Remarkable repellency of Ligusticum sinense (Umbelliferae), a herbal alternative against laboratory populations of Anopheles minimus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

A comprehensive review of the botany, ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, pharmacology, quality control and other applications of Ligustici Rhizoma et Radix

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Ligusticum sinense Oliv. and L. jeholense Nakai et Kitag. are globally recognized as medicinal botanical species, specifically the rhizomes and roots. These plant parts are collectively referred to as Ligustici Rhizoma et Radix (LReR), which is recorded in the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China (Ch. P). LReR enjoys widespread recognition in many countries such as China, Russia, Vietnam, and Korea. It is an herbal remedy traditionally employed for dispelling wind and cold, eliminating dampness, and alleviating pain. Numerous bioactive compounds have been successfully isolated and identified, displaying a diverse array of pharmacological activities and medicinal value.

THE AIM OF THE REVIEW

This review aims to primarily center on the botanical aspects, ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, quality control, and other applications of LReR to furnish a comprehensive and multidimensional foundation for future exploration and utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant information about LReR was acquired from ancient books, doctoral and master's dissertations, Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), ScienceDirect, classical literature, and clinical reports. Several electronic databases were also incorporated.

RESULTS

In traditional usage, LReR had been traditionally employed for the treatment of anemofrigid headaches, colds, and joint pain. It possessed therapeutic properties for facial skin disorders, thereby facilitating skin regeneration. It has been subjected to comprehensive chemical analysis, resulting in the identification and isolation of 190 compounds, including phthalides, phenylpropanoids, flavonoids, phenolic acids, triterpenes, steroids, volatile oil, fatty acids, and other constituents. The pharmacological activities have been in-depth explored through modern in vivo and in vitro studies, confirming its anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-melanin effects. Furthermore, it exhibited pharmacological activities such as antioxidant, anticancer, antibacterial, and vasodilatory properties. This study provides a basic to contribute to the advancement of research, medicinal applications and product development related to LReR.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its traditional and contemporary applications, phytochemical composition, and pharmacological properties, LReR was regarded as a valuable botanical resource for pharmaceutical and pest control purposes. While certain constituents had demonstrated diverse pharmacological activities and application potential, further elucidation was required to fully understand their specific actions and underlying mechanisms. Hence, there was a need to conduct additional investigations to uncover its material foundation and mode of action.

Essential Oils: Useful Tools in Storage-Pest Management

This study aimed to verify the level of repellent and mortality effect of two chemical substances (DEET and 2-undecanone) and seven essential oils (EOs), Allium sativum, Artemisia annua, Ocimum basilicum, Lavandula angustifolia, Eucalyptus globulus, Pinus sylvestris, and Curcuma longa. The storage pests Tribolium confusum, Tenebrio molitor, and Acanthoscelides obtectus were exposed to various concentrations in an olfactometer-and-mortality test. The effects were recorded 24-48-72 h after the treatments were applied. A. sativum, E. globulus, and L. augustifolia were found to have significant repellence effects. A substantial lethal effect was observed for A. sativum, E. globulus, and O. basilicum. We also found that even if the most efficient EOs were diluted to low concentrations, they still produced repellent and mortality effects. The presented results indicate that A. sativum and O. basilicum were the most effective against T. confusum and T. molitor; simultaneously, L. angustifolia and C. longa showed high activity against A. obtectus. All of these efficient EOs could be applied as effective bio-control agents in various stored conditions.

Ligusticum sinense Nanoemulsion Gel as Potential Repellent against Aedes aegypti, Anopheles minimus, and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae)

Ligusticum sinense Oliv. cv. is a species of Umbelliferae (Apiaceae), a large plant family in the order Apiales. In this study, L. sinense hexane extract nanoemulsion gel (LHE-NEG) was investigated for mosquito repellency and compared to the standard chemical, N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET), with the goal of developing a natural alternative to synthetic repellents in protecting against mosquito vectors. The results demonstrated that LHE-NEG afforded remarkable repellency against Aedes aegypti, Anopheles minimus, and Culex quinquefasciatus, with median protection times (MPTs) of 5.5 (4.5-6.0), 11.5 (8.5-12.5), and 11.25 (8.5-12.5) h, respectively, which was comparable to those of DEET-nanoemulsion gel (DEET-NEG: 8.5 (7.0-9.0), 12.0 (10.0-12.5), and 12.5 (10.0-13.5) h, respectively). Evaluation of skin irritation in 30 human volunteers revealed no potential irritant from LHE-NEG. The physical and biological stability of LHE-NEG were determined after being kept under heating/cooling cycle conditions. The stored samples of LHE-NEG exhibited some changes in appearance and differing degrees of repellency between those kept for 3 and 6 heating/cooling cycles, thus providing slightly shorter MPTs of 4.25 (4.0-4.5) and 3.25 (2.5-3.5) h, respectively, when compared to those of 5.0 (4.5-6.0) h in fresh preparation. These findings encourage commercially developed LHE-based products as an alternative to conventional synthetic repellents in preventing mosquito bites and helping to interrupt mosquito-borne disease transmission.

Review of Issues on Residual Malaria Transmission

Residual malaria transmission is the actual maintained inoculation of Plasmodium, in spite of a well-designed and implemented vector control programs, and is of great concern for malaria elimination. Residual malaria transmission occurs under several possible circumstances, among which the presence of exophilic vector species, such as Anopheles dirus, or indoor- and outdoor-biting vectors, such as Anopheles nili, or specific behavior, such as feeding on humans indoors, then resting or leaving the house the same night (such as Anopheles moucheti) or also changes in behavior induced by insecticides applied inside houses, such as the well-known deterrent effect of permethrin-treated nets or the irritant effect of DDT. The use of insecticides may change the composition of local Anopheles populations, such as A. arabiensis taking up the place of A. gambiae in Senegal, A. aquasalis replacing A. darlingi in Guyana, or A. harrisoni superseding A. minimus in Vietnam. The change in behavior, such as biting activity earlier than usually reported—for example, Anopheles funestus after a large-scale distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets—or insecticide resistance, in particular the current spread of pyrethroid resistance, could hamper the efficacy of classic pyrethroid-treated long-lasting insecticidal nets and maintained transmission. These issues must be well documented in every situation to elaborate, implement, monitor, and evaluate tailored vector control programs, keeping in mind that they must be conceived as integrated programs with several well and appropriately coordinated approaches, combining entomological but also parasitological, clinical, and social methods and analyses. A successful integrated vector control program must then be designed to reduce transmission and incidence rates of malaria morbidity and overall mortality.

Comparative analysis on bioactivity against three stored insects of Ligusticum pteridophyllum Franch. rhizomes essential oil and supercritical fluid (SFE-CO2) extract

In order to develop more environmentally benignant insecticides, the Ligusticum pteridophyllum Franch. rhizomes essential oil and supercritical fluid (SFE-CO₂) extract were obtained by two published techniques, hydrodistillation and SFE-CO₂. The chemical components of this two tested samples were identified by using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (GC-FID). Repellent activity and contact toxicity of the obtained samples and myristicin against the adults of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Lasioderma serricorne (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), and Liposcelis bostrychophila (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae) were compared. Nineteen components were identified in the SFE-CO₂ extract. Twelve components were identified in the L. pteridophyllum rhizomes essential oil. SFE-CO₂ extract exhibited higher contact toxicity against T. castaneum, L. serricorne, and L. bostrychophila (LD₅₀ = 69.60 μg/adult, 14.58 μg/adult, and 1.69 μg/cm², respectively) than that of L. pteridophyllum rhizomes essential oil (LD₅₀ = 87.99 μg/adult, 89.82 μg/adult, and 7.87 μg/cm², respectively). Besides, myristicin (LD₅₀ = 36.46 μg/adult) showed superior contact toxicity against T. castaneum than that of the L. pteridophyllum rhizomes essential oil and SFE-CO₂ extract. It possessed potentially practical significance to develop L. pteridophyllum rhizomes into plant pesticide or repellent agent for these stored insect controls. Graphical abstract .

Who's afraid of DEET? Fearmongering in papers on botanical repellents

DEET (N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide) is considered the gold standard in mosquito repellents, not only for its effectiveness, but also for its safety. DEET has been more extensively studied for safety than any other repellent, and is accepted as completely safe when used correctly (i.e. not consumed or bathed in). Researchers studying botanical repellents, however, often paint DEET as far more toxic than it really is, falsely claiming it is a menace to the public health or even the environment. These claims are unfounded, and often the only evidence given by such publications are references to other publications also studying botanical repellents. Such publications are biased, and may be attacking DEET’s excellent safety record to justify their existence and the need for their research. The inconvenient yet undisputable fact is that no botanical repellent has been proven to be as safe as DEET, and the majority never had any safety testing whatsoever. The automatic assumption that botanical repellents are safer than DEET is the ‘appeal to nature fallacy,’ which also drives most of the market for “natural” repellents, yet natural repellents have side effects and even a body count. Finding a botanical repellent that works as well as DEET and is equally safe is a legitimate research goal on its own, and need not be justified by fear-mongering and irrational chemophobia. Researchers studying these alternatives should strive for integrity, raising the real issue of the lack of safety testing for botanical repellents rather than denying the proven safety of DEET.

Effectiveness of plant-based repellents against different Anopheles species: a systematic review

Plant-based repellents have been applied for generations in traditional practice as a personal protection approach against different species of Anopheles. Knowledge of traditional repellent plants is a significant resource for the development of new natural products as an alternative to chemical repellents. Many studies have reported evidence of repellant activities of plant extracts or essential oils against malaria vectors worldwide. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of plant-based repellents against Anopheles mosquitoes. All eligible studies on the repellency effects of plants against Anopheles mosquitoes published up to July 2018 were systematically searched through PubMed/Medline, Scopus and Google scholar databases. Outcomes measures were percentage repellency and protection time. A total of 62 trials met the inclusion criteria. The highest repellency effect was identified from Ligusticum sinense extract, followed by citronella, pine, Dalbergia sissoo, peppermint and Rhizophora mucronata oils with complete protection time ranging from 9.1 to 11.5 h. Furthermore, essential oils from plants such as lavender, camphor, catnip, geranium, jasmine, broad-leaved eucalyptus, lemongrass, lemon-scented eucalyptus, amyris, narrow-leaved eucalyptus, carotin, cedarwood, chamomile, cinnamon oil, juniper, cajeput, soya bean, rosemary, niaouli, olive, tagetes, violet, sandalwood, litsea, galbanum, and Curcuma longa also showed good repellency with 8 h complete repellency against different species of Anopheles. Essential oils and extracts of some plants could be formulated for the development of eco-friendly repellents against Anopheles species. Plant oils may serve as suitable alternatives to synthetic repellents in the future as they are relatively safe, inexpensive, and are readily available in many parts of the world.

Sustainable manufacture of insect repellents derived from Nepeta cataria

Malaria devastates sub-Saharan Africa; the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 212 million people contract malaria annually and that the plasmodium virus will kill 419 000 in 2017. The disease affects rural populations who have the least economic means to fight it. Impregnated mosquito nets have reduced the mortality rate but the Anopheles mosquitoes are changing their feeding patterns and have become more active at dusk and early morning rather than after 22h00 as an adaptation to the nets. Everyone is susceptible to the Anopheles at these times but infants and pregnant women are the most vulnerable to the disease. Plant-based mosquito repellents are as effective as synthetic repellents that protect people from bites. They are sustainable preventative measures against malaria not only because of their efficacy but because the local population can produce and distribute them, which represents a source of economic growth for rural areas. Here, we extract and test the essential oil nepetalactone from Nepeta cataria via steam distillation. Families in endemic areas of Burundi found them effective against bites but commented that the odor was pungent. An epidemiological study is required to establish its clinical efficacy.

Insecticidal and Behavioral Avoidance Responses of Anopheles minimus and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to Three Synthetic Repellents

Escape responses, knockdown (KD), and toxicity of laboratory strains of Anopheles minimus Theobald and Culex quinquefasciatus Say to three synthetic mosquito repellents, DEET (N, N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide), IR3535, or picaridin, at 5% v/v concentrations, were evaluated using repellent-treated papers in standard WHO tube assays and an excito-repellency (ER) test chamber system. The tube assays recorded knockdown effects of each repellent immediately after 30-min exposure and the final morality following a 24-h holding period. DEET showed 100% KD at 30 min and complete toxicity at 24 h against both species. Both actions were either minimal or absent for IR3535 and picaridin, respectively. Culex quinquefasciatus showed significantly greater escape with DEET compared with the other compounds in both contact irritancy (excitation) and noncontact spatial repellency trials. Anopheles minimus showed much more pronounced irritancy and repellency flight escape to IR3535 than picaridin. DEET was the most active irritant and repellent compound against Cx. quinquefasciatus. When adjusting contact test responses based on paired noncontact repellency assays, DEET and IR3535 showed much stronger spatial repellent properties than irritancy with An. minimus. Picaridin performed poorly as an irritant or repellent against both species. We conclude that DEET, followed by IR3535, act as strong spatial repellents at 5% concentration. DEET also performs as a strong toxicant. Our findings show that different mosquitoes can respond contrastingly to repellents, thus the importance to test a wider range of species and populations to assess the full range of chemical action.

Excito-Repellency of Citrus hystrix DC Leaf and Peel Essential Oils Against Aedes aegypti and Anopheles minimus (Diptera: Culicidae), Vectors of Human Pathogens

The essential oils of kaffir lime (Citrus hystrix DC.) at four different concentrations (0.5, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0% v/v) were studied for their repellency, excitation, and knockdown properties against laboratory strains of Aedes aegypti (L.) and Anopheles minimus Theobald using an excito-repellency test system. Both contact and noncontact escape responses to leaf- and peel-derived kaffir lime oils were observed. Comparing unadjusted escape responses for An. minimus, leaf oil had strong combined irritant and repellent activity responses at 1-5% concentrations (90.0-96.4% escape) and the strongest spatial repellent activity at 1% and 2% (85.9% and 87.2% escape, respectively). The peel oil exhibited good excitation with repellency at concentrations of 2.5% (89.8% escape) and 5% (96.28% escape), while concentrations 1-5% showed more moderate repellent activity against An. minimus. For Ae. aegypti, 2.5% leaf oil produced the greatest response for both contact (56.1% escape) and noncontact (63.3% escape) trials, while 2.5% produced the strongest response among all concentrations of peel oil, with 46.5% escape. However, after adjusting the contact trial escape (a measure of combined excitation and repellency), the estimated escape due to contact alone was a much weaker response than spatial repellency for both species. Knockdown responses above 50% were only observed in Ae. aegypti exposed to 5% leaf oil. Kaffir lime oils were more active against An. minimus than Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. There were statistically significant differences between leaf (more active) and peel oils at each concentration against An. minimus in contact and noncontact trials, except at the highest (5%) concentration.