{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04666130329847144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012067578439259855, 'mean_word_length': 6.404761904761905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Monofluoro analogues of methyl eugenol: new attractants for males of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Dipt., Tephritidae) 1

Abstract: Reports questioning the safety of methyl eugenol (1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐[2‐propenyl] benzene) stimulated us to develop and test synthetic analogues that may be used as alternative attractants for oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), males. Attraction to one propyl‐substituted and six monofluorine‐substituted methyl eugenol analogues were compared with attraction to methyl eugenol in field bioassays with both laboratory‐reared and wild oriental fruit fly males. The attractiveness of the test compounds to oriental fruit fly males was compared using two parameters: number of adults caught per trap and number of adults caught per mg of compounds released in traps. Based on these two parameters (E)‐1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐(3‐fiuoro‐2‐propenyl)benzene was consistently as attractive as methyl eugenol to both laboratory‐reared and wild oriental fruit fly males. With further studies to determine optimum release rates, (E)‐1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐(3‐fluoro‐2‐propenyl)benzene may potentially replace methyl eugenol for survey, detection, delimitation of infestation and eradication of oriental fruit fly populations.