Next Article in Journal
Trichoderma reesei Contains a Biosynthetic Gene Cluster That Encodes the Antifungal Agent Ilicicolin H
Next Article in Special Issue
Pseudomonas indica-Mediated Silver Nanoparticles: Antifungal and Antioxidant Biogenic Tool for Suppressing Mucormycosis Fungi
Previous Article in Journal
Selection by UV Mutagenesis and Physiological Characterization of Mutant Strains of the Yeast Saprochaete suaveolens (Former Geotrichum fragrans) with Higher Capacity to Produce Flavor Compounds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trichoderma harzianum-Mediated ZnO Nanoparticles: A Green Tool for Controlling Soil-Borne Pathogens in Cotton
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 7
Issue 12
10.3390/jof7121033
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Metal Nanoparticles as Novel Antifungal Agents for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Advances and Future Directions

by
Aida R. Cruz-Luna
1,
Heriberto Cruz-Martínez
2,
Alfonso Vásquez-López
1,* and
Dora I. Medina
3,*
1
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CIIDIR-OAXACA, Hornos Núm 1003, Col. Noche Buena, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán 71230, Mexico
2
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Etla, Abasolo S/N, Barrio del Agua Buena, Santiago Suchilquitongo 68230, Mexico
3
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences, Atizapan de Zaragoza 52926, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2021, 7(12), 1033; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121033
Submission received: 25 October 2021 / Revised: 25 November 2021 / Accepted: 25 November 2021 / Published: 1 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Nanotechnology 2.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of metal nanoparticles is considered a good alternative to control phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture. To date, numerous metal nanoparticles (e.g., Ag, Cu, Se, Ni, Mg, and Fe) have been synthesized and used as potential antifungal agents. Therefore, this proposal presents a critical and detailed review of the use of these nanoparticles to control phytopathogenic fungi. Ag nanoparticles have been the most investigated nanoparticles due to their good antifungal activities, followed by Cu nanoparticles. It was also found that other metal nanoparticles have been investigated as antifungal agents, such as Se, Ni, Mg, Pd, and Fe, showing prominent results. Different synthesis methods have been used to produce these nanoparticles with different shapes and sizes, which have shown outstanding antifungal activities. This review shows the success of the use of metal nanoparticles to control phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture.

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of agriculture, the biggest challenge has been pests and diseases produced by insects, bacteria, fungi, and other pathogens present in the environment [1,2,3]. This leads to large losses of crops, which are reflected in production with low profits, that is to say, earnings are directly affected [4,5]. Among the different pathogens, phytopathogenic fungi cause various diseases in agriculture [6]. Fungi have the versatility of adaptation to any medium and are capable of colonizing different substrates or media in extreme or precarious environmental conditions. They can affect different stages of the crop, from sowing to growth and production to postharvest [7,8].
Today, phytopathogenic fungi have mostly been controlled with chemical products, which are cheap and easy to obtain on the market [9,10]. However, due to their indiscriminate use, they have created several problems such as environmental pollution, diseases in humans and animals, and ecological imbalances [11,12]. In addition, the usage of chemical agents has resulted in fungi developing more resistance, becoming stronger against chemical products [13,14].
Currently, friendly and efficient alternatives for the environment are being used to control phytopathogen fungi, such as biological control [15,16], plant extracts [17], and essential oils [18,19,20]. Such alternatives have been beneficial and are therefore considered as a good choice. However, these alternatives have some challenges, such as the effect of delays, high acquisition costs, and constant applications that make them vulnerable [21,22].
Otherwise, another recently explored and applied route in agriculture is the use of nanomaterials, which have been successfully applied in other fields such as energy, medicine, and electronics [23,24,25,26,27]. Nanomaterials have become very important because their physicochemical properties are very different compared to bulk materials [28,29,30]. Furthermore, the shape, size, and composition of nanomaterials determine their physicochemical properties [28,29,30]. These peculiarities have made nanomaterials applicable in different areas. Specifically, in the field of agriculture, there are several nanomaterial applications, such as in the production, processing, storage, packaging, and transportation of agricultural products [31,32]. In production, nanomaterials offer ecological, efficient, and modern alternatives that can be very useful for the management of phytopathogenic diseases that can be used as bio-manufacturing agents, due to their easy handling and production [33,34].
Different nanomaterials have shown excellent antifungal activities; therefore, they are considered a good alternative to control phytopathogenic fungi [35,36,37,38]. Specifically, metal nanoparticles have been widely studied; consequently, they have been tested and led to significant results due to their excellent antifungal properties [39]. So far, numerous metal nanoparticles have been synthesized and used to control phytopathogenic fungi [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. However, there is a current lack of critical and detailed reviews of current progress in the use of metal nanoparticles to control phytopathogenic fungi, as the currently available reviews only partially analyse the use of metal-based nanoparticles for controlling these pathogens [48,49].
Therefore, this review presents a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the current progress on the application of metal nanoparticles for controlling phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture. In the first instance, the possible mechanisms of action of nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi are reviewed. Afterwards, the progress on the use of metal nanoparticles as potential antifungal agents is reviewed in detail. Finally, conclusions and future directions are presented.

2. Mechanisms Involved in Antifungal Activity of Nanoparticles

The use of nanoparticles is a novel route to control phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture because they have shown high antifungal activity across a wide diversity of phytopathogenic fungi [50,51]. Several factors have an influence over their antifungal activity, such as the size distribution, shape, composition, crystallinity, agglomeration, and surface chemistry of the nanoparticles [52,53]. For example, small nanoparticles favor the surface area-to-volume ratio, which could promote their antifungal activity [54]. It is well-known that these mentioned factors can be modified and controlled through synthesis routes [55,56]. It has also been documented that the synthesis route can play an important role in the antifungal activity, as sometimes metal precursors or surfactants are not easy to remove from the nanoparticles. Therefore, the residues from the synthesis can modify the surface chemistry of the nanoparticles and consequently influence their antifungal activity [57]. Finally, another important factor is the species of phytopathogenic fungi, since each specie has a different morphological structure.
As mentioned before, several factors influence the antifungal activity of the nanoparticles. Therefore, it is necessary to know the interaction and action mechanism between the metal nanoparticles and the phytopathogenic fungi. At present, various possible antifungal action mechanisms of these nanoparticles have been proposed (see Figure 1).

3. Antifungal Properties of Metal Nanoparticles

Metal nanoparticles have been successfully applied to control different pathogens [63,64,65]. In this same direction, there are numerous studies on the use of metal nanoparticles to control phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture. Up to now, different nanoparticles have been used to control phytopathogenic fungi. For instance, Ag, Cu, Fe, Zn, Se, Ni, and Pd have shown outstanding antifungal properties. Therefore, a critical and detailed analysis of current advances in the use of metal nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi is presented.

3.1. Ag Nanoparticles

Ag nanoparticles have been extensively investigated in different scientific fields due to their antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties as well as their characteristics of biocompatibility, easy production, relatively low cost, and non-toxicity, among others [66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. Due to these properties and their effective antifungal activities, Ag nanoparticles have also been the most investigated nanoparticles to control phytopathogenic fungi [73,74]. The main synthesis methods used to produce Ag nanoparticles to inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic fungi are the chemical and biological routes because they are easy to acquire and handle. In Figure 2, a generalized representation of the green or biological synthesis of metallic nanoparticles is illustrated. It can be observed that several factors can influence the synthesis of nanoparticles.
For biological systems, many extracts of plants and fungi have been used in the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles [33,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]. In Table 1, the different extracts of plants and fungi that have been used to produce Ag nanoparticles are reported. In the case of the chemical route, several methods have been used to synthesize Ag nanoparticles, such as chemical reduction, sol-gel, and microemulsion [122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130]. To a lesser extent, physical methods have been used, such as high-voltage arc discharge and the irradiation method [131,132,133]. These different methods have made it possible to synthesize Ag nanoparticles with outstanding antifungal properties. Moreover, the biological syntheses present an additional benefit because they are environmentally friendly. Finally, it is interesting to note that several commercial Ag nanoparticles have been evaluated to inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic fungi, and have shown outstanding antifungal properties.
As aforementioned, the characteristics of Ag nanoparticles such as shape, structure, and size play an important role in antifungal activity. According to Table 1, so far, most Ag nanoparticles synthesized by the different methods have been spherical, which may be because this kind of shape is easier to synthesize. In terms of size, they are polydisperse, which does not allow analysis in detail of the effect of the size of the nanoparticles on their antifungal activity. However, it is revealed that the smaller nanoparticles, between 10 and 30 nm, have greater antifungal effectiveness [76,77,90,94,99,104,108,126,133,148]. This is because the smaller nanoparticles penetrate or destroy the pathogen’s cell membrane more quickly and thus unite the fungal hyphae and mycelium and deactivate these pathogens [99,108]. Ag nanoparticles ranging between 40 and 70 nm also show an inhibitory effect, destroying mycelium and spores and provoking the rupture of the membrane significantly [78,92,95,118,122,131]. Nevertheless, while the larger size has a good antifungal capacity, their penetration into the pathogen’s membrane is slower, causing damage to mycelium and spores or the inhibition of fungal growth [110,121,129,132]. In Figure 3, severely damaged cell walls and hyphae with abnormal structures are shown in the presence of biosynthesized Ag NPs.
On the other hand, it has been reported that the concentration of nanoparticles can play an important role in antifungal activity [130]. Therefore, different concentrations of Ag nanoparticles have been evaluated. Several studies have shown that the concentration of Ag nanoparticles has an important role in antifungal activity [83,113,129,130,137,146]. Interestingly, low concentrations showed effectiveness in the suppression of fungi. For example, Ag nanoparticles synthesized with M. charantia and P. guajava extracts showed good antifungal capacity in concentrations of 20 ppm, inhibiting the growth of mycelium in fungi such as A. niger, A. flavus, and F. oxysporum [76]. A similar case occurred with Ag nanoparticles synthesized with T. viride extracts, which completely inhibited the growth of A. solani at low concentrations of 25 ppm [103]. In addition, excellent results were found in medium concentrations. For example, Ag nanoparticles synthesized with green and black tea were evaluated in four concentrations (i.e., 10, 25, 50, and 100 ppm) against A. flavus and A. parasiticus. The best results were obtained with doses of 100 ppm. Ag nanoparticles entered into the cell membrane, seriously affecting the respiratory chain, resulting in cell death [90]. A peculiarity was observed at very high concentrations of Ag nanoparticles (e.g., 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 ppm): with the increasing dose, the antifungal capacity presented a saturation of the Ag nanoparticles. According to the literature, this caused damage to the mycelium, such as oxidation, but not the complete inhibition of fungal pathogens [80,99,107]. Interestingly, some studies compare the antifungal activities of Ag nanoparticles with respect to chemical fungicides [109,144]. Ag nanoparticles showed similar results to chemical fungicides [109,144]. Therefore, the utilization of nanoparticles is a viable alternative to the use of chemical fungicides.

