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16(4), 633; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16040633
Submission received: 5 March 2023 / Revised: 18 April 2023 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published: 21 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Natural Products)

Abstract

:
In recent years, agrochemical industries have been focused on the development of essential oil (EO)-based biopesticides, which can be considered valuable alternatives to traditional chemical products. The genus Mentha (Lamiaceae) comprises 30 species characterized by a wide range of biological activities, and some of their EOs showed good potential as pesticidal agents. In this regard, the aim of this study was to evaluate the insecticidal activity of the EO obtained from a rare linalool/linalool acetate chemotype of Mentha aquatica L. The EO was found to be highly effective against Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) 2nd instar larvae, Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker) adults, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) 2nd instar larvae, and Tetranychus urticae (Koch) adults, showing lethal concentrations (LC50) or doses (LD50) of 31.5 ± 2.2 µL L−1, 4.9 ± 0.8 mL L−1, 18.5 ± 2.1 µg larvae−1, and 3.3 ± 0.5 mL L−1, respectively. On the contrary, Musca domestica L. adults and 3rd instar larvae of C. quinquefasciatus and S. littoralis were moderately affected by the treatment (LC50 or LD50: 71.4 ± 7.2 µg adult−1, 79.4 ± 5.2 µL L−1, 44.2 ± 5.8 µg larvae−1, respectively). The results obtained in this work demonstrated that various insects and pests could be differently sensible to the same EO and may lead to the exploitation of this plant or its major volatile compounds as novel ingredients of botanical insecticides and pesticides.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The genus Mentha belongs to the Lamiaceae family and comprises approximately 30 species distributed all over the world [1]. Plants of this genus have been widely used for several purposes by the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, food, beverage, and tobacco industries [2]. They represent the most exploited sources for the extraction of essential oils (EOs), which are produced at a rate of 23,000 metric tons every year for a value of $400 million [3].
In addition, several species of this genus have been proven as good sources for botanical insecticide ingredients due to their capacity to produce EOs equipped with contact toxicity, fumigant, and repellent effects against a wide spectrum of target insects, such as storage pests, vectors, and larvae [4]. The most investigated species of this genus are Mentha x piperita L., Mentha spicata L., and Mentha pulegium L.
Mentha aquatica L., also known as ‘water mint’, is a member of this genus growing in wet environments of Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. Moreover, it has been recently introduced into America and Australia [5,6]. The ethnobotanical uses reported for this plant have been mainly associated with its medicinal value, as M. aquatica is currently employed as a remedy for colds, respiratory, and gastrointestinal problems. Particularly, the gastrointestinal effect depends on the modulation of non-protein sulfhydryl substances, nitric oxide, and gastric secretion [7]. In addition, the leaves of the plant are smoked in South Africa to treat mental diseases [8], and the central nervous system activity has been associated with a strong affinity to the GABA-benzodiazepine receptor [6]. Mentha aquatica also showed butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activity and antioxidant, antimicrobial, catalytic, and cytoprotective actions [2,9,10]. However, most of the available studies on M. aquatica mainly focus on the chemical variability of its EO, which is in turn related to its geographic origins and to the agronomic treatments applied when it is cultivated as a crop. Currently, the reported chemotypes of M. aquatica are dominated by menthofuran, pulegone, menthol, piperitone oxide, or linalool [3,11,12,13,14,15]. To the best of our knowledge, the M. aquatica EO has been poorly explored for potential insecticidal effects when compared with other representatives of the genus Mentha.
In recent decades, the exploitation of botanical products capable of replacing traditional chemical pesticides has exponentially increased [16,17,18,19]. Indeed, problems related to food safety and environmental pollution have led to greater attention to sustainability, also in the agrochemical sector [20,21]. Although pesticides are essential for crop protection and, consequently, for food production, chemical residues can be toxic to other non-target organisms and have a negative impact on various environmental media such as air, soil, and water [22]. Therefore, replacing chemical substances with botanical products results in a good compromise to guarantee the protection of crops without causing damage to the environment, humans, or non-target species [23,24]. Among botanical products, EOs could be potential candidates for the development of novel biopesticides and insecticides. In previous studies, we showed that numerous EOs could display their insecticidal and pesticidal potential towards different insect species depending on the synergistic or antagonistic effect of their components that revealed suitable LC50 and LC90 values [25,26,27].
In this context, given the interest in Mentha species as sources of natural insecticides and pesticides against different vectors and stored grain pests [4,28,29], we evaluated for the first time the insecticidal and acaricidal potential of a linalool /linalool acetate-rich EO of M. aquatica. In order to provide evidence of the wide spectrum of insecticidal efficacy of this EO, we selected insect vectors transmitting diseases to humans and arthropods spreading on several crops, causing significant economic losses globally. In detail, the M. aquatica EO was tested on two species of public health relevance, i.e., Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) (Diptera: Culicidae) and Musca domestica (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae), and three representatives of important agricultural pests— Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae).

