Enhanced insecticidal activity of isoparaffin by ozone as an adjuvant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, concerns have been raised regarding control methods for domesticated sanitary pests. For many years, we have relied on chemical pesticides for control, but their negative effects on the human body and increased insecticide resistance have been reported, highlighting the necessity to develop new control technologies. Therefore, we focused on insect respiratory systems, for which it is considered difficult to develop insecticide resistance. In this study, the synergistic effects of isoparaffin and ozone were tested. The insect mortality rates (%) were not significantly different, reaching almost 100 percent when sprayed with SS (spray substance) and SS+O3 (SS containing Ozone). However, death times (minutes) were noticeably different. In cockroach P. fuliginosa, the death times were 10.5 ± 2.6 min. and 1.6 ± 0.5 min. (mean ± SD) for SS and SS+O3, respectively. The Asian tiger mosquito A. albopictus exhibited a death time of 13.5 ± 20.7 min from SS and 1.6 ± 1.4 min from SS+O3. Insects sprayed with SS+O3 died significantly faster, at speeds up to 6 times those observed in SS treatment alone. SEM observation indicated death was caused when the spiracles of the insects were covered with isoparaffin degraded by ozone, resulting in suffocation. From these results, we conclude the combination of isoparaffin and ozone offers a promising new insecticide against pest insects.
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) | 0.000 | 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".