Acaricidal Properties of <I>Artemisia absinthium</I> and <I>Tanacetum vulgare</I> (Asteraceae) Essential Oils Obtained by Three Methods of Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential oils of Artemisia absinthium L. and Tanacetum vulgare L. were extracted by three methods, a microwave assisted process (MAP), distillation in water (DW) and direct steam distillation (DSD), and tested for their relative toxicity as contact acaricides to the two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch. All three extracts of A. absinthium and of T. vulgare were lethal to the spider mite but to variable degrees. The LC50 obtained from the DSD oil of A. absinthium was significantly lower (0.04 mg/cm2) than that of the MAP (0.13 mg/cm2) and DW (0.13 mg/cm2) oil of this plant species. DSD and DW extracts of T. vulgare were more toxic (75.6 and 60.4% mite mortality, respectively, at 4% concentration) to the spider mite than the MAP extract (16.7% mite mortality at 4% concentration). Chromatographic analysis indicated differences in composition between the more toxic DSD oil of A. absinthium and the other two extracts of this plant, indicating that a sesquiterpene (C15H24) compound present in the DSD oil and absent in the other two may enhance the toxicity of the DSD oil. Chemical analysis of the T. vulgare extracts indicated that beta-thujone is by far the major compound of the oil (>87.6%) and probably contributes significantly to the acaricidal activity of the oil.
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".