Crop management to enhance plant resilience to abiotic stress using nanotechnology: towards more efficient and sustainable agriculture

Abstract

Nanotechnology has become a transformative tool in modern agriculture, playing a pivotal role in enhancing crop resilience to abiotic stresses, including drought, salinity, and extreme temperatures. As global population growth and environmental challenges place increasing pressure on agricultural systems, nanotechnology plays a crucial role in enhancing crop yields and ensuring long-term sustainability. Nanotechnology, through advanced applications, optimizes nutrient delivery, strengthens plant defense mechanisms, and enables precise monitoring of environmental conditions. These innovations enhance soil quality, regulate physiological responses in plants, and mitigate the adverse effects of environmental stressors, thereby promoting sustainable farming practices and improving food production efficiency. Nanoparticles (NPs), synthesized through green methods using plant or microbial extracts, have shown promise in enhancing stress tolerance by facilitating uptake, translocation, and intracellular movement within plants. Major factors influencing NPs efficacy include size, concentration, composition, and duration of exposure. Biosensors and nanobiosensors provide prognostic tools for real-time detection and management of plant stress. Despite their potential benefits, the use of nanotechnology in agriculture raises concerns regarding environmental and health impacts. The accumulation of NPs in soil and aquatic ecosystems may affect microbial diversity, disrupt soil enzymatic activity, and alter plant–microbe interactions, posing risks to non-target organisms and overall ecosystem health. Moreover, variability in plant responses to NPs complicates the development of standardized application protocols. Therefore, its successful adoption relies on sustained interdisciplinary research, ethical oversight, and the development of sound policy frameworks. This integrated approach is crucial for developing resilient, efficient, and sustainable agricultural systems that can meet future challenges.

1 Introduction

Global food security faces unprecedented challenges, as the world population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, with nearly two billion people currently suffering from nutrient deficiencies and approximately eight hundred million experiencing chronic hunger. Nanotechnology emerges as a revolutionary approach to address these critical challenges, offering innovative solutions that could transform agricultural practices and enhance food production efficiency at the molecular level (Atanda et al., 2025).

Abiotic stresses caused by non-biological environmental factors, including salinity, drought, extreme temperatures, and heavy metal contamination, significantly impact crop yield and global nutritional security, resulting in 20–50% annual global crop yield losses (Cao et al., 2025). Traditional agricultural practices have proven inadequate in effectively mitigating these mounting challenges, necessitating the exploration of cutting-edge technological interventions (Tortella et al., 2023).

The integration of nanotechnology into agriculture represents a paradigm shift, leveraging the unique physicochemical properties of nanomaterials to regulate plant physiological processes, the development of nanofertilizers, nanopesticides, and nanosensors that can optimize nutrient delivery, strengthen plant defense mechanisms, and enable real-time environmental monitoring for sustainable farming practices (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

Nanoparticles can be strategically introduced into plants through diverse application methods, including seed coating, root uptake, and foliar spraying (Semida et al., 2021). Once internalized, these particles translocate through the vascular system and intercellular spaces to various plant organs, with their uptake and distribution patterns varying based on nanoparticle type and plant species (Zaman et al., 2025).

This targeted delivery system presents a fundamental advantage over conventional agricultural inputs, enabling controlled nutrient release with minimal quantities while maximizing crop yield and reducing environmental impact (Gupta et al., 2023).

Under stress conditions, particularly drought, nanoparticles play crucial roles in maintaining nutritional balance by promoting the absorption, transport, and delivery of essential nutrients such as manganese (Mn), nitrogen (N), zinc (Zn), and potassium (K) within plant tissues (Ahmad et al., 2025).

The transformative potential of nanotechnology extends beyond mere nutrient delivery. Simultaneously, minimizing stress-induced damage by improving soil quality and enhancing stress resistance mechanisms (Shoukat et al., 2025).

1.1 Mechanisms of abiotic stress response in plants

Plants perceive abiotic stress via specific sensors located at the cell wall, plasma membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other organelles. This stress perception leads to signal transduction pathways involving secondary messengers such as calcium ionsA (Ca⁺²), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and protein kinases, which amplify the stress signal throughout the plant. In addition, stress conditions alter the balance of endogenous plant hormones (Abdelkader et al., 2023). Abscisic acid (ABA) is especially essential for responses to drought and salinity, often mediating stomatal closure to prevent water loss (Francis et al., 2024). Other hormones, such as jasmonic acid and salicylic acid, also play distinct and sometimes combinatorial roles in stress adaptation. Moreover, a network of transcription factors (TFs), including NF-Y, WOX, WRKY, bZIP, and NAC, regulates stress-responsive genes, enabling rapid and targeted genomic adaptation. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) and non-coding RNAs help fine-tune gene expression in stressful environments (Juárez-Maldonado, 2023). Epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation and histone modification, modulate genes that enable stress tolerance. In addition, abiotic stress causes an accumulation of ROS, which can damage plant cells. Plants deploy enzymatic (e.g., superoxide dismutase, catalase, ascorbate peroxidase) and non-enzymatic (e.g., ascorbate, glutathione) antioxidants to neutralize ROS and restore cellular equilibrium (Jósko et al., 2021). As a result of being exposed to various stress factors, plants resort to a set of metabolic and physiological adjustments. These adjustments include modifying nutrient uptake and distribution to maintain a balance of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Although this balance occurred under prolonged stress, it affects growth and yield. Other adaptive strategies include accumulation of osmolytes (such as proline and sugars), modification of cell membranes, and protein stabilization processes (Khan et al., 2023).

1.2 Plant dynamics of abiotic stress

Plants can temporarily repress growth to conserve energy or reallocate resources. These changes may be reversible when stress is alleviated, or they may lead to permanent alterations in development if the stress is prolonged. Plants often face multiple stresses simultaneously, and the interaction between stress pathways can produce unique physiological responses that differ from single-stress reactions (Raliya et al., 2015). Crosstalk between hormonal pathways is central to coordinating these complex responses. Under stress, plants frequently prioritize survival mechanisms over growth, which can result in diminished yield but increased resilience. Plants’ ability to sense, transduce, and respond to abiotic stress is vital for survival and agricultural productivity, especially in the context of climate change and global food security. Understanding and enhancing these mechanisms remain a key focus of plant science and crop improvement research (Thiruvengadam et al., 2024).

1.3 The relationship between nanotechnology and plant abiotic stresses

Nanotechnology and plant stress are closely connected through the development and application of nanoscale materials and sensors that help detect, manage, and enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stress via two main points:

Detection and Monitoring: Nano-enabled biosensors and nanobiosensors allow the rapid, sensitive, and real-time detection of plant stress signals, including disease biomarkers, toxins, heavy metals, or stress-related signaling molecules, well before visible symptoms appear. These sensors use advanced nanomaterials (like carbon nanotubes, metal nanoparticles) to greatly improve the precision and speed of stress detection, thus enabling early intervention and smarter crop management (Goyal and Mehrotra, 2025).

Stress Mitigation and Tolerance: Nanomaterials, including green-synthesized nanoparticles of metals such as silver, copper, and zinc, can be delivered to plants to help mitigate effects. Nanoparticles can scavenge harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated during stress, act as stress signaling inducers (boosting a plant’s defenses), and deliver nutrients or protective compounds more efficiently than conventional forms. This can increase tolerance to environmental stresses and reduce crop yield losses (Zaman et al., 2025).

By integrating nanotechnology into agriculture, it is possible to both monitor plant health dynamically and intervene more effectively to raise plant resilience against stress factors. Nanotechnology thus acts as both a diagnostic tool and a direct aid in plant stress management, supporting sustainable and productive agriculture. However, issues with nanomaterial stability, cost, and potential environmental impact remain areas of continued research and debate (Suresh Kumar et al., 2025).

Nanotechnology has a close and growing relationship with abiotic stress management in plants, offering novel tools to detect, mitigate, and enhance tolerance to some non-biological stresses such as drought, salinity, extreme temperature, and heavy metal toxicity (Zaman et al., 2025).

This review comprehensively examines the role of nanotechnology in enhancing plant tolerance to abiotic stresses, addresses key research gaps in the field, and evaluates the broader implications of this emerging technology for achieving more efficient, sustainable, and resilient agricultural systems in the face of global food security challenges.

2 Nanotechnology fundamentals

2.1 Types of nanoparticles

Nanoparticles (NPs) are recognized for improving nutrient availability and enhancing plant resistance to pathogens and environmental stresses. Various classes of nanomaterials show promise in agricultural applications, including inorganic materials (e.g., silica, copper, iron, zinc, and selenium), organic materials (such as biopolymers, lipids, chitosan, peptides, and proteins), and hybrid materials. Laboratory-synthesized nanoagrochemicals, including nanofertilizers and nanopesticides, have demonstrated a performance increase of approximately 20–30% compared to traditional products (Verma et al., 2024).

Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, such as silver and zinc nanoparticles, are extensively studied for their effects on secondary metabolism and plant growth. Specifically, zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) have been shown to enhance biomass accumulation and photosynthesis in Arabidopsis (Table 1) (Lala, 2021). These nanoparticles promote growth and strengthen plant resilience against abiotic stresses such as drought, cadmium exposure, and salinity. Zinc plays a critical role in the function and stability of various enzymes, supporting the development of healthy crops (Verma et al., 2024). Studies have demonstrated that ZnO NPs significantly improve rice germination rates under salt stress and increase drought tolerance in Kotschy’s dragon head through positive effects on physiological and biochemical traits (Shoukat et al., 2025; Shelar et al., 2024). Furthermore, foliar application of ZnO NPs has resulted in higher chickpea yields than traditional bulk ZnSO₄ applications, illustrating their capacity to boost plant growth, biomass, and zinc accumulation in grains (Burman et al., 2013).

Magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO NPs) also contribute to enhanced growth and physiological characteristics in tobacco plants. These nanoparticles increase chlorophyll content, enzyme activity, and magnesium uptake without causing phytotoxic effects (Cai et al., 2020). Additional research has shown that MgO NPs influence growth, chlorophyll content, and gene/miRNA expression in ornamental pineapple. While they enhance plant development at certain concentrations, higher doses may inhibit these benefits (Owusu Adjei et al., 2021).

Polymeric nanoparticles represent another critical category and include cellulose and chitosan nanoparticles. These materials facilitate the delivery of nutrients and protective agents into plant tissues, thereby improving growth and stress resistance. Notably, chitosan nanoparticles have been found to stimulate plant defense mechanisms through complex interactions with physiological pathways (Shinde et al., 2024).

Protein and lipid-based nanoparticles also hold multiple important applications in plant systems. These biocompatible carriers enhance the stability and effectiveness of bioactive molecules during their transport to target sites within the plant. Their application can modulate secondary metabolism and promote the biosynthesis of valuable secondary metabolites (Verma et al., 2024).

As elicitors, nanoparticles have gained considerable attention for their ability to induce the production of secondary metabolites under stress conditions, thereby enhancing plant resistance and metabolic activity. Additionally, they promote the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and trigger the activation of secondary metabolic pathways. This function is particularly important for maximizing the production of commercially valuable bioactive compounds across various industries (Lala, 2021).

Therefore, nanoparticles are increasingly being designed to regulate plant immunity, particularly by interacting with plant-specific pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) and their associated signaling pathways. However, the rigid structure of plant cell walls poses unique challenges to immune modulation via nanoparticles. To overcome this, nanoparticles must be able to penetrate or traverse the cell wall to reach intracellular targets or interact with receptors on the plasma membrane. The formulation or surface modification of nanoparticles is thus critical for enhancing their delivery and uptake by plant cells (Pradeep et al., 2024).

2.2 Biogenic synthesis

Biogenic synthesis creates nanoparticles (NPs) sustainably, using plants or microbes instead of harsh chemicals. Plant extracts are a common source. Examples include neem (Azadirachta indica) and moringa (Moringa oleifera) (Alnaddaf et al., 2021). These extracts contain natural compounds, such as polyphenols and flavonoids, which act as reducing agents. They convert metal salts into NPs. These compounds also act as capping agents, stabilizing the NPs. This method is simple, cost-effective, works at room temperature, and avoids toxic by-products (Murali et al., 2021). Different plants yield NPs of different sizes and shapes. Microbes also synthesize NPs. Bacteria like Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas fluorescens are used. Synthesis can occur inside or outside the bacterial cell. Enzymes or metabolites reduce metal ions. Bacterial synthesis offers good size control and is scalable and eco-friendly (Murali et al., 2023). Fungi and yeast can be used too (Alloosh et al., 2021). Green NPs possess a natural biomolecule coating derived from the plant or microbe. This coating often enhances NP properties, such as biocompatibility or antimicrobial effects. Green NPs are generally safer and show higher efficacy in agriculture than chemically synthesized ones. These methods are crucial, sustainable alternatives (Tasnim et al., 2024).

3 Nanoparticle-plant interactions

3.1 Mechanisms of nanoparticle internalization and physiological effects in plants

3.1.1 Pathways and transport dynamics of nanoparticles in plants

Understanding the intricate processes by which nanoparticles (NPs) enter, move within, and exert their effects on plant systems at both cellular and subcellular levels is paramount for their effective, safe, and sustainable application in agriculture (Figure 1) (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

Figure 1

The primary pathway for nanoparticle entry into plants is through the root system. Nanoparticles can traverse the epidermal cell wall of roots, typically through pre-existing small pores (ranging from 3 to 5 nm). In instances where nanoparticles are larger than these natural pores, they may induce the formation of new entry points, facilitating their absorption (Singh et al., 2024).

Nanoparticles can also enter plants through their leaves, primarily via stomata (microscopic pores on the leaf surface) or through microscopic cracks and imperfections in the leaf cuticle (the waxy protective layer). Various assisted delivery methods, beyond natural entry points, can enhance nanoparticle uptake. These include seed priming (where seeds are treated with nanoparticles before planting), hydroponic systems (where nanoparticles are introduced directly into the nutrient solution), and direct injection methods (Djanaguiraman et al., 2025).

Once inside the plant, nanoparticles can move through the apoplastic pathway. This involves movement through the non-living components, specifically the cell walls and intercellular spaces. This is generally a passive process driven by transpiration pull (Kumar and Biswas, 2023).

Additionally, nanoparticles can move via the symplastic pathway. This involves movement through the living components, specifically the cytoplasm of adjacent cells connected by plasmodesmata (cytoplasmic bridges). This movement often requires the assistance of membrane carrier proteins (Djanaguiraman et al., 2024).

After entering the root or leaf, nanoparticles are efficiently transported throughout the plant via its vascular system, comprising the xylem and phloem. The xylem primarily facilitates the upward transport of nanoparticles from the roots to the aerial parts alongside water and nutrients. The phloem, responsible for sugar transport, can also redistribute nanoparticles throughout the plant, including remobilization back to the roots. The efficiency and pattern of nanoparticle uptake and translocation are significantly influenced by several factors. These include the nanoparticle’s size, shape, surface charge, and chemical composition. Additionally, plant species-specific characteristics and prevailing environmental conditions play crucial roles in determining their movement within the plant (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

3.1.2 Cellular interactions and physiological impacts of nanoparticles

Nanoparticles initially interact with plant cell walls and plasma membranes, which serve as the primary physical barriers. High concentrations of certain nanoparticles can compromise membrane integrity, potentially leading to the leakage of cellular contents and disruption of normal cellular functions (Gao et al., 2023). Following entry and translocation, nanoparticles can accumulate within various cellular and subcellular organelles. Common sites of accumulation include chloroplasts (affecting photosynthesis), mitochondria (impacting respiration), and vacuoles (involved in detoxification and storage) (Sonkar et al., 2023).

The presence of nanoparticles can induce a wide array of physiological and biochemical changes in plants. These include alterations in photosynthetic rates, nutrient uptake efficiency, enzyme activity, and overall gene expression patterns (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

While some nanoparticles mitigate oxidative stress by enhancing antioxidant defense systems, others, particularly at elevated concentrations, can paradoxically induce oxidative stress by promoting the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Nanoparticles have been observed to influence the synthesis, transport, and signaling pathways of key plant hormones, such as auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, and abscisic acid. This modulation can significantly impact plant growth, development, and adaptive stress responses (Páramo et al., 2023; Selvakesavan et al., 2023).

Emerging research suggests that nanoparticles may interact with the plant’s genetic material, potentially leading to changes in gene expression or, in some cases, DNA damage. Further research is needed to fully understand these complex genetic interactions and their long-term implications (Alnaddaf et al., 2023).

Crucially, the effects of nanoparticles are highly dose-dependent. Low and optimized concentrations often confer beneficial effects, such as enhanced growth, improved nutrient utilization, and increased stress tolerance. Conversely, higher concentrations can lead to phytotoxicity, growth inhibition, and other adverse impacts on plant health (Murali et al., 2022).

3.2 Determinants of nanoparticle efficacy and various effects on plants

The impact of nanoparticles on plants is a complex phenomenon, highly contingent upon a multitude of factors related to the nanoparticles themselves, the specific plant species, and the prevailing environmental conditions. A thorough understanding of these influencing factors is paramount for optimizing the beneficial applications of nanotechnology in agriculture while simultaneously mitigating potential risks (Tables 2, 3).

3.2.1 Nanoparticle properties: uptake and bioactivity

The concentration at which nanoparticles are applied is a critical determinant of their effects. Low, optimized concentrations often elicit beneficial responses, such as enhanced plant growth, improved nutrient uptake, and increased tolerance to various stresses. Conversely, higher concentrations can lead to phytotoxicity, induce oxidative stress, and impair essential physiological processes (Siddiqi et al., 2021).

Moreover, the physical size of nanoparticles profoundly influences their uptake, subsequent translocation within the plant, and their interactions with plant cells. Generally, smaller nanoparticles (e.g., those in the 3-5 nm range) are more readily absorbed by roots and exhibit greater mobility throughout the plant vascular system (Khan et al., 2022). The size exclusion limits of plant tissues, such as the pores in the cuticle and stomata, play a crucial role in regulating nanoparticle entry. Furthermore, the morphology or shape of nanoparticles can also significantly affect their cellular uptake and interactions with plant cells. Different shapes may influence their biological activity and potential toxicity (Tripathi et al., 2021).

The surface charge of nanoparticles is a key factor influencing their initial interaction with plant surfaces (e.g., the root epidermis) and their subsequent movement within plant tissues. Surface modifications, which can alter the charge, are often employed to enhance uptake efficiency or achieve targeted delivery (Nair et al., 2020).

The intrinsic chemical composition of nanoparticles dictates their inherent properties and how they interact with biological systems. Nanoparticles composed of different materials (e.g., silver, gold, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide) can exert distinct effects on plant physiology and biochemistry (Rajput et al., 2021).

In addition, the presence of a coating or specific surface modifications on nanoparticles can significantly alter their stability, dispersibility in various media, uptake efficiency, and overall biological activity. These modifications are strategically used to enhance beneficial effects or reduce potential toxicity (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

3.2.2 Exposure parameters: duration, application method, and environmental context

The duration of plant exposure to nanoparticles directly influences the extent of nanoparticle uptake, their accumulation within plant tissues, and the resulting physiological responses. Prolonged exposure may lead to different outcomes compared to acute, short-term exposure (Sharma et al., 2020). The application method (e.g., foliar spray, direct soil application, seed treatment, or integration into hydroponic systems) dictates the primary entry pathways and subsequent distribution patterns within the plant (Ahmad et al., 2023). External environmental conditions, including soil pH, ambient temperature, light intensity, and the presence of other ions or compounds in the soil or growth medium, can significantly influence nanoparticle stability, bioavailability to plants, and interactive effects with plant systems (Yasmeen, 2023).

3.2.3 Plant species-specific and developmental stage-dependent responses

Different plant species exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity and diverse physiological responses to nanoparticles. These variations are due to differences in inherent physiological characteristics, root architecture, leaf morphology, and unique genetic makeup (Zhang et al., 2022). Plant root exudates (organic compounds released by roots into the rhizosphere) can interact with nanoparticles in the soil. This interaction can affect nanoparticle aggregation, dissolution, and ultimately, their uptake (Chen et al., 2021). The specific developmental stage of the plant at the time of nanoparticle exposure influences its susceptibility to nanoparticle effects and its capacity to respond adaptively (Zhou et al., 2023).

Understanding the interplay of these complex factors is essential for the rational design and development of effective and safe nano-agricultural products, as well as for accurately predicting their environmental fate and overall impact on agricultural ecosystems.

4 Mechanistic roles of NPs in abiotic stress mitigation

Nanoparticles play pivotal roles in alleviating plant stress through multiple interconnected mechanisms that enhance the plant’s intrinsic defense systems and optimize key physiological processes, thereby sustaining plant health and productivity under challenging environmental conditions (Table 1, Figure 1) (Zaman et al., 2025). Specifically, we examine how nano-formulated nutrients, in conjunction with phytohormones, influence plant growth and stress resilience. This influence occurs through the promotion of antioxidant enzyme synthesis. These nano-enabled strategies activate critical defense mechanisms, including reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging systems, thereby improving plant tolerance to adverse environmental conditions.

Our analysis demonstrates how nano-mineral nutrient management simultaneously modulates key antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase) and regulates phytohormonal activity (auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins). This dual modulation is necessary for three key processes: reducing ionic toxicity, strengthening oxidative stress responses, and maintaining cellular water balance in stressed plants (Meng et al., 2025).

4.1 Drought stress mitigation and associated mechanisms

Drought is one of the most critical abiotic challenges facing global agriculture, resulting from insufficient irrigation and reduces rainfall that leads to prolonged dry periods, severely limiting crop growth. The complex nature of drought stress makes it difficult to monitor and manage effectively through conventional approaches (Pérez-Labrada et al., 2020).

4.1.1 Mechanistic responses to drought

Recent studies demonstrate that cerium oxide nanoparticles enhance drought tolerance in sorghum by regulating abscisic acid (ABA)-related genes and promoting the activity of antioxidant enzymes (El-Saadony et al., 2022). ABA plays a vital role during drought stress by promoting stomatal closure to minimize water loss and interacting with JA/SA signaling pathways. The P5CS gene enhances proline biosynthesis for osmotic adjustment under drought, while AREB/ABF transcription factors activate ABA-responsive genes during water stress (Yoshida et al., 2015). Downregulation of TAS14 and ZFHD genes increases drought tolerance by regulating ABA biosynthesis and osmotic pressure (Pérez-Labrada et al., 2020).

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) alleviate drought stress in plant species such as lentils by maintaining water balance and enhancing growth parameters through improved osmotic adjustment and enhanced antioxidant capacity (Ahmad et al., 2024). Iron nanoparticles (FeNPs), particularly Fe₂O₃, play vital roles in several plant metabolic processes, including photosynthesis, respiration, DNA synthesis, and pigment production. Fe₂O₃ nanoparticles can mitigate oxidative stress in drought-exposed plants by reducing reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and enhancing chlorophyll content, thereby improving photosynthetic efficiency under stress conditions (Shang et al., 2019).

4.2 Salinity stress mitigation and ionic homeostasis

Salinity affects approximately 20% of the world’s arable land, arising from high sodium chloride concentrations in coastal and arid regions. This condition particularly threatens glycophytes, which are highly sensitive to salt stress, limiting both food production and crop quality (Cao et al., 2025).

4.2.1 Mechanistic responses to salinity

Iron oxide nanoparticles enhance plant growth in saline environments by helping maintain ionic balance through activation of salt overly sensitive (SOS) kinases and calcium signaling pathways, which regulate gene networks for stress mitigation and ion homeostasis (Meel and Saharan, 2024). These pathways involve mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) that initiate defense responses and facilitate cellular repair processes.

Zerovalent nano-iron (nZVI) particles may release hydroxyl radicals (OH•) capable of degrading pectins. Zinc oxide nanoparticles mitigate the excessive salinity effect on basil plants by regulating proline accumulation and enhancing antioxidant activity (Cao et al., 2025). Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) alleviate salt stress by restoring ionic balance and improving nutrient availability, with studies showing nearly doubled growth parameters in quinoa Q6 line exposed to salinity stress (Gupta et al., 2023).

4.3 Temperature stress and physiological protection

Temperature represents another major risk factor affecting crop yields, with high temperatures negatively affecting respiration, transpiration, and photosynthesis. Temperature stress leads to reduced photosynthesis, shortened growth periods, and ultimately lower crop yields. Challenges intensify under climate change conditions (Sidhu et al., 2024).

4.3.1 Mechanistic responses to temperature stress

Nanoparticles provide physical protection by enhancing the structural integrity of plant cell walls, making plants more resilient to thermal and environmental stresses. They also modulate levels of key phytohormones such as ethylene (ET), which regulates genes associated with cell wall reinforcement and defense activation under temperature stress conditions (Sidhu et al., 2024).

4.4 Heavy metal stress and detoxification mechanisms

Heavy metals, soil erosion, floods, and nutrient deficiencies considerably affect crop yield and quality. Silicon nanoparticles (SiNPs) reduce cadmium (Cd) stress by increasing biomass and lowering oxidative stress through enhanced antioxidant enzyme activities, including superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione reductase (GR), catalase (CAT), and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) (Ahmed et al., 2023).

4.4.1 Mechanistic responses to heavy metal toxicity

SiNPs significantly improve both yield and quality of rice grains under lead (Pb) and Cd stress by inhibiting metal uptake and facilitating sequestration into less harmful cellular compartments (Khanna et al., 2021). Iron nanoparticles (FeNPs) stimulate growth in stressed plants by promoting chlorophyll content and photosynthesis while reducing the toxicity and metal bioavailability in contaminated soils (Naidu et al., 2023).

4.5 Molecular signaling pathways and stress response integration

4.5.1 ROS regulation and antioxidant defense

NPs can induce controlled oxidative stress by increasing ROS levels, which may initially disrupt redox homeostasis (Table 1). However, they simultaneously enhance antioxidant defense systems by stimulating both enzymatic antioxidants (SOD, CAT, APX, GR) and non-enzymatic antioxidants (ascorbic acid, glutathione, phenols, flavonoids). Some nanoparticles, like C₆₀ fullerenes, directly scavenge excess ROS, reducing oxidative damage during abiotic stress (Pandey et al., 2018).

4.5.2 Hormonal regulation and gene expression

NPs modulate levels of key phytohormones, including ABA, jasmonic acid (JA), and salicylic acid (SA), which are central to abiotic stress signaling. JA regulates genes for defense compounds and secondary metabolite production, while SA coordinates systemic acquired resistance responses (Ahmad et al., 2024). Bionanoparticles can deliver nucleic acids into plant cells, leading to upregulation or downregulation of specific genes related to stress adaptation through interactions with cellular components that affect gene accessibility (Bahwirth et al., 2023).

4.5.3 Secondary metabolite enhancement

NPs act as elicitors, triggering ROS production that activates secondary metabolic pathways, enhancing synthesis of bioactive compounds, such as flavonoids, phenolics, and terpenoids. These compounds serve dual roles in plant defense and human health benefits. Exposure to copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO) increased polyphenol content and antioxidant activity in Withania somnifera (Raza et al., 2024).

4.5.4 Nutrient optimization and physical protection

As nanofertilizers, NPs enhance nutrient uptake and utilization efficiency, ensuring adequate nutrition during stress conditions while supporting overall metabolism and growth. They also aid in osmotic adjustment by promoting osmotic accumulation, helping plants maintain turgor and essential physiological functions under water-deficient conditions (Saleh et al., 2021).

The multifunctional nature of nanoparticles, from molecular signaling to whole-plant physiological responses, underscores their significant potential in enhancing plant resilience to abiotic stresses. Their ability to simultaneously address multiple stress factors while optimizing plant defense mechanisms positions nanotechnology as a promising tool for advancing sustainable and stress-resilient agriculture under changing climate conditions (Alnaddaf et al., 2025).

5 Agricultural applications

5.1 The role of nanotechnology in promoting crop resilience against abiotic stress

Nanoparticles utilize their diverse and versatile properties to enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stresses, affecting all parts of the plant through multiple complementary mechanisms (Tables 2, 3).

5.1.1 Enhanced nutrient delivery and smart release systems

Nanotechnology enables the development of NP-fortified fertilizers that deliver nutrients in a targeted manner, minimizing nutrient runoff and reducing groundwater contamination risks (Ahmad et al., 2024). Integration with smart fertilizers allows programmed nutrient delivery based on specific environmental conditions, such as soil moisture or pH fluctuations, supplying crops with necessary nutrients at optimal times (Pradeep et al., 2024).

Nanofertilizers coat or encapsulate nutrient substances, allowing controlled release into the soil while helping recharge depleted soils and maintain soil health (Salem et al., 2021). Nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus nanoparticles improve macronutrient utilization and availability, resulting in better plant growth and increased stress tolerance (Khanna et al., 2021).

5.1.2 Rhizosphere interactions and soil enhancement

NPs interact multifacetedly with the rhizosphere, contacting microbes, minerals, and organic matter that indirectly affect plant roots. Their biological inertness allows persistence in soil for extended periods, causing significant changes in microflora populations, soil fertility, and plant physiology (Meel and Saharan, 2024).

When incorporated into soil, NPs enhance aeration and water-holding capacity, facilitating better gas exchange and water absorption. They stimulate soil enzyme activity, sustaining soil health and boosting organic processes essential for nutrient cycling (El-Saadony et al., 2022). NPs also promote plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPM) such as Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium, which form symbiotic associations that fix nitrogen and mobilize nutrients (Table 4).

5.1.3 Advanced agricultural applications

Nanopesticides: Developed to improve pest control efficiency by delivering pesticides precisely where and when needed, minimizing environmental impact. When combined with digital farming technologies, they enable precise application methods that reduce wastage and enhance pest management (Atanda et al., 2025).

Nanosensors: Vital tools engineered to detect biological molecules and heavy metal concentrations, helping maintain optimal growth conditions and prevent contamination. They increase sensitivity and selectivity in gas detection, enabling real-time monitoring of environmental health indicators (Shinde et al., 2024).

Nanomediators: Advanced carriers that enable precise delivery of genetic material, allowing plants to regulate gene expression and respond effectively to stresses. They facilitate controlled nutrient release and reduce residual organic pollutants (Rajput et al., 2023; Mgadi et al., 2024).

5.1.4 Seed priming and stress memory enhancement

Recent studies explore NPs’ potential to improve stress memory in seeds through brief exposure to stress stimuli, triggering faster induction of stress-related signaling pathways upon subsequent exposures. This results in enhanced germination and growth under stressful conditions (Khan et al., 2023).

Metal nanoparticles (Ag, Cu, Ti, Au, Zn, Fe) and their oxides, synthesized via eco-friendly methods, significantly increase germination rates and promote plant growth (Riseh and Vazvani, 2024). For example, nano-primed stevia seedlings exhibited 106% increased germination percentage and 128.12% increased germination speed, with seedling dry weights increasing by 283%, 168.9%, and 220% for roots, shoots, and total biomass, respectively (Eevera et al., 2023; Mazhar et al., 2022a).

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) at 100 μg/mL enhanced germination and seedling growth in barley, soybean, and maize, while silicon nanoparticles (SiNPs) at 20 ppm improved growth and photosynthetic efficiency in common beans (Naidu et al., 2023).

5.1.5 Sustainable agriculture and environmental benefits

Nanotechnology reduces adverse effects of conventional farming by improving pesticide and fertilizer efficiency, minimizing chemical applications, and consequently decreasing risks of soil erosion, nutrient loss, and pesticide pollution. This promotes biodiversity conservation and enhances agricultural ecosystem sustainability (Nawaz et al., 2023).

The technology offers complementary solutions to conventional breeding limitations by supporting genetic improvement through targeted modifications and nanomaterials that promote plant resistance, leading to crops capable of withstanding climate change and abiotic stresses (Tortella et al., 2023).

5.1.6 Long-term sustainability considerations

The accumulation of NPs in soil ecosystems requires careful assessment of long-term sustainability. While improving plant resilience, they influence microbial diversity, soil enzymatic activities, and soil–plant interactions (MacDonald and Mohan, 2025). Extensive long-term field studies are essential to evaluate NP behavior under different soil types and climatic conditions, ensuring nanotechnology benefits are realized without compromising ecosystem health (Sundararajan et al., 2023).

5.2 Traditional vs. nanotechnology approaches in agriculture: a comprehensive comparison

The global agricultural system faces unprecedented challenges, including climate change, soil degradation, water scarcity, and the need to feed a growing population while minimizing environmental impact (FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2021). This demands innovative solutions that can address multiple constraints simultaneously. While traditional agricultural methods have proven reliable over decades, their limitations in terms of efficiency and environmental impact are increasingly apparent. Simultaneously, nanotechnology emerges as a promising alternative, offering precision and enhanced efficacy in crop stress management (Nandeha et al., 2025).

Traditional methods, including the use of conventional fertilizers, pesticides, and selective breeding, have supported agricultural productivity for decades. These methods demonstrate consistent performance across diverse environmental conditions and crop systems, with urea fertilizer application increasing global cereal production by an estimated 48% since 1961 (Stewart et al., 2004).

Furthermore, traditional pesticides and fertilizers operate within well-established regulatory frameworks that encompass comprehensive safety databases spanning decades of use. This regulatory maturity provides farmers and consumers with confidence in application and safety profiles.

Traditional approaches suffer from significant efficiency limitations. Research consistently demonstrates low nutrient use efficiency in conventional systems, with nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in cereal crops typically ranging from 30 to 50% addition to significant losses through volatilization, leaching, and denitrification (Raun and Johnson, 1999). Similarly, traditional approaches have shown limited improvements in water use efficiency, achieving only (10-25)% improvements under stress conditions.

In contrast, Nanotechnology addresses many limitations of traditional methods through precision in nutrient delivery. Nanoparticles offer size-dependent cellular uptake mechanisms, with studies demonstrating that nanoparticles between 10 and 40 nm in diameter exhibit optimal cellular penetration in plant tissues (Schwab et al., 2016). This precision is exemplified by zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) at 25 nm, which showed 85% higher zinc uptake efficiency in tomato plants compared to conventional zinc sulfate, with targeted accumulation in chloroplasts where zinc is most needed for photosynthetic enzymes (Raliya et al., 2015).

Unlike traditional single-purpose applications, single nanoparticle formulations can address multiple stress factors simultaneously through engineered multi-functionality (Mittal et al., 2020). Cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO₂-NPs) demonstrate this dual functionality as both antioxidants and photosynthetic enhancers. In drought-stressed soybean plants, CeO₂-NPs (3nm) increased antioxidant enzyme activity by 45% while maintaining photosynthetic efficiency at 80% of well-watered controls (Wu et al., 2017).

Nanotechnology enables a significant reduction in chemical inputs while maintaining or improving efficacy (Fraceto et al., 2016). Nano-encapsulated herbicides require 60-80% lower active ingredient concentrations compared to conventional formulations while achieving equivalent weed control, reducing environmental contamination risk (Kumar et al., 2019). Additionally, the integration of nanosensors enables continuous monitoring and responsive treatment systems (Giraldo et al., 2019), with carbon nanotube-based sensors embedded in plant leaves detecting nitric oxide levels in real-time and triggering automated delivery of protective nanoparticles when stress thresholds are exceeded (Wang X. et al., 2023).

Direct comparisons reveal substantial advantages for nanotechnology approaches. Studies comparing nano-fertilizers to conventional alternatives showed average nutrient use efficiency improvements of (35-65) % across major nutrients (Liu and Lal, 2015). Water Use Efficiency improvement is even more dramatic, with nanoparticle applications achieving (25-60) % improvement compared to the traditional method. For instance, silicon nanoparticles (Si-NPs) applied to wheat under drought stress improved grain yield by 45% compared to 18% improvement with conventional silicon fertilizer (Frazier et al., 2014).

In addition, nanotechnology is demonstrating superior performance in enhancing plant stress tolerance. Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe₂O₃NPs) enhanced salt tolerance in barley, maintaining 75% of normal yield under less than 150 mM NaCl stress compared to 45% with conventional treatments (Mukhtiar et al., 2024). However, these benefits come with complexity, as the same treatments can have variable effects across different plant systems.

High production costs are a significant barrier to the adoption of nanotechnology. Nano-fertilizer production costs range from 2,000 to 8,000 $ per ton compared to 400 to 800 $ for conventional fertilizers (Subramanian et al., 2015). This economic gap is more pronounced for specialized applications, with silver nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications costing approximately $50-200 per gram, making large-scale agricultural applications economically prohibitive (Sharma et al., 2018).

The global nano-fertilizer market is projected to reach $4.8 billion by 2025, growing at a 12.3% CAGR, driven by precision agriculture adoption (Grand View Research, 2020). This growth trajectory suggests increasing commercial viability as production scales increase and costs decrease.

Rather than viewing nanotechnology as a complete replacement for traditional methods, an integrated approach offers optimal benefits. This strategy involves using nanoparticles for high-value crops or specific stress conditions where cost-benefit ratios are favorable, combining nano-enhanced precision delivery with conventional breeding and management practices, and implementing phase-wise adoption with continuous monitoring and adaptive management.

5.3 Nanotechnology-enhanced sensing and modeling for precision plant stress management

Several non-AI predictive technologies are crucial for detecting and managing plant abiotic stress. Biosensors and nanobiosensors are primary examples. Nanomaterials possess unique and tunable properties, such as optical characteristics, electrical conductivity, and shock resistance. These properties enable the creation of flexible and highly sensitive detection mechanisms capable of measuring a broad spectrum of physiological and environmental parameters relevant to plant stress (Mukherjee et al., 2024). These sophisticated analytical systems integrate a biological sensing element with a transducer, enabling the detection of specific biomarkers that indicate stress in plants. Nanotechnology significantly enhances the effectiveness of these biosensors by boosting their sensitivity and specificity, thereby facilitating the early and precise identification of both abiotic and biotic stresses (Rana et al., 2024).

Biosensors and nanobiosensors play a crucial role in the timely identification of stress factors. Their early detection capabilities are due to proactive interventions, which are critical in mitigating potential crop losses before they become severe. The incorporation of nanomaterials in biosensor development allows for a significant increase in sensitivity and overall efficacy (Tang et al., 2024). This enables the detection of even trace amounts of stress-related biomarkers, providing a more accurate and nuanced understanding of plant stress (Sheikh et al., 2024). Nanobiosensors are versatile and capable of detecting a wide array of biological derivatives. This includes the identification of bacteria, viruses, and various chemical toxins that can impact agricultural produce, thereby contributing to food safety and quality control. These tools are often integrated with continuous monitoring platforms, allowing for real-time data collection on plant physiological responses to environmental changes (Chaturvedi et al., 2025).

Some models used to study the behavior of NPs and their effects on plants foe example 1- Computational Modeling: Simulating NP transport in plant tissues (e.g., using finite element analysis). 2- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Models: Predicting NP fate within plants based on plant physiology (Huang et al., 2024). 3- Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR): Relating NP properties (size, charge, coating) to biological effects (uptake, toxicity, and efficacy). 4- Kinetic Modelling: Predicting NP dissolution rates and ion release over time in the rhizosphere. 5- Stochastic Models: Assessing variability in NP behavior and plant responses under field conditions (Yu et al., 2023; Thiruvengadam et al., 2025; Sarabandi et al., 2025). These technologies empower farmers and researchers to implement targeted management strategies, advancing toward a more responsive and efficient agricultural system without relying on complex AI models for prediction. Recent studies indicate that the use of single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) nano-sensors for real-time detection of SA and H₂O₂, elucidating stress-specific biochemical waveforms, and enabling early interventions to promote stress tolerance. Other nano-sensors can measure nutrient levels, pathogen attacks, or pollutant stress, further supporting crop resilience under abiotic (drought, salinity, heat) stress conditions. While promising, challenges remain regarding nanosensor stability, long-term effects on plants, potential environmental impacts, and cost-effectiveness for large-scale field use.

6 The challenges of integrating nanotechnology in agriculture

6.1 Environmental concerns and long-term safety assessment of nanoparticles in agriculture

The rapid advancement of agricultural nanotechnology has generated considerable enthusiasm for its potential to address global food security challenges while improving environmental sustainability (Thakur and Yadav, 2025). However, the unique physicochemical properties that make nanoparticles effective in agricultural applications also raise concerns about their environmental fate, ecological impacts, and long-term safety implications. The limited understanding of nanoparticle behavior in complex environmental systems necessitates a precautionary approach that balances innovation with environmental protection (Gupta, 2021).

Current knowledge gaps regarding the long-term environmental consequences of nanoparticle applications in agriculture highlight the urgent need for comprehensive risk assessment frameworks, enhanced monitoring systems, and adaptive regulatory approaches. This assessment examines the current state of knowledge regarding environmental risks while identifying critical research priorities and policy needs for sustainable implementation of agricultural nanotechnology (Table 5) (Thakur and Yadav, 2025).

6.2 Soil ecotoxicity and ecosystem impact assessment

6.2.1 Microbial community disruption and functional alterations

Soil microbial communities represent the foundation of terrestrial ecosystem functioning, mediating critical processes, including nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and plant-microbe interactions. Nanoparticles can significantly alter soil microbial diversity and functionality through direct toxic effects, modification of soil chemistry, and interference with microbial communication systems (Kumar et al., 2025).

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) demonstrate broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity that, while beneficial for pathogen control, can indiscriminately affect beneficial soil microorganisms, including nitrogen-fixing bacteria such as Rhizobium species, mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus spp.), and decomposer organisms essential for nutrient mineralization (Sillen et al., 2015). Laboratory studies indicate that AgNPs at concentrations of 1-10 mg/kg soil reduce bacterial diversity by 15-40% within 30 days of application, with effects persisting for several months after initial exposure (Das and Ingti, 2025).

6.2.2 Enzymatic activity suppression

Key soil enzymes, including dehydrogenase (an indicator of overall microbial activity), phosphatase (phosphorus mineralization), and β-glucosidase (carbon cycling), show reduced activity ranging from 20-60% inhibition following exposure to metal oxide nanoparticles at environmentally relevant concentrations. Copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) demonstrate particular concern for nitrogen cycling, inhibiting nitrification processes by 25-50% and affecting nitrogen availability for plant uptake (Bouhadi et al., 2025).

6.2.3 Mycorrhizal association disruption

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO₂ NPs) interfere with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) colonization, reducing plant nutrient uptake efficiency by 10-30% and compromising the symbiotic relationships essential for sustainable agriculture. These effects are particularly concerning given the critical role of mycorrhizal associations in phosphorus acquisition and plant stress tolerance (Das and Ingti, 2025).

6.2.4 Soil chemical properties and geochemical alterations

Nanoparticles can fundamentally alter soil chemistry through various mechanisms, including ion release, surface reactions, and modification of soil colloid properties. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) dissolve preferentially in acidic soils, releasing Zn²⁺ ions that increase soil pH and affect the bioavailability of other nutrients, including phosphorus, iron, and manganese (Li et al., 2025).

Iron-based nanoparticles can reduce soil pH through oxidation reactions and electron transfer processes, potentially mobilizing heavy metals and altering phosphorus availability through changes in adsorption-desorption equilibria. These geochemical alterations may have long-lasting effects on soil fertility and plant nutrient availability, requiring careful monitoring and management (Das and Ingti, 2025).

6.2.5 Organic matter interactions

Nanoparticles demonstrate strong binding affinity for soil organic matter (SOM) through electrostatic interactions, hydrophobic associations, and coordination bonding. This binding can either stabilize organic carbon by protecting it from microbial decomposition (positive effect) or interfere with natural decomposition processes by blocking enzyme access or altering microbial community structure (negative effect), with significant long-term implications for soil carbon sequestration and fertility maintenance (Khort et al., 2021).

6.3 Environmental persistence and bioaccumulation assessment

6.3.1 Nanoparticle fate and transformation in soil systems

Understanding the environmental fate of nanoparticles requires a comprehensive evaluation of their persistence, transformation, and mobility in soil systems under varying environmental conditions (Wei et al., 2024). Metal nanoparticles, particularly silver and copper-based formulations, demonstrate high persistence in soil with half-lives ranging from 6 months to several years depending on soil pH, organic matter content, moisture levels, and microbial activity (Das and Ingti, 2025).

Metal oxide nanoparticles, including TiO₂ and ZnO, demonstrate extreme environmental persistence with minimal degradation over 2-5 year monitoring periods, raising concerns about long-term accumulation and potential ecological effects. Carbon-based nanoparticles, including fullerenes and carbon nanotubes, show variable persistence ranging from months to years, with degradation rates influenced by soil organic content, microbial diversity, and environmental conditions (Zaman et al., 2025).

Nanoparticles undergo various transformation processes in soil environments that affect their bioavailability, toxicity, and environmental fate. Dissolution processes result in the release of ionic forms, particularly relevant for Ag, Cu, and Zn nanoparticles, which may exhibit different toxicological profiles compared to their nano-form counterparts (Das and Ingti, 2025).

Aggregation and agglomeration processes lead to the formation of larger particle clusters that alter surface area-to-volume ratios, reducing bioavailability while potentially affecting soil physical properties. Surface coating with natural organic matter modifies nanoparticle surface properties, potentially reducing toxicity while affecting transport and bioavailability (Khort et al., 2021).

6.3.2 Bioaccumulation potential and trophic transfer

Plant uptake and translocation studies demonstrate variable patterns across plant species and nanoparticle types, with implications for food chain contamination and human exposure. Root accumulation typically represents the highest concentration point, with 50-90% of absorbed nanoparticles retained in root tissues rather than translocated to aerial plant parts (Isibor et al., 2024).

Shoot translocation remains limited for most nanoparticle types, with only 5-30% of absorbed nanoparticles detected in above-ground tissues, though this varies significantly with nanoparticle size, surface coating, and plant species. Grain and fruit accumulation generally shows low but detectable levels (0.1-5% of absorbed nanoparticles) in edible tissues, raising questions about long-term dietary exposure implications (Alizadeh et al., 2025).

Soil invertebrates, including earthworms (Eisenia fetida) and springtails (Folsomia candida), demonstrate significant nanoparticle accumulation with bioconcentration factors ranging from 1.2 to 3.5, indicating potential for trophic transfer to higher levels. Limited studies on secondary consumers suggest potential transfer to birds and small mammals, though transformation and reduced bioavailability may limit bioaccumulation compared to persistent organic pollutants (Waalewijn-Kool et al., 2014).

6.4 Phytotoxicity assessment at environmentally relevant concentrations

6.4.1 Field application and physiological disruption

Field-scale concentrations of nanoparticles often differ significantly from laboratory test conditions, requiring careful evaluation of effects at environmentally relevant exposure levels. Even at low concentrations (0.1-10 mg/L in soil solution), nanoparticles can induce oxidative stress through increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, leading to cellular damage and reduced plant performance (Das and Ingti, 2025).

Membrane integrity disruption affects nutrient and water uptake efficiency, with consequences for plant growth and stress tolerance under field conditions. Photosynthetic efficiency reductions of 5-25% have been documented at nanoparticle concentrations of 1-50 mg/kg soil, with implications for carbon fixation and overall plant productivity.

Root development inhibition, including reduced elongation and branching, affects nutrient acquisition capacity and may compromise plant establishment and growth under field conditions (Table 5) (Djanaguiraman et al., 2024).

6.4.2 Species-specific sensitivity and agricultural implications

Crop sensitivity to nanoparticles varies significantly among species and cultivars, requiring species-specific risk assessment approaches. Leguminous crops, including soybean and pea, demonstrate high sensitivity due to their dependence on rhizobial nitrogen-fixing symbionts that may be disrupted by nanoparticle exposure.

Leafy vegetables, including lettuce and spinach, show rapid nanoparticle uptake through extensive root systems, potentially leading to higher accumulation levels in edible tissues. Cereal crops, including wheat and rice, demonstrate moderate sensitivity with significant species-specific variations in uptake, translocation, and toxic response thresholds (Raza et al., 2025).

6.4.3 Field-scale reality versus laboratory assessments

Laboratory studies often employ nanoparticle concentrations 10-1000 times higher than realistic field applications, potentially overestimating toxicity risks. However, localized concentration hotspots near application sites can reach levels of concern, with soil surface accumulation showing 2-10 times higher concentrations in the top 5 cm compared to deeper soil layers.

Rhizosphere concentrations may be 1.5-5 times higher than bulk soil levels due to root exudate interactions and localized accumulation processes. Seasonal variations in nanoparticle concentrations result from leaching, plant uptake, microbial degradation, and reapplication cycles, requiring long-term monitoring to understand exposure patterns (Yang et al., 2025).

7 Regulation and sustainability

7.1 Regulatory frameworks and policy gap analysis

7.1.1 Current regulatory inadequacies

Existing pesticide and fertilizer regulations prove inadequate for nanomaterials due to their focus on chemical composition rather than size-dependent properties that determine nanoparticle behavior and effects. Traditional regulations fail to account for unique nano-scale properties, including high surface area-to-volume ratios, quantum effects, and enhanced reactivity that distinguish nanoparticles from their bulk counterparts (Bouhadi et al., 2025).

Standard ecotoxicity testing protocols may not capture nano-specific effects such as particle-cell interactions, intracellular uptake mechanisms, and subcellular localization that influence toxicity profiles. Current regulatory approval processes rely on short-term studies spanning weeks to months rather than the long-term assessments (years to decades) necessary to evaluate environmental persistence and chronic exposure effects (Yang et al., 2025).

7.1.2 International regulatory inconsistencies

The European Union has implemented the most comprehensive regulatory approach through the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation, which requires the submission of nano-specific data for nanomaterials. However, implementation remains inconsistent across member states, and enforcement mechanisms require strengthening (Gupta et al., 2023).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues developing nano-specific guidance documents, but implementation remains inconsistent across different agricultural applications and regulatory pathways. Developing countries face significant challenges in building regulatory capacity for nanotechnology oversight, which can create international trade implications, including the lack of harmonized standards creating trade barriers, regulatory shopping where manufacturers seek the least restrictive jurisdictions, and insufficient coordination on global risk assessment approaches (Yang et al., 2025).

7.1.3 Critical regulatory development needs

Priority regulatory developments include nano-specific risk assessment protocols that account for size, surface area, reactivity, and environmental fate characteristics unique to nanomaterials. Standardized characterization requirements should mandate comprehensive physical-chemical characterization, including particle size distribution, surface area, surface charge, and coating composition for all nano-enabled agricultural products (Mittal et al., 2020).

Long-term environmental monitoring requirements should establish post-market surveillance systems for tracking environmental concentrations, ecosystem effects, and bioaccumulation patterns over extended periods. Lifecycle assessment integration should consider environmental impacts across production, use, and disposal phases of nanomaterial lifecycles (Yang et al., 2025).

7.2 Risk mitigation strategies and sustainable implementation

7.2.1 Design-based risk reduction approaches

Biodegradable nanoparticle development focuses on creating environmentally degradable formulations that maintain agricultural efficacy while reducing persistence concerns. Targeted delivery systems enable precision application strategies that minimize environmental exposure while maximizing agricultural benefits.

Surface modification techniques can reduce toxicity while maintaining efficacy through coatings that control release rates, reduce bioavailability, or enhance biodegradation. Temporal application strategies involve timing applications to minimize ecological impact during sensitive periods such as pollinator activity, spawning seasons, or critical growth phases (Suresh Kumar et al., 2025).

7.2.2 Environmental monitoring and adaptive management

Environmental monitoring frameworks should include baseline assessment protocols for characterizing pre-application environmental conditions, real-time monitoring systems for continuous assessment of soil and water quality, and biological indicator programs using sensitive species as early warning systems.

Adaptive management protocols should establish clear criteria for modifying application practices based on monitoring results, stakeholder engagement processes for incorporating community concerns and scientific findings, and regular review cycles for updating risk assessments based on new scientific evidence (Meng et al., 2025).

7.3 Recommendations for responsible development

7.3.1 Integrated risk-benefit framework

The implementation of the precautionary principle necessitates adopting conservative measures until comprehensive safety data is available. Concurrently, stakeholder engagement ensures the involvement of farmers, environmental groups, consumers, and regulatory agencies in the decision-making process. This can be achieved by transparent communication, which involves openly sharing research findings, risk assessments, and acknowledgments of uncertainty with all parties involved (Zaman et al., 2025).

7.3.2 Research priority identification

Critical research needs include long-term field studies spanning multiple years and diverse environmental conditions, mechanistic toxicity studies elucidating cellular and molecular mechanisms of nanoparticle effects, and ecosystem-level studies examining community and population-level responses to chronic exposure (Meng et al., 2025).

Standardized testing protocol development should establish harmonized methods for nanoparticle characterization, environmental fate assessment, and ecological risk evaluation. International cooperation initiatives should promote shared research programs, harmonized regulatory standards, and technology transfer to developing countries (Das and Ingti, 2025).

7.4 Long-term environmental sustainability assessment

7.4.1 Ecosystem-level impact evaluation

Chronic exposure to nanoparticles could induce changes at the ecosystem level. These changes may include a reduction in biodiversity due to the preferential toxicity of nanoparticles to sensitive species, shifts in functional groups that affect decomposer and nutrient cycling communities, and the development of resistance in exposed organisms. Consequently, these alterations have the potential to disrupt essential ecosystem services, such as pollination, biological pest control, and nutrient cycling, which are critical for maintaining sustainable agricultural systems (Vita et al., 2023).

7.4.2 Cumulative and interactive effects assessment

Nanoparticles interact synergistically with other environmental stressors, including climate change, where changes in temperature and moisture affect nanoparticle behavior and toxicity profiles. Chemical pollution interactions may result in additive or synergistic effects when nanoparticles combine with pesticides, heavy metals, or other contaminants.

Habitat fragmentation reduces ecosystem resilience to nanoparticle stress, while agricultural intensification creates multiple stressor scenarios where nanoparticles interact with conventional agricultural inputs (Meng et al., 2025).

8 Conclusion and future perspectives

Nanotechnology presents a promising tool for advancing sustainable agriculture. It enhances plant tolerance to abiotic stresses, such as salinity and drought, improves nutrient uptake efficiency, and bolsters natural defense mechanisms. Furthermore, nanobiosensors enable the early detection of environmental stressors, while green synthesis methods offer an environmentally friendly production pathway for nanoparticles. However, a thorough understanding of nanoparticle interactions with plant systems and the environment, particularly those involving complex biological processes, remains essential.

A comparison with traditional approaches reveals significant advantages for nanotechnology in terms of efficiency, precision, and a reduced environmental footprint. Nevertheless, major challenges such as high production costs, safety concerns, and regulatory gaps must be addressed for its successful implementation. Evidence suggests that relying on any single approach is insufficient to meet modern agricultural demands; instead, the future lies in the intelligent integration of nanotechnology with traditional practices to develop productive and sustainable farming systems.

Realizing this potential while minimizing risks requires a responsible, research-driven strategy. This must include broad stakeholder engagement, adaptive management practices, and robust regulatory frameworks to ensure safe and equitable adoption. Environmental concerns and long-term safety issues demand urgent scientific attention and proactive policy development. Implementing comprehensive risk-assessment frameworks, establishing robust environmental monitoring programs, and fostering international cooperation will be critical to ensuring that nanotechnology benefits agriculture without compromising human or ecosystem health.

Looking ahead, research priorities should focus on developing sustainable synthesis methods, designing smart delivery systems, and elucidating the molecular mechanisms of nanoparticle-plant interactions. Integrating nanotechnology with fields such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics will provide a holistic understanding of plant responses to stress, which is essential for developing climate-resilient crops. Through this interdisciplinary, precautionary, and integrated approach, nanotechnology can significantly boost crop yields, even on marginal lands, thereby contributing to global food security while protecting environmental health.

References

• 1

  Abd-AllaM. H.NafadyN. A.KhalafD. M. (2020). Protection of chickpea from Fusarium wilt using nano-silver and rhizobial inoculation. Appl. Soil Ecol.156, 103697. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103697

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  Abdel-AzizH. M. M. (2019). Effect of priming with chitosan nanoparticles on germination, seedling growth and antioxidant enzymes of broad beans. Catrina Int. J. Environ. Sci.18, 81–86. doi: 10.21608/cat.2019.28609

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AbdelkaderY.Perez-DavalosL.LeDucR.ZahediR. P.LaboutaH. I. (2023). Omics approaches for the assessment of biological responses to nanoparticles. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.200, 114992. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2023.114992

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AhmadJ.MunirM.AlqahtaniN.AlyasT.AhmadM.et al. (2025). Enhancing plant resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses through exogenously applied nanoparticles: a comprehensive review of effects and mechanism. Phyton-International J. Exp. Bot.94, 281–302. doi: 10.32604/phyton.2025.061534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AhmadP.HeP.HeP.WuY.HeY.MunirS. (2023). Nanoparticle-mediated delivery approaches in agriculture: A systematic review. Nanotechnology Rev.12, 45–63.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AhmadZ.NiyaziS.FirdoosA.WangC.ManzoorM. A.RamakrishnanM.et al. (2024). Enhancing plant resilience: Nanotech solutions for sustainable agriculture. Heliyon10, e40735. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40735

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AhmedA.HeP.HeP.WuY.HeY.MunirS. (2023). Environmental effect of agriculture-related manufactured nano-objects on soil microbial communities. Environ. Int.173, 107819. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107819

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  AlizadehM.QarachalJ. F.SheidaeeE. (2025). Understanding the ecological impacts of nanoparticles: risks, monitoring, and mitigation strategies. Nanotechnol. Environ. Eng.10, 6. doi: 10.1007/s41204-024-00403-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  Al-KhayriJ. M.RashmiR.Surya UlhasR.SudheerW. N.BanadkaA.NagellaP.et al. (2023). The role of nanoparticles in response of plants to abiotic stress at physiological, biochemical, and molecular levels. Plants12, 292. doi: 10.3390/plants12020292

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  AllooshM. T.SalehM. M.AlnaddafL. M.AlmuhammadyA. K.SalemK. F. M.Al-KhayriJ. M. (2021). “ Biosynthesis and Characterization of Microorganisms-Derived Nanomaterials,” in Nanobiotechnology: Mitigation of Abiotic Stress in Plants. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AnsariM. I.SinghAk ( Springer, Cham), 239–260. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73606-4_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  AlnaddafL. M.Al-KhayriJ. M.JainS. M. (2023). “ Introduction: Impact of nanotechnology on plant cell biology,” in Nanomaterial interactions with plant cellular mechanisms and macromolecules. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  AlnaddafL. M.AlmuhammadyA. K.SalemK. F. M.AllooshM. T.SalehM. M.Al-KhayriJ. M. (2021). “ Green Synthesis of Nanoparticles Using Different Plant Extracts and Their Characterizations,” in Nanobiotechnology: Mitigation of Abiotic Stress in Plants. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AnsariM. I.SinghA. K. ( Springer, Cham), 165–199. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73606-4_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  AlnaddafL. M.BamsaoudS. F.Al-KhayriJ. M. (2025). “ Plant nanoparticle interactions: mechanisms and dynamics,” in Plant nanotechnology fundamentals and methodologies. nanotechnology in plant sciences, vol. 1 . Eds. Al-Khayri.J. M.Anju.T. R.Jain.S. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-81896-7_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  AlvarezH. M.SilvaR. A.CesariC.ZamitA. L.PeressuttiS. R.ReicheltR.et al. (2004). Physiological and morphological responses of the soil bacterium Rhodococcus opacus strain PD630 to water stress. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.50, 75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.06.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  AtandaS. A.ShaibuR. O.AgunbiadeF. O. (2025). Nanoparticles in agriculture: balancing food security and environmental sustainability. Discov. Agric.3, 26. doi: 10.1007/s44279-025-00159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  BahwirthM. A.BamsaoudS. F.AlnaddafL. M. (2023). “ Nanomaterial impact on plant morphology, physiology and productivity,” in Nanomaterial interactions with plant cellular mechanisms and macromolecules. Eds. Al-Khayri.J. M.Alnaddaf.L. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  BouhadiM.JavedQ.JakubusM.ElkoualiM.FougrachH.AnsarA.et al. (2025). Nanoparticles for Sustainable Agriculture: Assessment of Benefits and Risks. Agronomy15, 1131. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15051131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  BurmanU.SainiM.KumarP. (2013). Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on growth and antioxidant system of chickpea seedlings. Toxicological EnvironmentalChemistry95, 605–612. doi: 10.1080/02772248.2013.803796

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CaiL.CaiL.JiaH.LiuC.WangD.SunX. (2020). Foliar exposure of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on Nicotiana benthamiana: Evidence for nanoparticles uptake, plant growth promoter and defense response elicitor against plant virus. J. Hazardous Materials393, 122415. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122415

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CaoY.TurkK.BibiN.GhafoorA.AhmedN.AzmatM.et al. (2025). Nanoparticles as catalysts of agricultural revolution: enhancing crop tolerance to abiotic stress: a review. Front. Plant Sci.15. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1510482

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  ChaturvediA.TripathiD.RanjanR. (2025). Nano-enabled biosensors in early detection of plant diseases (Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers in Nanotechnology). doi: 10.3389/fnano.2025.1545792/full

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  ChenX.ZhouB.WangQ.TaoW.LinH. (2020). Nano-biochar reduced soil erosion and nitrate loss in sloping fields on the Loess Plateau of China. CATENA187, 104346. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  ChenC.UnrineJ. M.HuY.GuoL.TsyuskoO. V.FanZ.et al. (2021). Responses of soil bacteria and fungal communities to pristine and sulfidized zinc oxide nanoparticles relative to Zn ions. J. Hazard. Mat.405, 124258. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124258

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  DasD.IngtiB. (2025). Paul, P. et al. Soil microbial dynamics in response to the impact of nanoparticles on agricultural implications. Discov. Soil2, 58. doi: 10.1007/s44378-025-00087-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  DiasM.SantosC.PintoG.SilvaA.SilvaS. (2018). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles impaired both photochemical and nonphotochemical phases of photosynthesis in wheat. Protoplasma256, 69–78. doi: 10.1007/s00709-018-1281-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  DjanaguiramanM.AnbazhaganV.DhankherO. P.PrasadP. V. V. (2024). Uptake, Translocation, Toxicity, and Impact of Nanoparticles on Plant Physiological Processes. Plants (Basel Switzerland)13, 3137. doi: 10.3390/plants13223137

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  EeveraT.KumaranS.DjanaguiramanM.ThirumaranT.LeQ. H.PugazhendhiA. (2023). Unleashing the potential of nanoparticles on seed treatment and enhancement for sustainable farming. Environ. Res. Nov 1;236(Pt2), 116849. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116849

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  El-SaadonyM. T.SaadA. M.SolimanS. M.SalemH. M.DesokyE. M.BabalghithA. O.et al. (2022). Role of nanoparticles in enhancing crop tolerance to abiotic stress: a comprehensive review. Front. Plant Sci.13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.946717

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  El-ShalR. M.El-NaggarA. H.El-BeshbeshyT. R.MahmoudE. K.El-KaderN. I. A.MissauiA. M.et al. (2022). Effect of nanofertilizers on alfalfa plants grown under different salt stresses in hydroponic system. Agriculture12, 1113. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12081113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (Rome: FAO).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  FoudaH. M.SaiedE.AbdelmoutyE. S.OsmanM. S. (2024). Ameliorative role of copper nanoparticle in alleviating salt-induced oxidative stress in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) plants. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.57, 103095. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  FracetoL. F.GrilloR.De MedeirosG. A.ScognamiglioV.ReaG.BartolucciC. (2016). Nanotechnology in Agriculture: Which Innovation Potential Does It Have? Front. Environ. Sci.4. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  FrancisD. V.AbdallaA. K.MahakhamW.SarmahA. K.AhmedZ. F. R.. (2024). Interaction of plants and metal nanoparticles: exploring its molecular mechanisms for sustainable agriculture and crop improvement. Environ. Int.190, 108859. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108859

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  FrazierT. P.BurklewC. E.ZhangB. (2014). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles affect the growth and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Funct. Integr. Genomics14, 75–83. doi: 10.1007/s10142-013-0341-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  GaoM.ChangJ.WangZ.ZhangH.WangT. (2023). Advances in transport and toxicity of nanoparticles in plants. J. Nanobiotechnology21(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12951-023-01830-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  García-FontanaC.Narváez-ReinaldoJ. J.CastilloF.González-LópezJ.LuqueI.ManzaneraM. (2016). A new physiological role for the DNA molecule as a protector against drying stress in desiccation-tolerant microorganisms. Front. Microbiol.7, 233194. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02066

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  GiraldoJ. P.WuH.NewkirkG. M.KrussS. (2019). Nanobiotechnology approaches for engineering smart plant sensors. Nat. nanotechnology14, 541–553. doi: 10.1038/s41565-019-0470-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  GowthamH.ShilpaN.SinghS. B.AiyazM.AbhilashM.NatarajK.et al. (2024). Toxicological effects of nanoparticles in plants: Mechanisms involved at morphological, physiological, biochemical and molecular levels. Plant Physiol. Biochem.210, 108604. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108604

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  GoyalV.MehrotraS. (2025). “ Nanobiosensors in Plant Environmental Stress Management: Methods and Current Achievements,” in Nanobiosensors for Crop Monitoring and Precision Agriculture. Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa. Ed. ChenJ. T. ( Springer, Singapore). doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-8335-2_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  Grand View Research (2020). Nano Fertilizers Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report (San Francisco: Grand View Research).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  GuhaT.RavikumarK.MukherjeeA.MukherjeeA.KunduR. (2018). Nanopriming with zero valent iron (nZVI) enhances germination and growth in aromatic rice cultivar (Oryza sativa cv. Gobindabhog L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem.127, 403–413. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.04.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  GuoH.LiuY.ChenJ.ZhuY.ZhangZ. (2022). The Effects of Several Metal Nanoparticles on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth: A Meta-Analysis. Coatings12, 183. doi: 10.3390/coatings12020183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  GuptaA.RayeenF.MishraR.TripathiM.PathakN. (2023). Nanotechnology applications in sustainable agriculture: An emerging eco-friendly approach. Plant Nano Biol.4, 100033. doi: 10.1016/j.plana.2023.100033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  GuptaN. (2021). “ 2 Nanotechnology in agrifood sector: Ethical, regulatory, and governance landscape in EU,” in Ethics in Nanotechnology: Social Sciences and Philosophical Aspects. Eds. VoordeM. V. deJeswaniG. ( De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston), 25–58. doi: 10.1515/9783110719932-002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  HaqS. U.KhanA.AliM.KhattakA.GaiW.ZhangH. X.et al. (2019). Heat Shock Proteins: DynamicBiomolecules to Counter Plant Biotic and Abiotic Stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci.20, 5321. doi: 10.3390/ijms20215321

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  HassanpouraghdamM. B.Vojodi MehrabaniL.BonabianZ.AazamiM. A.RasouliF.FeldoM.et al. (2021). Foliar Application of Cerium Oxide-Salicylic Acid Nanoparticles (CeO₂:SA Nanoparticles) Influences the Growth and Physiological Responses of Portulaca oleracea L. Under Salinity. Int. J. Mol. Sci.23, 5093. doi: 10.3390/ijms23095093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  HeikalY. M.El-EsawiM. A.El-BallatE. M.Abdel-AzizH. M. (2023). Applications of nanoparticles for mitigating salinity and drought stress in plants: An overview on the physiological, biochemical and molecular genetic aspects. New Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci.51, 297–327. doi: 10.1080/01140671.2021.2016870

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  HossainA.SkalickyM.BresticM.MaitraS.AlamM. A.SyedM.et al. (2021). Consequences and mitigation strategies of abiotic stresses in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under the changing climate. Agronomy11, 241. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11020241

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  HuJ.JiaW.WuX.ZhangH.WangY.LiuJ.et al. (2022). Carbon dots can strongly promote photosynthesis in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), Environ. Sci.: Nano9, 1530–1540. doi: 10.1039/D1EN00948F

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  HuangH.ZhaoW.QinN.DuanX. (2024). Recent Progress on Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Model: A Review Based on Bibliometrics. Toxics12, 433. doi: 10.3390/toxics12060433

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  HussainA.AliS.RizwanM.Rehman.M.QayyumM.WangH.et al. (2019). Responses of wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants grown in a Cd contaminated soil to the application of iron oxide nanoparticles. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.173, 156–164. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.01.118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  IshtiaqM.MazharM. W.MaqboolM.HussainT.HussainS. A.CasiniR. M. A.et al. (2022). Seed Priming with the Selenium Nanoparticles Maintains the Redox Status in the Water Stressed Tomato Plants by Modulating the Antioxidant Defense Enzymes. Plants12, 1556. doi: 10.3390/plants12071556

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  IsiborP. O.OyegbadeS. A.OniJ. G.AhmedW. W.AbiodunE. O.OyewoleO. A. (2024). “ Nanoparticles in Food Chains: Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer,” in Environmental Nanotoxicology. Eds. IsiborP. O.DeviG.EnunekuA. A. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-54154-4_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  JanH.ShahM.AndleebA.FaisalS.KhattakA.RizwanM.et al. (2021). Plant-Based Synthesis of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) Using Aqueous Leaf Extract of Aquilegiapubiflora: Their Antiproliferative Activity against HepG2 Cells Inducing Reactive Oxygen Species and Other In Vitro Properties. OxidativeMed. Cell. Longev.2021, 4786227. doi: 10.1155/2021/4786227

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  JoshiS.JoshiR. (2024). Comparative transcriptome profiling unveils the role of differentially charged gold nanoparticle in growth,metabolic regulation and defence response of micro-propagated Nardostachys jatamansi wall.exDC. South Afr. J. Bot.167, 585–596. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2024.02.052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  JoshiA.KaurS.DharamvirK.NayyarH.VermaG. (2018). Multi-walled carbon nanotubes applied through seed-priming influence early germination, root hair, growth and yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Sci. Food Agric.98, 3148–3160. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8818

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  JośkoI.KusiakM.OleszczukP.ŚwiecaM.KończakM.SikoraM.. (2021). Transcriptional and biochemical response of barley to co-exposure of metal-based nanoparticles. Sci. Total Environ.782, 146883. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146883

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  Juárez-MaldonadoA. (2023). “ Influence of Nanomaterials on Non-enzymatic Antioxidant Defense Activities in Plants,” in Nanomaterial Interactions with Plant Cellular Mechanisms and Macromolecules and Agricultural Implications. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  KangM.LiuY.WengY.WangH.BaiX. (2024). A critical review on the toxicity regulation and ecological risks of zinc oxide nanoparticles to plants. Environ. Science: Nano11, 14–35. doi: 10.1039/D3EN00630A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  KhanI.AwanS. A.RazaM.RizwanM.TariqR.AliS.et al. (2020). Silver nanoparticles improved the plant growth and reduced the sodium and chlorine accumulation in pearl millet: A life cycle study. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.28, 13712–13724. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11612-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  KhanY.SadiaH.Ali ShahS. Z.KhanM. N.ShahA. A.UllahN.et al. (2022). Classification, synthetic, and characterization approaches to nanoparticles, and their applications in various fields of nanotechnology: a review. Catalysts12 (11), 1386. doi: 10.3390/catal12111386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  KhanM. N.FuC.LiJ.TaoY.LiY.HuJ.et al. (2023). Seed nanopriming: How do nanomaterials improve seed tolerance to salinity and drought? Chemosphere310, 136911. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136911

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  KhanM.NaqviA.AhmadM. (2015). Comparative study of the cytotoxic and genotoxic potentials of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Toxicol. Rep.2, 765–774. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.02.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KhannaK.KohliS. K.HandaN.KaurH.OhriP.BhardwajR.et al. (2021). Enthralling the impact of engineered nanoparticles on soil microbiome: A concentric approach towards environmental risks and cogitation. Ecotoxicology Environ. Saf.222, 112459. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112459

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KhortA.Brookman-AmissahM.HedbergJ.ChangT.MeiN.LundbergA.et al. (2021). Influence of natural organic matter on the transformation of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles and their ecotoxic potency in vitro. NanoImpact25, 100386. doi: 10.1016/j.impact.2022.100386

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  KirtiS.ManjaiahK. M.DattaS. C.BiswasD. R.ArtiB.BandyopadhyayK. K.et al. (2021). Mitigating nitrous oxide emission using nanoclay-polymer composites in rice-wheat cropping system. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.67, 459–473. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2020.1735629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  KumarN.KumarP.DubeyR. C. (2025). Nanomaterials in soil science for agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. Discov. Environ.3, 27. doi: 10.1007/s44274-025-00210-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  KumarS.NehraM.DilbaghiN.MarrazzaG.HassanA. A.KimK. H. (2019). Nano-based smart pesticide formulations: Emerging opportunities for agriculture. J. Controlled release294, 131–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.12.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LalaS. (2021). Nanoparticles as elicitors and harvesters of economically important secondary metabolites in higher plants: A review. IET Nanobiotechnol15, 28–57. doi: 10.1049/nbt2.12005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LeBlancJ. C.GonçalvesE. R.MohnW. W. (2008). Global response to desiccation stress in the soil actinomycete Rhodococcus jostii RHA1. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.74, 2627–2636. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02711-07

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LiM.AhammedG. J.LiC.BaoX.YuJ.HuangC.et al. (2016). Brassinosteroid ameliorates zinc oxide nanoparticlesinduced oxidative stress by improving antioxidant potential and redox homeostasis in tomato seedling. Front. Plant Sci.7, 615. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00615

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LiS.AoC.WuM.ZhangP.PanB.XingB. (2025). Geochemical behavior of engineered nanoparticles under biotic and abiotic processes. Soil Environ. Health3, 100145. doi: 10.1016/j.seh.2025.100145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LiJ.NaeemM. S.WangX.LiuL.ChenC.MaN.et al. (2015). Nano-TiO₂ Is Not Phytotoxic as revealed by the oilseed rape growth and photosynthetic apparatus ultra-structural response. PloS One10, e0143885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143885

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  LinD.XingB. (2008). Root uptake and phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol.42, 5580–5585. doi: 10.1021/es800422x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LiuR.LalR. (2015). Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci. Total Environ.514, 131–139. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.104

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  MaX.WangQ.RossiL.ZhangW. (2015). Cerium oxide nanoparticles and bulk cerium oxide leading to different physiological and biochemical responses in Brassica rapa. Environ. Sci. Technol.50, 6793–6802. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  MacDonaldM. T.MohanV. R. (2025). Chemical Seed Priming: Molecules and Mechanisms for Enhancing Plant Germination, Growth, and Stress Tolerance. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol.47, 177. doi: 10.3390/cimb47030177

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  MahakhamW.SarmahA. K.MaensiriS.TheerakulpisutP. (2017). Nanopriming technology for enhancing germination and starch metabolism of aged rice seeds using phytosynthesized silver nanoparticles. Sci. Rep.7, 8263. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08669-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  MahmoudL. M.ShalanA. M.El-BorayM. S.VincentC. I.El-KadyM. E.GrosserJ. W.et al. (2022). Application of silicon nanoparticles enhances oxidative stress tolerance in salt stressed ’Valencia’sweet orange plants. Scientia Hortic.295, 110856. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MalikA.AlshehriM. A.AlameryS.KhanJ. (2021). Impact of metal nanoparticles on the structure and function of metabolic enzymes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.188, 576–585. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.08.073

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MartínezC.ÁlvarezM. E.RodríguezR.TorresR. (2023). Nano-encapsulated Trichoderma improves grapevine resistance against pathogens. Front. Microbiol.14. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1125634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MazharM. W.IshtiaqM.HussainI.ParveenA.BhattiK. H.AzeemM.et al. (2022a). Seed nano-priming with Zinc Oxide nanoparticles in rice mitigates drought and enhances agronomic profile. PloS One17, e0264967.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  MazharM. W.IshtiaqM.MaqboolM.AkramR. (2022b). Seed priming with Calcium oxide nanoparticles improves germination, biomass, antioxidant defence and yield traits of canola plants under drought stress. S. Afr. J. Bot.151, 889–899. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2022.11.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  MeelS.SaharanB. S. (2024). Enhancing crop resilience towards drought: by integrating nanotechnology, microbiomes, and growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Discov. Agric.2, 112. doi: 10.1007/s44279-024-00131-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  MengY.FengY.BaiX.YuQ.ZhouJ.WangJ. (2025). Application of nanotechnology in agricultural sustainability: Absorption, translocation, and challenges of nanoparticles. Curr. Plant Biol.42, 100492. doi: 10.1016/j.cpb.2025.100492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  MgadiK.NdabaB.RoopnarainA.RamaH.AdelekeR. (2024). Nanoparticle applications in agriculture: Overview and response of plant-associated microorganisms. Front. Microbiol.15. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1354440

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  MittalD.KaurG.SinghP.YadavK.AliS. A. (2020). Nanoparticle-Based Sustainable Agriculture and Food Science: Recent Advances and Future Outlook. Front. Nanotechnology2. doi: 10.3389/fnano.2020.579954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  MohammadiH.AmanighadimA. R.MatinA. A.GhorbanpourM. (2020). Fe0nanoparticlesimprovephysiologicalandantioxidative attributes of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) plants grown in soil spiked with hexavalent chromium. 3 Biotech.10, 19. doi: 10.1007/s13205-019-2002-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  MohasseliV.FarboodF.MoradiA. (2020). Antioxidant defense and metabolic responses of lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.) to Fe-nano-particles under reduced irrigation regimes. Ind. Crops Prod149, 112338. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  MukarramM.AhmadB.ChoudharyS.KonôpkováA. S.KurjakD.KhanM. M.et al. (2024). Silicon nanoparticles vs trace elements toxicity: Modus operandi and its omics bases. Front. Plant Sci.15. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1377964

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  MukherjeeA.TanwarA.MoulickR. G.BhattacharyaJ. (2024). “ Nano Sensors for Studying Biochemical Pathways in Plants,” in Innovative Methods in Horticultural Crop Improvement. Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies, vol. 2 . Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M.PennaS. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-61095-0_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MukhtiarA.ZiaM. A.ALawadiH. F.NaqveM.SeleimanM. F.MahmoodA.et al. (2024). Role of iron oxide nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.) to enhance salinity stress tolerance. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca52, 13695. doi: 10.15835/nbha52313695

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MuraliM.GowthamH. G.ShilpaN.SinghS. B.AiyazM.SayyedR. Z.et al. (2023). Zinc oxide nanoparticles prepared through microbial mediated synthesis for therapeutic applications: A possible alternative for plants. Front. Microbiol.14. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1227951

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  MuraliM.GowthamH.SinghS. B.ShilpaN.AiyazM.AlomaryM. N.et al. (2022). Fate, bioaccumulation and toxicity of engineered nanomaterials in plants: Current challenges and future prospects. Sci. Total Environ.811, 152249. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152249

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  MuraliM.KalegowdaN.GowthamH. G.AnsariM. A.AlomaryM. N.AlghamdiS.et al. (2021). Plant-Mediated Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Advances in the New Millennium towards Understanding Their Therapeutic Role in Biomedical Applications. Pharmaceutics13, 1662. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13101662

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  NaiduS.PandeyJ.MishraL. C.ChakrabortyA.RoyA.SinghI. K.et al. (2023). Silicon nanoparticles: Synthesis, uptake and their role in mitigation of biotic stress. Ecotoxicology Environ. Saf.255, 114783. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114783

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  NairP. M. G.ChungI. M. (2015). Physiological and molecular level studies on the toxicity of silver nanoparticles in germinating seedlings of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Acta Physiol. Plant37, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11738-014-1719-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  NairP.ChungI. (2017). Regulation of morphological, molecular and nutrient status in Arabidopsisthaliana seedlings in response to ZnO nanoparticles and Zn ion exposure. Sci. Total Environ.575, 187–198. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  NairR. S.IyerS.AthiraJ.MadhavanA. A.. (2020). 12 Phytonanotechnology for sustainable agriculture. Nanotechnol. Adv. Real-Life Appl.193. doi: 10.1201/9781003082859-12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  NandehaN.TrivediA.DangeM. M.SinghN.SenapatiS. K. (2025). Nanotechnology Applications in Advanced Horticulture: A Comprehensive Review. J. Sci. Res. Rep.31, 918–928. doi: 10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i73310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  Narváez-ReinaldoJ. J.BarbaI.González-LópezJ.TunnacliffeA.ManzaneraM. (2010). Rapid method for isolation of desiccation-tolerant strains and xeroprotectants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.76, 5254–5262. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00855-10

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  NasrallahA. K.KhederA. A.KordM. A.FouadA. S.El-MogyM. M.AtiaM. A. (2022). Mitigation of salinity stress effects on broad bean productivity using calcium phosphate nanoparticles application. Horticulturae8, 75. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8010075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  NawazA.UsmanM.WakeelA.ShahidM. S.AlamS.SanaullahM.et al. (2023). Nanobiotechnology in crop stress management: An overview of novel applications. Discover Nano18, 74. doi: 10.1186/s11671-023-03845-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  NguyenT. H.BuiL. T.TranQ. M.VoN. D. (2023). Drought-tolerant nanobiofertilizers improve sorghum growth and stress response. Plant Soil484, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11104-023-05861-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  Owusu AdjeiM.ZhouX.MaoM.XueY.LiuJ.HuH.et al. (2021). Magnesium oxide nanoparticle effect on the growth, development, and micro RNAs expression of Ananas comosusvar. bracteatus. J. Plant Interact.16, 247–257. doi: 10.1080/17429145.2021.1931720

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  PalmqvistN. M.SeisenbaevaG. A.SvedlindhP.KesslerV. G. (2017). Maghemite nanoparticles acts as nanozymes, improving growth and abiotic stress tolerance in Brassica napus. Nanoscale Res. Lett.12, 631. doi: 10.1186/s11671-017-2404-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  PaludA.SalemK.CavinJ. F.BeneyL.LicandroH. (2020). Identification and transcriptional profile of Lactobacillus paracasei genes involved in the response to desiccation and rehydration. Food Microbiol.85, 103301. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2019.103301

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  PandeyK.LahianiM. H.HicksV. K.HudsonM. K.GreenM. J.KhodakovskayaM. (2018). Effects of carbon-based nanomaterials on seed germination, biomass accumulation and salt stress response of bioenergycrops. PloS One13, e0202274. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  PáramoL.Aguirre BecerraH.Ramírez PiñaJ. E.Cervantes ChávezJ. A.Feregrino-PérezA. A.EsquivelK. (2023). “ Impact of Nanomaterials on Chlorophyll Content in Plants,” in Nanomaterial Interactions with Plant Cellular Mechanisms and Macromolecules and Agricultural Implications. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  PatelK.Keskin ErdoganZ.SawadkarP.SharifuldenN. S. A. N.ShannonM.PatelM.et al. (2024). Oxidative stress modulating nanomaterials and their biochemical roles in nanomedicine. Nanoscale Horiz9, 1630–1682. doi: 10.1039/D4NH00171K

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Pérez-LabradaF.Hernández-HernándezH.López-PérezM. C.González-MoralesS.Benavides-MendozaA.Juárez-MaldonadoA. (2020). Nanoparticles in plants: Morphophysiological, biochemical, and molecular responses. Plant Life Under Changing Environ., 289–322. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818204-8.00016-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  PradeepM.SaxenaM.MondalD.FranklinG. (2024). Do nanoparticles delivered to roots affect plant secondary metabolism? A comprehensive analysis in float seedling cultures of Hypericum perforatum L. Chemosphere356, 141789. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141789

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  RajputV. D.MinkinaT.KumariA.Harish SinghV. K.VermaK. K.et al. (2021). Nanomaterials and plants: Current status and future perspectives. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.28, 2732–2747. doi: 10.3390/plants10061221

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  RajputV. D.KumariA.UpadhyayS. K.MinkinaT.MandzhievaS.RanjanA.et al. (2023). Can Nanomaterials Improve the Soil Microbiome and Crop Productivity? Agriculture13, 231. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13020231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  RaliyaR.NairR.ChavalmaneS.WangW. N.BiswasP. (2015). Mechanistic evaluation of translocation and physiological impact of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plant. Metallomics7, 1584–1594. doi: 10.1039/C5MT00168D

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  RaliyaR.TarafdarJ. C.BiswasP. (2016). Enhancing the mobilization of native phosphorus in the mung bean rhizosphere using ZnO nanoparticles synthesized by soil fungi. J. Agric. Food Chem.64, 3111–3118. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05224

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  RanaK.TripathiR. M.PudakeR. N. (2024). “ Advances in the Fabrication of Nanosensors for Management of Abiotic Stress in Crop Plants,” in Innovative Methods in Horticultural Crop Improvement. Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies, vol. 2 . Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M.PennaS. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-61095-0_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  RashidM.ShahG.SadiqM.AminN.AliA.OndrašekG.et al. (2023). Nanobiochar and Copper Oxide Nanoparticles Mixture Synergistically Increases Soil Nutrient Availability and Improves Wheat Production. Plants12, 1312. doi: 10.3390/plants12061312

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  RaunW. R.JohnsonG. V. (1999). Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Cereal Production. Agron. J.91, 357–363. doi: 10.2134/agronj1999.00021962009100030001x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  RazaM. A.AminJ.ValipourM.IqbalR.AslamM. U.ZulfiqarB.et al. (2024). Cu-nanoparticles enhance the sustainable growth and yield of drought-subjected wheat through physiological progress. Sci. Rep.14, 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62680-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  RazaM. A.MuhammadF.FarooqM.AslamM. U.AkhterN.ToleikienėM.et al. (2025). ZnO-nanoparticles and stage-based drought tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Effect on morpho-physiology, nutrients uptake, grain yield and quality. Sci. Rep.15, 1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-89718-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  RicoC. M.MoralesM. I.McCrearyR.Castillo-MichelH.BarriosA. C.HongJ.et al. (2013). Cerium oxide nanoparticles modify the antioxidative stress enzyme activities and macromolecule composition in rice seedlings. Environ. Sci. Technol.47, 14110–14118. doi: 10.1021/es4033887

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  RisehS.VazvaniG. M. (2024). Green synthesis of metal nanoparticles using plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and application in agriculture. Plant Nano Biol.10, 100111. doi: 10.1016/j.plana.2024.100111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  RostamiM.TalarposhtiR. M.MohammadiH.DemyanM. S. (2019). Morpho-physiological Response of Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) to Particle Size and Rates of Zinc Fertilizer. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.50, 1250–1257. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2019.1614602

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  SafikhanS.ChaichiM.KhoshbakhtK.AminiA.MotesharezadehB. (2018). Application of nanomaterial graphene oxide on biochemical traits of Milk thistle (Silybum marianum L. ) under salinity stress. Aust. J. Crop Sci.12, 931–936. doi: 10.21475/ajcs.18.12.06.PNE972

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  SalehM. M.AlnaddafL. M.AlmuhammadyA. K.Salem, Khaled.F. M.AllooshM. T.Al-KhayriJ. M. (2021). “ Applications of plant-derived nanomaterials in mitigation of crop abiotic stress,” in Nanobiotechnology: mitigation of abiotic stress in plants. Eds. Al-Khayri.J. M.Ansari.M. I.SinghA. K. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73606-4_9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  SalemK. F. M.AllooshT. M.SalehM. M.AlnaddafL. M.AlmuhammadyA. K.Al-KhayriJ. M. (2021). “ Utilization of nanofertilizers in crop tolerance to abiotic stress,” in Nanobiotechnology: Mitigation of Abiotic Stress in Plants. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AnsariM. I.SinghA. K. ( Springer, Cham), 261–289. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73606-4_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  SangourM. H.AliI. M.AtwanZ. W.Al AliA.A.A.L.A. (2021). Effect of Ag nanoparticles on viability of MCF-7 and Vero cell lines and gene expression of apoptotic genes. Egypt. J. Med. Hum. Genet.22, 9. doi: 10.1186/s43042-020-00120-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  SantanaI.JeonS.KimH.-I.IslamM. R.CastilloC.GarciaG.et al. (2022). Targeted Carbon Nanostructures for Chemical and Gene Delivery to Plant Chloroplasts. ACS Nano16, 12156–12173. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c02714

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  SarabandiM.ZargarM.GhorbaniA.ChenM. (2025). Smart and sustainable nano-biosensing technologies for advancing stress detection and management in agriculture and beyond. Ind. Crops Products226, 120713. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.120713

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  SaurabhK.Kanchikeri MathM.DattaS. C.ThekkumpurathA. S.KumarR. (2019). Nanoclay polymer composites loaded with urea and nitrification inhibitors for controlling nitrification in soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.65, 478–491. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2018.1507023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  SchwabF.ZhaiG.KernM.TurnerA.SchnoorJ. L.WiesnerM. R. (2016). Barriers, pathways and processes for uptake, translocation and accumulation of nanomaterials in plants–Critical review. Nanotoxicology10, 257–278. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2015.1048326

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  SelvakesavanR. K.KruszkaD.ShakyaP.MondalD.FranklinG. (2023). “ Impact of Nanomaterials on Plant Secondary Metabolism,” in Nanomaterial Interactions with Plant Cellular Mechanisms and Macromolecules and Agricultural Implications. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_6https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  SemidaW. M.AbdelkhalikA.MohamedG. F.Abd El-MageedT. A.Abd El-MageedS. A.RadyM. M.et al. (2021). Foliar Application of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Promotes Drought Stress Tolerance in Eggplant (Solanum melongena.). Plants10, 421. doi: 10.3390/plants10020421

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  ShabbirA.KhanM. M. A.AhmadB.SadiqY.JaleelH.UddinM. (2019). Efficacy of TiO2 nanoparticles in enhancing the photosynthesis, essential oil and khusimol biosynthesis in Vetiveria zizanioides L. Nash. Photosynth.57, 599–606. doi: 10.32615/ps.2019.071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  ShahT.LatifS.SaeedF.AliI.UllahS.AlsahliA. A.et al. (2021). Seed priming with titanium dioxide nanoparticles enhances seed vigor, leaf water status, and antioxidant enzyme activities in maize (Zea mays L. ) under salinity stress. J. King Saud Univ.-Sci33, 101207. doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2020.10.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  ShangY.HasanM. K.AhammedG. J.LiM.YinH.ZhouJ. (2019). Applications of Nanotechnology in Plant Growth and Crop Protection: A Review. Molecules24, 2558. doi: 10.3390/molecules24142558

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  SharmaS.MuddassirM.MuthusamyS.VaishnavP. K.SinghM.SharmaD.et al. (2020). A non-classical route of efficient plant uptake verified with fluorescent nanoparticles and root adhesion forces investigated using AFM. Sci. Rep.10 (1), 19233. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75685-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  SharmaG.SharmaS.KumarA.Al-MuhtasebA. H.NaushadM.GhfarA. A.et al. (2018). Guar gum and its composites as potential materials for diverse applications: A review. Carbohydrate polymers199, 534–545. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.07.053

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  SheikhZ. N.RainaS.BhatU. H.SharmaN.SaffeullahP.MohammadF.et al. (2024). Deciphering the potential role of nano-based biosensors in growth, development and stress management of crop plants. South Afr. J. Bot.167, 542–553. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2024.02.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  ShelarA.SinghA. V.ChaureN.JagtapP.ChaudhariP.ShindeM.et al. (2024). Nanoprimers in sustainable seed treatment: Molecular insights into abiotic-biotic stress tolerance mechanisms for enhancing germination and improved crop productivity. Sci. Total Environ.951, 175118. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  ShiR.LiuW.LianY.WangX.MenS.ZebA.et al. (2024). Toxicity Mechanisms of Nanoplastics on Crop Growth, Interference of Phyllosphere Microbes, and Evidence for Foliar Penetration and Translocation. Environ. Sci. Technol.58, 1010–1021. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c03649

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  ShindeN. A.KawarP. G.DalviS. G. (2024). Chitosan-based nanoconjugates: A promising solution for enhancing crops drought-stress resilience and sustainable yield in the face of climate change. Plant Nano Biol.7, 100059. doi: 10.1016/j.plana.2024.100059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  ShoukatA.MaryamU.PitannB.ZafarM. M.NawazA.HassanW.et al. (2025). Efficacy of nano and conventional zinc and silicon fertilizers for nutrient use efficiency and yield benefits in maize under saline field conditions. Plants14, 5. doi: 10.3390/plants14050673

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  SiddiqiK. S.HusenA. (2021). Plant response to engineered metal oxide nanoparticles: An overview. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.40, 688–705. doi: 10.1186/s11671-017-1861-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  SiddiquiM. H.Al-WhaibiM. H.FaisalM.Al SahliA. A. (2021). Silver nanoparticles enhance rhizobial symbiosis and improve growth and yield of soybean. Front. Plant Sci.12. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.659363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  SidhuA. K.SharmaM.Bhickchand AgrawalS.Pradip BhavsarP.Kumar SamotaM. (2024). Nanomaterial strategies for enhancing plant resilience in the face of temperature stress. CABI Agric. Biosci.5, 60. doi: 10.1186/s43170-024-00255-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  SillenW. M.ThijsS.AbbamondiG. R.JanssenJ.WeyensN.WhiteJ. C.et al. (2015). Effects of silver nanoparticles on soil microorganisms and maize biomass are linked in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem.91, 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.08.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  SoliemanzadehA.FekriM. (2021). Effects of green iron nanoparticles on iron changes and phytoavailability in a calcareous soil. Pedosphere31, 761–770. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(21)60035-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  SoniS.JhaA. B.DubeyR. S.SharmaP. (2024). Mitigating cadmium accumulation and toxicity in plants: The promising role of nanoparticles. Sci. Total Environ.912, 168826. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168826

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  SonkarS.SarangiP. K.PandeyB.PrakashA.SinghA. K. (2023). “ Response of Plant Photosynthesis to Nanomaterials,” in Nanomaterial Interactions with Plant Cellular Mechanisms and Macromolecules and Agricultural Implications. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  SperanzaA.CrinelliR.ScocciantiV.TaddeiA. R.IacobucciM.BhattacharyaP.et al. (2013). In vitro toxicity of silver nanoparticles to kiwi fruit pollen exhibits peculiar traits beyond the cause of silver ion release. Environ. pollut.179, 258–267. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  StewartW. M.DibbD. W.JohnstonA. E.SmythT. J. (2004). The Contribution of Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to Food Production. Agron. J.97, 1–6. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005.0001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  SubramanianK. S.ManikandanA.ThirunavukkarasuM.RahaleC. S. (2015). “ Nano-fertilizers for Balanced Crop Nutrition,” in Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture. Eds. RaiM.RibeiroC.MattosoL.DuranN. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14024-7_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  SundararajanN.HabeebsheriffH. S.DhanabalanK.CongV. H.WongL. S.RajamaniR.et al. (2023). Mitigating global challenges: harnessing green synthesized nanomaterials for sustainable crop production systems. Glob Chall8, 2300187. doi: 10.1002/gch2.202300187

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Suresh KumarB. T.SivakumarK.RoshanK. (2025). Role of Nanotechnology in Enhancing Crop Growth and Sustainability: A Review. Asian J. Curr. Res.10, 193–201. doi: 10.56557/ajocr/2025/v10i19153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  TangW.ZhangX.HongH.ChenJ.ZhaoQ.WuF. (2024). Computational nanotoxicology models for environmental risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials. Nanomaterials14, 155. Available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/14/2/155 (Accessed September 29, 2025).

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  TasnimA.RoyA.AkashS. R.AliH.HabibM. R.BarasarathiJ.et al. (2024). Hibiscus sabdariffa L. Petal Biomass: A Green Source of Nanoparticles of Multifarious Potential. Open Agric.9, 20220332. doi: 10.1515/opag-2022-0332

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  ThakurN.YadavA. N. (2025). Nanotechnology in Agriculture: A Review on Precision Farming and Sustainable Crop Production. BioNanoSci15, 243. doi: 10.1007/s12668-025-01861-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  ThiruvengadamM.ChiH.ChoiH.JungB.LeeS.ParkY.et al. (2025). Sustainable and smart nano-biosensors: Integrated solutions for healthcare, environmental monitoring, agriculture, and food safety. Ind. Crops Products233, 121337. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  ThiruvengadamM.ChiH. Y.KimS. (2024). Impact of nanopollution on plant growth, photosynthesis, toxicity, and metabolism in the agricultural sector: An updated review. Plant Physiol. Biochem.207, 108370. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108370

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  TorresR.JiménezA.de la FuenteJ.Pérez-de-LuqueA. (2022). Graphene oxide– bacteria composites enhance nutrient uptake in hydroponic systems. Environ. Science: Nano9, 1123–1135. doi: 10.1039/D1EN00800E

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  TortellaG.RubilarO.PierettiJ. C.FincheiraP.A.M.SeabraA. B. (2023). Nanoparticles as a promising strategy to mitigate biotic stress in agriculture. Antibiotics12, 338. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12020338

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  TripathiD. K.BarthwalA. S.SatiS. C. (2021). Zinc oxide nanoparticles as micronutrient for plants: Effects and mechanisms. J. Hazardous Materials402, 123456. doi: 10.51129/ujpah-june2021-30-1(10)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  VermaS. K.KumarP.MishraA.KhareR.SinghD. (2024). Green nanotechnology: illuminating the effects of bio-based nanoparticles on plant physiology. Biotechnol. Sustain Mater1, 1. doi: 10.1186/s44316-024-00001-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  VílchezJ. I.García-FontanaC.Román-NaranjoD.González-LópezJ.ManzaneraM. (2016). Plant drought tolerance enhancement by trehalose production of desiccation-tolerant microorganisms. Front. Microbiol.7, 1577. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01577

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  VitaF.Haghmadad MilaniM.FeyziH.GhobadlooF.GohariG. (2023). Chapter 7 Recent advances in nano-enabled agriculture for improving plant performances under abiotic stress condition. In V. Fotopoulos & G. Gohari (Ed.). Engineered Nanoparticles Agriculture: From Lab. to Field. 197–246. doi: 10.1515/9781501523229-007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  Waalewijn-KoolP. L.KleinK.ForniésR. M.van GestelC. A. (2014). Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate to the soil arthropod Folsomia candida. Ecotoxicology (London England)23, 1629–1637. doi: 10.1007/s10646-014-1302-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  WangL.ChenS.ZhangZ.ZhaoL. (2023). Development of salinity-resistant nanobiofertilizers for coastal rice systems. Sci. Total Environ.857, 159372. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159372

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  WangJ.KooY.AlexanderA.YangY.WesterhofS.ZhangQ.et al. (2013). Phytostimulation of poplars and Arabidopsis exposed to silver nanoparticles and Ag+ at sublethal concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol.47, 5442–5449. doi: 10.1021/es4004334

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  WangL.SunJ.LinL.FuY.AleniusH.LindseyK.et al. (2019). Silver nanoparticles regulate Arabidopsis root growth by concentration-dependent modification of reactive oxygen species accumulation and cell division. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.190, 110072. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.110072

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  WangR.WangM.ChenK.WangS.MurL. A. J.GuoS. (2018). Exploring the roles of aquaporins in plant–microbe interactions. Cells7, 267. doi: 10.3390/cells7120267

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  WangX.XieH.WangP.YinH. (2023). Nanoparticles in Plants: Uptake, Transport and Physiological Activity in Leaf and Root. Materials16, 3097. doi: 10.3390/ma16083097

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  WeiX.JiangW.YuJ.DingL.HuJ.JiangG. (2015). Effects of SiO2 nanoparticles on phospholipid membrane integrity and fluidity. J. Hazard. Mater.287, 217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.01.063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  WeiL.LiuJ.JiangG. (2024). Nanoparticle-specific transformations dictate nanoparticle effects associated with plants and implications for nanotechnology use in agriculture. Nat. Commun.15, 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-51741-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  WuH.TitoN.GiraldoJ. (2017). Anionic Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Protect Plant Photosynthesis from Abiotic Stress by Scavenging Reactive Oxygen Species. ACS Nano11, 11283–11297. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b05723

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  XiaT.KovochichM.LiongM.MädlerL.GilbertB.ShiH.et al. (2008). Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress properties. ACS Nano2, 2121–2134. doi: 10.1021/nn800511k

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  XuX.GuoY.HaoY.CaiZ.CaoY.FangW.et al. (2023). Nano-silicon fertiliser increases the yield and quality of cherry radish. Modern Agric.1, 152–165. doi: 10.1002/moda.19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  YangZ.XiaoY.JiaoT.ZhangY.ChenJ.GaoY. (2020). Effects of copper oxide nanoparticles on the growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings and the relevant physiological responses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17, 1260. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041260

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  YangY.YeC.ZhaoM.LiJ.ZhangX.YangZ.et al. (2025). Nanoparticles in sustainable agriculture: Enhancing nutrient use efficiency and abiotic stress resilience under climate change. Plant Stress17, 100982. doi: 10.1016/j.stress.2025.100982

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  YaoY.YueL.CaoX.ChenF.LiJ.ChengB.et al. (2023). Carbon dots embedded in nanoporous SiO2 nanoparticles for enhancing photosynthesis in agricultural crops, ACS Appl. Nano Mater6, 110–118. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.2c03843

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  YasmeenF. (2023). “ Role of Nanomaterials in Improving Crop Tolerance to Abiotic Stress,” in Nanomaterial Interactions with Plant Cellular Mechanisms and Macromolecules and Agricultural Implications. Eds. Al-KhayriJ. M.AlnaddafL. M.JainS. M. ( Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-20878-2_16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  YerburyJ. J.StewartE. M.WyattA. R.WilsonM. R. (2005). Quality control of protein folding in extracellular space. EMBO Rep.6, 1131–1136. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400586

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  YoonH.KangY.ChangY.KimJ. (2019). Effects of Zerovalent Iron Nanoparticles on Photosynthesis and Biochemical Adaptation of Soil-Grown Arabidopsis thaliana. Nanomaterials9, 1543. doi: 10.3390/nano9111543

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  YoshidaT.FujitaY.MaruyamaK.MogamiJ.TodakaD.ShinozakiK.et al. (2015). Four Arabidopsis AREB/ABF transcription factors function predominantly in gene expression downstream of SnRK2 kinases in abscisic acid signalling in response to osmotic stress. Plant Cell Environ.38, 35–49. doi: 10.1111/pce.12351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  YuH.LuoD.Yau LiS. F.QuM.LiuD.HeY.et al. (2023). Interpretable machine learning-accelerated seed treatment by nanomaterials for environmental stress alleviation. arXiv, 1–30. doi: 10.1039/D3NR02322B

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  ZamanW.AyazA.ParkS. (2025). Nanomaterials in Agriculture: A Pathway to Enhanced Plant Growth and Abiotic Stress Resistance. Plants14, 716. doi: 10.3390/plants14050716

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  ZhangY.ChenY.ZhangY.LiH.LiB.WangQ.et al. (2022). Zinc nanofertilizers enhance rice productivity and grain biofortification. Nat. Food3, 885–894. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00593-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  ZhangW.EbbsS. D.MusanteC.WhiteJ. C.GaoC.MaX. (2015). Uptake and accumulation of bulk and nanosized cerium oxide particles and ionic cerium by radish (Raphanus sativus L.). J. Agric. Food Chem.63, 382. doi: 10.1021/jf5052442

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  ZhangX.CaoH.WangH.ZhaoJ.GaoK.QiaoJ.et al. (2022). Genotype-dependent effects of nanomaterials on plant growth and stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci.13, 812345.

  • Google Scholar

• 191

  ZhangP.MaY.ZhangZ.HeX.LiY.ZhangJ.et al. (2015). Species-specific toxicity of ceria nanoparticles to Lactuca plants. Nanotoxicology9, 1–8. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2013.855829

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  ZhangT.WangQ.YukuiR. (2025). The Impact of Nanomaterials on Plant Health: A Review of Exposure, Toxicity, and Control. Environ. Science: Nano12, 2965–2982. doi: 10.1039/D5EN00037H

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  ZhaoL.SunY.Hernandez-ViezcasJ. A.HongJ.MajumdarS.NiuG.et al. (2021). Iron oxide nanoparticles as nano-biofertilizers for enhanced wheat growth and grain iron content in calcareous soils. J. Agric. Food Chem.69, 4321–4333. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c06608

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  ZhouP.ZhangP.HeM.CaoY.AdeelM.ShakoorN.et al. (2023). Stage-specific phytotoxicity of TiO₂ nanoparticles in maize seedlings. J. Nanobiotechnology21, 117. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  ZhuH.HanJ.XiaoJ. Q.JinY. (2008). Uptake, translocation and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by pumpkin plants. J. Environ. Monit.10, 713–717. doi: 10.1039/b805998e

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Zia-ur-RehmanM.MfarrejM. F. B.UsmanM.AnayatullahS.RizwanM.AlharbyH. F.et al. (2023). Effect of iron nanoparticles and conventional sources of Fe on growth, physiology and nutrient accumulation in wheat plants grown on normal and salt-affected soils. J. Hazard. Mater458, 131861. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131861

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar