Abstract
Plants provide a potential pathway for the transport of nanoparticles, and hence the study on effects of nanoparticles in plants is crucial. Metal oxide nanoparticles exhibit unique physical and chemical properties, and their interaction with plant system influences the growth and development of plants. Several changes have been observed in morphological and physiological parameters of plants such as seed germination, shoot and root growth, and biomass production. Interaction of metal oxide nanoparticles with plants could also alter the photosynthetic and biochemical activities. Significant changes have been observed in antioxidant enzyme activities to prevent oxidative damage and enhance the plant defense mechanism against metal oxide nanoparticles. The effects of nanoparticles on the nutritional quality of plants and plant products were also reviewed in this chapter.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
17.1 Introduction
Nanotechnology has got wide range of application in medicine, agriculture, targeted drug delivery, energy, electronics, sensor technology, and imaging. Due to wide range of application of nanoparticles (Nel et al. 2006), there is a great concern on the potential releases of nanoparticles into the environment. Plants constitute a major component of the ecosystem, and interaction of nanoparticles with plant system is an important factor to understand the fate of engineered nanoparticles in the environment and its associated risks. There were reports that the concentration of nanoparticles in the environment is much lower than the toxic concentration; however, it is important to evaluate the environmental effects of nanoparticles for its large-scale commercial application (Batley et al. 2013). Soil is an important source for the accumulation of nanoparticles in the environment, and the concentration of nanoparticles in soil was reported to be higher than in air and water (Gottschalk et al. 2015). There were several reports that plants provide a potential pathway for the transport of nanoparticles (Rico et al. 2011; Nair et al. 2010; Morales-Díaz et al. 2017; Raliya et al. 2016). The interaction of nanoparticles with plant system results in the uptake, transport, and accumulation of nanoparticles, and the response of plants to nanomaterials varies with the type of plants and nature of nanomaterials. There are different entry routes for nanoparticles into the plants, and uptake rate depends on the size, shape, concentration, and surface charge of nanoparticles (Tarafdar et al. 2012). The roots of plants are an important entry route as the soil constitutes one of the major medium for the accumulation of nanoparticles. Nanoparticles enter the root system through lateral root junctions and reach xylem through cortex and pericycle (Dietz and Herth 2011). However, entry of nanoparticles into plants is difficult due to the presence of cell wall, and the entry rate is closely related to the morphology of nanoparticles and pore size of cell walls. The nanoparticles that could effectively cross the cell wall pores reach the plasma membrane and be translocated to different plant parts (Fleischer et al. 1999; Navarro et al. 2008). Larger nanoparticles can enter into plant system through aerial openings such as leaf stomata, hydathodes, and flower stigma. These aerial openings act as an important route for the entry of airborne nanoparticles which can be dispersed by wind, thus reaching the leaves and promote foliar uptake through aerial plant openings (Nair 2016). Other aerial transport pathways for nanoparticles include cuticle, bark surfaces, and trichomes.
Nanoparticles interact both physically and chemically with the plant system. They can be physically adsorbed to plant surface, resulting in physical damage to plant parts, or chemically interact with the system causing changes in different cell metabolic pathways. Chemical interactions result in the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), oxidative damage to cells, and changes in ion-membrane transport activity (Auffan et al. 2008; Foley et al. 2002; Kamat et al. 2000). Nanoparticles can impart both positive and negative effects on plants (Yang et al. 2017; Nair et al. 2011, 2012), and the effects of different types of nanoparticles such as metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, carbon-based nanomaterials, magnetic nanoparticles, and polymeric nanoparticles were well studied. This chapter focuses on different response strategies by plants on interaction with metal and metal oxide nanomaterials. For the utilization of metal-based nanoparticles in agriculture for the development of smart fertilizers and nanopesticides, it is important to understand their impact on various morphological, physiological, and metabolic activities of plants.
17.2 Effects of Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Morphological and Physiological Attributes in Plants
The major plant physiological parameters to be studied include germination efficiency, elongation of root, biomass, and leaf number. The impact of different nanoparticles on these physiological factors varies with the type of plants and the type of nanoparticles. The effects of green synthesized gold nanoparticles, without any capping and reducing agents, on the germination percentage of rice were studied (Ndeh et al. 2017). A very high germination percentage (95–98.38%), followed by a slight decrease in the root and shoot length compared to control, was reported. Increased hydrogen peroxide formation and lipid peroxidation in roots and shoots was observed, but not statistically significant which recommended the safe use of green synthesized gold nanoparticles as nanocarriers in plants. Studies on the effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) on the germination and growth of 11 species of wetland plants reported both positive and negative effects depending upon the concentration of nanoparticles and coating agents. Root growth was found to be more affected than leaf growth on exposure to AgNPs (Yin et al. 2012). Zuverza-Mena et al. (2016) reported that nano-silver had null effects on the germination of radish even at a higher concentration (Zuverza-Mena et al. 2016). This can be correlated to the presence of hard seed coat for radish that could prevent the entry of contaminants including nanoparticles (Koul et al. 2000). A reduction in water content and root and shoot length was observed at higher concentrations with respect to control plants. On exposing rice seedlings to different concentrations of AgNPs, it was investigated that there was significant reduction in root elongation, fresh weight of shoots and roots, and total carotenoid and chlorophyll contents. A dose-dependent increase in the amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS), lipid peroxidation, and hydrogen peroxide formation in roots and shoots was also reported along with increased proline and decreased sugar content (Nair and Chung 2014). A dose- and size-dependent decrease in the germination rate and further seedling growth of rice with AgNPs was also reported by Thuesombat et al. (2014). It was reported that large-sized nanoparticles caused more negative effects on seedling growth; however, smaller-sized nanoparticles were efficiently transported through the shoots, which highlighted the size effects. In peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants, it was investigated that AgNPs caused severe damage to plant growth with respect to several physiological parameters such as plant biomass, height of the plants, grain weight, and yield. AgNPs were detected even in the edible plant parts in a dose-dependent fashion (Rui et al. 2017).
