Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Impact of Corporate Digital Transformation on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance: Mechanism Analysis Based on Resource Allocation Efficiency and Technological Gap
Previous Article in Journal
A Design Method for Shared Two-Wheeled Electric Scooters (STWESs), Integrating Context Theory and Kansei Engineering
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083316
sustainability-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advances in Stored-Product Pest Management: Combined Effects of Diatomaceous Earths with Botanicals, Insecticides, Entomopathogenic/Plant Pathogenic Fungi, and Silica Gel

by
Waqas Wakil
1,2,*,
Maria C. Boukouvala
3,
Nickolas G. Kavallieratos
3,*,
Demeter Lorentha S. Gidari
3,
Anna Skourti
3 and
Tahira Riasat
1,4
1
Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
2
Senckenberg German Entomological Institute, D-15374 Müncheberg, Germany
3
Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos Str., 11855 Athens, Greece
4
Department of Zoology, GC University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3316; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083316
Submission received: 4 March 2025 / Revised: 1 April 2025 / Accepted: 2 April 2025 / Published: 8 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Diatomaceous earth (DE) consists of fossilized remnants of diatoms, which are marine or freshwater unicellular algae. Most DEs originate from fossilized sedimentary layers of diatoms deposited in water bodies during the Eocene and Miocene periods, much more than 20 million years ago. Processed DE, a soft, chalky powder, is widely used as an insecticide due to the highly absorptive and abrasive nature of its particles. As an insecticide, DE removes the wax coating of the insect epicuticle, the primary barrier against water loss. This results in water evaporation, leading to desiccation and death of the targeted insects. This review emphasizes the co-treatment of DEs with biological agents that have insecticidal properties (e.g., essential oils, plant powders, silica gel, and species/isolates of fungi), reducing the quantities used in single-application treatments and suggesting paths for the sustainable management of insects damaging stored products.

1. Introduction

Using inert dusts for insect control is believed to have originated from the natural practice of birds, bathing in sand to rid their bodies of mites and ectoparasites [1]. According to their chemical composition and level of efficacy against stored-grain insects, inert dusts can be mainly divided into four classes [2]. Minerals, including limestone (CaCO3), copper, salt (NaCl), dolomite, lime (Ca(OH)2), ketelsous (ground sulfur and rock phosphate), and magnesite, constitute the first class [2]. Kaolin (kaolinite, aluminum silicate hydroxide), volcanic ash, wood ash, paddy husks, clay, and sand compose the second class [2]. The third class consists of powders containing synthetic silica (i.e., silicon dioxide), such as silica aerogels, and the fourth class consists of powders containing natural silica, such as diatomaceous earths (DEs) and natural zeolites (alkali metal aluminum silicate) [2,3,4,5]. These dusts have also been employed as carriers in insecticidal formulations [6]. Among inert dusts, DEs have been extensively studied and widely used for protecting stored products [2,7,8,9,10,11].
DEs are mainly composed of amorphous hydrated silica (SiO2.nH2O) (about 90%), along with certain other compounds, such as aluminium oxide (Al2O3), calcium oxide (CaO), iron oxide (Fe2O3), and magnesium oxide (MgO) [12,13]. Numerous DE formulations are produced worldwide since DE stockpiles are found in various locations around the world. For instance, of the 2.3 Mt (million metric tons) of DE produced globally in 2013, 33% came from the United States, 18% from China, 14% from Denmark, and 5.3% from Peru [14]. Since DEs are chemically stable, heat-resistant, highly abundant, and have low cost, they are multipurpose substances, finding a wide range of applications [15,16]. Generally, DEs are used as insulations, ingredients in dynamite [1], for dye removal from textile wastewater [17,18], and for filtering water (drinking or swimming pool water), beer, liquor, and oil [13,19,20]. They are also used in the manufacture of cosmetics, toiletries (e.g., deodorants and toothpaste), polishes, medicines, paints, cardboard, paper, plastic, concrete, and detergents [15,21]. The high porosity of DEs also makes them a good absorbent to clean up spills and toxic chemicals [6]. DEs are promising candidates for application in the fields of nanofabrication, energy storage, molecular separation, and biosensing [15,16]. The USDA has approved DEs as inert carriers and as anti-caking agents in livestock feed at the rate of ≤2% (w/w) [22]. Additionally, they have been employed to manage livestock parasites both internally and externally [23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Several DE formulations have been commercially formulated and utilized as grain protectants (e.g., Protect-It, Dryacide, Diafil, Celite, DEA-P, Protector, and SilicoSec) [30,31,32,33].
The insecticidal use of DEs dates to 2000 B.C. in China for pest control [34]. Research into their mode of action advanced in the 1930s, revealing that dust particles ingested during insect self-cleaning procedures were toxic [34,35]. Later, DEs were found to cause desiccation upon contact with the insect cuticle [36]. Before this, theories suggested ingestion [37,38], chemical reactions on the cuticle [38,39], or mechanical effects [38] as causes of insect mortality. The rate of dehydration, influenced by epicuticular absorption and DE particle size and shape, was crucial [40]. Initially, DEs were thought to disrupt the epicuticle, but later, their role in absorbing the cuticular wax was identified [41]. In Figure 1a–r are presented various coleopterans of stored products (adults and larvae), such as Tenebrio molitor L., Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), and Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae), that have died after 24 hours (h) of exposure to DE Insecto, having their bodies covered with dust/DE particles. It has been reported that the attached particles of DEs to the insects’ bodies can reduce their movement and block tracheae, spiracles, digestive tract, and genital systems, which can affect sexual interaction and progeny production, as well as prevent other essential operations (e.g., vision and signaling) [1].
DEs are advantageous over synthetic residual insecticides because of various characteristics. They are not harmful to mammals [42,43]. For instance, the LD50 oral rat toxicity is >5000 mg/kg (body weight) [11,44]. Moreover, it is determined that DE applications provide a low risk to bees, earthworms, sewage treatment organisms, and non-target arthropods other than bees [45,46,47]. DEs are highly stable substances that do not interact with the treated substrates, leaving harmful residues [1]. Assessing the shelf-life stability of diatomites, Li et al. [48] reported that they may remain stable at long intervals. Since DEs are naturally occurring compounds, their use as an insect control method can be inferred under the “organic concept”, making them friendly to the environment and sustainable alternatives to synthetic insecticides [30,49]. Several new DE formulations are being applied at considerably low doses as grain protectants [50]. DEs can be applied in a similar way to contact insecticides, requiring no specialized equipment or trained staff [50,51,52]. Insect resistance is unlikely to be developed because of the physical method of action of the DEs; instead, DEs work well against insect species that have become resistant to traditional pesticides [36,53]. DEs do not undergo degradation, remain effective for an extended period, and do not leave harmful residues [4,36].
Even though DEs exhibit numerous advantages, they have a series of drawbacks: (a) The dusty appearance of grains, reduced grain flowability and bulk density are quality and grading criteria that significantly affect the uniformity and acceptability of grains treated with DEs in global markets [3,36,44,54]. Environmental factors, especially relative humidity, highly impact the effectiveness of DEs which, generally, being less effective under conditions of elevated relative humidity (RH) [55,56]. In addition, their inability to control the internal feeding insect/stages is one other limitation for the exclusive use of DEs. Thus, they should be applied prior to insect infestation to avoid grain losses [57,58]. (b) The adherence of a DE differs among grain types, leading to higher application rates for some commodities over others [36,59]. For instance, DE effectiveness decreased in rice and barley, compared to wheat [59]. DEs, in some cases, have lethal and repellent effects on the natural enemies of stored-product insects [60]. Therefore, the use of DEs should ensure the safety of natural enemies by prohibiting their direct contact with the DE-treated grains [61]. Previously, Mvumi and Stathers [61] suggested that by treating the lower layers of the grain bulk with DE and leaving the top layer untreated, natural enemies do not come into contact with the DE and survive, thus attacking the pests. (c) Long-term, constant exposure to large levels of inhaled dust during the DE processing and application may have adverse health issues [36,62,63]. This could be avoided by adopting safety measures, such as wearing proper personal protective equipment [64]. Slurry spraying limits the exposure of workers to DEs vs. dusting, but it is less effective against storage insects [65]. Collins and Cook [66] examined the effects of SilicoSec applied in dust and water-mixed (slurry) treatments against Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), after 7 days of exposure. Applying 10 g/m2 of dust resulted in 82–95% mortality, whereas applying the same dose in a slurry resulted in a 29–46% mortality rate only. The difference in effectiveness between some slurry and dust formulations is probably caused by water molecules filling the porous structure of the DEs, which reduces the quantity of insect lipids that can be absorbed from the epicuticle. As a result, death rates in some water-mixed applications are lower, compared to those of the dust applications [65]. However, there are some cases that had opposite results. For example, when Wakil et al. [67] examined the DE Protect-It against Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in dust and slurry form, the dust was more effective, but the slurry also resulted in high mortality rates.
The single applications of DEs have been well studied, both at the research and review level. However, there is a gap in review approaches linked with the impact of combinations of DEs with other insecticidal factors. Thus, we emphasized the recent international bibliography as follows: paired or multiple combinations of DEs with green insecticides (e.g., leaf and seed powders, essential oils, and extracts), entomopathogenic and plant fungi, chemical insecticides, and silica gel. Historic references covering the above issue are also summarized. Investigating the combined effectiveness of DEs with various factors exhibiting insecticidal properties could contribute to the reduction in their doses compared to single applications, and open new paths to the development of successful strategies against stored-product insects.

2. Combination of DEs with Other Agents for Sustainable Control of Stored-Product Insects

One main disadvantage of using DEs to protect stored grains is the reduction in bulk density of the commodities [9,68]. Reducing the dose of DEs could be a solution to minimize this negative effect, but such doses may not be reliable [9]. To overcome this issue, DEs can be combined with various other control agents/methods, such as chemical and botanical (e.g., plant extracts and essential oils) insecticides, silica gels, and entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) [32,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. The combinations are able to provide effective grain protection comparable to synthetic insecticide formulations [79], usually utilizing lower doses of both agents compared to those used individually [80,81,82]. There are also studies integrating DEs with more than one of the above agents [50,83].

2.1. DEs and Botanicals

Recognizing the need for safe, economical, and easy-to-use agents for insect control, plant parts or their derivatives have been used as traditional control measures for a long time [84]. Several botanicals have been tested against insects of stored products under laboratory conditions [85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93]. However, the requirement of high dose rates for a satisfactory level of control is one main limitation in the large-scale use of several botanicals [94,95,96,97]. However, at lower application rates, a satisfactory level of control cannot be achieved [98]. In addition, the application of essential oils (EOs) in large quantities may leave a persistent odor and give food an unpleasant flavor [99,100,101], but their efficacy may be reduced at low doses since some of the active ingredients may be lost to the environment [98,102], due to high levels of volatility [103].
Considering the limitations associated with the use of botanicals, there is a continuing need to find possible ways to increase the insecticidal efficacy of these compounds with reduced residues in the products [104]. The plant extracts, botanicals, and EOs used with DE formulations have shown promising results against insects in stored products since these combinations demonstrated synergistic and enhanced efficacy, while at the same time, this is an approach for the reduction in their application doses [9,49,51,97,105,106,107]. Several historical research efforts (the early 1980s to 2014) combining various botanicals with DEs against numerous stored-product insects, such as Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), are presented in Table 1.
DEs are slow-acting compounds; insects die after losing approx. 60% of their water content, and therefore, a certain time is needed for insects to die [9,108]. Adarkwah et al. [97] stated that the combination of the formulated DE Probe-A with leaf powder from Icacina oliviformis (Poir.) J.Raynal (Icacinales: Icacinaceae) at a dose rate of 10,000:20,000 ppm controlled adults of T. castaneum faster than the individual treatments of each agent (i.e., LT50 = 13 h for the combination vs. LT50 = 33 h for DE at 40,000 ppm and LT50 = 115 h for the leaf powder at 20,000 ppm). Similarly, the combined treatment of Probe-A + Moringa oleifera Lam. (Brassicales: Moringaceae) leaf powder at a rate 1:1 (% w/w) accelerated the control of S. granarius adults (LT50 = 13.4 h) in comparison to the individual application of DE (LT50 = 21.4 h at 2% wt/wt) and leaf powder (LT50 = 88.6 h at 1% w/w) [96]. In contrast, the combination of powders from the seeds of Trachyspermum ammi L., Cuminum cyminum L., and Foeniculum vulgare Miller (Apiales: Apiaceae), and powder from leaves of Satureja hortensis L. (Lamiales: Lamiaceae) with the Iranian DE exhibited antagonistic interaction against T. castaneum [98]. However, the EOs and ethanolic extracts of the above plant species showed synergistic activity with DE [97,109]. Yazdanian and Reihani [109] reported synergism between the DE formulation Sayan and the EO Myrtus communis L. (Myrtales: Myrtaceae). The authors also noted that the combination of DE at 1 and 1.5 g/kg grain with LC50 of the EO accelerated the mortality of S. granarius, killing 100% vs. 1.03% of the exposed beetles after a single treatment of DE at the highest dose (i.e., 1.5 g/kg grain) after 72 h (DE showed high mortality at >14 days). Such combinations enhance the efficacy and accelerate the action of DEs.
The efficacy of a mixture made of Ammoides verticillata (Desf.) Briq. (Apiales: Apiaceae) EO with the Algerian DE on Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) was evaluated by Bounouira et al. [110], concluding that the combination provided elevated mortality after 24 h (80%), compared to the DE single application (40% after 24 h). Mixing the LC50 concentration of Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad (Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae) EO with 8% (w/w) of DE caused 100% mortality of S. oryzae adults after 5 days of exposure [111]. This combination performed better at lower doses than the single treatments of each agent [111]. Pierattini et al. [106] investigated the synergistic effects of Pistacia lentiscus L. (Sapindales: Anacardiaceae), Ocimum basilicum L. (Lamiales: Lamiaceae), and Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (Apiales: Apiaceae) EOs under pair combinations with the DE SilicoSec against S. granarius. All tested EOs showed synergistic activity with DE and their effectiveness increased compared to single applications. Furthermore, O. basilicum EO was selected for the medium-scale trials, since it demonstrated good sensorial quality and high toxicity, providing increased protection of stored wheat for 240 d when co-applied with DE (i.e., 1.53 insects/kg wheat) vs. 4.6 and 8.6 insects/kg wheat for DE and O. basilicum EO, respectively [106]. Bianchi et al. [78] reported that co-treatment of O. basilicum EO and SilicoSec at half doses in wheat (65 mg/kg for DE and 65 µL/kg for EO vs. 130 mg/kg and 130 µL/kg for the individual application of DE and EO, respectively), showed adequate results against S. oryzae after 1 month (77.0% mortality), showing almost equal performance to DE alone at the double dose. These results indicate the potential incorporation of this combination in Integrating Pest Management (IPM) programs [78]. The increased toxicity of DEs with EOs may be due to the fact that EO release occurs gradually, achieving high persistence of volatiles through their absorption into DE particles [106]. Taking into account the above results, combining certain botanicals with DEs enhances their effectiveness and could be a sustainable alternative solution to chemical pesticides for protecting stored products from insects.
Table 1. Combined applications of botanicals with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
Table 1. Combined applications of botanicals with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
BotanicalDE FormulationTarget Insect SpeciesEfficacyReferences
Bitterbarkomycin (BBM)
Plant extract from the roots of
Celastrus angulatus Maxim.
(Celastrales: Celastraceae)
(Diatom, Canada)		DE, belonging to a fresh water DEs group
(Diatom, Canada)		C. ferrugineus, S. zeamais, and T. castaneum adultsIn all investigated exposure intervals, mortality of S. zeamais on BBM-trated wheat or the enhanced DE (DEBBM) was higher, compared to the mortality of the DE alone.
With a few exceptions, DEBBM resulted in a significantly higher mortality rate for T. castaneum vs. the single applications.
Among the three species examined, C. ferrugineus was the most susceptible; even at the lowest dose of DEBBM, mortality was 90% 5 days post-exposure.		Athanassiou et al. (2009) [112]
Cinnamaldehyde
Active constituent of Cinnamonum verum J. Presl (Laurales: Lauraceae) and eugenol originating from
Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merrill & Perry
(Myrtales: Myrtaceae)
(Karlsruhe, Germany)		Protect-It, and SilicoSec
(Suhlendorf, Germany)		C. maculatus and S. oryzae adultsCinnamaldehyde enhanced the efficacy of Protect-It against
C. maculatus.
Both botanicals enhanced the efficacy of the DEs against S. oryzae.		Islam et al. (2010) [80]
Allium sativum L.
(Asparagales: Amaryllidaceae), essential oil
(Guangdong, China)		DE (93% SiO2)
Saiwei brand (Guangdong Institute of Cereal Science) 		S. oryzae and T. castaneum eggs, larvae, and adultsThe combined treatment was more effective, even at low doses vs. single oil applications.
Compared to the single use of the essential oil, the combined treatments decreased the survival of eggs or larvae to the adult stage against both species, and their activity persisted longer, compared to the single use of the essential oil.		Yang et al. (2010) [113]
Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck (Sapindales: Rutaceae) essential oil
(Belpasso, Italy)		Protector
(Lombardy, Italy)		R. dominica adultsDE alone was more effective than DE combined with C. sinensis essential oil.Campolo et al. (2014) [114]
Carum copticum (L.) Benth. & Hook.f.
(Apiales: Apiaceae) powder and essential oil
(Mashhad, Iran)		DEs from Maragheh and Mamaghan, IranT. confusum and S. granarius adultsThe combination of the DEs with the essential oil proved to be synergistic, in contrast to the one with the powder, which was antagonistic.Ziaee et al. (2014) [115]

2.2. DEs with Entomopathogenic Fungi

Entomopathogens, such as fungi (EPF), have been widely investigated for the protection of stored commodities from various insect pests, under laboratory/field conditions, providing encouraging results [8,32,116,117,118,119,120]. EPF are valuable tools for biological insect control because they are environmentally safe, have exclusive activity against insects, and continue to multiply after the first inoculation [8,32]. However, there is an important factor that can be a barrier to the effectiveness of EPF against insects in storage facilities. Commodities are stored at low humidity levels to protect them from other fungi that affect their quality; thus, this arid environment can be unfavorable for some EPF strains [121,122]. The combination of EPF with DEs may be beneficial for the practical application of EPF in warehouses [8,71,123,124] since these agents appear to be complementary in terms of their optimal moisture conditions [123,125]. The synergistic effect between DEs and EPF is achieved due to the sharp edges of the DE particles rubbing against the insect’s cuticle, thus facilitating the EPF to penetrate the cuticle [8,125,126,127]. Since 2001, when Lord [127] first documented the synergy between an EPF and a DE, several studies have been conducted investigating the combined action of several DEs with EPF, such as Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo-Crivelli) Vuillemin, Isaria fumosorosea (Wize) Brown & Smith], Lecanicillium lecanii (Zimm.) Zare and W. Gams] (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae), and Metarhizium robertsii J.F. Bisch., Rehner & Humber, Metarhizium rileyi (Farl.) Kepler, S.A. Rehner & Humber (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) against stored-product insects, such as Bruchidius incarnatus (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae), Ephestia cautella (Walker) and E. kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), highlighting their superior efficacy over their single application (Table 2; up to 2014).
The combination of DEs and EPF has been also investigated using enhanced DEs. Recently, Wakil and Schmitt [119] reported a 6-month protection of stored wheat that had been treated with a combination of the enhanced DE DEBBM (150 ppm) and B. bassiana (3 × 1010 conidia/kg wheat). In the binary treatment, the minimum damage of grains was noted and fewer adults of C. ferrugineus, R. dominica, T. castaneum, and Liposcelis paeta Pearman (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae) survived than in the individual treatments of DE and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid [119]. The enhanced DE formulation, DEA at 50 ppm (DE + 0.25% abamectin), when combined with the fungal isolate WG-25 of B. bassiana (1.6 × 106 or 1.6 × 107 conidia/kg wheat) on wheat provided 100% mortality of T. castaneum larvae (60 d post-application) and adults (30 d post-application) vs. DE (80.7 and 81.3% for larvae and adults, respectively) and EPF (<61.3% and <69.32% for larvae and adults, respectively) [33]. Furthermore, their efficacy remained increased even after 4 months from the initial application (>70.0%) vs. each agent alone (<54.2%), whereas offspring was significantly lower in DEA + EPF treatments than the individual treatments [33]. Wakil et al. [70] examined the combination of DEA at a lower concentration than the previous study (i.e., 35 ppm) with B. bassiana (WG-13) or M. robertsii (WG-03) at 1.2 × 105 conidia/kg wheat, as well as their triple combination against T. castaneum (four populations) adults and larvae. Paired treatments proved more efficacious than single throughout the experimental period. However, the triple treatment outperformed the activity of the individual and paired treatments, providing >82% mortality (except for adults of Rawalpindi population, 78.72%) after 14 d, as well as 100% mortality in both life stages and all populations at 21 d. Furthermore, no offspring were observed in three of the four populations tested that were treated with DEA + B. bassiana+ M. robertsii [70]. The combination of Inert-PMS at 50 ppm, which is an enhanced DE, with B. bassiana at 1 × 107 conidia/mL revealed 100% mortality of T. castaneum and Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), after 15 d, outperforming the insecticidal activity of each component alone [128]. Moreover, this combination using the highest dose of DE (100 ppm) significantly reduced the progeny of both species after 50 d. The mixture of the DE Diafil 610 (400 ppm DE) with B. bassiana (1 × 108 conidia/kg wheat) provided considerable protection of wheat from T. castaneum after 21 d since 88.33% mortality was observed compared to 49.17% for DE and 31.67% for EPF, at the highest concentrations [129]. In addition, the progeny of T. castaneum was significantly decreased in the binary application than in the individual treatments [129]. Mixing the DE Diafil 610 with M. robertsii at the lowest concentrations killed all exposed L. peata after 14 d, whereas every single treatment exhibited 100% mortality after 21 d post-treatment [130]). The dual application of the enhanced DE, Grain-Guard (DE plus soap, piperonyl butoxide, and deltamethrin), with M. robertsii at low concentrations (i.e., 25 ppm + 1.7 × 104 conidia/kg wheat) outperformed their single treatments, providing >69% mortality of L. paeta and C. ferrugineus, 14 d post-exposure, while less than 15 L. paeta or C. ferrugineus adults emerged after 30 d [131]. The binary application of M. robertsii + DE (Hudson) at the respective LC50 concentrations (i.e., 0.5 × 106 conidia/mL for EPF and 486.5 mg/kg pistachio for DE) showed high efficacy against Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae over a 5 d interval, providing 75% mortality in comparison to <60% mortalities recorded in their single treatments [132]. Wakil et al. [133] reported enhanced activity of the combination of DE Protect-It and M. robertsii isolate WG-56 against R. dominica, T. castaneum, and T. granarium, providing adequate protection for a period of 120 days, exceeding the performance of each component alone.
The fungus Trichoderma harzianum Rifai (Hypocreales: Hypocreaceae) is used for the biocontrol of many pathogens in plants [50]. There are also a few reports of its insecticidal action on several insects of stored commodities [50,79,134,135,136]. Furthermore, research efforts revealed its increased effectiveness after mixing with DEs. For example, in the binary treatment of an Egyptian DE with T. harzianum, both elements at high concentrations (i.e., 800 mg/kg bean + 2.1 × 107 spores/kg bean) showed increased mortality (93.88%) against Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), after 7 d, and caused a 99.38% progeny reduction after two months vs. individual treatments [136]. The same DE-fungus combination provided complete mortality of Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) at lower dose rates (i.e., 500 mg/kg cowpea seeds + 1 × 107 spores/kg cowpea seeds) after 7 d, exceeding those caused by the single use of DE at 1000 mg/kg cowpea seeds (88.0%) and fungus 1 × 107 spores/kg cowpea seeds (76.4%), as well as reduced progeny by 85.7% after 45 d [137]. However, this combination was less toxic to C. maculatus since 100% mortality was achieved using the double dose of DE (i.e., 1000 mg/kg cowpea seeds) than that used for C. chinensis. Moreover, the binary application at the high dose resulted in the lowest weight loss of cowpeas after 45 d [137]. The success of the DEs + EPF combinations is probably due to the increased adhesion of the fungal conidia to the cuticle of the insect when DEs are present [6,8,123].
Table 2. Effect of treatment with combinations of EPF with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
Table 2. Effect of treatment with combinations of EPF with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
Fungus SpeciesDE FormulationTarget Insect SpeciesEfficacyReferences
Beauveria
bassiana		Protect-It
(Blaine, WA)		R. dominica adults and larvae, O. surinamensis adults, and C. ferrugineus adultsAt all species and stages, the combination outperformed the single applications.
Significantly higher mortalities were observed in all tested scenarios, at least in one mixture rate.		Lord (2001) [127]
Beauveria
bassiana		Protect-It
(Blaine, WA)		T. castaneum adults and larvaeThe DE improved the fungal efficacy against larvae at concentrations from 33 to 2700 mg conidia/kg grain.Akbar et al. (2004) [123]
Metarhizium robertsiiSilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany)		T. confusum larvaeLarval mortality was higher when 0.5 g of SilicoSec was added to the fungal preparation at the highest concentration (8×1010 conidia/kg commodities) than when the fungus was used alone or in conjunction with 0.2 g of SilicoSec.Michalaki et al. (2006) [138]
Metarhizium robertsiiSilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany)		S. oryzae, T. confusum, and R. dominica adultsFourteen days post-exposure, mortality rate for adults of R. dominica was 100% for the conidial suspension and 96% for the conidial powder at the combined treatments. Without DE, the corresponding percentages were 74.6% and 94.4%. Adult S. oryzae were less susceptible to the combined effects of conidial suspension and DE than to the DE alone. Conidial suspension, with or without DE, was less efficient against T. confusum than conidial powder.Kavallieratos et al. (2006) [116]
Beauveria
bassiana		DE from various deposits in Ingeniero Jacobacci (Rio Negro, Argentina)A. obtectus and S. oryzae adultsWhen DE was combined with B. bassiana powder, the mortality rate of S. oryzae was not significantly different. Complete mortality of A. obtectus was accomplished by DE alone or in combination with B. bassiana dry or wet formulations.Dal Bello et al. (2006) [139]
Isaria
fumosorosea		SilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany)		E. kuehniella larvae and T. confusum adults and larvaeWhen T. confusum larvae were exposed to wheat treated with the highest concentration of I. fumosorosea plus SilicoSec 14 days after exposure, mortality rate was substantially higher than that of I. fumosorosea or SilicoSec alone. Adult T. confusum mortality was low, not surpassing 34% at all tested treatments. Mortality of E. kuehniella larvae did not exceed 56%; however, SilicoSec alone resulted in a higher mortality rate than the other treatments.Michalaki et al. (2007) [140]
Beauveria
bassiana		Insecto
(Costa Mesa, USA)
SilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany)
PyriSec
(Münsingen, Germany)		S. granarius adultsThe combinations of B. bassiana with DEs led to higher mortality rates vs. those of the single applications.Athanassiou and Steenberg (2007) [141]
Beauveria
bassiana
and
Metarhizium robertsii		SilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany) and
Fossil shield
(Eiterfeld, Germany) 		R. dominica, T. castaneum, and S. oryzae adultsAll combinations (B. bassiana + Fossil shield, B. bassiana + SilicoSec, M. anisopliae + Fossil shield, M. anisopliae + SilicoSec) achieved significantly higher mortality rates of S. oryzae and R. dominica, compared to every single application. The same trend was observed for T. castaneum, with only the M. anisopliae + SilicoSec combination resulting in higher but not significant rates.Batta (2008) [125]
Metarhizium robertsiiProtect-It
(Ontario, Canada)		S. oryzae and R. dominica adultsThe highest mortality rates and the lowest progeny production numbers of both species were observed in conjunction with the DE and the highest fungal rate. Rhyzopertha dominica was more susceptible, compared to S. oryzae.Athanassiou et al. (2008) [142]
Beauveria
bassiana
and
Isaria
fumosorosea		DE containing 95% SiO2 (USA)S. oryzae and T. castaneum adultsFor both species, mortality rate was higher than that of any other treatment when both entomopathogenic fungi were combined with the higher dose of DE (500 ppm).Ramaswamy et al. (2009) [143]
Beauveria
bassiana		DEBBM
(Diatom, Canada)		R. dominica adultsCompared to applying DEBBM and B. bassiana alone, their combined use significantly increased the mortality of adults, particularly at longer exposure intervals and higher temperatures. High doses of B. bassiana plus DEBBM led to lower numbers of offspring production.Wakil et al. (2011) [144]
Beauveria
bassiana		Diafil 610
(Lompoc, CA, USA)		R. dominica adultsThe mortality rates of combined treatments were significantly higher compared to those of single applications.Riasat et al. (2011) [145]
Beauveria
bassiana,
Metarhzium
robertsii, and
Isaria
fumosorosea		Natural DE and three modifications by different mono-, di-, tri- valent metal hydroxides (MOH, M = Na, Ca, Al)E. kuehniella, P. interpunctella, and E. cautella larvae and adultsEffectiveness of entomopathogenic fungi was significantly increased in combination with Ca-DE and Na-DE.
Modified diatoms containing aluminium hydroxide (Al-DE) reduced the effectiveness of I. fumosorosea and M. robertsii against larvae of E. cautella. DE and Al-DE reduced the efficiency of I. fumosorosea against E. kuehniella larvae.
The combination of Na-DE and Ca-DE with the EPF significantly reduced the production of eggs, vs. control. Combining Ca-DE with B. bassiana significantly reduced the number of P. interpunctella eggs.		Sabbour et al. (2012) [118]
Isaria
fumosorosea		DEBBM
(Diatom, Canada)		R. dominica adultsWhen compared to I. fumosorosea alone, the DE alone suppressed the offspring production at a high dose (400 ppm). When both were used together, the production of R. dominica progeny was further decreased.
The combined application enhanced their respective effects and resulted in the greatest mortality at 56% relative humidity and 25 °C.		Riasat et al. (2013) [146]
Metarhzium
robertsii and
Beauveria
bassiana		SilicoSec
(Münsingen, Germany)		R. dominica, O. surinamensis, and T. castaneum adultsFor all the tested species, mortality rates in all combinations treatments were higher compared to those of single applications. The differences were significant only compared to the entomopathogenic fungi single applications.Shafighi et al. (2014) [147]
Metarhzium
rileyi
and
Lecanicilium
lecanii		Natural DE and three modifications by different mono-, di-, tri- valent metal hydroxides (MOH, M = Na, Ca, Al)B. incarnatus and R. dominica adultsDE combinations with EPF tend to show synergistic effects. Al-DE reduced the ability of M. rileyi to effectively control both species.Sabbour et al. (2014) [148]

2.3. Integration of DEs with Insecticides

Two major reasons to search for alternate methods for managing stored grain pests may include the emergence of insect resistance to fumigants and other traditional insecticides [149,150,151] as well as the drawbacks of the high doses of DE formulations [36]. An attractive way to address the aforementioned problem is to combine decreased doses of DEs with smaller doses of chemical insecticides than those used for single applications [32,152,153]. Several DE-insecticide combinations have been investigated against stored-product insects that surpass their individual applications. Early research efforts are listed in Table 3 (up to 2014).
The bacterial-based insecticide spinosad is registered as a protectant of grains at the label dose of 1 mg/kg grain [154] and has been tested for the management of several stored-product insects [155,156,157]. The combination of an Egyptian DE (1000 mg/kg wheat) with half the dose of spinosad (0.5 mg/kg wheat) significantly increased S. oryzae mortality throughout the experiment compared to the individual treatments, reaching 100% mortality after 21 d, while no progeny were observed after 90 d [79]. Furthermore, the above DE at a lower dose (i.e., 500 mg/kg cowpea seeds) when combined with spinosad (0.5 mg/kg cowpea seeds) killed 80.3% of the exposed C. maculatus and 91.3% of C. chinensis at 7 d [50]. In addition, the single application of the DE at 500 mg/kg cowpea seeds and spinosad at 0.5 mg/kg cowpea seeds resulted in 76.4 and 37.8% mortality for C. maculatus, respectively, and 78.7% and 42.9% for C. chinensis, respectively [50]. In the case of T. granarium larvae, the binary application of the aforementioned DE with abamectin and the pyrethroid deltamethrin caused sufficient mortality. Specifically, the paired DE (1000 mg/kg wheat) + abamectin (1.0 mg/kg wheat) provided higher larval mortality after 14 d (94.6%) and 21 d (95.7%) than the combination of DE + deltamethrin at the same dose rates, which killed 69.9% of the exposed larvae after 21 d [158]. Yet, both DE + insecticide treatments surpassed the individual applications of each component at the highest doses (i.e., 29.4, 38.6, and 83.2% for DE, deltamethrin, and abamectin, respectively) [159]. In contrast, Ali et al. [159] reported 100% mortality of T. granarium larvae in a shorter exposure period (i.e., 14 days) to the combination of abamectin (1 ppm) + DE (SilicoSec, 750 mg/kg wheat) at 35 °C and 55% RH vs. 95.7% after 21 d at 30 °C and 65% RH reported by Gad et al. [158]. This difference in the efficacy of abamectin with DEs in the above studies is related to the higher temperature and lower RH that favored their insecticidal activity [158,159]. This statement stands in accordance with earlier studies that examined DEs and insecticides against T. granarium, under different conditions [160,161]. Ali et al. [159] recorded also 100% mortality of T. granarium larvae treated with the combination of spinetoram (1 ppm) + SilicoSec (750 mg/kg wheat) at 35 °C and 55% RH, at 14 d post-exposure. Machekano et al. [162] reported the complementary activity of spinosad and deltamethrin with their respective combinations with Protect-It and Chemutsi (raw DE) achieving 100% mortality of S. zeamais and Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) adults after 14 d.
The simultaneous use of the pyrethroid lambda-cyhalothrin with the DE Protect-It against R. dominica, T. castaneum, and T. granarium was examined by Wakil et al. [133]. The combination was highly effective against the tested species, causing mortalities between 76.6 and 83.4% after 14 d, which were significantly higher than those caused by individual applications (32.2–57.2%). A significant reduction in offspring of DE + lambda-cyhalothrin treatments was also reported compared to DE and insecticide alone [133]. Imidacloprid (5.0 ppm), when combined with the enhanced DE, DEBBM (150 ppm), provided 5-month protection of stored wheat from five insect pests (i.e., C. ferrugineus, R. dominica, T. castaneum, and L. paeta) recording <15.3% grain damage, outperforming the singe treatment of DE and imidacloprid [119]. The combination of Protect-It at 150 ppm and imidacloprid at 1.25, 2.5, and 5 ppm resulted in C. ferrugineus, R. dominica, T. castaneum, and L, paeta higher mortalities, compared to DE or imidacloprid alone. Specifically, 150 ppm of the DE combined with 2.5 ppm of imidacloprid achieved a higher mortality rate (95.4%) of C. ferrugineus, 7 days post-exposure to treated wheat, compared to the results of the 2.5 and 5.0 ppm imidacloprid-treated wheat (78.3 and 92.1%, respectively) or DE at 150 ppm (58.1%) [32]. In addition, the combination of DE with the lower dose of imidacloprid (i.e., 1.25 ppm) led to 100% mortality (after 7 d of exposure) and 100% progeny suppression (after 30 d) of L. paeta [32]. The above combination at the highest concentrations (i.e., 150 ppm for Protect-It and 5 ppm for imidacloprid) proved to be the most potent among the treatments (paired and individuals) over 4 months, causing mortality ranging from 17.0 to 64.0% [163].
The binary applications of the organophosphorus pirimiphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos-methyl with an Egyptian DE revealed superior efficacy of chlorpyrifos-methyl + DE over pirimiphos-methyl + DE, because the first combination caused 100% mortality of T. granarium larvae after 14 d with lower concentrations of both agents (i.e., 5 ppm and 500 ppm for chlorpyrifos-methyl and DE, respectively), while the highest mortality rate provoked by the second combination was 82.6%, after 21 d with the highest concentrations (i.e., 10 ppm and 1000 ppm for pirimiphos-methyl and DE, respectively) [164]. It was also reported that both binary treatments exceeded the effectiveness of their individual applications (e.g., 29.4% for DE after 14 and 21 d at 1000 ppm, 83.6% for chlorpyrifos-methyl at 5 ppm, after 14 d, and 63.8% for pirimiphos-methyl at 10 ppm, after 21 d). In addition, chlorpyrifos-methyl + DE at all dose combinations provided 100% progeny reduction after 50 and 80 d, while for pirimiphos-methyl + DE, offspring reduction ranged from 62.6 to 93.5% after 50 days and from 97.0 to 99.2% after 80 d [164].
The insect growth regulator (IGR) lufenuron (0.75 ppm) when combined with the DE formulation Concern (750 ppm) against larvae of T. granarium resulted in 91.63% mortality after 21 d of exposure vs. 66.44 and 84.95% for individual applications of DE (750 ppm) and lufenuron (0.75 ppm), respectively [165]. Gad et al. [166] investigated the respective combinations of an Egyptian DE with two chitin synthesis inhibitors, hexaflumuron, and chlorfluazuron, at various concentration rates against C. maculatus and C. chinensis. DE + hexaflumuron demonstrated higher efficacy in both species than DE + chlorfluazuron, causing 100% mortality of C. maculatus at 500 mg/kg cowpea seeds (DE) + 2 mg/kg cowpea seeds (hexaflumuron) vs. 100% mortality at 1000 mg/kg cowpea seeds (DE) + 2 mg/kg cowpea seeds (chlorfluazuron), after 7 d. Concerning C. chinensis, the combined treatment of DE + hexaflumuron at the highest concentrations provided 100% mortality, while DE + chlorfluazuron did not exceed 97.4% [166].
All of the above examples of combined application of DEs with insecticides showed additive effects, possibly due to the abrasion of the insect cuticle after contact with DE particles, through which insecticide absorption into the insect body can be increased, leading to increased interaction between the insecticide and the target site [158,162].
Table 3. Combined applications of synthetic insecticides with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
Table 3. Combined applications of synthetic insecticides with DEs against various stored-product insect species.
InsecticideDE FormulationTarget Insect SpeciesEfficacyReferences
s-MethopreneProtect-It
(Blaine, WA)		R. dominica adultsThe positive interaction between the treatments caused significant adult mortality with no progeny emergence even at lower DE dose rates.Arthur [152]
Deltamethrin powderKeepdryS. zeamais adultsTreatments with the combination of deltamethrin powder and the DE, even in the lowest doses of both, led to significantly higher mortality rates of S. zeamais adults, compared to those with the DE alone.Ceruti and Lazzari [167]
Beta-cyfluthrin
(Alpha agrochemicals, Athens, Greece)		SilicoSec
(Biofa GmbH, Münsingen, Germany)		T. confusum and
S. oryzae adults		The combination of beta cyfluthrin and the DE caused significantly higher mortality rates of the two tested species, vs. the single application of DE.
Combination treatments led to significant reduction in the offspring production of S. oryzae and suppression for T. confusum offspring emergence, compared to the DE single application.		Athanassiou [105]
s-MethopreneProtect-It
(Blaine, WA)		R. dominica adultsAdult mortality, mean number of progeny emergence, and percentage kernel loss were evaluated under the combined effect of DE and s-methoprene treatment and the finding revealed a high-level additive effect between treatments.Chanbang et al. [168]
Thiamethoxam
(Syngenta Pakistan Limited, Karachi, Pakistan)		SilicoSec
(Biofa GmbH, Münsingen, Germany)		R. dominica adults from four different locations in PakistanThe combination of the two substances outperformed at both mortality and progeny bioassays, compared to the application of DE alone.Wakil et al. [153]

2.4. DEs with Synthetic Silica

DE effectiveness can be increased with the addition of silica gels [72,73,74]. Recently, adults of T. confusum suffered 100% mortality when subjected to Mamaghan—15% and Mamaghan—20% silica aerogel 400 ppm for 14 days, while 58.8, 56.5, 83.5%, and mortality when subjected to Mamaghan—10% silica aerogel 400 ppm, SilicoSec, and Protect-It, respectively. The exposure to Mamaghan—20% silica aerogel 400 ppm, led also to almost suppressed progeny production [72]. The highest insecticidal activity on treated surfaces (i.e., galvanized steel, concrete, and tiles) against T. confusum and R. dominica of the Mamaghan DE was observed when enhanced with 20% nanosilica made from the byproduct bagasse ash sugarcane, compared to single and 15% enhanced application [73]. Similar results were obtained by Saed et al. [74], when the aforementioned co-treatments were applied to wheat, causing 86.6 (DE + 15% nanosilica) and 88.2% (DE + 20% nanosilica) mortality of T. confusum and 95.4 (DE + 15% nanosilica) and 99.1% (DE + 20% nanosilica) mortality of R. dominica, after 14 d. However, there are several commercial DE formulations, such as DESgBait, Protect-It, Protector, Probe-A, and Fossil Shield, containing silica gel to enhance DE efficacy [2,72,73,95].

2.5. Multicombinations of DEs with Other Agents

Simultaneous combinations of DEs with other control agents (≥2) that exhibit variation in the mechanism of action have been investigated against stored-product insects in recent decades. Such combinations may provide sustainable management of insects in warehouses, taking advantage of the different modes of action of each agent, increasing their efficiency, and reducing dose rates and toxic residues in the products [50]. For instance, the quadruple combination of DE (2 g/kg wheat) + spinosad + B. bassiana + M. robertsii against S. oryzae revealed increased mortalities vs. application of each agent alone [83]. Triple application of Mamaghan DE (400 ppm) + silica aerogel (10%) + deltamethrin (0.1%) to wheat, caused 100% mortality of the exposed adults of T. confusum and R. dominica after 7 d and caused complete suppression of progeny of both species after 65 d [72].
Paponja et al. [51] constructed a formulation (N Form) based on the DE SilicoSec, enhanced with the botanicals Lavandula x intermedia Emeric ex Loisel. (Lamiales: Lamiaceae) EO, maize oil, and bay leaf powder, with silica gel and inactivated yeast. The formulation tested against S. oryzae, R. dominica, and T. castaneum on treated wheat and barley N Form demonstrated greater efficacy than DE alone, particularly on barley at the lowest dose, leading to higher mortality rates for all three insects. The highest progeny inhibition was observed in R. dominica, with 94.9% inhibition in wheat and 96.3% in barley, followed by S. oryzae (90.6% in wheat, 94.9% in barley) and T. castaneum (86.1% in wheat, 89.7% in barley), proposing that this combination could also provide long term protection.
The triple combination of DE (500 mg/kg cowpea seeds) + spinosad (0.5 mg/kg cowpea seeds) + T. harzianum (1 × 106 spores/kg cowpea seeds) exhibited higher insecticidal activity against C. chinensis and C. maculatus, significantly reducing the weight loss of cowpeas (i.e., <5.0% after 80 d) compared to their individual and paired applications [50]. Concretely, 100% mortality of both species was achieved with the triple combination after 7 d. Furthermore, 93.2 and 90.5% reduction in offspring were recorded for C. chinensis and C. maculatus after 80 d, respectively, while for the single and binary treatments, the reduction in progeny ranged from 11.3 to 68.9% for C. maculatus and from 5.9 to 65.7% for C. chinensis [50]. It becomes evident that the combination of two or more insecticidal agents with DEs improves the effectiveness, compared to the single applications. Thus, it is essential to further explore the alliance of available natural, biological, and chemical insecticides with DEs to optimize insect management in storage.

3. Conclusions

Environmental and safety concerns have directed investigators to look for alternative and sustainable measures to chemicals for the control of insect pests. The increasing pressure on seeking economically sound and ecologically safe grain protectants, turning the attention to safe (low toxicity to mammals and high efficiency of insecticidal activity without leaving hazardous residues on food or the environment [1,4]) natural substances with insecticidal properties, such as DEs. The real success of DEs deals with their adaptability by the farmers as a common practice in their storage facilities. Although DEs are being used in grain treatment at the field level in developed countries, there is a need to extend their utility in other regions, in developing countries. This could only be possible by overcoming the operational constraints of DE technology, e.g., product availability, and sensitivity of DE particles to high RH, that reduces their effectiveness. Further research in identifying the most effective DEs formulations along with the extension services teaching farmer’s community to accept these substances as safe and sustainable means of handling their stored commodities could overcome the barriers. This review revealed that the combination of DEs with other agents may provide reliable solutions when stored-product insects are targeted. Thus, new combinations of DEs with derivatives of plants that have recently exhibited elevated insecticidal properties, such as Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K. Jansen and Carlina acaulis L. (Asterales: Asteraceae) [169,170] or EPF isolates from different geographical locations exhibiting high virulence and new generation insecticides could create valuable sustainable management tools in storages. The essential cooperation among researchers, policymakers, and farmers adopting those novel practices in stored-product insect management could improve their impact.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.W. and N.G.K.; validation, W.W., M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; investigation, W.W., M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; resources, W.W. and N.G.K.; data curation, W.W., M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W., M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; writing—review and editing, W.W. and M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; visualization, W.W., M.C.B., N.G.K., D.L.S.G., A.S., and T.R.; supervision, W.W. and N.G.K.; project administration, W.W. and N.G.K.; funding acquisition, W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the grant No. Av4-128 awarded by Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Losic, D.; Korunic, Z. Diatomaceous Earth, a Natural Insecticide for Stored Grain Protection: Recent Progress and Perspectives. In Diatom Nanotechnology: Progress and Emerging Applications; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ziaee, M.; Ebadollahi, A.; Wakil, W. Integrating inert dusts with other technologies in stored products protection. Toxin Rev. 2021, 40, 404–419. [Google Scholar]
  3. Golob, P. Current status and future perspectives for inert dusts for control of stored product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1997, 33, 69–79. [Google Scholar]
  4. Subramanyam, B.; Roesli, R. Inert dusts. In Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 321–380. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kljajić, P.; Andrić, G.; Adamović, M.; Bodroža-Solarov, M.; Marković, M.; Perić, I. Laboratory assessment of insecticidal effectiveness of natural zeolite and diatomaceous earth formulations against three stored-product beetle pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2010, 46, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shah, M.A.; Khan, A.A. Use of diatomaceous earth for the management of stored-product pests. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2014, 60, 100–113. [Google Scholar]
  7. Korunic, Z.; Cenkowski, S.; Fields, P. Grain bulk density as affected by diatomaceous earth and application method. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1998, 13, 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  8. Batta, Y.A.; Kavallieratos, N.G. The use of entomopathogenic fungi for the control of stored-grain insects. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2018, 64, 77–87. [Google Scholar]
  9. Korunić, Z.; Liška, A.; Lucić, P.; Hamel, D.; Rozman, V. Evaluation of diatomaceous earth formulations enhanced with natural products against stored product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 86, 101565. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mortazavi, H.; Toprak, U.; Tütüncü, Ş.; Ormanoglu, N.; Ferizli, A.G. Surface application of diatomaceous earth, SilicoSec® is effective on Sitophilus granarius and Rhyzopertha dominica, but less against Tribolium confusum. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2024, 107, 102334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mortazavi, H.; Ferizli, A.G.; Toprak, U.; Tütüncü, Ş.; Emekci, M.; Ormanoğlu, N. Long-term efficacy of diatomaceous earth, SilicoSec® against three major stored grain insect pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2025, 111, 102531. [Google Scholar]
  12. Quarles, W.; Winn, P. Diatomaceous earth and stored product pests. IPM Pract. 1996, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  13. Reka, A.A.; Smirnov, P.V.; Belousov, P.; Durmishi, B.; Abbdesettar, L.; Aggrey, P.; Kabra Malpani, S.; Idrizi, H. Diatomaceous Earth: A Literature Review. J. Nat. Sci. Math. 2022, 7, 256–268. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nanayakkara, R.; Gunathilake, C.; Dassanayake, R. Suitability of reusing the spent diatomaceous earth in brick production: A review. Adv. Technol. 2022, 2, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Maher, S.; Kumeria, T.; Aw, M.S.; Losic, D. Diatom silica for biomedical applications: Recent progress and advances. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1800552. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ide, Y.; Matsukawa, Y. Fabrication of functional diatomaceous earth with enhanced papain enzyme adsorption. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2024, 701, 134888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Khraisheh, M.A.M.; Allen, S.J.; Ahmad, M.N. The removal of dyes from textile wastewater: A study of the physical characteristics and adsorption mechanisms of diatomaceous earth. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 69, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sriram, G.; Kigga, M.; Uthappa, U.T.; Rego, R.M.; Thendral, V.; Kumeria, T.; Jung, H.Y.; Kurkuri, M.D. Naturally available diatomite and their surface modification for the removal of hazardous dye and metal ions: A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020, 282, 102198. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  19. Smol, J.P.; Stoermer, E.F. The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 1–667. [Google Scholar]
  20. Elhaddad, E.; Abdel-Raouf, M.E.S. New model to eliminate salts from Sarir crude oil: A case study. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2013, 2, 1111–1116. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Li, C.; Monteiro, P.J. Green concrete containing diatomaceous earth and limestone: Workability, mechanical properties, and life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 662–679. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cuevas-González, P.F.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B.; Aguilar-Toalá, J.E.; Hall, F.G.; Urbizo-Reyes, U.C.; Liceaga, A.M.; Hernandez-Mendoza, A.; García, H.S. Protective role of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts as dietary carcinogen-binding agents—A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 160–180. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernandez, M.I.; Woodward, B.W.; Stromberg, B.E. Effect of diatomaceous earth as an anthelmintic treatment on internal parasites and feedlot performance of beef steers. Anim. Sci. 1998, 66, 635–641. [Google Scholar]
  24. McLean, B.; Frost, D.; Evans, E.; Clarke, A.; Griffiths, B. The inclusion of diatomaceous earth in the diets of grazing ruminants and its effect on gastrointestinal parasite burdens. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Organic Agriculture, Adelaide, Australia, 21–23 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sooby, J.; Landeck, J.; Lipson, M. 2007 National Organic Research Agenda: Outcomes from the Scientific Congress on Organic Agricultura Research (SCOAR); Organic Farming Research Foundation: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bernard, G.; Worku, M.; Ahmedna, M. The effects of diatomaceous earth on parasite-infected goats. Bull. Georgian Natl. Acad. Sci 2009, 3, 129–135. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kılıç, N. Efficacy of dust and wettable powder formulation of diatomaceous earth (Detech®) in the control of Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Acari: Acaridae). Insects 2022, 13, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ikusika, O.O.; Mpendulo, C.T.; Zindove, T.J.; Okoh, A.I. Effect of varying inclusion levels of fossil Shell flour on growth performance, water intake, digestibility, and N retention in Dohne-merino Wethers. Animals 2019, 9, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mthi, S.; Ikusika, O.O.; Washaya, S.; Mpendulo, C.T.; Nowers, C.B. Growth performance and nematode infestation in grazing lambs: Impact of diatomaceous earth. J. Anim. Health Prod. 2024, 12, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
  30. Machekano, H.; Mvumi, B.M.; Chinwada, P.; Kageler, S.J.; Rwafa, R. Evaluation of alternatives to synthetic pesticides under small-scale farmer-managed grain storage conditions. Crop Prot. 2019, 126, 104941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Plumier, B.; Zhao, Y.; Cook, S.; Ambrose, R.K. Adhesion of diatomaceous earth dusts on wheat and corn kernels. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 83, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wakil, W.; Schmitt, T.; Kavallieratos, N.G. Persistence and efficacy of enhanced diatomaceous earth, imidacloprid, and Beauveria bassiana against three coleopteran and one psocid stored-grain insects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 23459–23472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Riasat, T.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Rasool, K.G.; Husain, M.; Aldawood, A.S. Entomopathogenic fungus and enhanced diatomaceous earth: The sustainable lethal combination against Tribolium castaneum. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Allen, F. A natural earth that controls insects. Org. Gard. Farm. 1972, 19, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sharma, R.R.; Reddy, S.V.R.; Datta, S.C. Particle films and their applications in horticultural crops. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 116, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Korunic, Z. Overview of undesirable effects of using diatomaceous earths for direct mixing with grains. Pestic. Fitomed. 2016, 31, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Richardson, C.H.; Glover, L.H. Some effects of certain “inert” and toxic substances upon the twelve-spotted cucumber beetle, Diabrotica duodecimpunctata (Fab.). J. Econ. Entomol. 1932, 25, 1176–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Glenn, D.M.; Puterka, G.J. Particle films: A new technology for agriculture. In Horticultural Reviews; Janik, J., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shafer, G.D. How contact insecticides kill. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 1915, 21, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Losic, D.; Mitchell, J.G.; Voelcker, N.H. Diatomaceous lessons in nanotechnology and advanced materials. Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 2947–2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mewis, I.; Ulrich, C. Action of Amorphous Diatomaceous earths against different stages of stored Product Pests Tribolium confusum, Tenebrio molitor, Sitophilus granarius and Plodia interpunctella. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2001, 37, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vurro, M.; Miguel-Rojas, C.; Pérez-de-Luque, A. Safe nanotechnologies for increasing the effectiveness of environmentally friendly natural agrochemicals. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2403–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Audu, A.; Ibrahim, N.D. Evaluation of raw diatomaceous earth, leaf powders of Eucalyptus and Melia as toxicant and repellent against Callosobruchus subinnotatus (Pic.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Agric. Econ. Environ. Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 18–32. [Google Scholar]
  44. Subramanyam, B.; Swanson, C.L.; Madamanchi, N.; Norwood, S. Effectiveness of Insecto®, a new diatomaceous earth formulation in suppressing several stored grain insect species. In Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Canberra, Australia, 17–23 April 1994; Volume 2, pp. 650–659. [Google Scholar]
  45. Anastassiadou, M.; Arena, M.; Auteri, D.; Brancato, A.; Bura, L.; Carrasco Cabrera, L.; Chaideftou, E.; Chiusolo, A.; Marques, D.C. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance kieselgur (diatomaceous earth). Efsa J. 2020, 18, e06054. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Braga, F.M.; Barbosa, M.H.C.; Oliveira, E.S.A.; Sousa, I.D.P.; Santos, C.B.D.; Sampaio, R.A. Physical and chemical characterization of sewage sludge with different proportions of diatomaceous earth. Rev. Ceres 2020, 67, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Demirozer, O.; Bulus, I.Y.; Yanik, G.; Uzun, A.; Gosterit, A. Does diatomaceous earth (DE) cause mortality on Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris? J. Apic. Res. 2024, 63, 778–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, F.; Xing, Y.; Huang, M.; Li, K.L.; Yu, T.T.; Zhang, Y.X.; Losic, D. MnO2 nanostructures with three-dimensional (3D) morphology replicated from diatoms for high-performance supercapacitors. J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 7855. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Korunic, Z.; Mikeli, N.H. Evaluation of three novel diatomaceous earths against three stored grain bettle species wheat and maize. Crop Prot. 2015, 75, 32–138. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gad, H.A.; Al-Anany, M.S.; Atta, A.A.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Efficacy of low-dose combinations of diatomaceous earth, spinosad and Trichoderma harzianum for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus chinensis on stored cowpea seeds. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 91, 101778. [Google Scholar]
  51. Paponja, I.; Rozman, V.; Liška, A. Natural formulation based on diatomaceous earth and botanicals against stored product insects. Insects 2020, 11, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Romei, F.; Schilman, P.E. Diatomaceous earth as insecticide: Physiological and morphological evidence of its underlying mechanism. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 3301–3307. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sakka, M.K.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal effect of diatomaceous earth and pirimiphos-methyl against phosphine-susceptible and phosphine-resistant populations of two stored product beetle species. Environm. Sci. Poll. Res. 2021, 28, 33181–33191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Korunić, Z.; Rozman, V.; Liška, A.; Lucić, P. Laboratory tests on insecticidal effectiveness of disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, diatomaceous earth and amorphous silica gel against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and their effect on wheat bulk density. Poljopr. Agric. 2017, 23, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  55. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Chiriloaie, A.; Vassilakos, T.N.; Fatu, V.; Drosu, S.; Ciobanu, M.; Dudoiu, R. Insecticidal efficacy of natural diatomaceous earth deposits from Greece and Romania against four stored grain beetles: The effect of temperature and relative humidity. Bull. Insectol. 2016, 69, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bohinc, T.; Horvat, A.; Andrić, G.; Golić, M.P.; Kljajić, P.; Trdan, S. Comparison of three different wood ashes and diatomaceous earth in controlling the maize weevil under laboratory conditions. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 79, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Stathers, T.E.; Chigariro, J.; Mudiwa, M.; Mvumi, B.M.; Golob, P. Small-scale farmer perceptions of diatomaceous earth products as potential stored grain protectants in Zimbabwe. Crop Prot. 2003, 21, 1049–1060. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hamel, D.; Rozman, V.; Liška, A. Storage of cereals in warehouses with or without pesticides. Insects 2020, 11, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ziaee, M.; Atapour, M.; Marouf, A. Insecticidal efficacy of Iranian diatomaceous earths on adults of Oryzaephilus surinamensis. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 361–370. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ortega, J.E.C.; Ruvalcaba, L.P.; Alcaraz, T.D.J.V.; Liera, J.E.G.; Valdés, T.D.; Ortiz, L.D.C.O. Effectiveness of different doses of diatomaceous earth on Mexican bean weevil (Zabrotes subfasciatus Boheman) in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. OA Lib. J. 2016, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.E. Challenges in grain protection in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of diatomaceous earths. In Proceedings of the Food Africa-Internet-Based Forum, Online, 31 March–11 April 2003. [Google Scholar]
  62. Omura, T. Dynamic changes of protease inhibitors in workers exposed to diatomaceous earth dust. Averugi 1981, 30, 181. [Google Scholar]
  63. Akhoundi, M.; Bruel, C.; Izri, A. A harmful effects of bed bug-killing method of diatomaceous earth on human health. J. Insect Sci. 2019, 19, 5. [Google Scholar]
  64. van den Berg, H.; da Silva Bezerra, H.S.; Chanda, E.; Al-Eryani, S.; Nagpal, B.N.; Gasimov, E.; Velayudhan, R.; Yadav, R.S. Management of insecticides for use in disease vector control: A global survey. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 468. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ertürk, S.; Atay, T.; Toprak, U.; Alkan, M. The efficacy of different surface applications of wettable powder formulation of Detech® diatomaceous earth against the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 89, 101725. [Google Scholar]
  66. Collins, D.A.; Cook, D.A. Laboratory evaluation of diatomaceous earths, when applied as dry dust and slurries to wooden surfaces, against stored-product insect and mite pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2006, 42, 197–206. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wakil, W.; Ashfaq, M.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Riasat, T. Susceptibility of stored-product insects to enhanced diatomaceous earth. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2010, 46, 248–249. [Google Scholar]
  68. Liška, A.; Korunić, Z.; Rozman, V.; Halamić, J.; Galović, I.; Lucić, P.; Baličević, R. Efficacy of nine Croatian inert dusts against rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on wheat. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 485–494. [Google Scholar]
  69. Dal Bello, G.M.; Fusé, C.B.; Pedrini, N.; Padín, S.B. Insecticidal efficacy of Beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth and fenitrothion against Rhyzopertha dominica and Tribolium castaneum on stored wheat. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2018, 64, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Eleftheriadou, N.; Riasat, T.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Rasool, K.G.; Aldawood, A.S. The potential of two entomopathogenic fungi and enhanced diatomaceous earth mixed with abamectin: A comprehensive study on mortality, progeny production, application method, and surface application against Tribolium castaneum. Pathogens 2023, 12, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pourian, H.R.; Alizadeh, M. Diatomaceous earth low-lethal dose effects on the fitness of entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, against two coleopteran stored product pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 94, 101878. [Google Scholar]
  72. Delgarm, N.; Ziaee, M.; McLaughlin, A. Enhanced-efficacy Iranian diatomaceous earth for controlling two stored-product insect pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 504–510. [Google Scholar]
  73. Saed, B.; Ziaee, M.; Kiasat, A.; Jafari Nasab, M. Evaluation of Iranian diatomaceous earth in combination with nanosilica from sugarcane bagasse ash applied on three different storage surfaces against two insect pests of stored products. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 1747–1752. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saed, B.; Ziaee, M.; Kiasat, A.R.; Jafari Nasab, M. Preparation of nanosilica from sugarcane bagasse ash for enhanced insecticidal activity of diatomaceous earth against two stored-products insect pests. Toxin Rev. 2022, 41, 516–522. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tanveer, M.; Ejaz, S.; Zaka, S.M.; Batool, M.; e Zahra, T.; Saghir, M.; Saeed, Q. Toxicology of diatomaceous earth, phyto oils and their admixed emulsions against adults of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Toxicol. Rep. 2022, 9, 1172–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bachrouch, O.; Nefzi, H.; Belloumi, S.; Horchani-Naifer, K.; Sriti Eljazi, J.; Haoual Hamdi, S.; Msaada, K.; Labidi, J.; Abderrabba, M.; Mediouni Ben Jemaa, J. Insecticidal effects of two Tunisian diatomaceous earth loaded with Thymus capitatus (L.) Hoffmans and Links as an ecofriendly approach for stored coleopteran pest control. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2023, 33, 398–412. [Google Scholar]
  77. Saeed, Q.; Amir, W.; Batool, M.; Parvaiz, F.; Chen, T.; Ahmad, F. Eco-friendly control of rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in grain storage structures using diatomaceous earth admixed insecticides. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2023, 70, 1338–1347. [Google Scholar]
  78. Bianchi, A.; Farina, P.; Venturi, F.; Trusendi, F.; Flamini, G.; Ascrizzi, R.; Sarrocco, S.; Ortega-Andrade, S.; Echeverria, M.C.; Conti, B.; et al. Reduced doses of diatomaceous earth and basil essential oil on stored grain against the wheat-damaging Sitophilus oryzae: Influence on bread quality and sensory profile. Foods 2025, 14, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gad, H.A.; Al-Anany, M.S.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Enhancement the efficacy of spinosad for the control Sitophilus oryzae by combined application with diatomaceous earth and Trichoderma harzianum. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Islam, M.S.; Hasan, M.M.; Lei, C.; Mucha-Pelzer, T.; Mewis, I.; Ulrichs, C. Direct and admixture toxicity of diatomaceous earth and monoterpenoids against the storage pests Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bougherra-Nehaoua, H.H.; Bedini, S.; Cosci, F.; Flamini, G.; Belhamel, K.; Conti, B. Enhancing the insecticidal efficacy of inert dusts against stored food insect pest by the combined action with essential oils. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2015, 111, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  82. Atay, T.; Alkan, M.; Ertürk, S.; Toprak, U. Individual and combined effects of α-Pinene and a native diatomaceous earth product on control of stored product beetle pests. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2023, 26, 102149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zidan, N. Insecticidal efficacy of spinosad, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in combination with diatomaceous earth, for controlling Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infesting stored wheat. Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 2014, 49, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pavela, R.; Benelli, G. Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jood, S.; Kapoor, A.C.; Singh, R. Evaluation of some plant products against Trogoderma granarium everts in sorghum and their effects on nutritional composition and organoleptic characteristics. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1996, 32, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lale, N.E.S.; Abdulrahman, H.T. Evaluation of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) seed oil obtained by different methods and neem powder for the management of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored cowpea. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1999, 35, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fields, P.; Xie, Y.; Hou, X. Repellent effect of pea (Pisum sativum) fractions against stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2001, 37, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ogendo, J.O.; Deng, A.L.; Belmain, S.R.; Walker, D.J.; Musandus, A.A.O. Effect of insecticidal plant materials, Lantana camara L. and Tephrosia vogelii Hook on the quality parameters of stored maize grains. J. Food Technol. Afr. 2004, 9, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  89. Paul, U.V.; Lossini, J.S.; Edwards, P.J.; Hilbeck, A. Effectiveness of products from four locally grown plants for the management of Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) and Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored beans under laboratory and farm conditions in Northern Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2009, 45, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ilboudo, Z.; Dabiré, L.C.B.; Nébié, R.C.H.; Dicko, I.O.; Dugravot, S.; Cortesero, A.M.; Sanon, A. Biological activity and persistence of four essential oils towards the main pest of stored cowpeas, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2010, 46, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mao, L.; Henderson, G. Evaluation of potential use of nootkatone against maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) and rice weevil [S. oryzae (L.)] (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2010, 46, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Heshmati Afshar, F.; Maggi, F.; Iannarelli, R.; Cianfaglione, K.; Isman, M.B. Comparative toxicity of Helosciadium nodiflorum essential oils and combinations of their main constituents against the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 98, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Eleftheriadou, N.; Filintas, C.S.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Gidari, D.L.S.; Skourti, A.; Ntinokas, D.; Ferrati, M.; Spinozzi, E.; Petrelli, R.; et al. The potency of essential oils in combating stored-product pests: From nature to nemesis. Plants 2025, 14, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Obeng-Ofori, D. The use of botanicals by resource poor farmers in Africa and Asia for the protection of stored agricultural products. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2007, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Adarkwah, C.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Ulrichs, C.; Schöller, M. Insecticidal efficacy of botanical food by-products against selected stored-grain beetles by the combined action with modified diatomaceous earth. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2017, 124, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Adarkwah, C.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Hörmann, V.; Ulrichs, C.; Schöller, M. Bioefficacy of enhanced diatomaceous earth and botanical powders on the mortality and progeny production of Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) and Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in stored grain cereals. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2017, 37, 243–258. [Google Scholar]
  97. Khorrami, F.; Valizadegan, O.; Forouzan, M.; Soleymanzade, A. The antagonistic/synergistic effects of some medicinal plant essential oils, extracts and powders combined with Diatomaceous earth on red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Cloepotera: Tenebrionidae). Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2018, 51, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lee, B.H.; Annis, P.C.; Tumaalii, F.; Lee, S. The potential of 1,8-cineole as a fumigant for stored wheat. In Proceedings of the Australian Postharvest Technical Conference, Canberra, Australia, 25–27 June 2003. [Google Scholar]
  99. Sékou, M.K.; Charles, V.; Schmit, J.P.; Ramaswamy, S.; André, B. Effect of various essential oils on Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res 2000, 36, 355–364. [Google Scholar]
  100. Benkeblia, N. Antimicrobial activity of essential oil extracts of various onions (Allium cepa) and garlic (Allium sativum). LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 37, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lupu, C.; Delian, E.; CHIRA, L.; Chira, A. New insights into the multiple protective functions of diatomaceous earth during storage of agricultural products. Sci. Pap. Ser. A-Agron. 2018, 61, 487–496. [Google Scholar]
  102. Pierrard, G. Control of the cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus, at the farmer level in Senegal. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1986, 32, 197–200. [Google Scholar]
  103. Farina, P.; Ascrizzi, R.; Bedini, S.; Castagna, A.; Flamini, G.; Macaluso, M.; Mannucci, A.; Pieracci, Y.; Ranieri, A.; Sciampagna, M.C.; et al. Chitosan and essential oils combined for beef meat protection against the oviposition of Calliphora vomitoria, water loss, lipid peroxidation, and colour changes. Foods 2022, 11, 3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rajendran, S.; Sriranjini, V. Plant products as fumigants for stored-product insect control. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2008, 44, 126–135. [Google Scholar]
  105. Athanassiou, C.G. Influence of instar and commodity on insecticidal effect of two diatomaceous earth formulations against larvae of Ephestia kuehniella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 1905–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pierattini, E.C.; Bedini, S.; Venturi, F.; Ascrizzi, R.; Flamini, G.; Bocchino, R.; Girardi, J.; Giannotti, P.; Ferroni, G.; Conti, B. Sensory quality of essential oils and their synergistic effect with diatomaceous earth, for the control of stored grain insects. Insects 2019, 10, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fayemiro, S.S. Investigation of combined effect of three plant powders with diatomaceous earth against Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Agr. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 7, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ebeling, W. Sorptive dusts for pest control. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 1971, 16, 123–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Yazdanian, M.; Reihani, M. Chemical composition of myrtle essential oil and its insecticidal activity in combination with diatomaceous earth against adults of the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.). J. Plant Prot. Res. 2021, 35, 203–216. [Google Scholar]
  110. Bounouira, Y.; Gaouar Benyelles, N.; Senouci, H.; Benazzouz, F.Z.; Chaieb, I. The insecticidal activity of a formulation of Ammoides verticillata essential oil and diatomaceous earth on Sitophilus zeamais. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 2979–2985. [Google Scholar]
  111. El-Halim, A.; Hend, T.; Ayad, E.L.; El-Deeb, S.E. Efficiency of utilizing Citrullus colocynthis (L.) essential oil alone and when it mixed with diatomaceous earth against some stored products insect pests. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2023, 14, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Athanassiou, C.G.; Korunic, Z.; Vayias, B.J. Diatomaceous earths enhance the insecticidal effect of bitterbarkomycin against stored-grain insects. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 123–127. [Google Scholar]
  113. Yang, F.L.; Liang, G.W.; Xu, Y.J.; Lu, Y.Y.; Zeng, L. Diatomaceous earth enhances the toxicity of garlic, Allium sativum, essential oil against stored-product pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2010, 46, 118–123. [Google Scholar]
  114. Campolo, O.; Romeo, F.V.; Malacrinò, A.; Laudani, F.; Carpinteri, G.; Fabroni, S.; Rapisarda, P.; Palmeri, V. Effects of inert dusts applied alone and in combination with sweet orange essential oil against Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and wheat microbial population. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 61, 361–369. [Google Scholar]
  115. Ziaee, M.; Moharramipour, S.; Francikowski, J. The synergistic effects of Carum copticum essential oil on diatomaceous earth against Sitophilus granarius and Tribolium confusum. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2014, 17, 817–822. [Google Scholar]
  116. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Michalaki, M.P.; Batta, Y.A.; Rigatos, H.A.; Pashalidou, F.G.; Balotis, G.N.; Tomanović, Ž.; Vayias, B.J. Effect of the combined use of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschinkoff) Sorokin and diatomaceous earth for the control of three stored-product beetle species. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sabbour, M.M.; Abd El Aziz, S.E. Efficacy of some bioinsecticides against Bruchidius incarnatus (Boh.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation during storage. J Plant Prot Res 2010, 50, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  118. Sabbour, M.M.; Abd El Aziz, S.E.; Sherief, M.A. Efficacy of three entomopathogenic fungi alone or in combination with diatomaceous earth. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2012, 52, 359–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wakil, W.; Schmitt, T. Field trials on the efficacy of Beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth and Imidacloprid for the protection of wheat grains from four major stored grain insect pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2015, 64, 160–167. [Google Scholar]
  120. Sewify, G.H.; El Shabrawy, H.A.; Eweis, M.E.; Naroz, M.H. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium Anisopliae for controlling certain stored product insects. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2014, 24, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  121. Singh, C.B.; Fielke, J.M. Recent Developments in Stored Grain Sensors, Monitoring and Management Technology. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 2017, 20, 32–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Quesada-Moraga, E.; González-Mas, N.; Yousef-Yousef, M.; Garrido-Jurado, I.; Fernández-Bravo, M. Key role of environmental competence in successful use of entomopathogenic fungi in microbial pest control. J. Pest Sci. 2024, 97, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Akbar, W.; Lord, J.C.; Nechols, J.R.; Howard, R.W. Diatomaceous earth dusts increases the efficacy of Beauveria bassiana against Tribolium castaneum larvae and increases conidial attachment. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Khoobdel, M.; Pourian, H.R.; Alizadeh, M. Bio-efficacy of the indigenous entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana in conjunction with desiccant dust to control of coleopteran stored product pests. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 168, 107254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Batta, Y.A. Control of main stored-grain insects with new formulations of entomopathogenic fungi in diatomaceous earth dusts. Int. J. Food Eng. 2008, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Korunic, Z. ReviewDiatomaceous earths, a group of natural insecticides. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1998, 34, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lord, J.C. Desiccant dusts synergize the effect of Beauveria bassiana (Hyphomycetes: Moniliales) on stored grain beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yasin, M.; Khan, A.A.; Rubab, S.; Maqsood, S. Effect of the combined use of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and diatomaceous earth for the control of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Trogoderma granarium Everts. Pak. J. Zool. 2022, 56, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rizwan, M.; Atta, B.; Rizwan, M.; Sabir, A.M.; Shah, Z.U.; Hussain, M. Effect of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, combined with diatomaceous earth on the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Tenebrionidae: Coleoptera). Egypt J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ashraf, M.; Farooq, M.; Shakeel, M.; Din, N.; Hussain, S.; Saeed, N.; Shakeel, Q.; Rajput, N.A. Influence of entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, alone and in combination with diatomaceous earth and thiamethoxam on mortality, progeny production, mycosis, and sporulation of the stored grain insect pests. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 28165–28174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Saeed, N.; Wakil, W.; Farooq, M.; Shakeel, M.; Arain, M.S.; Shakeel, Q. Evaluating the combination of Metarhizium anisopliae and an enhanced form of diatomaceous earth (Grain-Guard) for the environmentally friendly control of stored grain pests. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Khezripour, F.; Mahdian, K.; Izadi, H. The effect of the Iranian strain of Metarhizium anisopliae applied alone and in combination with diatomaceous earth and kaolin against Plodia interpunctella. Pist. Health J. 2022, 5, 14–26. [Google Scholar]
  133. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Eleftheriadou, N.; Haider, S.A.; Qayyum, M.A.; Tahir, M.; Rasool, K.G.; Husain, M.; Aldawood, A.S. A winning formula: Sustainable control of three stored-product insects through paired combinations of entomopathogenic fungus, diatomaceous earth, and lambda-cyhalothrin. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 15364–15378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rodríguez-González, Á.; Casquero, P.A.; Suárez-Villanueva, V.; Carro-Huerga, G.; Álvarez-García, S.; Mayo-Prieto, S.; Lorenzana, A.; Cardoza, R.E.; Gutiérrez, S. Effect of trichodiene production by Trichoderma harzianum on Acanthoscelides obtectus. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 77, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rodríguez-González, Á.; Campelo, M.P.; Lorenzana, A.; Mayo-Prieto, A.; González-López, Ó.; Álvarez-García, S.; Gutiérrez, S.; Casquero, P.A. Spores of Trichoderma strains sprayed over Acanthoscelides obtectus and Phaseolus vulgaris L. beans: Effects in the biology of the bean weevil. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Gad, H.A.; Al-Anany, M.S.M.; mohamed Sameer, W.; Al-Anany, F.S.M. Control of Acanthoscelides obtectus with Trichoderma harzianum applied alone or in combination with diatomaceous earth on a stored common bean. Plant Prot. Sci. 2020, 56, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Abdelgaleil, S.A.; Gad, H.A.; Hamza, A.F.; Al-Anany, M.S. Insecticidal efficacy of two inert dusts and Trichoderma harzianum, applied alone or in combination, against Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus chinensis on stored cowpea seeds. Crop Prot. 2021, 146, 105656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Michalaki, M.P.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Batta, Y.A.; Balotis, G.N. Effectiveness of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschinkoff) Sorokin applied alone or in combination with diatomaceous earth against Tribolium confusum Du Val larvae: Influence of temperature, relative humidity and type of commodity. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Dal Bello, G.; Padín, S.; Juárez, P.; Pedrini, N.; De Giusto, M. Biocontrol of Acanthoscelides obtectus and Sitophilus oryzae with diatomaceous earth and Beauveria bassiana on stored grains. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2006, 16, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Michalaki, M.P.; Athanassiou, G.G.; Steenberg, T. Effect of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Wise) Brown and Smith (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) alone or in combination with diatomaceous earth against Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyrallidae). Biol. Control 2007, 40, 280–286. [Google Scholar]
  141. Athanassiou, C.G.; Steenberg, T. Insecticidal effect of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) in combination with three diatomaceous earth formulations against Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biol. Control 2007, 40, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Vayias, B.J.; Tsakiri, J.B.; Mikeli, N.H.; Meletsis, C.M.; Tomanović, Z. Persistence and efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) and diatomaceous earth against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) on wheat and maize. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 1303–1311. [Google Scholar]
  143. Ramaswamy, K.; Vijayarangan, N.; Krishnaiah, H.E. Insecticidal effect of Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus alone and in combination with diatomaceous earth against rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae) and red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum). J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 3, 637–642. [Google Scholar]
  144. Wakil, W.; Riasat, T.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Kwon, Y.J.; Shaheen, F.A. Aptness of Beauveria bassiana and enhanced diatomaceous earth (DEBBM) for control of Rhyzopertha dominica F. Entomol. Res. 2011, 41, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Riasat, T.; Wakil, W.; Ashfaq, M.; Sahi, S.T. Effect of Beauveria bassiana mixed with diatomaceous earth on mortality, mycosis and sporulation of Rhyzopertha dominica on stored wheat. Phytoparasitica 2011, 39, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Riasat, T.; Wakil, W.; Yasin, M.; Kwon, Y.J. Mixing of Isaria fumosorosea with enhanced diatomaceous earth and bitterbarkomycin for control of Rhyzopertha dominica. Entomol. Res. 2013, 43, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Shafighi, Y.; Ziaee, M.; Ghosta, Y. Diatomaceous earth used against insect pests, applied alone or in combination with Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2014, 54, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Sabbour, M.M.; Abd-El-Aziz, S.E.; Shadia, E. Control of Bruchidius incarnatus and Rhyzopertha dominica using two entomopathogenic fungi alone or in combination with modified diatomaceous earth. Elixir Entomol. 2014, 68, 22239–22242. [Google Scholar]
  149. Yao, J.; Chen, C.; Wu, H.; Chang, J.; Silver, K.; Campbell, J.F.; Arthur, F.H.; Zhu, K.Y. Differential susceptibilities of two closelyrelated stored product pests, the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) and the confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum), to five selected insecticides. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 84, 101524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Attia, M.A.; Wahba, T.F.; Shaarawy, N.; Moustafa, F.I.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Dewer, Y. Stored grain pest prevalence and insecticide resistance in Egyptian populations of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101611.
  151. Cui, K.; Zhang, L.; He, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, T.; Mu, W.; Lin, J.; Liu, F. Toxicological effects of the fungal volatile compound 1-octen-3-ol against the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Arthur, F.H. Evaluation of methoprence alone or in combination with diatomaceous earth to control Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) on stored wheat. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 485–498. [Google Scholar]
  153. Wakil, W.; Riasat, T.; Lord, J.C. Effects of combined thiamethoxam and diatomaceous earth on mortality and progeny production of four Pakistani populations of Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) on wheat, rice and maize. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 52, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  154. Hertlein, M.B.; Thompson, G.D.; Subramanyam, B.; Athanassiou, C.G. Spinosad: A new natural product for stored grain protection. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2011, 47, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Subramanyam, B. Performance of Spinosad as a Stored Grain Protectant. In Proceedings of the 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 15–18 October 2006; Campinas, I., Lorini, B., Bacaltchuk, H., Beckel, D., Deckers, E., Sundfeld, J.P., dos Santos, J.D., Biagi, J.C., Celaro, L.R., Faroni, L., et al., Eds.; Brazilian Post Harvest Association: Campinas, Brazil, 2006; pp. 250–257. [Google Scholar]
  156. Dissanayaka, D.M.S.; Sammani, A.M.P.; Wijayaratne, L.K.W. Residual efficacy of spinosad and spinetoram on traditional and new improved rice varieties on the mortality of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101643. [Google Scholar]
  157. Yasir, M.; Hasan, M.; Sagheer, M.; Rasul, A.; Ali, R.A.; Rehman, H. Evaluation of spinosad applied to grain commodities for the control of stored product insect pests. Sarhad J. Agric. 2021, 37, 24–31. [Google Scholar]
  158. Gad, H.A.; Al-Ayat, A.A.; Hassuba, M.M.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Effectiveness of binary combinations of abamectin and deltamethrin with two inert dusts for the management of Trogoderma granarium Everts on wheat grains. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 100, 102071. [Google Scholar]
  159. Ali, R.A.; Hasan, M.; Sagheer, M.; Sahi, S.T.; Rasul, A. Factors influencing the combined efficacy of microbial insecticides and inert dusts for the control of Trogoderma granarium. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 425–433. [Google Scholar]
  160. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Boukouvala, M.C. Efficacy of d-tetramethrin and acetamiprid for control of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) adults and larvae on concrete. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 80, 79–84. [Google Scholar]
  161. Ali, R.A.; Sagheer, M.; Sahi, S.T. Role of abiotic factors on the effectiveness of inert dusts for the control of Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 58, 529–537. [Google Scholar]
  162. Machekano, H.; Mvumi, B.M.; Chinwada, P.; Richardson-Kageler, S.J.; Rwafa, R. Efficacy of diatomaceous earths and their low-dose combinations with spinosad or deltamethrin against three beetle pests of stored-maize. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 72, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Ali, A.; Yaseen, T.; Asrar, M. Two are better than one: The combinations of Beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth, and indoxacarb as effective wheat protectants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 41864–41877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Atta, A.A.M.; Gad, H.A.; Al-Ayat, A.A.; Abdelgaleil, S.A.M. Evaluation of three organophosphorus insecticides alone and in combination with inert dusts for the control of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 102, 102104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Awais, M.; Zeeshan, M.; Mansoor-ul-Hasan; Sagheer, M.; Asif, M.U.; Ali, Q.; Zaman, S. Combined effect of diatomaceous earth and two insect growth regulators against Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Sci. Lett. 2020, 8, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  166. Gad, H.A.; Atta, A.A.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Effectiveness of diatomaceous earth combined with chlorfluazuron and hexaflumuron in the control of Callosobruchus maculatus and C. chinensis on stored cowpea seeds. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 97, 101985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ceruti, F.C.; Lazzari, S.M.N. Combination of diatomaceous earth and powder deltamethrin for insect control in stored corn. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2005, 49, 580–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Chanbang, Y.; Arthur, F.H.; Wilde, G.E.; Throne, J.E. Control of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) in stored rough rice through a combination of diatomaceous earth and varietal resistance. Insect Sci. 2008, 15, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Boukouvala, M.C.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Maggi, F.; Angeloni, S.; Ricciutelli, M.; Spinozzi, E.; Ferrati, M.; Petrelli, R.; Canale, A.; Benelli, G. Being exposed to Acmella oleracea-based insecticide extract reduces mobility and mating success in Prostaphanus truncatus, the major pest of maize in storages. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 104, 102151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Skourti, A.; Spinozzi, E.; Ferrati, M.; Petrelli, R.; Maggi, F.; Benelli, G. Carlina acaulis essential oil: A candidate product for agrochemical industry due to its pesticidal capacity. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 188, 115572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03316 g001aSustainability 17 03316 g001bSustainability 17 03316 g001c
Figure 1. Dead stored-product coleopteran insects after their exposure to the DE formulation Insecto for 24 h: Tenebrio molitor larva (a), Tenebrio molitor adult (b), Alphitobius diaperinus larva (c), Alphitobius diaperinus adult (d), Tribolium castaneum larva (e), Tribolium castaneum adult (f), Tribolium confusum larva (g), Tribolium confusum adult (h), Cryptolestes ferrugineus larva (i), Cryptolestes ferrugineus adult (j), Oryzaephilus surinamensis larva (k), Oryzaephilus surinamensis adult (l), Trogoderma granarium larva (m), Trogoderma granarium adult (n), Prostephanus truncatus adult (o), Rhyzopertha dominica adult (p), Sitophilus oryzae adult (q), and Sitophilus zeamais adult (r).
Figure 1. Dead stored-product coleopteran insects after their exposure to the DE formulation Insecto for 24 h: Tenebrio molitor larva (a), Tenebrio molitor adult (b), Alphitobius diaperinus larva (c), Alphitobius diaperinus adult (d), Tribolium castaneum larva (e), Tribolium castaneum adult (f), Tribolium confusum larva (g), Tribolium confusum adult (h), Cryptolestes ferrugineus larva (i), Cryptolestes ferrugineus adult (j), Oryzaephilus surinamensis larva (k), Oryzaephilus surinamensis adult (l), Trogoderma granarium larva (m), Trogoderma granarium adult (n), Prostephanus truncatus adult (o), Rhyzopertha dominica adult (p), Sitophilus oryzae adult (q), and Sitophilus zeamais adult (r).
Sustainability 17 03316 g001aSustainability 17 03316 g001bSustainability 17 03316 g001c
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wakil, W.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Gidari, D.L.S.; Skourti, A.; Riasat, T. Advances in Stored-Product Pest Management: Combined Effects of Diatomaceous Earths with Botanicals, Insecticides, Entomopathogenic/Plant Pathogenic Fungi, and Silica Gel. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083316

AMA Style

Wakil W, Boukouvala MC, Kavallieratos NG, Gidari DLS, Skourti A, Riasat T. Advances in Stored-Product Pest Management: Combined Effects of Diatomaceous Earths with Botanicals, Insecticides, Entomopathogenic/Plant Pathogenic Fungi, and Silica Gel. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083316

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wakil, Waqas, Maria C. Boukouvala, Nickolas G. Kavallieratos, Demeter Lorentha S. Gidari, Anna Skourti, and Tahira Riasat. 2025. "Advances in Stored-Product Pest Management: Combined Effects of Diatomaceous Earths with Botanicals, Insecticides, Entomopathogenic/Plant Pathogenic Fungi, and Silica Gel" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083316

APA Style

Wakil, W., Boukouvala, M. C., Kavallieratos, N. G., Gidari, D. L. S., Skourti, A., & Riasat, T. (2025). Advances in Stored-Product Pest Management: Combined Effects of Diatomaceous Earths with Botanicals, Insecticides, Entomopathogenic/Plant Pathogenic Fungi, and Silica Gel. Sustainability, 17(8), 3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083316

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop