Insecticidal Potential of Matricaria chamomilla’s Essential Oil and Its Components (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol Oxide A against Agricultural Pests, Malaria, and Zika Virus Vectors
by
, , and
Khalid A. Al-Ghanim
1,*,
Kaliyamoorthy Krishnappa
2,
Jeganathan Pandiyan
2,
Marcello Nicoletti
3,
Baskar Gurunathan
4 and
Marimuthu Govindarajan
5,6,*
1
Department of Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College, Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai 609 305, Tamil Nadu, India
3
Department of Environmental Biology, Foundation in Unam Sapientiam, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
4
Department of Biotechnology, St. Joseph’s College of Engineering, Chennai 600 119, Tamil Nadu, India
5
Unit of Mycology and Parasitology, Department of Zoology, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar 608 002, Tamil Nadu, India
6
Unit of Natural Products and Nanotechnology, Department of Zoology, Government College for Women (Autonomous), Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(4), 779; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
Submission received: 20 February 2023
/
Revised: 24 March 2023
/
Accepted: 27 March 2023
/
Published: 28 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pesticides and Insecticides Derived from Phytoproducts, and Eco-Friendly Nanoparticles: Sustainable Agriculture Management)
Abstract
:Agricultural and medical insect pests are damaging edible crops, spreading diseases, and harming non-target fauna and flora. Prominent polyphagous insect pests harass farmers in the agronomy sector, causing uncountable revenue corrosion. Ecofriendly phytopesticides can avoid the consequences of the bulk usage of synthetic chemicals. In this study, the toxic effect on third-instar larvae of four different insect species (Spodoptera litura, Helicoverpa armigera, Aedes vittatus, and Anopheles subpictus) and the bio-toxicity on non-target fauna (NTF) (Stegodyphus sarasinorum and Gambusia affinis) were evaluated using Matricaria chamomilla (Mc) essential oil (EO) and its major phytoconstituents (Mc-MPCs). GC–MS analysis of the studied M. chamomilla EO gathered 39 constituents, with (E)-β-Farnesene (24.3%), Germacrene D (9.4%), and α-Bisabolol oxide A (10.2%) accounting for the major constituents. Remarkable larval death was seen in H. armigera and Ae. vittatus. In addition, (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol oxide A exhibited a relevant maximum toxic effect on the target pest’s third-instar larvae. The bio-toxicity of M. chamomilla EO and Mc-MPCs was tested on terrestrial and aquatic NTF. The LC50 values for S. sarasinorum and G. affinis ranged from 922.65 to 1750.49 µg/mL. M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs evidenced prospective phytopesticidal efficiency on selected agricultural and medical insect pests.
1. Introduction
Globally, agri-pests play a pivotal role in the deterioration of several high-value agri-products. Due to human activities, vector proliferation in tropical and subtropical environments has dramatically increased [1,2]. Among arthropods, mosquitoes are massive blood-sucking vectors that cause several public health problems. The effects of blood-sucking vectors on the human population have increased yearly [3,4,5,6] in terms of death and morbidity. Vectors are a major cause of significant, worrying economic problems in many parts of the world, as well as are responsible for transmitting a wide variety of infectious illnesses to humans and other species that rely on humans for their vascular system [7]. Spodoptera litura (Fab.) (Cotton leafworm) and Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Cotton bollworm) are major polyphagous pests. They can attack more than 300 plant hosts, of which around 100 hosts have been documented in India alone [8,9,10]. Cotton leafworms and Cotton bollworms are equipped to feed on various parts of the host, such as the seed, seed coat, fruits, flower, stem, rhizome, etc., hence resulting in extensive loss of productivity and quality [11,12,13]. These insects are strong fliers and can traverse great distances, fast evading any natural deterrents. They are anticipated to be the most prevalent agri-pests on the Asian continent, causing extensive damage to food crops [14]. In India, agronomy and its byproducts are crucial to the livelihoods of the vast majority of rural residents. Insects have severely harmed several crops, leading to a production and income crisis [15].
The socioeconomic disasters caused by mosquito-borne diseases (MBDs) in developing and rising countries are extraordinarily complicated [16,17,18,19,20]. The MBDs spread by the Aedes and Anopheles vectors are a serious problem in healthcare facilities throughout various continents [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Pest management is vital to every continent’s economic and public health practices. Treating the location of their emergence/breeding places [28] is the most efficient and effective method for controlling pests. For many decades, flexible synthetic chemical insecticides (SCPs) were used to reduce pest populations and avoid disease impacts on people and agricultural goods [29,30,31]. However, arbitrary practices of SCPs result in several negative effects: ecological fragility, the extermination of natural predators/enemies of pests, greater levels of harmful residues in foods, and the development of insecticidal resistance in both agricultural and medicinal pests [32,33]. It is vital to seek out and resolve the present major issues, but they may be solved using naturally occurring phytoconstituents, the most effective and promising weapons for managing insect pests. The ideal phytoconstituents should minimize damages and diseases in non-target species and consist in easily accessible, cost-effective, biodegradable, commercial products, all of which are indigenous approaches in global situations [34,35].
In the past, numerous phytoproducts have been shown as feasible and promising alternatives to standard operating procedures (SOPs) for controlling several agricultural/medical insect pests [36,37]. Thus, most study communities/scientists intended to address the pest problem using organic pesticides, particularly by naturally occurring phytoproducts [38]. Several studies have been conducted on the bio-efficacy of essential oils (EOs) and their phytoconstituents derived from medicinal plants, including Tanacetum argenteum [39], Illicium henryi [40], Echinophora lamondiana [41], Zingiber officinale [42], Citrus aurantium [43], Syzygium lanceolatum [44], Zingiber nimmonii [45], Blumea eriantha [46], Artemisia absinthium [47], Citrus aurantifolia [48], Lippia alba [49], and Croton linearis [50], which can affect various life stages of mosquitoes. As a result of the above, we have settled on the leaves of the Matricaria chamomilla plant. In light of the potential usefulness and wide availability of these leaves, they were selected instead of the flowers, the most often used raw resource of this species.
The purpose of this research was to determine the efficacy of M. chamomilla EO and its major phytoconstituents (MPCs) in preventing the development of larval Lepidopteran pests (S. litura and H. armigera) and Dipteran insects (Ae. vittatus and An. subpictus). In addition, the bio-toxicity was evaluated for both Stegodyphus sarasinorum and Gambusia affinis, two species of non-target fauna (NTF).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Floral Processing and Oil Extraction
Matured and cleaned leaves of M. chamomilla L. were collected during February 2020, in the Theni District (Latitude 10°7′–10°28′ N and Longitude 77°16′–77°46′ E), Tamil Nadu, India. The floral specimen (MCFS: 3061) was identified using a field guide and was confirmed by a Plant Taxonomist (Dr. C. Radhakrishnan, Plant Taxonomist, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India). The leaves were desiccated in shadow at 28 °C for 20 days for dehydration (without moisture content in the selected leaves) and made into fine powder. Then, 300 g of powder was hydro-distilled (1000 mL of de-chlorinated water) through hydro-distillation equipment for 5 h. The end product was tightly packed in an Amber Glass Bottle, which was stockpiled at 4 °C for further examinations [51].
2.2. GC–MS Examination
M. chamomilla leaf EO was examined by GC–MS to detect different phytoconstituents. Analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was performed using an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph, 5973N mass selective detector (EIMS, electron energy, 70 eV), and ChemStation data system. With a film thickness of 0.25 m, a length of 30 m, and an internal diameter of 0.25 mm, the GC column was an HP-5ms fused silica capillary packed with 5% phenyl methylpolysiloxane. The GC–MS spectroscopic detection was conducted using the ionization of electrons that consumed higher electron energy (70 eV). The ‘He’ gas (99.99%) was taken as a transporter gas at a stream degree of 1 milliliter per minute. Initially, the temperature was programmed into 50–10 °C and enhanced to about 3–5 °C/min for about 15 min. Ultimately, the temperature was allowed to elevate to 275 °C at 15 C/min. One microliter of the prepared 1% oil was diluted and injected in splitless mode. The flexible amount of the phytoconstituents observed in the essential oil of M. chamomilla leaf was expressed as %, based on the highest point marked in the chromatogram. In order to identify and separate components using a mass spectrometer, the numbers of the peak with retention index were more helpful as a starting point. The pure organic MPCs were procured from Sigma Aldrich Chemicals P Ltd., Bengaluru, India.
2.3. Target Agricultural and Medical Pests
In the Mayiladuthurai District of Tamil Nadu, India, the groundnut fields of Alaveli Village were scoured for eggs and larvae of the Lepidopteran field pests S. litura and H. armigera. Insectariums were kept at precise temperatures (28 ± 2 °C) and humidity levels (72 ± 5%), with supplemental nutrients including cane sugar mixed with 1–5 drops of multivitamins and Apis florea natural honey to promote development and reproduction [6,28]. Ae. vittatus and An. subpictus, two species of blood-sucking ectoparasitic mosquitoes, were established at the Insectarium of Vector Control lab at Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu, India, and were afterward purchased from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in Madurai, India. The healthy mosquitoes were used in a variety of bio-analysis tests [36].
2.4. Larval Toxicity of Agricultural and Medical Pests
The toxic effects of M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs on the larvae of selected agricultural pests were evaluated [29], and LC50 and LC90 death rates were determined. Five unique batches of 25 healthy and evenly proportioned 3rd-instar larvae of S. litura and H. armigera were exposed in 100 × 15 mm glass petri dish plates at 0–8 h of age, which was the process used for every selected concentration in the laboratory setup with a separate group of individuals. The death rates of M. chamomilla EO (60–300 µg/mL) and MPCs were tested at a range of concentrations (3–60 µg/mL). The mortality of larvae was monitored every six hours. Overall, the percentage of death was assessed and acquired five times. In this study, we tested the effects of M. chamomilla EO and MPCs on mosquito larvae in the third instar of their development for evidence of their toxicity [52]. The 1 mL DMSO (Dimethyl sulfoxide) digest containing EO (20–100 µg/mL) and MPCs (3–30 µg/mL) was consistently dissolved in 249 mL of heat-filtered H2O. In a 500 mL well transference glass beaker, with the requisite concentration of EO and Mc-MPCs, 25 mosquito larvae were placed, and the test was replicated five times in all bioassay activities. Preliminary screening by broad range to narrow range test fixed the chosen concentration of EO and its MPCs.
2.5. Biotoxicity of Non-Target Fauna (NTF)
S. sarasinorum and G. affinis comprised the terrestrial and aquatic NTF. These were gathered in distinct sites and stored in large plastic containers for transport (100 cm diam. and 50 cm depth). The effects of M. chamomilla EO (4000 to 20,000 µg/mL) and its major phytoconstituents (400 to 3500 µg/mL) were evaluated [53]. M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs were assessed against NTF at dosages 50 times higher than the larval LC50 values. Two days after exposure, the mortality rate, normal behavioral activities (swimming, feeding, and hunting ability), and other relevant anomalies of the NTF were tracked attentively.
2.6. Data Analysis
The mortality rates of agricultural and medical pest larvae and non-target fauna were carefully observed and validated after applying IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 to the proper post-treatment of phytoconstituents. The mortality rate, fatal toxicity, bio-toxicity, abnormalities, and suitability index were measured. The suitability index was calculated by dividing the LC50 of the non-target pest by the LC50 of the target pest [54,55,56]. Each NTF was analyzed for both pests that shared a larval habitat with nearby aquatic and terrestrial NTF and the results with p ≤ 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1. GC–MS Analysis of M. Chamomilla EO
The GC–MS analysis of 2.4% yield dried weight of M. chamomilla leaf essential oil revealed 39 different phytoconstituents accounting for 95.5% of the total volume, of which (E)-β-Farnesene (24.3%), Germacrene D (9.4%), and α-Bisabolol oxide A (6.2%) were considered to be major ones (Figure 1). The other 36 phytoconstituents were represented at 0.2–5.3% (Table 1).
3.2. Larval Death Effect of M. chamomilla EO
Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 show the results of tests conducted on third-instar larvae of the agronomic and medical pests S. litura, H. armigera, Ae. vittatus, and An. subpictus to determine the effectiveness of M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs in killing these insects. When tested on H. armigera and Ae. vittatus, the LC50 values for M. chamomilla EO were 138.25 and 51.52 µg/mL, respectively. However, the MPCs of (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol oxide A showed a superior larval killing impact on chosen target pests, with LC50 values of 16.13, 21.88, 30.40, 15.50, 21.25, 27.75, 5.66, 9.11, 12.13, 6.08, 10.95, and 13.18 µg/mL reported for S. litura, H. armigera, Ae. vittatus, and An. subpictus, correspondingly.
3.3. Non-Target Effects of EOs and Mc-MPCs
Table 6 and Table 7 show the effects of M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs ((E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol oxide A) on the terrestrial NTF (S. sarasinorum) and the aquatic NTF (G. affinis). EO LC50 values varied between 8103.92 and 8799.01 µg/mL when tested on S. sarasinorum and G. affinis, respectively. The MPCs (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol oxide A had LC50 values of 922.65, 1204.23, and 1722.06 and 914.33, 1185.05, and 1750.49 µg/mL against S. sarasinorum and G. affinis, respectively. According to the NTF suitability index, M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs are very safe for NTF use (Table 8). Furthermore, M. chamomilla EO and its MPC treatments had no discernible effect on the tested NTF species’ swimming, feeding, and hunting abilities.
4. Discussion
EO and the MPCs isolated from M. chamomilla leaves were investigated for their bio-efficacy against the third-instar larval stage of the agricultural and medical pests S. litura, H. armigera, Ae. vittatus, and An. subpictus. The EO from M. chamomilla leaves and its MPCs are effective agents against certain pests, with EO LC50 values below 150 µg/mL and MPC LC50 values below 30 µg/mL. In addition, the EO of M. chamomilla leaves its MPCs might stand in for other SCPs that are less dangerous to NTF. Recent research has shown that EOs are the most valuable natural resource due to their efficacy as insecticides against a wide range of pests [57,58,59,60,61]. Yet, similar to previous research conducted all over the globe, the present study showed significant effectiveness of using the EOs and MPCs for treating pests and non-target fauna. There was a greater than 90% death rate among Cx. pipiens fourth-instar larvae when exposed to Ricinus communis, Pimpinella anisum, M. chamomilla, Vitis vinifera, Allium sativum, Jasminum sambac, Cinnamomum verum, and Rosmarinus officinalis, according to the research [62].
In addition, the EOs with their MPCs also experimentally show the most effective insecticidal activity against An. stephensi, Ae. aegypti, and Cx. quinquefasciatus, which are spreading various diseases. The Hedychium larsenii EO or its MPCs ar-curcumene and epi-β-Bisabolol have proven insecticidal agents, particularly against An. stephensi (LC50 10.45 and 14.68 µg/mL), Ae. aegypti (LC50 11.24 and 15.83 µg/mL), and Cx. quinquefasciatus (LC50 12.24 and 17.27 µg/mL) [63]. Likewise, the mosquito larval toxicity effects of Amomum subulatum EO showed a significant toxic effect for An. Subpictus (LC50 41.25 µg/mL), Ae. albopictus (LC50 44.11 µg/mL), and Cx. Tritaeniorhynchus (LC50 48.12 µg/mL) [64] and negligible toxicity against the non-target fauna Anisops bouvieri, Diplonychus indicus, Poecilia reticulate, and Gambusia affinis. Moreover, the Zanthoxylum armatum EO was harmful to Ae. aegypti (LC50 54 µg/mL), Cx. quinquefasciatus (LC50 49 µg/mL), and An. stephensi (LC50 58 µg/mL) larvae [65].
EOs are a relatively new agent for controlling pests throughout their life cycle, and they play a crucial role in agricultural and other pest management at trace levels or at least dosages against different instars of pests. Research showed that even at the lowest dosage, the EOs extracted from plants, including Lactuca sativa, M. chamomilla, P. anisum, and R. officinalis, were very toxic to Lucilia sericata third-instar larvae [66]. Additionally, lavender, camphor, and onion EOs exhibited outstanding benefits in suppressing second- and third-instar larvae of Cephalopina titillator by insecticidal and repellent actions [67]. On the other hand, the EOs from Alpinia galangal and Ocimum basilicum and its MPCs linalool and 1,8-cineole demonstrated to be potential agents against S. litura second-instar larvae when compared to the other commercially available pesticides [68].
The present research yielded impressive outcomes in the treatment of different insects that carry multiple illnesses throughout their life cycles, particularly mosquitoes in their instar stages. One significant impact of the EOs and MPCs of the plant characteristics was the presence of efficient phytoconstituents in the plants employed in the research for the management of larvae of different insects without causing harm to non-target animals. As with S. litura fourth-instar larvae, Wedelia prostrata EO and its MPCs Camphene, γ-Elemene, α-Humulene, and (E,E)-α-Farnesene showed stronger impacts on their treatment process, with LC50 values of 167.46, 6.28, 10.64, 12.89, and 16.77 µg/mL, respectively [69]. Similarly, the MPCs Zerumbone, α-Humulene, and Camphene found in Cheilocostus speciosus EO showed reasonable mortality effects on the H. armigera third-instar larvae with the LC50 values of 10.64, 17.16, and 20.86 µg/mL, respectively [70].
In accordance with previous research [71,72], our study found that phytoproducts derived from Foeniculum vulgare and Trewia nudiflora had a negligible harmful impact on certain NTF. EOs and MPCs were tested for their toxicity to medical and agronomic pest larvae, and the results show that they are more suitable for NTF. Using the chosen phytoconstituents, it may be possible to analyze the target and non-target toxicity of M. chamomilla EO and its MPCs on selected pests and NTF.
Essential oil research has shown promising results in the fight against disease vectors; however, in many cases, the tested plant is not widely available, well-known, or grown. In contrast, chamomile can be found almost everywhere and is readily available, plus it produces a sizable amount of essential oil. The same oil is used in cosmetics and phytomedicine to treat skin and eye issues, and it is very stable, dilutable, ecologically friendly, and safe for the user. When planning to use essential oil in an industrial setting as a phytopesticide, it is important to consider all of these factors. The reported activity of M. chamomilla is the first step of a project, including the microencapsulation to obtain available nanoparticles and test their capacity.
5. Conclusions
This paper is part of a project focused on environmentally friendly phytopesticides to become a viable solution to the damages caused by pests. The project considers several characteristics in addition to efficacy, such as low cost, easy and abundant production, low damage to the habitat, simple use, and traditional and medical utilization, as essential. M. chamomilla is a medicinal plant widely cultivated for its flowers containing an essential oil, which is considered medically useful and devoid of damage to mammals. In temperate regions, the plant is cultivated on a large scale for the capitula. The reported data evidenced that both the EO and Mc-MPCs extracted from M. chamomilla leaves are very effective in their respective pesticide actions, while posing little to no risks to NTF. Therefore, the data here reported evidence a potential use of the leaves, usually underexploited, of this important medicinal plant. The same phytoproducts used in the laboratory will be evaluated in the field against a wide range of medicinal and agricultural pests in future investigations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.A.A.-G., K.K. and J.P.; methodology, K.K.; software, K.K. and J.P.; validation, K.K., M.G. and J.P.; formal analysis, K.K.; investigation, K.K.; resources, K.A.A.-G. and M.N.; data curation, M.G., K.K. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K. and J.P.; writing—review and editing, M.G., K.A.A.-G., B.G. and M.N.; funding acquisition, K.A.A.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Researchers Supporting Project Number RSP2023R48, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project Number (RSP2023R48), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Nicoletti, M. Insect-Borne Diseases in 21st Century; AcademicPress: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Elumalai, K.; Mahboob, S.; Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Al-Misned, F.; Pandiyan, J.; Baabu, P.M.K.; Govindarajan, M. Entomofaunal survey and larvicidal activity of greener silver nanoparticles: A perspective for novel eco-friendly mosquito control. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 2917–2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharma, N.; Singhvi, R. Effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on human health and environment: A review. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rani, L.; Thapa, K.; Kanojia, N.; Sharma, N.; Singh, S.; Grewal, A.S.; Kaushal, J. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalyabina, V.P.; Esimbekova, E.N.; Kopylova, K.V.; Kratasyuk, V.A. Pesticides: Formulants, distribution pathways and effects on human health—A review. Toxicol. Rep. 2021, 8, 1179–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Govindarajan, M. Evaluation of Andrographis paniculata burm.f. (Family:Acanthaceae) extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus (say.) and Aedes aegypti (Linn.) (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benelli, G.; Chandramohan, B.; Murugan, K.; Madhiyazhagan, P.; Kovendan, K.; Panneerselvam, C.; Dinesh, D.; Govindarajan, M.; Higuchi, A.; Toniolo, C.; et al. Neem cake as a promising larvicide and adulticide against the rural malaria vector Anopheles culicifacies (Diptera: Culicidae): A HPTLC fingerprinting approach. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 1185–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamaraj, C.; Rahuman, A.A.; Bagavan, A. Antifeedant and larvicidal effects of plant extracts against Spodoptera litura (F.), Aedes aegypti L. and Culex quinquefasciatus Say. Parasitol. Res. 2008, 103, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnappa, K.; Elumalai, K. Chemical composition, larvicidal and ovicidal activities of essential oil from Clausena excavata against armyworm, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2012, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Misra, H.P. Role of Botanicals, Biopesticides and Bioagents in Integrated Pest Management, in Odisha Review; College of Agriculture: Bhubaneswar, India, 2014; pp. 62–67. [Google Scholar]
- Namin, F.R.; Naseria, B.; Razmjouc, J. Nutritional performance and activity of some digestive enzymes of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, in response to seven tested bean cultivars. J. Insect. Sci. 2014, 14, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulraj, M.G.; Ignacimuthu, S.; Gandhi, M.R.; Shaajahan, A.; Ganesan, P.; Packiam, S.M.; Al-Dhabi, N.A. Comparative studies of Tripolyphosphate and Glutaraldehyde cross-linked chitosan-botanical pesticide nanoparticles and their agricultural applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104, 1813–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elumalai, A.; Backiyaraj, M.; Kasinathan, D.; Mathivanan, T.; Krishnappa, K.; Elumalai, K. Pesticidal activity of Rivina humilis L. (Phytolaccaceae) against important agricultural polyphagous field pest Spodoptera litura (Fab.) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae. J. Coast. Life Med. 2014, 2, 652–658. [Google Scholar]
- Selin-Rani, S.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Revathi, K.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Thanigaivel, A.; Vasantha-Srinivasan, P.; Ponsankar, A.; Edwin, E.; Pradeepa, V. Toxicity of Alangium salvifolium Wang chemical constituents against the tobacco cutworm Spodoptera litura Fab. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 2016, 126, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manimegalai, T.; Raguvaran, K.; Kalpana, M.; Maheswaran, R. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticle using Leonotis nepetifolia and their toxicity against vector mosquitoes of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus and agricultural pests of Spodoptera litura and Helicoverpa armigera. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 43103–43116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krishnappa, K.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Elumalai, K. Larvicidal, ovicidal and pupicidal activities of Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) (Leguminosae) against the malarial vector, Anopheles stephensi Liston (Culicidae: Diptera). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2012, 5, 598–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M. Repellent properties of Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. (Family: Fabaceae) against filariasis vector, Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Herb. Ethnomed. 2015, 1, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Hoti, S.L.; Benelli, G. Facile fabrication of eco-friendly nano-mosquitocides: Biophysical characterization and effectiveness on neglected tropical mosquito vectors. Enzy. Micro. Tech. 2016, 95, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benelli, G.; Govindarajan, M.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Alharbi, N.S. What kind of reducing botanical? High mosquitocidal efficacy of a silver nanocomposite synthesized using a leaf aqueous extract of Fumaria indica. J. Clust. Sci. 2017, 28, 637–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rekha, R.; Vaseeharan, B.; Vijayakumar, S.; Abinaya, M.; Govindarajan, M.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M.; Al-Anbr, M.N. Crustin-capped selenium nanowires against microbial pathogens and Japanese encephalitis mosquito vectors–Insights on their toxicity and internalization. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2019, 51, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albaba, S.U.; Nzelibe, H.C.; Inuwa, H.M.; Chintem, D.G.W.; Abdullahi, A.S.; Dingwoke, J.E. Larvicidal activity of Chromolaena odorata leaf extracts against Aedes vittatus mosquito. Inter. J. App. Res. Stud. 2015, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.H.; Wilson, M.E. Dengue and chikungunya infections in travelers. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 23, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnappa, K.; Elumalai, K.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Gokulakrishnan, J. Larvicidal and phytochemical properties of Adansonia digitata against medically important human malarial vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi (Diptera:Culicidae). J. Vector Borne Dis. 2012, 49, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Thenmozhi, V.; Balaji, T.; Venkatasubramani, K.; Dhananjeyan, K.J.; Selvam, A.; Rajamannar, V.; Tyagi, B.K. Role of Anopheles subpictus Grassi in Japanese encephalitis virus transmission in Tirunelveli, South India. Indian J. Med. Res. 2016, 144, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hasan, B.; Mohammad, R.A.; Gholamreza, A.; Rasoul, Z.; Masoumeh, P.; Azam, B.; Fakhredin, T.; Seyed, H.M.K. Larvicidal properties of botanical extracts of Lawsonia inermis against Anopheles stephensi. Adv. Infect. Dis. 2014, 4, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
- Ishwarya, R.; Vaseeharan, B.; Anuradha, R.; Rekha, R.; Govindarajan, M.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M.; Benelli, G. Eco-friendly fabrication of Ag nanostructures using the seed extract of Pedalium murex, an ancient Indian medicinal plant: Histopathological effects on the Zika virus vector Aedes aegypti and inhibition of biofilm-forming pathogenic bacteria. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2017, 174, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Benelli, G. One-pot green synthesis of silver nanocrystals using Hymenodictyon orixense: A cheap and effective tool against malaria, chikungunya and Japanese encephalitis mosquito vectors? RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 59021–59029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backiyaraj, M.; Elumalai, A.; Kasinathan, D.; Mathivanan, T.; Krishnappa, K.; Elumalai, K. Bioefficacy of Caesalpinia bonducella extracts against Tobacco cutworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Coast. Life Med. 2014, 2, 382–388. [Google Scholar]
- Elumalai, K.; Krishnappa, K.; Pandiyan, J.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M.; Barnard, D.R.; Vijayakumar, N.; Govindarajan, M. Characterization of secondary metabolites from Lamiaceae plant leaf essential oil: A novel perspective to combat medical and agricultural pests. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2022, 117, 101752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benelli, G. Plant-mediated synthesis of nanoparticles: A newer and safer tool against mosquito-borne diseases? Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 353–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Benelli, G. A facile one-pot synthesis of ecofriendly nanoparticles using Carissa carandas: Ovicidal and larvicidal potential on malaria, dengue and filariasis mosquito vectors. J. Clust. Sci. 2017, 28, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zahid, S.M.A.; Arshad, M.; Murtaza, G.; Ali, S.; Aaqib, M.; Yousaf, R.W.; Hussain, S. Synergistic effect of plant extracts with synthetic insecticides against citrus mealy bug Planococcus citri (Pseudococcodae:Homoptera). J. Agric. Soc. Stud. 2016, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Canale, A.; Cianfaglione, K.; Ciaschetti, G.; Conti, F.; Nicoletti, M.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Mehlhorn, H.; Maggi, F. Acute larvicidal toxicity of five essential oils (Pinus nigra, Hyssopus officinalis, Satureja montana, Aloysia citrodora and Pelargonium graveolens) against the filariasis vector Culex quinquefasciatus: Synergistic and antagonistic effects. Parasitol. Int. 2017, 66, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Wakeil, N.E. Botanical pesticides and their mode of action. Gesunde. Pflanzen. 2013, 65, 125–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsalhi, M.S.; Elumalai, K.; Devanesana, S.; Govindarajan, M.; Krishnappa, K.; Maggi, F. The aromatic ginger Kaempferia galanga L. (Zingiberaceae) essential oil and its main compounds are effective larvicidal agents against Aedes vittatus and Anopheles maculatus without toxicity on the non-target aquatic fauna. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 158, 113012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Alharbi, N.S.; Benelli, G. Acute toxicity and repellent activity of the Origanum scabrum Boiss. & Heldr. (Lamiaceae) essential oil against four mosquito vectors of public health importance and its biosafety on non-target aquatic organisms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 23228–23238. [Google Scholar]
- Baranitharan, M.; Krishnappa, K.; Elumalai, K.; Pandiyan, J.; Gokulakrishnan, J.; Kovendan, K.; Tamizhazhagan, V. Citrus limetta (Risso)—Borne compound as novel mosquitocides: Effectiveness against medical pest and acute toxicity on non-target fauna. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 128, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnappa, K.; Baranitharan, M.; Elumalai, K.; Pandiyan, J. Larvicidal and repellant effects of Jussiaea repens (L.) leaf ethanol extract and its major phyto-constituent against important human vector mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Rese. 2020, 27, 23054–23061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Tabanca, N.; Kurkcuoglu, M.; Duran, A.; Blythe, E.K.; Khan, I.A.; Baser, K.H. Chemical composition, larvicidal, and biting deterrent activity of essential oils of two subspecies of Tanacetum argenteum (Asterales: Asteraceae) and individual constituents against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2014, 51, 824–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, C.L.; Qi, Y.L.; Ligang, Z.; Zhi, L.L. Larvicidal activity of essential oil derived from Illicium henryi Diels (Illiciaceae) leaf. Trop. J. Pharma. Res. 2015, 14, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, A.; Tabanca, N.; Ozek, G.; Ozek, T.; Aytac, Z.; Bernier, U.R.; Agramonte, N.M.; Baser, K.H.C.; Khan, I.A. Essential Oils of Echinophora lamondiana (Apiales: Umbelliferae): A relationship between chemical profile and biting deterrence and larvicidal activity against mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maedeh, M.; Hamzeh, I.; Hossein, D.; Majid, A.; Reza, R.K. Bioactivity of essential oil from Zingiber officinale (Zingiberaceae) against three stored-product insect species. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants. 2012, 15, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanei-Dehkordi, A.; Sedaghat, M.M.; Vatandoost, H.; Abai, M.R. Chemical Compositions of the peel essential oil of Citrus aurantium and its natural larvicidal activity against the malaria vector Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) in comparison with Citrus paradisi. J. Arthropod Borne Dis. 2016, 10, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Benelli, G.; Rajeswary, M.; Govindarajan, M. Towards green oviposition deterrents? Effectiveness of Syzygium lanceolatum (Myrtaceae) essential oil against six mosquito vectors and impact on four aquatic biological control agents. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10218–10227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Arivoli, S.; Tennyson, S.; Benelli, G. Larvicidal and repellent potential of Zingiber nimmonii (J. Graham) Dalzell (Zingiberaceae) essential oil: An eco-friendly tool against malaria, dengue, and lymphatic filariasis mosquito vectors? Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 1807–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benelli, G.; Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Senthilmurugan, S.; Vijayan, P.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M. Larvicidal activity of Blumea eriantha essential oil and its components against six mosquito species, including Zika virus vectors: The promising potential of (4E,6Z)-allo-ocimene, carvotanacetone and dodecyl acetate. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Benelli, G. Artemisia absinthium-borne compounds as novel larvicides: Effectiveness against six mosquito vectors and acute toxicity on non-target aquatic organisms. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 4649–4661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sarma, R.; Adhikari, K.; Mahanta, S.; Khanikor, B. Insecticidal activities of Citrus aurantifolia essential oil against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Toxicol. Rep. 2019, 14, 1091–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahanta, S.; Sarma, R.; Khanikor, B. The essential oil of Lippia alba Mill (Lamiales: Verbenaceae) as mosquitocidal and repellent agent against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes aegypti Linn (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2019, 80, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amado, J.R.R.; Prada, A.L.; Diaz, J.G.; Souto, R.N.P.; Arranz, J.C.E.; de Souza, T.P. Development, larvicide activity, and toxicity in non-target species of the Croton linearis Jacq essential oil nanoemulsion. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 9410–9423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vogel, A.I. Text Book of Practical Organic Chemistry; The English Language Book Society and Longman: London, UK, 1978; p. 1368. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Guidelines for Laboratory and Field Testing of Mosquito Larvicides. Communicable Disease Control, Prevention and Eradication, WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/1.3; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69101/WHO_CDS_WHOPES_GCDPP_2005.13.pdf;jsessionid=8C5384B7792F7DE9957BF90D576E3F11?sequence=1 (accessed on 31 May 2021).
- Sivagnaname, N.; Kalyanasundaram, M. Laboratory evaluation of methanolic extract of Atlantia monophylla (Family: Rutaceae) against immature stages of mosquitoes and non-target organisms. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 2004, 99, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finney, D.J. Probit Analysis; Cambridge University: London, UK, 1971; pp. 68–78. [Google Scholar]
- Deo, P.G.; Hasan, S.B.; Majumdar, S.K. Toxicity and suitability of some insecticides for household use. Int. Pest Control. 1988, 30, 118–129. [Google Scholar]
- Gbolade, A.A.; Oyedele, A.O.; Sosan, M.B.; Adewayin, F.B.; Soyela, O.L. Mosquito repellent activities of essential oils from two Nigerian Ocimum species. J. Trop. Med. Plants 2000, 1, 146–148. [Google Scholar]
- Govindarajan, M. Evaluation of indigenous plant extracts against the malarial vector, Anopheles stephensi (Liston) (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol. Res. 2011, 109, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Benelli, G. δ-Cadinene, calarene and δ-4-carene from Kadsura heteroclita essential oil as novel larvicides against malaria, dengue and filariasis mosquitoes. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2016, 19, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Sivakumar, R.; Rajeswary, M.; Veerakumar, K. Mosquito larvicidal activity of thymol from essential oil of Coleus aromaticus Benth. against Culex tritaeniorhynchus, Aedes albopictus, and Anopheles subpictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 3713–3721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira Filho, A.A.; Pessoa, G.C.D.; Yamaguchi, L.F.; Stanton, M.A.; Serravite, A.M.; Pereira, R.H.M.; Neves, W.S.; Kato, M.J. Larvicidal activity of essential oils from piper species against strains of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) resistant to pyrethroids. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 685864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanem, K.; Doaa, E.S.; Abdelfattah, S.; Mustapha, D.; Mohamed, M.B. Larvicidal efficacy of fifteen plant essential oils against Culex pipiens L. mosquitoes in Egypt. Egypt. J. Vet. Sci. 2023, 54, 183–192. [Google Scholar]
- AlShebly, M.M.; AlQahtani, F.S.; Govindarajan, M.; Gopinath, K.; Vijayan, P.; Benelli, G. Toxicity of ar-curcumene and epi-β-bisabolol from Hedychium larsenii (Zingiberaceae) essential oil on malaria, chikungunya and St. Louis encephalitis mosquito vectors. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 137, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Senthilmurugan, S.; Vijayan, P.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M.; Benelli, G. Larvicidal activity of the essential oil from Amomum subulatum Roxb. (Zingiberaceae) against Anopheles subpictus, Aedes albopictus and Culex tritaeniorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae), and non-target impact on four mosquito natural enemies. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 101, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwary, M.; Naik, S.N.; Tewaryb, D.K.; Mittalc, P.K.; Yadavc, S. Chemical composition and larvicidal activities of the essential oil of Zanthoxylum armatum DC (Rutaceae) against three mosquito vectors. J. Vect. Born Dis. 2007, 44, 198–204. [Google Scholar]
- Khater, H.F.; Hanafy, A.; Abdel-Mageed, A.D.; Ramadan, M.Y.; El-Madawy, R.S. Control of the myiasis-producing fly, Lucilia sericata, with Egyptian essential oils. Int. J. Dermatol. 2011, 50, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khater, H.F.; Ramadan, M.Y.; Mageid, A.D. In vitro control of the camel nasal botfly, Cephalopina titillator, with doramectin, lavender, camphor, and onion oils. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 2503–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruttanaphan, T.; Pluempanupat, W.; Aungsirisawat, C.; Boonyarit, P.; Goff, G.L.; Bullangpoti, V. Effect of Plant Essential Oils and Their Major Constituents on Cypermethrin Tolerance Associated Detoxification Enzyme Activities in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 23, 2167–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benelli, G.; Govindarajan, M.; AlSalhi, M.S.; Devanesan, S.; Maggi, F. High toxicity of camphene and γ-elemene from Wedelia prostrata essential oil against larvae of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 10383–10391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benelli, G.; Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Vaseeharan, B.; Alyahya, S.A.; Alharbi, N.S.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Khaled, J.M.; Maggi, F. Insecticidal activity of camphene, zerumbone and α-humulene from Cheilocostus speciosus rhizome essential oil against the Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 148, 781–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavela, R. Essential oils from Foeniculum vulgare Miller as a safe environmental insecticide against the aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10904–10910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esan, V.; Elanchezhiyan, C.; Mahboob, S.; Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Al-Misned, F.; Ahmed, Z.; Elumalai, K.; Krishnappa, K.; Govindarajan, M. Toxicity of Trewia nudiflora-mediated silver nanoparticles on mosquito larvae and non-target aquatic fauna. Toxin. Rev. 2022, 41, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The major phytoconstituents of M. chamomilla: (A) (E)-β-Farnesene; (B) Germacrene D; and (C) α-Bisabolol oxide A.
Figure 1.
The major phytoconstituents of M. chamomilla: (A) (E)-β-Farnesene; (B) Germacrene D; and (C) α-Bisabolol oxide A.
Table 1.
Essential oils from M. chamomilla and their chemical composition.
| Peak | Compounds | RI Exp. a | RI Lit. b | Composition (%) | Mode of Identification c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | α-Thujene | 923 | 925 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 2 | α-Pinene | 934 | 933 | 2.1 | RI, MS |
| 3 | Sabinene | 970 | 968 | 0.9 | RI, MS |
| 4 | β-Pinene | 973 | 972 | 0.4 | RI, MS |
| 5 | Myrcene | 986 | 987 | 1.1 | RI, MS |
| 6 | α-Terpinene | 1013 | 1013 | 0.7 | RI, MS |
| 7 | ο-Cymene | 1021 | 1022 | 0.5 | RI, MS |
| 8 | Limonene | 1025 | 1024 | 0.8 | RI, MS |
| 9 | 1,8-Cineole | 1027 | 1026 | 0.4 | RI, MS |
| 10 | (Z)-β-Ocimene | 1034 | 1033 | 0.7 | RI, MS |
| 11 | (E)-β-Ocimene | 1045 | 1045 | 3.2 | RI, MS |
| 12 | γ-Terpinene | 1056 | 1056 | 0.9 | RI, MS |
| 13 | Terpinolene | 1086 | 1087 | 0.5 | RI, MS |
| 14 | Linalool | 1096 | 1096 | 0.4 | RI, MS |
| 15 | Menthone | 1156 | 1147 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 16 | Menthol | 1173 | 1165 | 0.8 | RI, MS |
| 17 | Methyl chavicol | 1196 | 1195 | 0.5 | RI, MS |
| 18 | Menthyl acetate | 1295 | 1293 | 0.3 | RI, MS |
| 19 | Tridecane | 1298 | 1300 | 0.4 | RI, MS |
| 20 | δ-Elemene | 1341 | 1338 | 1.8 | RI, MS |
| 21 | α-Isocomene | 1394 | 1386 | 0.5 | RI, MS |
| 22 | β-Elemene | 1396 | 1388 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 23 | (E)-Caryophyllene | 1426 | 1417 | 0.9 | RI, MS |
| 24 | β-Copaene | 1438 | 1430 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 25 | (E)-β-Farnesene | 1458 | 1457 | 24.3 | RI, MS |
| 26 | Germacrene D | 1486 | 1485 | 11.4 | RI, MS |
| 27 | β-Selinene | 1493 | 1486 | 0.9 | RI, MS |
| 28 | Bicyclogermacrene | 1501 | 1500 | 1.8 | RI, MS |
| 29 | (E,E)-α-Farnesene | 1507 | 1506 | 3.1 | RI, MS |
| 30 | γ-Cadinene | 1518 | 1514 | 0.2 | RI, MS |
| 31 | δ-Cadinene | 1526 | 1521 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 32 | (E)-Nerolidol | 1565 | 1563 | 0.9 | RI, MS |
| 33 | α-Bisabolol oxide B | 1662 | 1659 | 4.1 | RI, MS |
| 34 | α-Bisabolol | 1686 | 1685 | 3.2 | RI, MS |
| 35 | α-Bisabolone oxide A | 1688 | 1686 | 3.9 | RI, MS |
| 36 | Chamazulene | 1737 | 1734 | 5.3 | RI, MS |
| 37 | α-Bisabolol oxide A | 1751 | 1749 | 10.2 | RI, MS |
| 38 | (Z)-Spiroether | 1887 | 1878 | 4.8 | RI, MS |
| 39 | (E)-Spiroether | 1899 | 1890 | 0.6 | RI, MS |
| 95.5% |
a Retention index experimentally calculated on a BP-I capillary column using a standard mixture of n-alkanes; b retention index taken from Adams (2007) or the literature; c identification methods: RI, based on comparison of calculated RI with those reported in ADAMS; MS, based on comparison of the mass spectrum with those of MASS FINDER 3.1, ADAMS, and NIST 08 libraries.
Table 2.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Spodoptera litura.
Table 2.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Spodoptera litura.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 60 120 180 240 300 | 25.4 ± 1.2 33.3 ± 1.6 64.8 ± 1.4 75.7 ± 1.4 96.5 ± 1.2 | 146.82 (132.59–159.94) | 282.14 (261.12–310.28) | y = 1.46 + 0.01x | 7.650 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 8 16 24 32 40 | 33.4 ± 1.2 42.7 ± 1.4 72.1 ± 1.8 83.8 ± 1.6 100.0 ± 0.0 | 16.13 (8.16–21.14) | 33.42 (27.30–48.71) | y = 1.01 + 0.06x | 9.453 * |
| Germacrene D | 10 20 30 40 50 | 31.4 ± 1.4 40.6 ± 1.8 64.8 ± 1.4 81.2 ± 1.4 97.4 ± 1.4 | 21.88 (19.25–24.21) | 45.35 (41.80–50.15) | y = 1.3 + 0.06x | 5.792 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 12 24 36 48 60 | 25.6 ± 1.2 34.4 ± 1.4 58.5 ± 1.6 73.8 ± 1.2 94.7 ± 1.4 | 30.40 (27.42–33.16) | 59.45 (54.79–65.78) | y = 1.39 + 0.05x | 5.491 * |
Mortality observed in 24 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 3.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Table 3.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 60 120 180 240 300 | 29.7 ± 1.2 35.9 ± 1.4 65.2 ± 1.6 76.4 ± 1.4 100.0 ± 0.0 | 138.25 (58.08–189.01) | 271.98 (213.80–477.73) | y = 1.07 + 7.51x | 15.052 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 8 16 24 32 40 | 33.3 ± 1.4 47.5 ± 1.6 72.6 ± 1.2 85.3 ± 1.8 100.0 ± 0.0 | 15.50 (13.38–17.31) | 32.72 (30.21–36.06) | y = 0.99 + 0.06x | 6.618 * |
| Germacrene D | 10 20 30 40 50 | 30.3 ± 1.4 42.5 ± 1.4 68.6 ± 1.6 83.4 ± 1.2 97.2 ± 1.8 | 21.25 (18.64–23.53) | 43.89 (40.53–48.40) | y = 1.27 + 0.06x | 3.286 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 12 24 36 48 60 | 27.2 ± 1.4 38.9 ± 1.4 65.5 ± 1.6 79.4 ± 1.6 94.6 ± 1.4 | 27.75 (24.65–30.53) | 56.32 (51.94–62.25) | y = 1.27 + 0.05x | 2.385 * |
Mortality observed in 24 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Aedes vittatus.
Table 4.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Aedes vittatus.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 20 40 60 80 100 | 22.2 ± 1.2 34.4 ± 1.8 61.2 ± 1.6 72.4 ± 1.8 94.3 ± 1.4 | 51.52 (46.73–56.01) | 98.49 (90.99–108.61) | y = 1.45 + 0.03x | 4.561 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 3 6 9 12 15 | 33.7 ± 1.6 47.9 ± 1.4 74.4 ± 1.6 88.6 ± 1.8 100.0 ± 0.0 | 5.66 (4.89–6.32) | 11.80 (10.91–12.98) | y = 1.05 + 0.19x | 5.323 * |
| Germacrene D | 5 10 15 20 25 | 34.4 ± 1.4 48.9 ± 1.6 78.5 ± 1.4 87.4 ± 1.4 97.5 ± 1.2 | 9.11 (7.67–10.31) | 20.27 (18.68–22.40) | y = 1.08 + 0.12x | 2.699 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 6 12 18 24 30 | 31.9 ± 1.4 45.7 ± 1.2 72.3 ± 1.4 82.2 ± 1.4 94.3 ± 1.8 | 12.13 (10.31–13.66) | 27.25 (25.01–30.33) | y = 1.04 + 0.09x | 1.660 * |
Mortality observed in 24 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 5.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Anopheles subpictus.
Table 5.
Larvicidal activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against 3rd-instar larvae of Anopheles subpictus.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 20 40 60 80 100 | 21.2 ± 1.4 34.3 ± 1.6 61.8 ± 1.8 70.6 ± 1.2 93.4 ± 1.4 | 52.28 (47.44–56.82) | 100.04 (92.34–110.47) | y = 1.44 + 0.03x | 4.821 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 3 6 9 12 15 | 32.7 ± 1.4 45.0 ± 1.4 68.2 ± 1.6 85.3 ± 1.4 100.0 ± 0.0 | 6.08 (5.31–6.74) | 12.53 (11.58–13.80) | y = 1.04 + 0.17x | 7.737 * |
| Germacrene D | 5 10 15 20 25 | 27.4 ± 1.4 41.6 ± 1.8 67.7 ± 1.2 83.5 ± 1.0 98.6 ± 1.4 | 10.95 (9.77–12.02) | 21.48 (19.91–23.55) | y = 1.47 + 0.14x | 4.373 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 6 12 18 24 30 | 26.4 ± 1.4 43.9 ± 1.6 68.7 ± 1.4 81.2 ± 1.8 96.4 ± 1.4 | 13.18 (11.65–14.54) | 26.77 (24.74–29.49) | y = 1.29 + 0.1x | 1.970 * |
Mortality observed in 24 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 6.
The effect of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against terrestrial non-target fauna (NTF) Stegodyphus sarasinorum.
Table 6.
The effect of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against terrestrial non-target fauna (NTF) Stegodyphus sarasinorum.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 4000 8000 12,000 16,000 20,000 | 27.3 ± 1.8 42.8 ± 1.4 68.9 ± 1.4 80.4 ± 1.2 98.3 ± 1.6 | 8103.92 (7105.65–8975.10) | 16,523.20 (15,282.75–18,169.16) | y = 1.07 + 1.32x | 7.372 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 400 800 1200 1600 2000 | 26.5 ± 1.4 37.2 ± 1.6 60.2 ± 1.4 75.4 ± 1.8 100.0 ± 0.0 | 922.65 (637.71–1144.60) | 1715.78 (1436.83–2330.97) | y = 1.29 + 1.38x | 8.502 * |
| Germacrene D | 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 | 23.2 ± 1.6 34.5 ± 1.4 60.3 ± 1.6 73.3 ± 1.2 98.6 ± 1.8 | 1204.23 (766.94–1542.01) | 2204.95 (1802.65–3259.21) | y = 1.31 + 1.06x | 11.744 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 700 1400 2100 2800 3500 | 23.9 ± 1.6 31.5 ± 1.4 64.2 ± 1.6 73.2 ± 1.4 95.4 ± 1.8 | 1722.06 (1566.28–1867.07) | 3196.29 (2969.66–3494.83) | y = 1.6 + 9.45x | 7.163 * |
Mortality observed in 48 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 7.
The effect of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against aquatic non-target fauna (NTF) Gambusia affinis.
Table 7.
The effect of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents against aquatic non-target fauna (NTF) Gambusia affinis.
| Phytoconstituents | Concentration (µg/mL) | Mortality (%) ± SD | LC50 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | LC90 (µg/mL) (LCL-UCL) | R Values | χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | 4000 8000 12,000 16,000 20,000 | 32.4 ± 1.4 44.8 ± 1.6 68.4 ± 1.8 86.5 ± 1.4 100.0 ± 0.0 | 8799.01 (4622.01–11,532) | 17,745.02 (14,368.92–26,989.04) | y = 1.03 + 1.15x | 10.645 * |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | 400 800 1200 1600 2000 | 25.4 ± 1.4 37.4 ± 1.8 64.6 ± 1.4 82.7 ± 1.6 100.0 ± 0.0 | 914.33 (439.80–1227.01) | 1768.56 (1406.97–2916.11) | y = 1.14 + 1.22x | 14.070 * |
| Germacrene D | 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 | 24.2 ± 1.8 33.3 ± 1.4 64.8 ± 1.6 78.7 ± 1.4 100.0 ± 0.0 | 1185.05 (592.43–1587.49) | 2300.97 (1828.12–3845.47) | y = 1.1 + 8.88x | 13.742 * |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | 700 1400 2100 2800 3500 | 22.2 ± 1.8 34.2 ± 1.6 65.8 ± 1.4 76.4 ± 1.6 97.6 ± 1.8 | 1750.49 (1591.04–1899.49) | 3283.23 (3043.81–3601.54) | y = 1.56 + 9.08x | 5.791 * |
Mortality observed in 48 h exposure period with values replicated five times, µg/mL. LC50: 50% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LC90: 90% larval toxicity occurring concentration; LCL: Lower Confidence Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence Limit; R values: Regression values; χ2: Chi-square. IBM-SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 was used to calculate the LC50, LC90, R values, and χ2. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 8.
The suitability index of aquatic and terrestrial non-target fauna is shared by several agricultural and medicinal pests exposed to Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents.
Table 8.
The suitability index of aquatic and terrestrial non-target fauna is shared by several agricultural and medicinal pests exposed to Matricaria chamomilla essential oil and its major phytoconstituents.
| Treatment | Non-Target Organism (Terrestrial) | S. litura | H. armigera | Non-Target Organism (Aquatic) | Ae. vittatus | An. subpictus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | S. sarasinorum | 55.19 | 58.61 | G. affinis | 170.78 | 168.30 |
| (E)-β-Farnesene | S. sarasinorum | 57.20 | 59.52 | G. affinis | 161.54 | 150.38 |
| Germacrene D | S. sarasinorum | 55.03 | 56.66 | G. affinis | 130.08 | 108.22 |
| α-Bisabolol oxide A | S. sarasinorum | 56.64 | 62.05 | G. affinis | 144.31 | 132.81 |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Krishnappa, K.; Pandiyan, J.; Nicoletti, M.; Gurunathan, B.; Govindarajan, M. Insecticidal Potential of Matricaria chamomilla’s Essential Oil and Its Components (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol Oxide A against Agricultural Pests, Malaria, and Zika Virus Vectors. Agriculture 2023, 13, 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
AMA Style
Al-Ghanim KA, Krishnappa K, Pandiyan J, Nicoletti M, Gurunathan B, Govindarajan M. Insecticidal Potential of Matricaria chamomilla’s Essential Oil and Its Components (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol Oxide A against Agricultural Pests, Malaria, and Zika Virus Vectors. Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):779. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl-Ghanim, Khalid A., Kaliyamoorthy Krishnappa, Jeganathan Pandiyan, Marcello Nicoletti, Baskar Gurunathan, and Marimuthu Govindarajan. 2023. "Insecticidal Potential of Matricaria chamomilla’s Essential Oil and Its Components (E)-β-Farnesene, Germacrene D, and α-Bisabolol Oxide A against Agricultural Pests, Malaria, and Zika Virus Vectors" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
