Nanoparticles and plant growth dynamics: a review

14 Copyright© PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan http://jaab.uaar.edu.pk

Journal of Applied Agriculture and Biotechnology 2016 1(2): 14−22 ISSN (print): 2415-6728 ISSN (online): 2415-6736

Review article

Nanoparticles and plant growth dynamics: a review Qazi Mohammed Tayyab 1*, Munawar Hussain Almas 2, Ghulam Jilani 3, Abdul Razzaq 4

HIGHLIGHTS

Critical dynamic analysis of plant growth and their interaction with different nanoparticles

Engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) products have substantial inimitable properties

Authors’ affiliation 1, 3, 4

PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

*2 Directorate of Floriculture T & R

Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

*Corresponding author

Qazi Mohammed Tayyab

Email:

[email protected] How to cite Tayyab Q.M., M.H. Almas, G. Jilani

and A. Razzaq. 2016. Nanoparticles

and plant growth dynamics: a

review. J. Appl. Agric. Biotechnol.,

1(2): 14-22.

ABSTRACT

n recent years use of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) products have

substantially increased because of their inimitable properties. They

are considered as powerful tools in nanotechnology and are being

exploited for their potential use in modern industries. They have

versatile application in a variety of industries from automobile to agro-

chemicals. On the other hand they have shown to exert physical and

physiological changes in the plants. Here we reviewed plant uptake,

accumulation, phytotoxicity of nanoparticles and modern fertilizer and

insecticide formulations with blends of nanoparticles. In this context we

have critically analyzed dynamics of plant growth and their interaction

with different nanoparticles.

Key words: Nanoparticles, Plant growth, Phytotoxicity, Fertilizers

1. Introduction Twenty first century is mostly

regarded as an era of industrial headway of

nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, the study dealing

with nanoparticles and their application in various

fields, is newly emerging and progressing science that

focuses on manipulation of matter at molecular or

atomic level. Nanoparticles are tiny particles of matter

that have size of about one billionth of a meter (10-9

)

that generally ranges from 1-100nm (Horikoshi and

Serpone, 2013). Plants being an active component of

our ecosystem serves as sink for many engineered

nanoparticles (ENPs) and therefore are responsible for

critical role in deciding fate of engineered

nanoparticles (Monica and Cremonini, 2009). Research

regarding plant-nanoparticle interaction started when

Zhu et al. (2008) first reported uptake, accumulation

and transformation of ENPs in the plant body.

Throughout the world, several nanoparticles are being

produced on industrial as well as small scale for their

applications in different fields. Mostly manufactured

nanoparticles industrially (NPs) are silver (nAg), cerum

oxide (nCeO2), copper (nCu), zinc oxide (nZnO),

titanium oxide (nTiO2) and gold (Rico et al., 2015).

Industrial scale debut of carbon black nanoparticles

introduced in the onset of 20th

century and eventually

lead to their use for fabrication in automobile

industry. Metals have divergent properties when in

I

Tayyab et al. 2016 J. Appl. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016 1(2): 14−22


the form of nanoparticles in comparison with metals in

bulk. These include low melting point, increased

surface area, differential optical properties, higher

tensile or mechanical strength, and distinctive

magnetization (Horikoshi and Serpone., 2013). In

various parts of the world, including China, silver

nanoparticles (Ag NPs) are used as disinfectant in

public places. For their exalted efficacy against

microbes, they are also employed in disinfection of

surgical instruments and are thought to have anti-

inflammatory, antifungal, anti-anogenic and anti-

permeability activities (Deepak et al., 2011).However

keeping in view the context of the paper, following

two sections briefly covers ENPs related agro industry

and their potential use in fertilizers and pesticides

formulation.

Figure: 1. SEM image of silver nanoparticle (Arde et

al., 2014)

3.1. Nano-fertilizers

With the expanding population pressure on global

scale, there has been great emphasis on developing

new ways to enhance soil productivity and to improve

per hectare yield. In order to cope with the present

challenge scientists have developed ‘smart fertilizers’

to strengthen the nutrient use efficiency and help

achieving aim of food sufficiency (Cui et al., 2006).

Now a day science of nano-fertilizer is regarded as

leading edge technology in plant nutrition and it is

expected to revolutionize the fertilizer industry. Nano-

fertilizers are actually encapsulation of plant nutrient

in unique way either by packing nutrient inside the

nanoporous materials or changing the nutrient

delivery mechanism using nano delivery system (Rai et

al., 2012). Zeolite and nano-clays can be exploited for

their potential use in slow or control release fertilizer.

They have large cavities inside their structure which

can filled with nitrogen or phosphorous along with

trace elements and releasing them slowly in the soil

system. They can be efficiently used for regulated

supply of nitrogen fertilizers (Leggo, 2000; Millan et

al., 2013)

3.2. Nano-Insectides and nano-delivery

system

For many years insect pests have been largely

managed by using conventional methods which

primarily focused on use of chemical. Though the

chemical method is comparatively an efficient mode

but it imparts devastating impacts on environment as

well. Indiscriminate use of chemical not only destroys

friend insect (Ghormade et al., 2011) but also

compromise environmental safety and lead to

accumulation of these chemicals in consumable food.

Nano-insecticide and nano-delivery system on the

other hand has enabled scientists of present era to

deal with this issue in a marvelous way. Because of

their enhanced efficacy and ease in handling, these

products can be applied whenever required (Gruere et

al., 2011). The conventional insecticides such as

imidacloprid, carbofuran and thiram have

comparatively slower release of active compound

(Adak et al. 2012; Pankaj et al. 2012; Kaushik et al.

2013). While time period of release of active

compound (β-cyfluthrin) from nanoformulation was

found to be around 4-5 days (Loha et al. 2012). Xiang

et al. (2013) reported delivery time of nanocrystals

affluent with thiamethoxam, is around 9 days against

white fly. In Table 1, the use of nanoparticles in

insect/pest management is discussed briefly.

4. Accumulation of nanoparticles in plant

body

Biswas and Wu (2005) stated that soil and water

resources are more prone to be contaminated when

NPs are washed down from point source. Chances are

there for increased level of NPs in soil and water



resources because of high uses of NP products by the

consumer present day. However data in this regard is

not enough to quantify this problem. Several studies

have suggested that some of nanoparticles after their

immobilization in the plant body remains unchanged

hence pose a great chance of disease occurrence.

Another hazard in this regard is to avoid the further

transfer of these NPs into the food web (Yin et al.,

2011).

Table. 1 Use of Nxanoparticles in Insect/Pest

management

NPs Insect/Pest Reference

Poly-ethylene glycol (PEG)-coated NPs

Tribolium castaneum

Yang et al. (2009)

Silver

Rice weevil

Goswami et al. (2010)

Aluminum oxide

Zinc Oxide

Titanium dioxide

Nanoalumina S. oryzae L. Rhyzopertha

dominica

Teodoro et al. (2010)

5. Physiological Changes in Plants

5.1. ROS Generation

The formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a

common phenomenon of metabolic process being

executed inside the plant body. Some other

intermediate products are also found in chloroplast,

mitochondria and cell membrane such as singlet

oxygen, superoxide radical and hydrogen peroxide.

In normal conditions these chemical oxygen species do

not accumulate inside the plant body and are

continually removed from the plant body by means of

enzymatic as well as non-enzymatic metabolic

process. However, an imbalance in the buildup of

these chemical species in the plant body occurs as a

result of biotic or abiotic stress. As a result of any

stress, the equilibrium between generation and

removal of ROS is disturbed, resulting in rapid buildup

of these chemicals hence causing the irreversible

damages in the plant body. The various biotic and

aboitic stress that causes alleviated ROS content in

plants include insect attack (Gara et al., 2013),

temperature disturbances, water stress (Mizoi et al.,

2012), heavy metals (Ovecka and Takac, 2014) and

chemically induced disorders. Likewise various studies

have been conducted throughout the world to check

the possibility of producing ROS by exposing the plants

towards application of nanoparticles. It has been

revealed in studies conducted by Liu et al. (2013) that

some carbon based nanoparticles (like carbon

nanotubes) when tested for production of ROS in plant

body, showed significant ROS content in plant hence

causing lipid peroxidation in the cell culture. Fenoglio

et al. (2009) stated the mechanism of ROS generation

due to TiO2, nanoparticles produces free radicals in the

dark conditions. These free radicals include O2-, OH

-

and CO2-. Likewise Faisal et al. (2013) postulated that

NiO NPs might produce HO- by Haber-weiss reaction.

Figure: Influence of nanoparticles on the photosystems (Rico et al., 2015)



5.2. Effect on photosynthesis

Studies have revealed that silver nanoparticles

(AgNPs) affect the mechanism and rate of

photosynthesis in a variety of ways (Bujak et al., 2011).

Several nanoparticles like titanium oxide, iron oxide

and cobalt affect chlorophyll and elevate the ROS in

plant body (Mingyu et al., 2007; Rico et al., 2013).

Govorov and Cameli (2007) conducted a study on

alteration of photosynthetic mechanisms in plant by

using Ag and Au nanoparticles.

They showed that these two nanoparticles showed

alteration effect in the whole photosynthesis process

firstly by improving light absorption by the

photosystem-I while on the other hand they

significantly reduced the energy transfer by diverting

from chlorophyll to applied nanoparticles instead to

photosystem-II. Various other studies also indicated

nonetheless same results (Neider et al., 2010; Beyer et

al., 2011; Matorin et al., 2013). In following figure 2,

the mechanism of electron transport change during

the process of photosynthesis is shown which is

modified by the presence of nanoparticles.

5.3. Enhancing plant growth with

nanopartilces

Nanoparticles were investigated for both

their positive as well as negative effects on the plant

growth. However the scientist came up with

contrasting results in this regard. The NPs causes

different physiological and morphological changes in

the plants (Khodakovskaya et al., 2012) and efficacy of

NPs to cause these changes is widely determined by

composition of NPs, concentration of NPs, size of NPs

physical and chemical properties of NPs and genetic

properties of plant species ( Ma et al., 2010). The work

done by Suriyaprabha et al. (2014) revealed that the

application of silicon nano-tubes improved

germination as well as better nutrient uptake in maize

plants when applied at lower doses. Bao-shan et al.

(2004) reported improved agronomic parameter in

Latix olgensis including height, root collor sphere, root

length and number of lateral roots. However on the

other hand, ZnNPs when applied to alfalfa and tomato

impaired the normal growth (De la Rosa et al., 2013)

Salama (2012) examined effects of silver nanoparticles

on phaseolus vulgaris L) and corn (Zea mays L) and

showed that small concentrations of silver.

Nanoparticles imparted synergestic effect on the

growth of the plantlets from 20 to 60 ppm. The

supplementation to AgNPs caused increase in shoot

and root lengths, leaf surface area, and protein

contents of plants. However concentration above

60ppm was proven deleterious and induced inhibition

of growth.

Application of Zn naoparticles resulted in improved

seed germination in soybean (Sedghi et al., 2013), in

peanuts (Prasad et al., 2012), in wheat (Ramesh et al.,

2014) and in onion (Raskar and Laware, 2014). Zinc

nanoparticles resulted in greater plant biomass, root

and shoot growth, chlorophyll content in Cyamopsis

tetragonoloba along with improved microbial

population in rhizoshpere, acid phophatase, alkaline

phophatase and phytase activity (Raliya and Tarafdar,

2013). Mahajan et al. (2011) revealed better root and

shoot length and shoot biomass when supplied Zn

nanoparticles in Vigna radiata and Cicer arietinum.

Single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) were found

to improve root strengthening in onions (Canas et al.,

2008). Ju-Nam (2008) showed that nano-SiO2 and

nano-TiO2 triggers an increase in nitrate reductase in

Glycine max and eventually increases the ability to

absorb and utilize water. On the other hand, these

two nanoparticles activated antioxidant systems

leading to decline in germination ratio and growth of

plants.

