Cited by 1Insect Pest Control StrategiesEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPesticide Exposure and Toxicity

Lower Toxicity of the Essential Oils With Repellent Potential Compared to Diethyltoluamide and Cypermethrin on Porcellio laevis

Open access
Silva-Díaz, Heber, Serrato-Monja, Angie Vilma, Arriaga-Deza, Emma Vanesa, Becerra-Gutiérrez, Lizzie Karen·2025·Journal of Toxicology

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the acute toxicity of essential oils with repellent potential, diethyltoluamide (DEET), and cypermethrin on Porcellio laevis. Methods: Randomized preclinical trial with a factorial and controlled arrangement on three essential oils ( Eucalyptus globulus , Mentha piperita , and Cymbopogon citratus ) at 0.1%, 1%, and 10%, respectively, DEET at 10% and cypermethrin at 0.1%. Each experimental group consisted of 10 specimens, 2–3‐mm‐long, of P. laevis . Toxicity was measured by specimen mortality at 3, 24, and 48 h postexposure. Nonparametric inferential statistics were used to compare mortality between the groups. The InfoStat/E software, Version 2020, was used for analysis. Results: Essential oils at concentrations of 0.1% and 1% showed similar toxicity to each other (mortality of 10%–20%) but significantly lower compared to cypermethrin and DEET (mortality of 100%). However, essential oils at 10% reached median mortality rates above 70%. Likewise, similar effects were observed at concentrations of 0.1% and 1.0% and at 24 and 48 h. The LC 50 at 24 h was 7.8% (CI 95%: 5.2–9.8), 6.1% (CI 95%: 4.9–7.4), and 9.8% (CI 95%: 8.9–10.6) for E. globulus , M. piperita , and C. citratus, respectively. Conclusions: The evaluated essential oils showed lower acute toxicity compared to DEET and cypermethrin, depending on concentration and time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/jt/6638848

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 1

Authors
Silva-Díaz, H., Serrato-Monja, A. V., Arriaga-Deza, E. V., & Becerra-Gutiérrez, L. K.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de San Martín de Porres (PE)
  • Universidad Nacional Pedro Ruíz Gallo (PE)
Corresponding author
Silva-Díaz, Heber
Venue
Journal of Toxicology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-01
Volume
2025
Issue
1
Pages
6638848-6638848
ISSN
  • 1687-8191 (ISSN-L)
  • 1687-8205
OpenAlex
W7117685830
Cited by
1
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Toxicology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Insect Pest Control Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Keywords
essential oils, Porcellio laevis, acute toxicity, repellents, DEET, cypermethrin, Eucalyptus globulus, peppermint, Cymbopogon citratus, LC50, mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review