A review on positive and negative impacts of nanotechnology in agriculture

  • A. Kumar
  • K. Gupta
  • S. Dixit
  • K. Mishra
  • S. SrivastavaEmail author


Nanotechnology holds huge potentials in several fields and is envisaged as a technology to lead the way toward sustainable environment-friendly development in the coming years. The basic theme of nanotechnology is to use particles having size in nanometer range for various applications in medical fields, cosmetics industry, and agriculture and food technologies. The benefits associated with nanotechnology include among others increase in yield and quality of produce in agriculture, improved cosmetic products, directed delivery of medicines and sensor applications. Advancement in the development of nanosensors has made recognition of disease causing elements, toxins and nutrients in foods, and elements in environmental samples, easier and cost effective. However, immense focus on nanotechnology in past few decades has led to its unrestricted development and consequently enormous use of nanoparticles (NPs). It is considered that NPs may pose risks to the environment and biological systems. It is also becoming evident that the size, structure and type of nanomaterials, such as graphene/graphene oxide with gold NPs, carbon and carbon nitride nanotubes, have different effects on plants and environment. Hence, long-term life cycle analyses are needed to assess impacts of NPs. This review presents a brief overview of applications of nanomaterials in agriculture and discusses its positive and negative aspects in agricultural field. The review emphasizes that future development of nanotechnology must be based on scientific evaluations of benefits and risks associated to it in long term.


Agricultural usage Growth Metal oxides Nanosensor Nanotechnology Reactive oxygen species 



The authors are thankful to Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, for the facilities. Kiran Gupta is thankful to University Grant Commission, New Delhi, India, for the award of the Postdoctoral fellowship for women. Author Sonal Dixit acknowledges DSKPDF Cell, Pune, India, and University Grant Commission, New Delhi, India, for award of D.S. Kothari Postdoctoral Fellowship (F4-2/2006 (BSR)/BL/15-16/0156).


  1. Abdel Latef AAH, Srivastava AK, El-sadek MSA, Kordrostami M, Tran LSP (2018) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles improve growth and enhance tolerance of broad bean plants under saline soil conditions. Land Degrad Dev 29(4):1065–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams J, Wright M, Wagner H, Valiente J, Britt D, Anderson A (2017) Cu from dissolution of CuO nanoparticles signals changes in root morphology. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atar N, Yola ML (2018) Core–shell nanoparticles/two-dimensional (2D) hexagonal boron nitride nanosheets with molecularly imprinted polymer for electrochemical sensing of cypermethrin. J Electrochem Soc 165(5):H255–H262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Awasthi G, Kumar A, Awasthi KK, Singh AP, Srivastva S, Vajpayee P, Mishra K, Tripathi RD (2016) Green synthesis of nanoparticles: an emerging phyotechnology. In: Singh R, Kumar S (eds) Green technologies and environmental sustainability. Springer, Berlin, pp 339–363Google Scholar
  5. Bakshi M, Singh HB, Abhilash PC (2014) The unseen impact of nanoparticles: more or less? Curr Sci 106:350–352Google Scholar
  6. Bhushan B (2007) Nanotechnology: a boon or bane? AIP Conf Proc 929:250–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen G, Ma C, Mukherjee A, Musante C, Zhang J, White JC, Dhankher OP, Xing B (2016) Tannic acid alleviates bulk and nanoparticle Nd2O3 toxicity in pumpkin: a physiological and molecular response. Nanotoxicology 10(9):1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corredor E, Testillano PS, Coronado MJ, González-Melendi P, Fernández-Pacheco R, Marquina CI et al (2009) Nanoparticle penetration and transport in living pumpkin plants: in situ subcellular identification. BMC Plant Biol 9:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duhan JS, Kumar R, Kumar N, Kaur P, Nehra K, Duhan S (2017) Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol Rep 15:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eichert T, Kurtz A, Steiner U, Goldbach HE (2008) Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water-suspended nanoparticles. Physiol Plant 134(1):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etxeberria E, Gonzalez P, Baroja-Fernandez E, Romero JP (2006) Fluid phase endocytic uptake of artificial nano-spheres and fluorescent quantum dots by sycamore cultured cells: evidence for the distribution of solutes to different intracellular compartments. Plant Signal Behav 1:196–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghosh M, Bandyopadhyay M, Mukherjee A (2010) Genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles at two trophic levels: plant and human lymphocytes. Chemosphere 81:1253–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladkovaa MM, Terekhovaa VA (2013) Engineered nanomaterials in soil: sources of entry and migration pathways. Mosc Univ Soil Sci Bull 68(3):129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Göde C, Yola ML, Yılmaz A, Atar N, Wang S (2017) A novel electrochemical sensor based on calixarene functionalized reduced graphene oxide: application to simultaneous determination of Fe(III), Cd (II) and Pb(II) ions. J Colloid Interface Sci 508:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. Environ Monit Assess 13(5):1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta VK, Yola ML, Atar N, Ustundağ Z, Solak AO (2013a) A novel sensitive Cu(II) and Cd(II) nanosensor platform: graphene oxide terminated p-aminophenyl modified glassy carbon surface. Electrochim Acta 112:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta VK, Yola ML, Qureshi MS, Solak AO, Atar N, Üstündağ Z (2013b) A novel impedimetric biosensor based on graphene oxide/gold nanoplatform for detection of DNA arrays. Sens Actuators B Chem 188:1201–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hema S, Thambiraj S, Shankaran DR (2018) Nanoformulations for targeted drug delivery to prostate cancer: an overview. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 18(8):5171–5191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillie T, Hlophe M (2007) Nanotechnology and the challenge of clean water. Nature Nanotechnol 2:663–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hong J, Peralta-Videa JR, Rico C, Sahi S, Viveros MN, Bartonjo J, Zhao L, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) Evidence of translocation and physiological impacts of foliar applied CeO2 nanoparticles on cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants. Environ Sci Technol 48(8):4376–4385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hong J, Wang L, Sun Y, Zhao L, Niu G, Tan W, Rico CM, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2016) Foliar applied nanoscale and microscale CeO2 and CuO alter cucumber (Cucumis sativus) fruit quality. Sci Total Environ 563–564:904–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jasim B, Thomas R, Mathew J, Radhakrishnan EK (2017) Plant growth and diosgenin enhancement effect of silver nanoparticles in fenugreek (Trigonellafoenum graecum L.). Saudi Pharm J 25(3):443–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang W, Mashayekhi H, Xing B (2009) Bacterial toxicity comparison between nano-and micro-scaled oxide particles. Environ Pollut 157(5):1619–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson AC, Park B (2012) Predicting contamination by the fuel additive cerium oxide engineered nanoparticles within the United Kingdom and the associated risks. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(11):2582–2587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khan I, Saeed K, Khan I (2017) Nanoparticles: properties, applications and toxicities. Arab J Chem. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khandelwal A, Joshi R (2018) Synthesis of nanoparticles and their application in agriculture. Acta Sci Agric 2(3):10–13Google Scholar
  27. Konate A, He X, Zhang Z, Ma Y, Zhang P, Alugongo GM, Rui Y (2017) Magnetic (Fe3O4) nanoparticles reduce heavy metals uptake and mitigate their toxicity in wheat seedling. Sustainability 9(5):790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koo Y, Wang J, Zhang Q, Zhu H, Chehab EW, Colvin VL et al (2015) Fluorescence reports intact quantum dot uptake into roots and translocation to leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana and subsequent ingestion by insect herbivores. Environ Sci Technol 49:626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumari M, Khan SS, Pakrashi S, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2011) Cytogenetic and genotoxic effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles on root cells of Allium cepa. J Hazard Mater 190:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larue C, Veronesi G, Flank AM, Surble S, Herlin-Boime N, Carrière M (2012) Comparative uptake and impact of TiO2 nanoparticles in wheat and rapeseed. J Toxicol Environ Health A 75:722–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Y, Niu J, Shang E, Crittenden J (2014) Photochemical transformation and photoinduced toxicity reduction of silver nanoparticles in the presence of perfluorocarboxylic acids under UV irradiation. Environ Sci Technol 48(9):4946–4953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lobo AO, Marciano FR, Regiani I, Matsushima JT, Ramos SC, Corat EJ (2011) Influence of temperature and time for direct hydroxyapatite electrodeposition on superhydrophilic vertically aligned carbon nanotube films. J Nanomed Nanotechnol 6:277Google Scholar
  33. López-Moreno ML, Avilés LL, Pérez NG, Irizarry BÁ, Perales O, Cedeno-Mattei Y, Román F (2016) Effect of cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) nanoparticles on the growth and development of Lycopersicon lycopersicum (tomato plants). Sci Tot Environ 550:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma C, Chhikara S, Xing B, Musante C, White JC, Dhankher OP (2013) Physiological and molecular response of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) to nanoparticle cerium and indium oxide exposure. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1(7):768–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ma C, Rui Y, Liu S, Li X, Xing B, Liu L (2015) Phytotoxic mechanism of nanoparticles: destruction of chloroplasts and vascular bundles and alteration of nutrient absorption. Sci Rep 5:11618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ma C, Liu H, Guo H, Musante C, Coskun SH, Nelson BC, White JC, Xing B, Dhankher OP (2016) Defense mechanisms and nutrient displacement in Arabidopsis thaliana upon exposure to CeO2 and In2O3 nanoparticles. Environ Sci Nano 3(6):1369–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maheshwari R, Singh P, Chauhan AK, Rani B (2011) Nanotechnology: a boon or bane. Int Res J Pharm 2(12):108–113Google Scholar
  38. Medetalibeyoğlu H, Manap S, Yokuş ÖA, Beytur M, Kardaş F, Akyıldırım O, Özkan V, Yüksek H, Yola ML, Atar N (2018) Fabrication of Pt/Pd nanoparticles/polyoxometalate/ionic liquid nanohybrid for electrocatalytic oxidation of methanol. J Electrochem Soc 165(5):F338–F341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medina-Velo IA, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2017) Assessing plant uptake and transport mechanisms of engineered nanomaterials from soil. MRS Bull 42:379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendonça MCP, Rizoli C, Ávila DS, Amorim MJB, de Jesus MB (2017) Nanomaterials in the environment: perspectives on in vivo terrestrial toxicity testing. Front Environ Sci 5:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morales-Díaz AB, Ortega-Ortíz H, Juárez-Maldonado A, Cadenas-Pliego G, González-Morales S, Benavides-Mendoza A (2017) Application of nanoelements in plant nutrition and its impact in ecosystems. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 8(1):013001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nano level. Science 311:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nel AE, Mädler L, Velegol D, Xia T, Hoek EM, Somasundaran P et al (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater 8:543–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicolodi M, Gianello C (2014) Understanding soil as an open system and fertility as an emergent property of the soil system. Sustain Agric Res 4(1):94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Onac C, Alpoguz HK, Yola ML, Kaya A (2018) Transport of melamine by a new generation of nano-material membranes containing carbon nanotubes and determination with surface plasmon resonance. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 45:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Patil A, Chirmade UN, Trivedi V, Lamprou DA, Urquart A, Douroumis D (2011) Encapsulation of water insoluble drugs in mesoporous silica nanoparticles using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Nanomed Nanotechnol 2:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pérez-de-Luque A (2017) Interaction of nanomaterials with plants: what do we need for real applications in agriculture? Front Environ Sci 5:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piccinno F, Gottschalk F, Seeger S, Nowack BJ (2012) Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. J Nanopart Res 14:1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Praveen A, Khan E, Perwez M, Sardar M, Gupta M (2018) Iron oxide nanoparticles as nano-adsorbents: a possible way to reduce arsenic phytotoxicity in indian mustard plant (Brassica juncea L.). J Plant Growth Reg 37(2):612–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Qi M, Liu Y, Li T (2013) Nano-TiO2 improve the photosynthesis of tomato leaves under mild heat stress. Biol Trace Elem Res 156(1–3):323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rehna VJ, Siddique A (2018) Risk evaluation and exposure hazards of engineered nanomaterials: a survey. Am J Eng Res 7(1):235–245Google Scholar
  53. Rico CM, Hong J, Morales MI, Zhao L, Barrios AC, Zhang JY, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2013) Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on rice: a study involving the antioxidant defense system and in vivo fluorescence imaging. Environ Sci Technol 47(11):5635–5642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roberts AG, Oparka KJ (2003) Plasmodesmata and the control of symplastic transport. Plant Cell Environ 26:103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roco MC (2003) Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14(3):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salehi H, Chehregani A, Lucini L, Majd A, Gholami M (2018) Morphological, proteomic and metabolomic insight into the effect of cerium dioxide nanoparticles to Phaseolus vulgaris L. under soil or foliar application. Sci Total Environ 616:1540–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sattelmacher B (2001) The apoplast and its significance for plant mineral nutrition. New Phytol 149:167–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwab F, Zhai G, Kern M, Turner A, Schnoor JL, Wiesner MR (2015) Barriers, pathways and processes for uptake, translocation and accumulation of nanomaterials in plants—critical review. Nanotoxicology 10:257–278Google Scholar
  59. Servin AD, Morales MI, Castillo-Michel H, Hernandez Viezcas JA, Munoz B, Zhao L, Nunez JE, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea Torresdey JL (2013) Synchrotron verification of TiO2 accumulation in cucumber fruit: a possible pathway of TiO2 nanoparticle transfer from soil into the food chain. Environ Sci Technol 47:11592–11598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shang E, Li Y, Niu J, Zhou Y, Wang T, Crittenden JC (2017) Relative importance of humic and fulvic acid on ROS generation, dissolution, and toxicity of sulfide nanoparticles. Water Res 124:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shen CX, Zhang QF, Li J, Bi FC, Yao N (2010) Induction of programmed cell death in Arabidopsis and rice by single-wall carbon nanotubes. Am J Bot 97:1602–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sonal S, Prabhakar V, Aneesh T, Sabitha M (2007) Nanomedicine: promise of the future in disease management. Internet J Nanotechnol 2(2):1–6Google Scholar
  63. Tang Y, He R, Zhao J, Nie G, Xu L, Xing B (2016) Oxidative stress-induced toxicity of CuO nanoparticles and related toxicogenomic responses in Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Pollut 212:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valavanidis A, Vlachogianni T, Fiotakis C (2009) 8-Hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHDG): a critical biomarker of oxidative stress and carcinogenesis. J Environ Sci Health Part C 27:120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venkatachalam P, Priyanka N, Manikandan K, Ganeshbabu I, Indiraarulselvi P, Geetha NN, Muralikrishna K, Bhattacharya RC, Tiwari M, Sharma N, Sahi SV (2017) Enhanced plant growth promoting role of phycomolecules coated zinc oxide nanoparticles with P supplementation in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Physiol Biochem 110:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vinković T, Novák O, Strnad M, Goessler W, Jurašin DD, Parađiković N, Vrček IV (2017) Cytokinin response in pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.) exposed to silver nanoparticles. Environ Res 156:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang Z, Xie X, Zhao J, Liu X, Feng W, White JC et al (2012) Xylem- and phloem-based transport of CuO nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.). Environ Sci Technol 46:4434–4441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang P, Menzies NW, Dennis PG, Guo J, Forstner C, Sekine R, Lombi E, Kappen P, Bertsch PM, Kopittke PM (2016a) Silver nanoparticles entering soils via the wastewater–sludge–soil pathway pose low risk to plants but elevated Cl concentrations increase Ag bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 50(15):8274–8281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang X, Yang X, Chen S, Li Q, Wang W, Hou C, Gao X, Wang L, Wang S (2016b) Zinc oxide nanoparticles affect biomass accumulation and photosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Front Plant Sci 6:1243Google Scholar
  70. Wong MH, Misra RP, Giraldo JP, Kwak SY, Son Y, Landry MP et al (2016) Lipid exchange envelope penetration (LEEP) of nanoparticles for plant engineering: a universal localization mechanism. Nano Lett 16:1161–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yang F, Hong F, You W, Liu C, Gao F, Wu C, Yang P (2006) Influence of nano-anatase TiO2 on the nitrogen metabolism of growing spinach. Biol Trace Elem Res 110(2):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yasur J, Rani PU (2013) Environmental effects of nanosilver: impact on castor seed germination, seedling growth, and plant physiology. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(12):8636–8648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yola ML, Atar N (2014) A novel voltammetric sensor based on gold nanoparticles involved in p-aminothiophenol functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes: application to the simultaneous determination of quercetin and rutin. Electrochim Acta 119:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yola ML, Atar N (2017) A review: molecularly imprinted electrochemical sensors for determination of biomolecules/drug. Curr Anal Chem 13(1):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yola ML, Atar N (2018) Phenylethanolamine A (PEA) imprinted polymer on carbon nitride nanotubes/graphene quantum dots/core-shell nanoparticle composite for electrochemical PEA detection in urine sample. J Electrochem Soc 165(2):H1–H9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yola ML, Atar N, Üstündağ Z, Solak AO (2013) A novel voltammetric sensor based on p-aminothiophenol functionalized graphene oxide/gold nanoparticles for determining quercetin in the presence of ascorbic acid. J Electroanal Chem 698:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yola ML, Eren T, Atar N (2014) Molecularly imprinted electrochemical biosensor based on Fe@Au nanoparticles involved in 2-aminoethanethiol functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes for sensitive determination of cefexime in human plasma. Biosens Bioelectron 60:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yola ML, Eren T, Atar N (2016) A molecular imprinted voltammetric sensor based on carbon nitride nanotubes: application to determination of melamine. J Electrochem Soc 163(13):B588–B593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yuan L, Richardson CJ, Ho M, Willis CW, Colman BP, Wiesner MR (2018) Stress responses of aquatic plants to silver nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 52(5):2558–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhang P, Ma Y, Liu S, Wang G, Zhang J, He X, Zhang J, Rui Y, Zhang Z (2017) Phytotoxicity, uptake and transformation of nano-CeO2 in sand cultured romaine lettuce. Environ Pollut 220:1400–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhao L, Peralta-Videa JR, Rico CM, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Sun Y, Niu G, Servin A, Nunez JE, Duarte-Gardea M, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles change the nutritional qualities of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J Agric Food Chem 62(13):2752–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhu X, Hondroulis E, Liu W, Li CZ (2013) Biosensing approaches for rapid genotoxicity and cytotoxicity assays upon nanomaterial exposure. Small 9(9–10):1821–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhu B, Xia X, Xia N, Zhang S, Guo X (2014) Modification of fatty acids in membranes of bacteria: implication for an adaptive mechanism to the toxicity of carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci Technol 48(7):4086–4095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhu B, Xia X, Zhang S, Tang Y (2018) Attenuation of bacterial cytotoxicity of carbon nanotubes by riverine suspended solids in water. Environ Pollut 234:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIR-National Botanical Research InstituteLucknowIndia
  2. 2.Department of BotanyLucknow UniversityLucknowIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations