# Larvicidal properties of terpenoid-based nanoemulsions against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti L. and their potential toxicity against non-target organism

Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Stéphane Duchon, Leonardo Delello Di Filippo, Marlus Chorilli, Vincent Corbel

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Stéphane Duchon, Leonardo Delello Di Filippo, Marlus Chorilli, Vincent Corbel. Larvicidal properties of terpenoid-based nanoemulsions against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti L. and their potential toxicity against non-target organism. PLoS ONE, 2024, 19 (2), pp.e0293124. 10.1371/journal.pone.0293124. [hal-04935407](https://hal.science/hal-04935407v1)

HAL Id: hal-04935407

https://hal.science/hal-04935407v1

Submitted on 7 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Larvicidal properties of terpenoid-based nanoemulsions against the dengue vector *Aedes aegypti* L. and their potential toxicity against non-target organism

Jonatas Lobato Duarte<sup>1</sup>, Stéphane Duchon<sup>2</sup>, Leonardo Delello Di Filippo<sup>1</sup>,
Marlus Chorilli<sup>1</sup>, Vincent Corbel<sup>2,3*</sup>

1 Department of Drugs and Medicines, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil, 2 Institut de Recherche Pour le Développement (IRD), MIVEGEC, CNRS, IRD, Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 3 Laboratório de Fisiologia e Controle de Artrópodes Vetores (Laficave), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC), Rio de Janeiro–RJ, Brazil

* vincent.corbel@ird.fr

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

The development of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes of public health importance has encouraged extensive research into innovative vector control methods. Terpenes are the largest among Plants Secondary Metabolites and have been increasingly studied for their potential as insecticidal control agents. Although promising, terpenes are insoluble in water, and they show low residual life which limits their application for vector control. In this study, we developed and evaluated the performances of terpenoid-based nanoemulsions (TNEs) containing myrcene and p-cymene against the dengue vector *Aedes aegypti* and investigated their potential toxicity against non-target organisms. Our results showed that myrcene and p-cymene showed moderate larvicidal activity against mosquito larvae compared to temephos an organophosphate widely used for mosquito control. However, we showed similar efficacy of TNEs against both susceptible and highly insecticide-resistant mosquitoes from French Guyana, hence suggesting an absence of cross-resistance with conventional insecticides. We also showed that TNEs remained effective for up to 45 days in laboratory conditions. The exposure of zebrafish to TNEs triggered behavioral changes in the fish at high doses but they did not alter the normal functioning of zebrafish organs, suggesting a good tolerability of non-target organisms to these molecules. Overall, this study provides new insights into the insecticidal properties and toxicity of terpenes and terpenoid-based formulations and confirms that TNE may offer interesting prospects for mosquito control as part of integrated vector management.

## Introduction

Over the past decade, *Aedes Borne Diseases* (ABDs) such as dengue, zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever have become a global concern due to their emergence or re-emergence [1]. These

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Duarte JL, Duchon S, Di Filippo LD, Chorilli M, Corbel V (2024) Larvicidal properties of terpenoid-based nanoemulsions against the dengue vector *Aedes aegypti* L. and their potential toxicity against non-target organism. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0293124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124

**Editor:** Pedro L. Oliveira, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL

**Received:** June 3, 2023

**Accepted:** September 10, 2023

**Published:** February 7, 2024

**Peer Review History:** PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124

**Copyright:** © 2024 Duarte et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the paper.
**Funding:** This project has received funding from Fundação de Amparo a pesquisa do estado de São Paulo-FAPESP under the grants n°2021/11487-4 and 2019/25125-7. This project also receives a co-funding from the European Union HORIZON EUROPE Marie Skłodowska-Curie - HORIZON-MSCA-2021-SE-01 (INOVEC project), under the grant n°101086257. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the REA can be held responsible for them. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

diseases pose a significant threat to over half of the world's population, resulting in thousands of deaths annually, mainly in the Americas, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific regions [2]. Beyond their direct impact on human health and well-being, ABDs may cause tremendous economic impact [3, 4], recently estimated to be US$ 150 billion over the period 1970–2017 [5].

*Aedes aegypti* L. is the primary dengue vector, with a widespread distribution worldwide, a high vectorial capacity, due to its close association with humans in urban settings [6]. *Ae. aegypti* distribution has increased recently due to global changes [7] and it may be more prevalent in temperate regions such as Europe due to the presence of suitable conditions for establishment [8]. The strategies for effectively controlling *Ae. aegypti* essentially rely on environmental management, community participation, and on the use of larviciding and spatial spraying (in case of outbreaks) [9].

As far as chemical control is concerned, organic substances, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates, and to a lesser extent insect growth regulators are mainly used. However, the extensive and repeated use of those chemicals has caused the emergence and spread of insecticide resistant mosquitoes worldwide [10]. For example, recent studies have shown an increasing resistance of *Ae. aegypti* to pyrethroids [11–14] and organophosphates [15–17] due to the presence of target site modifications (eg kdr mutations for pyrethroids) and increased detoxification through the overexpression of P450, GST and esterase genes [18–20]. The occurrence of “super” insecticide-resistant *Ae. aegypti* mosquitoes have even been reported in Southeast Asia due to the presence of 3 different Kdr mutations in the same individuals [21]. This rapid and global increase in Aedes resistance makes it more difficult to control field populations with current public health pesticides and may potentially worsen the impact of ABDs worldwide. Moreover, chemicals can be toxic for non-target organisms and the environment [22, 23], and as such, they are facing increasing regulatory constraints and citizen aversions.

Therefore, there's an urgent need for more ecological, durable, and efficient approaches to control ABDs [24]. Natural products show interesting prospects in vector control because they are degraded more easily and are less harmful to the environment than conventional chemicals, and they may contribute to insecticide resistance management in mosquitoes [25]. Among natural products, essential oils (EO) have been extensively studied because they contain suitable active ingredients for the development of plant-based insecticides [26–29]. The monoterpenes represent about 90% of the EO composition and are the main ones responsible for larvicidal and repellent activities [30]. The *P-cymene* and myrcene are hydrocarbon monoterpenes that already showed high potential as larvicidal agents against *Ae. aegypti* [25, 31–34]. However, due to the lipophilic characteristic of the terpenes and their high volatility, they may offer a limited efficacy against mosquitoes in a natural environment.

Consequently, nanoemulsions represent a promising tool for the encapsulation, protection, and improved solubility of lipophilic bioactive components such as terpenes [35, 36]. Nanoemulsions consist of two immiscible liquids and one or more stabilizers, usually surfactant agents, that may ensure better stability and efficacy of these molecules in water environment. Another useful property of nanoemulsions is the controlled release of the molecules; The process of drug release from nanoemulsion entails the movement of the drug from the oil phase to the surfactant layer and subsequently into the aqueous phase. As the solubilized drug diffuses out of the oil, it encounters the surrounding water, leading to nanoprecipitation. This phenomenon significantly increases the drug's surface area [37].

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness against insecticide-susceptible and highly resistant *Ae. aegypti* mosquitoes of terpene-based nanoemulsions (TNEs) containing *p*-cymene and myrcene. Biological assays were performed with successive concentrations of *p*-cymene and myrcene formulations, both alone and in combination, to determine concentration-
<table><caption>Table 1. Composition of the monoterpenes nanoemulsions.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Monoterpene (%)</th><th>Tween 20 (%)</th><th>Span 80 (%)</th><th>Water</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P-cymene-NE</td><td>5</td><td>4.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Myrcene-NE</td><td>5</td><td>4.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>90</td></tr></tbody></table>

NE: Nanoemulsion

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.t001

response plots and estimate adequate metrics. The study also investigated any cross-resistance mechanism with conventional insecticides that may affect the effectiveness of TNEs. Finally, we assessed the acute toxicity of these nanoemulsions against non-target organisms, specifically Zebrafish.

## Material and methods

### Preparation of formulations

The TENs were obtained by a low-energy method as described in DUARTE *et al*, 2024 [38]. Briefly, an oil phase composed of the terpene (p-cymene or myrcene) (5% w/w) was mixed with the surfactants (Span® 80/Tween® 20) (5% w/w) (Table 1) under a magnetic stirrer and after homogenization, the aqueous phase (90% w/w) was added dropwise. The resulting nanoemulsions had a droplet size of approximately 120 nm and a uniform distribution of particle size. They remained stable for up to 90 days, indicating good colloidal stability.

### Biological material

Two different strains of *Ae. aegypti* were used in the study. The susceptible reference laboratory strain (Bora) originating from French Polynesia has no detectable resistance mechanism [39]. The strain is maintained at IRD for more than 20 years. The Guyana strain has been collected in French Guyana (Ile Royale) and shows high levels of resistance to pyrethroids [40] through the presence of V1016I and F1534C mutations at high frequencies and higher expression of multiple CYP450 genes [18]. The strain is also resistant to organophosphate through higher expression of Esterase genes [40].

### Larvicidal activity and cross-resistance assessment

Larval bioassays were conducted according to the standardized protocol established by the World Health Organization [41]. The protocol involved exposing III-IV instar larvae to different concentrations of terpenes and terpene-based formulations and recording their mortality after 24 hours. The experiments were conducted under controlled conditions, where larvae of *Ae. aegypti* (Bora strain and Guyana strains) were kept at 25 ± 2°C, with a relative humidity of 75 ± 5%, and a light/dark cycle of 12 hours during the test. The experiments were carried out in triplicate, with four replicates of 25 larvae (n = 100) per concentration, as well as a control. Temephos, an organophosphate insecticide commonly used for larval control, was used as the reference product.

Concentration-response curves were determined against both susceptible and pyrethroid resistance colonies of *Ae. aegypti* (Bora and Guyana) in order to assess potential cross-resistance. The resistance ratios (RR<sub>50</sub>/RR<sub>95</sub>) were determined by comparing the LC<sub>50</sub>/95 obtained on the resistant strain and the susceptible ones. According to WHO RR<sub>50</sub> < 5 indicates a susceptible population; RR<sub>50</sub> from 5-10 indicates moderate resistance and RR<sub>50</sub> > 10 indicates high resistance [42]. In our case, evidence for cross-resistance was demonstrated if resistance ratios (RR<sub>50</sub>/95) exhibited confidence limits excluding the value of 1.
**Interactions between monoterpenes**

The existence of synergism between p-cymene and myrcene or Cym-NE and Myr-NE was also investigated by using the combination index (CI) described by Chou and Talalay (1984) [43], using the CalcuSyn software (Chou and Hayball 1996). This isobologram-based method is particularly well adapted to analyse multiple drug effects [44]. The combination index gives a quantitative measure of the interactions (synergism, antagonism, and summation) occurring between two insecticides. A CI = 1, <1, and >1 indicates an additive effect, a synergistic effect, and an antagonistic effect, respectively [45].

**Residual activity of terpene-based formulations**

For the residual activity, a stock solution of the TENs was prepared in the concentration of 40 mg/L and stored in a climatic chamber with controlled conditions (temperature: 27°C and Relative humidity: 80% and a light/dark cycle of 12 hours). Larval bioassays were carried out as previously described using a single dose of 40mg/L at different intervals of time (1, 7 15, 30, and 45 days) and mortality was recorded at 24H post-exposure.

**Toxicity in a non-target organism**

**Animals.** The animals used were adult zebrafish (*Danio rerio*) of the wild AB type, supplied by the company Pisciculture Power Fish, located in Itaguaí-RJ, Brazil. They were maintained in the Zebrafish Platform of the Drug Research Laboratory of the Federal University of Amapá, (UNIFAP- Brazil), with an adaptation period (40 days), a circadian rhythm of 12 hours, (light period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), with controlled temperature (23 ± 2°C), and receiving commercial fish food (Alcon Colors, Santa Catarina, Brazil) twice a day [46]. The animal health and behaviour were monitored during all the analysis period (24 hours) and all researchers involved in the experiments have training in animal care. The experiments were authorized by the Ethics Committee on Animal Experimentation of the Federal University of Amapá (Brazil), registration number 006/2021.

**Acute oral toxicity study.** The acute toxicity evaluation of Cym-NE and Myr-NE in adult zebrafish was determined using the Limit Test as recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 425 [47], with adaptations. The animals were separated into treatment groups (5 animals/group), kept fasting for 24 hours, weighed, and treated orally according to the methods described by [48]. Cym-NE was administered at doses of 2000 and 1750 mg/kg and Myr-NE at a dose of 2000 mg/kg, orally by gavage method, with the aid of a volumetric pipette (HTL Lab Solutions Co.), the volume was calculated according to the animal's weight [49].

**Behavioural analysis and mortality.** After the gavage procedure, the animals were observed for behavioral changes. The observed behavioral changes were classified as Stage I: increase in swimming activity; Spasms; tremors in the tail; Stage II: circular swimming; loss of posture; Stage III: clonus; loss of motility; animal still at the bottom of the aquarium and death [46]. In the absence of a response to mechanical stimulation and the absence of movement of the operculum, the animal was considered dead [46, 49]. At the end of the observations (24 hours) the animals underwent euthanasia in anesthetic cooling, according to the American Guidelines of the Veterinary Medical Association for Animal Euthanasia [50].

**Histopathological analysis.** For histopathological analysis of the intestine, liver, and kidneys, the animals were fixed in Bouin solution for 24 hours and decalcified in EDTA solution (Tetraacetic Ethylenediamine Acid, Sigma Co., São Paulo, Brazil) for 48 hours. The samples were dehydrated in a series of alcohols (70, 80, 90, and 100%), diaphanized in xylol, and included in paraffin. The samples were sectioned in 5 µm using a microtome (Brand Rotary
Microtome Cut 6062, Slee Medical, Germany), and histopathological analysis was performed after the tissue sections were cordoned with hematoxylin and eosin, as described by Souza et al., (2016) [46]. The images were analyzed under Olympus BX41-Micronal Microscope and photographed with MDCE-5C USB 2.0 (digital) camera.

**Assessment of histopathological changes.** The Index of Histopathological Changes (IHC) was calculated according to the levels of tissue alterations observed in the gills, liver, and kidneys. The changes were classified as levels I, II, and III, and the IHC value indicates whether the organ is healthy (0 to 10), with changes from mild to moderate (11 to 20), with moderate to severe changes (21 and 50) or containing irreversible changes (> 100) [51, 52]. Thus, the indexes were calculated according to the following equation:

$$I = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{na} ai + 10 \sum_{i=1}^{nb} bi + 10^2 \sum_{i=1}^{nc} ci}{N}$$

Where: **a**: first stage changes; **b**: second stage changes; **c**: third stage changes; **na**: number of changes considered as the first stage; **nb**: number of changes considered as the second stage; **nc**: number of changes considered as the third stage; **N**: number of fishes analysed per treatment.

## Statistical analysis

For larval bioassays, LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated from a log dose-probit mortality regression line using the SPSS software (IBM, USA). The results of acute oral toxicity obtained were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of each experimental group. The ANOVA test was applied, followed by the Tukey test. The significance level considered was 5% (p < 0.05). The software used was the Prisma® Graph Pad (version 5.03).

## Results

### Larvicidal activity of terpenes and cross-resistance studies

Bioassay data for the susceptible mosquito strain are shown in Table 2 and Fig 1. Temephos (reference product) showed high insecticidal activity against susceptible mosquito larvae, with a LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ of 0.001 and 0.00177 mg/L, respectively.

On the other hand, myrcene and p-cymene, showed moderate larvicidal activity against the susceptible Bora strain with LC₅₀ values of 12.8 and 13.3 mg/L, respectively, and LC₉₀ values of 29.5 and 47.9 mg/L, respectively.

<table><caption>Table 2. Larvicidal activity of monoterpenes, free and in nanoemulsions, against Ae. aegypti L. (Bora strain) after 24 hours of exposure using the WHO larval bioassay.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>X<sup>2</sup></th><th>df</th><th>p value</th><th>LC<sub>50</sub> (mg.L<sup>-1</sup>) (95%CI)</th><th>LC<sub>99</sub> (mg.L<sup>-1</sup>) (95%CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Temephos</td><td>3362</td><td>6.7</td><td>5</td><td>0.244</td><td>0.001 (0.00102–0.00108)</td><td>0.00177 (0.00168–0.00188)</td></tr><tr><td>Myrcene</td><td>3351</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>12.8 (8.8–15.3)</td><td>29.5 (25.0–42.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Myr-NE</td><td>3352</td><td>44.7</td><td>5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>13.3 (7.1–17.8)</td><td>47.9 (36.9–79.9)</td></tr><tr><td>P-cymene</td><td>3366</td><td>188.3</td><td>5</td><td>0.003</td><td>16.0 (14.8–17.0)</td><td>29.4 (26.5–34.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Cym-NE</td><td>3356</td><td>9.00</td><td>4</td><td>0.061</td><td>14.0 (13.4–14.7)</td><td>24.7 (22.6–27.8)</td></tr></tbody></table>

n represents the total number of larvae used. The assays were performed in triplicate. X² -Chi-square value; df–degree of freedom, LC₅₀–Lethal concentration (50 and 99%), 95% CI- 95% Confidence interval. Myr-NE Myrcene Nanoemulsion; Cym-NE; Cymene Nanoemulsion

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.t002
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Concentration-response plots of terpenes against Ae. *Aegypti* larvae: A–Bora strain with Cym and Cym-NE; B–Bora strain with Myr and Myr-NE; C–Guyana strain with Cym and Cym-NE and D–Guyana strain with Myr and My-NE.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.g001

The nanoemulsification process did not significantly affect the overall efficacy of the monoterpenes as LC₅₀ and LC₉₉ values of Myr-NE and Cym-NE did not differ than the one's of the free monoterpenes (Table 2).

Bioassays data for the resistant mosquito strain is shown in Table 3 and Fig 1. Our finding showed that the Guyana strain was highly resistant to temephos with RR₅₀ and RR₉₉ of 124

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Larvicidal activity of monoterpenes, free and in nanoemulsions against insecticide-resistant Ae. aegypti (Guyana strain) after 24 hours of exposure, using the WHO larval bioassay.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>X<sup>2</sup></th><th>df</th><th>p value</th><th>LC<sub>50</sub> (mg.L<sup>-1</sup>) (95% CI)</th><th>LC<sub>99</sub> (mg.L<sup>-1</sup>) (95% CI)</th><th>RR<sub>50</sub> (95% CI)</th><th>RR<sub>95</sub> (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Temephos</td><td>2250</td><td>30.8</td><td>5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.150 (0.05-0.19)</td><td>0.450 (0.336-1.743)</td><td>124.44 (103.40-149.77)</td><td>253.03 (160.90-397.93)</td></tr><tr><td>Myrcene</td><td>2000</td><td>7.8</td><td>4</td><td>0.099</td><td>17.3 (15.0-19.0)</td><td>37.8 (33.4-46.2)</td><td>1.36 (1.22-1.53)</td><td>1.30 (1.035-1.64)</td></tr><tr><td>Myr-NE</td><td>2000</td><td>12.2</td><td>4</td><td>0.016</td><td>17.3 (14.9-19.0)</td><td>34.6 (30.3-43.8)</td><td>1.25 (1.07-1.47)</td><td>0.83 (0.59-1.15)</td></tr><tr><td>P-cymene</td><td>2000</td><td>14.5</td><td>4</td><td>0.006</td><td>21.8 (18.8-23.9)</td><td>41.8 (35.7-58.9)</td><td>1.24 (1.07-1.54)</td><td>1.55 (1.05-2.29)</td></tr><tr><td>Cym-NE</td><td>2000</td><td>14.9</td><td>4</td><td>0.005</td><td>21.0 (18.0-23.0)</td><td>42.1 (35.8-58.3)</td><td>1.39 (1.20-1.60)</td><td>1.84 (1.34-2.52)</td></tr></tbody></table>

n represents the number of larvae used. The assays were performed in triplicate. X²-Chi-square value; df-degree of freedom, LC₅₀-₉₉ –Lethal concentration (50 and 99%), RR₅₀-₉₅ –Resistant ration (50 and 95%). Myr-NE Myrcene Nanoemulsion; Cym-NE; Cymene Nanoemulsion

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.t003
and 253, respectively. Our findings showed no cross-resistance of the Guyana strain to mono-
terpenes, with RR₅₀ and RR₉₅ ranging from 0.83 (95%CI 0.59–1.15) to 1.84 (1.34–2.52). Once
again, no significant difference in efficacy was observed between free monoterpenes and
nanoemulsions against the insecticide resistant *Ae. Aegypti* colony, suggesting that the nanoe-
mulsification process does not impair the biological activity of the p-cymene and myrcene.

**Interactions between monoterpenes**

Here, a 1:1 ratio (myrcene:p-cymene) was adopted for the combination considering that both terpenes had similar LC₅₀ against both susceptible and resistant mosquitoes. Concentration-response plots of terpenes, alone and in a mixture, are shown in Fig 2.

Our findings showed that the combination of terpenes did not kill a higher proportion of mosquitoes than the sum of the 2 terpenes taken separately. Combination indexes (CI) ranged from 1 to 1.5 hence indicating additive and slight antagonism at high concentrations, respectively according to the classification of CHOU & TALALAY, [43] (Fig 2C and 2D). This indicates that the mortality of the combination at high concentrations is lower than the expected additive effect of the single insecticides.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Concentrations effect curves of the combination of A—Myrcene:p-cymene (1:1) and B -Myr-NE:Cym-NE (1:1) and Interaction curves between C—Myrcene:p-cymene (1:1) and D -Myr-NE:Cym-NE (1:1).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.g002
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Residual activity of Cym-NE and Myr-NE against susceptible larvae of Ae. Aegypti. numbers in the bars represent the sample size tested.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.g003

## Residual activity

The results showed that the TNEs remain effective (providing 100% mortality) up to 45 days of storage (Fig 3), under laboratory-controlled conditions of temperature (27°C) and relative humidity (80%).

## Toxicity of terpenes against non-target organism

The treatment of zebrafish with Cym-NE (1750 and 2000 mg/kg) and Myr-NE (2000 mg/kg) triggered behavioral changes in zebrafish as shown in Table 4. However, mortality was observed in the group of animals treated at the dose of 2000 mg/kg of Ne-Cym. The signs of stress were an increase in swimming activity, tremors in the tail, loss of posture and motility, circular swimming and permanence at the bottom of the aquarium.

The main alterations observed in the tissues were: dilation of presents vessels in villi and hypertrophy of caliciform cells in the intestine, cytoplasmic vacuolization and nuclear atypia in the hepatocytes, prevalence of tubular alterations, such as mild tubular hyaline degeneration in the kidneys (Fig 4). The IHC calculated was less than 10, which classifies these organs as normal, because the alterations recorded were not able to alter the normal functioning of the organs.

<table><caption>Table 4. Effect of oral treatment with Cym-NE and Myr-NE and control (water) over zebrafish behavior changes assessed in three stages.</caption><thead><tr><th>Group</th><th>Doses</th><th>Stage I</th><th>Stage II</th><th>Stage III</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Control (water)</td><td>2μl</td><td>1/3</td><td>0/2</td><td>0/4</td><td>1/9</td><td>11.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Cym-NE</td><td>1750 mg/kg</td><td>2/3</td><td>2/2</td><td>2/4</td><td>6/9</td><td>66.6</td></tr><tr><td>2000 mg/kg</td><td>1/3</td><td>2/2</td><td>1/4</td><td>4/9</td><td>44.4</td></tr><tr><td>Myr-NE</td><td>2000 mg/kg</td><td>2/3</td><td>2/2</td><td>2/4</td><td>6/9</td><td>66.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Stage I: increase in swimming activity; Spasms; tremors in the tail; Stage II: circular swimming; loss of posture; Stage III: clonus; loss of motility; animal still at the bottom of the aquarium and death

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293124.t004
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4.** Histopathological changes observed in the intestine (A and B), liver (C and D) and kidneys (E and F). In A and B intestinal tissue with caliciform cells (CC), villi (V), Muscle layer (ML), villi degeneration (VD) and caliciform cell hyperplasia (CCHP); In C and D normal hepatocytes (H), Cytoplasmatic vacuolization (CV), nuclear atrophy (NA); In E and F tubules (Tb), Lymphoid tissue (LT), Increase in tubular lumen (ITL), mild tubular hyaline degeneration (THD). H&E staining, IHC in the intestine (G), liver (H) and kidneys (I) of adult zebrafish in the acute oral toxicity test performed using Ne-Cym (1750 e 2000 mg/kg) e Ne-Myr (2000 mg/kg). Data show the mean ± SD (n = 5/group). Statistical analysis was performed through one-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test.</figcaption></figure>
Discussion

In this study, we investigated the larvicidal activity of myrcene and *p*-cymene against the den-
gue vector *Ae. aegypti* and their potential toxicity against non-target organisms.

Our findings showed that myrcene and p-cymene exhibited moderate insecticidal activity against *Ae. aegypti* larvae when compared to the reference product Temephos. The lower efficacy of terpenes against mosquitoes has been reported previously [53, 54]. For example, Lee and Ahn (2013) reported that myrcene had a LC₅₀ of 36 mg/L, against third-instar larvae which is even higher than the LC₅₀ reported in the present study [53]. In contrast, Lucia et al. (2017) reported a lower LC₅₀ (12.49 mg/L) for p-cymene against third instar larvae [55]. These findings suggest that the potency of these compounds as mosquito control agents varies according to the studies and several factors such as the source and composition of the mono-terpenes, experimental conditions, and mosquito species probably impact on the outcomes. Although TNEs show moderate larvicidal activity, our findings showed an absence of cross-resistance with commonly used pesticides and this offers interesting prospects for vector control considering that mosquito resistance is becoming an increasing threat to the prevention and control of mosquito borne diseases [8, 56]. Indeed, there's very limited number of insecticides having a different mode of action than the big "four" classes (i.e. pyrethroids, carbamates, organophosphate, organochlorines) and TNEs could then enrich the panel of vector control products used as part of integrated vector management.

Our study also compared the efficacy of free terpenes *versus* terpene-based nanoemulsions against *Ae. aegypti* mosquitoes. Our findings showed that nanoemulsions did not increase the efficacy of both myrcene and p-cymene against mosquito larvae. These results contrast with other findings showing an enhanced insecticidal activity of nanoemulsified terpenes or essential oils compared to non-encapsulated components [57, 58]. For example, the studies by Almadiy and Nenaah (2022) and Ferreira et al. (2020) used different essential oils and different particle sizes for their nanoemulsions. Alamdy used *Origanum vulgare* essential oil while Ferreira et al. (2020) used the Essential Oil of *Siparuna guianensis*. Additionally, the particle size of the nanoemulsions in Alamdy's study was 60 nm while Ferreira et al. reported a particle size of around 160 nm. Other strategies than nanoemulsions were used for the stabilization of essential oils, for example using yeast for the encapsulation of orange oil, and this strategy showed to be highly active (LD₅₀ < 50 mg.L⁻¹) against *Ae. aegypti* [59, 60]. These differences in the chemical composition of the essential oils and the type of the stabilization method can affect the interaction of the terpenes or essential one's with mosquitoes and explain the different outcomes observed in our study compared to previous one's.

Despite that, our study showed a residual efficacy of the nanoemulsions for at least 45 days
in a climatic chamber at constant temperature and humidity. This suggests that the use of
nanoemulsions may prevent the volatilization of terpenoids and provide long-lasting activity
as previously reported [61]. However, one bias of our study is that we couldn't compare the
residual activity of the free terpenes *versus* encapsulated terpenes, due to a shortage of mosqui-
toes Moreover, it is important to highlight that laboratory conditions do not always reflect the
field situation as external factors such as sunlight, rain, pollutants, etc can strongly reduce the
residual efficacy of larvicides [62]. Further investigations are needed to assess the longevity of
terpenes and TNEs in both laboratory and simulated field conditions.

Our research also investigated whether a combination of p-cymene and myrcene may be
more effective at killing mosquitoes than each molecule used alone. The interest in using a
combination of insecticides results in the fact that it may be possible to achieve better control
of a mosquito population while reducing the doses of each compound, hence making this an
environmentally friendly and cost-effective solution [45]. Our findings however showed that
the combination of terpenes did not kill a higher proportion of mosquitoes than the sum of the 2 terpenes taken separately, indicating additive or even slight antagonism at high concentrations. These findings contrast with other studies that have reported additive to synergistic interactions between various monoterpenes (e.g. terpinene, limonene, carvacrol, anethole, per-oxide ascaridole, p-cymene and methyl isoeugenol) against mosquito larvae [63, 64]. It appears that the methodology used to assess the synergy and the compositions of terpenoid combinations differ between studies and results cannot be directly compared. In our study, the lack of synergistic interactions between p-cymene and myrcene might be explained by the fact that both terpenes act on the same target sites (i.e. mutually exclusive inhibitors) hence causing competitive inhibition for the same receptor, especially when concentrations increased (saturation of the system). More work is needed to better understand the interactions and mode of action of terpenoids in insects in order to select best active ingredients in combination.

Finally, we investigated the potential toxicity of the p-cymene and myrcene nanoemulsions against non-target organisms (fish) considering that these molecules may be potentially deployed in mosquito breeding habitats. Our results showed that TNEs lead to behavioral and histological changes in the Zebrafish at high concentrations. These alterations may lead to changes in body weight, food consumption, behavior, blood circulation, and reproductive functions [65]. Everds et al. (2013) state however that in toxicity trials, it is common to observe signs of stress in animals [66] and these histological alterations are considered normal, and not able to alter the normal functioning of the fish organs [67, 68]. Although it is unlikely that p-cymene and myrcene pose a significant hazard to non-target organisms, there is a need to assess their potential toxicity in simulated field conditions using the doses that may be applied in the field.

## Conclusions

Overall, our findings showed that TNEs have potential for vector control particularly as part of integrated vector management with the scope to preserve the susceptibility of mosquito populations to public health insecticides. Our findings suggest that the incorporation of monoterpenes into nanoemulsions is a promising approach to improve the solubility of these substances in aqueous media without organic solvents, which reinforces the vector control potential of these molecules.

## Acknowledgments

We thank all team from IRD-MIVEGEC for their support during the biological tests.

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Vincent Corbel.

**Formal analysis:** Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Stéphane Duchon, Leonardo Delello Di Filippo, Vincent Corbel.

**Funding acquisition:** Vincent Corbel.

**Investigation:** Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Stéphane Duchon.

**Resources:** Vincent Corbel.

**Supervision:** Marlus Chorilli, Vincent Corbel.

**Writing – original draft:** Jonatas Lobato Duarte, Leonardo Delello Di Filippo.

**Writing – review & editing:** Marlus Chorilli, Vincent Corbel.
References

1. Wilder-Smith A, Ooi EE, Horstick O, Wills B. Dengue. The Lancet. 2019; 393: 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32560-1 PMID: 30696575

2. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 2013 496:7446. 2013; 496: 504–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12060 PMID: 23563266

3. Bradshaw CJA, Leroy B, Bellard C, Roiz D, Albert C, Fournier A, et al. Massive yet grossly underestim-ated global costs of invasive insects. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 12986. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12986 PMID: 27698460

4. Romero IC. A gestão de doenças infecto-contagiosas: o impacto do dengue na saúde pública. Trabalho de Conclusão de curso, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. 2014.

5. Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissière AC, Gozlan RE, Roiz D, Jarić I, et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 2021 592:7855. 2021; 592: 571–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6 PMID: 33790468

6. Higa Y. Dengue Vectors and their Spatial Distribution. Trop Med Health. 2011; 39: S17–S27. https://doi.org/10.2149/tmh.2011-S04 PMID: 22500133

7. Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQN, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015;4. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347 PMID: 26126267

8. Corbel V, Durot C, Achee NL, Chandre F, Coulibaly MB, David J-P, et al. Second WIN International Conference on “Integrated approaches and innovative tools for combating insecticide resistance in vec-tors of arboviruses”, October 2018, Singapore. Parasit Vectors. 2019; 12: 331. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3591-8 PMID: 31269996

9. Roiz D, Wilson AL, Scott TW, Fonseca DM, Jourdain F, Müller P, et al. Integrated Aedes management for the control of Aedes-borne diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018; 12: e0006845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006845 PMID: 30521524

10. Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I, et al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005625 PMID: 28727779

11. Melo Costa M, Campos KB, Brito LP, Roux E, Melo Rodovalho C, Bellinato DF, et al. Kdr genotyping in Aedes aegypti from Brazil on a nation-wide scale from 2017 to 2018. Sci Rep. 2020;10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70029-7 PMID: 32764661

12. Rahman RU, Cosme LV, Costa MM, Carrara L, Lima JBP, Martins AJ. Insecticide resistance and genetic structure of Aedes aegypti populations from Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Benoit JB, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021; 15: e0008492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008492 PMID: 33591988

13. Smith LB, Kasai S, Scott JG. Pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: Important mosquito vectors of human diseases. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2016; 133: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.03.005 PMID: 27742355

14. Amelia-Yap ZH, Chen CD, Sofian-Azirun M, Low VL. Pyrethroid resistance in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Southeast Asia: present situation and prospects for management. Parasit Vectors. 2018; 11: 332. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2899-0 PMID: 29866193

15. Campos KB, Martins AJ, Rodovalho C de M, Bellinato DF, Dias L dos S, Macoris M de L da G, et al. Assessment of the susceptibility status of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) populations to pyriproxy-fen and malathion in a nation-wide monitoring of insecticide resistance performed in Brazil from 2017 to 2018. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13071-020-04406-6 PMID: 33109249

16. Badolo A, Sombié A, Pignatelli PM, Sanon A, Yaméogo F, Wangrawa DW, et al. Insecticide resistance levels and mechanisms in Aedes aegypti populations in and around Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019; 13: e0007439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007439 PMID: 31120874

17. Rodríguez MM, Bisset J, de Fernandez DM, Lauzán L, Soca A. Detection of Insecticide Resistance in *Aedes aegypti* (Diptera: Culicidae) from Cuba and Venezuela. J Med Entomol. 2001; 38: 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-38.5.623 PMID: 11580033

18. Faucon F, Dusfour I, Gaude T, Navratil V, Boyer F, Chandre F, et al. Identifying genomic changes asso-ciated with insecticide resistance in the dengue mosquito *Aedes aegypti* by deep targeted sequencing. Genome Res. 2015; 25: 1347–1359. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.189225.115 PMID: 26206155

19. Cattel J, Minier M, Habchi-Hanriot N, Pol M, Faucon F, Gaude T, et al. Impact of selection regime and introgression on deltamethrin resistance in the arbovirus vector *Aedes aegypti*–a comparative study
between contrasted situations in NEW CALEDONIA and FRENCH GUIANA. Pest Manag Sci. 2021; 77: 5589–5598. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6602 PMID: 34398490

20. Cattel J, Faucon F, Le Péron B, Sherpa S, Monchal M, Grillet L, et al. Combining genetic crosses and pool targeted DNA-seq for untangling genomic variations associated with resistance to multiple insecticides in the mosquito *Aedes aegypti*. Evol Appl. 2019; 13: 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12867 PMID: 31993078

21. Kasai S, Itokawa K, Uemura N, Takaoka A, Furutani S, Maekawa Y, et al. Discovery of super-insecticide-resistant dengue mosquitoes in Asia: Threats of concomitant knockdown resistance mutations. Sci Adv. 2022;8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq7345 PMID: 36542722

22. Vieira Santos VS, Caixeta ES, Campos Júnior EO de, Pereira BB. Ecotoxicological effects of larvicide used in the control of *Aedes aegypti* on nontarget organisms: Redefining the use of pyriproxyfen. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2017; 80: 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1266721 PMID: 28095184

23. Abe FR, Coleone AC, Machado AA, Gonçalves Machado-Neto J. Ecotoxicity and Environmental Risk Assessment of Larvicides Used in the Control of *Aedes aegypti* to Daphnia magna (Crustacea, Cladocera). J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2014; 77: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2014.865581 PMID: 24555645

24. Sugumar S, Clarke SK, Nirmala MJ, Tyagi BK, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N. Nanoemulsion of eucalyptus oil and its larvicidal activity against Culex quinquefasciatus. Bull Entomol Res. 2014; 104: 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485313000710 PMID: 24401169

25. Silva IMA, Martins GF, Melo CR, Santana AS, Faro RRN, Blank AF, et al. Alternative control of Aedes aegypti resistant to pyrethroids: lethal and sublethal effects of monoterpene bioinsecticides. Pest Manag Sci. 2018; 74: 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4801 PMID: 29160036

26. Duarte JL, Maciel de Faria Motta Oliveira AE, Pinto MC, Chorilli M. Botanical insecticide-based nano-systems for the control of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti larvae. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020; 27: 28737–28748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09278-y PMID: 32458306

27. Duarte JL, Amado JRR, Oliveira AEMFM, Cruz RAS, Ferreira AM, Souto RNP, et al. Evaluation of larvicidal activity of a nanoemulsion of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia. 2015; 25: 189–192. https://doi.org/j.bjp.2015.02.010

28. Rawani A, Ghosh A, Chandra G. Mosquito larvicidal and antimicrobial activity of synthesized nano-crys-talline silver particles using leaves and green berry extract of Solanum nigrum L. (Solanaceae: Solanales). Acta Trop. 2013; 128: 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.09.007 PMID: 24055718

29. Oliveira AEMFM, Duarte JL, Cruz RAS, Souto RNP, Ferreira RMA, Peniche T, et al. Pterodon emarginatus oleoresin-based nanoemulsion as a promising tool for Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) control. J Nanobiotechnology. 2017;15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0234-5 PMID: 28049483

30. Pavela R. Essential oils for the development of eco-friendly mosquito larvicides: A review. Ind Crops Prod. 2015; 76: 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.050

31. Cheng SS, Lin CY, Chung MJ, Liu YH, Huang CG, Chang ST. Larvicidal activities of wood and leaf essential oils and ethanolic extracts from Cunninghamia konishii Hayata against the dengue mosquitoes. Ind Crops Prod. 2013; 47: 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.03.016

32. Cheng S-S, Chang H-T, Lin C-Y, Chen P-S, Huang C-G, Chen W-J, et al. Insecticidal activities of leaf and twig essential oils from *Clausena excavata* against *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* larvae. Pest Manag Sci. 2009; 65: 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1693 PMID: 19115256

33. Cheng SS, Chua MT, Chang EH, Huang CG, Chen WJ, Chang ST. Variations in insecticidal activity and chemical compositions of leaf essential oils from Cryptomeria japonica at different ages. Bioresour Technol. 2009; 100: 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.060 PMID: 18178080

34. Ríos N, Stashenko EE, Duque JE. Entomologia A Journal on Insect Diversity and Evolution Evaluation of the insecticidal activity of essential oils and their mixtures against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Rev Bras Entomol. 2017; 61: 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2017.08.005

35. McClements DJ. Nanoemulsions versus microemulsions: terminology, differences, and similarities. Soft Matter. 2012; 8: 1719–1729. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2SM06903B

36. McClements DJ. Edible nanoemulsions: fabrication, properties, and functional performance. Soft Matter. 2011; 7: 2297. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0sm00549e

37. Singh Y, Meher JG, Raval K, Khan FA, Chaurasia M, Jain NK, et al. Nanoemulsion: Concepts, development and applications in drug delivery. Journal of Controlled Release. 2017; 252: 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.03.008 PMID: 28279798
38. Duarte J, Di Filippo LD, Oliveira AEM de FM, Sábio RM, Marena GD, Bauab TM, et al. Development and characterization of potential larvicidal nanoemulsions against Aedes aegypti. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 15:10. 2024; 15: 104–114. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.15.10 PMID: 38264062

39. Marcombe S, Poupardin R, Darriet F, Reynaud S, Bonnet J, Strode C, et al. Exploring the molecular basis of insecticide resistance in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti: A case study in Martinique Island (French West Indies). BMC Genomics. 2009; 10: 494. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-494 PMID: 19857255

40. Epelboin Y, Wang L, Giai Gianetto Q, Choumet V, Gaborit P, Issaly J, et al. CYP450 core involvement in multiple resistance strains of Aedes aegypti from French Guiana highlighted by proteomics, molecular and biochemical studies. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0243992. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243992 PMID: 33428654

41. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Guidelines for laboratory and field testing of mosquito larvicides. World Health Organization. 2005; 1–41. Ref: WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2005.11

42. World Health Organization. Monitoring and managing insecticide resistance in Aedes mosquito populations Interim guidance for entomologists. Geneva; 2016. Available: www.who.int

43. Chou T-C, Talalay P. Analysis of combined drug effects: a new look at a very old problem. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1983; 4: 450–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(83)90490-X

44. Tallarida RJ. The interaction index: a measure of drug synergism. Pain. 2002; 98: 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00041-6 PMID: 12098628

45. Darriet F, Corbel V. Laboratory evaluation of pyriproxyfen and spinosad, alone and in combination, against Aedes aegypti larvae. J Med Entomol. 2006; 43: 1190–1194. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[1190:leopas]2.0.co;2 PMID: 17162952

46. Sousa GC de Duarte JLD, Fernandes CP Moyado AV, Navarrete A, Carvalho Jo carlos T. Obtainment and Study of the Toxicity of Perillyl Alcohol Nanoemulsion on Zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Nanomed Res. 2016; 4: 18–20. https://doi.org/10.15406/jnmr.2016.04.00093

47. OECD. Test No. 425: Acute Oral Toxicity: Up-and-Down Procedure. OECD; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264071049-en

48. Borges RS, Keita H, Ortiz BLS, dos Santos Sampaio TI, Ferreira IM, Lima ES, et al. Anti-inflammatory activity of nanoemulsions of essential oil from Rosmarinus officinalis L.: in vitro and in zebrafish studies. Inflammopharmacology. 2018; 26: 1057–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-017-0438-9 PMID: 29404883

49. de Souza GC, Viana MD, Goés LDM, Sanchez-Ortiz BL, Silva GAD, Pinheiro W de S, et al. Reproductive toxicity of the hydroethanolic extract of the flowers of Acmella oleracea and spilanthol in zebrafish: In vivo and in silico evaluation. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2020; 39: 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327119878257 PMID: 31597489

50. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). Guidelines for the euthanasia of animals. 2020th ed. Schaumburg; 2020.

51. Carvalho JCT, Keita H, Santana GR, de Souza GC, dos Santos IVF, Amado JRR, et al. Effects of Bothrops alternatus venom in zebrafish: a histopathological study. Inflammopharmacology. 2018; 26: 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-017-0362-z PMID: 28516375

52. Poleksic V, Mitrovic-Tutundzic V. Fish gills as a monitor of sublethal and chronic effects of pollution. In: Muller R, Lloyd R, editors. In Sublethal and Chronic Effects of Pollutants on Freshwater Fish. Farnhan: Oxford: Fishing New Books Ltd; 1994. pp. 339–352.

53. Lee DC, Ahn YJ. Laboratory and Simulated Field Bioassays to Evaluate Larvicidal Activity of Pinus den-siflora Hydrodistillate, Its Constituents and Structurally Related Compounds against Aedes albopictus, Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens pallens in Relation to Their Inhibitory Effects on Acetylcholinesterase Activity. Insects. 2013; 4: 217–229. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects4020217 PMID: 26464387

54. Santos SRL, Silva VB, Melo MA, Barbosa JDF, Santos RLC, de Sousa DP, et al. Toxic Effects on and Structure-Toxicity Relationships of Phenylpropanoids, Terpenes, and Related Compounds in Aedes aegypti Larvae. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2010; 10: 1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2009.0158 PMID: 20455777

55. Lucia A, Zerba E, Masuh H. Knockdown and larvicidal activity of six monoterpenes against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and their structure-activity relationships. Parasitol Res. 2013; 112: 4267–4272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-013-3618-6 PMID: 24100604

56. Corbel V, Fonseca DM, Weetman D, Pinto J, Achee NL, Chandre F, et al. International workshop on insecticide resistance in vectors of arboviruses, December 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2017; 10: 278. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2224-3 PMID: 28577363

57. Ferreira RM dos A, D'haveloose NP, Cruz RAS, Araújo RS, Carvalho JCT, Rocha L, et al. Nano-emulsification Enhances the Larvicidal Potential of the Essential Oil of Siparuna guianensis (Laurales:
Siparunaceae) Against Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2020; 57: 788–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz221 PMID: 31840745

58. Almadiy AA, Nenaah GE. Essential oil of *Origanum vulgare*, its nanoemulsion and bioactive monoterpenes as eco-friendly novel green pesticides for controlling *Aedes aegypti*, the common vector of Dengue virus. Journal of Essential Oil Research. 2022; 34: 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.2022.2091673

59. Workman MJ, Gomes B, Weng JL, Ista LK, Jesus CP, David MR, et al. Yeast-encapsulated essential oils: A new perspective as an environmentally friendly larvicide. Parasit Vectors. 2020; 13: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3870-4 PMID: 31931883

60. Gomes B, Ogélio H, Brant F, Pereira-Pinto CJ, Workman MJ, Costa M, et al. High larvicidal efficacy of yeast-encapsulated orange oil against Aedes aegypti strains from Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2021; 14: 272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-04733-2 PMID: 34022935

61. Mustafa IF, Hussein MZ. Synthesis and Technology of Nanoemulsion-Based Pesticide Formulation. Nanomaterials 2020, Vol 10, Page 1608. 2020; 10: 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10081608 PMID: 32824489

62. Marcombe S, Darriet F, Agnew P, Etienne M, Yp-Tcha MM, Yébakima A, et al. Field Efficacy of New Larvicide Products for Control of Multi-Resistant Aedes aegypti Populations in Martinique (French West Indies). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011; 84: 118–126. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0335 PMID: 21212213

63. Pavela R, Maggi F, Kulheim C, Urzua A, Palacios SM, Scalerandi E, et al. Understanding Synergistic Toxicity of Terpenes as Insecticides: Contribution of Metabolic Detoxification in Musca domestica. 2018 [cited 12 Mar 2023]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01579 PMID: 30420868

64. Dhinakaran SR, Mathew N, Munusamy S. Synergistic terpene combinations as larvicides against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti Linn. Drug Dev Res. 2019; 80: 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/ddr.21560 PMID: 31241777

65. Carvalho JCT, Souza GC De, Silva IDR Da, Viana MD, Melo NC De, Sánchez-Ortiz BL, et al. Acute Toxicity of the Hydroethanolic Extract of the Flowers of Acmella oleracea L. in Zebrafish (Danio rerio): Behavioral and Histopathological Studies. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2019;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/PH12040173 PMID: 31783553

66. Everds NE, Snyder PW, Bailey KL, Bolon B, Creasy DM, Foley GL, et al. Interpreting Stress Responses during Routine Toxicity Studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2013; 41: 560–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623312466452 PMID: 23475558

67. de Souza AA, Ortíz BLS, Borges SF, Pinto AVP, Ramos R da S, Pena IC, et al. Acute Toxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Trattinnickia rhoifolia Willd (Sucuruba) Using the Zebrafish Model. Molecules 2022, Vol 27, Page 7741. 2022; 27: 7741. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27227741 PMID: 36431841

68. Holanda FH, Ribeiro AN, Sánchez-Ortiz BL, de Souza GC, Borges SF, Ferreira AM, et al. Anti-inflammatory potential of baicalein combined with silk fibroin protein in a zebrafish model (Danio rerio). Bio-technology Letters 2022 45:2. 2022; 45: 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10529-022-03334-Y PMID: 36550336