Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Intensification of AOPs by Hydrodynamic Cavitation: A Critical Review
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization of Microwave-Assisted Extraction from Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) Using Ethanol and β-Cyclodextrin as Green Solvents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainable Chemistry
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/suschem7020025
suschem-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

Sustainable Potential of Piper Essential Oils Against Agricultural Pests of the Order Lepidoptera: A Review

by
Igor Alencar Sales da Silva
and
Fernando Cotinguiba
*
Instituto de Pesquisas de Produtos Naturais Walter Mors (IPPN), Centro de Ciências da Saúde (CCS), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Avenida Carlos Chagas Filho, 373, Bloco H, Rio de Janeiro 21941-599, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustain. Chem. 2026, 7(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/suschem7020025
Submission received: 7 May 2026 / Revised: 31 May 2026 / Accepted: 1 June 2026 / Published: 9 June 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Lepidopteran pests cause severe global economic damage; they are currently mitigated by synthetic pesticides that trigger widespread resistance and environmental toxicity. This systematic review evaluates the potential of Piper essential oils (EOs) as high-performance, sustainable bio-based insecticides, aligning with the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry. Analyzing studies covering Piper species, we identified phenylpropanoids (e.g., dillapiole and safrole) and terpenoids as key biodegradable scaffolds for pest management. The results highlight P. aduncum and P. divaricatum for their exceptional efficacy against Spodoptera frugiperda and Plutella xylostella, often exhibiting toxicity levels comparable to botanical standards like azadirachtin. Crucially, this review reveals that Piper EOs can outperform the synthetic industrial synergist piperonyl butoxide (BPO), with natural binary mixtures enhancing insecticidal potency by up to 11-fold. Furthermore, specific EOs contribute to a preventative green strategy by causing the structural disintegration of the egg chorion. By focusing on renewable biomass and design for degradation (Principles 7 and 10), this work anchors the Piper genus as a cornerstone for the circular bioeconomy and sustainable agricultural innovation, reducing the chemical footprint of modern crop protection.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The order Lepidoptera is a taxonomic classification for insects possessing scales on their wings [1]. They are holometabolous, undergoing complete metamorphosis with distinct external and internal morphological changes [2,3]. As hexapods, they possess formed body segments (head, thorax, and abdomen) post-embryogenesis [1,3,4]. This broad order is the second largest in the class Insecta, ref. [2] encompassing over 150,000 species across 133 families, including moths and butterflies [5].
Several species within this order are classified as pests due to their high populations and the considerable economic damage they cause [6]. Notable examples include Spodoptera littoralis (cotton and soybean) [7,8], Spodoptera frugiperda (maize) [9], Helicoverpa armigera (maize, cotton, tomato, sunflower, garlic and beans) [9], and Plutella xylostella (cabbage), the latter of which causes losses of up to 5 billion dollars per year [10,11]. The transition to sustainable agricultural practices requires a departure from traditional chemical reliance to mitigate these losses safely [12].
Currently, management involves crop rotation [13], natural predators [14] and the use of natural or synthetic insecticides [15]. However, the environmental persistence of synthetic compounds necessitates the exploration of biodegradable alternatives. Essential oils (EOs) have received increasing attention as complex mixtures of low-molecular-weight secondary metabolites (<500 Da) produced by plants [16,17,18]. They offer properties such as a broad spectrum of biological activity, biodegradability, and a lower risk of resistance development [19,20,21]. In accordance with Green Chemistry Principle 10 (design for degradation), EOs are promising candidates for high-efficiency, low-impact pest management [22].
The inadequate use of agricultural pesticides is a primary cause of resistance in Lepidoptera [11,23,24]. To address this, the use of EOs from the Piper genus has emerged as a source of renewable molecules with insecticidal activity. This systematic review consolidates knowledge regarding the efficacy and potential of Piper EOs as specific, bio-based insecticides for the management of agricultural pests of the order Lepidoptera, emphasizing phytochemistry and treatment efficacy [25].

2. Methods

A systematic literature review was performed across the “SciELO,” “Periódicos CAPES,” “Web of Science,” and “ACS Publication” databases. The search included manuscripts published up to July 2025, utilizing the keywords “Lepidoptera”, “Piper” and “Essential oil”. This systematic approach was strategically designed to identify renewable botanical sources that align with Green Chemistry principles, specifically focusing on identifying biodegradable secondary metabolites with high insecticidal potential. Following the initial identification phase, rigorous exclusion criteria were applied, including the removal of duplicate entries and the screening of studies based on thematic non-conformity regarding titles and abstracts. A total of twenty-three articles were selected for full-text analysis to evaluate their relevance, methodological rigor, and compliance with the core theme. The selection process prioritized studies providing detailed chemical profiles (chemotypes) and clear toxicological parameters, which are essential for assessing the sustainable industrial feasibility of these essential oils within a circular bioeconomy.

3. Phytochemistry and Efficacy of Piper Essential Oils

3.1. Piper Species EOs

The Piper genus comprises over 2400 species with a pantropical distribution [26,27]. Reflecting this global presence, the literature identified in this systematic review encompasses a geographic scope across three different countries: Brazil, India, and Indonesia. The Brazilian flora hosts 463 species; ref. [28] represents the largest share of the analyzed data (38 of 40 occurrences), and the inclusion of Asian studies underscores the genus’s international relevance for pest control. Among the twenty-nine species evaluated worldwide, P. aduncum (8 occurrences), P. marginatum (5), and P. hispidinervum (4) were the most frequent (Table S1). Notably, the fact that less than 7% of known Brazilian species have been tested, combined with the emerging data from India and Indonesia, indicates a vast and underutilized global renewable biomass for sustainable biopesticide development (Table S2). This local availability supports the Green Chemistry goal of utilizing local, renewable feedstocks to minimize transportation impacts. Beyond insecticidal use, the genus shows antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and hypoglycemic potential, bioinsecticidal, and antioxidant properties [29,30,31,32,33].
Typically, Piper essential oils are extracted primarily from leaves and spikes. While conventional hydrodistillation remains the standard method, average extraction yields are often relatively low, generally ranging from 0.5% to 3.0% depending on the species and phenological stage (Table S3). To align with Green Chemistry principles and improve economic feasibility, recent trends suggest the adoption of green extraction technologies, such as Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE) or Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE). These methods can significantly reduce energy consumption and extraction time while potentially increasing yields. Overcoming these extraction bottlenecks is critical, as low yields directly impact the cost of raw material production, currently representing a major hurdle for the large-scale commercialization of these biopesticides.

3.2. Main Metabolites Isolated from Piper EOs

Among the main compounds isolated from Piper species that exhibit insecticidal activity, terpenoids and phenylpropanoids stand out. Among these, the phenylpropanoids myristicin (7 occurrences), dillapiole (5), safrole (5), sarisan (4) and exalatacin (3) are particularly notable, as well as the terpenoids trans-caryophyllene (14 occurrences), bicyclogermacrene (11), terpinolene (7), δ-cadinene (7), α-pinene (5), δ-3-carene (4), germacrene B (4) and caryophyllene oxide (3) (Figure 1). In the evaluated chemotypes, major constituents frequently dominate the chemical profile, with compounds like safrole and dillapiole comprising between 40% and 80% of the total essential oil composition, depending on the specific species and geographical origin.

3.3. Methodologies in Toxicity Evaluation

To evaluate the toxic activity of EOs, the reviewed studies employed diverse methodologies and considered various developmental stages of the insects. The efficacy of their constituents was investigated through at least three exposure routes: topical exposure, ingestion, and inhalation [34]. The choice of these diverse pathways is essential in Sustainable Chemistry to determine the most efficient delivery system, minimizing waste and ensuring the bioinsecticide reaches its molecular target with the lowest possible environmental load [35].
The evaluation of EO toxic activity via topical application involved the application of treatment solutions to specific regions of the lepidopteran body to determine the degree of toxicity and the ability of the constituents to penetrate the cuticle, one of their primary defense barriers. This laboratory-based methodology aims to simulate field situations where insects are hit by the treatment solution through spraying [34]. Understanding cuticle penetration is vital for designing formulations that adhere to the Principles of Green Chemistry to facilitate a reduction in active compound dosages while maintaining biological performance [35].
The analyzed studies utilized various techniques for topical application, including EO spraying methods using an airbrush at different concentrations and a sprayer [36,37,38,39,40,41]; application of treatment solutions [42] to the prothoracic region [41] using both internal methodologies and those developed by Hummelbrunner and Isman [43,44]; and application of solutions to the larvae’s dorsum [44,45] using internal methodologies [46] and those developed by Al-Sarar [47,48,49,50]. Significant variation was observed in the experimental parameters of the studies, such as application volumes, ranging from 1 µL to 1 mL, and larval mortality evaluation periods, which varied from 24 to 96 h [44]. Despite this variability, the topical application method was widely tested and most frequently applied during the third instar larval stage [36,40,43,47,51].
Insecticidal activity was also evaluated to determine the effects of EOs via ingestion through food inhibition techniques [38,51,52], following the methodology developed by Santana et al. [53,54] and Akthar et al. [55,56]. Other assays conducted via this administration route included feeding experiments and food preference bioassays [42,57]. Ingestive bioassays are crucial for Integrated Pest Management (IPM), as they allow for higher selectivity, potentially protecting non-target organisms and pollinators that do not feed directly on the treated crop, thus promoting ecosystem sustainability [58].
The analysis of effects via inhalation was conducted through residual contact methods. These laboratory methods utilize surfaces treated with EOs to evaluate long-term insecticidal action [34]. Assessing long-term action is a core tenet of Green Chemistry, ensuring that the natural product remains effective without the environmental persistence of characteristics such as synthetic organochlorines [59]. Various techniques included leaf disc immersion [45], following the methodology of Bandeira et al. [34,49,56] and adapted from Bogoni and Vandramim [44,60], and the use of impregnated filter papers [46,47,48,49,61]. Variations were noted as exposure times (5 [42,60] to 30 s [55,56]) and drying times [34].
Although less frequent, ovicidal bioassays were employed to evaluate toxicity during early developmental stages [38,62]. Methodologies included egg deposition on treated discs, according to the methodology of Zago [55,63] and that developed by Tavares [42,64,65,66]; microscopic egg evaluation [67] and egg impregnation on surfaces followed by immersion in treatment solutions for 5 to 30 s [43]. Targeting the egg stage is a highly sustainable preventative strategy, as it eliminates the pest population before the onset of crop-damaging herbivory [55]. Additional methods included egg spraying and surface impregnation [66] followed by egg transfer [38]. Egg maturation stages ranged from 0 [38,67] to 48 h post-oviposition [42]. Similar to residual contact assays, effects are not immediate; therefore, mortality was observed according to the maturation stages of each species, sometimes reaching up to 7 days post-application [37].
Finally, larval repellency bioassays [57] according to Lobo et al. [58], phytotoxicity bioassays [53,55,68] and lethal concentration determinations [67] following the methodology of Prajapati et al. [66] were conducted, alongside an evaluation of synergistic effects [47,49]. These comprehensive toxicological profiles are essential for ensuring that bio-based insecticides are safe for both the crop and the broader environment, fulfilling the requirement for non-toxic end-products in Green Chemistry [36,69].

3.4. Toxicity Results of EOs in Lepidoptera

3.4.1. Topical Toxicity

Although methodologies for topical application vary across studies, their prevalence in the literature allows for a detailed analysis of the results. The toxicity of EOs from eight Piper species was tested against four Lepidopteran species (Table 1). This focus on diverse botanical sources is fundamental to Sustainable Chemistry, as it explores renewable biomass to identify highly efficient, bio-based alternatives [69,70,71].
EO toxicity against H. armigera was evaluated in several studies. In one, spraying Piper spp. EOs (2% v/v) on first instar larvae resulted in 0% mortality [36]. In contrast, when larvae of the same species and stage were treated with 1 μL of P. aduncum (OEPAd) EO solution (Chemotype 5, containing myristicin 24.0%, isomyristicin 20.9%, sarisan 20.0%, and dillapiole 14.5%) at concentrations of 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, and 40.0 mg/mL, an increase in mortality was observed. The median lethal time (LT50) decreased from 19.53 ± 1.89 days to 14.68 ± 1.86 days [45].
Other experiments were conducted on the third instar S. frugiperda larvae. A 1.0 μL dose was applied to the prothoracic region of OEPAd CT3 (dillapiole 78.4% and α-humulene 7.32%) and P. divaricatum (OEPDiv) EOs (safrole 49.3% and (Z)-methyl isoeugenol 30.9%), alongside other plant species. OEPAd presented the lowest LD50 among the tested oils, demonstrating superior efficacy. Although both EOs had LD50 values that were higher than the controls (azadirachtin and deltamethrin), an analysis based on the 95% confidence interval (CI 95%) shows that these EOs, along with the constituents safrole, citronellal, and limonene, possess toxicity levels comparable to the azadirachtin control [42]. This parity with established botanical standards highlights the potential of these natural scaffolds to replace standardized insecticides in sustainable management programs [72].
Another study evaluated the toxicity of P. corcovadensis (OEPCor), P. marginatum (OEPMar), and P. arboreum (OEPAr) EOs at different concentrations against third instar S. frugiperda larvae. Notably, OEPCor (1-butyl-3,4-methylenedioxybenzene 35.1%, terpinolene 13.7%, and trans-caryophyllene 6.02%) presented the lowest LD50, followed by OEPMar (unidentified compound 22.1%, exalaticin 9.1%, and α-pinene 8.4%). However, comparing these LD50 results with previous data (OEPAd and OEPDiv)—given that the technique, developmental stage, and target species were identical—OEPAd and OEPDiv showed higher toxic activity, evidenced by their lower LD50 values, particularly due to the presence of dillapiole and safrole as major substances [42].
Additionally, P. hispidinervum (OEPHis) (safrole 82.0%) presented an LD50 of 361.38 μg/larva at 24 h and decreased to 264.54 μg/larva at 48 h. Safrole, which is present in OEPDiv, was also associated with antibacterial activity and was active against S. typhimurium and P. aeruginosa [70].
While phenylpropanoids showed action, monoterpenes in Hyptis marrubioides (OEHMar) (β-thujone 41.50%) and Ocimum basilicum (OEOBas) (linalool 35.68%) applied to the dorsum of second instar larvae showed even more promising results (LD50 of 18.49 μg/larva and 38.21 μg/larva, respectively). However, these results are approximately 9700 and 20,000 times higher than the synthetic control of chlorpyrifos (LD50 of 0.00190 μg/larva) [71]. Despite the lower potency compared to synthetics in this case, the biodegradability and lower environmental persistence of Piper EOs align more closely with the goals of reducing the long-term chemical footprint in agriculture [72,73].
A major contribution to Sustainable Chemistry is the exploration of natural synergists to replace synthetic additives. Synergistic effects of Piper EOs with commercial insecticides were tested to overcome challenges such as resistance, residue volume, and formulation stability [73]. When comparing OEPAd CT4 (dillapiole 71.9%) with the industrial standard piperonyl butoxide (BPO), OEPAd was more effective as a synergistic agent for α-cypermethrin, fenpropathrin, and γ-cyhalothrin against S. frugiperda s [44,45]. This ability to outperform synthetic synergists proves that Piper EOs can enhance the efficacy of existing tools while promoting a more “green” formulation. Furthermore, dillapiole in mixtures demonstrated higher toxicity than in its isolated form; its combination with β-caryophyllene (1:1) reduced the LD50 from 0.35 ppm to 0.03 ppm, which is an 11-fold increase in potency [74]. Similar increases in toxicity (above 80%) were associated with the addition of β-caryophyllene to dillapiole [75].
Conversely, the activity of OEPAd (dillapiole 53.6% and myristicin 24.3%) against Chrysodeixis includens was not statistically significant [44]. In Plutella xylostella, Piper nigrum (OEPNig) (trans-caryophyllene 24.2%) showed 60% toxicity [37]. Finally, Piper augustifolium (OEPAug) resulted in an LD50 equivalent to lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) for P. xylostella control [38]. Lemongrass methanolic extracts presented an LD50 of 2.54 mg/mL via ingestion against second instar larvae [76].

3.4.2. Bioinsecticidal Activities via Ingestion

The effects of EOs through ingestion vary based on feeding deterrence to larvicidal activity (Table 2) using OEPHis [50], OEPAd, and OEPDiv [42]. EOs all presented feeding deterrence against S. frugiperda; however, although isolated safrole showed a preference index (PI) superior to azadirachtin (PI = 0.51 ± 0.06), it was twice as high as the deltamethrin control (PI = 0.25 ± 0.13) [42]. Targeted ingestive control is a highly sustainable strategy as it often minimizes the impact on non-target pollinators, fulfilling the ecological requirements of Green Chemistry [35].
Safrole in OEPHis (CT2, 81.34%) was effective in antifeedant action against S. littoralis in a dose–response relationship and showed synergism with terpinolene [54]. Evaluation of EOs from several species [P. dilatatum (OEPDil), P. hispidum (OEPDil), P. sanctifelicis (OEPSan), P. divaricatum (OEPDiv), and P. marginatum (OEPMar)] revealed that, according to Pavela et al. [52], only OEPSan (containing δ-3-carene, limonene, and p-cymene) met the strict criterion for a significant antifeedant agent (FDI > 90%) [52]. This high level of deterrence is ideal for sustainable pest management, as it prevents crop damage without necessitating immediate chemical lethality [77].
OEPAd CT2 (dillapiole 53.6% and myristicin 24,3%) showed high ingestive efficacy in C. includens, where an 8% concentration reached 93% mortality within 24 h. These values were more efficient via ingestion than topical application for this species [44]. In H. armigera, OEPAd CT3 (myristicin 24%, isomiristicin 20% and sarisan 20%) reduced the lethal time by 7 days for first instars at 5 mg/mL [45]. Such findings highlight the importance of matching the delivery method to the specific phytochemical profile to ensure maximum sustainability and minimum chemical waste. Finally, P. capitarianum (OEPCap) showed AC50 values 2.2 times lower than the azadirachtin control against P. xylostella [55]. This is notable as azadirachtin is a potent antifeedant that causes anorexia by interfering with the neuroendocrine system [78].

3.4.3. Bioinsecticidal Activities Under Residual Contact

Several Piper species were identified for residual contact evaluation (Table 3), with OEPAd being the most prevalent for P. xylostella [37,54] and S. frugiperda [42,46,47]. OEPDiv (safrole 49.3% and (Z)-methyl isoeugenol 30.9%) presented a higher LC50 for S. frugiperda than other Piper EOs but remained significantly lower than EOs from other plant genera and lower than the azadirachtin control.
Substituting synthetic synergists with natural alternatives remains a priority for the bioeconomy [71]. OEPAd (dillapiole 71.9% and α-humulene 7.32%) consistently showed a higher SF than BPO for several pyrethroids against third instar S. frugiperda [42]. BPO acts by inhibiting esterases or cytochrome P450 monoxygenases associated with insecticide resistance [79]. Furthermore, OEPAd (dillapiole 73.4%) was more effective than Schinus terebinthifolius and Lippia sidoides against P. xylostella [42,80]. In another study, OEPCap (o-cymene 40.74%, dehydro-aromadendrene 12.32% and β-chamigrene 9.96%) was 30 times more effective than P. krukoffii OEPKr (globulol 17.54%, 4-epi-cis-dihydroagarofuran 12.25% and γ-muurolene 11.03%) against P. xylostella, though the study lacked details on stability and structure–activity relationships [55]. It is important to consider the larvicidal and adulticidal activity of OEPCap in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, which has already been reported [79,80]. The efficacy of these natural compounds directly supports the Green Chemistry principle of using safer chemicals to reduce total pesticide application rates. Finally, P. nigrum (OEPNig) showed a deterrent effect on P. xylostella oviposition superior to other EOs like Artemisia abrotanum and Eucalyptus polybractea [37].

3.4.4. Ovicidal Activities

Ovicidal bioassays were conducted with EOs against Anticarsia gemmatalis (Table 4). Only P. hispidum (biciclogermacrene 11.49% e and germacrene B 6.08%) failed to reduce larval hatching compared to the control. Conversely, P. fuligineum (OEPFul) (sarisan 10.80%) presented the best activity [61]. Sarisan is associated with oviposition suppression in several pests, such as Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) e Rhyzoperta dominica (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) [81]. Targeting the egg stage is a cornerstone of preventative green management, interrupting the pest cycle before herbivory can occur [55].
Other EOs with formidable activity included P. aduncum (myristicin 12.61%, sarisan 11.86% and (E)-β-ocimene 8.16%), P. mollicomum CT1 (OEPMol CT1) (biciclogermacrene 20.41%, sarisan 7.21% and germacrene B 6.38%), and P. mosenii (OEPMos) ((E)-caryophyllene 16.82%, caryophyllene oxide 9.82% and β-pinene 5.78%) [62]. It is worth noting that cashew nutshell liquid (Anacardium occidentale) also presented active compounds against A. gemmatalis. Against P. xylostella, OEPCap (o-cimene 40,74%, dehydro-aromadendrene 12.32% and β-chamigrene 9.96%) showed an LC50 nearly 34 times lower than P. krukoffii (OEPKru). This value is 2.25 times greater than that of the control azadirachtin and 1.19 times greater than the value for deltamethrin [55]. Such results are promising given the high resistance of P. xylostella to conventional insecticides like chlorantraniliprole and Bacillus thuringiensis [82,83]. In another study, OEPAd also exhibited ovicidal action against S. frugiperda eggs. Although it presented a higher LC50 than Eucalyptus citriodora essential oils (citronellal 53.81% and limonene 25.73%) and citronellal alone, its values were still lower than the azacitidine control. OEPDiv (safrole 49%) also showed toxicity, but with lower efficacy, and it is surpassed by safrole when tested alone [42].
P. nigrum showed very low ovicidal activity against P. xylostella (approximately 30% lethality), which was independent of concentration and significantly inferior to oils like Allium sativum [38]. Finally, Guedes et al. observed that OEPMar caused embryonic non-formation and chorion disintegration in S. frugiperda eggs within 24 h [67]. By utilizing natural oils that degrade rapidly, this preventative approach avoids the long-term environmental accumulation of synthetic ovicides. This diversity in efficacy underscores the need for bio-diverse solutions tailored to specific pest–crop interactions in a sustainable agricultural framework [61,84].
While laboratory assays provide crucial baseline toxicity data, the economic sustainability of field application remains a significant challenge. Predictive studies and techno-economic assessments emphasize that optimizing extraction yields and formulation stability is essential to ensure the commercial viability and cost-effectiveness of botanical insecticides [85]. Although economic hurdles in field application remain, the successful global commercialization of other botanical bioinsecticides, such as azadirachtin-based formulations (e.g., Neemix®) and terpene-rich essential oil products (e.g., Requiem®), demonstrates that standardizing natural scaffolds for agriculture is industrially viable. The Piper genus, providing both active insecticidal agents and natural synergists, holds a similar commercial potential if extraction and formulation processes are optimized [86].

4. Conclusions

The evidence gathered in this systematic review confirms that essential oils from the Piper genus possess important bioinsecticidal efficacy against lepidopteran pests, frequently matching or surpassing established commercial controls. These findings position the genus as a high-value source of renewable biomass and biodegradable scaffolds for the immediate development of green pesticides. A significant strength of the analyzed literature is the frequent use of rigorous positive standards (such as azadirachtin, deltamethrin, and BPO), which consistently validate the competitive performance and potency of these natural extracts. This robust data set provides a solid foundation for the implementation of safer chemical scaffolds that can effectively reduce the chemical load in modern agriculture. Furthermore, the immense diversity of metabolites found in Piper species underscores their versatility as multi-target agents, capable of overcoming the high resistance often observed in Lepidoptera through natural synergism. The current literature provides a comprehensive framework, showcasing the adaptability and high potential of these natural extracts across various experimental models. To fully harness this potential and transition these laboratory successes into real, field-ready commercial products, the next phase of research should embrace collaborative standardization. While the natural phytochemical variation in Piper reflects its evolutionary strength and ecological adaptability, establishing targeted chemical standardization will ensure consistent field performance. Similarly, harmonizing the diverse and successful biotest protocols currently in use will facilitate direct comparability and accelerate industrial scaling. Future efforts focused on optimizing extraction yields through green technologies and addressing the economic feasibility of large-scale production will be pivotal. Surmounting these natural developmental milestones will solidify Piper-based bioproducts as a cornerstone of the global circular bioeconomy and modern sustainable pest management of lepidopteran pests, fully realizing the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/suschem7020025/s1. Table S1: Species of the genus Piper that had essential oils tested against some Lepidoptera species; Table S2: Collection sites for Piper species; Table S3: Evaluation of plant parts used for extraction, extraction method and yield of extracts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C. and I.A.S.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C. and I.A.S.d.S.; writing—review and editing, F.C. and I.A.S.d.S.; visualization, F.C. and I.A.S.d.S.; supervision, F.C.; funding acquisition, F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento do Ensino Superior)—Finance Code 001 and FAPERJ (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro)/JCNE Fellowship (E-26/201.444/2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the use of the Gemini 3.1 Pro artificial intelligence tool (Google) for English language adaptation and the identification of grammatical inconsistencies. All AI-generated suggestions were strictly supervised and reviewed by the authors. This procedure followed the Portaria CNPq nº 2.664/2026 (Brazil) regulations regarding the ethical integrity and use of artificial intelligence in scientific research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ACAntifeedant concentration values
CDFeeding deterrence concentration
CIConfidence interval
CTChemotype
ECFeeding index inhibition
EOEssential oil
FDIFeeding index deterrence
LCLethal concentration
LDLethal doses
LTMedian lethal time
ODIOviposition deterrence index
PBOPiperonyl butoxide
PIPreference index

References

  1. Monteiro, A.; Murugesan, S.N.; Prakash, A.; Papa, R.; Juan, S.; Rico, P. The Developmental Origin of Novel Complex Morphological Traits in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2025, 70, 421–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (BR). Sumário Executivo do Plano de Ação Nacional Para Conservação dos Lepidópteros Ameaçados de Extinção; ICMBio: Brasília, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sehnal, F.; Svacha, P.; Zrzavy, J. Evolution of Insect Metamorphosis; Lawrence, I.G., Jamshed, R., Tata, B., Atkinson, G., Eds.; Academic Press: Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pohl, G.R.; Cannings, R.A.; Landry, J.; Holden, D.G.; Scudder, G.G.E. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of British Columbia, Canada; Entomological Society of British Columbia: Kamloops, BC, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nieukerken, E.J.V.; Kaila, L.; Kitching, I.J.; Kristensen, N.P.; Lees, D.C.; Minet, J.; Mitter, C.; Mutanen, M.; Regier, J.C.; Simonsen, T.J.; et al. Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-Level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness; Zhang, Z.-Q., Ed.; Zootaxa: Auckland, New Zealand, 2011; pp. 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mitter, C.; Davis, D.R.; Cummings, M.P. Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017, 62, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmed, K.S.; Mikhail, W.Z.A.; Sobhy, H.M.; Radwan, E.M.M.; Salaheldin, T.A. Impact of Nanosilver-Profenofos on Cotton Leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) Larvae. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. El-Aswad, A.F.; Abdelgaleil, S.A.M.; Nakatani, M. Feeding Deterrent and Growth Inhibitory Properties of Limonoids from Khaya Senegalensis against the Cotton Leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004, 60, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cruz, I.; Valicente, H.F.; Afonso, V.P.; Mendes, S.M. Risco Potencial das Pragas de Milho e de Sorgo no Brasil; Embrapa Milho e Sorgo: Sete Lagoas, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Machekano, H.; Mvumi, B.M.; Nyamukondiwa, C. Plutella xylostella (L.): Pest Status, Control Practices, Perceptions and Knowledge on Existing and Alternative Management Options in Arid Small-Scale Farming Environments. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2020, 66, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mayanglambam, S.; Singh, K.D.; Rajashekar, Y. Current Biological Approaches for Management of Crucifer Pests. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marcelino, S.; Hamdane, S.; Gaspar, P.D.; Paço, A. Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Evidence and Recommendations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jalli, M.; Huusela, E.; Jalli, H.; Kauppi, K.; Niemi, M.; Himanen, S.; Jauhiainen, L. Effects of Crop Rotation on Spring Wheat Yield and Pest Occurrence in Different Tillage Systems: A Multi-Year Experiment in Finnish Growing Conditions. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 647335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boldorini, G.X.; McCary, M.A.; Romero, G.Q.; Mills, K.L.; Sanders, N.J.; Reich, P.B.; Michalko, R.; Gonçalves-Souza, T. Predators Control Pests and Increase Yield across Crop Types and Climates: A Meta-Analysis. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2024, 291, 20232522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kumari, B.R.; Vijayabharathi, R.; Srinivas, V.; Gopalakrishnan, S. Microbes as Interesting Source of Novel Insecticides: A Review. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2014, 13, 2582–2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maedeh, M.; Hamzeh, I.; Hossein, D.; Majid, A.; Karimi Reza, R. Bioactivity of Essential Oil from Satureja hortensis (Laminaceae) against Three Stored-Product Insect Species. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 6620–6627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Raut, J.S.; Karuppayil, S.M. A Status Review on the Medicinal Properties of Essential Oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 62, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bizzo, H.R.; Hovell, M.C.; Rezende, C.M. Óleos Essenciais No Brasil: Aspectos Gerais, Desenvolvimento e Perspectivas. Quim. Nova 2009, 32, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Urzúa, A.; Cosmo, D.D.; Echeverría, J.; Santander, R.; Palacios, M.S.; Rossi, Y. Insecticidal Effect of Schinus latifolius Essential Oil on the Housefly, Musca domestica L. Bol. Latinoam. Caribe Plantas Med. Aromat. 2011, 10, 470–475. [Google Scholar]
  20. Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods—A Review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cruz, R.C.D.d.; Carvalho, K.d.S.; Costa, R.J.O.; Silva, P.A.d.; Silva, S.L.d.C.e.; Gualberto, S.A.; Gusmão, N.B.d.; Souza, I.A.d. Phytochemical and Toxicological Evaluation of a Blend of Essential Oils of Croton Species on Aedes Aegypti and Mus Musculus. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 132, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fenibo, E.O.; Ijoma, G.N.; Nurmahomed, W.; Matambo, T. The Potential and Green Chemistry Attributes of Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lengai, G.M.W.; Muthomi, J.W.; Mbega, E.R. Phytochemical Activity and Role of Botanical Pesticides in Pest Management for Sustainable Agricultural Crop Production. Sci. Afr. 2020, 7, e00239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reisig, D.D.; Kurtz, R. Bt Resistance Implications for Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Insecticide Resistance Management in the United States. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 1357–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wilson, A.N.; Grieshop, M.J.; Roback, J.; Dell’Orco, S.; Huang, J.; Perkins, J.A.; Nicholson, S.; Chiaramonti, D.; Nimlos, M.R.; Christensen, E. Efficacy, Economics, and Sustainability of Bio-Based Insecticides from Thermochemical Biorefineries. Green Chem. 2021, 23, 10145–10156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kikuchi, D.W.; Lasso, E.; Dalling, J.W.; Nur, N. Pollinators and Pollen Dispersal of Piper dilatatum (Piperaceae) on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. J. Trop. Ecol. 2007, 23, 603–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. World Flora Online Plant List. Available online: https://wfoplantlist.org (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  28. De Queiroz, G.A.; de Barros, A.A.M.; Guimarães, E.F. Piper (Piperaceae) from Serra Da Tiririca State Park, Niterói/Maricá, RJ, Brazil. Rodriguesia 2020, 7, e01992018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Regasini, L.O.; Cotinguiba, F.; Siqueira, J.R.; Bolzani, V.S.; Silva, D.H.S.; Furlan, M.; Kato, M.J. Radical Scavenging Capacity of Piper Arboreum and Piper tuberculatum (Piperaceae). Lat. Am. J. Pharm. 2008, 27, 900–903. [Google Scholar]
  30. Durant-Archibold, A.A.; Santana, A.I.; Gupta, M.P. Ethnomedical Uses and Pharmacological Activities of Most Prevalent Species of Genus Piper in Panama: A Review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 217, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lima, C.N.F.; De Lima, L.F.; Correia, D.B.; Machado, S.T.d.S.; De Sousa, J.P.; Santos, E.S.; Delmondes, G.d.A.; De Menezes, I.R.A.; Felipe, C.F.B.; Coutinho, H.D.M.; et al. Systematic Review: Medicinal Use and Scientific Elucidation of the Piper Genus for the Treatment of Symptoms and Inflammatory Diseases. J. Med. Plants Res. 2020, 14, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xiang, C.-P.; Shi, Y.-N.; Liu, F.-F.; Li, H.-Z.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Yang, C.-R.; Xu, M. A Survey of the Chemical Compounds of Piper spp. (Piperaceae) and Their Biological Activities. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2016, 9, 1403–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Usseglio, V.L.; Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P. Can Essential Oils Be a Natural Alternative for the Control of Spodoptera frugiperda? A Review of Toxicity Methods and Their Modes of Action. Plants 2023, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pavela, R.; Benelli, G. Essential Oils as Ecofriendly Biopesticides? Challenges and Constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Eliseo, C.; Aguirre, D.; Pratissoli, D.; Romário De Carvalho, J.; Pacheco Damascena, A.; Moreira De Araujo Junior, L.; Zago, H.B. Actividad Insecticida de Aceites Esenciales Sobre Helicoverpa armígera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Essential Oils Insecticide Activity on Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Idesia 2020, 38, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinheiro, K.D.; Rezende, K.F.; Krinski, D. Efeito Ovicida de Óleo Essencial de Folhas e Frutos de Piper fuligineum (Piperaceae) Sobre Ovos de Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera). J. Educ. Sci. Health 2022, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sangha, J.S.; Astatkie, T.; Cutler, G.C. Ovicidal, Larvicidal, and Behavioural Effects of Some Plant Essential Oils on Diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Can. Entomol. 2017, 149, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sanchez, B.M.; Pinedo, M.N.; Montaño, M.S.H. Uso de Aceites Esenciales Para El Control Del Estado Larval de La Mariposa Blanca de La Col (Pieris brassicae) En Laboratorio. Acta Nova 2021, 10, 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dutra, K.; Wanderley-Teixeira, V.; Guedes, C.; Cruz, G.; Navarro, D.; Monteiro, A.; Agra, A.; Lapa Neto, C.; Teixeira, Á. Toxicity of Essential Oils of Leaves of Plants from the Genus Piper with Influence on the Nutritional Parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2020, 23, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dutra, K.A.; Wanderley Teixeira, V.; Cruz, G.S.; Silva, C.T.S.; D’Assunção, C.G.; Ferreira, C.G.M.; Monteiro, A.L.B.; Agra Neto, A.C.; Lapa Neto, C.J.C.; Teixeira, A.A.C.; et al. Morphological and Immunohistochemical Study of the Midgut and Fat Body of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Treated with Essential Oils of the Genus Piper. Biotech. Histochem. 2019, 94, 498–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Negrini, M.; Fidelis, E.G.; Schurt, D.A.; Silva, F.d.S.; Pereira, R.S.; Bizzo, H.R. Insecticidal Activity of Essential Oils in Controlling Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Arq. Inst. Biol. 2019, 86, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gomes da Camara, C.A.; do Nascimento, A.F.; Monteiro, V.B.; de Moraes, M.M. Larvicidal, Ovicidal and Antifeedant Activities of Essential Oils and Constituents against Spodoptera frugiperda. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2022, 55, 851–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hummelbrunner, L.A.; Isman, M.B. Acute, Sublethal, Antifeedant, and Synergistic Effects of Monoterpenoid Essential Oil Compounds on the Tobacco Cutworm, Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sanini, C.; Massarolli, A.; Krinski, D.; Butnariu, A.R. Essential Oil of Spiked Pepper, Piper aduncum L. (Piperaceae), for the Control of Caterpillar Soybean Looper, Chrysodeixis includens Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Rev. Bras. Bot. 2017, 40, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dos Santos, T.L.B.; Turchen, L.M.; Dall’oglio, E.L.; Butnariu, A.R.; Pereira, M.J.B. Phytochemical of Piper Essential Oil and Acute Toxicity against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Agrár. 2017, 12, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fazolin, M.; Estrela, J.L.V.; Medeiros, A.F.M.; Da Silva, I.M.; Gomes, L.P.; De Farias Silva, M.S. Combining the Essential Oil of Piper aduncum L. with Commercial Insecticides. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2016, 37, 3903–3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fazolin, M.; Estrela, J.L.V.; Medeiros, A.F.M.; da Silva, I.M.; Gomes, L.P.; Silva, M.S.d.F. Potencial Sinérgico Do Óleo Essencial Rico Em Dilapiol Para Inseticidas Piretroides Sintéticos Frente à Lagarta-Do-Cartucho. Cienc. Rural. 2016, 46, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fazolin, M.; Estrela, J.L.V.; Monteiro, A.F.M.; da Silva, I.M.; Gomes, L.P. Sinérgico Alternativo Para Inseticidas Inibidores de Acetilcolinesterase. RAGRO 2017, 11, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Al-Sarar, A.; Hall, F.R.; Downer, R.A. Impact of Spray Application Methodology on the Development of Resistance to Cypermethrin and Spinosad by Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith). Pest Manag. Sci. 2006, 62, 1023–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lima, R.K.; Cardoso, M.G.; Campos Moraes, J.; Melo, B.A.; Rodrigues, V.G.; Guimarães, P.L. Atividade Inseticida Do Óleo Essencial de Pimenta Longa (Piper hispidinervum C. DC.) Sobre Lagarta-Do-Cartucho Do Milho Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Acta Amaz. 2009, 39, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lina, E.C.; Holeng, H.S.F.; Nelly, N.; Reflin, R.; Ernis, G. Nanoemulsion of the Mixture of Citronella Grass Distillation Waste and Piper aduncum Essential Oil to Control Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Philipp. J. Sci. 2023, 152, 1131–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pavela, R.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Maggi, F.; Desneux, N.; Benelli, G. Essential Oil Antifeedants against Armyworms: Promises and Challenges. Entomol. Gen. 2023, 43, 689–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Andrés, M.F.; Rossa, G.E.; Cassel, E.; Vargas, R.M.F.; Santana, O.; Díaz, C.E.; González-Coloma, A. Biocidal Effects of Piper hispidinervum (Piperaceae) Essential Oil and Synergism among Its Main Components. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 109, 1086–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Santana, O.; Andrés, F.; Sanz, J.; Errahmani, N.; Abdeslam, L.; González-Coloma, A. Valorization of Essential Oils from Moroccan Aromatic Plants. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 1109–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Santana, M.L.G.; De Melo, J.P.R.; Da Camara, C.A.G.; De Moraes, M.M.; De Araujo, C.A.; De Vasconcelos, G.J.N.; Pereira, M.R.S.; Zartman, C.E. Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Essential Oils from Piper capitarianum Yunck and Piper krukoffii Yunck on Plutella xylostella L. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2022, 94, e20200072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Neto Bandeira, G.; Augusto Gomes da Camara, C.; Martins de Moraes, M.; Barros, R.; Muhammad, S.; Akhtar, Y. Insecticidal Activity of Muntingia calabura Extracts against Larvae and Pupae of Diamondback, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera, Plutellidae). J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2013, 25, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Alves, T.J.S.; Cruz, G.S.; Wanderley-Teixeira, V.; Teixeira, A.A.C.; Oliveira, J.V.; Correia, A.A.; Câmara, C.A.G.; Cunha, F.M. Effects of Piper hispidinervum on Spermatogenesis and Histochemistry of Ovarioles of Spodoptera frugiperda. Biotech. Histochem. 2014, 89, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pobożniak, M.; Olczyk, M. Biocontrol in Integrated Pest Management in Fruit and Vegetable Field Production. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koul, O.; Walia, S.; Dhaliwal, G.S. Essential Oils as Green Pesticides: Potential and Constraints. Biopestic. Int. 2008, 4, 63–84. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bogorni, P.C.; Vendramim, J.D. Efeito Subletal de Extratos Aquosos de Trichilia spp. Sobre o de Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Em Milho. Neotrop. Entomol. 2005, 34, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Estrela, J.L.V.; Fazolin, M.; Catani, V.; Rodrigues Alécio, M.; De Lima, M.S. Toxicidade de Óleos Essenciais de Piper aduncum e Piper hispidinervum Em Sitophilus zeamais. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2006, 41, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Krinski, D.; Foerster, L.A.; Deschamps, C. Ovicidal Effect of the Essential Oils from 18 Brazilian Piper Species: Controlling Anticarsia gemmatalis (Lepidoptera, Erebidae) at the initial Stage of Development. Acta Sci. Agron. 2018, 40, 35273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zago, H.B.; Barros, R.; Torres, J.B.; Pratissoli, D. Distribuição de Ovos de Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) E o Parasitismo Por Trichogramma pretiosum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2010, 39, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tavares, W.S.; Cruz, I.; Fonseca, F.G.; Gouveia, N.L.; Serrão, J.E.; Zanuncio, J.C. Deleterious Activity of Natural Products on Postures of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Z. Naturforsch. 2010, 65, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Krinski, C.A.; Teixeira, V.W.; Dutra, K.A.; Navarro, D.M.A.F.; Cruz, G.S.; Lapa Neto, C.J.C.; Correia, A.A.; Sandes, J.M.; Brayner, F.A.; Alves, L.C.; et al. Evaluation of Piper marginatum (Piperales: Piperaceae) Oil and Geraniol on the Embryonic Development of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Comparison to Formulated Products. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lobo, A.P.; da Camara, C.A.G.; de Melo, J.P.R.; de Moraes, M.M. Chemical Composition and Repellent Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves of Cinnamomum zeylanicum and Eugenia uniflora against Diaphania hyalinata L. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2019, 126, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Prajapati, V.; Tripathi, A.K.; Aggarwal, K.K.; Khanuja, S.P.S. Insecticidal, Repellent and Oviposition-Deterrent Activity of Selected Essential Oils against Anopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pavela, R. History, Presence and Perspective of Using Plant Extracts as Commercial Botanical Insecticides and Farm Products for Protection against Insects—A Review. Plant Prot. Sci. 2016, 52, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sheldon, R.A. Green and Sustainable Manufacture of Chemicals from Biomass: State of the Art. Green Chem. 2014, 16, 950–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Barbosa, Q.P.S.; Da Câmara, C.A.G.; Ramos, C.S.; Nascimento, D.C.O.; Lima-Filho, J.V.; Guimarães, E.F. Chemical Composition, Circadian Rythm and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils of Piper divaricatum: A New Source of Safrole. Quim. Nova 2012, 35, 1806–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bibiano, C.S.; Alves, D.S.; Freire, B.C.; Vilela Bertolucci, S.K.; Carvalho, G.A. Toxicity of Essential Oils and Pure Compounds of Lamiaceae Species against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Their Safety for the Nontarget Organism Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Crop. Prot. 2022, 158, 106011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Villaverde, J.J.; Sandín España, P.; Sevilla-Morán, B.; López Goti, C.; Alonso Prados, J.L. Biopesticides from Natural Products Current Development, Legislative Framework, and Future Trends. BioResources 2016, 11, 5618–5640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Beckel, H.d.S.; Lorini, I.; Lazzari, S.M.N. Efeito Do Sinergista Butóxido de Piperonila Na Resistência de Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera, Silvanidae) a Deltametrina e Fenitrotiom. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2006, 50, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fazolin, M.; Bizzo, H.R.; Monteiro, A.F.M.; Lima, M.E.C.; Maisforte, N.S.; Gama, P.E. Synergism in Two-Component Insecticides with Dillapiole against Fall armyworm. Plants 2023, 12, 3042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Érica Costa De Lima, M.; Lopes, H.K.; Oliveira, G.; Fabio, A.; Monteiro, M.; Fazolin, M. Avaliação Inseticida de Composições Químicas Por Adição de Monoterpenos, Sesquiterpenos e Fenilpropanoides Ao Dilapiol; Embrapa Acre: Rio Branco, Brazil, 2019; pp. 51–59. [Google Scholar]
  76. Munyemana, F.; Lucas Alberto, A. Evaluation of Larvicidal Activity of Selected Plant Extracts against Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Larvae on Cabbage. Adv. Med. Plant Res. 2017, 5, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Koul, O. Phytochemicals and Insect Control: An Antifeedant Approach. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2008, 27, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ishaaya, I.; Nauen, R.; Horowitz, A.R. Insecticides Design Using Advanced Technologies; Ishaaya, I., Nauen, R., Horowitz, A.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  79. Zimmer, C.T.; Panini, M.; Singh, K.S.; Randall, E.L.; Field, L.M.; Roditakis, E.; Mazzoni, E.; Bass, C. Use of the Synergist Piperonyl Butoxide Can Slow the Development of Alpha-Cypermethrin Resistance in the Whitefly Bemisia tabaci. Insect Mol. Biol. 2017, 26, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. De Araújo, M.J.C.; Da Camara, C.A.G.; De Moraes, M.M.; Born, F.S. Insecticidal Properties and Chemical Composition of Piper aduncum L., Lippia sidoides Cham. and Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi Essential Oils against Plutella xylostella L. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2020, 92, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. França, L.P.; Amaral, A.C.F.; Ramos, A.d.S.; Ferreira, J.L.P.; Maria, A.C.B.; Oliveira, K.M.T.; Araujo, E.S., Jr.; Branches, A.D.S.; Silva, J.N.; Silva, N.G.; et al. Piper Capitarianum Essential Oil: A Promising Insecticidal Agent for the Management of Aedes Aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 9760–9776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hematpoor, A.; Liew, S.Y.; Azirun, M.S.; Awang, K. Insecticidal Activity and the Mechanism of Action of Three Phenylpropanoids Isolated from the Roots of Piper sarmentosum Roxb. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Da Silva Filho, J.G.; de Farias, T.I.; de Melo, I.A.; Santoro, K.R.; Anton, S.; Badji, C.A. High Resistance Levels in Brazilian Plutella xylostella Populations: Needs for Adjustments in Field Concentration. Rev. Caatinga 2023, 36, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Souto, A.L.; Sylvestre, M.; Tölke, E.D.; Tavares, J.F.; Barbosa-Filho, J.M.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Plant-Derived Pesticides as an Alternative to Pest Management and Sustainable Agricultural Production: Prospects, Applications and Challenges. Molecules 2021, 26, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Isman, M.B. Commercial development of plant essential oils and their constituents as active ingredients in bioinsecticides. Phytochem. Rev. 2019, 19, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fernández, D.C.; VanLaerhoven, S.L.; McCreary, C.; Labbé, R.M. An overview of the Pepper weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) as a pest of greenhouse peppers. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2020, 11, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Suschem 07 00025 g001
Figure 1. Some metabolites of Piper OES with insecticidal activity.
Figure 1. Some metabolites of Piper OES with insecticidal activity.
Suschem 07 00025 g001
Table 1. Topical contact toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
Table 1. Topical contact toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
SpeciesCTTarget InsectStageToxicityRef.
P. aduncum1Chrysodeixis includens3rd instarLC50 = 16.2 (14.7–17.7) (24 h)[44]
Piper spp. Helicoverpa armigera1st instarMortality = 0%[35]
P. aduncum5Helicoverpa armigera1st instarLT50 = 14.68 dias (±1.86) (5 mg/mL)[45]
P. aduncum5Helicoverpa armigera3rd instarLT50 = 20.77 dias (±0.67) (5 mg/mL)[45]
P. nigrum Plutella xylostella1st instar4 live larvae in 10[37]
P. arboreum Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 10.91 (8.37–14.20) mg/g of insect[39]
P. corcovadensis Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 3.58 (3.10–4.02) mg/g of insect[39]
P. marginatum Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 4.18 (3.18–5.30) mg/g of insect[39]
P. aduncum2Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 1.07 (1.59–6.31) µL/mg of insect[46]
P. aduncum3Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 1.28 (1.09–1.58) mg/g of insect[42]
P. divaricatum Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 1.53 (0.95–2.19) mg/g of insect[42]
P. aduncum4Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 0.012 (7.1 × 10−3–1.8 × 10−2) µL/mg of insect[47]
P. hispidinervum Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLD50 = 361.38 (320.22–407.85) µg/ caterpillar[50]
Abbreviations: CT = chemotype; LC = lethal concentration; LT = median lethal time; LD = lethal doses.
Table 2. Ingestion toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
Table 2. Ingestion toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
SpeciesCTTarget InsectStageToxicityRef.
P. hispidinervum1Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarCD50 = 0.81 mg/mL (0.46–1.41)[50]
P. aduncum1Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarPI = 0.73 (±0.08)[42]
P. divaricatum1Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarPI = 0.58 (±0.07)[42]
P. hispidinervum (1.5 atm)2Spodoptera littoralis6th instarEC50 = 3.1 µg/cm2 (1.1–8.4)[53]
P. dilatatum Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 65.3% (±1.3)[52]
P. divaricatum2Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 70.7% (±5.2)[52]
P. hispidum Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 76.2% (±2.5)[52]
P. marginatum Jacq. (Acandi) Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 64.3% (±17.9)[52]
P. marginatum Jacq. (Turbaco) Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 80.6% (±12.1)[52]
P. sanctifelicis Trel. Spodoptera littoralis6th instarFDI = 96.9% (±0.9)[52]
P. aduncum3Helicoverpa armigera1st instarLT50 = 14.20 days (± 1.56) (5 mg/mL)[45]
P. aduncum3Helicoverpa armigera3rd instarLT50 = 20.20 days (±1.27) (5 mg/mL)[45]
P. krukoffii Plutella xylostella3rd instarAC50 = 0.07 mg/mL (0.06–0.08)[54]
P. capitarianum Plutella xylostella3rd instarAC50 = 3.32 mg/mL (3.32–3.55)[54]
P. aduncum2Chrysodeixis includens3rd instarLC50 = 3.5 (3.0–4.0) (24 h)[44]
Abbreviations: CT = chemotype; CD = feeding deterrence concentration; PI = preference index; EC = feeding index inhibition; FDI = feeding index deterrence; LT = median lethal time; AC = antifeedant concentration values; LC = lethal concentration.
Table 3. Residual contact toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
Table 3. Residual contact toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
SpeciesCTTarget InsectStageToxicityRef.
P. krukoffii Plutella xylostella3rd instarLC50 = 6.37 (5.10–8.05) mg/mL [54]
P. capitarianum Plutella xylostella3rd instarLC50 = 0.21 (0.15–0.29) mg/mL[54]
P. nigurm Plutella xylostellaAdultsODI = 117.4[37]
P. aduncum1Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLC50 = 1169.70 (698.40–1755.40) ppm[46]
P. aduncum2Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLC50 = 11.42 (9.73–12.95) mg/mL[42]
P. divaricatum Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLC50 = 15.05 (13.69–16.50) mg/mL[42]
P. aduncum3Spodoptera frugiperda3rd instarLC50 = 1.1 × 10−4 (6.3 × 10−3–1.6 × 10−4) µL/cm−2[47]
Abbreviations: CT = chemotype; LC = lethal concentration; ODI = oviposition deterrence index.
Table 4. Ovicidal toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
Table 4. Ovicidal toxicity of Piper EOs against Lepidoptera.
SpeciesCTTarget InsectStageToxicityRef.
P. abutiloides Kunth. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.9 (1.8–2.0)%[62]
P. aduncum L. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 0.6 (0.3–0.9)%[62]
P. amalago L. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 2.2 (2.1–2.3)%[62]
P. arboreum Aubl. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.7 (1.4–1.9)%[62]
P. caldense1Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.2 (0.6–1.8)%[62]
P. caldense C. DC.2Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.1 (0.7–1.4)%[62]
P. crassinervium Kunth Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.3 (0.9–1.7)%[62]
P. fuligineum Kunth. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 0.4 (0.3–1.1)%[62]
P. gaudichaudianum2Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.5 (1.2–1.9)%[62]
P. gaudichaudianum Kunth.1Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 12.9 (12.4–13.3)%[62]
P. hispidum Sw. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1091.4 (1095.2–1087.7)%[62]
P. lhotzkyanum Kunth. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.6 (1.3–2.0)%[62]
P. malacophyllum Prels. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 3.7 (3.6–3.8)%[62]
P. marginatum L.1Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.0 (0.4–1.5)%[62]
P. mikanianum (Kunth) Steud. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.6 (1.2–1.9)%[62]
P. mollicomum2Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 0.4 (0.3–1.2)%[62]
P. mollicomum Kunth.1Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.3 (0.8–1.8)%[62]
P. mosenii C. DC. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 0.6 (0.0–1.1)%[62]
P. solmsianum C. DC Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 765.7 (771.1–760.3)%[62]
P. tuberculatum Jacq. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 1.4 (1.0–1.9)%[62]
P. umbellatum L. Anticarsia gemmatalisEggLC50 = 12.0 (11.6–12.3)%[62]
P. aduncum Spodoptera frugiperdaEggLC50 = 6.41 (5.42–7.32)[42]
P. divaricatum Spodoptera frugiperdaEggLC50 = 4.98 (10.84–21.14)[42]
P. marginatum L.2Spodoptera frugiperdaEggLC50 = 152.95 ppm (132.55–176.60)[67]
P. capitatum Plutellla xylostellaEggLC50 = 0.079 mg/mL (0.068–0.092)[55]
P. krukoffii Plutella xylostellaEggLC50 = 2.68 mg/mL (2.39–3.03)[56]
Abbreviation: LC = lethal concentration.
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

Silva, I.A.S.d.; Cotinguiba, F. Sustainable Potential of Piper Essential Oils Against Agricultural Pests of the Order Lepidoptera: A Review. Sustain. Chem. 2026, 7, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/suschem7020025

AMA Style

Silva IASd, Cotinguiba F. Sustainable Potential of Piper Essential Oils Against Agricultural Pests of the Order Lepidoptera: A Review. Sustainable Chemistry. 2026; 7(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/suschem7020025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Igor Alencar Sales da, and Fernando Cotinguiba. 2026. "Sustainable Potential of Piper Essential Oils Against Agricultural Pests of the Order Lepidoptera: A Review" Sustainable Chemistry 7, no. 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/suschem7020025

APA Style

Silva, I. A. S. d., & Cotinguiba, F. (2026). Sustainable Potential of Piper Essential Oils Against Agricultural Pests of the Order Lepidoptera: A Review. Sustainable Chemistry, 7(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/suschem7020025

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop