4.7 Review

Natural Products As Sources for New Pesticides

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 1231-1242

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/np300024u

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deployed War-Fighter Protection Research Program Grant
  2. U.S. Department of Defense through the Armed Forces Pest Management Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural products as pesticides have been reviewed from several perspectives in the past, but no prior treatment has examined the impact of natural product and natural product-based pesticides on the U.S. market, as a function of new active ingredient registrations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thus, EPA registration details of new active ingredients for all conventional pesticide registrations and biopesticide registrations were compiled from the years 1997-2010. Conventional pesticide registrations and biopesticide registrations were examined both collectively and independently for all 277 new active ingredients (NAI) and subsequently categorized and sorted into four types: biological (B), natural product (NP), synthetic (5), and synthetic natural derived (SND). When examining conventional pesticides alone, the S category accounted for the majority of NAI registrations, with 78.0%, followed by SND with 14.7%, NP with 6.4%, and B with 0.9%. Biopesticides alone were dominated by NPs with 54.8%, followed by B with 44.6%, SND with 0.6%, and 0% for S. When examining conventional pesticides and biopesticides combined, NPs accounted for the majority of NAI registrations, with 35.7%, followed by S with 30.7%, B with 27.4%, and SND with 6.1%. Despite the common perception that natural products may not be the best sources for NAI as pesticides, when both conventional and biopesticides are examined collectively, and considering that NP, SND, and B all have origins from natural product research, it can be argued that their combined impact with the EPA from 1997 to 2010 accounted for 69.3% of all NAI registrations.

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

4.7
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