Methods
Print
Methods
A step-by-step guide for manufacturing a reliable and low-cost entomological dissection microvial for pinned specimens
expand article infoAndré Silva Fernandes, Joab Cardoso Guedes, Tiago Kutter Krolow
‡ Universidade Federal do Tocantins (UFT), Porto Nacional, Brazil
Open Access

Abstract

Entomological collections face significant challenges in storing and preserving dissected structures of insects (especially the most delicate and tiny ones). For pinned specimens, few alternatives are available to keep dissected parts along with their source specimens, with pinnable microvials commonly used. However, world suppliers for these special microvials are scarce and their cost may reasonably impact the budget of less wealthy institutions. To provide a low-cost alternative, we designed a reliable entomological dissection microvial, based on materials easily found in most local office and laboratory equipment suppliers. Our microvials are based on two main items, Polypropylene (PP) microcentrifuge tubes and Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) hot-melt glue. Their manufacturing process is very simple and is described and illustrated in detail. The proposed microvials tend to have good ability for archiving, since the materials used for their main parts (PP and EVA) show good chemical adhesion and PP microcentrifuge tubes can safely contain most common preserving solutions for an indefinite time. Their endurance was tested under normal use conditions in our collection for the past five years and materials showed no degradation. Moreover, all components are classified as non-toxic and are safe for manipulation, storage and disposal by any educational or research facility. Finally, they fit into the category of sustainable solutions once they are long-lasting, reusable and can be manufactured from used microvials that would be discharged.

Key Words

Alternative methods, entomological collections, genitalia vials, microtubes, preserving, storage

Introduction

Zoological collections hold ex situ biological material of all kinds of animals. Their main purpose is to keep and guard faunal representatives and data for biodiversity knowledge and for scientific studies in a vast range of areas like public health (e.g. Hoffmaster et al. (2002)), agriculture (e.g. Davies et al. (1999)) and climate change (e.g. Parmesan et al. (1999)) (Suarez and Tsutsui 2003; Pyke and Ehrlich 2010; Paknia and Koch 2015). Zootaxonomy and zoosystematics are particularly dependent on zoological collections as sources of data on species morphology, diversity, distribution and for acquiring biological samples (Suarez and Tsutsui 2003; Pyke and Ehrlich 2010). Therefore, proper storage and maintenance of specimens deposited in collections are crucial for preserving biological and historical heritage of living beings throughout time (Engel et al. 2021).

As the most diverse group of organisms on Earth, insects are unmatchable in diversity of species, morphological traits and habits (Zhang 2011; Storck 2018); thus, entomological research often relies on surveying specimens from collections aiming for a wider and deeper look on a given taxon (Camargo et al. 2015). The vast majority of the entomological collections are maintained mainly through public funding, due the high costs involved and their non-profit purpose (Britz et al. 2020).

However, leaving collections maintenance programmes at the mercy of political-economical decisions may be problematic, especially in Global South countries which struggle frequently to maintain long term policies devoted to non-basic needs (Agenda 2030 2015; Magalhães 2024). Add to that the tariff and exchange rate issues when purchasing imported laboratorial supplies (most from EU and US) and you may rapidly face an unfeasible scenario for less wealthy countries and their institutions, to keep well-maintained biological collections (Quintans-Júnior et al. 2020). Yet, many countries considered as “megadiverse” fall into the aforementioned category, which amplifies issues related to the lack of adequate structure and resources for them to safeguard properly the vast entomological material coming from their native areas (Paknia et al. 2015).

Preserving the most delicate diagnostic structures of insects, such as mouthparts, appendages and genitalia, poses a challenge to entomological collections. If properly preserved, these parts can last for centuries, safeguarding important biological information. In the case of preserving insect genitalia, microvials with glycerine are widely used as an alternative to mounting on permanent slides or simply gluing them to small paper boards, as it allows for further manipulation of the preserved parts (Young and Beirne 1958; Gurney et al. 1964).

However, finding vials suitable for this purpose is not an easy task, as they need to be small (around 1.0 to 2.0 centimetres) and attachable to the specimen’s pin from which it was extracted. With this issue in mind, Gurney et al. (1964) presented all existing solutions and techniques available at the time involved in preserving insect genitalia in microvials. Later, Deitz (1979) proposed the use of very small glass vials with cork stoppers, despite Gurney et al. (1964) having already condemned this practice, as the cork tends to dry out and crack. Aiming to solve that, van Doesburg (1980) suggested manufacturing PVC tubes sealed with a silicone stopper derived from medical supplies, resulting in the first self-manufactured low-cost microvial. However, the resulting tube was too big for smaller specimens and acquiring the needed medical supplies is not practical for a typical entomologist. So far, all commercial alternatives for genitalia microvials are variations of these techniques and are still widely used in collections worldwide.

Although simple in design and not demanding expensive materials for production, these tubes are manufactured for a very small niche market and have a considerably high final price. We surveyed the purchase costs for entomological microvials from online stores of seven worldwide suppliers and reached an average cost of 27.5 US Dollars per 100 units (Table 1). The value may not seem absurd at first glance, but when scaled up to purchases around tens of thousands of units (ordinary numbers of pinned specimens preserved in many entomological collections), it can impact the budget of collections. Additionally, all these suppliers are physically located in Europe (with one in Australia) (Table 1) which makes the acquisition even harder for collections located in the Global South.

Table 1.

Comparative value of dissection micro-vials amongst several worldwide suppliers and the estimated cost of self-manufactured ones. P/100 = approximate price per 100 units; AP/100 = average price per 100 units amongst surveyed suppliers. Values are in US Dollars. The survey was made on 14 August 2024.

Supplier Country Store website P/100 AP/100
Australian Entomological Supplies Australia entosupplies.com.au 50.00 27.50
OMNES Artes Italy omnesartes.com 30.00
Entosphinx Czechia entosphinx.cz 30.00
EntomoAlex-gr Italy entomoalex-gr.com 23.00
Veldshop Netherlands veldshop.nl 13.00
Paradox Poland insectnet.eu 19.00
Self-manufactured - - 2.50 -

Faced with these challenges on a daily basis, our staff at the Entomological Collection of the Federal University of Tocantins (CEUFT) is constantly looking for affordable, but adequate, solutions for preserving and maintaining specimens. Over the past five years, we have successfully used self-manufactured dissection microvials for pinned specimens, which remain in very good condition. Taking into account that similar resource limitations affect emerging collections worldwide, we present here a step-by-step guide for producing a low-cost entomological microvial for storage of the genitalia and other dissected structures, using materials readily available from local suppliers anywhere in the world.

Materials and methods

Material used

  1. Hot-melt glue gun (Fig. 1A).
  2. Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) hot-melt adhesive stick (Fig. 1B).
  3. 0.1 ml Polypropylene (PP) microcentrifuge tubes (Fig. 1C).
  4. Flat or round tipped tweezer (Fig. 1D).

The methodology implemented on manufacturing the microvials was developed, based on the study of the suppliers’ instructions for application of the material used, instructions found in Gurney et al. (1964) and trial and error method. Once consistent and adequate results were achieved, the technique developed was summarised in a Mounting instructions section along with a pictorial instruction chart (Fig. 2). Material quality and composition may vary depending on the supplier; thus, testing and adapting may be required for best results. A Tips and Recommendations section provides important considerations for avoiding most common problems while assembling and using the manufactured microvials. Cost survey (Table 1) was based on internet searches throughout all main international and local suppliers of entomological material we found. For image processing and drawings, we used Adobe Photoshop CC.

Figure 1. 

Equipment and materials used for assembling the dissection microvial. A. Hot-melt glue gun; B. Hot-melt glue sticks; C. Microtubes; D. Tweezers. See “material used” section for details on each item.

Figure 2. 

Pictorial instructions for assembling the dissection microvial. A. Applying the hot melted glue on the tube cap; B. Waiting for the glue to obtain moulding consistency; C. Moulding the droplet; D. Dissection microvial assembled. See “mounting” section for details on each step.

Figure 3. 

Entomological specimens at CEUFT mounted in pins with their genitalia stored in the dissection microvials. A. Box with specimens; B. Mounted microvial in lateral view; C. Mounted microvial in upper view.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank UFT for the support and the Brazilian Innovation Agency (FINEP) project “Análise e Mapeamento da Biodiversidade e Recursos Hídricos do Estado do Tocantins” (process number 01.18.0077.00) for financing equipment and infrastructure. JCG thanks the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Tocantins (FAPT) for the scholarship grant (n. 88887.6292119/2021-00). TKK thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the scholarship grant (n. 310214/2021-1).

References

  • Camargo AJA, De Oliveira CM, Frizzas MR, Sonoda KC, Corrêa D (2015) Coleções entomológicas: legislação brasileira, coleta, curadoria e taxonomias para as principais ordens. EMBRAPA, Brasília, 118 pp.
  • Davies N, Villablanca FX, Roderick GK (1999) Bioinvasions of the medfly Ceratitis capitata: Source estimation using DNA sequences at multiple intron loci. Genetics 153: 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/153.1.351
  • Engel MS, Ceríaco LM, Daniel GM, Dellapé PM, Löbl I, Marinov M, Reis RE, Young MT, Dubois A, Agarwal I, Lehmann PA, Alvarado M, Alvarez A, Andreone F, Araujo-Vieira K, Ascher JS, Baêta D, Baldo D, Bandeira SA, Barden P, Barrasso DA, Bendifallah L, Bockmann FA, Böhme W, Borkent A, Brandão CRF, Busack SD, Bybee SM, Channing A, Chatzimanolis S, Christenhusz MJM, Crisci JV, D’elía G, Da Costa LM, Davis SR, De Lucena CAS, Deuve T, Elizalde SF, Faivovich J, Farooq H, Ferguson AW, Gippoliti S, Gonçalves FMP, Gonzalez VH, Greenbaum E, Hinojosa-Díaz IA, Ineich I, Jiang J, Kahono S, Kury AB, Lucinda PHF, Lynch JD, Malécot V, Marques MP, Marris JWM, Mckellar RC, Mendes LF, Nihei SS, Nishikawa K, Ohler A, Orrico VGD, Ota H, Paiva J, Parrinha D, Pauwels OSG, Pereyra MO, Pestana LB, Pinheiro PDP, Prendini L, Prokop J, Rasmussen C, Rödel M, Rodrigues MT, Rodríguez SM, Salatnaya H, Sampaio I, Sánchez-García A, Shebl MA, Santos BS, Solórzano-Kraemer MM, Sousa ACA, Stoev P, Teta P, Trape J, Santos CV, Vasudevan K, Vink CJ, Vogel G, Wagner P, Wappler T, Ware JL, Wedmann S, Zacharie CK (2021) The taxonomic impediment: a shortage of taxonomists, not the lack of technical approaches. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 193(2): 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab072
  • Gurney AB, Kramer JP, Steyskal GC (1964) Some techniques for the preparation, study, and storage in microvials of insect genitalia. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 57(2): 240–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/57.2.240
  • Hoffmaster AR, Fitzgerald CC, Ribot E, Mayer LW, Popovic T (2002) Molecular subtyping of Bacillus anthracis and the 2001 bioterrorism-associated anthrax outbreak, United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8: 1111–1116. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0810.020394
  • Paknia O, Koch A (2015) Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 15(3): 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-015-0202-1
  • Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Descimon H, Huntley B, Kaila L, Kullberg J, Tammaru T, Tennent WJ, Thomas JA, Warren M (1999) Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/21181
  • Tétreault J (1993) Guidelines for Selecting Materials for Exhibit, Storage and Transportation. Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa.
  • van Doesburg PH (1980) Genitalia vials from PVC tube. Entomologische Berichten 40(12): 177–178.
  • Weib N, Pruszkowski S (2013) The best material for original Eppendorf Tubes and Plates: Properties and chemical resistance of polypropylene. Application Note 056.
  • Young DA, Beirne BP (1958) A taxonomic revision of the leafhopper genus Flexamia and a new related genus. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1173: l–53.
login to comment