| Literature DB >> 28004743 |
Lingling Zhang1,2, Xiaojuan Zhang1, Yi Zhang1, Songqin Wu1,2, Ivan Gelbič3, Lei Xu1, Xiong Guan1,2.
Abstract
Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis is an important factor in determining the success of this product as a pest control agent. In this report we present the development of a highly active mosquitocidal formulation with high resistance to UV. LLP29-M19 strain of Bt, selected by repeated exposure to UV was found to be highly resistant to UV. The product was optimized and the methods used were statistically analyzed. Using single-factor experiments it was determined that the optimal concentration of sodium alginate, CaCl2 and hollow glass beads in the formulation were 1.0%, 2.0% and 3.5%, respectively. Plackett-Burman design was used to screen the interaction of the three factors, CaCl2, sodium alginate and hollow glass beads in the sustained-release formulation. The best combined concentration and mutual effects of the three factors were optimized by response surface methodology. The results showed that the most favorable composition was sodium alginate 0.78%, CaCl2 4.52%, hollow glass bead 3.12%, bacterial powder 3.0%, melanin 0.015%, sodium benzoate 0.2%, and mouse feed 0.5%, resulting in the immobilization time of 4.5 h, at which time the corrected sustained-release virulence rose 2391.67 fold, which was 6.07-fold higher than the basic formulation and deviated only 5.0% from the value predicted by RSM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28004743 PMCID: PMC5177894 DOI: 10.1038/srep39425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Three-dimensional graphs and contour patterns of the function.
Y = f (A,B), Y = f (A,C), Y = f (B,C), A = sodium alginate (%), B = CaCl2 (%), C = hollow glass bead (%), Y = mosquitocidal activity.
PB experimental design and results for screening of culture conditions affecting the mosquitocidal toxicity of the release formulation.
| Run | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | mosquitocidal activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2206.67 ± 28.28 |
| 2 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 2216.67 ± 47.14 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1968.33 ± 16.50 |
| 4 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 746.67 ± 18.86 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1881.67 ± 11.79 |
| 6 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 2015.00 ± 40.07 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1436.67 ± 51.85 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 2155.00 ± 58.93 |
| 9 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 2163.33 ± 84.85 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 716.67 ± 28.28 |
| 11 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1560.00 ± 75.42 |
| 12 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 863.33 ± 47.14 |
Analysis of PB results.
| effect | Coefficient | Standard error | T value | P value | Important sequence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | — | 1660.830 | 42.63 | 38.96 | 0.000 | — |
| A | −692.8 | −346.389 | 42.63 | −8.13 | 0.004 | 2 |
| B | 727.2 | 363.611 | 42.63 | 8.53 | 0.003 | 1 |
| C | −375.0 | −187.499 | 42.63 | −4.40 | 0.022 | 3 |
| D | 204.4 | 102.221 | 42.63 | 2.40 | 0.096 | 4 |
| E | 93.9 | 46.944 | 42.63 | 1.10 | 0.351 | 6 |
| F | −187.8 | −93.889 | 42.63 | −2.20 | 0.115 | 5 |
| G | −90.0 | −45.001 | 42.63 | −1.06 | 0.369 | 7 |
| H | −10.6 | −5.278 | 42.63 | −0.12 | 0.909 | 8 |
Design and data from the steepest ascent experiment.
| Order | Sodium alginate (%) | CaCl2 (%) | Hollow glass bead (%) | Mosquitocidal activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | 1.00 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 1643.33 ± 14.14 |
| x + 1△x | 0.95 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 1711.67 ± 40.07 |
| x + 2△X | 0.90 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 1850.00 ± 37.71 |
| x + 3△X | 0.85 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 2338.33 ± 63.64 |
| x + 4△X | 0.80 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 2481.67 ± 25.93 |
| x + 5△X | 0.75 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 1405.00 ± 44.78 |
| x + 6△X | 0.70 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 745.00 ± 30.64 |
| x + 7△X | 0.65 | 5.5 | 2.1 | 441.67 ± 2.36 |
Design and data from the response surface methodology.
| Orders | A | B | C | Mosquitocidal activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2281.67 ± 77.78 |
| 2 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 2098.33 ± 73.07 |
| 3 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 2048.33 ± 51.21 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 2060.00 ± 56.57 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2230.00 ± 88.28 |
| 6 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 2091.67 ± 46.50 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 2076.67 ± 61.28 |
| 8 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 2086.67 ± 51.85 |
| 9 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2146.67 ± 69.43 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2079.33 ± 57.07 |
| 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2060.00 ± 44.71 |
| 12 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 2183.33 ± 78.28 |
| 13 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 2077.67 ± 66.00 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2271.67 ± 58.93 |
| 15 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2278.33 ± 77.78 |
Estimated value of coefficient in the regression equation.
| Coefficient | Standard error | T value | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2261.111111 | 25.81 | 87.602 | 0.000 |
| A | −15.916667 | 15.81 | −1.007 | 0.360 |
| B | 22.291667 | 15.81 | 1.410 | 0.218 |
| C | 41.958333 | 15.81 | 2.655 | 0.045 |
| A*A | −127.430556 | 23.27 | −5.477 | 0.003 |
| B*B | −62.180556 | 23.27 | −2.673 | 0.044 |
| C*C | −41.180556 | 23.27 | −1.770 | 0.137 |
| A*B | −1.833333 | 22.35 | −0.082 | 0.938 |
| A*C | −19.166667 | 22.35 | −0.857 | 0.430 |
| B*C | 20.250000 | 22.35 | 0.906 | 0.407 |
Anova analysis of model equations.
| DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F value | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 9 | 96209 | 96208.5 | 10689.8 | 5.35 | 0.04 |
| Linear | 3 | 20086 | 20086.1 | 6695.4 | 3.35 | 0.113 |
| Quadratic | 3 | 72999 | 72999.3 | 24333.1 | 12.17 | 0.01 |
| Cross product | 3 | 3123 | 3123.1 | 1041 | 0.52 | 0.686 |
| Residual error | 5 | 9993 | 9993.2 | 1998.6 | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 3 | 8491 | 8491.3 | 2830.4 | 3.77 | 0.217 |
| Pure error | 2 | 1502 | 1501.9 | 750.9 | — | — |
| Total error | 14 | 106202 | — | — | — | — |