This study focuses on finding natural ecofriendly alternatives to the existing commercial Anthrenus flavipies resist chemicals. Eucalyptus, lavender, and citronella microcapsules were explored as natural alternatives. Chemical contents of microcapsules and fragrance releasing property were tested using gas chromatography. Absolute (proofing) and relative (repellent) activities of microcapsule treated fabrics were tested against the larvae of carpet beetle Anthrenus flavipies (LeConte). Proofing activity test results revealed that natural essential oils act as a deterrent for Anthrenus flavipies, but give lesser protection compared to commercial chemical permethrin. Repellency test results also affirmed these findings and it was observed that Anthrenus flavipies prefers to eat untreated fabric compared to its treated counterpart. 1. Introduction The damage to the woollen textile products, hair, feather, and fur by wool moth (insect that feeds on woolen textiles) has been a continuing subject of investigation over the years. The damage to the woollen textiles by moth larvae throughout the world is estimated to cost millions of dollars every year. Clark [1] and Hartley et al. [2] have estimated the damage caused by a single larva to be 92.5 pounds in one year and 100 pounds in 280 days, respectively. Thus, moth proofing is very essential to wool for its long life as it is a costly commodity. Without effective moth proofing this damage would increase further and will cause permanent damage to wool which is considered as high quality natural bicomponent textile fibre. The insects usually remain undetected until the damage has occurred. Fabrics, of course, can be damaged by textile pests within a few weeks of initial infestation. Different kinds of commercial finishing treatments are given to the wool product. Some of the colourless preparations available are Dieldrin [3], Mitin LP [4], Eulan WA [5], and synthetic pyrethroid permethrin [6, 7]. These moth proof chemicals are generally applied in a single bath during the dyeing of wool. Continuous discharge of dyeing effluents containing these chemicals provide significant toxic load to each of the affected effluent treatment systems and associated downstream river area. Permethrin has been shown to be highly toxic for aquatic arthropods, fish, and honey bees because they have lower levels of carboxyl esterase activity than mammals [8]. For any effective insecticidal (moth proof) finish to be used sustainably in the near future, it should have biodegradability as well as low mammalian and aquatic toxicity.
References
[1]
C. O. Clark, “The protection of animal fibres against clothes moths and dermestid beetles,” Journal of Textile Institute, vol. 19, pp. 295–320, 1928.
[2]
R. S. Hartley, F. F. Elsworth, and J. Barrit, “The mothproofing of wool,” Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 266–271, 1943.
[3]
M. Lipson and J. R. McPhee, “The mothproofing of wool with dieldrin,” Textile Research Journal, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 679–686, 1958.
[4]
R. J. Mayfield, “Mothproofing,” Textile Progress, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 1982.
[5]
D. E. Wells and S. J. Johnstone, “High performance liquid chromatography of polychloro-2-(chloromethyl sulphonamido) diphenyl ethers and their impurities in the mothproofing agent, Eulan WA New, and in water,” Journal of Chromatographic Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 137–143, 1981.
[6]
P. A. Duffield, “Mothproofing with permethrin,” Pesticide Science, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 279–283, 1977.
[7]
S. W. Carter and P. A. Duffield, “Preliminary evaluation of the pyrethroid NRDC 143 as an industrial mothproofer,” The Journal of The Textile Institute, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 77–81, 1976.
[8]
D. Wang, H. Naito, and T. Nakajima, “The toxicity of fenitrothion and permethrin,” in Insecticides—Pest Engineering, F. Perveen, Ed., pp. 85–98, InTech, Shanghai, China, 2012.
[9]
R. D. O'Brien, “Insecticides and environmental health,” in Insecticides, Action and Metabolism, R. D. O'Brien, Ed., pp. 291–304, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1967.
[10]
I. Yamamoto, “Problems in mode of action of pyrethroids,” in Biochemical Toxicology of Insecticides, R. D. O’Brien and I. Yamamoto, Eds., pp. 193–200, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1970.
[11]
W. F. Barthel, “Toxicity of pyrethrum and its constituents to mammals,” in Pyrethrum, The Natural Insecticides, J. E. Casida, Ed., pp. 123–142, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1973.
[12]
M. F. Maia and S. J. Moore, “Plant-based insect repellents: a review of their efficacy, development and testing,” Malaria Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, article S11, 2011.
[13]
E. K. Patel, A. Gupta, and R. J. Oswal, “A review on: mosquito repellent methods,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biological Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 310–317, 2012.
[14]
N. Rani, A. Wany, A. S. Vidyarthi, and D. M. Pandey, “Study of Citronella leaf based herbal mosquito repellents using natural binders,” Current Research in Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 98–103, 2013.
[15]
D. R. Barnard and R. Xue, “Laboratory evaluation of mosquito repellents against Aedes albopictus, Culex nigripalpus, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae),” Journal of Medical Entomology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 726–730, 2004.
[16]
M. Arancibia, A. Rabossi, P. A. Bochicchio et al., “Biodegradable films containing clove or citronella essential oils against the mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Journal of Agriculture and Food Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–7, 2013.
[17]
International Wool Secretariat, “ETB-32 Initial concentration levels (ICLs) for insects resist agents on wool carpets, carpet yarns, rug yarns and upholstery,” Technical Information Bulletin, no. 1, 1994.
