Next Article in Journal
The Contribution of Molecular Biology to Forensic Entomology
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Salmonella enteritidis Infection and Mechanical Stress on Antimicrobial Peptide Expression in Hermetia illucens
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Acaricidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earths on Different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)

by
Maria C. Boukouvala
*,
Constantin S. Filintas
and
Nickolas G. Kavallieratos
Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Faculty of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos str., 11855 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2025, 16(7), 693; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16070693
Submission received: 19 May 2025 / Revised: 28 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 4 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Effects of Insecticides on Pests)

Simple Summary

The acaricidal efficacy of two diatomaceous earths (DEs), InsectoSec and Fossil Shield, was investigated against various developmental stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) on wheat at two dose rates. Both DEs demonstrated dose- and exposure-dependent efficacy against A. siro and T. putrescentiae at all developmental stages. Additionally, the immature stages of both species (i.e., larvae and nymphs) were more susceptible to DEs than adults. Tyrophagus putrescentiae was more sensitive to both DEs than A. siro. InsectoSec was more toxic compared to Fossil Shield.

Abstract

Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) are cosmopolitan mite species in food storage and processing environments, infesting a wide variety of commodities. In the current study, the diatomaceous earths (DEs) InsectoSec and Fossil Shield were evaluated for wheat protection against adults, larvae, and nymphs of A. siro and T. putrescentiae. Both DEs were examined at 200 and 500 ppm at 1, 2, and 5 days post-exposure. The efficacy of both formulations against A. siro and T. putrescentiae life stages depended on dose and exposure. Mortality of A. siro reached 100% in larvae, 99.3% in nymphs, and 95.6% in adults by day 5 at 500 ppm of InsectoSec. Similarly, Fossil Shield achieved almost complete larval mortality (99.3%) of A. siro at 500 ppm. For T. putrescentiae, 100% mortality was observed for larvae at both doses of InsectoSec and for adults or nymphs at 500 ppm by the fifth day. Fossil Shield caused a similar mortality to larvae, reaching 97.0% and 100%, at 200 and 500 ppm, respectively, after 5 days. Our findings indicate that InsectoSec and Fossil Shield can be used as sustainable management tools against A. siro and T. putrescentiae.

1. Introduction

Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) and Acarus siro L. (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) are among the most prevalent mite pests encountered in food storage and processing environments [1,2]. These species are cosmopolitan in distribution, infesting a broad range of commodities, including raw grains, grain by-products, legumes, oilseeds, flours, dairy products, dried or fresh vegetables and fruits, spices, and animal feed [2,3,4]. Their ability to exploit high-humidity conditions and organic-rich substrates make them especially problematic in poorly ventilated or inadequately maintained facilities [5]. Beyond direct feeding damage, infestations by these mites lead to significant quality degradation due to contamination with cast skins or fecal matter and the accumulation of allergens that can pose serious health risks to consumers and workers [6,7]. Moreover, T. putrescentiae and A. siro are known to favor the growth of several fungi species that are responsible for contamination of food with their mycotoxins [8]. Notably, T. putrescentiae has been observed to feed on various mycotoxin-producing fungi, including Fusarium guttiforme and Penicillium citrinum, as well as on other medically important species like Trichophyton mentagrophytes, facilitating their spread to new storage environments [7].
Stored-product mites of the family Acaridae are microscopic, making early detection difficult. Coupled with their rapid population growth under a wide range of environmental conditions, mites pose a significant threat to food preservation in storage facilities [5,9]. Their control exhibits considerable challenges due to their small size, rapid population growth, and resistance to conventional pesticides [5,10]. Given the increasing concern over chemical pesticide resistance and safety in food storages, there is a need for effective and environmentally friendly alternatives [11,12]. Diatomaceous earths (DEs) are fine dusts composed of the fossilized remains of diatoms, a vast group of unicellular eukaryotic algae that were especially prevalent during the Miocene and Eocene [13,14]. Presently, diatoms are commonly distributed in both freshwater and marine environments, except for hypersaline habitats [15]. These organisms are encased in a silica-rich outer shell, known as a frustule, that persists long after the organism has died and forms the basis of DE deposits [16,17]. For several years, inert materials such as DEs have been extensively studied for their potency in postharvest pest control and have been developed into commercially available products [18,19]. DEs are considered a generally safe material for mammals [20,21]. The mechanism of action of DEs is generally attributed to fine, sharp particles adhering to the insect cuticle, causing abrasion of the protective waxy layer, thereby disrupting the cuticle and leading to death through increased water loss [22].
Research efforts from the last decade evaluating the effectiveness of various commercial DE formulations against T. putrescentiae have demonstrated remarkably high mortality rates, even within a short exposure period (5 days). Notably, it was shown that even low doses of DE formulations on treated wheat can cause high mortality of T. putrescentiae, supporting their strong acaricidal potential [23]. A recent study by Mahmoud et al. [24] concluded that DEs exhibit strong acaricidal properties that increase with exposure and dose, in both laboratory and semi-field conditions, against a spectrum of detrimental mite species for agriculture. Furthermore, laboratory tests have shown that both dust and wettable powder formulations of DEs can procure complete mortality of storage mites within a day of exposure in controlled environmental conditions [25]. The commercial DE InsectoSec is primarily used as an acaricide for the control of Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer, 1778) (Mesostigmata: Dermanyssidae) on poultry farms [26,27]. Its efficacy has also been evaluated against various stored-product insect pests [26,27]. Fossil Shield is one other commercial DE product that has been previously tested for its effectiveness on cereal grains and pulses against storage beetles [26,27,28,29]. However, no data is available on their efficacy against T. putrescentiae and A. siro. The present study aimed to evaluate the acaricidal efficacy of InsectoSec and Fossil Shield against T. putrescentiae and A. siro under laboratory conditions. To better assess the potential of these commercially available DEs as grain protectants against notorious stored-product mites, experiments were conducted on wheat at various exposure intervals and life stages (adults, larvae, and nymphs).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mite Species

Colonies of T. putrescentiae and A. siro were initially established in 2004 using specimens collected from stored wheat in facilities across Greece. They have been continuously maintained under complete darkness, at 25 °C temperature, and 80% relative humidity (RH) in the Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology of the Agricultural University of Athens [30]. Both mite species were reared in plastic containers (200 mm × 120 mm × 60 mm). Tyrophagus putrescentiae was maintained on a diet consisting of bran, flour, and brewer’s yeast in a 40:10:1 weight ratio, while A. siro was cultured on a blend of oat flakes, wheat germ, and dried yeast extract at a 10:10:1 ratio. Individuals representing all life stages—larvae, nymphs, and adults—were selected for experimentation based on morphological traits. Specifically, adults were distinguished by their larger size and longer body setae, while larvae were identified by their smaller size and three pairs of legs [31].

2.2. DE Formulations

Two commercially available DE formulations were used in the experiments: InsectoSec (Protecta, Peristeri, Greece) is a product originating from marine waters containing 10% food-grade bait, 87% amorphous SiO2, ~3% Al2O3, 1% Fe2O3, and <1% CaO, MgO, TiO2, and P2O3. The particle size of InsectoSec is about 8.2 μm [27]. Fossil Shield 90.0 (Fossil Shield, Bein GmbH, Eiterfeld, Germany) contains 87% amorphous SiO2, 3% aerosol, 4.9% Al, 4.7% Fe, 1.3% K, 0.8% Ca, 0.8% Mg, and 0.3% Na. The particle size of Fossil Shield is 9.5 µm [27].

2.3. Grain Commodity

Pesticide-free hard wheat (Triticum durum Desf., var. Mexa) was used for the tests. The moisture content (m.c.) of the grain was standardized to 16%, as measured with a Mini GAC Plus moisture meter (Dickey-John Europe S.A.S., Colombes, France). Depending on the initial moisture level, the wheat was either dried in an oven at 50 °C or moistened with distilled water to reach the desired level, following the procedure outlined by [32].

2.4. Bioassays

Both formulations were evaluated at two concentrations, 200 and 500 ppm, which correspond to 0.2 and 0.5 g DE/kg wheat, respectively. For each treatment, 1 kg batches of wheat were placed into cylindrical glass containers and thoroughly mixed with each DE dose by shaking the jars manually for two minutes to ensure uniform coverage. An untreated 1 kg batch served as a control. From each treatment and control group, three samples (1 g) were collected using individual scoops (1 per jar) and transferred into small, inverted truncated conical plastic vials (measuring 3.5 cm across the top, 2.5 cm across the bottom, 3.9 cm in height, and 4.2 cm slant height). Each portion was weighed using a Precisa XB3200D compact balance (Alpha Analytical Instruments, Gerakas, Greece) on a fresh thin plastic layer for every sample. To provide adequate airflow, each vial was sealed off with a lid that had a central opening (1.5 cm in diameter) covered with gauze. The inside edge of each vial was coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (60% aqueous dispersion; Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany) to prevent mites from escaping. Fifteen individuals (i.e., larvae, nymphs, or adults) of either A. siro or T. putrescentiae were separately introduced into each vial. The vials were then placed in incubators maintained at 25 °C and 80% RH. This humidity level corresponds to the wheat moisture content of approximately 16%, as previously described [33,34]. Mite mortality was assessed after 1, 2, and 5 days of exposure using an Olympus SZX9 stereomicroscope (Bacacos S.A., Athens, Greece). The experiment followed a completely randomized block design, including three sub-replicates per treatment and three replicates overall, each involving freshly prepared wheat, new vials, and mite individuals.

2.5. Data Analysis

Since mortality in the control group remained below 5%, no adjustment was deemed necessary for the results. Before analysis, the data set was converted to log (x + 1) to obtain the standard variance of the data [35,36]. The data were analyzed using a repeated measures statistical model, with separate analyses performed for each mite species and developmental stage (larvae, nymphs, and adults) as described by Sall et al. [37]. The exposure intervals served as the repeated factor, while mortality rates was the response variable. The main effects considered in the model were the applied dose and the type of DE formulation, along with their interactions. All statistical procedures were carried out using JMP version 11 [38]. Mean comparisons were performed using the Tukey–Kramer HSD test at a significance level of 0.05 [39]. A two-tailed t-test with n-2 df and a significance level of 0.05 [40] was used to compare the two concentrations in each treatment for each life stage or species tested.

3. Results

3.1. Effectiveness of DEs Against A. siro

For A. siro larvae and adults, only the intercept and dose were significant, whereas for nymphs, the intercept, DE formulation, and dose were significant between exposure intervals (Table 1). Within the exposure intervals, exposure and exposure × dose were significant for all life stages of A. siro (Table 1). InsectoSec and Fossil Shield showed dose- and exposure-dependent efficacy against A. siro at all developmental stages. One day post-exposure, larval mortality was low for both formulations, reaching 32.6% at 500 ppm of InsectoSec (Table 2). On the second day of the experiments, moderate mortality was observed, ranging between 49.6 and 64.4%. At 5 days post-exposure, 100.0% mortality was recorded at 500 ppm of InsectoSec while almost complete mortality (99.3%) was observed in Fossil Shield at the same dose.
Nymphal mortality was slightly lower than larval mortality and slightly higher than adult mortality throughout the tests (Table 2). On the first day of observations, both DEs showed low mortality rates in both doses, ranging from 18.5 to 27.4%. After 2 days, a significant increase in mortality was recorded in all dose/formulation combinations, reaching 58.5%. At 5 days post-exposure, mortality increased significantly, with InsectoSec and Fossil Shield killing 99.3% and 92.6% of exposed nymphs, respectively, at 500 ppm.
Concerning the adult stage, mortality remained lower in comparison to both immature life stages (Table 2). On the first day of observations, both formulations provided low mortality, not exceeding 26.0%. One day later, mortality increased, reaching 53.3 and 54.8% in wheat treated with 500 ppm of Fossil Shield and InsectoSec, respectively. Five days post-exposure, mortality of both DEs and in both doses ranged from 80.7 to 95.6%.

3.2. Effectiveness of DEs Against T. putrescentiae

For larvae and adults of T. putrescentiae, intercept, DE formulation, and dose were significant, while for nymphs, intercept and dose were significant between exposure intervals (Table 1). Within exposure intervals, for all life stages of T. putrescentiae, exposure and exposure × dose were significant (Table 1). The efficacy of both DE formulations against T. putrescentiae developmental stages depended on both dose and exposure. One day after exposure, larval mortality remained low for both formulations, ranging from 24.4 to 34.8% (Table 3). One day later, mortality increased to moderate levels, not exceeding 63.7 and 66.7 in Fossil Shield and InsectoSec treatments, respectively. At 5 days post-exposure, complete mortality (100.0%) was recorded for both doses of InsectoSec and 500 ppm of Fossil Shield, while at 200 ppm, mortality was almost complete (97.0%).
Concerning T. putrescentiae nymphs, mortality was slightly higher than that of adults but lower than that of larvae during the experiment (Table 3). After 1 day of exposure, mortality was low at both formulations and doses, not exceeding 31.1%. On the second day of observations, mortality ranged at moderate levels between 44.4 and 62.2%. At the last day of the experiments, mortality increased notably in all tested combinations (dose/formulation), killing all exposed nymphs at 500 ppm of InsectoSec. Fossil Shield caused 97.0% mortality at 500 ppm, while at 200 ppm, mortality was 84.4% and 86.7% for Fossil Shield and InsectoSec, respectively.
Regarding T. putrescentiae adults, mortality remained lower than that observed for the larval and nymphal stages (Table 3). On the first day of the tests, both DEs resulted in low mortality rates, reaching 23.0 and 28.9%, in wheat treated with Fossil Shield and InsectoSec, respectively. On the second day, an increase in mortality was observed, ranging from 40.7 to 60.0%. After 5 days, complete (100%) mortality was recorded at 500 ppm of InsectoSec and 91.1% at the same dose rate of Fossil Shield, while at 200 ppm, mortality reached 83.7%.

4. Discussion

The development of alternative means in stored-product protection has included considerable research efforts about DEs the last decades. Several formulations of DEs are registered in different countries for application, at reduced doses, on durable grain commodities and on surfaces in empty storage facilities (silos and bins) to manage pests at the postharvest stage [41]. This study demonstrated that InsectoSec and Fossil Shield were effective against A. siro and T. putrescentiae, showing dose- and time-dependent mortality. After 5 days, both formulations caused substantial mortality across the tested life stages, especially at the highest dose. Furthermore, InsectoSec demonstrated higher efficacy against the mobile life stages of both mites than Fossil Shield. Regarding A. siro, InsectoSec led to complete larval mortality and >95% nymphal and adult mortality, while Fossil Shield was slightly less effective. Similarly, in T. putrescentiae, InsectoSec led to complete larval mortality at both tested doses, outperforming Fossil Shield, remaining effective but weaker than Fossil Shield at the lower dose. Adarkwah et al. [26,27] reported a similar trend in the efficacy of InsectoSec and Fossil Shield against the chrysomelid Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera) and the tenebrionid Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera). For instance, after 21 days of exposure, 87.8% mortality was reported at 500 ppm of Fossil Shield vs. 100% mortality at 500 ppm of InsectoSec against T. castaneum [27]. The pesticidal efficacy of DEs is influenced by several parameters, such as the geographical source of DE, the composition, and, most importantly, its physical and chemical properties, including particle size, shape, and silica concentration [41]. Smaller particle sizes (< 45 μm) enhance the efficacy of DE formulations against arthropod pests by promoting higher adherence and increased abrasion of the insect cuticle [42]. In addition, the particle shape and size of DEs influence their ability to absorb cuticular lipids and induce dehydration in arthropods [18]. Both formulations used in this study contain the same percentage of amorphous SiO2 (i.e., 87%), indicating that this characteristic did not affect their efficacy. The particle size of the tested DEs may have played a role in their effectiveness, since InsectoSec, which has a smaller mean particle size (8.2 μm), exhibited slightly higher efficacy than Fossil Shield (9.5 μm).
Although DEs are recognized as a valuable and safe tool for managing arthropod pests in storage environments, their application rate must be carefully considered due to potential negative effects on grain quality [43]. One of the main concerns associated with their use is related to the impact on bulk density [43]. The general consensus emerging from the literature is that DE formulations should not be applied at rates exceeding 1000 ppm [18,43]. This limit is considered a compromise between effectively controlling arthropod pests and maintaining grain quality. Notably, in this study, the DE concentrations applied were well below the commonly reported upper limit of 1000 ppm, yet proved to be highly effective, with almost complete mortality observed even at 200 ppm after 5 days of exposure (T. putrescentiae larvae exposed to InsectoSec). However, in most of the tested cases (mite species/life stage/DE/dose), exposure greater than 5 days is required. Similarly, Iatrou et al. [23] reported that more than 5 days of exposure is required to achieve 100% mortality of T. putrescentiae exposed to wheat treated with either PyriSec or SilicoSec at two doses (0.2 and 0.5 g DE/kg). Palyvos et al. [44] evaluated ≥500 ppm of SilicoSec and documented that adult mortality of T. putrescentiae increased depending on exposure and dose. For instance, at 500 ppm, complete mortality of T. putrescentiae adults was achieved after 7 days of exposure, while at 1000 and 2000 ppm, all exposed individuals were deceased within 48 hours [44].
Our findings suggest that while A. siro and T. putrescentiae are susceptible to DE exposure, the two species responded slightly differently. Notably, T. putrescentiae exhibited relatively higher overall mortality to InsectoSec and Fossil Shield than A. siro. A similar trend has been reported by Kavallieratos et al. [30] when both species were exposed to treated wheat with three zeolites. The variability in mite susceptibility to DEs has been previously documented. For instance, A. siro was found to be more susceptible to Diasecticide and SilicoSec than Lepidoglyphus destructor (Schrank) (Astigmata: Glycyphagidae) [45]. In contrast, Cook and Armitage [46] found that L. destructor was less susceptible to Dryacide than A. siro. According to Nesvorná and Hubert [47], L. destructor was the most susceptible to the Detia DE formulation, followed by A. siro and T. putrescentiae. Mahmoud et al. [24] noted a higher DE susceptibility of Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze & Robin) (Astigmata: Acaridae) than T. putrescentiae. The high susceptibility to DE was also observed when SilicoSec was evaluated against T. putrescentiae and the predatory mite Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans (Prostigmata: Cheyletidae), with the latter being more tolerant to DE [44]. The high survivability of the C. mallaccensis was attributed to the different structure of its cuticle compared to the soft-bodied T. putrescentiae [44]. Therefore, slight differences documented in our bioassays could be similarly attributed to species-specific cuticle composition and thickness. However, these differences could be a random variation; thus, generalizations should be avoided.
The long-term effects of DEs on population growth have been previously evaluated for three species of stored-product mites. DE treatments up to 250 ppm were shown to significantly suppress population expansion over 21 days, with sensitivity varying between species [47]. These findings suggest that even at low doses, DEs can exert a sustained inhibitory effect on mite reproduction and growth, despite not causing immediate mortality. In contrast, the present study, by evaluating the lethal effects of DE exposure over a shorter exposure period (5 days), did show complete mortality in many cases. This comparison highlights the dual potential for both rapid control and long-term population management, depending on the duration of exposure and dosage. Interestingly, the results of the current research revealed clear differences in susceptibility to InsectoSec and Fossil Shield across life stages of A. siro and T. putrescentiae, with larvae generally exhibiting higher mortality rates, followed by nymphs and adults. Similarly, the immatures of T. putrescentiae and R. echinopus were more sensitive to DEs than adults [23,24]. A possible explanation of the differences in susceptibility among the life stages of the species examined here may be the variations in cuticle thickness and composition among developmental stages. Thus, this response observed in larvae suggests that targeting early developmental stages of mites may enhance the success of DE when incorporated in pest management strategies.
The climatic conditions play an important role in the survival of A. siro and T. putrescentiae [48,49]. Although the experiment of this study was conducted under less suitable abiotic conditions of temperature and RH for long storage periods, they are common in tropical and subtropical regions [50]. Furthermore, elevated temperature and moisture conditions in hot areas within storages favor the development of mites even when the open-air conditions are unfavorable for their growth [51]. Therefore, control measures of mites should include insecticidal treatments in combination with monitoring of temperature/RH in variable points of the facility and in the grain mass, regulation of humidity, improved sanitation, and cooling [52].

5. Conclusions

The tested DE formulations are highly promising non-chemical alternative means to protect stored wheat from A. siro and T. putrescentiae infestations. Their high efficacy, combined with a favorable safety profile for both humans and the environment, supports the integration of the commercially available DEs InsectoSec and Fossil Shield into the sustainable management of noxious mites of stored grains. Although it is well-established that various biotic and abiotic factors influence the efficacy of DEs, there is a need for further scientific investigation about their meticulous application against stored-product mites. For example, both tested DEs were effective in elevated temperature, RH, and moisture content conditions. Whether their performance is altered in reduced abiotic conditions that support the growth of mites remains to be investigated. The optimization of DE application strategies is crucial to maximize their potential as reliable tools in grain protection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.B. and N.G.K.; methodology, M.C.B. and N.G.K.; software, M.C.B.; validation, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; formal analysis, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; investigation, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; resources, N.G.K.; data curation, M.C.B. and C.S.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; writing—review and editing, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; visualization, M.C.B., N.G.K. and C.S.F.; supervision, M.C.B.; project administration, N.G.K.; funding acquisition, N.G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was in part supported by the Special Account of Research, Agricultural University of Athens (80375).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Lia Reka (Protecta, Peristeri, Greece) for providing us the diatomaceous earth InsectoSec to conduct our experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviation

The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:
DEdiatomaceous earth

References

  1. Klimov, P.B.; OConnor, B.M. Conservation of the name Tyrophagus putrescentiae, a medically and economically important mite species (Acari: Acaridae). Int. J. Acarol. 2009, 35, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malik, A.; Gulati, R.; Duhan, K.; Poonia, A. Tyrophagus Putrescentiae (Schrank) (Acari: Acaridae) as a pest of grains: A review. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 2543–2550. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hubert, J.; Mûnzbergova, Z.; Kučerová, Z.; Stejskal, V. Comparison of communities of stored product mites in grain mass and grain residues in the Czech Republic. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2006, 39, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hagstrum, D.W.; Klejdysz, T.; Subramanyam, B.H.; Nawrot, J. Atlas of Stored-Product Insects and Mites; AACC International: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Collins, D.A. A review on the factors affecting mite growth in stored grain commodities. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2012, 56, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vogel, P.; Liberato da Silva, G.; Esswein, I.Z.; Dallazen, M.C.; Heidrich, D.; Pagani, D.M.; Hoehne, L.; Scroferneker, M.L.; Valente, P.; Ferla, N.J. Effects of infestations of the storage mite Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Acaridae) on the presence of fungal species and mycotoxin production in stored products. J. Stored Prod. Res 2021, 94, 101883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Da Silva, G.L.; Esswein, I.Z.; Heidrich, D.; Dresch, F.; Maciel, M.J.; Pagani, D.M.; Valente, P.; Scroferneker, M.L.; Johann, L.; Ferla, N.J.; et al. Population growth of the stored product pest Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Acari: Acaridae) on environmentally and medically important fungi. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 78, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hubert, J.; Nesvorná, M.; Hujslová, M.; Stará, J.; Hajšlová, J.; Stejskal, V. Acarus siro and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Acari: Acarididae) transfer of Fusarium culmorum into germinated barley increases mycotoxin deoxynivalenol content in barley under laboratory conditions. Int. J. Acarol. 2013, 39, 235–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hubert, J. The Pest Importance of Stored Product Mites (Acari: Acaridida); Nova Science Publishers Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamel, D.; Rozman, V.; Liska, A. Storage of cereals in warehouses with or without pesticides. Insects 2020, 11, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nayak, M.K.; Daglish, G.J.; Phillips, T.W. Managing resistance to chemical treatments in stored products pests. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2015, 11, 3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hubert, J.; Nesvorná, M.; Bostlova, M.; Sopko, B.; Green, S.J.; Phillips, T.W. The effect of residual pesticide application on microbiomes of the storage mite Tyrophagus putrescentiae. Microb. Ecol. 2023, 85, 1527–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sims, P.A.; Mann, D.G.; Medlin, L.K. Evolution of the diatoms: Insights from fossil, biological and molecular data. Phycologia 2006, 45, 361–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. 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] [CrossRef]
  15. Malviya, S.; Scalco, E.; Audic, S.; Vincent, F.; Veluchamy, A.; Poulain, J.; Wincker, P.; Iudicone, D.; de Vargas, C.; Bittner, L.; et al. Insights into global diatom distribution and diversity in the world’s ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E1516–E1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Tommasi, E.; Gielis, J.; Rogato, A. Diatom frustule morphogenesis and function: A multidisciplinary survey. Mar. Genom. 2017, 35, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maher, S.; Kumeria, T.; Aw, M.S.; Losic, D. Diatom Silica for Biomedical Applications: Recent Progress and Advances. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, e1800552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Subramanyam, B.; Roesli, R. Inert dusts. In Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 321–380. [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. Akhoundi, M.; Bruel, C.; Izri, A. Harmful effects of bed bug-killing method of diatomaceous earth on human health. J. Insect Sci. 2019, 19, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iatrou, S.A.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Palyvos, N.E.; Buchelos, C.T.; Tomanović, S. Acaricidal effect of different diatomaceous earth formulations against Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Astigmata: Acaridae) on stored wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mahmoud, R.H.; Abdel-Khalik, A.R.; Kassem, E.M. Efficacy of diatomaceous earth and sulfur on some mites under laboratory and semi–field conditions. Persian J. Acarol. 2024, 13, 829–839. [Google Scholar]
  25. 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] [PubMed]
  26. Adarkwah, C.; Adjei, R.R.; Anankware, J.P.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Ulrichs, C.; Schöller, M. Bio-insecticidal effectiveness of three formulations of diatomaceous earths against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in stored cowpea. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2021, 128, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Adarkwah, C.; Tuda, M.; Adjei, R.R.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Ulrichs, C.; Schöller, M. Evaluation of three German enhanced diatomaceous earth formulations for the management of two major storage pests in Ghana. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 96, 101947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mewis, I.; Ulrichs, C. Action of amorphous diatomaceous earth against different stages of the stored product pests Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2001, 37, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Kosini, D.; Adamou, M.; Tchindebe, G.; Goudoungou, J.W.; Fotso, T.G.; Moukhtar, M.; Nukenine, E.N. Insecticidal potential of diatomaceous earth against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) infesting stored cowpea, Bambara groundnut and soybean in the Sudano-Guinean climatic conditions of Cameroon. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2025, 111, 102533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Rumbos, C.I. Acaricidal effect of three zeolite formulations on different life stages of Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) and Acarus siro L. (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 78, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hughes, A.M. The Mites of Stored Food and Houses; Technical Bulletin 9; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Arthur, F.H.; Throne, J.E. Lesser grain borers, Rhyzopertha dominica, select rough rice kernels with cracked hulls for reproduction. J. Insect Sci. 2012, 12, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pixton, S.W. Moisture content-its significance and measurement in stored products. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1967, 3, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pixton, S.W.; Warburton, S. Moisture content/relative humidity equilibrium of some cereal grains at different temperatures. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1971, 6, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis; Pearson Education Limited: Essex, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Scheff, D.S.; Arthur, F.H. Fecundity of Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum adults after exposure to deltamethrin packaging. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sall, J.; Lehman, A.; Creighton, L. JMP Start Statistics: A Guide to Statistics and Data Analysis Using JMP and JMP IN Software; Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  38. SAS Institute Inc. Using JMP 16.2; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research; Freeman & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  40. Snedecor, G.W.; Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods, 8th ed.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  41. Losic, D.; Korunic, Z. Diatomaceous earth, a natural insecticide for stored grain protection: Recent progress and perspectives. In Diatom Nanotechnology: Progress and Emerging Applications; Losic, D., Ed.; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2018; pp. 219–247. [Google Scholar]
  42. Korunić, Z.; Rozman, V.; Halamić, J.; Kalinović, I.; Hamel, D. Insecticide potential of diatomaceous earth from Croatia. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2011, 69, 389–397. [Google Scholar]
  43. Korunić, Z. Overview of undesirable effects of using diatomaceous earths for direct mixing with grains. Pestic. Fitomed. 2016, 31, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Palyvos, N.E.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G. Acaricidal effect of a diatomaceous earth formulation against Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Astigmata: Acaridae) and its predator Cheyletus malaccensis (Prostigmata: Cheyletidae) in four grain commodities. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Collins, D.A.; Cook, D.A. Laboratory studies evaluating the efficacy of diatomaceous earths, on treated surfaces, against stored-product insect and mite pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2006, 42, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cook, D.A.; Armitage, D.M. Efficacy of a diatomaceous earth against mite and insect populations in small beans of wheat under conditions of low temperature and high humidity. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 591–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nesvorna, M.; Hubert, J. Effect of diatomaceous earth-treated wheat on population growth of stored product mites under laboratory test. Int. J. Acarol. 2014, 40, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sánchez-Ramos, I.; Castañera, P. Development and survival of Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Acari: Acaridae) at constant temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 1082–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hubert, J.; Pekár, S.; Aulický, R.; Nesvorná, M.; Stejskal, V. The effect of stored barley cultivars, temperature and humidity on population increase of Acarus siro, Lepidoglyphus destructor and Tyrophagus putrescentiae. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2013, 60, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gebregergis, Z.; Baraki, F.; Fiseseha, D. Effects of environmental factors and storage periods on sesame seed quality and longevity. CAB Agric. Biosci. 2024, 5, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jian, F.; Jayas, D.S. The ecosystem approach to grain storage. Agric. Res. 2012, 1, 146–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Edde, P.A.; Eaton, M.; Kells, S.A.; Phillips, T.W. Biology, behavior, and ecology of pests in other durable commodities. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 45–62. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. MANOVA parameters presenting the main effects and their interactions leading to the observed mortalities of Acarus siro and Tyrophagus putrescentiae larvae, nymphs, and adults, between and within exposure intervals (error df = 32 for all species and developmental stages).
Table 1. MANOVA parameters presenting the main effects and their interactions leading to the observed mortalities of Acarus siro and Tyrophagus putrescentiae larvae, nymphs, and adults, between and within exposure intervals (error df = 32 for all species and developmental stages).
Source A. siroT. putrescentiae
LarvaeNymphsAdultsLarvaeNymphsAdults
dfFpFpFpFpFpFp
All between
Intercept139,950.4<0.0121,886.7<0.0116,451.4<0.0170,870.4<0.0130,232.1<0.0128,633.6<0.01
DE formulation13.90.064.40.041.40.255.40.033.40.086.20.02
Dose117.60.0113.90.0117.80.0124.3<0.0124.7<0.0134.9<0.01
DE formulation × dose10.10.880.10.870.20.650.10.950.10.950.10.72
Within interactions
Exposure2483.7<0.01602.2<0.01579.8<0.01808.9<0.011186.2<0.01592.8<0.01
Exposure × DE formulation21.30.282.00.150.80.471.70.202.80.081.00.39
Exposure × dose27.90.014.10.034.30.0212.40.016.80.018.00.01
Exposure × DE formulation × dose20.10.912.20.123.20.060.80.451.30.291.10.34
Table 2. Mean (% ± SE) mortality of A. siro larvae, nymphs, and adults on wheat treated with two DE formulations (InsectoSec and Fossil Shield) at two dose rates (200 and 500 ppm) and three intervals (1, 2, and 5 days). Within each column, no significant differences were observed in the means with the same lowercase letters (df = 5, 53 Tukey HSD test at p < 0.05). For each exposure, within each developmental stage, asterisks indicate significant differences (df = 16; two-tailed t-test at p = 0.05). Where no asterisks exist, no significant differences were recorded.
Table 2. Mean (% ± SE) mortality of A. siro larvae, nymphs, and adults on wheat treated with two DE formulations (InsectoSec and Fossil Shield) at two dose rates (200 and 500 ppm) and three intervals (1, 2, and 5 days). Within each column, no significant differences were observed in the means with the same lowercase letters (df = 5, 53 Tukey HSD test at p < 0.05). For each exposure, within each developmental stage, asterisks indicate significant differences (df = 16; two-tailed t-test at p = 0.05). Where no asterisks exist, no significant differences were recorded.
StageLarvae Nymphs Adults
Dose200 ppm500 ppm 200 ppm500 ppm 200 ppm500 ppm
DEExposure tp tp tp
InsectoSec1 day25.2 ± 2.2 c32.6 ± 1.3 c *2.70.0221.5 ± 1.5 c27.4 ± 1.7 c *2.50.0216.3 ± 1.6 c25.9 ± 2.8 c *2.80.01
2 days52.6 ± 2.1 b64.4 ± 1.1 b *4.60.0147.4 ± 2.1 b58.5 ± 2.4 b *3.40.0142.2 ± 2.2 b54.8 ± 3.8 b *2.70.01
5 days96.3 ± 2.3 a100.0 ± 0.0 a1.60.1384.4 ± 2.5 a99.3 ± 0.7 a *5.4<0.0181.5 ± 2.4 a95.6 ± 2.2 a *4.20.01
Fossil Shield1 days22.2 ± 2.2 c27.4 ± 2.1 c1.50.1418.5 ± 2.2 c22.2 ± 2.2 c1.20.2715.6 ± 1.6 c20.7 ± 2.1 c2.00.06
2 days49.6 ± 1.6 b61.5 ± 3.1 b *3.20.0142.2 ± 2.2 b56.3 ± 3.7 b *3.00.0139.3 ± 2.1 b53.3 ± 3.7 b *3.30.01
5 days93.3 ± 1.6 a99.3 ± 0.7 a *3.40.0183.7 ± 3.5 a92.6 ± 2.6 a2.20.0680.7 ± 3.4 a89.6 ± 2.3 a *2.10.05
F98.2135.6 102.097.1 141.665.5
p<0.01<0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01<0.01
Table 3. Mean (% ± SE) mortality of T. putrescentiae larvae, nymphs, and adults on wheat treated with two DE formulations (InsectoSec and Fossil Shield) at two dose rates (200 and 500 ppm) and three intervals (1, 2, and 5 days). Within each column, no significant differences were observed in the means with the same lowercase letters (df = 5, 53 Tukey HSD test at p < 0.05). For each exposure, within each developmental stage, asterisks indicate significant differences (df = 16; two-tailed t-test at p = 0.05). Where no asterisks exist, no significant differences were recorded. No statistical analysis was carried out where dashes exist.
Table 3. Mean (% ± SE) mortality of T. putrescentiae larvae, nymphs, and adults on wheat treated with two DE formulations (InsectoSec and Fossil Shield) at two dose rates (200 and 500 ppm) and three intervals (1, 2, and 5 days). Within each column, no significant differences were observed in the means with the same lowercase letters (df = 5, 53 Tukey HSD test at p < 0.05). For each exposure, within each developmental stage, asterisks indicate significant differences (df = 16; two-tailed t-test at p = 0.05). Where no asterisks exist, no significant differences were recorded. No statistical analysis was carried out where dashes exist.
StageLarvae Nymphs Adults
Dose200 ppm500 ppm 200 ppm500 ppm 200 ppm500 ppm
DEExposure tp tp tp
InsectoSec1 day26.7 ± 1.8 c34.8 ± 1.5 c *3.70.0123.7 ± 2.5 c31.1 ± 1.1 c *2.60.0218.5 ± 1.0 c28.9 ± 2.0 c *3.30.01
2 days55.6 ± 1.1 b66.7 ± 2.2 b *4.70.0150.4 ± 3.5 b62.2 ± 1.1 b *3.20.0145.2 ± 1.5 b60.0 ± 2.2 b *5.5<0.01
5 days100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a--86.7 ± 4.3 a100 ± 0.0 a *3.00.0183.7 ± 1.6 a100.0 ± 0.0 a *9.0<0.01
Fossil Shield1 day24.4 ± 1.9 c29.6 ± 1.6 c2.10.0620.7 ± 1.7 b25.9 ± 0.7 d *2.60.0216.3 ± 2.0 c23.0 ± 2.0 c *2.20.04
2 days51.1 ± 2.5 b63.7 ± 2.3 b *3.60.0144.4 ± 2.2 c59.3 ± 2.1 b *4.90.0140.7 ± 1.7 b55.6 ± 2.7 b *4.50.01
5 days97.0 ± 1.2 a100.0 ± 0.0 a *2.50.0284.4 ± 1.9 a97.0 ± 1.2 a *5.4<0.0182.2 ± 1.9 a91.1 ± 2.2 a *3.00.01
F159.7243.0 75.1480.9 131.984.7
p<0.01<0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01<0.01
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

Boukouvala, M.C.; Filintas, C.S.; Kavallieratos, N.G. Acaricidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earths on Different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank). Insects 2025, 16, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16070693

AMA Style

Boukouvala MC, Filintas CS, Kavallieratos NG. Acaricidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earths on Different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank). Insects. 2025; 16(7):693. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16070693

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boukouvala, Maria C., Constantin S. Filintas, and Nickolas G. Kavallieratos. 2025. "Acaricidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earths on Different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)" Insects 16, no. 7: 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16070693

APA Style

Boukouvala, M. C., Filintas, C. S., & Kavallieratos, N. G. (2025). Acaricidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earths on Different Life Stages of Acarus siro L. and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank). Insects, 16(7), 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16070693

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