Next Article in Journal
Synergetic Effect of Tumor Treating Fields and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on Cell Apoptosis and Genotoxicity of Three Different Human Cancer Cell Lines
Next Article in Special Issue
Natural Plant Extracts: An Update about Novel Spraying as an Alternative of Chemical Pesticides to Extend the Postharvest Shelf Life of Fruits and Vegetables
Previous Article in Journal
Anti-Colon Cancer Activity of Dietary Phytochemical Soyasaponin I and the Induction of Metabolic Shifts in HCT116
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characterization of Volatile Flavor Compounds in Supercritical Fluid Separated and Identified in Gurum (Citrulluslanatus Var. colocynthoide) Seed Oil Using HSME and GC–MS
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 27
Issue 14
10.3390/molecules27144383
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Botanical Oils Isolated from Simmondsia chinensis and Rosmarinus officinalis Cultivated in Northern Egypt: Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Activity against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)

by
Rady Shawer
1,*,
Mohamed Mahrous El-Shazly
1,
Adel Mohamed Khider
1,
Rowida S. Baeshen
2,
Wafaa M. Hikal
2,3 and
Ahmed Mohamed Kordy
1
1
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), University of Alexandria, Alexandria 21531, Egypt
2
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71421, Saudi Arabia
3
Environmental Parasitology Laboratory, Water Pollution Research Department, Environment and Climate Change Institute, National Research Centre (NRC), Giza 12622, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(14), 4383; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144383
Submission received: 29 May 2022 / Revised: 3 July 2022 / Accepted: 4 July 2022 / Published: 8 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Products and Essential Oils Biocidal Activities and Innovative Applications)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.), and the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), are key stored-product pests in Egypt and worldwide. The extensive use of synthetic insecticides has led to adverse effects on the environment, human health, and pest resistance. As a result, environmentally friendly pest management alternatives are desperately required. The botanical oils of jojoba, Simmondsia chinensis (L.), and rosemary, Rosmarinus officinalis L. plants growing in Egypt were extracted, identified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC–MS), and evaluated for their insecticidal activity against S. oryzae and T. castaneum. The main constituents identified in BOs were carvyl acetate (20.73%) and retinol (16.75%) for S. chinensis and camphor (15.57%), coumarin (15.19%), verbenone (14.82%), and 1,8-cineole (6.76%) for R. officinalis. The S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs caused significant contact toxicities against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults, providing LC50 values of 24.37, 68.47, and 11.58, 141.8 ppm at 3 days after treatment (DAT), respectively. S. chinensis oil exhibited significant fumigation toxicity against both insects; however, it was more effective against S. oryzae (LC50 = 29.52 ppm/L air) than against T. castaneum (LC50 = 113.47 ppm/L air) at 3 DAT. Although the essential oil (EO) of R. officinalis significantly showed fumigation toxicity for S. oryzae (LC50 = 256.1 and 0.028 ppm/L air at 1 and 3 DAT, respectively), it was not effective against T. castaneum. These BOs could be beneficial for establishing IPM programs for suppressing S. oryzae and T. castaneum.

1. Introduction

Globally, insect pests cause significant losses in stored products post-harvest annually [1]. In less-developed countries, insect damage to stored food grains is estimated at 10–40% [2]. Insects are key pests for stored crops, where they attack their seed embryos and negatively affect germination [3,4]. In Egypt, the losses in wheat grains due to insect injury were estimated at 35–55% [5,6]. Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) are major pests that cause significant damage to grain-based products during the storage process [1,7,8,9]. The chemical control tool is the main method to manage these stored-product pests. However, the widespread use of synthetic insecticides raises serious concerns about insect resistance, residues on grains, and increased negative environmental effects. As a result, finding eco-friendly approaches has become an urgent need [10,11]. Natural and non-persistent insecticides are the most important priorities in this regard [1,12,13,14]. The botanical oils [15] extracted from plants have favorable ecotoxicological properties, including low toxicity to humans, further degradation, biodegradability, and lower environmental impact [16,17,18,19,20]. They can be toxic to various important insect pests as fumigants [21,22], contact [23], repellent [23,24,25], antioxidant [26], or antifeedant [27,28,29]. The efficacy of several EOs extracted from aromatic plants has been widely evaluated for the control of such pests [27,28] and has exhibited promising results [29,30].
Rosmarinus officinalis L. (Lamiales: Lamiaceae) is a medicinal plant native to Europe, but it has been cultivated in different areas around the world [31,32,33]. The EO of R. officinalis has been widely used in medicine due to its powerful antibacterial, cytotoxic, antimutagenic, antioxidant, antiphlogistic, and chemopreventive characteristics [34,35]. In a trial conducted in Argentina, the EO of R. officinalis was found to be highly effective on Tribolium castaneum [36]. The jojoba plant, Simmondsia chinensis (L.) (Caryophyllales: Simmondsiaceae), is a monotypic species native to the Sonoran Desert in North America [37]. The oil of jojoba seeds is a mixture of long-chain esters (97–98%) of fatty acids and fatty alcohols. It has been reported that the oil has significant analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-bacterial, and anti-parasitic properties [38]. Furthermore, it has a lethal effect on the adults of S. oryzae (L.) [39].
The bioactivity of these BOs is affected by their chemical profiles [40,41,42,43,44]. Furthermore, the environmental conditions of different regions impact the chemical constituents of these plants [35,40]. It has been reported that BOs collected from different growing areas at different periods have different chemical compositions and therefore may exhibit different biological activities [35,41]. However, while many studies have been conducted in different countries to assess the insecticidal performance of various BOs against stored-product insects, the available data on BOs extracted from plants growing in Egypt and their bioactivity against common stored-product pests are scarce. Therefore, in the present study, we extracted S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs from plants cultivated in Northern Egypt and identified their chemical composition by GC–MS. In addition, the toxicity of those isolated BOs against the rice weevil, S. oryzae, and the red flour beetle, T. castaneum, was studied under laboratory conditions.

2. Results

2.1. Chemical Composition of Botanical Oils

The yielded oils of S. chinensis and R. officinalis from the extraction process were 40.57 and 0.71% v/w, respectively. The percentages of chemical constituents identified in S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs are summarized in Table 1. Fourteen compounds were identified in S. chinensis BO, representing 99.98% of total constituents. The major components were carvyl acetate (20.73%), retinol (16.75%), gibberellic acid (15.34%), igernellin (7.12%), and retinal (5.52%). A total of 42 compounds were characterized in R. officinalis EO, representing 99.02% of total constituents. The major identified component was camphor (15.57%), followed by coumarin (15.19%), verbenone (14.82%), 1,8-cineole (6.76%), hymecromone (5.56%), and α-Pinene (4.29%).

2.2. Contact Bioassay

Mortality of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults caused by the contact bioassay of different concentrations of S. chinensis BO at 1, 2, and 3 DAT is shown in Table 2. All the evaluated concentrations of S. chinensis oil significantly reduced the number of treated S. oryzae adults at 1, 2, and 3 DAT in comparison with controls. The most effective activity was caused by using a concentration of 200 ppm of S. chinensis oil, showing 90, 93.3, and 96.7% mortality at 1, 2, and 3 DAT, respectively. The same trend was repeated against T. castaneum adults, except for concentrations of 10 and 20 ppm, which were not significantly different compared to control at 1 and 2 DAT. The concentration of 200 ppm showed the best activity at 1, 2, and 3 DAT. It is observed that mortality of both insects treated with S. chinensis BO was increased when oil concentration and/or exposure time were increased. The estimated contact LC50 values were 54.35, 36.94, and 24.37 ppm/cm2 for S. oryzae, whereas in the case of T. castaneum they were 181.3, 101.5, and 68.47 ppm/cm2, respectively, at 1, 2, and 3 DAT (Table 3).
The treatments of high concentrations (≥50 ppm/cm2) of R. officinalis EO showed significant contact toxicities of S. oryzae adults higher than control at 1 DAT (Table 4). Moreover, all the evaluated concentrations significantly decreased the number of S. oryzae adults at 2 and 3 DAT in comparison with control. The lowest two concentrations of R. officinalis EO (10 and 20 ppm/cm2) were not able to cause a reduction in the number of adults T. castaneum at 1, 2, or 3 DAT, showing no mortality. The highest concentration (200 ppm/cm2) of R. officinalis EO showed significant activity against T. castaneum adults, providing 40, 53.3, and 67% mortality, respectively, at 1, 2, and 3 DAT. The LC50 values of R. officinalis EO recorded on S. oryzae were 115.8, 40.54, and 11.58 ppm/cm2 at 1, 2, and 3 DAT, respectively (Table 5). The values decreased by about a third every day of exposure time. At 1, 2, and 3 DAT, the LC50 values against T. castaneum were 281.9, 213.7, and 141.8 ppm/cm2, respectively. The LC50 values recorded against T. castaneum were higher than those against S. oryzae.

2.3. Fumigation Bioassay

The results of the fumigation bioassay of S. chinensis BO confirmed that all treatments significantly reduced the number of both adults S. oryzae and T. castaneum at 1, 2, and 3 DAT compared to control (Table 6). However, the oil was more effective against S. oryzae than T. castaneum. The efficacy of S. chinensis BO against both insects following the fumigant bioassay was improved while exposure time was increased. The greatest activity against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults was caused by the highest concentration (200 ppm/L air) of S. chinensis BO, showing 68.3 and 27% mortality at 3 DAT, respectively. The LC50 values of S. chinensis BO recorded on S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay were 159.1, 202.7, 29.52, and 179.59, 168.46, 113.47 ppm/L air, respectively, at 1, 2, and 3 DAT (Table 7). At 3 DAT, the LC50 value in the case of S. oryzae was decreased about five times more than it was at 1 DAT.
According to the results of the fumigation bioassay, R. officinalis EO was effective against adult S. oryzae but was not on T. castaneum (Table 8 and Table 9). In comparison with control, all treatments caused significant mortality of S. oryzae adults at 1, 2, and 3 DAT. The mortality of S. oryzae adults was in the ranges 30–52%, 54–85%, and 78–95%, respectively, at 1, 2, and 3 DAT. Mortality of S. oryzae increased exponentially while R. officinalis oil concentration was increasing. R. officinalis fumes showed zero activity against T. castaneum, since all tested concentrations were unable to cause any adult mortality. The LC50 values recorded by R. officinalis oil against S. oryzae adults were 256.1 ppm/L air at 1 DAT (Table 9). The LC50 value was highly reduced at 2 and 3 DAT, showing 9.4 and 0.028 ppm/L air, respectively.

3. Discussion

Different previous studies have documented the insecticidal characteristics of many plant-derived substances that would enable them to play an effective role in the integrated pest management (IPM) of stored-product pests. These substances may be advantageous because they are selective for pests and have no or little negative impact on non-target organisms or the environment [1,27]. Furthermore, many of these products are biodegradable by soil microorganisms and are low in toxicity to mammals [42]. BOs and their major constituents are complementary tools for pest control, in particular of stored-product insects [23]. They can be used in IPM of stored-product insects for pest prevention, early pest detection, or pest control [15,43,44]. In the present study, the BOs of S. chinensis and R. officinalis were extracted from local plants growing in Egypt, identified by GC–MS, and evaluated against S. oryzae and T. castaneum by contact and fumigation bioassays under laboratory conditions. The chemical compositions of the extracts from R. officinalis and S. chinensis BOs were similar to those previously reported for the oils isolated from plants cultivated in Egypt [44] and other countries around the world [31,42,45,46,47,48,49,50]. However, the percentages of constituents differed. This can be attributed to many factors, including the difference in geographical site, collection period, environmental and climate conditions, and the nutritional status of the plants [44,51]. In 2016, Abdelgaleil et. al. extracted the EO of R. officinalis growing in the same area of plant collection as the present study (Northern Egypt) [44]. The main common constituents identified in both studies were 1,8-cineole, camphor, a-pinene, verbenone, and L-linalool. Moreover, in the current study, we report the presence of coumarin (15.19%) and hymecromone (5.56%) in the R. officinalis EO. However, additional research and information are ideally required to support our findings regarding the presence of those compounds. These two compounds have previously been found in plant extracts such as Orysan sativa [52]. The variation of the active ingredients within a plant extract would improve its mechanism of action and thus its biological effectiveness [53]. It is reported that linalool has an acetylcholinesterase inhibition and repellence effect against some insects [54,55]. Furthermore, the presence of terpenes and aromatic volatile compounds in the BOs had anti-bacterial and anti-fungal effects and protected food products for a long time without affecting their quality [54,56]. The 1.8-cineole was found to be highly effective against adults of S. oryzae when it was applied at a concentration of 0.1 mL/720 mL volume at 24 h of exposure, whereas camphor was found to be more effective towards Rhyzopertha dominica, with mortality of 100% [57,58]. The GC–MS analysis revealed that the major component found in S. chinensis BO was carvyl acetate (20.73%). It is a natural product identified in different plant sources such as citrus, Mentha pulegium, and Santolina chamaecyparissus [59].
In this study, both oils of S. chinensis and R. officinalis exhibited different degrees of toxicity against S. oryzae and T. castaneum. These results are in harmony with those previously found by Abdel-Rahman and Mahmoud [60], who observed high contact activity of S. chinensis oil against S. oryzae adults. The estimated LC50 and LC90 values of S. chinensis against S. oryzae were 1.17 and 2.76% (v/v), respectively, at 4 DAT. In a trial conducted in Egypt, the repellent and toxicant effects of eight BOs on T. castaneum adults were studied [54]. The oil of S. chinensis provided 73.33% adult repellency at 180 min after exposure at a concentration of 15% (v/v). The contact toxicity of the S. chinensis BO at the same concentration showed a relatively low LC50 value (10.73% v/v) at 1 DAT [54].
However, the degree of toxicity depended on the bioassay method [44] and the targeted insect. For example, S. chinensis BO was effectively excellent against S. oryzae (90% mortality) and moderate against T. castaneum (70% mortality) when it was used in the contact bioassay at 1 DAT. In addition, the S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs were significantly effective as contact toxicants against both S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults. However, both were more effective against S. oryzae than on T. castaneum adults. While S. chinensis oil exhibited significant fumigation toxicity against S. oryzae (LC50 = 29.52 ppm/L air), higher than that on T. castaneum (LC50 = 1134.7 ppm/L air), the R. officinalis EO had a moderate effect on S. oryzae (LC50 = 256.1 ppm/L air at 1 DAT) and was ineffective against T. castaneum. Those results are in harmony with those obtained by Saroukolai et al. (2010), who found that the extracted Thymus persicus EO was 70 times more effective against S. oryzae than T. castaneum adults [1]. In different studies, R. officinalis EO showed strong fumigation toxicity against S. oryzae. The estimated LC50 values varied from 26.71 mg/L air to 53.6 286 µL/L air [29,60]. Similarly, Origanum vulgare EO was found to be an efficacious fumigant rather than a contact against S. oryzae [44]. Furthermore, A. monosperma and P. graveolens had high contact toxicity against S. oryzae but were ineffective fumigants [44]. On the other hand, the oil of Cupressus sempervirens caused strong fumigant toxicity for S. oryzae but was not effective in the contact method [61]. In summary, the results of the biological performance of these botanical oils is affected by application methods [62,63], and this should be considered when developing IPM programs for such insects.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Insect Colonies

S.oryzae and T. castaneum insects used in the current experiment originated from a susceptible strain that was previously reared in the laboratory of the Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba-Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt. For S. oryzae rearing, four hundred adults (mixed sexes and ages) were placed into 2 L glass jars containing 500 g of sterilized wheat grains (var. Sakha 68) [5,6,64]. To avoid the escape of insects, about 7–10 cm from the inside upper part of the used jars were painted with Vaseline. For well ventilation, jars were covered with pieces of muslin fixed to the neck of the jars by two rubber bands [65]. After one week, all the added adults were removed using 8-mesh sieves, and the culture was kept in a hygrothermal conditioned cabinet (28 ± 2 °C and 70 ± 5% R.H.). The culture was thereafter investigated daily, and the emerged adults were used in bioassays. These procedures were performed to obtain groups of adults of the same and known age. All the same procedures and conditions used with S. oryzae were followed in T. castaneum rearing except the used medium (wheat flour, bran, and dry yeast at a rate of 17:5:1, respectively). Adult insects used in the current experiment were 2–3 weeks old [43].

4.2. Extraction of Botanical Oils

The seeds of jojoba, Simmondsia chinensis (L.), were collected from a farm located in Al-Adl village, Gharb Al-Nubaria region, Nubaria city, Al-Behieira Governorate, Egypt (30°39′51.9″ N, 30°07′28.0″ E). Healthy jojoba seeds were selected and transferred to the laboratory of the Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University in plastic bags. The BO from seeds was extracted by the pressing method [66]. The seeds were well dried for 14 days. The oil extraction process was made at the room temperature, using a manual hydraulic press (SPECAC, London, UK) with a load configuration of 0–5 tones. About 50 g of seeds was added to the press cylinder and subjected to the pressing process. The yielded oil (v/w%) was determined and then saved for further chemical analysis and bioassays. For the extraction of R. officinalis EO, fresh leaves were collected from a known nursery located in the Abees region, Alexandria governorate, Egypt, and transferred in plastic bags to the laboratory. Leaves were dried at room temperature (26 ± 1 °C) for five days and were subjected to hydro-distillation using a Clevenger apparatus for 6 h [67,68,69,70,71]. The resulting oil was filtered, dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, expressed as v/w% of the dry matter [44], and stored in the laboratory refrigerator at 4 °C until usage.

4.3. Chemical Composition of Botanical Oils

The chemical composition of BOs was performed using a Thermo-Logical Gas Chromatography (GC Follow 1300)/Mass Spectrometer (ISQ7000 show; Thermo Logical) apparatus (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) [47,62]. A Thermo TR-50MS capillary column (30 m in length × 250 µm in breadth × 0.25 µm in thickness of film) was used as a GC column. The spectroscopic location in GC–MS included an electron ionization framework that used high-energy electrons (70 eV) and a 300 °C MS exchange line temperature. Unadulterated helium gas (99.995%) was used as the carrier gas with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The column temperature was programmed (60 °C for 2 min, 100 °C at 10 °C/min for 5 min, 150 °C at 10 °C/min for 5 min, 200 °C at 10 °C/min for 5 min, and 250 °C at 10 °C/min for 20 min). One microliter of the arranged extricates was infused in a partless mode.

4.4. Contact Bioassay

The contact activity of six serial concentrations (10, 20, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm) of both S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs was evaluated against the adults of S. Oryzae and T. castaneum with the method previously described [29]. The BOs were diluted in acetone (Al-Nasr Pharmaceutical Chemicals Co., Obour, Egypt). One mL of each concentration was placed in a 9 cm Petri dish by a micropipette and spread uniformly on the whole surface of the dish. Acetone was allowed to evaporate, leaving a thin film of the oils on the surface of dishes [41]. Twenty adults (same age and weight) of each insect were separately added to the Petri dish. Dishes without BOs acted as controls. All treatments were replicated five times. At 1, 2, and 3 days after treatment (DAT), the percentages of adult mortality were recorded and corrected using Abbott’s formula [1,72].
Corrected   mortality % = Mortality %   of   treated   insects − Mortality %   of   control 100 − Mortality %   of   control × 100
The LC50 values (concentration causing 50% mortality compared with the control) expressed as ppm/cm2 were calculated [73].

4.5. Fumigation Bioassay

To evaluate the fumigation toxicity of BOs against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults, six oil concentrations (10, 20, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm/L air) were evaluated following the previously described bioassay [29,74]. One-liter glass jars were used as fumigation chambers. Each oil concentration was evenly added to a filter paper piece (2 × 3 cm) fixed in the subsurface of the screw caps of jars. The inner side of the jar’s neck was painted with Vaseline to prevent direct contact of insects with the treated filter paper. Caps were directly screwed tightly onto the jars, each containing 20 adults (same age and weight). The filter papers in the controls were treated with acetone only. Each treatment was replicated five times. The adult mortality was calculated at 1, 2, and 3 DAT, and the LC50 values (ppm/L air) were considered [73].

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The generalized linear model (GLM) was used to perform a one-way analysis of variance on the insect mortality data [32]. Means were then compared by the Duncan’s least significant difference (LSD) test [75] using SAS software V. 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) [76]. Differences were considered significant at α = 0.05. The LdP line computerized software program was used to calculate the probit analyses of LC50 values and their fiducial limits (confidence intervals) for botanical oils according to Finney (1971) [77].

5. Conclusions

Botanical oils have been widely investigated for their biological activity against a wide range of agricultural pests, including stored-product pests. Many studies have confirmed the potency of these products; however, their toxicity is dependent on a number of factors (e.g., the chemical composition of the BO, the targeted pest, and the bioassay method). The data of the current study suggest the high contact and fumigation effects of S. chinensis and R. officinalis BOs against S. oryzae and T. castaneum. Thus, it can be concluded that these BOs are a promising approach in terms of decreasing chemical pesticide use, and they should be considered for an effective IPM strategy for S. oryzae and T. castaneum.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S. and A.M.K. (Ahmed Mohamed Kordy); methodology, R.S.; formal analysis, R.S., R.S.B., W.M.H., A.M.K. (Adel Mohamed Khider), M.M.E.-S. and A.M.K. (Ahmed Mohamed Kordy); investigation, R.S., A.M.K. (Adel Mohamed Khider) and A.M.K. (Ahmed Mohamed Kordy); resources, R.S., R.S.B., W.M.H. and A.M.K. (Adel Mohamed Khider); writing—original draft preparation, R.S. and W.M.H.; writing—review and editing, R.S. and R.S.B.; visualization, R.S., W.M.H. and A.M.K. (Ahmed Mohamed Kordy); supervision, R.S. and A.M.K. (Ahmed Mohamed Kordy). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BOBotanical oil
EOEssential oil
LC50Lethal concentration for 50% of tested insects
IPMIntegrated pest management
GC–MSGas chromatography/mass spectrometry
DATDays after treatment
RTRetention time

References

  1. Saroukolai, A.T.; Moharramipour, S.; Meshkatalsadat, M.H. Insecticidal properties of Thymus persicus essential oil against Tribolium castaneum and Sitophilus oryzae. J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Safavi, S.A.; Mobki, M. Susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) larvae to essential oils of Citrus reticulata Blanco fruit peels and the synergist, diethyl maleate. Biharean Biol. 2016, 10, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baier, A.H.; Webster, B.D. Control of Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Phaseolus vulgaris L. seed stored on small farms—I. Evaluation of damage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1992, 28, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brari, J.; Kumar, V. Antifeedant activity of four plant essential oils against major stored product insect pests. Int. J. Pure Appl. Zool. 2019, 7, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elbialy, M.A.; Saad, A.E.A.; Tayeb, E.-S.H. Insecticides and Their Mixtures for Controlling Tuta Absoluta Infesting Tomato under Egyptian Field Conditions. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2019, 39, 215–222. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tayeb, E.H.; Metraw, H.L. Botanical oils as eco-friendly alternatives for controlling the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2017, 38, 921–932. [Google Scholar]
  7. Agrawal, G.P.; Pattanayak, D.N. Gaussian beam propagation beyond the paraxial approximation. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1979, 69, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Campbell, J.Y. Consumption-based asset pricing. Handb. Econ. Financ. 2003, 1, 803–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Daglish, G.; Eelkema, M.; Harrison, L. Control of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in paddy rice using chlorpyrifos-methyl or fenitrothion in combination with several other protectants. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1996, 32, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shawer, R. Impact of Traditional Pesticides and New Controlled Release Formulations on Drosophila Suzukii. Ph.D. Thesis, Università degli Studi di Padova, Padua, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shawer, R.; Donati, I.; Cellini, A.; Spinelli, F.; Mori, N. Insecticidal Activity of Photorhabdus luminescens against Drosophila suzukii. Insects 2018, 9, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ebadollahi, A.; Taghinezhad, E.; Setzer, W.N.; Chen, G. Susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to the fumigation of two essential Satureja oils: Optimization and modeling. Processes 2021, 9, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Narayanankutty, A.; Sasidharan, A.; Job, J.T.; Rajagopal, R.; Alfarhan, A.; Kim, Y.O.; Kim, H.-J. Mango ginger (Curcuma amada Roxb.) rhizome essential oils as source of environmental friendly biocides: Comparison of the chemical composition, antibacterial, insecticidal and larvicidal properties of essential oils extracted by different methods. Environ. Res. 2021, 202, 111718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Garrido-Miranda, K.A.; Giraldo, J.D.; Schoebitz, M. Essential oils and their formulations for the control of Curculionidae pests. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 876687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. López, M.D.; Jordán, M.J.; Pascual-Villalobos, M.J. Toxic compounds in essential oils of coriander, caraway and basil active against stored rice pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2008, 44, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azeem, M.; Zaman, T.; Abbasi, A.M.; Abid, M.; Mozūratis, R.; Alwahibi, M.S.; Elshikh, M.S. Pesticidal potential of some wild plant essential oils against grain pests Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) and Aspergillus flavus (Link, 1809). Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15, 103482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chermenskaya, T.D.; Stepanycheva, E.A.; Shchenikova, A.V.; Chakaeva, A.S. Insectoacaricidal and deterrent activities of extracts of Kyrgyzstan plants against three agricultural pests. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 32, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zanuncio, J.C.; Mourão, S.A.; Martínez, L.C.; Wilcken, C.F.; Ramalho, F.S.; Plata-Rueda, A.; Soares, M.A.; Serrão, J.E. Toxic effects of the neem oil (Azadirachta indica) formulation on the stink bug predator, Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Visakh, N.U.; Pathrose, B.; Narayanankutty, A.; Alfarhan, A.; Ramesh, V. Utilization of Pomelo (Citrus maxima) Peel Waste into Bioactive Essential Oils: Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Properties. Insects 2022, 13, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hashem, A.S.; Awadalla, S.S.; Zayed, G.M.; Maggi, F.; Benelli, G. Pimpinella anisum essential oil nanoemulsions against Tribolium castaneum—Insecticidal activity and mode of action. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 18802–18812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arun, K.; Shikha, U.; Mantu, B.; Bhattacharya, P. A review on prospects of essential oils as biopesticide in insect-pest management. J. Pharmacogn. Phytother. 2009, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jayakumar, M.; Arivoli, S.; Raveen, R.; Tennyson, S. Repellent activity and fumigant toxicity of a few plant oils against the adult rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae Linnaeus 1763 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2017, 5, 324–335. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zapata, N.; Smagghe, G. Repellency and toxicity of essential oils from the leaves and bark of Laurelia sempervirens and Drimys winteri against Tribolium castaneum. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 32, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Akhtar, M.; Arshad, M.; Raza, A.B.M.; Chaudhary, M.I.; Iram, N.; Akhtar, N.; Mahmood, T. Repellent effects of certain plant extracts against rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. Vol. 2013, 5. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sukumar, K.; Perich, M.J.; Boobar, L. Botanical derivatives in mosquito control: A review. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1991, 7, 210–237. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. El-Refai, A.; Sharaf, A.; Azzaz, N.; El-Dengawy, M. Antioxidants and Antibacterial Activities of Bioactive Compounds of Clove (Syzygium aromaticum) and Thyme (Tymus vulgaris) Extracts. J. Food Dairy Sci. 2020, 11, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Isman, M.B. Plant essential oils for pest and disease management. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ju, J.; Chen, X.; Xie, Y.; Yu, H.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. Application of essential oil as a sustained release preparation in food packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 92, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abdelgaleil, S.; Badawy, M.; Shawir, M.; Mohamed, M. Chemical composition, fumigant and contact toxicities of essential oils isolated from Egyptian plants against the stored grain insects; Sitophilus oryzae L. and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2015, 25, 639. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mehta, V.; Kumar, S. Influence of different plant powders as grain protectants on Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in stored wheat. J. Food Prot. 2020, 83, 2167–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Takayama, C.; de-Faria, F.M.; de Almeida, A.C.A.; Dunder, R.J.; Manzo, L.P.; Socca, E.A.R.; Batista, L.M.; Salvador, M.J.; Souza-Brito, A.R.M.; Luiz-Ferreira, A. Chemical composition of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil and antioxidant action against gastric damage induced by absolute ethanol in the rat. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 677–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Pintore, G.; Usai, M.; Bradesi, P.; Juliano, C.; Boatto, G.; Tomi, F.; Chessa, M.; Cerri, R.; Casanova, J. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Rosmarinus officinalis L. oils from Sardinia and Corsica. Flavour Fragr. J. 2002, 17, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Celiktas, O.Y.; Kocabas, E.H.; Bedir, E.; Sukan, F.V.; Ozek, T.; Baser, K. Antimicrobial activities of methanol extracts and essential oils of Rosmarinus officinalis, depending on location and seasonal variations. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koschier, E.H.; Sedy, K.A. Labiate essential oils affecting host selection and acceptance of Thrips tabaci Lindeman. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 929–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hussain, A.I.; Anwar, F.; Chatha, S.A.S.; Jabbar, A.; Mahboob, S.; Nigam, P.S. Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil: Antiproliferative, antioxidant and antibacterial activities. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2010, 41, 1070–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Padin, S.B.; Fuse, C.B.; Urrutia, M.I.; Dal Bello, G. Toxicity and Repellency of Nine Medicinal Plants against Tribolium Castaneum in Stored Wheat; Alma Mater Studiorum—Università di Bologna: Bologna, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. McKeon, T.A. Emerging industrial oil crops. In Industrial Oil Crops; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 275–341. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bruneton, J. Carica papaya. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. Med. Plants Tech. Docu Fra 1999, 2, 221–223. [Google Scholar]
  39. Azab, M.M. Comparative toxicity of several botanical oils against the adults of Sitophilus oryzae. Ann. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor 2018, 56, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kamatou, G.; Van Zyl, R.; Van Vuuren, S.; Figueiredo, A.; Barroso, J.; Pedro, L.; Viljoen, A. Seasonal variation in essential oil composition, oil toxicity and the biological activity of solvent extracts of three South African Salvia species. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2008, 74, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hussain, A.I.; Anwar, F.; Sherazi, S.T.H.; Przybylski, R. Chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of basil (Ocimum basilicum) essential oils depends on seasonal variations. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 986–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Krzyżowski, M.; Baran, B.; Łozowski, B.; Francikowski, J. The effect of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil fumigation on biochemical, behavioral, and physiological parameters of Callosobruchus maculatus. Insects 2020, 11, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Abdelgaleil, S.A.; Badawy, M.E.; Mohamed, M.I.; Shawir, M.S. Chemical Composition and Fumigant Toxicity of Essential Oils Isolated from Egyptian Plants against Stored Product Insects Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Antalya, Turkey, 15–19 October 2012; Navarro, S., Banks, H.J., Jayas, D.S., Bell, C.H., Noyes, R.T., Ferizli, A.G., Emekci, M., Isikber, A.A., Alagusundaram, K., Eds.; pp. 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  44. Abdelgaleil, S.A.; Mohamed, M.I.; Shawir, M.S.; Abou-Taleb, H.K. Chemical composition, insecticidal and biochemical effects of essential oils of different plant species from Northern Egypt on the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ainane, A.; Khammour, F.; Charaf, S.; Elabboubi, M.; Elkouali, M.; Talbi, M.; Benhima, R.; Cherroud, S.; Ainane, T. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of five essential oils: Cedrus atlantica, Citrus limonum, Rosmarinus officinalis, Syzygium aromaticum and Eucalyptus globules. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, 13, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rašković, A.; Milanović, I.; Pavlović, N.; Ćebović, T.; Vukmirović, S.; Mikov, M. Antioxidant activity of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) essential oil and its hepatoprotective potential. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2014, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Ramdani, C.; El Fakhouri, K.; Sbaghi, M.; Bouharroud, R.; Boulamtat, R.; Aasfar, A.; Mesfioui, A.; El Bouhssini, M. Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Potential of Six Essential Oils from Morocco against Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) under Field and Laboratory Conditions. Insects 2021, 12, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Singab, A. Essential oils and lipids content of Pituranthos species growing in Egypt. Bull. Fac. Pharm. Cairo Univ. 2003, 41, 213–217. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gundidza, M.; Gweru, N.; Magwa, M.; Mmbengwa, V.; Samie, A. The chemical composition and biological activities of essential oil from the fresh leaves of Schinus terebinthifolius from Zimbabwe. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stojković, D.; Soković, M.; Glamočlija, J.; Džamić, A.; Ćirić, A.; Ristić, M.; Grubišić, D. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Vitex agnus-castus L. fruits and leaves essential oils. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 1017–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Musa Özcan, M.; Claude Chalchat, J. Effect of collection time on chemical composition of the essential oil of Foeniculum vulgare subsp. piperitum growing wild in Turkey. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2006, 224, 279–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Duan, H.; Zhai, K.; Cao, W.; Bao-Pei, Y. Study on identification of hymecromone and total coumarin in extraction process from orysan sativa. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2014, 5, 192–195. [Google Scholar]
  53. Jiang, Z.; Akhtar, Y.; Zhang, X.; Bradbury, R.; Isman, M. Insecticidal and feeding deterrent activities of essential oils in the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2012, 136, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Elnabawy, E.-S.M.; Hassan, S.; Taha, E.-K.A. Repellent and Toxicant Effects of Eight Essential Oils against the Red Flour Beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Biology 2021, 11, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jiang, H.; Wang, J.; Song, L.; Cao, X.; Yao, X.; Tang, F.; Yue, Y. GC× GC-TOFMS analysis of essential oils composition from leaves, twigs and seeds of Cinnamomum camphora L. Presl and their insecticidal and repellent activities. Molecules 2016, 21, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. El-Bakry, A.; Abdel-Aziz, N.; Sammour, E.; Abdelgaleil, S. Insecticidal activity of natural plant essential oils against some stored product insects and their side effects on wheat seed germination. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2016, 26, 83. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rozman, V.; Kalinovic, I.; Korunic, Z. Toxicity of naturally occurring compounds of Lamiaceae and Lauraceae to three stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2007, 43, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ramzi, A.; El Ouali Lalami, A.; Ez zoubi, Y.; Assouguem, A.; Almeer, R.; Najda, A.; Ullah, R.; Ercisli, S.; Farah, A. Insecticidal Effect of Wild-Grown Mentha pulegium and Rosmarinus officinalis Essential Oils and Their Main Monoterpenes against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Plants 2022, 11, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. NCBI, National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2022. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 23 March 2022).
  60. Yazdgerdian, A.R.; Akhtar, Y.; Isman, M.B. Insecticidal effects of essential oils against woolly beech aphid, Phyllaphis fagi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2015, 3, 265–271. [Google Scholar]
  61. García, M.; Gonzalez-Coloma, A.; Donadel, O.J.; Ardanaz, C.E.; Tonn, C.E.; Sosa, M.E. Insecticidal effects of Flourensia oolepis Blake (Asteraceae) essential oil. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2007, 35, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mohamed, M.I.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Chemical composition and insecticidal potential of essential oils from Egyptian plants against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2008, 43, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Kim, S.-W.; Kang, J.; Park, I.-K. Fumigant toxicity of Apiaceae essential oils and their constituents against Sitophilus oryzae and their acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2013, 16, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saad, A.S.; Tayeb, E.; El-Shazli, M.; Baheeg, S. Susceptibility of certain Egyptian and imported wheat cultivars to infestation by Sitophilus oryzae and Rhyzopertha dominica. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2018, 51, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mackled, M.I.; EL-Hefny, M.; Bin-Jumah, M.; Wahba, T.F.; Allam, A.A. Assessment of the toxicity of natural oils from Mentha piperita, Pinus roxburghii, and Rosa spp. against three stored product insects. Processes 2019, 7, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Abu-Arabi, M.; Allawzi, M.; Al-Zoubi, H.; Tamimi, A. Extraction of jojoba oil by pressing and leaching. Chem. Eng. J. 2000, 76, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Villanueva Bermejo, D.; Angelov, I.; Vicente, G.; Stateva, R.P.; Rodriguez García-Risco, M.; Reglero, G.; Ibañez, E.; Fornari, T. Extraction of thymol from different varieties of thyme plants using green solvents. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2901–2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Aleksovski, S.A.; Sovova, H.; Poposka, F.A. Extraction of thyme oil: Comparison between hydrodistillation and supercritical CO2 extraction. Acta Pharm. 2001, 51, 305–310. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gachkar, L.; Yadegari, D.; Rezaei, M.B.; Taghizadeh, M.; Astaneh, S.A.; Rasooli, I. Chemical and biological characteristics of Cuminum cyminum and Rosmarinus officinalis essential oils. Food Chem. 2007, 102, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Korkmaz, K.; Tokur, B.; Ucar, Y. Does adding thyme and rosemary essential oils to sunflower oil during shallow-frying increase the lipid quality of Atlantic bonito? Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2022, 28, 100500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sadjia, B.; Naima, S.; Chahrazed, B. Extraction of thyme (Thymus pallecens de Noé) essential oil by steam-distillation, steam-diffusion and hydro-distillation processes: Optimization of operating conditions and antioxidant activity. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2012, 15, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Finney, D. Probit Analysis, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  74. Huang, Y.; Lam, S.; Ho, S. Bioactivities of essential oil from Elletaria cardamomum (L.) Maton. to Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky and: Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2000, 36, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Duncan, D.B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1955, 11, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. SAS. The SAS Statistical System, 8th ed.; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sun, Y.-P. Toxicity Index-an Improved Method of comparing the relative Toxicity of Insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 1950, 43, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Chemical compositions identified in Rosmarinus officinalis and Simmondsia chinensis botanical oils.
Table 1. Chemical compositions identified in Rosmarinus officinalis and Simmondsia chinensis botanical oils.
RT 1RI 2Compound NameConcentration (%)
S. chinensisR. officinalis
5.20930α-Pinene-4.29
5.73935Camphene-0.98
7.281014Limonene-0.76
7.9110231,8-Cineole-6.76
9.751082Linalool-1.40
10.152122Linolenic acid4.36-
12.771170Verbenone-0.62
13.561146Camphor-15.57
14.031172α-Terpineol-1.86
14.171148Borneol-0.74
14.3311563-Pinanone-0.78
14.861266Thymol-0.45
15.282112Methyl 2,5-octadecadiynoate3.31-
15.5612642,5-Bornanediol-0.80
15.691170Verbenone-14.82
16.282495Androstanolone-0.32
17.311273Ascaridole-0.92
17.801407.76Caryophyllene-1.61
18.221206Linalyl formate-0.59
19.441275Carvacrol-0.91
20.121421β-Caryophyllene-0.84
21.382466Retinal-0.51
22.402000Falcarinol-0.45
22.98NA 3Picrotoxin-0.64
23.391386Cinnamic acid-0.55
23.531488Butylated hydroxytoluene-0.71
24.022466Retinal5.52-
24.833131Campesterol-1.69
25.001414Coumarin-15.19
25.2884913Z,16Z-docosadienoic acid-0.42
25.542112Methyl 2,5-octadecadiynoate-1.76
25.851575Caryophyllene oxide-2.47
26.222301methyl (E)-heptadec-10-en-8-ynoate-0.41
26.661629Methyl jasmonate-0.70
27.0828321,12-Di(oxiran-2-yl)dodecane-0.77
28.182102linolenic acid-0.56
28.96211213,16-Octadecadiynoic acid methyl ester-0.41
30.51NABakuchiol-1.39
31.521345Carvyl acetate20.73-
32.072003Hymecromone-5.56
32.7439421-Heptatriacotanol-1.52
33.5NA2,5-Octadecadiynoic acid, methyl ester2.65-
34.732034Falcarinol-0.80
36.12451Retinol16.75-
37.1027356beta-Naltrexol-2.47
37.112843dihydrotachysterol3.93-
37.242393Gibberellic acid-0.98
39.042285Dihydroxanthin2.91-
40.051988Ethylene brassylate5.13-
40.301831tert-Hexadecanethiol-1.51
40.482451Retinol-2.95
40.84NAIgernellin7.12-
43.182122alpha-Linolenic acid2.91-
43.26NAGibberellic acid15.34-
46.062151Isofetamid3.26-
47.91NAMartynoside2.13-
Total identified99.9899.02
1 RT, Retention time; 2 RI, Retention index as determined on a TR-50MS capillary column; 3 NA, Not available in device database for used column.
Table
Table 2. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay of S. chinensis oil.
Table 2. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay of S. chinensis oil.
Conc. 1
(ppm/cm2)		Mortality of S. oryzaeMortality of T. castaneum
Days after TreatmentDays after Treatment
123123
1015.0 ± 2.65 e*23.3 ± 1.35 d32.0 ± 1.65 e9.00 ± 1.15 de13.3 ± 0.58 de17.0 ± 1.15 e
2025.0 ± 1.00 e35.0 ± 3.00 d46.7 ± 1.65 d12.0 ± 0.58 de14.0 ± 0.58 de25.0 ± 1.53 de
5040.0 ± 2.00 d51.7 ± 1.65 c61.7 ± 1.65 c22.0 ± 0.65 cd28.3 ± 0.35 cd34.0 ± 2.52 d
10061.7 ± 1.65 c69.0 ± 2.35 b77.0 ± 2.35 b30.0 ± 3.00 c39.0 ± 0.35 c53.3 ± 2.35 c
15076.7 ± 2.65 b81.7 ± 1.35 ab88.3 ± 1.65 ab51.7 ± 1.65 b57.0 ± 1.65 b71.0 ± 2.00 b
20090.0 ± 1.00 a93.3 ± 0.35 a96.7 ± 0.35 a70.0 ± 2.00 a82.0 ± 1.35 a87.0 ± 1.35 a
Control0.00 ± 0.00 f0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 f0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 f
1 Conc., oil concentration; * Means within each column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Duncan’s LSD test; p = 0.05).
Table
Table 3. The LC50 values of S. chinensis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay.
Table 3. The LC50 values of S. chinensis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay.
InsectsDAT 1LC50 2
(ppm/cm2)		95% Confidence Limits (ppm/cm2)Slope 3 ± SE(X2) 4
LowerUpper
S. oryzae154.3546.2063.581.63 ± 0.139.22
236.9430.4244.041.48 ± 0.137.97
324.3719.2829.591.45 ± 0.137.02
T. castaneum1181.399.21205.41.39 ± 0.1924.7
2101.569.88165.91.82 ± 0.1513.9
368.4746.08103.31.71 ± 0.1412.2
1 DAT, Days after treatment; 2 LC50, the concentration causing 50% mortality; 3 Slope of the concentration inhibition regression line ± SE; 4 Chi square value.
Table
Table 4. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay of R. officinalis oil.
Table 4. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay of R. officinalis oil.
Conc. 1
(ppm/ cm2)		Mortality of S. oryzaeMortality of T. castaneum
Days after TreatmentDays after Treatment
123123
104.00 ± 0.58 de*24.0 ± 1.35 d50.0 ± 4.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 d0.00 ± 0.00 d
2013.3 ± 0.58 cde39.0 ± 0.35 cd60.0 ± 1.65 b0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 d0.00 ± 0.00 d
5023.3 ± 1.35 cd50.0 ± 4.00 bc73.3 ± 3.34 ab6.67 ± 1.15 c13.3 ± 0.58 cd21.7 ± 0.65 c
10035.0 ± 2.52 bc57.0 ± 1.65 bc77.0 ± 2.35 ab17.0 ± 2.65 b22.0 ± 0.65 bc31.7 ± 3.00 c
15053.3 ± 2.35 b73.3 ± 3.34 ab90.0 ± 1.00 a25.0 ± 1.53 b34.0 ± 2.52 b50.0 ± 4.00 b
20079.0 ± 2.35 a94.0 ± 0.35 a95.0 ± 1.00 a40.0 ± 1.70 a53.3 ± 2.35 a67.0 ± 1.40 a
Control0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 d0.00 ± 0.00 d
1 Conc., oil concentration; * Means within each column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Duncan’s LSD test; p = 0.05).
Table
Table 5. The LC50 values of R. officinalis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay.
Table 5. The LC50 values of R. officinalis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following contact bioassay.
InsectsDAT 1LC50 2
(ppm/cm2)		95% Confidence Limits (ppm/cm2)Slope 3 ± SE(X2) 4
LowerUpper
S. oryzae1115.878.47212.51.73 ± 0.1520.2
240.5415.8475.671.27 ± 0.126.82
311.587.12716.161.06 ± 0.131.04
T. castaneum1281.9141.8444.42.12 ± 0.38075
2213.7175.8297.01.97 ± 0.333.14
3141.8422.7169.92.06 ± 0.313.95
1 DAT, Days after treatment; 2 LC50, the concentration causing 50% mortality; 3 Slope of the concentration inhibition regression line ± SE; 4 Chi square value.
Table
Table 6. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay of S. chinensis oil.
Table 6. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay of S. chinensis oil.
Conc. 1
(ppm/L Air)		Mortality of S. oryzaeMortality of T. castaneum
Days after TreatmentDays after Treatment
123123
105.00 ± 1.00 bc*27.0 ± 1.53 ab44.0 ± 2.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 b1.67 ± 0.58 b4.00 ± 0.58 de
2012.0 ± 0.58 abc33.3 ± 2.51 a48.3 ± 1.35 a0.00 ± 0.00 b2.00 ± 0.58 b7.00 ± 1.15 cde
5012.0 ± 0.58 abc35.0 ± 2.52 a49.0 ± 1.65 a3.33 ± 0.58 b8.33 ± 1.15 ab12.0 ± 0.58 bcd
10018.3 ± 3.21 abc44.0 ± 2.00 a57.0 ± 1.65 a5.00 ± 1.00 b9.00 ± 1.15 ab19.0 ± 3.21 abc
15021.7 ± 0.65 ab47.0 ± 1.35 a62.0 ± 1.65 a8.33 ± 1.15 b12.0 ± 0.58 ab22.0 ± 0.65 ab
20030.0 ± 3.00 a52.0 ± 2.35 a68.3 ± 1.40 a17.0 ± 2.65 a19.0 ± 3.21 a27.0 ± 1.53 a
Control0.00 ± 0.00 d0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 f
1 Conc., oil concentration; * Means within each column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Duncan’s LSD test; p = 0.05).
Table
Table 7. The LC50 values of S. chinensis oil against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay.
Table 7. The LC50 values of S. chinensis oil against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay.
InsectsDAT 1LC50 2
(ppm/L Air)		95% Confidence
Limits
(ppm/L Air)		Slope 3 ± SE(X2) 4
LowerUpper
S. oryzae1159.161.53138.210.71 ± 0.153.08
2202.7113.6712.30.48 ± 0.140.84
329.5211.3050.730.43 ± 0.112.05
T. castaneum1179.5971.18199.220.27 ± 0.173.50
2168.4669.86186.930.21 ± 0.021.744
3113.4757.49128.110.15 ± 0.181.41
1 DAT, Days after treatment; 2 LC50, the concentration causing 50% mortality; 3 Slope of the concentration–inhibition regression line ± SE; 4 Chi square value.
Table
Table 8. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay of R. officinalis oil.
Table 8. Mortality (±SD) of S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following the fumigation bioassay of R. officinalis oil.
Conc. 1
(ppm/L Air)		Mortality of S. oryzaeMortality of T. castaneum
Days after TreatmentDays after Treatment
123123
1030.0 ± 3.00 b*54.0 ± 1.65 a78.3 ± 2.35 b0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
2030.0 ± 3.00 b58.3 ± 1.65 a84.0 ± 0.85 ab0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
5037.0 ± 2.52b63.3 ± 1.40 a90.0 ± 1.00 ab0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
10041.7 ± 1.35ab74.0 ± 3.34 a92.0 ± 0.35 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
15046.7 ± 1.35 ab78.3 ± 2.35 a95.0 ± 1.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
20051.7 ± 1.65 a85.0 ± 0.85 a95.0 ± 1.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
Control0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 b0.00 ± 0.00 c0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a0.00 ± 0.00 a
1 Conc., oil concentration; * Means within each column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Duncan’s LSD test; p = 0.05).
Table
Table 9. LC50 values of R. officinalis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following fumigation bioassay.
Table 9. LC50 values of R. officinalis oil recorded against S. oryzae and T. castaneum adults following fumigation bioassay.
InsectsDAT 1LC50 2
(ppm/L Air)		95% Confidence
Limits
(ppm/L Air)		Slope 3 ± SE(X2) 4
LowerUpper
S. oryzae1256.1128.215600.42 ± 0.111.04
29.4043.49716.30.66 ± 0.1211.6
30.0280.0240.0620.34 ± 0.1411.6
1 DAT, Days after treatment; 2 LC50, the concentration causing 50% mortality; 3 Slope of the concentration inhibition regression line ± SE; 4 Chi square value.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shawer, R.; El-Shazly, M.M.; Khider, A.M.; Baeshen, R.S.; Hikal, W.M.; Kordy, A.M. Botanical Oils Isolated from Simmondsia chinensis and Rosmarinus officinalis Cultivated in Northern Egypt: Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Activity against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Molecules 2022, 27, 4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144383

AMA Style

Shawer R, El-Shazly MM, Khider AM, Baeshen RS, Hikal WM, Kordy AM. Botanical Oils Isolated from Simmondsia chinensis and Rosmarinus officinalis Cultivated in Northern Egypt: Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Activity against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Molecules. 2022; 27(14):4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144383

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shawer, Rady, Mohamed Mahrous El-Shazly, Adel Mohamed Khider, Rowida S. Baeshen, Wafaa M. Hikal, and Ahmed Mohamed Kordy. 2022. "Botanical Oils Isolated from Simmondsia chinensis and Rosmarinus officinalis Cultivated in Northern Egypt: Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Activity against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)" Molecules 27, no. 14: 4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144383

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop