Growth-Time-Controlled CuO Nanoflower Electrodes for H2O2 Sensing and Assessment of MgO Nanoparticle-Mediated Drought Stress Mitigation in Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale)
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Hydrothermal Synthesis of CuO
2.3. MgO Nanoparticle Synthesis
2.4. Electrochemical Measurements
2.5. Plant Growth Conditions and Sample Preparation
2.6. Optical Measurements
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
| Oat, Weight % | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elements | Control | MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | Drought | Drought MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | Drought MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 |
| C | 52.09 | 51.20 | 50.60 | 48.99 | 51.48 | 54.81 |
| O | 38.88 | 39.26 | 38.31 | 39.60 | 39.06 | 36.09 |
| Na | 1.15 | − | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.26 | − |
| Mg | 0.35 | 1.21 | 1.48 | 1.38 | 1.49 | 0.37 |
| Si | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.27 | − | 0.10 | − |
| P | 1.27 | 1.40 | 1.69 | 1.19 | 1.67 | 1.55 |
| S | 0.84 | 1.45 | 2.32 | 1.42 | 0.62 | 1.13 |
| Cl | 0.51 | − | − | 0.12 | 0.52 | 0.43 |
| K | 3.95 | 3.79 | 3.65 | 6.11 | 4.08 | 4.46 |
| Ca | 0.68 | 1.37 | 1.38 | 0.83 | 0.58 | 1.00 |
| Cu | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.16 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Rye, Weight % | ||||||
| C | 51.13 | 50.20 | 51.40 | 49.69 | 50.78 | 52.41 |
| O | 39.5 | 40.39 | 39.31 | 40.20 | 39.26 | 37.09 |
| Na | 1.25 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 1.34 |
| Mg | 0.98 | 1.42 | 1.12 | 1.35 | 1.09 | 0.87 |
| Si | 0.14 | − | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.20 |
| P | 0.88 | 1.18 | 1.52 | 1.34 | 1.58 | 1.55 |
| S | 0.84 | 1.25 | 1.32 | 1.12 | 0.61 | 1.13 |
| Cl | 0.51 | 0.12 | − | 0.22 | 0.82 | 0.43 |
| K | 3.95 | 2.79 | 3.78 | 4.11 | 4.08 | 4.40 |
| Ca | 0.57 | 1.37 | 0.78 | 1.12 | 0.58 | 0.22 |
| Cu | 0.25 | 0.98 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.44 | 0.36 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
References
- Seleiman, M.F.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; Ali, N.; Akmal, M.; Alotaibi, M.; Refay, Y.; Dindaroglu, T.; Abdul-Wajid, H.H.; Battaglia, M.L. Drought Stress Impacts on Plants and Different Approaches to Alleviate Its Adverse Effects. Plants 2021, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dong, M.; Luo, H.; Wang, Q. Effects of Water Stress on Growth and Leaf Water Physiology of Major Plants in the Qaidam Basin. Diversity 2025, 17, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Yin, Y.; Yang, M.; Zhang, S.; Niu, Z.; Wu, L.; Chen, C. Effects of Drought Stress on the Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Idesia polycarpa Maxim. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, M.; Hong, C.; Jiao, Y.; Hou, S.; Gao, H. Impacts of Drought on Photosynthesis in Major Food Crops and the Related Mechanisms of Plant Responses to Drought. Plants 2024, 13, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurnaeimah, N.; Mat, N.; Suryati Mohd, K.; Badaluddin, N.A.; Yusoff, N.; Sajili, M.H.; Mahmud, K.; Mohd Adnan, A.F.; Khandaker, M.M. The Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide on Plant Growth, Mineral Accumulation, as Well as Biological and Chemical Properties of Ficus deltoidea. Agronomy 2020, 10, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asaeda, T.; Rahman, M.; Liping, X.; Schoelynck, J. Hydrogen Peroxide Variation Patterns as Abiotic Stress Responses of Egeria densa. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 855477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qureshi, M.K.; Gawroński, P.; Munir, S.; Jindal, S.; Kerchev, P. Hydrogen peroxide-induced stress acclimation in plants. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2022, 79, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Černý, M.; Habánová, H.; Berka, M.; Luklová, M.; Brzobohatý, B. Hydrogen Peroxide: Its Role in Plant Biology and Crosstalk with Signalling Networks. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, M.J.; Duan, M.; Zhou, C.; Jiao, J.; Cheng, P.; Yang, L.; Wei, W.; Shen, Q.; Ji, P.; Yang, Y.; et al. Antioxidant Defense System in Plants: Reactive Oxygen Species Production, Signaling, and Scavenging During Abiotic Stress-Induced Oxidative Damage. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, T.A.; Yusuf, M.; Fariduddin, Q. Hydrogen peroxide in regulation of plant metabolism: Signalling and its effect under abiotic stress. Photosynthetica 2018, 56, 1237–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anjum, N.A.; Gill, S.S.; Corpas, F.J.; Ortega-Villasante, C.; Hernandez, L.E.; Tuteja, N.; Sofo, A.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Fujita, M. Editorial: Recent Insights Into the Double Role of Hydrogen Peroxide in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 843274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-C.; Lo, Y.-R.; Lin, Y.-C.; Shi, Y.-C.; Li, P.-L. A Spectrometric Method for Hydrogen Peroxide Concentration Measurement with a Reusable and Cost-Efficient Sensor. Sensors 2015, 15, 25716–25729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, M.; Hao, J.; Wu, C.; Shi, S.; Ma, Z.; Ren, X.; Han, F.; Wu, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, B. A Self-Assembled Fluorescent Probe for H2O2 Detection in NAFLD Diagnosis. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2025, 23, 7962–7968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, K.; Yao, T.; Xue, J.; Guo, Y.; Xu, X. A Novel Fluorescent Probe for the Detection of Hydrogen Peroxide. Biosensors 2023, 13, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teniou, A.; Madi, I.A.; Mouhoub, R.; Marty, J.L.; Rhouati, A. One-Step Chemiluminescent Assay for Hydrogen Peroxide Analysis in Water. Chemosensors 2023, 11, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, C.W.; Kubendhiran, S.; Sison, G.; Hsu, H.P. Monitoring hydrogen peroxide using an electrochemical method during Metal Assisted Chemical Etching for Silicon. Silicon 2022, 14, 5673–5681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manibalan, G.; Murugadoss, G.; Krishnamoorthy, D.; Dharuman, V.; Gouse Peera, S. Sensitive and Selective Electrochemical Detection of Hydrogen Peroxide Using a Silver-Incorporated CeO2/Ag2O Nanocomposite. Biosensors 2025, 15, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramaniyan, N.G.; Perumal, P. Highly efficient electrochemical detection of H2O2 utilizing an innovative copper porphyrinic nanosheet decorated bismuth metal–organic framework modified electrode. Anal. Methods 2024, 16, 624–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, G.; Ahmad, A.; Singh, I. Recent progress in nanomaterial-based electrochemical biosensors for hydrogen peroxide detection & their biological applications. Talanta 2025, 286, 127447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doménech-Carbó, A.; Cervelló-Bulls, P.; González, J.M.; Soriano, P.; Estrelles, E.; Montoya, N. Electrochemical monitoring of ROS influence on seedlings and germination response to salinity stress of three species of the tribe inuleae. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 17856–17867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akter, S.; Khan, M.S.; Smith, E.N.; Flashman, E. Measuring ROS and redox markers in plant cells. RSC Chem. Biol. 2021, 2, 1384–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yassin, M.A.; Abou-Hadid, A.F.; Mousa, H.M.; Park, C.H.; Kim, C.S.; Salem, A.; Mattar, M.A. Enzymeless electrochemical detection of hydrogen peroxide using NiO octahedron decorated 3D graphene hydrogel. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 28293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernández, L.; Alvarez-Paguay, J.; González, G.; Uribe, R.; Bolaños-Mendez, D.; Piñeiros, J.L.; Celi, L.; Espinoza-Montero, P.J. Electrochemical Sensor for Hydrogen Peroxide Based on Prussian Blue Electrochemically Deposited at the TiO2-ZrO2–Doped Carbon Nanotube Glassy Carbon-Modified Electrode. Front. Chem. 2022, 10, 884050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silwana, B.; Matoetoe, M. Heterostructure of Metal Oxides Integrated on a GCE for Estimation of H2O2 Capacity in Milk and Fruit Juice Samples. Electrochem 2023, 4, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeniji, T.M.; Stine, K.J. Nanostructure Modified Electrodes for Electrochemical Detection of Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Coatings 2023, 13, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trujillo, R.M.; Barraza, D.E.; Zamora, M.L.; Cattani-Scholz, A.; Madrid, R.E. Nanostructures in Hydrogen Peroxide Sensing. Sensors 2021, 21, 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mashhadian, A.; Jian, R.; Tian, S.; Wu, S.; Xiong, G. An Overview of Electrochemical Sensors Based on Transition Metal Carbides and Oxides: Synthesis and Applications. Micromachines 2024, 15, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, K.; Seo, J.-W.; Kesler, V.; Maganzini, N.; Wilson, B.D.; Eisenstein, M.; Murmann, B.; Soh, H.T. Accelerated Electron Transfer in Nanostructured Electrodes Improves the Sensitivity of Electrochemical Biosensors. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2102495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes-De-Corcuera, J.I.; Olstad, H.E.; García-Torres, R. Stability and Stabilization of Enzyme Biosensors: The Key to Successful Application and Commercialization. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 9, 293–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lete, C.; Spinciu, A.-M.; Alexandru, M.-G.; Calderon Moreno, J.; Leau, S.-A.; Marin, M.; Visinescu, D. Copper(II) Oxide Nanoparticles Embedded within a PEDOT Matrix for Hydrogen Peroxide Electrochemical Sensing. Sensors 2022, 22, 8252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, R.; Kunwar, S.; Mandavkar, R.; Jeong, J.-H.; Lee, J. Hydrogen Peroxide Detection by Super-Porous Hybrid CuO/Pt NP Platform: Improved Sensitivity and Selectivity. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niharika, M.P.; Manmadha, R.B. Low cost detection of H2O2 in blood for oxidative stress monitoring using anodized CuO nanostructures. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2025, 172, 037505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Zhang, K.; Xu, D.; Yang, G.; Huang, H.; Nie, F.; Liu, C.; Yang, S. CuO nanostructures: Synthesis, characterization, growth mechanisms, fundamental properties, and applications. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2014, 60, 208–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pishkar, P.; Sheibani, S.; Sillanpää, M. A review of morphological studies on CuO nanostructures: Comparative analysis of synthesis methods and predictions by machine learning. Emergent Mater. 2025, 8, 7043–7078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.A.; Nayan, N.; Shadiullah; Ahmad, M.K.; Fhong, S.C.; Tahir, M.; Mohamed Ali, R.A.; Mohamed Ali, M.S. Advanced Nanoscale Surface Characterization of CuO Nanoflowers for Significant Enhancement of Catalytic Properties. Molecules 2021, 26, 2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, S.; Zhang, X.; Sun, Y.; Yang, S.; Song, X.; Yang, Z. Hierarchical CuO Nanoflowers: Water-Required Synthesis and Their Application in a Nonenzymatic Glucose Biosensor. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 10904–10913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Lu, X.; Deng, B. Hierarchical CuO Nanorods via Cyclic Voltammetry Treatment: Freestanding Electrodes for Selective CO2-to-Formate Conversion. Nanomaterials 2025, 15, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibupoto, Z.H.; Khun, K.; Beni, V.; Liu, X.; Willander, M. Synthesis of Novel CuO Nanosheets and Their Non-Enzymatic Glucose Sensing Applications. Sensors 2013, 13, 7926–7938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.; Parihar, V.S.; Ali-Löytty, H.; Vihinen, J.; Ukale, D.; Yiannacou, K.; Lahtonen, K.; Kellomäki, M.; Sariola, V. Fractal-like Hierarchical CuO Nano/Microstructures for Large-Surface-to-Volume-Ratio Dip Catalysts. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022, 5, 14591–14601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.-J.; Hwang, S.W.; Whang, D. Non-enzymatic electrochemical CuO nanoflowers sensor for hydrogen peroxide detection. Talanta 2010, 80, 1648–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Chen, F.; Yang, Z. Electrocatalytic Oxidation of Hydrogen Peroxide Based on the Shuttlelike Nano-CuO-Modified Electrode. Int. J. Electrochem. 2012, 2012, 194183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihailova, I.; Gerbreders, V.; Krasovska, M.; Sledevskis, E.; Mizers, V.; Bulanovs, A.; Ogurcovs, A. A non-enzymatic electrochemical hydrogen peroxide sensor based on copper oxide nanostructures. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2022, 13, 424–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haghpanah, M.; Hashemipetroudi, S.; Arzani, A.; Araniti, F. Drought Tolerance in Plants: Physiological and Molecular Responses. Plants 2024, 13, 2962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oguz, M.C.; Aycan, M.; Oguz, E.; Poyraz, I.; Yildiz, M. Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants: Interplay of Molecular, Biochemical and Physiological Responses in Important Development Stages. Physiologia 2022, 2, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cannea, F.B.; Padiglia, A. Antioxidant Defense Systems in Plants: Mechanisms, Regulation, and Biotechnological Strategies for Enhanced Oxidative Stress Tolerance. Life 2025, 15, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Coronado, H.; Ojeda-Contreras, A.-J.; Berumen-Varela, G.; Robles-Parra, J.-M.; Handa, A.K.; Tiznado-Hernández, M.-E. Engineering Crops for Enhanced Drought Stress Tolerance: A Strategy for Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şimşek, Ö.; Isak, M.A.; Dönmez, D.; Dalda Şekerci, A.; İzgü, T.; Kaçar, Y.A. Advanced Biotechnological Interventions in Mitigating Drought Stress in Plants. Plants 2024, 13, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Turk, K.; Bibi, N.; Ghafoor, A.; Ahmed, N.; Azmat, M.; Ahmed, R.; Ghani, M.I.; Ahanger, M.A. Nanoparticles as catalysts of agricultural revolution: Enhancing crop tolerance to abiotic stress: A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 15, 1510482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djanaguiraman, M.; Nair, R.; Giraldo, J.P.; Prasad, P.V.V. Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Decrease Drought-Induced Oxidative Damage in Sorghum Leading to Higher Photosynthesis and Grain Yield. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 14406–14416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soleymani, S.; Piri, S.; Aazami, M.A.; Salehi, B. Cerium oxide nanoparticles alleviate drought stress in apple seedlings by regulating ion homeostasis, antioxidant defense, gene expression, and phytohormone balance. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 11805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, M.A.S.; Muhammad, F.; Farooq, M.; Aslam, M.U.; Akhter, N.; Toleikienė, M.; Binobead, M.A.; Ali, M.A.; Rizwan, M.; Iqbal, R. ZnO-nanoparticles and stage-based drought tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Effect on morpho-physiology, nutrients uptake, grain yield and quality. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 5309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karimian, Z.; Samiei, L. ZnO nanoparticles efficiently enhance drought tolerance in Dracocephalum kotschyi through altering physiological, biochemical and elemental contents. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1063618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rehman, M.; Salam, A.; Ulhassan, Z.; Ali, B.; Haider, Z.; Ahmad, I.; Yasin, M.U.; Javaid, M.H.; Yang, C.; Fayyaz, M.; et al. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in crop stress management: Mechanisms, applications, and abiotic stress mitigation. Plant Nano Biol. 2025, 14, 100207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daler, S.; Kaya, O.; Korkmaz, N.; Kılıç, T.; Karadağ, A.; Hatterman-Valenti, H. Titanium Nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) as Catalysts for Enhancing Drought Tolerance in Grapevine Saplings. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gohari, G.; Mohammadi, A.; Akbari, A.; Panahirad, S.; Dadpour, M.R.; Fotopouls, V.; Kimura, S. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) promote growth and ameliorate salinity stress effects on essential oil profile and biochemical attributes of Dracocephalum moldavica. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakry, B.A.; Sadak, M.S.; Al Ashkar, N.M.; Ibrahim, O.M.; Okla, M.K.; El-Tahan, A.M. The Role of Carbon Nanotubes in Improving Drought Tolerance via Upregulation of the Physiological Processes of Peanut Plants Grown in Sandy Soils. Agronomy 2024, 14, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaleem, M.; Shah, A.A.; Usman, S.; Xu, W.; Alsahli, A.A. Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles Improved Drought Resilience in Coriandrum sativum L. through Lifting Antioxidant Level, Redox Balancing, and Improving Photosynthetic Efficiency. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 32813–32828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gautam, A.; Kumar, V.; Guleria, P. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles improved biochemical and antioxidant parameters of radish to induce salt stress tolerance. Plant Nano Biol. 2025, 13, 100176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, Z.; Hassan, M.A.; Huang, W.; Yu, H.; Xu, M.; Chang, X.; Fang, X.; Liu, L. Influence of Magnesium Oxide (MgO) Nanoparticles on Maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy 2024, 14, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishfaq, M.; Wang, Y.; Yan, M.; Wang, Z.; Wu, L.; Li, C.; Li, X. Physiological Essence of Magnesium in Plants and Its Widespread Deficiency in the Farming System of China. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 802274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, S.; Dias, M.C.; Silva, A.M.S. Potential of MgO and MgCO3 nanoparticles in modulating lettuce physiology to drought. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2023, 45, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gautam, A.; Sharma, P.; Ashokhan, S.; Yaacob, J.S.; Kumar, V.; Guleria, P. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles improved vegetative growth and enhanced productivity, biochemical potency and storage stability of harvested mustard seeds. Environ. Res. 2023, 29, 116023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abinaya, S.; Kavitha, H.P. Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles: Effective Antilarvicidal and Antibacterial Agents. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 5225–5233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gerbreders, V.; Krasovska, M.; Sledevskis, E.; Mihailova, I.; Mizers, V.; Keviss, J.; Bulanovs, A. Enhancing Salt Stress Tolerance in Rye with ZnO Nanoparticles: Detecting H2O2 as a Stress Biomarker by Nanostructured NiO Electrochemical Sensor. Crystals 2024, 14, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizwan, H.M.; Shafqat, U.; Ishfaq, A.; Batool, F.; Mahmood, F.; Su, Q.; Yaseen, N.; Raza, T.; Altihani, F.A. Identifying the Phytotoxicity of Biosynthesized Metal Oxide Nanoparticles and Their Impact on Antioxidative Enzymatic Activity in Maize Under Drought Stress. Plants 2025, 14, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maduraimuthu, D.; Alagarswamy, S.; Prabhakaran, J.; Karuppasami, K.M.; Venugopal, P.B.R.; Koothan, V.; Natarajan, S.; Dhashnamurthi, V.; Veerasamy, R.; Rathinavelu, S.; et al. Drought Tolerance of Mungbean Is Improved by Foliar Spray of Nanoceria. Agronomy 2023, 13, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.; Marrez, D.A.; Rizk, R.; Zedan, M.; Abdul-Hamid, D.; Decsi, K.; Kovács, G.P.; Tóth, Z. The Influence of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Salt Stress on the Morphological and Some Biochemical Characteristics of Solanum lycopersicum L. Plants. Plants 2024, 13, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahid, I.; Kumari, S.; Ahmad, R.; Hussain, S.J.; Alamri, S.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Khan, M.I.R. Silver Nanoparticle Regulates Salt Tolerance in Wheat Through Changes in ABA Concentration, Ion Homeostasis, and Defense Systems. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihailova, I.; Krasovska, M.; Sledevskis, E.; Gerbreders, V.; Keviss, J.; Mizers, V.; Kokina, I.; Plaksenkova, I.; Jermalonoka, M.; Mosenoka, A. Hydrothermally Synthesized TiO2 Nanostructures for Electrochemical Detection of H2O2 in Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Under Salt Stress and Remediation with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. Chemosensors 2025, 13, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhtar, A.; Jabeen, S.; Asad, M.S.; Jaffar, M.T.; Abdel-Maksoud, M.A.; Alrokayan, S.; Chen, X.; Ren, X. Iron nanoparticles mitigatencadmium-induced abiotic stress in soybean by modulating reactive oxygen species accumulation and cellular integrity. Front. Plant Sci. 2026, 16, 1727507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabeen, S.; Mukhtar, A.; Hussain, S.; Hussain, S.; Hussan, M.U.; Ahmad, M.; Ahmad, M.; Lixin, Z. Silver nanoparticles mitigated cadmium toxicity in tobacco by modulating biochemical, cellular and genetic responses. Environ. Sci. Nano 2025, 12, 4081–4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerbreders, V.; Krasovska, M.; Sledevskis, E.; Mihailova, I.; Mizers, V. Co3O4 Nanostructured Sensor for Electrochemical Detection of H2O2 as a Stress Biomarker in Barley: Fe3O4 Nanoparticles- Mediated Enhancement of Salt Stress Tolerance. Micromachines 2024, 15, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]







| Oat | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | Drought | Drought MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | Drought MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | |
| Total length, cm | 25 (5.5%) | 27 (5.8%) | 31 (6.1%) | 19 (6.6%) | 24 (6.9%) | 29 (6.4%) |
| Length from 1st leaf nod, cm | 20 (5.2%) | 23 (5.5%) | 27 (5.8%) | 16 (6.3%) | 20 (6.5%) | 26 (6.2%) |
| Fresh weight of 5 plants, g | 1.80 (5.7%) | 1.75 (5.2%) | 2.19 (5.7%) | 1.16 (6.7%) | 1.40 (6.8%) | 2.13 (6.1%) |
| Dry weight of 5 plants, g | 0.21 (5.2%) | 0.14 (6.0%) | 0.21 (5.8%) | 0.14 (6.3%) | 0.14 (5.9%) | 0.20 (7.2%) |
| Rye | ||||||
| Total length, cm | 39 (5.2%) | 48 (5.4%) | 43 (5.9%) | 38 (5.8%) | 42 (5.9%) | 41 (6.1%) |
| Length from 1st leaf, cm | 38 (4.8%) | 47 (5.9%) | 42 (5.5%) | 35 (5.8%) | 41 (6.2%) | 40 (6.0%) |
| Fresh weight of 5 plants, g | 3.39 (5.6%) | 6.05 (5.7%) | 4.84 (5.2%) | 2.06 (6.1%) | 4.49 (5.7%) | 3.67 (6.0%) |
| Dry weight of 5 plants, g | 0.47 (5.7%) | 0.92 (5.5%) | 0.78 (5.4%) | 0.36 (5.7%) | 0.71 (5.5%) | 0.81 (5.6%) |
| Oat | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | Drought | Drought MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | Drought MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | |
| Chl(a), mg·g−1 | 0.8768 (4.0%) | 1.6413 (3.8%) | 1.9446 (3.5%) | 0.4105 (5.6%) | 1.3207 (5.1%) | 1.5644 (5.0%) |
| Chl(b), mg·g−1 | 0.2728 (4.6%) | 0.5081 (4.3%) | 0.6154 (3.8%) | 0.1467 (5.7%) | 0.4247 (6.1%) | 0.5014 (5.8%) |
| Chl(total), mg·g−1 | 1.1493 (3.9% | 2.1490 (3.6%) | 2.5595 (3.5%) | 0.5570 (5.6%) | 1.7450 (5.2%) | 2.0653 (4.9%) |
| Carot., mg·g−1 | 0.0416 (5.9%) | 0.0699 (5.5%) | 0.0865 (5.7%) | 0.0281 (6.9%) | 0.0591 (7.3%) | 0.0694 (6.6%) |
| Rye | ||||||
| Chl(a), mg·g−1 | 1.7474 (3.9%) | 2.1801 (3.5%) | 1.8132 (4.2%) | 0.9313 (5.4%) | 2.2509 (5.2%) | 2.0911 (5.6%) |
| Chl(b), mg·g−1 | 0.5567 (4.3%) | 0.7215 (5.0%) | 0.5763 (4.6%) | 0.3053 (5.3%) | 0.7392 (5.8%) | 0.6929 (5.5%) |
| Chl(total), mg·g−1 | 2.3035 (4.0%) | 2.9008 (4.8%) | 2.3889 (3.7%) | 1.2363 (5.9%) | 2.9894 (3.9%) | 2.7833 (4.1%) |
| Carot., mg·g−1 | 0.0916 (5.2%) | 0.1136 (5.8%) | 0.0926 (6.0%) | 0.0494 (6.5%) | 0.1107 (6.8%) | 0.1010 (6.6%) |
| H2O2 Found, µM | Control | MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 | Drought | Drought MgO nPs 50 mg·L−1 | Drought MgO nPs 100 mg·L−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oat | 52 (4.9%) | 50 (5.8%) | 3 (7.2%) | 262 (3.5%) | 126 (4.3%) | 98 (5.0%) |
| Rye | 51 (4.6%) | 60 (5.0%) | 8 (7.9%) | 102 (3.9%) | 75 (5.8%) | 40 (5.6%) |
| Plant (Crop), Stress | Nanoparticle (Formulation) & Conc. (Application) | H2O2 Detection Method | Reported % Decrease in H2O2 (NPs vs. Stressed Control) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maize (Zea mays L.), drought stress | FeO nPs, MnO nPs, CuO nPs 25–100 ppm, seed priming | Biochemical H2O2 assay | 23–27% depending on drought level | [65] |
| Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), drought stress | CeO2 nPs, foliar spray 10 mg·L−1 | Spectrophotometric H2O2 assay | 36% | [49] |
| Mungbean (Vigna radiata), drought stress | CeO2 nPs, foliar spray 100 mg·L−1 | Spectrophotometric H2O2 assay | 28% | [66] |
| Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), salt stress | ZnO nPs, foliar spray 75 mg·L−1 and 150 mg·L−1 | KI colorimetric H2O2 assay | 41.1% for 75 mg·L−1 nPs and 51.8% for 150 mg·L−1 nPs | [67] |
| Wheat (Triticum aestivum), salt stress | Ag nPs, foliar spray—300 ppm | Biochemical colorimetric assay | 56% | [68] |
| Barley (Hordeum vulgare), salt stress | Fe3O4 nPs, 36 mg mg·L−1 and 72 mg·L−1, irrigation | Electrochemical detection, TiO2 nanowire electrode | 30% for 36 mg·L−1 nPs and 60% for 72 mg·L−1 nPs | [69] |
| Rye (Secale cereale), salt stress | ZnO nPs at 50 and 100 mg·L−1, irrigation | Electrochemical detection, NiO nanowall electrode | 60% for 50 mg·L−1 nPs and 75% for 100 mg·L−1 nPs | [64] |
| Soybean (Glycine max L.), Cd-induced stress | FeNPs, 50 mg·L−1, irrigation | Histochemical detection | 34–56% | [70] |
| Tobaccco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), Cd-induced stress | 50 μM Ag nPs suspension, irrigation | Guaiacol method and ultraviolet absorption spectrometry | - | [71] |
| Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale), drought | MgO nPs at 50 and 100 mg·L−1, irrigation | Electrochemical detection, CuO nanoleaf electrode | 52% for 50 mg·L−1 nPs and 63% for 100 mg·L−1 nPs in oat. 27% for 50 mg·L−1 nPs and 61% for 100 mg·L−1 nPs in rye | This study |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Mihailova, I.; Krasovska, M.; Sledevskis, E.; Gerbreders, V.; Keviss, J.; Mizers, V.; Bulanovs, A. Growth-Time-Controlled CuO Nanoflower Electrodes for H2O2 Sensing and Assessment of MgO Nanoparticle-Mediated Drought Stress Mitigation in Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale). Agronomy 2026, 16, 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16050579
Mihailova I, Krasovska M, Sledevskis E, Gerbreders V, Keviss J, Mizers V, Bulanovs A. Growth-Time-Controlled CuO Nanoflower Electrodes for H2O2 Sensing and Assessment of MgO Nanoparticle-Mediated Drought Stress Mitigation in Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale). Agronomy. 2026; 16(5):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16050579
Chicago/Turabian StyleMihailova, Irena, Marina Krasovska, Eriks Sledevskis, Vjaceslavs Gerbreders, Jans Keviss, Valdis Mizers, and Andrejs Bulanovs. 2026. "Growth-Time-Controlled CuO Nanoflower Electrodes for H2O2 Sensing and Assessment of MgO Nanoparticle-Mediated Drought Stress Mitigation in Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale)" Agronomy 16, no. 5: 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16050579
APA StyleMihailova, I., Krasovska, M., Sledevskis, E., Gerbreders, V., Keviss, J., Mizers, V., & Bulanovs, A. (2026). Growth-Time-Controlled CuO Nanoflower Electrodes for H2O2 Sensing and Assessment of MgO Nanoparticle-Mediated Drought Stress Mitigation in Oat (Avena sativa) and Rye (Secale cereale). Agronomy, 16(5), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16050579

