effect of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 on swr/j mice · hashem et al., 1998). the principle...
TRANSCRIPT
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences (2009) 16, 69–76
King Saud University
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
www.ksu.edu.sawww.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 on SWR/J mice
F.M. Abou-Tarboush a,*, H.M. El-Ashmaoui b, H.I. Hussein c, D. Al-Rajhy c,
M. Al-Assiry c
a King Saud University, College of Science, Department of Zoology, Saudi Arabiab National Research Center, Cell Biology Dept., Giza, Egyptc King Saud University, College of Sciences of Foods and Agriculture, Plant Protection Department, 2460, Riyadh 11451,Saudi Arabia
Available online 27 October 2009
*
E-
13
re
do
KEYWORDS
Neemix-4.5;
Azadirachtin;
Toxicity;
SWR/J mice;
Toxic effect;
Neem-based insecticide
Corresponding author.mail address: ftarbush@ksu.
19-562X ª 2009 King Saud
view under responsibility of
i:10.1016/j.sjbs.2009.10.003
Production and h
edu.sa (F
Univers
King Sau
osting by E
Abstract Inbred normal SWR/J male and female mice, 8–10 weeks old and weighing 22.55–
26.72 g, were used throughout the study. A total of 100 males and 100 females were used and were
divided into 20 groups, 10 animals in each group.
Azadirachtin of neemix-4.5, a commercial botanical pesticide derived from the neem tree, orally
administered to male and female SWR/J mice at a dose level 9.0 mg/kg (1/10 LD50) for different
treatment periods (2, 4, 6, 8 or 11.5 weeks) has produced signs of toxicity, mortality and changes
in body and tissue weights of both sexes at almost all treated periods used in the present study.
Moreover the oral administration of this dose level for 11.5 weeks has also resulted in some histo-
pathological changes in the livers, kidneys and testes of treated animals compared with the control
group, and the degree of these changes ranged from mild to severe in these organs of treated males.
However, conflicting results have been reported concerning the toxicity of azadirachtin in mamma-
lian species using different formulations of neem-based pesticides. It appears, therefore, that the
toxicity produced by neemix-4.5 in the present study may be due to factors other than azadirachtin
in this formulation.ª 2009 King Saud University. All rights reserved.
.M. Abou-Tarboush).
ity. All rights reserved. Peer-
d University.
lsevier
1. Introduction
Increasing concern about pesticide accumulation in the envi-ronment stimulates search for natural compounds that couldreplace synthetic insecticides in insect pest control (Adel and
Sehnal, 2000). Neem is the most promising potential sourceof biopesticide of botanical origin (Schmutterer, 1995; Raizadaet al., 2001). During the past two decades, neem seeds
(Azadirachta indica, A. Juss) has gained increasing attentionas a natural insecticide, and its activity has been evaluatedagainst many economically important insect species (Schmut-
terer, 1990; Hashem et al., 1998; Kreutweiser et al., 2002; Lianget al., 2003; Charleston et al., 2005).
Nomenclature
S spermatozoa
A arteryK Kupffer cellsD damaged spermatocytesI interstitial space
H hepatocyteN nucleus
Pr proximal convoluted tubule
Si sinusoidSp spermatocytesIc interstitial cellsL lumen
G glomerulusDi distal convoluted tubule
70 F.M. Abou-Tarboush et al.
Neem-based insecticides have deterrent, antiovipositional,antifeedant, growth-regulating, fecundity- and fertility-reduc-
ing properties on insects (Mordue and Blackwell, 1993;Hashem et al., 1998). The principle insecticidal component ofneem extracts is the limonoid, azadirachtin. Azadirachtin has
been effectively used against more than 400 species of insectsand has proved to be one of the most promising plant ingredi-ents for integrated pest management at the present time (Isam,
1999; Walter, 1999; Saber et al., 2004).Although neem has shown every indication of being safe to
mammals in normal use, the possibility of future hazardsshould not be ignored (Anon, 1992; Raizada et al., 2001). Its
residual persistence on foods is also unknown. Moreover, thereis very little information on physiology (Jacobson, 1986) andtoxicity of azadirachtin (Raizada et al., 2001). Furthermore,
most toxicity studies on azadirachtin have been done on in-sects which show rapid loss of mobility and reduced fitness(Akudugu et al., 2001).
In view of a lack of or little information on its toxicity pro-file, an attempt has been made in the present study to evaluatethe short-and long-term toxicity of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5(a commercial botanical pesticide derived from the neem tree)
in male and female of SWR/J mice.
2. Material and methods
Inbred normal SWR/J male and female mice, 8–10 weeks oldand weighing 22.55–26.72 g, were used throughout the study.The animals were kept and bred in an environmentally con-
trolled room with a temperature of 22 ± 1 �C, a relativehumidity of 45 ± 5% and a light/dark cycle of 10/14 h. Mouse
Table 1 Effects of the dose level 9 mg/kg of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 applied at different durat
Treatment
duration
No. of
males
used
Body wt. in
g at the start
of exp.
(Mean ± SE)
Body wt. in
g at the end
of exp.
(Mean ± SE)
Liver wt.
in g
(Mean ± SE)
Kidney wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
He
wt
(M
R-kidney L-kidney
Control 10 25.23 ± 0.44 32.67 ± 0.59 1.94 ± 0.11 0.29 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.02 0.1
2 weeks 10 24.32 ± 1.44 30.63 ± 1.44 2.03 ± 0.12 0.23 ± 0.02* 0.23 ± 0.02* 0.1
Control 10 24.43 ± 0.84 32.85 ± 0.63 2.14 ± 0.09 0.28 ± 0.01 0.28 ± 0.01 0.1
4 weeks 10 25.65 ± 0.86 31.15 ± 1.41 1.82 ± 0.05** 0.22 ± 0.01* 0.21 ± 0.01* 0.1
Control 10 26.38 ± 0.14 33.98 ± 1.03 2.22 ± 0.09 0.30 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.02 0.1
6 weeks 10 25.64 ± 0.71 27.10 ± 1.29** 1.85 ± 0.13** 0.22 ± 0.02* 0.21 ± 0.02* 0.1
Control 10 26.51 ± 1.47 35.07 ± 2.03 2.25 ± 0.09 0.29 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.02 0.1
8 weeks 10 24.86 ± 0.46 26.86 ± 0.69** 1.74 ± 0.07** 0.20 ± 0.01** 0.20 ± 0.01** 0.1
Control 10 26.72 ± 0.71 41.32 ± 1.22 2.34 ± 0.07 0.32 ± 0.01 0.31 ± 0.01 0.1
80 days 10 25.29 ± 0.38 32.63 ± 1.85** 1.86 ± 0.6** 0.25 ± 0.01** 0.25 ± 0.01** 0.1
* Differences are statistically significant from the control at p< 0.05.
** Differences are statistically significant from the control at p < 0.01.
food (commercially available in Saudi Arabia) and water wereoffered ad libitum.
A total of 100 males and 100 females were used and weredivided into 20 groups, 10 animals in each group. Groups1–5 (males) and 6–10 (females) were orally treated once daily
with the dose level 9.0 mg/kg body weight (1/10 LD50) ofazadirachtin of neemix-4.5 (Thermo Trilogy Corp., USA) dis-solved in sterile distilled water for 2, 4, 6, 8 or 11.5 (80 days)
weeks. Control mice (groups 11–15 and 16–20) were similarlytreated with the corresponding volumes of the vehicle alone.At the end of each duration period, animals were weighedand then killed by cervical dislocation. They were then dis-
sected and the weights of their livers, kidneys, spleens, hearts,lungs, testes or ovaries were recorded. Those organs from the80-day treated groups and their controls were immediately
fixed in Bouins fixative, processed for the usual paraffinembedding and 7.0 lm thick paraffin sections were cut accord-ing to the methods of Drury and Wallington (1967) and
Humason (1979), stained with haematoxylin and eosin andthen examined for histopathological changes. Moreover, thenumbers of spermatozoa in the testes of males of controland azadirachtin of neemix-4.5-treated groups were deter-
mined (Bhunya and Behera, 1987).The data obtained were analyzed statistically using the stu-
dent’s t-test and a 2 · 2 contingency table (X2) (Sokal and
Rohlf, 1981).
3. Results
Data in Table 1 show that azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 at thedose level 9.0 mg/kg body weight has significantly (p < 0.05)
ions on the body weight and other parameters of treated SWR/J male mice.
art
. in g
ean ± SE)
Spleen
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
The two-lung
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
Testis wt. in g (Mean ± SE) No. of
sperm/ml (·106)(Mean ± SE)
R-testis L-testis
8 ± 0.01 0.27 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.01 0.131 ± 0.003 0.131 ± 0.03 43.10 ± 2.04
9 ± 0.01 0.24 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.01 0.126 ± 0.007 0.127 ± 0.002 39.21 ± 1.84
6 ± 0.01 0.25 ± 0.01 0.24 ± 0.01 0.128 ± 0.003 0.126 ± 0.003 38.00 ± 2.29
7 ± 0.01 0.23 ± 0.04 0.23 ± 0.01 0.118 ± 0.003* 0.117 ± 0.003* 29.67 ± 2.26*
7 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.01 0.135 ± 0.009 0.132 ± 0.009 40.67 ± 1.46
7 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01* 0.25 ± 0.02 0.108 ± 0.009** 0.107 ± 0.009* 28.65 ± 1.47**
8 ± 0.01 0.24 ± 0.01 0.27 ± 0.01 0.141 ± 0.005 0.143 ± 0.003 39.89 ± 0.75
5 ± 0.01* 0.14 ± 0.01* 0.25 ± 0.01 0.093 ± 0.003** 0.095 ± 0.002** 28.18 ± 1.08**
8 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.01 0.136 ± 0.003 0.134 ± 0.005 42.10 ± 2.32
5 ± 0.01* 0.16 ± 0.01* 0.26 ± 0.01 0.115 ± 0.005** 0.116 ± 0.004** 32.50 ± 2.36**
Table 2 Effects of the dose level 9 mg/kg of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 applied at different durations on the body weight and other parameters of treated SWR/J female mice.
Treatment
duration
No. of
females
used
Body wt.
in g at the
start of exp.
(Mean ± SE)
Body wt.
in g at the
end of exp.
(Mean ± SE)
Liver
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
Kidney wt. in g (Mean ± SE) Heart
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
Spleen
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
The two-lung
wt. in g
(Mean ± SE)
Ovary wt. in g (Mean ± SE)
R-kidney L-kidney R-ovary L-ovary
Control 10 24.36 ± 0.62 30.71 ± 1.81 2.32 ± 0.15 0.23 ± 0.01 0.23 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.01 0.24 ± 0.04 0.30 ± 0.02 0.019 ± 0.002 0.019 ± 0.002
2 weeks 10 25.10 ± 0.52 28.37 ± 1.31 2.02 ± 0.06 0.21 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01 0.20 ± 0.19 0.26 ± 0.02 0.017 ± 0.007 0.018 ± 0.001
Control 10 25.39 ± 0.41 29.82 ± 0.92 1.84 ± 0.06 0.22 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01 0.23 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.01 0.018 ± 0.002 0.018 ± 0.002
4 weeks 10 24.53 ± 0.28 25.48 ± 1.61** 1.78 ± 0.03 0.20 ± 0.01 0.20 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01 0.20 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.01 0.015 ± 0.003 0.015 ± 0.002
Control 10 25.05 ± 0.84 28.37 ± 0.85 1.98 ± 0.12 0.22 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.02 0.17 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.01 0.020 ± 0.001 0.021 ± 0.002
6 weeks 10 24.58 ± 1.01 25.78 ± 0.95* 1.72 ± 0.12* 0.19 ± 0.01 0.19 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.02 0.014 ± 0.001** 0.014 ± 0.001**
Control 10 24.68 ± 0.55 29.72 ± 0.42 2.09 ± 0.05 0.23 ± 0.02 0.23 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.02 0.21 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.02 0.018 ± 0.001 0.019 ± 0.001
8 weeks 10 25.85 ± 0.75 24.53 ± 0.92** 1.65 ± 0.07** 0.17 ± 0.01** 0.17 ± 0.01** 0.15 ± 0.01* 0.16 ± 0.01* 0.24 ± 0.01** 0.013 ± 0.002* 0.013 ± 0.002**
Control 10 23.29 ± 0.37 32.71 ± 0.26 1.86 ± 0.06 0.22 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.01 0.025 ± 0.002 0.024 ± 0.002
80 days 10 22.55 ± 0.43 29.28 ± 0.85** 1.54 ± 0.07* 0.17 ± 0.01** 0.16 ± 0.01** 0.15 ± 0.01* 0.17 ± 0.13* 0.21 ± 0.01* 0.014 ± 0.001** 0.014 ± 0.001**
* Differences are statistically significant from the control at p < 0.05.
** Differences are statistically significant from the control at p < 0.01.
Plate 1 Photomicrograph of cross-section of liver obtained from the control group. H and E stain.
Plate 2 Photomicrograph of cross-section of liver obtained from the 80-day treated group. H and E stain.
Effect of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 on SWR/J mice 71
Plate 3 Photomicrograph of cross-section of liver obtained from the 80-day treated group. H and E stain.
Plate 4 Photomicrograph of cross-section of kidney cortex obtained from the control group. H and E stain.
72 F.M. Abou-Tarboush et al.
reduced the means of the liver and testis weights, and sperm
count when applied for 4 weeks and on. The means of bodyand spleen weights were also significantly (p < 0.05) reducedwhen azadirachtin applied for 6 weeks and on. Moreover,
the mean heart weight was significantly (p < 0.05) reducedwhen azadirachtin applied for 8 weeks and on. On the otherhand, the mean kidney weight was significantly (p < 0.05) re-duced at all duration periods used in the present study. How-
ever, no significant (p< 0.05) effect was seen on the mean lungweight of such treated males.
Data in Table 2 show that azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 at the
dose level 9.0 mg/kg has significantly (p< 0.05) reduced themean body weight of treated females when applied for 4 weeksand on. The means of liver and ovary weights were signifi-
cantly (p< 0.05) reduced when azadirachtin applied for
6 weeks and on. Furthermore, the means of kidney, heart,
spleen and lung weights were significantly (p < 0.05) reducedin such treated females when azadirachtin applied for 8 weeksand on. Moreover, 1 male and 1 female, 2 males and 2 females
and 3 males and 3 females (out of 10 in each) were died duringthe duration periods of the treatment with azadirachtin at 6, 8and 11.5 weeks, respectively.
The microscopic examination of heart, lung, spleen and
ovaries of mice treated with the dose level 9.0 mg/kg of azadi-rachtin for a period of 80 days did not show any significant tis-sue damage and were comparable with those of control
groups. However, the microscopic examination of livers, kid-neys and testes showed some significant changes includingmultiple vacuolations, disturbed normal arrangement of hepa-
tic cells, increase in Kuffer cell number, more condensed nuclei
Plate 5 Photomicrograph of cross-section of kidney cortex obtained from the 80-day treated group. H and E stain.
Plate 6 Photomicrograph of cross-section of testis obtained from the control group. H and E stain.
Effect of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 on SWR/J mice 73
in hepatic and renal cells, decrease in sperm number and/or ab-
sence of such sperms in some of the seminiferous tubules andreduction in intertubular spaces in the testes of treated animalsPlates 1–9.
4. Discussion
The present results have clearly demonstrated that the oral
administration of the dose level 9.0 mg/kg (1/10 LD50) bodyweight of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 to SWR/J mice for varioustreatment periods has resulted in significant reduction in bodyweight and in the weights of most organs tested of treated ani-
mals especially at the 4-, 6-, 8- and 11.5-week periods.Moreover,such treatment has also resulted in some histological changes inthe livers, kidneys and testes of the 11.5-week treated group and
these changes ranged frommild to severe in these organs of those
treated animals compared with their control group.Similar observations have been made by Vijjan and Parihar
(1983) using neem seed cake feeding for 90 days in rats. Neem
seed cake has also been reported to exhibit toxic effect in sheep(Vijjan et al., 1982) and cattle (Ketkar, 1976). The major toxicsymptom observed in those studies was the depression in thegrowth rate of treated animals. Furthermore, Narayanan
et al. (1993) reported that the chronic administration of neemoil to adult albino rats caused microscopic lesions in the liversand kidneys. Moreover, gastric intubation with 100 mg/kg of
neem leaf extract for 20 consecutive days has significantly re-duced the percent increase in body weight in mice (Pandaand Kar, 2000). In addition, the subacute effect of neem oil
(25 and 50 mg/kg) administrated daily for 8 days to adult male
Plate 7 Photomicrograph of cross-section of testis obtained from the 80-day treated group. H and E stain.
Plate 8 Photomicrograph of cross-section of testis obtained from the control group. H and E stain.
74 F.M. Abou-Tarboush et al.
rats caused significant decrease in sperm counts, epididymalweight and marked structural changes in testes (Manoranji-tham et al., 1993; Sampathraj et al., 1993). However, azadi-
rachtin technical 12% orally administered to male andfemale rats at the dose levels of 500, 1000 or 1500 mg/kg/dayfor 90 days did not produce any signs of toxicity, mortality,
changes in tissue weight, pathology and serum and bloodparameters (Raizada et al., 2001). Moreover, Pillai and Sant-hakumari (1984) have reported that nimbidin, a commercial
formulation containing azadirachtin, has failed to produceany signs of toxicity in mice, rats and dogs.
The discrepancy between the present results and those of
Raizada et al. (2001) and Pillai and Santhakumari (1984) couldwell be due to the nature of formulations used. Jacobson
(1995) has reviewed and concluded that neem products maybe toxic to some vertebrates but, however, attributed theseto be a result of mycotoxin and/or other toxins (Raizada
et al., 2001). Neem-Rich 100 is reported to have little influenceon biochemical parameters of serum in rats (Quadari et al.,1984). Neem oil, however, has been reported to produce great-
er general toxicity (Narayanan et al., 1993), particularly to themale reproductive tissues (Manoranjitham et al., 1993; Sampa-thraj et al., 1993). Furthermore, Mahboob et al.(1998) have
shown that low-level exposure of vapocide (isolated from neemoil) has a significant effect on the xenobiotic detoxificationmechanism of different tissues of rats. However, Raizada
et al. (2001), as mentioned, reported that azadirachtin techni-cal 12% did not produce any adverse effects in rats. In the light
Plate 9 Photomicrograph of cross-section of testis obtained from the 80-day treated group. H and E stain.
Effect of azadirachtin of neemix-4.5 on SWR/J mice 75
of those studies mentioned, it appears that the toxicity pro-duced by neemix-4.5 in the present study may be due to factorsother than azadirachtin.
Such factors could cause the adverse effects observed in thepresent study through their cytotoxic effects on the rapidlyproliferating cells, their depletive effect on the energy sources
and/or their disturbing effect on the hormonal homeostasis.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the General Directorate ResearchGrants Programs, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Tech-nology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Research Project No. LGP-4-38.
References
Adel, M.M., Sehnal, F., 2000. Azadirachtin potentiates the action of
ecdysteroid agonist RH-2485 in Spodoptera littoralis. J. Insect
Physiol. 46, 267–274.
Akudugu, J., Gade, G., Bohm, L., 2001. Cytotoxicity of azadirachtin
A in human glioblastoma cell liens. Life Sci. 68, 1153–1160.
Anon, R., 1992. Neem: A Tree for Solving Global Problems. National
Acad. Press, Washington, DC, 331p.
Bhunya, S.P., Behera, B.C., 1987. Relative genotoxicity of trichloro-
acetic acid (TCA) as revealed by different cytogenetic assays: bone
marrow chromosome aberration, micronucleus and sperm-head
abnormality in the mouse. Mut. Res. 188, 215–221.
Charleston, D.S., Kfir, R., Dicke, M., Vet, L., 2005. Impact of
botanical pesticides derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta
indica on the biology of two parasitoid species of the diamondback
moth. Available Online 23 March 2005.
Drury, R.A.B., Wallington, E.A., 1967. Carleton’s Histological
Technique. Oxford University Press, New York, 432p.
Hashem, M., El-Mesiri, S.M., El-Meniawi, F.A., Rawash, I., 1998.
Potency of three plant extracts on the developmental stages of the
cotton leafworm Spodoptera littoralis, Boisd. Alex.. J. Agric. Res.
43 (3), 61–79.
Humason, G.L., 1979. Animal Tissue Techniques. WH Freeman and
Company, San Francisco, 661p.
Isam, M.B., 1999. Neem and related natural products. In: Hall, F.R.,
Menn, J.J. (Eds.), Method in Biotechnology and Biopesticides: Use
and Delivery. Humana Press Inc., NJ, pp. 139–153.
Jacobson, M., 1986. Pharmacological and toxicological effect of neem
and chinaberry on warm blooded animals. Neem News Lett. 3, 39–
43.
Jacobson, M., 1995. Toxicity of neem to vertebrates and side effects on
beneficial and other ecologically important non-target organisms.
In: Schmutterer, H. (Ed.), The Neem Tree: Source of Unique
Natural Products for Integrated Management, Medicine, Industry
and Other Purposes. Weinheim, Germany, pp. 485–495.
Ketkar, C.M., 1976. Final Technique Report-Utilization of Neem
(Azadirachta indica) Seed Cake and Its By-Products. Khadi and
Village Industry Commission, Shivajinagar, Poon.
Kreutweiser, D.P., Back, R.C., Sutton, T.M., Thompson, D.G., Scarr,
T.A., 2002. Community-level disruptions among zooplankton of
pond mesocosms treated with a neem (azadirachtin) insecticide.
Aquat. Toxicol. 56, 257–273.
Liang, G.M., Chen, W., Liu, T.X., 2003. Effects of tree neem-based
insecticides on diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Crop
Protect. 22, 333–340.
Mahboob, M., Siddiqui, M.K.J., Jamil, K., 1998. The effect of
subacute administration of neem pesticide on rat metabolic
enzymes. J. Environ. Sci. Health 33, 425–438.
Manoranjitham, M.P., Anandhi, A.P., Sampathraj, R., Vanithaku-
mari, C., 1993. Alteration in testicular histoarchitecture following
neem oil administration in albino rats. In: World Neem Confer-
ence, India, pp. 1165–1172.
Mordue, A.J., Blackwell, A., 1993. Azadirachtin: an update. J. Insect
Physiol. 39, 903–924.
Narayanan, P.B.S., Sampathraj, R., Vanithakumari, C., 1993. Rat
toxicity studies with neem oil. In: World Neem Conference, India,
pp. 1159–1163.
Panda, S., Kar, A., 2000. How safe is neem extract with respect to
thyroid function in male mice? Pharmacol. Res. 41 (4), 419–422.
Pillai, N.R., Santhakumari, C., 1984. Toxicity study of nimbidin, a
potential antiulcer drug. J. Med. Plant. Res. 50, 146–148.
Quadari, S.S.H., Usha, G., Jabeen, K., 1984. Subchronic dermal
toxicity of neem rich 100 to rats. Int. Pest. Control 26, 18–20.
Raizada, R.B., Srivastava, M.K., Kaushal, R.A., Singh, R.P., 2001.
Azadirachtin, a neem biopesticide: subchronic toxicity assessment
in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 39, 477–483.
76 F.M. Abou-Tarboush et al.
Saber, M., Hejazi, M.J., Hasan, S.A., 2004. Effects of azadirachtin/
neemazal on different stages and adult life table parameters of
Trichogramma cacoeciae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J.
Econ. Entomol. 97 (3), 905–910.
Sampathraj, R., Narayanan, P.B.S., Vanithakumari, C., 1993. Effect
of neem oil: structural and functional changes in the epididymis of
rats. In: World Neem Conference, India, pp. 1173–1181.
Schmutterer, H., 1990. Properties and potential of natural pesticides
from the neem tree. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 35, 271–298.
Schmutterer, H., 1995. The Neem Tree, Azadirachta indica A. Juss and
Other Meliaceous Plants: Source of Unique Natural Products for
Integrated Pest Management, Medicine, Industry and Other
Purposes. VCH, Weinheim, Germany.
Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry: The Principles and Practice
of Statistics in Biological Research. WH Freeman and Company,
San Francisco, 859p.
Vijjan, V.K., Parihar, N.S., 1983. Toxic effects of neem (Azadirachta
indica) seed cake feeding in rats. J. Environ. Biol. 4 (1), 39–41.
Vijjan, V.K., Tripathi, H.C., Parihar, N.S., 1982. A note on the
toxicity of neem (Azadirachta indica) seed cake in sheep. J. Environ.
Biol. 3 (2), 47–52.
Walter, J.F., 1999. Commercial experience with neem products. In:
Hall, F.R., Menn, J.J. (Eds.), Method in Biotechnology and
Biopesticides: Use and Delivery. Humana Press Inc., NJ, pp. 155–
170.