Content uploaded by Karam Khamis Elgizawy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karam Khamis Elgizawy on Feb 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Karam Khamis Elgizawy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karam Khamis Elgizawy on Jan 02, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl., Vol. 51, 4, 81-88(2018)
Effect of Essential Oils of Clove and Dill Applied as an Insecticidal Contact and
Fumigant to Control some Stored Product Insects
El-Gizawy, K. KH.1; Halawa, S. M.1and Mehany, A. L.2
(
1
)
Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture Moshtohor, Benha University, Egypt
(
2
)
Plant Research Department, Nuclear Research Center, Atomic Energy Authority, Egypt
Contact and fumigation toxicity of Clove and Dill essential oils were investigated in the laboratory
against the adults of Sitophilusoryzae (L.), Rhyzoperthadominica (F.) and Triboliumcastaneum (Herbst.).
The results showed that insect mortality was increased by increasing plant oils concentration and the
period of exposure. The adults of S. oryzae were the most susceptible insect species under study followed
by R. dominica then T. castaneum which was the least sensitive to the two plant oils. The toxicity of Clove
and Dill oils against the tested insects was much higher in the fumigant bioassay tests than in the contact
method. Clove oil was more effective than Dill oil against the three insect species. The results indicated
also that these plant oils could be used as grain protectants or fumigants to control stored products
insects
INTRODUCTION
Fumigants such as methyl bromide and
phosphine are still the most effective for the
protection against insect infestation of stored food,
feedstuffs, and other agricultural commodities [1].
has proposed elimination of the production of
methyl bromide because of its ozone depletion
potential. Additionally, some stored products
insects are found to have resistance to methyl
bromide and phosphine [2]. These problems have
high-lighted the need for the development of new
types of selective insect-control alternatives with
fumigant action. Natural compounds of plant
origin are biodegradable, often of low mammalian
toxicity, and pose low danger to the environment if
used in small amounts. Plants may provide
potential alternatives to currently used insect
control agents, because they constitute a rich
source of bioactive chemicals [3]. Recent research
has focused on natural product alternatives for pest
control in developing countries to develop new
classes of safer insect-control agents. Recently,
there has been a growing interest in research
concerning the possible use of plant extracts as
alternatives to synthetic insecticides. The toxicity
of a large number of essential oils and their
constituents has been evaluated against a number
of stored products insects. Some essential oils were
found to have potential for the control of stored
products insect pests [4-10] . Essential oils exhibit
various and variable antimicrobial activities,
including antifungal, antiviral, antibacterial,
insecticidal, and antioxidant properties [11] . In
order to keep these stored grain products free from
pest attack, various synthetic chemicals have been
used. Synthetic pesticides are currently the
appropriate choice to protect stored grains from
insect damage. However, continuous or heavy use
of synthetic pesticides has created serious
problems arising from factors such as direct
toxicity to parasites, predators, pollinators, fish and
man. It also develops pesticides resistance [12, 13]
susceptibility of crop plant to insect pests [14] and
increased environmental and social cost [15].
Therefore, other alternatives rather then chemical
pesticides are needed to protect the environment.
ISSN 1110-0451
(ESNSA)
Web site: ajnsa.journals.ekb.eg
Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications
Received 14th Dec 2016
Accepted
20th Dec 2016
Corresponding author:
DOI: 10.21608/ajnsa.2018.12394
© Scientific Information, Documentation and Publishing Office (SIDPO)-EAEA
EL-GIZAWY et al.
