Smart fertilizers

Nilwala
Kottegoda
SMART N FERTILIZER for
EINSTEIN FARMERS
Bench to Field
WELCOME
WELCOME

SOILS 692
DOCTORAL SEMINAR-II
ON
SMART FERTILIZERS: FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE
Presented by
Mr. Bagmare Rakesh Ramesh
Reg. No: 2019A/26P
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, PARBHANI
Seminar In Charge
Dr. P.H. VAIDYA
Professor
Dept. of Soil Science and Agril. Chemistry
Research Guide
Dr. SYED ISMAIL
Associate Dean & Principal and Head,
Dept. of Soil Science and Agril. Chemistry
Submitted to
DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRIL. CHEMISTRY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH
PARBHANI 431 402 [M.S.]
2021

CONTENT
1. Fertilizer, History of Fertilizer
2. Major issues, Fertilizer challenges, Current World Fertilizer Trends
3. Smart fertilizer, Meaning, Customized Fertilizer, Manufacturing, Methodology.
4. Slow release fertilizers, Mechanism, Function, Advantages and Disadvantages of SRF
5.Nanotechnology, Nanoparticles, Types of Nano particles, Charecteristics of
nanoparticles, Synthesis of nano particles, Nanofertilizer, Application in Agriculture,
Mechanism, Function of NF, Hypothetical mechanism, Advantages and Disadvantages of
Nanofertilizer, Mode of action
6. Different challenges by using Nanotechnology in Agriculture
7. Case Studies
8. Conclusion
9. Future Prospects

History of Fertilizer
 Johann Friedrich Mayer (1719–1798) was the first to present to the world a series of
experiments upon it the relation of gypsum to agriculture, and many chemists
have followed him in the 19th century. Early 19th century however a great variety
of opinion remained with regard to its mode of operation.
 Chemist Justus von Liebig (1803–1873) contributed greatly to the advancement in the
understanding of plant nutrition. His influential works first denounced the
Albrecht Thaer theory of humus, arguing first the importance of ammonia, and
later promoting the importance of inorganic minerals to plant nutrition.
 John Bennet Lawes, an English entrepreneur, (view timeline of his life and work) began
to experiment on the effects of various manures on plants growing in pots in
1837, and a year or two later the experiments were extended to crops in the field.
One immediate consequence was that in 1842 he patented a manure
formed by treating phosphates with sulphuric acid, and thus was the first to
create the artificial manure industry.
J. B. Boussingault (1802–1887) pointed out that the amount of nitrogen in various kinds
of fertilizers is important.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer)

 Birkeland–Eyde process was developed by Norwegian industrialist and
scientist Kristian Birkeland along with his business partner Sam Eyde in 1903,
based on a method used by Henry Cavendish in 1784. This process was used to
fix atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into nitric acid (HNO3), one of several chemical
processes generally referred to as nitrogen fixation.
 Erling Johnson (1927) developed an industrial method for producing nitrophosphate,
also known as the Odda process after his Odda Smelteverk of Norway.
Imperial Chemical Industries who developed synthetic ammonium sulfate in
1923, Nitro-chalk in 1927, and a more concentrated and economical fertilizer
called CCF(Concentrated Complete Fertiliser) based on ammonium phosphate in
1931. Competition was limited as ICI ensured it controlled most of the
world's ammonium sulfate supplies.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer)
History of Fertilizer

Feeding 7 Billion World Population???
One billion people suffer from chronic hunger…..
Scientific American, Nov. 2011
Compiled and Edited by
Rakesh Bagmare (Ph.D) VNMKV
Parbhani

Major Issues…..
Increasing Popullation Limited Arable land
Limited Water Resources Low fertilizer Use Efficiency
Parbhani

Fertilizer Challenges
Compiled
and Edited
by
Rakesh
Bagmare
(Ph.D)
VNMKV
Parbhani

Fertilizer Challenges
Leaching Losses Volatilization, Denitrification
Fixation in Soil Losses due to Runoff
Parbhani

FAI, 2015
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer demand
(million tonnes)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Phosphorus (P2O5) fertilizer
demand (million tonnes)
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Potassium (K2O) fertilizer demand
(million tonnes)
Source: Current World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2020, FAO (2017)
Parbhani

FAI, 2015
In India, Chemical Fertilizer consumption increased by about16% in
the last six years
Parbhani

Smart Fertilizers…
What does it means ? ? ?
Parbhani

Like Smart person having clean, orderly, well dressed, showing a quick
intelligence and quick in action.
“Smart fertilizer ’’are those fertilizers are having low impurities (clean)
works according to the requirement of the plant and very quick in
action…
Smart fertilzer a fertilizer which works intelligently synchronising the release of
nutrients in association with crop demand (right amount in right time)
having least adverse effects on environment (minimise pollution)
The molecules of smart fertilizer is water insoluble sometimes but has a smart
feature so that nutrient is released only on demand by the crop.
Parbhani

Smart fertilizer have smart feature so that nutrients are released as per crop
demand. They are designer molecule that allow to sustained released of
nutrients by a plant-root activated mechanism. The fertilizer molecule function
like a nutrient storehouse providing a continuous nutrient supply throughout
the crop growth period.
Source: https://newsroom.carleton.ca/story/smart-fertilizer-game-changer-for-farmers
Parbhani

Source: https://krishijagran.com/industry-news
1. Customized Fertilizer ….
2. Slow Release Fertilizer…
3. Nano Fertilizer….
Parbhani

(Source: Soil Health: Technological Interventions, 2019)
What is customized Fertilizer ….
Customized fertilizers as “multi nutrient carrier designed to contain macro
and micro nutrient forms., both from inorganic and organic sources.
Manufactured through a systematic process of granulation, satisfying
the crop's nutritional needs, specific to its site, soil and stage.
Parbhani

Customized Fertilizer
MANUFACTURING METHODOLOGIES
1. Chemical granulation: It is also called slurry granulation or complex granulation.
Here, fertilizer production start with the basic raw materials like rock phosphate, acids
and ammonia rather than their salts like diammonium phosphate and urea.
2. Bulk blending: It is the simplest and cheapest option available for the production
of customized fertilizers, which involves pure mixing of solid fertilizers in a ratio
required to get the desired nutrient ratio.
3. Compaction: Compaction is also called as dry granulation process as not using any
liquid binders for making it as granule.
4. Steam granulation: Raw materials are in solid form and uniform size reduction of
this fertilizer material is the key to granulation. This is the most suited method for the
large scale production of customized fertilizers in India.
Parbhani

Customized Formulations available in India
•There are about 80 formulations (N, NP , NPK , NPKS
available) and 36 Formulations approved by FCO.
Tata Chemicals Ltd: Paras Farmulae , the country’s
first ever CF product targeted to west & Central UP
farmers.
Parbhani

Most important issues which hinder the marketing of customized
fertilizers are:
High cost of Customized fertilizers and not subsidized by Government of
India.
 Necessity of investing heavy capital in state of the art manufacturing
facility for customized fertilizer.
Limited awareness and very low affordability of customized fertilizers
among the farmers.
 Uncertainty in response when fertility is restored in the field.
Parbhani

(Source: https://www.compo-expert.com/product-groups/slow-release-fertilizers)
What is Slow Release Fertilizer ….
Slow release chemical fertilizers is that they release their nutrient contents at
more gradual rates that permit maximum uptake and utilization of the
nutrient while minimizing losses due to leaching, volatilization or excessive
growth.
The SRFs are those fertilizers which involve a slower release rate of nutrient than
conventional water soluble fertilizer and CRFs.
The release of nutrients dependent on microbial decomposition whose
effectiveness is dependent on temperature and moisture condition. The
microbially decomposed N product such as urea-formaldehydes, are
commonly referred to as SRFs.
Slow Release Fertilizer
Parbhani

(Source: https://www.compo-expert.com/product-groups/slow-release-fertilizers)
Parbhani

(Source: Decomposition model of the polymer coated fertilizers (Chissoasahi, 2007)
Decomposition model of the polymer coating of
slow-release fertilizer
Parbhani

(Source: Soil Health: Technological Interventions 2019)
Advantages using Slow Release Fertilizers
•Minimizing nutrient losses and enhances nutrient-use efficiency
•No excess nutrients supply/ no injury to plants
•Temperature/ humidity dependent nutrient release
•Continous N supply for upto 4 month
•Low salt concentration and toxicity
•Reduction of burning risk
•Less leaching
•Prmotes good root system
•Saving labour, time and energy
Parbhani

Advantages using Slow Release Fertilizers
Decreased nutrient losses and enhanced nutrient-use efficiency. The application of
CRFs and SRFs can potentially decrease fertilizer use by 20 to 30 percent of
the recommended rate of a conventional fertilizer while obtaining the same
yield
Minimization of fertilizer-associated risks such as leaf burning, water contamination,
and eutrophication.
The slow rates of nutrient release can keep available nutrient concentrations in soil
solution at a lower level, reducing runoff and leaching losses.
Lowered soil pH in alkaline soils for better bioavailability of some nutrients. Applying
sulfur-coated urea will probably increase soil acidity because both sulfur and
urea contribute to increasing the acidity (lowering soil pH) of the soil.
Reduced application, labour costs and reduced production costs.
Parbhani

Parbhani

Factors that control nutrient
release from SRF
Temperature:
Solutes such as urea move through the
coating by diffusion which is dependent
on temperature
Coating weight or thickness:
As coating thickness increases, the
diffusion time through the coating
increases
Moisture is required but is a non-factor
for irrigated crops
Durability of Coated
Fertilizer
Coatings can be damaged by excessive
handling
•Damage occurs from abrasion and impact
•Damage shortens release time and can
reduce value
•Application equipment should be in good
repair and properly adjusted
•Handle similar to seed
•Follow manufacturer guidelines for
handling
(Source: Soil Health: Technological Interventions 2019) Compiled and Edited by
Parbhani

(Source:British Standard Institution, 2005)
Nanotechnology
“Nanotechnology is the art and science of manupulating
matter at nanoscale”
The Design, charecterization, production and application of
structure, device and system by controlling shape and size at
nanoscale.
"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 nm in at
least one dimension, and involves developing materials or devices within
that size.
Parbhani

(Source: PLAR Nanotechnology 2019)
What are Nanoparticles ?
Nanotechnology
Parbhani

Types of Nano particles in nature
(Source: PLAR Nanotechnology 2019) Compiled and Edited by
Parbhani

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 rubbertires
Nanotechnology
Parbhani

Charecteristics of Nano particles
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.
Encapsulated control for smart delivery system
. Slow release
• Quick release
• Specific release
• Moisture release
• Heat release
• pH release
• Ultra sound
• Magnetic release
Parbhani

Applications Of Nanotechnology
Parbhani

Applications Of Nanotechnology in Agriculture
Parbhani

Key focus areas for Nanotechnology in
Agricultural Research
1. Nano Genetic Manupulation Of Agriculture Crops
2. Nano fertilizers and Nano complexes
3. Nano Biosensers
4. Nano pesticides
5. Nano herbicides
Parbhani

Potential applications Of
Nanotechnology in Agriculture
Parbhani

Synthesis of Nanoparticles
Top-down Bottom-up
Physical Method Chemical Method
Parbhani

(Source: Nano fertilizer and Nanotechnology: A quick look)
Mode of action of Nanofertilizer
Parbhani

(Source: Nanofertilizer and Nanotechnology: A quick look)
Why we want to use Nano-fertilizers
Nano-fertilizers are more beneficial as
compared to chemical fertilizers
• Three-times increase in Nutrient Use
Efficiency (NUE)
• 80-100 times less requirement to
chemical fertilizers.
• High surface area to volume ratio
• 30% more nutrient mobilization by
the plants.
• 17-54 % improvement in the crop
yield.
Parbhani

(Source: Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013)
Biosynthesis of Zinc nano particles
Isolation and identification of fungi,
Aspergillus fumigatus TFR-8 from Soil
Molecular characterization of the fungal isolate
Extracellular biosynthesis of Zinc nano particles
Characterization of Zinc nano particles by transmission electron microscopy,
dynamic light scattering analysis and scanning electron microscopy analysis
ZnO 1.2-6.8 nm
Nanoparticles
Parbhani

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
Parbhani

Hypothetical Mechanism for biosynthesis of ZnO
nano particles
Parbhani

TEM image of nanoparticles SEM image of nanoparticles
TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy
Parbhani

(Source: Nanotechnology In Agricultural Production, 2019)
Challenges By Using Nano Technology In Agriculture
Toxicity: While nanotechnology has great future potential.
Its novelty and its peace of development cause uncertainty regarding the long-
term effects of nanoparticles on the environment and human health.
In the short-term, no hazards are identified but in the long-term they might
affect humans through bio-accumulation of toxins in plants and animals.
Risk Assessment: Risk assessment consists of testing exposure and potential
risk.
The great variety of nanoparticles and the lack of data on their toxicity
under various conditions impedes the creation of standardizer risk assessment
tools.
Regulations: Due to their, size-related properties which may differ from their bulk
counterpart, adopting regulatory frameworks that adequately deal with NT can
be challenging.
While some argue current regulatory frameworks are sufficient to deal with the
risks and uncertainty of NT.
Adopting nano-specific regulation and formulating a common definition is
needed to stimulate countries to share knowledge, trade in products containing
nanomaterials and mitigate associated risks
Parbhani

Challenges By Using Nano Technology In Agriculture
Focus R&D on long-term toxicity and exposure of nanoparticles in the
environment and their implications for human health.
– Selection of non-toxic, environmentally friendly nanomaterials for their
application in agricultural production.
– Develop international standardized risk assessment methods in close
collaborate with scientists and private companies in order to reduce costs and
integrate knowledge.
– Each international consensus on a workable definition of NT in order to
coordinate legislation and risk assessment.
Parbhani

Comparative analysis of the conventional approach with
respect to Smart fertilizer mediated agriculture production
Parbhani

Parbhani

Treatment
Productive
tillers
(No./ hill)
Panicle
length
(cm)
Filled
grains
Panicle-1
(No.)
Grain
yield
(kg ha-1)
Percent
increase
over
control
T1: Check 100% RDF -150:50:50 kg N,P2O5,K2O
ha-1 +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1
19 22.85 152 5628 -
T2: 50 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 15 20.55 117 5061 -10.1
T3: 75% RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 20 24.70 171 6250 11.1
T4: 100 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 20 26.65 187 6622 17.7
T5: 50 % RDF as CF II 17 22.75 144 5372 -4.5
T6: 75% RDF as CF II 21 25.40 180 6478 15.1
T7: 100 % RDF as CF II 21 27.70 203 6878 22.2
SEd 1 0.29 8 89
Table 1: Effect of customized fertilizers on no. of productive tillers, panicle length and no.
of filled grains per panicle and grain yield of rice (var.ADT.43)
(Straight fertilizers applied through urea, super phosphate and muriate of potash, customized fertilizer of N: P: K mixture (CF I ) and N:P:K:
Zn mixture (CF II).
Kaleeswari, R.K.(2013) Impact of Customized Fertilizers on Yield and Soil Properties of Lowland Rice Ecosystem, Madras Agricultural Journal100 (1-3):
150-152. location: Coimbatore,TN
Parbhani

Table no 2: Effect of Customized fertilizers on nutrient in soil at harvest stage
Treatment pH EC N
(kg ha-1)
P
(kg ha-1)
K
(kg ha-1)
T1: Check 100% RDF -150:50:50 kg N,P2O5,K2O
ha-1 +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1
7.75 0.20 307 33.9 469
T2: 50 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 7.74 0.17 253 27.1 355
T3: 75% RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 7.65 0.19 289 42.0 509
T4: 100 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 7.62 0.23 312 40.0 537
T5: 50 % RDF as CF II 7.68 0.19 272 25.8 384
T6: 75% RDF as CF II 7.67 0.17 322 38.5 528
T7: 100 % RDF as CF II
7.71 0.15 343 35.7 543
SEd 0.08 0.05 23 2.6 58
Kaleeswari, R.K.(2013) Impact of Customized Fertilizers on Yield and Soil Properties of Lowland Rice Ecosystem, Madras Agricultural Journal100 (1-3):
150-152. location: Coimbatore,TN
Zn mixture (CF II).
Parbhani

Table no 3: Effect of Customized fertilizers on DTPA-micronutrients in soil at harvest stage
Treatment Zn
(mg kg-1)
Fe
(mg kg-1)
Cu
(mg kg-1)
Mn
(mg kg-1)
T1: Check 100% RDF -150:50:50 kg N,P2O5,K2O ha-1
+25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1
4.21 87.26 6.38 9.76
T2: 50 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 3.26 86.35 5.89 8.73
T3: 75% RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 4.52 89.19 6.44 10.69
T4: 100 % RDF as CF I +25 kg Zn SO4 ha-1 4.41 89.18 6.72 10.45
T5: 50 % RDF as CF II 4.16 86.89 6.22 9.12
T6: 75% RDF as CF II 5.22 87.75 6.96 10.68
T7: 100 % RDF as CF II
5.30 87.42 6.79 10.46
SEd 0.24 1.24 0.43 0.78
Kaleeswari, R.K.(2013) Impact of Customized Fertilizers on Yield and Soil Properties of Lowland Rice Ecosystem, Madras Agricultural Journal, 100 (1-3):
150-152 location: Coimbatore, TN
Zn mixture (CF II).
Parbhani

Table 4: Effect of different levels of customized fertilizer on yield and yield contributing characters of
onion at harvest.
(CF(RCF)-N 20 %, P 12 %, K 10 %, S 4.0 %, Mg 0.25 %, Zn 0.50 % and Fe 0.50 % )
Treatments Height of
plant (cm)
Stem
diameter
(cm)
Bulb diameter
(cm)
Onion bulb
yield
(t ha-1 )
Green leaves
yield
(t ha-1 )
FUE
(kg bulb/ kg
fertilizer)
T1-Control 47.77 4.63 10.85 13.89 8.97 -
T2 -100% RD 53.27 5.58 14.68 19.19 12.05 19.12
T3-75 % RD of NPK through CF (2
equal doses)
51.80 5.47 12.97 17.28 12.17 17.18
T4-100 % RD of NPK through
CF (2 equal doses)
56.80 5.63 14.25 21.96 13.02 21.89
CF (2 equal doses)
55.40 5.47 14.35 20.91 12.16 19.85
CF (3 equal doses)
54.94 5.53 13.40 19.61 12.82 19.52
CF (3 equal doses)
(33 % at basal, 30 and 60 DAT)
57.77 6.03 15.13 22.34 12.61 22.27
CF (3 equal doses)
57.67 5.87 14.49 20.23 12.20 19.17
Mean 54.43 5.53 13.76 19.38 12.00 19.86
S.E.+/- 1.78 0.39 0.81 0.93 0.70 90.6
C.D. at 5% 5.40 1.17 2.44 2.83 2.12 2.96
Kambale B. M. and kathmale D. K (2015). Effect of different levels of customized fertilizer on soil nutrient availability, yield and economics of onion.
Journal of Applied and Natural Science 7 (2) : 817 - 821. Location: Kasabe Digraj, Sangli
Parbhani

Table 5: Effect of different levels of customized fertilizer on soil properties and available
nutrient status after harvest of onion. (CF(RCF)-N 20 %, P 12 %, K 10 %, S 4.0 %, Mg 0.25 %, Zn 0.50 % and Fe 0.50 % )
Treatments Available nutrient status (kg ha-1)
Initial N P K
178 10.50 732
T1-Control 169 9.79 653
T2 -100 % RD 179 10.90 750
T3-75 % RD of NPK through CF (2 equal doses) 182 13.17 762
T5-125 % RD of NPK through CF (2 equal doses)
(50 % at basal + 50 % at 30 DAT)
213 14.42 796
T7-100 % RD of NPK through CF (3 equal doses)
210 14.12 804
S.E.+/- 6.3 0.97 23
C.D. at 5% 19.1 2.95 71
Journal of Applied and Natural Science 7 (2) : 817 – 821 Location: Kasabe Digraj, Sangli
Parbhani

Table 6: Effect of different levels of customized fertilizer on economics of onion.
(CF(RCF)-N 20 %, P 12 %, K 10 %, S 4.0 %, Mg 0.25 %, Zn 0.50 % and Fe 0.50 % )
Treatments Gross Returns
(Rs. ha-1 )
Cost of cultivation
(Rs. ha-1 )
Net Returns
(Rs. ha-1 )
B:C
Ratio
T1-Control 111116 65907 45209 1.69
T2 -100% RD 153534 69907 83627 2.20
equal doses)
138220 68907 69313 2.01
T4-100 % RD of NPK through CF
(2 equal doses)
175680 69907 105773 2.51
(2 equal doses)
159258 70907 88351 2.25
equal doses)
156886 68907 87979 2.28
(3 equal doses)
178738 69907 108831 2.56
(3 equal doses)
153823 70907 82916 2.17
S.E.+/- 7465 0.11
C.D. at 5% 22646 0.33
Journal of Applied and Natural Science 7 (2) : 817 - 821 Location: Kasabe Digraj, Sangli
Parbhani

Table7: Effect of sulphur and zinc containing customized fertilizers on growth and yield attributes of
onion
P.H. Rathod*, R.N. Katkar, R. Vrushali. Bhende S.M. Ghawade, S.R. Lakhe, and V.K. Kharche (2020) Effect of Sulphur and Zinc Containing Customized Fertilizers on
Growth, Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Onion International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9(1): 2061-2069 Location: Akola
Treatments
Plant height
(cm)
No. of
leaves
plant-1
Bulb weight
(g bulb- 1)
Neck
thickness
(cm)
Bulb
Yield (q ha-1)
Leaves
Yield (q ha-1 )
T1-Absolute Control 42.27 8.47 31.44 1.32 258.86 20.71
T2-RDF of NPK 43.07 8.93 40.86 1.38 316.39 23.55
T3-RDF of NPKS 48.90 9.67 47.10 1.60 387.79 27.19
T4-RDF of NPKS and Zn
(100:50:50:40:3.50 kg ha-1)
50.80 11.43 48.31 1.73 397.79 27.84
T5-RDF of NPKS + FYM 48.10 9.10 45.69 1.97 383.28 26.03
T6-RDF of P through NPS-1( N and K
through conventional fertilizers)
46.67 9.93 46.28 1.51 381.04 26.67
45.70 10.27 46.05 1.45 379.15 26.54
T8-RDF of P through NPS-2 and Zn
( N and K through conventional
fertilizers)
49.40 11.10 46.49 1.58 382.80 26.80
T19-RDF of NPK + Sulphur equivalent
to NPS 1 supplied in T6
47.60 10.58 45.91 1.40 377.96 26.46
T10-RDF of NPK + Sulphur equivalent
to NPS 2 supplied in T7
46.60 9.17 45.58 1.55 374.84 26.24
T11-RDF of NPK + Sulphur and Zn
equivalent to NPS Zn supplied in T8
48.27 10.40 46.16 1.57 380.02 26.60
S.E.+/- 1.20 0.42 2.07 0.05 15.20 1.20
C.D. at 5% 3.54 1.22 6.11 0.16 44.82 3.53
Parbhani

Table8: Total uptake of nutrients by onion as influenced by various treatments.
P.H. Rathod*, R.N. Katkar, R. Vrushali. Bhende S.M. Ghawade, S.R. Lakhe, and V.K. Kharche 2020 Effect of Sulphur and Zinc Containing Customized Fertilizers on
Growth, Yield and Nutrient Uptake of OnionInt. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 9(1): 2061-2069 Location: Akola
Treatments Total uptake of major nutrients
(kgha-1)
Total uptake of micro nutrients
(g ha-1)
N P K S Zn Fe Cu Mn
T1-Absolute Control 88.88 13.01 72.33 14.05 713.48 990.5 55.4 177.2
T2-RDF of NPK 113.29 19.44 94.91 19.44 931.44 1257.1 72.1 239.9
T3-RDF of NPKS 132.29 24.51 111.10 31.92 1256.90 1468.9 85.9 287.9
T4-RDF of NPKS and Zn
(100:50:50:40:3.50 kg ha-1)
137.67 26.54 116.39 33.84 1395.47 1523.7 90.1 302
T5-RDF of NPKS + FYM 123.90 22.49 105.09 28.25 1164.16 1437.0 85.09 294.9
126.44 23.56 107.88 30.06 1131.98 1402.8 82.0 284.3
128.37 22.73 107.65 28.25 1137.61 1434.0 83.4 287.2
T8-RDF of P through NPS-2 and Zn( N
and K through conventional fertilizers)
130.30 24.25 109.90 31.77 1214.68 1461.6 86.8 292.5
T19-RDF of NPK + Sulphur equivalent to
NPS 1 supplied in T6
123.02 22.47 102.61 28.21 1100.68 1376.6 81.5 273.2
T10-RDF of NPK + Sulphur equivalent to
NPS 2 supplied in T7
121.91 21.10 102.50 28.73 1072.17 1354.8 79.7 271.7
T11-RDF of NPK + Sulphur and Zn
equivalent to NPS Zn supplied in T8
129.38 23.40 108.22 31.36 1194.58 1452.4 84.0 286.9
S.E.+/- 3.35 0.93 3.13 1.36 43.16 103.9 3.29 28.3
C.D. at 5% 9.87 2.73 9.24 4.00 127.30 306.6 9.70 85.05
Parbhani

Treatments
Plant height
(cm) Branches plant-1
Effective
branches
plant-1
Tuber length
(cm) Tubers plant-1
Tuber
weight (g
tuber-1)
T1-control (No fertilizer) 28.5 2.0 1.5 2.57 3.57 53.63
T2-50% CF dose 37.7 2.7 2.0 3.63 4.2 70.00
T3-75% CF dose 40.5 3.5 3.0 4.07 4.70 81.27
T4-100% CF dose 46.5 4.5 3.8 5.23 6.03 99.67
T5-125% CF dose 54.6 5.3 4.7 6.30 7.73 118.7
T6-150% CF dose
(N, P2O5, K2O, S, Zn & B: 14,
17, 14, 5, 0.5 & 0.2 )
46.8
6.7
5.5 8.27 9.03 163.23
T7-Recommended dose of
fertilizer (150:90:100)
44.5 4.2 3.7 4.60 5.07 85.2
CD (p=0.05) 4.05 0.48 0.35 0.57 0.54 10.68
Table 9: Effect of customized fertilizer (CF) on yield attributes of potato crop
In T7 treatment i.e. Blanket recommendation as package-1 of practice at Sabour 150kg N, 90kg P2O5 & 100kg K2O ha-1 were applied. The
source of N was DAP & Urea, for P2O5-DAP and K2O-MOP.
Sanjay Kumar Mandal, Rajeev Padbhushan and Mukteshwar Kumar (2019). Response of customized fertilizer application on growth, yield and
economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in eastern region of India Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 9(1): 1475-1478
Location: Sabour, Bihar
Parbhani

Table 10: Effect of Customized Fertilizers (CF) on tuber yield of potato
Treatments
Tuber yield
(kg ha-1)
Increase in yield over control Increase in yield over
recommended dose of fertilizer
(kg ha-1) % Increase (kg ha-1) % Increase
T1-control (No fertilizer) 10013 - - - -
T2-50% CF dose 13115 3102 31 - -
T3-75% CF dose 15853 5840 58 - -
T4-100% CF dose 18948 8935 89 1627 9
T5-125% CF dose 21091 11078 111 3770 22
T6-150% CF dose (N, P2O5,
K2O, S, Zn & B: 14, 17, 14, 5,
0.5 & 0.2 %)
23445 13432 134 6124 35
17321 7308 73 - -
CD (p=0.05) 2279
economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in eastern region of India, Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 9(1): 1475-1478
Parbhani

Treatments Org. C (%) Av. N (kg ha-1) Av. P (kg ha-1) Av. K (kg ha-1)
Initial status 0.50 198.5 22.5 159.4
T1-control (No fertilizer) 0.51 186.3 18.5 151.3
T2-50% CF dose 0.52 199.8 19.8 172.5
T3-75% CF dose 0.50 195.6 20.5 194.5
T4-100% CF dose 0.53 201.5 26.8 214.7
T5-125% CF dose 0.50 200.4 41.6 220.5
T6-150% CF dose (N, P2O5,
K2O, S, Zn & B: 14, 17, 14, 5, 0.5
& 0.2 )
0.47 231.6 52.5 233.5
0.48 204.8 42.6 204.2
CD (p=0.05) NS 20.4 30.3 21.7
Table 11:Effect of customized fertilizer on chemical properties of soil after harvest of Potato
economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in eastern region of India.Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 9(1): 1475-1478
Parbhani

Slow release fertilizer
Parbhani

Treatments
Plant Height
(cm)
Spike
Length
(cm)
Root Length
(cm)
Inter-nodal
Distance
(cm)
Number. of Tillers
(m-2)
Control
(no P application)
71.32±0.62 7.32±0.24 8.85±0.37 6.98±0.40 209.50±4.80
100% un-coated DAP 96.42±0.31 9.32±0.54 9.41±0.59 8.81±0.87 299.75±4.11
50% Polymer coated
DAP
100.07±0.61 10.50±0.42 10.00±0.39 9.25±0.12 347.00±2.74
75% Polymer coated
DAP
105.77±0.58 11.52±0.22 10.85±0.49 9.80±0.26 1359.75±7.54
100% Polymer coated
DAP
114.60±0.88 13.65±0.40 12.32±0.32 10.15±0.50 391.00±4.40
LSD 1.89 1.15 1.33 1.50 14.99
Table 12: Effect of polymer coated DAP on growth attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Imran Ali, Ayesha Mustafa, Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Imran (2017)Polymer Coated DAP helps in Enhancing Growth, Yield and
Phosphorus use Efficiency of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Journal of Plant Nutrition, 40(18), 2587-2594 Location: Faisalabad, Pakisthan
Parbhani

Table 13: Effect of polymer coated DAP on yield parameters of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Treatments
Number of
Grains per
Spike ha-1)
1000 Grain
weight (g)
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
Biological yield
(kg ha-1)
Control
(no P application)
39.75±1.75 40.00±0.46 2255.5±113.77 2790.1±125.21 5345.6±238.87
100% un-coated DAP 43.00±1.47 4610.8±67.43 43.00±1.47 5922.9±88.84 9533.7±139.66
50% Polymer coated
DAP
46.25±1.38 42.76±0.98 5167.6±225.93 5494.1±279.07 10662±496.90
75% Polymer coated
DAP
48.50±1.85 46.25±1.86 5365.9±73.93 5674.5±116.32 11040±166.71
100% Polymer coated
DAP
52.75±2.06 48.37±0.48 5676.8±53.72 5959.4±91.69 11636±140.99
LSD 5.18 3.03 1 373.8 473.52 821.2
Imran Ali, Ayesha Mustafa, Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Imran (2017) Polymer Coated DAP helps in Enhancing Growth, Yield and Phosphorus
use Efficiency of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Journal of Plant Nutrition, 40(18), 2587-2594 Location: Faisalabad, Pakisthan
Parbhani

Figure 1: Effect of polymer coated DAP on P concentration in straw (a) and grains (b) of
wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)
• LSD (straw P concentration): 0.02; LSD (grains P concentration): 0.02
Imran Ali, Ayesha Mustafa, Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Imran (2017) Polymer Coated DAP helps in Enhancing Growth, Yield and
Parbhani

Figure2: Effect of polymer coated DAP on P uptake by straw (a) and grains (b) of wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.)
• LSD: (P uptake in straw): 1.42; LSD (P uptake in grains): 1.17

Table 14: Effect of polymer coated DAP on P Recovery and Agronomic Efficiency of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)
Treatments Phosphorus Recovery(%) Agronomic Efficiency
(kg grains per kg P2O5)
Control
(no P application)
5.42±0.50 22.84±1.87
100% un-coated DAP 12.21±0.38 29.02±2.28
50% Polymer coated DAP 16.64±0.35 31.23±0.50
LSD 2.15 4.33
Parbhani

Table 15: Effect of sulphur-coated urea on productivity and harvest index of wheat
Shivay, Y. S., Pooniya, V., Prasad, R., Pal, M., and Bansal, R. (2016) Sulphur-coated urea as a source of sulphur and an enhanced efficiency of nitrogen
fertilizer for spring wheat. Cereal Research Communications, 44(3), 513-523. Location: New Delhi
Treatment Grain yield
(tonnes ha-1)
Straw yield
(tonnes ha-1)
Harvest index
(%)
Absolute control 2.92 5.21 35.9
Prilled urea 4.28 7.16 37.4
1.0% sulphur-coated urea 4.45 7.41 37.6
SEm± 0.118 0.183 0.26
Parbhani

Table 16: Effect of sulphur-coated urea on nitrogen concentration in wheat grain, straw
and its uptake by wheat crop (mean of 2 years)
Treatment N concentration (%) N uptake (kg ha–1)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Total
Absolute control 1.65 0.37 48.2 19.3 67.5
Prilled urea 1.85 0.41 79.2 29.4 108.6
1.0% sulphur-coated
urea
1.89 0.43 84.2 31.9 116.1
2.0% sulphur-coated
urea
1.93 0.44 87.5 33.1 120.6
3.0% sulphur-coated
urea
1.98 0.45 91.5 34.4. 125.9
4.0% sulphur-coated
urea
2.00 0.45 93.8 35.5 129.3
5.0% sulphur-coated
urea
2.07 0.46 98.6 36.0 134.6
SEm± 0.018 0.008 3.09 1.18 4.19
Parbhani
Parbhani

Table 17: Effect of sulphur-coated urea on nitrogen concentration in wheat grain, straw
and its uptake by wheat crop (mean of 2 years)
Treatment S concentration (%) S uptake (kg ha-1)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Total
Absolute control 0.18 0.20 5.3 10.4 15.7
Prilled urea 0.19 0.22 8.1 9 15.8 23.9
1.0% sulphur-coated
urea
0.19 0.23 8.5 17.1 25.6
2.0% sulphur-coated
urea
0.20 0.24 9.1 18.1 27.2
3.0% sulphur-coated
urea
0.20 0.24 9.3 18.4 27.7
4.0% sulphur-coated
urea
0.21 0.25 9.9 19.2 29.1
5.0% sulphur
coated urea
0.22 0.26 10.5 20.4 30.9
SEm± 0.006 0.006 0.51 0.86 1.35
Parbhani

Table 18: Growth, yield attributes and yield of rice as influenced by neem coated urea
Nagabhushanam, U., and Bhatt, P. S. (2020). Effect of neem coated urea on yield attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and economics of rice (Oryza sativa
L.). International Journal of Conservation Science 8(3), 123-128 Location: Warangal, Telangana
Treatments Plant
height
(cm)
Tillers
(No/m2)
Panicles
(No/m2)
Panicle
length
(cm)
Panicle
weight
(g)
Test wt. (g) Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
Straw
yield
(kg/ha)
T1- RDF 120-60-40 N through
prilled urea
103.0 379.0 344.0 26.9 4.3 11.89 7565 9063
T2- RDF 120-60-40 N
through neem coated urea 103.7 392.7 357.7 27.9 4.5 12.75 8029 9620
T3- 95%RDN through neem
coated urea +RD P and K
103.0 385.0 354.3 27.3 4.4 12.17 7795 9334
102.3 362.7 337.0 26.8 4.1 11.97 7052 8449
coated urea + RD P and K
102.0 343.0 320.7 26.4 4.0 11.97 6754 8216
101.7 333.0 305.3 26.1 4.0 11.61 6442
7848
101.3 316.0 286.3 25.3 3.9 11.24 5983 7348
T8 – 0 N+RD P and K 81.7 196.7 168.0 20.7 1.3 10.24 2947 4009
SEm ± 0.97 10.24 7.75 0.19 0.35 0.26 211 255
CD (p=0.05) 2.99 31.35 23.73 0.57 1.08 0.79 647 783
Parbhani

Table 19: Total nutrient uptake (kg/ha) in rice as influenced by neem coated urea
(Nagabhushanam, U., and Bhatt, P. S. (2020) Effect of neem coated urea on yield attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and economics of rice (Oryza sativa
L.). International Journal of Conservation Science 8(3), 123-128) Location: Warangal, Telangana
Treatments
Total nitrogen
uptake
(kg/ha)
Total phosphorus
uptake
(kg/ha)
Total potassium
uptake
(kg/ha)
T1- RDF 120-60-40 N through prilled urea 97.6 18.7 104
T2- RDF 120-60-40 N through neem coated
urea
104.0 19.0 107
T3- 95%RDN through neem coated urea +RD P and
K
98.2 18.2 101
K
84.0 15.5 96
T5- 85%RDN through neem coated urea + RD P and
K
78.5 14.6 92
K
72.6 13.8 88
K
68.3 12.6 83
T8 - 0N+RD P and K 48.6 10.2 42
SEm ± 2.31 0.80 2.34
CD (p=0.05) 7.13 2.48 8.00
Parbhani

Table 20: Effect of Copper Nanoparticles on Yield Parameters of Wheat
Abdul Hafeez1, Abdul Razzaq1, Tariq Mahmood*2, Hafiz Muhammad Jhanzab1(2015) Potential of Copper Nanoparticles to Increase Growth and Yield
of Wheat. Journal of Nanoscience with Advanced Technology, 1(1): 6-11 Location: Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Treatments
Concentration of copper nanoparticles
0 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 40 ppm 50 ppm LSD
Leaf Area
(cm2/plant)
6.847 8.980 10.783 12.793 10.290 8.263 0.5473
Chlorophyll Contents
(SPAD units)
38.433 41.667 46.480 51.367 50.400 37.833 4.8054
Grains per Spike
23.333 25.333 27.667 30.667 20.667 19.333 2.7175
Spikes per Pot 13.00 13.33 16.33 19.33 11.67 9.00 2.5506
100 Grain Weight
(g)
4.0800 5.1033 5.7567 6.4500 3.8067 3.1800 0.2805
Grain yield per Pot
(g)
6.4200 8.5700 10.873 13.513 5.1000 4.0867 0.335
Parbhani

Nano fertilizer
Parbhani

Table 21: Effect of silver nano particles on nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium use
efficiency of wheat cultivar NARC-2009.
Hafiz Muhammad Jhanzab*, Abdul Razzaq, Ghulam Jilani, Ammara Rehman, Abdul Hafeez, Farhat Yasmeen(2015) Silver nano-particles enhance the
growth, yield and nutrient use efficiency of wheat, International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research ,7, 15-22, Location:Rawalpindi,Pakistan
Treatments Nitrogen Use Efficiency (%) ±
S.E
Potassium Use Efficiency
(%) ± S.E
Phosphorous Use
Efficiency (%) ± S.E
0 ppm 69.75 ±0.09 69.00 ±0.06 68.44 ±0.06
25 ppm 74.25 ±0.09 89.03 ±0.05 72.53 ±0.06
50 ppm 55.13 ±0.12 79.25 ±0.04 61.15 ±0.11
75 ppm 41.38 ±0.07 61.06 ±0.11 46.79 ±0.03
100 ppm 40.88 ±0.17 59.41 ±0.06 47.30 ±0.06
125 ppm 39.56 ±0.19 54.50 ±0.05 43.50 ±0.08
150 ppm 36.38 ±0.18 67.88 ±0.05 41.28 ±0.04
LSD Values 1.42 0.66 0.6851
Parbhani

Treatments
biological
yield kg ha-
1
Grain
yield Mg ha-1
weight of
1000 grain g
Harvest
index %
Protein
%
Fertilizer
productivity
KgKg-1
T1-control 11.499 4.060 39.69 35.27 11.94 0.00
T2- Nano(N+P) 12.449 5.305 45.78 42.55 13.01 1245.0
T3- Nano(N+K) 12.289 4.886 44.84 39.79 12.37 825.0
T4- Nano(P+K) 12.138 4.575 42.21 37.65 12.15 515.0
T5-Nano (N+P+K) 13.047 5.642 47.25 43.18 13.33 1581.0
T6-Nano SMP
(Super Micro Plus chelates)
13.364 5.996 47.88 44.96 13.69 1936.0
T7-Traditional AGRIMEL 12.674 5.198 45.57 41.07 12.90 569.0
LSD 0.05 0.470 0.406 1.286 4.460 0.614 216.1
Concentrations were : 100(50+50) and 150 (75+75) ml of Nano Fertilizer(N+P),(N+K) and (p+k); 100(33.3+33.3+33.3) and 150(50+50+50)
ml of Nano (N+P+k); 100 and 150 of NPK+TE Nano fertilizer and 200 and 300 ml of Traditional NPK+TE in 100 L-1 water
Table 22: Effect of spray of Different Sources of Nano-fertilizers on growth attributes of wheat.
Hayyawi W. A. Al-Juthery1, Kahraman H. Habeeb2, Fadil Jawad Kadhim Altaee3 , Duraid K.A.AL-Taey4 , Abdel Rahman M. Al-Tawaha5(2018) Effect of
foliar applicationof different sources of nano-fertilizers on growth and yield of wheat Bioscience Research, 15(4): 3988-3997. Source: Al Qasim, Iraq
Parbhani
Parbhani

Table 23: Effects of nano-fertilizer on yield and yield attributes of tomato
Treatments
Fruit
weight(g)
Fruit Girth
(cm)
Fruits per
plant
Yield per plot
(in kg)
Yield (q/ha)
T1-Nano-Max NPK (3ml/l)
(N:P:K @ 4:4:4%) + RDF
49.83 12.34 51.60 19.91 368.70
T2-Nano-Max NPK (4ml/l) +
RDF
54.13 13.23 57.00 21.76 402.96
T3-Nano-Max NPK (5ml/l) +
RDF
56.93 13.20 63.67 24.26 449.26
T4-Pramukh (3g/l)(N:P:K @
19:19:19%. ) + RDF
52.33 12.68 63.27 23.73 439.44
T5-Pramukh (4g/l) + RDF 49.97 12.35 66.33 27.50 509.26
T6-Pramukh (5g/l) + RDF 53.53 14.13 81.60 27.54 510.00
T7-Pramukh (4g/l) + Nano-
Max NPK (4ml/l) + RD
55.60 13.60 -63.20 21.69 401.67
T8-Control (only RDF) 54.50 13.01 62.07 23.00 425.93
SE(m)± 2.24 0.44 4.42 1.46
CD(0.05) 6.79 1.34 13.41 4.43
CV(%) 7.27 5.86 12.05 16.08
Janmejaya Panda1, Alok Nandi1*, Siba Prasad Mishra2, Asit Kumar Pal3, Ajoy Kumar Pattnaik1 and Nitish Kumar Jena (2020) Effects of Nano Fertilizer on
Yield, Yield Attributes and Economics in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, (2020) 9(5):
2583-2591 Location: Jajpur, Odisha
Parbhani

Table 24: Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on enzymes activity in rhizosphere of 6 weeks old
pearl millet plant.
Tarafdar, J. C., Raliya, R., Mahawar, H., and Rathore, I. (2014). Development of zinc nanofertilizer to enhance crop production in pearl millet (Pennisetum
americanum). Agricultural Research, 3(3), 257-262 Location: Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Treatments
Acid
phosphatase
(EU * 10-4)
Alkaline
phosphatase
(EU * 10-4)
Phytase
(EU * 10-2)
Fungi
(CFU x 10-4)
Bacteria
(CFU x 10-6)
Actinomycetes
(CFU x 10-5)
Control 9.1 4.7 0.9 21.63 41.67 18.44
Ordinary
Zn
14.1 6.2 2.2 23.33 42.33 21.34
Nano Zn 16.1 9 7.6 3.8 24.67 47.33 24.15
LSD
(p = 0.05)
1.4 0.8 0.5 1.13 1.33 1.04
EU : Enzymatic Units
Parbhani

Table 25: Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on phenological parameters, total soluble leaf protein
content in pearl millet under field condition at 6 week crop age of pearl millet.
Tarafdar, J. C., Raliya, R., Mahawar, H., and Rathore, I. (2014). Development of zinc nanofertilizer to enhance crop production in pearl millet
(Pennisetum americanum). Agricultural Research, 3(3), 257-262 Location: Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Treatments
Shoot length
(cm)
Root length
(cm)
Root area
(cm2)
Total soluble
leaf
protein (mg
kg-1)
Control 152 58.6 60.1 37.7
Ordinary Zn 158 60.9 63.8 43.6
Nano Zn 175 61.1 74.7 52.3
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.58 0.14 0.17 0.49
Parbhani

Conclusion
Customized fertilizer provides improvement in fertilizer use efficiency resulting
optimal yield. It supplies macro as well micronutrient for the growth and yield
development of the crop.
Customized fertilizers facilitate the application of the complete range of plant nutrients in
the right proportion to suit the specific requirements during different stages of crop
growth. It promotes site specific nutrient management with a view to achieve the
maximum fertilizer use efficiency of applied nutrient in a cost effective manner
With existing challenges on low nutrient use efficiency (NUE) of urea and its
environmental concerns, controlled release fertilizers (CRFs) have become a potential
solution by formulating them to synchronize nutrient release according to the requirement
of plants.
Phosphorus fixation in soil is a worldwide problem due to its adsorption and precipitation
by reacting with various soil constituents. As a result, its availability to plants is reduced
and growth is negatively affected with low yield returns. Its availability to plants can be
increased by using polymer coated phosphatic fertilizers. Nutrient losses due to leaching,
volatilization and fixation and the activated risk of nitrate leaching after fertilizer
addition to the soil may be reduced through the use of slow-release fertilizers.

Conclusion
Nanofertilizers are being studied as a way to increase nutrient efficiency and improve
plant nutrition, compared with traditional fertilizers. A nanofertilizer is any product that
is made with nanoparticles or uses nanotechnology to improve nutrient efficiency.
Copper nano-particles certainly have potential to enhance growth and yield of wheat. Soil
application of 30ppm Copper nano-particles may increase yield of wheat crop significantly
to match the food demand of growing population.
Application profile of nano particles is rapidly expanding even in agriculture. Silver nano
particles (SNPs) are hypothesized to enhance nutrient use efficiency in plants. SNPs
significantly enhanced most of the growth and yield attributes NPK uptake and nutrient
use efficiency of crop. So silver nanoparticles have stimulatory as well as inhibitory effect
on wheat growth and yield.
Parbhani

Future Prospects
Today`s burning question is the fertilizer use efficiency enhancement. This is only
possible by the use of nanofertilizers. Because they have the properties that can hold
more nutrient particles, can retain more water and prevent losses due to leaching, runoff
and other factors.
Future research should continue to explore and evaluate the composition, manufacture,
agronomic and environmental performance of various smart fertilizers, especially those
that utilize organic waste materials.
Focus research and developement on long-term toxicity and exposure of nanoparticles in the
environment and their implications for human health. Selection of non-toxic, environmentally
friendly nanomaterials for their application in agricultural production.
Development of international standardized risk assessment methods in close
collaboration with scientists and private companies in order to reduce costs and
integrate knowledge. Reach international consensus on a workable definition of NT in
order to coordinate legislation and risk assessments.
Risk of nano particles to the human health should be ascertained and the governments
across the world should form common and strict norms and monitoring, before
commercialization and bulk use of these nano fertilizers.

Parbhani

Smart fertilizers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Smart fertilizers

Similar to Smart fertilizers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Smart fertilizers