Next Article in Journal
Application of Life Cycle Assessment in the Environmental Study of Sustainable Ceramic Bricks Made with ‘alperujo’ (Olive Pomace)
Next Article in Special Issue
The Processing of Calcium Rich Agricultural and Industrial Waste for Recovery of Calcium Carbonate and Calcium Oxide and Their Application for Environmental Cleanup: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Malaria Parasite Detection in Thin Blood Smear Microscopic Images
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Risk to the Eco-Environment and Human Health of Using Heavy Metals in the Uttarakhand Himalaya, India
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/app11052282
applsci-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Agro-Nanotechnology as an Emerging Field: A Novel Sustainable Approach for Improving Plant Growth by Reducing Biotic Stress

by
Masudulla Khan
1,*,
Azhar U. Khan
2,*,
Mohd Abul Hasan
3,
Krishna Kumar Yadav
4,
Marina M. C. Pinto
5,*,
Nazia Malik
6,
Virendra Kumar Yadav
7,*,
Afzal Husain Khan
8,
Saiful Islam
3 and
Gulshan Kumar Sharma
9
1
Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh U.P. 202002, India
2
School of Life and Basic Sciences, Department of Chemistry, SIILAS CAMPUS, Jaipur National University, Jaipur 302017, India
3
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia
4
Institute of Environment and Development Studies, Bundelkhand University, Kanpur Road, Jhansi 284128, India
5
Geobiotec Research Centre, Department of Geoscience, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
6
Department of Chemistry, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh U.P. 202002, India
7
School of Lifesciences, SIILAS CAMPUS, Jaipur National University, Jaipur 302017, India
8
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 114, Saudi Arabia
9
National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Regional Centre Jorhat, Assam 785001, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(5), 2282; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052282
Submission received: 27 January 2021 / Revised: 19 February 2021 / Accepted: 23 February 2021 / Published: 4 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Mineral Elements on the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the present era, the global need for food is increasing rapidly; nanomaterials are a useful tool for improving crop production and yield. The application of nanomaterials can improve plant growth parameters. Biotic stress is induced by many microbes in crops and causes disease and high yield loss. Every year, approximately 20–40% of crop yield is lost due to plant diseases caused by various pests and pathogens. Current plant disease or biotic stress management mainly relies on toxic fungicides and pesticides that are potentially harmful to the environment. Nanotechnology emerged as an alternative for the sustainable and eco-friendly management of biotic stress induced by pests and pathogens on crops. In this review article, we assess the role and impact of different nanoparticles in plant disease management, and this review explores the direction in which nanoparticles can be utilized for improving plant growth and crop yield.

1. Introduction

Crop cultivators suffer from high yield loss caused by various diseases. Biotic stress induced by microbes on crop plants reduces the crop yield and decreases the quality. Biotic stress causes disease in crops, which leads to the suffering of the plant. Diseases of the plant need to be controlled to maintain the abundance of food produced by farmers around the world. The management of crop diseases is very necessary to fulfill the food demand. Potato blight disease caused by plant pathogenic fungus Phytopthora caused more than one million deaths in Ireland [1]. Around 20–40% of agricultural crop yield losses occur globally due to various diseases caused by phytopathogenic bacteria, phytopathogenic fungi, pests, and weeds [2].
It is estimated that in 2050 the world’s human population will reach around 10 billion, and around 800 million people in the world will be hungry and around 653 million people in the world will be undernourished in 2030, thus fulfilling the food demand will remain a huge challenge. The current research progress and disease management strategies are not enough to fulfill the food demand by 2050 [3]. The first green revolution made a huge difference in yield and food production, but in the last few years’ crop production has been stagnant and food demand is increasing sharply, so now we need a second green revolution to fulfill the food demand of the population.
Different approaches are used by farmers to mitigate the impact of plant diseases. The agriculture system mainly relies on chemicals to manage crop diseases and inhibit the growth of phytopathogens, which cause diseases before and after crop harvesting. The excessive use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that are mainly used to control plant diseases causes harmful environmental and human health consequences. Tilman et al. [4] observed that the high use of chemical pesticides increases resistance in pathogens and pests, reduces nitrogen fixation, and the bioaccumulation of toxic pesticides occurs.
An example is the synthetic chemical pesticide DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, which was extensively used in agriculture for controlling plant pathogens and was found to be genotoxic in humans, causing endocrine disorders [5]. Water and soil pollution is also caused by the excessive use and misuse of these chemicals. There is an increasing demand day by day to reduce the use of synthetic chemicals. Consequently, the harmful effects of chemicals on wildlife, the environment, and human health have increased the need for alternative measures in the control of plant pathogens, so that some phytopathologists have focused their research on developing a new alternative that should replace the use of chemicals in controlling plant diseases.
Nanotechnology has revolutionized agriculture and can control plant diseases, although the field of nanotechnology is still in the nascent stage and needs more research analysis [6].The use of nanomaterials in agriculture will reduce the excessive use of toxic chemicals used for plant disease management (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
“Nano” denotes one-billionth part, thus nanotechnology deals with small things. The word nano is used for materials with a size range of 0.1 to 100 nanometers [7,8]. The first time the term nanotechnology was used was by Taniguchi in 1974 to the science that largely deals with particles of nano size (1.0 × 10−9 m). When a bulk material is reduced to nano size, it has a high surface-to-volume ratio that may increase its reactivity and express some new properties [7,9]. The control of plant diseases and improving plant growth by the use of nanomaterials are some of the possible key applications in the area of plant pathology. Approximately 260,000–309,000 metric tons of nanoparticles were produced in 2010 globally, and the worldwide consumption of nanomaterials was approximately from 225,060 metric tons to 585,000 metric tons in 2014 to 2019 [10,11].
In this review article, recent research progress and the application of various nanoparticles for the sustainable management of the biotic stress of crop systems and impact on plant growth have been discussed. We try to cover the various problems associated with crop cultivation and plant diseases and the use of different nanomaterials to control phytopathogens and improve plant growth.

2. Nanomaterials in Improving Plant Growth and Yield

Currently, around 1300 nanomaterials, with widespread potential applications, are available [13,14]. Nanoparticles can penetrate the cell wall because the cell wall is porous to 3.5–20 nm macromolecules. Nanoparticles can enter through stomatal openings. When stomata are present at the lower surface of leaves, the entry of nanoparticles (NPs) becomes difficult [15]. It is reported that nanoparticles of size ≤43 nm can penetrate and enter into stomata [16,17].
The effect of nanoparticles on crop plants is concentration-based. Many plant processes such as seed germination and plant growth are affected by NP concentration [18]. Many NPs have been reported to be beneficial for plant growth. Mahmoud et al. [19] used Zn, B, Si, zeolite NPs on a potato plant and found that these nanoparticles have a positive effect on potato plants and they improve the plant growth. Khan and Siddiqui [20] treated eggplant with ZnONPs and found a foliar spray of ZnONPs causes the highest improvement in eggplant growth. Awasthi et al. [21] reported that ZnONPs have a positive effect on seed germination in the Triticum aestivum plant. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) can enhance plant biomass and agriculture production [22]. Sabir et al. [23] also showed that nanocalcite (CaCO3) application with Fe2O3, nano SiO2, and MgO improved the uptake of Mg, Ca, and Fe, and also notably enhanced the intake of P with micronutrients Zn and Mn. Venkatachalam et al. [24] found that ZnONPs increase in photosynthetic pigment in the Leucaena leucocephala plant. Narendhran et al. [25] reported high chlorophyll-a’, chlorophyll-‘b’ and total chlorophyll content in the Sesamum indicum plant when treated with ZnO NPs. Taheri et al. [26] observed that treatment of ZnONPs increases the increase in shoot dry matter in Zea mays. Tarafdar et al. [27] found that ZnONPs enhanced shoot and grain yield in the Pennisetum glaucum plant.
The application of titanium dioxide (TiO2) on crops promotes plant growth parameters and can enhance the photosynthetic rate. Siddiqui et al. [28] usedTiO2 and ZnONPs on beet root plants. They found that both NPs increased chlorophyll and carotenoid content, improved plant growth, and also improved super oxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), H2O2, and proline content in plants. ZnONPs were found to be better than TiO2NPs on beetroot plants. Raliya et al. [29] reported that TiO2NPs treatment improved shoots in the Vigna radiate plant. Lawre and Raskar [30] observed that TiO2NPs at a lower concentration enhanced seed germination and seedling growth in onion plants. Rafique et al. [31] found a positive effect of TiO2NPs on the Triticum aestivum plant. Mahmoodzadeh et al. [32] found a positive effect of TiO2NPs on the seed germination of the Brassica napus plant. Qi et al. [33] reported that treatment of TiO2NPs promotes photosynthetic rate in tomato plants.
Silicon is an important element that plays a key role in several metabolic and physiological activities in plants [34]. SiO2nanoparticles have the potential to enhance the germination and seedling growth of Agropyron elongatum [35]. Nano-SiO2 can be used to produce effective fertilizers for crops and to minimize the loss of fertilizer through slow and controlled release, allowing for regulated, responsive, and timely delivery [36]. Siddiqui et al. [37] found improved seed germination in the Cucurbita pepo plant after treatment with Nano SiO2. Haghighi and Pessarakli [38] reported that Nano Si treatment on the tomato plant improves photosynthetic rate in treated plants.
Copper is an essential element for plant growth and development. Copper plays a key role in the activity of many plant enzymes. Copper nanoparticles (Cu NP) are used as antimicrobial agents, gas sensors, catalysts, electronics, etc. [39]. Wang et al. [40] found that CuO NPs improved photosynthesis in the Spinacia oleracea plant. Zhao et al. [41] reported that Cu(OH)2NPs improved the antioxidant system of the Lactuca sativa plant. Shinde et al. [42] found that Mg(OH)2NP treatment promotes seed germination and seedling growth in the Zea mays plant. Hussain et al. [43] reported that MgO NPs improve the antioxidant system in Raphanus sativus plants. Cai et al. [44] observed that MgO NPs can promote the plant growth of the Tobacco plant. Imada et al. [45] found that MgO NPs can induce resistance in the tomato plant.
Iqbal et al. [46] reported that AgNP treatment improved plant growth and tolerance to heat stress in the Triticum aestivum plant. Mehta et al. [47] found that AgNPs’ foliar application enhanced growth and biomass in the Vigna sinensis plant. Pilon et al. [48] observed that chitosan NPs protect apple plants after post-harvest. Van et al. [49] found that chitosan NPs improve plant growth in Robusta coffee.
Das et al. [50] found that FeS2 NPs improved seed germination in Cicer arietinum, Daucus carota, pinacia oleracea, Brassica juncea, and Sesamum indicum crops. The effects of various nanomaterials have been summarized in the following table (Table 1).

3. Nanomaterials in Various Diseases Management

Nanomaterials have antimicrobial activity. Silver nanoparticles have anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties. Kim et al. [70] have reported the fungicidal effects of nano-silver against Alternaria alternata, A. brassicicola, A. solani, Botrytis cinerea, Cladosporium cucumerinum, Corynespora cassiicola, Cylindrocarpon destructans, Didymella bryoniae, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum, F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, F. oxysporum, F. solani, Fusarium sp., Glomerella cingulata and a few other fungi. Gautam et al. [71] showed the antifungal and antibacterial activity of AgNPs against Erwinia sp., Bacillus megaterium, Pseudomonas syringe, Fusarium graminearum, F. avenaceum, and F. culmorum fungi. Rodríguez-Serrano et al. [72] reported the antibacterial activity of AgNPs against E. coli. Husseinet al. [73] reported the antibacterial activity of AgNPs against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumonia. Shehzad et al. [74] reported that AgNPs have antibacterial activity against Gram-positive (Bacillus subtilis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) bacteria. Mohanta et al. [75] reported that AgNPs have antibacterial activity against food borne pathogens Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Bacillus subtilis. Abdelmale and Salaheldin [76] reported that AgNPs show antifungal activity against Alternaria alternata, A. citri, and Penicillium digitatum fungi. Krishnaraj et al. [77] found theantifungal activity of AgNPs against Alternaria alternata, Macrophomina phaseolina, Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Curvularia lunata, and Rhizoctonia solani fungi. Jo et al. [78] described the antifungal activity of AgNPs against Bipolaris sorokiniana and Magnaporthe grisea fungi.
Shahryari et al. [79] reported that AgNPs and a silver–chitoson composite show antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae bacteria. Divya et al. [80] reported that chitoson NPs have antifungal activity against Macrophomia phaseolina and Alternaria alterneta fungi. Xing et al. [81] reported that chitoson NPs have antifungal activity against Fusarium solani and Aspergillus niger fungi. Dang et al. [82] reported that AuNPs have antibacterial activity against E. coli bacteria. Attar and Yapaoz [83] observed that ZnO and AuNPs have antibacterial activity against E. coli bacteria. The gold nanoparticles showed toxic effect on bacteria, Salmonella typhimurium, in which the macro gold did not exhibit. Jayaseelana et al. [84] synthesized gold nanoparticles from Abelmoschus esculentus and reported their antifungal activity. The antifungal activity of AuNPs was tested against Puccinia graministritci, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus and Candida albicans using the standard well diffusion method. The maximum zone of inhibition was observed in the Au NPs against P. graminis and C. albicans.
Fan et al. [85] observed the antibacterial activity of Cu composites against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria. Huang et al. [86] showed the antifungal activity of CuO NPs against Botrytis cinerea, Colletotrichum graminicola, Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum musae, Magnaporthe oryzae, Penicillium digitatum, and Sclerotium rolfsii. Giannousiet al. [87] showed the antifungal activity of CuO and Cu2O NPs against Phytophthora infestans. Sharmaet al. [88] reported the antifungal and antibacterial activity of MgONPs against Ralstonia solanacearum bacteria and Phomopsis vexans fungus. Imada et al. [45] found the antibacterial activity of MgONPs against Ralstonia solanacearum. Derbalah et al. [89] observed the antifungal property of silica NPs against Alternaria solani fungus. Akpinar et al. [90] found that SiO2 NPs possess antifungal properties against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and F. oxysporum f. sp. radicislycopersici. Park et al. [91] showed the antifungal activity of Nano Si-Ag against Pythium ultimum, Magnaporthe grisea, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Botrytis cineria, Rhizoctonia solani, Pseudomonas syringae, Xanthomonas compestris pv. vesicatoria.
Jamdagni et al. [92] found that ZnO NPs have promising antifungal activity against Alternaria alternate Botrytis cinerea, Aspergillus niger, Fusarium oxysporum, and Penicillium expansum fungi. Navale et al. [93] found the promising antifungal activity of ZnO NPs against Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus fumigates fungi. Rajiv et al. [94] reported the antifungal activity of ZnO NPs against Aspergillus flavus, A. niger, A. fumigates, Fusarium culmorum, and F. oxysporium. Gunalan et al. [95] found that ZnO NPs have promising antifungal activity against Aspergillus flavus, Trichoderma harzianum, A. nidulans, and Rhizopus stolonifer. Dimkpa et al. [96] have shown the antifungal activity of ZnO nanoparticles on Fusarium graminearum fungus. Jayaseelan et al. [97] synthesized ZnO nanoparticles using Aeromonas hydrophila and screened their activity against pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa, and fungi, C. albicans, A. flavus, and A. niger. Sar et al. [98] reported the antifungal activity of TiO2 NPs against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicislycopersici and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Lycopersici. Hamza et al. [99] found the antifungal activity of TiO2 NPs against Cercospora beticola. Ardakani [100] found the nematicidal activity of TiO2 NPs against Meloidogyne incognita nematode. Kasemets et al. [101] reported the antifungal activity of ZnO and TiO2 NPs against Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cui et al. [102] found that TiO2 NPs have antibacterial against P. syringae pv. lachrymans and P. cubensis (Table 2, Figure 3).
The inhibitory action of nanoparticles on fungi and bacteria includes disruption by pore formation in the cell membrane, disturbance in membrane potential, cell wall damage, direct attachment to the cell surface, DNA damage, cell cycle arrest, the inhibition of enzyme activity and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and this finally leads to death. Nanoparticles generate the ROS, which causes damage to the cellular structures. The different components of reactive oxygen species include free radicals, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), superoxide (O2−), singlet oxygen (1O2), carbon dioxide radical (CO2−), hydroxyl (HO·), hydroperoxyl (HO2), carbonate (CO3−), peroxyl (RO2), and alkoxyl (RO), and nonradicals, such as ozone (O3), nitric oxide (NO), hypobromous acid (HOBr), hypochlorous acid (HOCl), hypochlorite (OCl−), peroxy nitrite (ONOO−), organic peroxides (ROOH), peroxo monocarbonate (HOOCO2−), peroxy nitrous acid (ONOOH) and peroxy nitrate (O2NOO−), and these nanoparticles accumulate in the membrane of bacteria or fungi, which leads to change in the permeability of the cell membrane and disturbs the proton motive force (PMF).Oxidative stress due to the higher concentration leads to single- and double-strand breaks and nitrogen base and pentose sugar lesions [103,104].

4. Toxic Effect of Nanoparticles

Nanomaterials’ effect on organisms is largely dependent on the dose, size, and shape, the types of NPs, concentration, and the duration of exposure to NPs and the plant/animal species [117,118]. Nanoparticles at optimum concentration augment the plant’s growth, but high concentrations of nanoparticles could be toxic for plants. Kushwah and Patel [119] observed that the optimum concentration of nano TiO2 in the Vicia faba plant ranged from 5–50 mg/L. Other studies proved that TiO2 NPs may induce stress in plants such as tomato, cucumber and spinach at high concentration [120]. Silver nanoparticles cause chromosomal aberrations in Vicia faba [121]. Lopez-Moreno et al. [122] reported that CeO2 nanoparticles can induce DNA damage in soybean.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the literature shows that food demands will increase with time, and to fulfill the demand of people, the present agricultural practices are not sufficient and chemicals used in agriculture as pesticides have a severe toxic effect on the environment. Thus, we need to develop an alternative approach that has a less toxic effect on the environment and that could help in fulfilling food demands. According to estimates, around 192.8 Mt chemical fertilizers were used in 2016–2017 in the whole world. The use of toxic chemicals and pesticides causes environmental pollution, which affects fauna and flora. Pathogens and pests induce resistance against fungicides and pesticides. Hence, optimizing of the use of toxic chemical pesticides and fungicides is needed. Nanotechnology is flamboyant and has provided nanostructure materials as pesticide and fertilizer carriers. Nanomaterials can develop smart fertilizers as they can enhance nutrient availability and reduce environmental pollution [123]. Novel nanotechnology can be an alternative that can reduce crop diseases and enhance crop yield. Previous studies reported a significant positive effect of nanomaterials on crop plants. This novel technology can reduce the use of toxic chemicals and pesticides that contaminate soil, the environment, and groundwater. Further research is needed to develop this technology on a large scale (Figure 4).

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft: M.K. and A.U.K.; Writing—review & editing: M.K., A.U.K., V.K.Y., K.K.Y. and M.M.C.P.; Conceptualization: G.K.S. and S.I. Data curation: M.A.H. and A.H.K.; Formal analysis: K.K.Y., N.M. and G.K.S.; Funding acquisition: M.A.H., M.M.C.P., A.H.K. and S.I.; Investigation: N.M., S.I. and G.K.S.; Methodology: M.K., A.U.K. and M.M.C.P.; Project administration: M.K., A.U.K., M.M.C.P.; Resources: M.A.H., K.K.Y., S.I., G.K.S. and A.H.K.; Software: K.K.Y., G.K.S. and N.M.; Supervision: A.U.K., M.M.C.P., A.H.K., V.K.Y., Validation: V.K.Y., M.A.H. and A.H.K.; Visualization: V.K.Y., S.I. and N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this work has been provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research, KKU, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under research grant award number R.G.P2/85/41.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data used for this proposed work have been cited in the manuscript. Moreover, the derived data supporting the findings of this study have been graphically depicted and are available with the corresponding author on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thankfully acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Khalid University, Abha, for providing administrative and financial support. Funding for this work has been provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research, KKU, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under research grant award number R.G.P2/85/41. The authors also acknowledges the contribution and support provided by the University of Aveiro, Portugal. The authors wish to acknowledge the work of all the references used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. O’Neill, J.R. Irish Potato Famine; BDO: Edina, MN, USA, 2009; p. 1604535148. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cabral-Pinto, M.M.S.; Inácio, M.; Neves, O.; Almeida, A.A.; Pinto, E.; Oliveiros, B.; Ferreira da Silva, E.A. Human health risk assessment due to agricultural activities and crop consumption in the surroundings of an industrial area. Expo. Health 2020, 12, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. F.A.O.; World Health Organization; WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Evaluation of Certain Contaminants in Food: Eighty-Third Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; World Health Organization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tilman, D.; Knops, J.; Wedin, D.; Reich, P. Plant diversity and composition: Effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning; Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohn, B.A.; Wolff, M.S.; Cirillo, P.M.; Sholtz, R.I. DDT and breast cancer in young women: New data on the significance of age at exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cabral-Pinto, M.M.S.; Marinho-Reis, P.; Almeida, A.; Pinto, E.; Neves, O.; Inácio, M.; Gerardo, B.; Freitas, S.; Simões, M.R.; Dinis, P.A.; et al. Links between cognitive status and trace element levels in hair for an environmentally exposed population: A case study in the surroundings of the Estarreja industrial area. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Khan, A.U.; Khan, M.; Khan, M.M. Antifungal and Antibacterial Assay by Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized from Aqueous Leaf Extract of Trigonella foenum-graecum. BioNanoScience 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khan, M.; Khan, A.U.; Alam, M.J.; Park, S.; Alam, M. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles and its application against phytopathogenic bacterium and fungus. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2019. [CrossRef]
  9. Cabral-Pinto, M.M.S.; Silva, E.A.F.; Silva, M.M.V.G.; Melo-Gonçalves, P.; Candeias, C. Environmental risk assessment based on high-resolution spatial maps of potentially toxic elements sampled on stream sediments of Santiago, Cape Verde. Geosciences 2014, 4, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Cabral Pinto, M.M.S.; Marinho-Reis, P.; Almeida, A.; Freitas, S.; Simões, M.R.; Diniz, L.; Pinto, E.; Ramos, P.; Ferreira da Silva, E.; Moreira, P.I. Fingernail trace element content in environmentally exposed individuals and its influence on their cognitive status in ageing. Expo. Health 2019, 11, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. BBC. BCC Research, Global Markets for Nanocomposites, Nanoparticles, Nanoclays, and Nanotubes. 2014. Available online: https://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/nanotechnology/nanocomposites-market-nan021f.html?vsmaid=203/ (accessed on 19 October 2017).
  12. Shang, Y.; Hasan, M.; Ahammed, G.J.; Li, M.; Yin, H.; Zhou, J. Applications of nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: A review. Molecules 2019, 24, 2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Aslani, F.; Bagheri, S.; Muhd, J.N.; Juraimi, A.S.; Hashemi, F.S.; Baghdadi, A. Effects of engineered nanomaterials on plants growth: An overview. Sci. World J. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Srivastav, A.; Yadav, K.K.; Yadav, S.; Gupta, N.; Singh, J.K.; Katiyar, R.; Kumar, V. Nano-Phytoremediation of Pollutants from Contaminated Soil Environment: Current Scenario and Future Prospects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 383–401. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chichiriccò, G.; Poma, A. Penetration and toxicity of nanomaterials in higher plants. Nanomaterials 2015, 5, 851–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Eichert, T.; Kurtz, A.; Steiner, U.; Goldbach, H.E. Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water-suspended nanoparticles. Physiol. Plant 2008, 134, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schreiber, L. Polar paths of diffusion across plant cuticles: New evidence for an old hypothesis. Ann. Bot. 2005, 95, 1069–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Zheng, L.; Hong, F.; Lu, S.; Liu, C. Effect of nano-TiO2 on strength of naturally aged seeds and growth of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 104, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Khan, M.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Zinc oxide nanoparticles for the management of Ralstonia solanacearum, Phomopsis vexans and Meloidogyne incognita incited disease complex of eggplant. Indian Phytopathol. 2018, 71, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Awasthi, A.; Bansal, S.; Jangir, L.K.; Awasthi, G.; Awasthi, K.K.; Awasthi, K. Effect of ZnO Nanoparticles on Germination of Triticum aestivum Seeds. Macromol. Symp. 2017, 376, 1700043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Rehman, M.Z. Effect of foliar applications of silicon and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on growth, oxidative stress, and cadmium accumulation by rice (Oryza sativa). Acta Physiol. Plant. 2019, 41, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sabir, A.; Yazar, K.; Sabir, F.; Kara, Z.; Yazici, M.A.; Goksu, N. Vine growth, yield, berry quality attributes and leaf nutrient content of grapevines as influenced by seaweed extract (Ascophyllum nodosum) and nanosized fertilizer pulverizations. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 175, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Venkatachalam, P.; Jayaraj, M.; Manikandan, R.; Geetha, N.; Rene, E.R.; Sharma, N.C.; Sahi, S.V. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) alleviate heavy metal-inducedtoxicity in Leucaena leucocephala seedlings: A physiochemicalanalysis. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Narendhran, S.; Rajiv, P.; Rajeshwari, S. Influence of zinc oxide nanoparticles on growth of Sesamum Indicum, L. in zinc deficient soil. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 8, 365–371. [Google Scholar]
  26. Taheri, M.; Qarache, H.A.; Qarache, A.A.; Yoosefi, M. The effects of zinc-oxide nanoparticles on growth parameters of corn (SC704). STEM Fellowsh. J. 2015, 1, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Tarafdar, J.C.; Raliya, R.; Mahawar, H.; Rathore, I. Development of zinc nanofertilizer to enhance crop production in pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum). Agric.Res. 2014, 3, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siddiqui, Z.A.; Khan, M.R.; Abdallah, E.F.; Parveen, A. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles affect some bacterial diseases, and growth and physiological changes of beetroot. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2019, 25, 409–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Tarafdar, J. TiO2 nanoparticle biosynthesis and its physiological effect on mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Biotechnol. Rep. 2015, 5, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Laware, S.L.; Raskar, S. Effect of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on hydrolytic and antioxidant enzymes during seed germination in onion. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 749–760. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rafique, R.; Arshad, M.; Khokhar, M.; Qazi, I.; Hamza, A.; Virk, N. Growth response of wheat to titania nanoparticles application. NUST J. Eng. Sci. 2014, 7, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mahmoodzadeh, H.; Nabavi, M.; Kashefi, H. Effect of Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide Particles on the Germination and Growth of Canola (Brassica napus). J. Ornam. Hortic. Plant 2013, 3, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  33. Qi, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, T. Nano-TiO(2) improve the photosynthesis of tomato leaves under mild heat stress. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2013, 156, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bao, S.L.; Chun, H.L.; Li, J.F.; Shu, C.Q.; Min, Y. Effect of TMS (nanostructured silicon dioxide) on growth of Changbai larch seedlings. J. For. Res. 2004, 15, 138–140. [Google Scholar]
  35. Azimi, R.; Borzelabad, M.J.; Feizi, H.; Azimi, A. Interaction of SiO2 nanoparticles with seed prechilling on germination and early seedling growth of tall wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum L.). Pol. J. Chem. Technol. 2014, 16, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Nair, R.; Varghese, S.H.; Nair, B.G.; Maekawa, T.; Yoshida, Y.; Kumar, D.S. Nanoparticulate material delivery to plants. Plant Sci. 2010, 179, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Faisal, M.; Al Sahli, A.A. Nano-silicon dioxide mitigates the adverse effects of salt stress on Cucurbita pepo L. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 2429–2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haghighi, M.; Afifipour, Z.; Mozafarian, M. The Effect of N-Si on Tomato Seed Germination under Salinity Levels. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2012, 6, 87–90. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kasana, R.C.; Panwar, N.R.; Kaul, R.K.; Kumar, P. Biosynthesis and effects of copper nanoparticles on plants. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017, 15, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, Y.; Lin, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yin, Y.; Guo, H.; Du, W. Divergence in response of lettuce (var. ramosa Hort.) to copper oxide nanoparticles/microparticles as potential agricultural fertilizer. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2019, 31, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zhao, L.J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Rico, C.M.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Sun, Y.; Niu, G.; Servin, A.; Nunez, J.E.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles change the nutritional quality of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 2752–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shinde, S.; Paralikar, P.; Ingle, A.P.; Rai, M. Promotion of seed germination and seedling growth of Zea mays by magnesium hydroxide nanoparticles synthesized by the filtrate from Aspergillus niger. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 3172–3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hussain, F.; Hadi, F.; Akbar, F. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles and thidiazuron enhance lead phyto accumulation and antioxidative response in Raphanus sativus L. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 30333–30347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cai, L.; Liu, M.; Liu, Z.; Yang, H.; Sun, X.; Chen, J.; Ding, W. MgONPs can boost plant growth: Evidence from increased seedling growth, morpho-physiological activities, and Mg uptake in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Molecules 2018, 23, 3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Imada, K.; Sakai, S.; Kajihara, H.; Tanaka, S.; Ito, S. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles induce systemic resistance in tomato against bacterial wilt disease. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Iqbal, M.; Raja, N.I.; Wattoo, F.H.; Hussain, M.; Ejaz, M.; Saira, H. Assessment of AgNPs exposure on physiological and biochemical changes and antioxidative defence system in wheat (Triticum aestivum L) under heat stress. IET NanobioTechnol. 2018, 16, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mehta, C.M.; Srivastava, R.; Arora, S.; Sharma, A.K. Impact assessment of silver nanoparticles on plant growth and soil bacterial diversity. 3 Biotech 2016, 6, 254. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pilon, L.; Spricigo, P.C.; Miranda, M.; Moura, M.R.; Assis, O.B.G.; Mattoso, L.H.C.; Ferreira, M.D. Chitosan nanoparticle coatings reduce microbial growth on fresh-cut apples while not afecting quality attributes. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 50, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Van, S.N.; Minh, H.D.; Anh, D.N. Study on chitosan nanoparticles on biophysical characteristics and growth of robusta cofee in green house. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2013, 2, 289–294. [Google Scholar]
  50. Das, C.K.; Srivastava, G.; Dubey, A.; Roy, M.; Jain, S.; Sethy, N.K.; Saxena, M.; Harke, S.; Sarkar, S.; Misra, K. Nano-iron pyrite seed dressing: A sustainable intervention to reduce fertilizer consumption in vegetable (beetroot, carrot), spice (fenugreek), fodder (alfalfa), and oilseed (mustard, sesamum) crops. Nanotechnol. Environ. Eng. 2016, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Manikandan, A.; Sathiyabama, M. Preparation of chitosan nanoparticles and its effect on detached rice leaves infected with Pyricularia grisea. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 1, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hajirasouliha, M.; Jannesari, M.; Najafabadi, F.S.; Hashemi, M. Effect of novel chitosan nanoparticle coating on postharvest qualities of strawberry. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Nanostructures, Kish Island, Iran, 12–14 March 2012. [Google Scholar]
  53. Janmohammadi, M.; Sabaghnia, N. Effect of pre-sowing seed treatments with silicon nanoparticles on germinability of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Botanica 2015, 21, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Roohizadeh, G.; Majd, A.; Arbabian, S. The effect of sodium silicate and silica nanoparticles on seed germination and growth in the Vicia faba L. Trop. Plant. Res. 2015, 2, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kashyap, D.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Effect of silicon dioxide nanoparticles and Rhizobium leguminosarum alone and in combination on the growth and bacterial blight disease complex of pea caused by Meloidogyne incognita and Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisi. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2020, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adhikari, S.; Kundu, S.; Rao, S.A. Impact of SiO2 and Mo nanoparticles on seed germination of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. Tech. 2013, 4, 809–816. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yinfeng, X.; Bo, L.; Gongsheng, T.A.O.; Qianqian, Z.; Chunxia, Z. Effects of nano-silicon dioxide on photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics of Indocalamus barbatus McClure. J. Nanjing For. Univer. 2012, 36, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  58. Suriyaprabha, R.; Karunakaran, G.; Yuvakkumar, R.; Rajendran, V.; Kannan, N. Silica nanoparticles for increased silica availability in maize (Zea mays. L) seeds under hydroponic conditions. Curr. Nanosci. 2012, 8, 902–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yuvakkumar, R.; Elango, V.; Rajendran, V.; Kannan, N.S.; Prabu, P. Influence of nanosilica powder on the growth of maize crop (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Green Nanotechnol. 2011, 3, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lu, C.M.; Zhang, C.Y.; Wen, J.Q.; Wu, G.R.; Tao, M.X. Research on the effect of nanometer materials on germination and growth enhancement of Glycine max and its mechanism. Soybean Sci. 2002, 21, 68–172. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhao, L.; Ortiz, C.; Adeleye, A.S.; Hu, Q.; Zhou, H.; Huang, Y.; Keller, A.A. Metabolomics to detect response of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) to Cu(OH)2 nanopesticides: Oxidative stress response and detoxification mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9697–9707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhao, L.; Huang, Y.; Adeleye, A.S.; Keller, A.A. Metabolomics reveals Cu(OH)2 nanopesticide-activated anti-oxidative pathways and decreased beneficial antioxidants in spinach leaves. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 10184–10194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Yusefi-Tanha, E.; Fallah, S.; Rostamnejadi, A.; Pokhrel, L.R. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) as a novel nanofertilizer: Influence on seed yield and antioxidant defense system in soil grown soybean (Glycine max cv. Kowsar). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 140240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, N.B.; Amist, N.; Yadav, K.; Singh, D.; Pandey, J.K.; Singh, S.C. Zinc oxide nanoparticles as fertilizer for the germination, growth and metabolism of vegetable crops. J. Nano Eng. Nano Manuf. 2013, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Prasad, T.N.V.K.V.; Sudhakar, P.; Sreenivasulu, Y.; Latha, P.; Munaswamy, V.; Reddy, R.K.; Sreeprasad, T.S.; Sajanlal, P.R.; Pradeep, T. Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide particles on the germination, growth and yield of Peanut. J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35, 905–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Srivastava, G.; Das, C.K.; Das, A.; Singh, S.K.; Roy, M.; Kim, H.; Sethy, N.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, R.K.; Singh, S.K.; et al. Seed treatment with iron pyrite (FeS2) nanoparticles increases the production of spinach. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 58495–58504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rezaei, F.; Moaveni, P.; Mozafari, H. Effect of different concentrations and time of nano TiO2 spraying on quantitative and qualitative yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) at Shahr-e-Qods. Iran. Biol. Forum. 2015, 7, 957–964. [Google Scholar]
  68. Samadi, N.; Yahyaabadi, S.; Rezayatmand, Z. Effect of TiO2 and TiO2 Nanoparticle on Germination, Root and Shoot Length and Photosynthetic Pigments ofMentha Piperita. Int. J. Plant. Soil Sci. 2014, 3, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Reyhaneh, A.; Hassan, F.; Hosseini, M.K. Can Bulk and Nanosized Titanium Dioxide Particles Improve Seed Germination Features of Wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum). Not. Sci. Biol. 2013, 5, 325–331. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kim, S.W.; Jung, J.H.; Lamsal, K.; Kim, Y.S.; Min, J.S.; Lee, Y.S. Antifungal effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) against various plant pathogenic fungi. Mycobiology 2012, 4, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Gautam, N.; Salaria, N.; Thakur, K.; Kukreja, S.; Yadav, N.; Yadav, R.; Goutam, U. Green silver nanoparticles for phytopathogen control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 90, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rodríguez-Serrano, C.; Guzmán-Moreno, J.; Ángeles-Chávez, C.; Rodríguez-González, V.; Ortega-Sigala, J.J.; Ramírez-Santoyo, R.M.; Vidales-Rodríguez, L.E. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles by Fusarium scirpi and its potential as antimicrobial agent against uropathogenic Escherichia coli biofilms. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Hussein, E.A.M.; Al-Hajry, A.M.; Harraz, F.A.; Ahsan, M.F. Biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles for enhancing tetracycline activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumonia. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2019, 62, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shehzad, A.; Qureshi, M.; Jabeen, S.; Ahmad, R.; Alabdalall, A.H.; Aljafary, M.A.; Al-Suhaimi, E. Synthesis, Characterization and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles using Rhazya stricta. Peer J. 2018, 6, e6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Mohanta, Y.K.; Panda, S.K.; Bastia, A.K.; Mohanta, T.K. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from protium serratum and Potential Impacts on food safety and control. Front. Microbiol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Abdelmalek, G.A.M.; Salaheldin, T.A. Silver nanoparticles as a potent fungicide for citrus phytopathogenic fungi. J. Nanomed. Res. 2016, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  77. Krishnaraj, C.; Ramachandran, R.; Mohan, K.; Kalaichelvan, P. Optimization for rapid synthesis of silver nanoparticles and its effect on phytopathogenic fungi. Spectrochim. Acta A 2012, 93, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Jo, Y.-K.; Kim, B.H.; Jung, G. Antifungal activity of silver ions and nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi. Plant. Dis. 2009, 93, 1037–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Shahryari, F.; Rabiei, Z.; Sadighian, S. Antibacterial activity of synthesized silver nanoparticles by sumac aqueous extract and silver-chitosan nanocomposite against Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae. J. Plant. Pathol. 2020, 102, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Divya, K.; Vijayan, S.; George, T.K.; Jisha, M. Antimicrobial properties of chitosan nanoparticles: Mode of action and factors affecting activity. Fibers Polym. 2017, 18, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xing, K.; Shen, X.; Zhu, X.; Ju, X.; Miao, X.; Tian, J.; Feng, Z.; Peng, X.; Jiang, J.; Qin, S. Synthesis and in vitro antifungal efcacy of oleoyl-chitosan nanoparticles against plant pathogenic fungi. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 82, 830–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dang, H.; Fawcett, D.G.; Poinern, J. Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles from waste macadamia nuts shells and their antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermis. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Attar, A.; Yapaoz, M.A. Biomimetic synthesis, characterization and antibacterial efficacy of ZnO and Au nanoparticles using Echinacea flower extract precursor. Mater. Res. Express. 2018, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jayaseelan, C.; Ramkumar, R.; Rahuman, A.A.; Perumal, P. Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using seed aqueous extract of Abelmoschus esculentus and its antifungal activity. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 45, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fan, Q.; Liao, Y.Y.; Kunwar, S.; Da Silva, S.; Young, M.; Santra, S.; Paret, M.L. Antibacterial effect of copper composites against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria. Crop Prot. 2020, 139, 105366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Huang, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Hou, Y.; Li, L. Nanotechnology in agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Giannousi, K.; Avramidis, I.; Dendrinou-Samara, C. Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of copper based nanoparticles as agrochemicals against Phytophthora infestans. RSC Adv. 2013, 3, 21743–21752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sharma, N.; Jandaik, S.; Kumar, S.; Chitkara, M.; Sandhu, I.S. Synthesis, characterisation and antimicrobial activity of manganese- and iron-doped zinc oxide nanoparticles. J. Exp. Nanosci. 2015, 11, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Derbalah, A.; Shenashen, M.; Hamza, A.; Mohamed, A.; El Safty, S. Antifungal activity of fabricated mesoporous silica nanoparticles against early blight of tomato. Egypt. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 5, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Akpinar, I.; Sar, T.; Unal, M. Antifungal effects of silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SiO2 NPs) against various plant pathogenic fungi. In International Workshop: Plant Health: Challenges and Solutions; Tar, M., Baştaş, K.K., Eds.; Frontiers Media SA: Antalya, Turkey, 2017; ISBN 978-2-88945-218-7. [Google Scholar]
  91. Park, H.J.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, H.J.; Choi, S.H. A new composition of nano sized silica-silver for control of various plant diseases. Plant Pathol. 2006, 22, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jamdagni, P.; Khatri, P.; Rana, J.S. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using flower extract of Nyctanthesarbor-tristis and their antifungal activity. J. King Saud Uni. Sci. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Navale, G.R.; Thripuranthaka, M.; Late, D.J.; Shinde, S.S. Antimicrobial Activity of ZnO Nanoparticles against Pathogenic Bacteria and Fungi. JSM Nanotechnol. Nanomed. 2015, 3, 10–33. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rajiv, P.; Rajeshwari, S.; Venckatesh, R. Bio-Fabrication of zinc oxide nanoparticles using leaf extract of Parthenium hysterophorus L. and its size-dependent antifungal activity against plant fungal pathogens. Spectrochim. Acta A 2013, 112, 384–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gunalan, S.; Sivaraj, R.; Rajendran, V. Green synthesized ZnO nanoparticles against bacterial and fungal pathogens. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. 2012, 22, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Dimkpa, C.O.; McLean, J.E.; Britt, D.W.; Anderson, A.J. Antifungal activity of ZnO nanoparticles and their interactive effect with a biocontrol bacterium on growth antagonism of the plant pathogen Fusarium graminearum. Biometals 2013, 26, 913–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Jayaseelan, C.; Rahuman, A.A.; Kirthi, A.V.; Marimuthu, S.; Santhoshkumar, T.; Bagavan, A.; Rao, K.V.B. Novel microbial route to synthesize ZnO nanoparticles using Aeromonas hydrophila and their activity against pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2012, 90, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sar, T.; Akpinar, I.; Unal, M. Inhibitory effect of antifungal activity of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles on some pathogenic Fusarium isolates. In Proceedings of the International Workshop Plant Health: Challenges and Solutions, Antalya, Turkey, 23–28 April 2017. 78p. [Google Scholar]
  99. Hamza, A.; El-Mogazy, S.; Derbalah, A. Fenton reagent and titanium dioxide nanoparticles as antifungal agents to control leaf spot of sugar beet under field conditions. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2016, 56, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ardakani, A.S. Toxicity of silver, titanium and silicon nanoparticles on the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita, and growth parameters of tomato. Nematology 2013, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kasemets, K.; Ivask, A.; Dubourgier, H.C.; Kahru, A. Toxicity of nanoparticles of ZnO, CuO and TiO2 to yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Toxicol. Vitr. 2009, 23, 1116–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Cui, H.; Zhang, P.; Gu, W.; Jiang, J. Application of anatasa TiO2 sol derived from peroxotitannic acid in crop diseases control and growth regulation. NSTI Nanotech. 2009, 2, 286–289. [Google Scholar]
  103. Slavin, Y.N.; Asnis, J.; Häfeli, U.O.; Bach, H. Metal nanoparticles: Understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J. NanobioTechnol. 2017, 15, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Singh, J.; Vishwakarma, K.; Ramawat, N.; Rai, P.; Singh, V.K.; Mishra, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, D.K.; Sharma, S. Nanomaterials and microbes’ interactions: A contemporary overview. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kasprowicz, M.J.; Kozioł, M.; Gorczyca, A. The effect of silver nanoparticles on phytopathogenic spores of Fusarium culmorum. Can. J. Microbiol. 2010, 56, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. De Paz, L.E.; Resin, A.; Howard, K.A.; Sutherland, D.S.; Wejse, P.L. Antimicrobial effect of chitosan nanoparticles on Streptococcus mutans biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3892–3895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Aljabali, A.A.; Akkam, Y.; Al Zoubi, M.S.; Al-Batayneh, K.M.; Al-Trad, B.; Abo Alrob, O.; Alkilany, A.M.; Benamara, M.; Evans, D.J. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles using leaf extract of Ziziphus zizyphus and their antimicrobial activity. Nanomaterials 2018, 3, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Yuan, C.G.; Huo, C.; Gui, B.; Cao, W.P. Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Citrus maxima peel extract and their catalytic/antibacterial activities. IET NanobioTechnol. 2016, 11, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Khan, R.A.; Tang, Y.; Naz, I.; Alam, S.S.; Wang, W.; Ahmad, M.; Najeeb, S.; Ali, A.; Rao, C.; Li, Y.; et al. Management of Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato using ZnO nanoparticles synthesized through Matricaria chamomilla. Plant Disease. 2021, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kairyte, K.; Kadys, A.; Luksiene, Z. Antibacterial and antifungal activity of photoactivated ZnO nanoparticles in suspension. J. Photochem. Photobiol. 2013, 128, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Patra, P.; Mitra, S.; Debnath, N.; Goswami, N. Biochemical-Biophysical-and microarray-based antifungal evaluation of the buffer-mediated synthesized nano zinc oxide: An in vivo and in vitro toxicity study. Langmuir 2012, 28, 16966–16978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Wani, A.H.; Shah, M.A. unique and profound effect of MgO and ZnO nanoparticles on some plant pathogenic fungi. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 2, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  113. He, L.; Liu, Y.; Mustapha, A.; Lin, M. Antifungal activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum. Microbiol. Res. 2011, 166, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Sharma, D.; Rajput, J.; Kaith, B.S.; Kaur, M.; Sharma, S. Synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles and study of their antibacterial and antifungal properties. Thin Solid Films 2010, 519, 1224–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Norman, D.J.; Chen, J. Effect of foliar application of titanium dioxide on bacterial blight of geranium and Xanthomonas leaf spot of poinsettia. Hortic. Sci. 2011, 46, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Sanzari, I.; Leone, A.; Ambrosone, A. Nanotechnology in Plant Science: To Make a Long Story Short. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Naushad, M. Surfactant assisted nano-composite cation exchanger: Development, characterization and applications for the removal of toxic Pb2+ from aqueous medium. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 235, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Albadarin, A.B.; Collins, M.N.; Naushad, M.; Shirazian, S.; Walker, G.; Mangwandi, C. Activated lignin-chitosan extruded blends for efficient adsorption of methylene blue. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 307, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Kushwah, K.S.; Patel, S. Effect of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) on Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and Induced Asynaptic Mutation: A Meiotic Study. J. Plant. Growth Regul. 2020, 39, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gohari, G.; Mohammadi, A.; Akbari, A.; Panahirad, S.; Dadpour, M.R.; Fotopoulos, 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]
  121. Patlolla, A.K.; Berry, A.; May, L.; Tchounwou, P.B. Genotoxicity of Ag NPs in Vicia faba: A pilot study on the environmental monitoring of NPs. Int. J.Environ.Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 1649–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Lopez-Moreno, M.L.; de la Rosa, G.; Hernández-Viezcas, J.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Botez, C.E.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Evidence of the Differential Biotransformation and Geno-toxicity of ZnO and CeO2 NPs on Soybean (Glycine max) Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7315–7320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Manjunatha, S.B.; Biradar, D.P.; Aladakatti, Y.R. Nanotechnology and its applications in agriculture: A review. J. Farm Sci. 2016, 29, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 11 02282 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic presentation of nanomaterials in agriculture [12].
Figure 1. Schematic presentation of nanomaterials in agriculture [12].
Applsci 11 02282 g001
Applsci 11 02282 g002 550
Figure 2. Various applications of nanotechnology in agriculture taken from [12].
Figure 2. Various applications of nanotechnology in agriculture taken from [12].
Applsci 11 02282 g002
Applsci 11 02282 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Different types of nanoparticles. (B) Schematic presentation of delivery methods of different nanoparticles and translocation in plants. (C) Various applications of nanoparticles (Taken from Sanzari et al. [116]).
Figure 3. (A) Different types of nanoparticles. (B) Schematic presentation of delivery methods of different nanoparticles and translocation in plants. (C) Various applications of nanoparticles (Taken from Sanzari et al. [116]).
Applsci 11 02282 g003
Applsci 11 02282 g004 550
Figure 4. Diagram showing general applications of nanoparticles in agriculture.
Figure 4. Diagram showing general applications of nanoparticles in agriculture.
Applsci 11 02282 g004
Table
Table 1. Effect of various nanomaterials on plant physiology and growth parameters.
Table 1. Effect of various nanomaterials on plant physiology and growth parameters.
NanoparticlesPlantEffect on Plants in a Dose-Dependent MannerReference
Zn, B, Si, Zeolite NPsPotatoImprove plant growth[19]
ZnO NPsEggplantIncrease plant growth attributes[20]
ZnO NPsTriticum aestivumPositive effect on seed germination [21]
SiO2 & TiO2 NPsRiceImprove plant growth attributes[22]
Nano-size calcite product [CaCO3(40%), SiO2(4%), MgO (1%), and Fe2O3(1%)]GrapevineIncrease plant growth attributes and photosynthetic pigment[23]
ZnO NPsLeucaena leucocephalaIncrease in photosynthetic pigment and total soluble protein contents[24]
ZnO NPsSesamum indicumHigh chlorophyll‘a’, chlorophyll‘b’, and total chlorophyll content level [25]
ZnO NPsZea maysIncreased shoot dry matter and leaf area indexes. [26]
ZnO NPsPennisetum glaucumZnO NPs enhanced shoot and grain yield[27]
TiO2 & ZnO NPsBeetrootIncreased plant growth and shoot dry matter[28]
TiO2 NPsVigna radiata L.Improvement was observed in shoot length[29]
TiO2 NPsOnionLower concentration of TiO2 NPs enhanced seed germination and seedlings growth[30]
TiO2 NPsTriticum aestivum L.Increase in the plant’s root and shoot lengths [31]
TiO2 NPsBrassica napusPromoted seed germination and seedling vigor improved[32]
TiO2 NPsTomatoPromote the photosynthetic rate[33]
SiO2NPsLarix olgensisIncrease in plant height, root length, and chlorophyll content[34]
SiO2NPsAgropyron elongatum L.Improve seed germination[35]
Nano- SiO2Cucurbita pepo L.Reduce the salt stress effect[37]
Nano SiTomatoEnhancement of germination rate and dry weight[38]
CuO NPsSpinacia oleraceaImproved photosynthesis in treated plants[40]
MgO NPsTobaccoPromote plant growth[44]
MgO NPsTomatoInduce resistance in tomato plant[45]
AgNPsWheatRegulate antioxidative defence system[46]
AgNPssoil bacterial diversityRegulate soil bacterial diversity[47]
Chitosan NPsApplesThey reduce microbial growth[48]
Chitosan NPsRobusta cofeeImproved growth parameters[49]
FeS2 NPsCicer arietinum; pinacia oleracea; Daucus carota, Brassica juncea and Sesamum indicum Seed germination enhanced in tested crops [50]
Chitosan NPsRiceReduces disease severity[51]
Chitosan NPsStrawberryRegulate defense response[52]
SiNPsHelianthus annuusImproved germination[53]
SilicaNPsVicia faba L.Improved growth parameters[54]
SiO2NPsPeaImproved growth parameters and chlorophyll content[55]
SiO2 & MoNPsRice Regulate seed germination[56]
SiO2NPsIndocalamus barbatusImproved photosynthetic pigments[57]
SilicaNPsZea mays. LImprove silica content in plants[58]
SiO2NPsMaizeImproved growth parameters and increased seed stability[59]
SiO2and TiO2NPsSoybeanEnhance germination of seeds[60]
Cu(OH)2Lactuca sativaImprove antioxidant system[61]
Cu(OH)2SpinachImprove the antioxidant system[62]
ZnO NPsGlycine maxEnhanced Antioxidant system[63]
ZnO NPsCabbage, cauliflower, and tomatoEnhance pigments, protein, and sugar contents [64]
ZnO NPsArachis hypogaeaSeed germination enhaced[65]
FeS2 NPSpinachImprove plant growth[66]
TiO2 NPsGlycine max L.Positive effect on the seed and oil yield and component compared to the control[67]
TiO2 NPsMentha PiperitaIncreased root length[68]
TiO2 NPsAgropyron desertorumImproves seed germination[69]
Table
Table 2. Various nanomaterials in plant disease management
Table 2. Various nanomaterials in plant disease management
NanoparticlePathogenEffectReference
Ag NPsAlternaria alternata, A. brassicicola, A. solani, Cladosporium cucumerinum, Botrytis cinerea, Corynespora cassiicola, Cylindrocarpon destructans, Didymella bryoniae, F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, F. oxysporum, Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum, F. solani, Fusarium sp., Glomerella cingulata, P. spinosum, Monosporascuscannonballus, Pythium aphanidermatum, Stemphylium lycopersiciShow antifungal activity[70]
AgNPsErwinia sp., Bacillus megaterium, Pseudomonas syringe, Fusarium graminearum, F. avenaceum, F. culmorumAn inhibitory effect on tested microbes[71]
AgNPsEscherichia coliAntibacterial activity[72]
AgNPsStaphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniaAntibacterial activity[73]
AgNPsGram-positive (Bacillus subtilis) and gram-negative (Escherichia coli).An inhibitory effect on tested bacteria[74]
AgNPsFoodborne pathogens viz. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis. Antibacterial activity[75]
AgNPsAlternaria alternata, A. citri, Penicillium digitatumShow antifungal properties[76]
AgNPsAlternaria alternata, Macrophomina phaseolina, Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum, Curvularia lunata, Rhizoctonia solaniShow Antifungal activity.[77]
AgNPsBipolaris sorokiniana and MagnaportheGriseaShow antifungal activity[78]
AgNPs and Cs-Ag nanocompositePseudomonas syringaepv.syringaeShow antibacterial activity[79]
Chitosan NPsKlebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosaShow antibacterial activity[80]
Chitosan NPsFusarium solani, Aspergillus nigerShow Antifungal activity[81]
Au NPsEscherichia coli and StaphylococcusAntibacterial activity[82]
ZnO and Au NPsE. coliAntibacterial activity[83]
AuNPsPuccinia graminis tritci, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicansShow Antifungal activity[84]
Cu compositesXanthomonas euvesicatoriaAntibacterial activity[85]
CuO NPsBotrytis cinerea, Colletotrichumgraminicola, Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum musae, Magnaportheoryzae, Penicillium digitatum, Sclerotium rolfsiiShow antifungal activity[86]
CuO and Cu2O NPsPhytophthora infestansShow antifungal activity[87]
MgO NPsRalstonia solanacearum, Phomopsis vexansShow antifungal and antibacterial activity[88]
SilicaNPs Alternaria spShow antifungal activity[89]
SiO2 NPsFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and F. oxysporum f. sp. radicislycopersiciPossess antifungal properties[90]
Nano Si-AgPythium ultimum, Magnaporthe grisea, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Botrytis cineria, Rhizoctonia solani, Pseudomonas syringae, Xanthomonas compestris pv. vesicatoriaShow antifungal and antibacterial activity[91]
ZnO NPsAlternaria alternate Botrytis cinerea, Aspergillus niger, Fusarium oxysporum and Penicillium expansumAntifungal activity against all the tested fungi [92]
ZnO NPsAspergillus flavus and Aspergillus fumigatesShown potential activity against these tested fungi[93]
ZnO NPsAspergillus flavus, A. niger, A. fumigatus
Fusarium culmorum and F. oxysporium		The highest zone of inhibition occurred in A. flavus[94]
ZnO NPsAspergillus flavus, A. nidulans, Trichoderma harzianum and Rhizopus stoloniferAntifungal activity[95]
ZnO NPsFusarium graminearumAntifungal activity[96]
ZnO NPsPseudomonas aeruginosaAntibacterial activity[97]
TiO2 NPsFusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicislycopersici and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. LycopersiciAntifungal activity[98]
TiO2 NPsCercosporabeticolaPathogen growth was inhibited [99]
TiO2 NPsMeloidogyne incognitaControlled M. incognita[100]
TiO2 NPs and ZnO NPsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeAntifungal activity[101]
TiO2 NPsP. syringaepv. lachrymans and P. cubensisReduced infection of pathogen[102]
Metallic NPsFungus and BacteriaAntibacterial and antifungal activity[103]
Metallic NPsMicrobesAntibacterial and antifungal activity[104]
AgNPsFusarium culmorumAntifungal activity[105]
Chitosan NPsStreptococcusAntibacterial activity[106]
AuNPsCandida albicansAntifungal activity[107]
AuNPsEscherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureusAntibacterial activity[108]
ZnO NPsRalstonia solanacearumAntibacterial activity[109]
ZnO NPsBotrytis, EscherichiaAntibacterial and antifungal activity[110]
ZnO NPsFusarium oxysporum, Aspergillus nigerAntibacterial and antifungal activity[111]
ZnO NPsAlternaria alternate, Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizopus stolonifer and Mucor plumbeusInhibit germination of spores of fungi[112]
ZnO NPsBotrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansumSignificantly inhibit growth[113]
ZnO NPsPsedomanas sp. and Fusarium sp.Antibacterial and antifungal activity [114]
TiO2 NPsXanthomonas hortorum pv. pelargonii, X. axonopodis pv. PoinsettiicolaAntibacterial activity[115]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, M.; Khan, A.U.; Hasan, M.A.; Yadav, K.K.; Pinto, M.M.C.; Malik, N.; Yadav, V.K.; Khan, A.H.; Islam, S.; Sharma, G.K. Agro-Nanotechnology as an Emerging Field: A Novel Sustainable Approach for Improving Plant Growth by Reducing Biotic Stress. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052282

AMA Style

Khan M, Khan AU, Hasan MA, Yadav KK, Pinto MMC, Malik N, Yadav VK, Khan AH, Islam S, Sharma GK. Agro-Nanotechnology as an Emerging Field: A Novel Sustainable Approach for Improving Plant Growth by Reducing Biotic Stress. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(5):2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052282

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Masudulla, Azhar U. Khan, Mohd Abul Hasan, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Marina M. C. Pinto, Nazia Malik, Virendra Kumar Yadav, Afzal Husain Khan, Saiful Islam, and Gulshan Kumar Sharma. 2021. "Agro-Nanotechnology as an Emerging Field: A Novel Sustainable Approach for Improving Plant Growth by Reducing Biotic Stress" Applied Sciences 11, no. 5: 2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052282

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