82
One alternative to synthetic insecticides is the
botanical pesticides i.e. insecticidal plants or plant
compound and the use of natural compounds, such
as essential oils that result from secondary
metabolism in plants. Essential oils and their
constituents have been shown to be a potent source
of botanical pesticide. The toxicity of a large
number of essential oils and their constituents has
been evaluated against a number of bruchid pests
[16-18] . Plant essential oils and their constituents,
in relation to contact and fumigant insecticidal
actions, have been well demonstrated against
stored products pests. Their main compounds
(monoterpenoids) offer promising alternatives to
classical fumigants [19] and also have some effects
on biological parameters such as growth rate, life
span and reproduction [20]. This study presents the
contact and fumigant activities of Clove and Dill
oils against three of the stored products insects,
namely, the rice weevil; the lesser grain borer, and
the red flour beetle.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Insect species used
Three species of stored products insects
namely, the rice weevil, Sitophilusoryzae (L.)
(Curculionidae, Coleoptera); the lesser grain borer,
Rhyzoperthadominica (F.) (Bostrochidae,
Coleoptera) and the red flour beetle,
Triboliumcastaneum (Herbst.) (Tenebrionidae,
Coleoptera) were used in this study. Tests were
performed in the stored product pests Laboratory
at the Plant Protection Department, Faculty of
Agriculture, Moshtohor, Benha University. The
insects were reared in glass jars (approx. 500 ml)
containing about 200 g of sterilized and
conditioned wheat kernels in case of S. oryzae and
R. dominica or crushed wheat grains in case of the
red flour beetle. The glass jars were covered with
muslin. Insect cultures were kept under controlled
conditions of 28±1° C and 65±5% R.H. at the
rearing room of the laboratory. Wheat grains were
treated by freezing at -18° C for 2 weeks before
application to eliminate any possible infestation by
any insect species. The moisture content of the
food was around 14%. Mass cultures of around
1000 adults of each insect species (1-2 weeks old)
were introduced into the jars for laying eggs and
then kept at 28±1° C and 65±5% R.H. Three days
later, all insects were separated from the food, and
the jars were kept again at the controlled
conditions in the rearing room. This procedure was
repeated several times in order to obtain a large
number of the adults needed to carry out the
experiments during this study and to determine the
durations of the various developmental stages
under laboratory conditions. The foods in the jars
were renewed when it was necessary.
Essential oils used
Clove and Dill essential oils were bought from
Al-gomhuria Company of drugs, chemicals and
medical supplies in Egypt. The contact and
fumigant toxicity of this oils were tested to the
adults of various insect species under study.
Contact toxicity
Ten grams of each pure oil was diluted with 50
ml. acetone to obtain 20% (w/v) stock
concentration which was diluted to obtain 10, 5, 2,
5 and 1.25% (w/v) concentrations. From each
concentration, one ml. was taken and added to 10
gm wheat grains to obtain 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25 and
0.125% (w/w) concentrations. In case of S. oryzae
and R. dominica ten grams of wheat grains were
taken while T. castaneum were put in crushed
grains. Thirty adult insects were added to each
treatment and incubated at 28±1 °C and 65±5%
R.H. Three replicates were used for each
treatment. As for control, only acetone was used
for food treatment. Insects mortality was calculated
after 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 days from initial
treatment.
Fumigant toxicity
In this experiment, 200 ml glass jars with
tightened covers were used as fumigation
chambers for the plant oil. The tested dosages of
each oil inside the jars were 62.5, 125, 250, 500,
and 1000 mg/l. air. Six jars were taken in each
treatment. Inside every jar one filter paper was
inserted at the bottom. Then one ml from each oil
concentration of the different prepared
concentrations (20; 10; 5; 2.5 and 1.25 % w/v) was
taken and added to every glass jar on a filter paper
for achieving the mentioned oil dosages inside the
well closed jars. Twenty adults were put inside
each jar in cotton bags (2×1 cm) with a few
amount of wheat kernels in case of S. oryzae and
R. dominica and crushed wheat for T. castaneum.
The jars were well closed and incubated at 28±1
°C and 65±5% R.H. The same steps were followed
in the control treatment using only acetone without
oil. Mortality rates were calculated after 1, 2, 3, 5
and 7 days post treatment.
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EFFECT OF ESSENTIAL OILS OF CLOVE….
83
Statistical
analysis
The dosage mortality response was determined
by probit analysis [21] using a computer program
of a pervious study [22].
Results
Contact toxicity of Clove oil against some stored
product insects at 28±1° C and 65±5% R.H
The lethal concentrations (LC) values were
determined for both S. oryzae, R. dominica and T.
castaneum. The LC of Clove essential oil to the
adults of S. oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum
are shown in Table (1). The results show that the
LC are exposure period dependent. The higher the
exposure period was the lower the LC values were.
At 7 days post treatment, the LC50 values were
0.13 and 0.45% (w/w), the corresponding values at
14 days were significantly lower and amounted
0.11 and 0.10 % (w/w). for S. oryzae and R.
dominica, respectively. The LC90 values were 2.23
and 18.37% (w/w) at 7 days and declined to 0.46
and 1.37 %(w/w) at 14 days post treatment for S.
oryzae and R. dominica, respectively. The LC95
values were 4.97 and 52.44% (w/w) at 7 days and
reduced to 0.69 and 2.83 %(w/w) at 14 days from
treatment for S.
oryzae and R. dominica,
respectively. At 10 days post treatment, the LC50
value was 1.02 (w/w), the corresponding value at
14 days was significantly lower and amounted 0.42
(w/w), for T. castaneum. The LC90 value was 40.73
% (w/w) at 10 days and declined to 5.62 %(w/w)
at 14 days post treatment for T. castaneum, the
LC95 value was 115.76 % (w/w) at 10 days and
reduced to 11.69 %(w/w) at 14 days from
treatment for T. castaneum. The results show also
that S. oryzae was the most sensitive insect species
to Clove essential oil followed by R.
dominicaand
T. castaneum which was the least sensitive to
Clove oil, when the oil was applied in the contact
method.
Contact toxicity of Dill essential oil against some
stored product insects at 28± 1°C and 65±5% R.H
The LC values were determined for both S.
oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum . The LC of
Dill essential oil to the adults of S. oryzae, R.
dominica and T. castaneum are shown in Table
(2). The results show that the L Care exposure
period dependent. The higher the exposure period
was the lower the LC values were.
Table (1): Lethal concentrations of Clove essential oil in the contact bioassay against some stored products insects at various
exposure periods
Exposure
period (days)
Lethal concentrations (w/w%) and
their 95% confidence limits
Slope ±
SD R
LC50
LC90
LC95
Sitophilusoryzae
7 days
0.13
(0.06-0.26)
2.23
(0.90-5.49)
4.97
(1.43-17.33)
1.04 ±
0.03
0.981
10 days
0.11
(0.06-0.20)
1.04
(0.59-1.85)
1.94
(0.88-2.29)
1.34±0.1
2
0.964
14 days
0.11
(0.07-0.17)
0.46
(0.34-0.63)
0.69
(0.46-1.03)
2.12±0.5
5
0.938
Rhyzoperthadominica
7 days
0.45
(0.26-0.77)
18.37
(2.36-142.81)
52.44
(3.86-711.95)
0.79±0.4
1
0.979
10 days
0.77
(0.08-0.31)
3.35
(1.14-9.81)
7.84
(1.83-33.42)
0.98±0.0
3
0.979
14 days
0.10
(0.05-0.21)
1.37
(0.68-2.79)
2.83
(1.05-7.63)
1.16±0.0
7
0.970
Triboliumcastaneum
10 days 1.02
(0.53-1.94) 40.73
(3.55-467.11)
115.76
(5.76-
2326.46)
0.80±0.0
08 0.992
14 days
0.42
(0.29-0.62)
5.62
(1.98-15.92)
11.69
(3.13-43.58)
1.14±0.0
05
0.997
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EL-GIZAWY et al.
