Identification of Volatile Compounds and Insecticidal Activity of Essential Oils from Origanum compactum Benth. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work was undertaken to investigate the volatile compounds and insecticidal activity of essential oils (EOs) from Origanum compactum Benth. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. against the crop pest Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.). Essential oils of Origanum compactum (EOC) and Rosmarinus officinalis L. (EOR) were extracted by use of hydrodistillation, and their volatile compounds were profiled by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The insecticidal activity of extracted EOC and EOR was evaluated against C. maculatus. GC-MS analysis revealed that carvacrol (70.88%) and 1,8-cineole (62.35%) were the major constituents of EOC and EOR, respectively. EOC exhibited a potent insecticidal activity with calculated LC50 values of 6.77 and 3.57 μL/L air, 24 and 48 h posttreatment, respectively. Comparable LC50 values were obtained for EOR recording 6.25 and 3.82 μL/L, 48 h posttreatment. The effects of fumigation by the tested EOs on fertility (egg hatching) and the emergence of adult C. maculatus were also investigated. Notably, EOC completely abolished egg fertility judged by the abrogation of emergence of adults, regardless of the tested dose. By contrast, EOR completely inhibited the fertility and the emergence of C. maculatus adults at the dose of 16 μL/10 g. The outcome of the present study highlights the utility of the EOs from O. compactum Benth. and R. officinalis L. as natural sources of effective and ecofriendly pest-control agents.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".