| Literature DB >> 35163853 |
Sara Basile1,2, Natale Badalamenti3, Ornella Riccobono2, Salvatore Guarino4, Vincenzo Ilardi3, Maurizio Bruno3,5, Ezio Peri2,6.
Abstract
The problems of the environment and human health related to the use of synthetic and broad-spectrum insecticides have increasingly motivated scientific research on different alternatives and among these, the use of green systems, such as essential oils, have been explored. Several species of the Apiaceae and Asteraceae families, aromatic herbs rich in secondary bioactive metabolites, are used in the industrial field for pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food purposes. Different essential oils extracted from some species of these families have shown acute toxicity and attractive and/or repellent effects towards different insects. In our work, we investigated the toxic potential of Calendula incana subsp. maritima and Laserpitium siler subsp. siculum essential oils against four insect species, Sitophilus oryzae, Lasioderma serricorne, Necrobia rufipes, and Rhyzoperta dominica, which are common pests of stored products. The composition of both oils, extracted by hydrodistillation from the aerial parts of the two plants, was evaluated by GC×GC-MS. Calendula incana subsp. maritima essential oil was rich in oxygenated sesquiterpenoids, such as cubebol (35.39%), 4-epi-cubebol (22.99%), and cubenol (12.77%), while the Laserpitium siler subsp. siculum essential oil was composed mainly of monoterpene hydrocarbons, such as β-phellandrene (42.16%), limonene (23.87%), and β-terpinene (11.80%). The toxicity Petri dish bioassays indicated that C. maritima oil killed a mean of 65.50% of S. oryzae and 44.00% of R. dominica adults, indicating a higher biocidal activity in comparison with L. siculum oil, while toward the other species, no significant differences in mortality were recorded. Calendula maritima oil could be, then, considered a promising candidate for further tests as an alternative biocide toward S. oryzae and R. dominica. The possibility that the relatively high content of oxygenated sesquiterpenoids in C. maritima essential oil determines its higher biocidal activity is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: GC×GC-MS analysis; Lasioderma serricorne; Necrobia rufipes; Rhyzopertha dominica; Sitophilus oryzae; cubebene derivatives
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35163853 PMCID: PMC8840456 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27030588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Compounds identified in the essential oil of Calendula incana subsp. maritima using GC×GC-MS.
| No | t1R | t2R | Compounds | LRIexp a | LRIlit b | Content (%) c | Ident. d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.08 | 1.79 | 977 | 981 |
| 1, 2, 3 | |
| 2 | 17.24 | 1.63 | 2-Pentylfuran | 991 | 993 |
| 1, 2 |
| 3 | 18.33 | 0.61 | 1026 | 1028 |
| 1, 2, 3 | |
| 4 | 18.60 | 1.72 | Limonene | 1031 | 1028 |
| 1, 2, 3 |
| 5 | 18.87 | 1.32 | Benzeneacetaldehyde | 1046 | 1045 | 0.08 ± 0.001 | 1, 2, 3 |
| 6 | 19.00 | 1.41 | 1048 | 1056 |
| 1, 2, 3 | |
| 7 | 20.32 | 1.83 | Nonanal | 1106 | 1109 |
| 1, 2 |
| 8 | 25.11 | 1.86 | Decanal | 1206 | 1210 |
| 1, 2, 3 |
| 9 | 27.13 | 1.59 | 1359 | 1365 | 1.33 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 | |
| 10 | 27.64 | 1.56 | 1387 | 1381 | 0.12 ± 0.004 | 1, 2 | |
| 11 | 27.88 | 1.63 | 1391 | 1397 | 1.15 ± 0.03 | 1, 2 | |
| 12 | 28.85 | 1.53 | 1432 | 1431 | 1.20 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 | |
| 13 | 31.83 | 1.37 | 1479 | 1480 | 0.39 ± 0.008 | 1, 2 | |
| 14 | 32.04 | 1.03 | 4- | 1491 | 1497 | 23.11 ± 0.74 | 1, 2 |
| 15 | 34.24 | 1.28 | Cubebol | 1518 | 1525 | 35.84 ± 0.69 | 1, 2 |
| 16 | 34.26 | 1.71 | 1522 | 1523 | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 | |
| 17 | 34.32 | 1.34 | 1525 | 1526 | 0.80 ± 0.007 | 1, 2 | |
| 18 | 35.21 | 0.89 | Calamenene | 1528 | 1531 | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 |
| 19 | 35.91 | 1.13 | Cadala-1(10),3,8-triene | 1544 | 1552 | 1.43 ± 0.07 | 1, 2 |
| 20 | 36.23 | 0.81 | Ledol | 1549 | 1553 | 0.70 ± 0.010 | 1, 2, 3 |
| 21 | 40.75 | 1.27 | Cubenol | 1647 | 1648 | 12.59 ± 0.39 | 1, 2 |
| 22 | 40.84 | 1.03 | 1651 | 1654 | 13.15 ± 0.44 | 1, 2 | |
| 23 | 40.91 | 1.42 | Ledene oxide-(II) | 1653 | 1655 | 2.19 ± 0.08 | 1, 2 |
| 24 | 57.83 | 0.84 | Hexahydrofarnesyl acetone | 1842 | 1845 | 0.59 ± 0.010 | 1, 2 |
| Monoterpene Hydrocarbons |
| ||||||
| Sesquiterpene Hydrocarbons | 8.150 ± 0.199 | ||||||
| Oxygenated Sesquiterpenes | 88.17 ± 2.360 | ||||||
| Others | 0.090 ± 0.002 | ||||||
| Total | 96.410 ± 2.561 | ||||||
t1R: first dimension retention time (minutes.seconds); t2R: second dimension retention time. a Linear retention index, obtained through the modulated chromatogram, reported for DB-5 MS apolar column; b Linear retention index reported for DB-5 MS column or equivalents reported in the literature; c Content is the peak volume percentage of compounds in the essential oil sample; d: 1 = retention index identical to bibliography; 2 = identification based on comparison of MS; 3 = retention time identical to authentic compounds; t: traces, <0.05%. Compounds are classified in order of linear retention time of the apolar column.
Compounds identified in the essential oil of Laserpitium siler subsp. siculum using GC×GC-MS.
| No | t1R | t2R | Compounds | LRIexp a | LRIlit b | Content (%) c | Ident. d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.59 | 0.68 | 3-Hexanone | 782 | 775 |
| 1, 2 |
| 2 | 13.05 | 0.94 | 2-Hexanone | 798 | 791 |
| 1, 2, 3 |
| 3 | 14.91 | 1.30 | 891 | 885 | 0.07 ± 0.002 | 1, 2 | |
| 4 | 16.19 | 1.46 | 937 | 936 |
| 1, 2, 3 | |
| 5 | 16.72 | 1.56 | Camphene | 959 | 954 | 0.93 ± 0.010 | 1, 2, 3 |
| 6 | 17.02 | 1.77 | 977 | 981 | 3.14 ± 0.15 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 7 | 17.29 | 1.67 | 2-Butyltetrahydro-furan | 999 | 986 |
| 1, 2 |
| 8 | 17.50 | 1.72 | 2-Carene | 1001 | 1003 | 2.07 ± 0.04 | 1, 2 |
| 9 | 17.62 | 1.51 | 1003 | 1005 | 0.38 ± 0.010 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 10 | 17.91 | 1.15 | Sylvestrene | 1014 | 1021 | 0.11 ± 0.004 | 1, 2 |
| 11 | 17.96 | 1.62 | 3-Carene | 1015 | 1010 | 0.23 ± 0.001 | 1, 2 |
| 12 | 18.23 | 1.82 | 1019 | 1017 | 3.57 ± 0.11 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 13 | 18.37 | 1.93 | 4-Carene | 1022 | 1018 | 0.82 ± 0.010 | 1, 2 |
| 14 | 18.40 | 0.63 | 1023 | 1022 | 0.55 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 | |
| 15 | 18.56 | 1.72 | 1029 | 1028 | 41.98 ± 0.93 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 16 | 18.60 | 1.72 | Limonene | 1031 | 1028 | 23.76 ± 0.78 | 1, 2, 3 |
| 17 | 19.00 | 1.41 | 1048 | 1056 | 11.83 ± 0.08 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 18 | 19.73 | 2.03 | 1082 | 1087 | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 1, 2 | |
| 19 | 19.99 | 1.62 | 2,4-Dimethylstyrene | 1089 | - | 0.09 ± 0.003 | 1, 2 |
| 20 | 25.15 | 1.77 | 1207 | 1199 | 0.19 ± 0.002 | 1, 2, 3 | |
| 21 | 26.54 | 2.14 | 4-Terpinenyl acetate | 1291 | 1282 | 5.28 ± 0.24 | 1, 2 |
| 22 | 27.28 | 1.62 | 1368 | 1385 |
| 1, 2 | |
| 23 | 27.31 | 1.82 | 1369 | 1373 |
| 1, 2 | |
| 24 | 27.64 | 1.56 | 1387 | 1381 | 0.15 ± 0.003 | 1, 2 | |
| 25 | 27.93 | 1.98 | 1,7-Dimethylnaphthalene | 1396 | 1410 | 0.05 ± 0.001 | 1, 2 |
| 26 | 28.53 | 1.77 | Caryophyllene | 1425 | 1417 | 1.12 ± 0.03 | 1, 2, 3 |
| 27 | 28.61 | 1.98 | 1427 | 1422 | 0.59 ± 0.010 | 1, 2 | |
| 28 | 28.87 | 1.51 | 1433 | 1432 |
| 1, 2 | |
| 29 | 29.45 | 1.62 | 1439 | 1434 | 0.21 ± 0.004 | 1, 2 | |
| 30 | 30.01 | 1.98 | Humulene | 1455 | 1453 | 0.12 ± 0.002 | 1, 2 |
| 31 | 31.17 | 2.03 | Patchoulene | 1468 | 1467 | 0.44 ± 0.007 | 1, 2 |
| 32 | 31.79 | 0.63 | 1478 | 1483 | 0.06 ± 0.001 | 1, 2 | |
| 33 | 33.66 | 0.21 | 1511 | 1506 | 0.09 ± 0.006 | 1, 2 | |
| 34 | 34.21 | 0.31 | 1519 | 1522 | 0.16 ± 0.009 | 1, 2 | |
| 35 | 35.43 | 0.99 | 1536 | 1542 | 0.09 ± 0.006 | 1, 2 | |
| 36 | 42.67 | 1.88 | 1698 | - | 0.19 ± 0.008 | 1, 2 | |
| 37 | 48.07 | 1.93 | 1725 | 1712 | 0.05 ± 0.002 | 1, 2 | |
| 38 | 51.15 | 0.63 | Chamazulene | 1731 | 1730 | 0.13 ± 0.005 | 1, 2 |
| Monoterpene Hydrocarbons | 90.19 ± 2.168 | ||||||
| Oxygenated Monoterpenes | 5.47 ± 0.242 | ||||||
| Sesquiterpene Hydrocarbons | 3.16 ± 0.083 | ||||||
| Oxygenated Sesquiterpenes | 0.24 ± 0.010 | ||||||
| Others | 0.13 ± 0.004 | ||||||
| Total | 99.19 ± 2.507 | ||||||
t1R: first dimension retention time (minutes.seconds); t2R: second dimension retention time. a Linear retention index, obtained through the modulated chromatogram, reported for DB-5 MS apolar column; b Linear retention index reported for DB-5 MS column or equivalents reported in the literature; c Content is the peak volume percentage of compounds in the essential oil sample; d: 1 = retention index identical to bibliography; 2 = identification based on comparison of MS; 3 = retention time identical to authentic compounds; t: traces, < 0.05%. Compounds are classified in order of linear retention time of the apolar column.
Figure 1Mean (+SE) % adult mortality after three days (d) from treatment determined by Calendula incana subsp. maritima and Laserpitium siler subsp. siculum toward Sitophilus oryzae, Necrobia rufipes, Lasioderma serricorne, and Rhyzoperta dominica. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among the treatments (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test).