Abstract
Nanotechnology requires the ability to understand the materials and precisely manipulate it to nanoscale in a useful way. Nanotechnology emerged as a new broad science of diverse fields such as basic sciences, materials science, and engineering to assemble at the nanoscale. In contrast to conventional or other contaminants, nanoparticles are posing some new environmental challenges for scientists and environmentalists worldwide. Being a new area of science, nanotechnology will leave no field untouched including agriculture and allied sectors. So far, the use of nanotechnology in agriculture has been mostly theoretical, but it has begun to have a significant effect in the main areas of agrochemical industry. Nanoparticles finding great potential as delivery systems to specific targets in living organisms and is being used in medical sciences. In plants, the same principles can be applied for a broad range of uses, particularly to tackle phytopathological infections, nutrition supplement and as growth adjuvant. Nanoparticles can be tagged to agrochemicals or other substances as delivery agent to plant system and tissues for controlled release of chemicals. Doing so, the negative effects of nanomaterials on plant productivity and soil microbes and environment must not be overlooked, such as toxicity generated by free radicals leading to lipid peroxidation and DNA damage. Key focus of the chapter particularly relates the use of nanoparticles on agricultural crops and its toxic implications to plants and microbes naturally present in soil and generation of nanowaste in agroecosystem.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
3.1 Introduction
The developments in nanotechnology and nanotechnology-based industries and products are tremendously growing. Recent estimates till October 2013, the nanotechnology-based consumer products inventory grows to 1,628 products or product lines (Fig. 3.1). The use of nanomaterials (NMs) in biomedicine (Zhang et al. 2008) and in agriculture (Joseph and Morrison 2006) is one of the most intensely studied areas in nanotechnology. Nanoscale materials have shown to be taken up by bacteria (Liu et al. 2009b), and also have the ability to penetrate plant cells (Liu et al. 2009a) and induce phytotoxicity at high doses (Stampoulis et al. 2009). Nanotechnology-based agrochemical researches have motivated a number of scientists and environmentalists worldwide to consider the use of nanotechnology for agricultural crops.
Practically, nanotechnology permits broad advantages in agricultural research, such as disease prevention and treatment in plants using various nanocides (Carmen et al. 2003) and nutrient management of agriculture field using nanofertilizers (Priester et al. 2012). Various kinds of nanomaterials such as; metal, nonmetal, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, magnetic particles, polymers, etc. have been studied for their use and possible effect in different areas. Each of these nanomaterials exerts its positive and negative effects mostly depending on its size and interaction with the plant tissues or microbes. However, the current level of knowledge does not convey any clear evidence of the benefits and/or risks (Kah et al. 2013).
The route of entry of these nanomaterials in food chain may be from direct application on land or biosolids treated in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) (Brar et al. 2010). However, manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) although measurable in WWTP systems (Kiser et al. 2009) are neither monitored nor regulated. Though there are scientific reports on measurement and detection of such material and contaminants using sophisticated instruments (Khodakovskaya et al. 2011), but the use of such high cost monitoring tools seems to be nonfeasible on routine basis. Despite the success of nanotechnology, the lack of scientific knowledge concerning the potential health and environmental risks needs to be addressed well in advance.
3.2 Nanomaterial as Delivery Systems
Agrochemicals are in general applied to crops in the form of suspension/solution by spraying. Due to problems such as leaching of chemicals, degradation by photolysis, hydrolysis, and by microbial degradation, most of the chemicals is lost. Hence, repeated application is necessary to have an effective control which on the other hand results in deterioration of soil and water quality. In this context, nanoencapsulated agrochemicals need to be designed in such a way that they possess all necessary properties such as effective concentration (with high solubility, stability, and effectiveness), time controlled release in response to certain stimuli, enhanced targeted activity and less toxicity (Boehm et al. 2003; Green and Beestman 2007; Wang et al. 2007). Tsuji (2001) reported the control of parasitic weeds with properly designed functional nanocapsulated herbicides which have better penetration through cuticle to controlled release of active constituents and to reduce the phytotoxicity of herbicides on crops.
Likewise, use of surface modified hydrophobic nanosilica to control a range of agricultural insect pests (Rahman et al. 2009) and surface functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) to precisely manipulate gene expression at single cell level by delivering DNA and its regulators in a controlled fashion is reported (Torney et al. 2007). Magnetic nanoparticles have shown very specific localization to release their load, which is of great interest in the study of nanoparticulate delivery for plants with no toxicity (Zhu et al. 2008). Quantum dots (QDs) of CdSe/ZnS conjugated with glycine, mercaptosuccinic acid, cysteine, and amine were reported to be visibly transported to a limited extent in the vasculature of ryegrass, onion, and chrysanthemum plants when cut stems were placed in aqueous QD solutions. However, they were not seen to be taken up at all by rooted whole plants (Al-Salim et al. 2011).
Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) were reported to enhance root elongation in onion and cucumber (Canas et al. 2008). Similarly, Khodakovskaya et al. (2009) reported the effects of multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) on the seed germination and growth of tomato plants. Also, Lin and Xing (2007) reported positive effects of MWCNTs on radish, rape, rye grass, lettuce, corn, and cucumber. These results showed significant and encouraging effects on growth and development processes of plants.
