| Literature DB >> 31027350 |
Lixia Hou1, Yi Wu2, Shaojin Wang3,4.
Abstract
Thermal treatment has been extensively used to control pests in stored grains for a long time. The objective of this study was to analyze thermal death kinetics of adult flat grain beetle, Cryptolestes pusillus (Schonherr), lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius), and confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum (Jacquelin du Val), using a heating block system (HBS), at temperatures of 46, 48, 50, and 52 °C for C. pusillus and T. confusum, and 48, 50, 52, and 54 °C for R. dominica with a heating rate of 5 °C/min. Thermal death curves of those three insects followed a 0th-order reaction model. Complete mortality of C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum were observed after exposure to 1.4, 5.0, and 0.9 min at 52, 54 and 52 °C, respectively. The thermal death activation energy for controlling C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum was 689.91, 380.88, and 617.08 kJ/mol with z values of 2.88, 5.18, and 3.22 °C, respectively. The cumulative lethal time model can also be used to predict mortality of these three insects during a practical heating process. The information provided by this study on storage pests may be useful for developing effective thermal treatment protocols.Entities:
Keywords: cumulative lethal time model; storage insect; thermal death time model; thermal treatment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31027350 PMCID: PMC6571986 DOI: 10.3390/insects10050119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Figure 1Schematic diagram of heating block system for insect mortality experiments [22].
Determination of the suitable kinetic order (n) for the thermal death of C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum at four temperatures by comparing the coefficients of determination (R2).
| Temp. (°C) |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| 46 | 150 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.66 |
| 48 | 150 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.68 |
| 50 | 150 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.71 |
| 52 | 150 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.65 |
| Average | 150 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.67 |
|
| ||||||
| 48 | 150 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.67 |
| 50 | 150 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.83 | 0.73 | 0.64 |
| 52 | 150 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.66 |
| 54 | 150 | 0.97 | 0.88 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| Average | 150 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
|
| ||||||
| 46 | 150 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.58 |
| 48 | 150 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.57 |
| 50 | 150 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.65 |
| 52 | 150 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| Average | 150 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.64 |
N0, the initial number of insects tested.
Figure 2Thermal survival curves at different temperatures and exposure times of adult: C. pusillus (a); R. dominica (b); and T. confusum (c).
Thermal death constants of 0th-order reaction model for C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum at four different temperatures.
| Temp. (°C) | ( | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| 46 | 0.01 | 0.99 |
| 48 | 0.02 | 1.17 |
| 50 | 0.10 | 1.16 |
| 52 | 0.74 | 1.03 |
|
| ||
| 48 | 0.01 | 0.98 |
| 50 | 0.04 | 1.03 |
| 52 | 0.08 | 0.98 |
| 54 | 0.20 | 0.99 |
|
| ||
| 46 | 0.02 | 1.18 |
| 48 | 0.08 | 1.03 |
| 50 | 0.40 | 1.03 |
| 52 | 1.04 | 0.98 |
Comparison of LTs (min) obtained by experiments and predicted by 0th-order kinetic models for adult C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum at four different temperatures.
| Temp. (°C) |
| Min. Exposure Time for 100% Mortality of 150 Insects | Predicted Treatment Time (min) (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LT95 | LT99 | LT99.99 | |||
|
| |||||
| 46 | 150 | 153.3 | 158.0 (123.9–157.2) | 164.7 (128.6–164.3) | 166.3 (129.7–166.0)) |
| 48 | 150 | 58.5 | 59.9 (45.2–65.1) | 61.9 (46.6–67.7) | 62.4 (46.9–68.3) |
| 50 | 150 | 11.1 | 11.3 (9.5–11.8) | 11.7 (9.8–12.2) | 11.8 (9.8–12.4) |
| 52 | 150 | 1.4 | 1.3 (1.1–1.5) | 1.4 (1.1–1.5) | 1.4 (1.1–1.6) |
|
| |||||
| 48 | 150 | 75.2 | 73.7 (68.8–92.7) | 81.2 (71.4–96.9) | 82.0 (72.1–98.3) |
| 50 | 150 | 28.7 | 29.9 (24.2–29.6) | 30.4 (25.1–30.9) | 28.6 (25.3–31.2) |
| 52 | 150 | 11.7 | 11.9 (8.9–13.0) | 12.4 (9.2–13.6) | 12.5 (9.2–13.8) |
| 54 | 150 | 5.0 | 4.8 (4.4–6.6) | 4.9 (4.6–6.9) | 5.0 (4.6–7.0) |
|
| |||||
| 46 | 150 | 62.4 | 64.9 (54.5–68.1) | 67.1 (56.1–70.6) | 67.9 (56.6–71.3) |
| 48 | 150 | 12.9 | 13.5 (13.1–16.3) | 14.4 (13.5–16.9) | 14.7 (13.6–17.1) |
| 50 | 150 | 2.6 | 2.9 (2.1–3.6) | 3.0 (2.1–3.7) | 3.1 (2.1–3.8) |
| 52 | 150 | 0.9 | 0.9 (0.7–1.0) | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) |
N0, the initial number of insects tested.
Figure 3Thermal mortality curve for adult C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum at heating rate of 5 °C/min.
Figure 4Arrhenius plot for temperature effects on thermal death rates of adult C. pusillus, R. dominica, and T. confusum.
Figure 5Temperature–time histories for the thermal treatment.
Figure 6The cumulative lethal time M for R. dominica as a function of treatment time at four heating temperatures at the reference temperature of 46 °C.
Comparison of lethal times and kinetic parameters for thermal treatment between adult lesser grain borer and other storage pests.
| Insect | Temp. (°C) | Min. Time for 100% Mortality (min) | Thermal Death Constant | Reaction Order | Activation Energy (kJ/mol) | Source | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 46 | 153 | 0.0059 | 1.1100 | 0 | 2.88 | 689 | This study |
| 48 | 58 | 0.0149 | 1.1692 | |||||
| 50 | 11 | 0.0788 | 1.1692 | |||||
| 52 | 1 | 0.8192 | 1.2601 | |||||
|
| 44 | 120 | 0.0078 | 1.069 | 0.5 | 3.9 | 514 | [ |
| 46 | 30 | 0.0313 | 0.963 | |||||
| 48 | 10 | 0.0999 | 0.983 | |||||
| 50 | 3 | 0.3595 | 1.011 | |||||
|
| 48 | 75 | 0.0114 | 0.9784 | 0 | 5.2 | 381 | This study |
| 50 | 29 | 0.0366 | 1.0387 | |||||
| 52 | 12 | 0.0837 | 0.9813 | |||||
| 54 | 5 | 0.1657 | 0.9862 | |||||
|
| 44 | 130 | 0.0069 | 1.0485 | 0 | 3.9 | 505 | [ |
| 46 | 50 | 0.0148 | 0.9913 | |||||
| 48 | 12 | 0.0650 | 1.0235 | |||||
| 50 | 4 | 0.2499 | 1.0560 | |||||
|
| 46 | 160 | 0.0061 | 1.0100 | 0 | 3.8 | 527 | [ |
| 48 | 40 | 0.0244 | 1.0360 | |||||
| 50 | 14 | 0.0635 | 0.9424 | |||||
| 52 | 4 | 0.2495 | 0.9616 | |||||
|
| 48 | 85 | 0.0122 | 1.0365 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 814 | [ |
| 50 | 12 | 0.1042 | 1.0509 | |||||
| 52 | 2 | 0.5182 | 0.9075 | |||||
|
| 46 | 62 | 0.0160 | 1.2317 | 0 | 3.22 | 616 | This study |
| 48 | 13 | 0.2898 | 1.1940 | |||||
| 50 | 3 | 0.0654 | 1.2438 | |||||
| 52 | 1 | 1.0118 | 1.1361 | |||||