A significant reduction in seed germination was reported in response to nano-CuO stress in rice seedlings (Shaw and Hossain 2013) with stress-induced oxidative damage. Da Costa and Sharma reported that copper nanoparticles of size less than 50 nm showed inhibitory effects on rice seed germination rate, root and shoot length, and total biomass. Increased nanoparticles uptake was observed at higher concentration with more accumulation in chloroplasts which further led to decline in the amount of photosynthetic pigments, photosynthetic rate, and transpiration rate (Da Costa and Sharma 2016). Copper nanoparticles were also used to evaluate its effects on rice root growth, formation of ROS, and the expression of two genes associated with root growth. Reduced root growth with inhibited gene expression associated with root elongation and greater ROS production was reported on nanoparticle treatment (Wang et al. 2015). Moon et al. reported reduction in germination and inhibited root growth for cucumber on treatment with CuO NPs compared to bulk CuO (Moon et al. 2014). Studies on morphological, physiological, and molecular level effects of CuO NPs on Indian mustard reported shoot growth reduction, shortened primary and lateral root architecture, and reduced total chlorophyll and carotenoids contents. A significant increase in the amount of hydrogen peroxide, peroxidase enzyme activity, and lignification of shoots and roots was also observed (Nair and Chung 2015). Studies on soybean and chick pea with CuO NPs of size less than 50 nm reported a concentration-dependent change in growth of the selected plants. Effective growth was observed at certain optimal concentration; thereafter, an inhibited growth beyond this concentration was reported with adsorption and uptake of nanoparticles by roots (Adhikari et al. 2012). The effects of a range of CuO nanoparticles with different size and concentration on the germination and growth of Phaseolus vulgaris L. were investigated, and it was reported that seed germination was not affected by nanoparticles and again seedling weight was promoted by lower concentration and inhibited by higher concentration of 25 nm CuO. The high surface area of 25 nm CuO at higher concentration might be the reason for its deleterious effects (Duran et al. 2017). This study highlighted the importance of nanoparticle structure for its physiological impacts. Altered root morphology was reported in wheat on treatment with CuO NPs due to Cu release from dissolution at root surface. An increase in Cu level modified the exogenous Indole Acetic Acid (IAA) distribution with inhibited root elongation and proliferated root hair formation (Adams et al. 2017).
Yang et al. studied the effects of nZnO on maize and rice plants, and null effect on seed germination was reported. However, at higher concentration of 2000 mg/L, root elongation was significantly inhibited (Yang et al. 2015). The effects of cobalt and ZnO nanoparticles on onion bulbs were investigated, and an inhibited root elongation with increase in concentration of nanoparticles was reported (Ghodake et al. 2011). Effects of different concentrations of engineered ZnO nanoparticles on the growth parameters, production of steviol glycosides, and antioxidant activities on Stevia rebaudiana were investigated, and a concentration-dependent favorable and adverse effects on physiology and glycoside production was reported (Javed et al. 2017). The effects of nano-CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on the growth and yield of soybean were studied. It was reported that nano-CeO2 caused a reduction in the growth and yield of plants. A negative impact on nitrogen fixation by soybean was also reported with high nano-CeO2 concentration. An efficient uptake and distribution of nano-ZnO was also observed in soybean, and nanoparticles were detected in the edible plant tissues (Priester et al. 2012). Stress response and tolerance of Zea mays to CeO2 NPs were studied by Zhao et al. (2012a, b). Nanoparticles triggered the increased production of several stress-related parameters which helped the plants to defend against oxidative injury caused by exposure to CeO2 NPs. In radish (Raphanus sativis L.), it was reported that CeO2 nanoparticles at a concentration of 10 mg/L had no effects on the growth of plants, whereas bulk CeO2 enhanced plant biomass and ionic cerium (Ce3+) had a negative effect on plant growth (Zhang et al. 2015). This study outlined that the effects on plant growth and physiological processes varied with the characteristics of the element. Rico et al. studied the impacts of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the physiology, productivity, and macromolecular composition of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Improved plant growth with increase in shoot biomass was observed with nano-CeO2 at 125 mg/kg compared to the control plants. No grains were found in plants treated with 500 mg/kg of nano-CeO2 (Rico et al. 2015). A positive effect on tomato plant growth and fruit production was determined on treatment with studied concentrations of CeO2 NPs (Wang et al. 2012). A good level of cerium was detected in plant tissues upon treatment which suggested the uptake of nanoparticles by plant roots and further translocation to shoots and edible tissues. The growth cycle of barley plants treated with CeO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles was investigated, and it was observed that n-CeO2-treated plants produced less number of tillers, reduced leaf area, and reduced number of spikes per plant whereas n-TiO2 stimulated plant growth, which made clear that the plant response varies widely with the type of nanoparticles (Wang et al. 2012).
Engineered iron oxide nanoparticles have been extensively used for environmental remediation, and hence it is important to study the various effects of iron-based nanoparticles on plant system. No negative effects were reported in maize seedlings grown under stress condition with different concentrations of hematite and ferrihydrite NPs. Surprisingly, an increased growth and chlorophyll content was observed with majority of the concentrations used (Marchiol et al. 2016). Similar results were observed in corn plants in which lower concentration of γ-Fe2O3 NPs had positive effects on seedling growth of corn (Pariona et al. 2017). The impacts of iron oxide nanoparticles and ferric ions on the growth of Citrus maxima were investigated by Hu et al. It was reported that γ-Fe2O3 NPs did not affect the biomass and root length. An upward translocation of nanoparticles were not observed which matched with the appearance of more γ-Fe2O3 NPs on the roots of corn (Li et al. 2016). The increase in the chlorophyll content due to treatment with γ-Fe2O3 NPs was reported to be concentration dependent.
Recent studies on effects of magnetite nanoparticles on oak trees reported improved germination and early growth (Hu et al. 2017). An increase in chlorophyll concentration was also observed due to increased iron supply from Fe3O4 NPs. This study potentially suggested the use of magnetite NPs to improve conservation and reforestation of threatened trees. The uptake of iron oxide nanoparticles by spinach plants grown hydroponically was studied. A dose- and time-dependent increase in the plant growth and biomass was reported due to the uptake of magnetic nanoparticles. This study provided new insights to application of nanoparticles in agriculture (Jeyasubramanian et al. 2016). Cobalt ferrite nanoparticles (CoFe2O4) have found several application in medical sciences for magnetic resonance imaging, drug delivery, and cell labeling (Liu et al. 2013; Park et al. 2015). However, their effects on plant system are least studied. The tolerance of tomato plants to CoFe2O4 NPs was studied, and it was reported that these nanoparticles did not affect germination and growth of plants. A concentration-dependent increase in the amount of Fe and Co in plant tissues was observed. An increased Mg and Ca uptake was noted on treatment with 125 mg/L CoFe2O4 whereas it decreased at higher nanoparticle concentration. A decreased catalase activity in tomato roots and leaves was also reported (López-Moreno et al. 2016). Toxicity and biotransformation of Ni(OH)2 nanoparticles by mesquite plants (Prosopis spp.) were investigated, and it was reported that there was no reduction in plant size or chlorophyll production (Parsons et al. 2010).
