4.2 Article

Molluscicidal and ovicidal activities of plant extracts of the Piperaceae on Biomphalaria glabrata (Say, 1818)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 66-72

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X10000258

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schistosomiasis is a tropical disease caused by Schistosoma and occurs in 54 countries, mainly in South America, the Caribbean region, Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. Currently, 5 to 6 million Brazilian people are infected and 30,000 are under infection risk. Typical of poor regions, this disease is associated with the lack of basic sanitation and very frequently to the use of contaminated water in agriculture, housework and leisure. One of the most efficient methods of controlling the disease is application of molluscicides to eliminate or to reduce the population of the intermediate host snail Biomphalaria glabrata. Studies on molluscicidal activity of plant extracts have been stimulated by issues such as environmental preservation, high cost and recurrent resistance of snails to synthetic molluscicides. The aim of this study was to determine the molluscicide action of extracts from Piperaceae species on adult and embryonic stages of B. glabrata. Fifteen extracts from 13 Piperaceae species were obtained from stems, leaves and roots. Toxicity of extracts was evaluated against snails at two different concentrations (500 and 100 ppm) and those causing 100% mortality at 100 ppm concentration were selected to obtain the LC90 (lethal concentration of 90% mortality). Piper aduncum, P. crassinervium, P. cuyabanum, P. diospyrifolium and P. hostmannianum gave 100% mortality of adult snails at concentrations ranging from 10 to 60 ppm. These extracts were also assayed on embryonic stages of B. glabrata and those from P. cuyabanum and P. hostmannianum showed 100% ovicidal action at 20 ppm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据