84
Table (2): Lethal concentrations of Dill essential oil in the contact bioassay against some stored products insects at various
exposure periods
Exposure
period (days)
Lethal concentrations (w/w%) and
their 95% confidence limits
Slope ±
SD R
LC50
LC90
LC95
Sitophilusoryzae
7 days
0.18
0.10-0.33
3.70
1.26-10.83
8.63
2.05-36.39
0.98±0.0
3
0.982
10 days
0.07
0.02-0.20
1.58
0.66-3.81
3.78
1.05-13.57
0.96±0.0
1
0.992
14 days
0.06
0.02-0.15
0.60
0.36-0.99
1.12
0.54-2.32
1.33±0.3
0
0.916
Rhyzoperthadominica
7 days
0.31
0.19-0.50
6.25
1.80-21.74
14.60
2.92-73.00
0.98±0.0
6
0.963
10 days
0.18
0.09-0.35
4.92
1.34-18.04
12.58
2.19-72.09
0.89±0.0
1
0.990
14 days
0.12
0.06-0.24
1.83
0.83-4.01
3.89
1.31-11.48
1.10±0.0
2
0.987
Triboliumcastaneum
10 days
0.97
0.60-1.58
16.29
3.57-74.23
36.19
5.69-229.84
1.04±0.0
4
0.977
14 days
0.49
0.30-0.78
12.85
2.50-66.08
32.45
4.08-257.47
0.90±0.0
3
0.976
R= Correlation Coefficient of regression line
SD= Standard deviation of the mortality regression line
At 7 days post treatment the LC50 values were
0.18 and 0.31% (w/w). the corresponding value at
14 days was significantly lower and amounted 0.06
and 0.12 % (w/w) for S. oryzae and R. dominica,
respectively. The LC90 values were3.70 and
6.25% (w/w) at 7 days and declined to 0.60 and
1.83 %(w/w) at 14 days post treatment for S.
oryzae and R. dominica, respectively. The LC95
values were8.63 and 14.60% (w/w) at 7 days and
reduced to 1.12 and 3.89 %(w/w) at 14 days from
treatment for S. oryzae and R. dominica,
respectively. At 10 days post treatment the LC50
value was 0.97 % (w/w), the corresponding value
at 14 days was significantly lower and amounted
0.49 % (w/w) for T. castaneum. The LC90 value
was 16.29 % (w/w) at 10 days and declined to
12.85 %(w/w) at 14 days post treatment for T.
castaneum, the LC95 value was 36.19 % (w/w) at
10 days and reduced to 32.45 %(w/w) at 14 days
from treatment for T. castaneum. The results show
also that S. oryzae was the most sensitive insect
species to Dill essential oils followed by R.
dominica and T. castaneum which was the least
sensitive to Dill oil when the oil was applicated in
the contact bioassay test
Fumigant toxicity of Clove essential oil against
some stored product insects at 28±1° C and 65±5%
R.H
The LC values were determined for both S.
oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum. The LC of
Clove oil to the adults of S. oryzae, R. dominica
and T. castaneum are shown in Table (3). The
results show that the LC are exposure period
dependent. The higher the exposure period was the
lower the LC values were. At 3 days post
treatment, the LC50 value was 92.40, 121.18 and
294.61 % mg/l. air. The corresponding values at 7
days were significantly lower and amounted 23.29,
33.67 and 42.92% mg/l. air. For S. oryzae, R.
dominica and T. castaneum respectively. The
LC90 value was 1895.89, 2421.98 and 23905.76%
mg/l. air at 3 days and declined to 222.06, 491.81
and 2124.73 % mg/l. air at 7 days post treatment
for S. oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum
respectively. The LC95 value was 4466.0, 5662.87
and 83164.9% mg/l. air at 3 days and reduced to
420.87, 1052.08 and 6424.96% mg/l. air at 7 days
from treatment for S. oryzae, R. dominicaand T.
castaneum respectively. The lethal time of Clove
flowering buds oils against the adults of S. oryzae,
R. dominica and T. castaneum is shown in Table
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EFFECT OF ESSENTIAL OILS OF CLOVE….