Studies were carried out with TiO2 NPs and Cd to understand the joint toxicity in rice seedlings (Ji et al. 2017). TiO2 NPs did not cause any impact on rice seedling growth in terms of fresh and dry biomass whereas Cd toxicity to rice seedlings resulted in significant reduction of root length, plant height, fresh and dry biomass, and other physiological parameters. However, presence of TiO2 NPs in the media reduced Cd toxicity to rice plants due to the adsorption of Cd by TiO2 NPs, thus making Cd unavailable to plants. An investigation of early genotoxic and phytotoxic effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles (nCeO2) and titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nTiO2) in barley seedlings reported high oxidative stress with increased generation of ROS and ATP content. The nanoparticles did not cause any negative effect on caryopses germination; however, reduced root elongation was observed in seedlings treated with higher concentration of nanoparticles (Mattiello et al. 2015). Feizi et al. reported that nano-TiO2 at low concentration did not cause any changes in the germination rate of wheat whereas high concentrations had inhibitory effects (Feizi et al. 2012). Uptake and impact of TiO2 nanoparticles on wheat and rapeseed reported that the germination, evapotranspiration, and plant biomass were not affected whereas increased root elongation was observed on exposure to nanoparticles (Larue et al. 2012). The developmental phytotoxicity of different metal oxide nanoparticles on Arabidopsis thaliana was investigated, and studies reported that direct exposure to nanoparticles caused significant phytotoxicity with reduced seed germination, root elongation, and leaf number (Lee et al. 2010). Rossi et al. reported that CeO2 nanoparticles caused root anatomical changes in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) that improved the salt stress tolerance in plants. The nanoparticles modified the formation of apoplastic barriers in plants that allowed the transport of more Na+ ions to shoots and less Na+ ion accumulation in roots. These changes in Na+ ion flux resulted in better physiological response in plants which can be utilized for more nanotechnological applications in agriculture (Rossi et al. 2016). Priester et al. reported that soybean grown in soil amended with nano-CeO2 or nano-ZnO experienced plant damage. Nano-CeO2 caused oxidative stress in leaves due to reduced root nodule fixation, and nano-ZnO caused decrease in leaf chlorophyll concentration; however, such a decrease in leaf chlorophyll was not related to diminished plant growth, yield, or N2 fixation potential (Priester et al. 2017).
The phytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles was investigated, and it was reported that surface characteristics of nanoparticles play an important role in phytotoxicity. Studies were conducted on five different plant species, and inhibition of root elongation with nanoparticles got decreased with their surface modification (Yang and Watts 2005). Riahi-Madvar investigated the effects of alumina nanoparticles on the morphological properties of wheat seedlings and reported that root growth was affected by NPs but not the seed germination, shoot length, and dry biomass (Riahi-Madvar et al. 2012). Studies on the toxic effects of aluminum oxide nanoparticles on the root growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants reported reduced root elongation with cellular damage in root cortex cells. Histochemical analysis revealed lignin accumulation and callose deposition (Yanık and Vardar 2015). Antisari et al. reported the effects of different engineered metal oxide (CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO2, TiO2) nanoparticles and metallic (Ag, Co, and Ni) engineered nanoparticles on the morphological parameters of tomato plants. It was observed that root growth was promoted by Fe3O4 NPs and reduced by SnO2 NPs. Accumulation of nanoparticles was mainly seen in tomato roots whereas engineered metal nanoparticles were observed both in above ground and below ground parts (Antisari et al. 2015).
17.3 Effects of Metal and Metal-Based Nanoparticles on Photosynthesis and Biochemical Characteristics in Plants
The interaction of plants with nanoparticles induces several biotic and abiotic stresses that accelerate the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Several antioxidant enzymes such as catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), guaiacol peroxidase (GPX), glutathione reductase (GR), and malondialdehyde (MDA) play a significant role to interrupt the cascades of uncontrolled oxidation which results in the alteration of ROS concentration (Santos et al. 2010; Gechev et al. 2006). The photosynthetic activities in plants can be altered by nanoparticles that result in the generation of ROS and activated the defense mechanisms in plants to combat oxidative stress damage (Du et al. 2017). The generation of ROS and antioxidant responses vary with the type of nanoparticles and plant species and exposure conditions.
In Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), on treatment with gold nanoparticles (GNPs), a regular increase in the antioxidant enzyme activities, H2O2, and proline content was recorded with increase in the concentration of GNPs. Results indicated that the production of ROS is highly dependent on the concentration of nanoparticles which imposed physiological and biochemical stress in mustard seeds (Gunjan et al. 2014). The toxicity of AgNPs and ionic silver, in mustard seedlings, at various concentrations was analyzed by investigating the root and shoot length, fresh mass, protein content, amount of photosynthetic pigments, cell viability, DNA damage, oxidative enzyme activities, etc. (Vishwakarma et al. 2017). Both nanoparticles and ionic silver reduced seedling growth with severe inhibition to photosynthesis and caused oxidative stress with DNA degradation and ultimate cell death. Antioxidant enzyme activities were inhibited by both forms of silver. These studies in toxicological research could help in designing novel strategies to reduce the adverse effects of nanoparticles on plants. In peanut plants, AgNPs did not change the predominant isozymes of each antioxidant enzyme; however, the amount of antioxidant isozymes got significantly increased in comparison to control plants (Rui et al. 2017). In a model aquatic plant Spirodela polyrhiza, it was reported that AgNPs affected photosynthesis and inhibited photosystem II maximum quantum yield and effective quantum yield (Jiang et al. 2017). AgNPs induced the formation of ROS, and the activity of Rubisco was found to be very sensitive to nanoparticles, thus slowing down CO2 assimilation. This had resulted in decrease in solar energy consumption and promoted ROS generation in chloroplasts by excess excitation energy. Studies reported that AgNPs enhanced the growth of soybean plants under flood-stressed conditions (Mustafa et al. 2015, 2016). An increase in proteins related to amino acid synthesis and wax formation was observed in soybean plants on treatment with 15 nm AgNPs, which further improved the growth of plants under flood stress conditions (Mustafa et al. 2016). Tripathi et al. reported that nitric oxide protected the pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings from adverse effects of silver nanoparticles on growth and photosynthesis by regulating the accumulation of Ag and ROS and antioxidant defense system (Tripathi et al. 2017a).
Siddiqui et al. reported that nano-SiO2 improved seed germination and growth characteristics by reducing malondialdehyde, H2O2 levels, and electrolyte leakage. Also, the application of nano-SiO2 reduced chlorophyll degradation and enhanced net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, rate of transpiration, and water use efficiency. An improved expression of several antioxidant enzymes resulted in reduced oxidative damage which resulted in an increased germination and growth characteristics (Siddiqui et al. 2014). Improved seed germination of soybean with nano-SiO2 and nano-TiO2 particles by increasing the amount of nitrate reductase was reported by Lu et al. (2002). Nanoparticles also enhanced the ability of plants to absorb and utilize water and fertilizer and also stimulate the antioxidant system with increased activities of SOD, POD, and CAT. This resulted the plants to thrive under adversities. The ability of silicon nanoparticles (SiNPs) in alleviating UV-B stress in wheat seedlings was investigated, and data indicated that SiNPs triggered the NO-mediated antioxidant defense system which neutralized the damage to photosynthesis that had occurred by ROS (Tripathi et al. 2017b).
In Brassica rapa, it was reported that treatment with bulk CeO2 resulted in increased concentration of H2O2 in plant tissues at vegetative stage, and CeO2 NPs increased the level of H2O2 at floral stage. A growth stage response was observed for SOD activity in response to different sized NPs and CAT activity was not at all affected with any sized NPs over the entire growth stages of plant (Ma et al. 2016). Hussain et al. reported that biologically synthesized cerium nanoparticles protected tomato seedlings against ferulic acid stress. The exogenous application of nanoceria resulted in reduced MAL and electrolyte leakage with an increase in the pigment content. As an antioxidant, nanoceria could protect the plants from autointoxication which is an important problem in monocropping (Hussain et al. 2017).
In corn plants (Zea mays), on treatment with CeO2 NPs, it was investigated that the level of H2O2 increased in phloem, xylem bundle sheath cells, and shoot epidermal cells up to 15 days after germination. The CAT and APX activities also increased in corn shoots. At higher concentrations, nanoparticles triggered the upregulation of the HSP70 in roots which is an indication of stress response. Lipid peroxidation with increase in thiobarbituric acid and ion leakage was reported in this study. Nanoparticles did not affect leaf net photosynthetic rate, transpiration, and stomatal conductance. The antioxidant enzymes provided protection against the oxidative stress that might have occurred due to nanoparticle interaction (Zhao et al. 2012a, b). Rico et al. studied the impact of nano-CeO2 on the oxidative stress and antioxidant defense system in germinating rice seeds. H2O2 generation in roots and shoots was found to be reduced in comparison to control plants at the studied two least concentrations. Concentration-dependent electrolyte leakage and lipid peroxidation were reported in seedling shoots. Enhanced membrane damage and photosynthetic stress due to the altered enzymatic activities with changes in the level of ascorbate and free thiols were observed in shoots. Modifications of antioxidant defense system with no consequential change in oxidative stress were observed in root system (Rico et al. 2013). In Bt-transgenic cotton, it was observed that the chloroplasts were swollen due to aggregation of CeO2 NPs on the external surface of chloroplasts which had led to its rupture. The vascular bundles were also got destroyed with CeO2 NPs (Nhan et al. 2015).
The full life cycle of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants was assessed on treatment with CeO2 nanoparticles of low and high concentration. Decreased chlorophyll content and increased antioxidant enzyme activities were observed in plants treated with higher concentration of nano-CeO2. Both low and high concentration delayed the flowering by one week and reduced the size of starch grain (Du et al. 2015). There were reports that catalase activity was significantly increased in shoots and ascorbate peroxidase in roots on growing cilantro plants in soil amended with CeO2 NPs (Morales et al. 2013). Venkatachalam et al. reported that phycomolecules-coated ZnO NPs triggered heavy metal (Cd and Pb) tolerance in L. leucocephala by activating different biochemical pathways, thus avoiding cellular damage. An increase in the levels of MDA, photosynthetic pigments, and proteins was reported along with overexpression of antioxidant defense enzymes and favored genetic alterations (Venkatachalam et al. 2017). Zhao et al. studied the effects of nano-ZnO and nano-CeO2 in corn plants, and it was reported that nano-ZnO at 800 mg/kg reduced the net photosynthesis in corn (Zea mays) plants by 12%, stomatal conductance by 15%, and relative chlorophyll content by 10% at day 20 of plant growth whereas these factors were not impacted with all studied concentrations of nano-CeO2 (Zhao et al. 2015).
The biochemical and molecular response in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. plants to tetracycline (TC) and TiO2 NPs was investigated, and it was reported that 1 mg/L TC reduced the plant biomass and the presence of nanoparticles alleviated TC toxicity. Higher antioxidant enzyme activity was observed in roots and shoots in the presence of TC which indicated the increased activity of ROS scavengers; however, TiO2 NPs reduced the antioxidant enzyme activity during co-exposure treatments (Liu et al. 2017). The effects of Cu(OH)2 nanopesticides of different concentrations to 3-week-old maize plants were studied to understand the gene expression of nine antioxidant-related enzymes, and this study provided important information on the responses of maize plants to Cu(OH)2 nanopesticides at genetic, metabolic, and physiological levels (Zhao et al. 2017). Song et al. investigated the phytotoxicity of two differently synthesized nanoparticles, aerosol nano-TiO2 and colloidal Ag NPs, on tomato (Song et al. 2013). No acute toxicity was observed on germination by either of nanoparticles, whereas root elongation was significantly reduced with Ag NPs at all studied concentrations due to its higher uptake. Ag NPs caused increased phytotoxicity which resulted in lower chlorophyll content, higher SOD activity, and less fruit productivity. Higher antioxidant enzyme activity was observed with nano-TiO2 only at higher concentration.
To understand the effects of environmental conditions on the uptake and toxicity of ENPs, soil grown herbaceous annual plant (Clarkia unguiculata) was exposed to different nanoparticles such as TiO2, CeO2, and Cu(OH)2 at different concentrations under distinct light and nutrient levels for 8 weeks. It was reported that during the maximum growth stage, the photosynthetic rate and CO2 assimilation efficiency was decreased by TiO2 and CeO2 treatment under high light and nutrient growth conditions. Cu(OH)2 nanoparticles disrupted photosynthesis in plants grown under highly stressed conditions of high light and limited nutrients. The accumulation of nanoparticles was highly dependent on light and nutrient levels, and the results revealed the impact of abiotic conditions in mediating the uptake and further physiological effects in plants (Conway et al. 2015). Effect of alumina nanoparticles on miRNA expression profile in tobacco plants was studied. Plants were exposed to nanoparticle stress, and it was found that the root length, plant biomass, and leaf count were significantly decreased with increase in nanoparticle exposure. Also, an increase in expression of different type of miRNAs was observed with maximum expression for treatment with 1% Al2O3 NPs. This study suggested that miRNAs might play an important role in mediating the stress response in plants caused by nanoparticles in the environment (Burklew et al. 2012). Elevated activity of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase and catalase was observed in wheat seedlings on treatment with 200 and 500 mg/L alumina NPs. This reduced the level of free radicals which helped to inhibit the phytotoxic effects of these nanoparticles on wheat seedlings (Riahi-Madvar et al. 2012). Yanik and Vardar reported increased peroxidase activity due to the application of nanoparticles to wheat seedlings with decreased total protein content with respect to control plants (Yanık and Vardar 2015). There were reports that foliar application of ZnO nanoparticles at low concentration of 10 ppm increased the chlorophyll, phosphorous, and total soluble leaf protein concentration in cluster bean (Raliya and Tarafdar 2013). Response of soybean mitochondrial proteins to aluminum oxide NPs of various sizes under flooding situation was studied. A large increase in voltage-dependent anion-channel protein on exposure to 135 nm Al2O3 NPs and increased isocitrate dehydrogenase upon exposure to 5 nm Al2O3 under flood-stressed condition were reported. This study suggested that Al2O3 NPs of different sizes had affected mitochondrial proteins under flood stress conditions by regulating membrane permeability and TCA (Tri carboxylic acid) cycle activity (Mustafa and Komatsu 2016). The effects of magnetite iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe3O4 NPs) of different size at a concentration of 200 mg/L were investigated on Picochlorum sp. (Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta) during different phases of growth. Nanoparticles of size 20 nm at 200 mg/L reduced the viable cell concentration and chlorophyll a content during exponential growth phase compared to other sized nanoparticles (Hazeem et al. 2015).
17.4 Effects of Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on the Nutritional Quality of Crops
It is important to assess the effects of nanoparticle on the nutritional quality of plants. The effects of coated and uncoated nanoceria on the quality of tomato fruits were studied, and it was reported that citric acid-coated CeO2 nanoparticles increased the B content and reduced the dry weight, total and reducing sugar content at different used concentrations (Barrios et al. 2017). B, Ca, Mg, and Mn amount were decreased at 500 mg/kg of nCeO2 and bulk CeO2 reduced the lycopene content at all the studied concentrations. It was observed that citric acid coated nanoceria affected the fruit macromolecules and nutritional elements were affected by CeO2 nanoparticles. Interaction of boron (B) with CeO2 NPs and its responses in sunflower plants was studied, and it was reported that nano-CeO2 reduced the B nutritional status of sunflower in original soil and B phytotoxicity in boron amended soil (Tassi et al. 2017).
Du et al. reported that there was no change in the starch and sugar content of wheat grains; however, an increase in the protein content of grains was observed in wheat plants on treatment with nano-CeO2 (Du et al. 2015). Studies with nano-CeO2 of 250 mg/Kg on barley plants reported remarkable increase in P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn, Cu, and Al in grains. An increase in methionine, aspartic acid, threonine, tyrosine, arginine, and linolenic acid contents in the grains was also reported (Rico et al. 2015). Morales et al. reported that CeO2 nanoparticles could change the nutritional properties of cilantro by changing the chemical environment of carbohydrates in cilantro shoots (Morales et al. 2013). In cotton plants, it was reported that CeO2 NPs significantly reduced the Zn, Mg, Fe, and P amounts in xylem sap compared to control plants. Also, a decrease in Indole-3-Acetic Acid (IAA) and abscisic acid (ABA) was also reported (Nhan et al. 2015).
The effects of CeO2 and ZnO NPs on the nutritional value of soil cultivated soybean plants were investigated (Peralta-Videa et al. 2014). At higher concentration, nano-CeO2 increased the amount of Cu and P and reduced the amount of Ca in pods. Low level of Na was detected in pods at all concentrations of nano-CeO2, and high level of Zn was detected in pods at all concentrations of nano-ZnO. At medium concentration of nano-ZnO, the level of Mn and Cu in pods got increased. Hong et al. studied the impact of nanoscale and microscale CeO2 and CuO on the fruit quality of cucumber (Hong et al. 2016). It was reported that fruit firmness was reduced with nano- and microscale CuO and nano-CeO2 at 50 mg/L and bulk CeO2 at 200 mg/L. The Zn and Mo levels of fruits were also impacted upon treatment with different concentrations of nano- and bulk CeO2 and CuO. Change in the nutritional qualities of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) on treatment with CeO2 and ZnO NPs was investigated (Zhao et al. 2014). Results showed that none of the ZnO nanoparticle concentrations affected fruit sugars, carbohydrate and protein, and antioxidant contents in comparison to control plants. An increase in starch and protein content was reported with 400 mg/kg of ZnO NPs which might increase the caloric value of fruit. A decrease in the concentration of micronutrients such as Cu and Mo was reported with ZnO nanoparticles. Several changes in fruit quality have been noted for CeO2 treatment, such as changes in the amount of nonreducing sugars, phenolic content, and fractionation of proteins which further impacted fruit flavor and antioxidant ability. In corn plants (Zea mays), it was reported that nano-CeO2 and n-ZnO reduced the yield of corn and altered the quality of corn. On treatment with nano-CeO2, it was observed that Cu, K, Mn, and Zn were mainly localized at the insertion of kernels into cobs whereas Ca and Fe were distributed in other parts of the kernel (Zhao et al. 2015).
The effects of CuO NPs on conventional and Bt-transgenic cotton were studied, and it was reported that CuO NPs inhibited the plant growth and development, nutrient content, and also IAA and ABA concentrations in conventional and transgenic cotton plants. At low concentration, nanoparticles enhanced the expression of exogenous gene encoding Bt toxin protein in leaves and roots, thus providing added benefit for Bt cotton insect resistance (Van et al. 2016). Changes in the fatty acid content were observed in peanut grains on exposure to different doses on AgNPs (Rui et al. 2017), which indicated the effects of metal-based nanoparticles on crop yield and quality. Studies by Antisari et al. reported contamination of tomato fruits with Ag when the plants were treated with AgNPs (Antisari et al. 2015). The impact of CeO2 NPs on the nutritional composition in wheat was investigated, and modifications in the storage of S and Mn in grains were reported. Changes in amino acid composition, increased linolenic acid, and decreased linoleic acid in grains were also reported on treatment with nano-CeO2 at 125 mg/Kg. The study suggested the potential of nanoceria to modify the crop food quality that might cause unknown consequences for living organisms (Rico et al. 2014). Figure 17.1 shows the general mechanism of interaction of nanoparticles with plant system with various morphological, physiological, and biochemical effects [adopted with permission from Rastogi et al. (2017)].
17.5 Conclusion
Increased application of nanomaterials to the environment affects the growth of plants morphologically, physiologically, and biochemically. Metal-based nanomaterials have shown both beneficial and adverse effects on plant growth and production. Nanoparticles can be adsorbed on the plant surface or can be successfully absorbed and translocated to different plant parts including the edible portion of plants. Hence, it is high time to understand the risks associated with the interaction of nanomaterials with plant system. Reports suggested that nanoparticles at innocuous concentration have not exhibited any adverse effects and seem to be beneficial to plants in many ways. However, toxicity at higher concentrations results in the production of antioxidant enzymes in plants to protect the cellular and subcellular system from cytotoxic effects. Nanomaterials at right concentration can be used for the smart delivery of agrochemicals and fertilizers that promote plant growth and production, thus reducing the use of conventional chemicals to prevent soil damage and to protect the environment.
References
Adams J, Wright M, Wagner H et al (2017) Cu from dissolution of CuO nanoparticles signals changes in root morphology. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:108–117
Adhikari T, Kundu S, Biswas AK et al (2012) Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on seed germination of selected crops. J Agric Sci Technol A2:815–823
Antisari LV, Carbone S, Gatti A et al (2015) Uptake and translocation of metals and nutrients in tomato grown in soil polluted with metal oxide (CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO2, TiO2) or metallic (Ag, Co, Ni) engineered nanoparticles. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:1841–1853
Auffan M, Achouak W, Rose J et al (2008) Relation between the redox state of iron-based nanoparticles and their cytotoxicity toward Escherichia coli. Environ Sci Technol 42:6730–6735
Barrios AC, Medina-Velo IA, Zuverza-Mena N et al (2017) Nutritional quality assessment of tomato fruits after exposure to uncoated and citric acid coated cerium oxide nanoparticles, bulk cerium oxide, cerium acetate and citric acid. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:100–107
Batley GE, Kirby JK, McLaughlin MJ (2013) Fate and risks of nanomaterials in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Acc Chem Res 46:854–862
Burklew CE, Ashlock J, Winfrey WB et al (2012) Effects of aluminum oxide nanoparticles on the growth, development, and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). PLoS One 7:e34783
Conway JR, Beaulieu AL, Beaulieu NL et al (2015) Environmental stresses increase photosynthetic disruption by metal oxide nanomaterials in a soil-grown plant. ACS Nano 9:11737–11749
Da Costa MVJ, Sharma PK (2016) Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on growth, morphology, photosynthesis, and antioxidant response in Oryza sativa. Photosynthetica 54:110–119
Dietz KJ, Herth S (2011) Plant nanotoxicology. Trends Plant Sci 16:582–589
Du W, Gardea-Torresdey JL, Ji R et al (2015) Physiological and biochemical changes imposed by CeO2 nanoparticles on wheat: a life cycle field study. Environ Sci Technol 49:11884–11893
Du W, Tan W, Peralta-Videa JR et al (2017) Interaction of metal oxide nanoparticles with higher terrestrial plants: physiological and biochemical aspects. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:210–225
Duran NM, Savassa SM, Lima RG et al (2017) X-ray spectroscopy uncovering the effects of Cu based nanoparticle concentration and structure on Phaseolus vulgaris germination and seedling development. J Agric Food Chem 65:7874–7884
Feizi H, Moghaddam PR, Shahtahmassebi N et al (2012) Impact of bulk and nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO2) on wheat seed germination and seedling growth. Biol Trace Elem Res 146:101–106
Fleischer A, O’Neill MA, Ehwald R (1999) The pore size of non-graminaceous plant cell walls is rapidly decreased by borate ester cross-linking of the pectic polysaccharide rhamnogalacturonan II. Plant Physiol 121:829–838
Foley S, Crowley C, Smaihi M et al (2002) Cellular localisation of a water-soluble fullerene derivative. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 294:116–119
Gechev TS, Breusegem FV, Stone JM et al (2006) Reactive oxygen species as signals that modulate plant stress responses and programmed cell death. Bioessays 28:1091–1101
Ghodake G, Seo YD, Lee DS (2011) Hazardous phytotoxic nature of cobalt and zinc oxide nanoparticles assessed using Allium cepa. J Hazard Mater 186:952–955
Gottschalk F, Lassen C, Kjoelholt J et al (2015) Modeling flows and concentrations of nine engineered nanomaterials in the Danish environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5581–5602
Gunjan B, Zaidi MGH, Sandeep A (2014) Impact of gold nanoparticles on physiological and biochemical characteristics of Brassica juncea. J Plant Biochem Physiol 2:133–139
Hazeem LJ, Waheed FA, Rashdan S et al (2015) Effect of magnetic iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles on the growth and photosynthetic pigment content of Picochlorum sp. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:11728–11739
Hong J, Wang L, Sun Y et al (2016) Foliar applied nanoscale and microscale CeO2 and CuO alter cucumber (Cucumis sativus) fruit quality. Sci Total Environ 563:904–911
Hu J, Guo H, Li J et al (2017) Comparative impacts of iron oxide nanoparticles and ferric ions on the growth of Citrus maxima. Environ Pollut 221:199–208
Hussain I, Singh NB, Singh A et al (2017) Exogenous application of photosynthesized nanoceria to alleviate ferulic acid stress in Solanum lycopersicum. Sci Hortic 214:158–164
Javed R, Usman M, Yücesan B et al (2017) Effect of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles on physiology and steviol glycosides production in micropropagated shoots of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:94–99
Jeyasubramanian K, Thoppey UU, Hikku GS et al (2016) Enhancement in growth rate and productivity of spinach grown in hydroponics with iron oxide nanoparticles. RSC Adv 6:15451–15459
Ji Y, Zhou Y, Ma C et al (2017) Jointed toxicity of TiO2 NPs and Cd to rice seedlings: NPs alleviated Cd toxicity and Cd promoted NPs uptake. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:82–93
Jiang HS, Yin LY, Ren NN et al (2017) Silver nanoparticles induced reactive oxygen species via photosynthetic energy transport imbalance in an aquatic plant. Nanotoxicology 11:157–167
Kamat JP, Devasagayam TP, Priyadarsini KI et al (2000) Reactive oxygen species mediated membrane damage induced by fullerene derivatives and its possible biological implications. Toxicology 155:55–61
Koul K, Nagpal R, Raina S (2000) Seed coat microsculpturing in Brassica and allied genera (subtribes Brassicinae, Raphaninae, Moricandiinae). Ann Bot 86:385–397
Larue C, Veronesi G, Flank AM et al (2012) Comparative uptake and impact of TiO2nanoparticles in wheat and rapeseed. J Toxicol Environ Health A 75:722–734
Lee CW, Mahendra S, Zodrow K et al (2010) Developmental phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:669–675
Li J, Hu J, Ma C et al (2016) Uptake, translocation and physiological effects of magnetic iron oxide (γ-Fe2O3) nanoparticles in corn (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 159:326–334
Liu F, Laurent S, Roch A et al (2013) Size-controlled synthesis of CoFe2O4 nanoparticles potential contrast agent for MRI and investigation on their size-dependent magnetic properties. J Nanomater:127
Liu H, Ma C, Chen G et al (2017) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles alleviate tetracycline toxicity to Arabidopsis thaliana L. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:3204–3213
López-Moreno ML, Avilés LL, Pérez NG et al (2016) Effect of cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) nanoparticles on the growth and development of Lycopersicon lycopersicum (tomato plants). Sci Total Environ 550:45–52
Lu C, Zhang C, Wen J et al (2002) Research of the effect of nanometer materials on germination and growth enhancement of Glycine max and its mechanism. Soybean Sci 21:168–171
Ma X, Wang Q, Lorenzo Rossi L et al (2016) Cerium oxide nanoparticles and bulk cerium oxide leading to different physiological and biochemical changes in Brassica napa. Environ Sci Technol 50:6793–6802
Marchiol L, Mattiello A, Pošćić F et al (2016) Changes in physiological and agronomical parameters of Barley (Hordeum vulgare) exposed to cerium and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:332–350
Mattiello A, Filippi A, Pošćić F et al (2015) Evidence of Phytotoxicity and Genotoxicity in Hordeum vulgare L. Exposed to CeO2 and TiO2 Nanoparticles. Front Plant Sci 6:1043
Moon YS, Park ES, Kim TO et al (2014) SELDI-TOF-MS based discovery of a biomarker in Cucumis sativus seeds exposed to CuO nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Phar 38:922–931
Morales MI, Rico CM, Hernandez-Viezcas JA et al (2013) Toxicity assessment of cerium oxide nanoparticles in cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) plants grown in organic soil. J Agric Food Chem 61(26):6224–6230
Morales-Díaz AB, Ortega-Ortíz H, Juárez-Maldonado A et al (2017) Application of nano elements in plant nutrition and its impact in ecosystem. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 8:013001–0130014
Mustafa G, Komatsu S (2016) Insights into the response of soybean mitochondrial proteins to various sizes of aluminum oxide nanoparticles under flooding stress. J Proteome Res 15:4464–4475
Mustafa G, Sakata K, Hossain Z et al (2015) Proteomic study on the effects of silver nanoparticles on soybean under flooding stress. J Proteome 122:100–118
Mustafa G, Sakata K, Komatsu S (2016) Proteomic analysis of soybean root exposed to varying sizes of silver nanoparticles under flooding stress. J Proteome 148:113–125
Nair R (2016) Effects of nanoparticles on plant growth and development. In: Kole C, Kumar DS, Khodakovskaya MV (eds) Plant Nanotechnology Principles and Practices. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
Nair PMG, Chung IM (2014) Physiological and molecular level effects of silver nanoparticles exposure in rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 112:105–113
Nair PMG, Chung IM (2015) Study on the correlation between copper oxide nanoparticles induced growth suppression and enhanced lignification in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 113:302–313
Nair R, Varghese SH, Nair BG et al (2010) Nanoparticulate material delivery to plants. Plant Sci 179:154–163
Nair R, Poulose AC, Nagaoka Y et al (2011) Uptake of FITC labeled silica nanoparticles and quantum dots by rice seedlings: effects on seed germination and their potential as biolabels for plants. J Fluoresc 21:2057
Nair R, Mohamed MS, Gao W et al (2012) Effect of carbon nanomaterials on the germination and growth of rice plants. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 12:2212–2220
Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R et al (2008) Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17:372–386
Ndeh NT, Maensiri S, Maensiri D (2017) The effect of green synthesized gold nanoparticles on rice germination and roots. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 8:035008–035018
Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L et al (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627
Nhan LV, Ma C, Rui Y et al (2015) Phytotoxic mechanism of nanoparticles: destruction of chloroplasts and vascular bundles and alteration of nutrient absorption. Sci Rep 5:11618
Pariona N, Martinez AI, Hdz-García HM et al (2017) Effects of hematite and ferrihydrite nanoparticles on germination and growth of maize seedlings. Saudi J Biol Sci 24:1547–1554
Park BJ, Choi KH, Nam KC et al (2015) Photodynamic anticancer activities of multifunctional cobalt ferrite nanoparticles in various cancer cells. J Biomed Nanotechnol 11:226–235
Parsons JG, Lopez ML, Gonzalez CM et al (2010) Toxicity and biotransformation of uncoated and coated nickel hydroxide nanoparticles on mesquite plants. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1146–1154
Peralta-Videa JR, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Zhao L et al (2014) Cerium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles alter the nutritional value of soil cultivated soybean plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 80:128–135
Priester JH, Ge Y, Mielke RE et al (2012) Soybean susceptibility to manufactured nanomaterials with evidence for food quality and soil fertility interruption. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:E2451–E2456
Priester JH, Moritz SC, Espinosa K et al (2017) Damage assessment for soybean cultivated in soil with either CeO2 or ZnO manufactured nanomaterials. Sci Total Environ 579:1756–1768
Raliya R, Tarafdar JC (2013) ZnO nanoparticle biosynthesis and its effect on phosphorous-mobilizing enzyme secretion and gum contents in cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.). Agric Res 2:48–57
Raliya R, Franke C, Chavalmane S et al (2016) Quantitative understanding of nanoparticle uptake in watermelon plants. Front Plant Sci 7:1288
Rastogi A, Zivcak M, Sytar O et al (2017) Impact of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on plant: a critical review. Front Chem 5:78
Riahi-Madvar A, Rezaee F, Jalali V (2012) Effects of alumina nanoparticles on morphological properties and antioxidant system of Triticum aestivum. Iran J Plant Physiol 3:595–603
Rico CM, Majumdar S, Duarte-Gardea M et al (2011) Interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants and their possible implications in the food chain. J Agric Food Chem 59:3485–3498
Rico CM, Hong J, Morales MI (2013) Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on rice: a study involving the antioxidant defense system and in vivo fluorescence imaging. Environ Sci Technol 47:5635–5642
Rico CM, Lee SC, Rubenecia R et al (2014) Cerium oxide nanoparticles impact yield and modify nutritional parameters in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J Agric Food Chem 62:9669–9675
Rico CM, Barrios AC, Tan W et al (2015) Physiological and biochemical response of soil-grown barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to cerium oxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:10551–10558
Rossi L, Zhang W, Lombardini L et al (2016) Impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the salt stress responses of Brassica napus L. Environ Pollut 219:28–36
Rui M, Ma C, Tang X et al (2017) Phytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.): physiological responses and food safety. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:6557–6567
Santos AR, Miguel AS, Tomaz L et al (2010) The impact of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots in cells of Medicago sativa in suspension culture. J Nanobiotechnol 8:24
Shaw AK, Hossain Z (2013) Impact of nano-CuO stress on rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 93:906–915
Siddiqui MH, Al-Whaibi MH, Faisal M et al (2014) Nano-silicon dioxide mitigates the adverse effects of salt stress on Cucurbita pepo L. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:2429–2437
Song U, Jun H, Waldman B et al (2013) Functional analyses of nanoparticle toxicity: a comparative study of the effects of TiO2 and Ag on tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 93:60–67
Tarafdar JC, Xiang Y, Wang WN et al (2012) Standardization of size, shape and concentration of nanoparticle for plant application. Appl Biol Res 14:138–144
Tassi E, Giorgetti L, Morelli E et al (2017) Physiological and biochemical responses of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) exposed to nano-CeO2 and excess boron: modulation of boron phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:50–58
Thuesombat P, Hannongbua S, Akasit S et al (2014) Effect of silver nanoparticles on rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. KDML 105) seed germination and seedling growth. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 104:302–309
Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh S et al (2017a) Nitric oxide alleviates silver nanoparticles (AgNPs)-induced phytotoxicity in Pisum sativum seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:167–177
Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh VP et al (2017b) Silicon nanoparticles more effectively alleviated UV-B stress than silicon in wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:70–81
Van NL, Ma C, Shang J et al (2016) Effects of CuO nanoparticles on insecticidal activity and phytotoxicity in conventional and transgenic cotton. Chemosphere 144:661–670
Venkatachalam P, Jayaraj M, Manikandan R et al (2017) Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) alleviate heavy metal-induced toxicity in Leucaena leucocephala seedlings: a physiochemical analysis. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:59–69
Vishwakarma K, Upadhyay N, Singh J et al (2017) Differential phytotoxic impact of plant mediated silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and silver nitrate (AgNO3) on Brassica sp. Front Plant Sci 8:1501
Wang Q, Ma X, Zhang W et al (2012) The impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its implications for food safety. Metallomics 4:1105–1112
Wang S, Lui H, Zhang Y et al (2015) The effect of CuO NPs on reactive oxygen species and cell cycle gene expression in roots of rice. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:554–561
Yang L, Watts DJ (2005) Particle surface characteristics may play an important role in phytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles. Toxicol Lett 158:122–132
Yang Z, Chen J, Dou RZ et al (2015) Assessment of the phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles on two crop plants, maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryza sativa). Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:15100–15109
Yang J, Cao W, Rui Y (2017) Interactions between nanoparticles and plants: phytotoxicity and defense mechanisms. J Plant Interact 12:158–169
Yanık F, Vardar F (2015) Toxic effects of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) nanoparticles on root growth and development in Triticum aestivum. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:296
Yin L, Colman BP, McGill BM et al (2012) Effects of silver nanoparticle exposure on germination and early growth of eleven wetland plants. PLoS One 7:e47674
Zhang W, Ebbs SD, Musante C et al (2015) Uptake and accumulation of bulk and nanosized cerium oxide nanoparticles and ionic cerium by radish (Raphanus sativus L.). J Agric Food Chem 63:382–390
Zhao L, Peng B, Hernandez-Viezcas JA et al (2012a) Stress response and tolerance of Zea mays to CeO2 nanoparticles: cross talk among H2O2, heat shock protein, and lipid peroxidation. ACS Nano 6:9615–9622
Zhao L, Peng B, Hernandez-Viezcas JA et al (2012b) Stress response and tolerance of Zea mays to CeO2 nanoparticles: cross talk among H2O2, heat shock protein, and lipid peroxidation. ACS Nano (11):9615–9622
Zhao L, Peralta-Videa JR, Rico CM et al (2014) CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles change the nutritional qualities of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J Agric Food Chem 62:2752–2759
Zhao L, Sun Y, Hernandez-Viezcas JA et al (2015) Monitoring the environmental effects of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles through the life cycle of corn (Zea mays) plants and in situ μ-XRF mapping of nutrients in kernels. Environ Sci Technol 49:2921–2928
Zhao L, Hu Q, Huang Y et al (2017) Response at Genetic, Metabolic, and Physiological Levels of Maize (Zea mays) Exposed to a Cu(OH)2 Nanopesticide. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:8294–8301
Zuverza-Mena N, Armendariz R, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2016) Effects of silver nanoparticles on radish sprouts: root growth reduction and modifications in the nutritional value. Front Plant Sci 7:90
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nair, R. (2018). Plant Response Strategies to Engineered Metal Oxide Nanoparticles: A Review. In: Faisal, M., Saquib, Q., Alatar, A., Al-Khedhairy, A. (eds) Phytotoxicity of Nanoparticles. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76708-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76708-6_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76707-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76708-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)