Next Article in Journal
Evolution of Human Factor Risks from Traditional Ships to Autonomous Ships: A Comprehensive Review and Prospective Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Sustainable Development in Pacific Asia: A Quantile Panel Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 7
10.3390/su18073198
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Novel Developments in Nano Fertilizer for Sustainable Crop Production to Promote Global Food Security

by
Ram Chandra Choudhary
1,*,
Pravin Kumar Singh
1,
Yogesh Chandra J. Parmar
1 and
Arunachalam Lakshmanan
2
1
Nano Biotechnology Research Center (NBRC), Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited, Kalol 382423, India
2
IFFCO Nanoventions Private Limited, Coimbatore 641109, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(7), 3198; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073198
Submission received: 29 December 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 3 February 2026 / Published: 25 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The increased demand for food worldwide has led to the widespread use of synthetic chemical fertilizers. Since the Green Revolution, the use of such chemical fertilizers has been in high demand as a nutrient input in agriculture. The increased application of fertilizer to upsurge crop yields is not suitable for the long term and leads to nutrient loss, as well as severe environmental and ecological consequences. In contrast to conventional fertilizers, nano fertilizers, which are designed at the 1–100 nm size, provide focused nutrient delivery, decreased leaching, and improved plant absorption. They accomplish this by greatly increasing crop yields, enhancing fertilizer usage efficiency, and facilitating sustainable farming in the face of obstacles, including resource scarcity, climate change, and a projected population size of 10 billion by 2050. In comparison to typical NPK fertilizers at equal nutrient rates, nano fertilizers enhanced crop yields by an average of 20–23% across cereals, legumes, and horticulture crops according to studies conducted between 2015 and 2024. In particular, using nano urea with rice increased grain yields by 28.6% with 44% less nitrogen input, and applying nano zinc to wheat increased yields by 31.2% and improved the grain’s Zn content by 41%. Through targeted foliar or soil application, nano fertilizers frequently increase nutrient use efficiency (NUE) by more than 50% as opposed to 30–50% for conventional fertilizers. Nano fertilizer is prepared based on the encapsulation of plant essential minerals and nutrients with a suitable polymer matrix as a carrier and then delivered as nano-sized particles or emulsions to the plants. Natural plant openings like stomata and lenticels in plant parts facilitate the uptake and diffusion, leading to higher NUE. This review provides an overview of current knowledge on the development of advanced nano-based and smart agriculture using nano fertilizer to improve nutritional management. Furthermore, nanoscale fertilizers and their formulation, nano-based approaches to increase crop production, the different types of fertilizers that are currently available, and the mechanism of action of the nano fertilizers are discussed. Thus, it is expected that a properly designed nano fertilizer could synchronize the release of nutrients in crop plants as and when needed.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the most important sector and primary backbone of the global economy for producing and providing food for a better life [1]. Since the Green Revolution, synthetic chemical fertilizers have been high in demand as a nutrient input in cropping-production systems, resulting in increased environmental and ecological concerns [2]. Currently, global agriculture has been facing many challenges, including unpredictable climate change, the shrinking of cultivable land due to urbanization, deficiencies in micro-macronutrients, deterioration in crop yields, insect-pest resistance, and contamination of soil and water resources with rampant usage of agrochemicals [3,4]. These problems receive more attention due to excessive and indecorous use of agrochemicals, and the increasing world population, which is rising at a worrying rate, is projected to reach almost 10 billion, increasing food demand by 50% by 2050 [5,6]. The current estimate of undernourished people is 0.81 billion, but by the year 2050 this figure could rise to 2 billion. It requires profound changes in the food production system on a global scale. Massive amounts of agrochemicals, including 187 million tons of fertilizers for efficient nutrient delivery, 4 million tons of pesticides to safeguard crops from insect and pest attacks, and more than 2 quadrillion BTU of energy, will be required to increase global crop productivity to the tune of 3 billion tons [7]. Utilizing these inputs will raise agricultural production costs and worsen environmental degradation. On the other hand, industrial development causes a considerable loss in resources at an alarming rate, resources on which the population’s livelihood depends [8]. Furthermore, the depletion of nutrients in soil can hurt crop yield and soil quality, which can be dangerous for agricultural sustainability and global food security [9]. Therefore, to cope with the burdens of the rapidly growing population, there is a serious need to increase food production. More innovative technologies should be employed to overcome these issues. In recent years, enormous development has been accomplished worldwide to increase crop production and improve food security, enabling the improvement of human health while reducing resource costs and environmental concerns [10]. In this regard, nanotechnology has gained an intense role due to its diverse applications in numerous areas like agriculture, medicine, chemistry, energy, and materials science [11]. Nanotechnology-based strategies such as nano fertilizers have imminent potential to offer sustainable remedies that can reform the resilient agricultural system while promising food security and increasing capacity to uptake in plant nutrients with higher crop yields in modern intensive agriculture [12,13]. It employs nanoscale materials (1–100 nm in size) which have a higher surface-to-volume ratio, offering better performance and effective interaction of encapsulated particles of micro-macronutrients with a suitable polymer matrix to the target site [14]. In addition, it also shows a slow and controlled release effect of nutrients, which holds the potential to fulfill nutrient requirements along with growth and development without compromising crop productivity and food quality [15].
Targeting the supply of nutrients can be accomplished through a variety of nano fertilizer delivery methods, such as soil and foliar application, aerosol dusting, seed priming, and seedling root dip [16]. Several factors, such as enhanced seed germination, germination rate, seedling growth, seedling vigor, and reserved food mobilizing enzymes in a variety of crop plants, were significantly impacted by nano fertilizer-primed seeds [17,18]. Similarly, foliar application of nano fertilizer has demonstrated increased plant growth, crop production, nutritional biofortification, and disease protection in plants [19,20,21]. Numerous types of nano fertilizers have been synthesized using different approaches to address the supply of macro- and micronutrients from a worldwide agricultural perspective [13,22]. Among them are NPK-based nano fertilizers followed by micronutrient-based nano fertilizers, with both used as foliar applications for plant growth and crop yield. These nano fertilizers provide an effective concentration for the controlled release of nutrients, enhanced target activity, and less ecotoxicity with safe and easy delivery [21,22,23,24].
The premier cooperative organization in the world, Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO), New Delhi, India, has introduced novel products based on nanotechnologies, such as nano urea, nano urea plus, nano DAP, nano copper, and nano zinc. Nano urea and nano DAP are based mainly on primary macronutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, with nitrogen concentration ranging from 4 to 20% w/v and phosphorus with 16% w/v. Both nano fertilizers are currently used in crop-growing areas to meet nutrient demand at the early and mid–late growing stages. Although nano urea and nano DAP treatment rates are typically standardized, particular dosages may differ significantly based on the crop, its growth stage, and regional farming methods. Because of the differences in soil nutritional conditions and climate, geographic location can also affect application requirements [25]. Likewise, government approval has been granted for nano copper and nano zinc in India to commercialize these products, which would aid in addressing micronutrient deficiency and improving crop yield and food quality [26].
This review provides a brief overview of the critical role that nanotechnology plays in overcoming the problems facing the current agriculture system, as well as the different kinds of nano-formulations and their applications in agriculture, their biological mechanisms of action, and various advantages offered by nano fertilizer to crop plants that lead to higher productivity over conventional fertilizers.

2. Challenges Associated with Chemical Fertilizers

Rampant use of any type of fertilizer, organic or inorganic, can endanger the ecosystem. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are important nutrients that are supplied to plants mainly through fertilizer for their growth and development. Because of the increased surface area, granule fertilizer is known to mineralize quickly. However, their effectiveness is known to be low: roughly 40% to 70% of the N, 80% to 90% of the P, and 50% to 70% of the K applied to the soil are lost [27]. As of 2015, the demand for nitrogenous, phosphorus, and potash fertilizers added to the soil to overcome nutrient deficiencies was approximately 1.4%, 2.2%, and 2.6% worldwide, respectively [28]. Higher agricultural production has been achieved in recent years by applying more synthetic chemical fertilizers to crops. However, long-term fertilizer applications at higher rates can decrease nutrient use efficiency, reduce plant growth, and cause a negative impact on crop quality (Figure 1) [29]. Increasing the use of fertilizer to increase crop yields is not financially feasible and represents a significant burden for farmers. Surface water, subsurface water, and soil pollution are primarily caused by nitrate leaching, which itself is caused by nitrogen losses linked to higher application rates (Figure 1) [30]. Likewise, P is immobilized in the soil due to a complex edaphic process, hindering its timely and sufficient availability for plant uptake [31]. According to Childers et al. [32], excessive application of P fertilizers has negative effects on ecosystem health, soil degradation, soil fertility, and ecosystem functioning. P is also the least mobile nutrient for plants in the soil rhizosphere, and plants deficient in P have stunted growth and lower crop yields. Consequently, a larger amount of phosphatic fertilizer has been applied in the agricultural production system [29]. Furthermore, plants grown under extreme fertilizer application are more susceptible to water lodging due to overgrowth of shoots, making them more prone to pests and diseases. Also, there is a serious concern regarding global warming through nitrous oxide emissions, significant acidification in croplands, and adverse effects on human health due to the incomplete capture and poor conversion of fertilizer [33].
The application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer can also directly affect the diversity of soil microflora by altering the soil chemistry [34]. When applied at a higher rate, urea and ammonium fertilizers can inhibit soil microflora due to the toxicity of ammonia and upsurges in ionic strength [35]. Further, inorganic nitrogen fertilizers that are supplied as NH4+ can release H+ ions upon oxidation, reducing soil pH and subsequently reducing soil microbial diversity [36]. Thus, there is an urgent need for a novel approach to enhance agricultural production with a minimum input of chemical fertilizer as a more efficient, highly reliable, cost-effective, and controlled release effect with minimal environmental footprints.

3. Nanoscale Fertilizers and Their Formulation

In agriculture, new nanotechnology facilities can explore nanoscale materials as fertilizer carriers in order to enhance nutrient use efficiency with slow and controlled release of encapsulated micro-macronutrients (Table 1) [37]. Further, it also has huge potential to reduce nutrient loss, improve soil fertility, increase crop productivity, minimize environmental pollution, and provide a feasible environment for microorganisms [12]. The nano-formulation of any fertilizer should possess all desired properties, such as biocompatibility, biodegradability, stability, high solubility, enhanced target activity with effective concentration, controlled release over time, and less ecotoxicity with an easy and safe mode of delivery [38]. In addition, nanoscale fertilizer has huge potential to deliver important nutrients to target sites in plant systems through primarily foliar application, seed priming, and soil application [16]. Usually, the loading of nanoparticles with nutrients occurs through (a) entrapment of polymeric nanoparticles, (b) encapsulation in a polymeric shell, (c) absorption on nanoparticles, (d) ligand-mediated nanoparticles attachment, and (e) synthesis of nanoparticles using the nutrient itself [39].
Encapsulation of active ingredients in polymeric shells plays a significant role in protecting the environment by reducing nutrient leaching and evaporation through controlled- and slow-release mechanisms [12]. Recently, targeted smart delivery of nano fertilizer has been the most promising field in modern agriculture. Numerous nano-based delivery technologies, including hydrogel, emulsion, liposome, and polymer-based, have been developed for agricultural crop production [19]. Among these, site-specific delivery of bioactive substances, such as plant growth regulators, insecticides, and macro and micro elements for crop production, plant growth, and defense against dangerous infesting pests, have been drawing increased attention to polymer-based nano delivery (Figure 2) [12,39]. However, a variety of factors, including surface characteristics, encapsulating material, size, and biocompatibility, can influence the choice of core material [19]. Regardless of its immense potential, nano fertilizer production encounters some technical challenges involving attaining precise control over size and shape, the uniformity of controlled release, and regulatory hurdles [40,41]. Thus, developing standardized procedures for the synthesis of nanomaterials, such as risk assessments and product regulations, will necessitate interdisciplinary cooperation between scientists, legislators, and industry stakeholders.

3.1. IFFCO Nano Urea

Nano urea is a revolutionary, nanotechnology-based product introduced by IFFCO, providing nitrogen to crops more effectively and efficiently in modern agriculture for the first time globally. It was introduced to reduce and replace the use of conventional nitrogen-containing fertilizers, as though they are widely used, they have low use efficiency and are environmentally unsafe. Nano urea has been tested in more than 11,000 field trials across the country on more than 90 crops, including cereals, legumes, oilseeds, and horticultural crops, and has been found to increase average yields by up to 8% [42]. Another finding showed that a nano spray produced a higher okra yield (9.6%) than chemical fertilizers which added NPK. However, because there was more N available in the plant system, a higher concentration of nano spray (4%) had a major effect on the growth and yield indices [43]. It can be applied to crops as a foliar application 30 days after the sowing or tillering phases, followed by the pre-flowering phase. In addition, the production of nano urea is resource-efficient, and its application could ensure agricultural sustainability and environmental safety. In addition, it will increase farmers income due to higher crop yields, better qualities in crop produce, and lower transportation and input costs [43].

3.2. IFFCO Nano Urea Plus

After the success of nano urea, IFFCO launched nano urea plus, an advanced formulation with increased nitrogen content (16% w/w) to meet crop nitrogen demand at the vegetative and reproductive stages of the crop. Therefore, with increased encapsulation and a slow release effect, it will boost robust plant growth and crop yield, increase food quality, and all while promoting soil quality, sustainable environments, and human health. Studies have shown that the application of nano urea plus enhanced microbial diversity, reduced losses of applied nitrogen, and improved nitrogen uptake in wheat as compared to conventional fertilizers [44]. Similarly, NUP also enhances the microbial load and diversity in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere of maize plants [44]. In chickpea, 75% of the RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer) of nitrogen with one foliar spray of NUP exhibited a higher yield than 50% of the RDF of nitrogen with one foliar spray of NUP. Two sprays of NUP, along with 75% of the RDF of nitrogen, have been found most effective in terms of higher yield and cost–benefit ratio (B:C ratio) in wheat [44].

3.3. IFFCO Nano DAP

Nano DAP is a concentrated source of two essential macronutrients, i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus. Formulation of nano DAP contains 8% w/v of nitrogen and 16% w/v of phosphorus as P2O5 for correcting the deficiency of these nutrients in crops. Formulation with a higher surface-to-volume ratio makes it more efficient and effective to enter plant cells through natural plant openings. Further, it can be translocated to various plant parts and assimilated in various metabolic pathways. Thus, it leads to higher chlorophyll content, photosynthetic efficiency, increased plant growth, improved nutritional quality, and higher crop yields. In the rice crop, nano DAP-treated seedlings and foliar-applied plants exhibited higher nutrient use efficiency, plant growth, grain yield, and improved B:C ratio compared to other treatments [45].

3.4. IFFCO Nano Copper and Nano Zinc

Nano copper and nano zinc are micronutrient-based nano fertilizer products developed by IFFCO, with 0.8% Cu and 1.0% Zn content, respectively. Studies have shown that growth, yield, and yield attribute traits, as well as uptake and B:C ratio were found to be higher in nano Cu- and Zn-applied treatment of sugarcane [46]. In maize, the application of RDF (50% N + 50% Zn; 100% PK) with two sprays of nano N and one spray of each nano Cu and nano Zn showed these higher growth and yield attributes traits. Moreover, the application of RDF (50% N + 50% Zn; 100% PK) with two sprays of nano N and one spray of each nano Cu and nano Zn (mixture) exhibited increased grain yield and straw yield over the control [47].

4. Nanotechnology-Based Approaches to Increase Crop Production

Nano fertilizers have been proposed as novel tools to enhance nutrient use efficiency and reduce environmental burdens imposed by conventional fertilizers. These promising features make them extremely appropriate for usage in the current agricultural production system (Table 2) [48,49]. Recently, Sahoo et al. [45] studied the effect of nano DAP fertilizer on growth, yield, and nutrient use efficiency in rice. The results revealed that nano DAP treatment (50% of the soil test recommended doses for N and P + seedling root dipping with nano DAP at 5 mL L−1 + two foliar application nano DAP at 4 mL L−1 at 25 and 45 days after transplanting) was found to be overall the most effective in terms of plant growth, nutrient uptake, grain yield, and benefit–cost ratio as compared to other treatments. Similarly, Kumar et al. [50] evaluated the effect of nano urea and nano zinc fertilizers on cereal and oilseed crops for plant growth and yield. It was observed that both nano fertilizers, along with organic farming practices, improved the average yield in wheat (5.35%), pearl millet (4.2%), sesame (24.24%), and mustard (8.4%), as well as enhancing growth- and yield-attributing traits as compared with conventional chemical fertilizer practices. Likewise, Kottegoda et al. [51] studied the urea-hydroxyapatite nano fertilizer for the slow release of nitrogen, and it was observed that it releases N for a longer period when compared to conventional fertilizer. In another report, foliar exposure of NPK nano fertilizer significantly increased plant growth (51%) and improved yield (56%) compared to both control and conventional fertilizers in wheat crops [24]. Recently, Sarah et al. [52] demonstrated that the foliar application of NPK nano fertilizers could increase the yield and nutritional properties of soybeans. Further, these nanocomposites also caused a reduction in the incidence of disease severity and increased the availability of macronutrients in plants and soil. Similarly, maize plants treated with sulfate-supplemented NPK nano fertilizers yielded a maximum chlorophyll content, height, number of leaves, and stem diameter as compared to control, NPK, and NPKS fertilizers under greenhouse conditions [53]. These findings indicate that fortifying N fertilizers with nanoscale macronutrients can upsurge nutrient use efficiency.
Carboxymethyl cellulose-stabilized hydroxyapatite nanoparticles were applied to soybean plants grown in pot conditions, and the results showed that the growth rate and seed yield increased by 32.6% and 20.4%, respectively, and were higher than regular P fertilizer. Further, this nano fertilizer also enhanced above-ground biomass (18%) and below-ground biomass (41.2%) compared to those with regular P fertilizer [54]. The application of ammonium-charged zeolite nanoparticles increased the solubility of phosphate minerals and hence displayed enhanced phosphorus accessibility and uptake by crops [55]. In peanuts, the application of nano-zeolite phosphorus showed significantly higher nutrient content, uptake, and oil content by increasing P use efficiency [56]. Madanayake et al. [57] studied the response of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles on Raphanus sativus and found that these nanoparticles could be a potential nontoxic source of P for various seedling parameters, such as shoot and root elongation, dry biomass, soluble protein, and indole acetic acid content. The application of nano phosphorus fertilizer in rice showed greater physiological efficiency in shoots and roots, higher photosynthetic rate, and improved water use efficiency [58].
In a recent study, copper- and zinc-based nano fertilizers were found to be effective in enhancing plant growth, antimicrobial activity, and crop yield along with nutrient fortification in maize [19,22]. In a similar study, Deshpande et al. [21] reported Zn chitosan nanoparticles could be a nutrient carrier for agronomic bio-fortification for higher grain zinc content in wheat via foliar application. The application of nano potassium was tested and resulted in an overall increase in plant growth, growth-attributing parameters, protein content, photosynthetic content, and crop yield when compared to control and conventional chemical fertilizers in wheat under field conditions [59]. Nano-emulsion of thymol, an essential oil, showed substantial antibacterial activity for disease control of bacterial pustules in soybeans up to 95.4% and increased plant growth when compared to control plants [60].
Table 2. Application of various types of nano fertilizer in different crops.
Table 2. Application of various types of nano fertilizer in different crops.
Crop NameType of NFsCrop ResponseReferences
RiceNano DAP fertilizerIncreased plant growth, grain yield, and nutrient use efficiency in rice[45]
Wheat, Pearl millet, Sesame, MustardNano urea and nano zinc fertilizerEnhanced growth, yield-attributing traits and crop yield[50]
MaizeHydroxyapatite NPsIncreased plant height and yield[61]
Wheat, TomatoCryo-milled nano DAPIncreased shoot length, fresh weight, shoot surface area, improved biomass, pronounced Pi content, and reduced anthocyanin content[62]
RadishHydroxyapatite nanoparticlesShoot/root elongation, enhanced dry biomass, soluble protein, and indole acetic acid content[57]
MaizeSulfate-supplemented NPK nano fertilizerIncreased number of leaves, plant height, nutrient content, and uptake[53]
OkraCu, Fe, and Zn incorporated urea-hydroxyapatite NPsIncreased nutrient use efficiency and higher yields[63]
MaizeHydroxyapatite-humic acid NPsIncreased plant height, and fresh and dry weights[64]
SoybeanNano-hydroxyapatiteIncreased plant height and production [65]
SoybeanNPK nano fertilizersIncreased yield and nutritional properties[52]
RiceNano phosphorus fertilizerGreater physiological efficiency of shoots and roots for P, higher photosynthetic rate, and improved water use efficiency[58]
CoffeeNPK-coated nano fertilizerIncreased nutrient uptake, plant growth, number of leaves, and photosynthetic plant area[66]
Maize, Capsicum, KaleNPK nano fertilizers Higher grain yield, fruit numbers, and increased dry matter yield[67]
MaizeZn-chitosan NPsIncreased plant growth, crop yield, and grain zinc content[19]
SoybeanThymol nano-emulsionEnhanced plant growth and disease control[60]
PeanutNano-zeolite-P fertilizerHigher nutrient, oil content, and increased P use efficiency[56]
LettuceNano hydroxyapatiteIncreased dry weight and P use efficiency[68]
AlmondNano urea modified with hydroxyapatiteIncreased seed germination rate, plant height, perimeter, seed moisture status, and elongation of primary and secondary roots[18]
PeaChitosan–PMAA–NPK nano fertilizerUpregulation of major proteins such as convicilin, vicilin, and legumin β, and induced rate of cell division[69]
MaizeCu-chitosan NPsIncreased plant growth, boosts defense response, and crop yield[22]
WheatZinc-complexed chitosan/TPP NPsIncreased grain zinc content[21]
RiceUrea-hydroxyapatite NPsIncreased NPK content[51]
PomegranateNano nitrogenEnhanced leaf N content, fruit yield, and quality[70]
WheatNano chitosan NPK Increased shoot/root length, fresh/dry weight, water content, and leaf area[24]
PotatoNano N chelateIncreased yield and reduced nitrate leaching[71]
SoybeanApatite NPsIncreased growth rate, seed yield, and biomass production [54]
WheatN, P, and NPK NPsEnhancement of plant growth parameters such as shoot length, root length, and others[72]
CowpeaSilver NPsMicrobial growth inhibition of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum and other harmful bacteria[73]
Green peaZinc oxide NPsIncreased zinc uptake and photosynthetic pigment[74]
SunflowerZinc oxide NPsIncreased Zn content, plant growth, and physiological parameters like leaf area, shoot dry weight, and chlorophyll content[75]
CapsicumZinc oxide NPsEnhanced root/shot length, seed germination, and seedling growth[76]
MaizeZinc NPsIncreased plant growth, yield attributes, and crop yield[77]

5. Nano Fertilizer for Crop Sustainability

Sustainable agriculture demands a reduced reliance on synthetic agrochemicals, and the development of an effective plant nutrient system is crucial to minimizing environmental risks [12]. Innovative approaches, such as nano fertilizers, controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs), bio-organic fertilizers, and microbial inoculants, can help prioritize less environmental impacts over conventional chemical fertilizers while addressing nutrient delivery issues in unique ways [78,79,80]. Nano fertilizer plays a key role in crop production by efficient and effective nutrient utilization, lowering agrochemical use against harmful insects, pests, and resistant plant diseases and promoting the sustainable growth of agriculture [12,39,48]. The high surface-to-volume ratio of nano fertilizer enables more active sites to facilitate the metabolic process in plants to produce more photosynthates. Further, nano-sized particles make it more reactive with other compounds and have higher solubility in different solvent suspensions. Further, nano fertilizer increases crop yield by more the 20% and minimizes more than 40% the usage of chemical fertilizer, all while reducing input costs and environmental pollution [81,82]. On the other hand, controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) use coatings like hydrogels or polymers to encapsulate macronutrients and synchronize release with crop demands, increasing yields by 10–20% and reducing volatilization losses. However, because CRFs depend on abiotic variables like temperature and pH, their effectiveness may be limited in variable soils [79]. Bio-organic fertilizers combine organic matter with beneficial microbes to promote soil structure, organic carbon accumulation, and slow nutrient mineralization through decomposition. This results in increased crop productivity along with increased microbial diversity. However, because of their heterogeneous composition, their performance can vary depending on soil moisture and initial organic content [83].
Through nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization, and hormone production, microbial inoculants, which include live strains such as Pseudomonas or Bacillus, can promote plant growth. They provide environmentally friendly remediation of heavy metals and pathogens without a direct nutrient supply, achieving higher yield gains in integrated systems. However, they face survival challenges from environmental stressors, requiring sophisticated formulations like biofilms for stability [80].

6. Genetic Engineering-Based Approaches to Increase Crop Production

To increase sustainable agriculture production, careful management of mineral nutrients is required, and one important step towards increased sustainability is to enhance NPK use efficiency in crops [84]. Uptake, transport, assimilation, and remobilization of nitrogen are governed by several complex genes involved in these processes. Remarkably, a substantial number of transgenic plants with augmented nitrogen use efficiency have been developed in major cereal crops including maize, wheat, and rice [85]. Particularly, advancements in CRISPR/Cas9, a genome-editing tool combined with base-editing technology, offer a great opportunity for improving nutrient use efficiency in plants [86]. It has been successfully deployed in Japonica rice for editing the N transporter gene to increase NUE by expression of NRT1.1B-indica allele [87]. Similarly, Shrawat et al. [88] developed genetically engineered rice by introducing the barley AlaAT gene with OsAnt1, a rice tissue-specific promoter, to develop N-efficient plants. This modification increased grain yield and biomass significantly in comparison with the control when supplied with nitrogen.
Roots are the main site for the uptake of nutrients from soil, and their size and distribution affect the acquisition of soil P by plants. QTL (quantitative trait loci) associated with PUE (phosphorus use efficiency) have been examined in crop plants, and a study suggested that improvement in PUE may be achieved through direct gene identification, marker-assisted programs, and genetic engineering [89]. Overexpression of the β-expansin gene GmEXPB2 promoted root growth and leaf expansion and subsequently resulted in improved P efficiency in soybean transgenic plants. Further, these plants also showed enhancements of 25% and 40% in dry weight and P content, respectively [90]. Mapping QTL at the seedling stage in wheat has been used to detect root traits. It was found that 20 and 19 QTL were identified under P-deficient and P-sufficient conditions, respectively, and were distributed on different chromosomal regions [91]. Overexpression of a bHLH domain-containing TCP transcription factor and low K+ induced AP2/ERF transcription factor in Arabidopsis showed root hair initiation and elongation [92]. Gamuyao et al. [93] reported that the expression of the PSTOL1 gene significantly increased grain yield in rice grown in phosphorus-deficient soil. Further, it enhanced the early root growth and thus allowed plants to obtain more phosphorus.

7. Nutrient-Solubilizing Microbe-Based Approaches

In cereals, plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) provide significant contributions of nitrogen that is sustainable, eco-friendly, and inexpensive. Hence, biological nitrogen fixation is a substitute for conventional nitrogen fertilizers, which are expensive and inaccessible to resource-poor growers [94]. Several researchers have reported the potential of PGPB, including Azotobacter, Bacillus, Azospirillum, and Pseudomonas spp. to promote plant growth and crop yield in different soil types and environments as biofertilizers [95]. Application of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Azospirillum brasilense as biofertilizers in rice plants showed an increase in aerial biomass production, harvest index, and grain yield [96]. Similarly, wheat plants inoculated with Bacillus spp. Stenotrophomonas spp., Acetobacter pasteurianus, and Stenotrophomonas spp. revealed a significant increase in shoot/root length, shoot/root biomass, and nutrient content [97]. In addition, biofertilization with Azospirillum and Azotobacter spp. reduced production costs and increased productivity in wheat and maize [95,98].
Phosphate-solubilizing microbes (PSMs) are also ubiquitously present plant-beneficial microbes, though their population varies from soil to soil. For better utilization of the P stored in soils, PSMs are capable of hydrolyzing insoluble phosphate compounds into soluble P forms. The use of PSMs can be combined with glucose to increase the availability of P from rock phosphate due to the acidification of organic acids produced by microbes [31]. Wang et al. [99] reported that biofertilizers produced by Aspergillus niger were shown to increase P uptake and improve plant yield in Chinese cabbage. Similarly, using A. niger as a biofertilizer significantly increased the growth of pigeon pea and wheat plants under in vitro conditions [100]. Further, the application of PSMs improved the growth, photosynthesis, and nutrient uptake efficiency in Camellia oleifera seedlings. Similarly, PSMs treatment showed a positive effect on the available N, P, and K content of the soil [101]. Sheng and He [102] reported that the inoculation of wheat roots with Bacillus spp. resulted in an upsurge of root exudates and increased both K+ uptake and plant growth upon inoculation. Some other strategies, such as the judicious application of fertilizer at the right time, place, rate, agronomic practice, and nutrient management are essential in modern agriculture for improving long-term sustainability, as well as benefiting farmers and the environment [103].

8. Biological Mechanism of Action

Nano fertilizers signify an innovative concept in modern agriculture that can release basic plant nutrients with exceptional efficiency, slow release kinetics, and minimize environmental losses. The mechanism of action of nano fertilizers is comprehensive, recognizing biological, chemical, and physical relations at the nano-bio interface between the fertilizer particles and plant tissues, soil microbiota, and rhizospheric environments [104]. The significantly greater surface-to-volume ratio of NPs also allows higher solubility, reactivity, and diffusion rates. For instance, zinc oxide NPs, usually used to treat zinc deficiency in wheat and maize, have revealed size-dependent dissolution behavior. Upon application to the soil, nano fertilizers interact with the soil matrix. Clay minerals and organic matter absorb nanoparticles through electrostatic forces, van der Waals interactions, or ligand exchange. Plant uptake mechanisms are similarly complicated and vary depending on plant species, entry route, and nanoparticle type [105,106]. Nano-sized particles can easily enter seeds via the priming process and create nanopore formations, which favor the entry of additional NPs and subsequently emerging roots [38]. Foliar-applied nano fertilizers have been shown to be effective as compared to soil exposure. It has the advantage of being more effective with faster absorption by plants while minimally affecting soil properties. Furthermore, NPs penetrate through natural plant structures like stomata, lenticels, and trichomes. However, applied nano fertilizer should be within the stomata size exclusion limit (5–20 μm) because their subsequent transportation largely depends on particle sizes. Large particles (<200 nm) are mostly transported via apoplast (through the cell wall and smaller particles (<50 nm) are mainly transported via symplast (cell-to-cell, mediated by plasmodesmata) pathways [107] (Figure 3). Further, these NPs can enter plant cells using transport channels, including aquaporin, ion-gated channels, the formation of protein-carrier complexes, and endocytosis (Figure 3). When NPs are taken by plants, a biochemical reaction may occur, resulting in a change in the structure and morphology of the NPs, leading to the release of encapsulated active ingredients. Some studies have revealed that foliar applications can induce the formation of new nanopores in cell walls that also facilitate the further entry of particles into the cell [108]. Similarly, soil-applied nano fertilizers are mainly taken up by plants via a root-mediated process, which also involves both apoplastic and symplastic pathways. NPs translocate down to the roots via the phloem and upwards to other aerial parts through the xylem, whereas vacuoles serve as the main accumulation site. Numerous factors such as humidity, temperature, particle size, and physiological characteristics of plants also affect the absorption, transport, and release of active ingredients and their accumulation [109].

9. Potential Risks and Biosafety Concerns

Although nano fertilizers have the potential to boost crop yields, their application raises safety issues. One of the main safety issues with nano fertilizers is their possible effects on the environment. The metal-based and non-degradable nano fertilizers can build up in soil and water, producing environmentally hazardous compounds that can endanger both the environment and human health [110]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that zinc oxide- and titanium dioxide-based nano fertilizers can be detrimental to both human cells and aquatic life. Furthermore, because nano fertilizers can be absorbed through the skin, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract, they may be toxic and pose health hazards. Likewise, repeated doses and larger concentrations of nano fertilizers may be harmful to plants when they are regularly applied, which would lower the crop yield [111]. Similarly, soil microbiological diversity and soil characteristics may be impacted by the prolonged use of greater dosages of nano fertilizer. Additionally, nano fertilizers from the soil may negatively impact aquatic life by leaking into aquatic habitats, which could result in bioaccumulation and biomagnification within the food chain. Further research is necessary to fully understand the potentially harmful effects of nano fertilizers on the environment and human health [112]. The optimization of foliar applications of nano fertilizers, the standardization of nano-formulations, and the lack of size homogeneity of nano fertilizers are all issues that need further investigation [49].

10. Conclusions and Future Perspective

The development of nano fertilizers offers a clever, effective, and ecologically safe substitute for conventional fertilizers, marking a revolutionary breakthrough in agricultural innovation. Nano fertilizers greatly increase nutrient usage efficiency (NUE) more than 50% when compared to conventional methods, while also reducing losses from leaching, volatilization, and runoff by providing controlled, targeted nutrient delivery through nanoscale encapsulation and improved bioavailability. This reduces the ecological imprint of farming, including lower greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution, while also improving crop yields, soil health, and plant resistance to abiotic stresses like drought and salinity. Due to their improved nutrient use efficiency, controlled release, and targeted delivery, nano fertilizers may result in lower production costs and less fertilizer waste in the field. Because they need less effort, require less fertilizer per application, and have higher absorption rates than traditional fertilizers, nano fertilizers are usually far less expensive than conventional fertilizers. Additionally, because nano fertilizers can stay in the soil for longer, fewer applications and reduced costs are required. Several techniques, including nano-encapsulation and nanoparticles, are being investigated to produce nano fertilizers that deliver nutrients directly to plant cells. Despite the possible advantages, more research is required to establish scalable and economical production techniques, as well as optimize the composition and release rates of nanomaterials. Furthermore, coordinated efforts are required to eliminate existing gaps so they can realize their full potential. Extensive field validations and long-term comprehensive studies on soil microbiomes and risks related to nanotoxicity are necessary to ensure safety and scalability. To make data-driven decisions and adjustments as technology develops, it is imperative to continuously monitor and evaluate the effects of nano fertilizers on crop yields, soil health, and the environment. This will ensure the positive effects of nano fertilizers are maximized while minimizing their negative effects. Nano fertilizers have the potential to start a “nano-bio revolution,” fostering resilient agroecosystems that guarantee future generations have access to food through interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and industrial players. By resolving these issues, farmers everywhere will be able to obtain and afford nano fertilizers, particularly in poor nations where sustainable agriculture and food security are major issues.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and data curation, R.C.C., P.K.S., A.L. and Y.C.J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.C.; writing—review and editing, R.C.C., P.K.S. and A.L.; figure creation, R.C.C., supervision, P.K.S., A.L. and Y.C.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Ram Chandra Choudhary, Pravin Kumar Singh and Yogesh Chandra J. Parmar were employed by the company Nano Biotechnology Research Center (NBRC), Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited. Author Arunachalam Lakshmanan was employed by the company IFFCO Nanoventions Private Limited.

References

  1. Mittal, D.; Kaur, G.; Singh, P.; Yadav, K.; Ali, S.A. Nanoparticle-Based Sustainable Agriculture and Food Science: Recent Advances and Future Outlook. Front. Nanotechnol. 2020, 2, 579954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. John, D.A.; Babu, G.R. Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 644559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jakhar, A.M.; Aziz, I.; Kaleri, A.R.; Hasnain, M.; Haider, G.; Ma, J.; Abideen, Z. Nano-fertilizers: A sustainable technology for improving crop nutrition and food security. NanoImpact 2022, 27, 100411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.P.; Joshi, A.; Tian, D.D.; Rajput, V.D.; Singh, M.; Arora, J.; Minkina, T.; Li, Y.R. Recent Trends in Nano-Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture under Climate Change for Global Food Security. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Usman, M.; Farooq, M.; Wakeel, A.; Nawaz, A.; Alam Cheema, S.A.; Rehman, H.U.; Ashraf, I.; Sanaullah, M. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Current status, challenges and future opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050; UN-FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kah, M.; Kookana, R.S.; Gogos, A.; Bucheli, T.D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, J.; Azam, W. Natural resource scarcity, fossil fuel energy consumption, and total greenhouse gas emissions in top emitting countries. Geosci. Front. 2024, 15, 101757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tan, Z.X.; Lal, R.; Wiebe, K.D. Global soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction. J. Sustain. Agric. 2005, 26, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fróna, D.; Szenderák, J.; Harangi-Rákos, M. The Challenge of Feeding the World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Malik, S.; Muhammad, K.; Waheed, Y. Nanotechnology: A Revolution in Modern Industry. Molecules 2023, 28, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  12. Yadav, N.; Garg, V.K.; Chhillar, A.K.; Rana, J.S. Recent advances in nanotechnology for the improvement of conventional agricultural systems: A Review. Plant Nano Biol. 2023, 4, 100032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Choudhary, R.C.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Engineered chitosan-based nanomaterials: Bioactivities, mechanisms and perspectives in plant protection and growth. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 113, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Altammar, K.A. A review on nanoparticles: Characteristics, synthesis, applications, and challenges. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1155622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Haydar, M.S.; Ghosh, D.; Roy, S. Slow and controlled release nanofertilizers as an efficient tool for sustainable agriculture: Recent understanding and concerns. Plant Nano Biol. 2024, 7, 100058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kalia, A.; Kaur, H. Nanofertilizers: An Innovation towards New Generation Fertilizers for Improved Nutrient-Use Efficacy and Environmental Sustainability. In NanoAgroceuticals & NanoPhytoChemicals; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 45–61. [Google Scholar]
  17. Saharan, V.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Choudhary, R.C.; Kumari, S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Cu-chitosan nanoparticle mediated sustainable approach to enhance seedling growth in maize by mobilizing reserved food. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2016, 64, 6148–6155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Badran, A.; Savin, I. Effect of Nano-Fertilizer on Seed Germination and First Stages of Bitter Almond Seedlings’ Growth Under Saline Conditions. BioNanoScience 2018, 8, 742–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Choudhary, R.C.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Zinc encapsulated chitosan nanoparticle to promote maize crop yield. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 127, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Elemike, E.; Uzoh, I.; Onwudiwe, D.; Babalola, O. The Role of Nanotechnology in the Fortification of Plant Nutrients and Improvement of Crop Production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Deshpande, P.; Dapkekar, A.; Oak, M.D.; Paknikar, K.M.; Rajwade, J.M. Zinc complexed chitosan/TPP nanoparticles: A promising micronutrient nanocarrier suited for foliar application. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 165, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Choudhary, R.C.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Cu-chitosan nanoparticle boosts defense responses and plant growth in maize (Zea mays L.). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ashraf, U.; Zafar, S.; Ghaffar, R.; Sher, A.; Mahmood, S.; Noreen, Z.; Maqbool, M.M.; Saddique, M.; Ashraf, A. Impact of nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer on field crops. In Role of Chitosan and Chitosan-Based Nanomaterials in Plant Sciences; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abdel-Aziz, H.M.M.; Hasaneen, M.N.A.; Aya, M.O. Foliar application of nano chitosan NPK fertilizer improves the yield of wheat plants grown on two different soils. Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. 2018, 14, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  25. IFFCO. Nanofertilizer Trial Results. Available online: https://www.iffco.in/en/nano-fertilisers (accessed on 14 November 2025).
  26. ThePrint. IFFCO Receives FCO Approval for Nano Zinc Liquid, Nano Copper Liquid Fertilisers. Available online: https://theprint.in/economy/iffco-receives-fco-approval-for-nano-zinc-liquid-nano-copper-liquid-fertilisers/2065630/ (accessed on 14 November 2025).
  27. Kofoya, C.M.; Esilfie, M.E.; Asiedu, E.K.; Osei, B.; Amponsah, K.; Atakora, W.; KumahAmenudzi, D.; Nongorh, C.O.; Nartey, G. Influence of NPK (Granule and Briquette) + Urea Fertilizers on Selected Soil Properties, Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.). Open Access Libr. J. 2025, 12, e14168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. FAO. World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2020; UN-FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ali, W.; Nadeem, M.; Ashiq, W.; Zaeem, M.; Gilani, S.S.M.; Rajabi-Khamseh, S.; Pham, T.H.; Kavanagh, V.; Thomas, R.; Cheema, M. The effects of organic and inorganic phosphorus amendments on the biochemical attributes and active microbial population of agriculture podzols following silage corn cultivation in boreal climate. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Gheysari, M.; Mirlatifi, S.M.; Homaee, M.; Asadi, M.E.; Hoogenboom, G. Nitrate leaching in a silage maize field under different irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 946–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Pandey, R. Exploring phosphorus fertilizers and fertilization strategies for improved human and environmental health. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Childers, D.L.; Corman, J.; Edwards, M.; Elser, J.J. Sustainability challenges of phosphorus and food: Solutions from closing the human phosphorus cycle. Bioscience 2011, 61, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wilkinson, P.; Smith, K.R.; Joffe, M.; Haines, A. A global perspective on energy: Health effect sand injustices. Lancet 2007, 370, 965–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ren, N.; Wang, Y.; Ye, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, Y.; Fu, W.; Chu, X. Effects of Continuous Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on the Diversity and Composition of Rhizosphere Soil Bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  35. Swify, S.; Mažeika, R.; Baltrusaitis, J.; Drapanauskaite, D.; Barčauskaitė, K. Review: Modified Urea Fertilizers and Their Effects on Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE). Sustainability 2024, 16, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, H.; Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Wang, L.; Li, G.; Huangfu, C.; Wang, H.; Lai, X.; Li, J.; Yang, D. Elevated precipitation modifies the relationship between plant diversity and soil bacterial diversity under nitrogen deposition in Stipa baicalensis steppe. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 119, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Prasad, R.; Bhattacharyya, A.; Nguyen, Q.D. Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: Recent developments, challenges, and perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kashyap, P.L.; Xiang, X.; Heiden, P. Chitosan nanoparticle-based delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 77, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shakiba, S.; Astete, C.E.; Paudel, S.; Sabliov, C.M.; Rodrigues, D.F.; Louie, S.M. Emerging investigator series: Polymeric nanocarriers for agricultural applications: Synthesis, characterization, and environmental and biological interactions. Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 37–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gade, A.; Ingle, P.; Nimbalkar, U.; Rai, M.; Raut, R.; Vedpathak, M.; Jagtap, P.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A. Nanofertilizers: The next generation of agrochemicals for long-term impact on sustainability in farming systems. Agrochemicals 2023, 2, 257–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garg, D.; Sridhar, K.; Inbaraj, B.S.; Chawla, P.; Tripathi, M.; Sharma, M. Nano-biofertilizer formulations for agriculture: A systematic review on recent advances and prospective applications. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kumar, Y.; Tiwari, K.N.; Singh, T.; Raliya, R. Nanofertilizers and their role in sustainable agriculture. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 2021, 23, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Subramani, T.; Velmurugan, A.; Bommayasamy, N.; Swarnam, T.; Ramakrishna, Y.; Jaisankar, I.; Singh, L. Effect of Nano Urea on growth, yield and nutrient use efficiency of Okra under tropical island ecosystem. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 19, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. IFFCO—Network Project: Progress Report: June 2024. Insights & Field Validation of Nano Fertilizers in Major Crops Under Different Agro Ecosystems. India, 2024, pp 1–10.
  45. Sahoo, B.R.; Dash, A.K.; Mohapatra, K.K.; Mohanty, S.; Sahu, S.G.; Sahoo, B.R.; Prusty, M.; Priyadarshini, E. Strategic management of nanofertilizers for sustainable rice yield, grain quality, and soil health. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1420505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mane, M.S. Product Testing Report of Response of Suru Sugarcane to Nano N, Cu and Zn in Inceptisols (2020-21); MPKV: Rahuri, India, 2021; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  47. Jadav, N.J.; Parmar, J.K. Other Agency Report on Effect of Nanofertilizers on Growth and Yield of Maize and Soil Properties (2019-20 and 2020-21); AAU: Anand, India, 2021; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yadav, A.; Yadav, K.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A. Exploring the potential of nanofertilizers for a sustainable agriculture. Plant Nano Biol. 2023, 5, 100044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Avila-Quezada, G.D.; Ingle, A.P.; Golińska, P.; Rai, M. Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture: Benefits and bottlenecks. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2022, 11, 2123–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kumar, A.; Singh, K.; Verma, P.; Singh, O.; Panwar, A.; Singh, T.; Kumar, Y.; Raliya, R. Effect of nitrogen and zinc nanofertilizer with the organic farming practices on cereal and oil seed crops. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kottegoda, N.; Sandaruwan, C.; Priyadarshana, G.; Siriwardhana, A.; Rathnayake, U.A.; Berugoda Arachchige, D.M.; Kumarasinghe, A.R.; Dahanayake, D.; Karunaratne, V.; Amaratunga, G.A. Urea-Hydroxyapatite Nanohybrids for Slow Release of Nitrogen. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 1214–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sarah, A.E.S.; Algarni, A.A.; Shaban, K.A.H. Effect of NPK Nano-fertilizers and Compost on Soil Fertility and Root Rot Severity of Soybean Plants Caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Plant Pathol. J. 2020, 19, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dhlamini, B.; Paumo, H.K.; Katata-Seru, L.; Kutu, F.R. Sulphate-supplemented NPK nanofertilizer and its effect on maize growth. Mater. Res. Express 2020, 7, 095011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, R.; Lal, R. Synthetic apatite nanoparticles as a phosphorus fertilizer for soybean (Glycine max). Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 5686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dwivedi, S.; Saquib, Q.; Al-Khedhairy, A.A.; Musarrat, J. Understanding the role of nanomaterials in agriculture. In Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity; Singh, D.P., Singh, H.B., Prabha, R., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hagab, R.H.; Kotp, Y.S.; Eissa, D. Using nanotechnology for enhancing phosphorus fertilizer use efficiency in peanut bean grown in sandy soils. J. Adv. Pharm. Educ. Res. 2018, 8, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Madanayake, N.H.; Adassooriya, N.M.; Salim, N. The effect of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles on Raphanus sativus with respect to seedling growth and two plant metabolites. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2021, 15, 100404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miranda-Villagomez, E.; Trejo-Tellez, L.I.; Gomez-Merino, F.C.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Sanchez Garcia, P.; Aguilar-Mendez, M.A. Nanophosphorus Fertilizer Stimulates Growth and Photosynthetic Activity and Improves P Status in Rice. J. Nanomater. 2019, 11, 5368027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sheoran, P.; Goel, S.; Boora, R.; Kumari, S.; Yashveer, S.; Grewal, S. Biogenic synthesis of potassium nanoparticles and their evaluation as a growth promoter in wheat. Plant Gene 2021, 27, 100310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kumari, S.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Choudhary, R.C.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Thymol nanoemulsion exhibits potential antibacterial activity against bacterial pustule disease and growth promotory effect on soybean. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sajadinia, H.; Ghazanfari, D.; Naghavii, K.; Naghavi, H.; Tahamipur, B. A comparison of microwave and ultrasound routes to prepare nano-hydroxyapatite fertilizer improving morphological and physiological properties of maize (Zea mays L.). Heliyon 2021, 7, e06094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Singh, N.R.R.; Sarma, S.S.; Rao, T.N.; Pant, H.; Srikanth, V.V.S.S.; Kumar, R. Cryo-milled nano-DAP for enhanced growth of monocot and dicot plants. Nanoscale Adv. 2021, 3, 4834–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Tarafder, C.; Daizy, M.; Alam, M.M.; Ali, M.R.; Islam, M.J.; Islam, R.; Ahommed, M.S.; Aly, M.A.S.; Khan, M.Z.H. Formulation of a Hybrid Nanofertilizer for Slow and Sustainable Release of Micronutrients. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 23960–23966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yoon, H.Y.; Lee, J.G.; Esposti, L.D.; Iafisco, M.; Kim, P.J.; Shin, S.G.; Jeon, J.R.; Adamiano, A. Synergistic release of crop nutrients and stimulants from hydroxyapatite nanoparticles functionalized with humic substances: Toward a multifunctional nanofertilizer. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 6598–6610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McKnight, M.M.; Qu, Z.; Copeland, J.K.; Guttman, D.S.; Walker, V.K. A practical assessment of nano-phosphates on soybean (Glycine max) growth and microbiome stablishment. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ha, N.M.C.; Nguyen, T.H.; Wang, S.L.; Nguyen, A.D. Preparation of NPK nanofertilizer based on chitosan nanoparticles and its effect on biophysical characteristics and growth of coffee in green house. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2018, 45, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rop, K.; Karuku, G.N.; Mbui, D.; Njomo, N.; Michira, I. Evaluating the effects of formulated nano-NPK slow release fertilizer composite on the performance and yield of maize, kale and capsicum. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2019, 64, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Taşkın, M.B.; Şahin, Ö.; Taskin, H.; Atakol, O.; Inal, A.; Gunes, A. Effect of synthetic nano-hydroxyapatite as an alternative phosphorus source on growth and phosphorus nutrition of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) plant. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 1148–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khalifa, N.S.; Hasaneen, M.N. The effect of chitosan-PMAA-NPK nanofertilizer on Pisum sativum plants. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Davarpanah, S.; Tehranifar, A.; Davarynejad, G.; Aran, M.; Abadía, J.; Khorassani, R. Effects of foliar nano-nitrogen and urea fertilizers on the physical and chemical properties of pomegranate Punica granatum cv. Ardestani fruits. Hortic. Sci. 2017, 52, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zareabyaneh, H.; Bayatvarkeshi, M. Effects of slow-release fertilizers on nitrate leaching, its distribution in soil profile, N-use efficiency, and yield in potato crop. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 74, 3385–3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Al-Juthery, H.W.; Al-Fadhly, J.T.; Ali, E.A.H.M.; Al-Taee, R.A.H.G. Role of some nanofertilizers and atonikin maximizing for production of hydroponically-grown barley fodder. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2019, 15, 565–570. [Google Scholar]
  73. Vanti, G.L.; Nargund, V.B.; Basavesha, K.N.; Vanarchi, R.; Kurjogi, M.; Mulla, S.I.; Tubaki, S.; Patil, R.R. Synthesis of Gossypium hirsutum-derived silver nanoparticles and their antibacterial efficacy against plant pathogens. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2018, 33, e4630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mukherjee, A.; Sun, Y.; Morelius, E.; Tamez, C.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Niu, G.; White, J.C.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Differential Toxicity of Bare and Hybrid ZnO Nanoparticles in Green Pea (Pisum sativum L.): A Life Cycle Study. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Torabian, S.; Zahedi, M.; Khoshgoftar, A.H. Effects of foliar spray of two kinds of zinc oxide on the growth and ion concentration of sunflower cultivars under salt stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Afrayeem, S.M.; Chaurasia, A.K. Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on seed germination and seed vigour in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2017, 6, 1564–1566. [Google Scholar]
  77. Subbaiah, L.V.; Prasad, T.N.; Krishna, T.G.; Sudhakar, P.; Reddy, B.R.; Pradeep, T. Novel Effects of Nanoparticulate Delivery of Zinc on Growth, Productivity, and Zinc Biofortification in Maize (Zea mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 3778–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gehlot, P.; Yadav, J.; Chittora, D.; Meena, S.; Meena, P.; Jain, T. Biofertilizers, Bionanofertilizers and Nanofertilizers: Eco-friendly alternatives for crop production. J. Mycopathol. Res. 2024, 62, 241–259. [Google Scholar]
  79. Morrow, M.; Sharma, V.; Singh, R.K.; Watson, J.A.; Maltais-Landry, G.; Hochmuth, R.C. Impact of Polymer-Coated Controlled-Release Fertilizer on Maize Growth, Production, and Soil Nitrate in Sandy Soils. Agronomy 2025, 15, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Díaz-Rodríguez, A.M.; Parra Cota, F.I.; Cira Chávez, L.A.; García Ortega, L.F.; Estrada Alvarado, M.I.; Santoyo, G.; de los Santos-Villalobos, S. Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agriculture: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions. Plants 2025, 14, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Seleiman, M.F.; Almutairi, K.F.; Alotaibi, M.; Shami, A.; Alhammad, B.A.; Battaglia, M.L. Nano-Fertilization as an Emerging Fertilization Technique: Why Can Modern Agriculture Benefit from Its Use? Plants 2020, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  82. Goyal, A.; Chavan, S.S.; Mohite, R.A.; Shaikh, I.A.; Chendake, Y.; Mohite, D.D. Emerging trends and perspectives on nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture. Discov. Nano 2025, 20, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  83. Syed, S.; Wang, X.; Prasad, T.N.V.K.V.; Lian, B. Bio-Organic Mineral Fertilizer for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. Minerals 2021, 11, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Basavarajappa, P.N.; Shruthi Lingappa, M.; Kadalli, G.G.; Mahadevappa, S.G. Nutrient requirement and use efficiency of rice (Oryza sativa L.) as influenced by graded levels of customized fertilizer. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 2897–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, M.; Xu, J.; Gao, Z.; Tian, H.; Gao, Y.; Kariman, K. Genetically modified crops are superior in their nitrogen use efficiency- a meta-analysis of three major cereals. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Khatodia, S.; Bhatotia, K.; Passricha, N.; Khurana, S.M.; Tuteja, N. The CRISPR/Cas genome-editing tool: Application in improvement of crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yang, B.; Wang, X.; Wei, J.; Lu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, J.; Huang, X.; et al. Base editing with a Cpf1–cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shrawat, A.K.; Carroll, R.T.; DePauw, M.; Taylor, G.J.; Good, A.G. Genetic engineering of improved nitrogen use efficiency in rice by the tissue-specific expression of alanine aminotransferase. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2008, 6, 722–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vance, C.P. Quantitative Trait Loci, Epigenetics, Sugars, and MicroRNAs: Quaternaries in Phosphate Acquisition and Use. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhou, J.; Xie, J.; Liao, H.; Wang, X. Overexpression of β-expansin gene GmEXPB2 improves phosphorus efficiency in soybean. Physiol. Plant. 2013, 150, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Su, J.; Xiao, Y.; Li, M.; Liu, Q.; Li, B.; Tong, Y.; Jia, J.; Li, Z. Mapping QTLs for phosphorus-deficiency tolerance at wheat seedling stage. Plant Soil 2006, 281, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shin, R. Strategies for improving potassium use efficiency in plants. Mol. Cells 2014, 37, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Gamuyao, R.; Chin, J.H.; Pariasca-Tanaka, J.; Pesaresi, P.; Catausan, S.; Dalid, C.; Slamet-Loedin, I.; Tecson-Mendoza, E.M.; Wissuwa, M.; Heuer, S. The protein kinase Pstol1 from traditional rice confers tolerance of phosphorus deficiency. Nature 2012, 488, 535–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Rosenblueth, M.; Ormeno-Orrillo, E.; Lopez-Lopez, A.; Rogel, M.A.; Reyes-Hernandez, B.J.; Martinez-Romero, J.C.; Reddy, P.M.; Martinez-Romero, E. Nitrogen Fixation in Cereals. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Amiri, A.; Rafiee, M. Effect of soil inoculation with Azospirillum and Azotobacter bacteria on nitrogen use efficiency and agronomic characteristics of corn. Ann. Biol. Res. 2013, 4, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
  96. Garcia de Salamone, I.E.; Funes, J.M.; Di Salvo, L.P.; Escobar-Ortega, J.S.; D’Auria, F.; Ferrando, L.; Fernandez-Scavino, A. Inoculation of paddy rice with Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens: Impact of plant genotypes on rhizosphere microbial communities and field crop production. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 61, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Majeed, A.; Abbasi, M.K.; Hameed, S.; Imran, A.; Rahim, N. Isolation and characterization of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on plant growth promotion. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Piccinin, G.G.; Dan, L.G.M.; Braccini, A.L.E.; Mariano, D.C.; Okumura, R.S.; Bazo, G.L.; Ricci, T.T. Agronomic efficiency of Azospirillum brasilense in physiological parameters and yield components in wheat crop. J. Agron. 2011, 10, 132–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Zhal, L.; Zhang, J.; Ren, T.; Fan, B.; Liu, H. Preparation and utilization of phosphate biofertilizers using agricultural waste. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Xiao, C.Q.; Zhang, H.X.; Fang, Y.J.; Chi, R. Evaluation for rock phosphate solubilization in fermentation and soil-plant system using a stress-tolerant phosphate-solubilizing Aspergillus niger WHAK1. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 169, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wu, F.; Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Shi, X.; Li, L.; Liang, J. Effects of Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria on the Growth, Photosynthesis, and Nutrient Uptake of Camellia oleifera Abel. Forests 2019, 10, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sheng, X.F.; He, L.Y. Solubilization of potassium bearing minerals by a wild-type strain of Bacillus edaphicus and its mutants and increased potassium uptake by wheat. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nguyen, G.N.; Kant, S. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in plants: Effective phenotyping in conjunction with agronomic and genetic approaches. Funct. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Goyal, V.; Rani, D.; Ritika Mehrotra, S.; Deng, C.; Wang, Y. Unlocking the Potential of Nano-Enabled Precision Agriculture for Efficient and Sustainable Farming. Plants 2023, 12, 3744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hanif, S.; Javed, R.; Cheema, M.; Kiani, M.Z.; Farooq, S.; Zia, M. Harnessing the potential of zinc oxide nanoparticles and their derivatives as nanofertilizers: Trends and perspectives. Plant Nano Biol. 2024, 10, 100110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhu, J.; Li, J.; Shen, Y.; Liu, S.; Zeng, N.; Zhan, X.; White, J.C.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.; Xing, B. Mechanism of zinc oxide nanoparticle entry into wheat seedling leaves. Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 3901–3913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hong, J.; Wang, C.; Wagner, D.C.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; He, F.; Rico, C.M. Foliar application of nanoparticles: Mechanisms of absorption, transfer, and multiple impacts. Environ. Sci. Nano 2021, 8, 1196–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Natasha Shahid, M.; Farooq, A.B.U.; Rabbani, F.; Khalid, S.; Dumat, C. Risk assessment and biophysiochemical responses of spinach to foliar application of lead oxide nanoparticles: A multivariate analysis. Chemosphere 2020, 245, 125605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Khan, I.; Samrah, A.; Rizwan, M.; Hassan, Z.; Akram, M.; Tariq, R.; Brestic, M.; Xie, W. Nanoparticle’s uptake and translocation mechanisms in plants via seed priming, foliar treatment, and root exposure: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 89823–89833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ekanayake, S.A.; Godakumbura, P.I. Synthesis of a dual-functional nanofertilizer by embedding ZnO and CuO nanoparticles on an alginate-based hydrogel. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 26262–26272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Wu, T.; Tang, M. Review of the effects of manufactured nanoparticles on mammalian target organs. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2018, 38, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Nowack, B.; Bucheli, T.D. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 18 03198 g001
Figure 1. Disadvantages of chemical fertilizer application in the agricultural field.
Figure 1. Disadvantages of chemical fertilizer application in the agricultural field.
Sustainability 18 03198 g001
Sustainability 18 03198 g002
Figure 2. Types (A), mode of application (B), and advantages (C) of nano fertilizer application in the agricultural field.
Figure 2. Types (A), mode of application (B), and advantages (C) of nano fertilizer application in the agricultural field.
Sustainability 18 03198 g002
Sustainability 18 03198 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of nano fertilizers (NFs) uptake, absorption, and translocation: (A) foliar uptake of NFs via stomata, cuticle, trichomes and wounds, (B) apoplastic–symplastic pathways of transport, and (C) several strategies anticipated for internal translocation of NFs in the plant cell.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of nano fertilizers (NFs) uptake, absorption, and translocation: (A) foliar uptake of NFs via stomata, cuticle, trichomes and wounds, (B) apoplastic–symplastic pathways of transport, and (C) several strategies anticipated for internal translocation of NFs in the plant cell.
Sustainability 18 03198 g003
Table 1. List of commercially available nano fertilizer-based products.
Table 1. List of commercially available nano fertilizer-based products.
Name of Nano FertilizerConstituentsName of ManufacturerCountry
Nano urea plusFeaturing a 20% w/v N concentration for plant growth and developmentIndian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.India
Nano DAPFormulated with 8% N w/v and 16% P w/v, offering higher nutrient use efficiency.Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.India
Nano CopperWith 0.8% Cu w/w as a micronutrient-based liquid fertilizer and fungicide that provides a dual-action approach to plant managementIndian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.India
Nano ZincContains 1% Zn w/w, designed for both preventive and curative treatment of zinc deficiencies in various crops and soil typesIndian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.India
Biozar
Nano-Fertilizer		Combination of organic materials, micronutrients, and macromoleculesFanavar Nano-Pazhoohesh Markazi CompanyIran
Master Nano Chitosan OrganicWater-soluble liquid chitosan, organic acid, salicylic acids, and phenolic compoundsPannaraj IntertradeThailand
Green NanoCombination of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Cu, and ZnGreen Organic World Co., Ltd.Thailand
TAG NANO (NPK, PhoS, Zinc,
Cal, etc.) fertilizers		Protein–lacto–gluconate chelated with micronutrients, vitamins, probiotics, seaweed extracts, and humic acidTropical Agrosystem India Pvt Ltd.India
Nano Max NPK FertilizerMultiple organic acids chelated with major nutrients, amino acids, organic carbon, organic micronutrient elements, vitamins, and probioticsJU Agri Sciences Pvt Ltd.India
Nano GreenExtracts of corn, grain, soybeans, potatoes, coconut, and palmNano Green Sciences, Inc.India
Nano fertilizer (EcoStar)Organic matter, N, K, C, and N Humic + Amino Acid + Fulvic Acid + Atonic + Natural Brassino + Seaweed (Plant Energizer, Flowering Stimulant, and Yield Booster)Shan Maw Myae Trading Co., Ltd.India
PPC NanoM protein, 19.6%; Na2O, 0.3%; K2O, 2.1%; (NH4)2SO4, 1.7%; and diluent, 76%WAI International
Development Co., Ltd.		Malaysia
Magic GreenCombination of Ca, Mg, Si, K, Na, P, Fe, Al, S, Ba, Mn, and ZnAC International Network Co., Ltd.Germany
Nano-Ag AnswerRMicroorganisms, sea kelp, and mineral electrolytesUrth AgricultureMonterey, CA, USA
Nano ultra-fertilizerOrganic matter, N, P, K, P, K, and MgSMTET Eco-technologies Co., Ltd.Taiwan
Hero super nanoCombination of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and SWorld Connect Plus Myanmar Co., Ltd.Thailand
Nano CapsuleN, 0.5%; P2O5, 0.7%; K2O, 3.9%; Ca, 2.0%; Mg, 0.2%; S, 0.8%; Fe, 2.0%; Mn, 0.004%; Cu, 0.007%; and Zn, 0.004%The Best International Network Co., Ltd.Thailand
Hibong biological fulvic acidNano fertilizer with humic acid. Chitosan oligosaccharides ≥ 30 g/L, N ≥ 46 g/L, P2O5 ≥ 21 g/L, K2O ≥ 62 g/L, organic matter: 130 g/LUrth AgricultureMonterey, CA, USA
NanoPack®Sulfur, copper, iron, manganese, and zincAqua-Yield®Sandy, UT, USA
Selenium colloid [Se]–universal antioxidantSelenium colloid 99.9%Land Green & Technology Co., Ltd.Taiwan
Nano-GroTMPlant growth regulator and immunity enhancerAgro Nanotechnology Corp.FL, USA
Seaweed nano-organic carbon fertilizerNPK: 2–3–3, seaweed extract ≥ 5%, organic matter: 35%, humic acid ≥ 5%, amino acid ≥ 5%Qingdao Hibong Fertilizer Co., Ltd.China
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Choudhary, R.C.; Singh, P.K.; Parmar, Y.C.J.; Lakshmanan, A. Novel Developments in Nano Fertilizer for Sustainable Crop Production to Promote Global Food Security. Sustainability 2026, 18, 3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073198

AMA Style

Choudhary RC, Singh PK, Parmar YCJ, Lakshmanan A. Novel Developments in Nano Fertilizer for Sustainable Crop Production to Promote Global Food Security. Sustainability. 2026; 18(7):3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073198

Chicago/Turabian Style

Choudhary, Ram Chandra, Pravin Kumar Singh, Yogesh Chandra J. Parmar, and Arunachalam Lakshmanan. 2026. "Novel Developments in Nano Fertilizer for Sustainable Crop Production to Promote Global Food Security" Sustainability 18, no. 7: 3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073198

APA Style

Choudhary, R. C., Singh, P. K., Parmar, Y. C. J., & Lakshmanan, A. (2026). Novel Developments in Nano Fertilizer for Sustainable Crop Production to Promote Global Food Security. Sustainability, 18(7), 3198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073198

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop