Larvicidal Efficacy of Fruit Peel Extracts of <i>Citrus maxima</i> against <i>Culex quinquefasciatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crude, and three different solvents, viz., n- hexane, ethyl acetate, and methanol fruit peel extracts of Citrus maxima Merr. ( C. maxima ) were applied at dose dependent manner for larvicidal bioassay against Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1823 ( Cx. quinquefasciatus ) mosquito. All instars larvae were used for larvicidal bioassay of crude fruit peel extract and only 3 rd instar larvae were used for larvicidal bioassay of different solvent extracts. Log-probit analyses along with Regression equations and R 2 values were determined for larvicidal activity of both crude and different solvent extracts. An ANOVA analysis was carried out to justify the statistical significance. Qualitative phytochemical analyses were done. n-Hexane fruit peel extract was also applied on non target organisms. Crude fruit peel extract of C. maxima showed strong lethal activity against all instars larvae of Cx. quinquefasciatus . 1 st instar larvae were most susceptible to crude fruit peel extract. 1 st instar larvae showed 100% mortality only at 0.2% concentration of crude fruit peel extract after 72 h of exposure. 100% mortality of 3 rd instar larvae were observed at 400 ppm concentration of n-hexane fruit peel extract after 24 h of exposure whereas, ethyl acetate and methanol fruit peel extracts showed 100% mortality at 800 ppm concentration after 72 and 24 h of exposure respectively. LC 50 values of n-hexane, ethyl acetate and methanol fruit peel extracts were 204.60, 640.95, and 336.36 ppm, respectively against 3 rd instar larvae after 24 h of exposure. No mortality was observed on control treatments. Fruit peel extract contained different phytochemical constituents. Non-target organisms did not show any abnormal activity and mortality.
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) | 0.002 | 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".