2. Results

2.1. EO Chemical Composition

Table 1 shows the results derived from gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of M. aquatica EO, which was dominated by the presence of oxygenated monoterpenes (86.9%), accompanied by minor percentages of monoterpene hydrocarbons (6.2%), sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (3.2%), esters (1.0%), and oxygenated sesquiterpenes (0.7%), which together accounted for 98.1% of the total composition. The main representatives of the oxygenated monoterpenes, as well as main EO constituents, were linalool acetate (34.9%) and linalool (26.8%), while minor components were α-terpinyl acetate (12.3%), 1,8-cineole (6.7%), and α-terpineol (5.1%). Among monoterpene hydrocarbons, myrcene (2.0%), limonene (0.9%), and (E)-β-ocimene (0.9%) were the most abundant, while germacrene D (1.8%) and (E)-caryophyllene (1.3%) were the most representative compounds of the sesquiterpene hydrocarbons.

2.2. Insecticidal and Acaricidal Efficacy

Regarding the insecticidal and acaricidal efficacy of M. aquatica EO, it was found to cause relatively good acute toxicity to all the target species. The estimated lethal doses (LD50) or concentrations (LC50) are shown in Table 2. The EO was more effective on younger larval instars. For instance, the LC50 for C. quinquefasciatus was estimated at 31.5 µL L−1 for the 2nd instar and at 79.4 µL L−1 for the 3rd larval instar. The same trend was found for 2nd and 3rd instar larvae of S. littoralis (LD50 = 18.5 and 44.2 µg larva−1, respectively). Very good effectiveness of the EO was found for small pests, such as the adults of M. dirhodum and T. urticae tested by us, for which the LC50 was estimated at 4.9 and 3.3 mL L−1, respectively. Conversely, low efficacy was found for M. domestica adults (LD50 = 71.4 and 50.5 µg adult−1; LD90 = 329.8 and 462.6 µg adult−1, for females and males, respectively).

3. Discussion

It is well known that the chemical composition of EOs is linked to several endogenous and exogenous factors, such as chemotypes, geographical distribution, growing conditions and climate, time of collection, and extracting techniques [31]. This chemical variability has also been reported for M. aquatica EO, for which the main varieties described in the literature are reported in Table 3. The composition found in our study is similar to that of other cultivated populations of M. aquatica, being linalool and linalool acetate the main compounds, even if at different ratios. For instance, for plants cultivated in Iran, the EO was mainly characterized by the presence of linalool (37.8%) and linalool acetate (30.6%) [32], as well as for species collected in India, for which the amount of these two compounds varied according to the season of collection. In fact, linalool was the dominant compound for plants collected from April to September (25.2–48.4%), while linalool acetate was the dominant compound for those collected from October to December (42.1–48.0%). A similar chemical constitution was also found for M. aquatica var. citrata, for which linalool and linalool acetate were the most representative compounds [14].
On the other hand, the chemical composition herein described contrasts with those reported from other studies. In fact, menthofuran has sometimes been reported as the most abundant compound. This is the case for the EO obtained from wild-growing plants in Vojvodina (16.9%), as well as the ones obtained from wild populations in Ethiopia (70.5%) and Romania (51.3–58.6%) [3,5,36]. The predominance of menthofuran in the EO seems to be also linked to other growing conditions, as in the case of M. aquatica plants growing in presence of Chrysolina herbacea (Duftschmid 1825) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). In these conditions, the plant activates some genes involved in the biosynthesis of terpenoids and redirects them to the production of menthofuran, which was demonstrated to repel C. herbacea [37]. The preponderance of menthofuran was also correlated with genetic factors [38,39].
The genus Mentha has been extensively studied for its insecticidal and acaricidal activity against agricultural pests and insect vectors, and some species have shown great efficacy [28,29]. For example, Mentha longifolia (L.) and Mentha suaveolens (Ehrh.) have demonstrated high larvicidal activity against third instar larvae of C. quinquefasciatus after 24 h of exposure with LC50 values of 17 mg L−1 for both EOs, which were characterized by the main compound piperitone oxide [40]. In a study, among 34 EOs from different Mentha species, M. pulegium was found to be the most effective against M. domestica adults under laboratory conditions in fumigant and topical bioassays, with LD50 values of 13 μg fly−1 and 4.7 μg cm−1, respectively [41]. Its EO was dominated by pulegone, the main responsible for the biological activity. Moreover, M. piperita caused >90% mortality, while M. spicata caused 81–82% mortality at 14 × 10−3 μL mL−1, demonstrating a significant acaricidal effect against T. urticae; in this case, menthol and carvone usually represent the main compounds of the EOs for the two species, respectively [42].
Despite the large body of relevant literature regarding the potential of the Mentha species to be used for the control of several vectors and pests, studies concerning the linalool/linalool acetate chemotype’s insecticidal activity have not yet been reported. This is the first study recording useful information for the potential development of biopesticides exploiting the rare chemotype of this species from Lebanon. However, both linalool and linalool acetate have been revealed to be effective pesticides in several studies [4,43,44,45,46]. Linalool has been demonstrated to be a competitive acetylcholinesterase inhibitor [46,47], and both linalool and linalool acetate seem to interfere with the insect central nervous system, in particular interacting with glutamatergic transmission and the GABAA receptor [48,49,50]. Indeed, EOs containing linalool and/or linalool acetate have been reported as effective insecticidal agents. For instance, basil EO showed a promising insecticidal potential on targets such as Rhyzopertha dominica L. (75.0% mortality at 4% of EO) [51], Sitophilus oryzae L. (LC50 of 4.9 μL mL−1) [52], Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (LT90 of 17.0 min), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (LT90 of 26.0 min), and B. cucurbitae Coquillett (LT90 of 32.0 min) [53]. This effect has been mainly linked to the high levels of linalool in the EO. In the same way, the EO from Cinnamomum camphora Ness and Eberm var. linaloolifera Fujita, which is characterized by linalool as the main compound, has been reported for its insecticidal properties against Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner (LC50 of 0.908% v/v) [54] and Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood (nymph mortality of 88.5% at 2.0% v/v) [55]. Similarly, Coriandrum sativum L. seeds’ EO displayed an insecticidal potential on adults of Tribolium confusum Duval (LC50 of 1.34 μL L−1 air) and Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricius (LC50 of 318.02 μL L−1 air), and this action was correlated to the predominant presence of linalool [56]. On the other hand, the EO from Myrtus communis L., mainly characterized by linalool and linalool acetate, displayed insecticidal action on three stored-product insects, namely Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (LC50 of 12.7 μL L−1 air), Plodia interpunctella Hübner (LC50 of 22.6 μL L−1 air), and Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (LC50 of 49.6 μL L−1 air) [57]. In addition, Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. and Thomson EO showed marked contact toxicity against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky with an LD50 value of 33.1 µg adult−1 and fumigant toxicity with an LC50 value of 14.8 mg L−1 [58]. In our work, we did not have a positive control available; however, we can compare the effectiveness of EO with the positive control of previously published works in which the same insect species were used in the same developmental stages and the application was carried out in a similar way with the same genetic material of the target organisms and under similar post-application conditions. Regarding the herein presented study, M. aquatica EO was found to be more effective than Rock Effect (a commercial biopesticide based on Pongamia pinnata L. oil), which was used as a positive control by Pavela et al. [59] and tested against the same targets. Specifically, the LD50 or LC50 values were higher for the positive control (˃500 μg adult−1, 275.4 μg mL−1, 12.5 mL L−1, 5.8 mL L−1, 3.3 ± 0.5 mL L−1, respectively) than for the M. aquatica EO (71.4 ± 7.2 μg adult−1, 79.4 ± 5.2 μg mL−1, 4.9 ± 0.8 mL L−1, respectively) when both were tested against M. domestica female adults, C. quinquefasciatus 3rd instar larvae, and M. dirhodum adults. On the other hand, their activity is quite comparable in the test against S. littoralis (LD50 of 18.2 and 18.5 µg larva−1 for the positive control and M. aquatica EO, respectively). The effectiveness of M. aquatica EO was of varying degrees of intensity, as the different species of insects tested were differently sensitive to the same EO.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and EO Extraction

Leaves of cultivated M. aquatica were manually collected in Kafarkela (33°17’ N 35°33’ E, 400 m a.s.l.), Southern Lebanon, in August 2019. The botanical identification was performed by Dr. Fabrizio Bartolucci, University of Camerino, Floristic Research Center of the Apennines. A voucher specimen was stored in the herbarium of the Floristic Research Centre of the Apennines under the voucher codex APP No. 66212. Mentha aquatica EO was obtained by hydrodistillation of dried leaves using a Clevenger-type apparatus for 4 h. The calculation of the oil yields was based on a dry weight (w/w) basis and resulted in 3.35%.

4.2. GC–MS Analysis of Essential Oils

The GC–MS analysis was carried out with an Agilent 6890N–5973N GC–MS system (Santa Clara, CA, USA) on a sample of M. aquatica EO prepared by dilution to 1:100 with n-hexane. The instrument was operating in the EI mode at 70 eV and using a HP-5MS (5% phenylmethylpolysiloxane, 30 m, 0.25 mm i.d., film thickness 0.1 µm) (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) capillary column.
The chromatographic parameters and chromatogram analysis were the same as those reported by Nkuimi Wandjou et al. [27]. Briefly, the analytical standards of α-pinene, sabinene, β-pinene, myrcene, α-terpinene, p-cymene, limonene, 1,8-cineole, (Z)-β-ocimene, (E)-β-ocimene, γ-terpinene, terpinolene, terpinene-4-ol, α-terpineol, (E)-caryophyllene, and α-humulene were purchased from Merck (Milan, Italy) and used for peak assignments based on retention time and mass spectrum (MS). Moreover, the combination of the calculated linear retention index (RI) and MS was used to confirm the identity of the other compounds. Semi-quantitative values (peak area percentages) were obtained by peak normalization without using correction factors.

4.3. Target Insects and Mites

As target arthropod species, we tested C. quinquefasciatus, M. domestica, M. dirhodum, S. littoralis, and T. urticae. These species have been reared under controlled laboratory conditions at the Crop Research Institute (Prague, Czech Republic) for more than 20 generations.
Arthropod mass rearing in brief: C. quinquefasciatus larvae were fed with dry dog biscuits; adults were allowed to mate; females were fed with blood in order to complete their egg development. Eggs were laid in unprepared containers of water. M. domestica larvae were fed a diet developed at the Crop Research Institute (Prague, Czech Republic), which was composed of sawdust, milk, and agar. Housefly adults were fed sugar solutions and powdered milk. Eggs were laid on cotton wool dipped in sweet milk. Wheat plants in pots with ordinary substrate were selected to rear M. dirhodum. S. littoralis larvae were fed with agar, soybean meal, and vitamins; adults, fed with honey solution, mated and laid eggs on filter paper previously prepared. Bean plants grown in a common garden substrate were selected to rear T. urticae in a growth chamber. All arthropod target species were maintained at 25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 3% R.H., and 16:8 h (L:D). Experiments described thereafter were carried out under the same conditions [59].

4.4. Insecticidal and Acaricidal Activity

The M. aquatica EO was diluted in acetone (p.a., Sigma Aldrich, Prague, Czech Republic) to obtain various concentrations (applied at 1 μL): for S. littoralis larvae, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 μg larva−1; and for M. domestica adults, 50, 80, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 μg adult−1. Before application, the arthropods were anesthetized with CO2. Acetone was the negative control. After treatment, the tested organisms were placed into the rearing containers (15 × 12 × 8 cm) equipped with a perforated lid and fed with the aforementioned diet. The experiments were replicated four times; each replicate was performed with 20 individuals. For C. quinquefasciatus larvae, EO was dissolved in DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, Merck, Prague, Czech Republic) and tested according to the WHO (1996) procedure [60] with minor modifications. Each time, 1 mL of DMSO, which contained a defined amount of EO, was thoroughly mixed in 99 mL of chlorine-free standing water. In this way, a concentration series containing 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 mg mL−1 of mint EO was obtained. DMSO was used as a negative control. For each replicate, 20 larvae were used, and the experiment was repeated four times. For experiments with M. dirhodum and T. urticae, first, the EO was emulsified using Tween 80 (Sigma-Aldrich, Prague, Czech Republic) in a 1:1 (v:v) ratio. Afterwards, different concentrations were prepared (for M. dirhodum adults, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 mL L−1, and for T. urticae adults, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 mL L−1) by thoroughly mixing the modified EO in water. Always, 20 adults of M. dirhodum or T. urticae (for each replication) were transferred to wheat or bean leaves, respectively, using a fine brush. The plants were located in a flowerpot with a diameter of 9 cm. An electric applicator was used to spray the plants (5 mL of solution per plant) in five replicates.
All experiments were conducted in an air-conditioned room at a temperature of 25 °C, a photoperiod of 16 h of light, and 70–80% relative humidity. Twenty-four hours after the application, the number of dead individuals was determined. All individuals that did not show any movement in response to a mechanical stimulus were considered dead.
For the calculation of lethal doses or concentrations, at least five concentrations or doses for which mortality was found to be in the range of 20–90% were always selected. After correction of mortality by Abbott [61], LD(LC)50(90) were estimated using Probit analysis [62].

5. Conclusions

In this work, a linalool acetate/linalool chemotype of M. aquatica was tested on C. quinquefasciatus, M. domestica, M. dirhodum, S. littoralis, and T. urticae, showing a relatively good acute toxicity on most of the tested targets. In detail, for C. quinquefasciatus and S. littoralis, a higher efficacy of the EO was found on the lower larval stages, while moderate activity was detected on M. dirhodum and T. urticae. Conversely, the EO was less effective on M. domestica adults. The different results obtained in the reported study suggest that various mechanisms of action, likely ascribable to the EO main constituents linalool and linalool acetate, could be involved in the different targets effects, and more studies should be performed to deepen this aspect.
Even though the genus Mentha has been widely reported for its insecticidal and acaricidal potential, this is the first study evaluating the above-mentioned properties of M. aquatica EO, namely the linalool acetate/linalool chemotype from Lebanon. The results herein presented could represent the starting point for a further exploration of this plant EO and/or its two major constituents as a botanical insecticide and pesticide ingredient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C., M.F., E.S., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli) and R.P. (Roman Pavela); methodology, M.F., E.S., C.B. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); software, M.F., E.S., C.B., A.C. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); validation, L.C., F.M., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli), M.F., E.S., C.B. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); formal analysis, L.C., F.M., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli), M.F., E.S., C.B. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); investigation, L.C., F.M., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli), M.F., E.S., C.B., A.C. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); resources, L.C., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli), F.M. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); data curation, M.F., E.S., C.B. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); writing—original draft preparation, M.F., E.S., C.B. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); writing—review and editing, L.C., F.M., R.P. (Riccardo Petrelli), M.F., E.S., C.B., A.C. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); supervision, L.C., F.M., R.P., M.F., E.S. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); project administration, L.C., F.M., R.P., M.F., E.S., C.B., A.C. and R.P. (Roman Pavela); funding acquisition, R.P., L.C. and R.P. (Roman Pavela). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca [PRIN 2017CBNCYT] to R.P.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to F. Farhat for kindly providing the leaves of Mentha aquatica from Lebanon. Financial support was provided by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (Project MZE-RO0423) to R. Pavela.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Deschamps, C.; Zanatta, J.L.; Bizzo, H.R.; Oliveira, M.D.C.; Roswalka, L.C. Seasonal evaluation of essential oil yield of mint species. Ciênc. Agrotecnol. 2008, 32, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ferhat, M.; Erol, E.; Beladjila, K.A.; Çetintaş, Y.; Duru, M.E.; Öztürk, M.; Kabouche, A.; Kabouche, Z. Antioxidant, anticholinesterase and antibacterial activities of Stachys guyoniana and Mentha aquatica. Pharm. Biol. 2017, 55, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gethaun, Z.; Asres, K.; Mazumder, A.; Bucar, F. Essential oil composition, antibacterial and antioxidant activities of Mentha aquatica growing in Ethiopia. Ethiop. Pharm. J. 2008, 26, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kumar, P.; Mishra, S.; Malik, A.; Satya, S. Insecticidal properties of Mentha species: A review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2011, 34, 802–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andro, A.R.; Boz, I.; Zamfirache, M.M.; Burzo, I. Chemical composition of essential oils from Mentha aquatica L. at different moments of the ontogenetic cycle. J. Med. Plant Res. 2013, 7, 470–473. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jäger, A.K.; Almqvist, J.P.; Vangsøe, S.A.K.; Stafford, G.I.; Adsersen, A.; van Staden, J. Compounds from Mentha aquatica with affinity to the GABA-benzodiazepine receptor. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2007, 73, 518–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. De Oliveira Braga, L.E.; da Silva, G.G.; de Oliveira Sousa, I.M.; de Oliveira, E.C.S.; Jorge, M.P.; Monteiro, K.M.; Sedano, T.C.; Foglio, M.A.; Ruiz, A.L.T.G. Gastrointestinal effects of Mentha aquatica L. essential oil. Inflammopharmacology 2022, 30, 2127–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Olsen, H.T.; Stafford, G.I.; van Staden, J.; Christensen, S.B.; Jäger, A.K. Isolation of the MAO-inhibitor naringenin from Mentha aquatica L. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 117, 500–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nouri, A.; Yaraki, M.T.; Lajevardi, A.; Rezaei, Z.; Ghorbanpour, M.; Tanzifi, M. Ultrasonic-assisted green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Mentha aquatica leaf extract for enhanced antibacterial properties and catalytic activity. Colloid Interface Sci. Commun. 2020, 35, 100252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pereira, O.R.; Macias, R.I.; Domingues, M.R.; Marin, J.J.; Cardoso, S.M. Hepatoprotection of Mentha aquatica L., Lavandula dentata L. and Leonurus cardiaca L. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dhifi, W.; Litaiem, M.; Jelali, N.; Hamdi, N.; Mnif, W. Identification of a new chemotye of the plant Mentha aquatica grown in Tunisia: Chemical composition, antioxidant and biological activities of its essential oil. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2011, 14, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Djamila, B.; Zohra, K.F.; Lahcene, K.; Zohra, R.F. Drying methods affect the extracts and essential oil of Mentha aquatica L. Food Biosci. 2021, 41, 101007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Esmaeili, A.; Rustaiyan, A.; Masoudi, S.; Nadji, K. Composition of the essential oils of Mentha aquatica L. and Nepeta meyeri Benth. from Iran. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2006, 18, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karami, H.; Rasekh, M.; Darvishi, Y.; Khaledi, R. Effect of drying temperature and air velocity on the essential oil content of Mentha aquatica L. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2017, 20, 1131–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zaks, A.; Davidovich-Rikanati, R.; Bar, E.; Inbar, M.; Lewinsohn, E. Biosynthesis of linalyl acetate and other terpenes in lemon mint (Mentha aquatica var. citrata, Lamiaceae) glandular trichomes. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2008, 56, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chengala, L.; Singh, N. Botanical pesticides—A major alternative to chemical pesticides: A review. Int. J. Life Sci 2017, 5, 722–729. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pavela, R.; Morshedloo, M.R.; Mumivand, H.; Khorsand, G.J.; Karami, A.; Maggi, F.; Desneux, N.; Benelli, G. Phenolic monoterpene-rich essential oils from Apiaceae and Lamiaceae species: Insecticidal activity and safety evaluation on non-target earthworms. Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Ntalaka, C.T.; Skourti, A.; Nika, E.P.; Maggi, F.; Spinozzi, E.; Mazzara, E.; Petrelli, R.; Lupidi, G.; et al. Efficacy of 12 commercial essential oils as wheat protectants against stored-product beetles, and their acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity. Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 385–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ricupero, M.; Biondi, A.; Cincotta, F.; Condurso, C.; Palmeri, V.; Verzera, A.; Zappalà, L.; Campolo, O. Bioactivity and physico-chemistry of garlic essential oil nanoemulsion in tomato. Entomol. Gen. 2022, 1127, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Desneux, N.; Decourtye, A.; Delpuech, J.M. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Menail, A.H.; Boutefnouchet-Bouchema, W.F.; Haddad, N.; Taning, N.T.C.; Smagghe, G.; Loucif-Ayad, W. Effects of thiamethoxam and spinosad on the survival and hypopharyngeal glands of the African honey bee (Apis mellifera intermissa). Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yadav, I.C.; Devi, N.L. Pesticides classification and its impact on human and environment. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 6, 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  23. Baweja, P.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, G. Fertilizers and pesticides: Their impact on soil health and environment. In Soil Health; Cham, P., Kumar, S., Kumar, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 265–285. [Google Scholar]
  24. Giunti, G.; Benelli, G.; Palmeri, V.; Laudani, F.; Ricupero, M.; Ricciardi, R.; Maggi, F.; Lucchi, A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Desneux, N.; et al. Non-target effects of essential oil-based biopesticides for crop protection: Impact on natural enemies, pollinators, and soil invertebrates. Biol. Control 2022, 176, 105071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Perinelli, D.R.; Pavela, R.; Bonacucina, G.; Baldassarri, C.; Spinozzi, E.; Torresi, J.; Petrelli, R.; Morshedloo, M.R.; Maggi, F.; Benelli, G.; et al. Development, characterization, insecticidal and sublethal effects of Bunium persicum and Ziziphora clinopodioides-based essential oil nanoemulsions on Culex quinquefasciatus. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 186, 115249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giordani, C.; Spinozzi, E.; Baldassarri, C.; Ferrati, M.; Cappellacci, L.; Santibañez Nieto, D.; Pavela, R.; Ricciardi, R.; Benelli, G.; Petrelli, R.; et al. Insecticidal Activity of Four Essential Oils Extracted from Chilean Patagonian Plants as Potential Organic Pesticides. Plants 2022, 11, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wandjou, J.G.N.; Baldassarri, C.; Ferrati, M.; Maggi, F.; Pavela, R.; Tsabang, N.; Petrelli, R.; Ricciardi, R.; Desneux, N.; Benelli, G. Essential Oils from Cameroonian Aromatic Plants as Effective Insecticides against Mosquitoes, Houseflies, and Moths. Plants 2022, 11, 2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Giordani, C.; Casettari, L.; Curzi, G.; Cappellacci, L.; Petrelli, R.; Maggi, F. Acute and sub-lethal toxicity of eight essential oils of commercial interest against the filariasis mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus and the housefly Musca domestica. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 112, 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Skourti, A.; Xefteri, D.N.; Cianfaglione, K.; Perinelli, D.R.; Spinozzi, E.; Bonacucina, G.; Canale, A.; Benelli, G.; et al. Piperitenone oxide-rich Mentha longifolia essential oil and its nanoemulsion to manage different developmental stages of insect and mite pests attacking stored wheat. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 178, 114600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Den Dool, H.; Kratz, P.D. A Generalization of the Retention Index System Including Linear Temperature Programmed Gas-Liquid Partition Chromatography. J. Chrom. 1963, 11, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pavela, R.; Benelli, G. Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Taheri-Garavand, A.; Mumivand, H.; Fatahi, S.; Nasiri, A.; Omid, M. Modeling the kinetics of essential oil content and main constituents of mint (Mentha aquatica L.) leaves during thin-layer drying process using response surface methodology. J. Food Process. 2021, 45, e15515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bozin, B.; Mimica-Dukic, N.; Anackov, G.; Zlatkovic, B.; Igic, R. Variability of Content and Composition of Mentha aquatica L. (Lamiaceae) Essential Oil in Different Phenophases. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants. 2006, 9, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jerkovic, I.; Mastelic, J. Composition of free and glycosidically bound volatiles of Mentha aquatica L. Croat. Chem. Acta 2001, 74, 431–439. [Google Scholar]
  35. Malingré, T.M.; Maarse, H. Composition of the essential oil of Mentha aquatica. Phytochemistry 1974, 13, 1531–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mimica-Dukić, N.; Božin, B.; Soković, M.; Mihajlović, B.; Matavulj, M. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of three Mentha species essential oils. Planta Med. 2003, 69, 413–419. [Google Scholar]
  37. Atsbaha Zebelo, S.; Bertea, C.M.; Bossi, S.; Occhipinti, A.; Gnavi, G.; Maffei, M.E. Chrysolina herbacea modulates terpenoid biosynthesis of Mentha aquatica L. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e17195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Murray, M.J.; Hefendehl, F.W. Changes in monoterpene composition of Mentha aquatica produced by gene substitution from M. arvensis. Phytochemistry 1972, 11, 2469–2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Murray, M.J.; Lincoln, D.E. Oil composition of Mentha aquatica-M. longifolia F1 hybrids and M. dumetorum. Euphytica 1972, 21, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pavela, R.; Kaffkova, K.; Kumšta, M. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of essential oils from different Mentha L. and Pulegium species against Culex quinquefasciatus say (Diptera: Culicidae). Plant Prot. Sci. 2014, 50, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pavela, R. Insecticidal properties of several essential oils on the house fly (Musca domestica L.). Phytother. Res. 2008, 22, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Choi, W.I.; Lee, S.G.; Park, H.M.; Ahn, Y.J. Toxicity of plant essential oils to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pandey, S.K.; Tandon, S.; Ahmad, A.; Singh, A.K.; Tripathi, A.K. Structure–activity relationships of monoterpenes and acetyl derivatives against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69, 1235–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Li, A.S.; Iijima, A.; Huang, J.; Li, Q.X.; Chen, Y. Putative mode of action of the monoterpenoids linalool, methyl eugenol, estragole, and citronellal on ligand-gated ion channels. Engineering 2020, 6, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pajaro-Castro, N.; Caballero-Gallardo, K.; Olivero-Verbel, J. Neurotoxic effects of linalool and β-pinene on Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Molecules 2017, 22, 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Campos, E.V.; Proença, P.L.; Oliveira, J.L.; Bakshi, M.; Abhilash, P.C.; Fraceto, L.F. Use of botanical insecticides for sustainable agriculture: Future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Praveena, A.; Sanjayan, K.P. Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase in three insects of economic importance by linalool, a monoterpene phytochemical. Insect Pest Manag. Curr. Scenario 2011, 2010, 240–345. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cavanagh, H.M.A.; Wilkinson, J.M. Biological Activities of Lavender Essential Oil. Phyther. Res. 2002, 16, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Lahlou, M. Essential oils and fragrance compounds: Bioactivity and mechanisms of action. Flavour Fragr. J. 2004, 19, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tong, F.; Coats, J.R. Effects of monoterpenoid insecticides on [3H]-TBOB binding in house fly GABA receptor and 36Cl− uptake in American cockroach ventral nerve cord. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2010, 98, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ottai, M.E.S.; Ahmed, S.S.; Din, M.M.E. Genetic variability among some quantitative characters, insecticidal activity and essential oil composition of two Egyptian and French sweet basil varieties. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2012, 6, 185–192. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hossain, F.; Lacroix, M.; Salmieri, S.; Vu, K.; Follett, P.A. Basil oil fumigation increases radiation sensitivity in adult Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 59, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ling Chang, C.; Kyu Cho, I.; Li, Q.X. Insecticidal activity of basil oil, trans-anethole, estragole, and linalool to adult fruit flies of Ceratitis capitata, Bactrocera dorsalis, and Bactrocera cucurbitae. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Vicenço, C.B.; Silvestre, W.P.; Lima, T.S.; Pauletti, G.F. Insecticidal activity of Cinnamomum camphora Ness and Eberm var. linaloolifera Fujita leaf essential oil and linalool against Anticarsia gemmatalis. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2021, 33, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vicenço, C.B.; Silvestre, W.P.; Pauletti, G.F.; de Barros, N.M.; Schwambach, J. Cinnamomum camphora var. linaloolifera essential oil on pest control: Its effect on Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, e45710716216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khani, A.; Rahdari, T. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of essential oil from Coriandrum sativum seeds against Tribolium confusum and Callosobruchus maculatus. Int. Sch. Res. Notices 2012, 2012, 263517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ayvaz, A.; Sagdic, O.; Karaborklu, S.; Ozturk, I. Insecticidal activity of the essential oils from different plants against three stored-product insects. J. Insect Sci. 2010, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cheng, J.; Yang, K.; Zhao, N.N.; Wang, X.G.; Wang, S.Y.; Liu, Z.L. Composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Cananga odorata leaves against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Med. Plant Res. 2012, 6, 3568–3572. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pavela, R.; Ferrati, M.; Spinozzi, E.; Maggi, F.; Petrelli, R.; Rakotosaona, R.; Ricciardi, R.; Benelli, G. The Essential Oil from the Resurrection Plant Myrothamnus moschatus Is Effective against Arthropods of Agricultural and Medical Interest. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. WHO. Report of the WHO Informal Consultation on the Evaluation and Testing of Insecticides; CTD/WHOPES/IC/96.1; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  61. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Finney, D.J. Probit Analysis; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Chemical composition of Mentha aquatica essential oil.
Table 1. Chemical composition of Mentha aquatica essential oil.
NoComponent aRI bRI Lit cArea % d
1α-thujene921924Tr
2α-pinene9259320.2 ± 0.0
3sabinene9669690.5 ± 0.1
4β-pinene9689740.6 ± 0.1
5myrcene9899882.0 ± 0.3
6α-terpinene101310140.1 ± 0.0
7ρ-cymene10221020Tr e
8limonene102410240.9 ± 0.2
91,8-cineole102510266.7 ± 1.0
10(Z)-β-ocimene103610320.7 ± 0.1
11(E)-β-ocimene104610440.9 ± 0.2
12γ-terpinene105410540.2 ± 0.0
13cis-sabinene hydrate10631065Tr
14terpinolene108410860.2 ± 0.0
15linalool1100109526.8 ± 2.5
16isopentyl 2-methyl butanoate110411000.4 ± 0.1
172-methyl butyl isovalerate110911030.1 ± 0.0
181-octen-3-yl acetate111411100.1 ± 0.0
193-octanol acetate112611200.3 ± 0.1
20δ-terpineol11631162Tr
21terpinen-4-ol117211740.2 ± 0.0
22α-terpineol118511865.1 ± 0.9
23nerol122712270.2 ± 0.0
24linalool acetate1256125434.9 ± 3.1
25α-terpinyl acetate1345134612.3 ± 1.9
26neryl acetate136513590.7 ± 0.1
27β-bourbonene13741387Tr
28(E)-caryophyllene141214171.3 ± 0.3
29α-humulene14461452Tr
30(E)-β-farnesene14551454Tr
31germacrene D147014841.8 ± 0.3
32hedycaryol154215460.7 ± 0.1
Total identified (%) 98.1 ± 0.5
Grouped compounds (%)
Monoterpene hydrocarbons 6.2 ± 0.3
Oxygenated monoterpenes 86.9 ± 0.7
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 3.2 ± 0.2
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 0.7 ± 0.1
Esters 1.0 ± 0.1
a Components were eluted from a HP-5MS column (30 m l. × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.1 μm f.t.). b Linear retention index experimentally determined with respect to a mixture of C7-C30 n-alkanes (Sigma-Aldrich) according to Van den Dool and Kratz formula (1963) [30]. c Retention index value taken from ADAMS or FFNSC3 libraries. d Peak area relative percentages are the means of two independent injections ± SD. e Traces, % < 0.1.
Table 2. Insecticidal and acaricidal activity of Mentha aquatica essential oil against target arthropod pests and vectors.
Table 2. Insecticidal and acaricidal activity of Mentha aquatica essential oil against target arthropod pests and vectors.
Target Insect SpeciesUnitLD50/LC50CI95 aLD90/LC90CI95 aChip-LevelDf
Musca domestica—adults female
Musca domestica—adults male
µg adult−171.4 ± 7.258.2–85.9329.8 ± 15.5298.5–522.73.6780.3214
µg adult−150.5 ± 5.948.2–62.8462.6 ± 25.7398.8–552.13.7810.2035
Culex quinquefasciatus 2nd instar larvaeµl L−131.5 ± 2.222.8–36.780.9 ± 6.772.8–91.51.5120.8964
Culex quinquefasciatus 3rd instar larvaeµl L−179.4 ± 5.262.5–98.7307.2 ± 26.4285.7–332.53.2190.1244
Spodoptera littoralis 2nd
instar larvae
µg larva−118.5 ± 2.115.2–22.941.9 ± 2.933.8–47.70.8450.9854
Spodoptera littoralis 3rd
instar larvae
µg larva−144.2 ± 5.836.9–53.2117.8 ± 5.198.7–123.81.1690.7603
Metopolophium dirhodum adultmL L−14.9 ± 0.84.5–5.27.1 ± 0.36.5–8.90.8910.5983
Tetranychus urticae adultsmL L−13.3 ± 0.52.9–3.96.2 ± 0.85.7–7.31.2580.7223
a 95% confidence interval relative to LD50(90) LC50/90 values.
Table 3. Main Mentha aquatica essential oil chemotypes.
Table 3. Main Mentha aquatica essential oil chemotypes.
NoOriginMajor CompoundReference
1South of Tunisia, Region of SfaxPulegone[11]
2Vojvodina, SerbiaMenthofuran[33]
Submediterranean region of south Croatia[34]
Ethiopia[3]
Pisa, Italy[35]
South-east Romania[5]
3North of Iran, Mazandaran provincePiperitenone oxide[13]
4West of Iran, Kermanshah provinceMenthol[14]
5IsraelLinalool[14]
Western Iran, Lorestan region[32]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ferrati, M.; Spinozzi, E.; Baldassarri, C.; Maggi, F.; Pavela, R.; Canale, A.; Petrelli, R.; Cappellacci, L. Efficacy of Mentha aquatica L. Essential Oil (Linalool/Linalool Acetate Chemotype) against Insect Vectors and Agricultural Pests. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16040633

AMA Style

Ferrati M, Spinozzi E, Baldassarri C, Maggi F, Pavela R, Canale A, Petrelli R, Cappellacci L. Efficacy of Mentha aquatica L. Essential Oil (Linalool/Linalool Acetate Chemotype) against Insect Vectors and Agricultural Pests. Pharmaceuticals. 2023; 16(4):633. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16040633

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferrati, Marta, Eleonora Spinozzi, Cecilia Baldassarri, Filippo Maggi, Roman Pavela, Angelo Canale, Riccardo Petrelli, and Loredana Cappellacci. 2023. "Efficacy of Mentha aquatica L. Essential Oil (Linalool/Linalool Acetate Chemotype) against Insect Vectors and Agricultural Pests" Pharmaceuticals 16, no. 4: 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16040633

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop