View of An Overview of Natural Inert Dust Utilization Against Stored-Product Pests as Part of Integrated Pest Management

(1)

2024, Vol. 14, No. 1, 143 – 154 http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/jtls.14.01.15

How to cite:

Review Article

An Overview of Natural Inert Dust Utilization Against Stored-Product Pests as Part of Integrated Pest Management

M. Bayu Mario

¹

*, William Yeremia Patasik

¹

, Muh. Ridha Taqwa Tang

¹

, Mukhti Muhammad

¹

, Amrina Rosyada

¹

, Ahmad Arisandi Jamal

¹

, Nurwahida

¹

, Lekhnath Kafle

²

, Samir A. M.

Abdelgaleil

³

, Eirene Brugman

¹

, Ito Fernando

⁴

1 Department of Plant Pest and Disease, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indo- nesia

2 Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 912, Republic of China (Taiwan)

3 Department of Pesticide Chemistry and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt

4 Department of Plant Pests and Diseases, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indone- sia 65145

Article history:

Submission January 2023 Revised October 2023 Accepted October 2023

ABSTRACT

Natural inert dust has been used as a grain protectant since the ancient Aztecs of Mex- ico to this modern era. Natural inert dust is divided into three groups: the first group includes sand, kaolin, paddy husk ash, wood ash, and clay; the second group includes mineral dust; and the third group includes natural silicas such as diatomaceous earth and zeolite. Natural inert dust has a unique mechanism for killing insect pests. Inert dust particles penetrate the insects’ exoskeleton, causing dehydration through the cuticle. Relative humidity is a crucial factor affecting the efficacy of inert dust application. Inert dust has been traditionally used by farmers, which impacts the insects, such as decreasing population, no insect resistance, and being environmentally friendly.

Problems of using inert dust include visible residues on grain, airborne dust, reduced flowability, bulk density reduction, and adverse effects on downstream processing machinery. Moreover, inert dust is a very light product, thus it may cause human respiratory illness. The inert dust can be applied to the smaller or larger storage contain- ers. Natural silica can be readily integrated into modern agriculture as a pest management solution.

Keywords: Cuticle, Dehydration, Diatomaceous earth, Silica, Zeolite

*Corresponding author:

E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Insect pest infestation in stored grain can sig- nificantly reduce both the quality and quantity of stored products. Reports indicate that insect infestation can result in a substantial loss of grain, rang- ing from 5% to 50% during storage [1–4].

Synthetic pesticides have been widely em- ployed to manage and reduce pest populations in pest control strategies. Nevertheless, when it comes to farmers implementing chemical-based methods, adherence to instructions is often lack- ing, leading to various concerns regarding the presence of pesticide residues on grains, the

emergence of pesticide-resistant pests, and the harm to natural enemies [5–7]. Moreover, chemical-based approaches for managing pests in stored grain have drawbacks, encompassing environmental harm, health hazards, the demands of reg- ulatory compliance, specific storage needs, and substantial expenses.

The use of materials derived from natural re-

sources has long been considered a significant fac-

tor in modern pest management, and natural-based

insecticides now hold a prominent position in In-

tegrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies [8].

(2)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 144 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024

Natural inert dust is one of the IPM practices for insect pests that utilize silica particles from natural sources to control insect pests. It has a wide range of uses in industry and agriculture. In the industrial sector, inert dust is used as a building material [9].

On the other side, natural inert dust has been used as a pest control. The Aztec people in ancient Mexico used natural inert dust as a grain protect- ant by mixing lime and grain to repel the stored grain pests [10, 11].

In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of natural inert dust as a component of IPM in storage facilities. The overview covers various types, modes of action, effectiveness, bioactivities, advantages, disadvantages, and applications of inert dust on small and large scales.

Types of Natural Inert Dust

Natural inert dust is classified into three groups. The first group includes clay, sand, rice husk ash, and wood ash; the second group is minerals, and the last group is natural silica [10, 12–

14].

Clay, sand, rice husk ash, and wood ash

This group consists of ingredients sourced from nature. The commonly used material is rice husk ash. Rice husk ash contains high silica, which can be used as an effective protectant when mixed with corn at a concentration of 1%. This practice has been around for a long time in the control of weevils; the concentration used even reaches 5%.

The higher the concentration, the higher the mortality rate. However, there are limitations in concentration levels to avoid the effects that can occur when humans inhale in high amounts [12].

Minerals

The second group are minerals such as dolomite (CaMg(CO

3

)

2

), magnesite (MgCO

3

), copper chloride (CuCl), calcium carbonate (CaCO

3

), and sodium chloride (NaCl). Dolomite and magnesite were used as grain protectants against coleopteran pests, i.e. Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Linnaeus) (Silvanidae), Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus) (Cur- culionidae), S. zeamais (Motschulsky) Rhyzoper- tha dominica (Fabricius) (Bostrichidae), Tribo- lium castaneum (Herbst) (Tenebrionidae), and T.

confusum Jacquelin Du Val [14–17]. Although it can be used as a pest control agent, the level of effectiveness and efficiency of these minerals are much dependent on quantity. Minerals are needed

in large quantities to be able to utilize the stored- product pest control potential.

Diatomaceous Earth (DE)

Diatomaceous earth (DE) is natural silica and is most widely distributed throughout the world.

DE was used in various stored-grain pest control in laboratory conditions and field trials. DE or diatomite contains siliceous materials such as alumi- num, iron oxide, magnesium, sodium, and lime [14]. In DE production, the water content in the raw material is over 50%. DE is the safest type of inert dust as it is not harmful to mammals [18]. DE has an insecticidal effect action promoted by its particles containing small spores that can absorb insect wax molecules from the epicuticle. In addition, DE causes damage to insects’ waxy layer cu- ticles through absorption and to lesser layer bodies by abrasion, which causes loss of water from insects’ bodies and results in death [18]. Moreover, DE is described as amorphous silicon dioxide, which is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as an animal food additive. DE can absorb liquid two to three times more than its weight. DE has long been used as a grain protectant because it does not negatively affect grain and provides long-term protection [19, 20]. It has been marketed and eas- ily found as a pest control product in several coun- tries, such as the United States, Canada, China, Australia, and Japan [21].

Mode of Action Natural Inert Dust

Early theories finely divided inert dust kill insects by digestive tract obstruction, blockage of spiracles, and cuticle abrasion [18, 22–24].

Digestive tract obstruction

Odum and Smith [22] suggested that colloidal silica particles swallowed by larvae of Coleome- gilla maculata De Geer (Coleoptera: Coccinelli- dae) and Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Coleop- tera: Chrysomelidae) and that particles interfere with the digestive system, despite the fact that few studies confirm this mode of action. According to Carlson and Ball [25], inert dust particles were found in the esophagus, midgut, and hindgut.

There were no differences or abnormalities in the

digestive organs of insects treated with inert dust

versus those that were not. These findings do not

support that inert dust ingestion was the cause

of insect death.

(3)

Blockage of trachea

DeCrosta [23] claimed that DE had sharp particles and interfered with the respiratory system, which can block the insects’ trachea. However, Chiu [26] reported no difference in the oxygen consumption of weevils Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on dusted and undusted DE. Another study by Alexander et al.

[27] reported that no inert dust particles were found in the respiratory system.

Abrasion and Desiccation on Insect Cuticle Most studies assumed that inert dust removed epicuticular wax to the extent of causing desiccation [18, 24]. Grain-infesting beetles are particu- larly vulnerable to the effects of inert dust due to their environment [28]. A layer of wax made of cuticular lipids covers the body of an insect. These lipids are found on the outermost layer of an insect exoskeleton, known as the epicuticle, and play an important role in limiting water loss from the body and preventing desiccation. Inert dust particles ad- here to the lipids on the epicuticle of insects, preventing the lipids from restricting water loss [10, 18]. As a result, insects die from desiccation due to the insect loss of body moisture through the damaged spots on its epicuticle [29].

Effectiveness of Natural Inert Dust Application Factors affecting the activity of inert dust are the type of inert dust, physical properties of inert dust (particle size, pore diameter, bulk density, pH, surface area), insect morphology, insect phys- iology, species, insect stage development, insect movement through grains, type of cuticular wax of insect, less water loss through the insect cuticle, water reabsorption during insect excretion, the ca- pacity of insect to gain water from their food, ac- cess to food, retention of dust on a kernel, grain conditions (size, shape, oil content, and moisture content), storage conditions (temperature and rel- ative humidity), oil absorption capability, and method of grain treatment [14, 25, 30–47].

Kabir et al. [38] provided information on the effect of grain type, dose rate, and exposure period for raw DE against R. dominica. The efficacy of some inert dust can also be considerably altered by superficial chemical treatment. Gad et al. [48]

showed the efficacy of the combined treatment of three inert dusts (DE, zeolite, and kaolin) with abamectin against Callosobruchus chinensis (Lin- naeus) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).

Insects Affected by Natural Inert Dust

Several studies have investigated the effect of inert dust against stored product pests. The results of each study showed that the efficacy of inert dust against insects depends on different physical and morphological characteristics of diatoms rather than on their origin. Several important variables influence the effects of inert dust on insects, such as mortality of adults or larvae, weight loss of adults or larvae, and number of progeny (Table 1).

Inert dust made from natural materials like di- atomaceous earth (DE), kaolin (KA), natural ashes, and quartz sand has been used to control several species of insects. For instance, a study conducted on urban pests such as Blatta lateralis (Walker) (Blattodea: Blattidae) and Blattella ger- manica Linnaeus (Blattodea: Ectobiidae) reported that DE caused mortality in their nymphs and adults [49, 50].

Most studies examining the toxicity of inert dust to arthropods have focused on stored product pests. The study using natural ash on R. dominica showed that several types of natural ash proved effective in increasing the mortality of R. dominica adults [31]. The use of kaolin on Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Chrysomeli- dae) and C. chinensis and the use of quartz sand on Sitophilus granarius (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera:

Curculionidae) causes mortality and weight loss, and decreased number of progeny [24]. In addition, the types of inert dust and their effects on several stored-products pest species are also described in several studies (Table 1).

The insecticidal activity of inert dust can be caused by its spread to the sensory organs. Ac- cording to Abdegaleil et al. [24], damage to the sensilla by inert dust and closing of the sensilla pores in the epicuticular layer of insects can affect the behavior of insects, which are affected by damage to the sensory organs of smell and taste, so that the insects are not stimulated to eat. Alkan et al.

[51] revealed that some insects have a great sensi- tivity to DE due to their anatomy and physiology.

Insects with a rough or hairy body surface collect more particles per unit area, which makes them more sensitive to DE. Likewise, the number and location of setae vary on the insect’s body, which can allow the insect to escape.

Inert dust can also inhibit oviposition on in-

sects, which results in decreased fecundity. Ta-

pondjou et al. [52] reported that the oviposition in-

hibition property of plant ash on adults, bruchid

(4)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 146 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024 Table 1. Bioactivity of some natural inert dust to stored product pests

Insect species Natural inert dusts Diatomaceous Earth (DE)

Kaolin (KA) Volcanic Ash

Plants Ash Herbivore Dung Ash

Quartz Sand Blattodea

Blattidae

Blatta lateralis Mortality of adults [49];

Mortality of nymphs [56].

- - - - -

Ectobiidae

Blattella german- ica

Mortality of adults [50, 98];

Mortality of nymphs [50, 56].

- - - - -

Coleoptera Anobiidae

Ptinus tectus - - - Mortality

of adults [99].

Bostrichidae Prostephanus truncatus

Mortality of adults [63];

Repellency [63].

- - Mortality of

adults [10, 52, 55];

Progeny inhibition [10, 52].

- -

Rhyzopertha dominica

Mortality of adults [19, 25, 29, 33, 36–38, 41, 44, 61, 64–66, 69, 81, 95]; Mortality of larvae [66];

Progeny inhibition [38, 41, 61, 63–65, 69, 83]; Weight loss of adults [25].

- Mortality of

adults [32];

Mortality of larvae [32];

Progeny inhibition [32].

Mortality of larvae [32];

- -

Chrysomelidae Callosobruchus analis

- - - Oviposition

deterrence [97]; Prog- eny inhibition [97].

- -

C. chinensis Mortality of adults [24, 48, 101]; Progeny inhibition [24, 48].

Mortality of adults [14, 24, 48]; Progeny inhibition [24, 48].

- Mortality of

adults [24, 101].

- -

C. maculatus Mortality of adults [24, 33,

Mortality of adults [14, 24,

- - - -

(5)

Insect species Natural inert dusts Diatomaceous Earth (DE)

Quartz Sand 46]; Mortality

of larvae [46];

Progeny inhibition [24].

46]; Mortality of larvae [46];

Progeny inhibition [24].

C. subinnotatus Mortality of adults [101];

Progeny inhibition [101].

- - Mortality of

adults [101];

- -

Curculionidae Sitophilus gran- arius

Mortality of adults [25, 33, 64, 75, 80];

Progeny inhibition [64, 75, 82]; Weight loss of adults [25, 42].

Weight loss of adults [26].

- Mortality of

adults [75];

Mortality of adults [102].

Progeny inhibition [75].

S. oryzae Mortality of adults [19, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70–72, 76];

Progeny inhibition [41, 60, 64, 65, 70–

72]; Weight loss of adults [25].

Mortality of adults [26, 56, 58, 70]; Weight loss of adults [26].

- Progeny in-

hibition [97].

- Mortality

of adults [99].

S. zeamais Mortality of adults [33, 40, 63, 87, 103];

Progeny inhibition [40, 63].

- Mortality of

adults [104, 105]; Weight loss of adults [105].

- -

Laemophloeidae Cryptolestes fer- rugineus

Mortality of adults [19, 29, 33, 36, 66, 69]; Progeny inhibition [69]; Weight loss of adults [33].

- - - Mortality of

adults [102].

-

C. pusillus Mortality of adults [98];

- - - - -

Silvanidae

Oryzaephilus su- rinamensis

Mortality of adults [29, 33, 36, 66, 106];

Mortality of larvae [106].

- - - -

(6)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 148 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024 Insect species Natural inert dusts

Diatomaceous Earth (DE)

Quartz Sand Tenebrionidae

Alphitobius dia- perinus

- - - - -

Tenebrio molitor Mortality of adults [42];

- - - Mortality of

larvae [102].

-

Tribolium casta- neum

Mortality of adults [25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 59, 62, 64, 83, 101, 103];

Progeny inhibition [37, 41, 62, 64, 69, 86]; Mortality of larvae [106]; Weight loss of adults [25, 108]; Re- pellency [108].

- - Mortality of

adults [37];

Progeny inhibition [37];

Mortality of larvae [99].

T. confusum Mortality of adults [25, 42, 44, 47, 60, 65, 73, 82]; Mor- tality of larvae [33, 42, 47];

Progeny inhibition [33, 60, 65, 73];

Weight loss of adults [25, 42].

Mortality of larvae [58].

- - - Mortality

of adults [99].

Lepidoptera Pyraldiae

Ephestia kuehni- ella

Mortality of larvae [33, 56].

- - - - -

Plodia interpunc- tella

Mortality of larvae [33, 42, 56, 76, 106].

Mortality of larvae [76].

- - - -

Zygentoma Lepismatidae

Lepisma saccha- rina

Mortality of adults [50, 56].

- - - - -

debilitates the adults, leading them to lay fewer eggs. Plant ash applied at high doses caused 97%

oviposition inhibition in Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) [53].

Advantages and Disadvantages of Natural Inert Dust Application

Inert dust has low toxicity to mammals, e.g.,

DE rat oral LD50, >5000 mg/kg body weight,

(7)

and unlike organophosphates, inert dust does not leave toxic residues [11]. Testing 5% DE on rats showed no mechanical or chemical damage to the tissues for 90 90-day period. DE did not show a significant increase in the percentage of residues in digestive organs such as the liver, kidney, and spleen [54]. DE effectively protects the grains against stored grain insects in long-term and dry conditions [20]. DE is relatively persistent and does not leave residues on grain. DE is able to maintain its stability in the first few months after application to insect mortality but decreases peri- odically over time [55].

DE is easy to clean when processed by sieving [56]. Some DE can be formulated in wetta- ble powder [57] to reduce the impact on workers.

Grains treated by inert dust, especially silica dust, did not change the moisture content of the grains.

DE is compatible with several mechanical control measures, i.e., aeration, fumigation, heat treatment, and net [13, 58, 59]. Lastly, DE can be integrated with various chemical and biological con- trols, i.e., seed bait, pyrethrins, Beauveria bassiana, Trichoderma harzianum, spinosad, and essential oil [24, 48, 60–66]. A combination of B.

bassiana and DE indicates long-term control of T. castaneum by causing lethal effects and suppressing insect progeny. Cuticle abrasion and absorption of the lipid layer on insect skin is one of the keys to synergism that facilitates the penetra- tion and sporulation of entomopathogenic fungi [66]. DE combined with spinosad is effective against S. oryzae and T. confusum. Spinosad acts as a toxic substance by contact, orally, and nerv- ous system. Whereas DE acts as abrasion and absorption into the insect cuticle. This combination makes the spinosad more efficacious to insect adults because DE simultaneously causes desiccation and increases insect stress [60].

The problems that are often encountered in the use of large-scale DE are (1) machine erosion; (2) reduction of bulk density of seeds; (3) changes in the flowability or fluidity of the seeds; (4) changes in quality, such as changes in colour and dust on the seeds; and (5) health hazard (danger of respiratory disease to applicators) [67]. DE can cause physical and mechanical changes in the grain, in- cluding bulk density, the length of the grinding process, and abrasion to the machine [68]. Bulk density is used to determine the final quality of grain products. Wet application of inert dust re- duces the effect of DE on bulk density reduction

but is less effective than powder treatment [57, 69]. The application of inert dust at low doses re- duces problems such as airborne dust, seed flowa- bility, and residue and decreases bulk density [70].

Seeds with low surface friction, a low angle of re- pose, and low compressibility are required for good flowability and shorter time in the milling process, whereas amorphous inert dust mixed with coarse material such as seed kernels affect flowability, shape, and roughness on particle surface [71].

Although it does not leave a highly toxic residue, several recent reports have shown the resistance and tolerance of some insect pests to DE [32, 36, 69, 72, 73]. Resistance is likely to be ex- pressed more quickly when DE is used continu- ously. As a result, the individuals are occasionally exposed but also escape from the treatment substance. In the future, T. confusum will most likely become resistant to DE in the field. However, this requires two conditions. First, the emergence of resistance requires widespread use of DE, and there appear to be no such plans at this time. Sec- ond, the use of DE alone, without other control methods, can increase resistance.

The emerging resistance mechanisms of T.

castaneum were described by Rigaux et al. [74] as tolerant strains that adapt to DE application and exhibit resistant behavior. The tolerant strains move more slowly than the susceptible strains.

Less movement will cause less DE material to come into contact with the insect cuticle. The tol- erant strains also avoid treated grains with DE.

This can reduce the chances of spreading to other locations and populations.

Small and Large Scales Inert Dust Application

Natural inert dusts have been used in Africa,

Mexico, Japan, and Canada. In developing coun-

tries, inert dust is applied in a small scale of stored

grains [10, 11]. It is low-cost and suitable for

small-holder farmers. There were plenty of studies

on the use of natural inert dust on a small scale in

the laboratory; in the study of Al-Iraq and Al-

Naqib, they used four local stones, namely

ninivite, kaolinite, montmorillonite, and bentonite,

as inert dust [15, 20, 31, 55, 75–77]. Another study

under laboratory conditions was conducted by

Kljajić et al. [78], who tested the effectiveness of

two natural zeolite formulations and a commercial

formulation of DE Protect-It

^®

, where both natural

zeolite formulations were comparable to the

(8)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 150 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024

commercial formulation of DE Protect-It

^®

in controlling S. oryzae, R. dominica, and T. castaneum.

In Italy, the results of large-scale trials showed that 300 ppm of Protect-It

^®

formulation was the recommended level for S. oryzae, and 600 ppm was the recommended level for T. castaneum and R. dominica [79, 80].

Most of the inert dust used as pest management against insects in stored products include synthetic silica, natural silica (DE and Zeolite), and silica nanoparticles introduced in recent years into the field of storage products for grain management [55]. Inert dust is used on a large scale in the Australian grain industry. This is due to the development of Dryacide, a diatomite modified with silica gel [10]. The Dryacide formulation of DE was the first diatomite formulation to be commercial- ized. The efficacy of Dryacide has been confirmed by some studies on the various stored products, making it an acceptable grain protectant [55, 81–

86]. A study by Jairoce et al. [87], stated that one of the reasons for using DE in large-scale storage that it is effective at lower doses (2 kg/t) and showed good efficiency in controlling S. zeamais.

In a similar study, Morais et al. [88] evaluated the influence of DE as an alternative in the control of O. surinamesis on corn storage and observed that a dose of 1.5 kg/t was sufficient to kill all insects as well as ensure its efficiency.

The concept of the application of nanoparticles in stored pest management is still new and there is a lack of information regarding their mechanism [89–92]. However, although many laboratory studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of nanomaterials, large-scale applications have not yet been achieved [93].

Based on their chemical composition, nanoformulations can be classified into three basic categories, i.e., the first being inorganic, solid, and nonbiodegradable based nanoparticles (gold, silver, copper, iron, and silica-based nanoparticles); the second being organic-based biodegradable nanoparticles (liposomes, solid lipids, and polymeric nanoparticles); and the third being hybrid nanoparticles (a combination of organic and inorganic components) [93]. Dang et al. [94] reported that silica nanoparticles (SiO

2

NPs) were synthesized from rice husk ash, an agricultural waste, by chemical treatment and calcination. Based on the research from Abdou et al. showed that treated seed with silica nanoparticles (SiO

2

NPs) could increase the

percentage of the mortality rate of C. maculatus adults and reach a maximum level at a concentration of 200 ppm after a day exposure period and have no effect on seed germination [95]. SiO

2

NPs are silica nanoparticles that have high thermal stability, low toxicity, and excellent biocompatibility with various molecules and polymers [96]. In addition, based on the study from Wazid et al. [97] the use of green nanoparticles derived from spinach leaves, tulasi leaves, and rice husks can be used as inert dust, which is environmentally friendly with a green nanoparticles concentration of 1500 ppm which has been proven effective in increasing mortality of S. oryzae and Callosobruchus analis (Fab- ricius).

Conclusion

Inert dust is a promising tool for controlling stored product pests. It is preferred over chemical insecticides because it has low toxicity to humans and is not associated with the development of insect resistance. However, much research still needs to be done to optimize the use of inert dust.

Specifically, researchers need to investigate the effectiveness of different types of inert dust against various pests and under various environmental conditions. Additionally, further research should be conducted to identify the most efficient application method for inert dust and its potential effects on non-target organisms.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank staff of Department of Plant Pests and Diseases, Universitas Hasanuddin for support our weekly meeting. We also greatly appreciate two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. This manuscript did not received any grants from funding agencies.

References

1. Mario MB, Astuti LP, Hsu JL, Kafle L (2021) Fumigant activity of four plant powders against cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:

Chrysomelidae) in stored adzuki bean. Legume Research 44 (6): 667–672. doi: 10.18805/LR-533.

2. Astuti LP, Mario MB, Widjayanti T (2018) Preference, growth and development of Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae) on red, white and black rice in whole grain and flour form. Journal of Entomological Research 42 (4): 461–468. doi:

10.5958/0974-4576.2018.00077.4.

3. Mario MB, Astuti LP, Hsu J-L et al. (2023) Bioefficacy of eight different plant powders applied as fumigants

(9)

against the adzuki bean weevil, Callosobruchus chinensis. Crop Protection 167 106200. doi:

10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106200.

4. Wilbur DA (1971) Stored grain insects. In: Pfadt RE ed Fundam. Appl. Entomol., Second. New York, Macmillan Publishing. pp 495–522.

5. Hamel D, Rozman V, Liška A (2020) Storage of cereals in warehouses with or without pesticides. Insects 11 (12): 846. doi: 10.3390/insects11120846.

6. Yigit N, Velioglu YS (2020) Effects of processing and storage on pesticide residues in foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 60 (21): 3622–3641. doi:

10.1080/10408398.2019.1702501.

7. Phillips TW, Throne JE (2010) Biorational Approaches to Managing Stored-Product Insects. Annual Review of Entomology 55 (1): 375–397. doi:

10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090451.

8. Baliota G V., Athanassiou CG (2023) Evaluation of Inert Dusts on Surface Applications and Factors That Maximize Their Insecticidal Efficacy. Applied Sciences 13 (5): 2767. doi: 10.3390/app13052767.

9. Addai EK, Gabel D, Krause U (2016) Experimental investigations of the minimum ignition energy and the minimum ignition temperature of inert and combustible dust cloud mixtures. Journal of Hazardous Materials 307 302–311. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.01.018.

10. Golob P (1997) Current status and future perspectives for inert dusts for control of stored product insects.

Journal of Stored Products Research 33 (1): 69–79. doi:

10.1016/S0022-474X(96)00031-8.

11. Bhadriraju S, Hagstrum D (1996) Integrated Management of Insects in Stored Products. New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.

12. Li Y (2018) Understanding the physical and biological effects of dust-induced insect death. Murdoch University

13. Bhadriraju S, Hagstrum D (2000) Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM. Plant Sci. doi:

10.1007/978-1-4615-4353-4

14. Subramanyam B, Roesli R (2000) Inert Dusts. In:

Altern. to Pestic. Stored-Product IPM. Boston, MA, Springer US. pp 321–380.

15. Freitas ACO, Gigliolli AAS, Caleffe RRT, Conte H (2020) Insecticidal effect of diatomaceous earth and dolomite powder against corn weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, 1855 (Coleoptera:

Curculionidae). Turkish Journal of Zoology 44 (6):

490–497. doi: 10.3906/zoo-2005-34.

16. Wilson F (1945) The control of insect pests in Victorian bulk wheat deposits. Journal of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Australia) 18 103–

109.

17. Allen SE (2015) Properties and uses of inert dusts. In:

CSIRO Entomol. pp 310–311.

18. Ebeling W (1971) Sorptive dusts for pest control.

Annual review of entomology 16 (117): 123–158. doi:

10.1146/annurev.en.16.010171.001011.

19. Vayias BJ, Athanassiou CG, Korunic Z, Rozman V (2009) Evaluation of natural diatomaceous earth deposits from south-eastern Europe for stored-grain protection: the effect of particle size. Pest Management Science 65 (10): 1118–1123. doi: 10.1002/ps.1801.

20. Fields PG (1998) Diatomaceous earth: Advantages and limitations. In: Proc. 7 th Iniernaiumal Work. Conf.

Stored-product Prot. pp 781–784.

21. Anon (1991) EPA R.E.D. FACTS: Silicon dioxide and Silica Gel. US.

22. Smith BC (1969) Effects of Silica on the Survival of Coleomegllla maculata Lengl (Coleoptera:

Coccitvellidae) and Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 101 (May): 460–462.

23. DeCrosta A (1979) Mother nature’s bug-killer. Organic Gardening 26 38–44.

24. Abdelgaleil SAM, Gad HA, Hamza AF, Al-Anany MS (2021) Insecticidal efficacy of two inert dusts and Trichoderma harzianum, applied alone or in combination, against Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus chinensis on stored cowpea seeds.

Crop Protection 146 (February): 105656. doi:

10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105656.

25. Carlson SD, Ball HJ (1962) Mode of Action and Insecticidal Value of a Diatomaceous Earth as a Grain Protectant. Journal of Economic Entomology 55 (6):

964–970. doi: 10.1093/jee/55.6.964.

26. Chiu SF (1939) Toxicity Studies of So-Called “Inert”

Materials With the Rice Weevil and the Granary Weevil. Journal of Economic Entomology 32 (6): 810–

821. doi: 10.1093/jee/32.6.810.

27. Alexander P, Kitchener JA, Briscoe HVA (1944) Inert dust insecticides: Part I. Mechanism of action. Annals of Applied Biology 31 (2): 143–149. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-7348.1944.tb06225.x.

28. Wigglesworth VB (1947) The epicuticle in an insect, Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 134 (875): 163–181. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1947.0008.

29. Korunić ZK, Rozman V, Liška A, Lucić P (2016) Osvrt na prirodne insekticide na bazi dijatomejske zemlje.

Poljoprivreda 22 (1): 10–18. doi:

10.18047/poljo.22.1.2.

30. Ali RA, Hasan M ul, Sagheer M et al. (2022) Factors influencing the combined efficacy of microbial insecticides and inert dusts for the control of Trogoderma granarium. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 42 (1): 425–433. doi:

10.1007/s42690-021-00559-8.

31. Astuti LP, Maula R, Rizali A, Mario MB (2019) Effect of Five Types Inert Dust to Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Stored Rice Seeds. The Journal of Experimental Life Sciences 9 (3):

164–169. doi: 10.21776/ub.jels.2019.009.03.04.

32. Kavallieratos NG, Athanassiou CG, Pashalidou FG et al. (2005) Influence of grain type on the insecticidal efficacy of two diatomaceous earth formulations against Rhyzopertha dominica (F) (Coleoptera:

Bostrychidae). Pest Management Science 61 (7): 660–

666. doi: 10.1002/ps.1034.

33. Athanassiou CG, Arthur FH (2018) Bacterial insecticides and inert materials. In: Recent Adv. Stored Prod. Prot. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp 83–98.

34. Awad AHA, Saeed Y, Shakour AA et al. (2020) Indoor air fungal pollution of a historical museum, Egypt: a case study. Aerobiologia 36 (2): 197–209. doi:

10.1007/s10453-019-09623-w.

35. Baliota GV, Lampiri E, Athanassiou CG (2022) Differential Effects of Abiotic Factors on the Insecticidal Efficacy of Diatomaceous Earth against

(10)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 152 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024 Three Major Stored Product Beetle Species.

Agronomy. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12010156

36. Fields P, Korunic Z (2000) The effect of grain moisture content and temperature on the efficacy of diatomaceous earths from different geographical locations against stored-product beetles. Journal of Stored Products Research 36 (1): 1–13. doi:

10.1016/S0022-474X(99)00021-1.

37. Cremonez PSG, Moraes LA de A, Aquino GS de et al.

(2020) Establishment and control of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) with inert dusts in stored canola. Entomological Communications 2 ec02001. doi: 10.37486/2675- 1305.ec02001.

38. Kabir BGJ, Lawan M, Jidda MB (2013) Bioactivity of raw diatomaceous earth against Rhyzopertha dominica Fab. (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae): Effects of grain type, dose rate and exposure period. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science 4 (5): 44–49. doi:

10.9790/2380-0454449.

39. Karimzadeh R, Salehpoor M, Saber M (2021) Initial efficacy of pyrethroids, inert dusts, their low-dose combinations and low temperature on Oryzaephilus surinamensis and Sitophilus granarius. Journal of Stored Products Research 91 101780. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2021.101780.

40. Wille CL, Wille PE, da Rosa JM et al. (2019) Efficacy of recovered diatomaceous earth from brewery to control Sitophilus zeamais and Acanthoscelides obtectus. Journal of Stored Products Research 83 254–

260. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2019.07.004.

41. Korunić Z, Liška A, Lucić P et al. (2020) Evaluation of diatomaceous earth formulations enhanced with natural products against stored product insects. J Stored Prod Res. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2019.101565

42. Mewis I, Ulrichs C (2001) Action of amorphous diatomaceous earth against different stages of the stored product pests Tribolium confusum, Tenebrio molitor, Sitophilus granarius and Plodia interpunctella. Journal of Stored Products Research 37 (2): 153–164. doi:

10.1016/S0022-474X(00)00016-3.

43. Odjo S, Burgueño J, Rivers A, Verhulst N (2020) Hermetic storage technologies reduce maize pest damage in smallholder farming systems in Mexico. J Stored Prod Res. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101664 44. Saed B, Ziaee M, Kiasat A, Jafari Nasab M (2021)

Evaluation of Iranian diatomaceous earth in combination with nanosilica from sugarcane bagasse ash applied on three different storage surfaces against two insect pests of stored products. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 41 (2): 1747–1752.

doi: 10.1007/s42690-020-00380-9.

45. Stejskal V, Vendl T, Aulicky R, Athanassiou C (2021) Synthetic and natural insecticides: Gas, liquid, gel and solid formulations for stored‐product and food‐industry pest control. Insects. doi: 10.3390/insects12070590 46. Kamal A, Kamal Sulaiman A, Mohamed Obaid H

(2019) Studying the effect of surfaces treated with inert dusts on Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab) Molecular characterization and survey of theileriosis in animals in Erbil city View project An epidemiologic study on Cryptosporidium spp. in Kirkuk c. Article in Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 7 (6): 793–795.

47. Vayias BJ, Athanassiou CG (2004) Factors affecting

the insecticidal efficacy of the diatomaceous earth formulation SilicoSec against adults and larvae of the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum DuVal (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Crop Protection 23 (7):

565–573. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2003.11.006.

48. Gad HA, Atta AAM, Abdelgaleil SAM (2022) Efficacy of combined treatments of abamectin with three inert dusts for the control of Callosobruchus chinensis on cowpea seeds. Crop Protection 153 105884. doi:

10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105884.

49. Alkan M, Atay T, Ertürk S, Kepenekçi S (2019) Comparison of Bioactivities of Native Diatomaceous Earth againts Turkestan Cockroach [Blatta lateralis Walker (Blattodea: Blattidae)] Nymphs. Appl Ecol Environ Res. doi: 10.15666/aeer/1703_59875994 50. Faulde MK, Tisch M, Scharninghausen JJ (2006)

Efficacy of modified diatomaceous earth on different cockroach species (Orthoptera, Blattellidae) and silverfish (Thysanura, Lepismatidae). Journal of Pest Science 79 (3): 155–161. doi: 10.1007/s10340-006- 0127-8.

51. Alkan M, Erturk S, Firat TA, Ciftci E (2019) Study of insecticidal and behavioral effects and some characteristic of native diatomaceous earth against the bean weevil, Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera:

Chrysomelidae). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 28 (4): 2916–2922.

52. Tapondjou LA, Adler C, Bouda H, Fontem DA (2002) Efficacy of powder and essential oil from Chenopodium ambrosioides leaves as post-harvest grain protectants against six-stored product beetles. Journal of Stored Products Research 38 (4): 395–402. doi:

10.1016/S0022-474X(01)00044-3.

53. Araya G, Getu E (2009) Evaluation of botanical plants powders against Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored haricot beans under laboratory condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 (10): 1073–1079.

54. Bertke EM (1964) The effect of ingestion of diatomaceous earth in white rats: A subacute toxicity test. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 6 (3): 284–

291. doi: 10.1016/0041-008X(64)90069-9.

55. Ziaee M, Ebadollahi A, Wakil W (2021) Integrating inert dusts with other technologies in stored products protection. Toxin Reviews 40 (4): 404–419. doi:

10.1080/15569543.2019.1633673.

56. Zeni V, Baliota G V., Benelli G et al. (2021) Diatomaceous Earth for Arthropod Pest Control: Back to the Future. Molecules 26 (24): 1–29. doi:

10.3390/molecules26247487.

57. Ertürk S, Atay T, Toprak U, Alkan M (2020) The efficacy of different surface applications of wettable powder formulation of Detech® diatomaceous earth against the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 89 101725. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101725.

58. Faliagka S, Agrafioti P, Lampiri E et al. (2020) Assessment of different inert dust formulations for the control of Sitophilus oryzae, Tribolium confusum and Aphis fabae. Crop Protection 137 (July): 105312. doi:

10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105312.

59. Frederick JL, Subramanyam B (2016) Influence of temperature and application rate on efficacy of a

(11)

diatomaceous earth formulation against Tribolium castaneum adults. Journal of Stored Products Research 69 86–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2016.06.009.

60. Chintzoglou G, Athanassiou CG, Arthur FH (2008) Insecticidal effect of spinosad dust, in combination with diatomaceous earth, against two stored-grain beetle species. Journal of Stored Products Research 44 (4):

347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2008.03.005.

61. Riasat T, Wakil W, Ashfaq M, Sahi ST (2011) Effect of Beauveria bassiana mixed with diatomaceous earth on mortality, mycosis and sporulation of Rhyzopertha dominica on stored wheat. Phytoparasitica 39 (4): 325–

331. doi: 10.1007/s12600-011-0164-6.

62. Rizwan M, Atta B, Rizwan M et al. (2019) Effect of the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Beauveria Bassiana, Combined with Diatomaceous Earth on the Red Flour Beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (tenebrionidae:

Coleoptera). Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 29 (1): 1–6. doi: 10.1186/s41938-019-0131-y.

63. Zhanda J, Mvumi BM, Machekano H (2020) Potential of three enhanced diatomaceous earths against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky and Prostephanus truncantus (Horn) on stored maize grain. Journal of Stored Products Research 87 1–6. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101608.

64. Korunic Z, Fields PG (2020) Evaluation of three new insecticide formulations based on inert dusts and botanicals against four stored-grain beetles. Journal of Stored Products Research 88 1–8. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101633.

65. Kavallieratos NG, Athanassiou CG, Vayias BJ et al.

(2010) Efficacy and adherence ratio of diatomaceous earth and spinosad in three wheat varieties against three stored-product insect pests. Journal of Stored Products

Research 46 (2): 73–80. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2009.10.003.

66. Lord JC (2001) Desiccant Dusts Synergize the Effect of Beauveria bassiana (Hyphomycetes: Moniliales) on Stored-Grain Beetles. Journal of Economic Entomology 94 (2): 367–372. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493- 94.2.367.

67. Fleurat-Lessard F (2004) Stored Grain | Pest Management. In: Wrigley C, Corke H, Walkers CE eds Encycl. Grain Sci. Elsevier. pp 244–254.

68. Freo JD, Rosso ND, Dias de Moraes LB et al. (2011) Physicochemical properties and silicon content in wheat flour treated with diatomaceous earth and conventionally stored. Journal of Stored Products

Research 47 (4): 316–320. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2011.05.001.

69. Athanassiou CG, Korunic Z (2007) Evaluation of two new diatomaceous earth formulations, enhanced with abamectin and bitterbarkomycin, against four stored- grain beetle species. Journal of Stored Products

Research 43 (4): 468–473. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2006.12.008.

70. Liška A, Korunić Z, Rozman V et al. (2017) Efficacy of nine Croatian inert dusts against rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on wheat. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 29 (7):

485–494. doi: 10.9755/ejfa.2016-09-1302.

71. Yao KD, Subramanyam B, Maghirang RG (2022) Moisture content and application rates of inert dust:

effects on dust and wheat physical properties. Food

Research 6 (3): 12–20. doi: 10.26656/fr.2017.6(3).280.

72. Athanassiou CG, Kavallieratos NG, Vayias BJ et al.

(2011) Laboratory evaluation of diatomaceous earth deposits mined from several locations in central and southeastern Europe as potential protectants against coleopteran grain pests. Crop Protection 30 (3): 329–

339. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.10.004.

73. Vayias BJ, Athanassiou CG, Buchelos CT (2008) Evaluation of resistance development by Tribolium confusum Du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to diatomaceous earth under laboratory selection. Journal of Stored Products Research 44 (2): 162–168. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2007.09.001.

74. Rigaux M, Haubruge E, Fields PG (2001) Mechanisms for tolerance to diatomaceous earth between strains of Tribolium castaneum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 101 (1): 33–39. doi: 10.1046/j.1570- 7458.2001.00888.x.

75. Bohinc T, Trdan S (2017) Comparison of insecticidal efficacy of four natural substances against granary weevil (Sitophilus granarius [L.]) adults: does the combined use of the substances improve their efficacy?

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 15 (3): e1009.

doi: 10.5424/sjar/2017153-11172.

76. Gvozdenac S, Snežana TSK et al. (2018) Effects of different inert dusts on Sitophilus oryzae and Plodia interpunctella during contact exposure. In: 12th Int.

Work. Conf. Stored Prod. Prot. pp 34–39.

77. Al-Iraq RA, Al-Naqib SQ (2006) Inert Dust to Control Adults of Some Stored Product Insects in Stored Wheat.

Fafidain Journal of Science 17 (11): 26–33.

78. Kljajić P, Andrić G, Adamović M et al. (2010) Laboratory assessment of insecticidal effectiveness of natural zeolite and diatomaceous earth formulations against three stored-product beetle pests. Journal of Stored Products Research 46 (1): 1–6. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2009.07.001.

79. Contessi A, Mucciolini G (1997) Prove comparative insetticida di Polveri Silicee a base di Zeoliti e di farina fossile diatomee. Report of Regione Emilia Romagna, Servizia fitosanitario, Ravenna, Italy 11.

80. Nikpay A (2006) Diatomaceous earths as alternatives to chemical insecticides in stored grain. Insect Science 13 (6): 421–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7917.2006.00111.x.

81. Desmarchelier JM, Dines JC (1987) Dryacide treatment of stored wheat: its efficacy against inseects, and after processing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27 (2): 309–312.

82. Aldryhim YN (1990) Efficacy of the amorphous silica dust, Dryacide, against Tribolium confusum Duv. and Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae and Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 26 207–210.

83. Aldryhim YN (1993) Combination of classes of wheat and environmental factors affecting the efficacy of amorphous silica dust, Dryacide, against Rhyzopertha dominica (F.). Journal of Stored Products Research 29 271–275.

84. McLaughlin A (1994) Laboratory trials on desiccant dust insecticides. In: Highley E, Wright EJ, Banks HJ, Champ BR eds Proc. 6th Int. Work. Conf. Stored- Product Prot. pp 638–645.

85. Nickson PJ, Desmarchelier JM, Gibbs P (1994) Combination of cooling with a surface application of

(12)

JTLS | Journal of Tropical Life Science 154 Volume 14 | Number 1 | January | 2024 Dryacide to control insects. In: Proc. 6th Int. Work.

Conf. Stored-Product Prot. pp 646–649.

86. Ziaee M, Nikpay A, Khashaveh A (2007) Effect of oil seed type on the efficacy of five diatomaceous earth formulations against Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Journal of Pest Science 80 (4): 199–204.

87. Jairoce CF, Teixeira CM, Nunes AM et al. (2016) Efficiency of inert mineral dusts in the control of corn weevil. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental 20 (2): 158–162. doi: 10.1590/1807- 1929/agriambi.v20n2p158-162.

88. Morais MB, Crespo FLS, Dos Santos VB et al. (2009) Uso de terra diatomácea como controle alternativo do Oryzaephilus surinamensis em milho armazenado.

Diversa 2 1–9.

89. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: State of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Science of The Total

Environment 425 271–282. doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.001.

90. Kah M, Beulke S, Tiede K, Hofmann T (2013) Nanopesticides: State of Knowledge, Environmental Fate, and Exposure Modeling. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 43 (16): 1823–

1867. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2012.671750.

91. Kumar S, Nehra M, Kedia D et al. (2018) Carbon nanotubes: A potential material for energy conversion and storage. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 64 219–253. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2017.10.005.

92. Singh A, Dhiman N, Kar AK et al. (2020) Advances in controlled release pesticide formulations: Prospects to safer integrated pest management and sustainable agriculture. Journal of Hazardous Materials 385 121525. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121525.

93. Jasrotia P, Nagpal M, Mishra CN et al. (2022) Nanomaterials for Postharvest Management of Insets:

Current State and Future Perspectives. Fronttiers in Nanotechnology 3 (811056): 1–19.

94. Dang NTT, Nguyen TTA, Phan TD et al. (2018) Synthesis of silica nanoparticles from rice husk ash.

Science and Technology Development Journal 20 (K7):

50–54. doi: 10.32508/stdj.v20iK7.1211.

95. Abdou WL, Abdel-hakim EA, Salem NY (2022) The Insectidal Effect of Silica Nanoparticles on Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: bruchidae) and its side effects. Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences 12 (3) (2008): 193–202. doi:

10.36632/mejas/2022.12.3.20.

96. Huang L, Yang S, Chen J et al. (2019) A facile surface modification strategy for fabrication of fluorescent silica nanoparticles with the aggregation-induced emission dye through surface-initiated cationic ring opening polymerization. Materials Science and Engineering: C 94 270–278. doi:

10.1016/j.msec.2018.09.042.

97. Wazid, Nadagouda S, Prabhuraj A et al. (2020) The Persistence of Residual Toxicity of Zinc, Copper an Silica Green Nanoparticles against Important Storage

Pests. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 8 (5): 1207–1211.

98. Faulde MK, Scharninghausen JJ, Cavaljuga S (2006) Toxic and behavioural effects of different modified diatomaceous earths on the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.) (Orthoptera: Blattellidae) under simulated field conditions. Journal of Stored Products Research 42 (3): 253–263. doi:

10.1016/j.jspr.2005.03.001.

99. Alexander P, Kitchener JA, Briscoe HVA (1944) Inert dust insecticides: Part III. The effect of dusts on stored products pests other than Calandra granaria. Annals of Applied Biology 31 (2): 156–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 7348.1944.tb06227.x.

100. Subramanyam B, Swanson CL, Madamanchi N, Norwood S (1994) Effectiveness of Insecto®, a new diatomaceous earth formulation, in suppressing several stored-grain insect species. In: Int. Conf. Stored- Product Prot. ed. E. Highley, E. J. Wright, H. J. Banks and B. R. Champ. pp 650–659.

101. Ibrahim ND, Audu A, Dike MC, Lawal M (2012) Original article Effect of raw diatomaceous earth and plant powders on Callosobruchus subinnotatus (Pic.) infesting stored bambara groundnut seeds. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 1 (1): 9–16.

102. Hakbijl T (2002) The Traditional, Historical and Prehistoric Use of Ashes as an Insecticide, with an Experimental Study on the Insecticidal Efficacy of Washed Ash. Environmental Archaeology 7 (1): 13–22.

doi: 10.1179/env.2002.7.1.13.

103. Masiiwa P (2004) Evaluation of African Diatomaceous Earths(DEs) as potential maize grain protectants against the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais).

University of Zimbabwe

104. Respyan G, Rahardjo BT, Astuti LP (2015) Pengaruh inert dust terhadap mortalitas Sitophilus zeamais Mostchulsky pada biji jagung dalam simpanan. Jurnal HPT 3 (2): 31–38.

105. Andarista V (2017) Pengaruh Aplikasi Berbagai Jenis Inert Dust Terhadap Mortalitas Imago dan Pertumbuhan Populasi Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Pada Benih Jagung dalam Simpanan. Unversitas Brawijaya

106. Subramanyam B, Madamanchi N, Norwood S (1998) Effectiveness of Insecto Applied to Shelled Maize Against Stored-Product Insect Larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 91 (1): 280–286. doi:

10.1093/jee/91.1.280.

107. Alves LFA, Oliveira DGP, Neves PMOJ (2008) Fatores que afetam a eficiência da terra de diatomácea no controle de adultos de Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Neotropical Entomology 37 (6): 716–722. doi: 10.1590/S1519- 566X2008000600014.

108. Rigaux M, Haubruge E, Fields PG (2001) Mechanisms for tolerance to diatomaceous earth between strains of Tribolium castaneum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 101 (1): 33–39. doi: 10.1046/j.1570- 7458.2001.00888.x.