| Literature DB >> 33424291 |
Mathalaimuthu Baranitharan1, Saud Alarifi2, Saad Alkahtani2, Daoud Ali2, Kuppusamy Elumalai1, Jeganathan Pandiyan3, Kaliyamoorthy Krishnappa3, Mohan Rajeswary4, Marimuthu Govindarajan4,5.
Abstract
Globally, the farmers are struggling with polyphagous insect pest, and it is the number one enemy of agri-products, which made plenty of economic deterioration. Spodoptera litura and Helicoverpa armigera are the agronomically important polyphagous pests. Most of the farmers are predominately dependent on synthetic chemical insecticides (SCIs) for battle against polyphagous pets. As a result, the broad spectrum usage of SCIs led a lot of detrimental outcomes only inconsequently the researchers search the former-friendly phyto-pesticidal approach. In the present investigation, leaf ethanol extract (LEE) and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) of A. catechu (Ac) were subjected to various spectral (TLC, CC, UV, FTIR, XRD and SEM) analyses. Larval and pupal toxicity of A. catechu Ac-LEE and Ac-AgNPs were tested against selected polyphagous insect pests. The significant larval and pupal toxicity were experimentally proven, and the highest toxicity noticed in AgNPs than Ac-LEE. The larval and pupal toxicity of Ac-AgNPs tested against S. litura and H. armigera LC50/LC90 values were 71.04/ 74.78, 85.33/ 88.91 µg/mL and 92.57/ 96.21 and 124.43/ 129.95 µg/mL respectively. Ac-AgNPs could be potential phyto-pesticidal effectiveness against selected polyphagous insect pests. In globally, it is significantly sufficient ratification giving towards the prevention of many unauthorized SCPs.Entities:
Keywords: Green synthesis; Helicoverpa armigera; Nanotechnology; Pest; Scanning electron microscope; Spodoptera litura
Year: 2020 PMID: 33424291 PMCID: PMC7785431 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1Floral collection and extract preparation. (A) A. catechu plant, (B) Dried leaf powder, (C) A. catechu condensed LEE in a Petri plate.
Fractions obtained from A. catechu LEE by different ratios of elutants.
| Sl. No. | Various solvent systems | Number of fractions obtained |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Ethanol:Diethyl ether – 7.5:2.5 | 2 |
| 2. | Ethanol:Diethyl ether – 8.0:2.0 | 3 |
| 3. | Ethanol:Diethyl ether – 8.5:1.5 | 4 |
| 4. | Ethanol:Diethyl ether – 9.0:1.0 | 5 |
| 5. | Ethanol:Diethyl ether – 9.5:0.5 | 3 |
Fig. 2Bioassay experimental setup of A. catechu LEE and AgNPs against S. litura. (A) S. litura eggs collected from castor plant leaf, (B) Larvicidal activity setup, (C) Pupicidal activity setup.
Fig. 3Bioassay experimental setup of A. catechu LEE and AgNPs against H. armigera. (A) H. armigera eggs collected from legume plant leaf, (B) Larvicidal activity setup, (C) Pupicidal activity setup.
Fig. 4Various fractionation units. (A) Air shield TLC unit, (B) CC unit.
Phytochemical screening of different solvent extracts of A. catechu.
| Sl. No. | Phytochemical screening | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HNE | DER | DME | EAE | ETL | ||
| 1. | Carbohydrates | – | + | – | – | – |
| 2. | Alkaloids | – | – | – | – | + |
| 3. | Flavonoids | + | + | – | + | + |
| 4. | Saponins | – | + | – | – | + |
| 5. | Tannins | + | + | + | – | + |
| 6. | Triterpenes | + | + | + | – | + |
| 7. | Resins | + | + | – | – | – |
| 8. | Coumarins | + | + | + | – | + |
| 9. | Anthraquinones | + | + | + | – | + |
| 10. | Phenolics | + | – | + | – | + |
HNE: Hexane; DER: Diethyl ether; DME: Dichloromethane; EAE: Ethyl acetate; ETL: Ethanol.
+ = noted for the presence of a phytochemical group.
– = noted for the absence of phytochemical group.
Fig. 5Colour change observation in A. catechu LEE AgNPs.
Fig. 6Spectrum observation of A. catechu LEE of AgNPs through UV-Vis.
Fig. 7FTIR spectrum of A. catechu LEE AgNPs.
Fig.8XRD spectrum of A. catechu LEE AgNPs.
Fig. 9SEM image of A. catechu LEE AgNPs. (Magnified at different range (A) 10000X, (B) 20000X, (C) 30000X, (D) 50000X).
Larval toxicity induced by A. catechu LLE and AgNPs on the larvae of selected polyphagous insect pests.
| Species tested | LC50 | 95% Fiducial limit (µg/mL) | LC90 | 95% Fiducial limit (µg/mL) | R-value | χ2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCL | UCL | LCL | UCL | |||||
| LEE of | ||||||||
| 65.47 | 41.73 | 82.45 | 129.27 | 107.66 | 178.04 | y = 15.03 + 1.65x | 8.057 | |
| 77.35 | 70.00 | 84.20 | 149.43 | 137.84 | 165.17 | y = 4.88 + 1.67x | 3.594 | |
| AgNPs | ||||||||
| 22.32 | 14.33 | 28.11 | 43.51 | 36.16 | 60.47 | y = 4.24 + 0.54x | 8.466 | |
| 26.17 | 23.93 | 28.30 | 48.16 | 44.67 | 52.79 | y = 0.50 + 0.52x | 2.785 | |
LC50 = Lethal Concentration brings out 50% mortality; LC90 = Lethal Concentration brings out 90% mortality; LCL = Lower Confidence Limit; UCL = Upper Confidence Limit; R-value = Regrasion value; χ2 = Chi- square.
Pupal toxicity induced by A. catechu LLE and AgNPs on the fresh pupae of selected polyphagous insect pests.
| Species tested | LC50 | 95% Fiducial limit (µg/mL) | LC90 | 95% Fiducial limit (µg/mL) | R- value | χ2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCL | UCL | LCL | UCL | ||||||
| LEE of | |||||||||
| 91.28 | 59.247 | 115.01 | 173.15 | 143.62 | 243.33 | y = 9.81 + 2.08x | 9.257 | ||
| 107.84 | 98.03 | 117.16 | 206.63 | 190.27 | 229.05 | y = 2.67 + 2.24x | 4.857 | ||
| AgNPs | |||||||||
| 35.90 | 21.07 | 46.67 | 68.24 | 55.22 | 105.15 | y = 2.99 + 0.80x | 11.921 | ||
| 41.14 | 37.78 | 44.38 | 74.85 | 69.38 | 82.18 | y = 2.34 + 0.79x | 3.368 | ||
LC50 = Lethal Concentration brings out 50% mortality; LC90 = Lethal Concentration brings out 90% mortality; LCL = Lower Confidence Limit; UCL = Upper Confidence Limit; R-value = Regrasion value; χ2 = Chi- square.