85
(4). The results reveal that the time required to
obtain 50% kill (LT50) at 1000 mg/l. air
concentration were1.06, 1.09 and 1.80 days for S.
oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum,
respectively. The time needed to achieve 90%
mortality (LT90) was 3.25, 4.31 and 9.82 days for
S. oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum,
respectively. The time required to obtain 95%
mortality (LT95) were 4.46, 6.36 and 15.88 days
for the various insects, respectively. At 500 mg/l.
air. the time needed to obtain 50% kill (LT50) at
was 1.29, 1.36 and 2.38 days for S. oryzae, R.
dominica and T. castaneum, respectively. The
times needed to achieve 90% mortality (LT90)
were 5.94, 9.04 and 15.98 days for S. oryzae, R.
dominica and T. castaneum, respectively. The
times required to obtain 95% mortality (LT95)
were 9.13, 15.46 and 27.40 days for the various
insects, respectively.
Fumigant toxicity of Dill essential oil against
some stored product insects at 28 ±1°C and
65±5% R.H
The LC values were determined for both S.
oryzae, R. dominica and T. castaneum, The LC of
Dill essential oils to the adults of S. oryzae, R.
dominica and T. castaneum are shown in Table (5).
The results show that LC are exposure period
dependent.
Table (3): Lethal concentrations of Clove essential oil in the fumigation bioassay against some stored products insects at
various exposure periods
Exposure
period (days)
Lethal concentrations (mg/l. air) and
their 95% confidence limits
Slope ±
SD R
LC50
LC90
LC95
Sitophilusoryzae
3 days
92.40
50.43-
169.28
1895.89
614.97-5844.82 4466.00
986.5-20217.5 0.97±0.06 0.964
5 days
30.86
10.06-94.61
667.66
288.4-1545.1
1596.53
455.6-5593.9
0.96±0.05 0.970
7 days
23.29
7.81-69.41
222.06
136.50-356.03
420.90
212.93-831.98
1.30±0.09 0.970
Rhyzoperthadominica
3 days
121.18
71.80-
204.53
2421.98
747.70-7845.31
5662.87
1207.64-
26554.29
0.98±0.01 0.993
5 days
39.26
13.25-
116.30
1241.21
395.21-3898.18
3305.19
630.69-
17321.22
0.85±0.01 0.987
7 days 33.67
12.78-88.66 491.81
251.02-963.56
1052.08
389.10-
2844.67
1.10±0.10 0.954
Triboliumcastaneum
3 days
294.61
157.04-
552.7
23905.76
1214.6-
470485.3
83164.9
1927.8-
3587667
0.67±0.000
8 0.998
5 days
71.19
22.54-
224.81
10993.99
573.7-210660.6
45903.21
845.33-
2492620
0.58±0.01 0.987
7 days
42.92
13.45-
136.95
2124.73
463.24-9745.30
6424.96
734.19-
56225.1
0.75±0.01 0.983
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EL-GIZAWY et al.
86
Table (4): Lethal times of Clove essential oil in the fumigation bioassay against some stored product insects at two fixed oil
concentrations
Conc.
(mg/l. air)
Lethal times and their 95%
confidence limits (days)
Slope ±
SD R
LT50 LT90 LT95
Sitophilusoryzae
1000
1.06
0.79-1.43
3.25
2.51-4.21
4.46
3.19-6.24
2.64±0.06 0.989
500
1.29
0.92-1.80
5.94
3.94-8.95
9.16
5.29-15.87
1.93±0.06 0.981
Rhyzoperthadominica
1000
1.09
0.77-1.55
4.31
3.11-5.98
6.36
4.11-9.85
2.14±0.02 0.993
500
1.36
0.91-2.03
9.04
4.97-16.44
15.46
6.91-34.58
1.56±0.00
2
0.999
Triboliumcastaneum
1000
1.80
1.34-2.42
9.82
5.64-17.10
15.88
7.71-32.72
1.74±0.0
1
0.993
500
2.38
1.79-3.17
15.98
7.45-34.28
27.40
10.35-72.55
1.55±0.0
1
0.992
R= Correlation Coefficient of regression line
SD= Standard deviation of the mortality regression line
Table (5): Lethal concentrations of Dill essential oil in the fumigation bioassay against some stored products insects at
various exposure periods
Exposure
period (days)
Lethal concentrations (mg/l. air) and
their 95% confidence limits
Slope ±SD R
LC50 LC90 LC95
Sitophilusoryzae
3 days
97.38
52.50-180.65
2313.58
674.26-7938
5681.17
1093.01-29529.0
0.93±0.01
0.9
89
5 days
30.53
8.73-106.78
1005.06
337.05-2996.9
2707.13
532.26-13768.63
0.84±0.05
0.9
63
7 days
30.76
12.35-76.61
291.49
178.24-476.70
551.52
269.42-1128.97
1.31±0.18
0.9
44
Rhyzoperthadominica
3 days
117.44
59.45-232.01
5430.74
842.44-35008.6
16107.84
1374.57-188759.3
0.76±0.01
0.9
90
5 days
45.64
15.29-136.20
2058.06
483.32-8763.53
6060.78
777.10-47268.81
0.77±0.003
0.9
97
7 days
44.68
19.39-102.95
716.14
330.74-1550.61
1572.79
520.60-4751.58
1.06±0.01
0.9
90
Triboliumcastaneum
3 days
165.71
93.54-293.54
6919.31
1010.8-47364.9
19937.77
1654.7-240225.4
0.79±0.03
0.9
68
5 days
92.66
44.38-193.43
3677.13
727.38-18588.9
10443.75
1187.87-91821.3
0.80±0.004
0.9
96
7 days
77.06
41.78-142.12
1229.28
501.66-3012.20
2696.21
797.87-9111.18
1.06±0.01
0.9
94
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EFFECT OF ESSENTIAL OILS OF CLOVE….
87
Table (6): Lethal times of Dill essential oil in the fumigation bioassay against some stored products insects at two fixed oil
concentrations
Conc.
(mg/l. air)
Lethal times and their 95% confidence
Limits (days)
Slope ± SD R
LT50
LT90
LT95
Sitophilusoryzae
1000
1.15
0.87-1.53
3.61
2.77-4.71
4.99
3.53-7.04
2.59±0.11
0.9
81
500
1.36
0.95-1.95
7.41
4.52-12.15
11.98
6.18-23.22
1.74±0.02
0.9
90
Rhyzoperthadominica
1000
1.23
0.86-1.78
6.03
3.95-9.21
9.46
5.35-16.72
1.86±0.02
0.9
91
500
1.56
1.11-2.19
9.26
5.25-16.34
15.34
7.23-32.53
1.65±0.03
0.9
98
Triboliumcastaneum
1000
1.06
0.61-1.86
9.72
4.64-20.38
18.20
6.51-50.92
1.33±0.04
0.9
72
500
1.62
1.08-2.42
14.16
6.17-32.51
26.19
8.69-78.88
1.36±0.02
0.9
83
R= Correlation Coefficient of regression line
SD= Standard deviation of the mortality regression line
The higher the exposure period was the lower
the LC values were. At 3 days post treatment the
LC50 values were 97.38, 117.44 and 165.71 mg/l.
air. the corresponding values at 7 days were
significantly lower and amounted 30.76, 44.68 and
77.06 mg/l. air. For S.
oryzae, R. dominica
and T.
castaneum respectively. The LC90 values were
q2313.58, 5430.74 and 6919.31 mg/l. air. At3 days
and declined to 291.49, 716.14 and 1229.28 mg/l.
air. at 7 days post treatment for S. oryzae, R.
dominica
and T. Castaneum
respectively. the LC95
values were 5681.17, 16107.84 and
19937.7mg/l.air.at3 days and reduced to 551.52,
1572.79 and 2696.21 mg/l. air. at7 days from
treatment for S.
oryzae, R. dominica
and T.
castaneum
respectively. The lethal times (LT) of
Dill oil against the adults of S. oryzae, R. dominica
and T. castaneum
are shown in Table (6). The
results reveal that the time required to obtain 50%
mortality (LT50) at 1000 mg/l. air. was1.15, 1.23
and 1.06 days for S. oryzae, R. dominica
and T.
castaneum, respectively. The times needed to
achieve 90% mortality LT90 were 3.61, 6.03 and
9.72 days for S. oryzae, R. dominica
and T.
castaneum, respectively. The time required to
obtain 95% kill LT95 were 4.99, 9.46 and 18.20
days for the various insects, respectively. At 500
mg/l. air. the time needed to obtain 50% kill LT50
were 1.36, 1.56 and 1.62 days for S. oryzae, R.
dominica
and T. castaneum, respectively. The
times needed to achieve 90% mortality LT90 were
7.41, 9.26 and 14.16 days for S. oryzae, R.
dominica
and T. castaneum, respectively. The time
required to obtain 95% kill LT95 were 11.98, 15.34
and 26.19 days for the various insects,
respectively.
Discussion
Several oils were tested against some stored
product insects attacking grain. There were
differences in oil efficacy at the doses tested under
different experimental conditions, as noted by
Pierrard [23]. The present results corroborate the
findings of pervious studies [24] and [25] which
reported the toxic effect of neem oil, coconut oil,
rapeseed oil, mustard oil, sesame oil, dalda and
palm oil on C. chinensis. More current research
illustrated that essential oils and their constituents
may have potential as alternative compounds to
currently used fumigants [26, 27] and [28,29].
Cinnamaldehyde, the main constituent of
cinnamon oil, exerted equal contact toxicity to
both T. castaneum
and S. [30]. Oil of clove was
toxic to S. oryzae and Rhyzopertha
dominica [31].
Non-polar extracts of the flower buds of clove,
Syzygiumaromaticum
and star anise (Illiciumuvrum
Hook f.) are insecticidal to T. castaneum and S.
zeamais Motsch., and suppress progeny production
[32]. It was found that against C. maculatus, C.
chinensis
and C. analis
attack in V. radiata, neem
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)
EL-GIZAWY et al.
88
oil (Azadirachtaindica
A. Juss) allowed no adult
emergence, reduced oviposition, and prevented
insect development [33]. In the present study the
fumigation bioassay showed also that S. oryzae
was the most sensitive insect species to Dill
essential oils followed by R.
dominica and T.
castaneum which was the least sensitive Dill oil
when the oil was applicated as fumigation. In
addition, the results of the toxicity of Clove and
Dill oils against the tested insects indicated clearly
that effectiveness of the two oils in the fumigation
bioassay tests was obviously higher than in the
contact method.
References
1- EPA (2001):United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Federal Register 66 pp.
2- B. Subramanyam, and D.W. Hagstrum,: J. stored
Prod. Res. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 331-397
(1995).
3- M. Wink, J. of. Proc. Phytochem. Socand Agricu.
Soc. 34: 171-213 (1993).
4- E. Shaaya, U. Ravid, N. Paster, B. Juven, U.
Zisman, and V. Pissarev, J. Chemical Ecol-ogy 17,
499-504 (1991).
5- G. Singh, and R.K. Upadhyay, J. Scien. and Indust.
Rese.52, 676-683 (1993).
6- G.H. Schmidt, and M. Streloke, J. Stored . Product
Res. 30: 227-235 (1994).
7- C. Regnault-Roger, J. Integra. Pest Managem. Re-
views 2, 25-34 (1997).
8- Z.L. Liu, and H.L. Ho, : J. of stored Prod. Res. 35:
317-328 (1999).
9- E. Yildirim, H. Ozbek, and I. Aslan, J. stored Prod.
Res. Ataturk University Press, Erzurum, pp. 117
(2001).
10- A.A. Darwish, S.M. Halawa, F.A.M. El-Lakwah,
M.A. Emam, and K.KH. El-Gizawy, J. of Agric.
Sci., Moshtohor Vol. 53(3), 385–394 (2015).
11- S. Prabuseenivasan, M. Jayakumar and S.
Ignacimuthu, BMC Complementary and
Alternative Medicine 6(1): 39 (2006).
12- J.L. Zettler, J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 763-767 (1991).
13- M.K. Mahmud, M.M.H. Khan, M. Husain, M.I.
Alam, and M.S.I. Afrad, J. Asiat. Soc. Bangladesh,
Sci.28(1): 11-18 (2002).
14- D. Pimentel, Symposium of the
British Ecological Society (1977).
15- D. Pimentel, D. Andow, R. Dyson-Hudson, D.
Gallahan, S. Jacobson, M. Irish, S. Croop, A. Moss,
I. Schreiner, M. Shepard, T. Thompson and B.
Vinzant, A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N.
Rosen.34: 125-140 (1980).
16- S.M. Keita, C. Vincent, A. Belanger and J.P.
Schmit, J. stored Prod. Res. 36: 355–364 (2000).
17- S.M. Keita, C. Vincent, J.P. Schmit, J.T. Arnason,
and A. Bélanger, J. stored Prod. Res. 37: 339-349
(2001).
18- A.K. Tripathi, V. Prajapati, N. Verma, J.R. Bhal,
R.P. Bansal, S.P.S. Khanuja, and S. Kumar, J.
Econ. Entomol.95 (1): 183-189 (2002).
19- D.P. Papachristos and D.C. Stamopoulos, J. stored
Prod. Res. 39:433-441 (2003).
20- J.M. Pascual-Villalobos, J - Boletin de Sanidad
Vegetal. Plagas,22: 411–420 (1996).
21- D.J. Finney, “Probit Analysis”. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, London, 333pp
(1971).
22- S. Noack, and CH. Reichmuth, J. of Analytical 185;
1-49 (1978).
23- G. Pierrard, Trop. Pest Management32: 197-200
(l986).
24- Jilani, G. and Malik, M.M., J. Sci. Ind. Res.16(6):
251-254 (1973).
25- S. I. Ali, O.P. Singh, and U.S. Misra, J. Indian,
Entomol. 45: 6-9 (1983).
26- Y. Huang, S.L. Lam, and , S.H. Ho, J. stored Prod.
Res.36 (2): 107-117 (2000).
27- I. Tunc, B.M. Berger, F. Erler, and F. Dagli, J.
stored Prod. Res. 36: 161-168 (2000).
28- B.H. Lee, W.S. Choi, S.E. Lee, and B.S. Park, Intl J
Agri Crop Sci.20: 317–320 (2001a).
29- S.E. Lee, B.H. Lee, W.S. Choi, B.S. Park, J.G.
Kim, and B.C. Campbell, J. of. Pest Manag. Sci.
57: 548–553 (2001b).
30- Y. Huang, and S.H. Ho, J. stored Prod. Res. 34 (1):
11-17 (1998).
31- S. Sighamony, I. Anees, T.S. Chandrakala, and Z.
Osmani, J. stor. Prod. Res.22: 21-23 (1986).
32- S.H. Ho, P.L.P. Cheng, K.Y. Sim, and H.T.W. Tan,
Post-harvest Biol. Technol. 4: 179-183 (1994).
33- T.R. Babu, V.S. Reddy, and S.H. Hussaini, J.
Tropical Sci. 29: 215-220 (1989).
Arab J. Nucl. Sci. & Applic. Vol. 51, No. 4 (2018)