4. Phytotoxicity of ENPs

Because of pint-sized nature, nanoparticles are known

for their ability to get into the living tissue while

breaching the physiological barriers and get

translocated inside the host system. The toxicity of

nanoparticles depends upon various factors like

specific arrangement of their atoms and number of

atoms in each particle. For instance asbestos shows

different degree of toxicity with minute alteration in

structural configuration (Buzea et al., 2007). Mytych

Jennifer and Wnuck Maciej (2013) have thoroughly

reviewed cytotoxic,genotoxic and epigenetic effects of

ENPs on animal, plant and bacterial cell.



However there were various studies conducted in the

past to assess phytotoxicity of engineered

nanoparticles on the growth and development of

higher plants. It has been evident from the research

that the degree of inhibition of plant growth varies

with plant species and nature of nanoparticles. Yang

and Watts, (2005) showed that 2000mg/L of nano-Al

oxide inhibited root growth and elongation of five

plant species. Other concentrations used for this study

were ranged from 20,200 and 2000 mg /L.

On the other hand the seed germination of rye grass

was inhibited in response to ZnO nanoparticles (size

range 15-25) and nanosclae Zn of size 35nm (Lin and

Xing, 2007). According to Lin and Xing (2007) when Zn

nanoparticles are uptake by the plants, cortical cells

and epidermal cells in vascular tissues are severely

damaged hence it disturbs the normal material

transport route via plasmodesmeta. Apart from

structural injuries NPs (TiO2) were reported to cause

chromosomal damages and chromosomal anomalies

(Pakrashi et al., 2014).

Mazumdar (2014) showed growth inhibition of Vigna

radiata towards application of AgNPs. Substantial

shoot fresh weight reduction occurred at 1000 μg/mL

silver nanoparticle solution for both V.radiata and

B.campestris upon 12th

day of application of

nanoparticle. Exposure to 1000 μg/mL of Ag

nanoparticles caused elevated retardation on total

chlorophyll content in case of V.radiata. Upon TEM

investigation of root cells, it was seen that breakage of

cell wall occurred showing injurious effects of AgNPs

towards these plants. Likewise same results were

found in a study by Seif et al. (2011) showing the

effect of AgNPs on borage, 100 to 300 ppm reduced

the seed yield while 20 to 60ppm was proven to exert

positive effect on seed yield as compared to plants

which were not given AgNPs treatment. Harajyoti and

Ahmed (2011) studied effects of silver nanoparticles

solutions on Oryza sativa and showed that

nanoparticles breached into the root cells, cell walls

and vacuoles as well causing irreversible damages.

They assumed that penetration of nanoparticles

throuhj thr cell wall occurred via small pores.

5.5. Genotoxicity of ENPs

Only few studies have been conducted on

investigation of ENPs causing genotoxicty in human

and animal cell so far. Kumari et al. (2009) conducted

a comprehensive study on evaluating genotoxic effects

of AgNPs on Allium cepa using different concentration

of AgNPs which ranged from 20, 25, 75 and 100 ppm

with rough spherical shape around 100 nm sizes and

each treatment received 5 replications. The results

showed linear correlation between concentration and

mitotic index. Control showed mitotic index at 60.3%

while the lowest value 27.6% was found at 100 ppm.

Apart from mitotic index, various others chromosomal

aberrations were also investigated which included;

stickiness, prolonged meta- and ana-phase gaps in the

chromosomal structure. All these phases of cell

division showed abnormal/disturbed cycle with

respect to their normal time period. In figure 3 an

audiograph of cucumber leaf is shown in which Ce+3

can be seen clearly.

Figure 3: Autoradiographs of Ce3+

ions in cucumber

leaves (Zhnag et al., 2011)

6. Retention of NPs in Soil System

The retention of NP in soil system is solely due to

positively charged sites on the clay minerals which

attract and act as a binding site for positively charged

NPs. High organic carbon contents serves as coating

and play a vital role in the translocation of NPs



through the soil profile (Cornelis et al., 2014). Cornelis

et al. (2014) suggested various soil parameters that

contribute towards bioavailability of NPs. These

parameters include: pH, salinity, texture, organic

compounds and moisture content of the soil. On the

other hand the certain surface properties of NPs

determine their mobility through the soil profile.

Collins et al. (2012) examined the behavior and

mobility of Cu and ZnO NPs through the soil for the

period of 162 days. It was observed that both of these

NPs traveled t different rates. Cu NP was seen to be

slow while the ZnO NPs were observed to move at

faster rate as compared to Cu NP. So it was concluded

that mobility of NPs is a function of physicochemical

properties of NPs (size, shape and charge at surface)

and certain properties of soil (pH, ionic charge, organic

and clay content). Ben-Moshe et al. (2010) reviewed

literature about NP mobility and suggested that Cu

NPs are least mobile then Fe3O4, CuO, TiO2 and ZnO

NPs.

7-Future Research Needs

Though widespread research have been conducted in

the past aiming at different parameters relating to

plants, still there are a lot of domains in which

research is needed to be executed. In context of

nanofertilzer, majority of plant nutrients are neglected

and only few nutrients are being focused while

working on nanofertilizers. Zeolites and nano-clays

provide strong basis for vast research as these two

domains can be exploited for their substantial use in

nanofertilizer formulation and regulated delivery of

nitrogenous fertilizers. Various studies were

conducted on uptake and accumulation of ENPs by

plant but majority of the studies dealt with

quantitative correlation of ENPs and plant uptake

lacking physiological explanation and mechanism of

uptake. Immediate reactions in plant body right after

ENPs enter plant body require logical and scientifically

rational explanation.

When it comes to nanopesticides, surely a lot of areas

are still untouched and have not been given any

importance. Enhancing the efficacy of pesticides is one

of core realms with the help of ENPs. Potential use of

ENPs or nanoparticles products directly for pest

control needs to be exploited.

References

Adak, T., J. Kumar, and N.A. Shakil. 2012. Development

of controlled release formulations of imidacloprid

employing nover-ranged amphilic polymer.J.

Environ. Sci. Health B., 47(3):217-25.

Bao-shan, L., D. Shao-qi, L. Chun-hui, F. Li-jun, Q. Shu-

chun, and Y. Min. 2004. Effect of TMS

(nanostructured silicon dioxide) on growth of

Changbai larch seedlings. J Forest Res 15:138–140

Ben-Moshe, T, I. Dror, and B. Berkowitz. 2010.

Transport of metal oxide nanoparticles in

saturated porous media. Chemosphere, 81:387–

393.

Beyer, S.R., S. Ullrich, and S. Kudera. 2011. Hybrid

nanostructures for enhanced light-harvesting:

plasmon induced increased in fluorescence from

individual photosynthetic pigment-protein

complexes., Nano Lett., 11:4897–4901.

Biswas, P. and C.Y. Wu. 2005. Nanoparticles and the

environment. J. Air. Waste. Manag. Assoc.,

55:708–746.

Bujak, N., D. Czechowski and R. Piatkowski. 2011.

Fluorescence enhancement of light-harvesting

complex 2 from purple bacteria coupled to

spherical gold nanoparticles. Appl Phys Lett.,

99:173701–173703.

Buzea, C., I. Ivan, P. Blandino, and K. Robbie. 2007

Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and

toxicity., Biointerphase., 2(4): MR17 - MR172.

Canas, J.E., M. Long, and S. Nations. 2008. Effects of

functionalized and non- functionalized single-

walled carbon nanotubes on root elongation of

select crop species. Environ Toxicol Chem.,

(9):1922-31.

Collins, D., T. Luxton, and N. Kumar. 2012. Assessing

the impact of copper and zinc oxide nanoparticles

on soil: a field study. PLoS ONE., 7:42663.

Cornelis, G., K. Hund-Rinke, and T. Kuhlbusch. 2014.

Fate and bioavailability of engineered

nanoparticles in soils: a review. Crit Rev Environ

Sci Technol. doi:10. 1080/10643389. 2013.

829767.

Cui, H.X., C.J. Sun, Q. Liu, J. Jiang, and W. Gu. 2010.

Applications of nanotechnology in agrochemical

formulation, perspectives, challenges and



strategies. International conference on Nanoagri,

Sao pedro, Brazil.

De Gara, L., , M.C. de Pinto and F. Tommasi. 2003. The

antioxidant systems vis-à-vis reactive oxygen

species during plant–pathogen interaction. Plant

Physiol Biochem., 41:863–870.

De la Rosa, G., M.L. Lopez-Moreno, D. de Haro, C.E.

Botez, J.R. Peralta-Videa, and J.L. Gardea-

Torresdey. 2013. Effects of ZnO nanoparticles in

alfalfa, tomato, and cucumber at the germination

stage: root development and X-ray absorption

spectroscopy studies. Pure Appl Chem.,

85(12):2161–2174.

Deepak, V., S.R.K. KaKalishwaralal, and S. Pandian

Gurunathan. 2011. An Insight into the Bacterial

Biogenesis of Silver Nanoparticles, Industrial

Production and Scale-up, 1 edn., Springer-Verlag

Berlin Heidelberg : Springer.

Faisal, M., Q. Saquib, A.A. Alatar. 2013. Phytotoxic

hazards of NiO-nanoparticles in tomato: a study

on mechanism of cell death. J Hazard Mater.,

250–251:318–332.

Fenoglio, I., G. Greco, and S, Livraghi. 2009. Non-UV-

induced radical reactions at the surface of TiO2

nanoparticles that may trigger toxic responses.

Chem. Eur. J., 15:4614–4621.

Ghormade, V., M.V. Deshpande, and K.M. Paknikar.

2011. Perspectives for nano-biotechnology

enabled protection and nutrition of plants.

Biotechnol Adv., 29:792–803.

Goswami, A., Roy, I., S. Sengupta, and N. Debnath.

2010. Novel applications of solid and liquid

formulations of nanoparticles against insect pests

and pathogens. Thin Solid Films., 519:1252–1257.

Govorov, A.O., I. Carmeli. 2007. Hybrid structures

composed of photosynthetic system and metal

nanoparticles: plasmon enhancement effect.

Nano Lett., 7:620–625.

Gruere, G., N. Clare, and A. Linda. 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.

Harajyoti Mazumdar. 2014. The Impact of Silver

Nanoparticles on Plant Biomass and Chlorophyll

Content. Intl. J. of Eng. Sci., 4: 12-20.

Harajyoti, M. and G.U. Ahmed. 2011. Phytotoxicity

effect of silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa. Int.

J. Chem. Tech. Res., 3(3):1494-1500.

Hediat, M.H. and Salama. 2012. Effects of silver

nanoparticles in some crop plants, Common bean

(Phaseolus vulgaris L. ) and corn (Zea mays L. ).

Intl. Res. J. of Biotech. (ISSN: 2141-5153) Vol.

3(10): 190-197, December.

Horikoshi, S. and N. Serpone. 2013. General

Introduction to Nanoparticles, First Edition edn.,

Wiley-VCH Verlag, 12-19.

Hu, C., Liu, X. and X. Li. 2012. Evaluation of growth and

biochemical indicators of Salvinia imidacloprid

employing novel nano-ranged amphiphilic

polymers. J. Environ. Sci. Health.,B. 3:217–225.

Jennifer, M. and M, Wnuk. 2013. Nanoparticle

Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: Cytotoxic,

Genotoxic and Epigenetic Effects on Living Cells.

Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology,

4: 53-63.

Ju-Nam, Y. and J. Lead. 2008. Manufactured

nanoparticles: an overview of their chemistry,

interactions and potential environmental

implications. Sci. Total. Environ., 400: 396-414.

Kaushik, P., N.A. Shakil, and J. Kumar. 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.

8:677–685.

Khodakovskaya, M.V., K. de Silva, A.S. Biris, E. Dervishi,

and H. Villagarcia. 2012. Carbon nanotubes induce

growth enhancement of tobacco cells. ACS Nano.,

3:2128–2135.

Kumari, M., S.S. Khan, and S. Pakrashi. 2011.

Cytogenetic and genotoxic effects of zinc oxide

nanoparticles on root cells of Allium cepa. J

Hazard Mater., 190:613–621.

Kurepa, J., T. Paunesku and S. Vogt. 2012. Uptake and

distribution of ultra-small anatase TiO2 Alizarin

red S nanoconjugates in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Nano Lett., 10:2296–2302.



Leggo, P.J. 2000. An investigation of plant growth in an

organo–zeolitic substrate and its ecological

significance. Plant Soil., 219:135–146.

Li, Z. 2003. Use of surfactant-modified zeolite as

fertilizer carriers to control nitrate release.

Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 61:181–

188.

Lin, D. and B. Xing. 2007. Phytotoxicity of

nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and

root growth. Environ Pollut., 150:243–250.

Loha, K.M., N.A. Shakil, and J. Kumar. 2012. Bio-

efficacy evaluation of nanoformulations of

betacyfluthrin against Callosobruchus maculatus

(Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Environ. Sci. Health. B.,

7:687–691.

Ma, X., A. Gurung, and Y. Deng. 2013. Phytotoxicity

and uptake of nanoscale zerovalent iron (nZVI) by

two plant species. Sci. Total. Environ., 443:844–

849.

Ma, X., J. Geiser-Lee, Y. Deng, and A. Kolmakov. 2010.

Interactions between engineered nanoparticles

(ENPs) and plants: phytotoxicity, uptake and

accumulation. Sci Total Environ., 16:3053–3061.

Mahajan, P., S.K. Dhoke, and A.S. Khanna,. 2010. Effect

of nano-ZnO particle suspension on growth of

mung (Vigna radiata) and gram (Cicer arietinum)

seedlings using plant agar method. J.

Nanotechnol., 2011:1–7. doi:10.

1155/2011/696535.

Matorin, D.N., D.A. Todorenko, and N. Kh. Seifullina.

2013. Effect of silver nanoparticles on the

parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence and P700

reaction in the green alga Chlamydomonas

reinhardtii. Microbiology., 82:809–814.

Millán, G., F, Agosto, and M. Vazquez. 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.

Mingyu, S., W. Xiao, and L. Chao. 2007. Promotion of

energy transfer and oxygen evolution in spinach

photosystem II by nano-anatase TiO2. Biol. Trace.

Elem. Res., 119:183–192.

Mizoi, J., K. Shinozaki, and K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki.

2012. AP2/ERF family transcription factors in plant

abiotic stress responses. Biochim Biophys Acta.,

1819:86–96.

Monica, R.A. and C.Roberto. 2009. Nanoparticles and

higher plants. Caryologia., 2:161-165.

Nieder, J.B., R. Bittl, and M. Brecht. 2010.

Fluorescence studies into the effect of plasmonic

interactions on protein function. Angew Chem Int

Ed., 49:10217–10220.

Ovecka, M. and T. Takac. 2014. Managing heavy metal

toxicity stress in plants: biological and

biotechnological tools. Biotechnol Adv., 32:73–86.

Pakrashi, S., N. Jain, and S. Dalai. 2014. In vivo

genotoxicity assessment of titanium dioxide

nanoparticles by Allium cepa root tip assay at high

exposure concentrations. PLoS One., 9(2):87789.

Pankaj, S.N.A. and J.K. Umar. 2012. Bioefficacy

evaluation of controlled release formulations

based on amphiphilic nano-polymer of carbofuran

against Meloidogyne incognita infecting tomato. J.

Environ. Sci. Health, B., 6:520–528.

Prasad, T.N.V., P. Sudhakar, Y. Sreenivasulu, P. Latha,

V. Munaswamy, K.R. Reddy, S.P. Sreeprasad, R.

Sajanlal, and T. Pradeep. 2012. Effect of nanoscale

zinc oxide particles on the germination, growth

and yield of peanut. J Plant Nutr., 35(6):905–927.

Rai, V., S. Acharya, and N. Dey. 2012. Implications of

Nanobiosensors in Agriculture. J. of Biomaterials

and Nanobiotechnol., 3: 315-324.

Raliya, R. and J.C. Tarafdar. 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.

Ramesh, M.K. Palanisamy, K. Babu, and N. Sharma.

2014. Effects of bulk & nano-titanium dioxide and

zinc oxide on physio-morphological changes in

Triticum aestivum Linn. J. Glob. Biosci., 3:415–422.

Raskar, S.V. and S. L. Laware. 2014. Effect of zinc oxide

nanoparticles on cytology and seed germination in

onion. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 3:467–473.

Rico, C.M. and J.R. Peraltavidea, J.L. Gardeatorresdey.

2015. Chemistry, Biochemistry of Nanoparticles,

and Their Role in Antioxidant Defense System in

Plants', in Manzer H. Siddiqui, Firoz Mohammad,

Mohamed H. Al-Whaibi (Ed. )Nanotechnology and

Plant Sciences. Switzerland: Springer, 1-19.

Rico, C.M., Morales, M.I. and R, McCreary. 2013.

Cerium oxide nanoparticles modify the



antioxidative stress enzyme activities and

macromolecule composition in rice seedlings.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 47:14110–14118.

Satyanarayan, M.A., Prabha, R. Salokhe, A.H. Rajashri,

and S. Salunkhe. 2014. Facile green synthesis of

silver nanoparticles by artemisia pallens leaves

extract and evaluation of antimicrobial activity.

Chemical Science Review and Letters Chem. Sci.

Rev. Lett., 3(11): 557-562.

Sedghi, M., M. Hadi, and S.G. Toluie. 2013. Effect of

nano zinc oxide on the germination of soybean

seeds under drought stress. Ann West Uni

Timis¸oara ser Biol XVI., 2:73–78.

Seif, S.M., A. Sorooshzadeh, H. Rezazadehs, and HA.

Naghdibadi. 2011. Effect of nanosilver and silver

nitrate on seed yield of borage. Jour. Medic. Plant.

Res., 5 (2): 171 – 175.

Servin, A.D. 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.

Shi, J., C. Peng, and Y. Yang 2014. Phytotoxicity and

accumulation of copper oxide nanoparticles to the

Cu-tolerant plant Elsholtzia splendens.

Nanotoxicol., 8:179–188.

Suriyaprabha, R., G. Karunakaran, R. Yuvakkumar, V.

Rajendran, and N. Kannan. 2015. Silica

nanoparticles for increased silica availability in

maize (Zea mays L) seeds under hydroponic

conditions. Curr Nanosci, 8:902–908.

Teodoro, S., Micaela, B. and K.W. David. 2010. Novel

use of nano-structured alumina as an insecticide.

Pest Manag Sci., 6:577–579.

Wang, X., H. Han, X. Liu, X. Gu, K., Chen, and D. Lu.

2012. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes can

enhance root elongation of wheat (Triticum

aestivum) plants. J Nanopart Res., 14(6):1–10.

Xiang, C., A.G. Taylor, and J.P. Hinestroza. 2013.

Controlled release of nonionic compounds from

poly(lactic acid)/cellulose nanocrystal

nanocomposite fibers. J. of App. Polymer sci.,

1:79-86.

Yang, F. L, X.G. Li, F. Zhu, and C.L. Lei. 2009. Structural

characterization of nanoparticles loaded with

garlic essential oil and their insecticidal activity

against Tribolium castaneum. J. Agric. Food

Chem., 21:10156–10162.

Yang, L. and D.J. Watts. 2005. Particle surface

characteristics may play an important role in

phytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles. Toxicol

Lett., 15:158(2):122-32.

Yin, L., Y. Cheng, and B. Espinasse. 2011. More than

the ions: the effects of silver nanoparticles on

Lolium multiflorum. Environ. Sci. Technol.,

45:2360–2367.

Zhai, G., K.S. Walters, and D.W. Peate. 2014. Transport

of gold nanoparticles through plasmodesmata and

precipitation of gold ions in woody poplar.

Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2:146–151.

Zhang, Z., X. He, and H. Zhang. 2011. Uptake and

distribution of ceria nanoparticles in cucumber

plants. Metallomics 3:816–822.

Zhao, L., Y. Sun, and J.A. Hernandez-Viezcas. 2013.

Influence of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on

Cucumber physiological markers and

bioaccumulation of Ce and Zn: a life cycle study. J.

Agr. Food. Chem., 49:11945.

Nanoparticles and plant growth dynamics: a review

Documents

Transcript of Nanoparticles and plant growth dynamics: a review