Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management

A Seminar
on
“Polymer Coated Fertilizers an Advance Technique in
Nutrient Management”
Presented by:
M. Sharath Chandra
Ph.D Scholar
Department of Agronomy
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture &
Technology, Meerut-250110

Sequence of Presentation
1. Introduction
2. What is polymer coated fertilizers (PCFs)
3. Advantages
4. Research studies
5. Nanotechnology in agriculture
6. Customized fertilisers
7. Fortified fertilizers
8. Conclusion

Polymer coated fertilizers are firstly Manufactured in 1970 in Japan.
Polymers are used for high-value application.
Most common three marketed products are Nutricote, Osmocote and
Polyon.
Controlled-release is one of the modern application that has enhanced
nutrient use efficiency.
Fertilizer use efficiency can be increased by modification of fertilizer
products. e.g. coated encapsulation.
CRFs will bring revolution in agricultural industry in near future.
Introduction

CRF’s are coated fertilizers that release nutrients over an extended period of
time at a rate driven primarily by temperature and moisture of the root zone.
Controlled Release Fertilizer (CRF)
I. Polymer (polyethylene, polyesters)
II. Sulphur
III. Sulphur plus polymer
Types of Coating Technology of CRFs

Solid or other nutrient core coated with various polymers.
Coatings are tough, resistance to damage and thin.
Coating chemistry affect release rate.
Release is due to controlled diffusion, which is fairly constant over time.
Release depends on coat thickness, chemistry, temperature and moisture.
Polymer coated fertilizers (PCFs)

 Temperature
 Moisture
 Size
 Coating thickness
 Coating failure (cracks, abrasion)
Factors affecting nutrient release rate

Fig 1. Process of polymer coating

Longevity at
210C
Osmocote Apex Multicote Nutricote
3 to 4 months 14-14-14
19-6-12
15-7-15 17-6-17
18-6-18
22-2-3
5 to 6 months 15-7-15 17-6-17
18-5-18
22-4-9
8 to 10 months 13-13-13
19-6-12
13-13-13
16-8-16
18-6-12
19-8-12
21-2-11
15-7-15
17-7-14
20-6-12
17-6-17
18-4-18
22-4-8
12 to 14 months 19-6-12 17-6-12 14-7-14
17-6-14
20-5-12
14 to 16 months 19-6-12 16-5-11 14-7-14
17-5-14
20-5-10
Table 1. Macro nutrient composition (N-P-K) and longevity of polymer-coated
controlled release fertilizers
Thomas et al. (2009)

70 per cent of conventionally applied fertilizer goes unutilized
Why to use PCFs

 Loss of nutrients due to volatilization and leaching
Cont…….

Fertilizer run-off in surface water leads to eutrophication process
Negative environmental impacts
Fertilizer waste through leaching increases ground water pollution
Less fertilizer use efficiency
Cont…….

Fig 2. Difference between ordinary fertilizer and slow/controlled
release fertilizer

Fig 3. Performance examples of different type fertilizers
Thomas et al. (2009)

 Minimizes nutrient losses
 Increase Nutrient Use efficiency (NUE)
 Increased nutrient release timing
 Meet plant demand timely and efficiently
Reduction of the labour cost for the application of fertilizer
 Improve the yield
 Reduction of plant toxicity
Reduction in ground water pollution and water bodies
Advantages

 Root burn can be avoided with the application of controlled release
fertilizers even at the increased quantities of fertilizers supplied.
 Fertilizers are released at a slower rate throughout the season, so that
plants could take up most of the nutrients without much waste.
 More uniform growth response
 Improved storage and handling properties of fertilizer materials
Cont…….

Fig 4. Mechanism of nitrogen release from polymer coated urea

• Polymer coated urea (40-0-0 and 44-0-0)
•Solid urea or other nutrient core, coated with various polymers
•Coatings are tough, resistance to damage and thin.
•Coating chemistry affect release rate
•Release is due to controlled diffusion, which is fairly constant over time
•Release depends on coat thickness, chemistry, temperature, moisture
Polymer Coated Urea

•40% N
•Polyurethane coated
•Good for both warm and cool season
•Coating is abrasion resistant
Polyon

Treatments N rates (kg ha-1) leaf N % Grain N %
Control 0 1.67 1.12
Winter applied N
Urea 90 2.95 1.22
Urea 180 2.53 1.26
Urea 270 2.63 1.34
Urea with Nutrisphere-N 90 2.82 1.27
Spring applied N
Urea 90 2.30 1.21
Urea 180 2.62 1.27
Urea 270 2.68 1.33
LSD (0.05) 0.09 0.05
Table 2. Influence of urea with and without Nutrisphere-N applied in the winter and spring on leaf and grain
nitrogen % of corn
Kansas, USA Wiatrak and Gordon (2014)

Fig 5. Influence of N application rate in the form of urea with Nutrisphere-N
applied in the winter on grain yields of irrigated corn.

Fig 6. Influence of N application rate in the form of urea with Nutrisphere-N
applied in the spring on grain yields of irrigated corn.

Rate
(kg/ha)
N fertilizer source
100 % 100 % 100 % 75:25 % 50:50 %
AN NCU PCU PCU:NCU PCU:NCU
--------------------------------Grain yield (kg ha-1) -----------------------
0 3550 _ _ _ _
84 4880 4800 5030 4960 4900
112 5110 5120 5340 5370 5290
LSD (0.05) ---------------------------------178--------------------------
Table 3. Winter wheat grain yields analyzed by N rate and fertilizer sources
Columbia Nelson et al.(2012)
AN= Ammonium nitrate, NCU= Non coated urea, PCU= Polymer coated urea

Treatment Sampling dates (DAT) N use
Efficiency
(%)
N agronomy
efficiency
(kg/ha)
N
physiological
efficiency
(kg/ha)
31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Common
fertilizer
12.68 14.79 29.92 42.7 53.04 54.98 59.14 59.14 24.24 40.99
Coated
fertilizer
14.47 21.34 31.38 46.12 56.78 61.26 70.54 70.54 32.56 46.16
Table 4. N use efficiency by rice plants during different growth stage in common
fertilizer and polymer coated fertilizer
China Dong and Wang (2007)

Fig 7. Polymer coated phosphorus product

MAP+ Polymer Uncoated MAP
Fig 8. Effect of polymer coated MAP and uncoated MAP on growth of maize
Columbia Palmer et al. (2011)

Fig 9. Effect of Avail (polymer coated phosphorus) on corn grain yield
Columbia Palmer et al. (2011)
MAP= Mono ammonium phosphate, Avail= polymer coated phosphorus

Treatment Yield (q/ ha)
Control 29.3
MAP banded 34.3
MAP + polymer, banded 48.2
MAP + broadcast 36.5
MAP + polymer, broadcast 40.9
MAP + seed, broadcast 34.5
MAP + polymer +seed, broadcast 42.8
LSD (0.05) 4.7
Table 5. Effect of source and method of application of phosphorus on wheat
yields
MAP = Mono ammonium phosphate
USA Murphy and Sanders (2007)

Treatment Grain yield (q/ ha)
Control, No P 84.7
MAP , broadcast 82.8
MAP + polymer, broadcast 94.7
MAP, banded 82.8
MAP + polymer, banded 98.5
LSD (0.05) 10.0
Table 6. Corn response to enhanced P availability
MAP =Mono ammonium phosphate
USA Murphy and Sanders (2007)

Fertilizer Plant grain yield (g/pot) Apparent P recovery (%)
26 days 52 days 26 days 52 days
Check 1.2 7.8 _ _
MAP, not coated 5.3 19.0 26 27
MAP, thin coated 5.2 24.4 34 44
MAP, thick
coated
3.6 18.6 20 32
Table 7. Polymer coating yields and P efficiency in a barley pot
study
MAP = Mono ammonium phosphate
Alberta, Canada Nyborg et al. (1995)

 Polyon-45 (0-0-45)
also known as polymer coated sulfate of potash
Is a High Quality Polymer Sulfate of Potash in a mini size.
 Has 100% of the potassium as slow release from Polyon.
 The mini size allows for better distribution.
 100% slow release for a longevity as long as 26 weeks at 30°C.
POLYON-45

Figure 10. Solubility of potash pellet with and without coating in 100 ml water
Andhra Pradesh Subbarao et al. (2013)

Figure 11. Solubility of potash pellet with and without coating in 200 ml water
Andhra Pradesh Subbarao et al. (2013)

Outer polymer coating
Inner sulphur coating
Urea nutrient core
Fig 12. Polymer coated sulphur coated urea (PCSCU)

 Polymer coated sulphur coated urea (PCSCU) (39-0-0, 41-0-0, 43-0-0)
 11-15% sulphur
 Urea with a thin polymer and thin sulphur coating
 Economical choice for “slower” feed
 Differences in coating dictate the quality of the material and feed time
 Usually, thicker coating means longer feed.
PCSCU

•Coated with sulphur and a polymer
•Cheaper than regular polymer coated fertilizers
Poly-S

Treatment Plant height
(cm)
Tillers
plant-1
Panicles
plant-1
Panicle
length (cm)
1000 grain
weight (g)
Straw yield
(t/ha)
Grain
yield (t/ha)
PCSCU@60kg/ha(basal) 76.6 9.5 9.0 27.3 18.8 7.8 3.4
PCSCU@60kg/ha (split) 73.7 9.1 8.6 27.9 18.4 8.1 3.5
PCSCU@120kg/ha (basal) 87.9 12.4 12.3 29.1 19.0 9.1 4.8
PCSCU@120kg/ha (split) 85.2 12.2 12.1 26.2 20.0 9.9 4.7
WSCU@60kg/ha (basal) 83.2 7.9 7.7 27.1 18.5 8.1 3.4
WSCU@60kg/ha (split) 73.0 11.6 11.6 26.8 19.4 7.8 3.5
WSCU@120kg/ha (basal) 87.6 12.5 12.2 29.1 21.2 9.3 4.6
WSCU@120kg/ha (split) 86.0 12.8 12.4 27.5 22.6 8.2 5.3
Urea + sulphur (6%) without
coating+120kg/ha (split)
85.6 10.3 10.1 31.2 19.5 9.5 5.1
Urea + sulphur (17%) without
coating+120kg/ha (split)
86.7 12.1 11.6 28.6 20.1 9.6 5.2
LSD (5%) 3.01 1.9 2.16 2.45 2.14 1.13 1.21
Table 8. Yield component and yield of rice grain as affected by different coated and
uncoated urea fertilizers
Malaysia Said et al. (2014)
PCSCU= Polymer coated sulphur coated urea, WSCU= Wax coated sulphur coated urea

Fertilizer Incubation time-weeks
0 2 5 8 control
----------------------------------Uptake (mg pot-1)-------------------------------
FeSO4 Coated 6.8 4.0 3.6 2.9 1.9
FeSO4Uncoated 4.2 3.5 3.2 1.8
MnSO4 coated 2.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.6
MnSO4 uncoated 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7
ZnSO4 coated 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6
ZnSO4 uncoated 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
Table 9. Micronutrient uptake by grain sorghum, as affected by soil incubation of
sulphur coated iron, manganese or zinc sulphates prior to planting
USA Mortvedt (1994)

Formulation
rate (ml /100 kg
seeds)
Plant height
(cm)
500 grain
weight (g)
Grain yield (Mg
ha-1)
Grain N (%) Grain P (%)
Control 91.3 23.7 5.35 1.800 0.4130
265 ml 91.6 24.1 5.39 1.890 0.4150
395 ml 91.2 24.1 5.46 1.780 0.3990
530 ml 90.7 24.6 5.62 1.760 0.3850
LSD(0.05) NS NS 0.19 0.076 0.0214
Table 10. Influence of 45 % seed coating polymer formulations with Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn) and Zinc
(Zn) mixture on plant height, grain weight and yield and Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) content in grain of
winter wheat
USA Pawel (2013)

Formulation rate (ml
/100 kg seeds)
LAI (8 weeks
after planting)
LAI (12 weeks
after planting)
Plant height
(cm)
100 seed
weight (g)
Grain yield
(Mg ha-1)
Control 1.96 4.32 73.3 12.6 1.86
265 ml 2.00 4.62 75.9 12.2 2.01
395 ml 1.99 4.55 76.8 12.7 2.12
LSD(0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.15
Table 11. Influence of 45% seed coating polymer formulations with Cu, Mn and Zn
mixture on leaf area index (LAI) at 8 and 12 weeks after planting, plant height,
weight of 100 seeds and grain yield of soybean
USA Pawel (2013)

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.

NANO-FERTILIZERS
Nano-fertilizer refers to a product that delivers
nutrients to crops in one of three ways:
 The nutrient can be encapsulated inside nano-materials
such as nanotubes or nanoporous materials.
 Coated with a thin protective polymer film.
 Delivered as particles or emulsions of nanoscale
dimensions.
 Slow, targeted, efficient release becomes possible.
 In some cases, the nano particles itself can be used

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) images of nanoparticles.
(a) Fe2O3, (b) TiO2, (c) MgO, (d) ZnO

Table 12. 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
Concentr
ation
(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
4
Control
(water
soaking)
85.30 3.11 5.02 693.60
CD@5% 2.80 1.93 1.16 15.82

Fig 13. Pot culture experiment showing higher plant growth with nanoscale ZnO
treatment (1000 ppm) after 110 days

Table 13. Response of peanut to application of nanoscale zinc oxide-
Field Experiment
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

Customized fertilisers
According to FCO, Customised fertilizers are multi- nutrient carriers facilitating
the application of the complete range of plant nutrients in right proportion to suit the
specific requirements of a crop during its stages of growth.
They are unique and ready to use granulated fertilizers, formulated on sound
scientific plant nutrition principles integrated with soil information, extensive
laboratory studies and evaluated through field research.
 CF’s can maximize nutrient use efficiency and are ultimately programmed to
improve soil fertility.
Parvathi. 2018

Fortified fertilizers
Fortified fertilizers are generally common fertilizers to which one or more specific
nutrients have been added in order to increase their nutrient content and make them
more versatile. These are also useful for applying the very small quantities of some
micronutrients. Some examples of fortified fertilizers are:
¾ zincated urea, containing 2 percent Zn;
¾ boronated SSP, containing 0.18 percent B;
¾ DAP and NPK complexes fortified with 0.5 percent Zn or 0.3 percent B;
SSP fortified with elemental S, containing 20–50 percent S or with 0.05 percent Mo;
 ¾ TSP coated with elemental S to contain 10–20 percent S;
¾ MAP fortified to contain 10–12 percent elemental S.

Advantages
 First and foremost objective is to promote site specific nutrient management.
 Usually farmers used to apply fertilizers without knowing any requirement of the crop.
But here maximum fertilizer use efficiency can be achieved in a cost effective manner.
 Customized fertilizers are depends on soil, crop, water and specific nutrients. Nutrient
management is a major component of a soil and crop management systems.
 CF includes the combination of nutrients through various sources based on soil test
information and requirement of the crop and it can provide desired quantity of major
nutrients blended with micronutrients depending up on nature of crop/cropping system,
nutrient requirements and yield targets fixed.
 It supplies the plant available nutrients in adequate amount and in proper proportion,
leads to the balanced application as it supplies not only primary nutrients but also secondary
and micro nutrients and the particular texture ensures uniform distribution of nutrients.
 Customized fertilizer satisfies crop’s nutritional demand, specific to area, soil, and growth
stage of plant.

Table 15: Effect of various treatments on grain
yield, straw yield and harvest index of wheat.
Anand Singh et al., 2019

Anand Singh et al., 2019
Table 16: Effect of various treatments on uptake of
nutrients by wheat crop.

Conclusion
Application of polymer coated fertilizer increased Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE).
Application of polymer coated N fertilizer reduced N2O emission.
Application of polymer coated fertilizers reduced the leaching loss of nutrients.
Application of polymer coated fertilizers increased growth and yield of crops.
Application of polymer coated fertilizers increased % recovery of nutrients.
Nano-fertilizer clearly has the potential to improve agriculture production.
Nano-fertilizer release the fertilizer slowly and extend the fertilizer effective period.
Use of Customized Fertilizers can maximize nutrient use efficiency and improve
soil fertility.

Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management

Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management

Similar to Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Polymer coated fertilizers an advance technique in nutrient management