The use of polymer matrix that is subject to swelling and dissolution was found to influence the diffusion pathways and thus alter the release behavior (Kaunisto et al. 2013). Examples of polymers used include nanospheres of polyethyleneglycol (Yang et al. 2009) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (Botts et al. 2006). Such materials are often used because they are well established from medical applications. The use and preparation of nanopolymer such as liposomes as delivery system for the slow release of insecticide was first described by Bang et al. (2009). Since then, two reports (Hwang et al. 2011; Kang et al. 2012) highlighted insecticidal efficacy of liposome based formulations. Kang et al. (2012) described that nanoformulation of pyrifluquinazon had its best lethal efficiency for 14 days after treatment compare to pure compound which lasts for 2 days. Similarly, Xiang et al. (2013) used cellulose based polymer and demonstrated that increasing the cellulose nanocrystal content in the fibers, increases the rate of fiber degradation and release of thiamethoxam herbicide.
3.3 Nanomaterial in Agro-system
3.3.1 Nanopesticide and Herbicides
Conventional methods to control the pathogens and pests have affected both the environment and economy of farmers, as 90 % of the applied pesticides are lost to the air during application and as runoff. Additionally, indiscriminate usage of pesticide increases pathogen and pest resistance, reduces soil biodiversity, diminishes nitrogen fixation; contributes to bioaccumulation of pesticides, pollinator decline and destroys habitat for birds (Ghormade et al. 2011). Nanoscaled delivery system with active compound (pesticide and or herbicide) can be applied only when necessary in the field (Gruere et al. 2011).
Avermectin, a pesticide which is known to block neurotransmission in insects by inhibiting chloride channel. It is inactivated by ultraviolet on the fields with half-life of 6 h only, whereas, slow release of encapsulated avermectin by the nanoparticles (NPs) carrier was reported for about 30 days (Ghormade et al. 2011). Similarly, a commercial product ‘Karate® ZEON’ is a quick release microencapsulated formulation containing lambda-cyhalothrin which breaks open upon contact with leaves. In contrast, the gutbuster microencapsules containing pesticide that breaks open to release its contents upon coming in contact with alkaline environments, including the stomach of certain insects (Lyons et al. 2011).
A series of polyethylene glycol (PEG) based insecticide formulations found to release active compounds at slower rate compare to commercial formulations comprising imidacloprid (Adak et al. 2012), carbofuran (Pankaj et al. 2012), and thiram (Kaushik et al. 2013). The release of insecticide was noted to be dependent on PEG molecular weight. The release of β-cyfluthrin from the nanoformulation was recorded over a period that ranged from 1 to 20 days (Loha et al. 2011), whereas release from a commercial formulation was found within 4–5 days (Loha et al. 2012). In another report, a nanofiber network composed of poly (lactic acid) and cellulose nanocrystals loaded with thiamethoxam were efficient against whitefly over a 9 day period in a glass house experiment, at 50 % of the recommended dosage of thiamethoxam (Xiang et al. 2013). Active compounds conjugated in nanoformulations for agricultural use found to be more effective compared to their conventional counterparts (Table 3.1).
Nanoformulations containing glyphosate was found to increase the bioavailability of the herbicide while avoiding a number of the adjuvant present in current glyphosate formulations, which have been associated with toxicity to nontarget organisms (Piola et al. 2013). Kanimozhi and Chinnamuthu (2012) used manganese carbonate as core material coated with water soluble polymers such as sodium Poly Styrene Sulfonate and Poly Allylamine Hydrochloride. Further, Manganese carbonate core materials were etched out to form hollow-shell particles which were loaded with herbicide pendimethalin for field application.
3.3.2 Nanofertilizers
Soil fertility mainly depends upon its organic and inorganic components such as salts of sodium, potassium, and phosphorous; oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, etc. The soil organic matter provides the energy and nutrients for soil microbes which ensure high yields of healthy crops due to their enzymatic action. Thus, it is mandatory to conserve it for efficient physical, chemical, and biological soil functioning (Six et al. 2002).
Millan et al. (2008) reported the use of urea-fertilized zeolite chips, for slow release of nitrogen fertilizers. Ammonium-charged zeolite has shown its capacity to raise the solubilisation of phosphate minerals and thus goes to improved phosphorus uptake and yield of crop plants. In this line, Jinghua (2004) showed that application of a nanocomposite consists of N, P, K, micronutrients, mannose, and amino acids enhance the uptake and use of nutrients by grain crops. In an interesting strategy, Kottegoda et al. (2011) reported sustained release of nitrogen into the soil using urea-modified hydroxyapatite nanoparticle which were encapsulated under pressure into cavities of the soft wood of Gliricidia sepium. In this study, nanofertilizer showed an initial burst and a subsequent slow release up to day 60 compared to the commercial fertilizer, which released heavily at beginning followed by low and nonuniform quantities until around 30 day.
3.4 Phytotoxicity of Nanomaterials
To date research on interaction of nanoparticles that results into phytotoxicity is negligible. Apart from detrimental effect upon direct contact of NPs, these can also diffuse into the intercellular space, the apoplast, and be adsorbed or incorporated into the membranes (Nowack and Bucheli 2007). Plant cells carry a negative surface charge, which allows the transport of negatively charged compounds into the apoplast. The casparian strip poses a barrier to the apoplastic flow and transport, and only symplastic transport is possible into the xylem. However, this barrier is not perfect and compounds can enter the xylem through holes or damaged cells without ever crossing a cell membrane and be further transported to the shoots. This process is found to be a dominant process for the uptake of metal complexes with chelators such as EDTA and their translocation to the shoots (Tandy et al. 2006). This indicates that negatively charged NP could enter the apoplasm of the root cortex and eventually also the xylem, but are not taken up by the cells.
In one of the study, Lee et al. (2008) demonstrated the effects of copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) on the seedling growth of mung bean and wheat wherein mung bean was found to be more sensitive to CuNPs than wheat. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images confirmed the entry of CuNPs across the cell membrane. Bioaccumulation of NPs increased with its concentration in growth media and their bioavailability to the test plants was estimated by calculating the bioaccumulation factor. Also, studies on the effects of CuNPs on the growth of zucchini plants showed reduced length of emerging roots (Stampoulis et al. 2009) and modulation of ascorbate-glutathione cycle, membrane damage, in vivo ROS detection, foliar H2O2 and proline accumulation and reduced seed germination percentage in rice (Shaw and Hossain 2013).
It is also important to mention that the phytotoxicity due to bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and biotransformation of engineered nanoparticles in food crops are still not well understood. Few studies have been reported on the accumulation of engineered nanomaterials in crop plants such as rape, radish, lettuce, corn, and cucumber (Rico et al. 2011). The carbon-based fullerenes (C70 and fullerols C60(OH)20) and most of the metal-based nanomaterials (titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, magnetite, zinc oxide, gold, silver, copper, and iron) were reported to be accumulated in the plants (Rico et al. 2011). Moreover, accumulated nanomaterials in the plants can be the part of biological food chain. As a part, positive effects of metal-based nanomaterial on plant encouraged for some crops, on the other hand, significant negative effects were also observed, such as reduced germination, root growth, and shoot length (Thul et al. 2013).
The seed germination of rye grass and corn was reported to be inhibited by nanoscale Zn (35 nm) and ZnO (15–25 nm), respectively. Root growth was found to be significantly inhibited, however, such an inhibition for seed was not detected when soaked in nano-ZnO suspension due to the selective permeability of seed coat (Lin and Xing 2007). Not only the size of NPs, but reduced length of shoot and root of wheat was observed in a dose-dependent manner (Dimkpa et al. 2013). In another study, uptake of ZnONPs causes damage of epidermal and cortical cells and transport from one cell to other through plasmodesmata (Lin and Xing 2008). Similarly, the evidence for the entrapment of AgNPs by the cuticle, and penetration into the leaf tissue through stomata, and oxidation of AgNPs and complexation of Ag+ by thiol-containing molecules was reported by Larue et al. (2014). Furthermore, the cytotoxic and genotoxic impacts of AgNPs were reported in root tips of onion (Kumari et al. 2009). Similar effects of chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage were also observed with TiO2 (Pakrashi et al. 2014). Recently, TiO2NPs were reported to affect the molecular expression profiles of microRNAs (Frazier et al. 2014).
3.4.1 Metal Nanoparticle Induced Predictive Physiological and Biochemical Changes in Plant
The manifestation of the metal and their nanoparticles interaction and accumulation in plant systems could be responsible for changes in vegetative growth, development and differentiation, onset of senescence, dormancy, abscission, flowering and fruit setting, and other ecological productivity (Gardea-Torresdey et al. 2004; Vernay et al. 2008). It has also been reported that nanomaterials can generate ROS, affect lipid peroxidation (Cabiscol et al. 2000). This has significant biochemical and molecular effect on the membrane permeability and fluidity, making cells more susceptible to osmotic stress and failure to nutrient uptake. It is known that the stress is perceived through the growth matrix, i.e., soil and water and a series of metabolic activities (Viswanathan et al. 2004; Sarangi et al. 2009) are triggered to alleviate the metal stressors (Verbruggen et al. 2009). In order to deal with the situation; in the first step plants modulate their action actively to prevent metal entry through the expense of energy. In the second step, further entry of the metal into the cytosol is prevented by modulation of transporters in the plasma membrane so that intracellular buildup of metal ions does not exceed the threshold concentration. In order to prevent metal ion buildup, the plant system have developed several well synchronized system to efflux the ions from the cellular milieu (Lin et al. 2006). In case of failure in these strategies, plants actively chelate the metal particles through specific low and moderately large sized molecules such as; phytochelatins (Cobbett and Goldsbrough 2002), metallothionins (Maitani et al. 1996; Guo et al. 2008), and other thiol rich compounds which act as chaperons to maintain the cellular homeostasis (Nelson 1999). In the extreme case of failure of the above mentioned strategies, plants try to compartmentalize the metal particles into vacuoles. All such metabolic processes are active processes in the expense of energy from metabolites (Bertrand and Poirier 2005). Expense of the metabolites is a penalty on the plant; which are otherwise required for growth and development to complete its annual or perennial lifecycle. Although, the concentration of nanoparticles affecting the biochemical and physiological processes of biological organisms is a matter of debate, it needs to be worked out through systematic investigation. However, it is predicted that the reactivity of a particular metal nanoparticles would depend on the niche; biochemical and physiological alterations in crops and plant systems that impact on crop yield and ecological productivity.
3.5 Influence of Nanomaterials on Rhizospheric Environment
The effect of specific metal nanoparticles on soil microflora could be conspicuous. The germicidal properties of Ag and Cu nanoparticles are well documented. Uptake of manufactured nano-CeO2 nanomaterials into roots and root nodules found to eliminate N2 fixation potentials and impaired soybean growth (Priester et al. 2012). Also, Fan et al. (2014) observed the impact of nano TiO2 on Rhizobium–legume symbiosis using garden peas and Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae 3,841, and found that nano TiO2 exert morphological changes in bacterial cells. Further, it was noticed that the interaction between these two organisms was disrupted in the form of root nodule development and the subsequent delay in onset of nitrogen fixation. The alteration of bacterial communities was reported to be in a dose-dependent manner, with some taxa increasing as a proportion of the community, whereas more taxa decreasing that resulted in reduced diversity (Ge et al. 2012).
The direct application of NPs on land or treated biosolids containing mobile NPs may come in contacts with the soil microbes (Fig. 3.2). These microbes are also efficient to adsorb and accumulate one or other form of nanomaterials, which in turn initiates the mobilization of nanomaterials through food chains and can alter communities comprising multiple populations (e.g., plant, fish, bacteria) within food webs (Holden et al. 2013). Plants generally depend on soil bacteria and fungi to help mine nutrients from the soil. A study finds that the popular microbicidal AgNPs negatively impacts on the growth of plants and kills the soil microbes that sustain them (Zeliadt 2010). Not only microbes, but activity of several soil enzymes such as soil protease, and catalase, and peroxidase were found to be significantly reduced by ZnO and TiO2NPs (Du et al. 2011).
Moreover, inorganic TiO2, SiO2, and ZnO were found to exert toxic effect on bacteria. The toxicity of these elements further significantly enhanced in presence of light (Adams et al. 2006). A range of studies has been reviewed and focused on nanoparticles—microbial interactions to correlate the physicochemical properties of engineered metal and metal oxide NPs and their biological response. Further, it has been concluded that the species specific toxicity can be attributed to nanoparticles’ size and shape. However, the surface coating of the material, which can be altered significantly by environmental conditions, can ameliorate or promote microbial toxicity (Suresh et al. 2013). Studies on ecologically relevant bacterial species such as E. coli, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas putida, and other have clearly indicated that NPs can be taken up by microbes (Table 3.2).
Most of the microbes have developed effective molecular mechanisms and operated specific biochemical pathways to efflux, detoxify, and accumulate the metals ions much before it was learnt by the plants. Further, microbes are also capable to volatilize some of the metal ions to get rid of its acute toxicity (De Souza et al. 1999). Although microbes have developed resistance and avoidance mechanism, but more targeted studies are needed in regards to beneficial soil microbes such as N2 fixing, phosphate solubilizers, AM fungi to establish the uptake mechanisms and consequences in soil and microbes.
3.6 Fate of Nanomaterials and Generation of Nanowaste
3.6.1 Accumulation in Plants
So far, very few nanoparticles and plant species have been studied with respect to the accumulation and subsequent availability of nanoparticles in food crops (Yin et al. 2011). The transfer of NPs into the food chain through edible plants is of great concern. The fruits of one such food plant Cucumis sativus L. which is a freshly consumed as garden vegetable analyzed using synchrotron μ-XRF and μ-XANES, showed root-to-fruit translocation of TiO2 without biotransformation (Servin et al. 2013). Similarly, bioaccumulation of Ce and Zn was confirmed by μ-XRF images, suggesting that Ce moves between tissues with water flow during transpiration (Zhao et al. 2013b). Likewise, modified ultra-small TiO2 (anatase) surface with Alizarin red S, and sucrose is found to accumulate in Arabidopsis thaliana. This study demonstrated that nanoconjugates traversed cell walls, entered into plant cells, and accumulated in specific subcellular locations (Kurepa et al. 2010). Microscopic observation reported by Ma et al. (2013) for plant seedlings of cattail (Typha latifolia) and hybrid poplars (Populous deltoids × Populous nigra) indicated that large amount of nZVI coated on plant root surface as irregular aggregates and some penetrated into several layers of epidermal cells of poplar root cells. Shi et al. (2014) investigated the phytotoxicity and accumulation of CuO NPs to Elsholtzia splendens (a Cu-tolerant plant) under hydroponic conditions is dose-dependent. Cu K-edge X-ray absorption near-edge structure analysis revealed CuO NPs-like deposits in the root and leaf cells. Similarly, Hu et al. (2014) have reported that aggregation and dissolution of ZnONPs are responsible for zinc accumulation in leaves and roots of Salvinia natans after 7 days of exposure. In another study, Zhai et al. (2014) observed that uptake and presence of AuNPs in cytoplasm and various organelles of root and leaf cells of poplar plant by transmission electron microscopy and measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).
3.6.2 Aggregation in Soil and Water Bodies as Nanowaste
Quantitative data related to concentrations of nanoparticles in natural water have not been reported so far. However, a recent report using a simplified box model and their known uses (Boxall et al. 2007), Klaine et al. (2008) has suggested environmental concentrations of approximately 1–100 μg L−1 as compared to typical dissolved and colloidal organic matter in freshwaters which may be found at 1–10 mg L−1 concentrations.
Soils and water are likely to be increasingly at receiving end of NPs due to growing consumer products that contains NPs. The level of NPs in soil and water is increasing due to the growing consumer products that contained NPs. Investigation on waste streams revealed the occurrence of NPs (Biswas and Wu 2005; Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska et al. 2009), indicating the necessity of further systematic investigation into the fate and bioavailability of nanoparticles in soils. Retention of NPs in soils was studied by Cornelis et al. (2012), wherein the dominant properties that determine the retention of AgNP in natural soil was correlated to negatively charged AgNP which was found to be adsorbed preferentially at positively charged surface sites of clay-sized minerals. The high organic carbon content in the agricultural soil likely contributed to an organic surface coating and resulted in NPs mobility through the soil. Further, Cornelis et al. (2014) have thoroughly reviewed the fate and bioavailability of engineered nanomaterials in soils, wherein author concluded that salinity, texture, pH, concentration and nature of mobile organic compounds, and degree of saturation determine ENM bioavailability.
The surface properties of the nanoparticles are known to be one of the most important factors that govern their stability and mobility as colloidal suspensions, or their adsorption or aggregation and deposition. Zhao et al. (2013a) observed coexistence of ZnONPs with Zn dissolved species were continuously released into the soil solution to replenish the Zn ions or ZnONPs scavenged by roots as compared to soil treated with alginate which promotes the bioaccumulation of Zn in corn plant tissues. In another interesting study, the fate of Cu and ZnONPs was monitored over 162 days and it was observed that both NPs traveled through the soil matrix at differential rates. CuNPs reported to be retained in the soil matrix at a higher rate compared to ZnONPs. Leaching of Cu and Zn ions from the parent NPs was also observed as a function of time (Collins et al. 2012). Physicochemical characteristics of NPs (e.g., shape, size, and surface charge) and soil (e.g., pH, ionic strength, organic matter, and clay content) affect physical and chemical processes, resulting in NPs dissolution, agglomeration, and aggregation. The combined results reported in the literature, suggests that metallic CuNPs can be considered the least mobile as compared to Fe3O4, CuO, TiO2 and ZnONPs (Ben-Moshe et al. 2010). The behavior of NPs in soil controls their mobility and their bioavailability to soil organisms which may interact with beneficial soil microbes (Fig. 3.2) and extend the impact on their survival.
Failure to address the concerns of leftover of leachates from excess and after use NPs ultimately finds the way and accumulates over a time period in the form of aggregates and colloids in soil and water bodies. These aggregates and colloids containing NPs will generate an additional anthropogenic waste (nanowaste) in the agroecosystem (Fig. 3.3). This needs continuous monitoring of the fate of nanoproducts vis-a-vis the left over nanowaste and soil composition.
3.7 Conclusions
Recent rapid advances in understanding, synthesis, and manipulation of nanoparticles undoubtedly will continue with phenomenal growth of nanomaterial encompassed products. Use and its application in the field of agriculture, for improved crop growth, have shown significant promising potency and active uptake of necessary ingredients and absorbents. However, due to the very small size, reactivity, and efficient penetration ability, metal nanoparticles could reach many intracellular and extracellular sites of plants. This may trigger a set of physiological processes such as senescence affecting plant growth, crop yield, and ecological productivity. Moreover, there are major concerns on the use of NMs due to the toxicity to microbial systems present in the soil environment. The nanoparticle interactions with bacteria can vary. Scientific reports suggest that metal and metal oxide NPs of small size are more toxic. The long-term deposition of nanomaterials in the form of aggregates and colloids, not only threaten the security of soil and water resources, but, may prove to be impossible to remediate. In view of the foreseeable use of NPs based products, there is a need for systematic study to evaluate the effects of nanoparticles on crop plants and their environmental consequences.
References
Adak T, Kumar J, Shakil NA et al (2012) Development of controlled release formulations of imidacloprid employing novel nano-ranged amphiphilic polymers. J Environ Sci Health B 47(3):217–225
Adams LK, Lyon DY, Alvarez PJ (2006) Comparative eco-toxicity of nanoscale TiO2, SiO2, and ZnO water suspensions. Water Res 40:3527–3532
Al-Salim N, Barraclough E, Burgess E et al (2011) Quantum dot transport in soil, plants, and insects. Sci Total Environ 409(17):3237–3248
Ao M, Zhu Y, He S et al (2013) Preparation and characterization of 1-naphthylacetic acid-silica conjugated nanospheres for enhancement of controlled-release performance. Nanotechnology 24(3):035601–035608
Bang SH, Yu YM, Hwang IC et al (2009) Formation of size-controlled nano carrier systems by self-assembly. J Microencapsul 26(8):722–733
Ben-Moshe T, Dror I, Berkowitz B (2010) Transport of metal oxide nanoparticles in saturated porous media. Chemosphere 81:387–393
Bertrand M, Poirier I (2005) Photosynthetic organisms and excess of metals. Photosynthetica 43:345–353
Biswas P, Wu CY (2005) Nanoparticles and the environment. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 55:708–746
Boehm AL, Martinon I, Zerrouk R et al (2003) Nanoprecipitation technique for the encapsulation of agrochemical active ingredients. J Microencapsul 20:433–441
Botts MF, Kohn FC, Miller ML (2006) Particles containing agricultural active ingredients. US Patent US7070795
Boxall AB, Chaudhry Q, Sinclair C et al (2007) Current and future predicted environmental exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Central Science Laboratory, Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs, London, UK. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=CB01098_6270_FRP.pdf
Brar SK, Verma M, Tyagi RD et al (2010) Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge—evidence and impacts. Waste Manag 30:504–520
Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska G, Golimowski J, Urban PL (2009) Nanoparticles: their potential toxicity, waste and environmental management. Waste Manag 29:2587–2595
Cabiscol E, Tamarit J, Ros J (2000) Oxidative stress in bacteria and protein damage by reactive oxygen species. Int Microbiol 3:3–8
Canas JE, Long M, Nations S et al (2008) Effects of functionalized and non- functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes on root elongation of select crop species. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1922–1931
Carmen IU, Chithra P, Huang Q et al (2003) Nanotechnology: a new frontier in food science. Food Technol 57:24–29
Cobbett CS, Goldsbrough PB (2002) Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Ann Rev Plant Biol 53:159–182
Collins D, Luxton T, Kumar N et al (2012) Assessing the impact of copper and zinc oxide nanoparticles on soil: a field study. PLoS ONE 7:e42663
Cornelis G, Thomas CD, McLaughlin MJ et al (2012) Retention and dissolution of engineered silver nanoparticles in natural soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:891–902
Cornelis G, Hund-Rinke K, Kuhlbusch T et al (2014) Fate and bioavailability of engineered nanoparticles in soils: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. doi:10.1080/10643389.2013.829767
De Souza MP, Pilon-Smits EAH, Terry N (1999) The physiology and biochemistry of selenium volatilization by plants. In: Raskin I, Ensley BD (eds) Phytoremediation of toxic metals: using plants to clean up the environment. Wiley, New York, pp 171–188
Dimkpa CO, McLean JE, Martineau N et al (2013) Silver nanoparticles disrupt wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth in a sand matrix. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):1082–1090
Du W, Sun Y, Ji R et al (2011) TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles negatively affect wheat growth and soil enzyme activities in agricultural soil. J Environ Monit 13:822–828
Fajardo C, Sacca ML, Costa G et al (2014) Impact of Ag and Al2O3 nanoparticles on soil organisms: in vitro and soil experiments. Sci Total Environ 473–474:254–261
Fan R, Huang YC, Grusak MA et al (2014) Effects of nano-TiO2 on the agronomically-relevant Rhizobium–legume symbiosis. Sci Total Environ 466–467:503–512
Feng Y, Cui X, He S et al (2013) The role of metal nanoparticles in influencing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi effects on plant growth. Environ Sci Technol 47(16):9496–9504
Frazier TP, Burklew CE, Zhang B (2014) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles affect the growth and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Funct Integr Genomics 14(1):75–83
Gardea-Torresdey JL, Peralta-Videa JR, Montes M et al (2004) Bioaccumulation of cadmium, chromium and copper by Convolvulus arvensis L.: impact on plant growth and uptake of nutritional elements. Bioresourc Technol 92:229–235
Ge Y, Schimel JP, Holden PA (2012) Identification of soil bacteria susceptible to TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6749–6758
Ghormade V, Deshpande MV, Paknikar KM (2011) Perspectives for nano-biotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants. Biotechnol Adv 29:792–803
Green JM, Beestman GB (2007) Recently patented and commercialized formulation and adjuvant technology. Crop Prot 26:320–327
Gruere G, Clare N, Linda A (2011) Agricultural, food and water nanotechnologies for the poor: opportunities, constraints and role of the consultative group on international agricultural research. international food policy research institute (IFPRI), IFPRI Discussion Paper 01064
Guan HN, Chi D, Yu J et al (2010) Dynamics of residues from a novel nano-imidacloprid formulation in soybean fields. Crop Prot 29(9):942–946
Guan HN, Chi DF, Yu J et al (2011) Novel photodegradable insecticide W/TiO(2)/Avermectin nanocomposites obtained by polyelectrolytes assembly. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 83(1):148–154
Guo WJ, Meetam M, Goldsbrough PB (2008) Examining the specific contributions of individual Arabidopsis metallothioneins to copper distribution and metal tolerance. Plant Physiol 146:1697–1706
Holden PA, Nisbet RM, Lenihan HS et al (2013) Ecological nanotoxicology: integrating nanomaterial hazard considerations across the subcellular, population, community, and ecosystems levels. Acc Chem Res 46(3):813–822
Hu C, Liu X, Li X et al (2014) Evaluation of growth and biochemical indicators of Salvinia natans exposed to zinc oxide nanoparticles and zinc accumulation in plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 21(1):732–739
Hussein MZB, Yahya AH, Zainal Z et al (2005) Nanocomposite-based controlled release formulation of a herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate encapsulated in zinc-aluminium-layered double hydroxide. Sci Technol Adv Mater 6:956–962
Hwang IC, Kim TH, Bang SH et al (2011) Insecticidal effect of controlled release formulations of etofenprox based on nano-bio technique. J Fac Agric Kyushu Univ 56(1):33–40
Jin L, Son Y, DeForest JL et al (2014) Single-walled carbon nanotubes alter soil microbial community composition. Sci Total Environ 466–467:533–538
Jinghua G (2004) Synchrotron radiation, soft X-ray spectroscopy and nano-materials. J Nanotechnol 1:193–225
Joseph T, Morrison M (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food. www.nanoforum.org. Accessed 20 April 2014
Kah M, Beulke S, Tiede K, Hofmann T (2013) Nano-pesticides: state of knowledge, environmental fate and exposure modelling. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 43:1823–1867
Kang MA, Seo MJ, Hwang IC et al (2012) Insecticidal activity and feeding behavior of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae, after treatment with nano types of pyrifluquinazon. J Asia Pac Entomol 15(4):533–541
Kanimozhi V, Chinnamuthu CR (2012) Engineering core/hallow shell nanomaterials to load herbicide active ingredient for controlled release. Res J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2:58–69
Kaunisto E, Tajarobi F, Abrahmsen-Alami S et al (2013) Mechanistic modelling of drug release from a polymer matrix using magnetic resonance microimaging. Eur J Pharm Sci 48(4–5):698–708
Kaushik P, Shakil NA, Kumar J et al (2013) Development of controlled release formulations of thiram employing amphiphilic polymers and their bioefficacy evaluation in seed quality enhancement studies. J Environ Sci Health B 48(8):677–685
Khodakovskaya M, Dervishi E, Mahmood M et al (2009) Carbon nanotubes are able to penetrate plant seed coat and dramatically affect seed germination and plant growth. ACS Nano 3:3221–3227
Khodakovskaya MV, de Silva K, Dmitry A et al (2011) Complex genetic, photothermal, and photoacoustic analysis of nanoparticle-plant interactions. PNAS 108(3):1028–1033
Khodakovskaya MV, Kim B-S, Kim JN et al (2013) Carbon nanotubes as plant growth regulators: effects on tomato growth, reproductive system, and soil microbial community. Small 9(1):115–123
Kiser MA, Westerhoff P, Benn T et al (2009) Titanium nanomaterial removal and release from wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 43:6757–6763
Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJ, Batley GE et al (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: behaviour, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851
Kottegoda N, Munaweera I, Madusanka N et al (2011) A green slow-release fertilizer composition based on urea-modified hydroxyapatite nanoparticles encapsulated wood. Curr Sci 101(1):73–78
Kumari M, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2009) Genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in Allium cepa. Sci Total Environ 407:5243–5246
Kurepa J, Paunesku T, Vogt S et al (2010) Uptake and distribution of ultra-small anatase TiO2 Alizarin red S nanoconjugates in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nano Lett 10:2296–2302
Larue C, Castillo-Michel H, Sobanska S et al (2014) Foliar exposure of the crop Lactuca sativa to silver nanoparticles: evidence for internalization and changes in Ag speciation. J Hazard Mater 264:98–106
Lee W-M, An Y-J, Yoon H et al (2008) Toxicity and bioavailability of copper nanoparticles to terrestrial plants Phaseolus radiatus (Mung bean) and Triticum aestivum (Wheat); plant agar test for water-insoluble nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1915–1921
Li M, Zhu L, Lin D (2011) Toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles to Escherichia coli: mechanism and the influence of medium components. Environ Sci Technol 45:1977–1983
Lin D, Xing B (2007) Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and root growth. Environ Pollut 150:243–250
Lin D, Xing B (2008) Root uptake and phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 42:5580–5585
Lin YF, Walmsley AR, Rosen BP (2006) An arsenic metallochaperone for an arsenic detoxification pump. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:15617–15622
Liu F, Wen L-X, Li Z-Z et al (2006) Porous hollow silica nanoparticles as controlled delivery system for water-soluble pesticide. Mater Res Bull 41(12):2268–2275
Liu Y, Tong Z, Prud’homme RK (2008) Stabilized polymeric nanoparticles for controlled and efficient release of bifenthrin. Pest Manag Sci 64:808–812
Liu Q, Chen B, Wang Q et al (2009a) Carbon nanotubes as molecular transporters for walled plant cells. Nano Lett 9:1007–1010
Liu S, Wei L, Hao L et al (2009b) Sharper and faster “Nano Darts” kill more bacteria: a study of antibacterial activity of individually dispersed pristine single-walled carbon nanotubes. ACS Nano 3:3891–3902
Loha KM, Shakil NA, Kumar J et al (2011) Release kinetics of beta-cyfluthrin from its encapsulated formulations in water. J Environ Sci Health B 46(3):201–206
Loha KM, Shakil NA, Kumar J et al (2012) Bio-efficacy evaluation of nanoformulations of beta-cyfluthrin against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Environ Sci Health B 47(7):687–691
Lyons K, Scrinis G, Whelan J (2011) Nanotechnology, agriculture, and food. Nanotechnology and global sustainability. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 117–139
Ma X, Gurung A, Deng Y (2013) Phytotoxicity and uptake of nanoscale zerovalent iron (nZVI) by two plant species. Sci Total Environ 443:844–849
Maitani T, Kubota H, Sato K et al (1996) The composition of metals bound to class III metallothionein (phytochelatin and its desglycyl peptide) induced by various metals in root culture of Rubia tinctorum. Plant Physiol 110:1145–1150
Millan G, Agosto F, Vazquez M (2008) Use of clinoptilolite as a carrier for nitrogen fertilizers in soils of the Pampean regions of Argentina. Cien Inv Agr 35(3):293–302
Nelson N (1999) Metal ion transporters and homeostasis. Eur Mol Biol Organ J 18:4361–4371
Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150:5–22
Pakrashi S, Jain N, Dalai S et al (2014) In vivo genotoxicity assessment of titanium dioxide nanoparticles by Allium cepa root tip assay at high exposure concentrations. PLoS ONE 9(2):e87789
Pal S, Tak YK, Song JM (2007) Does the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles depend on the shape of the nanoparticle? A study of the Gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:1712–1720
Pankaj Shakil NA, Kumar J et al (2012) Bioefficacy evaluation of controlled release formulations based on amphiphilic nano-polymer of carbofuran against Meloidogyne incognita infecting tomato. J Environ Sci Health B 47(6):520–528
Pereira AE, Grillo R, Mello NF et al (2014) Application of poly(epsilon-caprolactone) nanoparticles containing atrazine herbicide as an alternative technique to control weeds and reduce damage to the environment. J Hazard Mater 268:207–215
Piola L, Fuchs J, Oneto ML et al (2013) Comparative toxicity of two glyphosate-based formulations to Eisenia andrei under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere 91(4):545–551
Priester JH, Ge Y, Mielke RE et al (2012) Soybean susceptibility to manufactured nanomaterials with evidence for food quality and soil fertility interruption. PNAS 109:E2451–E2456
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) Consumer products inventory. http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi. Accessed 16 April 2014
Rahman A, Seth D, Mukhopadhyaya SK et al (2009) Surface functionalized amorphous nanosilica and microsilica with nanopores as promising tools in biomedicine. Naturwissenschaften 96:31–38
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
Sacca ML, Fajardo C, Martinez-Gomariz M et al (2014) Molecular stress responses to nano-sized zero-valent iron (nZVI) particles in the soil bacterium Pseudomonas stutzeri. PLoS ONE 9(2):e89677
Sahu N, Soni D, Chandrashekhar B et al (2012) Synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Cynodon dactylon leaves and assessment of their antibacterial activity. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 36(7):999–1004
Saini P, Gopal M, Kumar R et al (2014) Development of pyridalyl nanocapsule suspension for efficient management of tomato fruit and shoot borer (Helicoverpa armigera). J Environ Sci Health, Part B 49(5): doi:10.1080/03601234.2014.882168
Sapkota A, Anceno AJ, Baruah S et al (2011) Zinc oxide nanorod mediated visible light photoinactivation of model microbes in water. Nanotechnology 22:215703
Sarangi BK, Pandey RA, Chakrabarti T (2009) Transgenic plants for phytoremediation of Arsenic and Chromium to enhance tolerance and hyperaccumulation. Transgenic Plant J 3(1):57–86
Sarkar DJ, Kumar J, Shakil NA et al (2012) Release kinetics of controlled release formulations of thiamethoxam employing nano-ranged amphiphilic PEG and diacid based block polymers in soil. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 47(11):1701–1712
Servin AD, Morales MI, Castillo-Michel H et al (2013) Synchrotron verification of TiO2 accumulation in Cucumber fruit: a possible pathway of TiO2 nanoparticle transfer from soil into the food chain. Environ Sci Technol 47(20):11592–11598
Shakil NA, Singh MK, Pandey A et al (2010) Development of poly(ethylene glycol) based amphiphilic copolymers for controlled release delivery of carbofuran. J Macromol Sci Part A 47:241–247
Shaw AK, Hossain Z (2013) Impact of nano-CuO stress on rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 93(6):906–915
Shi J, Peng C, Yang Y et al (2014) Phytotoxicity and accumulation of copper oxide nanoparticles to the Cu-tolerant plant Elsholtzia splendens. Nanotoxicology 8:179–188
Six J, Feller C, Denef K et al (2002) Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—effects of no-tillage. Agronomie 22:755–775
Song M-R, Cui S-M, Gao F et al (2012) Dispersible silica nanoparticles as carrier for enhanced bioactivity of chlorfenapyr. J Pestic Sci 37(3):258–260
Stadler T, Buteler M, Weaver DK et al (2012) Comparative toxicity of nanostructured alumina and a commercial inert dust for Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) at varying ambient humidity levels. J Stored Prod Res 48:81–90
Stampoulis D, Sinha SK, White JC (2009) Assay-dependent phytotoxicity of nanoparticles to plants. Environ Sci Technol 43:9473–9479
Suresh AK, Pelletier DA, Doktycz MJ (2013) Relating nanomaterial properties and microbial toxicity. Nanoscale 5:463–474
Tandy S, Schulin R, Nowack B (2006) Uptake of metals during chelant-assisted phytoextraction with EDDS related to the solubilized metal concentration. Environ Sci Technol 40:2753–2758
Thul ST, Sarangi BK, Pandey RA (2013) Nanotechnology in agroecosystem: implications on plant productivity and its soil environment. Expert Opin Environ Biol 2:1. doi:10.4172/2325-9655.1000101
Torney F, Trewyn BG, Lin S-Y et al (2007) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles deliver DNA and chemicals into plants. Nat Nanotechnol 2:295–300
Tsuji K (2001) Microencapsulation of pesticides and their improved handling safety. J Microencapsul 18:137–147
Verbruggen N, Hermans C, Schat H (2009) Molecular mechanisms of metal hyperaccumulation in plants. New Phytol 181:759–776
Vernay P, Gauthier-Moussard C, Jean L et al (2008) An effect of chromium species on phytochemical and physiological parameters in Datura innoxia. Chemosphere 72:763–771
Viswanathan C, Schumaker K, Zhu JK (2004) Molecular genetic perspectives on cross-talk and specificity in abiotic stress signaling in plants. J Exp Bot 55:1–12
Wang L, Li X, Zhang G et al (2007) Oil-in-water nanoemulsions for pesticide formulations. J Colloid Interface Sci 314:230–235
Xiang C, Taylor AG, Hinestroza JP et al (2013) Controlled release of nonionic compounds from poly(lactic acid)/cellulose nanocrystal nanocomposite fibers. J Appl Polym Sci 127(1):79–86
Yang F-L, Li X-G, Zhu F, Lei C-L (2009) Structural characterization of nanoparticles loaded with garlic essential oil and their insecticidal activity against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J Agric Food Chem 57:10156–10162
Yin L, Cheng Y, Espinasse B et al (2011) More than the ions: the effects of silver nanoparticles on Lolium multiflorum. Environ Sci Technol 45:2360–2367
Zeliadt N (2010) Silver beware: antimicrobial nanoparticles in soil may harm plant life. Sci Am. Aug 9, 2010 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/silver-beware-antimicrobial-nanoparticles-in-soil-may-harm-plant-life/
Zhai G, Walters KS, Peate DW et al (2014) Transport of gold nanoparticles through plasmodesmata and precipitation of gold ions in woody poplar. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1(2):146–151
Zhang L, Gu FX, Chan JM et al (2008) Nanoparticles in medicine: therapeutic applications and developments. Clin Pharmacol Ther 83:761–769
Zhao L, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Peralta-Videa JR et al (2013a) ZnO nanoparticle fate in soil and zinc bioaccumulation in corn plants (Zea mays) influenced by alginate. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 15:260–266
Zhao L, Sun Y, Hernandez-Viezcas JA et al (2013b) Influence of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on Cucumber physiological markers and bioaccumulation of Ce and Zn: a life cycle study. J Agr Food Chem 61(49):11945–11951
Zhu H, Han J, Xiao JQ et al (2008) Uptake, translocation and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by pumpkin plants. J Environ Monit 10:713–717
Acknowledgments
Authors wish to gratefully acknowledge Director, NEERI, Nagpur, and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thul, S.T., Sarangi, B.K. (2015). Implications of Nanotechnology on Plant Productivity and Its Rhizospheric Environment. In: Siddiqui, M., Al-Whaibi, M., Mohammad, F. (eds) Nanotechnology and Plant Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14502-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14502-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14501-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14502-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)