Abstract
Mosquito-borne infections are a constant problem in Vietnam, and mosquito vector control is a primary approach to control these infections. Essential oils represent environmentally friendly alternatives to synthetic pesticides for mosquito control. The essential oils of two weedy species in Vietnam, Erechtites hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius, have been obtained by hydrodistillation and analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. The essential oils have been screened for mosquito larvicidal activity against Aedes albopictus, Ae. aegypti, and Culex quinquefasciatus. The essential oil from the aerial parts of E. hieraciifolius was rich in α-pinene (14.5%), limonene (21.4%), and caryophyllene oxide (15.1%), while E. valerianifolius essential oil was dominated by myrcene (47.8%) and α-pinene (30.2%). Both essential oils showed good larvicidal activity against Ae. albopictus (24-h LC50 10.5 and 5.8 μg/mL, respectively) and Ae. aegypti (24-h LC50 10.6 and 12.5 μg/mL, respectively). The essential oil of E. valerianifolius also showed good activity against Cx. quinquefasciatus larvae (24-h LC50 = 40.7 μg/mL). Thus, Erechtites essential oils may serve as low-cost vector control agents for mosquito-borne infections.
Keywords: Erechtites hieraciifolius, Erechtites valerianifolius, chemical composition, α-pinene, limonene, myrcene, β-caryophyllene, caryophyllene oxide
1. Introduction
Aedes aegypti (L.) and Ae. albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) are important vectors of arboviral infections, including yellow fever, dengue, Zika, and chikungunya [1,2,3]. Vietnam is classified as a hyperendemic dengue country, with all four dengue serotypes present throughout the year [4]. In the last half century, dengue fever epidemics have increased in frequency, corresponding to a median annual incidence of 232 cases per 100,000 people [4]. Furthermore, chikungunya is expected to become a major health threat in Vietnam in the near future [4,5].
Vector control is one of the primary approaches to reduce the spread of arboviral infections. However, current methods for controlling Aedes mosquitoes have been largely ineffective [6]. Botanical insecticides in general [7,8] and essential oils in particular [9,10] have emerged as promising, environmentally friendly alternatives to synthetic pesticides for mosquito control.
There are around 12 species of Erechtites (Asteraceae), and they are native to North America, West Indies, South America, New Zealand, and Australia [11]. Erechtites hieraciifolius (L.) Raf. ex DC. (syn. Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) Raf., Erechtites hieraciifolia (L.) Raf. ex DC.,) is native to North America, South America, and the West Indies, but it has been introduced to Europe, Hawaii, and Asia [12,13,14,15,16]. Erechtites valerianifolius (Wolf) DC. (syn. Erechtites valerianifolia (Link ex Wolf) Less. ex DC., Erechtites valerianaefolia (Wolf) DC.) is native to Central and South America, but this species has also has been introduced to Asia [13,14,15,17,18].
Erechtites hieraciifolius is used traditionally in Venezuela (a plant decoction is used as a bath to reduce fever) and in El Salvador (a decoction is used to treat coughs) [19]. In Bolivia, the Tacana people use an oil extract of E. hieraciifolius to treat wounds and pimples [20]. An ethanol extract of E. hieraciifolius showed in vitro antileishmanial activity against promastigotes of Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis Lainson & Shaw and L. (Viannia) braziliensis Vianna [20]. In North America, E. hieraciifolius was previously used to treat hemorrhages, wounds, skin diseases, and as a topical treatment for poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze, Anacardiaceae) and poison sumac (T. vernix (L.) Kuntze) rash [21].
As part of our ongoing research on identifying the potential utility of invasive plant species in Vietnam, we have obtained the essential oils from E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius and have examined their mosquito larvicidal activities. In order to assess the potential environmental impact of using Erechtites essential oils as a larvicidal control agent, we have carried out lethality assays on the non-target aquatic species. As far as we are aware, there have been no previous investigations on the larvicidal activities of Erechtites essential oils.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
Aerial parts of E. valerianifolius were harvested from plants growing in Dong Giang district, Quang Nam Province (15°58′9.8″ N, 107°55′4.7″ E; sample Quang Nam), Hoa Vang district, Da Nang city (16°01′0.6″ N, 108°4′25.6″ E;), while aerial parts of E. hieraciifolius were harvested from plants growing in Hoa Vang district, Da Nang city (16°2′22.0″ N, 108°3′33.0″ E), in April 2018. The plants were identified by Dr. Do Ngoc Dai, and voucher specimens (LTH127 and LTH128, respectively) have been deposited in the Pedagogical Institute of Science, Vinh University. Fresh plant materials (leaves, stems, and flowers) were kept at room temperature (≈25 °C), and 2 kg samples of each of the plant materials were shredded and hydrodistilled for 4 h using a Clevenger type apparatus.
2.2. Gas Chromatographic—Mass Spectral Analysis
Each of the Erechtites essential oils was analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using a Shimadzu GCMS-QP2010 Ultra operated in the electron impact (EI) mode (electron energy = 70 eV), scan range = 40–400 atomic mass units, scan rate = 3.0 scans/s, and GC–MS solution software. The GC column was a ZB-5 fused silica capillary column with a (5% phenyl)-polymethylsiloxane stationary phase and a film thickness of 0.25 μm. The carrier gas was helium with a column head pressure of 552 kPa and flow rate of 1.37 mL/min. The injector temperature was 250 °C and the ion source temperature was 200 °C. The GC oven temperature program was programmed to have an initial temperature of 50 °C, and the temperature increased at a rate of 2 °C/min to 260 °C. A 5% w/v solution of the sample in CH2Cl2 was prepared, and 0.1 μL was injected with a splitting mode (30:1). Identification of the oil components was based on their retention indices determined by reference to a homologous series of n-alkanes, and by comparison of their mass spectral fragmentation patterns with those reported in the literature [22], and stored in our in-house Sat-Set library [23].
2.3. Mosquito Larvicidal Assay
Laboratory-reared larvae of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were collected from a mosquito colony maintained at the Laboratory of Parasitology and Entomology of Duy Tan University, Da Nang Vietnam. Wild larvae of Ae. albopictus and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) were collected from Hoa Khanh Nam district (16°3′14.9″ N, 108°9′31.2″ E). For the assay, aliquots of the aerial parts (leaves and stems) and essential oils of E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius (Quang Nam stems & leaves) dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) (1% stock solution of essential oil in DMSO) were placed in 500 mL beakers and added to water that contained 25 larvae (fourth instar). With each experiment, a set of controls using DMSO was also run for comparison. Mortality was recorded after 24 h and again after 48 h of exposure, during which no nutritional supplement was added. The experiments were carried out at 25 ± 2 °C. Each test was conducted with four replicates with six concentrations (100, 80, 50, 25, 12.5, and 5 μg/mL). Permethrin was used as a positive control.
2.4. Non-Target Lethality Assays
For the assay against Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera: Daphniiidae), aliquots of the essential oil of E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius (Quang Nam stems and leaves), dissolved in DMSO (1% stock solution), were placed in 250 mL beakers and added to water that contained 20 larvae (fourth instar). Mortality was recorded after 24 h and 48 h of exposure, during which no nutritional supplement was added. The experiments were carried out at 25 ± 2 °C. Each test was conducted with four replicates with five concentrations (12, 6, 3, 1.5, and 0.75 μg/mL). The assay against Chiromonus tentans Fabricius (Diptera: Chironomidae) larvae was carried out as above using four replicates with five concentrations (100, 50, 25, 12.5, and 6 μg/mL). For the assay against Danio rerio Hamilton (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), young, immature fish around 2–3 cm in size were selected for the experiment. Twenty fish were separated in 2.5 L plastic containers with 1.0 L of tap water, with a temperature of 25 ± 2 °C and external relative humidity of 85%. For each dose (100, 50, 25, 12.5, and 6 μg/mL), four repetitions of the experiment were performed. The mortality of organism non-target was calculated following an exposure period of 24 h. With each experiment, a set of controls using DMSO was also run for comparison.
2.5. Data Analysis
The mortalities were recorded 24 h and 48 h after treatment. The data obtained were subjected to log-probit analysis [24] to obtain LC50 values, LC90 values, 95% confidence limits, and chi square values using Minitab® 18 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). For comparison, LC50 values were also determined using the Reed–Muench method [25].
3. Results and Discussion
The essential oils from the aerial parts of E. valerianifolius and E. hieraciifolius were obtained in 1.53 and 1.47% yields, respectively.
3.1. Essential Oil Compositions
The chemical compositions of the essential oil of E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The essential oil from the aerial parts (leaves and stems) of E. hieraciifolius was rich in the monoterpene hydrocarbons α-pinene (14.5%) and limonene (21.4%), as well as the oxygenated sesquiterpenoid caryophyllene oxide (15.1%). The floral essential oil of E. hieraciifolius was also rich in α-pinene (11.8%) and limonene (29.8%), but β-caryophyllene (22.1%) was the dominant sesquiterpene.
Table 1.
RI | Compound | Area % | |
---|---|---|---|
Leaves & Stems | Flowers | ||
921 | Tricyclene | --- | tr |
924 | α-Thujene | --- | tr |
932 | α-Pinene | 14.5 | 11.8 |
948 | Camphene | --- | 0.1 |
971 | Sabinene | 0.6 | 0.7 |
976 | β-Pinene | 0.4 | 0.4 |
988 | Myrcene | 2.7 | 4.4 |
1006 | α-Phellandrene | --- | 0.3 |
1016 | α-Terpinene | --- | tr |
1024 | p-Cymene | 0.4 | 0.1 |
1028 | Limonene | 21.4 | 29.8 |
1031 | β-Phellandrene | --- | 0.5 |
1034 | (Z)-β-Ocimene | --- | 1.2 |
1044 | (E)-β-Ocimene | --- | 2.3 |
1057 | γ-Terpinene | --- | 0.1 |
1084 | Terpinolene | --- | 0.1 |
1108 | Unidentified | 0.8 | --- |
1120 | trans-p-Mentha-2,8-dien-1-ol | 0.8 | --- |
1124 | Cycloctanone | 0.6 | --- |
1125 | α-Campholenal | 0.6 | --- |
1127 | allo-Ocimene | --- | tr |
1135 | cis-p-Mentha-2,8-dien-1-ol | 0.9 | --- |
1140 | trans-Pinocarveol | 0.7 | --- |
1140 | cis-Verbenol | 0.3 | --- |
1144 | trans-Verbenol | 3.5 | --- |
1179 | Terpinen-4-ol | 0.4 | --- |
1185 | Cryptone | 1.4 | --- |
1194 | Myrtenol | 0.8 | --- |
1197 | Dodecane | --- | 0.1 |
1198 | cis-Piperitol | 0.8 | --- |
1205 | Verbenone | 1.4 | --- |
1209 | Unidentified | 0.5 | --- |
1214 | Unidentified | 1.1 | --- |
1217 | trans-Carveol | 3.5 | --- |
1225 | Unidentified | 0.7 | --- |
1230 | cis-Carveol | 1.1 | --- |
1242 | Carvone | 2.0 | --- |
1270 | Unidentified | 0.8 | --- |
1284 | Bornyl acetate | --- | 0.2 |
1287 | Limonene dioxide | 0.9 | --- |
1297 | Tridecane | --- | 0.2 |
1309 | Unidentified | 2.2 | --- |
1317 | 3-Hydroxycineole | 0.4 | --- |
1343 | Limonene-1,2-diol | 4.7 | --- |
1345 | α-Cubebene | --- | 0.1 |
1357 | Neryl acetate | --- | 0.1 |
1367 | Cyclosativene | --- | 0.1 |
1374 | α-Copaene | 0.6 | 1.9 |
1378 | trans-p-Menth-6-en-2,8-diol | 4.1 | --- |
1386 | β-Cubebene | --- | 0.7 |
1387 | β-Elemene | 0.6 | 3.5 |
1397 | Tetradecane | --- | 0.2 |
1402 | α-Gurjunene | --- | 1.1 |
1419 | β-Caryophyllene | 3.0 | 22.1 |
1450 | (E)-β-Farnesene | --- | 2.0 |
1454 | α-Humulene | 0.5 | 1.8 |
1470 | trans-Cadina-1(6),4-diene | --- | 0.1 |
1472 | γ-Gurjunene | --- | 0.2 |
1473 | γ-Muurolene | --- | 0.1 |
1480 | Germacrene D | --- | 2.6 |
1482 | (Z,Z)-α-Farnesene | --- | 0.7 |
1486 | Valencene | --- | 0.7 |
1488 | Viridiflorene | --- | 0.7 |
1490 | trans-Muurola-4(14),5-diene | --- | 0.3 |
1494 | epi-Cubebol | --- | 0.5 |
1496 | α-Muurolene | --- | 1.2 |
1501 | (E,E)-α-Farnesene | --- | 0.1 |
1514 | Cubebol | --- | 0.2 |
1516 | δ-Cadinene | --- | 1.4 |
1549 | Isocaryphyllene oxide | 1.2 | --- |
1559 | (E)-Nerolidol | --- | 0.3 |
1582 | Caryophyllene oxide | 15.1 | 1.6 |
1607 | Humulene epoxide II | 0.9 | --- |
1622 | Cyperotundone A | --- | 0.1 |
1627 | 1-epi-Cubenol | --- | 0.2 |
1637 | Caryophylla-4(12),8(13)-dien-5β-ol | 0.6 | 0.1 |
1641 | τ-Cadinol | --- | 0.4 |
1643 | τ-Muurolol | --- | 0.2 |
1644 | Cubenol | 0.5 | --- |
1646 | α-Muurolol (Torreyol) | --- | 0.1 |
1654 | α-Cadinol | 0.7 | 0.3 |
1658 | Selin-11-en-4α-ol | --- | 0.1 |
1667 | 14-Hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene | 1.4 | --- |
1700 | Heptadecane | --- | 0.2 |
1831 | Neophytadiene | --- | 0.3 |
1900 | Nonadecane | --- | 0.2 |
2103 | (E)-Phytol | --- | 0.4 |
Monoterpene hydrocarbons | 40.0 | 51.7 | |
Oxygenated monoterpenoids | 28.2 | 0.3 | |
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons | 4.7 | 41.3 | |
Oxygenated sesquiterpenoids | 19.2 | 4.1 | |
Others | 0.6 | 1.5 | |
Total Identified | 92.7 | 99.0 |
Table 2.
RI | Compound | Quang Nam | Quang Nam | Da Nang |
---|---|---|---|---|
Leaves & stems | Flowers | Flowers | ||
922 | Tricyclene | tr | tr | tr |
924 | α-Thujene | tr | 0.1 | tr |
933 | α-Pinene | 30.2 | 32.5 | 30.6 |
949 | Camphene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
952 | Thuja-2,4(10)-diene | tr | tr | tr |
971 | Sabinene | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
977 | β-Pinene | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
990 | Myrcene | 47.8 | 57.0 | 60.6 |
1006 | α-Phellandrene | 0.3 | tr | tr |
1016 | α-Terpinene | tr | tr | tr |
1024 | p-Cymene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1028 | Limonene | 1.4 | 2.5 | 1.5 |
1030 | β-Phellandrene | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
1034 | (Z)-β-Ocimene | 0.3 | 0.1 | tr |
1044 | (E)-β-Ocimene | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
1057 | γ-Terpinene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1084 | Terpinolene | tr | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1100 | Undecane | --- | tr | tr |
1101 | Perillene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1102 | Linalool | tr | tr | tr |
1112 | (E)-4,8-Dimethylnona-1,3,7-triene | tr | tr | tr |
1128 | α-Campholenal | 0.1 | --- | --- |
1146 | trans-Verbenol | --- | tr | tr |
1181 | Terpinen-4-ol | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1229 | Thymol methyl ether | tr | --- | --- |
1333 | δ-Elemene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1374 | α-Copaene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1380 | cis-β-Elemene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1382 | β-Bourbonene | tr | tr | tr |
1386 | β-Cubebene | --- | tr | 0.3 |
1387 | β-Elemene | 2.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
1400 | Methyl eugenol | tr | --- | --- |
1401 | α-Gurjunene | 0.1 | --- | --- |
1411 | Dimethoxy-p-cymene | 0.2 | --- | --- |
1418 | β-Caryophyllene | 5.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 |
1427 | γ-Elemene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1428 | β-Copaene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1450 | (E)-β-Farnesene | 0.2 | tr | tr |
1454 | α-Humulene | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
1471 | γ-Selinene | 0.2 | --- | --- |
1473 | γ-Muurolene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1480 | Germacrene D | 3.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
1486 | Viridiflorene | 0.3 | --- | --- |
1488 | β-Selinene | 0.2 | tr | tr |
1491 | trans-Muurola-4(14),5-diene | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1494 | α-Selinene | 0.4 | --- | --- |
1494 | Bicyclogermacrene | --- | 0.1 | 0.2 |
1496 | α-Muurolene | 0.1 | 0.1 | tr |
1501 | (E,E)-α-Farnesene | 0.7 | tr | 0.1 |
1511 | γ-Cadinene | tr | tr | tr |
1516 | δ-Cadinene | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1558 | Germacrene B | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1576 | Spathulenol | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1582 | Caryophyllene oxide | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1609 | Humulene epoxide II | 0.1 | --- | --- |
1622 | Cyperotundone A | 0.1 | --- | --- |
1627 | iso-Spathulenol | tr | --- | --- |
1642 | τ-Cadinol | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1643 | τ-Muurolol | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1655 | α-Cadinol | 0.1 | tr | tr |
1659 | Selin-11-en-4α-ol | 0.1 | --- | --- |
1684 | Germacra-4(15),5,10(14)-trien-1α-ol | --- | --- | tr |
1700 | Heptadecane | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
1832 | Neophytadiene | 0.2 | --- | tr |
1900 | Nonadecane | --- | tr | 0.1 |
1944 | α-Springene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
2100 | Heneicosane | --- | tr | tr |
Monoterpene hydrocarbons | 82.9 | 94.3 | 94.6 | |
Oxygenated monoterpenoids | 0.3 | tr | tr | |
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons | 14.9 | 5.4 | 5.1 | |
Oxygenated sesquiterpenoids | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
Others | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
Total Identified | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The essential oil from the aerial parts (stems and leaves) of E. valerianifolius was dominated by the monoterpene hydrocarbons myrcene (47.8%) and α-pinene (30.2%), with a lesser quantity of the sesquiterpene β-caryophyllene (5.4%) (Table 2). The floral essential oils of E. valerianifolius were also rich in myrcene (57.0 and 60.6%) and α-pinene (32.5 and 30.6%).
Erechtites hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius essential oils from other geographical locations have shown wide variations in chemical composition (Table 3). Thus, α-phellandrene (41.3%) and p-cymene (22.2%) dominated the essential oil of E. hieraciifolius from Pacoti-Ceara, Brazil [26], while these compounds were only minor components in the sample from Vietnam. Likewise, dillapiole (33.8%) was the major component in E. hieraciifolius from Parana State, Brazil [27]; this compound was not observed in the essential oils from Vietnam. The essential oil compositions of E. valerianifolius from Vietnam were qualitatively similar to those reported by do Amaral and co-workers from southern Brazil [27], but with major quantitative differences.
Table 3.
Erechtites Species | Geographical Location | Major Components | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|
E. hieraciifolius | Pacoti-Ceara, Brazil | α-phellandrene (41.3%), p-cymene (22.2%), β-caryophyllene (7.4%), camphor (5.4%) | [26] |
E. hieraciifolius | Chimoré area, Chapare Province, Bolivia | α-pinene (48.0%), (E)-β-ocimene (13.9%), myrcene (13.7%) | [31] |
E. hieraciifolius | “Private Reservation of Natural Heritage”, Parana State, Brazil | dillapiole (33.8%), α-pinene (33.0%), β-pinene (14.7%), limonene (9.7%) | [27] |
E. valerianifolius | Mérida, Venezuela | limonene (56.7%), myrcene (12.7%), (E)-β-farnesene (10.2%), α-phellandrene (8.7%) | [32] |
E. valerianifolius | “Private Reservation of Natural Heritage”, Parana State, Brazil | α-pinene (25.8%), sabinene (17.0%), myrcene (16.7%), β-pinene (13.3%), limonene (12.6%) | [27] |
It is not clear why there is so much variation in the essential oils of Erechtites species. The phytochemical variations may be due to genetic variation. For example, the Missouri Botanical Garden [28] lists six varieties of H. hieraciifolius native to the Americas: var. cacalioides (Fisch. Ex Spreng.) Griseb (West Indies, Central and South America), var. carduifolius (Cass.) Griseb (West Indies), var. hieraciifolius (North America and West Indies), var. intermedia Fernald (North America), var. megalocarpus (Fernald) Cronquist (North America), and var. praealtus (Raf.) Fernald (North America). In addition, climatic and edaphic factors, maturity, and phenology can also be responsible for phytochemical variations, particularly in wide-ranging species. For example, several chemotypes of Artemisia absinthium L. (Asteraceae) are known, based largely on geographical location [29]. The essential oil of Peperomia pelucida (L.) Kunth (Piperaceae) also shows wide variation depending on the geographical source of material [30].
3.2. Mosquito Larvicidal Activities
The essential oils from the aerial parts of E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius collected from Vietnam were screened for mosquito larvicidal activity (Table 4 and Table 5). Larvicidal activity of permethrin (positive control) is shown in Table 6.
Table 4.
Mosquito Species | Treatment Time | LC50, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
LC90, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
Regression Equation | χ2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ae. Albopictus b | 24 h | 10.47 (9.12–11.70) 10.06 ± 0.92 |
21.11 (19.28–23.59) |
y = −1.764 + 0.1443x | 17.6 | < 0.001 |
Ae. Albopictus b | 48 h | 5.49 (1.99–7.87) 6.50 ± 2.38 |
18.64 (15.95–22.92) |
y = −0.177 + 0.0782x | 12.68 | 0.002 |
Ae. Aegypti b | 24 h | 10.58 (9.42–11.68) 10.43 ± 1.93 |
19.47 (17.82–21.76) |
y = −2.078 + 0.172x | 14.34 | 0.001 |
Ae. Aegypti b | 48 h | 8.83 (7.76–9.79) 8.65 ± 1.56 |
16.27 (14.89–18.21) |
y = −2.073 + 0.206x | 35.49 | < 0.001 |
a There was no mortality in the dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) controls; LC50 values in italics are from Reed–Muench analysis. b Laboratory-reared mosquito larvae.
Table 5.
Mosquito Species | Treatment Time | LC50, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
LC90, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
Regression Equation | χ2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ae. Albopictus b | 24 h | 6.07 (5.44–6.73) 6.38 ± 0.72 |
11.10 (10.11-12.42) |
y = −2.110 + 0.306x | 1.02 | 0.599 |
Ae. Albopictus b | 48 h | 4.65 (4.11–5.25) 5.32 ± 1.11 |
9.01 (7.96–10.67) |
y = −1.892 + 0.352x | 2.26 | 0.323 |
Ae. Albopictus c | 24 h | 38.01 (33.56–43.39) 40.71 ± 8.44 |
75.84 (65.43–94.11) |
y = −1.796 + 0.041x | 5.83 | 0.016 |
Ae. Albopictus c | 48 h | 38.57 (34.47–43.73) 35.59 ± 6.58 |
67.80 (59.41–81.64) |
y = −1.691 + 0.044x | 5.36 | 0.021 |
Ae. Aegypti b | 24 h | 12.56 (11.21–13.84) 12.64 ± 2.25 |
23.72 (21.78–26.34) |
y = −1.981 + 0.137x | 7.69 | 0.006 |
Ae. Aegypti b | 48 h | 9.60 (7.97–11.01) 9.40 ± 1.55 |
22.22 (20.15–25.07) |
y = −1.422 + 0.122x | 22.53 | < 0.001 |
Cx. Quinquefasciatus c | 24 h | 40.06 (37.08–42.64) 40.00 ± 4.92 |
55.19 (51.92–59.82) |
y = −4.316 + 0.101x | 5 × 10−7 | 0.999 |
Cx. Quinquefasciatus c | 48 h | 39.48 (36.73–42.23) 37.53 ± 5.26 |
53.18 (49.70–58.00) |
y = −3.697 + 0.094x | 1.2 × 10−6 | 0.999 |
a There was no mortality in the DMSO controls; LC50 values in italics are from Reed–Muench analysis. b Laboratory-reared mosquito larvae. c Wild mosquito larvae.
Table 6.
Mosquito Species | Treatment Time | LC50, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
LC90, μg/mL a (Fiducial Limits) |
Regression Equation | χ2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ae. Albopictus b | 24 h | 0.0023 (0.0021–0.0026) 0.0022 ± 0.0003 |
0.0042 (0.0038–0.0049) |
y = −1.628 + 686.9x | 4.73 | 0.030 |
Cx. Quinquefasciatus b | 24 h | 0.0167 (0.0152–0.0183) 0.0148 ± 0.0011 |
0.0294 (0.0270–0.0326) |
y = −2.292 + 121.6x | 26.62 | < 0.001 |
a There was no mortality in the DMSO controls; LC50 values in italics are from Reed-Muench analysis. b Wild mosquito larvae.
The essential oils from the aerial parts of both E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius showed excellent larvicidal activity against Ae. aegypti. The 24 h LC50 values were 10.6 and 12.5 μg/mL, respectively, which compare very favorably with other essential oils reported in the literature against this species [33,34,35]. Similarly, the larvicidal activities for the two Erechtites essential oils against Ae. albopictus were also very encouraging, with 24 h LC50 values of 10.5 and 5.8 μg/mL for E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifoliu, respectively. Notably, the laboratory-reared Ae. albopictus larvae were more susceptible, based on the 95% confidence limits, to E. valerianifolius essential oil than the larvae obtained from the wild (24 h LC50 = 42.1 μg/mL). Likewise, wild Culex quinquefasciatus showed less susceptibility than the laboratory-reared mosquitoes.
Mosquito larvicidal activities (LC50) of essential oils against Cx. quinquefasciatus have generally ranged between 25.6 μg/mL and 225 μg/mL [36,37]. Thus, the Cx. quinquefasciatus larvicidal activity of E. valerianifolius (LC50 = 40.65 μg/mL) was good compared to other essential oils.
The major components of E. hieraciifolius aerial parts essential oil were α-pinene, limonene, and caryophyllene oxide. Both α-pinene and limonene have shown good larvicidal activities against Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus (see Table 7). The LC50 values for (+)-limonene average 35.1 and 29.8 against Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, respectively. Caryophyllene oxide, however, has not shown good larvicidal activity, with LC50 values > 100 μg/mL against all mosquito species reported (Table 7).
Table 7.
Compound | Mosquito Species | LC50 (μg/mL) | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|
β-caryophyllene | Aedes aegypti | 88.30 | [38] |
β-caryophyllene | Aedes aegypti | 38.58 | [39] |
β-caryophyllene | Aedes albopictus | 44.77 | [40] |
β-caryophyllene | Aedes albopictus | 39.52 | [39] |
β-caryophyllene | Anopheles subpictus | 41.66 | [40] |
β-caryophyllene | Culex pipiens pallens | 93.65 | [38] |
β-caryophyllene | Culex pipiens pallens | 47.79 | [39] |
β-caryophyllene | Culex tritaeniorhynchus | 48.17 | [40] |
β-caryophyllene | Ochlerotatus togoi | 97.90 | [38] |
caryophyllene oxide | Aedes aegypti | 125 | [41] |
caryophyllene oxide | Aedes aegypti | 113.00 | [39] |
caryophyllene oxide | Aedes albopictus | 107.62 | [39] |
caryophyllene oxide | Culex pipiens pallens | 126.28 | [39] |
limonene | Aedes aegypti | 19.4 | [42] |
limonene | Aedes aegypti | 18.1 | [43] |
limonene | Aedes albopictus | 15.0 | [42] |
limonene | Aedes albopictus | 32.7 | [43] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 27 | [44] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 24.47 | [38] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 71.9 | [45] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 37 | [41] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 15.31 | [39] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 35.99 | [46] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 41.2 | [45] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 10.77 | [39] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 19.15 | [47] |
(+)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 41.75 | [48] |
(+)-limonene | Culex pipiens pallens | 13.26 | [38] |
(+)-limonene | Culex pipiens pallens | 10.76 | [39] |
(+)-limonene | Culex quinquefasciatus | 40 | [49] |
(+)-limonene | Ochlerotatus togoi | 19.20 | [38] |
(-)-limonene | Aedes aegypti | 30 | [44] |
(-)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 34.89 | [46] |
(-)-limonene | Aedes albopictus | 15.01 | [47] |
myrcene | Aedes aegypti | 35.8 | [43] |
myrcene | Aedes aegypti | 27.9 | [42] |
myrcene | Aedes aegypti | 66.42 | [38] |
myrcene | Aedes aegypti | 39.51 | [39] |
myrcene | Aedes albopictus | 27.0 | [43] |
myrcene | Aedes albopictus | 23.5 | [42] |
myrcene | Aedes albopictus | 35.98 | [39] |
myrcene | Aedes albopictus | 37.76 | [47] |
myrcene | Culex pipiens pallens | 66.28 | [38] |
myrcene | Culex pipiens pallens | 41.31 | [39] |
myrcene | Culex quinquefasciatus | 167 | [49] |
myrcene | Ochlerotatus togoi | 64.76 | [38] |
α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 15.4 | [50] |
α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 79.1 | [43] |
α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 74.0 | [43] |
α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 34.09 | [40] |
α-pinene | Anopheles subpictus | 32.09 | [40] |
α-pinene | Culex quinquefasciatus | 95 | [49] |
α-pinene | Culex tritaeniorhynchus | 36.75 | [40] |
(+)-α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 50.92 | [38] |
(+)-α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 51.28 | [39] |
(+)-α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 68.68 | [46] |
(+)-α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 55.65 | [39] |
(+)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens molestus | 47 | [51] |
(+)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens pallens | 53.96 | [38] |
(+)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens pallens | 60.84 | [39] |
(+)-α-pinene | Ochlerotatus togoi | 47.25 | [38] |
(-)-α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 64.80 | [38] |
(-)-α-pinene | Aedes aegypti | 39.98 | [39] |
(-)-α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 72.30 | [46] |
(-)-α-pinene | Aedes albopictus | 28.61 | [39] |
(-)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens molestus | 49 | [51] |
(-)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens pallens | 70.36 | [38] |
(-)-α-pinene | Culex pipiens pallens | 31.98 | [39] |
(-)-α-pinene | Ochlerotatus togoi | 57.93 | [38] |
The larvicidal activities of E. hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius essential oils can be attributed to the high concentrations of α-pinene and limonene in E. hieraciifolius oil and α-pinene, myrcene, and β-caryophyllene in E. valerianifolius oil. However, synergy between essential oil components may also be important [49,52]. Scalerandi and coworkers have demonstrated that Musca domestica preferentially metabolizes the major components in an essential oil while leaving the components of lower concentrations to act as toxicants [53].
In order to assess the potential environmental impact of using Erechtites essential oils as a larvicidal control agent, we have carried out lethality assays on non-target aquatic species: the water flea, Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera: Daphniidae); non-biting midge larvae, Chironomus tentans Fabricius (Diptera: Chironomidae); and zebrafish, Danio rerio Hamilton (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) (Table 8).
Table 8.
Erechtites hieraciifolius | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Target Species | Treatment Time | LC50, μg/Ml a (Fiducial Limits) |
LC90, μg/mLa (Fiducial Limits)) |
Regression Equation | χ2 | P |
Daphnia magna | 24 h | 0.931 (0.808–1.035) 0.909 ± 0.169 |
1.531 (1.386–1.767) |
y = −1.897 + 0.153x | 8.2 × 10−4 | 0.977 |
Daphnia magna | 48 h | 0.874 (0.754–0.974) 0.864 ± 0.180 |
1.431 (1.297–1.644) |
y = −2.011 + 2.301x | 8.1 × 10−5 | 0.993 |
Chironomus tentans | 24 h | 10.01 (9.18–10.90) 9.37 ± 0.57 |
14.73 (13.46–16.71) |
y = −2.723 + 0.272x | 0.0037 | 0.951 |
Chironomus tentans | 48 h | 7.81 (6.27–9.03) 7.64 ± 0.51 |
15.42 (13.56–18.73) |
y = −1.315 + 0.168x | 0.370 | 0.543 |
Danio rerio | 24 h | 12.41 (11.11–13.78) 11.21 ± 1.47 |
21.18 (19.12–24.22) |
y = −1.897 + 0.153x | 1.34 | 0.247 |
Daphnia magna | 24 h | 0.969 (0.871–1.061) 0.937 ± 0.150 |
1.471 (1.347–1.656) |
y = −2.478 + 2.556x | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.997 |
Daphnia magna | 48 h | 0.917 (0.837–0.999) 0.901 ± 0.119 |
1.298 (1.190–1.464) |
y = −3.081 + 3.361x | 0 | 1.0 |
Chironomus tentans | 24 h | 10.12 (8.85–11.40) 10.08 ± 2.58 |
17.99 (15.97–21.28) |
y = −1.650 + 0.163x | 1.98 | 0.159 |
Chironomus tentans | 48 h | 5.63 (2.67–7.47) 6.67 ± 0.81 |
16.31 (14.07–20.35) |
y = −0.677 + 0.120x | 2.90 | 0.088 |
Danio rerio | 24 h | 18.37 (16.89–20.00) 16.75 ± 1.81 |
27.77 (25.45–31.04) |
y = −2.505 + 0.136x | 11.38 | 0.001 |
a There was no mortality in the DMSO controls; LC50 values in italics are from Reed–Muench analysis.
Unfortunately, the Erechtites essential oils also show toxicity to representative non-target organisms, with LC50 values against the midge larvae (C. tentans) and the zebrafish (D. rerio) comparable to those for laboratory-reared mosquito larvae. The small crustacean (D. magna) was particularly susceptible to the Erechtites essential oils. Therefore, care must be taken if these essential oils are to be used in broad applications. Local application of Erechtites essential oils (e.g., urban areas) may prove useful as controls for container-breeding mosquitoes, however.
4. Conclusions
Erechtites hieraciifolius and E. valerianifolius are introduced weedy species that grow prolifically in Vietnam, particularly where forests have been cleared; acquisition of abundant quantities of plant material should not be a problem. Mosquito larvicidal screening of these two species indicates good larvicidal activity, which can be attributed to their major components. Thus, this work provides evidence that otherwise noxious introduced weeds might provide low-cost vector control agents to prevent the spread of arboviral infections in Vietnam.
Acknowledgments
P.S. and W.N.S. participated in this work as part of the activities of the Aromatic Plant Research Center (APRC, https://aromaticplant.org/).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, N.H.H. and P.S.; methodology, H.V.H., N.H.H., and P.S.; software, P.S.; validation, H.V.H., N.H.H., P.S., and W.N.S.; formal analysis, W.N.S.; investigation, H.V.H., N.H.H., N.T.H.C., T.A.T., D.N.D., and L.T.H.; resources, N.H.H. and P.S.; data curation, W.N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, W.N.S.; writing—review & editing, H.V.H., N.H.H., P.S., and W.N.S.; visualization, W.N.S.; supervision, N.H.H. and W.N.S.; project administration, N.H.H.; funding acquisition, N.H.H.
Funding
This research was funded by Duy Tan University.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Tilak R., Ray S., Tilak V.W., Mukherji S. Dengue, chikungunya … and the missing entity—Zika fever: A new emerging threat. Med. J. Armed Forces India. 2016;72:157–163. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mayer S.V., Tesh R.B., Vasilakis N. The emergence of arthropod-borne viral diseases: A global prospective on dengue, chikungunya and zika fevers. Acta Trop. 2017;166:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.11.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wilder-Smith A., Gubler D.J., Weaver S.C., Monath T.P., Heymann D.L., Scott T.W. Epidemic arboviral diseases: Priorities for research and public health. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017;17:e101–e106. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30518-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kim Lien P.T., Briant L., Tang T.B., Trang B.M., Gavotte L., Cornillot E., Duoc V.T., Duong T.N., Frutos R., Nga P.T. Surveillance of dengue and chikungunya infection in Dong Thap, Vietnam: A 13-month study. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2016;9:39–43. doi: 10.1016/j.apjtm.2015.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pham Thi K.L., Briant L., Gavotte L., Labbe P., Perriat-Sanguinet M., Cornillot E., Vu T.D., Nguyen T.Y., Tran V.P., Nguyen V.S., et al. Incidence of dengue and chikungunya viruses in mosquitoes and human patients in border provinces of Vietnam. Parasites Vectors. 2017;10:556. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2422-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bowman L.R., Donegan S., McCall P.J. Is dengue vector control deficient in effectiveness or evidence?: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016;10:e0004551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Benelli G. Research in mosquito control: Current challenges for a brighter future. Parasitol. Res. 2015;114:2801–2805. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4586-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Benelli G. Plant-borne ovicides in the fight against mosquito vectors of medical and veterinary importance: A systematic review. Parasitol. Res. 2015;114:3201–3212. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4656-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Masetti A. The potential use of essential oils against mosquito larvae: A short review. Bull. Insectol. 2016;69:307–310. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pavela R., Benelli G. Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21:1000–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2016.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Barkley T.M. Erechtites. [(accessed on 15 November 2018)]; Available online: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=111911.
- 12.Auld B., Morita H., Nicshida T., Ito M., Michael P. Shared exotica: Plant invasions of Japan and south eastern Australia. Cunninghamia. 2003;8:147–152. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wu S.-H., Hsieh C.-F., Rejmánek M. Catalogue of the naturalized flora of Taiwan. Taiwania. 2004;49:16–31. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mito T., Uesugi T. Invasive alien species in Japan: The status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. Glob. Environ. Res. 2004;8:171–191. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Xu H., Qiang S., Genovesi P., Ding H., Wu J., Meng L., Han Z., Miao J., Hu B., Guo J., et al. An inventory of invasive alien species in China. NeoBiota. 2012;15:1–26. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.15.3575. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Celka Z., Szkudlarz P., Shevera M.V., Milicka N. Morphological variation of Erechtites hieracifolia (L). Raf. ex DC. (Asteraceae) achenes in the zone of the species’ geographic range expansion, based on the localities from east-central Europe. Balt. For. 2017;23:356–363. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bakar B.H. Invasive weed species in Malaysian agro-ecosystems: Species impacts and management. Malays. J. Sci. 2004;23:1–42. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Wu S.-H., Sun H.-T., Teng Y.-C., Rejmánek M., Chaw S.-M., Yang T.-Y.A., Hsieh C.-F. Patterns of plant invasions in China: Taxonomic, biogeographic, climatic approaches and anthropogenic effects. Biol. Invasions. 2010;12:2179–2206. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9620-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Morton J.F. Atlas of Medicinal Plants of Middle America, Volume II. Charles C. Thomas; pringfield, IL, USA: 1981. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Arévalo-Lopéz D., Nina N., Ticona J.C., Limachi I., Salamanca E., Udaeta E., Paredes C., Espinoza B., Serato A., Garnica D., et al. Leishmanicidal and cytotoxic activity from plants used in Tacana traditional medicine (Bolivia) J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018;216:120–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2018.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Darbyshire S.J., Francis A., DiTommaso A., Clements D.R. The biology of Canadian weeds. 150 Erechtites hieraciifolius (L.) Raf. ex DC. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012;92:729–746. doi: 10.4141/cjps2012-003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Adams R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. 4th ed. Allured Publishing; Carol Stream, IL, USA: 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Satyal P. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Alabama in Huntsville; Huntsville, AL, USA: 2015. Development of GC-MS Database of Essential Oil Components by the Analysis of Natural Essential Oils and Synthetic Compounds and Discovery of Biologically Active Novel Chemotypes in Essential Oils. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Finney D. Probit Analysis. Reissue, Ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Reed L.J., Muench H. A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Am. J. Hyg. 1938;27:493–497. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lemos T.L.G., Monte F.J.Q., Machado M.I.L., Parente L.L., Campos T.A. Essential oil of Erichtites hieracifolia. J. Essent. Oil Res. 1998;10:217–218. doi: 10.1080/10412905.1998.9700885. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Do Amaral W., Deschamps C., Biasi L.A., Bizzo H.R., Machado M.P., da Silva L.E. Yield and chemical composition of the essential oil of species of the Asteraceae family from Atlantic Forest, south of Brazil. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2018;30:278–284. doi: 10.1080/10412905.2018.1434092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Missouri Botanical Garden Tropicos.org. [(accessed on 21 January 2019)]; Available online: www.tropicos.org.
- 29.Sharopov F.S., Sulaimonova V.A., Setzer W.N. Composition of the essential oil of Artemisia absinthium from Tajikistan. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2012;6:127–134. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Alves N.S.F., Setzer W.N., da Silva J.K.R. The chemistry and biological activities of Peperomia pellucida (Piperaceae): A critical review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019;232:90–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2018.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lorenzo D., Saavedra G., Loayza I., Dellacassa E. Composition of the essential oil of Erechtites hieracifolia from Bolivia. Flavour Fragr. J. 2001;16:353–355. doi: 10.1002/ffj.1010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hernández J., Bracho I., Rojas-Fermin L.B., Usubillaga A., Carmona J. Chemical composition of the essential oil of Erechtites valerianaefolia from Mérida, Venezuela. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013;8:1477–1478. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Dias C.N., Fernandes D., Moraes C. Essential oils and their compounds as Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvicide: Review. Parasitol. Res. 2014;113:565–592. doi: 10.1007/s00436-013-3687-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Pavela R. Essential oils for the development of eco-friendly mosquito larvicides: A review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015;76:174–187. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Amer A., Mehlhorn H. Larvicidal effects of various essential oils against Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex larvae (Diptera, Culicidae) Parasitol. Res. 2006;99:466–472. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0182-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pavela R. Larvicidal property of essential oils against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) Ind. Crops Prod. 2009;30:311–315. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37.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. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2017.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Perumalsamy H., Kim N.-J., Ahn Y.-J. Larvicidal activity of compounds isolated from Asarum heterotropoides against Culex pipiens pallens, Aedes aegypti, and Ochlerotatus togoi (Diptera: Culicidae) J. Med. Entomol. 2009;46:1420–1423. doi: 10.1603/033.046.0624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Lee D.C., Ahn Y.J. Laboratory and simulated field bioassays to evaluate larvicidal activity of Pinus densiflora hydrodistillate, its constituents and structurally related compounds against Aedes albopictus, Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens pallens in relation to their inhibitory effects on acetylcholinesterase activity. Insects. 2013;4:217–229. doi: 10.3390/insects4020217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Govindarajan M., Rajeswary M., Hoti S.L., Bhattacharyya A., Benelli G. Eugenol, α-pinene and β-caryophyllene from Plectranthus barbatus essential oil as eco-friendly larvicides against malaria, dengue and Japanese encephalitis mosquito vectors. Parasitol. Res. 2016;115:807–815. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4809-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Silva W.J., Dória G.A.A., Maia R.T., Nunes R.S., Carvalho G.A., Blank A.F., Alves P.B., Marçal R.M., Cavalcanti S.C.H. Effects of essential oils on Aedes aegypti larvae: Alternatives to environmentally safe insecticides. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:3251–3255. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.05.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Cheng S.-S., Chang H.-T., Lin C.-Y., Chen P.-S., Huang C.-G., Chen W.-J., Chang S.-T. Insecticidal activities of leaf and twig essential oils from Clausena excavata against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus larvae. Pest Manag. Sci. 2009;65:339–343. doi: 10.1002/ps.1693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Cheng S.-S., Liu J.-Y., Huang C.-G., Hsui Y.-R., Chen W.-J., Chang S.-T. Insecticidal activities of leaf essential oils from Cinnamomum osmophloeum against three mosquito species. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:457–464. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Santos S.R.L., Melo M.A., Cardoso A.V., Santos R.L.C., de Sousa D.P., Cavalcanti S.C.H. Structure-activity relationships of larvicidal monoterpenes and derivatives against Aedes aegypti Linn. Chemosphere. 2011;84:150–153. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.02.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Cheng S.S., Lin C.Y., Chung M.J., Liu Y.H., Huang C.G., Chang S.T. Larvicidal activities of wood and leaf essential oils and ethanolic extracts from Cunninghamia konishii Hayata against the dengue mosquitoes. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013;47:310–315. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.03.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Giatropoulos A., Papachristos D.P., Kimbaris A., Koliopoulos G., Polissiou M.G., Emmanouel N., Michaelakis A. Evaluation of bioefficacy of three Citrus essential oils against the dengue vector Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in correlation to their components enantiomeric distribution. Parasitol. Res. 2012;111:2253–2263. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-3074-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Seo S.-M., Jung C.-S., Kang J., Lee H.-R., Kim S.-W., Hyun J., Park I.-K. Larvicidal and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of Apiaceae plant essential oils and their constituents against Aedes albopictus and formulation development. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015;63:9977–9986. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Liu X.C., Liu Q., Chen X.B., Zhou L., Liu Z.L. Larvicidal activity of the essential oil from Tetradium glabrifolium fruits and its constituents against Aedes albopictus. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015;71:1582–1586. doi: 10.1002/ps.3964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Pavela R. Acute toxicity and synergistic and antagonistic effects of the aromatic compounds of some essential oils against Culex quinquefasciatus Say larvae. Parasitol. Res. 2015;114:3835–3853. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4614-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lucia A., Gonzalez Audino P., Seccacini E., Licastro S., Zerba E., Masuh H. Larvicidal effect of Eucalyptus grandis essential oil and turpentine and their major components on Aedes aegypti larvae. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2007;23:299–303. doi: 10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[299:LEOEGE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Traboulsi A.F., Taoubi K., El-Haj S., Bessiere J.M., Rammal S. Insecticidal properties of essential plant oils against the mosquito Culex pipiens molestus (Diptera: Culicidae) Pest Manag. Sci. 2002;58:491–495. doi: 10.1002/ps.486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Tak J.H., Isman M.B. Penetration-enhancement underlies synergy of plant essential oil terpenoids as insecticides in the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:42432. doi: 10.1038/srep42432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Scalerandi E., Flores G.A., Palacio M., Defagó M.T., Carpinella M.C., Valladares G., Bertoni A., Palacios S.M. Understanding synergistic toxicity of terpenes as insecticides: Contribution of metabolic detoxification in Musca domestica. Front. Plant Sci. 2018;9:1579. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]