Next Article in Journal
Can Nonwoven Tea Bags Be Used to Determine the Tea Bag Index?
Previous Article in Journal
Moving beyond Risk Quotients: Advancing Ecological Risk Assessment to Reflect Better, More Robust and Relevant Methods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Ecologies
Volume 3
Issue 2
10.3390/ecologies3020013
ecologies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Products Obtained from Technical Cashew Nutshell Liquid (tCNSL) Proposed as Larvicide to Control Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

by
Márcia Ramos Jorge
1,
Felipe Mendes Merey
1,
Bruno do Amaral Crispim
2,
Fábio Kummrow
2,3,
Alexeia Barufatti
2,
Fabiana Gomes da Silva Dantas
2,
Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira
2 and
Eduardo José de Arruda
1,*
1
Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e Tecnologia, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (UFGD), Rod. Dourados Itahum km 12, Dourados 79804-970, MS, Brazil
2
Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas e Ambientais, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (UFGD), Rod. Dourados Itahum km 12, Dourados 79804-970, MS, Brazil
3
Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Instituto de Ciências Ambientais, Químicas e Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Campus Diadema, Rua São Nicolau, 210, Diadema 09913-030, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ecologies 2022, 3(2), 161-174; https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies3020013
Submission received: 27 January 2022 / Revised: 17 May 2022 / Accepted: 24 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of new insecticides for vector control that are toxicologically safe and eco-friendly (such as those obtained from industrial by-products) is an important public health concern. Previous research has shown that the obtained tCNSL (technical cashew nutshell liquid) + NatCNSLS (sodium tCNSL sulfonate mixture) emulsion displayed both surfactant properties and larvicidal activity (LC50-24 h 110.6 mg/L). Thus, the emulsion is considered a promising alternative product for the control of Aedes aegypti. The goal of this study was an ecotoxicological evaluation of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion and its components. In addition, we compared the toxicity of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion with toxicity data from larvicide currently recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Ecotoxicological tests were performed to assess acute toxicity, phytotoxicity, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity using Daphnia similis, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Oreochromis niloticus, Allium cepa, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Regarding acute toxicity, D. similis was the most sensitive test organism for the three evaluated products, followed by P. subcapitata and O. niloticus. The highest acute toxicity product was tCNSL. The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion did not show cytotoxic, genotoxic, or mutagenic effects, and showed low acute toxicity to D. similis. In addition, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion presented a lower or similar toxicological classification to the larvicides recommended by the WHO. Therefore, ecotoxicological tests suggest that the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion can be considered a larvicide environmentally safe way to control Ae. aegypti.

1. Introduction

Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) (Linnaeus 1762) is the main vector responsible for the propagation of diseases such as Zika, Dengue, Chikungunya, and Yellow Fever [1,2], especially in tropical and subtropical countries such as Brazil [3,4]. To restrain the spread of these mosquito-borne diseases, strategies that focus on controlling mosquito vectors (adults and larvae) are essential tools and involve the use of synthetic insecticides [4,5,6]. However, the use of synthetic insecticides in vector control programs has presented problems, including induced resistance in different vector species, environmental pollution, and harmful effects on non-target species (including humans). These unwanted consequences have motivated the search for new toxicologically safe and eco-friendly insecticides, such as those obtained from plant-derived industrial by-products. By-products that carry high amounts of plant bioactive compounds are cheap and are often more effective at lower concentrations than currently used synthetic insecticides [1,5,7,8]. Ideally, new products should target insects at the larval stages in the breeding sites and stimulate public use to aid domestic vector control [9,10].
In this context, the technical cashew nutshell liquid (tCNSL), mostly composed of cardanol (60% to 75%), is a by-product obtained during the industrial processing (toasting at 180 °C to 190 °C) of cashew nuts (Anacardium Occidentale L.). The global production of cashew nutshells is estimated at ~3 million T/year and is concentrated in tropical countries in South America, Africa, and Asia [11,12]. Approximately 30% to 35% of this amount is cashew nutshell liquid (CNSL) [11]. In Brazil, approximately 1 million T/year of the tCNSL is generated [13] at a relatively low cost of 300 USD/T [14]. As cashew nut shells are obtained as a by-product from cashew nut processing factories, they do not compete with food production [11]. The wide applicability and economic feasibility of the tCNSL in several sectors suggests that their reuse has the potential to reduce environmental impacts [11,15]. These applications include their transformation for industrial purposes and technological applications, including the production of insecticides, resins, and plastics [16,17,18,19]. This industrial by-product has proven larvicidal and insecticidal activities against Ae. aegypti [9,17,19]. Unfortunately, the hydrophobicity of the tCNSL limits its use in aquatic environments, which are the breeding and development sites of Ae. aegypti. To use the tCNSL as a larvicide in aquatic environments, Jorge et al. [9] performed a tCNSL sulfonation reaction and obtained sodium tCNSL sulfonate (NatCNSLS mixture) with surfactant properties. However, the NatCNSLS mixture lost the larvicidal activity of the precursor (tCNSL). To recover the larvicidal activity and obtain a multifunctional product (such as household cleaning products), the authors chose to produce an oil-in-water emulsion composed of tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture (1:6 w/w). The obtained tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion showed both surfactant properties and larvicidal activity (LC50-24 h 110.6 mg/L). This is considered a promising alternative for the development of a new commercial product for Ae. aegypti control. Therefore, further ecotoxicological assays are recommended to assess the environmental safety of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture [9].
The legal requirements for the registration of pesticides, which include eco/toxicological methodologies considered internationally valid and a minimum dataset necessary to carry out the environmental risk assessment (ERA) process, differ among countries [20]. However, one of the main shortcomings of the ecotoxicological dataset obtained using only internationally validated testing protocols (e.g., OECD Guidelines) is the assumption that few surrogate species are sensitive enough to protect other species in an environment [21]. Thus, ecotoxicological studies published in international peer-reviewed literature can be an important source of data for ERA that exploit novel test designs and report mechanistic information, as well as individual-, population-, and community-level responses in a range of different test organisms and environments [22].
Considering that tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture presented larvicidal activities and surfactant proprieties, the next step to develop a new commercial product to control Ae. aegypti was to evaluate its ecotoxicological safety. Our main objective was to conduct an ecotoxicological assessment of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its constituents separately. We performed acute toxicity, phytotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity tests using different test organisms. In addition, we compared the toxicity of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture with toxicity data from the larvicides recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Source of Tested Products

In this work, we evaluated the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion (1:6 parts active ingredient to the surfactant w/w), which were obtained as previously by Jorge et al. [9]. We also evaluated the individual components tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture using the same ecotoxicological tests. The tCNSL was provided by Resibrás Cashol (Fortaleza, CE, Brazil). tCNSL is an industrial by-product, and the exact quantitative composition may vary, but its main constituents are cardanol (60% to 75%), cardol (15% to 20%), and methylcardol and polymeric materials (5% to 10%) [19,23,24].

2.2. Ecotoxicological Tests

2.2.1. Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata Growth Inhibition Test

The maintenance of cultures and toxicity tests with P. subcapitata were performed according to ABNT NBR 12.648 [25] and OECD 201 [26] guidelines. Algae cultures were maintained in an LC Oligo medium. Glass flasks containing 45 mL of culture media and algae inoculums (1 × 105 cells/mL) were exposed to five test concentrations of tCNSL (ranging from 0.01 to 10 mg/L), of a NatCNSLS mixture (ranging from 0.1 to 100 mg/L), and of a tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture (ranging from 0.70 to 70 mg/L). Three replicates were obtained for each concentration. Negative (LC Oligo medium + deionized water) and solvent (LC Oligo medium + dimethyl sulfoxide-DMSO 1%) controls were included in each test. The experiments were performed in triplicate, under continuous agitation (160 rpm) and with continuous fluorescent light (4500 lux) at 25 ± 2 °C for 72 h. The endpoint measured was growth inhibition used to calculate the 50% inhibition concentrations (IC50-72 h).

2.2.2. Daphnia similis Acute Toxicity Test

Cultures were maintained, and acute toxicity tests with D. similis were performed following the ABNT NBR 12.713 [27] and OECD 202 [28] guidelines. The microcrustacean culture was maintained in an MS medium in climatic chambers at 20 ± 2 °C and 16 h light:8 h dark photoperiod, with a light intensity of 700 lux, and fed with P. subcapitata three times per week. The culture parameters were maintained as follows: dissolved oxygen, 7 ± 1 mg/L; hardness, 44 ± 4 mg/L CaCO3; conductivity, 200 ± 50 μS cm; pH 7.0–7.6. Neonates aged <24 h from the same culture were selected as test organisms for the analysis. The neonates were isolated from the Daphnia culture and five organisms were placed in individual screw cap tubes filled with 10 mL of solution, and then incubated at 20 ± 2 °C for 16 h light:8 h dark photoperiods. The neonates were exposed to five test concentrations of tCNSL ranging from 0.0003 to 0.3 mg/L, of NatCNSLS mixture ranging from 0.1 to 15 mg/L and of tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion ranging from 0.0021 to 2.1 mg/L. Negative (MS medium) and solvent (MS medium + DMSO 0.5%) controls were included in each test. All tests were performed with 20 neonates randomly distributed across four replicates (n = 5). All tests were performed with four replicates. Three independent tests were conducted and validated after 48 h of exposure. The number of immobile organisms in each test concentration was counted and used to calculate the effective concentration, 50% (EC50-48 h).

2.2.3. Oreochromis niloticus Acute Toxicity Test

Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) juveniles were acclimated for seven days in individual aquariums (10 L) with constant aeration. The parameters were maintained at a temperature of 26 ± 2 °C and a photoperiod of 12 h light: 12 h dark, and the fish were fed twice a day with granulated feed containing 28% crude protein (Laguna®, Lot 05EX180067109). Acute toxicity tests with O. niloticus were performed according to the ABNT NBR 15.088 [29] and OECD 203 [30] guidelines. The juvenile O. niloticus (average weight 1.0 ± 0.71 g) were exposed to five test concentrations ranging from 12 to 27 mg/L of tCNSL, 200 to 275 mg/L of NatCNSLS mixture, and 35 to 105 mg/L of tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion. Negative (dechlorinated water) and solvent (dechlorinated water + DMSO 1%) controls were included in each test. The test concentrations were randomly arranged into three replicates containing 10 fish each. The experiment was conducted in a static system without food for 96 h. After the exposure period, the number of dead organisms at each test concentration was counted and used to calculate the 50% lethal concentration (LC50-96 h).

2.3. Allium cepa Phytotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, and Genotoxicity Tests

The tests were performed according to Fiskejö [31] using seeds without pesticide treatment of A. cepa cv. Baia Periforme (Isla Sementes Ltd., Porto Alegre, Brazil). The seeds were exposed to five concentrations of tCNSL ranging from 27.5 to 440 mg/L, NatCNSLS mixture ranging from 165 to 2640 mg/L, and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion ranging from 192.5 to 3080 mg/L. For tests using the NatCNSLS mixture, dechlorinated water was used as the negative control. Tests with the tCNSL and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion included a negative control of dechlorinated water and 1% DMSO. For each concentration, 30 seeds of A. cepa were exposed and placed to germinate in a temperature of 23 ± 2 °C with a photoperiod of 12 h light:12 h dark for 96 h. All tests were performed in triplicate, totaling 90 seeds per concentration. Phytotoxicity was identified using mean root growth (MRG), measured with a Digimess® digital caliper after 96 h of germination. To determine the mitotic index (MI), chromosomal alteration index (CAI) (observed alterations: multipolar anaphases, chromosome breaks, metaphase C, adhesions, chromosome losses, and bridges), and mutagenicity index (MTI), the roots were collected and fixed in a Carnoy Solution 3:1 (alcohol/acetic acid) for 8 h, then transferred to a new Carnoy fixative, and stored at 4 °C. The fixed roots were washed with water and hydrolyzed in 1N HCl at 60 °C for 10 min. Afterwards, the cells were washed again and stained with Schiff’s reagent for 2 h. After staining, the root meristems of A. cepa were placed on a slide and a drop of 45% acetic carmine was added, then the roots were covered with a coverslip and lightly smashed. For each concentration, five slides were prepared and photographed using a Nikon optical microscope at 400 x magnification and 1000 cells per slide were analyzed (n = 5000 per concentration). To calculate all indices, equations were used according to Francisco et al. [32].

2.4. O. niloticus Genotoxicity Test

For the genotoxicity evaluation with O. niloticus, eight juveniles (average weight 17 ± 10 g) were exposed for 72 h to test the tCNSL (6.36, 12.73, and 19.09 mg/L), NatCNSLS mixture (62.57, 125.15 and 187. 72 mg/L) and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion (10.36, 20.72 and to 31.08 mg/L). These doses corresponded to 25, 50, and 75% of the obtained LC50-96 h for each of the tested products. For the NatCNSLS mixture, the negative control used was dechlorinated water, and for the tCNSL and the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion, the negative control used was dechlorinated water + DMSO 1%. The positive control was cyclophosphamide (40 mg/kg) administered parenterally. Blood samples were collected in the caudal region, and blood smear slides were each prepared in triplicate. The slides were air dried for 15 min, fixed in absolute alcohol for 10 min, stained with Schiff’s reagent and left overnight, and then counter stained with fast green for 10 s. For each site sample, 24,000 cells were analyzed. For the genotoxicity index (GI), we observed alterations, such as nuclear invagination, nuclear sprouting, pyknosis, binucleated cells, and lobulated nuclei. The frequency of micronuclei was counted and determined to obtain the mutagenicity index (MTI) [33]. Blood smear slides were analyzed using an optical light microscope (Nikon, at 400 × magnification. The comet assay was performed according to the methodology described by Singht et al. [34] with modifications. A 3 µL blood sample was collected from each fish (n = 8) at each concentration and diluted in 100 µL of PBS. We added 40 µL of this mixture to 240 µL low-melting agarose. After homogenization, two slides covered with 1.5% agarose were prepared for each sample. The slides were then placed in a lysis solution. Slides were denatured in an electrophoresis vat. Electrophoresis was performed at 37 V and 300 mA for 25 min. The slides were removed from the vat and immersed in a neutralization buffer. The slides were fixed in ethanol and in the sequence; they were stained with ethidium bromide (2 mg/L). Five hundred nucleoids from each tested concentration were analyzed. The software Lucia Comet Assay v. 7.02 was used to evaluate the comets using the following parameters: percentage of DNA in the tail (CP) and size of the tail (TC).

2.5. Salmonella/Microsome Assay

Salmonella/microsome assay was performed using the microsuspension protocol [35]. Strains of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium TA97a, TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA102 were used. The samples were tested in the absence and presence of a metabolic activation system (S9 mix; Moltox Molecular Toxicology Inc., Boone, NC, USA). The tCNSL was dissolved in ultrapure water and 5% DMSO. The NatCNSLS mixture and the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion were both dissolved in ultrapure water and 1% DMSO. The tested concentrations of the three products ranged from 2 to 2000 mg/plate. For products demonstrating cytotoxicity, concentrations of 0.5 and 1 mg/plate were also tested. The negative controls used were ultrapure water + 5% DMSO (tCNSL) and ultrapure water + 1% DMSO (NatCNSLS mixture and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture). 2-aminoanthracene (2.5 µg/plate) was used as a positive control for all the strains in the tests performed with the S9 mix. In the tests performed in the absence of S9 mix, the positive controls used were 4-nitro-o-phenylenediamine (10 µg/plate) (TA97a and TA98), sodium azide (2.5 µg/plate) (TA100 and TA1535), and mitomycin C (0.5 µg/plate) (TA102).

2.6. Ecotoxicological Evaluation and Statistical Analysis

The results of the P. subcapitata (IC50-72 h) toxicity tests were analyzed using ICp software (version 2.0) [36]. The results of the D. similis and O. niloticus (EC50-48 h and LC50-96 h) toxicity tests were analyzed using the Trimmed Spearman-Karber statistical method [37] using the JSPEAR software. The I/E/LC50 values obtained were converted to toxicological units (TU) (TU = 100/I/E/LC50) [38]. The toxicological classification of the tested products was performed using the OECD protocol (2002) [39]. This methodology relies on the values of IC50, EC50, and LC50 for each test-organism and classifies the product under one of the three categories from the most to less toxic: Acute I (≤1.0 mg/L); Acute II (>1.0–10.0 mg/L); and Acute III (>10.0–100.0 mg/L). To evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects obtained in the tests with A. cepa and O. niloticus, the normality of data was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test with Dunn’s posteriori was used to analyze the data. Differences between treatments were considered significant at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using the R platform (R-Development Core Team, 2021) [40]. The results of the Salmonella/microsome assay were analyzed using Salanal software (Integrated Laboratory Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). The mutagenicity ratio (MR) was calculated from the number of colonies induced by the sample and the number of colonies in the negative control. The samples were considered mutagenic when they had an MR ≥ 2 for at least one of the tested concentrations. Samples with MR < 2 at all tested concentrations were considered non-mutagenic, and the tested concentrations (MR < 0.7) were considered cytotoxic.

2.7. Classification of Acute Toxicity of the Larvicides Recommended by WHO and the tCNSL + NatCNSLS Mixture Emulsion

The search for scientific studies containing ecotoxicological data on larvicides recommended by the WHO was performed with the aid of the databases SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google scholar. Only studies that presented results referring to acute toxicity (I/E/LC50) in different test organisms (Tables S1–S5) were included for comparison. The toxicity data retrieved from the literature were converted to TU. Toxicity classification was performed following the OECD protocol (2002) [39].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Acute Toxicity Evaluation with P. subcapitata, D. similis, and O. niloticus

The tCNSL showed the highest toxicity in all three test organisms. The NatCNSLS mixture was the least toxic product to P. subcapitata and O. niloticus. The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion was the least toxic product for D. similis and presented an intermediate toxicity for the other two test organisms (Table 1).
The higher toxicity of tCNSL in relation to the other two tested products may be due to the unsaturation in the lipid phenol nonpolar tail, allowing them to interfere with cell membrane permeation [10,41]. The toxicity reduction observed by the NatCNSLS mixture in relation to tCNSL seems to be related to an alteration/reduction of nonpolar tail unsaturation after the sulfonation reaction. In the 1:6 (w/w) tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion, there was dilution of the active ingredient tCNSL in the surfactant NatCNSLS mixture, which explains the lower toxicity observed for non-target test organisms.
To compare the acute toxicity data from different ecotoxicological tests with different aquatic organisms, the results were converted to TU [38]. This conversion made it possible to verify that D. similis was the test organism most sensitive to the toxic effects of all three tested products. The organism with the intermediate sensitivity was P. subcapitata. O. niloticus was the most resistant to all tested products (Figure 1).
According to the classification from the OECD protocol (2002) [39], the tCNSL was classified as Acute I for P. subcapitata and D. similis and Acute III for O. niloticus. The NatCNSLS mixture was classified into Acute II for P. subcapitata, Acute I for D. similis, and Acute III for O. niloticus. The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture was classified as Acute II for P. subcapitata and D. similis and Acute III for O. niloticus. Ecotoxicological evaluation of tCNSL and its products derived for aquatic organisms is scarce. However, Leite et al. [42] showed that the tCNSL is non-toxic to the marine organism Artemia salina. In general, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture can be considered a less toxic product for nontarget aquatic organisms (Table 2).
Our literature search retrieved 84 ecotoxicological datasets for algae, microcrustaceans, or fish of the larvicides recommended by the WHO [43] for use in combating Ae. aegypti larvae (Tables S1–S5). Of these, we refined our search to only acute toxicity data and classified them according to the OECD protocol (2002) [39]. Then, we compared the ecotoxicological classes of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion obtained for algae, microcrustaceans, and fish with the ecotoxicological classes of larvicides recommended by the WHO [44] for each test organism.
Our comparison should be considered with caution because the effective dose as a larvicide for each product was not considered. We only considered the classification of acute toxicity for aquatic organisms, as proposed by the OECD protocol (2002) [39]. Therefore, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion had a lower or similar ecotoxicological classification to the larvicides Diflubenzuron, Novaluron, Pirimiphos-methyl, Pyriproxyfen, and Temephos for algae, microcrustaceans, and fish. The only exception was algae, for which the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion was more toxic than Diflubenzuron (Table 2). However, ecotoxicological data on Diflubenzuron using algae are scarce, with only a single study available [43]. These results corroborate the literature that plant-derived insecticides, even those containing non-selective substances that can have a negative impact on non-target organisms, are less harmful to many non-target organisms and are more eco-friendly than synthetic insecticides [45].

3.2. Phytotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, and Genotoxicity Evaluation with A. cepa

None of the evaluated products were phytotoxic or cytotoxic to A. cepa. For endpoint genotoxicity, only the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion had a significantly lower frequency of the chromosomal alteration index (CAI) at concentrations of 192.5, 1155, and 3080 mg/L (Table 3). Despite the observed statistical difference, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion is inferred not to be genotoxic because no dose–response relationship was observed and the frequency of changes in concentrations tested was lower than that in NC.
Our results corroborate the results obtained by Leite et al. [42]. Phytotoxicity, cytotoxicity, or genotoxicity was not observed in A. cepa bulbs exposed to tCNSL (maximum tested dose 69.5 mg/L). However, Matias et al. [46] showed that CNSL (composed of 53.2% anacardic acid) is phytotoxic to Lactuca sativa and Lycopersicon esculentum in seed germination and seedling development (root and aerial growth) and to Senna obtusifolia seedling development (aerial growth). These authors attributed the observed phytotoxicity to the presence of anacardic acid and cardol in the evaluated CNSL samples [46]. Thus, the absence of any phytotoxicity by the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its constituents can be attributed, at least in part, to the composition of tCNSL (anacardic acid not detected, cardanol 51.97%, cardol 11.98%, 2-methyl cardol 2.12%) [9].

3.3. Genotoxicity Evaluation with O. niloticus

The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion and its constituents were not genotoxic at any of the endpoints evaluated in the O. niloticus tests (p < 0.05) (Table 4). Both micronucleus and nuclear abnormality tests are widely applied for genotoxicity assessment because of their proven suitability for different fish species.
The micronucleus test detects the aneugenic and clastogenic effects of a wide range of genotoxic chemicals. In addition, testing for nuclear abnormalities (notched, blebbed, lobbed, budding, fragmented nuclei, and binucleated cells) are considered high-quality indicators of cytotoxicity [47]. Thus, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion proposed as a new larvicide is safe in comparison to the three other larvicides recommended by the WHO [44], which showed some type of genotoxic effect for different fish species. For example, Diflubenzuron (Dimilin®) that presented genotoxicity to Prochilodus lineatus at a concentration of 0.12 mg/L for the endpoint nuclear alterations and at a concentration of 0.25 mg/L for the endpoint micronucleus [48]. Moreover, the p-chloroaniline metabolite generated during the biotransformation of Diflubenzuron is considered potentially mutagenic and carcinogenic to humans and other animals [48]. Piriproxifen has also presented genotoxicity to Danio rerio embryos (96 h after fertilization) in the comet assay [49]. Temephos induced a marked increase in the frequencies of micronuclei (3-fold) and chromosomal abnormalities (10-fold in lobed nuclei) in gill erythrocytes of the fish species Poecilia reticulata after 168 h of exposure to a concentration of 0.02 mg/L [50].

3.4. Salmonella/microsome Assay

As verified in the genotoxicity tests with O. niloticus, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion and its constituents did not show mutagenic activity against any of the five Salmonella strains used (both in the absence and presence of S9 mix). For the tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture, high toxicity was observed for TA1535, TA98, and TA102 strains. However, for the tests with the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion, toxicity was not observed; thus, the evaluation of the mutagenicity of the product proposed as larvicide was not impaired (Table 5 and Table S5).
Genotoxicity assessments are an essential component of safety assessments for all substances intended for use as pesticides. In recent years, considerable efforts have been made worldwide to optimize strategies for in vitro genotoxicity testing. Thus, the standard in vitro test includes the Salmonella/microsome bacterial reverse mutation assay [51]. The absence of mutagenicity in all three products evaluated using the Salmonella/microsome assay is especially important if we aim to implement the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion as a multifunctional product to control Ae. aegypti.

4. Conclusions

The tCNSL was the most toxic (acute toxicity tests) product for all the non-target organisms evaluated. The NatCNSLS mixture was the least toxic product to P. subcaptata and O. niloticus. The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion was the least toxic product for D. similis which was considered the most sensitive test organism and had an intermediate toxicity for P. subcaptata and O. niloticus. Although the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion was toxic to aquatic non-target organisms, this effect was observed at concentrations below the LC50 obtained for larvicidal effects. Toxic levels of this product are unlikely to be found in the environment because of its dispersion and dilution capabilities in aquatic environments. None of the three evaluated products showed phytotoxic, cytotoxic, genotoxic, or mutagenic effects on A. cepa or genotoxic effects on O. niloticus. Despite the cytotoxicity observed in the Salmonella/microsome assay, we verified that the three tested products did not show mutagenic activity.
The tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion was an effective larvicide against Ae. aegypti (LC50-24 h 110.6 mg/L) and can be considered less toxic or with the same degree of toxicity when compared to the larvicides used to control vector mosquitoes, as recommended by the WHO. Our data may contribute to the registration of this new product for use in Brazil to combat Ae. aegypti. According to the ecotoxicological evaluation, the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture emulsion is an effective product for the control of larvae and is environmentally safe, providing a new strategy for the control of vectors such as Ae. aegypti.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ecologies3020013/s1, Table S1. Ecotoxicological assessment of Diflubenzuron in aquatic organisms [43,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], Table S2. Ecotoxicological assessment of Novaluron in aquatic organisms [62,63,64,65], Table S3. Ecotoxicological assessment of Pirimiphos-Methyl in aquatic organisms [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73], Table S4. Ecotoxicological assessment of Pyriproxyfen in aquatic organisms [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80], Table S5. Ecotoxicological assessment of Temephos in aquatic organisms [55,59,61,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. Table S6. Mutagenic activity expressed by the mean of reversals/plate and standard deviation for the strains TA97a, TA98, TA100, TA102 and TA1535 of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium after treatment with the LCCt emulsion in the absence (-S9) and presence (+S9) of metabolic activation system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R.J., B.d.A.C., A.B. and E.J.d.A.; methodology, M.R.J., F.M.M., B.d.A.C., F.K., A.B., F.G.d.S.D., K.M.P.d.O. and E.J.d.A.; validation, M.R.J., F.M.M., B.d.A.C., F.K., A.B., F.G.d.S.D., K.M.P.d.O. and E.J.d.A.; formal analysis, M.R.J., F.M.M., B.d.A.C., A.B., F.G.d.S.D. and K.M.P.d.O.; investigation, M.R.J., F.M.M. and B.d.A.C.; resources, B.d.A.C., A.B. and E.J.d.A.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.M., B.d.A.C. and F.K.; writing—review and editing, F.M.M., B.d.A.C., F.K., A.B., F.G.d.S.D., K.M.P.d.O. and E.J.d.A.; supervision, A.B. and E.J.d.A.; project administration, B.d.A.C. and A.B.; funding acquisition, A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul (FUNDECT-020/2017, SIAFEM: 027251, Processo: 59/300.058/2017) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The use of Oreochromis niloticus for the experimental procedures in this article was developed in accordance with the Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals/Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (CEUA/UFGD), registered under protocol number 09/2017.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (UFGD, Brazil) for logistical support. We thank the Ecotoxicology and Genotoxicity Laboratory (LAEG) and Adria Caloto de Oliveira for the realizations the acute toxicity evaluation with P. subcapitata and D. similis. We thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul (FUNDECT) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Benelli, G. Research in mosquito control: Current challenges for a brighter future. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 2801–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bardach, A.E.; García-Perdomo, H.A.; Alcaraz, A.; López, E.T.; Gándara, R.A.R.; Ruvinsky, S.; Ciapponi, A. Interventions for the control of Aedes aegypti in Latin America and the Caribbean: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2019, 24, 530–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Bhatt, S.; Gething, P.W.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Farlow, A.W.; Moyes, C.L.; Drake, J.M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Sankoh, O.; et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 2013, 496, 504–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Garcia, G.D.A.; David, M.R.; Martins, A.; Maciel-De-Freitas, R.; Linss, J.G.B.; Araújo, S.C.; Lima, J.B.P.; Valle, D. The impact of insecticide applications on the dynamics of resistance: The case of four Aedes aegypti populations from different Brazilian regions. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Benelli, G.; Jeffries, C.; Walker, T. Biological control of mosquito vectors: Past, present, and future. Insects 2016, 7, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Carrasco, D.; Lefèvre, T.; Moiroux, N.; Pennetier, C.; Chandre, F.; Cohuet, A. Behavioural adaptations of mosquito vectors to insecticide control. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2019, 34, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Govindarajan, M.; Benelli, G. Eco-friendly larvicides from Indian plants: Effectiveness of lavandulyl acetate and bicyclogermacrene on malaria, dengue and Japanese encephalitis mosquito vectors. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 133, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pandiyan, G.N.; Mathew, N.; Munusamy, S. Larvicidal activity of selected essential oil in synergized combinations against Aedes aegypti. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 174, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jorge, M.R.; Crispim, B.D.A.; Merey, F.M.; Barufatti, A.; Cabrini, I.; Dantas, F.G.D.S.; De Oliveira, K.M.P.; Kummrow, F.; Beatriz, A.; Santos, T.; et al. Sulphonates’ mixtures and emulsions obtained from technical cashew nut shell liquid and cardanol for control of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 27870–27884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. WHO-World Health Organization Dengue: Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention and Control. 2009. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44188/9789241547871_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  11. Mubofu, E.B.; Mgaya, J.E. Chemical Valorization of Cashew Nut Shell Waste. Top. Curr. Chem. 2018, 376, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Roy, A.; Fajardie, P.; Lepoittevin, B.; Baudoux, J.; Lapinte, V.; Caillol, S.; Briou, B. CNSL, a Promising Building Blocks for Sustainable Molecular Design of Surfactants: A Critical Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lomonaco, D.; Mele, G.; Mazzetto, S.E. Cashew Nutshell Liquid (CNSL): From an Agro-industrial Waste to a Sustainable Alternative to Petrochemical Resources. In Cashew Nut Shell Liquid; Anilkumar, P., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Matos, J.E.X.; Silva, F.J.A.; Vieira, P.B. Solventes para extração do líquido da castanha de caju (LCC) e compatibilidade ambiental. Rev. Technol. 2008, 29, 101–109. Available online: https://periodicos.unifor.br/tec/article/view/49 (accessed on 12 June 2020).
  15. Lomonaco, D.; Santiago, G.M.P.; Ferreira, Y.S.; Arriaga, M.C.; Mazzetto, S.E.; Mele, G.; Vasapollo, G. Study of technical CNSL and its main components as new green larvicides. Green Chem. 2009, 11, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Balachandran, V.S.; Jadhav, S.R.; Vemula, P.K.; John, G. Recent advances in cardanol chemistry in a nutshell: From a nut to nanomaterials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. de Carvalho, G.H.F.; de Andrade, M.A.; de Araújo, C.N.; Santos, M.L.; de Castro, N.A.; Charneau, S.; Monnerat, R.; de Santana, J.M.; Bastos, I.M.D. Larvicidal and pupicidal activities of eco-friendly phenolic lipid products from Anacardium occidentale nutshell against arbovirus vectors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 5514–5523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Mgaya, J.; Shombe, G.B.; Masikane, S.C.; Mlowe, S.; Mubofu, E.B.; Revaprasadu, N. Cashew nut shell: A potential bio-resource for the production of bio-sourced chemicals, materials and fuels. Green Chem. 2019, 21, 1186–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Quirino, R.L.; Garrison, T.F.; Kessler, M.R. Matrices from vegetable oils, cashew nut shell liquid, and other relevant systems for biocomposite applications. Green Chem. 2014, 16, 1700–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lillicrap, A.; Belanger, S.; Burden, N.; Du Pasquier, D.; Embry, M.R.; Halder, M.; Lampi, M.; Lee, L.; Norberg-King, T.; Rattner, B.A.; et al. Alternative approaches to vertebrate ecotoxicity tests in the 21st century: A review of developments over the last 2 decades and current status. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 2637–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Topping, C.J.; Aldrich, A.; Berny, P. Overhaul environmental risk assessment for pesticides. Science 2020, 367, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rudén, C.; Adams, J.; Ågerstrand, M.; Brock, T.C.; Poulsen, V.; E Schlekat, C.; Wheeler, J.; Henry, T.R. Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2016, 13, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mazzetto, S.E.; Lomonaco, D.; Mele, G. Óleo da castanha de caju: Oportunidades e desafios no contexto do desenvolvimento e sustentabilidade industrial. Química Nova 2009, 32, 732–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. CASHOL–Resibras: Renewable and Sustainable Solutions in Cashol® Products. 2022. Available online: https://cashol.com.br/2017/?lang=en#materiais (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  25. ABNT-Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas-NBR 12648; Aquatic Ecotoxicology–Chronic Toxicity–Test with Algae (Chlorophyceae). Brazilian Association of Technique Standards: São Paulo, Brazil, 2018; p. 27.
  26. OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test no. 201: Freshwater alga and cyanobacteria, growth inhibition test. OECD Guidel. Test. Chem. 2001, 1, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. ABNT-Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas-ABNT NBR 12713; Aquatic Ecotoxicology-Acute Toxicity-Bioassay Methodology with Daphnia spp. (Crustacea, Cladocera). Brazilian Association of Technique Standards: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; p. 27.
  28. OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test No. 202: Daphnia sp. Acute Immobilisation Test. In Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals; Section 2; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2004; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. ABNT-Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas-NBR 15088; Aquatic Ecotoxicology-Acute Toxicity-Test with Fish (Cyprinidae). Brazilian Association of Technique Standards: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; p. 25.
  30. OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test no. 203: Fish, acute toxicity testing. In OECD Guideline for Testing Chemicals; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fiskesjö, G. The Allium test—An alternative in environmental studies: The relative toxicity of metal ions. Mutat. Res. 1988, 197, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Franscisco, L.F.V.; Crispim, B.D.A.; Viana, L.F.; Nascimento, H.D.S.; Junior, J.L.R.; Grisolia, A.B. Cytotoxicity, Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity of Aluminum, Manganese and Lead in Meristematic Cells of Root Allium cepa. Orbital: Electron. J. Chem. 2018, 10, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carrasco, K.R.; Tilbury, K.L.; Myers, M.S. Assessment of the Piscine Micronucleus Test as an in situ Biological indicator of Chemical Contaminant Effects. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1990, 47, 2123–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, N.P.; McCoy, M.T.; Tice, R.R.; Schneider, E.L. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp. Cell Res. 1988, 175, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kado, N.Y.; Langley, D.; Eisenstadt, E. A simple modification of the Salmonella liquid-incubation assay Increased sensitivity for detecting mutagens in human urine. Mutat. Res. Lett. 1983, 121, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Norberg-King, T.J. A linear interpolation method for sublethal toxicity: The inhibition concentration (ICp) approach. Natl. Effl. Toxic. Assess. Cent. Tech. Rep. 1993, 39, 3–93. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hamilton, M.A.; Russo, R.C.; Thurston, R.V. Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1977, 11, 714–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Costa, C.R.; Olivi, P.; Botta, C.M.R.; Espindola, E.L.G. A toxicidade em ambientes aquáticos: Discussão e métodos de avaliação. Química Nova 2008, 31, 1820–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Harmonised Integrated Classification System for Human Health and Environmental Hazards of Chemical Substances and Mixtures; OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 33; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: http://www.R-project.org (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  41. Paiva, D.R.; De Lima, D.P.; Avvari, N.P.; De Arruda, E.J.; Cabrini, I.; Marques, M.R.; Dos Santos, E.A.; Biaggio, F.C.; Sangi, D.P.; Beatriz, A. A potent larvicidal agent against Aedes aegypti mosquito from cardanol. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2017, 89, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Leite, A.D.S.; Dantas, A.F.; Oliveira, G.L.D.S.; Júnior, A.L.G.; de Lima, S.G.; Citó, A.M.D.G.L.; de Freitas, R.M.; Melo-Cavalcante, A.A.D.C.; Lopes, J.A.D. Evaluation of Toxic, Cytotoxic, Mutagenic, and Antimutagenic Activities of Natural and Technical Cashew Nut Shell Liquids Using the Allium cepa and Artemia salina Bioassays. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 626835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. WHO-World Health Organization. Who Specifications and Evaluations for Public Health Pesticides Diflubenzuron 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea. 2017. Available online: https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/vcp-documents/WHOVC-SP_Diflubenzuron_2020.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  44. WHO-World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth Edition Incorporating the First Addendum; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/drinking-water-quality-guidelines-4-including-1st-addendum/en/ (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  45. Roman, P. History, presence and perspective of using plant extracts as commercial botanical insecticides and farm products for protection against insects–a review. Plant Prot. Sci. 2016, 52, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Matias, R.; Rosa, A.C.; Oliveira, A.K.M.; Pereira, K.C.L.; Rizzi, E.S.; Machado, A.A. Cashew nut shell liquid and formulation: Toxicity during the germination of lettuce, tomato seeds and coffee senna and seedling formation. Acta Sci. Agron. 2017, 39, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Hussain, B.; Sultana, T.; Sultana, S.; Masoud, M.S.; Ahmed, Z.; Mahboob, S. Fish eco-genotoxicology: Comet and micronucleus assay in fish erythrocytes as in situ biomarker of freshwater pollution. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Benze, T.P.; Sakuragui, M.M.; Zago, L.H.D.P.; Fernandes, M.N. Subchronic exposure to diflubenzuron causes health disorders in neotropical freshwater fish, Prochilodus lineatus. Environ. Toxicol. 2016, 31, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maharajan, K.; Muthulakshmi, S.; Nataraj, B.; Ramesh, M.; Kadirvelu, K. Toxicity assessment of pyriproxyfen in vertebrate model zebrafish embryos (Danio rerio): A multi biomarker study. Aquat. Toxicol. 2018, 196, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pereira, B.B.; Júnior, E.O.D.C. Enzymatic Alterations and Genotoxic Effects Produced by Sublethal Concentrations of Organophosphorous Temephos in Poecilia reticulata. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2015, 78, 1033–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Corvi, R.; Madia, F. In vitro genotoxicity testing–Can the performance be enhanced? Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 106, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations; USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; 92p.
  53. Hansen, S.R.; Garton, R.R. Ability of standard toxicity tests to predict the effects of the insecticide diflubenzuron on laboratory stream communities. Canad. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1982, 39, 1273–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kashian, D.R.; Dodson, S.I. Effects of common-use pesticides on developmental and reproductive processes in Daphnia. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2002, 18, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abe, F.R.; Coleone, A.C.; Machado, A.A.; Gonçalves Machado-Neto, J. Ecotoxicity and environmental risk assessment of larvicides used in the control of Aedes aegypti to Daphnia magna (Crustacea. Cladocera). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2014, 77, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Jonsson, C.M.; Silva, M.S.G.M.; de MACEDO, V.S.; Dantzger, D.D.; Vallim, J.H.; Marigo, A.L.S.; Aoyama, H. Prediction of a low-risk concentration of diflubenzuron to aquatic organisms and evaluation of clay and gravel in reducing the toxicity Pan-Am. J. Aquat. Sci. 2015, 10, 259–272. [Google Scholar]
  57. USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Risk Assessment to Support the Registration Review of Diflubenzuron; Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  58. USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Diflubenzuron; EPA 738–R–97–008; Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  59. Abe, F.R.; Machado, A.A.; Coleone, A.C.; da Cruz, C.; Machado-Neto, J.G. Toxicity of Diflubenzuron and Temephos on Freshwater Fishes: Ecotoxicological Assays with Oreochromis niloticus and Hyphessobrycon eques. Water. Air Soil Poll. 2019, 230, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Johnson, W.W.; Finley, M.T. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 137: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
  61. Mayer, F.L.; Ellersieck, M.R. Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals; United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160: Washington, DC, USA, 1986. Available online: http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/data/acute/acute.html (accessed on 26 June 2020).
  62. PPDB–Pesticide Properties DataBase. 2012. Available online: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/ (accessed on 27 June 2020).
  63. WHO-World Health Organization. Who Specifications and Evaluations for Public Health Pesticides Novaluron, (±)-1-[3-chloro-4-(1,1,2-trifluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyethoxy)phenyl]-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea. 2004. Available online: https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/vcp-documents/WHOVC-SP_Novaluron_2004.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  64. Nagaraju, B.; Rathnamma, V.V.; Somaiah, K. Median lethal concentrations of novaluron and its effect on behavioral changes in freshwater fish Ctenopharyngodon idella. Adv. Agric. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013, 3, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nagaraju, B.; Sudhakar, P.; Anitha, A.; Haribabu, G.; Rathnamma, V.V. Toxicity evaluation and behavioral studies of fresh water fish Labeorohita exposed to Rimon. Int. J. Pharm. Biomed. Sci. 2011, 2, 722–727. [Google Scholar]
  66. WHO-World Health Organization. Who Specifications and Evaluations for Public Health Pesticides Pirimiphos-Methyl, O-2-diethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-yl-O,Odimethyl phosphorothioate. 2016. Available online: https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/vcp-documents/WHOVC-SP_Pirimiphos-methyl_2016.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  67. DAR-Draft Assessment Report Etofenprox. 2005. Available online: http://dar.efsa.europa.eu/darweb/provision (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  68. Pérez, S.; Rial, D.; Beiras, R. Acute toxicity of selected organic pollutants to saltwater (mysid Siriella armata) and freshwater (cladoceran Daphnia magna) ecotoxicological models. Ecotoxicology 2015, 24, 1229–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. European Commision. Initial Risk Assessment Provided by the Rapporteur Member State United Kingdom for the Existing Active Substance Pirimiphos-Methyl of the Second Stage of the Review Programme; Annex B, B.9, Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  70. USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency. EFED RED Chapter for Diazinon; Case no. 818962; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  71. Lawal, M.O.; Samuel, O.B. Investigation of Acute Toxicity of Pirimiphos-Methy] l (Actellic, 25% EC) on Guppy (Poecilia reticulata, Peters, 1859). Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 13, 405–408. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mhadhbi, L.; Beiras, R. Acute toxicity of seven selected pesticides (alachlor, atrazine, dieldrin, diuron, pirimiphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon) to the marine fish (turbot, Psetta maxima). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 5917–5930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Brown, M.D.; Thomas, D.; Kay, B.H. Acute toxicity of selected pesticides to the pacific blue-eye, Pseudomugil signifier (Pisces). J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1998, 14, 463–466. [Google Scholar]
  74. USEPA-Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/129032/129032-040.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  75. Afsset, A.; Assessment, R. La Lutte Antivectorielle dans le Cadre de L’épidémie de Chikungunya sur l’Île de la Réunion: Évaluation des Risques et de L’efficacité des Produits Larvicides; Maisons-Alfort: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  76. Trayler, K.M.; Davis, J.A. Sensitivity of Daphnia carinata sensu lato to the insect growth regulator, pyriproxyfen. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1996, 33, 154–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vieira-Santos, S.V.; Caixeta, E.S.; Campos-Junior, E.O.; Pereira, B.B. Ecotoxicological effects of larvicide used in the control of Aedes aegypti on nontarget organisms: Redefining the use of piriproxifeno. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2017, 80, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Antczak, P.; Jo, H.J.; Woo, S.; Scanlan, L.; Poynton, H.; Loguinov, A.; Chan, S.; Falciani, F.; Vulpe, C. Molecular toxicity identification evaluation (mTIE) approach predicts chemical exposure in Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11747–11756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Horie, Y.; Yamagishi, T.; Takahashi, H.; Shintaku, Y.; Iguchi, T.; Tatarazako, N. Assessment of the lethal and sublethal effects of 20 environmental chemicals in zebrafish embryos and larvae by using OECD TG 212. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2017, 37, 1245–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Caixeta, E.S.; Silva, C.F.; Santos, V.S.; Campos Junior, E.O.; Pereira, B.B. Ecotoxicological assessment of pyriproxyfen under environmentally realistic exposure conditions of integrated vector management for Aedes aegypti control in Brazil. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2016, 79, 799–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. WHO-World Health Organization. Who Specifications and Evaluations for Public Health Pesticides Temephos, O,O,O′O′-tetramethyl O,O′-thiodi-p-phenylene bis(phosphorothioate). 2010. Available online: https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/vcp-documents/WHOVC-SP_Temephos_2010.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  82. Helgen, J.C.; Larson, N.J.; Anderson, R.L. Responses of zooplankton and Chaoborus to temephos in a natural pond and in the laboratory. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1988, 17, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Goodyear, J.J.; Evans, W.; Parker, R. Organophosphate Pesticides: Documents of Temephos (Revised Environmental Fate and Effects Assessment, Released 10/06/99); Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA): Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  84. Leboulanger, C.; Schwartz, C.; Somville, P.; Diallo, A.O.; Pagano, M. Sensitivity of two Mesocyclops (Crustacea, Copepoda, Cyclopidae), from tropical and temperate origins, to the herbicides, diuron and paraquat, and the insecticides, temephos and fenitrothion. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 87, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mayer, F.L. Acute Toxicity Handbook of Chemicals to Estuarine Organisms; Environmental Research Laboratory: Gulf Breeze, FL, USA, 1987; p. 283. [Google Scholar]
  86. Crivelenti, L.Z.; Guilherme, L.C.; Morelli, S.; Borin, S. Toxicidade do inseticida Organofosforado Abate® em alevinos de Poecilia reticulata. J. Braz. Soc. Ecotoxicol. 2010, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Selvi, M.; Sarikaya, R.; Erkoç, F. Acute behavioral changes in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) exposed to temephos. Gazi Univ. J. Sci. 2004, 17, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  88. Anadu, D.I.; Anaso, H.U.; Onyeka, O.N.D. Acute toxicity of the insect larvicide abate®(temephos) on the fish tilapia melanopleura and the dragonfly larvae neurocordelia virginiensis. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 1996, 31, 1363–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ecologies 03 00013 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparison of the sensitivity of the test-organisms P. subcapitata, D. similis and O. niloticus. For this comparison, the acute toxicity data obtained for the three products tested were converted to toxicological units.
Figure 1. Comparison of the sensitivity of the test-organisms P. subcapitata, D. similis and O. niloticus. For this comparison, the acute toxicity data obtained for the three products tested were converted to toxicological units.
Ecologies 03 00013 g001
Table
Table 1. The tCNSL, NatCNSLS mixture and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture Inhibitory (IC), effective (EC) and lethal (LC) concentrations 50% obtained with the three test-organisms used. In brackets the 95% confidence intervals.
Table 1. The tCNSL, NatCNSLS mixture and tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture Inhibitory (IC), effective (EC) and lethal (LC) concentrations 50% obtained with the three test-organisms used. In brackets the 95% confidence intervals.
Test-Organism tCNSL
(mg/L)		NatCNSLS
Mixture (mg/L)		tCNSL + NatCNSLS Mixture (mg/L)
P. subcapitataIC500.33 (0.30–0.37)7.10 (5.60–15.40)2.10 (1.96–2.17)
D. similisEC500.12 (0.09–0.15)0.75 (0.64–0.89)1.05 (0.91–1.26)
O. niloticusLC5025.46 (23.63–27.42)250.30 (242.24–258.62)41.44 (39.06–43.89)
Table
Table 2. Acute ecotoxicological classification (OECD, 2002) comparison of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture with the larvicides recommended by WHO.
Table 2. Acute ecotoxicological classification (OECD, 2002) comparison of the tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture with the larvicides recommended by WHO.
ProductsAcute Classification OECD (2002) in Each Biological Group
AlgaeCrustaceanFish
tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixtureIIIIIII
DiflubenzuronIIIII and II
NovaluronI and IIII, II and III
Pirimiphos-methylIII and II
PyriproxyfenIII
Temephos-II, II and III
- Data not found in the literature.
Table
Table 3. Median and interquartile deviation from mean root length (CMR), mitotic index (IM), chromosomal alterations index (IAC) and mutagenicity index (IMT) obtained in tests with Allium cepa exposed to tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its components (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture).
Table 3. Median and interquartile deviation from mean root length (CMR), mitotic index (IM), chromosomal alterations index (IAC) and mutagenicity index (IMT) obtained in tests with Allium cepa exposed to tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its components (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture).
ProductsConcentrations
(mg/L)		Phytotoxicity EndpointsCytotoxicity EndpointsGenotoxicity Endpoints
CMR (mm)IM (%)IAC (%)IMT (%)
tCNSLNC 14.22ǀ0.6988.47ǀ3.210.49ǀ0.100.20ǀ0.15
27.54.42ǀ0.5795.44ǀ1.640.10ǀ0.100.00ǀ0.05
553.83ǀ0.5395.64ǀ3.120.10ǀ0.100.00ǀ0.05
1653.87ǀ0.9696.79ǀ0.830.20ǀ0.140.30ǀ0.33
2203.32ǀ0.2292.81ǀ2.040.09ǀ0.050.00ǀ0.05
4402.52ǀ0.7395.12ǀ7.720.00ǀ0.050.00ǀ0.05
NatCNSLS mixtureNC 26.08ǀ0.5398.33ǀ0.950.10ǀ0.050.00ǀ0.00
1658.13ǀ1.7393.00ǀ0.980.20ǀ0.340.00ǀ0.39
3307.10ǀ1.5993.00ǀ1.010.10ǀ0.050.00ǀ0.10
9905.98ǀ1.2493.00ǀ0.820.20ǀ0.190.20ǀ0.09
13207.10ǀ2.2493.72ǀ1.410.59ǀ0.150.30ǀ0.29
26406.83ǀ1.2094.26ǀ1.090.57ǀ0.240.10ǀ0.10
tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixtureNC 14.22ǀ0.6988.47ǀ3.210.49ǀ0.100.20ǀ0.15
192.55.71ǀ0.7594.08ǀ2.570.00ǀ0.05 *0.00ǀ0.05
3856.14ǀ0.6895.76ǀ1.040.18ǀ0.100.10ǀ0.09
11556.11ǀ0.3494.87ǀ1.550.00ǀ0.10 *0.00ǀ0.05
15406.16ǀ1.1396.54ǀ0.480.20ǀ0.050.10ǀ0.05
30804.25ǀ0.9695.32ǀ2.080.10ǀ0.05 *0.00ǀ0.00
Medians followed by an asterisk (*) in the column, for each compound evaluated, represent statistical difference when compared with the negative control (p < 0.05). CN 1—negative control (dechlorinated water + DMSO 1%); CN 2—Negative control (dechlorinated water).
Table
Table 4. Median and interquartile deviation of the micronucleus index (MN), genotoxicity index (GI), DNA present in the tail (PT) and tail size (TS) data obtained in tests with Oreochromis niloticus exposed to tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its components (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture).
Table 4. Median and interquartile deviation of the micronucleus index (MN), genotoxicity index (GI), DNA present in the tail (PT) and tail size (TS) data obtained in tests with Oreochromis niloticus exposed to tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its components (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture).
ProductsConcentrations
(mg/L)		Chromosomal AlterationsDNA Damages
MNGIPT (%)TS (µm)
tCNSLNC 10.00ǀ0.001.79ǀ1.6638.53ǀ1.9118.37ǀ0.44 *
PC0.03ǀ0.00 *6.86ǀ0.61 *59.95ǀ4.81 *45.22ǀ1.23 *
6.360.00ǀ0.001.26ǀ0.1733.19ǀ0.7315.65ǀ1.07
12.730.00ǀ0.002.89ǀ0.6733.78ǀ0.1722.15ǀ1.27
19.090.00ǀ0.002.82ǀ1.4937.02ǀ2.5122.52ǀ1.32
NatCNSLS mixtureNC 20.00ǀ0.001.80ǀ0.3734.45ǀ1.5710.67ǀ0.52
PC0.03ǀ0.00 *6.86ǀ0.61 *59.95ǀ4.81 *45.22ǀ1.23 *
62.530.00ǀ0.002.50ǀ0.6748.80ǀ2.4518.75ǀ1.45
125.060.00ǀ0.001.97ǀ0.2749.51ǀ0.6617.69ǀ0.86
187.590.00ǀ0.003.05ǀ0.3840.55ǀ0.9818.25ǀ1.85
tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixtureNC 10.00ǀ0.001.79ǀ1.6638.53ǀ1.9118.37ǀ0.44
PC0.03ǀ0.00 *6.86ǀ0.61 *59.95ǀ4.81 *45.22ǀ1.23 *
10.360.00ǀ0.011.86ǀ0.2336.53ǀ4.0620.04ǀ2.46
20.720.00ǀ0.012.18ǀ0.0327.23ǀ0.7919.81ǀ1.02
31.080.00ǀ0.002.15ǀ0.1027.27ǀ3.9116.14ǀ2.17
Medians followed by an asterisk (*) in the column, for each compound evaluated, present statistical difference when compared with the negative control (p < 0.05). NC 1—negative control (DMSO 1%); NC 2—negative control (dechlorinated water); PC-positive control (Cyclophosphamide (40 mg/kg)).
Table
Table 5. Mutagenic activity of tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its constituents (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture) expressed by the mutagenicity ratio (MR) for strains TA97a, TA98, TA100, TA102 and TA1535 in the absence (−S9) and presence (+S9) of metabolic activation.
Table 5. Mutagenic activity of tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture and its constituents (tCNSL and NatCNSLS mixture) expressed by the mutagenicity ratio (MR) for strains TA97a, TA98, TA100, TA102 and TA1535 in the absence (−S9) and presence (+S9) of metabolic activation.
ProductsConcentrations (mg/plate)TA97aTA98TA100TA102TA1535
−S9+S9−S9+S9−S9+S9−S9+S9−S9+S9
tCNSL0.5
1
2
20
200
2000
NatCNSLS mixture0.5
1
2
20
200
2000
tCNSL + NatCNSLS mixture1
2
20
200
2000
Concentrations not tested Ecologies 03 00013 i001; Cytotoxicity (MR < 0.7) Ecologies 03 00013 i002; Negative (MR < 2) Ecologies 03 00013 i003.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jorge, M.R.; Merey, F.M.; Crispim, B.d.A.; Kummrow, F.; Barufatti, A.; Silva Dantas, F.G.d.; Oliveira, K.M.P.d.; Arruda, E.J.d. Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Products Obtained from Technical Cashew Nutshell Liquid (tCNSL) Proposed as Larvicide to Control Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Ecologies 2022, 3, 161-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies3020013

AMA Style

Jorge MR, Merey FM, Crispim BdA, Kummrow F, Barufatti A, Silva Dantas FGd, Oliveira KMPd, Arruda EJd. Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Products Obtained from Technical Cashew Nutshell Liquid (tCNSL) Proposed as Larvicide to Control Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Ecologies. 2022; 3(2):161-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies3020013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jorge, Márcia Ramos, Felipe Mendes Merey, Bruno do Amaral Crispim, Fábio Kummrow, Alexeia Barufatti, Fabiana Gomes da Silva Dantas, Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira, and Eduardo José de Arruda. 2022. "Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Products Obtained from Technical Cashew Nutshell Liquid (tCNSL) Proposed as Larvicide to Control Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)" Ecologies 3, no. 2: 161-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies3020013

APA Style

Jorge, M. R., Merey, F. M., Crispim, B. d. A., Kummrow, F., Barufatti, A., Silva Dantas, F. G. d., Oliveira, K. M. P. d., & Arruda, E. J. d. (2022). Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Products Obtained from Technical Cashew Nutshell Liquid (tCNSL) Proposed as Larvicide to Control Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Ecologies, 3(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies3020013

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop