Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Commentary
146 (
6
); 680-682
doi:
10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1679_16

Fly ash-based Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis formulation: An ecofriendly approach

Vector Management Division, Defence Research & Development Establishment (DRDO), Gwalior 474 002, Madhya Pradesh, India

Formerly Scientist G

* For correspondence: sachin.tikar@drde.drdo.in

Read COMMENTARY-ARTICLE associated with this -

Licence

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Vectors play an important role in disease transmission, globally. Despite various advancements in vector management, mosquitoes are still prime vectors of dreadful diseases those influence human health and economy as well. Insecticides have been the most preferred and commonly used tool in the vector management because of their rapid action and visible effects. Although several insecticides in different formulations are in existence, their usage over the years has arisen several problems such as reduced response by vectors in the form of resistance phenomenon and their negative impact on the environment.

Amongst various vector management options, biopesticide is a comparatively safer way. Biopesticides based on microorganisms can play an alternative strategy in crop protection due to safety to human beings and non-target organisms1. Although biopesticides represent only 2.89 per cent of the overall pesticide market in India2, its demand is rising steadily in all parts of the world3. An increased concern of biopesticides as an effective tool for mosquito control has been witnessed4. Amongst the various biopesticides, microbial pesticides represent the major component. Bacterial biopesticides are comparatively cheaper than the other methods of pest bioregulation3. It is evident that Bacillus thuringiensis is one of the most promising biopesticides, representing 70 per cent of the global biopesticide market2. Bacillus species, B. thuringiensis, is known for its property to produce proteins which are structurally distinct and acts as pesticidal toxins against pests of agriculture and medical importance; those are coded for by several cry genes5.

The first commercial Bt product was produced in 1938 in France6. To date, over 100 B. thuringiensis-based bioinsecticides have been developed, which are mostly used against lepidopteran, dipteran and coleopteran larvae3. Bt is effective against more than 150 insect pests. Because of their high specificity and safety in the environment, B. thuringiensis and Cry proteins are efficient, safe and sustainable alternatives to chemical pesticides for the control of insect pests78. Amongst 34 recognized subspecies of B. thuringiensis, subspecies kurstaki (lepidopteran specific), israelensis (dipteran specific, mainly mosquitoes and blackflies) and tenebrionis (targeted to Colorado potato beetle) are most widely explored9.

Biopesticides in several formulations such as dusts, powders for seed dressing, granules (GR), micro-GR, water-dispersible GR and wettable powders (WP); suspension concentrates, oil dispersions, suspo-emulsions, capsule suspensions; ultra-low volume formulations are in existence1011. In India, only 12 types of biopesticides have been registered under the Insecticide Act, 19683. Bacillus sphaericus Neide (Bs) and B. thuringiensis serovar israelensis (Bti) are proven potential mosquito larvicides that stand effective in many operational levels under field conditions. These have numerous advantages such as safety for humans and other non-target organisms, minimal residues in the treated habitats, safe to most other natural enemies and increased biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems4. Bti has been successfully advocated for the management of mosquitoes since the last two decades, and its formulations are highly efficient against all three mosquito genera Anopheles, Aedes and Culex12. It has also been documented that B. sphaericus recycles in the field conditions and exhibits prolonged larvicidal activity, mainly against Culex and a few Aedes species, whereas Bti shows a wide spectrum of activities against all three species4. However, repeated application of B. sphaericus in the same habitat has evolved resistance in larvae13. During field experimentation, efficacy of different Bti formulations lasted for 2-7 days against An. culicifacies in freshwater pools and Cx. quinquefasciatus in polluted pools, 2-14 days against An. stephensi in tanks and drains and 7-28 days against Ae. aegypti in desert coolers and industrial scrapes13.

Both the bacterial formulations have been extensively studied under different geographical regions under variety of habitats. The efficacy of the of Bt depends on various bioenvironmental factors and the type of formulation. Formulation can affect the persistence of toxicity, site of contamination and choice of application method, as well as ultraviolet radiation, agitation, sedimentation, water quality, pollutants, pH, temperature, target host and microbial competition14. Since these bacteria are safe for animals and environment and cause no health risk to humans, several formulations have been produced to control many species of mosquitoes4. Bti formulation such as aqueous suspension, WP and GR have been tested for efficacy in the field13. Bti in briquettes or pellets form can address the problem of persistence14, whereas floating GR are better options for surface feeders. Effective formulations for control of different mosquitoes have been developed. Some formulations are slow release controlled formulation, mixture of chemical and biological agents, sprayed-dried powder as tablet and floating bait14. With the advent of nanotechnology in biological sciences, optimized controlled release formulations of Bti in the form of nanoemulsion, nanosuspension, nanocapsule suspension, etc. are new hope in bringing better biological effects151617.

An effective, broad-spectrum, low-cost, user-friendly and readily available Bti formulation is needed. The cost to grow and produce Bti in highly refined laboratory bacterial culture medium is high18. For economic Bt production, cheaper raw material is essential. Several low-cost raw materials have been utilized for production of Bt biopesticides in India. Agro-industrial remains are simple, cheaper and effective bioresource for fermentation producing bacterial toxins targeting mosquito vectors4. Several agro byproducts and waste materials such as bird feathers, dried animal blood, fish meal and coconut cake soybean have been documented as alternate source for culture medium for Bt production181920. All these raw materials are rich in nutrient sources (carbohydrate and proteins) and lead to the production of bacterial biopesticides Bs and Bti2122.

Charcoal and plaster of Paris are some of the common carrier material for Bt formulations. Tamilselvam et al23 in this issue have reported a new carrier material fly ash as an alternative to the common carrier powder-based Bti formulation. Use of fly ash as a carrier in insecticides is generally known. Enormous amount of fly ash which is generated as solid waste in thermal power plants is available in India. Coal-based thermal power plants are the chief source of power generation24. During 2014-2015, 184.14 million tons of fly ash was generated25. The disposal of the substantial amount of solid waste from thermal plants is becoming a prime concern to human health. Fine particles of fly ash accumulated in the lungs for long period act as cumulative poisons and residual silica (40-73%) may cause silicosis, whereas heavy metals can exhibit toxicity26. Prolonged exposure to toxic metals in coal ash can cause several types of diseases27.

There is a vast gap between generation and utilization of fly ash among the countries. In developed countries such as Germany, 80 per cent of the fly ash generated is being utilized, whereas it is only three per cent in India26. Utilization of fly ash in the biopesticide formulations can contribute to its proper utilization thereby decreasing environmental pollution. Fly ash-based Bti formulation has been evaluated in field against Culex mosquito in natural ecosystem28 and found effective in reducing larval population, regardless of habitats.

The Indian fly ash is alkaline, facilitates to improve soil quality, maintains porous structure of soil, provides micronutrients and improves the fertility24. Fly ash has earlier been effectively used as carrier in production of biofertilizers and biopesticides29. A range of fly ash-based Bti formulations have been evaluated against all three vectors23, to arrive at the most effective one. Indian fly ash has very low radioactivity and heavy metal count30. Analysis of the shortlisted formulation by Tamilselvam et al23 also revealed the presence of only micro- and macronutrients and absence of any kind of heavy metals. This formulation has also shown safety against non-target organisms and mammalian systems. Further investigation on fly ash from different sources also needs to be done in detail. Although this formulation has potential to replace existing carrier material in biopesticides, an in-depth study on several aspects such as long-term toxicological analysis, its persistence in different habitats, storage stability and its economic needs is to be conducted.

References

  1. , , . Biopesticide formulations, possibility of application and future trends. Pestic Phytomed. 2013;28:97-102.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . The biopesticide market for global agricultural use. Ind Biotechnol. 2006;2:194-208.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . A review on the use of biopesticides in insect pest management. Int J Sci Adv Technol. 2011;1:169-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , . Current trends in the control of mosquito vectors by means of biological larvicides. J Biofertil Biopestici. 2012;3:1-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , . An Overview on the Crystal Toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Adv Microbiol. 2013;3:462-72.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , . 100 years of Bt, a critical scientific assessment. Washington: American Academy of Microbiology; .
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , . Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007;17:547-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic crop: An environment friendly insect-pest management strategy. J Environ Biol. 2008;29:641-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . Cloning and expression of a novel toxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subs P.jegathesan encoding a highly mosquitocidal protein. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61:4230-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , . New Developments in Crop Protection Product Formulation. In: Agrow Reports. London: Agribusiness Intelligence-Informa; . p. :153.:6.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , . Adjuvants and Additives. In: Agrow Reports. London: Agribusiness Intelligence-Informa; . p. :126.:9.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , . Laboratory bioassay to compare susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles albimanus to Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis as affected by their feeding rates. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1998;14:69-71.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , . Biolarvicides in vector control: Challenges and prospects. J Vector Borne Dis. 2003;40:20-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , . Report for New Zealand Ministry of Health: Environmental and health impacts of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis. Wellington: Ministry of Health; . p. :1.:58.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . Role of biopesticides in crop protection: Present status and future prospects. Indian J Plant Prot. 2007;35:1-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , . Perspectives for nano-biotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29:792-803.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , . Have biopesticides come of age? Trends Biotechnol. 2012;30:250-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , . A novel cost-effective medium for the production of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis for mosquito control. Trop Biomed. 2012;29:81-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , . Medium for the production of primary powder of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984;47:863-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , . Novel fermentation media for the production of mosquito pathogenic bacilli in mosquito control. In: , ed. Current Research, Technology and Education Topics in Applied Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology. Vol 1. Badajoz: Formatex Research Center; . p. :349.:58.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , . Mosquitocidal toxins from various Bacillus thuringiensis and Clostridium bifermentans. In: Bacillus thuringiensis Biotechnology and Environmental Benefits. Vol 1. Taipei: Hua Shiang Yuan Publishing Co.; . p. :125-41.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. , , . The use of clarified butter sediment waste from dairy industries for the production of mosquitocidal bacteria. Int J Dairy Technol. 2012;65:152-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , . Fly ash-based water dispersible powder formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis: Development and laboratory evaluation against mosquito immature. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146:714-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. , . Disposal and utilization of fly ash to protect the environment. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol. 2013;2:5259-66.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. . Report on Fly Ash Generation at Coal/Lignite Based Thermal Power Stations and Its Utilization in the County for the Year 2014-15. New Delhi: CEA; . p. :1-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. , . Fly ash from thermal power plants - Waste management and overview. Curr Sci. 2011;100:1791-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , , . Fly ash disposal and diseases in nearby villages (A Survey) Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2015;4:939-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , , , , . Fly ash based Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis formulation for use against Culex quinquefasciatus, the vector of filariasis in natural ecosystems. J Vector Borne Dis. 2015;52:193-200.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , , , . Fly ash based biopesticides: A comprehensive review. IJPBS. 2012;2:76-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , , . A statistical review on the current scenario of generation and utilization of fly-ash in India. Int J Curr Eng Technol. 2014;4:2434-8.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    16

    PDF downloads
    5
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top