Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Fatigue Performance of Welded Hollow Spherical Joints Reinforced by CFRP
Next Article in Special Issue
Strengthening and Toughening Epoxy Composites by Constructing MOF/CF Multi-Scale Reinforcement
Previous Article in Journal
Cyclic Performance of Prefabricated Shear Wall Connected to Columns by Rectangular Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Keys
Previous Article in Special Issue
Partitional Behavior of Janus Dumbbell Microparticles in a Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-Dextran (DEX) Aqueous Two-Phase System (ATPS)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/coatings12101586
coatings-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

Metal Nanoparticles in Agriculture: A Review of Possible Use

by
Amani Gabriel Kaningini
1,2,3,
Aluwani Mutanwa Nelwamondo
3,
Shohreh Azizi
1,2,
Malik Maaza
1,2 and
Keletso Cecilia Mohale
3,*
1
UNESCO-UNISA Africa Chair in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology College of Graduates Studies, University of South Africa, Muckleneuk Ridge, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
2
Nanosciences African Network (NANOAFNET), iThemba LABS-National Research Foundation, 1 Old Faure Road, P.O. Box 722, Somerset West 7129, South Africa
3
Department of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2022, 12(10), 1586; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12101586
Submission received: 8 September 2022 / Revised: 11 October 2022 / Accepted: 17 October 2022 / Published: 20 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Chemical Modification II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Deterioration of soils over the years has led to a decline in crop yields and nutritional qualities, resulting from the oversupply of conventional fertilizers, which are unsustainable, costly and pose a threat to the environment. Nanoparticles are gaining a reputation in the field of agriculture for the remediation of soil degradation in a sustainable way. Recently, they have been recognized as potential fertilizers with properties that make them more absorbable and readily available for plant use than their bulk counterpart. However, there is less literature elaborating on the use of nanoparticles as agro-inputs for crop nutrition and protection. This review, therefore, provides insights into the application of nanoscaled nutrient elements such as silver, zinc, copper, iron, titanium, magnesium and calcium as fertilizers. In addition, the review explains the need for utilizing green synthesized nanomaterials as one of the ways to palliate the use of environmentally toxic chemicals in the cropping system and discusses the various benefits of nanoparticles, ranging from plant growth stimulation to defence against pathogens.

1. Introduction to Nanoparticles

Soil degradation has led to an imbalance between food and feed production, climate regulation, water retention and carbon storage in the ecosystem. On a larger scale, it has led to soil erosions and nutrient runoffs, leading to soil infertility, thus affecting human beings through malnutrition and other related diseases [1,2]. To increase productivity and improve soil quality, fertilizers have been used for decades by farmers worldwide on degraded soils affected by human factors [3,4]. However, their intensive usage has led to the pollution of both water and soil as the crop uses less than half of the applied amount [5,6]; the other remaining amount is lost through photolysis, hydrolysis, leaching and microbial immobilization and degradation [7]; thus, threatening the soil microorganisms, human health and the ecosystem, and reducing the profit margin of farmers [6,8,9].
Limited nutrient usage efficiency and environmental restrictions connected with the use of chemical fertilisers continue to be a key issue and obstruction to attaining adequate sustainability in agriculture [6,10]. Currently, the work of researchers is aimed at eco-friendly agricultural practices that can achieve sustainable food production in the long term without altering the environment and wasting resources [11]. The introduction of new technologies, such as nanotechnology, is a key to sustainable food production, hence protecting the environment [6]. Nanotechnology is known as the science of designing, producing and characterizing particles at the nanoscale [12]. These particles, of a size less than 100 nm, have presented numerous properties that allow them to be at the core of several fields, such as drug delivery, cancer diagnosis and treatment [13]. They are wonderful absorbents and catalysts owing to their area, they present a reduced risk of modification by temperature, a tuneable pore size, and easy adsorption and surface coating [14].
Nanotechnology is defined as the scientific knowledge to manipulate and control matter in the nanoscale range to make use of size- and structure-dependent properties and phenomena distinct from those at smaller or larger scales [15]. The use of nanomaterials dates from 4500 years ago. In some civilisations, nanofibers were used for the reinforcement of ceramic matrixes. In addition, the ancient Egyptians of the third century used NMs for the production of different forms of dyes [16]. The development of nanotechnology has resulted in the production of nanoparticles with many applications in different fields, such as the food industry, medicine and textiles [17]. In agriculture, their usage as fertilizers and pesticides has been reported in many studies. Elements such as silver, zinc, copper, iron, silicon, titanium, magnesium, and manganese have been supplied to plants in different forms, hence, having a beneficial effect on their growth and yield as they fight against infections and act as fertilizers or carriers of nutrients [18,19,20,21,22,23] Although scientific reports have demonstrated the applications of nanofertilizers and nanoparticles in crop nutrition and pest control, the adoption of this sustainable alternative is still in its infancy. Hence, this review, therefore, aims to provide insights into the broad agricultural applications of nanoparticles as nanofertilizers.

2. Synthesis Methods up to Date

Several methods have been proposed for the synthesis of metal nanoparticles. They are classified into two main groups, bottom-up methods and top-down methods, which include physical, chemical and biological methods. The precipitation method, microemulsion, ultrasound, hydrothermal synthesis, microwave synthesis, inert gas condensation, laser ablation, sputtering, sol-gel, mechanical milling, biosynthesis, etc., are among the ones that have been extensively used, as described in Table 1 [24,25,26]. Though these methods are usually easy to conduct, the chemical and physical ones present some concerns when it comes to the stability and monodispersion of the size of the nanoparticles. In addition, most of these methods are either costly or not energy and material efficient and present a risk to the environment due to the emission of toxic chemicals [27,28].

2.1. Green Synthesis Using Plants

The usage of living structures in nanoparticle production is a real alternative to physical and chemical processes owing to its environmental friendliness and cost-effectiveness. Biosynthesis of nanoparticles using plants has been demonstrated to be green chemistry that interconnects plant sciences with nanotechnology and helps achieve the synthesis of nanoparticles at room temperature, neutral pH and a low cost without the use of environmentally harmful chemicals [31]. Plants and their by-products have demonstrated essential properties in the synthesis process of nanoparticles as their usage is more beneficial than other systems [34]. They are increasingly being used because they facilitate the development of nanoparticles and increase the success rate of synthesis, as researchers strive to build upscaled processes of monodispersed and stable nanoparticles [35]. The conventional approach for making metallic nanoparticles from plants employs a reducing agent derived from dried plant biomass and a metallic salt as a precursor [31]. The photo components of plant extracts act as reducing as well as stabilizing agents. However, considering the phytochemistry of plants, it is difficult to precisely tell which chemicals act for the bioreduction and stabilization of NPs. Nevertheless, biomolecules such as phenolics, alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, enzymes and proteins have been reported to be involved in the synthesis reaction [36]. Hence, it has been reported that the hydroxyl groups present in carbohydrates, amino acids, proteins and nucleic acids of plants act in the stabilization of ENPs [37]. Green synthesis of nanoparticles is becoming a very insightful topic nowadays. There is rising attention to the use of organisms [38]. The biological production of metallic and metal oxide nanoparticles is less harmful to the environment than the current chemical or physical approaches. As shown in Figure 1, plant, bacterium, fungus and algae substrates are utilized to substitute chemical solvents and stabilizers to reduce the toxicity of both the product and the process [39]. Hence, plants have shown a large interest in expanding the biosynthesis of nanoparticles on a large scale as the plant-mediated nanoparticles are very stable and have diverse sizes and shapes compared to the ones produced through other biological systems [38]. Synthesized nanoparticles can be carbon-based or metal-based. The most produced and used metal-based engineered nanoparticles are zinc oxide (ZnO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), gold (Au), silver (Ag), cerium oxide (CeO2) and copper oxide (CuO) or dioxide (Cu2O) nanoparticles. Other nanoparticles, such as Mn, Fe3O4, CuO, CaO and Fe3O4, are also widely used and produced [40].
Many plants have been used in nanoparticle production (Table 2). Based on the literature, plant-mediated nanoparticle synthesis has gained a reputation. The synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles through Trifolium pratense flower extracts can help to avoid the use of toxic chemicals. Hence, produced ZnO nanoparticles have proven antibacterial activities against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and show a larger spectrum than [41]. ZnO nanoparticles have been manufactured using a variety of plant species, including Moringa oleifera and Aspalathus linearis [42,43]. Furthermore, other nanoparticles such as pure massicot phase lead Oxide (PbO) using Sageretia thea [44]; silver nanoparticles with the capacity of rendering high antimicrobial efficacy against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, i.e., Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus and hence has a great potential in the field of medicine [45]; and gold nanoparticles using extracts of Chrysanthemum and tea beverages [46], thus making plants a real asset for nanoparticle synthesis.

2.2. Targeted Elements

2.2.1. Silver Nanoparticles

Silver nanoparticles have been widely used in the medical, industrial and sporting fields owing to their inhibitory effect on the numerous bacterial strains and microorganisms commonly present in medical and industrial processes [63]. They present several optical, electrical and thermal properties, such as high electrical conductivity, and antimicrobial and catalytic properties [64]. Moreover, they have been incorporated into composite fibres, cryogenic superconducting materials, cosmetic products, the food industry and electronic components due to their unique properties such as chemical stability, good conductivity, catalyst and most important antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal and anti-inflammatory activities [65]. When applied, the Ag ions of silver nanoparticles directly react with plants, improving their morphology and physiology, hence improving their resistance to fungal, bacterial and nematode attacks [66]. In addition, Ag nanoparticles are believed to have the ability to improve the germination of plant seeds [67].

2.2.2. Zinc Oxide

Zincite has gained notoriety as it has been used in several industrial sectors. Due to their potential adaptation, ZnO nanoparticles have been incorporated into solar cell preparation, gas sensing, chemical absorbents, varistors, hydrogenation catalysts and photocatalytic degradation, as well as optical and electrical devices [68]. In addition to the various uses of ZnO nanoparticles, research has demonstrated that they have a stationary effect on the growth of Escherichia coli [69,70]; Klebsiella pneumonia, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans and Penicillium notatum [71,72]; Salmonella enterica Typhimurium, Aspergillus flavus, A. fumigatus and Candida albicans [73], and many more, allowing them to be used in the agricultural sector and the food industry. The study led by [74] concluded that the application of ZnO nanoparticles on Sesamum indicum increased both the seeds’ germination and the plant’s vegetative growth.
The synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles, with different sizes and shapes, has been performed using a significant amount of plant species or their substrates, such as dry ginger rhizome (Zingiber officinale) [71]; the leave of Agathosma betulina and Aspalathus linearis [42,47,75]; orange and pomegranate fruit peel [72,76]; avocado seed extract [77] and the flowers of Trifolium pratense, Nyctanthes arbor-tristis and Jacaranda mimosifolia [41,78,79].

2.2.3. Copper Nanoparticles

Copper oxide nanoparticles are presented in two forms: copper (II) oxide (CuO) and copper (I) oxide (Cu2O). The CuO form has been at the centre of numerous fields of research due to its useful properties, including superconductivity at high temperatures, spin dynamics and electron correlation, making them elements of choice in gas sensing devices, catalysis, batteries, high-temperature superconductors, solar energy conversion and field emission [80]. Due to their high surface-to-volume ratio, continuously renewable surface and fluctuating microelectrode potential values, nanoparticles are also frequently used as catalysts. Hence, their activity against microorganisms such as Bacillus subtilis has made them elements of choice in the field of medicine and wastewater treatment [81,82].

2.2.4. Iron Oxide

Iron is presented in three different forms in nature; most commonly, the oxides found are magnetite (Fe3O4), maghemite (γ-Fe2O3) and hematite (Fe2O3). Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, namely magnetite and maghemite, have received significant attention due to their low toxicity, superparamagnetic properties and simple separation methodology. They are especially fascinating in biomedical applications for protein immobilization during diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging, thermal therapy and drug delivery [83].
Iron oxide nanoparticles have a very high magnetism due to four unpaired electrons in their 3d orbitals, allowing them to be a key component in magnetic seals and inks, magnetic recording media, catalysts, ferrofluids, contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging and therapeutic agents for cancer treatment [84]. The use of iron oxide nanoparticles in the field of agriculture is a novel technology that has been proven successful, though some improvements are necessary. For instance, Fe2O3 nanoparticles promoted growth by regulating phytohormone contents and antioxidant enzyme activity in peanuts, hence improving the availability of Fe in the soil and its accumulation in the plant cells [85]. Soil drenching and foliar application are the most frequently used methods for the application of iron oxide nanoparticles on plants, usually as a source of Fe nutrition [86].
The preparation of iron oxide nanoparticles is achieved through many methods, most of which are chemical, physical or biological [83]. The biosynthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles has been shown to be a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative to the physical and chemical techniques of production. This method produces non-toxic nanoparticles because sugars, antioxidants, amino acids and proteins present in the plants are used for the formation of the nanoparticles [86].

2.2.5. Magnesium Oxide

Due to its unique physicochemical properties, such as outstanding refractive index, excellent corrosion resistance, high thermal conductivity, low electrical conductivity, physical strength, stability, flame resistance, dielectric resistance, mechanical strength and excellent optical transparency, magnesium oxide (MgO) is an eco-friendly, economically feasible and industrially important nanoparticle [87]. It is regarded as a promising high-surface-area heterogeneous catalyst support, additive, and promoter for a variety of chemical reactions due to its unique properties, which include stoichiometry and composition, cation valence and redox properties, acid-base character and crystal and electronic structure [88].
Magnesium oxide nanoparticles are employed as semiconductors, organic catalysts, sorbents for organic and inorganic pollutants in wastewater, electrochemical biosensors, photocatalysts and refractory materials. They also naturally have antibacterial, anticancer and antioxidant properties [87]. Owing to its low toxicity for both plants and humans, and thermal stability, MgO nanoparticles can be used for plant protection and increased production. Furthermore, they possess antimicrobial properties against bacteria and fungi [89].

2.2.6. Calcium Carbonate

Recently, calcium carbonate has been highlighted among the other investigated nanomaterials [90]. Several characteristics have been associated with CaCO3 nanoparticles; they include affordability, low toxicity, biocompatibility, cytocompatibility, pH sensitivity, sedate biodegradability and environmental friendliness [91]. CaCO3 is a critical substance in both fundamental research and industry. It has numerous applications in various industrial fields such as plastic, paper, rubber, paints, textile, food and beverages. It has been used as a filler material in paints, pigments, coatings, paper and plastics, and it can be sculpted into complicated and beautiful shapes by creatures, such as bones, teeth, and shells [92,93]. In the medical field, they have been used for drug delivery, biosensors, bone replacement, biomineralization and enzyme immobilization [90].
The synthesis of CaCO3 has been performed through many methods, such as aqueous precipitation [94], mechano-chemical treatment without further heat treatment [95], lysine biomineralization [96] and plant species such as Myrtus communis [97]. The application of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as a drug carrier to cancer cells has been gaining a reputation owing to its availability, low cost, safety, biocompatibility, pH sensitivity and slow biodegradability [98]. Hence, it has been proven that CaCO3 can help fight against pests such as California red scale (Aonidiella aurantii) and Oriental fruit flies (Bactrocera dorsalis) when sprayed on Citrus tankan leaves [99]. In addition, in a study led by [100], the combination of calcium carbonate and hydroxyl apatite nanoparticles under full irrigation provided the highest yield compared to other treatments on soybean plants.

2.2.7. Titanium Dioxide

The oxide form of the titanium metal is TiO2; it is naturally found as anatase, rutile or brookite minerals. TiO2 nanoparticles have been produced worldwide and are mostly used in cosmetics, sunscreens, food preparation and drug delivery systems due to their absorption of ultraviolet light and higher refractive index, which empowers them to work as a material with various applications [101]. In agriculture, for instance, TiO2 nanoparticles have been used as antimicrobial and growth-regulating agents as well as fertilizers. They present great potential as growth-promoting agents for plants and help prevent human food intoxication. Different plant and fruit pathogens are destroyed by TiO2 nanoparticles. Moreover, TiO2 nanoparticles can achieve the mineralization of residual pollutants, pesticides and organic compounds in hydroponic cultures and under simulated conditions [102]. Studies have shown that TiO2 has a beneficial impact on plant growth and yield. The study led by [103] showed an increase in plant dry weight, chlorophyll content and photosynthetic rate of spinach plants after seed treatment with TiO2 before planting. In addition, the application of TiO2 on Zea mays resulted in an increased uptake of micro and macro-nutrient; however, higher concentrations decreased the dry biomass of plants [104].

3. Application of Nanoparticles on Plants as Fertilizers

Integrating cutting-edge nanotechnology into agriculture, including fertiliser creation, is considered one of the greatest feasible methods to significantly increase crop yield and sustain the world’s constantly growing population [105]. The application of nanoparticles in agriculture as fertilisers is attributed to their improved characterization, absorption and responsiveness, as well as surface and adhesion effects [106]. Nanofertilizers are macro- or micro-nutrient fertilisers that are used to increase agricultural yields and have a particle size of less than 100 nm. Nanofertilizers are nanomaterials responsible for providing one or more types of nutrients to growing plants, supporting their growth and improving production [107]. They are presented in two different types. On one hand, the nanomaterials supply nutrients to plants to improve their development and yield, on the other, they are the carriers of nutrients and only assist in the transport and release of nutrients without directly being used as a nutrient source [108].
There is a growing need in the agriculture industry to increase food production to reduce hunger. Small-scale crop production has been significantly impacted by the heavy price, limited supply and frequent shortage of inorganic fertilisers, which is partly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, which has led to rising oil and food prices. Over the past years, inorganic fertiliser application has been used to improve plant growth and yields. Nevertheless, crops typically use less inorganic fertiliser than what is administered, and the surpluses are accessible to be leached into rivers, which contributes to water contamination [108]. Repeated application of such fertilisers also makes pollution severe. Therefore, to improve crop yield, it is required to produce fertilisers with targeted, gradual or controlled release. According to [109], nanotechnology, especially material nanotechnology, has gained a reputation in the field of agriculture (Figure 2). The publications in this regard have gone from less than 50 in number between 2009 and 2015 to approximately 200 papers in 2021, demonstrating the interest given to this field.
Given their distinctive qualities, such as their high surface area to volume ratio, slow or timed-release characteristics and absorption capacities, nanoparticles are thought to be suitable for producing fertilisers for use in agriculture [6]. Nanofertilizers’ effectiveness to promote crop productivity is influenced by how they are applied to plants, as well as how they are absorbed and accumulated by plants. To promote plant growth and yield, nanofertilizers can be delivered above or below ground by foliar spray or irrigation. Additionally, biosynthesized nanoparticles can be added to seeds or primed [110,111]. The uptake and accumulation of nanoparticles for enhancing crop growth are dependent on the plant type as well as nanoparticles type, size, concentration, chemical composition, stability and transformation rate after biological interaction [112,113]. Nanofertilizers penetrate the aerial regions of the plant by entering the xylem vessels through the root epidermis and endodermis. Moreover, these nanoparticle nutrients can be delivered to different areas of the plant through the phloem and leaf stomata [113].

3.1. Application of Silver Nanoparticles

When compared to other nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles are drawing more attention due to their extensive use in a wide range of products, such as antimicrobial agents, shampoo, soap, toothpaste, wastewater treatment, food packaging materials, food storage containers, textiles, air fragrances, detergents and paint [114,115,116]. Silver nanoparticles have recently been linked to improved crop productivity in agriculture. According to numerous studies, the optimal concentration levels of silver nanoparticles are crucial for promoting seed germination [117,118] and plant growth [119]. In addition, chlorophyll concentration and photosynthetic quantum efficiency have been enhanced [120,121], as well as the effectiveness of water and fertiliser utilisation [122]. However, high concentrations of the 25 nm silver nanoparticles were found to tear down the cell wall and harm the vacuoles of Oryza sativa root cells, having a toxic effect [123]. According to [124], the silver was unable to infiltrate the root cells of Oryza sativa when present in low concentrations of up to 30 g/mL; nevertheless, the larger concentrations were effective in obliterating the cell structure and producing a harmful impact. Several studies reported that various sizes of silver nanoparticles demonstrate a clear relationship between size and nanoparticles toxicity to plants; smaller nanoparticles were consistently found to be more hazardous to plants compared with bigger nanoparticles [125,126,127].

3.2. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles

All metallic nanoparticles influence how plants grow and develop; however, ZnO nanoparticles stand out for their exceptional qualities and wide range of applications [128]. Zinc is a regulatory co-factor and structural component of many enzymes and proteins and plays an important role in plant metabolic activity, particularly photosynthesis, phytohormone biosynthesis and antioxidant mechanisms [129]. A correct amount of zinc must be applied and made accessible because both deficiencies and excesses are harmful to plants. Due to their exceptional qualities, ZnO nanoparticles have been determined to be a potential particle for maintaining the necessary concentration of zinc in plants [130].
The study of [131] reported that zinc oxide nanoparticles improved both the fresh and dried weight of Cicer arietinum seedlings. Similarly, [132] stated that a high proportion of ZnO nanoparticles had a substantial impact on the viability and growth of tobacco. However, higher concentrations of ZnO nanoparticles at 2000 ppm were found to have toxic effects on the growth and yield of peanuts [133]. On the other hand, no significant impacts of ZnO were found on Cucurbita pepo at the investigated concentration [134]. Improved seed germination and root development, as well as plant growth, were observed on Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) plants [135]. Additionally, similar results were recorded where seed germination was improved on Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) [136]. Increased protein content was observed when ZnO nanoparticles were applied, which helps with photosynthesis, promoting the viability and development of maize (Zea mays L.) plants [137]. Zinc oxide nanoparticle treatment at a concentration of 1000 ppm was found to enhance seed germination and seedling vigour, which led to initial development in the soil as evidenced by early flowering and increased leaf chlorophyll concentration [133].

3.3. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles

Iron is a crucial microelement with a variety of physiological and biochemical effects and is the fourth most prevalent element in terms of value; nonetheless, plants require large amounts of iron to grow [138]. Iron plays crucial roles in enzyme reactions and photosynthesis, improving the functionality of the photosynthesis process, DNA translation, RNA synthesis and auxin activities, all of which are necessary for optimal plant development [139]. Due to the limited availability of iron-containing minerals, utilising nanoparticles to address iron shortage is one of the alternative approaches. Nanoparticles can also increase crop production to different environmental stresses [138]. Iron oxide nanoparticles can enhance nutrient intake by interacting with molecules inside plant cells [140].
Several studies have reported that the application of iron oxide nanoparticles on different crops has improved plant growth parameters and dry matter material. According to [141], iron oxide nanoparticles boosted tomato plant development metrics. Similar results were observed by [142], who reported that the plant growth performance, photosynthetic pigments, indole acetic acid, the content of proline, free amino acids and total soluble sugars were significantly enhanced when iron oxide nanoparticles were sprayed on moringa plants.

3.4. Titanium Dioxide

Titanium dioxide is a well-known nanoparticle that has been used in crop production as well as human consumption. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles have several noteworthy effects on the morphologic, biological and physiological characteristics of the crop [143]. In their study, [144] observed that wheat seedlings treated with titanium dioxide nanoparticles resulted in enhanced growth and production characteristics, including yield. Furthermore, [145], reported that canola plants treated with titanium dioxide nanoparticles had increased germination rates and better radicle and plumule growth.

3.5. Calcium Carbonate

One of the most prevalent elements in the geosphere is calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium carbonate is an essential element in both basic technology and engineering. It already has a wide range of industrial uses in areas such as polymer, paper, elastomer, paints, fabrics, foodstuff and refreshments. Calcium carbonate is effective in combating pests such as oriental fruit flies and California red scales when sprayed on citrus tankan leaves [99]. Additionally, in research by [100], the combination of calcium carbonate and hydroxyl apatite nanoparticles applied to soybean plants under irrigation showed maximum yield in comparison to other treatments. In addition, [108] found that the application of calcium carbonate nanoparticles with a size of 20–80 nm considerably enhanced the seedling growth and dry biomass in contrast to the control when applied to groundnut seedlings.

3.6. Magnesium Oxide

Magnesium oxide has received significant attention among nanomaterials because of its simple stoichiometry, high ionic character, crystal structure and surface structural flaws. Peanut seeds responded favourably to MgO nanoparticle dispersion, which promoted germination, growth and photosynthetic pigments [146]. Additionally, the effects of applying magnesium oxide nanoparticles at a dosage of 4 mg/L on mung bean seedling growth revealed rapid germination when compared to other treatments [147]. Furthermore, maximum germination, seedlings, and vigour index were observed on the green gram (Vigna radiata) [148].

4. Nanoparticles’ Adverse Effects

Biosynthesized nanoparticles offer enormous potential to alleviate stress, boost growth and improve agricultural production. However, the unintentional release of some nanoparticles into the environment poses a threat to both aquatic and land plants [149]. For instance, in their study, [150] reported the adverse effect of CdSe nanoparticles on the morphology and peroxidase enzyme of common Duckweed (Lemna minor), with it having an increased concentration of superoxide dismutase enzyme, catalase, phenols and flavonoids, in contrast with the results of [151]. Furthermore, ZnSe nanoparticles have been found to have a certain toxic effect on the growth of Lemna minor by triggering the plants’ defence system due to phytotoxicity [152]. Furthermore, carbon nanotubes were found to trigger oxidative stress in red spinach [153]. In addition, the application of high levels of Ag-NPs can cause oxidative stress by increasing the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and affecting the chloroplast structure and function of Spirodela polyrhiza [126]. Hence, it is crucial to mention that the toxicity of nanoparticles depends on the method used for their production. Several studies have shown that plant-mediated nanoparticles present less to no eco-toxicity towards plants in general and aquatic plants in particular [154,155,156]. However, further investigations should be carried out to ascertain the effect of nanoparticles synthesized using plant species on aquatic plants.

5. Conclusions

To maximize yields and alleviate poverty and malnutrition, nanoparticles have been recognized as highly beneficial for plant biomass production and enhancement of crop nutritional quality. This review highlighted the attributes of biosynthesized nanomaterials as sustainable alternatives to conventional chemical fertilizers.
These potential agro-inputs can be readily absorbed by plants and are environmentally friendly crop nutrient supplements (Ca, Mg and Fe NPs), with advantages beyond fertilization. Thus, the review also highlighted the use of nanoparticles such as Ti, Ag and Zn, which can be integrated into cropping systems to enhance the plant’s defence mechanism against disease attack. However, fewer studies have investigated the broad application of nanoparticles in pest and disease management, offering an opportunity for future research in crop protection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and supervision: M.M. and K.C.M.; Writing original manuscript: A.G.K. and A.M.N.; Manuscript review and editing: K.C.M. and A.G.K.; Funding acquisition: M.M. and K.C.M.; Resources:, A.G.K., A.M.N., K.C.M. and S.A.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

pHhydrogen potential
NPsnanoparticles
NMsnanomaterials
ENPsengineered nanoparticles

References

  1. Lal, R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Secur. 2009, 1, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pimentel, D.; Burgess, M. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 2013, 3, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Lindsjö, K.; Mulwafu, W.; Andersson Djurfeldt, A.; Joshua, M.K. Generational dynamics of agricultural intensification in Malawi: Challenges for the youth and elderly smallholder farmers. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 19, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Zhang, M.; Sun, D.; Niu, Z.; Yan, J.; Zhou, X.; Kang, X. Effects of combined organic/inorganic fertilizer application on growth, photosynthetic characteristics, yield and fruit quality of Actinidia chinesis cv ‘Hongyang’. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Setyorini, D.; Prihatini, T.; Kurnia, U.; No, J.I.J. Pollution of Soil by Agricultural and Industrial Waste; Food and Fertilizer Technology Center: Bogor, Indonesia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zulfiqar, F.; Navarro, M.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.A.; Munné-Bosch, S. Nanofertilizer use for sustainable agriculture: Advantages and limitations. Plant Sci. 2019, 289, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Seleiman, M.F.; Almutairi, K.F.; Alotaibi, M.; Shami, A.; Alhammad, B.A.; Battaglia, M.L. Nano-fertilization as an emerging fertilization technique: Why can modern agriculture benefit from its use? Plants 2021, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Cachada, A.; Rocha-Santos, T.; Duarte, A.C. Soil and pollution: An introduction to the main issues. In Soil Pollution; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pan, H.; Chen, M.; Feng, H.; Wei, M.; Song, F.; Lou, Y.; Cui, X.; Wang, H.; Zhuge, Y. Organic and inorganic fertilizers respectively drive bacterial and fungal community compositions in a fluvo-aquic soil in northern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 198, 104540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bădescu, I.S.; Bulgariu, D.; Bulgariu, L. Alternative utilization of algal biomass (Ulva sp.) loaded with Zn (II) ions for improving of soil quality. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 1069–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Islam, M.A.; Islam, S.; Akter, A.; Rahman, M.H.; Nandwani, D. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and the growth, yield and quality of tomato in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Agriculture 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Krishna, R.N.; Gayathri, R.; Priya, V. Nanoparticles and their applications—A review. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2017, 9, 24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Titus, D.; Samuel, E.J.J.; Roopan, S.M. Nanoparticle characterization techniques. In Green Synthesis, Characterization and Applications of Nanoparticles; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 303–319. [Google Scholar]
  14. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Karishma, S.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Jeevanantham, S.; Yaashikaa, P.R.; George, C.S. A review on biosynthesis of metal nanoparticles and its environmental applications. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Roco, M.C. The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. In Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jeevanandam, J.; Barhoum, A.; Chan, Y.S.; Dufresne, A.; Danquah, M.K. Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials: History, sources, toxicity and regulations. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 1050–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Luksiene, Z. Nanoparticles and their potential application as antimicrobials in the food industry. In Food Preservation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 567–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rastogi, A.; Tripathi, D.K.; Yadav, S.; Chauhan, D.K.; Živčák, M.; Ghorbanpour, M.; El-Sheery, N.I.; Brestic, M. Application of silicon nanoparticles in agriculture. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Singh, R.P.; Handa, R.; Manchanda, G. Nanoparticles in sustainable agriculture: An emerging opportunity. J. Control. Release 2021, 329, 1234–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bansal, K.; Hooda, V.; Verma, N.; Kharewal, T.; Tehri, N.; Dhull, V.; Gahlaut, A. Stress Alleviation and Crop Improvement Using Silicon Nanoparticles in Agriculture: A Review. Silicon 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Burketová, L.; Martinec, J.; Siegel, J.; Macůrková, A.; Maryška, L.; Valentová, O. Noble metal nanoparticles in agriculture: Impacts on plants, associated microorganisms, and biotechnological practices. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022, 58, 107929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. 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]
  23. Nandhini, M.; Rajini, S.B.; Udayashankar, A.C.; Niranjana, S.R.; Lund, O.S.; Shetty, H.S.; Prakash, H.S. Biofabricated zinc oxide nanoparticles as an eco-friendly alternative for growth promotion and management of downy mildew of pearl millet. Crop Prot. 2019, 121, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jamkhande, P.G.; Ghule, N.W.; Bamer, A.H.; Kalaskar, M.G. Metal nanoparticles synthesis: An overview on methods of preparation, advantages and disadvantages, and applications. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 101174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ramanathan, S.; Gopinath, S.C.B.; Arshad, M.K.M.; Poopalan, P.; Perumal, V. Nanoparticle synthetic methods: Strength and limitations. In Nanoparticles in Analytical and Medical Devices; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rane, A.V.; Kanny, K.; Abitha, V.K.; Thomas, S. Methods for synthesis of nanoparticles and fabrication of nanocomposites. In Synthesis of Inorganic Nanomaterials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 121–139. [Google Scholar]
  27. Abbasi, E.; Milani, M.; Fekri Aval, S.; Kouhi, M.; Akbarzadeh, A.; Tayefi Nasrabadi, H.; Nikasa, P.; Joo, S.W.; Hanifehpour, Y.; Nejati-Koshki, K. Silver nanoparticles: Synthesis methods, bio-applications and properties. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 42, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gour, A.; Jain, N.K. Advances in green synthesis of nanoparticles. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2019, 47, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Bloch, K.; Pardesi, K.; Satriano, C.; Ghosh, S. Bacteriogenic platinum nanoparticles for application in nanomedicine. Front. Chem. 2021, 9, 624344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Mondan, E.M.; Plăiașu, A.G. Advantages and Disadvantages of Chemical Methods in the Elaboration of Nanomaterials. Ann. “Dunarea Jos” Univ. Galati. Fascicle IX Metall. Mater. Sci. 2020, 43, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Parveen, K.; Banse, V.; Ledwani, L. Green synthesis of nanoparticles: Their advantages and disadvantages. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2016; p. 20048. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dhand, C.; Dwivedi, N.; Loh, X.J.; Ying, A.N.J.; Verma, N.K.; Beuerman, R.W.; Lakshminarayanan, R.; Ramakrishna, S. Methods and strategies for the synthesis of diverse nanoparticles and their applications: A comprehensive overview. Rsc Adv. 2015, 5, 105003–105037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Patra, J.K.; Baek, K.H. Green nanobiotechnology: Factors affecting synthesis and characterization techniques. J. Nanomater. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Mohammad, F. Nanotechnology and Plant Sciences; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 10, pp. 973–978. [Google Scholar]
  35. Iravani, S.; Korbekandi, H.; Zolfaghari, B. Phytosynthesis of nanoparticles. Nanotechnol. Plant Sci. 2015, 203–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ovais, M.; Khalil, A.T.; Islam, N.U.; Ahmad, I.; Ayaz, M.; Saravanan, M.; Shinwari, Z.K.; Mukherjee, S. Role of plant phytochemicals and microbial enzymes in biosynthesis of metallic nanoparticles. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 6799–6814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dorjnamjin, D.; Ariunaa, M.; Shim, Y.K. Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using hydroxyl functionalized ionic liquids and their antimicrobial activity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2008, 9, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ramesh, P.; Rajendran, A.; Meenakshisundaram, M. Green ynthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using flower extract cassia auriculata. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014, 2, 41–45. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bandeira, M.; Giovanela, M.; Roesch-Ely, M.; Devine, D.M.; da Silva Crespo, J. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles: A review of the synthesis methodology and mechanism of formation. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2020, 15, 100223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rico, C.M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Chemistry, biochemistry of nanoparticles, and their role in antioxidant defense system in plants. In Nanotechnology and Plant Sciences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dobrucka, R.; Długaszewska, J. Biosynthesis and antibacterial activity of ZnO nanoparticles using Trifolium pratense flower extract. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 23, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Diallo, A.; Ngom, B.D.; Park, E.; Maaza, M. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles by Aspalathus linearis: Structural & optical properties. J. Alloys Compd. 2015, 646, 425–430. [Google Scholar]
  43. Matinise, N.; Fuku, X.G.; Kaviyarasu, K.; Mayedwa, N.; Maaza, M. ZnO nanoparticles via Moringa oleifera green synthesis: Physical properties & mechanism of formation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 406, 339–347. [Google Scholar]
  44. Khalil, A.T.; Ovais, M.; Ullah, I.; Ali, M.; Jan, S.A.; Shinwari, Z.K.; Maaza, M. Bioinspired synthesis of pure massicot phase lead oxide nanoparticles and assessment of their biocompatibility, cytotoxicity and in-vitro biological properties. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 916–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sharma, S.; Kumar, S.; Bulchandini, B.; Taneja, S.; Banyal, S. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their antimicrobial activity against gram positive and gram negative bacteria. Int. J. Biotechnol. Bioeng. Res. 2013, 4, 711–714. [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, Q.; Liu, H.; Yuan, Z.; Wei, D.; Ye, Y. Evaluation of antioxidant activity of chrysanthemum extracts and tea beverages by gold nanoparticles-based assay. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2012, 92, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Thema, F.T.; Manikandan, E.; Dhlamini, M.S.; Maaza, M. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles via Agathosma betulina natural extract. Mater. Lett. 2015, 161, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Naika, H.R.; Lingaraju, K.; Manjunath, K.; Kumar, D.; Nagaraju, G.; Suresh, D.; Nagabhushana, H. Green synthesis of CuO nanoparticles using Gloriosa superba L. extract and their antibacterial activity. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2015, 9, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Velsankar, K.; Vinothini, V.; Sudhahar, S.; Kumar, M.K.; Mohandoss, S. Green Synthesis of CuO nanoparticles via Plectranthus amboinicus leaves extract with its characterization on structural, morphological, and biological properties. Appl. Nanosci. 2020, 10, 3953–3971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rajiv, P.; Bavadharani, B.; Kumar, M.N.; Vanathi, P. Synthesis and characterization of biogenic iron oxide nanoparticles using green chemistry approach and evaluating their biological activities. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 12, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rajeswari, V.D.; Eed, E.M.; Elfasakhany, A.; Badruddin, I.A.; Kamangar, S.; Brindhadevi, K. Green synthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using Laurus nobilis (bay leaf): Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Appl. Nanosci. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramesh, M.; Anbuvannan, M.; Viruthagiri, G. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using Solanum nigrum leaf extract and their antibacterial activity. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2015, 136, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kaningini, G.A.; Azizi, S.; Nyoni, H.; Mudau, F.N.; Mohale, K.C.; Maaza, M. Green synthesis and characterization of zinc oxide nanoparticles using bush tea (Athrixia phylicoides DC) natural extract: Assessment of the synthesis process. F1000Research 2021, 10, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Thangamani, N.; Bhuvaneshwari, N. Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Simarouba glauca leaf extract and their biological activity of micro-organism. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2019, 732, 136587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aseyd Nezhad, S.; Es-haghi, A.; Tabrizi, M.H. Green synthesis of cerium oxide nanoparticle using Origanum majorana L. leaf extract, its characterization and biological activities. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2020, 34, e5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, S.; Shen, Y.; Xie, A.; Yu, X.; Qiu, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Capsicum annuum L. extract. Green Chem. 2007, 9, 852–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ansari, M.A.; Khan, H.M.; Alzohairy, M.A.; Jalal, M.; Ali, S.G.; Pal, R.; Musarrat, J. Green synthesis of Al2O3 nanoparticles and their bactericidal potential against clinical isolates of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hafeez, M.; Shaheen, R.; Akram, B.; Haq, S.; Mahsud, S.; Ali, S.; Khan, R.T. Green synthesis of cobalt oxide nanoparticles for potential biological applications. Mater. Res. Express 2020, 7, 25019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Awwad, A.M.; Salem, N.M. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles byMulberry LeavesExtract. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2012, 2, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Shende, S.; Ingle, A.P.; Gade, A.; Rai, M. Green synthesis of copper nanoparticles by Citrus medica Linn. (Idilimbu) juice and its antimicrobial activity. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 865–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ramola, B.; Joshi, N.C.; Ramola, M.; Chhabra, J.; Singh, A. Green synthesis, characterisations and antimicrobial activities of CaO nanoparticles. Orient. J. Chem. 2019, 35, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Umaralikhan, L.; Jamal Mohamed Jaffar, M. Green synthesis of MgO nanoparticles and it antibacterial activity. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. A Sci. 2018, 42, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Song, J.Y.; Kim, B.S. Rapid biological synthesis of silver nanoparticles using plant leaf extracts. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 32, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, X.-F.; Liu, Z.-G.; Shen, W.; Gurunathan, S. Silver nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization, properties, applications, and therapeutic approaches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ahmed, S.; Ahmad, M.; Swami, B.L.; Ikram, S. A review on plants extract mediated synthesis of silver nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications: A green expertise. J. Adv. Res. 2016, 7, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Gruyer, N.; Dorais, M.; Bastien, C.; Dassylva, N.; Triffault-Bouchet, G. Interaction between silver nanoparticles and plant growth. In International Symposium on New Technologies for Environment Control, Energy-Saving and Crop Production in Greenhouse and Plant 1037; International Society for Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2013; pp. 795–800. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kale, S.K.; Parishwad, G.V.; Patil, A.S.N.H.A.S. Emerging agriculture applications of silver nanoparticles. ES Food Agrofor. 2021, 3, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hong, R.; Pan, T.; Qian, J.; Li, H. Synthesis and surface modification of ZnO nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. J. 2006, 119, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Padmavathy, N.; Vijayaraghavan, R. Enhanced bioactivity of ZnO nanoparticles—An antimicrobial study. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2008, 9, 035004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ding, Y.; Povey, M.; York, D. Investigation into the antibacterial behaviour of suspensions of ZnO nanoparticles (ZnO nanofluids). J. Nanoparticle Res. 2007, 9, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Janaki, A.C.; Sailatha, E.; Gunasekaran, S. Synthesis, characteristics and antimicrobial activity of ZnO nanoparticles. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2015, 144, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Thi, T.U.D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Thi, Y.D.; Thi, K.H.T.; Phan, B.T.; Pham, K.N. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using orange fruit peel extract for antibacterial activities. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 23899–23907. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kaushik, M.; Niranjan, R.; Thangam, R.; Madhan, B.; Pandiyarasan, V.; Ramachandran, C.; Oh, D.-H.; Venkatasubbu, G.D. Investigations on the antimicrobial activity and wound healing potential of ZnO nanoparticles. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 479, 1169–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Umavathi, S.; Mahboob, S.; Govindarajan, M.; Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Ahmed, Z.; Virik, P.; Al-Mulhm, N.; Subash, M.; Gopinath, K.; Kavitha, C. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles for antimicrobial and vegetative growth applications: A novel approach for advancing efficient high quality health care to human wellbeing. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 1808–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Osuntokun, J.; Onwudiwe, D.C.; Ebenso, E.E. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using aqueous Brassica oleracea L. var. italica and the photocatalytic activity. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2019, 12, 444–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Verbič, A.; Šala, M.; Jerman, I.; Gorjanc, M. Novel green in situ synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles on cotton using pomegranate peel extract. Materials 2021, 14, 4472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Saridewi, N.; Adinda, A.R.; Nurbayti, S. Characterization and Antibacterial Activity Test of Green Synthetic ZnO Nanoparticles Using Avocado (Persea americana) Seed Extract. J. Kim. Sains Dan Apl. 2022, 25, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jamdagni, P.; Khatri, P.; Rana, J.S. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using flower extract of Nyctanthes arbor-tristis and their antifungal activity. J. King Saud Univ. 2018, 30, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Sharma, D.; Sabela, M.I.; Kanchi, S.; Mdluli, P.S.; Singh, G.; Stenström, T.A.; Bisetty, K. Biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using Jacaranda mimosifolia flowers extract: Synergistic antibacterial activity and molecular simulated facet specific adsorption studies. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2016, 162, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ren, G.; Hu, D.; Cheng, E.W.C.; Vargas-Reus, M.A.; Reip, P.; Allaker, R.P. Characterisation of copper oxide nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 33, 587–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Din, M.I.; Rehan, R. Synthesis, characterization, and applications of copper nanoparticles. Anal. Lett. 2017, 50, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ruparelia, J.P.; Chatterjee, A.K.; Duttagupta, S.P.; Mukherji, S. Strain specificity in antimicrobial activity of silver and copper nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 2008, 4, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Ali, A.; Zafar, H.; Zia, M.; ul Haq, I.; Phull, A.R.; Ali, J.S.; Hussain, A. Synthesis, characterization, applications, and challenges of iron oxide nanoparticles. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2016, 9, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Teja, A.S.; Koh, P.-Y. Synthesis, properties, and applications of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Prog. Cryst. Growth Charact. Mater. 2009, 55, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rui, M.; Ma, C.; Hao, Y.; Guo, J.; Rui, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Fan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, T. Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Naeem, A.; Khalid, H.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Azhar, M. Responses of plants to iron oxide nanoparticles. In Nanomaterials in Plants, Algae, and Microorganisms; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 221–238. [Google Scholar]
  87. Abinaya, S.; Kavitha, H.P.; Prakash, M.; Muthukrishnaraj, A. Green synthesis of magnesium oxide nanoparticles and its applications: A review. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2021, 19, 100368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Julkapli, N.M.; Bagheri, S. Magnesium oxide as a heterogeneous catalyst support. Rev. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 36, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fernandes, M.; RB Singh, K.; Sarkar, T.; Singh, P.; Pratap Singh, R. Recent applications of magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticles in various domains. Adv. Mater. Lett. 2020, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Biradar, S.; Ravichandran, P.; Gopikrishnan, R.; Goornavar, V.; Hall, J.C.; Ramesh, V.; Baluchamy, S.; Jeffers, R.B.; Ramesh, G.T. Calcium carbonate nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization and biocompatibility. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011, 11, 6868–6874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mydin, R.; Zahidi, I.N.M.; Ishak, N.N.; Shaida, N.; Ghazali, S.N.; Moshawih, S.; Siddiquee, S. Potential of calcium carbonate nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Malays. J. Med. Health Sci. 2018, 14, 201–206. [Google Scholar]
  92. Boyjoo, Y.; Pareek, V.K.; Liu, J. Synthesis of micro and nano-sized calcium carbonate particles and their applications. J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 14270–14288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Moghazy, M.A.E.-F.; Taha, G.M. Effect of precursor chemistry on purity and characterization of CaCO3 nanoparticles and its application for adsorption of methyl orange from aqueous solutions. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Babou-Kammoe, R.; Hamoudi, S.; Larachi, F.; Belkacemi, K. Synthesis of CaCO3 nanoparticles by controlled precipitation of saturated carbonate and calcium nitrate aqueous solutions. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 90, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sargheini, J.; Ataie, A.; Salili, S.M.; Hoseinion, A.A. One-step facile synthesis of CaCO3 nanoparticles via mechano-chemical route. Powder Technol. 2012, 219, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yang, T.; Ao, Y.; Feng, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J. Biomineralization inspired synthesis of CaCO3-based DDS for pH-responsive release of anticancer drug. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 27, 102256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Uzunoğlu, D.; Özer, A. Biosynthesis and characterization of CaCO3 nanoparticles from the leach solution and the aqueous extract of Myrtus communis plant. Int. Adv. Res. Eng. J. 2018, 2, 245–253. [Google Scholar]
  98. Maleki Dizaj, S.; Barzegar-Jalali, M.; Zarrintan, M.H.; Adibkia, K.; Lotfipour, F. Calcium carbonate nanoparticles as cancer drug delivery system. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2015, 12, 1649–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hua, K.-H.; Wang, H.-C.; Chung, R.-S.; Hsu, J.-C. Calcium carbonate nanoparticles can enhance plant nutrition and insect pest tolerance. J. Pestic. Sci. 2015, 40, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. El-Hady, A.; Hussein, H. Effect of Foliar Nano Fertilizers and Irrigation Intervals on Soybean Productivity and Quality. J. Plant Prod. 2021, 12, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar]
  101. Irshad, M.A.; Nawaz, R.; ur Rehman, M.Z.; Adrees, M.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Ahmad, S.; Tasleem, S. Synthesis, characterization and advanced sustainable applications of titanium dioxide nanoparticles: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 212, 111978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Rodríguez-González, V.; Terashima, C.; Fujishima, A. Applications of photocatalytic titanium dioxide-based nanomaterials in sustainable agriculture. J. Photochem. Photobiol. C Photochem. Rev. 2019, 40, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. 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]
  104. Dağhan, H. Effects of TiO2 nanoparticles on maize (Zea mays L.) growth, chlorophyll content and nutrient uptake. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 6873–6883. [Google Scholar]
  105. Lal, R. Soils and sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 28, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Qureshi, A.; Singh, D.K.; Dwivedi, S. Nano-fertilizers: A novel way for enhancing nutrient use efficiency and crop productivity. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018, 7, 3325–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Chhipa, H. Nanofertilizers and nanopesticides for agriculture. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017, 15, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Liu, R.; Lal, R. Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Xu, Z.P. Material Nanotechnology Is Sustaining Modern Agriculture. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2022, 2, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Korishettar, P.; Vasudevan, S.N.; Shakuntala, N.M.; Doddagoudar, S.R.; Hiregoudar, S.; Kisan, B. Seed polymer coating with Zn and Fe nanoparticles: An innovative seed quality enhancement technique in pigeonpea. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2016, 8, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Mittal, D.; Kaur, G.; Singh, P.; Yadav, K.; Ali, S.A. Nanoparticle-based sustainable agriculture and food science: Recent advances and future outlook. Front. Nanotechnol. 2020, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chen, H. Metal based nanoparticles in agricultural system: Behavior, transport, and interaction with plants. Chem. Speciat. Bioavailab. 2018, 30, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Prasad, R.; Bhattacharyya, A.; Nguyen, Q.D. Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: Recent developments, challenges, and perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Rai, M.; Yadav, A.; Gade, A. Silver nanoparticles as a new generation of antimicrobials. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Tiede, K.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Tear, S.P.; Lewis, J.; David, H.; Hassellöv, M. Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Addit. Contam. 2008, 25, 795–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Wijnhoven, S.W.P.; Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M.; Herberts, C.A.; Hagens, W.I.; Oomen, A.G.; Heugens, E.H.W.; Roszek, B.; Bisschops, J.; Gosens, I.; Van De Meent, D. Nano-silver–a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology 2009, 3, 109–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Barrena, R.; Casals, E.; Colón, J.; Font, X.; Sánchez, A.; Puntes, V. Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Shelar, G.B.; Chavan, A.M. Myco-synthesis of silver nanoparticles from Trichoderma harzianum and its impact on germination status of oil seed. Biolife 2015, 3, 109–113. [Google Scholar]
  119. Vannini, C.; Domingo, G.; Onelli, E.; Prinsi, B.; Marsoni, M.; Espen, L.; Bracale, M. Morphological and proteomic responses of Eruca sativa exposed to silver nanoparticles or silver nitrate. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Hatami, M.; Ghorbanpour, M. Effect of nanosilver on physiological performance of pelargonium plants exposed to dark storage. J. Hortic. Res. 2013, 21, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sharma, P.; Bhatt, D.; Zaidi, M.G.H.; Saradhi, P.P.; Khanna, P.K.; Arora, S. Silver nanoparticle-mediated enhancement in growth and antioxidant status of Brassica juncea. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 167, 2225–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lu, L.; Wang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Xi, S.; Zhang, H.; Hu, J.; Zhao, B. Seed-mediated growth of large, monodisperse core–shell gold–silver nanoparticles with Ag-like optical properties. Chem. Commun. 2002, 144–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mazumdar, H.; Ahmed, G.U. Phytotoxicity effect of silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa. Int. J. Chem. Tech. Res. 2011, 3, 1494–1500. [Google Scholar]
  124. Mirzajani, F.; Askari, H.; Hamzelou, S.; Farzaneh, M.; Ghassempour, A. Effect of silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa L. and its rhizosphere bacteria. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 88, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Cvjetko, P.; Milošić, A.; Domijan, A.-M.; Vrček, I.V.; Tolić, S.; Štefanić, P.P.; Letofsky-Papst, I.; Tkalec, M.; Balen, B. Toxicity of silver ions and differently coated silver nanoparticles in Allium cepa roots. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 137, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Jiang, H.; Qiu, X.; Li, G.; Li, W.; Yin, L. Silver nanoparticles induced accumulation of reactive oxygen species and alteration of antioxidant systems in the aquatic plant Spirodela polyrhiza. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 1398–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Yin, L.; Colman, B.P.; McGill, B.M.; Wright, J.P.; Bernhardt, E.S. Effects of silver nanoparticle exposure on germination and early growth of eleven wetland plants. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Sabir, S.; Arshad, M.; Chaudhari, S.K. Zinc oxide nanoparticles for revolutionizing agriculture: Synthesis and applications. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Umair Hassan, M.; Aamer, M.; Umer Chattha, M.; Haiying, T.; Shahzad, B.; Barbanti, L.; Nawaz, M.; Rasheed, A.; Afzal, A.; Liu, Y. The critical role of zinc in plants facing the drought stress. Agriculture 2020, 10, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Milani, N.; Hettiarachchi, G.M.; Kirby, J.K.; Beak, D.G.; Stacey, S.P.; McLaughlin, M.J. Fate of zinc oxide nanoparticles coated onto macronutrient fertilizers in an alkaline calcareous soil. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Pavani, K.; Divya, V.; Veena, I.; Aditya, M.; Devakinandan, G. Influence of bioengineered zinc nanoparticles and zinc metal on Cicer arietinum seedlings growth. Asian J. Agric. Biol 2014, 2, 216–223. [Google Scholar]
  132. Balážová, Ľ.; Baláž, M.; Babula, P. Zinc oxide nanoparticles damage tobacco BY-2 cells by oxidative stress followed by processes of autophagy and programmed cell death. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Prasad, T.; Sudhakar, P.; Sreenivasulu, Y.; Latha, P.; Munaswamy, V.; Reddy, K.R.; 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]
  134. Stampoulis, D.; Sinha, S.K.; White, J.C. Assay-dependent phytotoxicity of nanoparticles to plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 9473–9479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Shaik, A.M.; David Raju, M.; Rama Sekhara Reddy, D. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using aqueous root extract of Sphagneticola trilobata Lin and investigate its role in toxic metal removal, sowing germination and fostering of plant growth. Inorg. Nano-Metal Chem. 2020, 50, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mazumder, J.A.; Khan, E.; Perwez, M.; Gupta, M.; Kumar, S.; Raza, K.; Sardar, M. Exposure of biosynthesized nanoscale ZnO to Brassica juncea crop plant: Morphological, biochemical and molecular aspects. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Sabir, S.; Zahoor, M.A.; Waseem, M.; Siddique, M.H.; Shafique, M.; Imran, M.; Hayat, S.; Malik, I.R.; Muzammil, S. Biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using bacillus subtilis: Characterization and nutritive significance for promoting plant growth in Zea mays L. Dose-Response 2020, 18, 1559325820958911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Askary, M.; Talebi, S.M.; Amini, F.; Bangan, A.D.B. Effects of iron nanoparticles on Mentha piperita L. under salinity stress. Biologija 2017, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sheykhbaglou, R.; Sedghi, M.; Fathi-Achachlouie, B. The effect of ferrous nano-oxide particles on physiological traits and nutritional compounds of soybean (Glycine max L.) seed. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018, 90, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Rahmatizadeh, R.; Arvin, S.M.J.; Jamei, R.; Mozaffari, H.; Reza Nejhad, F. Response of tomato plants to interaction effects of magnetic (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and cadmium stress. J. Plant Interact. 2019, 14, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. 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] [Green Version]
  142. Tawfik, M.M.; Mohamed, M.H.; Sadak, M.S.; Thalooth, A.T. Iron oxide nanoparticles effect on growth, physiological traits and nutritional contents of Moringa oleifera grown in saline environment. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2021, 45, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Misra, P.; Shukla, P.K.; Pramanik, K.; Gautam, S.; Kole, C. Nanotechnology for crop improvement. In Plant Nanotechnology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 219–256. [Google Scholar]
  144. Jaberzadeh, A.; Moaveni, P.; Moghadam, H.R.T.; Zahedi, H. Influence of bulk and nanoparticles titanium foliar application on some agronomic traits, seed gluten and starch contents of wheat subjected to water deficit stress. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-napoca 2013, 41, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Mahmoodzadeh, H.; Nabavi, M.; Kashefi, H. Effect of nanoscale titanium dioxide particles on the germination and growth of canola (Brassica napus). Ornam. Plants 2013, 3, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  146. Jhansi, K.; Jayarambabu, N.; Reddy, K.P.; Reddy, N.M.; Suvarna, R.P.; Rao, K.V.; Kumar, V.R.; Rajendar, V. Biosynthesis of MgO nanoparticles using mushroom extract: Effect on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seed germination. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Ashok, C.; Rao, K.V.; Chakra, C.S.; Rao, K.G. Mgo nanoparticles prepared by microwave-irradiation technique and its seed germination application. Nano Trends A J. Nanotechnol. Appl. 2016, 18, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  148. Anand, K.V.; Anugraga, A.R.; Kannan, M.; Singaravelu, G.; Govindaraju, K. Bio-engineered magnesium oxide nanoparticles as nano-priming agent for enhancing seed germination and seedling vigour of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Mater. Lett. 2020, 271, 127792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Ranjan, A.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Bauer, T.; Chauhan, A.; Jindal, T. Nanoparticles induced stress and toxicity in plants. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2021, 15, 100457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Tarrahi, R.; Movafeghi, A.; Khataee, A.; Rezanejad, F.; Gohari, G. Evaluating the toxic impacts of cadmium selenide nanoparticles on the aquatic plant Lemna minor. Molecules 2019, 24, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Movafeghi, A.; Khataee, A.; Rezaee, A.; Kosari-Nasab, M.; Tarrahi, R. Toxicity of cadmium selenide nanoparticles on the green microalga Chlorella vulgaris: Inducing antioxidative defense response. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 36380–36387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Tarrahi, R.; Khataee, A.; Movafeghi, A.; Rezanejad, F. Toxicity of ZnSe nanoparticles to Lemna minor: Evaluation of biological responses. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 226, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Begum, P.; Fugetsu, B. Phytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on red spinach (Amaranthus tricolor L) and the role of ascorbic acid as an antioxidant. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 243, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Plachtová, P.; Medrikova, Z.; Zboril, R.; Tucek, J.; Varma, R.S.; Maršálek, B. Iron and iron oxide nanoparticles synthesized with green tea extract: Differences in ecotoxicological profile and ability to degrade malachite green. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 8679–8687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Markova, Z.; Novak, P.; Kaslik, J.; Plachtova, P.; Brazdova, M.; Jancula, D.; Siskova, K.M.; Machala, L.; Marsalek, B.; Zboril, R.; et al. Iron (II, III)–polyphenol complex nanoparticles derived from green tea with remarkable ecotoxicological impact. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1674–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Usha Rani, P.; Rajasekharreddy, P. Green synthesis of silver-protein (core–shell) nanoparticles using Piper betle L. leaf extract and its ecotoxicological studies on Daphnia magna. Colloids Surf. 2011, 389, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coatings 12 01586 g001 550
Figure 1. Summary of the green synthesis process of nanoparticles using the biological route [39].
Figure 1. Summary of the green synthesis process of nanoparticles using the biological route [39].
Coatings 12 01586 g001
Coatings 12 01586 g002 550
Figure 2. Publication trend of nanotechnology-related articles in the field of agriculture from 2009 to 2021 [109].
Figure 2. Publication trend of nanotechnology-related articles in the field of agriculture from 2009 to 2021 [109].
Coatings 12 01586 g002
Table
Table 1. Nanoparticle synthesis methods [25,29,30,31,32,33].
Table 1. Nanoparticle synthesis methods [25,29,30,31,32,33].
AdvantagesDisadvantages
Top-Down Approach
Physical methodsEvaporation–condensationHigh speed
No use of toxic chemicals
Purity
Uniform size and shape.		Productivity, high cost, radiation exposure.
Require high energy, temperature and pressure,
A large amount of waste generation, highdilution, difficult size and shape tunability, lower stability, altered surface
chemistry and physicochemical properties of nanoparticles.
Arc discharge
Laser Ablation
Hydrothermal
Electron beam evaporation/lithography
Mechanical grinding
Ball milling
Spray pyrolysis
Vapour-phase synthesis
Inert gaz condensation
Ion implantation
Laser pyrolisis
Flash spray pyrolysis
Sputtering
Pulse laser deposition
Bottom-up approach
Chemical methodsChemical reductionCost-effective
High versatility in surface chemistry,
Easy functionalization
High yield
Size controllability
Thermal stability
Reduced dispersity		Difficult large-scale production
Chemical purification of nanoparticles required
Low purity, use of toxic chemicals and organic solvents, hazardous to
human beings and the environment.
Irradiation
Electrochemical (electrolysis) method
Microemulsion
Coprecipitation
Pyrolysis
Irradiation
Sonochemical method
Sol-gel
Solvothermal
Hydrothermal
Plasma-enhanced chemical vapour deposition
Chemical vapour synthesis
Photoreduction
Biological methodPlantGood reproducibility
High yield
Low-cost
Use of less hazardous chemicals
Stable nanoparticlesLess energy		Usually slow
Bacteria
Fungi
Table
Table 2. Summary of the synthesis of nanoparticles using plant extracts as reducing/chelating agents.
Table 2. Summary of the synthesis of nanoparticles using plant extracts as reducing/chelating agents.
Plant SpeciesNanoparticlesApplication/PropertiesReference
Agatosma betulinaZnOQuasi-spherical nanoparticles with 15.8 nm diameter[47]
Gloriosa superbaL.CuO5–10 nm spherical nanoparticles.
Antimicrobial activity against Klebsiella aerogenes, Pseudomonas desmolyticum and Escherichia coli		[48]
Plectranthus amboinicusCuOProtein denaturation of Egg albumin
Antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi
Antioxidant activity
Inhibition of α-Amylase for the treatment of diabetes
Anti-larvicidal activity against mosquito larva		[49]
Lantana camaraFe3O4Highly stable nanorod crystals
Inhibition of Pseudomonas sp. Growth
Enhancement of Vigna mungo seed germination at a concentration of 200 ppm		[50]
Laurus nobilisTiO2Antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi
Inhibitory antioxidant activity on DPPH radicals		[51]
Solanum nigrumZnO29.79 nm nanoparticles.
Antimicrobial (inhibitory) activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella paratyphi, Vibrio cholerae and Escherichia coli		[52]
Bush tea (Athrixia phylicoides DC.)ZnOSpherical nanoparticles with an average diameter of 24 nm[53]
Simarouba glaucaAuInhibition of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris and Klebsiella pneumonia growth.[54]
Origanum majorana L.CeOSpherically shaped nanoparticles with a size of 10–70 nm.
Antioxidant activity by free radical scavenging activity against DPPH and ABTS free radicals.		[55]
Capsicum annuum L.AgThe secondary structure of the proteins in the plant extract changed after the reaction with silver ions.[56]
Lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus)Al2O3Complete growth inhibition of extended-spectrum β-lactamases and Metallo-β-lactamases isolates.[57]
Populus ciliataCo3O4Maximum inhibition of Klebsiella pneumoniae and B. subtillus growth.[58]
Mulberry (Morus alba) leaves extractAgEffective antibacterial activity toward Staphylococcus aureus and Shigella sp.[59]
Citron juice (Citrus medica Linn.)CuNPsSignificant inhibitory activity against Escherichia coli followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Propionibacterium acnes and Salmonella typhi.[60]
Rhododendron arboreumCuOAntimicrobial activities against Escherichia coli, Streptococcus mutans and Proteus vulgaris.[61]
Pisidium guvajava and Aloe veraMgOAntibacterial activity against E. coli and S. aureus.[62]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12101586

AMA Style

Kaningini AG, Nelwamondo AM, Azizi S, Maaza M, Mohale KC. Metal Nanoparticles in Agriculture: A Review of Possible Use. Coatings. 2022; 12(10):1586. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12101586

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kaningini, Amani Gabriel, Aluwani Mutanwa Nelwamondo, Shohreh Azizi, Malik Maaza, and Keletso Cecilia Mohale. 2022. "Metal Nanoparticles in Agriculture: A Review of Possible Use" Coatings 12, no. 10: 1586. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12101586

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