You are on page 1of 22

Investigation on Plant Derived Products as Control

Agents for House fly and Development of


Formulation

Centre for Rural Development & Technology


INTRODUCTION:
• Plant materials as insecticide (Shaalan et al. 2005; Isman 2006)
• Traditional medicine
• Easily accessible to Rural population
• Chemical Insecticides: Costly, Insect develop Resistance (Shen et
al.,1990;Oi et al.,1992)

Desirable characteristics of Plant materials for use in


pest control:
• Should be safe to use
• Non hazardous to environment
• Should be easy to extract and formulate
Target organism: house fly
Why ?
 Vectors of pathogens which cause human and
livestock diseases (Howard 2001).
 Irritate livestock and working personnel affecting
their productive efficiency (Fogg, 1971)
 Very few studies available on eco-friendly house
fly control (Malik et al., 2007)
 Systematic studies lacking as difficult to culture
under laboratory condition
Objectives:
 To control different stages of house fly
with application of different botanicals and
oil
 To formulate these botanicals and oils to
make it easy for application
Screening of Plants :

Eucalyptus Mentha piperita leaf Lemon grass leaf Khus


Turmeric
leaf

 Essential oils • Repellency


 Formulation of Essential • Larvicidal
• Pupacidal
oils

 Formulation of Botanicals Repellency


Life –cycle of House fly

Repellency

Pupacidal

Larvicidal
Repellency of field flies with
different Essential Oils
LARGER
CHAMBER
OUTER
CHAMBER

Petri plate containing


Oil on filter paper REPELLENCY CHAMBER

Results for repellency experiment:


Conc. Of oil used: 0.28 μl/cm2 Conc. Of oil used: 0.7 μl/cm2
80 100
70 90
Flies Repelled (%)

60 80
70
50

Repellency (%)
60
40
50
30
40
20 30
10 20
0 10
Mentha Eucalyptus Lemon grass Mentha Khus khus Turmeric 0
piperita citrata Mentha piperita Eucalyptus Mentha citrata Lemon grass Khus khus Turmeric

After 30 min. After 60 min After 120 min


After 30 min After 60 min After 120 min

*max repellency=70% by Mentha Piperita **repellency inc. to 88 % at higher conc

***Mentha Citrata become more effective at higher conc. Of oil


Larvicidal & Pupacidal with Essential oil
Larvae (10) + essential oil (1 ml in 0.01 % Tween 80)

Results for larvicidal experiment: Dead larvae after


treatment with oil

Avg. mortality of larvae 10


8
6
4
2
0
Live larvae
l
a in
t us as
s ic ro
rit pt er nt
pe er
m ly gr m
pi a
on
r Co
a Pi
p uc Tu
th E m
en Le 24h 48h
M

Pupae (20) + essential oil (200μl in 0.01 % Tween 80)

Results for pupacidal experiment:


20
18
Avg no. of flies emerged

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

pe
rit
a
rm
in
t
yp
tu
s
gr
as
s
m
er
ic
n tr
ol %IR=95 (Lemon grass),
Pi pe al r Co
on
en
th
a Pi E uc
Le
m
Tu
55 (Turmeric)
M
Oil
96h 144h
Formulation
Types of formulation

The main factors governing the choice of formulation are


•Physico-chemical properties
•Biological activity and mode of action
•Method of application
•Safety in use
•Formulation costs
•Market preference
Preparation of Emulsion from Essential oil (40 EC)
[40 EC stands for 40 % of Active Ingredients in the mixture]
Active Ingredient : 40 % (4 gm)
Solvent (xylene) : 45 % (4.5
gm)
Co- surfactant (Butanol-1) : 3 % (0.3
gm)
Surfactant : 12 % (1.2
gm)
Code A- NP20
Code B- Castor oil ethoxalate
S no. Formulation Code A Code B
1 EC I 0.7 0.5
2 EC II 0.5 0.7
3 EC III 0.6 0.6
4 EC IV 0.8 0.4
5 EC V 0.4 0.8
6 EC VI 1.0 0.2
7 EC VII 0.2 1.0
8 EC VIII 0.9 0.3
9 EC IX 0.3 0.9
Preparation of formulation from essential oil:

40 EC Mentha piperita
Active Ingredients (Eucalyptus oil): 4.0 g
Solvent (xylene): 4.5 g
Co-Surfactant (Butanol): 0.3 g
Surfactant: NP 20 0.7 g
Castor Oil Ethoxalate 0.5 g

40 EC Eucalyptus
Active Ingredients (Eucalyptus oil): 4.0 g
Solvent (xylene): 4.5 g
Co-Surfactant (Butanol): 0.3 g
Surfactant: NP 20 0.7 g
Castor Oil Ethoxalate 0.5 g

Measure the requisite amount of ingredients and


mix properly
Keep it for 24 h
Results for repellency experiment (with formulated Essential oil)
40 EC Mentha Piperita 40 EC Eucalyptus
100 100
90 90
Flies repelled (% )

80
80
70
70

Flies repelled (%)


60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (min.)
2% 5%
Time (min.) 2% 5%

100
90
80
70 Conc. Of pure oil=0.7µl/cm2
Repellency (%)

60 Conc. of formulated Mentha


50 Piperita & Eucalyptus=
40
0.000028μl/cm2
30
20
10
0
Mentha Piperita Eucalyptus Pure oil (Menta Piperita)

30 min 60 min 120 min

Fig. Comparative efficacy between oil and its formulation

*Formulated product of oil is better control agent for House fly than pure oil
** Formulated Mentha Piperita is more effective than the formulated form of Eucalyptus
Results for larvicidal experiment (with formulated Essential oil)

40 EC Mentha piperita 40 EC Eucalyptus


24h 48h 72h 24h 48h 72h

100 100

Larval mortality (%)


80 80
Larval mortality (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0
0
2% 5% 10% Neat
2% 5% 10% Neat

Conc. of formulation Conc. of formulation

24h 48h 72h


100

80
Larval moratality

60

40

20

0
pure oil (Mentha) M. piperita & M. piperita (10%) Eucalyptus (10%)
Eucalyptus (Neat)

* Formulated product of oil is better larvicidal for House fly than pure oil
** Formulation of both Mentha Piperita and Eucalyptus has similar in efficiency (76.6%) at 10% conc. of product
Results for pupacidal experiment (with formulated Essential oil)

Mentha piperita Eucalyptus Control


Emergence of Adult flies (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
2% 5% 10% Neat
Conc. of formulation

* Control showed 80% fly emergence


** IR (%)= 83.75 (M. piperita) & 87.5 (Eucalyptus) at 5% conc. of formulation
*** Both the formulation were at par for their efficiency
Preparation of Dhoop-batti formulation with plant extracts

Essential oils: Need rigorous extraction Not feasible in


Need extensive mechanization Rural Areas
Expensive

Constituents: Cow dung, ghee, rice particle and raal powder (5:1:1:1)
Active ingredient equivalent to the amount of cow dung
Result: Caused less than 10% repellency
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
Experimental Site: Gaushala, Karol bagh

DUMP SITE

HOSPITAL C CALF
L AREA
BULL SHED O
S
TREE
E
D CALF
AREA

OPEN S
AREA H
E
CALF
D AREA

FROM RIGHT SIDE

AREA OF PROBLEM

FROM FRONT
Surface application on the body surface of animal

M. piperita (40 EC) Vol.-100ml Conc.-10%

Before Application After Application

Hind portion of an injured animal


infested with House flies No flies
Before Application After Application

550
500
450
400
No. of flies /hr

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Control Cow Treated Cow

* Cows sprayed with formulation of M. piperita was visited by an average of 20 flies/hour


(percentage reduction of 96.08 flies/hour)
** Control was visited by 509 flies/ hour for the same time period
Surface application

Before Application After Application

1650
1500
1350
1200 % Reduction of
M. piperita (40 EC) 1050
No. of flies/hr

90.8 flies
900
750
Area-2x2 m2 600
Vol.-25ml 450
%Reduction of
300
150
98.9 flies
0
Control Mentha piperita M. piperita
(10%) (undiluted)

*Treated surfaces with 40 EC formulation of M. piperita was visited by 151 flies/hour (10% conc.)
and 17 flies/hour at 100% conc.
**Control was visited by 1645 flies/ hour for the same time period
References:
 Fogg. C.E., 1971. Livestock waste management and the conservation plan.
In: Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St.
Joseph, Mich., pp. 34--35.
 Howard. J.,2001 Nuisance flies around landfill;pattern of abundance and
distribution. Waste management. Res.19, 308-313.
 Isman, M.B.. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern
agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annual review of Entomology
2006, 51, 45-66.
 Oi, M.; Dauterman, W.; Motoyama, N. Toxico kinetic analysis of dermally
applied diazinon in resistant and susceptible house flies, Musca domestica L.
Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1992, 27, 371–383.
 Malik, A.; Singh, N.; Satya, S. 2007. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health Part B (2007) 42, 453–469
 Shaalan, E.A.S.; Canyon, D.; Younes, M.W.F.; Wahab, H.A.; Mansour, A.H.
2005. A review of botanical phytochemicals with mosquitocidal potential.
Environ. Int., 31, 1149-1166.
 Shen, J.; Plapp, Jr. F. W. Cyromazine resistance in the house fly (Diptera:
Muscidae): Genetics and cross resistance to diflubenzuron. J. Econ. Entomol.
1990, 83, 1689–1697.
THANK YOU

You might also like