nanotechnology: a new horizon in agriculture

SUDHA RANI.J.SRAD/2016-04DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMYPJTSAU, Telangana

NANO TECHNOLOGY

CREDIT SEMINAR ON

INTRODUCTION Importance of Nanotechnology History of Nanotechnology Applications of Nanotechnology Synthesis and CharacterizationApplications of Nantechnology in Agriculture• Crop improvement• Crop nutrition management• Weed management• Plant protectionResearch FindingsConclutionsThings to look in to

SEQUENCE OF PRSENTATION

INTRODUCTIONThe term "Nanotechnology" was first defined in

1974 by Norio Taniguchi of the Tokyo Science

University in Japan.

Is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic

and molecular scale.

Nanotechnology deals with structures sized between

1 to 100 nanometer in at least one dimension, and

involves developing materials or devices within that

size.

…… continued The definition of nanotechnology is based on the prefix

“nano” which is from the Greek word meaning “dwarf”.

Nanotechnology is the manipulation or self-assembly of individual atoms, molecules, or molecular clusters into structures to create materials and devices with new or vastly different properties.

Nanotechnologies are the designs, characterization, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at nanometer scale

Nanotechnology, abbreviated to "Nanotech”.

What are Nanoparticles ?

Source: PLAR Nanotechnology

1

Unique physical properties : Smaller size, larger surface area• Increase in surface area to volume ratio• Nano sized particles can even pass through the cell wall in plants

and animals. • Nanotechnologists use this process to deliver at cellular level

which is more effective then the conventional method.

Dominance of Electromagnetic forcesEncapsulated control for smart delivery system• Slow release• Quick release• Specific release• Moisture release• Heat release • pH release• Ultra sound• Magnetic release• DNA nanocapsule

Characteristics of nanoparticles

Wang et al., 2013USA

Fig.1: A schematic diagram of experimental setup and watermelon plants used

Rate of Spray 6mlhr-1

Fig.2:TEM images of nanoparticles. a Fe2O3, b TiO2, c MgO, and d, ZnO

Wang et al., 2013USA

Fig.3: Schematic diagram of nanoparticles transport inside watermelon plants

Wang et al., 2013

Fig. 4: TEM images of MgO NPs inside the leaf after 3 days of application

Wang et al., 2013

Natural Nano material

Sources of nanoparticles in nature ?• Nanoparticles are generated naturally by erosion, fires, volcanoes,

and marine wave action • Nanoparticles are also produced by human activities such as coal

combustion, vehicle exhaust, and weathering rubber tires

Things to know about Nanomaterial

SYNTHESIS

CHARACTERIZATION

APPLICATION

SYNTHESIS OF NANOMATERIALS

TWO APPROACHES

TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP

Synthesis of Nanomaterial

Characterization refers to the study of materials features such as its composition, structure, size and various properties like physical, chemical and magnetic characters etc

1.Particle size analysis : Size of nanoparticles

2.UV- Visible spectroscopy analysis : Quantum effects

3.The zeta potential Measurement : Net charge of nanoparticles

4.Microscopic analysis _ surface morphology

• Atomic Force Microscopy(AFM)• Scanning Electron Microscopy( SEM)• Transmission Electron Microscopy(TEM)

Characterization of synthesised nanomaterials

Biosynthesis of Zinc nanoparticles

Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013

Isolation and identification of fungi, Aspergillus fumigatus TFR-8 from Soil

Extracellular biosynthesis of Zinc nanoparticles

Molecular characterization of the fungal isolate

Characterization of Zinc nanoparticles by transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering analysis and scanning electron microscopy analysis

ZnO 1.2-6.8 nm Nanoparticles

Fig.5:(a) Isolated fungi Aspergillus fumigatus TFR-8 used for biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles. (b) Fungal ball of mycelia used for collection of extracellular fungal enzymes. (c) Aspergillus fumigatus TFR-8 spore Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013

Biosynthesis of Zinc nanofertlizer (Nano Zinc oxide)

Tarafdar et al., 2014

Isolation and identification of fungi, Rhizobium bataticola TFR-6 from Soil

Extracellular biosynthesis of Zinc nanoparticles

Molecular characterization of the fungal isolate

Characterization of Zinc nanoparticles by transmission electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering analysis

ZnO 15-25 nm Nanoparticles

Hypothetical mechanism for biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles


Table.1: Effect of storage time on stability of biosynthesized ZnO nanoparticles


Nanoparticles

Time (days)

0 1 3 7 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 125

ZnO (nm) 26.4 26.4 26.8 26.8 27.1 28.9 36.8 66.4 83.4 96.3 148.6 219.6

APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

BIO MEDICAL DRUG DELIVERY

Agriculture and Food

Cosmetics and Paints

Biotechnology

TextilesEnergy Storage

Engineering and communication

Metallurgy and Materials

Electronics

Optical Engineering and communication

NANOTECHNOLOGY

APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE

Figure .6: Potential applications of nanotechnology in agriculture. (A) Increase the productivity using nanopesticides and nanofertilizers; (B) Improve the quality of the soil using nanozeolites and hydrogels;

(C) Stimulate plant growth using nanomaterials (SiO2, TiO2, and carbon nanotubes); (D) Provide smart monitoring using nanosensors by wireless communication devices.

Key focus areas for nanotechnologyin agricultural research

Nano genetic manipulation of

agricultural crops

Agricultural Diagnostics

Nano fertilizers and nano-

complexes Nano-Biosensors

Nano-pesticides

Nano-herbicides

Plant genetic modification Nanoparticles carrying DNA or RNA to be delivered to plant cells for their genetic transformation or to trigger defence responses, activated by pathogens.Mesoporus silica nanoparticles

transporting DNA to transform plant cells. (Iowa State university, US)

Plant protection

Nanocapsules, nanoparticles, nanoemulsions and viral capsids as smart delivery systems of active ingredients for disease and pest control in plantsNeem oil (Azadirachta indica) nanoemulsion as larvicidal agent. Sharma,A.Y et al., 2012

NANOFERTILIZER

NANOFERTILIZERS ?

Nanofertilizer refers to a product that deliversnutrients to crops in one of three ways:1. The nutrient can be encapsulated inside Nano-materials

such as nanotubes or nanoporous materials,2. coated with a thin protective polymer film, 3. delivered as particles or emulsions of nanoscale

dimensions.

Slow, targeted, efficient release becomes possible.

In some cases, the nano particles itself can be used

Fig.6:Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) image of ZnO nanoparticles. Inset shows the high resolution image of a single particle.

Prasad et al., 2012IFT, Tirupati

Table.2: Effect of nanoscale ZnO and bulk ZnSO4 on peanut germination, and shoot and root growth (Lab Experiments in Petri dishes) and Seed vigour Index

Prasad et al., 2012

S. No

Concentration (ppm)

Germination (%) Shoot length (cm)

Root length (cm) Seed Vigour Index

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

1 400 84.01 90.33* 3.80 6.60* 5.84 11.52** 809.85* 1636.7**

2 1000 90.32* 99.02** 4.32 8.71* 6.72* 11.81** 997.13* 2031.89**

3 2000 88.75 96.04* 3.76 4.94 8.06* 9.42* 1049.02* 1379.13**

4Control(water

soaking)85.30 3.11 5.02 693.60

CD@5% 2.80 1.93 1.16 15.82

* Significant @ P =0.05**Highly significant @P= 0.05

Fig.7: Effect of nanoscale ZnO on germination and root growth in peanut (Lab Experiments in petri dishes)

A) After three days and B) Nine days after the treatment

Prasad et al., 2012

Table. 3:Effect of nanoscale ZnO and bulk ZnSO4 on peanut plant height, flowering and

chlorophyll content (Pot experiment)

Prasad et al., 2012

S. No Concentration (ppm)

Plant height (cm)

Initiation of flowering (days)

Chlorophyll content(mg/g fresh wt)

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

1 400 9.38* 13.46** 29.12 29.96 1.44* 1.66*

2 1000 12.42** 15.40** 29.01 27.24 1.74** 1.97**

3 2000 9.54* 10.41** 30.42 30.09 1.52* 1.76**

4Control

(soaking in water)

8.22 29.00 1.39

CD@5% 0.16 NS 0.015


Fig. 8:Pot culture experiment showing higher plant growth after nanoscale ZnO treatment (1000 ppm) after 110 days

Prasad et al., 2012

Table.4: Effect of nanoscale ZnO and bulk ZnSO4 on mean root growth, shoot growth, dry weight and pod yield in peanut -Pot Experiment

Prasad et al., 2012

Sl. No.

Concentration (ppm)

Root volume Root dry weight (g)

Stem dry wt (g)

No. of filled pod plant-1

Pod yield (g)

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

ZnSO4 Nano ZnO

1 400 2.20 3.20 0.72* 1.21** 3.84* 6.64* 1.93 1.96 2.70* 3.04*

2 1000 2.10 4.22 0.54 1.20** 4.29* 8.72** 5.96* 6.59** 3.97* 5.39**

3 2000 3.21 2.16 0.47 0.92* 3.75* 4.96* 3.05* 2.04 1.70 1.09

4 Control 2.10 0.47 1.91 2.00 1.18

CD@5% NS 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.60


Table.5:Response of peanut to application of nanoscale zinc oxide-Field Experiment

Prasad et al., 2012

S. No.

Treatments Plant height (cm)

No. Of branches per plant

No. Of pods per

plant

No. Of filled pods per plant

1 T1=NPK (Control) 36.50 3.85 9.20 8.20

2 T2=NPK+ZnSO4 (Chelated)@30g/15L 37.10 3.85 10.10 9.10

3 T3=NPK+ZnO (Nano) @2g/15L 43.80* 4.57 16.80* 15.00*

CD@5% 4.47 NS 3.76 2.99

Table.6: Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide on yield and yield attributes of peanut (rabi season 2008–2009 and 2009-10)

Prasad et al., 2012

2008–2009

2009-10

Table .7: Effect of zeolite based N fertilizers on plant height of maize

Treatment Inceptisols(cm)

Alfisols(cm)

30 60 90 115 30 60 90 115

T1 = Urea 34.57 91.43

131.8 144.3

34.0 102.1

153.7 162.4

T2 = Zeolite + Urea

35.14 89.28

127.4 142.4

41.6 107.0

153.1 160.4

T3 = Nanozeolite + Urea

35.28 89.28

130.4 142.4

32.1 101.1

150.2 158.0

T4 =Micro Zeourea 37.57 94.57

130.8 146.3

37.6 109.4

158.8 165.8

T5 = Nanozeourea 40.86 94.86

144.8 152.3

37.3 110.8

167.4 178.1

S.Ed 3.53 3.98 3.86 3.84 3.24 7.70 5.19 4.75CD(0.05) NS NS 7.89 NS NS NS NS 9.70

Manikandan.A and Subramanyan.K.S, 2015

Table.8: Effect of zeolite based N fertilizers on maize SPAD value, root length, Dry matter production (DMP), tasseling and silking

Treatment SPAD value Root length (cm)

DMP(g)

Tasseling(Days)

Silking(Days)

I A I A I A I A I A

T1 = Urea 39.32 36.73

56.8 43.5 120.7 105.2

71.4 60.9 83.4 66.1

T2 = Zeolite + Urea

37.97 38.76

53.3 60.3 142.5 115.7

68.6 56.1 78.4 60.9


39.01 38.18

56.8 59.3 144.7 118.6

71.3 61.0 82.9 65.4

T4 = Micro Zeourea

38.52 38.21

59.2 61.9 146.7 123.6

72.4 58.6 83.4 63.4

T5 = Nanozeourea

38.45 39.17

65.9 67.4 151.4 130.1

71.1 56.0 85.0 60.1

S.Ed 1.33 1.70 5.00 5.12 10.46 9.03 2.55 2.32 2.48 2.12

CD(0.05) NS NS NS 10.46

NS NS NS NS NS 4.34

Manikandan.A and Subramanyan 2015

Table.9: Effect of zeolite based N fertilizers on N content in root, stover and grain of maize

Treatment Inceptisols(%)

Alfisols(%)

Root Stover Grain Root Stover Grain

T1 = Urea 0.26 0.34 0.58 0.25 0.25 0.48

T2 = Zeolite + Urea 0.22 0.30 0.53 0.25 0.23 0.52

T3 = Nanozeolite + Urea 0.25 0.26 0.62 0.19 0.23 0.52

T4 = MicroZeourea 0.27 0.78 0.62 0.28 0.23 0.59

T5 = Nanozeourea 0.32 0.51 0.78 0.28 0.32 0.76

S.Ed 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.06CD(0.05) 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.13

Manikandan.A and Subramanyan .K.S, 2015

Table.10: Effect of zeolite based N fertilizers on grain yield and quality parameter of maize

Treatment Inceptisols Alfisols

Grain yield(g)

100 grain wt(g)

Crude protein

(%)

Grain yield(g)

100 grain wt(g)

Crude protein

(%)T1 = Urea 268 27.8 3.62 156 25.8 3.00

T2 = Zeolite + Urea 232 28.2 3.32 203 25.4 3.25


238 28.0 3.85 133 25.7 3.22

T4 = MicroZeourea 295 29.3 3.90 173 27.1 3.70

T5 = Nanozeourea 291 29.8 4.90 254 29.4 4.70

S.Ed 23.01 1.11 0.28 27.59 1.27 0.41CD(0.05) 47.00 NS 0.57 56.36 2.60 0.83

Manikandan.A and Subramanyan .K.S, 2015

Fig.9: Effect of Surface Modified Nano-Zeolite (SMNZ) Based Sulphur fertilizer on plant height at various stages in groundnut

Thirunavukkarasu and Subramanian, 2014

T1- Control, T2- 25% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF), T3 -50% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF)T4 -75% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF), T5-100% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF)T6 -25% S as SMNZ-NF, T7 -50% S as SMNZ –NF, T8 -75% S as SMNZ -NFT9-100% S as SMNZ –NF, (Recommended dose of Sulphur : 40 kg S ha-1) ,

Table.11: Effect of Surface Modified Nano-Zeolite (SMNZ) Based Sulphur fertilizer on number of branches and root nodule count plant height at various stages in groundnut


TreatmentNumber of branches/ plant Number of nodules/plant

30 DAS 60 DAS Harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS Harvest

T1 - Control 2.67 3.47 4.65 7.7 28.3 43.7

T2- 25% S as CF 3.00 4.33 6.33 9.0 34.5 54.7

T3 -50% S as CF 3.49 4.88 6.42 11.3 36.7 56.5

T4 -75% S as CF 3.67 5.33 6.75 12.3 38.3 59.0

T5-100% S as CF 3.83 5.67 7.35 13.0 39.7 60.7

T6 -25% S as NF 3.20 5.33 6.55 9.7 35.3 56.3

T7 -50% S as NF 3.66 5.55 7.00 11.7 38.7 58.0

T8 -75% S as NF 4.66 6.64 8.86 14.0 42.3 63.0

T9-100% S as NF 4.54 5.58 7.72 12.7 40.5 61.0

SEd 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.30 0.98 1.50

CD (P=0.05) 0.20 0.29 0.38 0.62 2.05 3.16

Fig.10: Effect of Surface Modified Nano-Zeolite (SMNZ) Based Sulphur fertilizer on total chlorophyll content at various stages in groundnut

T1- Control, T2- 25% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF), T3 -50% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF)T4 -75% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF), T5-100% S as Conventional fertilizer (CF)T6 -25% S as SMNZ-NF, T7 -50% S as SMNZ –NF, T8 -75% S as SMNZ -NFT9-100% S as SMNZ –NF, (Recommended dose of Sulphur : 40 kg S ha-1)


Fig.11: Slow release of SO42- from pure (NH4)2SO4 and SO4

2- loaded SMNZ


10days

20 day

38days

Root treatment Nitrogenase activity in different legumes (µmol ethylene formed g−1 nodule h−1)

Cluster bean Moth bean Green gram

Cowpea

Without dipping in Hoagland solution

6.53 ± 0.51

7.93 ± 0.83

5.20 ± 0.81

9.49 ± 1.82

After dipping in Hoagland solution

2.67 ± 0.52

6.96 ± 0.17

5.49 ± 0.42

8.81 ± 0.67

Hoagland solution with bulk ZnO 1.5 µg mL−1

1.43 ± 0.04

4.18 ± 0.30

5.34 ± 0.56

5.71 ± 0.66

Hoagland’s solution with nano-ZnO 1.5 µg mL−1

23.32 ± 1.72

6.77 ± 0.03

12.06 ± 2.92

27.52 ± 2.27

Hoagland solution with bulk ZnO 10 µg mL−1

0.43 ± 0.15

2.00 ± 0.42

4.24 ± 0.59

2.85 ± 0.62

Hoagland solution with nano-ZnO 10 µg mL−1

0.32± 0.19

1.72 ± 0.41

nd 1.86 ± 0.14

Table.12: Effect of nano-ZnO and bulk ZnO concentrations on nitrogenase activity in different legumes grown as hydroponics

Uday Burman et al., 2013 CARZI, Jodhpur

Fig.12:Effect of time and concentrations of nano-ZnO on changes in nitrogenase activity in green gram

Uday Burman et al., 2013

Parameters

Submerged AerobicControl Core shell Control Core

shell

Shoot dry mass (g hill−1) 12.57 15.43 NS 10.15 10.70 NS

Shoot zinc content (mg kg−1)

30.42 36.73 ** 27.87 32.52 NS

Shoot zinc uptake (mg hill−1)

3.82 5.66 NS 2.82 3.47 NS

Grain yield (g pot−1) 150.2 237.8 ** 127.2 182.8 **

Straw yield (g pot−1) 336.8 359.2 ** 210.8 290.3 **

Total yield (g pot−1) 550.9 597.0 ** 446.2 473.1 **

Table . 13: Nutritional and yield responses of rice (Orya sativa L.) to manganese core shell loaded zinc (Zn) fertilization.

M. Yuvaraj and K. S. Subramanian ., 2015

Fig.13 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (a) before and (b) after loading of zinc (Zn).

M. Yuvaraj and K. S. Subramanian., 2014

a b

M. Yuvaraj and K. S. Subramanian ., 2015

Fig. 14: Manganese core shell (Loaded with Nano Zn) nutrient release pattern of zinc against ZnSO4

21day 33days

Table.14: Effect of nano zinc on phenological parameter of clusterbean plant at 6 weeks of crop age


Treatments Shoot length(cm)

Root Length(mm)

Root Area(mm2)

Dry biomass(g plant-1)

Control 44.53 720.23 809.30 10.47

Ordinary ZnO(10ppm)

47.73 835.20 1241.47 11.60

Nano ZnO(10ppm)

58.57 1197.70 1404.30 25.33

LSD (p=0.05) 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.15

Fig.15: Phenotype of clusterbean plant (4 weeks old) under varying treatment, O ZnO-ordinary zinc oxide, n ZnO-nano zinc oxide


Table.15:Microbial population and P-solubilizing enzymes activity in rhizosphere of 6-week-old clusterbean plant


Treatments Fungi(CFU x 10-4)

Bacteria(CFU x 10-6)

Actinomycetes

(CFU x 10-5)

Acid phosphatase(EUx 10-4)

Alkaline phosphata

se(EU x 10-4)

Phytase(EU x 10-4)

Control 21.63 41.67 18.44 2.77 6.23 1.93

Ordinary ZnO

(10ppm)

23.33 42.33 21.34 3.47 7.13 2.00

Nano ZnO(10ppm)

24.67 47.33 24.15 4.80 9.27 3.33

LSD (p=0.05)

1.13 1.33 1.04 0.08 0.05 0.10

CFU : colony forming unitEU : Enzymatic Units

Table.16:Total soluble protein, chlorophyll content, and P concentration in clusterbean plant at 6 weeks crop


Treatments Total soluble protein(mg kg-1)

Chlorophyll content(mg kg-1)

P uptake(mg kg-1)

Control 48.05 3.37 923.19

Ordinary ZnO(10ppm)

52.13 8.20 993.50

Nano ZnO(10ppm)

61.08 12.67 1023.27

LSD (p=0.05) 0.02 0.07 0.50

Table.17: Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on phenological parameters, total chlorophyll content and total soluble leaf protein content of pearl millet under field condition at 6 week crop age

Treatments Shoot length(cm)

Root Length

(cm)

Root Area(cm2)

Total chlorophyll

content(µg-1)

Total soluble leaf

protein(mg kg-1)

Control 152 58.6 60.1 30.3 37.7

Ordinary ZnO(10ppm)

158 60.9 63.8 31.5 43.6

Nano ZnO(10ppm)

175 61.1 74.7 37.7 52.3

LSD (p=0.05) 0.58 0.14 0.17 0.46 0.49



Table.18: Enzymes activity in rhizosphere of 6 weeks old pearl millet plant

Treatments Acid Phosphatase

(EU x 10-4)

Alkaline Phosphatase

(EU x 10-4)

Phytase(EU x 10-2)

Dehydrogenase(Pk g-1)

Control 9.1 4.7 0.9 5.7

Ordinary ZnO(10ppm)

14.1 6.2 2.2 6.3

Nano ZnO(10ppm)

16.1 7.6 3.8 6.9

LSD (p=0.05) 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3

PK: Pyruvate Kinase


Table. 19:Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on grain yield, dry biomass and zinc concentration of pearl millet under field condition at crop maturity

Treatments Grain Yield (kg ha-1)

Dry biomass (kg ha-1)

Zinc Concentration (mg kg-1)

Control1065 5192 35.5

Ordinary ZnO(10ppm) 1217 5214 39.2

Nano ZnO(10ppm) 1467 5841 39.8

CV 48 142 3.1

LSD (p=0.05) 17.6 52.2 1.1

Liang et al., 2013

Table.20:Effect of different applications of Carbon nano particles on the agronomic characters of flue cured tobaccoTreatments Plant height (cm) Leaf area (cm2 plant-1)

Resettling growth stage

(30 DAT)

Vigorous growth stage

(60 DAT)

Maturity Stage

(80 DAT)

Resettling growth stage

(30 DAT)

Vigorous growth stage

(60 DAT)

Maturity Stage

(80 DAT)

T1 14.33c 48.00d 142.00b 953.38b 5757.89b 13863.51c

T2 15.00bc 61.00b 151.00a 1338.90ab 66.7.05ab 14783.91b

T3 17.33a 68.33a 157.00a 1478.81a 7356.71a 16897.06a

T4 16.67ab 54.67c 155.50a 1426.15a 6180.34ab 16569.02a

Note: T1, T2, T3 and T4 represent CNP application rates of 0, 25, 75 and 125 mg pot-1, respectively. ( N:P:K - 300:50:100 kg ha -1)

Liang et al., 2013

Fig. 13:Effect of different applications of CNPs on the N (A), P (B) and K (C) accumulation of flue-cured tobacco in different growth periods

Liang et al., 2013

Fig. 14:Effect of different applications of CNPs on the dry matter accumulation of flue-cured tobacco.

Fig.15: Cu-Chitosan Nanopartclie Mediated Sustainable Approach To Enhance Seedling Growth in Maize by Mobilizing Reserved food

Vinod Saharan et al., 2015

Fig.16: Effect of Cu- chitosan NPs on seed germination and seedling growth of Maize Vinod Saharan et al., 2015

NANO HERBICIDE

Fig.17:Smart delivery of nanoencapsulated herbicide in the crop-weed environment Nanoparticles targetting specific receptor of weed plants

Chinnamuthu and Kokiladevei, 2007

Weeding using nano-herbicides is seen as an economically viable alternative Chinnamuthu ,2009

The shell is of 40 to 80 nano metre size and the herbicide is of 16.9 nano metre size. It is being tested in laboratory conditions for resistance to light, temperature and microbes.

,

......Contd

V. Vijji & C.R Chninnanmuthu, 2015

Table.20: Effect of nano particles (Fe & Zn) on phenol degradation of Cyperus rotundus

S.No. Concentration of NPs ( g kg-1 of tuber)

Phenol concentration( mg g-1 of tuber)

Fe203 nps Zn0 nps

1 Control 21.78 9.602 0.5 10.67 5.903 1.0 6.39 5.104 1.5 5.70 4.805 2.0 4.41 4.206 2.5 2.79 5.307 3.0 2.38 5.18 LSD(p=. 0.05) 0.92 0.65

Fig.18: Timescale for developments in atrazine nanopesticide.

Fraceto .L.Fand Grillo R.,2016

Fig.19: Net photosynthesis of maize plants submitted to post-emergence treatment with the formulations.

Olivaria.H.C et al 2016ATZ : Atrazine NC: nanocapsules(poly ε-caprolactone)

Fig.20: Leaf lipid peroxidation of maize plants submitted to post-emergence treatment with the formulations. Lipid peroxidation

T1-3.1 mL of water,T-2 empty PCL nanocapsules (NC),T-3 commercial atrazine (ATZ), or PCL nanocapsules containing atrazine (NC+ATZ).

Olivaria.H.C et al 2016TBARS : Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive substance )MDA : Malon dialdebhyde

Nanotechnology in agriculture: Next steps for understanding engineered nanoparticle exposure and risk

Sevin.A.D & White.J.C., 2015

CONCLUSION

Nano fertilizer clearly has the potential to dramatically improve agriculture production.

Nano fertilizer release the fertilizer slowly and extend the fertilizer effective period

Nanozinc enhances the soil microbial activity

It is possible that engineered nanomaterials may represent an emerging class of contaminants

Very little known in the area of co-contaminant

Issue to be look in to Risk of nano particles to the human health should be

ascertained

Possible interactions of nano particles with the biotic or abiotic environment and their possible amplified bioaccumulation effects have to be accounted for and these should be seriously considered before these applications move from laboratories to the field.

The common challenges related to commercializing nano fertilizers, are: high processing costs, problems in the scalability of R & D for prototype and industrial production

The Governments across the world should form common and strict norms and monitoring, before commercialization and bulk use of these nano fertilizers.

Thank You for your kind

attention

nanotechnology: a new horizon in agriculture

Education