3.2. Cu Nanoparticles

The first study of Cu nanoparticles against fungi was reported by Giannousi et al. [149]. Since then, Cu nanoparticles have been considered a viable option for the treatment of fungal diseases [150,151]. Furthermore, Cu has several advantages: for instance, it is cheap, it is highly available, and its production in terms of nanoparticles is economical. Therefore, there are several studies on the use of Cu nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi [42,79,90,92,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165]. The main synthesis methods to obtain Cu nanoparticles for the control of this pathogen are mentioned in Table 2. The chemical synthesis methods include chemical reduction and hydrothermal [158,159,160,161,162,163,164], whereas biological synthesis with different extracts of plants is widely used for its naturalness and its zero toxicity concerning the environment [42,90,92,154,155,156]. Finally, commercial nanoparticles, which are effective and easily acquired, have also been evaluated for the inhibition of phytopathogenic fungi [139,140,142,145,165].
The studies carried out on Cu nanoparticles produced by the different synthesis methods have shown excellent antifungal activity in different species of phytopathogenic fungi. However, as in the case of Ag nanoparticles, there is a great diversity of sizes, which makes it difficult to analyze the size effect of Cu nanoparticles on antifungal activity (see Figure 4). In general, small nanoparticles range from 10 to 30 nm and penetrate the cell membrane more easily, causing a rupture and the leakage of cell contents [139,142,145,154,165]. Something similar occurs in medium-sized Cu nanoparticles (40 to 70 nm); however, by increasing their size, their fluidity in the membrane makes the growth and development of colonies of the pathogen impossible [90,92,158]. Finally, the large Cu nanoparticles (80 to >100 nm) inhibit the growth of mycelium and spores, thus demonstrating their antifungal capacity [152,153,161].
Regarding the shape, the synthesized Cu nanoparticles are mainly spherical (see Figure 4a). That kind of shape has shown outstanding antifungal activities. According to several authors, spherical nanoparticles have the highest possibility of penetrating the membrane (and thus accessing the enzymes to initiate the cellular inhibition) faster [145,162]. Other shapes were also found, such as faceted ones with sizes in the range of 200–500 nm, which showed high effectiveness against F. solani, Neofusicoccum sp., and F. oxysporum (see Figure 4b) [152]. Another shape is the truncated octahedron structure (14 to 37 nm), which has been effective against F. oxysporum and caused its inhibition [164].
Another determining factor in inhibiting the growth of phytopathogenic fungi is the concentration of the Cu nanoparticles. To date, different concentrations (e.g., low, medium, and high) have been evaluated on phytopathogenic fungi. For example, low concentrations of Cu nanoparticles were evaluated against F. oxysporum at 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 ppm. While the lowest concentration (0.1 ppm) promoted hard oxidative stress in the mycelium, the highest concentration (0.5 ppm) showed an antifungal capacity against F. oxysporum [164].
In addition, they have antifungal activities at medium concentrations (e.g., 5, 10, and 20 ppm). Cu nanoparticles demonstrated significant antifungal activity against F. oxysporum and P. capsici, which were inhibited by increasing the incubation time of the different concentrations. On the third day after their application, the inhibition increased slightly from 49% for 5 ppm to 63% for 20 ppm [157].
To cite another example, doses of 5, 15, 25, and 35 ppm were used against R. solani, F. oxysporum, F. redolens, P. cactorum, F. hepática, G. frondosa, M. giganteus, and S. crispa, demonstrating the antifungal capacity of Cu nanoparticles at a concentration of 35 ppm. In such a case, there was neither the growth of mycelium, nor the development of the pathogens studied [140]. Finally, for the highest concentrations of Cu nanoparticles, three different doses (300, 380, and 450 ppm) were evaluated. They were applied against Fusarium sp., demonstrating excellent antifungal capacity at the highest dose of 450 ppm [158]. Another study was carried out at four different high doses (i.e., 50, 100, 500, and 1000 ppm) against B. cinerea, A. alternata, M. fructicola, C. gloeosporioides, F. solani, F. oxysporum, and V. dahlia. In this study, Cu nanoparticles showed toxic activity at all concentrations and at the highest concentration of 1000 ppm they inhibited all phytopathogens [139]. In general, the Cu nanoparticles show antifungal capacity, affecting the phytopathogen intracellularly and extracellularly. Therefore, Cu nanoparticles are an excellent option for the control and management of different diseases of agronomic importance.

3.3. Other Metal Nanoparticles

As previously discussed, Ag and Cu nanoparticles are the most studied for the control of the growth of phytopathogenic fungi. However, other metal nanoparticles have been investigated as antifungal agents, such as Se [103,129,166], Ni [47,92], Mg [92], Pd [167], and Fe [90], which have shown promising results. Recently, Se nanoparticles were evaluated in vivo against S. graminicola in doses of 0 to 1000 ppm. To synthesize these nanoparticles, six strains of Trichoderma spp. (T. asperellum, T. harzianum, T. atroviride, T. virens, T. longibrachiatum, and T. brevicompactum) in the form of culture filtrate, cell lysate, and crude cell wall were used. The best result was found with T. asperellum in culture filtrate, demonstrating the antifungal capacity of Se nanoparticles [166]. In another report, Se nanoparticles were synthesized by the biological method using T. viride and they were evaluated at different concentrations (50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800 ppm) against A. solani using the in vitro method. It was demonstrated that Se nanoparticles suppressed the growth of the fungus at 800 ppm [103]. Lastly, chemically synthesized Se nanoparticles were evaluated against M. phaseolina, S. sclerotiorum, and D. longicolla at different concentrations of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 ppm. The nanoparticles of Se inhibited D. longicolla from 10 ppm and up, and from 50 and 100 ppm for M. phaseolina. However, for S. sclerotiorum, the different concentrations of Se nanoparticles did not show any inhibition, allowing the growth and development of the pathogen [129].
Another metal that has been investigated for the control of phytopathogenic fungi is Ni. However, as in the case of Se nanoparticles, there are few studies available on the use of Ni nanoparticles aganist phytopathogenic fungi. In the first instance, commercial Ni nanoparticles were evaluated using in vitro and in vivo methods against two species of F. oxysporum at concentrations of 50 and 100 ppm. At a concentration of 100 ppm, the Ni nanoparticles significantly inhibited mycelial reproduction and the sporulation activities of the fungal pathogens under in vitro conditions. Meanwhile, under in vivo conditions, Ni nanoparticles at a concentration of 50 ppm reduced the severity of the disease by 58.4% and 57.0% in the cases of lettuce and tomato crops [47].
Finally, other nanoparticles investigated for the control of phytopathogenic fungi are Fe nanoparticles, highlighting the application of Fe nanoparticles synthesized by an ecological method using extracts of green and black tea leaves. Various concentrations (10, 25, 50, and 100 ppm) were evaluated against the fungi A. flavus and A. parasiticus in vitro. The results demonstrated a 43.5% inhibition with green tea extract and a 51.6% inhibition with black tea with doses of 100 ppm [90].

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

In this review, a critical and detailed analysis of the current progress on the application of metal-based nanoparticles for controlling phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture was presented. Based on this review, the following conclusions and future directions are proposed.
The progress achieved in the use of metal nanoparticles for the control of phytopathogenic fungi is outstanding since the studies developed so far clearly show that these nanoparticles can be an excellent alternative to chemical fungicides for the control of phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture.
Among the metallic nanoparticles, Ag nanoparticles have been the most studied as antifungal agents, followed by Cu nanoparticles. These nanoparticles have shown promising activity aganist different species of phytopathogenic fungi. Different synthesis methods have made it possible to produce nanoparticles with different shapes and sizes. However, the nanoparticles have been mainly spherical and polydisperse in size. Therefore, we consider it necessary to synthesize and evaluate nanoparticles of different shapes and size (e.g., octahedrons, icosahedrons, and faceted ones) and homogeneous in, since it is well known that these factors influence on antifungal activity.
For the rest of the metallic nanoparticles, such as Ni, Se, Mg, Pd, and Fe, there is little research. Therefore, it can be inferred that their antifungal properties are not well known, although the synthesis methods that have been tested for them have given good results. Hence, it is important to continue researching these metallic nanoparticles since there is a vast number of opportunities for researchers in this field.
Nowadays, the nanoparticles evaluated as antifungal agents have been mainly monometallic. Therefore, we consider it important to synthesize and evaluate bimetallic or trimetallic nanoparticles for the control of phytopathogenic fungi, since it has been documented that these nanoparticles have very different properties than monometallic nanoparticles.
According to this review, most of the studies were evaluated in vitro. However, it is important to apply the in vivo method to know the behavior of phytopathogens in the field. Applying the nanoparticles directly to the pathogens is preferable since the environments within the laboratory are different from those in the field. The lack of in vivo studies create a significant opportunity for the application of metal nanoparticles in the field of agriculture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.C.-L., H.C.-M., A.V.-L. and D.I.M.; formal analysis, A.R.C.-L., H.C.-M., A.V.-L. and D.I.M.; investigation, A.R.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; resources, H.C.-M., A.V.-L. and D.I.M.; data curation, A.R.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.C.-L.; writing—review and editing, H.C.-M., A.V.-L. and D.I.M.; supervision, A.V.-L. and D.I.M.; funding acquisition, H.C.-M., A.V.-L. and D.I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are grateful, for the funding sources provided by the Tecnológico Nacional de México and Instituto Politécnico Nacional through grant numbers 10800.21-P and SIP 20201078, respectively. The APC was funded by Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Karkhane, M.; Lashgarian, H.E.; Mirzaei, S.Z.; Ghaffarizadeh, A.; Cherghipour, K.; Sepahvand, A.; Marzban, A. Antifungal, antioxidant and photocatalytic activities of zinc nanoparticles synthesized by Sargassum vulgare extract. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 101791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malcolm, G.M.; Kuldau, G.A.; Gugino, B.K.; Jiménez-Gasco, M.D.M. Hidden host plant associations of soilborne fungal pathogens: An ecological perspective. Phytopathology 2013, 103, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Brauer, V.S.; Rezende, C.P.; Pessoni, A.M.; De Paula, R.G.; Rangappa, K.S.; Nayaka, S.C.; Gupta, V.K.; Almeida, F.; Brauer, V.S.; Rezende, C.P.; et al. Antifungal Agents in Agriculture: Friends and Foes of Public Health. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Terra, A.L.M.; Kosinski, R.D.C.; Moreira, J.B.; Costa, J.A.V.; De Morais, M.G. Microalgae biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles for application in the control of agricultural pathogens. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2019, 54, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Almeida, F.; Rodrigues, M.L.; Coelho, C. The still underestimated problem of fungal diseases worldwide. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Blackwell, M. The Fungi: 1, 2, 3 … 5.1 million species? Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sharma, R.; Singh, D.; Singh, R. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: A review. Biol. Control 2009, 50, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spadaro, D.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Control of Penicillium expansum and Botrytis cinerea on apple combining a biocontrol agent with hot water dipping and acibenzolar-S-methyl, baking soda, or ethanol application. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 33, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernández-Ortuño, D.; Torés, J.A.; De Vicente, A.; Pérez-García, A. Mechanisms of resistance to QoI fungicides in phytopathogenic fungi. Int. Microbiol. 2008, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pandey, S.; Giri, K.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, G.; Rishi, R.R. Nanopesticides: Opportunities in Crop Protection and Associated Environmental Risks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Boil. Sci. 2016, 88, 1287–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Adisa, I.O.; Pullagurala, V.L.R.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Elmer, W.H.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C. Recent advances in nano-enabled fertilizers and pesticides: A critical review of mechanisms of action. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 76, 2002–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hahn, M. The rising threat of fungicide resistance in plant pathogenic fungi: Botrytis as a case study. J. Chem. Biol. 2014, 7, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Bolivar-Anillo, H.J.; Garrido, C.; Collado, I.G. Endophytic microorganisms for biocontrol of the phytopathogenic fungus Botrytis cinerea. Phytochem. Rev. 2020, 19, 721–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chattopadhyay, P.; Banerjee, G.; Mukherjee, S. Recent trends of modern bacterial insecticides for pest control practice in integrated crop management system. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bazioli, J.M.; Belinato, J.R.; Costa, J.H.; Akiyama, D.Y.; Pontes, J.G.D.M.; Kupper, K.C.; Augusto, F.; De Carvalho, J.E.; Fill, T.P. Biological control of citrus postharvest phytopathogens. Toxins 2019, 11, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Fira, D.; Dimkić, I.; Berić, T.; Lozo, J.; Stanković, S. Biological control of plant pathogens by Bacillus species. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 285, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sales, M.D.C.; Costa, H.B.; Fernandes, P.M.B.; Ventura, J.A.; Meira, D.D. Antifungal activity of plant extracts with potential to control plant pathogens in pineapple. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Santamarina, M.P.; Ibáñez, M.D.; Marqués, M.; Roselló, J.; Giménez, S.; Blázquez, M.A. Bioactivity of essential oils in phytopathogenic and post-harvest fungi control. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 2675–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. González, A.E.A.; Palou, E.; López-Malo, A. Antifungal activity of essential oils of clove (Syzygium aromaticum) and/or mustard (Brassica nigra) in vapor phase against gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) in strawberries. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 32, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rosas-Díaz, J.; Vásquez-López, A.; Lagunez-Rivera, L.; Granados-Echegoyen, C.A.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G. Etiología de la muerte prematura del cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) en Ocotlán de Morelos, Oaxaca, México y efecto de aceites esenciales in vitro sobre el patógeno. Interciencia 2017, 42, 591–596. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chandler, D.; Bailey, A.; Tatchell, G.M.; Davidson, G.; Greaves, J.; Grant, W.P. The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 1987–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Raveau, R.; Fontaine, J.; Sahraoui, A.L.-H. Essential oils as potential alternative biocontrol products against plant pathogens and weeds: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Utreja, P.; Verma, S.; Rahman, M.; Kumar, L. Use of Nanoparticles in medicine. Curr. Biochem. Eng. 2020, 6, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. 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]
  25. Cruz-Martínez, H.; Rojas-Chávez, H.; Montejo-Alvaro, F.; Peña-Castañeda, Y.; Matadamas-Ortiz, P.; Medina, D. recent developments in graphene-based toxic gas sensors: A theoretical overview. Sensors 2021, 21, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cruz-Martínez, H.; Rojas-Chávez, H.; Matadamas-Ortiz, P.; Ortiz-Herrera, J.; López-Chávez, E.; Solorza-Feria, O.; Medina, D. Current progress of Pt-based ORR electrocatalysts for PEMFCs: An integrated view combining theory and experiment. Mater. Today Phys. 2021, 19, 100406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Payal, P. Role of nanotechnology in electronics: A review of recent developments and patents. Recent Pat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Baletto, F.; Ferrando, R. Structural properties of nanoclusters: Energetic, thermodynamic, and kinetic effects. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2005, 77, 371–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ferrando, R.; Jellinek, J.; Johnston, R. Nanoalloys: From theory to applications of alloy clusters and nanoparticles. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 845–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cruz-Martínez, H.; Solorza-Feria, O.; Calaminici, P.; Medina, D. On the structural, energetic, and magnetic properties of M@Pd (M=Co, Ni, and Cu) core–shell nanoclusters and their comparison with pure Pd nanoclusters. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2020, 508, 166844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mousavi, S.R.; Rezaei, M. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2011, 1, 414–419. [Google Scholar]
  32. Baker, S.; Volova, T.; Prudnikova, S.; Satish, S.; Prasad, N. Nanoagroparticles emerging trends and future prospect in modern agriculture system. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2017, 53, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Aguilar-Méndez, M.A.; Martín-Martínez, E.S.; Ortega-Arroyo, L.; Cobián-Portillo, G.; Sánchez-Espíndola, E. Synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles: Effect on phytopathogen Colletotrichum gloesporioides. J. Nanopart. Res. 2010, 13, 2525–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abd-Elsalam, K. Special Issue: Fungal Nanotechnology. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shaikh, S.; Nazam, N.; Rizvi, S.M.D.; Ahmad, K.; Baig, M.H.; Lee, E.J.; Choi, I. Mechanistic insights into the antimicrobial actions of metallic nanoparticles and their implications for multidrug resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kalia, A.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A.; Kuca, K. Zinc-based nanomaterials for diagnosis and management of plant diseases: Ecological safety and future prospects. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alghuthaymi, M.A.; Kalia, A.; Bhardwaj, K.; Bhardwaj, P.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A.; Valis, M.; Kuca, K. Nanohybrid antifungals for control of plant diseases: Current status and future perspectives. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kutawa, A.B.; Ahmad, K.; Ali, A.; Hussein, M.Z.; Wahab, M.A.A.; Adamu, A.; Ismaila, A.A.; Gunasena, M.T.; Rahman, M.Z.; Hossain, I. Trends in nanotechnology and its potentialities to control plant pathogenic fungi: A review. Biology 2021, 10, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pereira, L.; Dias, N.; Carvalho, J.; Fernandes, S.; Santos, C.; Lima, N. Synthesis, characterization and antifungal activity of chemically and fungal-produced silver nanoparticles against Trichophyton rubrum. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1601–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Abd-Elsalam, K.; Al-Dhabaan, F.A.; Alghuthaymi, M.; Njobeh, P.B.; Almoammar, H. Nanobiofungicides: Present concept and future perspectives in fungal control. In Nano-Biopesticides Today and Future Perspectives; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 315–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ali, S.M.; Yousef, N.M.H.; Nafady, N. Application of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles for the control of land snail eobania vermiculata and some plant pathogenic fungi. J. Nanomater. 2015, 2015, 218904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rajeshkumar, S.; Rinitha, G. Nanostructural characterization of antimicrobial and antioxidant copper nanoparticles synthesized using novel Persea americana seeds. OpenNano 2018, 3, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santhoshkumar, J.; Agarwal, H.; Menon, S.; Rajeshkumar, S.; Kumar, S.V. Green synthesis, characterization and applications of nanoparticles. Chaper 9. A biological synthesis of copper nanoparticles and its potential applications. Micro Nano Technol. 2019, 199–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Navale, G.R.; Late, D.J.; Shinde, S.S. Antimicrobial activity of ZnO nanoparticles/against pathogenic bacteria and fungi. JSM Nanotechnol. Nanomed. 2015, 3, 1033. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ponnusamy, P.; Kolandasamy, M.; Viswanathan, E.; Balasubramanian, M.G. Antifungal activity of biosynthesised copper nanoparticles evaluated against red root-rot disease in tea plants. J. Expo Nanosci. 2016, 11, 1019–1031. [Google Scholar]
  46. Borgatta, J.; Ma, C.; Hudson-Smith, N.; Elmer, W.; Pérez, C.D.P.; De La Torre-Roche, R.; Zuverza-Mena, N.; Haynes, C.L.; White, J.C.; Hamers, R.J. Copper Based Nanomaterials Suppress Root Fungal Disease in Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus): Role of particle morphology, composition and dissolution behavior. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 14847–14856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahmed, A.I.; Yadav, D.R.; Lee, Y.S. Applications of nickel nanoparticles for control of fusarium wilt on lettuce and tomato. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2016, 5, 7378–7385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khezerlou, A.; Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Azizi-Lalabadi, M.; Ehsani, A. Nanoparticles and their antimicrobial properties against pathogens including bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 123, 505–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nayantara; Kaur, P. Biosynthesis of nanoparticles using eco-friendly factories and their role in plant pathogenicity: A review. Biotechnol. Res. Innov. 2018, 2, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Arciniegas-Grijalba, P.A.; Patiño-Portela, M.C.; Mosquera-Sánchez, L.P.; Guerrero-Vargas, J.A.; Rodríguez-Páez, J.E. ZnO nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) and their antifungal activity against coffee fungus Erythricium salmonicolor. Appl. Nanosci. 2017, 7, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Medda, S.; Hajra, A.; Dey, U.; Bose, P.; Mondal, N.K. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from Aloe vera leaf extract and antifungal activity against Rhizopus sp. and Aspergillus sp. Appl. Nanosci. 2014, 5, 875–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Koduru, J.R.; Kailasa, S.K.; Bhamore, J.R.; Kim, K.-H.; Dutta, T.; Vellingiri, K. Phytochemical-assisted synthetic approaches for silver nanoparticles antimicrobial applications: A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 256, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kasana, R.; 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]
  54. Rai, M.; Ingle, A.P.; Paralikar, P.; Anasane, N.; Gade, R.; Ingle, P. Effective management of soft rot of ginger caused by Pythium spp. and Fusarium spp.: Emerging role of nanotechnology. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 6827–6839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Srikar, S.K.; Giri, D.D.; Pal, D.B.; Mishra, P.K.; Upadhyay, S.N. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles: A review. Green Sustain. Chem. 2016, 06, 34–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Geoprincy, G.; Srri, B.V.; Poonguzhali, U.; Gandhi, N.N.; Renganathan, S.A. Review on green synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2013, 6, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  57. Alghuthaymi, M.A.; Almoammar, H.; Rai, M.; Said-Galiev, E.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A. Myconanoparticles: Synthesis and their role in phytopathogens management. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015, 29, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huerta-García, E.; Pérez-Arizti, J.A.; Márquez-Ramírez, S.G.; Delgado-Buenrostro, N.L.; Chirino, Y.I.; Iglesias, G.G.; López-Marure, R. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce strong oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage in glial cells. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2014, 73, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mikhailova, E.O. Silver nanoparticles: Mechanism of action and probable bio-application. J. Funct. Biomater. 2020, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zhao, X.; Zhou, L.; Rajoka, M.S.R.; Dongyan, S.; Jiang, C.; Shao, D.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J.; Huang, Q.; Yang, H.; et al. Fungal silver nanoparticles: Synthesis, application and challenges. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2017, 38, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumari, M.; Shukla, S.; Pandey, S.; Giri, V.P.; Bhatia, A.; Tripathi, T.; Kakkar, P.; Nautiyal, C.S.; Mishra, A. Enhanced Cellular internalization: A bactericidal mechanism more relative to biogenic nanoparticles than chemical counterparts. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 4519–4533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rana, A.; Yadav, K.; Jagadevan, S. A comprehensive review on green synthesis of nature-inspired metal nanoparticles: Mechanism, application and toxicity. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Król, A.; Pomastowski, P.; Rafińska, K.; Railean-Plugaru, V.; Buszewski, B. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: Synthesis, antiseptic activity and toxicity mechanism. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 249, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Consolo, V.F.; Torres-Nicolini, A.; Alvarez, V.A. Mycosinthetized Ag, CuO and ZnO nanoparticles from a promising Trichoderma harzianum strain and their antifungal potential against important phytopathogens. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Akpinar, I.; Unal, M.; Sar, T. Potential antifungal effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) of different sizes against phytopathogenic Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (FORL) strains. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jadhav, K.; Deore, S.; Dhamecha, D.; Hr, R.; Jagwani, S.; Jalalpure, S.; Bohara, R. Phytosynthesis of silver nanoparticles: Characterization, biocompatibility studies, and anticancer activity. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 4, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mosselhy, D.; El-Aziz, M.A.; Hanna, M.; Ahmed, M.A.; Husien, M.M.; Feng, Q. Comparative synthesis and antimicrobial action of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate. J. Nanopart. Res. 2015, 17, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Huy, T.Q.; Huyen, P.T.; Le, A.-T.; Tonezzer, M. Recent advances of silver nanoparticles in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Anti Cancer Agents Med. Chem. 2020, 20, 1276–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kharat, S.N.; Mendhulkar, V.D. Synthesis, characterization and studies on antioxidant activity of silver nanoparticles using Elephantopus scaber leaf extract. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 62, 719–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Saravanakumar, A.; Peng, M.M.; Ganesh, M.; Jayaprakash, J.; Mohankumar, M.; Jang, H.T. Low-cost and eco-friendly green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Prunus japonica (Rosaceae) leaf extract and their antibacterial, antioxidant properties. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 1165–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Khan, A.U.; Malik, N.; Khan, M.; Cho, M.H.; Khan, M.M. Fungi-assisted silver nanoparticle synthesis and their applications. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 41, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Rajan, R.; Chandran, K.; Harper, S.L.; Yun, S.-I.; Kalaichelvan, P.T. Plant extract synthesized silver nanoparticles: An ongoing source of novel biocompatible materials. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 70, 356–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. 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 Boil. Sci. 2020, 90, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Casagrande, M.G.; Germano-Costa, T.; Pasquoto-Stigliani, T.; Fraceto, L.F.; De Lima, R. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles employing Trichoderma harzianum with enzymatic stimulation for the control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ali, A.; Ahmed, T.; Wu, W.; Hossain, A.; Hafeez, R.; Masum, M.I.; Wang, Y.; An, Q.; Sun, G.; Li, B. Advancements in plant and microbe-based synthesis of metallic nanoparticles and their antimicrobial activity against plant pathogens. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nguyen, D.H.; Vo, T.N.N.; Nguyen, N.T.; Ching, Y.C.; Thi, T.T.H. Comparison of biogenic silver nanoparticles formed by Momordica charantia and Psidium guajava leaf extract and antifungal evaluation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Jebril, S.; Ben Jenana, R.K.; Dridi, C. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Melia azedarach leaf extract and their antifungal activities: In vitro and in vivo. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 248, 122898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Krishnaraj, C.; Ramachandran, R.; Mohan, K.; Kalaichelvan, P. Optimization for rapid synthesis of silver nanoparticles and its effect on phytopathogenic fungi. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2012, 93, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jafari, A.; Pourakbar, L.; Farhadi, K.; Mohamadgolizad, L.; Goosta, Y. Biological synthesis of silver nanoparticles and evaluation of antibacterialand antifungal properties of silver and copper nanoparticles. Turk. J. Biol. 2015, 39, 556–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Abkhoo, J.; Panjehkeh, N. Evaluation of Antifungal Activity of Silver Nanoparticles on Fusarium oxysporum. Int. J. Infect. 2017, 4, e41126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Huang, W. Optimized Biosynthesis and Antifungal Activity of Osmanthus fragrans Leaf Extract-mediated Silver Nanoparticles. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 668–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sahayaraj, K.; Balasubramanyam, G.; Chavali, M. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using dry leaf aqueous extract of Pongamia glabra Vent (Fab.), Characterization and phytofungicidal activity. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2020, 14, 100349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Prittesh, K.; Heena, B.; Rutvi, B.; Sangeeta, J.; Krunal, M. Synthesis and characterisation of silver nanoparticles using withania somnifera and antifungal effect against fusarium solani. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2018, 25, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ediz, E.; Kurtay, G.; Karaca, B.; Büyük, I.; Gökdemir, F.; Aras, S. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles from Phaseolus vulgaris L extracts and investigation of their antifungal activities. Hacet. J. Biol. Chem. 2020, 49, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Oloyede, A.R.; Ayedun, E.O.; Sonde, O.I.; Akinduti, P.A. Investigation of antifungal activity of green-synthesized silver nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi. Niger. J. Microbiol. 2016, 30, 3323–3328. [Google Scholar]
  86. Soundararajan, M.; Deora, N.; Lincoln, L.; Roopmani, P.; Gupta, S.; Shambu, R. Biogenic silver nanoparticles synthesised from Zingiber officinale and its antifungal properties. Int. J. Biomed. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014, 3, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Obiazikwor, O.H.; Shittu, H.O. Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized using Citrus sinensis peel extract against fungal phytopathogens isolated from diseased tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Issues Biol. Sci. Pharm. Res. 2018, 6, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ali, M.; Kim, B.; Belfield, K.D.; Norman, D.; Brennan, M.; Ali, G.S. Inhibition of Phytophthora parasitica and P. capsici by Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized Using Aqueous Extract of Artemisia absinthium. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 1183–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Al-Otibi, F.; Perveen, K.; Al-Saif, N.A.; Alharbi, R.I.; Bokhari, N.A.; Albasher, G.; Al-Otaibi, R.M.; Al-Mosa, M.A. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Malva parviflora and their antifungal activity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 2229–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Asghar, M.A.; Zahir, E.; Shahid, S.M.; Khan, M.N.; Iqbal, J.; Walker, G. Iron, copper and silver nanoparticles: Green synthesis using green and black tea leaves extracts and evaluation of antibacterial, antifungal and aflatoxin B1 adsorption activity. LWT 2018, 90, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Velmurugan, P.; Sivakumar, S.; Young-Chae, S.; Seong-Ho, J.; Pyoung-In, Y.; Jeong-Min, S.; Sung-Chul, H. Synthesis and characterization comparison of peanut shell extract silver nanoparticles with commercial silver nanoparticles and their antifungal activity. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 31, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jagana, D.; Hegde, Y.R.; Lella, R. Green nanoparticles—A novel approach for the management of banana anthracnose caused by colletotrichum musae. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1749–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sukhwal, A.; Jain, D.; Joshi, A.; Rawal, P.; Kushwaha, H.S. Biosynthesised silver nanoparticles using aqueous leaf extract of Tagetes patula L. and evaluation of their antifungal activity against phytopathogenic fungi. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2017, 11, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bahrami-Teimoori, B.; Nikparast, Y.; Hojatianfar, M.; Akhlaghi, M.; Ghorbani, R.; Pourianfar, H.R. Characterisation and antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles biologically synthesised by Amaranthus retroflexus leaf extract. J. Exp. Nanosci. 2017, 12, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Valsalam, S.; Agastian, P.; Arasu, M.V.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Ghilan, A.-K.M.; Kaviyarasu, K.; Ravindran, B.; Chang, S.W.; Arokiyaraj, S. Rapid biosynthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles from the leaf extract of Tropaeolum majus L. and its enhanced in-vitro antibacterial, antifungal, antioxidant and anticancer properties. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2018, 191, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. 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, 9, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kora, A.J.; Mounika, J.; Jagadeeshwar, R. Rice leaf extract synthesized silver nanoparticles: An in vitro fungicidal evaluation against Rhizoctonia solani, the causative agent of sheath blight disease in rice. Fungal Biol. 2020, 124, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nguyen, D.H.; Lee, J.S.; Park, K.D.; Ching, Y.C.; Nguyen, X.T.; Phan, V.G.; Thi, T.T.H. Green Silver Nanoparticles Formed by Phyllanthus urinaria, Pouzolzia zeylanica, and Scoparia dulcis Leaf Extracts and the Antifungal Activity. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Madbouly, A.K.; Abdel-Aziz, M.S.; Abdel-Wahhab, M.A. Biosynthesis of nanosilver using Chaetomium globosum and its application to control Fusarium wilt of tomato in the greenhouse. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2017, 11, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Elamawi, R.M.; Al-Harbi, R.E.; Hendi, A.A. Biosynthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Trichoderma longibrachiatum and their effect on phytopathogenic fungi. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control. 2018, 28, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Al-Othman, M.R.; Abd El-Aziz, A.R.M.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Eifan, S.A.; El-Shikh, M.S.; Majrashi, M. Application of silver nanoparticles as antifungal and antiaflatoxin B1 produced by Aspergillus flavus. Dig. J. Nanomater. Bios. 2014, 9, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  102. Elshahawy, I.; Abouelnasr, H.M.; Lashin, S.M.; Darwesh, O.M. First report of Pythium aphanidermatum infecting tomato in Egypt and its control using biogenic silver nanoparticles. J. Plant. Prot. Res. 2018, 58, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ismail, A.-W.A.; Sidkey, N.M.; Arafa, R.A.; Fathy, R.M.; El-Batal, A.I. Evaluation of in vitro antifungal activity of silver and selenium nanoparticles against Alternaria solani caused early blight disease on potato. Br. Biotechnol. J. 2016, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Abd El-Aziz, A.R.M.; AL-Othman, M.R.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Metwaly, H.A. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using fusarium solani and its impact on grain borne fungi. Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2015, 10, 655–662. [Google Scholar]
  105. Bholay, A.D.; Nalawade, P.M.; Borkhataria, B.V. Fungicidal potential of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles against phytopathogens and potentiation of fluconazole. World J. Pharm. Res. 2013, 1, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  106. El-Saadony, M.T.; El-Wafai, N.A.; El-Fattah, H.I.A.; Mahgoub, S. Biosynthesis, Optimization and Characterization of Silver Nanoparticles Using a Soil Isolate of Bacillus pseudomycoides MT32 and their Antifungal Activity Against some Pathogenic Fungi. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2019, 7, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Amrinder, K.; Jaspal, K.; Anu, K.; Narinder, S. Effect of media composition on extent of antimycotic activity of silver nanoparticles against plant pathogenic fungus Fusarium moniliforme. Plant Dis. Res. 2016, 31, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  108. Win, T.T.; Khan, S.; Fu, P. Fungus- (Alternaria sp.) Mediated silver nanoparticles synthesis, characterization, and screening of antifungal activity against some phytopathogens. J. Nanotechnol. 2020, 2020, 8828878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ajaz, S.; Ahmed, T.; Shahid, M.; Noman, M.; Shah, A.A.; Mehmood, M.A.; Abbas, A.; Cheema, A.I.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Li, B. Bioinspired green synthesis of silver nanoparticles by using a native Bacillus sp. strain AW1-2: Characterization and antifungal activity against Colletotrichum falcatum Went. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2021, 144, 109745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fernández, J.G.; Fernández-Baldo, M.A.; Berni, E.; Camí, G.; Durán, N.; Raba, J.; Sanz, M.I. Production of silver nanoparticles using yeasts and evaluation of their antifungal activity against phytopathogenic fungi. Process. Biochem. 2016, 51, 1306–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Roy, S.; Mukherjee, T.; Chakraborty, S.; Das, T.K. Biosynthesis, characterization & antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized by the fungus aspergillus FOETIDUS MTCC8876. Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2013, 8, 197–205. [Google Scholar]
  112. Yassin, M.A.; Elgorban, A.M.; El-Samawaty, A.E.-R.M.; Almunqedhi, B.M. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Penicillium verrucosum and analysis of their antifungal activity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 2123–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dawoud, T.M.; Yassin, M.A.; El-Samawaty, A.R.M.; Elgorban, A.M. Silver nanoparticles synthesized by Nigrospora oryzae showed antifungal activity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 1847–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Elamawi, R.M.; Al-Harbi, R.E. Effect of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles on fusarium oxysporum fungus the cause of seed rot disease of faba bean, tomato and barley. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2014, 5, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Elgorban, A.M.; Aref, S.M.; Seham, S.M.; Elhindi, K.M.; Bahkali, A.H.; Sayed, S.R.; Manal, M.A. Extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Aspergillus versicolor and evaluation of their activity on plant pathogenic fungi. Mycosphere 2016, 7, 844–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ibrahim, E.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Hossain, A.; Qiu, W.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, W.; Sun, G.; Li, B. Green-synthesization of silver nanoparticles using endophytic bacteria isolated from garlic and its antifungal activity against wheat fusarium head blight pathogen Fusarium graminearum. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Win, T.T.; Khan, S.; Fu, P. Fungus (Alternaria sp.) mediated silver nanoparticles synthesis, characterization and application as phyto-pathogens growth inhibitor. Res. Sq. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Jaloot, A.S.; Owaid, M.N.; Naeem, G.A.; Muslim, R.F. Mycosynthesizing and characterizing silver nanoparticles from the mushroom Inonotus hispidus (Hymenochaetaceae), and their antibacterial and antifungal activities. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2020, 14, 100313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Vijayabharathi, R.; Sathya, A.; Gopalakrishnan, S. Extracellular biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Streptomyces griseoplanus SAI-25 and its antifungal activity against Macrophomina phaseolina, the charcoal rot pathogen of sorghum. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Xiang, S.; Ma, X.; Shi, H.; Ma, T.; Tian, C.; Chen, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, X.; Luo, K.; Cai, L.; et al. Green synthesis of an alginate-coated silver nanoparticle shows high antifungal activity by enhancing its cell membrane penetrating ability. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2019, 2, 4087–4096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bocate, K.P.; Reis, G.F.; de Souza, P.C.; Junior, A.G.O.; Durán, N.; Nakazato, G.; Furlaneto, M.C.; de Almeida, R.S.; Panagio, L.A. Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles and simvastatin against toxigenic species of Aspergillus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 291, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Elgorban, A.M.; El-Samawaty, A.E.-R.M.; Yassin, M.A.; Sayed, S.R.; Adil, S.F.; Elhindi, K.M.; Bakri, M.; Khan, M. Antifungal silver nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization and biological evaluation. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015, 30, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Muthuramalingam, T.R.; Shanmugam, C.; Gunasekaran, D.; Duraisamy, N.; Nagappan, R.; Krishnan, K. Bioactive bile salt-capped silver nanoparticles activity against destructive plant pathogenic fungi through in vitro system. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 71174–71182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mendes, J.E.; Abrunhosa, L.; Teixeira, J.A.; De Camargo, E.R.; De Souza, C.P.; Pessoa, J.D.C. Antifungal activity of silver colloidal nanoparticles against phytopathogenic fungus (Phomopsis sp.) in soybean seeds. Int. J. Biol. Vet. Agric. Food Eng. 2014, 8, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Tarazona, A.; Gómez, J.V.; Mateo, E.M.; Jiménez, M.; Mateo, F. Antifungal effect of engineered silver nanoparticles on phytopathogenic and toxigenic Fusarium spp. and their impact on mycotoxin accumulation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 306, 108259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nagaraju, R.S.; Sriram, R.H.; Achur, R. Antifungal activity of Carbendazim-conjugated silver nanoparticles against anthracnose disease caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in mango. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 102, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kriti, A.; Ghatak, A.; Mandal, N. Inhibitory potential assessment of silver nanoparticle on phytopathogenic spores and mycelial growth of Bipolaris sorokiniana and Alternaria brassicicola. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2020, 9, 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Sedaghati, E.; Molaei, S.; Molaei, M.; Doraki, N. An evaluation of antifungal and antitoxigenicity effects of Ag/Zn and Ag nanoparticles on Aspergillus parasiticus growth and aflatoxin production. PHJ 2018, 1, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Vrandečić, K.; Ćosić, J.; Ilić, J.; Ravnjak, B.; Selmani, A.; Galić, E.; Pem, B.; Barbir, R.; Vrček, I.V.; Vinković, T. Antifungal activities of silver and selenium nanoparticles stabilized with different surface coating agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2021–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Farooq, M.; Ilyas, N.; Khan, I.; Saboor, A.; Khan, S.; Bakhtiar, M. Antifungal activity of plant extracts and silver nano particles against citrus brown spot pathogen (Alternaria citri). IJOEAR 2018, 4, 118–125. [Google Scholar]
  131. 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]
  132. Gorczyca, A.; Pociecha, E.; Kasprowicz, M.J.; Niemiec, M. Effect of nanosilver in wheat seedlings and Fusarium culmorum culture systems. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 142, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Luan, L.Q.; Xô, D.H. In vitro and in vivo fungicidal effects of γ-irradiation synthesized silver nanoparticles against Phytophthora capsici causing the foot rot disease on pepper plant. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Nokkrut, B.-O.; Pisuttipiched, S.; Khantayanuwong, S.; Puangsin, B. Silver nanoparticle-based paper packaging to combat black anther disease in orchid flowers. Coatings 2019, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. 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, 40, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. 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] [Green Version]
  137. Mahdizadeh, V.; Safaie, N.; Khelghatibana, F. Evaluation of antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles against some phytopathogenic fungi and Trichoderma harzianum. JCP 2015, 4, 291–300. [Google Scholar]
  138. Li, J.; Sang, H.; Guo, H.; Popko, J.T.; He, L.; White, J.C.; Dhankher, O.P.; Jung, G.; Xing, B. Antifungal mechanisms of ZnO and Ag nanoparticles to Sclerotinia homoeocarpa. Nanotechnology 2017, 28, 155101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Malandrakis, A.A.; Kavroulakis, N.; Chrysikopoulos, C. Use of copper, silver and zinc nanoparticles against foliar and soil-borne plant pathogens. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 670, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, M.; Szaniawski, A.; Olchowik, J.; Drozdowski, S. Effects of copper and silver nanoparticles on growth of selected species of pathogenic and wood-decay fungi in vitro. For. Chron. 2018, 94, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Abdulrahaman, M.; Hussein, H.Z. Antifungal Effect of Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs) Against Aspergillus flavus. EC Microbiol. 2017, 6, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  142. Zalewska, E.; Machowicz-Stefaniak, Z.; Król, E. Antifungal activity of nanoparticles against chosen fungal pathogens of caraway. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2016, 15, 121–137. [Google Scholar]
  143. Malandrakis, A.A.; Kavroulakis, N.; Chrysikopoulos, C.V. Use of silver nanoparticles to counter fungicide-resistance in Monilinia fructicola. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 747, 141287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Lamsal, K.; Kim, S.W.; Jung, J.H.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, K.S.; Lee, Y.S. Application of silver nanoparticles for the control of colletotrichumspecies in vitro and pepper anthracnose disease in field. Mycobiology 2011, 39, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  145. Ouda, S.M. Antifungal activity of silver and copper nanoparticles on two plant pathogens, Alternaria alternata and Botrytis cinerea. Res. J. Microbiol. 2014, 9, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Jung, J.-H.; Kim, S.-W.; Min, J.-S.; Kim, Y.-J.; Lamsal, K.; Kim, K.S.; Lee, Y.S. The Effect of nano-silver liquid against the white rot of the green onion caused by sclerotium cepivorum. Mycobiology 2010, 38, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Salem, E.A.; Nawito, M.A.S.; El-Raouf Ahmed, A.E.A. Effect of silver nano-particles on gray mold of tomato fruits. J. Nanotechnol. Res. 2019, 1, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Nejad, M.S.; Bonjar, G.H.S.; Khatami, M.; Amini, A.; Aghighi, S. In vitro and in vivo antifungal properties of silver nanoparticles against Rhizoctonia solani, a common agent of rice sheath blight disease. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2016, 11, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Giannousi, K.; Avramidis, I.; Dendrinou-Samara, C. Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of copper based nanoparticles as agrochemicals against Phytophthora infestans. RSC Adv. 2013, 443, 21743–21752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Elmer, W.; De La Torre-Roche, R.; Pagano, L.; Majumdar, S.; Zuverza-Mena, N.; Dimkpa, C.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.; White, J.C. Effect of Metalloid and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Fusarium Wilt of Watermelon. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1394–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Elmer, W.; White, J.C. The Future of Nanotechnology in Plant Pathology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2018, 56, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Pariona, N.; Mtz-Enriquez, A.I.; Sánchez-Rangel, D.; Carrión, G.; Paraguay-Delgado, F.; Rosas-Saito, G. Green-synthesized copper nanoparticles as a potential antifungal against plant pathogens. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 18835–18843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Lopez-Lima, D.; Mtz-Enriquez, A.I.; Carrión, G.; Basurto-Cereceda, S.; Pariona, N. The bifunctional role of copper nanoparticles in tomato: Effective treatment for Fusarium wilt and plant growth promoter. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 277, 109810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Mali, S.C.; Dhaka, A.; Githala, C.K.; Trivedi, R. Green synthesis of copper nanoparticles using Celastrus paniculatus Willd. leaf extract and their photocatalytic and antifungal properties. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 27, e00518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Hasanin, M.; Al Abboud, M.A.; Alawlaqi, M.M.; Abdelghany, T.M.; Hashem, A.H. Ecofriendly Synthesis of Biosynthesized Copper Nanoparticles with Starch-Based Nanocomposite: Antimicrobial, Antioxidant, and Anticancer Activities. Biol. Trace Element Res. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Hassan, S.E.-D.; Salem, S.S.; Fouda, A.; Awad, M.A.; El-Gamal, M.S.; Abdo, A. New approach for antimicrobial activity and bio-control of various pathogens by biosynthesized copper nanoparticles using endophytic actinomycetes. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2018, 11, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Pham, N.-D.; Duong, M.-M.; Le, M.-V.; Hoang, H.A.; Pham, L.-K. Preparation and characterization of antifungal colloidal copper nanoparticles and their antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum and Phytophthora capsici. C. R. Chim. 2019, 22, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Van Viet, P.; Nguyen, H.T.; Cao, T.M.; Van Hieu, L.; Pham, V. Fusarium antifungal activities of copper nanoparticles synthesized by a chemical reduction method. J. Nanomater. 2016, 2016, 1957612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Maqsood, S.; Qadir, S.; Hussain, A.; Asghar, A.; Saleem, R.; Zaheer, S.; Nayyar, N. Antifungal Properties of Copper Nanoparticles against Aspergillus niger. Sch. Int. J. Biochem. 2020, 3, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Seku , K.; Reddy, G.B.; Pejjai, B.; Mangatayaru Kotu, G.; Narasimha, G. Hydrothermal synthesis of copper nanoparticles, characterization and their biological applications. Int. J. Nano Dimens. 2018, 9, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  161. Nemati, A.; Shadpour, S.; Khalafbeygi, H.; Ashraf, S.; Barkhi, M.; Soudi, M.R. Efficiency of Hydrothermal Synthesis of Nano/Microsized Copper and Study on In Vitro Antifungal Activity. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2014, 30, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Bramhanwade, K.; Shende, S.; Bonde, S.; Gade, A.; Rai, M. Fungicidal activity of Cu nanoparticles against Fusarium causing crop diseases. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2016, 14, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Hashim, A.F.; Youssef, K.; Elsalam, K.A. Ecofriendly nanomaterials for controlling gray mold of table grapes and maintaining postharvest quality. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 154, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hermida-Montero, L.; Pariona, N.; Mtz-Enriquez, A.I.; Carrión, G.; Paraguay-Delgado, F.; Rosas-Saito, G. Aqueous-phase synthesis of nanoparticles of copper/copper oxides and their antifungal effect against Fusarium oxysporum. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 380, 120850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Malandrakis, A.A.; Kavroulakis, N.; Chrysikopoulos, C. Synergy between Cu-NPs and fungicides against Botrytis cinerea. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 703, 135557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Nandini, B.; Hariprasad, P.; Prakash, H.S.; Shetty, H.S.; Geetha, N. Trichogenic-selenium nanoparticles enhance disease suppressive ability of Trichoderma against downy mildew disease caused by Sclerospora graminicola in pearl millet. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Osonga, F.J.; Kalra, S.; Miller, R.M.; Isika, D.; Sadik, O.A. Synthesis, characterization and antifungal activities of eco-friendly palladium nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 5894–5904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 07 01033 g001 550
Figure 1. This is an illustration of the possible mechanisms of action of metal nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi. These are as follows: (a) ions are released by nanoparticles and bind to certain protein groups, which affect the function of essential membrane proteins and interfere with cell permeability. (b) The nanoparticles inhibit the germination of the conidia and suppress their development. (c) Nanoparticles and released ions disrupt electron transport, protein oxidation, and alter membrane potential. (d) They also interfere with protein oxidative electron transport. (e) They affect the potential of the mitochondrial membrane by increasing the levels of transcription of genes in response to oxidative stress (ROS). (f) ROS induces the generation of reactive oxygen species, triggering oxidation reactions catalyzed by the different metallic nanoparticles, causing severe damage to proteins, membranes, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and interfering with nutrient absorption. (g) The ions of the nanoparticles have a genotoxic effect that destroys DNA, therefore causing cell death [58,59,60,61,62].
Figure 1. This is an illustration of the possible mechanisms of action of metal nanoparticles on phytopathogenic fungi. These are as follows: (a) ions are released by nanoparticles and bind to certain protein groups, which affect the function of essential membrane proteins and interfere with cell permeability. (b) The nanoparticles inhibit the germination of the conidia and suppress their development. (c) Nanoparticles and released ions disrupt electron transport, protein oxidation, and alter membrane potential. (d) They also interfere with protein oxidative electron transport. (e) They affect the potential of the mitochondrial membrane by increasing the levels of transcription of genes in response to oxidative stress (ROS). (f) ROS induces the generation of reactive oxygen species, triggering oxidation reactions catalyzed by the different metallic nanoparticles, causing severe damage to proteins, membranes, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and interfering with nutrient absorption. (g) The ions of the nanoparticles have a genotoxic effect that destroys DNA, therefore causing cell death [58,59,60,61,62].
Jof 07 01033 g001
Jof 07 01033 g002 550
Figure 2. A generalized representation of the green synthesis of metallic nanoparticles [75].
Figure 2. A generalized representation of the green synthesis of metallic nanoparticles [75].
Jof 07 01033 g002
Jof 07 01033 g003 550
Figure 3. Microscopic images of SEM and TEM of F. graminearum in the absence (A) and presence (B) of the synthesized silver nanoparticle [116].
Figure 3. Microscopic images of SEM and TEM of F. graminearum in the absence (A) and presence (B) of the synthesized silver nanoparticle [116].
Jof 07 01033 g003
Jof 07 01033 g004 550
Figure 4. Cu nanoparticles synthesized with different shapes and sizes: (a) spherical shapes [158] and (b) faceted shapes [152].
Figure 4. Cu nanoparticles synthesized with different shapes and sizes: (a) spherical shapes [158] and (b) faceted shapes [152].
Jof 07 01033 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics and antifungal evaluations of Ag nanoparticles.
Table 1. Characteristics and antifungal evaluations of Ag nanoparticles.
Nanoparticle PropertiesAntifungal PropertiesRef.
Synthesis MethodSize (nm)ShapeSpecie of FungiEvaluation Method
Biological synthesis
(M. charantia and P. guajava)		17 and 25.7SphericalA. niger, A. flavus, and F. oxysporumIn vitro[76]
Biological synthesis
(M. azedarach)		23SphericalV. dahliaeIn vitro and in vivo[77]
Biological synthesis
(A. indica)		10–50SphericalA. alternata, S. sclerotiorum, M. phaseolina, R. solani, B. cinerea, and C. lunataIn vitro[78]
Biological synthesis
(A. officinalis, T. vulgaris, M. pulegium)		50SphericalA. flavus and P. chrysogenumIn vitro[79]
Biological synthesis
(S. hortensis)		--F. oxysporumIn vitro[80]
Biological synthesis
(O. fragrans)		20SphericalB. maydisIn vitro[81]
Biological synthesis
(P. glabra)		29SphericalR. nigricansIn vitro[82]
Biological synthesis
(W. somnifera)		10–21SphericalF. solaniIn vitro and in vivo[83]
Biological synthesis
(P. vulgaris)		12–16SphericalColletotrichum sp., F. oxysporum, F. acuminatum, F. tricinctum, F. graminearum, F. incarnatum, R. solani, S. sclerotiorum, and A. alternata.In vitro[84]
Biological synthesis
(V. amygdalina)		--F. oxysporum, F. solani, and C. canescentIn vitro[85]
Biological synthesis
(Z. officinale)		75.3SphericalA. alternata and C. lunataIn vitro[86]
Biological synthesis
(C. sinensis)		--Irenopsis spp., Diaporthe spp., and Sphaerosporium spp.In vitro[87]
Biological synthesis
(A. absinthium)		--P. parasitica, P. infestans, P. palmivora, P. cinnamomi, P. tropicalis, P. capsici, and P. katsuraeIn vitro and in vivo[88]
Biological synthesis
(M. parviflora)		50.6SphericalH. rostratum, F. solani, F. oxysporum, and A. alternataIn vitro[89]
Biological synthesis
(Green and black teas)		10–20SphericalA. flavus and A. parasiticusIn vitro[90]
Biological synthesis
(P. shell)		10–50Spherical and ovalP. infestans and P. capsiciIn vitro[91]
Biological synthesis
(Ajwain and neem)		68-C. musaeIn vitro and in vivo[92]
Biological synthesis
(T. patula)		15–30SphericalC. chlorophytiIn vitro and in vivo[93]
Biological synthesis
(A. retroflexus)		10–32SphericalM. phaseolina, A. alternata, and F. oxysporumIn vitro[94]
Biological synthesis
(T. majus)		35–55SphericalA. niger, P. notatum, T. viridiae, and Mucor sp.In vitro[95]
Biological synthesis
(T. foenum-graecum)		20–25SphericalA. alternataIn vitro[96]
Biological synthesis
(Rice leaf)		3.7–29.3SphericalR. solaniIn vitro[97]
Biological synthesis
(P. urinaria, P. zeylanica, and S. dulcis)		4–53Various morphologies A. niger, A. flavus,
and F. oxysporum		In vitro[98]
Biological synthesis
(C. globosum)		11 and 14SphericalF. oxysporumIn vivo and in vitro[99]
Biological synthesis
(T. longibrachiatum)		10SphericalF. verticillioides, F. moniliforme, P. brevicompactum, H. oryzae, and P. griseaIn vitro[100]
Biological synthesis
(A. terreus)		5–30SphericalA. flavusIn vitro[101]
Biological synthesis
(F. oxysporum)		10–30SphericalP. aphanidermatumIn vitro and in vivo[102]
Biological synthesis
(T. viride)		12.7SphericalA. solaniIn vitro[103]
Biological synthesis
(F. solani)		5–30SphericalF. oxysporum, F. moniliform, F. solani, F. verticillioides, F. semitectum, A. flavus, A. terreus, A. niger, A. ficuum, P. citrinum, P. islandicum, P. chrysogenum, R. stolonifer, Phoma, A. alternata, and A. chlamydosporaIn vitro[104]
Biological synthesis
(B. subtilis)		16–20SphericalA. alternate, A. niger, A. nidulans, C. herbarum, F. moniliforme, Fusarium spp., F. oxysporum, and T. harzianum.In vitro[105]
Biological synthesis
(B. pseudomycoides)		25–43SphericalA. flavus, A. niger, A. tereus, P. notatum, R. olina, F. solani, F. oxysporum, T. viride, V. dahlia, and P. spinosumIn vitro[106]
Biological synthesis
(T. harzianum)		 F. moniliformeIn vitro[107]
Biological synthesis
(Alternaria sp.)		3–10SphericalAlternaria sp., F. oxysporum,
F. moniliforme, and F. tricinctum.		In vitro[108]
Biological synthesis
(Bacillus sp.)		22.33–41.95SphericalC. falcatumIn vitro[109]
Biological synthesis
(C. laurentii and R. glutinis)		15–400SphericalB. cinerea, P. expansum, A. niger, Alternaria sp., and Rhizopus sp.In vitro[110]
Biological synthesis
(A. foetidus)		20–40SphericalA. niger, A. foetidus, A. flavus,
F. oxysporum, A. oryzae, and A. parasiticus		In vitro[111]
Biological synthesis
(P. verrucosum)		10–12SphericalF. chlamydosporum and A. flavusIn vitro[112]
Biological synthesis
(N. oryzae)		3–13SphericalF.sambucinum, F.semitectum, F.sporotrichioides, F.anthophilium, F.oxysporum, F.moniliforme, F.fusarioids, and F.solaniIn vitro[113]
Biological synthesis
(T. longibrachiatum)		1–20SphericalF. oxysporiumIn vitro[114]
Biological synthesis
(A. versicolor)		5–30SphericalS. sclerotiorum and B. cinereaIn vitro[115]
Biological synthesis
(P. poae)		19.8–44.9SphericalF. graminearumIn vitro[116]
Biological synthesis
(Alternaria spp.)		5–10SphericalF. oxysporum, F. maniliforme, F. tricinctum, and Alternaria sp.In vitro[117]
Biological synthesis
(I. hispidus)		69.24-Pythium sp., A. niger, and A. flavusIn vitro[118]
Biological synthesis
(S. griseoplanus)		19.5–20.9SphericalM. phaseolinaIn vitro[119]
Biological synthesis (Sodium alginate)6 and 40SphericalC. gloeosporioidesIn vitro[120]
Biological synthesis
(F. oxysporum)		93 ± 11SphericalA. flavus, A. nomius, A. parasiticus, A.ochraceus, and A. melleusIn vitro[121]
Biological synthesis (Glucose)5–24SphericalC. gloesporioidesIn vitro[33]
Chemical synthesis40–60SphericalR. solaniIn vitro[122]
Chemical synthesis21 ± 2SphericalC. gloeosporioidesIn vitro[123]
Chemical synthesis52SphericalPhomopsis sp.In vitro[124]
Chemical synthesis30SphericalF. graminearum, F. culmorum,
F. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae, F. oxysporum, F. proliferatum, and F. verticillioides		In vitro[125]
Chemical synthesis 19–24SphericalC. gloeosporioidesIn vitro[126]
Chemical synthesis25–32-B. sorokiniana and A. brassicicolaIn vitro[127]
Chemical synthesis 20SphericalA. parasiticusIn vitro[128]
Chemical synthesis100SphericalM. phaseolina, S. sclerotiorum, and D. longicolla.In vitro[129]
Chemical synthesis --A. citriIn vitro[130]
Chemical synthesis47SphericalC. gloeosporioidesIn vitro[134]
Commercial7–25-A. alternata, A. brassicicola, A. solani, B. cinerea, C. cucumerinum, C. cassiicola, C. destructans, D. bryoniae, F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum, F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, F. oxysporum, F. solani, Fusarium sp., G. cingulata, M. cannonballus, P. aphanidermatum P. spinosum, and S. lycopersiciIn vitro[135]
Commercial 20–30-B. sorokiniana and M. griseaIn vitro and in vivo[136]
Commercial --R. solani, M. phaseolina, S. sclerotiorum, T. harzianum, and P. aphanidermatumIn vitro and in vivo[137]
Commercial20-S. homoeocarpaIn vitro[138]
Commercial<100-B. cinerea, A. alternata, M. fructicola, C. gloeosporioides, F. solani, F. oxysporum f. sp. Radicis
Lycopersici, and V. dahliae		In vitro and in vivo[139]
Commercial--R. solani, F. oxysporum, F. redolens, P. cactorum, F. hepática, G. frondosa, M. giganteus and S. crispaIn vitro[140]
Commercial 40–50SphericalA. flavusIn vitro[141]
Commercial 20–30-S. carviIn vitro and in vivo[142]
Commercial <100-M. fructicolaIn vitro and in vivo[143]
Commercial4–8-ColletotrichumIn vitro and in vivo[144]
Commercial38SphericalA. alternata and B. cinereaIn vitro[145]
Commercial7–25-S. cepivorumIn vitro[146]
Commercial--B. cinereaIn vitro and in vivo[147]
Commercial5–10-R. solaniIn vitro and in vivo[148]
Physical synthesis5–65SphericalF. culmorumIn vitro[131]
Physical synthesis 15–100SphericalF. culmorumIn vitro[132]
Physical synthesis 5–15SphericalP. capcisiIn vitro and in vivo[133]
Table
Table 2. Characteristics and antifungal evaluations of Cu nanoparticles.
Table 2. Characteristics and antifungal evaluations of Cu nanoparticles.
Nanoparticle PropertiesAntifungal PropertiesRef.
Synthesis MethodSize (nm)ShapeSpecie of FungiEvaluation Method
Biological synthesis
(Persea americana)		42–90SphericalA. flavus, A. fumigates, and F. oxysporum.In vitro[42]
Biological synthesis
(Ascorbic acid)		-SphericalA. flavus and P. chrysogenumIn vitro[79]
Biological synthesis
(Green and black teas)		26–40SphericalA.flavus and A. parasiticus.In vitro[90]
Biological synthesis
(Ajwain and neem)		68-C. musaeIn vitro[92]
Biological synthesis
(Ascorbic acid)		200–500FacetedF. solani, Neofusicoccum sp., and F. oxysporum.In vitro[152]
Biological synthesis
(Ascorbic acid)		200–500FacetedF. oxysporum f. sp. LycopersiciIn vitro and in vivo[153]
Biological synthesis
(C. paniculatus)		5SphericalF. oxysporumIn vitro[154]
Biological synthesis
(T. pinophilus)		10SphericalA. niger, A terreus, and A.fumigatusIn vitro[155]
Biological synthesis
(S. capillispiralis)		3.6–59SphericalAlternariaspp., A. niger, Pythium spp., and Fusarium spp.In vitro[156]
Biological synthesis
(Ascorbic acid)		53–174SphericalF. oxysporum and P. capsiciIn vitro[157]
Chemical synthesis
(Chemistry reduction)		20–50SphericalFusarium sp. In vitro[158]
Chemical synthesis
(Chemistry reduction)		--A. nigerIn vitro[159]
Chemical synthesis
(Hydrothermal)		14 ± 2SphericalA. niger and A. oryzaeIn vitro[160]
Chemical synthesis
(Hydrothermal)		30–300SphericalA. alternata, A solani,
F. expansum, and Penicilliun sp.		In vitro[161]
Chemical synthesis
(Chemistry reduction)		3–30SphericalF. equiseti, F. oxysporum, and F. culmorumIn vitro[162]
Chemical synthesis
(Chemistry reduction)		25–35SphericalB. cinereaIn vitro and in vivo[163]
Chemical synthesis
(Chemistry reduction)		14–37Truncated octahedronsF.oxysporumIn vitro[164]
Commercial25-B. cinerea, A. alternata, M. fructicola, C. gloeosporioides, F. solani, F. oxysporum f. sp. Radicis
Lycopersici, and V. dahliae		In vitro and in vivo[139]
Commercial--R. solani, F. oxysporum,
F. redolens, P. cactorum,
F. hepática, G. frondosa,
M. giganteus, and S. crispa		In vitro[140]
Commercial20–30-S. carviIn vitro and in vivo[142]
Commercial20SphericalA. alternata and B. cinerea.In vitro[145]
Commercial25-B. cinereaIn vitro and in vivo[165]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cruz-Luna, A.R.; Cruz-Martínez, H.; Vásquez-López, A.; Medina, D.I. Metal Nanoparticles as Novel Antifungal Agents for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Advances and Future Directions. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121033

AMA Style

Cruz-Luna AR, Cruz-Martínez H, Vásquez-López A, Medina DI. Metal Nanoparticles as Novel Antifungal Agents for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Advances and Future Directions. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(12):1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121033

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cruz-Luna, Aida R., Heriberto Cruz-Martínez, Alfonso Vásquez-López, and Dora I. Medina. 2021. "Metal Nanoparticles as Novel Antifungal Agents for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Advances and Future Directions" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 12: 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121033

APA Style

Cruz-Luna, A. R., Cruz-Martínez, H., Vásquez-López, A., & Medina, D. I. (2021). Metal Nanoparticles as Novel Antifungal Agents for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Advances and Future Directions. Journal of Fungi, 7(12), 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121033

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