the role of nanotechnology, and its applications in Agriculture in enhancing crop production and providing better crop protection.

1. SUDHA RANI.J.S
RAD/2016-04
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
PJTSAU, Telangana

2.  INTRODUCTION
 Importance of Nanotechnology
History of Nanotechnology
 Applications of Nanotechnology
Synthesis and Characterization
Applications of Nantechnology in Agriculture
• Crop improvement
• Crop nutrition management
• Weed management
• Plant protection
Research Findings
Conclutions
Things to look in to

5. The 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.

6. …… 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”.

7. What are Nanoparticles ?
Source: PLAR Nanotechnology
1

8. 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 forces
Encapsulated control for smart delivery system
• Slow release
• Quick release
• Specific release
• Moisture release
• Heat release
• pH release
• Ultra sound
• Magnetic release

11. Wang et al., 2013
USA
Fig.1: A schematic diagram of experimental setup and
watermelon plants used
Rate of Spray 6mlhr-1

12. Fig.2:TEM images of nanoparticles. a Fe2O3, b TiO2, c MgO,
and d, ZnO
Wang et al., 2013
USA

13. Fig.3: Schematic diagram of nanoparticles transport inside watermelon plants
Wang et al., 2013

14. Fig. 4: TEM images of MgO NPs inside the leaf after 3 days of application
Wang et al., 2013

16. 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

17. Things to know about
Nanomaterial

20. Synthesis of Nanomaterial

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Hypothetical mechanism for biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles
Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013

26. Table.1: Effect of storage time on stability of biosynthesized ZnO
nanoparticles
Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013
Nanoparticle
s
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

28. Biotechnology
TextilesEnergy Storage
Metallurgy and
Materials

29. APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN
AGRICULTURE

30. 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.

31. Key focus areas for nanotechnology
in agricultural research
 Nano fertilizers and nano-
complexes
 Nano-herbicides

32. 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

34. NANOFERTILIZERS ?
Nanofertilizer refers to a product that delivers
nutrients 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

35. Fig.6:Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) image of ZnO
nanoparticles. Inset shows the high resolution image of a single
particle.
Prasad et al., 2012
IFT, Tirupati

36. 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
S.
No
Concen
tration
(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*
1049.0
2*
1379.13**
4
Control
(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

37. 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

38. 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**
4
Control
(soaking in
water)
8.22 29.00 1.39
CD@5% 0.16 NS 0.015
* Significant @ P =0.05
**Highly significant @P= 0.05

39. Fig. 8:Pot culture experiment showing higher plant growth after nanoscale ZnO
treatment (1000 ppm) after 110 days
Prasad et al., 2012

40. 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.
Concentr
ation
(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
* Significant @ P =0.05
**Highly significant @P= 0.05

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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 91.4
3
131.8 144.
3
34.0 102.
1
153.7 162.4
T2 = Zeolite +
Urea
35.14 89.2
8
127.4 142.
4
41.6 107.
0
153.1 160.4
T3 = Nanozeolite +
Urea
35.28 89.2
8
130.4 142.
4
32.1 101.
1
150.2 158.0
T4 =Micro
Zeourea
37.57 94.5
7
130.8 146.
3
37.6 109.
4
158.8 165.8
T5 = Nanozeourea 40.86 94.8
6
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 4.75
CD(0.05) NS NS 7.89 NS NS NS NS 9.70
Manikandan.A and Subramanyan.K.S, 2015

44. 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 36.7
3
56.8 43.5 120.7 105.
2
71.4 60.9 83.4 66.1
T2 = Zeolite +
Urea
37.97 38.7
6
53.3 60.3 142.5 115.
7
68.6 56.1 78.4 60.9
T3 =
Nanozeolite +
Urea
39.01 38.1
8
56.8 59.3 144.7 118.
6
71.3 61.0 82.9 65.4
T4 = Micro
Zeourea
38.52 38.2
1
59.2 61.9 146.7 123.
6
72.4 58.6 83.4 63.4
T5 =
Nanozeourea
38.45 39.1
7
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 10.4
6
NS NS NS NS NS 4.34
Manikandan.A and Subramanyan 2015

45. 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 0.06
CD(0.05) 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.13
Manikandan.A and Subramanyan .K.S, 2015

46. 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
T3 = Nanozeolite +
Urea
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 0.41
CD(0.05) 47.00 NS 0.57 56.36 2.60 0.83
Manikandan.A and Subramanyan .K.S, 2015

47. 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 -NF
T9-100% S as SMNZ –NF, (Recommended dose of Sulphur : 40 kg S ha-1) ,

48. 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
Thirunavukkarasu and Subramanian, 2014
Treatment
Number 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

49. 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 -NF
T9-100% S as SMNZ –NF, (Recommended dose of Sulphur : 40 kg S ha-1)
Thirunavukkarasu and Subramanian, 2014

50. Fig.11: Slow release of SO4
2- from pure (NH4)2SO4 and SO4
2- loaded SMNZ
Thirunavukkarasu and Subramanian, 2014
10days
20 day
38days

51. 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

52. Fig.12:Effect of time and concentrations of nano-ZnO on changes in nitrogenase
activity in green gram
Uday Burman et al., 2013

53. Parameters
Submerged Aerobic
Control 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.
., 2015

54. Fig.13 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (a) before and (b) after loading of zinc
(Zn).
M. Yuvaraj and K. S. Subramanian., 2014
a b

55. ., 2015
Fig. 14: Manganese core shell (Loaded with Nano Zn) nutrient release
pattern of zinc against ZnSO4
21day
33days

56. Table.14: Effect of nano zinc on phenological parameter
of clusterbean plant at 6 weeks of crop age
Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013
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

57. Fig.15: Phenotype of clusterbean plant (4 weeks old) under varying
treatment, O ZnO-ordinary zinc oxide, n ZnO-nano zinc oxide
Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013

58. Table.15:Microbial population and P-solubilizing enzymes activity in rhizosphere
of 6-week-old clusterbean plant
Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013
Treatments Fungi
(CFU x 10-4)
Bacteria
(CFU x 10-6)
Actinomycet
es
(CFU x 10-5)
Acid
phosph
atase
(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 unit
EU : Enzymatic Units

59. Raliya and Tarafdar, 2013
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

60. 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
Tarafdar et al., 2014

61. Tarafdar et al., 2014
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

62. Tarafdar et al., 2014
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)
Control
1065 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

63. 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)

64. 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

65. Liang et al., 2013
Fig. 14:Effect of different applications of CNPs on the dry matter accumulation
of flue-cured tobacco.

66. Fig.15: Cu-Chitosan Nanopartclie Mediated Sustainable Approach
To Enhance Seedling Growth in Maize by Mobilizing Reserved food
Vinod Saharan et al., 2015

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

69. Fig.17:Smart delivery of nanoencapsulated herbicide in the crop-weed
environment Nanoparticles targetting specific receptor of weed plants
Chinnamuthu and Kokiladevei, 2007

70. 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

71. 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 9.60
2 0.5 10.67 5.90
3 1.0 6.39 5.10
4 1.5 5.70 4.80
5 2.0 4.41 4.20
6 2.5 2.79 5.30
7 3.0 2.38 5.18
LSD(p=. 0.05) 0.92 0.65

72. Fig.18: Timescale for developments in atrazine nanopesticide.
Fraceto .L.Fand Grillo R.,2016

73. Fig.19: Net photosynthesis of maize plants submitted to post-emergence
treatment with the formulations.
Olivaria.H.C et al 2016
ATZ : Atrazine
NC: nanocapsules(poly ε-caprolactone)

74. 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

75. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Next steps for understanding engineered nanoparticle
exposure and risk
Sevin.A.D & White.J.C., 2015

76. 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

77. 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.