Advertisement

Effect of Nanoparticles on Plant Growth and Physiology and on Soil Microbes

  • Muhammad Nafees
  • Shafaqat AliEmail author
  • Muhammad Rizwan
  • Asma Aziz
  • Muhammad Adrees
  • Syed Makhdoom Hussain
  • Qasim Ali
  • Muhammad Junaid
Chapter
  • 265 Downloads
Part of the Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences book series (NALIS)

Abstract

Great use of nanotechnology for potential benefits and novel applications has been developed in biotechnology and agriculture. Fertilizers have a critical role in plant growth and metabolism, but at most concentrations, applied fertilizers are unavailable to the plants because of leaching, runoff, and degradation. Nanoparticles (NPs) encapsulate nutrients, as chemical fertilizers that are released on demand for plant growth and development. Several studies have revealed that specific (low-dose) concentrations of NPs, foliar spray/irrigation, and carbon nanotubes significantly enhanced plant growth (plant height, root length, number of leaves, fruit size and production, seed germination, fresh shoot and root biomass), physiology (chlorophyll a, b, carotenoid content, photosynthesis, carbohydrates, formation of photosynthetic pigments), oxidants, antioxidants, and developed plant tolerance against biotic and abiotic stress. There is further need to explore NP effects on the photosynthetic mechanism, their activity beneath plant roots, and an urgent need to develop target-specific, controlled release of NPs as fertilizers to decrease the loss and spread of NPs into other environmental expanses.

Keywords

Nanoparticles Carbon nanotubes Carbon NPs Plant growth Photosynthesis Soil microbes 

5.1 Introduction

The use of nanotechnology for potential benefits in agriculture is enormous and has been increasing day by day (Shapira and Youtie 2015; Resham et al. 2015; Nath 2015). Novel applications of nanotechnology have been developed in biotechnology and agriculture (Siddiqui et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2016, 2019; Shweta et al. 2017, 2018; Arif et al. 2018; Vishwakarma et al. 2018) to manage food productivity (Kumari et al. 2014). Nanoparticles (NPs) are very tiny particles, defined as the 10−9 part of 1 m (1 m−9) (Huang et al. 2015). NP efficiency relies on their surface area, size, composition, shape, and above all the effective concentration at which they work efficiently (Khodakovskaya et al. 2012; Ranjan et al. 2014; Dasgupta et al. 2016; Jain et al. 2016; Maddineni et al. 2015). Nanotechnology provides a very large variety of techniques and devices to formulate NPs, detect biotic and abiotic stress in plants, and provide genetic manipulation that allows more precise plant breeding (Perez-de-Luque and Hermosin 2013; Fraceto et al. 2016). Fertilizers are very important in the growth, development, and metabolism of plants (Giraldo et al. 2014), but at most concentrations applied fertilizers are not available to plants because of leaching, runoff, and degradation. Thus, it is very important to control or minimize chemical fertilizer loss. With their unique properties, NPs encapsulate nutrients, which, released as required, control the discharge of chemical fertilizers for plant growth (Derosa et al. 2010; Nair et al. 2010; Shweta et al. 2018). Several studies have shown that particular low doses of NPs enhance plant physiology (Zheng et al. 2005; Klaine et al. 2008). NPs can enter plant cells through the stomata of leaves and roots to transport nutrients, DNA, and chemicals (Galbraith 2007; Torney et al. 2007). Nanomaterials can break down the plasma membrane, inducing pore formation to enter into the plant cells (Wong et al. 2016) and reach the cytosol (Serag et al. 2011). These NPs enhance chlorophyll activity, water uptake, and specific microbial communities in the soil (Fig. 5.1).
Fig. 5.1

Nanoparticle spray or irrigation and the effects on plant growth and the soil microbial community

With unique physicochemical properties, NPs can enhance the biochemical processes of plants (Giraldo et al. 2014). The application of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to activate the growth and physiology of different plants has been well documented; for example, the root growth of ryegrass, onion, and cucumber was increased by CNTs (Lin and Xing 2007; Canas et al. 2008; Shweta et al. 2017). NPs have some toxic effects on plants and other living organisms, but also increase the growth, physiology, and photosynthesis of plants. This review discusses the impact of nanoparticles on plants and microbial communities.

5.2 Effect of Nanoparticles on Plants

The impact of nanoparticles on plants depends upon the plant species and the NP variety (Table 5.1) (Nair 2016; Servin and White 2016; Singh et al. 2016; Vishwakarma et al. 2018; Tripathi et al. 2017; Rastogi et al. 2019). Minerals such as nitrogen and phosphorus act as growth factors, regulating plant growth and also increasing crop productivity. Phosphorus fertilizer increases the availability of phosphorus in the soil and increases the uptake of phosphorus from the root surfaces. In phosphorus-solubilizing enzymes in which Zn is a cofactor, phosphatase and phytase enzyme activity was increased by 84–108%. ZnO NPs also enhanced root length, root volume, and the chlorophyll and protein content of the leaves in mung bean plants. ZnO NPs also maintained soil health by influencing the soil microbial community (Raliya et al. 2016).
Table 5.1

Effect of nanoparticles on plant growth/physiology/tolerance against stress

Nanoparticles

Plant

Impact on plant parts/process

References

Al2O3

Lemna minor

Increased root length, photosynthetic activity, biomass accumulation

Juhel et al. (2011)

TiO2

Triticum aestivum

Increased root length

Larue et al. (2012)

CeO2, ZnO

Zea mays

Reduced yield

Zhao et al. (2012)

CuO

Brassica napus

Increased plant growth

Rahmani et al. (2016)

FeCl3

Lepidium sativum

Sinapis alba

Sorghum saccharatum

Seed germination, seedling length, biomass

Libralato et al. (2016)

Ag NO3

Lentil seed

Seed germination/elongation of root and shoot

Hojjat and Hojjat (2016)

Fe2O3

Soybean

Increased root length, regulated the enzyme

Alidoust and Isoda (2013)

Cu, Zn

Wheat seedling

Increased RWC and stabilized photosynthetic pigments

Taran et al. (2017)

Ca3(PO4)2

Rice

Increased growth, micro-fertilizer and promoter of growth

Upadhyaya et al. (2017)

Fe3O4, TiO2

Soya bean

Enhanced plant growth, crop yield, effect on leaf carbon and phosphorus

Burke David et al. (2015)

CeO2

Soya bean

Stimulated plant growth, rubisco carboxylase activity, relative water content

Cao et al. (2017)

ZnO

Chickpea

Effect on root, accumulation of biomass in seedlings, lowered ROS, promoted antioxidant activity

Burmana et al. (2013)

Ag

Wheat

Increased shoot fresh and dry weight, enhanced salt tolerance ability of crop

Mohamed et al. (2017)

SiO2

Zea mays L., Phaseolus vulgaris L., Hyssopus officinalis L., Nigella sativa L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Taraxacum officinale F. H. Wigg

Seed germination, root and shoot length, fresh weight (except Hyssopus officinalis L.) and dry weight, photosynthetic pigments, total protein and total amino acids (except Hyssopus officinalis L.) significantly increased at 400 mg l−1; these parameters were decreased in weeds, and total carbohydrates decreased in all plants except A. retroflexus

Sharifi-Rad et al. (2016)

Ag

Wheat (Triticum astivium var. UP2338), cowpea (Vigna sinensis var. Pusa Komal), brassica (Brassica juncea var. Pusa jai Kisan), oat

Wheat was unaffected by Ag NPs, but overall growth of cowpea and Brassica plants was influenced

Pallavi et al. (2016)

TiO2

Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh,

corn, cabbage, lettuce,

oat,

Brassica napus L.

Cucumber,

fennel,

onion, tomato

Parsley (Petroselinum crispum Mill.),

red clover,

soybean,

spinach,

wheat

Enhanced germination, root elongation and seedling growth

Szymanska et al. (2016), Andersen et al. (2016), Mahmoodzadeh et al. (2013), Servin et al. (2012), Feizi et al. (2013, 2012), Haghighi and Teixeira da Silva (2014), Dehkourdi and Mosavi (2013), Gogos et al. (2016), Rezaei et al. (2015), Zheng et al. (2005), Mahmoodzadeh and Aghili (2014).

TiO2

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.),

tomato, wheat,

Flax (Linum usitatissium L.)

Enhanced tolerance against cold in chickpea, heat in tomato, drought in wheat and flax

Mohammadi et al. (2013, 2014), Qi et al. (2013), Jaberzadeh et al. (2013), Aghdam et al. (2016)

TiO2

Tomato, oilseed rape, Arabidopsis, spinach, basil (Ocimum basilicum L.)

Increased chlorophyll contents of tomato and oil seed rape, promoted activity of rubisco and net photosynthesis in Arabidopsis, spinach, tomato, and basil (Ocimum basilicum L.)

Raliya et al. (2015a), Li et al. (2015), Ze et al. (2011), Lei et al. (2008), Kiapour et al. (2015)

TiO2

Barley, corn, mung bean, snail clover, tomato, wheat

Enhanced crop yield and biomass

Moaveni and Kheiri (2011), Morteza et al. (2013), Raliya et al. (2015b), Rafique et al. (2015)

Germination of cucumber seed was enhanced by exposure to various concentrations of ZnO NPs (de la Rosa et al. 2013). ZnO NPs not only were absorbed by Vigna radiata and Cicer arietinum roots but also improved the length and biomass of the roots and shoots of these species (Mahajan et al. 2011). This NP also enhanced somatic embryogenesis by shoot regeneration, induced the synthesis of proline, and increased tolerance against stress by increasing the activity of different enzymes (Helaly et al. 2014). Gold (Au) NPs enhanced the seed germination of Brassica juncea, Boswellia ovalifoliolata, and Gloriosa superba (Arora et al. 2012; Gopinath et al. 2014). The Au NPs increased the number of leaves, leaf area, and length of the plant and its chlorophyll and carbohydrate content, which increased growth, development, and crop yield (Arora et al. 2012; Gopinath et al. 2014). The Au NPs demonstrated importance in seed germination, in antioxidants, and altered the expression of micro-RNAs that regulate morphological, physiological, and metabolic processes in plants (Kumar et al. 2013).

The effects of CeO2 were collectively found on seed germination, vegetative parts, the cotyledon, floral parts, and ripening of fruits. The rate of seed germination (97%) was high in a 10 mg/l concentration of CeO2. No negative effect on germination and no significant effect on production of chlorophyll was seen with any concentration of CeO2 NPs on tomato plants, although there was a significant difference in the growth of the vegetative parts of the tomato plant; faster growth was found at 10 mg/l CeO2 NPs. The number of floral buds was slightly higher in the control and the 10 mg/l concentration of CeO2 NPs, and 67% of buds were converted into the flower. Fruit size, production, and ripening were enhanced by increasing concentrations of CeO2 NPs; large, heavy fruits were found at 10 mg/l (Wang et al. 2012a).

Clement et al. (2013) determined the effect of TiO2 NPs on algae, rotifers, and plants. High concentrations of TiO2 NPs have antimicrobial activity and also promoted the growth of roots. The collective effect of SiO2 NPs on germination of seeds, elongation of roots and shoots, and water content of Zea mays L. was determined. SiO2 NP uptake by plants from a hydroponic environment and increased growth of seed and elongation of roots was high as compared to control. Seed germination was increased at 400 mg/l but decreased at 2000 and 4000 mg/l concentrations of SiO2 NPs. SiO2 NPs increased root length but decreased shoot length of plants at concentrations from 0 to 4000 mg/l. SiO2 NPs showed a negative correlation between NP concentration and relative water content (RWC) in plants. The RWC was decreased as the concentration of SiO2 increased from 0 to 4000 mg/l. It was observed that SiO2 NPs had a significant effect on photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids), which increased at 400–4000 mg/l NP concentration in Z. mays. High photosynthetic content was found at 400 mg/l SiO2 NPs (Rad et al. 2014).

5.2.1 Effects of NPs on Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the key mechanism that transforms light energy into chemical energy. Rubisco is an enzyme used in carbon fixation during light reactions. SiO2 NP increased the photosynthesis rate by increasing the activity of carbonic anhydrase and the formation of photosynthetic pigments (Xie et al. 2012; Siddiqui and Al-Whaibi 2014). Carbon anhydrase acts as a supplier for CO2 to the rubisco enzyme, which enhances photosynthesis (Siddiqui et al. 2012). TiO2 has photocatalytic properties that not only increase the efficiency of light absorbance but also increase the conversion of light energy into chemical energy. TiO2 also improved fixation of CO2, prevented the plant from aging, and ultimately enhanced the photosynthesis process (Hong et al. 2005; Yang et al. 2006).

TiO2 NPs increased CO2 fixation by increasing the activity of rubisco and ultimately improving plant growth. TiO2 NPs enhanced the net rate of photosynthesis, water conduction, and plant transpiration (Ma et al. 2008; Qi et al. 2013). ZnO NPs showed a positive effect on the growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). The growth (130.6%) and biomass (131%) of cotton were significantly enhanced by ZnO NPs.

ZnO NPs increased the level of chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids (141.6%, 134.7%, 138.6%, respectively) and increased soluble protein (179.4%) but reduced malondialdehyde (MDA) level in plant leaves. Various enzymatic activities of catalase, superoxide dismutase (264.2%), and peroxidase (182.8%) were also increased and improved the growth of cotton plants (Venkatachalam et al. 2016).

5.3 Effect of Nanoparticles on the Soil Microbial Community

Soil microbes have a significant role in soil health, plant growth, productivity, and biological and chemical reactions within soil and plants (Table 5.2) (Falkowski et al. 2008; Schimel and Schaeffer 2012; Philippot et al. 2013; Vacheron et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2019). NPs enter into the soil through several ways including human activity, sewage, and industrial waste. NPs of silica, palladium, gold, and copper have beneficial effects on soil microbes and seed germination of lettuce (Shah and Belozerova 2009). Biological and physicochemical properties determined their health and increased soil productivity. Biosolids have been used as organic fertilizers for decades; silver and titanium NPs were detected above the threshold level and adversely affected soil microbiota (Kim et al. 2010; Rottman et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012a, b). Zinc oxide and copper NPs did not show harmful effects on soil microbes although silver and titanium NPs showed an adverse effect on the microbial biomass richness (Cardoso et al. 2013; Shah et al. 2014).
Table 5.2

Effect of nanoparticles on the soil microbial community

Nanoparticles

Impact on soil microbial community/processes

References

Fe3O4, TiO2

Changed the soil microbial community, influenced the colonies of nitrifying bacteria associated with roots

Burke David et al. (2015)

CuO

Influenced the composition and activity of the bacterial community, decreased the oxidative potential of the soil

Schlich and Hund-Rinke (2015)

ZnO

Ammonification, dehydrogenase, and hydrolase activity

Shen et al. (2015)

TiO2

Influenced carbon mineralization, pH of soil, organic matter; identified soil type and moisture

Simonin et al. (2015)

CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO

No effect on microbial biomass C and N

VittoriAntisari et al. (2013)

Ag

Different impact on ion release shape and function of the natural soil microbes

Zhai et al. (2016)

TiO2, ZnO

Altered soil microbes, enhanced the degradation of organic pollutants

Ge et al. (2012)

Ag

Influenced soil microbial diversity and functional bacterial diversity

Pallavi et al. (2016)

Ag

Increased biomass of Aspergillus niger and Penicillium chrysogenum

Enhanced soil extract and inhibited antifungal activity of Ag

Pietrzak and Gutarowska (2015)

Ag

Affected functional diversity of soil microbial community and associated ecosystem processes

Zhai et al. (2016)

CuO, Fe3O4

Increased toxicity toward microbial community

Frenk et al. (2013)

SiO2, Pd, Au, Cu

Increased number of microbial colonies in soil, enhanced metabolic rate of soil community

Shah and Belozerova 2009

Asadishad et al. (2017) investigated the efficacy of gold nanoparticles coated with citrate (50 nm) and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (5, 50, and 100 nm) on soil enzymatic activity and soil microbes. They noted that a low concentration of Au NPs (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the size of PVP. Au NPs stimulate soil enzymatic activity; the Au NP size and soil enzymatic activity showed no correlation at a high dose (100 mg/kg). Citrate-coated Au NPs significantly increased soil enzymatic activity as compared to PVP-coated Au NPs at 50 nm size of both particles. Biomass of the important soil bacteria Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria was increased by the addition of citrate-coated Au NPs.

5.4 Impact of Carbon Nanotubes on Plants

Carbon nanotubes are allotropic forms of carbon nanoparticles, open or closed nano-structure cylindrical tubes that are single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) or multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNTs). These layers are composed of rolled sheets of graphene. These nanotubes vary from 100 nm to some centimeters in length; the outer diameter of SWCNTs varies from 0.8 to 2 nm and that of MWCNTs from 5 to 20 nm (De Volder et al. 2013). CNTs were shown to act as growth regulators for plants (Khot et al. 2012). It was also noted that different sizes and composition of CNTs affect different plant growth parameters (Table 5.3). The stress-related gene of the tomato seed was regulated by MWCNTs that enhance seed germination and growth (Khodakovskaya et al. 2009).
Table 5.3

Effect of carbon nanoparticles and nanotubes on plant growth processes

Plant name

CNPs/CNT

Impact on plant parts, growth/process

References

Lycopersicon esculentum

CNTs

Seed germination and growth

Anjum et al. (2014)

Medicago sativa, Triticum aestivum

CNTs

Root elongation

Miralles et al. (2012)

Allium cepa, Cucumis sativus

SWCNTs

Root elongation

Canas et al. 2008

Hordeum vulgare L., Glycine max, Zea mays

MWCNTs

Growth (leaf, root and shoot)/germination

Lahiani et al. (2013)

Wheat

MWCNTs

Root growth and yield

Wang et al. (2012a)

Lycopersicon esculentum

MWCNTs

Increased uptake of water and nutrients

Tiwari et al. (2013)

Zea mays

MWCNTs

Increased nutrient transport and yield

Tiwari et al. (2014)

Mustard plant (Brassica juncea)

MWCNTs

Increased seed germination, root elongation

Mondal et al. (2011)

Tomato

MWCNTs

Increased plant growth (flower and fruit) and yield

Khodakovskaya et al. (2013), Alimohammadi et al. (2011)

Wheat, maize, peanut, garlic

CNTs

Increase in root and shoot length

Rao and Srivastava (2014)

Red spinach, lettuce, rice, cucumber, chili, lady finger (okra), soybean

CNTs

Increased growth, root and shoot length

Begum et al. (2014)

Corn

CNTs

Increased growth, root and shoot length, biomass

De La Torre-Roche et al. (2013)

Hyoscyamus niger

SWCNTs

Enhanced plant performance, antioxidant activity, and biosynthesis of protein

Hatami et al. 2017

Zucchini

SWCNTs, MWCNTs

No significant change in seed germination

Stampoulis et al. (2009)

Solanum lycopersicum

CNPs

Seed coat permeability

Ratnikova et al. 2015

Buckypaper

CNTs (SWCNTs, MWCNTs)

Increased permeability (pore size)

Shen et al. (2017)

Broccoli

CNTs

Positive effect on growth, enhanced CO2 assimilation

Martinez-Ballesta et al. (2016)

Arabidopsis thaliana

MWCNTs

Effect on efficiency of photosynthesis and physiological mechanism

Voleti (2015)

CNTs are involved in major cellular processes of plants such as up- or downregulation of gene expression. MWCNTs induced the expression of a gene that codes for water channels and increased the water intake ability of root cells. CNTs are very small in diameter, so they can easily pass through the pores of the cell wall and also can increase the cell-wall pores. CNTs induced pores in the cell wall that enhanced water uptake, which regulates the activity of starch hydrolase enzymes and increases seed germination (Santos et al. 2013; Vithanage et al. 2017). These CNTs also act as a slow-release fertilizer that promotes plant growth (Wu 2013).

MWCNTs are also frequently used in hydroponic culture; CNTs (2000 mg/l) increase the root length of ryegrass (Lin and Xing 2007). Canas et al. (2008) showed that CNTs enhanced the physiology of six crops: cucumber, carrot, onion, tomato, cabbage, and lettuce. Plants were treated with uncoated (0, 104, 315, or 1750 mg/l) or coated (0, 160, 900, or 5000 mg/l) CNTs for 48 h. The uncoated CNTs significantly boosted root length of onion and cucumber more than the coated CNTs, with an inverse proportion between time and root elongation in these hydroponic crops. More effective results were seen on the first day as compared to the second day. It was hypothesized that CNTs may have an obligatory effect on the root length of plants by obstructing the relationship between roots and microbes, altering vital biological and chemical reactions. CNTs not only were absorbed by the plant but accumulated in the epidermal tissue of wheat roots (Wild and Jones 2009). Citrate-coated CNTs enhanced the growth and physiology of plants by increasing water uptake capability and also the uptake of nutrients and minerals, which directly affected the photosynthesis of the plants. CNTs increased plant length and also increased the number of leaves, which enhanced plant photosynthetic activity (Tripathi et al. 2011).

MWCNTs regulated the gene expression of the aquaporin gene (NtPIPI), and of two water channel genes (CycB and NtLRX), which increased cell permeability for water absorption and also helped in formation of the cell wall and regulation of mitosis (Khodakovskaya et al. 2012). MWCNTs also had a significant effect on root length of wheat seedlings, and on germination and growth of soya bean, corn, and barley (Wang et al. 2012a, b; Lahiani et al. 2013). The root length of wheat seedlings increased 32% with MWCNTs at 40–160 μg/l for 3 to 7 days (Wang et al. 2012a, b). CNTs impacted early plant growth by germination of seed, expression of genes, cell culturing, and physiological processes such as photosynthesis and antioxidant activities (Canas et al. 2008).

SWCNTs enhanced photosynthetic activity threefold as compared to normal photosynthesis, and increased the rate of electron transport because SWCNTs combine with the chloroplast and enable the leaf to enhance the rate of electron transport by a photo-absorption mechanism (Giraldo et al. 2014). The germination ability of seed might be enhanced by increasing concentrations of MWCNTs. The highest seed germination rate was noted at 60 μg/ml CNTs; increasing CNT concentrations increased plant growth and also enhanced the yield of cotton per plant. The highest yield of cotton was found at 100 μg/ml CNTs (Sawant 2016): there was a linear correlation between seed germination and CNT concentration. It was observed that the length of plants (62 ± 5.58cm), boll’ number/ plant (5.8 ± 0.64) and size of boll (3.41 ± 0.27cm) and yield of cotton (3.4 ± 0.37/hectare) was found highest at 120 μg/ml, 80 μg/ml, 60 μg/ml, 100 μg/ml of CNTs respectively (Sawant 2016).

Various studies have shown that SWCNTs and MWCNTs positively affect germination and growth of tomato, rice, common gram, and tobacco by increasing their water uptake ability, which improves germination processes (Khodakovskaya et al. 2009; Nair 2016). The toxic levels of Ag, ZnO, and Al2O3 induced oxidative stress and produced reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, which reduced plant growth (Zhao et al. 2012; Thwala et al. 2013; Hossain et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2015). Oxidative species reduced rubisco activity and decreased the photo-protective activity of photosystem II (Jiang et al. 2017). The defensive system of plant consists of nonenzymatic antioxidants, which include thiols, glutathione, phenolics, ascorbate and enzymatic CAT, SOD, APX, GR, GPX, and GST (Singh et al. 2015). Oxidative stresses were caused by NPs that decreased photosynthetic rate, ultimately inhibiting plant growth (Da Costa and Sharma 2016; Li et al. 2016).

Chegini et al. (2017) observed that physiological parameters were affected by MWCNTs, drought conditions, and their interactions in Salvia mirzayanii. The leaf water content and chlorophyll index showed significant alterations under drought conditions. The various levels of MWCNTs affected electrolyte leakage index and caused a significant difference in phenolic compounds under the interactions of the experimental treatments. Phenolic content was significantly influenced at MWCNT 50 and 200 mg/l, to 25% of field capacity (FC), respectively. The concentration of MWCNTs (50 mg/l) in moderate drought condition changed the physiological traits and antioxidant activity of S. mirzayanii.

Barbinta-Patrascu et al. (2017) reported an effect of carbon nanotubes coated with chlorophyll a and laden biomimetic membrane. The multilamellar lipid vesicles increased antioxidant (85%) activity and antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, and the highest antioxidant ability was found in hybrid CNTs that originated through the multilamellar lipid vesicles (TP3). They were widely dispersed and increased the reaction sites for removal of ROS by increasing their surface area. The TP3 sample showed the highest antibacterial activity resulting from good dispersion because a large surface area was provided to destroy bacterial contamination. The SWCNTs react directly with bacterial cells and physically break down their cell membrane by puncture, causing the death of the bacterial cells (S. aureus) (Bai et al. 2011; Smith and Rodrigues 2015).

5.4.1 Effect of CNTs on Photosynthesis Mechanism

Sunlight is the most available source of energy, which is conserved in many ways in an ecosystem. One of the most efficient methods for the conservation of sunlight is photosynthesis. For this purpose, the higher green plants, algae, and bacteria contain special pigments that use water and CO2 to form organic molecules. These photosynthetic organisms contain the photo-elements chlorophyll a, b, d, and f, and a series of electron carrier redox reactions (Blankenship et al. 2011). The thylakoid membrane of plastids acts as a photo-current producer in the presence of potassium ferrocyanide. The cell surface (1 cm2) produced maximum electric power, 24 mW, at 625 nm of red light. The thylakoid membrane immobilized with MWCNTs acts as an anode with MWCNTs as a cathode, which produced the maximum current density, 38 mA/cm2. The maximum electric power produced at this current density is 5.3 mW/cm2 (Calkins et al. 2013). The effect of CNTs on chlorophyll f and d was more than that on chlorophyll a and b: it enhanced the absorption ability of far-red and infrared light (700–750 nm) and also enhanced the ability of photo-convertors (Voloshin et al. 2015). The CNTs were synthetic NPs that penetrate into the biological matrix and have multifunctional properties such as water uptake and conduction for electricity in biological systems. MWCNTs were most electro-conductive in BY-2 tobacco cells as compared to balsam fir wood at high temperature (Di Giacomo et al. 2013; Leslie et al. 2014).

It was investigated whether CNTs had a positive effect on photosystem I of cyanobacteria by enhancing the ability of conversion of light into current. The MWCNTs were non-encroaching because a carboxylate pyrene derivative formed the fixed covalent structure of photosystem I (PS I). The PS I was ascribed as the transporter of photo-current to the electrode (MWCNTs) (Ciornii et al. 2017). MWCNTs have a combined effect on thylakoid, the multi-protein complexes PS I and II, and photo-electrochemical properties. SWCNTs enhanced immobilization of the reaction center of the bacterium Rhodobacter (Rb.) sphaeroides (sp.) and also enhanced the photo-electrochemical activity (Ham et al. 2010; Calkins et al. 2013). MWCNTs significantly enhanced direct transfer of electron in the thylakoid of spinach and of the cyanobacterium Nostoc sp. (Sekar et al. 2014). CNTs enhanced the expression of Arabidopsis aquaporin in tobacco plant and enhanced photosynthetic activity by production of the photo-electric current. It was observed that CNTs activate gene and protein expression of aquaporin in tobacco cells (Khodakovskaya et al. 2012).

5.5 Effect of CNTs on Soil Microbial Community

The soil contains different microorganisms that form the biota of the soil as the main source of nutrients which are significant in plant growth (Table 5.4). Microorganisms have a key role in recycling of nutrients by decomposition of organic matter (Simonet and Valcarcel 2009; Dinesh et al. 2012). Some microorganisms associate with plant roots; the soil microbial community normally consists of gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and fungi (Luongo and Zhang 2010; Santos et al. 2013). The major challenge in the agriculture sector is the conservation of biodiversity and protection of the biomass of these soil microbes. CNTs can change a microbial community by increasing or decreasing the toxins present in organic compounds (Dinesh et al. 2012). Limited literature is available on the impact of CNTs on soil microbial communities. It has been also reported that CNTs had no significant effect on soil microbes. So, there is a need to thoroughly explore CNT impacts on soil microbes.
Table 5.4

Effect of carbon nanoparticles (CNP) and carbon nanotubes (CT) on the soil microbial community

CNPs/CNT

Impact on soil microbial community/processes

References

MWCNTs

Enhanced activity of anaerobic ammonium oxidation bacteria, high carbohydrate and protein

Wang et al. (2013)

SWCNTs

Strong antimicrobial activity

Kang et al. (2007)

SWCNTs

Effect on both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria

Jin et al. (2014)

MWCNTs

Effect on soil enzyme activity, soil microbial biomass

Chung et al. (2015)

MWCNTs

Conditionally affect soil microbial community

Kerfahi et al. (2015)

CNTs

Effects on composition of soil microbes

Khodakovskaya et al. (2013)

CNTs

Affect growth of gram-negative bacteria

Cordeiro et al. (2014)

SWCNTs

Effects on antimicrobial activity of surface bacteria

Jackson et al. (2013)

CNTs

Toxic effect on microbes

Petersen et al. (2014)

Mukherjee et al. (2016) reported that low and high concentrations of CNTs have no adverse effect on soil microbiota. High (10–10,000 mg/kg) and low (10–1,000 mg/ml) concentrations of CNTs were used to investigate effects on soil microbial community and enzymatic activity, but it was found that CNTs had no visible effect on soil microbes and enzymatic activity, although these high and low CNT concentrations reduced selected species of bacteria. These specific concentrations increased the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-degrading bacteria. Similarly, when red clover was treated with MWCNTs, the activity of symbiotic microorganisms as nitrogen fixers was slightly increased at 3000 mg/kg MWCNTs (Moll et al. 2016).

5.6 Future Possibilities

Nanoparticles have great potential to promote plant growth and development by increasing nutrient uptake, improving water uptake efficiency, and enhancing photosynthetic activity. However, there is a need to improve NP use in agriculture by developing target-specific NPs to enhance plant growth, physiological parameters, and the soil microbial community. There is an urgent need to utilize NPs having great potential to enhance photosynthesis mechanism because minimal attention is being given to this area of research. Biosynthesized NPs should be used: by controlling their size and concentration we can determine the mechanism of toxicity in plants. Modulating these factors, we can reduce transportation, toxicity, and bioavailability to the ecosystem. There is further need to explore the function of NPs beneath plant roots.

References

  1. Aghdam MTB, Mohammadi H, Ghorbanpour M (2016) Effects of nanoparticulate anatase titanium dioxide on physiological and biochemical performance of Linumusitatissimum (Linaceae) under well-watered and drought stress conditions. Braz J Bot 39:139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-015-0227-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alidoust D, Isoda A (2013) Effect of Fe2O3 NPs on photosynthetic characteristic of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.): foliar spray versus soil amendment. Acta Physiol Plant 35:3365–3375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-013-1369-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alimohammadi M, Xu Y, Wang D, Biris AS, Khodakovskaya MV (2011) Physiological responses induced in tomato plants by a two-component nanostructural system composed of carbon nanotubes conjugated with quantum dots and its in vivo multimodal detection. Nanotechnology 22(29):295101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen CP, King G, Plocher M, Storm M, Pokhrel LR, Johnson MG et al (2016) Germination and early plant development of ten plant species exposed to titanium dioxide and cerium oxide NPs. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:2223–2229.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Anjum NA, Singh N, Singh MK, Sayeed I, Duarte AC, Pereira E, Ahmad I (2014) Single-bilayer graphene oxide sheet impacts and underlying potential mechanism assessment in germinating faba bean (ViciafabaL.). Sci Total Environ 472:834–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arif N, Yadav V, Singh S, Tripathi DK, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK, Giorgetti L (2018) Interaction of copper oxide nanoparticles with plants: uptake, accumulation, and toxicity. In: Nanomaterials in plants, algae, and microorganisms. Academic Press, London, pp 297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arora S, Sharma P, Kumar S, Nayan R, Khanna PK, Zaidi MGH (2012) Gold-nanoparticle inducedenhancement in growth and seed yield of Brassica juncea. Plant Growth Regul 66:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asadishad B, Chaha S, Cianciarelli V, Zhou K, Tufenkji N (2017) Effect of gold NPs on extracellular nutrient-cycling enzyme activity and bacterial community in soil slurries: role of nanoparticle size and surface coating. Environ Sci Nano 4:907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bai Y, Park IS, Lee SJ, Bae TS, Watari F, Uo M, Lee MH (2011) Aqueous dispersion of surfactant-modified multiwalled carbon nanotubes and their application as an antibacterial agent. Carbon 49:3663–3671.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01091-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barbinta-Patrascu ME, Badea N, Ungureanu C, Pirvu C, Iftimie V, Antohe S (2017) Photophysical studies on biocomposites based on carbon nanotubes and chlorophyll-loaded biomimetic membranes. Romanian Rep Phys 69:604Google Scholar
  11. Begum P, Ikhtiari R, Fugetsu B (2014) Potential impact of multi-walled carbon nanotubes exposure to the seedling stage of selected plant species. Nano 4:203–221Google Scholar
  12. Blankenship RE, Tiede DM, Barber J, Brudvig GW, Fleming G, Ghirardi MR, Gunner M, Junge W, Kramer DM, Melis A, Moore TA, Moser CC, Nocera DG, Nozik AJ, Ort DR, Parson WW, Prince RC, Sayr RT (2011) Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies and recognizing the potential for improvement. Science 332:805–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke David J, Pietrasiak N, Situ SF, Abenojar EC, Porche M, Kraj P, Lakliang Y, Samia ACS (2015) Iron oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticle effects on plant performance and root associated microbes. Int J Mol Sci 16:23630–23650.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms161023630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Burmana U, Sainib M, Kumar P (2013) Effect of zinc oxide NPs on growth and antioxidant system of chickpea seedlings. Toxicol Environ Chem 95:605–612.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2013.803796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calkins JO, Umasankar Y, O’Neill H, Ramasamy RP (2013) High photo-electrochemical activity of thylakoid-carbon nanotube composites for photosynthetic energy conversion. Energy Environ Sci 6:1891–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canas JE, Long M, Nations S, Vadan R, Dai L, Luo M et al (2008) Effects of functionalized and nonfunctionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes on root elongation of select crop species. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1922–1931.  https://doi.org/10.1897/08-117.1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cao Y, Li S, Wang Z, Chang F, Kong J, Gai J, Zhao T (2017) Identification of major quantitative trait loci for seed oil content in soybeans by combining linkage and genome-wide association mapping. Front Plant Sci 8: 1222.Google Scholar
  18. Cardoso EJ, Vasconcellos RL, Marina YH, Santos CA, Alves PR et al (2013) Soil health: looking for suitable indicators. What should be considered to assess the effects of use and management on soil health? Sci Agric 70:274–289. Link: https://goo.gl/IgzmGxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chegini E, Ghorbanpour M, Hatami M, Taghizadeh M (2017) Effect of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on physiological traits, phenolic contents and antioxidant capacity of Salvia mirzayanii Rech f & Esfand under drought stress. J Med Plants 139(2):191–207Google Scholar
  20. Chung H, Kim MJ, Ko K, Kim JH, Kwon H-A, Hong I et al (2015) Effects of graphene oxides on soil enzyme activity and microbial biomass. Sci Total Environ 514:307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ciornii D, Feifel SC, Hejazi M, Kolsch A, Lokstein H, Zouni A, Phys FL, Solidi SA (2017) Construction of photobiocathodes using multi-walled carbon nanotubes and photosystem I. Phys Status Solidi 214:1700017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201700017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clement L, Hurel C, Marmier N (2013) Toxicity of TiO2 NPs to cladocerans, algae, rotifers and plants – effects of size and crystalline structure. Chemosphere 90:1083–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cordeiro LF, Marques BF, Kist LW, Bogo MR, Lopez G, Pagano G et al (2014) Toxicity of fullerene and nanosilver nanomaterials against bacteria associated to the body surface of the estuarine worm Laeonereisacuta (Polychaeta. Nereididae). Mar Environ Res 99:52–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.05.011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Da Costa MVJ, Sharma PK (2016) Effect of copper oxide NPs on growth, morphology, photosynthesis, and antioxidant response in Oryzasativa. Photosynthetica 54:110–119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-015-0167-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dasgupta N, Shivendu R, Bhavapriya R, Venkatraman M, Chidambaram R, Avadhani GS, Ashutosh K (2016) Thermal co-reduction approach to vary size of silver nanoparticle: itsmicrobial and cellular toxicology. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:4149–4163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4570-zPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de la Rosa G, Lopez-Moreno ML, de Haro D, Botez CE, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2013) Effects of ZnO NPs in alfalfa, tomato, and cucumber at the germination stage: root development and X-ray absorption spectroscopy studies. Pure Appl Chem 85:2161–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De La Torre-Roche R, Hawthorne J, Deng Y, Xing B, Cai W, Newman LA et al (2013) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes and c60 fullerenes differentially impact the accumulation of weathered pesticides in four agricultural plants. Environ Sci Technol 47:12539–12547.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es4034809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Volder MF, Tawfick SH, Baughman RH, Hart AJ (2013) Carbon nanotubes: present and future commercial applications. Science 339:535–539.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Dehkourdi EH, Mosavi M (2013) Effect of anatase NPs (TiO2) on parsley seed germination (Petroselinum crispum) in vitro. Biol Trace Elem Res 155:283–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-013-9788-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Derosa MC, Monreal C, Schnitzer M, Walsh R, Sultan Y (2010) Nanotechnology in fertilizers. Nat Nanotechnol 5:91.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Di Giacomo R et al (2013) Candida albicans /MWCNTs: a stable conductive bio nanocomposite and its temperature sensing properties. IEEE Trans Nano Technol 12:111–114Google Scholar
  32. Dinesh R, Anandaraj M, Srinivasan V, Hamza S (2012) Engineered NPs in the soil and their potential implications to microbial activity. Geoderma 173–174:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.12.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Falkowski PG, Fenchel T, Delong EF (2008) The microbial engines that drive earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science 320:1034–1039PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Feizi H, Rezvani Moghaddam P, Shahtahmassebi N, Fotovat A (2012) Impact of bulk and nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO2) on wheat seed germination and seedling growth. Biol Trace Elem Res 146:101–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-011-9222-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Feizi H, Kamali M, Jafari L, Rezvani Moghaddam P (2013) Phytotoxicity and stimulatory impacts of nanosized and bulk titanium dioxide on fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill). Chemosphere 91:506–511.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.12.012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Fraceto LF, Grillo R, de Medeiros GA, Scognamiglio V, Rea G, Bartolucci C (2016) Nanotechnology in agriculture: which innovation potential does it have? Front Environ Sci 4:20.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frenk S, Ben-Moshe T, Dror I, Berkowitz B, Minz D (2013) Effect of metal oxide nanoparticles on microbial community structure and function in two different soil types. PLoS One 8:84441.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Galbraith DW (2007) Nanobiotechnology: silica breaks through in plants. Nat Nanotechnol 2:272–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ge Y, Schimel PJ, Holdena AP (2012) Identification of soil bacteria susceptible to TiO2 and ZnO NPs. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6749–6758PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Giraldo PJ, Landry PM, Faltermeier MS, McNicholas PT, Iverson MN, Boghossian AA, Reuel FN, Hilmer JA, Sen F, Brew AJ, Michael S, Strano SM (2014) Plant nanobionics approach to augment photosynthesis and biochemical sensing. Nat Mater 13:400–408.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gogos A, Moll J, Klingenfuss F, van der Heijden M, Irin F, Green MJ et al (2016) Vertical transport and plant uptake of NPs in a soil mesocosm experiment. J Nanobiotechnol 14:40.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0191-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gopinath K, Gowri S, Karthika V, Arumugam A (2014) Green synthesis of gold NPs from fruit extract of Terminalia arjuna, for the enhanced seed germination activity of Gloriosa superba. J Nanostruct Chem 4:1–11Google Scholar
  43. Haghighi M, Teixeira da Silva JA (2014) The effect of N-TiO2 on tomato, onion, and radish seed germination. J Crop Sci Biotechnol 17:221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-014-0056-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ham M-H, Choi JH, Boghossian AA, Jeng ES, Graff RA, Heller DA, Chang AC, Mattis A, Bayburt TH, Grinkova YV, Zeiger AS, Van Vliet KJ, Hobbie EK, Sligar SG, Wraight CA, Strano MS (2010) Photo-electrochemical complexes for solar energy conversion that chemically and autonomously regenerate. Nat Chem 2:929–936PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hatami M, Hadian J, Ghorbanpour M (2017) Mechanisms underlying toxicity and stimulatory role of singlewalled carbon nanotubes in Hyoscyamusniger during drought stress simulated by polyethylene glycol. J Hazard Mater 324:Part B.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.10.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Helaly MN, El-Metwally MA, El-Hoseiny H, Omar SA, El-Sheery NI (2014) Effect of NPs on biological contamination of in vitro cultures and organogenic regeneration of banana. Aust J Crop Sci 8:612–624Google Scholar
  47. Hong F, Zhou J, Liu C, Yang F, Wu C, Zheng L, Yang P (2005) Effect of nano-TiO2 on photochemical reaction of chloroplasts of spinach. Biol Trace Elem Res 105(1–3):269–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hojjat SS, Hojjat H (2016) Effects of silver nanoparticle exposure on germination of Lentil (Lens culinarisMedik.). IJFAS 5:248–252Google Scholar
  49. Hossain Z, Mustafa G, Komatsu S (2015) Plant responses to nanoparticle stress. Int J Mol Sci 16:26644–26653.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms161125980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Huang S, Wang L, Liu L, Hou Y, Li L (2015) Nanotechnology in agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture in China: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:369–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0274-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jaberzadeh A, Moaveni P, Moghadam HRT, Zahedi H (2013) Influence of bulk and NPs titanium foliar application on some agronomic traits, seed gluten and starch contents of wheat subjected to water deficit stress. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca 41:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jackson P, Jacobsen NR, Baun A, Birkedal R, Kuhnel D, Jensen KA et al (2013) Bioaccumulation and ecotoxicity of carbon nanotubes. Chem Cent J 7:154.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-7-154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Jain A, Shivendu R, Nandita D, Cidambaram R (2016) Nanomaterials in food and agriculture: an overview on their safety concerns and regulatory issues. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58:297–317.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1160363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jiang HS, Yin LY, Ren NN, Zhao ST, Li Z, Zhi Y et al (2017) Silver NPs induced reactive oxygen species via photosynthetic energy transport imbalance in an aquatic plant. Nanotoxicology 11:157–167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2017.1278802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Jin L, Son Y, DeForest JL, Kang YJ, Kim W, Chung H (2014) Single-walled carbon nanotubes alter soil microbial community composition. Sci Total Environ 466:533–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Juhel G, Batisse E, Hugues Q, Daly D, Frank NA, van Pelt M, Halloran J, Marcel A, Jansen K (2011) Alumina NPs enhance growth of Lemnamino. Aquat Toxicol 105:328–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kang S, Pinault M, Pfefferle LD, Elimelech M (2007) Single-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit strong antimicrobial activity. Langmuir 23:8670–8673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kerfahi D, Tripathi BM, Singh D, Kim H, Lee S, Lee J et al (2015) Effects of functionalized and raw multiwalled carbon nanotubes on soil bacterial community composition. PLoS One 10:0123042.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Khodakovskaya MV, Dervishi E, Mahmood M, Xu Y, Li Z, Watanabe F et al (2009) Carbon nanotubes are able to penetrate plant seed coat and dramatically affect seed germination and plant growth. ACS Nano 3:3221–3227.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn900887mCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Khodakovskaya MV, De Silva K, Biris AS, Dervishi E, Villagarcia H (2012) Carbon nanotubes induce growth enhancement of tobacco cells. ACS Nano 6:2128–2135.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn204643gCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Khodakovskaya MV, Kim BS, Kim JN, Alimohammadi M, Dervishi E, Mustafa T, Cernigla CE (2013) Carbon nanotubes as plant growth regulators: effects on tomato growth, reproductive system, and soil microbial community. Small Nano Micro 9:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201201225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Khot LR, Sankaran S, Maja JM, Ehsani R, Schuster EW (2012) Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop protection: a review. Crop Protect 35:64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kiapour H, Moaveni P, Habibi D, Sani B (2015) Evaluation of the application of gibbrellic acid and titanium dioxide NPs under drought stress on some traits of basil (OcimumbasilicumL.). Int J Agron Agric Res 6:138–150Google Scholar
  64. Kim B, Park CS, Murayama M, Hochella MF (2010) Discovery and characterization of silver sulfide NPs in final sewage sludge products. Environ Sci Technol 44:7509–7514. Link: https://goo.gl/OS5yfMPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY, Mahendra S, McLaughlin MJ, Lead JR (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kumar V, Guleria P, Kumar V, Yadav SK (2013) Gold nanoparticle exposure induces growth and yield enhancement in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci Total Environ 461:462–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kumari A, Singla R, Guliani A, Yadav SK (2014) Nano encapsulation for drug delivery. EXCLI J 13:265–286PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Lahiani MH, Dervishi E, Chen J, Nima Z, Gaume A, Biris AS et al (2013) Impact of carbon nanotube exposure to seeds of valuable crops. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5:7965–7973.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am402052xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Larue C, Laurette J, Herlin-Boime N, Khodja H, Barbara Fayard B (2012) Accumulation, translocation and impact of TiO2 NPs in wheat (Triticum aestivum spp.): influence of diameter and crystal phase. Sci Total Environ 431:197–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lei Z, Mingy S, Xiao W, Chao L, Chunxiang Q, Liang C et al (2008) Antioxidant stress is promoted by nano-anatase in spinach chloroplasts under UV-B radiation. Biol. Trace Elem Res 121:69–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-007-8028-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Leslie DC et al (2014) A bioinspired omni-phobic surface coating on medical devices prevents thrombosis and biofouling. Nat Biotechnol 32:1134–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Li J, Naeem MS, Wang X, Liu L, Chen C, Ma N et al (2015) Nano-TiO2 is not phytotoxic as revealed by the oilseed rape growth and photosynthetic apparatus ultra-structural response. PLoS One 10:0143885.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Li M, Ahammed GJ, Li C, Bao X, Yu J, Huang C et al (2016) Brassino-steroid ameliorates zinc oxide NPs-induced oxidative stress by improving antioxidant potential and redox homeostasis in tomato seedling. Front Plant Sci 7:615.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00615CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Libralato G, Costa Devoti A, Zanella M, Sabbioni E, Micetic I, Manodori L, Pigozzo A, Manenti S, Groppi F, Volpi GA (2016) Phytotoxicity of ionic, micro- and nano-sized iron in three plant species. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 123:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lin D, Xing B (2007) Phytotoxicity of NPs: inhibition of seed germination and root growth. Environ Pollut 150:243–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.01.016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Luongo LA, Zhang XJ (2010) Toxicity of carbon nanotubes to the activated sludge process. J Hazard Mater 178:356–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ma L, Liu C, Qu C, Yin S, Liu J, Gao F, Hong F (2008) Rubisco activase mRNA expression in spinach: modulation by nanoanatase treatment. Biol Trace Elem Res 122(2):168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Maddineni SB, Badal KM, Shivendu R, Nandita D (2015) Diastase assisted green synthesis of size-controllable gold NPs. RSC Adv 5:26727–26733.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA03117FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mahajan P, Dhoke SK, Khanna AS (2011) Effect of nano-ZnO particle suspension on growth of mung (Vigna radiata) and gram (Cicer arietinum) seedlings using plant agar method. J Nanotechnol 2011:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/696535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mahmoodzadeh H, Aghili R (2014) Effect on germination and early growth characteristics in wheat plants (Triticum aestivumL.) seeds exposed to TiO2 NPs. J Chem Health Risks 4:467–472Google Scholar
  81. Mahmoodzadeh H, Nabavi M, Kashefi H (2013) Effect of nanoscale titanium dioxide particles on the germination and growth of canola (Brassica napus). J Ornamental Hort Plants 3:25–32Google Scholar
  82. Martinez-Ballesta MC, Zapata L, Chalbi N, Carvaja M (2016) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes enter broccoli cells enhancing growth and water uptake of plants exposed to salinity. J Nanobiotechnol 14:42.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0199-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Miralles P, Johnson E, Church TL, Harris AT (2012) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes in alfalfa and wheat: toxicology and uptake. J Rl Soc Interface 9(77):3514–3527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Moaveni P, Kheiri T (2011) TiO2 nano particles affected on maize (Zea mays L). In: 2nd international conference on agricultural and animal science, vol 22. IACSIT Press, Singapore, pp 160–163Google Scholar
  85. Mohamed AKSH, Qayyum MF, Abdel-Hadi AM, Rehman RA, Ali S, Rizwan M (2017) Interactive effect of salinity and silver NPs on photosynthetic and biochemical parameters of wheat. Arch Agron Soil Sci 63:1736.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2017.1300256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mohammadi R, Maali-Amiri R, Abbasi A (2013) Effect of TiO2 NPs on chickpea response to cold stress. Biol Trace Elem Res 152:152403–152410.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-013-9631-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mohammadi R, Maali-Amiri R, Mantri NL (2014) Effect of TiO2 NPs on oxidative damage and antioxidant defense systems in chickpea seedlings during cold stress. Russian J Plant Physiol 61:768–775.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443714050124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Moll J, Gogos A, Bucheli DT, Widmer F, van der Heijden AGM (2016) Effect of NPs on red clover and its symbiotic microorganisms. J Nanobiotechnol 14:36.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0188-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mondal A, Basu R, Das S, Nandy P (2011) Beneficial role of carbon nanotubes on mustard plant growth: an agricultural prospect. J Nanopart Res 13:4519–4528.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0406-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Morteza E, Moaveni P, Farahani HA, Kiyani M (2013) Study of photosynthetic pigments changes of maize (Zea mays L.) under nano TiO2 spraying at various growth stages. Springer Plus 2:247.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Mukherjee A, Majumdar S, Servin AD, Pagano L, Dhankher OP, White JC (2016) Carbon nanomaterials in agriculture: a critical review. Front Plant Sci 7:172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00172
  92. Nair R (2016) Effects of NPs on plant growth and development. Plant Nanotechnol:95–118. Link: https://goo.gl/6ZOTj5
  93. Nair R, Varghese SH, Nair BG, Maekawa T, Yoshida Y, Kumar DS (2010) Nanoparticulate material delivery to plants. Plant Sci 179:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Nath D (2015) Safer nano formulation for the next decade. In: Basiuk VA, Basiuk EV (eds) Green processes for nanotechnology. Springer, Cham, pp 327–352.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15461-9_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pallavi MCM, Srivastava R, Arora S, Sharma AK (2016) Impact assessment of silver NPs on plant growth and soil bacterial diversity. Biotech 6:254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0567-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Perez-de-Luque A, Hermosin C (2013) Nanotechnology and its use in agriculture. In: Bagchi D, Bagchi M, Moriyama H, Shahidi F (eds) Bio-nanotechnology: a revolution in food, biomedical and health sciences. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Petersen EJ, Henry TB, Zhao J, Maccuspie RI, Kirschling TL, Dobrovolskaia MA et al (2014) Identification and avoidance of potential artifacts and misinterpretations in nanomaterial ecotoxicity measurements. Environ Sci Technol 48:4226–4246.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es4052999CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Philippot L, Raaijmakers JM, Lemanceau P, van der Putten WH (2013) Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol 11:789–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Pietrzak K, Gutarowska B (2015) Influence of the silver nanoparticles on microbial community indifferent environments. Acta Biochimica Polonica 62:72–724.  https://doi.org/10.18388/abp.2015_1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Qi M, Liu Y, Li T (2013) Nano-TiO2 improve the photosynthesis of tomato leaves under mild heat stress. Biol Trace Element Res 156:323–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-013-9833-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rad JS, Karimi J, Mohsenzadeh S, Rad MS, Moradgholi J (2014) Evaluating SiO2 NPs effects on developmental characteristic and photosynthetic pigment contents of Zea mays L. Bull Env Pharmacol Life Sci 3:194–201Google Scholar
  102. Rafique R, Arshad M, Khokhar M, Qazi I, Hamza A, Virk N (2015) Growth response of wheat to titania NPs application. NUST J Eng Sci 7:42–46Google Scholar
  103. Rahmani F, Peymani A, Daneshvand E, Biparva P (2016) Impact of zinc oxide and copper oxide NPs on physiological and molecular processes in Brassica napus L. Indian J Plant Physiol 21:122–128. https://goo.gl/anwCLOCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Raliya R, Biswas P, Tarafdar JC (2015a) TiO2 nanoparticle biosynthesis and its physiological effect on mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Biotechnol Rep 5:22–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2014.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Raliya R, Nair R, Chavalmane S, Wang WN, Biswas P (2015b) Mechanistic evaluation of translocation and physiological impact of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide NPs on the tomato (Solanum lycopersicumL.) plant. Metallomics 7:1584–1594.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5MT00168DCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Raliya R, Tarafdar CJ, Pratim Biswas P (2016) Enhancing the mobilization of native phosphorous in mung bean rhizosphere using ZnO NPs synthesized by soil fungi. J Agric Food Chem 64:3111–3118.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Ranjan S, Nandita D, Arkadyuti RC, Melvin SS, Chidambaram R, Rishi S, Ashutosh K (2014) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies in food industries: opportunities and research trends. J Nanopart Res 16:2464.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2464-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Rao DP, Srivastava A (2014) Enhancement of seed germination and plant growth of wheat, maize, peanut, and garlic using multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Euro Chemical Bull 3:502–504Google Scholar
  109. Rastogi A, Tripathi DK, Yadav S, Chauhan DK, Živčák M, Ghorbanpour M, El-Sheery NI, Brestic M (2019) Application of silicon nanoparticles in agriculture. 3 Biotech 9(3):90Google Scholar
  110. Ratnikova TA, Podila R, Rao AM, Taylor AG (2015) Tomato seed coat permeability to selected carbon nanomaterials and enhancement of germination and seedling growth. Sci World J 2015:419215.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/419215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Resham S, Khalid M, Gul Kazi A (2015) Nano biotechnology in agricultural development. In: Barh D et al (eds) Plant Omics: the omics of plant science. Springer, New Delhi, pp 683–698.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2172-2_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rezaei F, Moaveni P, Mozafari H (2015) Effect of different concentrations and time of nano TiO2 spraying on quantitative and qualitative yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) at Shahr-e-Qods, Iran. Biol Forum 7:957–964Google Scholar
  113. Rottman J, Shadman F, Sierra-Alvarez R (2012) Interactions of inorganic oxide NPs with sewage biosolids. Water Sci Technol 66:1821–1827. Link: https://goo.gl/RzB8U2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Santos SMA, Dinis AM, Rodrigues DMF, Peixoto F, Videira RA, Jurado AS (2013) Studies on the toxicity of an aqueous suspension of C60 NPs using a bacterium (gen. Bacillus) and an aquatic plant (Lemnagibba) as in vitro model systems. Aqua Toxicol 142–143:347–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sawant D (2016) Effect of carbon nanotubes on seed germination, growth and yield of hybrid Bt cotton Var. 7383 BG II.Google Scholar
  116. Schimel JP, Schaeffer SM (2012) Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front Microbiol 3:348.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. Schlich K, Hund-Rinke K (2015) Influence of soil properties on the effect of silver nanomaterials on microbial activity in five soils. Environ Pollut 196:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.10.021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Sekar N, Umasankar Y, Ramasamy R (2014) Photocurrent generation by immobilized cyanobacteria via direct electron transport in photo-bioelectrochemical cells. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16:7862–7871PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  119. Serag MF, Kaji N, Gaillard C, Okamoto Y, Terasaka K, Jabasini M et al (2011) Trafficking and subcellular localization of multi walled carbon nanotubes in plant cells. ACS Nano 5:493–499.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn102344tCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Servin AD, White JC (2016) Nanotechnology in agriculture: next steps for understanding engineered nanoparticle exposure and risk. Nano Impact 1:9–12. Link: https://goo.gl/oBZC8sGoogle Scholar
  121. Servin AD, Castillo-Michel H, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Diaz BC, PeraltaVidea JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2012) Synchrotron micro-XRF and micro-XANES confirmation of the uptake and translocation of TiO2 NPs in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants. Environ Sci Technol 46:7637–7643.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es300955bCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Shah V, Belozerova I (2009) Influence of metal nanoparticles on the soil microbial community and germination of lettuce seeds. Water Air Soil Pollut 197:143–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9797-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shah V, Jones J, Dickman J, Greenman S (2014) Response of soil bacterial community to metal NPs in biosolids. J Haz Mater 274:399–403. Link: https://goo.gl/ewuXudCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Shapira P, Youtie J (2015) The economic contributions of nanotechnology to green and sustainable growth. In: Basiuk VA, Basiuk EV (eds) Green processes for nanotechnology. Springer, Cham, pp 409–434.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15461-9_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sharifi-Rad J, Sharifi-Rad M, Teixeira da Silva JA (2016) Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of crops (Zea mays L., Phaseolus vulgaris L.), medicinal plants (Hyssopus officinalis L., Nigella sativa L.), and weeds (Amaranthus retroflexusL., TaraxacumofficinaleF. H. Wigg) exposed to SiO2 NPs. J Agr Sci Tech 18:1027–1040Google Scholar
  126. Shen Z, Chen Z, Hou Z, Li T, Lu X (2015) Ecotoxicological effect of zinc oxide NPs on soil microorganisms. Front Environ Sci Eng 9:912–918.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-015-0789-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Shen Z, Röding M, Kröger M, Li Y (2017) Carbon nanotube length governs the viscoelasticity and permeability of bucky paper. Polymers 9:115.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym9040115CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Shweta, Vishwakarma K, Sharma S, Narayan RP, Srivastava P, Khan AS, Dubey NK, Tripathi DK, Chauhan DK (2017) Plants and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) interface: present status and future prospects. In: Nanotechnology. Springer, Singapore, pp 317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Shweta, Tripathi DK, Chauhan DK, Peralta-Videa JR (2018) Availability and risk assessment of nanoparticles in living systems: a virtue or a peril? In: Nanomaterials in plants, algae, and microorganisms. Academic Press, London, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  130. Siddiqui MH, Al-Whaibi MH (2014) Role of nano-SiO2 in germination of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentumseeds Mill.). Saudi Biol Sci 21:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Siddiqui MH, Mohammad F, Khan MMA, Al-Whaibi MH (2012) Cumulative effect of nitrogen and sulphur on Brassica junceaL. genotypes under NaCl stress. Protoplasma 249:139–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Siddiqui MH, Al-Whaibi MH, Mohammad F (2015) Nanotechnology and plant sciences NPs and their impact on plants. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14502-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Simonet BM, Valcarcel M (2009) Monitoring NPs in the environment. Anal Bioanal Chem 393:17–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-008-2484-zCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Simonin M, Guyonnet JP, Martins JM, Ginot M, Richaume A (2015) Influence of soil properties on the toxicity of TiO2 NPs on carbon mineralization and bacterial abundance. J Hazard Mater 283:529–535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Singh VP, Singh S, Kumar J, Prasad SM (2015) Investigating the roles of ascorbate-glutathione cycle and thiol metabolism in arsenate tolerance in ridged luffa seedlings. Protoplasma 252:1217–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Singh S, Tripathi DK, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK (2016) Effects of nano-materials on seed germination and seedling growth: striking the slight balance between the concepts and controversies. Mater Focus 5(3):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Singh J, Vishwakarma K, Ramawat N, Rai P, Singh VK, Mishra RK, Kumar V, Tripathi DK, Sharma S (2019) Nanomaterials and microbes’ interactions: a contemporary overview. 3 Biotech 9(3):68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Smith SC, Rodrigues DF (2015) Carbon-based nanomaterials for removal of chemical and biological contaminants from water: a review of mechanisms and applications. Carbon 91:122–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Stampoulis D, Sinha SK, White JC (2009) Assay dependent phytotoxicity of nanoparticles to plants. Environ Sci Technol 43:9473–9479.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es901695cCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  140. Szymanska R, Kolodziej K, Slesak I, Zimak-Piekarczyk P, Orzechowska A, Gabruk M et al (2016) Titanium dioxide NPs (100-1000 mg/l) can affect vitamin E response in Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Pollut 213:957–965.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. Taran N, Storozhenko V, Svietlova N, Batsmanova L, Shvartau V, Kovalenko M (2017) Effect of zinc and copper NPs on drought resistance of wheat seedlings. Nanoscale Resea Lett 12:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Thwala M, Musee N, Sikhwivhilu L, Wepener V (2013) The oxidative toxicity of Ag and ZnO NPs towards the aquatic plant Spirodelapunctat aand the role of testing media parameters. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15:1830–1843.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3em00235gCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  143. Tiwari DK, Dasgupta–Schubert N, Villaseñor LM, Tripathi D, Villegas J (2013) Interaction of carbon nanotubes with mineral nutrients for the promotion of growth of tomato seedlings. Nano Stud 7:87–96Google Scholar
  144. Tiwari DK, Dasgupta-Schubert N, Villaseñor-Cendejas LM, Villegas J, Carreto-Montoya L, Borjas-García SE (2014) Interfacing carbon nanotubes (CNT) with plants: enhancement of growth, water and ionic nutrient uptake in maize (Zea Mays) and implications for nanoagriculture. Appl Nanosci 4:577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Torney F, Trewyn BG, Lin VS-Y, Wang K (2007) Mesoporous silica NPs deliver DNA and chemicals into plants. Nat Nanotechnol 2:295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Tripathi S, Sonkar SK, Sarkar S (2011) Growth stimulation of gram (Cicer arietinum) plant by water soluble carbon nanotubes. Nanoscale 3:1176–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c0nr00722fCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Tripathi DK, Ahmad P, Sharma S, Chauhan DK, Dubey NK (eds) (2017) Nanomaterials in plants, algae, and microorganisms: concepts and controversies, vol 1. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  148. Upadhyaya H, Begum L, Dey B, Nath PK, Panda SK (2017) Impact of calcium phosphateNPs on rice plant. J Plant Sci Phytopathol 1:001–0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Vacheron J et al (2013) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning. Front Plant Sci 4:356.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. Venkatachalam P, Priyanka N, Manikandan K, Ganeshbabu I, Indiraarulselvi P, Geetha N, Muralikrishna K, Bhattacharya RC, Tiwari M, Sharma N, Sahi SV (2016) Enhanced plant growth promoting role of phycomolecules coated zinc oxide NPs with P supplementation in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Physiol Biochem PII S0981-9428(16):30354–0.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Vishwakarma K, Upadhyay N, Kumar N, Tripathi DK, Chauhan DK, Sharma S, Sahi S (2018) Potential applications and avenues of nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture. In: Nanomaterials in plants, algae, and microorganisms. Academic Press, London, pp 473–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vithanage M, Seneviratne M, Ahmad M, Sarkar B, Sik Ok Y (2017) Contrasting effects of engineered carbon nanotubeson plants: a review. Environ Geochem Health 39:1421.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-9957-yCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. VittoriAntisari L, Carbone S, Gatti A, Vianello G, Nannipieri P (2013) Toxicity of metal oxide (CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO2) engineered NPs on soil microbial biomass and their distribution in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 60:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Voleti, R (2015) Effects of low concentrations of carbon nanotubes on growth and gas exchange in Arabidopsis Thaliana. MSU Graduate Theses 2933. http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/2933
  155. Voloshin RA, Kreslavski VD, Zharmukhamedov SK, Bedbenov VS, Ramakrishna S, Allakhverdiev SI (2015) Photo-electrochemical cells based on photosynthetic systems: a review. Biofuel Resea J 6:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wang Q, Ma X, Zhang W, Peia H, Chen Y (2012a) The impact of cerium oxide NPs on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its implications for food safety. Metallomics 4:1105–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Wang X, Han H, Liu X, Gu X, Chen K, Lu D (2012b) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes can enhance root elongation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants. J Nanopart Res 14:841.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0841-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Wang D, Wang G, Zhang G, Xu X, Yang F (2013) Using graphene oxide to enhance the activity of anammox bacteria for nitrogen removal. Bioresour Technol 131:527–530PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. Wild E, Jones KC (2009) Novel method for the direct visualization of in vivo nanomaterials and chemical interactions in plants. Environ Sci Technol 43:5290–5294.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es900065hCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  160. Wong MH, Misra RP, Giraldo JP, Kwak SY, Son Y, Landry MP et al (2016) Lipid exchange envelope penetration (LEEP) of NPs for plant engineering: a universal localization mechanism. Nano Lett 16:1161–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b04467CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. Wu M-Y (2013) Effects of incorporation of nano-carbon into slow released fertilizer on rice yield and nitrogen loss in surface water of paddy soil. In Intelligent System Design and Engineering Applications (ISDEA). Third International Conference IEEE, pp. 676–681.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDEA.2012.161
  162. Xia B, Chen B, Sun X, Qu K, Ma F, Du M (2015) Interaction of TiO2 NPs with the marine microalga Nitzschiaclosterium: growth inhibition, oxidative stress and internalization. Sci Total Environ 508:525–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. Xie Y, Li B, Zhang Q, Zhang C (2012) Effects of nano-silicon dioxide on photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics of Indocalamus barbatus McClure. J Nanjing Forest Univ (Natural Science Edition) 2:59–63Google Scholar
  164. 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):179–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Ze Y, Liu C, Wang L, Hong M, Hong F (2011) The regulation of TiO2 NPs on the expression of light-harvesting complex II and photosynthesis of chloroplasts of Arabidopsis thaliana. Biol Trace Elem Res 143:1131–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-010-8901-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Zhai Y, Hunting RE, Wouters M, Willie Peijnenburg WJGM, Vijver GM (2016) Silver nanoparticles, ions, and shape governing soil microbial functional diversity: nano shapes micro. Front Microbiol 7:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Zhao L, Peng B, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Rico C, Sun Y, Peralta-Videa JR et al (2012) Stress response and tolerance of Zea mays to CeO2 NPs: cross talk among H2O2, heat shock protein, and lipid peroxidation. ACS Nano 6:9615–9622.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn302975uCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  168. Zheng L, Hong F, Lu S, Liu C (2005) Effect of nano-TiO2 on strength of naturally aged seeds and growth of spinach. Bio Trace Element Res 104:83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1385/BTER:104:1:083CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Nafees
    • 1
  • Shafaqat Ali
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Muhammad Rizwan
    • 2
  • Asma Aziz
    • 4
  • Muhammad Adrees
    • 2
  • Syed Makhdoom Hussain
    • 4
  • Qasim Ali
    • 5
  • Muhammad Junaid
    • 6
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  3. 3.Department of Biological Sciences and TechnologyChina Medical University (CMU)TaichungTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  5. 5.Department of BotanyGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  6. 6.Key Laboratory for Heavy Metal Pollution Control and Reutilization, School of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate SchoolShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations