Next Article in Journal
QTL Mapping of Adult Plant Resistance to Wheat Leaf Rust in the Xinong1163-4×Thatcher RIL Population
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Antioxidative Enzymes and Transcriptomic Analysis in Response to Foliar Application of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Salinity Stress in Solanum lycopersicum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy15071716
agronomy-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

Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

by
Eric G. Echeverría-Pérez
1,
Vianii Cruz-López
1,
Rosario Herrera-Rivera
2,
Mario J. Romellón-Cerino
3,
Jesusita Rosas-Diaz
1 and
Heriberto Cruz-Martínez
1,*
1
Tecnológico Nacional de México/IT del Valle de Etla, Abasolo S/N, Barrio del Agua Buena, Santiago Suchilquitongo 68230, Oaxaca, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, San Nicolas de los Garza 66451, Nuevo León, Mexico
3
Tecnologico Nacional de México/IT de Villahermosa, Carretera Villahermosa-Frontera Km. 3.5, Ciudad Industrial Villahermosa 86010, Tabasco, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(7), 1716; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071716
Submission received: 13 June 2025 / Revised: 4 July 2025 / Accepted: 10 July 2025 / Published: 16 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Nanotechnology in Agricultural Food Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Tomatoes are a fundamental part of the daily diet, rich in carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, and polyphenols. Nonetheless, optimal fruit yield and quality typically depend on the application of synthetic agrochemicals. However, the irrational use of these agrochemicals has caused various environmental problems. Therefore, it is necessary to develop alternatives to conventional agrochemical products. Applying nanomaterials as fertilizers in tomato production is emerging as a promising approach, with documented improvements in germination, vegetative development, and fruit yield. Therefore, we present a comprehensive review of recent developments (2015–2024) in the application of nanomaterials in tomato crops, with a particular emphasis on the significance of nanomaterial characteristics in their role as fertilizers. Several types of nanomaterials, such as ZnO, Ag, TiO2, Si, hydroxyapatite, P, Zn, Se, CuO, Cu, Fe, Fe2O3, CaO, CaCO3, and S, have been evaluated as fertilizers for tomato crops, with ZnO nanoparticles being the most extensively studied. However, it is pertinent to conduct further research on the less-explored nanomaterials to gain a deeper understanding of their effects on seed germination, plant growth, and fruit quality and quantity.

1. Introduction

Ending hunger, achieving food security, and promoting sustainable agriculture are sustainable development goals [1]. In this regard, conventional agrochemicals are widely used due to their ability to improve yield and fruit quality and protect against pests and diseases [2,3]. However, the irrational use of these agrochemicals has caused various environmental problems [4,5]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop different alternatives to conventional agrochemical products. In this direction, nanomaterials have gained relevance as an alternative for various applications [6,7,8,9,10], highlighting their applications in agriculture, such as nanopesticides, nanofertilizers, nanoherbicides, nanofungicides, and nanobactericides [11,12,13,14,15].
To date, nanomaterials have been extensively applied in different crops of economic importance [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Among the crops on which nanomaterials were applied, the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) can be highlighted. This crop is a fundamental part of the daily diet, rich in carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, and polyphenols. These nutrients enhance its health benefits and contribute to its high nutritional value. It is considered the second most important vegetable in the world, only after the potato, with world production in 2023 of 192 million tons with an annual turnover of about USD 2 billion, with China being the leading producer of this vegetable in the world, which allows satisfying the current demand for tomato within the population [23,24,25].
The application of nanofertilizers in tomato crops has demonstrated significant benefits for germination, growth, and yield. During the germination phase, nanofertilizers can enhance the germination percentage and speed by facilitating the availability of nutrients and stimulating essential enzymes. In the vegetative stage, they promote more vigorous growth due to their high absorption efficiency, which enhances root and leaf development as well as photosynthesis. During the reproductive stage, an increase in fruit quantity and quality has been observed, resulting in improvements in weight, size, and nutritional content. Therefore, nanofertilizers represent a promising alternative more sustainably and efficiently than conventional fertilizers [26,27,28,29].
Interestingly, numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of nanofertilizers for increasing the growth and production of tomato crops. Consequently, there are various review articles regarding applications of nanoparticles to improve the germination, growth, and production of tomato crops. However, most of these review articles do not fully explore the use of nanomaterials as fertilizers for tomato crops [26,27,28,29]. Interestingly, a review article on all possible applications of nanomaterials in tomato crops was recently published [29]. However, the review does not detail the role of nanoparticle characteristics in its performance. Therefore, we present a detailed review of the last 10 years (2015–2024) of developments in the use of nanomaterials as fertilizers in tomato crops, paying special attention to the nanoparticle characteristics in fertilization (Figure 1), as it is widely known that these characteristics have essential roles in its effectiveness. This study specifically examines the effects of nanofertilizers on seed germination, plant growth, and yield in tomato crops.

2. Nanofertilizers in Tomato Crop

2.1. Seed Germination

Nanomaterials have the potential to improve seed germination due to their unique characteristics. It has been documented that these materials can enhance seed germination by upregulating aquaporin genes, facilitating the uptake of water, nutrients, reactive oxygen species through the seed coat, and promoting the α amylase enzyme secretion from aleurone cells, as presented in Figure 2 [30]. Numerous studies focused on the use of nanomaterials to enhance tomato seed germination [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Table 1 lists the different types of nanomaterials evaluated on seed germination, showing that ZnO nanoparticles are the most explored, followed by Ag and TiO2. The primary methods for synthesizing these nanoparticles are chemical and green routes, as both are easy to use (Table 1). For green synthesis, the different plant extracts used to obtain these nanoparticles are detailed in Table 1. Furthermore, many commercial nanoparticles have been evaluated in tomato seed germination (Table 1).
It has been documented that nanoparticle concentrations can significantly influence tomato seed germination [59,60]. In this direction, most studies have focused on the effect of nanoparticle concentrations on tomato germination parameters [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58], demonstrating that nanoparticle concentrations have a determining role in germination properties. Several studies have shown that low nanoparticle concentrations promote seed germination (Table 1), while high concentrations can negatively affect germination.
As aforementioned, nanomaterial characteristics can play an essential role in seed germination. So far, most synthesized and commercial nanoparticles evaluated on seed germination have spherical shapes (Table 1); this may be because this shape is easier to obtain. In terms of size, they are polydisperse, which prevents a detailed analysis of the effect of nanoparticle size on seed germination. Therefore, detailed studies using nanoparticles with well-controlled sizes are essential to understand the impact of particle size on tomato seed germination. Interestingly, some studies have analyzed the impact of different nanoparticle sizes on germination [39,42,52]. For instance, two sizes (<50 and <100 nm) of commercial ZnO nanoparticles were evaluated on the seed germination of three cultivars (Maskotka, Granit, and Malinowy Bossman) at three concentrations (50, 150, and 250 ppm) [39]. For cultivars Maskotka and Granit, the germination percentage was higher with <50 nm nanoparticles at 150 and 250 ppm concentrations than with <100 nm nanoparticles, whereas at a concentration of 50 ppm, the germination percentage was higher with <100 nm nanoparticles than <50 nm nanoparticles. For cultivar Malinowy Bossman, at concentrations of 50 and 150 ppm, the germination percentage was higher with <50 nm nanoparticles than with <100 nm nanoparticles. At a concentration of 250 ppm, both sizes of nanoparticles present a similar germination percentage [39]. In another study, two sizes (8–11 and 70–100 nm) of commercial Si nanoparticles were evaluated on seed germination at four concentrations (10, 100, 1000, and 2000 ppm) [52]. At 10, 100, and 2000 ppm concentrations, larger Si nanoparticles had a lower mean germination time than small Si nanoparticles, while at 1000 ppm, an opposite behavior was observed. These studies show the role of nanoparticle size in seed germination [38,42,52]. However, further studies in this direction are needed.

2.2. Plant Growth and Development

The unique characteristics of nanomaterials allow them to be used as plant nutrients with a high absorption rate and greater utilization efficiency, resulting in minimal losses. Therefore, they showed promise as an option for enhancing plant nutrient uptake [61,62,63,64]. The interaction between nanoparticles and plant systems is a complex process involving absorption, uptake, and translocation, key mechanisms that determine the bioefficacy of nanoparticles in agricultural applications. Depending on the application method, nanoparticles can enter the plant through the roots, leaves, or stems (Figure 3). Due to their characteristics, nanoparticles can traverse various plant barriers and channels once they are inside the plant system. Their uptake by roots occurs through mechanisms similar to those used for nutrient absorption, involving the movement of these elements from the soil into the root cells. From there, nanoparticles can be translocated to other parts of the plant via the xylem. This movement is primarily driven by the plant’s transpiration stream, enabling the distribution of nanoparticles to the stem and leaves [63,64], due to their high absorption efficiency, which enhances root and leaf development as well as photosynthesis.
The impact that these nanofertilizers can have on tomato plant growth depends on several factors, such as the characteristics of the nanoparticles, the variety of tomato crops, the application times and doses of the nanoparticles, the application methods, and the stage of crop development [29]. Figure 4 highlights the main evaluated benefits that nanomaterial applications achieved in agriculture. Also, nanoparticles have been shown to modulate key signaling cascades, including the reactive oxygen species-mediated pathways, mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling, and hormone-regulated gene networks [63,64]. Due to these benefits, numerous nanomaterials have been reported on tomato plant growth [31,34,35,41,46,54,57,58,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Among the various nanomaterials studied as fertilizers for tomato growth (Table 2), ZnO nanoparticles stand out as the most evaluated. The most used methods for obtaining these nanomaterials are chemical and green synthesis (Table 2). However, numerous commercial nanoparticles have been evaluated on tomato plant growth.
The concentration and characteristics of nanomaterials play a crucial role in the growth of tomato plants. Consequently, as in the case of seed germination, all studies developed have explored the effects of nanomaterial concentrations on tomato crop growth, providing evidence that nanomaterial concentrations have a determining role in plant growth properties. Most studies have demonstrated that nanoparticles at low concentrations promote plant growth (Table 2). However, it has also been reported that high concentrations can negatively affect tomato plant growth (Table 2). Therefore, it is essential to conduct in-depth studies on the effects of high concentrations of nanomaterials on the growth parameters of tomato plants, using findings from previous research as a reference (Table 2). When it comes to the characteristics of nanomaterials, the synthesized and commercial materials evaluated on tomato plant growth are mainly spherical (Table 2). Regarding their size, they are polydisperse, which prevents a detailed analysis of the effect of nanoparticle size on plant growth characteristics. Therefore, to accurately evaluate the impact of size nanoparticles on crop growth, it is essential to conduct studies using more uniform nanomaterial sizes. It is also crucial to conduct detailed studies on how other characteristics of nanoparticles (see Figure 1) affect tomato plant growth, as these factors play a critical role in their effectiveness as fertilizers. For instance, the solubility of nanoparticles determines the release and availability of nutrients for plants. Nanoparticles with adequate solubility enable controlled release and enhanced root uptake, while high nanoparticle stability prevents agglomeration, enables controlled nutrient release, and promotes efficient transport through soil and plant tissues.

2.3. Fruit Quantity and Quality

The quantity and quality of tomato fruits are relevant aspects of successful crop production. A higher yield per plant increases profitability and production efficiency, while superior quality enhances consumer acceptance and reduces post-harvest losses. Nanofertilizers play a vital role in improving the quality and quantity of tomato fruits. They supply essential nutrients that support plant growth, flowering, and fruit development. An appropriate supply of nutrients promotes yield and improves flavor, size, color, and shelf life, enhancing market value [26,27,28,29]. In addition, in tomato crops, the application of nanofertilizers has shown to enhance the concentration of bioactive compounds, particularly lycopene, an antioxidant known for its health benefits. This increase not only boosts the nutritional value of the tomatoes but also enhances their market appeal, especially in regions where functional foods are in high demand. Finally, nanofertilizers can improve post-harvest quality by increasing fruit firmness, extending shelf life, and preserving flavor. This provides a competitive advantage for producers, enabling the transport of products to distant markets without compromising quality [26,27,28,29]. Given the significant impact of nanofertilizers on the quality and yield of tomato crops, numerous studies have investigated the role of nanofertilizers in enhancing tomato fruit quality and production [31,36,54,65,66,67,68,70,71,73,74,75,76,78,79,80]. Several types of nanoparticles have been studied to evaluate their effects on the quality and yield of tomato fruits, with ZnO nanoparticles being the most extensively researched [31,36,65,66,67,68,70,71].
In 2019, the foliar application effects of ZnO nanoparticles on fruit numbers and fruit yield of tomatoes in various concentrations (10, 50, 100, and 200 ppm) were investigated [66]. The plants treated with these nanoparticles had higher fruit numbers and yield at harvest. Furthermore, at a concentration of 50 ppm, the number of fruits per plant and the yield significantly increased compared to the control. In another study, the application effects of ZnO nanoparticles on the number of fruits and fruit yield of tomatoes were evaluated at various concentrations (10, 50, and 100) [67]. The plants treated with ZnO nanoparticles had higher fruit numbers and yield at harvest. Recently, ZnO (500–600 nm) and CaO (5–10 nm) nanoparticles were synthesized using Nigella seed extract and evaluated as nanofertilizers for tomato crops [70]. ZnO nanoparticles (200 ppm)-treated plants exhibited the highest amount of phenolics in fruits (77.72 µg g−1), while the lowest amount (49.44 µg g−1) was obtained in ZnO + CaO nanoparticles (200 + 200 ppm). More recently, the application effects of ZnO nanoparticles on the yield and quality parameters of tomatoes in various concentrations (75, 100, and 125 ppm) were investigated [71]. A significant improvement in production parameters (fruit length, fruit diameter, individual fruit weight, number of fruits per plant, yield per plant, and fruit yield) was observed due to the nanoparticle applications, obtaining the best production parameters at a concentration of 100 ppm. Also, the total soluble solids, fruit firmness, and titratable acidity of tomatoes were significantly influenced by nanoparticle applications.
In addition to ZnO nanoparticles, other nanoparticles have been evaluated, such as Cu [54,74,75,76,80], TiO2 [31,73], CaO [70], CaCO3 [78], Fe [54], Zn [54], S [79], and Se [74]. For instance, the effect of the foliar application of Cu nanoparticles (50 nm) at various concentrations (50, 125, 250, and 500 ppm) was evaluated on tomato fruits [80]. Concerning the control, fruit firmness and electrical conductivity increased in plants treated with Cu nanoparticles. In addition, the application of Cu nanoparticles resulted in a higher accumulation of bioactive compounds in tomato fruits. In another study, the application effects of CaCO3 (60–180 nm) nanoparticles produced by green synthesis (Hyphaene thebaica fruit extract) on the quantity and quality of tomato fruits were studied in various concentrations (50, 150, and 250 ppm) [78]. It was observed that the cultivars and nanoparticle concentrations have determining roles on tomato fruits (weight, diameter, and number) and flowers (number of flowers and number of days to flowering). These studies highlight the role of nanomaterials in enhancing tomato fruit production and quality. However, further investigations are needed into other types of nanoparticles, as current studies have predominantly focused on ZnO, leaving many others underexplored.

3. Conclusions and Future Directions

This manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of recent advancements in using nanomaterials to promote seed germination, boost plant growth, and enhance fruit quality. Significant progress has been made in using nanomaterials to accelerate seed germination, enhance plant growth, and improve the fruit quality of tomato crops. Studies conducted to date demonstrate that these nanomaterials can be an excellent alternative to synthetic fertilizers. Based on the findings discussed, the following conclusions and recommendations for future research are proposed:
Several types of nanoparticles, such as ZnO and Ag, TiO2, Si, hydroxyapatite, P, Zn, Se, CuO, Cu, Fe, Fe2O3, CaO, CaCO3, and S have been evaluated as fertilizers for tomato crops, with ZnO nanoparticles being the most extensively studied. However, it is pertinent to conduct further research on the less-explored nanoparticles to gain a deeper understanding of their effects on seed germination, plant growth, and fruit quality and quantity.
Various concentrations of nanomaterials have been evaluated in terms of seed germination, crop growth, and fruit production, indicating that concentration plays a significant role in the effectiveness of nanomaterials. However, some studies have reported that high concentrations of nanomaterials can negatively impact tomato yield. Therefore, further in-depth research is needed to better understand the effects of elevated nanomaterial concentrations on crop development.
The effectiveness of nanomaterials as fertilizers is significantly influenced by the tomato crop variety and the application method, as documented in several studies reviewed here. However, there is a clear need for more detailed research to better understand how these factors affect the performance of nanoparticles as fertilizers.
Nanomaterials used as fertilizers for tomato crops have been primarily synthesized through chemical and green methods, although many commercially available nanomaterials have also been evaluated. However, it is relevant to develop production methods that enable the large-scale synthesis of nanomaterials and are easy to replicate, such as high-energy ball milling.
Although numerous nanomaterials have been evaluated in seed germination and tomato crop growth, many studies lack essential information on fundamental nanoparticle characteristics, such as shape and size, resulting in irreproducible assays. Future research should include a detailed characterization of the nanomaterials using well-established protocols in materials science to enable meaningful comparisons across studies.
Only size and shape have been partially analyzed among the nanoparticle characteristics that can influence the seed germination, growth, and production of tomato crops. Therefore, it is essential to conduct further studies to investigate the remaining characteristics, as they may significantly influence the effectiveness of nanoparticles as fertilizers.
Nanomaterials may pose environmental and public health risks, as they can affect non-target organisms or accumulate in fruits, potentially leading to consumer ingestion. Therefore, assessing their potential environmental and public health impact should be evaluated before their widespread use in agriculture, with a special emphasis on the accumulation of nanoparticles in tomato fruits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G.E.-P., V.C.-L., and R.H.-R.; formal analysis, E.G.E.-P., R.H.-R., M.J.R.-C., and J.R.-D.; investigation, M.J.R.-C., J.R.-D., and H.C.-M.; data curation, E.G.E.-P., R.H.-R., M.J.R.-C., and J.R.-D.; writing—original draft preparation, V.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; writing—review and editing, V.C.-L. and H.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Tecnológico Nacional de México.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sustainable Development Goals—Goal 2. End Hunger, Achieve Food Security and Improved Nutrition and Promote Sustainable Agriculture. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2 (accessed on 2 March 2025).
  2. Vejan, P.; Khadiran, T.; Abdullah, R.; Ahmad, N. Controlled Release Fertilizer: A Review on Developments, Applications and Potential in Agriculture. J. Control. Release 2021, 339, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Duan, Q.; Jiang, S.; Chen, F.; Li, Z.; Ma, L.; Song, Y.; Yu, X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Yu, L. Fabrication, Evaluation Methodologies and Models of Slow-Release Fertilizers: A Review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 192, 116075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Savci, S. Investigation of Effect of Chemical Fertilizers on Environment. APCBEE Procedia 2012, 1, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rahman, K.; Zhang, D. Effects of Fertilizer Broadcasting on the Excessive Use of Inorganic Fertilizers and Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Franco-Luján, V.A.; Montejo-Alvaro, F.; Ramírez-Arellanes, S.; Cruz-Martínez, H.; Medina, D.I. Nanomaterial-Reinforced Portland-Cement-Based Materials: A Review. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Santos, C.S.C.; Gabriel, B.; Blanchy, M.; Menes, O.; García, D.; Blanco, M.; Arconada, N.; Neto, V. Industrial Applications of Nanoparticles—A Prospective Overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2015, 2, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cruz-Martínez, H.; Rojas-Chávez, H.; Matadamas-Ortiz, P.T.; Ortiz-Herrera, J.C.; López-Chávez, E.; Solorza-Feria, O.; Medina, D.I. Current Progress of Pt-Based ORR Electrocatalysts for PEMFCs: An Integrated View Combining Theory and Experiment. Mater. Today Phys. 2021, 19, 100406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yan, Y.; Warren, S.C.; Fuller, P.; Grzybowski, B.A. Chemoelectronic Circuits Based on Metal Nanoparticles. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2016, 11, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Cruz-Martínez, H.; Rojas-Chávez, H.; Montejo-Alvaro, F.; Peña-Castañeda, Y.A.; Matadamas-Ortiz, P.T.; Medina, D.I. Recent Developments in Graphene-Based Toxic Gas Sensors: A Theoretical Overview. Sensors 2021, 21, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cruz-Luna, A.R.; Cruz-Martínez, H.; Vásquez-López, A.; Medina, D.I. Metal nanoparticles as novel antifungal agents for sustainable agriculture: Current advances and future directions. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kaningini, A.G.; Nelwamondo, A.M.; Azizi, S.; Maaza, M.; Mohale, K.C. Metal Nanoparticles in Agriculture: A Review of Possible Use. Coatings 2022, 12, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Singh, R.P.; Handa, R.; Manchanda, G. Nanoparticles in Sustainable Agriculture: An Emerging Opportunity. J. Control. Release 2021, 329, 1234–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vargas-Hernandez, M.; Macias-Bobadilla, I.; Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G.; Rico-Garcia, E.; Ocampo-Velazquez, R.V.; Avila-Juarez, L.; Torres-Pacheco, I. Nanoparticles as Potential Antivirals in Agriculture. Agriculture 2020, 10, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hazarika, A.; Yadav, M.; Yadav, D.K.; Yadav, H.S. An Overview of the Role of Nanoparticles in Sustainable Agriculture. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 43, 102399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Raigond, P.; Raigond, B.; Kaundal, B.; Singh, B.; Joshi, A.; Dutt, S. Effect of Zinc Nanoparticles on Antioxidative System of Potato Plants. J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 38, 435–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mahmoud, A.W.M.; Abdeldaym, E.A.; Abdelaziz, S.M.; El-Sawy, M.B.I.; Mottaleb, S.A. Synergetic Effects of Zinc, Boron, Silicon, and Zeolite Nanoparticles on Confer Tolerance in Potato Plants Subjected to Salinity. Agronomy 2019, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vanti, G.L.; Masaphy, S.; Kurjogi, M.; Chakrasali, S.; Nargund, V.B. Synthesis and Application of Chitosan-Copper Nanoparticles on Damping off Causing Plant Pathogenic Fungi. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 156, 1387–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cruz-Luna, A.R.; Vásquez-López, A.; Rojas-Chávez, H.; Valdés-Madrigal, M.A.; Cruz-Martínez, H.; Medina, D. Engineered metal oxide nanoparticles as fungicides for plant disease control. Plants 2023, 12, 2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bondok, A.E.T.; Saad-Allah, K.M. Enhancing Growth, Yield, and Forage Quality of Two Teosinte Genotypes Through NPK Nano-Fertilizer Application. J. Soil Plant Environ. 2024, 3, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hayat, F.; Khanum, F.; Li, J.; Iqbal, S.; Khan, U.; Javed, H.U.; Razzaq, M.K.; Altaf, M.A.; Peng, Y.; Ma, X.; et al. Nanoparticles and Their Potential Role in Plant Adaptation to Abiotic Stress in Horticultural Crops: A Review. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 321, 112285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Morales-Espinoza, M.C.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Pérez-Alvarez, M.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; De La Fuente, M.C.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Valdés-Reyna, J.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Se Nanoparticles Induce Changes in the Growth, Antioxidant Responses, and Fruit Quality of Tomato Developed under NaCl Stress. Molecules 2019, 24, 3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Collins, E.J.; Bowyer, C.; Tsouza, A.; Chopra, M. Tomatoes: An Extensive Review of the Associated Health Impacts of Tomatoes and Factors That Can Affect Their Cultivation. Biology 2022, 11, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, Y.; Sun, C.; Ye, Z.; Li, C.; Huang, S.; Lin, T. The genomic route to tomato breeding: Past, present, and future. Plant Physiol. 2024, 195, 2500–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ling, K.-S.; Gilliard, A.C.; Zia, B. Disinfectants Useful to Manage the Emerging Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus in Greenhouse Tomato Production. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahmed, R.; Samad, M.Y.A.; Uddin, K.; Quddus, A.; Hossain, M.A.M. Recent Trends in the Foliar Spraying of Zinc Nutrient and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles in Tomato Production. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Qayyum, M.F.; Ok, Y.S.; Adrees, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Farid, M.; Abbas, F. Effect of Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Growth and Physiology of Globally Important Food Crops: A Critical Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 322, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Khan, S.; Wang, A.; Liu, J.; Khan, I.; Sadiq, S.; Khan, A.; Humayun, M.; Khan, A.; Abumousa, R.A.; Bououdina, M. Bio-Inspired Green Nanomaterials for Tomato Plant Cultivation: An Innovative Approach of Green Nanotechnology in Agriculture. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2024, 20, 100677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shweta; Sood, S. A Review on Nanotechnological Advancements in Tomato: A Model Plant. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 98, 563–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ghosh, S.K.; Bera, T. Molecular mechanism of nano-fertilizer in plant growth and development: A recent account. In Advances in Nano-Fertilizers and Nano-Pesticides in Agriculture; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 535–560. [Google Scholar]
  31. Raliya, R.; Nair, R.; Chavalmane, S.; Wang, W.-N.; Biswas, P. Mechanistic Evaluation of Translocation and Physiological Impact of Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Plant. Metallomics 2015, 7, 1584–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Das, B.; Debnath, K.; Sarkar, K.K.; Priya, B.; Mukherjee, S. Effect of Different Nanoparticles on Germination and Seedling Growth in Tomato. Res. Crops 2015, 16, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tamilkumar, P.; Sivaji, M.; Vinoth, R.; Kumar, S.S.; Natarajen, N. Customizing zinc oxide nanoparticles for extending seed vigour and viability in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, A.; Singh, N.B.; Hussain, I.; Singh, H.; Yadav, V.; Singh, S.C. Green Synthesis of Nano Zinc Oxide and Evaluation of Its Impact on Germination and Metabolic Activity of Solanum lycopersicum. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 233, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Amooaghaie, R.; Norouzi, M.; Saeri, M. Impact of Zinc and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on the Physiological and Biochemical Processes in Tomato and Wheat. Botany 2017, 95, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Khanm, H.; Vaishnavi, B.A.; Namratha, M.R.; Shankar, A.G. Nano Zinc Oxide Boosting Growth and Yield in Tomato: The Rise of “Nano Fertilizer Era”. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Res. 2017, 7, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Basith, M.A.; Rao, K.P.; Ramteke, P.W. Phyto-toxic effect of Zinc Oxide nanoparticles on seed germination in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Plant Arch. 2018, 18, 1791–1794. [Google Scholar]
  38. Asmat-Campos, D.; López-Medina, E.; De Oca-Vásquez, G.M.; Gil-Rivero, E.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Juárez-Cortijo, L.; Villena-Zapata, L.; Gurreonero-Fernández, J.; Rafael-Amaya, R. ZnO Nanoparticles Obtained by Green Synthesis as an Alternative to Improve the Germination Characteristics of L. esculentum. Molecules 2022, 27, 2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Włodarczyk, K.; Smolińska, B. The Effect of Nano-ZnO on Seeds Germination Parameters of Different Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars. Molecules 2022, 27, 4963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Emam, S.; Farroh, K.; Hamaad, R. Effect of Hydroxyapatite and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on the Germination of Some Seeds. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. F Toxicol. Pest Control 2022, 14, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rehman, F.U.; Paker, N.P.; Khan, M.; Zainab, N.; Ali, N.; Munis, M.F.H.; Iftikhar, M.; Chaudhary, H.J. Assessment of Application of ZnO Nanoparticles on Physiological Profile, Root Architecture and Antioxidant Potential of Solanum lycopersicum. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2023, 53, 102874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. De Francisco, M.; Mira, S.; Durães, L.; Romeiro, A.; Álvarez-Torrellas, S.; Almendros, P. Zn Oxide Nanoparticles and Fine Particles: Synthesis, Characterization and Evaluation of the Toxic Effect on Germination and Vigour of Solanum licopersicum L. Agronomy 2024, 14, 980. Agronomy 2024, 14, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mehrian, S.K.; Heidari, R.; Rahmani, F.; Najafi, S. Effect of Chemical Synthesis Silver Nanoparticles on Germination Indices and Seedlings Growth in Seven Varieties of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill (Tomato) Plants. J. Clust. Sci. 2016, 27, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tymoszuk, A. Silver Nanoparticles Effects on In Vitro Germination, Growth, and Biochemical Activity of Tomato, Radish, and Kale Seedlings. Materials 2021, 14, 5340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sonawane, H.; Arya, S.; Math, S.; Shelke, D. Myco-Synthesized Silver and Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles as Seed Priming Agents to Promote Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Solanum lycopersicum: A Comparative Study. Int. Nano Lett. 2021, 11, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Salih, A.M.; Qahtan, A.A.; Al-Qurainy, F.; Al-Munqedhi, B.M. Impact of Biogenic Ag-Containing Nanoparticles on Germination Rate, Growth, Physiological, Biochemical Parameters, and Antioxidants System of Tomato (Solanum tuberosum L.) In Vitro. Processes 2022, 10, 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Méndez-Andrade, R.; Ruiz-Torres, N.A.; Wang, Y.; García-Cerdac, L.A.; Reyes, I.V. Enhanced Tomato Seed Germination and Seedling Growth Through Oxidative Stress Using Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles. Terra Latinoam. 2024, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rutkowski, M.; Krzemińska-Fiedorowicz, L.; Khachatryan, G.; Bulski, K.; Kołton, A.; Khachatryan, K. Biodegradable Silver Nanoparticles Gel and Its Impact on Tomato Seed Germination Rate in In Vitro Cultures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Acosta-Slane, D.; González-Franco, A.C.; Hérnandez-Huerta, J.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Reyes-Herrera, J.; Sánchez-Chávez, E.; Valles-Aragón, M.C. Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) Effect on Germination and Morphological Parameters in Alfalfa, Tomato, and Pepper. Not. Bot. Hortic. Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2024, 52, 13634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yagiz, A.K.; Caliskan, M.E. Effects of TiO2 nano-priming on tomato seed germination and plant development. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2024, 34, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, M.M.; De Silva, D.M.; Peralta, E.; Fajardo, A.; Peralta, M. Effects of nanosilica powder from rice hull ash on seed germination of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Philipp. e-J. Appl. Res. Dev. 2015, 5, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sembada, A.A.; Maki, S.; Faizal, A.; Fukuhara, T.; Suzuki, T.; Lenggoro, I.W. The Role of Silica Nanoparticles in Promoting the Germination of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Seeds. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Marchiol, L.; Filippi, A.; Adamiano, A.; Degli Esposti, L.; Iafisco, M.; Mattiello, A.; Petrussa, E.; Braidot, E. Influence of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles on Germination and Plant Metabolism of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.): Preliminary Evidence. Agronomy 2019, 9, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhao, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Lu, J. Influence of Seed Coating with Copper, Iron and Zinc Nanoparticles on Growth and Yield of Tomato. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 15, 674–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. García-Locascio, E.; Valenzuela, E.I.; Cervantes-Avilés, P. Impact of Seed Priming with Selenium Nanoparticles on Germination and Seedlings Growth of Tomato. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Solanki, B.; Khan, M.S. Phytotoxic impact of copper oxide nanoparticles fabricated from rose petals (Rosa indica) on germination, biological growth, and phytochemicals of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). S. Afr. J. Bot. 2024, 172, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shankramma, K.; Yallappa, S.; Shivanna, M.B.; Manjanna, J. Fe2O3 Magnetic Nanoparticles to Enhance S. lycopersicum (Tomato) Plant Growth and Their Biomineralization. Appl. Nanosci. 2016, 6, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Yang, X.; Wang, L.; Yang, J.; Yan, X.; Rinklebe, J. In vivo phytotoxic effect of yttrium-oxide nanoparticles on the growth, uptake and translocation of tomato seedlings (Lycopersicon esculentum). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 242, 113939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gomathi, A.; Krishna, K.R.; Pravin, I.A.; Rameshkumar, A.; Thondaiman, V.; Srivignesh, S. Application of nanoparticles in agriculture and vegetable seed germination. J. Innov. Agric. 2024, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Agarwal, S.; Kumari, S.; Sharma, N.; Khan, S. Impact of nano-glass (NG) particles on seed germination and it’s accumulation in plant parts of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Heliyon 2022, 8, e11161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Fatima, F.; Hashim, A.; Anees, S. Efficacy of Nanoparticles as Nanofertilizer Production: A Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1292–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ayenew, B.M.; Satheesh, N.; Zegeye, Z.B.; Kassie, D.A. A Review on the production of nanofertilizers and its application in agriculture. Heliyon 2025, 11, e41243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Haq, I.U.; Cai, X.; Ali, H.; Akhtar, M.R.; Ghafar, M.A.; Hyder, M.; Hou, Y. Interactions Between Nanoparticles and Tomato Plants: Influencing Host Physiology and the Tomato Leafminer’s Molecular Response. Nanomaterials 2024, 14, 1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rani, S.; Kumari, N.; Sharma, V. Uptake, translocation, transformation and physiological effects of nanoparticles in plants. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2023, 69, 1579–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. El-Raie, A.; Hassan, H.E.; Abd El-Rahman, A.A.; Arafat, A.A. Response of tomato plants to different rates of zinc nanoparticles spraying as foliar fertilization. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 2015, 32, 1277–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Faizan, M.; Hayat, S. Effect of foliar spray of ZnO-NPs on the physiological parameters and antioxidant systems of Lycopersicon esculentum. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2019, 34, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  67. Faizan, M.; Faraz, A.; Hayat, S.; Bhat, J.A.; Yu, F. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Epibrassinolide Enhanced Growth of Tomato via Modulating Antioxidant Activity and Photosynthetic Performance. BIOCELL 2021, 45, 1081–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pejam, F.; Ardebili, Z.O.; Ladan-Moghadam, A.; Danaee, E. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Mediated Substantial Physiological and Molecular Changes in Tomato. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Azim, Z.; Singh, N.B.; Khare, S.; Singh, A.; Amist, N.; Niharika; Yadav, R.K. Green Synthesis of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Using Vernonia cinerea Leaf Extract and Evaluation as Nano-Nutrient on the Growth and Development of Tomato Seedling. Plant Nano Biol. 2022, 2, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Farooq, A.; Javad, S.; Jabeen, K.; Shah, A.A.; Ahmad, A.; Shah, A.N.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Mosa, W.F.A.; Abbas, A. Effect of Calcium Oxide, Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Their Combined Treatments on Growth and Yield Attributes of Solanum lycopersicum L. J. King Saud Univ.—Sci. 2023, 35, 102647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ahmed, R.; Uddin, K.; Quddus, A.; Samad, M.Y.A.; Hossain, M.A.M.; Haque, A.N.A. Impact of Foliar Application of Zinc and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on Growth, Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Quality of Tomato. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Guzmán-Báez, G.A.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Ramírez-Olvera, S.M.; Salinas-Ruíz, J.; Bello-Bello, J.J.; Alcántar-González, G.; Hidalgo-Contreras, J.V.; Gómez-Merino, F.C. Silver Nanoparticles Increase Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Concentrations in Leaves and Stimulate Root Length and Number of Roots in Tomato Seedlings in a Hormetic Manner. Dose-Response 2021, 19, 15593258211044576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Choi, H.G. Effect of TiO2 Nanoparticles on the Yield and Photophysiological Responses of Cherry Tomatoes during the Rainy Season. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Saffan, M.M.; Koriem, M.A.; El-Henawy, A.; El-Mahdy, S.; El-Ramady, H.; Elbehiry, F.; Omara, A.E.-D.; Bayoumi, Y.; Badgar, K.; Prokisch, J. Sustainable Production of Tomato Plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) under Low-Quality Irrigation Water as Affected by Bio-Nanofertilizers of Selenium and Copper. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Juarez-Maldonado, A.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Pérez-Labrada, F.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Benavides-Mendoza, A. Cu Nanoparticles Absorbed on Chitosan Hydrogels Positively Alter Morphological, Production, and Quality Characteristics of Tomato. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2016, 89, 183–189. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hernández, H.H.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Cu Nanoparticles in chitosan-PVA hydrogels as promoters of growth, productivity and fruit quality in tomato. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 573–580. [Google Scholar]
  77. Raiesi-Ardali, T.; Ma′mani, L.; Chorom, M.; Moezzi, A. Improved Iron Use Efficiency in Tomato Using Organically Coated Iron Oxide Nanoparticles as Efficient Bioavailable Fe Sources. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2022, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Motlhalamme, T.; Mohamed, H.; Kaningini, A.G.; More, G.K.; Thema, F.T.; Mohale, K.C.; Maaza, M. Bio-Synthesized Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) Nanoparticles: Their Anti-Fungal Properties and Application as Nanofertilizer on Lycopersicon Esculentum Growth and Gas Exchange Measurements. Plant Nano Biol. 2023, 6, 100050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salem, N.M.; Albanna, L.S.; Awwad, A.M. Green Synthesis of Sulfur Nanoparticles Using Punica Granatum Peels and the Effects on the Growth of Tomato by Foliar Spray Applications. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2016, 6, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. López-Vargas, E.R.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; de Alba Romenus, K.; de la Fuente, M.C.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Foliar application of copper nanoparticles increases the fruit quality and the content of bioactive compounds in tomatoes. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 01716 g001
Figure 1. The most common characteristics of nanomaterials that can influence seed germination, growth, and production of tomato crops.
Figure 1. The most common characteristics of nanomaterials that can influence seed germination, growth, and production of tomato crops.
Agronomy 15 01716 g001
Agronomy 15 01716 g002
Figure 2. The role of nanomaterials on seed germination.
Figure 2. The role of nanomaterials on seed germination.
Agronomy 15 01716 g002
Agronomy 15 01716 g003
Figure 3. Uptake and translocation of nanoparticles in tomato plants.
Figure 3. Uptake and translocation of nanoparticles in tomato plants.
Agronomy 15 01716 g003
Agronomy 15 01716 g004
Figure 4. The main benefits of applying nanomaterials on tomato plants.
Figure 4. The main benefits of applying nanomaterials on tomato plants.
Agronomy 15 01716 g004
Table 1. Nanomaterials used to enhance tomato seed germination.
Table 1. Nanomaterials used to enhance tomato seed germination.
MaterialsSynthesis MethodsSize (nm)ShapeConcentrations
(ppm)		EvidenceRef.
ZnOChemical synthesis (Sol–gel) 28 ± 0.7Hexagonal and nearly spherical10, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000The seed germination was not affected by these nanoparticles up to concentrations of 750 ppm.[31]
ZnOCommercial~10-60Spherical 2, 4, 8, 10, 14The germination percentage was higher than control for the concentrations ≤ 10 ppm.[32]
ZnOChemical synthesis (Hydrothermal)-Rods400, 600, 800, 1000In fresh seeds, the germination percentage was higher than control for all concentrations.[33]
ZnOCommercial15Spherical50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600The seed germination and root tolerance index of tomato were not altered at 50 ppm; however, decreased at doses higher than 50 ppm of these nanoparticles.[35]
ZnOCommercial--100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000Seed treated with 400 ppm recorded significant germination (93.33%).[36]
ZnOCommercial<100 nm 250, 500, 750The germination properties were not affected up to the concentration of 250 ppm. However, concentrations higher than 250 ppm showed toxicity.[37]
ZnOGreen synthesis
(Coriandrum sativum leaf)		30Spherical21.35, 33.58, 49.15, 63.59, 99.08Concentrations close to 100 ppm of these nanoparticles are suitable for the treatment of tomato seeds, due to the promotion of enzymatic and metabolic activity to achieve cell elongation. [38]
ZnOCommercial<50-50, 150, 250In general, the mean germination time was favored due to the presence of nanoparticles.[39]
ZnOCommercial<100 nm-50, 150, 250The mean germination time was affected for all nanoparticle concentrations.[39]
ZnOChemical synthesis (Precipitation)20–32 nmSpherical10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500All seeds treated with ZnO nanoparticles inhibited root growth and decreased shoot length compared to untreated ones.[40]
ZnOGreen synthesis
(Picea smithiana extract)		31Hexagonal25, 50, 75, 100The application of these nanoparticles increased the germination rate of tomato seeds. The rate of germination was high for 75 ppm. However, a small reduction in gemmation was observed at 100 ppm. For the germination time, at 0 (control), 25, 50, and 1000 concentrations, the germination started on the 7th day, but at a concentration of 75 ppm, the germination was observed on the 6th day.[41]
ZnOChemical synthesis (Co-precipitation)91-1400, 2800, 5600, 11200The germination percentage was affected for the concentrations.[42]
ZnOChemical synthesis (Co-precipitation)104-1400, 2800, 5600, 11200The germination percentage was affected for the concentrations.[42]
AgChemical synthesis (Chemical reduction)50Spherical25, 50, 75, 100The germination percentage significantly decreased for Super stone and Super strain B varieties at 75 and 100 ppm. Germination percentage did not change significantly for the other varieties.[43]
AgCommercial20 ± 3Spherical50, 100After three weeks, the germination percentage did not show a significant difference due to the application of nanoparticles.[44]
AgGreen synthesis
(Tricoderma citrinoviride colonies)		5–100spherical25, 50, 100, 200, 400An increase in germination percentage was observed when seeds were exposed to low concentrations (25 ppm) of nanoparticles compared to the control.[45]
AgGreen synthesis
(Juniperus procera
Seeds)		100spherical2.5, 5, 10, 25An increase in germination rate was observed when seeds were exposed to the nanoparticles compared to the control.[46]
AgGreen synthesis
(Larrea tridentata leaves)		4–26Hemispherical4.03, 6.72, 18.66, 51.84, 86.4 The germination percentage was increased for all treatments compared with control.[47]
Gel with AgGreen synthesis5–20Spherical15, 30, 75 The germination rate was higher than control for all concentrations.[48]
TiO2Chemical synthesis (Hydrothermal) 25 ± 0.64Cubic10, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000The seed germination was not affected by the nanoparticles up to concentrations of 750 ppm.[31]
TiO2Commercial<100Spherical10, 20, 30, 40, 50The germination percentage was higher than control for all concentrations.[32]
TiO2Green synthesis
(Tricoderma citrinoviride colonies)		10–400Different shapes25, 50, 100, 200, 400An increase in germination percentage was observed when seeds were exposed to low concentrations of nanoparticles (25–100 ppm) compared to the control.[45]
TiO2Commercial--450, 900, 1800The germination percentage was increased for all treatments compared with control.[49]
TiO2Commercial<100Spherical5, 10, 50, 100The germination percentage was slightly increased for all treatments compared with control.[50]
SiProduced from Rice hull ash40Spherical1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000The germination percentage increased in seeds treated with nanoparticles compared to control. The mean germination time decreased for seeds treated with nanoparticles compared to those without treatment. [51]
SiCommercial8–11Spherical10, 100, 1000, 2000The mean germination time decreased for seeds treated with nanoparticles compared to those without treatment.[52]
SiCommercial70–100Spherical10, 100, 1000, 2000The mean germination time decreased for seeds treated with nanoparticles compared to those without treatment.[52]
HydroxipatiteChemical synthesis (Precipitation)30–55 of lengthNeedle10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500All seeds treated with these nanoparticles inhibited root growth and decreased shoot length compared to untreated ones.[40]
HydroxipatiteChemical synthesis (Precipitation)35–45Plate-like2, 20, 200, 500, 1000, 2000The germination percentage did not show a significant difference due to the application of nanoparticles.[53]
PCommercial28.2Spherical10, 20, 30, 40, 50The germination percentage was higher than control for all concentrations.[32]
ZnCommercial25Spherical50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600The seed germination and root tolerance index of the tomato were not altered at 50 ppm, however, they decreased at doses higher than 50 ppm of these nanoparticles.[35]
ZnPhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)54.0 ± 2.8Spherical 3.01 × 10−4, 3.01 × 10−3The germination percentage of tomato seeds was not significantly impacted by metal nanoparticles[54]
SeCommercial63.3 ± 8.1 of lengthIrregular1, 10, 50The germination rate was higher than control for all concentrations.[55]
CuOGreen synthesis
(Rose petals)		38.8 ± 7.5Spherical0.125, 0.25,
0.5, 1 *		The germination percentage decreased for seeds treated with nanoparticles compared to those without treatment.[56]
CuPhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)79.0 ± 1.24Spherical 1.27 × 10−7, 1.27 × 10−6The germination percentage of tomato seeds was not significantly impacted by metal nanoparticles.[54]
FePhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)27.0 ± 0.51Spherical1.01 × 10−3, 1.01 × 10−2The germination percentage of tomato seeds was not significantly impacted by metal nanoparticles.[54]
Fe2O3Commercial<10Spherical50, 100, 200, 400, 800The seed germination was higher than control for all concentrations.[57]
Y2O3Commercial20–30Spherical1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100It is demonstrated that a high concentration of nanoparticles led to a delay in the germination of tomato seeds but did not significantly affect the germination rate of tomato seeds after 7 days.[58]
* mg of nanofertilizer per g of soil, - To indicate that the value was not found in the manuscript.
Table 2. Nanomaterials used to enhance tomato seed tomato growth.
Table 2. Nanomaterials used to enhance tomato seed tomato growth.
MaterialsSynthesis MethodsApplication MethodSize (nm)ShapeConcentrations
(ppm)		EvidenceRef.
ZnOChemical synthesis (Sol–gel) Soil and foliar28 ± 0.7Hexagonal and nearly spherical10, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000A higher plant height was observed for nanoparticle-treated plants up to 750 ppm compared to the control. Treated plants showed higher numbers of flowers than control.[31]
ZnOCommercialHydroponic system15Spherical50, 100, 200, 400At 50 ppm of nanoparticles, the fresh and dry mass of tomato shoots were not affected, but those of the roots were noticeably reduced. However, as the concentration increased (within the range of 100–400 ppm), the fresh and dry mass of the shoots and roots of the tomato declined sharply.[35]
ZnOGreen synthesis (Picea smithiana extract)-31Hexagonal25, 50, 75, 100At 75 ppm of concentration, the shoot and root length increased with respect to control. However, a higher concentration had a negative impact on rootlet growth. The chlorophyll significantly increased compared with control.[41]
ZnOCommercialFoliar--10, 50, 100, 200Plants treated with nanoparticles showed an increased growth, which was positively correlated with the concentrations of nanoparticles applied, up to a certain level. The maximum increase in shoot length, shoot fresh mass, shoot dry mass, root length, root fresh mass, root dry mass and leaf area was recorded in the plants treated with 50 ppm of nanoparticles.[66]
ZnOCommercialFoliar--10, 50, 100The growth (shoot and root length, fresh and dry weight, and leaf area) of the tomato plants was increased by the foliar application.[67]
ZnOCommercialFoliar10-30-3Nanoparticles significantly increased shoot height and shoot fresh biomass, and root fresh mass, compared to the control. Also, nanoparticles accelerated entry into the reproductive phase compared to the control. [68]
ZnOGreen synthesis (Vernonia cinerea leaf extract) --irregular1, 50, 100Seedling root and shoot length, and number of leaves per plant were significantly improved at 50 ppm of nanoparticles compared to the control.[69]
ZnOGreen synthesis (Nigella seed extract)Foliar500–600-50, 100, 200The growth parameters (shoot length, root length, number of roots, and fresh plant weight) were higher at concentrations of 200 ppm than at 50 and 100 ppm.[70]
ZnOChemical synthesis (Precipitation)Foliar<100-75, 100, 125The plant height, number of primary branches per plant, and leaf area were significantly influenced by the application of nanoparticles. Also, the application of 100 ppm of nanoparticles had the best growth parameters.[71]
AgGreen synthesis
(Juniperus procera Seeds)		Murashige and Skoog Media100spherical 2.5, 5, 10, 25The growth parameters (stem length, stem fresh weight, root length, and root fresh weight) had significant effect due to the application of nanoparticles.[46]
AgCommercial 35 ± 15Spherical5, 10, 20The growth parameters (root length and number) increased due to the application of nanoparticles. Contrarily, plant height decreased as the concentration of nanoparticles increased.[72]
TiO2Chemical synthesis
(Hydrothermal) 		Soil and foliar25 ± 0.64Cubic10, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000A higher plant height was observed for nanoparticle-treated plants up to 500 ppm compared to the control.[31]
TiO2-Foliar--100, 200An effect of nanoparticle concentration on photosynthetic parameters was observed.[73]
CuPhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)Coating79.0 ± 1.24-1.27 × 10−7, 1.27 × 10−6The internode length decreased at high concentration of nanoparticles compared with control.[54]
CuGreen synthesisSoil350–500-100The chlorophyll content increased due to the use of nanoparticles.[74]
Cu-SeGreen synthesisSoil--100The chlorophyll content increased due to the use of nanoparticles.[74]
Cu-chitosan-Soil--0.03, 0.015, 0.006, 0.003, 0.0015Significant differences were observed in plant height, stem diameter, dry weight of the shoots and stomatal conductance due to the application of nanoparticles. However, the variables number of leaves, number of clusters, shoot fresh weight, fresh weight of leaves, and fresh weight of stems did not differ.[75]
Cu-chitosan-polyvinyl alcoholCommercialSoil25Spherical0.02, 0.2, 2, 10At 10 ppm of nanoparticles resulted in significant differences compared with the control, increasing the stem diameter, fresh root weight and the number of floral clusters per plant.[76]
ZnCommercialHydroponic system25Spherical50, 100, 200, 400At 50 ppm of nanoparticles, the fresh and dry mass of tomato shoots were not affected, but those of the roots were noticeably reduced. However, as the concentration increased (within the range of 100–400 ppm), the fresh and dry mass of the shoots and roots of the tomato declined sharply.[35]
ZnPhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)Coating54.0 ± 2.8-3.01 × 10−4, 3.01 × 10−3The internode length increased at low concentration of nanoparticles.[54]
SeGreen synthesisSoil100–300 100The chlorophyll content increased due to the use of nanoparticles.[74]
Fe2O3CommercialSoil<10Spherical50, 100, 200, 400, 800A favorable effect was observed on shoot and root lengths due to the application of nanoparticles. [57]
Fe3O4Chemical synthesis (Co-precipitation)Soil14Spherical25, 50, 75, 100, 200 *At a concentration of 50 mg kg−1, the fresh shoot biomass increased by 34% compared to control.[77]
CaOGreen synthesis (Nigella seed extract)Foliar5–10-50, 100, 200The growth parameters (shoot length, root length, number of roots, fresh plant weight) were higher at concentrations of 200 ppm than at 50 and 100 ppm.[70]
CaCO3Green synthesis (Hyphaene thebaica fruit extract)Foliar60–180Spherical50, 150, 250The money-maker and Heinz-1370 cultivars exhibited the highest plant height with an application of 150 ppm at week 8. Money-maker plants sprayed with 250 ppm had the highest number of leaves at week 8 and Heinz-1370 plants sprayed with 150 ppm showed the best performance at week 8.[78]
FePhysical synthesis (Flow-levitation)Coating27.0 ± 0.51-1.01 × 10−3, 1.01 × 10−2Seed coating with nanoparticles increased the internode length.[54]
Y2O3CommercialHydroponic system20–30Spherical1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100The chlorophyll content did not show a significant difference at low concentrations (1 and 5 ppm) of nanoparticles compared with control. However, at higher concentrations of nanoparticles, the chlorophyll content was reduced by 25.3% (20 ppm), 34.2% (50 ppm) and 46.1% (100 ppm) compared to the control group.[58]
SGreen synthesis (Punica granatum peel extract)Foliar10–40Spherical100, 200, 300The plant height and root increased with increasing sulfur nanoparticles up to 200 ppm and then decreased with 300 ppm.[79]
ZnO-CaOGreen synthesis (Nigella seed extract)Foliar--50, 100, 200Combined nanoparticles were found more effective in increasing the growth parameters compared to the sole application of each nano-nutrient. The leaf area and fresh weight were significantly enhanced compared with control.[70]
* mg of nanofertilizer per Kg of soil, - To indicate that the value was not found in the manuscript.
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

Echeverría-Pérez, E.G.; Cruz-López, V.; Herrera-Rivera, R.; Romellón-Cerino, M.J.; Rosas-Diaz, J.; Cruz-Martínez, H. Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Agronomy 2025, 15, 1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071716

AMA Style

Echeverría-Pérez EG, Cruz-López V, Herrera-Rivera R, Romellón-Cerino MJ, Rosas-Diaz J, Cruz-Martínez H. Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Agronomy. 2025; 15(7):1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071716

Chicago/Turabian Style

Echeverría-Pérez, Eric G., Vianii Cruz-López, Rosario Herrera-Rivera, Mario J. Romellón-Cerino, Jesusita Rosas-Diaz, and Heriberto Cruz-Martínez. 2025. "Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)" Agronomy 15, no. 7: 1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071716

APA Style

Echeverría-Pérez, E. G., Cruz-López, V., Herrera-Rivera, R., Romellón-Cerino, M. J., Rosas-Diaz, J., & Cruz-Martínez, H. (2025). Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Agronomy, 15(7), 1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071716

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