Advertisement

Chemoecology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 37–45 | Cite as

Development of sol–gel formulations for slow release of pheromones

  • Anat ZadaEmail author
  • Lily Falach
  • John A. Byers
Research Paper

Abstract

A new type of dispenser for slow-release of sex pheromones and other semiochemicals was developed based on sol–gel polymers that can be useful for monitoring, mass trapping, and mating disruption in integrated pest management (IPM). Sol–gel matrices exhibit glass characteristics and allow control of the degree of cross-linking during the polymerization process in order to provide an optimal release rate for a particular pheromone. The advantages of sol–gel (silica) matrixes include keeping the added molecules chemically stable and enabling the sol–gel material to be applied in any desired thickness and pheromone quantity, and thereby readily modify release rates. In addition, sol–gels are primarily silica and water that are common in the environment and therefore safe for field dispensing. We developed a method for the entrapment of pheromones in sol–gel matrices that allowed release at an almost constant rate over many days in the field. For example, 2.5 mg (E)-5-decenyl acetate pheromone of peach twig borer, Anarsia lineatella, entrapped in various sol–gel formulations released 14–45 μg/day for up to 28 days. The codling moth (Cydia pomonella) pheromone in sol–gels was used in field tests to capture more codling moth males than unbaited control traps. We describe how the method may be modified to entrap other types of pheromones by making sol–gels with different pore sizes.

Keywords

Sol–gel Dispenser Pheromone Semiochemicals Lure Release rates Anarsia lineatella Cydia pomonella 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the GIF Young-Scientists Foundation, Program No. G-2057-1179.12/2002 for supporting this research. We thank Mrs Ariela Niv of the Israeli Cotton Board and Mrs Miriam Harel of Institute of Plant Protection, ARO for their assistance. In addition we thank Dr. Ezra Dunkelblum, Institute of Plant Protection, ARO and Prof. Albert Zilkha, Dept. of Organic Chemistry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem for helpful consultations and Mark Sarrabia, pest-supervisor of the orchards in Kibbutz Tzuba, for allowing us to conduct our experiments in the walnut orchard.

References

  1. Atterholt CA, Delwiche MJ, Rice RE, Krocht JM (1998) Study of biopolymers and paraffin as potential controlled-release carriers for insect pheromones. J Agric Food Chem 46:4429–4434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avnir D (1995) Organic chemistry within ceramic matrices: doped sol–gel materials. Acc Chem Res 28:328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelt RJ, Vetter RS, Carlson DG, Baker TC (1994) Influence of pheromone dose, trap height, and septum age on effectiveness of pheromones for Carpophilus mutilatus and C. hemipterus (Coleoptera: nitidulidae) in a California date garden. J Econ Entomol 87:667–675Google Scholar
  4. Bierl-Leonhardt BA (1982) Release rates from formulations and quality control methods. In: Kydonieus AF, Beroza M (eds) Insect suppression with controlled release pheromone systems, vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 245–258 Google Scholar
  5. Brown DF, Knight AL, Howell JF, Sell CR, Krysan JL, Weiss M (1992) Emission characteristics of a polyethylene pheromone dispenser for mating disruption of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 85:910–917Google Scholar
  6. Byers JA (1988) Novel diffusion-dilution method for release of semiochemicals: testing pheromone component ratios on western pine beetle. J Chem Ecol 14:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byers JA (2006) Pheromone component patterns of moth evolution revealed by computer analysis of the Pherolist. J Anim Ecol 75:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byers JA (2007) Simulation of mating disruption and mass trapping with competitive attraction and camouflage. Environ Entomol 36:1328–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byers JA (2008) Active space of pheromone plume and its relationship to effective attraction radius in applied models. J Chem Ecol 34:1134–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamberlain DJ, Brown NJ, Jones OT, Casagrande E (2000) Field evaluation of a slow release pheromone formulation to control the American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. Bull Entomol Res 90:183–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cork A, De Souza K, Hall DR, Jones OT, Casagrande E, Krishnaiah K, Syed Z (2008) Development of PVC-resin-controlled release formulation for pheromones and use in mating disruption of yellow rice stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas. Crop Prot 27:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa TMH, Stefani V, Balzaretti N, Francisco LTST, Gallas MR, Da Jornada JAH (1997) High pressure loading of organic dyes into a silica matrix. J Non-Cryst Solid 221:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deLame FM, Miller JR, Atterholt CA, Gut LJ (2007) Development and evaluation of an emulsified paraffin wax dispenser for season-long mating disruption of Grapholita molesta in commercial peach orchards. J Econ Entomol 100:1316–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunkelblum E, Kehat M, Klug JT, Shani A (1984) Trimerization of Earias insulana sex pheromone (E, E)-10, 12-hexadecadienal, a phenomenon affecting trapping efficiency. J Chem Ecol 10:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Sayed AM (2008) The pherobase: database of insect pheromones and semiochemicals (http://www.pherobase.com)
  16. El-Sayed AM, Suckling DM, Wearing CH, Byers JA (2006) Potential of mass trapping for long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. J Econ Entomol 99:1550–1564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrer ML, Del Monte F, Levy D (2002) A novel and simple alcohol-free sol–gel route for encapsulation of labile proteins. Chem Mater 14:3619–3621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flint HM, Butler L, McDonaough LM, Smith RL, Forey DE (1978) Pink bollworm: response to various emission rates of gossyplure in the field. Environ Entomol 7:57–61Google Scholar
  19. Ideses R, Shani A (1988) Chemical protection of pheromones containing an internal conjugated diene system from isomerization and oxidation. J Chem Ecol 14:1657–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson BG, Anderbrant O, Simandl J, Avtzis ND, Salvadori C, Hedenstrom E, Edlund H, Hogberg HE (2001) Release rates for pine sawfly pheromones from two types of dispensers and phenology of Neodiprion sertifer. J Chem Ecol 27:733–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kandimalla VB, Tripathi VS, Ju HX (2006) Immobilization of biomolecules in sol–gels: biological and analytical applications. Crit Rev Anal Chem 36:73–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knight AL (1995) Evaluating pheromone emission rate and blend in disrupting sexual communication of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 24:1396–1403Google Scholar
  23. Knutson AE, Davis FM, Hedin PA, Phillips VA (1988) Field evaluation of eight substrates for dispensing pheromone of the southwestern corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Econ Entomol 81:1474–1477Google Scholar
  24. Kroschwitz JI, Howe-Grant M (eds) (1998) Kirk-othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology, 4th edn (suppl). Wiley, New York, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  25. Levy D, Esquivias L (1995) Sol–gel processing of optical and electrooptical materials. Adv Mater 7:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDonough LM (1991) Controlled release of insect sex pheromone from a natural rubber substrate. In: Hedin PA (ed) Naturally occuring pest bioregulators. Amer Chem Soc Symp Ser, vol. 449, pp 106–124Google Scholar
  27. McLaughlin JR, Heath RR (1989) Field trapping and observations of male velvetbean caterpillar moths and trapping of Mocis spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Catacolinae) with calibrated formulations of sex pheromone. Environ Entomol 18:933–938Google Scholar
  28. Millar JG (1995) Degradation and stabilization of E8, E10-dodecadienol, the major component of the sex pheromone of the codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 88:1425–1432Google Scholar
  29. Miller JR, Gut LJ, deLame FM, Stelinski LL (2006a) Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (Part 1): theory. J Chem Ecol 32:2089–2114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller JR, Gut LJ, deLame FM, Stelinski LL (2006b) Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (Part 2): case studies. J Chem Ecol 32:2115–2143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rao AV, Kulkarni MM (2002) Hydrophobic properties of TMOS/TMES-based silica aerogels. Mater Res Bull 37:1667–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Stelinski LL, Gut LJ, Mallinger RE, Epstein D, Reed TP, Miller JR (2005) Small plot trials documenting effective mating disruption of significant populations of oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck), using high densities of wax-drop pheromone dispensers. J Econ Entomol 98:1267–1274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stelinski LL, Miller JR, Ledebuhr R, Siegert P, Gut LJ (2007a) Season-long mating disruption of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by one machine application of pheromone in wax drops (SPLAT-OFM). J Pest Sci 80:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stelinski LL, Gut LJ, Haas M, McGhee P, Epstein D (2007b) Evaluation of aerosol devices for simultaneous disruption of sex pheromone communication in Cydia pomonella and Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Pest Sci 80:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suckling DM (2000) Issues affecting the use of pheromones and other semiochemicals in orchards. Crop Prot 19:677–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Todd JL, Millar JG, Vetter RS, Baker TC (1992) Behavioral and electrophysiological activity of (Z, E)-7, 9, 11-dodecatrienal formate, a mimic of the major sex pheromone component of carob moth, Ectonyelois ceratoniae. J Chem Ecol 18:2331–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vrkoč J, Konečý K, Valterová I, Hrdý I (1988) Rubber substrates and their influence on isomerization of conjugated dienes in pheromone dispensers. J Chem Ecol 14:1347–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkins RM, McGuffog DR, Anerson TP, Plimmer JR, Pickett JA, Dawson GW, Griffith DC, Liu X, MaCauly EDM, Woodcock CM, Lie R, Meghir S (1984) Pesticides group symposium–recent developments in controlled release formulations for pest control. Pest Sci 15:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zada A, Soroker V, Harel M, Nakache J, Dunkelblum E (2002) Quantitative GC analysis of secondary alcohols pheromones: determination of the release rate of the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, pheromone from lures. J Chem Ecol 28:2279–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zayat M, Garcia-Parejo P, Levy D (2007) Preventing UV-light damage of light sensitive materials using a highly protective UV-absorbing coating. Chem Soc Rev 36:1270–1281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zdarek J, Vrkoč J, Hochmut R, Kolk A (1988) Male confusion on the nun moth with dispalure at high and low population densities. J Chem Ecol 14:537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology-Chemistry, Institute of Plant ProtectionAgricultural Research OrganizationBet DaganIsrael
  2. 2.US Arid-Land Agricultural Research CenterUSDA-ARSMaricopaUSA

Personalised recommendations