Next Article in Journal
Base Excision Repair in Physiology and Pathology of the Central Nervous System
Next Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Antifungal Activity of Burkholderia gladioli pv. agaricicola against Some Phytopathogenic Fungi
Previous Article in Journal
Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) between Heterogeneously Distributed Probes: Application to Lipid Nanodomains and Pores
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Bio-Resources for Remediation of Hexachlorocyclohexane

The Phorbol Ester Fraction from Jatropha curcas Seed Oil: Potential and Limits for Crop Protection against Insect Pests

Cirad, HortSys Research Unit, TA B-103/PS4, F-34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Institute of Pharmacy & Molecular Biotechnology (IPMB), Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 364, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13(12), 16157-16171;
Received: 24 September 2012 / Revised: 23 November 2012 / Accepted: 27 November 2012 / Published: 30 November 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Biocides)


The physic nut shrub, Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae), has been considered as a “miracle tree”, particularly as a source of alternate fuel. Various extracts of the plant have been reported to have insecticidal/acaricidal or molluscicidal/anthelminthic activities on vectors of medical or veterinary interest or on agricultural or non-agricultural pests. Among those extracts, the phorbol ester fraction from seed oil has been reported as a promising candidate for use as a plant-derived protectant of a variety of crops, from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest insect pests. However, such extracts have not been widely used, despite the “boom” in the development of the crop in the tropics during recent years, and societal concerns about overuse of systemic chemical pesticides. There are many potential explanations to such a lack of use of Jatropha insecticidal extracts. On the one hand, the application of extracts potentially harmful to human health on stored food grain, might not be relevant. The problem of decomposition of phorbol esters and other compounds toxic to crop pests in the field needing further evaluation before such extracts can be widely used, may also be a partial explanation. High variability of phorbol ester content and hence of insecticidal activity among physic nut cultivars/ecotypes may be another. Phytotoxicity to crops may be further limitation. Apparent obstacles to a wider application of such extracts are the costs and problems involved with registration and legal approval. On the other hand, more studies should be conducted on molluscicidal activity on slugs and land snails which are major pests of crops, particularly in conservation agriculture systems. Further evaluation of toxicity to natural enemies of insect pests and studies on other beneficial insects such as pollinators are also needed.
Keywords: Physic nut; plant-derived insecticide; mode of action; field pests; crop pests Physic nut; plant-derived insecticide; mode of action; field pests; crop pests

1. Introduction

1.1. Jatropha curcas as a “Miracle Tree”

The physic nut shrub, Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae), has been considered as a “miracle tree”, particularly as a source of alternate fuel, since seed oil can be used as a substitute to diesel oil [17]. Besides its production for this use (which “boomed” in recent years), the shrub is grown as live hedges to combat erosion, or as live fences to protect market gardens from domestic animals [8]. This adds to the more or less traditional use of the shrub for other purposes, particularly as medicines, in many parts of the world [9].

1.2. Biocidal Effects of J. curcas Extracts

Besides effect on human pathogens [10,11], various extracts of the plant have been reported to have insecticidal/acaricidal or molluscicidal/anthelminthic activities on vectors of medical or veterinary interest or on non-agricultural pests. These encompass mosquitoes [1217], mites [18,19], cockroaches [20], houseflies [21], termites [2225], and water snails hosts of human or cattle parasites (especially schistosomes) [2634].
Toxicity of extracts of other species of Jatropha (e.g., J. gossypifolia or J. podagrica) has also been reported [35,36].
Among J. curcas extracts, the main biocidal action has been ascribed to the phorbol ester (tetracyclic diterpenoid) fraction [37,38] from seed oil. Six phorbol esters (Jatropha factors C1–C6) have been characterized from J. curcas seed oil with the molecular formula C44H54O8Na, as intra-molecular diesters of the same diterpene, 12-deoxy-16-hydroxyphorbol. Biocidal, including insecticidal activity of phorbol esters is due to the stimulation of the cellular target protein kinase C (PKC). Toxic phorbol esters are also found in other genera of the Euphorbiaceae family, particularly Croton and Euphorbia[39]. This fraction has also been reported as a promising candidate for use as a plant-derived protectant of a variety of crops, from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest insect pests.
On the other hand, the physic nut tree is also subject to damage by several pests [4043], but these insects are often specialists which are adapted to the toxicity of their host plant. Some specialists, such as the aposematic Pachycoris klugii (Hemiptera) may even sequester phorbol ester as chemical defense means against predators [44]. A few varieties of J. curcas, which have been selected by plant breeders, do not accumulate phorbol esters; the seed oil is no longer toxic to animals [37]. Seeds also contain a toxic lectin (a peptide) which however does not appear in the pressed oil [37].
The aim of this review is to take stock of all reported work on the insecticidal effect of physic nut (particularly J. curcas) and its extracts (particularly the oil and its phorbol ester fraction) on crop pests, and analyze the reasons for the lack of practical applications of the acquired knowledge, notably its translation into commercial products.

2. Insecticidal Activity of J. curcas Extracts (Particularly Phorbol Esters) on Pre- and Post-Harvest Crop Pests

2.1. Crops Studied

There are 10 crops on which J. curcas extracts have shown potential for protection against insect pests (Table 1).
Field crops encompass cotton [45,46], cowpea [47,48], maize [49], musk melon [50], okra [51], rice [50,52,53], and sorghum [54].
Stored crops encompass bean seeds [55], cowpea seeds [56], maize grain [5759], mungbean seeds [46], potato tubers [60,61], rice grain [62,63], and wheat grain [64].
It should however be noted that not all studies involved relevant control/blanks to make sure that reported effects were due to the extracts, and not the solvents (e.g., [50], as opposed to [47]).

2.2. Crop Pests Studied

There are 37 insect pest species against which J. curcas extracts have been employed, and have shown biological activity (Table 2).
Coleoptera were the most represented, with 13 species in six families, encompassing mainly stored grain-feeding beetles [22,46,5559,6264,6771,80], flea beetles [51,65,72] and a flower weevil [81].
Lepidoptera were the second most represented order, with 12 species in seven families, encompassing stem boring and leaf-feeding caterpillars [50,52,72,74,75,7779], fruit or head-feeding caterpillars [45,46,49,50,54,66,72,76], and the potato tuber moth [60].
They were followed by sap-feeding piercing-sucking Hemiptera, with 11 species in five families [4648,53,54,66,72,73,78]. Two studies showed activity on a flower thrips [47,48], and one a grasshopper species [82].

2.3. Types of Extracts and of Effects

Extracts that were studied and showed biological activity against insect pests of crops were mainly oil extracts, particularly phorbol esters (Table 3). Range of biocidal/biostatic pathways is quite broad (Table 3), encompassing contact toxicity on all developmental stages, ingestion toxicity, feeding deterrency and repellency (Table 3).
The most studied pest family has been that of Noctuidae, with 10 studies on 5 species (at par with Aphididae, but with only 4 studies on the latter). Noctuid caterpillars were either leaf feeding, stem boring, or fruit boring species, and were studied mainly in the laboratory, although some field tests on Helicoverpa armigera were conducted on cotton [22] and musk melon [50].
For H. armigera on cotton, synthetic insecticides were more effective than Jatropha oil (at the dose of 800 mL ha−1) at the start of treatment, as the oil affects only insect growth and its effect is therefore slower. On musk melon, a 70% reduction of infestation over the control was observed with a concentration of 0.5 mg mL−1 of methanol extract of Jatropha oil (dosage per ha not known).
As concentrations of phorbol esters in one of the studies on H. armigera[54] were actually mistakenly reported in g mL−1 instead of mg mL−1, in all laboratory studies, effective concentrations either for contact or ingestion deterrency/toxicity effect were consistently in the range between 0.1 and 1 mg mL−1 of phorbol esters (or their equivalent in oil).
However, one should be cautious concerning the efficiency of such extracts under field conditions, as translated by the little numbers of actual field tests. In addition, species with cryptic caterpillars like stem borers, particularly Sesamia calamistis, which does not have any wandering larval stage, and fruit worms (e.g., Helicoverpa spp.) are more difficult to control than leaf-feeding species. Foliar spraying targeting the latter (e.g., Spodoptera frugiperda) may on the other hand result in phytotoxicity on the crop (namely leaf burns), not necessarily due to phorbol esters per se, but to the oil or adjuvants in some formulations [22,47].

3. Lack of Development of Biocidal (Particularly Crop Pest Insecticidal) Applications of J. curcas Extracts and Potential Explanations

Since the first records of Jatropha oil biocidal activities on crop insect pests, almost thirty years ago, such extracts have not been widely used, despite the “boom” in the development of the crop in the tropics for biodiesel purpose during recent years, and increased public awareness of adverse environmental impacts of synthetic chemical insecticide use.
Phorbol esters activate PKC [39]. PKC is involved in several cellular signaling pathways. Some of them are active in cancer cells. If PKC is activated in cancer cells, their growth can be stimulated. Because of this property toxicologist classify phorbol esters as “co-carcinogens” or tumor-promoting. This term is somewhat misleading to the non-toxicologists, because it is easily mistaken for a carcinogen which can cause cancer. It should be remembered, that also estrogens, which are the active ingredients of anti-baby pills, have been classified as co-carcinogens because they stimulate growth of hormone-dependent cancer cells. The co-carcinogenic property of phorbol esters should not be an apriori “no-go” for a registration.
Such a lack of use was also reported for other plant-derived insecticides, deterrents, and repellents [83,84]. The main barriers to commercialization for botanical insecticides include: sustainability of the botanical resource, standardization of chemically complex extracts, and regulatory approval. The latter process is as cumbersome and expensive for a botanical insecticide as for a synthetic compound. Because it is difficult or even impossible to obtain patents for such phorbol ester extracts, agrochemical companies are not inclined to spend large amounts of money for toxicological tests and efficacy trials that are required for registration and approval as biopesticides.

3.1. High Variability of Phorbol Ester Content and Difficulty of Extraction

High variability of phorbol ester content and hence of insecticidal activity among physic nut cultivars/ecotypes [37] may be an explanation. This however can be solved by extraction/concentration, but this is not easy to achieve at the village level [75].
The analysis of phorbol esters requires sophisticated laboratory equipment such as HPLC and LC-MS [37,72], which is often lacking in tropical countries or in agricultural laboratories. Therefore, the selection of high-yielding varieties is difficult and labor-extensive. Furthermore, most emphasis in breeding of physic nuts was on the selection of varieties which were low on phorbol esters so that they could be used for animal or human consumption.

3.2. Non-Relevance of Application on Stored Grain

Another reason for the lack of development of pesticide uses might be the relevance of the application of such toxic extracts [39] on stored grain aimed at human consumption (Table 1). The fact that most studies refer to such post-harvest pests as Callosobruchus maculatus or Sitophilus zeamais (Table 2) is probably just an indication that these pests are easier to study than field pests, and that use of botanicals on stored produce is a traditional practice, more than on field crops.
On the other hand, human toxicity is mainly ascribed to the curcin protein which occurs in the seed meal but not in the oil. Seed oil also contains hydrogen cyanide. While phorbol esters, as co-carcinogenic (and not carcinogenic per se) compounds [39], are considered as less of a problem, although concentrated solutions are irritant to skin and eyes. Another problem could be toxicity of the extracts against germinating plants (phytotoxicity). At least, if cereal grains are used as seeds, their germination is not affected ruling out a phytotoxic effect of phorbol esters at this level [57].

3.3. Lack of Studies under Real Conditions

On both storage and field pests, studies were mainly conducted under laboratory conditions, so that potential field problems such as efficiency and persistence under natural conditions, phytotoxicity on crops (either of the oil, or of adjuvants in phorbol ester formulations [22,47]), and environmental fate, remain to be studied.
The problem of decomposition of phorbol esters and other toxic compounds in the field (from UV light and/or microbes) needs further evaluation before insecticidal or molluscicidal oil extracts can be widely used. This fact may actually also be a partial explanation to their lack of use. On the other hand, recent results showed that phorbol esters are biodegradable in the soil [85].
Further to the case of storage pests, this is another instance of conflicting effects between biological/biocidal activity against pests and persistence/innocuity for humans and the environment. Biodegradability and low persistence in the soil are a plus regarding human health and pollution, but a minus regarding bioactivity on soil pests (e.g., nematodes, on which there are several reports of bioactivity of Jatropha extracts, particularly oil seed cake [8688]). A trade-off/balance has therefore to be found.
Regarding effects on non-target arthropods, low toxicity of extracts of other species of Jatropha was reported on beneficial insects or mites, namely predators [89,90], while conflicting results were obtained with J. curcas extracts on parasitoids [70]. On the other hand, in a field study, the better cotton yield with Jatropha oil treatment over farmer conventional practice was ascribed to the innocuity of oil for natural enemies [22].
In any case, further to studies on evaluation of toxicity to natural enemies of insect pests, such studies on other beneficial insects like pollinating insects and honeybees are still needed [91].

4. Conclusions

4.1. Prospects for the Development of J. curcas Extract Uses for Crop Protection

All the studies discussed indicate that extracts from Jatropha spp. (and particularly J. curcas) leaves, seeds and oil are repellent, deterrent or toxic, either by contact or ingestion, to several agricultural insect pests. The extracts involved mainly contain toxic diterpenes (particularly phorbol esters).
While the development of Jatropha cultivation for its mere insecticidal properties is unlikely, insecticidal compounds such as phorbol esters can be valuable by-products wherever the plant is grown as live-hedges or garden fences, or for biodiesel. As a biofuel (biodiesel), Jatropha has the highest potential in isolated or land-locked countries (e.g., small islands or Sahelian countries), where it has a clear comparative advantage over imported fossil fuels.
As mentioned above, in these contexts, phorbol ester extracts could be obtained as a rather cheap by-product of biodiesel production and would be available in developing countries which cannot afford to buy expensive agrochemicals. Furthermore, these nonrenewable chemical plant protection products are under threat of being banned anyway, due to their documented adverse effects on human health and the environment.
The extraction of the phorbol ester fraction of the seed oil of J. curcas using for example methanol as a solvent, does not affect its biodiesel properties [92], so that a small part of oil could be enriched with phorbol esters and used as a plant-derived insecticide. Such a “detoxification” could also help other uses, including as edible oil. Actually, such an “enrichment” would probably be the best trade-off [31], since these compounds are protected from heat when they are in oil, while their shelf-life is considerably reduced when they are extracted [93].
It should however be noted that such extraction/enrichment processes are not possible at the farmer level since it involves the use of solvents e.g. methanol, but could still be done at the village level at a semi-centralized scale (e.g., that of the village power plant) [75].

4.2. Potential for Combination of Jatropha Extracts with Other Control Options in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Agroecological Strategies

In view of its at least partial effects on crop pests, application of Jatropha oil or its phorbol ester fraction could be complementary with other control methods such as impregnated nets [94]. Actually, such a technique should be cost-effective on high-value crops such as vegetables or “concentrated” products such as or stored produce.
Furthermore, the reported antifungal properties of Jatropha extracts [95101] could make it for the potential increased fungal infection risk due to microclimate alteration (higher humidity) under such nets.
Another option would be to combine the biocidal activity of Jatropha extracts and the use of trap plants, in a “push-pull” strategy, as we discussed earlier [54].
The phorbol ester fraction could also be combined with other botanical pesticides (see [83] for a review) that attack different molecular targets in pest organisms. Phorbol esters mainly activate PKC [72] and related signal transduction pathways. Their combination with a neurotoxin (e.g., nicotine, lupin alkaloids: [83]) might result in a synergistic efficacy. In synergistic combinations the dose of the individual component can be reduced, thus minimizing adverse effects, while delaying the emergence of resistant pest strains.
On the other hand, due to its documented toxicity on water snails hosts of human or cattle parasites [2631], or agricultural pests [22], more studies should be conducted on molluscicidal activity on slugs and land snails which are major pests of crops in conservation agriculture [102], where risk of phytotoxicity and leaching is low, the product being applied on the (thick) mulch [103,104].
Broadly speaking, based on the existing literature and in view of the likely development of Jatropha cultivation in the tropics, the study of the insecticidal effects of its seed oil, particularly phorbol esters, and their evaluation in real conditions, should be given priority, rather than screening of novel active bioactive substances.


  1. Heller, J. Physic Nut. Jatropha curcas L. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops; Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPGRI), Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 1996; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jongschaap, R.E.E.; Corré, W.J.; Bindraban, P.S.; Brandenburg, W.A. Claims and facts on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation programme. Available online: accessed on 15 July 2012.
  3. Kumar, A.; Sharma, S. An evaluation of multipurpose oil seed crop for industrial uses (Jatropha curcas L.): A review. Ind. Crops Prod 2008, 28, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  4. Debnath, M.; Bisen, P.S. Jatropha curcas L., A multipurpose stress resistant plant with a potential for ethnomedicine and renewable energy. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol 2008, 9, 288–306. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ye, M.; Li, C.; Francis, G.; Makkar, H.P.S. Current situation and prospects of Jatropha curcas as a multipurpose tree in China. Agroforest. Syst 2009, 76, 487–497. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brittaine, R.; Lutaladio, N. Jatropha: A smallholder bioenergy crop; the potential for pro-poor development. Available online: accessed on 23 November 2012.
  7. Islam, A.K.M.A.; Yaakob, Z.; Anuar, N. Jatropha: A multipurpose plant with considerable potential for the tropics. Sci. Res. Essays 2011, 6, 2597–2605. [Google Scholar]
  8. Openshaw, K. A review of Jatropha curcas: An oil plant of unfulfilled promise. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wink, M.; van Wyk, B.E. Mind-Altering and Poisonous Plants of the World; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  10. Arekemase, M.O; Kayode, R.M.O.; Ajiboye, A.E. Antimicrobial activity and phytochemical analysis of Jatropha curcas plant against some selected microorganisms. Int. J. Biol. 2011, 3, 52–59. [Google Scholar]
  11. Thomas, O.O. Re-examination of the antimicrobial activities of Xylopia aethiopica, Carica papaya, Ocimium gratissimum and Jatropha curcas. Fitoterapia 1989, 60, 147–161. [Google Scholar]
  12. Karmegam, J.; Sakthivadivel, M.; Daniel, T. Indegenous plant extracts as larvicidal agents against Culex quinquefasciatus say. Bioresour. Technol 1996, 59, 137–140. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rahuman, A.A.; Gopalakrishnan, G.; Venkatesan, P.; Geetha, K. Larvicidal activity of some Euphorbiaceae plant extracts against Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol. Res 2008, 102, 867–873. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sakthivadivel, M.; Daniel, T. Evaluation of certain insecticidal plants for the control of vector mosquitoes vis. Culex quinquefaciatus, Anopheles staphensi and Aedes aegypti. Appl. Entomol. Zool 2008, 43, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
  15. Aina, S.A.; Banjo, A.D.; Lawal, O.A.; Jonathan, K. Efficacy of some plant extracts on Anopheles gambiae mosquito larvae. Acad. J. Entomol 2009, 2, 31–35. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cantrell, C.; Ali, A.; Duke, S.O.; Khan, I. Identification of mosquito biting deterrent constituents from the Indian folk remedy plant Jatropha curcas. J. Med. Entomol 2011, 48, 836–845. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zewdneh, T.; Mamuye, H.; Asegid, T.; Yalemtsehay, M.; Beyene, P. Larvicidal effects of Jatropha curcas L. against Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae). MEJS 2011, 3, 52–64. [Google Scholar]
  18. Juliet, S.; Ravindran, R.; Ramankutty, S.A.; Gopalan, A.K.K.; Nair, S.N.; Kavillimakkil, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Rawat, A.K.S.; Ghosh, S. Jatropha curcas (Linn) leaf extract—A possible alternative for population control of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis 2012, 2, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dimri, U.; Sharma, M.C. Effects of sarcoptic mange and its control with oil of Cedrus deodara, Pongamia glabra, Jatropha curcas and benzyl benzoate, both with and without ascorbic acid on growing sheep: Epidemiology; assessment of clinical, haematological, cell-mediated humoral immune responses and pathology. J. Vet. Med. A 2004, 55, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  20. Heal, R.F.; Rogers, E.F. A survey of plants for insecticidal activity. Lloydia 1950, 13, 89–162. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sievers, A.F.; Archer, W.A.; Moore, R.H.; McGovern, E.R. Insecticidal tests of plants from tropical America. J. Econ. Entomol 1949, 42, 549–551. [Google Scholar]
  22. Solsoloy, A.D.; Solsoloy, T.S. Pesticidal Efficacy of Formulated Product J. curcas Oil on Pests of Selected Field Crops. Biofuel and Industrial Products from Jatropha curcas and Other Tropical Oil Seed Plants, Symposium “Jatropha 97”, Managua, Nicaragua, 23–27 February 1997; pp. 216–226.
  23. Singh, N.; Sushilkumar. Anti termite activity of Jatropha curcas Linn. Biochemicals. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2008, 12, 67–69. [Google Scholar]
  24. Acda, M.N. Toxicity, tunneling and feeding behavior of the termite, Coptotermes vastator, in sand treated with oil of the physic nut, Jatropha curcas. J. Insect Sci 2009, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  25. Verma, M.; Pradhan, S.; Sharma, S.; Naik, S.N.; Prasad, R. Efficacy of karanjin and phorbol ester fraction against termites (Odontotermes obesus). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad 2011, 65, 877–882. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abd-Elhamid, H.F. Investigation of induced biochemical and histopathological parameters of acetonitrile extract of Jatropha curcas in albino rats. J. Egypt Soc. Parasitol 2004, 34, 397–406. [Google Scholar]
  27. Amin, M.A.; Daffalla, A.A.; Abdel Moneim, O. Preliminary report on the molluscicidal properties of Habat El Mulluk, Jatropha sp. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg 1972, 66, 805–806. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, S.Y.; Sporer, F.; Wink, M.; Jourdane, J.; Henning, R.; Li, Y.L.; Ruppel, A. Anthraquinones in Rheum palmatum and Rumex dentatus (Polygonaceae), and phorbol esters in Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae) with molluscicidal activity against the schistosome vector snails Oncomelania, Biomphalaria and Bulinus. Trop. Med. Int. Health 1997, 2, 179–188. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rug, M.; Sporer, F.; Wink, M.; Liu, S.Y.; Henning, R.; Ruppel, A. Molluscicidal Properties of Jatropha curcas against Vector Snails of the Human Parasites Schistosoma mansoni and S. japonicum: in Biofuels and Industrial Products from Jatropha curcas; Gübitz, G.M., Trabi, M., Mittelbach, M., Eds.; Dbv-Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz: Graz, Austria, 1997; pp. 227–232. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rug, M.; Ruppel, A. Toxic activities of the plant Jatropha curcas against intermediate snails and larvae of schistosomes. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2000, 5, 423–430. [Google Scholar]
  31. Devappa, R.K.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Optimization of conditions for the extraction of phorbol esters from Jatropha oil. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 1125–1133. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fagbenro-Beyioku, A.F.; Oyibo, W.A.; Anuforom, B.C. Disinfectant/antiparasitic activities of Jatropha curcas. East Afr. Med. J 1998, 75, 508–511. [Google Scholar]
  33. Adamu, S.U.; Kela, S.L.; Suleiman, M.M. Antischistosomal properties of extracts of Jatropha curcas (L) on Schistosoma mansoni infection in mice. Afr. J. Tradit. Complementary Altern. Med 2006, 3, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  34. Suharti, S.; Wiryawan, K.G.; Tiuria, R.; Ridwan, Y.; Fitriana, S.; Sumarni, N. Effectiveness of Jatropha curcass Linn leaves as an anthelmintic for Ascaridia galli and its effect on native chicken performance. J. Anim. Sci. Technol 2010, 33, 108–114. [Google Scholar]
  35. Phowichit, S.; Buatippawan, S.; Bullangpoti, V. Insecticidal activity of Jatropha gossypifolia L. (Euphorbiaceae) and Cleome viscosa L. (Capparidacee) on Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Toxicity and carboxylesterase and glutathione-S-transferase activities studies. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci 2008, 73, 611–619. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aiyelaagbe, O.O.; Gloer, J.B. Japodic acid, a novel aliphatic acid from Jatropha podagrica Hook. Rec. Nat. Prod 2008, 2, 100–106. [Google Scholar]
  37. Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K.; Sporer, F.; Wink, M. Studies on nutritive potential and toxic constituents of different provenances of Jatropha curcas. J. Agric. Food Chem 1997, 45, 3152–3157. [Google Scholar]
  38. Devappa, R.K.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Jatropha diterpenes: A review. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc 2011, 88, 301–322. [Google Scholar]
  39. Goel, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Francis, G.; Becker, K. Phorbol esters: Structure, biological activity, and toxicity in animals. Int. J. Toxicol 2007, 26, 279–288. [Google Scholar]
  40. Grimm, C.; Führer, E. Population dynamics of true bugs (Heteroptera) in physic nut (Jatropha curcas) plantations in Nicaragua. J. Appl. Entomol 1998, 122, 515–521. [Google Scholar]
  41. Shanker, C.; Dhyani, S.K. Insect pests of Jatropha curcas L. and the potential for their management. Curr. Sci 2006, 91, 162–163. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wahl, N.; Jamnadass, R.; Baur, H.; Munster, C.; Iiyama, M. Economic viability Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern Tanzania. Available online: accessed on 30 November 2012.
  43. Ratnadass, A.; Ryckewaert, P.; Claude, Z.; Nikiema, A.; Pasternak, D.; Woltering, L.; Thunes, K.; Zakari-Moussa, O. New ecological options for the management of horticultural crop pests in Sudano-Sahelian agroecosystems of west Africa. Acta Hortic 2011, 917, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wink, M.; Grimm, C.; Koschmieder, C.; Sporer, F.; Bergeot, O. Sequestration of phorbolesters by the aposematically coloured bug Pachycoris klugii (Heteroptera: Scutelleridae) feeding on Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae). Chemoecology 2000, 10, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
  45. Solsoloy, A.D.; Morallo-Rejesus, B. Proposed mode of action of the insecticidal principle from physic nut, Jatropha curcas L. on selected cotton insect pest. Cotton Res. J 1994, 7, 52–53. [Google Scholar]
  46. Solsoloy, A.D. Pesticidal efficacy of the formulated physic nut, Jatropha curcas L. oil on pests of selected field crops. Philipp. J. Sci 1995, 124, 59–74. [Google Scholar]
  47. Katoune, H.I.; Malam Lafia, D.; Salha, H.; Doumma, A.; Yaye Drame, A.; Pasternak, D.; Ratnadass, A. Physic nut (Jatropha curcas) oil as a protectant against field insect pests of cowpea in Sudano-Sahelian cropping systems. J. SAT Agric. Res 2011, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  48. Habou, Z.A.; Haougui, A.; Mergeai, G.; Haubruge, E.; Toudou, A.; Verheggen, F.J. Insecticidal effect of Jatropha curcas oil on the aphid Aphis fabae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and on the main insect pests associated with cowpeas in Niger. Tropicultura 2011, 29, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
  49. Agboka, K.; Mawufe, A.K.; Tamò, M.; Vidal, S. Effects of plant extracts and oil emulsions on the maize cob borer Mussidia nigrivenella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in laboratory and field experiments. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci 2009, 29, 185–194. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dowlathabad, M.R.; Sreeyapureddy, A.; Adhikari, A.; Bezawada, K.; Nayakanti, D. Pharmaceutical investigation and biopesticidal activity of Jatropha curcas L. seed oil on digestive enzymic profiles of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (rice leaf folder) and Helicoverpa armigera (cotton boll worm). Int. Res. J. Pharm 2010, 1, 194–200. [Google Scholar]
  51. Emosairue, S.O.; Uguru, E.I. Field trial of aqueous and petroleum ether extracts of Monodora myristica (Gaertn.) dunal and Jatropha curcas L. for the control of okra flea beetles, Podagrica spp. J. Appl. Chem. Agric. Res 1999, 6, 100–104. [Google Scholar]
  52. Amaugo, G.O.; Emosairue, S.O. The efficacy of some indigenous plant extracts for the control of upland rice stem borers in Nigeria. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst 2003, 2, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sujeetha, J.A.R.P. The biological and behavioural impact of some indigenous plant products on rice white backed plant hopper (WBPH) Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). J. Biopestic 2008, 1, 193–196. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ratnadass, A.; Togola, M.; Cissé, B.; Vassal, J.M. Potential of sorghum and physic nut (Jatropha curcas) for management of plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) and cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) on cotton in an assisted trap-cropping strategy. J. SAT Agric. Res 2009, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kshirsagar, R.V. Insecticidal activity of Jatropha seed oil against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) infesting Phaseolus aconitifolius Jacq. Bioscan 2010, 5, 415–418. [Google Scholar]
  56. Adebowale, K.O.; Adedire, C.O. Chemical composition and insecticidal properties of the underutilized Jatropha curcas seed oil. Afr. J. Biotechnol 2006, 5, 901–906. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ohazurike, N.C.; Omuh, M.O.; Emeribe, E.O. The use of seed extracts of the physic nut (Jatropha curcas L.) in the control of maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais M.) in stored maize grains (Zea mays L.). Glob. J. Agric. Sci 2003, 2, 86–88. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jide-Ojo, C.C.; Ojo, O.O. Evaluation of the biological effects of leaf extracts of Jatropha curcas against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem 2011, 10, 2166–2172. [Google Scholar]
  59. Musa, A.K.; Belewu, M.A.; Muhammed-Lawal, A.; Adekola, F.O.; Olarewaju, B.O.; Ibraheem, S.O. Costs analysis and toxicity of Jatropha curcas L. on maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. Afr. J. Plant Sci 2011, 5, 233–236. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shelke, S.S.; Jadhav, L.D.; Salunkhe, G.N. Ovipositional and adult repellent action of some vegetables oils/extracts against potato tuber moth. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ 1985, 10, 284–286. [Google Scholar]
  61. Shelke, S.S.; Jadhav, L.D.; Salunkhe, G.N. Ovicidal action of some vegetable oils and extract in the storage pest of potato, Phthorimea operculella Zell. Biovigyanam 1987, 13, 40–41. [Google Scholar]
  62. Asmanizar, A.D.; Idris, A.B. Effect of four selected plant powder as rice grain protectant against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Sains Malays 2012, 41, 863–869. [Google Scholar]
  63. Asmanizar, A.D.; Djamin, A.; Idris, A.B. Evaluation of Jatropha curcas and Annona muricata seed crude extracts against Sitophilus zeamais infesting stored rice. J. Entomol 2012, 9, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nabil, A.E.A.; Yasser, A.M.K. Jatropha curcas oil as insecticide and germination promoter. J. Appl. Sci. Res 2012, 8, 668–675. [Google Scholar]
  65. Onunkun, O. Evaluation of aqueous extracts of five plants in the control of fleaf beetles on okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). J. Biopestic 2012, 5, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
  66. Solsoloy, A.D. Insecticidal efficacy of the formulated product and aqueous extract from physic nut, Jatropha curcas L. seed kernel oil on cotton insect pests. Cotton Res. J 1993, 6, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  67. Silva, G.N.; Faroni, L.R.A.; Sousa, A.H.; Freitas, R.S. Bioactivity of Jatropha curcas L. to insect pests of stored products. J. Stored Prod. Res 2012, 48, 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mahfuz, I.; Khanam, L.A.M. Toxicity of some indigenous plant extracts against Tribolium confusum Duval. J. Bio-Sci 2007, 15, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  69. Adabie-Gomez, D.A.; Monford, K.G.; Agyir-Yawson, A.; Owusu-Biney, A.; Osae, M. Evaluation of four local plant species for insecticidal activity against Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Ghana J. Agric. Sci 2006, 39, 147–154. [Google Scholar]
  70. Boateng, B.A.; Kusi, F. Toxicity of jatropha seed oil to Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its parasitoid, Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Appl. Sci. Res 2008, 4, 945–951. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ogunleye, R.F.; Ogunkoya, M.O.; Abulude, F.O. Effect of the seed oil of three botanicals, Jatropha curcas, Helianthus annus and Cocos nucifera on the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Mots). Plant Prod. Res. J 2010, 14, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wink, M.; Koschmieder, C.; Sauerweien, M.; Sporer, F. Phorbol esters of J. curcas—Biological activities and potential applications. Available online: accessed on 23 November 2012.
  73. Li, J.; Yan, F.; Wu, F.H.; Yue, B.S.; Chen, F. Insecticidal activity of extracts from Jatropha curcas seed against Lipaphis erysimi. Acta Phytophylacica Sin 2004, 31, 289–293. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ratnadass, A.; Cissé, B.; Diarra, A.; Mengual, L.; Taneja, S.L.; Thiéro, C.A.T. Perspectives de gestion bio intensive des foreurs des tiges de sorgho en Afrique de l’Ouest. Insect Sci. Appl 1997, 17, 227–233. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mengual, L. Extraction of Bioactive Substances from J. curcas L. and Bioassays on Zonocerus variegatus, Sesamia calamistis and Busseola fusca for Characterisation of Insecticidal Properties. Biofuel and Industrial Products from Jatropha curcas and Other Tropical Oil Seed Plants, Symposium “Jatropha 97”, Managua, Nicaragua, 23–27 February 1997; pp. 211–215.
  76. Georges, K.G.; Bolleddula, J.; Dalavoy, S.S.; Nair, M.G. Pest-managing activities of plant extracts and anthraquinones from Cassia nigricans from Burkina Faso. Bioresour. Technol 2008, 99, 2037–2045. [Google Scholar]
  77. Devappa, R.K.; Angulo-Escalante, M.A.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Potential of using phorbol esters as an insecticide against Spodoptera frugiperda. Ind. Crops Prod 2012, 38, 50–53. [Google Scholar]
  78. Li, W.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Lu, D.; Chen, F. Extraction of phorbol esters from Jatropha curcas seeds and their insecticidal activities against Pieris rapae Larvae. Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol 2011, 17, 532–536. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sauerwein, M.; Sporer, F.; Wink, M. Insect-toxicity of phorbol esters from Jatropha curcas seed oil. Planta Med. 1993, 59, 686. [Google Scholar]
  80. Jadhav, K.B.; Jadhav, L.D. Use of some vegetable oils, plant extracts and synthetic products as protectants from pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. in stored gram. J. Food Sci. Technol 1984, 21, 110–113. [Google Scholar]
  81. Solsoloy, A.D.; Morallo-Rejesus, B. Effect of the insecticidal principle from physic nut, Jatropha curcas L. on the cotton flower weevil Amorphoides lata Motsch. Cotton Res. J 1991, 4, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
  82. Cobbinah, J.R.; Tuani, G.K. Antifeedant effect of Jatropha curcas L. seed oil and extracts on the variegated grasshopper, Zonocerus variegatus L. (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J. Univ. Sci. Technol 1992, 12, 136–139. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wink, M. Production and Application of Phytochemicals from an Agricultural Perspective. In Phytochemistry and Agriculture; van Beek, T.A., Breteler, H., Eds.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1993; Volume 34, pp. 171–213. [Google Scholar]
  84. Isman, M.B. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol 2006, 51, 45–66. [Google Scholar]
  85. Devappa, R.K.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Biodegradation of Jatropha curcas phorbol esters in soil. J. Sci. Food Agric 2010, 90, 2090–2097. [Google Scholar]
  86. Jain, C.; Trivedi, P.C. Nematicidal activity of certain plants against root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci 1997, 5, 171–174. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kalaiarasan, P.; Senthamarai, M.; Ramesh, D.; Sudheer, M.J. Jatropha: An efficient organic amendment for the management of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Indian J. Nematol 2007, 37, 115–118. [Google Scholar]
  88. Umeh, A.; Ndana, R.W. Effectiveness of Jatropha curcas and Jatropha gossypiifolia plant extracts in the control of Meloidogyne incognita on okra. Int. J. Nematol 2010, 20, 226–229. [Google Scholar]
  89. Bhagat, R.B.; Kulkarni, D.K. Evaluation of larvicidal and antifeedant potential of three Jatropha species against Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and two predators (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Ann. Biol. Res 2012, 3, 2911–2916. [Google Scholar]
  90. Reddy, G.V.M.; Girish, R.; Uma, M.S.; Srinivas, N. Acaricidal activity of aqueous extracts from leaves and bark of cinnamomum and jatropha against two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci 2009, 22, 693–695. [Google Scholar]
  91. Devappa, R.K.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Jatropha toxicity: A review. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 2010, 13, 476–507. [Google Scholar]
  92. Devappa, R.K.; Maes, J.; Makkar, H.P.S.; De Greyt, W.; Becker, K. Quality of biodiesel prepared from phorbol ester extracted Jatropha curcas oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc 2010, 87, 697–704. [Google Scholar]
  93. Roach, J.S.; Devappa, R.K.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Isolation, stability and bioactivity of Jatropha curcas phorbol esters. Fitoterapia 2012, 83, 586–592. [Google Scholar]
  94. Martin, T.; Assogba-Komlan, F.; Sidick, I.; Ahle, V.; Chandre, F. An acaricide-treated net to control phytophagous mites. Crop Prot 2010, 29, 470–475. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rai, M.K. In vitro evaluation of medicinal plant extracts against Pestalotiopsis mangiferae. Hindustan Antibiot. Bull 1996, 38, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  96. Thangavelu, R.; Sundararaju, P.; Sathiamoorthy, S. Management of anthracnose disease of banana caused by Colletotrichum musae using plant extracts. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol 2004, 79, 664–668. [Google Scholar]
  97. Wei, Q.; Liao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, S.H.; Xu, Y.; Tang, L.; Chen, F. Isolation, characterization and antifungal activity of β-1,3-glucanase from seeds of Jatropha curcas. S. Afr. J. Bot 2005, 71, 95–99. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ogbebor, N.O.; Adekunle, A.T.; Enobakhare, D.A. Inhibition of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz) Sac. causal organism of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Agr.) leaf spot using plant extracts. Afr. J. Biotechnol 2007, 6, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  99. Saetae, D.; Suntornsuk, W. Antifungal activities of ethanolic extract from Jatropha curcas seed cake. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol 2010, 20, 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  100. Makun, H.A.; Anjorin, S.T.; Adeniran, L.A.; Onakpa, M.M.; Muhammad, H.L.; Obu, O.R.; Agbofode, Y.V. Antifungal activities of Jatropha curcas and Ricinus cumunis seeds on Fusarium verticilliodes and Aspergillus flavus in yam. J. Agric. Biol. Sci 2011, 6, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  101. Rahman, M.; Ahmad, S.H.; Mohamed, M.T.M.; Rahman, M.Z.A. Extraction of Jatropha curcas fruits for antifungal activity against anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) of papaya. Afr. J. Biotechnol 2011, 10, 9796–9799. [Google Scholar]
  102. Byers, R.A.; Mangan, R.L.; Templeton, W.C., Jr. Insect and slug pests in forage legume seedlings. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1983, 38, 224–226. [Google Scholar]
  103. Donigian, A.S.; Carsel, R.F. Modeling the impact of conservation tillage practices on pesticide concentrations in ground and surface waters. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2009, 6, 241–250. [Google Scholar]
  104. Ratnadass, A.; Randriamanantsoa, R.; Douzet, J.M.; Rakotoalibera, H.; Andriamasinoro, V.; Rafamatanantsoa, E.; Michellon, R. Evaluation des risques liés au traitement de semences contre les attaques d’insectes terricoles sur riz pluvial à Madagascar et d’alternatives biologiques aux molécules de synthèse. ORP Conference, Montpellier, QC, Canada, 27–30 August 2012.
Table 1. Crops on which Jatropha curcas extracts have shown potential as field or storage protectants.
Table 1. Crops on which Jatropha curcas extracts have shown potential as field or storage protectants.
Types of cropsCrop speciesFieldStorageType of applicationReferences
CerealsMaize (Zea mays)XOil emulsion[49]
XEmulsifiable concentrate of seed oil; leaf extracts; seed oil[46,5759]
Rice (Oryza sp.)XSeed oil: methanol, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, benzene and water extracts; seed powder: acetone and aqueous extract; formulated seed oil[50,52,53]
XSeed powder; seed powder acetone extract[62,63]
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)XEmulsifiable concentrate of seed oil methanol extract[54]

LegumesBean (Phaseolus aconitifolius)XSeed oil[55]
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)XEmulsifiable concentrate of seed oil[47,48]
XSeed oil[56]
Mungbean (Vigna radiata)XEmulsifiable concentrate of seed oil[46]

TuberPotato (Solanum tuberosum)XSeed oil[60,61]
Fruits/vegetablesMelon (Cucumis melo)XSeed oil: methanol, ethanol, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, benzene and water extracts[50]
Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus)XAqueous and petroleum ether extracts[51,65]

FibreCotton (Gossypium spp.)XEmulsifiable concentrate of seed oil[45,46,66]
Table 2. Insect pest species which were affected by Jatropha curcas extracts.
Table 2. Insect pest species which were affected by Jatropha curcas extracts.
ColeopteraBostrychidaeRhyzopertha dominica[67]
BruchidaeCallosobruchus chinensis[46]
Callosobruchus maculatus[55,56,6870]
Phaedon cochliariae[71]
ChrysomelidaePodagrica sjostedti[67]
Podagrica uniforma[67]
Podagrica sp.[51]
Sitophilus zeamais[46,5759,62,63,67,69]
CurculionidaeSitophilus granarius[64]
Amorphoidea lata[65]
SilvanidaeOryzaephilus surimanensis[67]
TenebrionidaeTribolium confusum[68]
Tribolium castaneum[67]

HemipteraAphididaeMyzus persicae[72]
Lipaphis erysimi[73]
Aphis fabae[48]
Aphis craccivora[48]
Aphis gossypii[66]
CicadellidaeAmrasca biguttula[46]
Empoasca sp.[47]
CoreidaeAnoplocnemis curvipes[48]
Clavigralla tomentosicollis[47]
DelphacidaeSogatella furcifera[53]
MiridaeEurystylus oldi[54]

LepidopteraCrambidaeCnaphalocrocis medinalis[50]
GelechiidaePectinophora gossypiella[45,66]
Phthorimea operculella[60]
NoctuidaeBusseola fusca[74,75]
Helicoverpa armigera[45,46,50,54,66]
Helicoverpa zea[76]
Sesamia calamistis[74,75]
Spodoptera frugiperda[72,77]
PieridaePieris rapae[78]
PyralidaeMussidia nigrivenella[49]
SphingidaeManduca sexta[72,79]
PlutellidaePlutella xylostella[72]

OrthopteraAcrididaeZonocerus variegatus[73]

ThysanopteraThripidaeMegalurothrips sjostedti[47,48]
Table 3. Types of extracts evaluated and types of effects highlighted in reported studies.
Table 3. Types of extracts evaluated and types of effects highlighted in reported studies.
Type of extractReported type of effectReference
Aqueous extractContact toxicity and partial chemo-sterilizing effect; delayed molting; morphogenetic lethal effect after topical application; chronic toxicity[66]
Leaf extractsinhibition of oviposition, anti-feedent and insecticidal effects[58]
Dry seed powder acetone extractContact toxicity, ingestion toxicity[63]
Dry seed powder and water extractRepellency and reduced emergence[69]
n-Hexane, ethyl acetate and methanol extracts from dry seed powderFeeding deterrency[76]
Seed oilAnti-oviposition and ovicidal effects[64]
Seed oilEgg mortality[55]
Seed oilContact toxicity[72]
Seed oilAntioviposition and ovicidal effects[56]
Seed oilFeeding deterrency[73]
Seed oilOviposition deterrency and ovicidal effects[49]
Seed oilFeeding deterrency[74]
Seed oilRepellency and egg toxicity[70]
Seed oilInsect growth regulatory effect[23]
Oil and ethanol extractContact toxicity[73]
Oil and methanol extractReduction of amylase and LDH activities[50]
Oil and phorbol estersCessation of growth and development[72,79]
Oil and phorbol estersContact toxicity, ingestion toxicity, ovicidal effects and reduction of development/fertility of progeny[54]
Phorbol estersStomach toxicity and antifeeding activity[78]
Phorbol estersContact toxicity; reduction of food consumption, relative growth and food conversion efficiency[77]
Back to TopTop