Glucosinolate breakdown products as insect fumigants and their effect on carbon dioxide emission of insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucosinolate breakdown products are volatile, therefore good candidates for insect fumigants. However, although they are insecticidal, the mode of action of such natural products is not clear. We studied the insecticidal effect of these compounds as fumigants, and monitored the production of carbon dioxide by the insects as a probe to the understanding of their mode of action. RESULTS: The fumigation 24-h LC50 against the house fly (Musca domestica L.) of allyl thiocyanate, allyl isothiocyanate, allyl cyanide, and l-cyano-2-hydroxy-3-butene was 0.1, 0.13, 3.66, and 6.2 microg cm-3, respectively; they were 0.55, 1.57, 2.8, and > 19.60 microg cm-3, respectively, against the lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica Fabricius). The fumigation toxicity of some of the glucosinolate products was very close to or better than that of the commercial insect fumigants such as chloropicrin (LC50: 0.08 and 1.3 microg cm-3 against M. domestica and R. dominica, respectively) and dichlorovos (LC50: < 0.02 and 0.29 microg cm-3 against M. domestica and R. dominica, respectively) in our laboratory tests. Significantly increased CO2 expiration was found in insects exposed to the vapor of allyl isothiocyanate, allyl thiocyanate and allyl isocyanate. Allyl isothiocyanate was also found to increase the CO2 expiration of the American cockroach (Periplaneta americana L.). CONCLUSIONS: Glucosinolate breakdown products have potential as biodegradable and safe insect fumigants. They may act on the insect respiratory system in their mode of action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".