Evaluation of Partially Purified Fractions of Crude Extracts of the Leaves of Morinda lucida (Benth.) and Datura stramonium (L.) for Suppression of Wood Damage by Subterranean Termites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethanol extracts of Morinda lucida and Datura stramonium leaves were partitioned successively into petroleum ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate and methanol fractions. Each fraction was tested as wood preservative in-vivo at three different concentrations: 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%w/v. Basudin®, an organophosphate was used as standard. The extracts were applied on Triplochiton schleroxylon, a highly susceptible wood to termite infestation. The treated wood samples were exposed to termites for a period of twelve weeks. Observation was carried out weekly for signs of termite infestation. Weight loss in wood samples that were treated with fractions of D. stramonium leaf extract ranged from 8.20% - 13.50% in petroleum ether fraction, 9.35%-19.99% in chloroform fraction, 6.15% and 10.89% in ethyl acetate fraction and 10.81%-20.27% in methanol fraction. Petroleum ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate and methanol soluble fractions of M. lucida gave a weight loss range of 5.25%- 9.50%, 6.28%-11.50%, 4.89%-6.70% and 8.50%-20.27% respectively. Ethyl acetate soluble fraction of the two plants appeared to be more potent in suppressing wood damage. Ethyl acetate soluble fraction of M. lucida was the most effective in damage reduction. Methanol fraction was the least effective with the highest recorded weight loss at all the treatment levels. The weight loss recorded at all treatment levels with fractions of M. lucida was lower compared to the result obtained in treatment with D. stramonium leaf fractions. The phytochemical screening, 1H NMR and 13C NMR suggest anthraquinone and scopoletin as the major components of ethyl acetate soluble fraction of M. lucida. This study reveals that the two plants have components that are potential wood preservatives.
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) | 0.001 | 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".