Benefits and limitations in using

biopesticides: A review
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2313, 080002 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0032223
Published Online: 09 December 2020

Justice A. Essiedu, Feyisayo O. Adepoju, and Maria N. Ivantsova

AIP Conference Proceedings 2313, 080002 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0032223 2313, 080002

© 2020 Author(s).
 Benefits and Limitations in Using Biopesticides: A Review
Justice A. Essiedua), Feyisayo O. Adepojub) and Maria N. Ivantsovac)

Institute of Chemical Engineering, Ural Federal University, 19 Mira St., Yekaterinburg, 620002, Russia.
a)
Corresponding author: asiedujustice@gmail.com
b)
besee010@gmail.com
c)
m.n.ivanstova@urfu.ru

Abstract. Agriculture entails the cultivation of plants and animals for food, biofuel, and different products for human
well-being. Principally, plant protection, interference, and wipe-out against disease strategies use pesticides, majority
synthesized from chemicals. The effects of utilizing chemical pesticides resulted in the evolution of pesticide-resistant
pests, decreased soil diversity and increased pollution. The effect led to the development of an effective eco-friendly
method required to provide plants with protection against plant pathogens and better biological management, commonly
referred to as biological pesticides (biopesticides). This paper analyses the significance of biopesticides application on
environmental and human health, their limitations and mechanism of action.

INTRODUCTION
Agriculture entails the cultivation of plants and animals for food, biofuel, and different products for human well-
being. Crops are persistently exposed or endangered by pests, which affect their developmental growth and quality.
In ancient or modern techniques of farming, plant diseases caused by microorganisms such as wilt, coffee rust,
blight, stem rust, potato blight, rice blast, false mildew, etc., are issues that pose a threat to the flora (from seedlings
until maturity) that causes a reduction in plant production and yield per square measures. Principally, plant
protection, interference, and wipe-out against disease strategies use pesticides, majority synthesized from chemicals;
farmers believe in fast pest management alternatives mainly chemical or synthetic pesticides to protect crops from
pest infestation [1]. Chemical pesticides are synthesized from chemical components to regulate the growth of plants
and protect crops from plant disease, rodents, and insects by killing plant pathogens and weeds. Despite the efficient
attribute of synthetic pesticides, excessive usage has its problems such as the evolution of pesticide-resistant pests
[2]. The application of chemical pesticides on plants has also generated several negative effects on human health,
such as acute toxicity, development of Parkinson diseases, and environmental challenges, which includes, decreased
soil diversity and pollution. However, the chemical constituent of these pesticides attribute to persistent human
ailments through consumption or exposure; overuse and misapplication of the pesticides may result in adverse
effects on humans, the environment, and toxicity to non-target species.
Farmers employ the use of synthetic pesticides due to their effectiveness in controlling serious crop diseases such
as rusts and blights. Most chemical pesticides are non-biodegradable that accumulate in the environment and cause
pollution to soil, water bodies, as well as depletion of the ozonosphere [3]. The undesirable effects of the
misapplication of synthetic pesticides have inevitably led to alternative pest management controls [4]. Currently,
global attention gears towards the utilization of food produced using safe and organic plant protection products.
Identification of hazardous synthetic pesticide residues in foods and increasing food safety awareness has led to the
ban of some chemical pesticides in agricultural production, while biopesticides are gaining popularity in organic
agriculture [5]. The incessant use of chemical pesticides results in environmental pollution, and the adoption of
biopesticides results in sustainable agriculture and a healthy environment. The dangerous effects of utilizing
chemical pesticides required an effective and eco-friendly method to provide plants with protection against plant
pathogens, which led, to the development of a technology with better biological management commonly referred to

The VII International Young Researchers’ Conference – Physics, Technology, Innovations (PTI-2020)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2313, 080002-1–080002-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0032223
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4053-1/$30.00

080002-1
as biopesticides. This paper reviews and analyses different types of biopesticides, mechanism of action, limitations
and impact on the environment and human health.

BIOPESTICIDES
Biopesticides include pesticides produced from living organisms such as plants, animals, and microorganisms
(viruses, bacteria, and fungi) to control and provide crops with protection against dangerous plant-damaging
pathogens through their non-toxic, eco-friendly mechanism of action. Biopesticides are effective even in low
quantities and have no residual effects, which is a major concern for consumers, specifically for edible vegetables
and fruits. Table 1 shows the different kinds of plant products used as biopesticides. When using biological
pesticides as a source of pest control, the productivity of biological and chemical pesticides on crops (vegetables and
fruits) is the same. The importance of biological pesticides increased because the pesticides are effective,
biodegradable, non-toxic, different modes of action and available raw materials [6]. The subclasses of biopesticides
include botanical, biochemical, and microbial pesticides. Botanical pesticides are derivatives of plants that inhibit
growth or kill pests [7]. Plants with pesticidal properties also contain compounds that affect plant pathogens like
fungi, viruses, bacteria, and nematodes [8].
According to the University of California State-wide Integrated Pest Management Program (UCIPM)
(2017), biological pesticides play a major role in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs by reducing the risk
of chemical pesticide resistance, preservation of biodiversity, pollinators, and non-target species, improving the
safety of workers, conserving natural enemies and maintaining environmental health [9].
TABLE 1. Some plant products used as a biopesticide, adapted from [10].
Plant Product Used as Biopesticide Target Pests
Limonene and Linalool Fleas, aphids and mites, also kill fire ants and
several types of flies,
Neem A variety of sucking and chewing insects
Pyrethrum / Pyrethrins Ants, aphids, roaches, fleas, flies, and ticks
Rotenone Leaf-feeding insects, such as aphids, some
beetles (bean leaf beetle, etc.), caterpillars.
Ryania Caterpillars (European corn borer, corn
earworm, etc.) and thrips.
Sabadilla Squash bugs, harlequin, leafhoppers, etc.

Botanical Pesticides and Mechanism of Their Action

The biologically active substances in botanical pesticides have various modes of action against different pests,
including fungi, nematodes, bacteria, and insects. The modes of action include denaturation of proteins, repellent,
and inhibition regarding the type of botanical compound and pest. Phenols, alcohols, alkaloids, tannins, and other
secondary metabolites found in these pesticides produce toxicity to fungal cell organelles, cell walls, and cell
membranes. These metabolites also prevent spore germination, mycelial development, delayed sporulation, and
inhibit the production of vital enzymes, DNA, and protein synthesis [10]. The plant metabolites induce
modifications in the structure of hypha and mycelia, which prevents, the production of fumonisin (Fusarium spp.)
and aflatoxin (Aspergillus spp.) which are toxins from fungi. The metabolite reduces pathogenicity of mycotoxin-
producing fungal pathogens. Botanical pesticides contain nematocidal properties that inhibit hatching of eggs and
suppress nematode population; its constituent affects the numbers of other microorganisms in the soil, which also
affect the survival of nematode eggs and juveniles. Some substances specifically destroy second-stage juveniles, egg
masses, cause general larval toxicity, and affect nematode populations in an ecosystem [11]. For instance, plant
extracts derived from Lantana camara and Azadirachta indica prevented the hatching of eggs of root-knot nematode
(Meloidogyne incognita) that immobilized and killed the second-stage juveniles. Botanical pesticides have different
antibacterial properties, including growth inhibition, and the lack of peptidoglycan cell walls makes Gram-negative
bacteria susceptible [11]. For example, methanolic extracts of Aloe vera inhibited the growth of Escherichia coli and
Bacillus subtilis, while acetone extracts inhibited Pseudomonas aeruginosa subsequently. The phytochemicals
present in Aloe vera contributes to the antimicrobial activity; destroys microbe proteins, thus disrupting their
functionality. The antiviral activity of botanical pesticides occurs through the production of antiviral proteins by
manipulation of the host, which inhibits any activities between the virus and the plants. The mechanism of action

080002-2
includes; inhibits virus penetration and replication in the host cell, enzymatic activity, and hemagglutinations, which
are essential for virus attachment. For instance, the cottonseed oil sludge extracts (acetone) significantly inhibited
Tobacco Mosaic Virus obtained from infected tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants under laboratory conditions [12].

Natural Biodegradation of Biopesticides

The biological nature of biopesticides makes their degradation fast, prevents accumulation in the environment
and eliminates the formation of pollution in water and soils. The contact of biopesticides to air, moisture, high
temperatures, and the sunlight adequately degrades their constituents. For example, a compound of thymol found in
Thymus vulgaris, Zataria multiflora, etc., degrade under sunlight in about 28 hours and about eight days in soils
[13]. Table 2 shows the differences between chemical pesticides and biopesticides utilization. Soil microorganisms
produce enzymes that initially modify pesticides into degradable groups, which are less toxic than the parent
product, rendering those biological metabolites unavailable and non-toxic. Previous studies reported species of
bacteria that degrade pyrethroids, carbamates, and organophosphates, which includes, Bacillus, Serratia,
Pseudomonas, Spingobium, Aerobacter, Escherichia, Ochrobactrum, and Arthrobacter, etc. [14].

TABLE 2. Differences between chemical and biopesticides according to literature [15]

Chemical Pesticides Biopesticides

1 Decrease in beneficial insects due to their Biopesticides are non-toxic and non-pathogenic
toxicity to non-target pests causing changes in to non-target organisms, hence, do not affect
biodiversity of an area and affect natural directly beneficial animals like predators and
biological balance. parasitoids.
2 Chemical pesticides leaves chemical residues in Residues of biopesticides are non-hazardous
food, either by direct application or by bio- and are safe all the time, even close to
magnification causing health issues such as skin harvesting periods of the crops. No harmful
problems, irritation of eyes,abdominal pain, residues remain in food, fodder and fibers
cancer etc.
3 Due to their continual use in agriculture, Have limited field persistence and a short shelf
chemicals can get into underground aquifers and life and due to their biodegradability
contaminate water bodies. decompose quickly. Hence safer to humans and
the environment.
4 Chemical pesticides are formed by mixing many Biopesticides, generally are product and by-
synthetic chemicals. products from naturally occurring organisms
such as plants, animals, and microorganisms
(viruses, bacteria, and fungi)
5 Poisoning hazards for pesticide operators Effective in lower or small concentrations or
considering excessive exposure; although it quantities, resulting in lower operator exposure
depends on concentration, toxicity, sensitivity
and duration of exposure.
6 Pest resistance due to overuse of chemical Pests are expected not to develop resistance to
pesticides biopesticides
7 Nature of control: curative Nature of control: preventive
8 Fast effect in reducing pest population Takes time to reduce pest population
9 Reduction in global market International market increasing
10 High cost of production Low cost of production

Biochemical Pesticides and Mechanism of Their Action

Biochemical pesticides are unconventional pesticides obtained from natural sources such as plants, bacteria,
animals, and some minerals. They comprised of naturally occurring compounds that control pests through non-toxic
mechanisms. Many biologically functional groups of low-risk act as biochemical pesticides for crops.

080002-3
 Semiochemicals are secretions of plants or animals that change the function of receptor organisms of similar or
different kinds. Semiochemicals include; pheromones, which operates, between individuals within a species and
allelochemicals act between individuals of different species. Semiochemicals influence insect life situations,
including feeding, mating, and egg-laying. Biological control with pheromones or kairomones can identify and
monitor insect populations. Another strategy for controlling pests is the use of Semiochemicals as feeding deterrents.
The most common mechanism for pest control via Semiochemicals includes attracting, trapping and killing of pest
insects.
Enzymes are protein, which serves, as crucial elements for gene expression that catalyses biochemical reactions.
Plant protection against insects is mediated by enzymes that impair digestive mechanisms in the insect gut. A
potential protective strategy against insects measures the recombinant expression of insecticidal proteins like α-
amylase and protease inhibitors.
Feeding deterrents are compounds that stop the pest from feeding and eventually starve them to death once
ingested by the insect pest. Two feeding deterrents isolated by bioassay-guided fractionation from the methanol
extract of D.dasycarpas plants were fraxinellone and dictamnine. The compounds possess feeding deterrent activity
against larvae and adults of T. castaneum and S. zeamais [16].

Microbial Pesticides and Mechanism of Their Action

Microbial pesticides include a group of biopesticides consisting of naturally occurring bacteria, viruses, fungi, or
protozoans that target a specific problem. In certain situations, pesticidal activity may originate from metabolites
produced by these organisms. Bacteria target the fly and beetle larvae, caterpillars, fungal, bacterial diseases, and
soil-borne pathogens. Most Bacillus thuringiensis strains and subspecies are used in biopesticides. During the
formation of bacterial spores, Bacillus thuringiensis produces a crystal protein called Bt δ-endotoxin. Bt δ-
endotoxin can break down gut cells when ingested by susceptible insects. Bt δ-endotoxin is host-specific and can
cause the death of the host within 48 hours. Research shows that they are unharmful to vertebrates and safe to
beneficial organisms, environment, and humans.
However, over 1000 viruses, which act, as insect pathogens have been isolated in addition to bacteria. Some
authors identified different nuclear polyhedrosis viruses (NPVs) that infested 525 insect species [17]. Table 3 shows
some significant microbial pesticides. Certain bacteria and fungi can provide defence responses in plants by
producing either cell wall components or salicylic acid. Microbial pesticides work differently, and their functionality
lies in the type of microbes used. Though, microbial pesticides interfere with the insect sex pheromones that make
them unable to signal other insects for breeding. Microbial pesticides based on fungi control some specific kinds of
weed leaving the crops unaffected. Bt microbial pesticide works by targeting the larvae of insects like mosquitoes,
flies, and moth larvae. It effectively starves the larvae to death before developing into adults by binding to the larval
digestive tract.

TABLE 3. List of some significant microbial pesticides [18].

Name Target Insect Reference
Entomopathogenic viruses
Corn earworm NPV (HezeSNPV) Helicoverpa zea: corn earworm, tomato [19]
fruitworm, tobacco budworm, Helioth
virescens
Alfalfa looper NPV(AucaMNPV) Noctuidae [20]
Diamondback moth GV Plutella xylostella
Entomopathogenic bacteria
Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstakia Lepidoptera [21]
Paenibacillus popilliae Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, [22]
Entomopathogenic fungi
Nomuraea rileyi Lepidoptera [23]
Lecanicillium longisporum Hemiptera [24]

080002-4
 LIMITATIONS OF BIOPESTICIDES
Although evidence shows the effectiveness of using botanical pesticides against a vast range of crop pests,
biopesticides are still not well established in the market [25]. Botanical pesticide commercialization is highly
dependent on the availability of plant sources in large quantities and the cultivation of the plants. Hitherto, the
source plants are either grown for other purposes such as food or medicine, etc. Also, cultivation of plants to
produce botanical pesticides requires vast land, thus highly competitive with food production for arable lands.
Moreover, the formulation of biopesticides seems challenging because one plant could have many active substances
that differ in chemical properties. Additionally, the extraction of the pesticide involves the use of organic solvents,
which pollutes, the environment through its disposal. Besides, biological pesticides have a short shelf-life given the
high rate of biodegradability. In regards to specificity of microbial pesticide, microbes may only control a portion of
the pests available on a field. They may not control other types of pests present in treated areas, which can result in
continuous damage. The efficacy of microbial pesticides reduces by heat, UV light, and desiccation; the system of
delivery becomes an essential microbial factor. Furthermore, the need for particular formulations and storage
procedures results in short shelf-life; this, in turn, creates the problem of expensive development, production
methods and inconsistency in field performance. Likewise, the public and private sectors co-operation are required
to enhance the development, manufacturing, and sale of this eco-friendly alternative. Because of this, the discovery
of active substances and scientific work on formulation and delivery would improve biopesticides
commercialization and usage. Subsidized and availability of biological pesticides to farmers, especially in
developing countries, seem necessary to promote the commercialization of biopesticides. Still, the regulation of
processes that enhance the registration of low-risk substances can improve the exploitation and accessibility of
biopesticides in the market.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Generally, biopesticides have restricted noxious to birds and other wildlife, including useful soil
microorganisms. Biopesticides give growers main tools on every front by delivering solutions that are
extraordinarily effective in pest and disease management, excludes negative impacts on the setting, their active and
inert constituents are generally recognized as safe. Nevertheless, owing to the limitations in biopesticide utilization,
research must be intensified to reduce the cost of bioagents production. Efficient laboratory and field studies on the
stability of microbial agents as well as to increase shelf life and residual efficacy of plant derivatives under field
conditions. Farmers should be educated on the use of biopesticides and the need to conserve the environment. The
use of green solvents that are eco-friendly to manufacture biologically based pesticides could be cost-effective;
eradicate the problems of waste disposal, which results, in high patronage of biopesticides in the market.
Researchers should create awareness of the importance of biopesticides and organic biocontrol products as risk-free
pest control methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Prof. Elena. G. Kovaleva, S. Aboushanab for their encouragement and support.

REFERENCES
1. E. F. Nkechi, O. G. Ejike, N. J. Ihuoma, O. C. Maria-Goretti, U. Francis, N. Godwin, and R. Njokuocha, Afr. J.
Agric. Res. 13, 617–626 (2018).
2. Y. M. Shabana, M. E. Abdalla, A. A. Shahin, M. M. El-Sawy, I. S. Draz and A. W. Youssif, J. Basic Appl. Sci.
1, 67–73 (2017).
3. S. A. Wimalawansa and S. J. Wimalawansa, Glob. J. Biol. Agric. Health Sci. 3(3), 72–83 (2014).
4. I. Mahmood, S. R. Imadi, K. Shazadi, A. Gul and K. R. Hakeem, Plant, Soil and Microbes 253–269 (2016).
5. G. Karaca, M. Bilginturan and P. Olgunsoy, Ind. J. of Pharmaceutical Edu. and Res. 51(3s2), s385–s388
(2017).
6. G. S. Neeraj, A. Kumar, S. Ram and V. Kumar, Int. J. of Pure & Appl. Bioscience 5(1), 827–831 (2017).
7. W. M. Hikal, R. S. Baeshen and H. A. Said-Al Ahl, Cogent Biol. 3(1), 1404274 (2017).
8. B. Feyisa, A. Lencho, T. Selvaraj and G. Getaneh, Adv. in Crop Sci. and Tech. 4(1), 1000201 (2015).

080002-5
9. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles.
https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/integrated-pest-management-ipm-principles (2017).
10. M. Salma, C. R. Ratul and C. K. Jogen, Int. J. Sci. Adv. Tech. 1, 169–178 (2011).
11. İ. Kepenekçi, D. Erdoğuş and P. Erdoğan, Turk. J. Entomol. 40(1), 3–14 (2016).
12. D. Rajasekaran, E. A. Palombo, T. C. Yeo, D. L. S. Ley, C. L. Tu, F. Malherbe and L. Grollo. PLoS One 8
(11), 1–15 (2013).
13. B. Liu, B. Chen, J. Zhang, P. Wang and G. Feng, Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 99(2), 223–232 (2017).
14. M. Cycoń and Z. Piotrowska-Seget, Front. Microbiol. 7, 1463 (2016).
15. G. M. Lengai, J. W. Muthomi and E. R. Mbega, Scientific African 7, e00239 (2020).
16. Z. L. Liu, Y. J. Xu, J. Wu, S. H. Goh and S. H. Ho, J. Agric. Food Chem. 50(6), 1447–1450 ( 2002).
17. O. Koul, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6(056), 1–26 (2011).
18. M. Nawaz, J. I. Mabubu and H. Hua, J. of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2, 241–246 (2016).
19. D. I. Shapiro-Ilan, T. E. Cottrell, R. F. Mizell, D. L. Horton and J. Davis, Biol. Control 48, 259–263 (2009).
20. M. J. Bidochka and G. G. Khachatourians, Biocontrol Sci. and Tech. 1(4), 243–259 (1991).
21. CSIRO, Plant Industry. Insect protected cowpeas. http://www.csiro.auffiles/files/pyoz.pdf
22. D. Lereclus, M. Val lade, J. Chaufaux, O. Arnates and S. Rambaud, BioTech. 10(4), 418-421 (1992).
23. M. Thakre, M. Thakur, N. Malik, and S. Ganger, Journal of Biopesticides 4, 176–179 (2011).
24. M. D. Tomalski and L. K. Miller, Nature, 352(6330), 82–85 (1991).
25. S. Kumar and A. Singh, Journal of Fertilizers & Pesticides 6, 1–2 (2015).

080002-6