Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanisms 9789819924189

Citation preview

Smart Nanomaterials Technology

Azamal Husen Editor

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanisms

Smart Nanomaterials Technology Series Editors Azamal Husen , Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita, Ethiopia Mohammad Jawaid,Laboratory of Biocomposite Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, INTROP, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Nanotechnology is a rapidly growing scientific field and has attracted a great interest over the last few years because of its abundant applications in different fields like biology, physics and chemistry. This science deals with the production of minute particles called nanomaterials having dimensions between 1 and 100 nm which may serve as building blocks for various physical and biological systems. On the other hand, there is the class of smart materials where the material that can stimuli by external factors and results a new kind of functional properties. The combination of these two classes forms a new class of smart nanomaterials, which produces unique functional material properties and a great opportunity to larger span of application. Smart nanomaterials have been employed by researchers to use it effectively in agricultural production, soil improvement, disease management, energy and environment, medical science, pharmaceuticals, engineering, food, animal husbandry and forestry sectors. This book series in Smart Nanomaterials Technology aims to comprehensively cover topics in the fabrication, synthesis and application of these materials for applications in the following fields: . Energy Systems—Renewable energy, energy storage (supercapacitors and electrochemical cells), hydrogen storage, photocatalytic water splitting for hydrogen production . Biomedical—controlled release of drugs, treatment of various diseases, biosensors, . Agricultural—agricultural production, soil improvement, disease management, animal feed, egg, milk and meat production/processing, . Forestry—wood preservation, protection, disease management . Environment—wastewater treatment, separation of hazardous contaminants from wastewater, indoor air filters.

Azamal Husen Editor

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanisms

Editor Azamal Husen Wolaita Sodo University Wolaita, Ethiopia

Smart Nanomaterials Technology ISBN 978-981-99-2418-9 ISBN 978-981-99-2419-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

To my grandfather, Mohammad Hafizul Rahman

Preface

Rapid development of nanotechnology and subsequently the releases of nanomaterials and nanocomposites have drawn considerable attention. Because of their unique properties and novel features, they have been widely used in many sectors of science and technology. They are naturally present in the Earth and play a significant role in the dynamics of the overall Earth system, but these responses are not fully understood. It has been noticed that the large-scale anthropogenic production and unrestricted use of these materials has led researchers to consider the problems, challenges and consequences of their environmental impact. In this connection, as we know, plants are sessile and vital fundamental components of all ecosystems. Interaction between these nano sized particles and plants is an indispensable aspect of the risk assessment. Thus, the potential health and environmental effects of these particles need to be thoroughly evaluated before they are widely commercialized. When they enter the soil through agricultural application, atmospheric deposition, rain erosion, surface runoff or other pathways, the nanomaterials and or nanocomposites will accumulate in the soil as time goes because of their weak migration ability in soil. Exposure modeling have also showed that the concentrations of these particles in soil are higher than those in water or air, suggesting that soils might be the main source of nanomaterials and or nanocomposites released into the environment. Thus, plants serve as a potential pathway for the transportation of these particles. Through the food chain, these particles can be accumulated in high trophic-level consumers. All organisms in the ecosystem could suffer from oxidative stress induced by exposure of these materials. In recent years, research in this area has been focused on the interaction between plants and nano sized particles, and their effects ecology, the food chain and human health; thus, assessing the pros and cons of these materials requires interdisciplinary knowledge. Originally, this book focuses on nano sized particles phytotoxicity, which is an important precondition to promote the application of nanotechnology and to avoid the potential ecological risks. Both enhancive and inhibitive impacts of different nano sized particles on different plants have been reported. Moreover, under exposure, plant has shown numerous physiological changes, although significant variations in antioxidant enzyme activity and upregulation of heat shock protein have also been observed. Plants have evolved antioxidant defense mechanism which involves vii

viii

Preface

enzymatic as well as non-enzymatic components to prevent oxidative damage and enhance plant resistance to nanomaterials toxicity. The exact mechanism of plant defense against the toxicity of nanomaterials has not been fully explored. Further, the absorption and translocation of nano sized particles in different parts of the plant depend on their bioavailability, concentration, media composition, solubility, exposure time and so on. In this book, the influencing factors of nanotoxicity and the mechanisms of these toxic effects are also summarized. Subsequently, the defense mechanisms are presented as well. Moreover, the synergistic interactions between metal and metal-oxide nanoparticles and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria have examined. These interactions accelerated the functioning of microbial partner by improving the plant growth response and other significant traits. It has been suggested that the co-inoculation of nanoparticles with their microbial synergist can be utilized to increase the plant health and productivity during plant exposure to different stresses like salinity, heat, drought, heavy metal and so on. The plant-microbe interaction facilitated by nanoparticles activate the plant defense systems, increase the activity of antioxidant enzymes in plants, and trigger the accumulation of protective solutes that increase the plant health and productivity during stressful conditions. This book will provide some exciting and remarkable information on the above-mentioned topics to the scientist, researcher and student working field of plant biology, agricultural science, nanobiotechnology, plant biochemistry, plant physiology, plant biotechnology and many other interdisciplinary subjects. I extend my sincere thanks to all contributors for their timely response and excellent contributions. Finally, my special thanks go to Shagufta, Zaara, Mehwish, and Huzaifa for providing their time and overall extended support to put everything together. I shall be happy to receive comments and criticism, if any, from subject experts and general readers of this book. Wolaita, Ethiopia

Azamal Husen

Contents

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Signicant Uses in Plant Performance, Production, and Toxicity Response..................................... 1 Sharfa Naaz, Swati Sachdev, Ragib Husain, Vivek Pandey, and Mohammad Israil Ansari Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview ........................................................................................................ 19 Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani, Saeedeh Rahimzadeh, and Salar Farhangi-Abriz Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms of Nanocomposites/Mixture of Nanoparticles............................................. 43 Muhammad Ansar Farooq, Afsheen Fatima, Sana Rehman, Ayesha Batool, Iram Gul, Aamir Alaud Din, Hassan Anwer, and Muhammad Arshad Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal and Metal-Based Nanoparticles ................................................................... Taruni Bajaj, Hina Alim, Ahmad Ali, and Nimisha Patel

59

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth................................................................................ 97 Nazneen Akhtar, Sehresh Khan, Shafiq Ur Rehman, and Muhammad Jamil Effects of Nanomaterials/Nanocomposites on Trace Element Uptake and Phytotoxicity ............................................................................ 127 Ana Cristina Ramírez Anguiano, Ana Paulina Velasco Ramírez, Adalberto Zamudio Ojeda, Humberto Daniel Jiménez Torres, Gilberto Velázquez Juárez, Jose Miguel Velázquez López, Milagros Melissa Flores Fonseca, and Sandra Fabiola Velasco Ramírez

ix

x

Contents

Toxicity Assessment of Silver Nanoparticles and Silver Ions on Plant Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Mohammed Raffi Mokula and Azamal Husen Toxicity Assessment of Gold Ions and Gold Nanoparticles on Plant Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Lipi Pradhan, Devyani Yenurkar, and Sudip Mukherjee Plant Response to Silicon Nanoparticles: Growth Performance and Defense Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Tina, Vedanshi Pal, Kritika Chauhan, Kumud Pant, Gaurav Pant, and Manu Pant Exploring the Effects of Iron Nanoparticles on Plants: Growth, Phytotoxicity, and Defense Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Noman Shakoor, Muhammad Adeel, Muhammad Nadeem, Muhammad Abdullah Aziz, Muhammad Zain, Muzammil Hussain, Imran Azeem, Ming Xu, Muhammad Arslan Ahmad, and Yukui Rui Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Plant Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Sehresh Khan, Nazneen Akhtar, Shafiq Ur Rehman, and Muhammad Jamil Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Plant Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity, and Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Salem S. Salem and Azamal Husen Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles: Plant Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity, and Defence Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Atul Loyal, S. K. Pahuja, Naincy Rani, Pooja, Rakesh K. Srivastava, and Pankaj Sharma Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles: Plant Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity, and Defense Mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Yusra Naaz Qidwai, Reena Vishvakarma, Alvina Farooqui, Poonam Sharma, Swati Sharma, and Archana Vimal Cerium Oxide Nanoparticle: Plant Response, Interaction, Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Muhittin Kulak Elucidation of Synergistic Interaction Among Metal Oxide . . . . . . . 311 Nanoparticles and PGPR on the Plant Growth and Development Farwa Basit, Javaid Akhter Bhat, and Yajing Guan

Contents

xi

Interaction Between Metal Nanoparticles and PGPR on the Plant Growth and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Divya Kapoor, Sheetal Yadav, Mayur Mukut Murlidhar Sharma, and Pankaj Sharma Nanomaterials and Their Toxicity to Beneficial Soil Microbiota and FungiAssociated Plants Rhizosphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Mayur Mukut Murlidhar Sharma, Divya Kapoor, Rahul Rohilla, and Pankaj Sharma

About the Editor

Azamal Husen served as Professor & Head, Department of Biology, University of Gondar, Ethiopia and is a Foreign Delegate at Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita, Ethiopia. Earlier, he was a Visiting Faculty of the Forest Research Institute, and the Doon College of Agriculture and Forest at Dehra Dun, India. His research and teaching experience of 20 years involves studies of biogenic nanomaterial fabrication and application, plant responses to environmental stresses and nanomaterials at the physiological, biochemical and molecular levels, herbal medicine, and clonal propagation for improvement of tree species. He has conducted several research projects sponsored by various funding agencies, including the World Bank (FREEP), the National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP), the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), the Indian Council of Forest Research Education (ICFRE); and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). He received four fellowships from India and a recognition award from the University of Gondar, Ethiopia, for excellent teaching, research, and community service. Husen has been on the Editorial board and the panel of reviewers of several reputed journals published by Elsevier, Frontiers Media, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, RSC, Oxford University Press, Sciendo, The Royal Society, CSIRO, PLOS, MDPI, John Wiley & Sons and UPM Journals. He is on the advisory board of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK. He is a Fellow of the Plantae group of the American Society of Plant Biologists, and a Member of the International Society of Root Research, Asian Council of Science xiii

xiv

About the Editor

Editors, and INPST. To his credit are over 200 publications; and he is Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Plant Physiology. He is also working as Series Editor of ‘Exploring Medicinal Plants’, published by Taylor & Francis Group, USA; ‘Plant Biology, Sustainability, and Climate Change’, published by Elsevier, USA; and ‘Smart Nanomaterials Technology’, published by Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Singapore.

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant Performance, Production, and Toxicity Response Sharfa Naaz, Swati Sachdev, Ragib Husain, Vivek Pandey, and Mohammad Israil Ansari

Abstract The discovery of nanomaterials is a great revolution in the field of science and technology. Owing to small size (less than 100 nm) and greater surface area than bulk material, nanomaterials exhibit extraordinary characters, which could help in solving diverse issues like food security. Nanomaterial is a term used to designate the materials having at least one dimension ranging between 1 and 100 nm size. Nanomaterials are characterized according to the size, morphology, source, physical characteristics, and chemical composition. Primarily, nanomaterials have been classified as carbon, inorganic, organic, and nanocomposites on the basis of their chemical compositions. These nanomaterials are used in agriculture as nanofertilizers, nanopesticides, and nanosensor to improve crop productivity. Application of nanomaterials in agriculture facilitate smart delivery of fertilizers and pesticides, which reduces the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. Moreover, it aids in detection of toxic pollutants as well as disease outbreak, thereby promoting food generation and sustainable agriculture. Despite the fact that nanomaterials exhibit tremendous potential to induce food security and are present in negligible quantities, their use may contaminate the agro-ecosystem, accumulate in living tissues and cause significant toxicological problems. It is therefore necessary to consider the risks associated with them, particularly in regard to their accumulation in plants and the toxicity that ensues at the base of the food chain. The phytotoxicity induced by nanomaterials affect plant at cellular as well as molecular level, transfiguring their physiological and metabolic processes. Thus, the emphasis of this chapter is on highlighting the revolutionary role of nanomaterials in field of agriculture. Further, S. Naaz · M. I. Ansari (B) Department of Botany, Lucknow University, Lucknow, India e-mail: [email protected] S. Naaz · R. Husain · V. Pandey Plant Ecology and Climate Change Science Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, India S. Sachdev Department of Liberal Education, Era University, Lucknow, India R. Husain Department of Botany, Bareilly College, Bareilly, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 A. Husen (ed.), Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants, Smart Nanomaterials Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6_1

1

2

S. Naaz et al.

it assesses the pros and cons of application of nanotechnology to fortify the food production. Keywords Nanofertilizers · Nanopesticides · Oxidative damage · Reactive oxygen species · Slow release fertilizers

1 Introduction Nanotechnology is the novel technology that deals with production and application of materials at nanoscale [1, 2]. This term was given by a Professor Norio Taniguichi in 1974 [3]. Nanotechnology focus on materials known as nanomaterials (NMs), which have size ranging from 1–100 nm (1 nm is one billionth part of the meter), at least in one dimension [4−6]. As per European Commission Recommendation, a “nanomaterial” is defined as a material created or developed accidently or spontaneously that comprises at least 50% particles that are between 1 and 100 nm in size [7]. Nanoparticles (NPs) differ from the bulk materials they are generated from in terms of their structure and chemical, electrical, magnetic, optical as well as mechanical properties [6, 8, 9]. NPs can be natural, incidental, or engineered depending on their origin [6]. Natural NPs such as soot are originated from the natural occurring activities including volcano eruption and incidental NPs are formed unintentionally from activities which are performed purposely. Engineered NPs are those which are produced intentionally by altering the existing characteristic of a material to perform a specified function [6]. The alteration in characteristics of existing material increases chemical and biological reactivity of NPs due to increase in surface area in relation to their volume [10]. NPs are produced by diverse chemical and biological processes that reduce the ionic form, but only biological processes are able to produce the final product without any hazardous chemical residues. Nanotechnology find applications in multiple dimensions due to unconventional properties and thus has a wide range of scientific perspectives [4, 11–14]. Nanotechnology is used in an array of industries, such as therapeutics, pharmaceuticals, energy, food, cosmetics, and others [1, 15–19]. Nanotechnology has the potential to completely transform the agricultural industry by finding solution to various agriculture-related challenges. Increasing agricultural output by preserving plant health and growth, and reducing input of toxic agrochemicals can be achieved by the use of nanofertilizers, nanopesticides, nanoremediation, and nanobiosensors that significantly revolutionize the agricultural sector [15, 16, 20–25] (Fig. 1). The use of nanotechnology i.e., nanoparticles/nanocomposites, which are designed to regulate nutrients/pesticides liberation through controlled-release of fertilizers/pesticides and show target-specific delivery, improves nutrients use efficiency, reduces nutrient loss, minimize dosage, and toxicity, and even facilitate water management [21, 26]. NPs that are used as sensors that helps to monitor the quality of the agro-environment [23, 27].

Fig. 1 Application of nanotechnology in agriculture sectors (adopted from [28])

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant … 3

4

S. Naaz et al.

Certain NPs have been observed to show toxicity as their behavior is influenced by their size, composition, aggregation, surface corona, and dose of application [29]. Furthermore, NPs when exposed to the environmental conditions easily get altered, which affect their stability, transport, uptake, fate, and toxicity [29]. For instance, stability of silver NPs increases in soil containing humic and fulvic acids, which accelerate their mobility, enhancing ecological risk [30]. The toxicity of NPs not only depends on their physicochemical properties but also affected by the chemical characteristic of environment [29]. The direct application of NPs sometimes induces toxic implications on plants as well as on humans and can contaminate aquatic ecosystems [31]. Additionally, NPs with antimicrobial properties may show toxicity to beneficial microorganisms, threatening health of agro-ecosystem. Due to associated risk and wide spread use, it has become critical to assess the potential hazards of NPs used for agriculture on environment and living organisms. Thus, the present chapter makes an attempt to assess the growth stimulating attributes as well as toxic implications of different types of nanoparticles on plants, which helps to evaluate and weigh the ecological benefits of nanoparticles in agriculture sector.

2 Types of Nanomaterials According to the size, morphology, source, physical characteristics, and chemical composition, nanomaterials are classified [32]. The function of these nanomaterials is often determined by their classification. Nanomaterials, particularly, engineered NMs have been distinguished into four different categories on the basis of their composition: (1) inorganic-based nanomaterials, (2) carbon-based nanomaterials, (3) organic-based nanomaterials, and (4) composite-based nanomaterials [33].

2.1

Inorganic Nanomaterials

Nanomaterials that made up of metals, metalloides and/or their oxides, phosphates, carbonates, and carbides are called inorganic NMs [32, 34]. Metal NMs can be made up of one (monometallic), two (bimetallic) or more than two (polymetallic) metals [34]. These NMs show localized surface plasmon resonance, which bestow them with unique electrical and optical properties [34]. Metal NMs such as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and iron have been extensively explored and found applications in multiple areas including agriculture, biomedical and even pharmaceutical sectors [34, 35]. In particular, silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) are frequently used as antimicrobial agent [35, 36]. The inorganic NMs also include semiconductor NMs, which are made up of materials having properties of a metalloid. Such types of NMs are used in optical, photocatalysis, and electronic devices [34]. NPs made up of oxides, carbide, carbonates, and/or phosphate of metal and metalloids are called ceramic NPs such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide, cerium oxide, and copper oxide [34, 37].

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

5

These NPs are found in several forms including amorphous, hollow, polycrystalline, and porous form [34]. Ceramic NPs can be used for photodegradation of dyes [37, 38] and therefore has potential for remediation of environmental matrices.

2.2

Organic-Based Nanomaterials

The organic NMs are synthesized from organic materials like proteins, lipids, polymers, and carbohydrates [34]. Most common organic NMs include dendrimers, liposomes, micelle, cyclodextrin, and protein complexes like ferritin [33, 34]. Organic NMs are generally non-toxic and biodegradable materials, which are labile in nature, and show sensitivity toward both thermal and electromagnetic radiation [34]. Due to safe nature, organic NMs are often found application in field of biomedical and used for cancer therapy and targeted drug delivery [34].

2.3

Carbon-Based Nanomaterials

Carbon nanoparticles are allotropes of carbon i.e., carbon containing organic NMs [32, 39]. Carbon nanomaterials are produced in shapes of hollow tubes, sheets, nanobuds, and sphere [40]. The functional carbon nanomaterials are grouped into four categories on the basis of dimensionality, which include 0-dimension (0D) such as quantum dots and fullerenes, 1-dimension (1D) (carbon nanotubes (CNT) including single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)), 2-dimension (2D) NMs (graphene and graphene oxide), and 3-dimension (3D) (carbon sphere, graphene aerogels, carbon nanohorns, graphite, and carbon shell) [39−45]. Carbon NMs show distinctive physicochemical properties at nanoscale such as good electrical and thermal conductivity, high mechanical strength, electron affinity, and better sorption ability due to sp2 -hybridization of carbon [34, 43]. Moreover, certain carbon NMs like carbon nano onions exhibit low toxicity and biocompatibility. Owing to unique characteristics, carbon NMs have multifarious applications. These NMs are used for drug delivery, bioimaging, tissue engineering, and even facilitate monitoring of microbial ecology and can detect pathogenic microbes [34].

2.4

Composite-Based Nanomaterials

Nanocomposites are hybrid materials formed by merging two or more dissimilar materials (having different physical and chemical properties) [46]. Moreover, in nanocomposites atleast one phase has one or more dimensions in nanometer size [46]. Nanocomposites are synthesized by amalgamating clays, metals, fullerence, or

6

S. Naaz et al.

semiconductors with matrix materials to exhibit new as well as improved properties and structure, in particular, super hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, electronic and ionic transport, and fouling resistance [47, 48]. The properties of nanocomposites are determined by the materials used, morphology, and the interfacial characteristics [47]. The matrix material which could be used include metallic, non-matellalic or polymeric substances [46]. According to the matrix structures, nanocomposites can be categorized into three groups: metal matrix nanocomposites like Co/Cr and FeMgO, polymer matrix nanocomposites such as polymer/TiO2 and polymer/CNT, and ceramic matrix nanocomposites including Al2 O3 /TiO2 and Al2 O3 /CNT [46, 49]. The multifunctional nanocomposites are widely used as catalyst and sensors [47]. The PVA/S-GQD (poly vinyl alcohol/fluorescent sulphur-doped graphene quantum dots) based fluorescent film used as a sensor to detect pesticides and reported to exhibit high selectivity toward carbamate pesticides with sensitivity at ppb level [50]. The application of nanocomposites in soil as a sensor of environmental pollutants thus could facilitate improved and sustainable agriculture.

3 Application of Nanoparticles in Agriculture Owing to the unique characteristics of the nanomaterials, the field of nanotechnology has been expanded rapidly and found application in various sectors including agriculture. In agriculture, nanomaterials facilitate plant growth, and regulate biotic stress with reduced application of toxic agro-chemicals. Treatment of plants with nanoparticles improves their growth and enhance resistivity toward stress by amplifying metabolites synthesis, photosynthetic efficiency, antioxidant activity, and water absorption ability [51]. Thus, use of nanofertilizer, nanopesticides and nonherbicides could aid in intensification of agriculture in a sustainable mode and escalate global food security (Fig. 2).

3.1

Plant Growth Management

Plant require adequate amount of nutrients to grow and produce satisfactory quality of output. Low soil nutritional profile lead to the input of chemical fertilizers in agricultural soil. The large portion of fertilizers added to soil often remain in inaccessible form or lost in form of run off, leaching, and/or volatilization, which consequently result in increase in application frequency as well as dose quantity, and eventually degrade agro-ecosystem [17, 52, 53]. Increasing production of food is priority, but on the other hand maintaining health of the soil ecosystem is crucial. Thus, reducing the amount of fertilizers used to cultivate crops and improving nutrient use efficiency is crucial to produce food sustainably. Nanotechnology has been recognized to facilitate plant growth even under stress conditions, reduce nutrient loss,

Fig. 2 Use of nanomaterials in agriculture for sustainable development

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant … 7

8

S. Naaz et al.

and regulate application dosage of chemical fertilizers by formulating nanofertilizers [51−53]. Nanofertilizers are either nutrients (micro- or macro-nutrient) in nanoscale or are nanosized materials that act as a carrier/additives for delivering nutrients/growth prompting compounds [55]. Nanofertilizers improves plant growth and productivity by improving seed germination, seedling growth, photosynthetic activity, nitrogen metabolism, and production of chlorophyll, proteins and carbohydrates [53]. Nanofertilizers use also shrink transportation expenditure and applied with ease due to smaller size [53]. Nanofertilizers are formulated to provide macro\micro-nutrients to the targeted site and at time when needed via mechanism of slow/controlled release of chemicals [52]. This mechanism aid in reduction of required dose quantity and improve nutrient use efficiency (NUE) [17, 51, 56, 57]. Slow/controlled release of nutrients/growth promoting substances involve surface coating of active ingredients (nutrients) with nanomaterials and are released in a controlled manner that they could be utilized by the plants when required [53, 54]. This improve nutrient use efficiency, prevent loss of mobile nutrients, and check conversion of nutrients into gaseous/chemical forms that cannot be absorbed by the plants [57]. Nanomaterials like nanoparticles/nanocomposites have demonstrated potential for slow- and controlled- release of nutrients. Nanocomposites containing clay material, which can bind with minerals and extend their retention time in soil, exhibit modified properties that support slow release of fertilizers and improve water holding capacity of soil [51, 58]. ZincAluminum layered double hydroxide nanocomposites aided controlled-release of plant growth promoting chemical compounds [59]. Treatment of soybean with phosphate nanofertilizer increased the growth rate and seed yield by 32 and 20%, respectively, compared to conventional fertilizer treated plants [60]. The application of mesoporous silica NPs at different concentrations improved the seed germination, plant biomass, chlorophyll and protein content, and photosynthetic activity of wheat and lupin plant [61]. Nanofertilizers can promote plant metabolism and nutrient uptake via nanometric pores with the aid of molecular transporters or nanostructure cuticle pores [62]. Nanomaterials present in vicinity of plants are absorbed through roots or leaf stomata, which depends on intrinsic characteristics such as their size, coating material, chemical composition of nanofertilizers as well as functional group present on their surface [17], and on extrinsic characteristics like soil organic matter, soil pH, site of nanofertilizer application, and exposure route [53]. After absorption, NMs are transported to various tissues, where they interact with cellular components and induce alteration at molecular level, eventually improving plant growth [17]. Fe NPs applied to Capsicum annum at low concentration was reported to be absorbed by the roots and then transported in a bioavailable form to the central cylinder, from where it was translocated to different plants and utilized, ultimately improving plant growth [63]. Chitosan NPs promoted seed germination and growth of Triticum aestivum by inducing expression of auxin-related genes, which resulted in elevated levels of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) in plant [64]. The interaction of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) with tobacco cell culture increased the growth by 55–64% by triggering activation of genes involved in cell division, cell wall extension, and

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

9

water transport [65]. MWCNT interaction increased the expression of aquaporin gene NtPIP1 as well as generation of protein NtPIP1. Application of NMs to crops in addition to plant growth helps to ameliorate the stress, particularly induced due to nutrient deficiency, drought, salinity, and temperature stress [53]. Satureja hortensis treated with AgNPs under salinity stress exhibited improved seed germination, plant growth, and resilience toward stress [66]. Silica is not an essential nutrient for plants but its deficiency makes plant weaker and susceptible to environmental stresses [17, 53, 67]. Thus, providing silica to plants can improve their growth and mediate stress tolerance. The foliar application of silicon oxide (SiO2 ) NPs on sugarcane reduced the effect of chilling stress by improving photosynthesis efficiency and photoprotection [68]. Treatment of plant with NPs induce tolerance to stress by ameliorating oxidative damage via generation of antioxidants. In a study, application of AgNPs were found to alleviate salinity stress on wheat by promoting the activities of major enzymatic antioxidants and abridging content of malondialdehyde and hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ) [69]. Nanofertilizers have immense potential to improve plant productivity by ameliorating nutrient deficiency and other environmental stress. However, before large scale field application, the economic viability and biosafety should be addressed to incur financial gain by farmers without compromising the health of living organisms.

3.2

Disease Management

Plants are frequently affected by the biotic stress, which impedes their growth and productivity. To reduce the yield loss caused by biotic factors, chemical pesticides are regularly applied that consequentially contaminate the environment, kill non-target organisms, induce resistance in pests and pathogens, bioaccumulate via food chain, and impose health hazards to wild organisms and humans [55, 70]. To eliminate the risk associated with chemical pesticides, researches are undergoing all around the world to fabricate novel materials, which are efficient, and target-specific. As a resultant, smart nanopesticides have come into existence [70]. Nanopesticides include slow delivery system, which consists of encapsulated active ingredients (AI), used in agricultural practices [70]. Nanopesticides display multiple benefits over conventional pesticides, which include: better interaction with target, even at low application dose,generate less pesticide residue,improve water retention,as well as enhances water-solubility [70]. Nanopesticides exhibit good stability and improved efficacy, and thus are viable option for plant disease management. Several nanopesticdes have been formulated to manage plant diseases. For instance, sepiolite-based formulation of herbicide Mesotrione has been fabricated for slow release of active ingredient, which improved weed control efficiency and significantly reduced leaching of the active ingredients (mesotrione) compared to conventional formulation [71]. A nanoherbicide of biochar-based hydrogel microspheres for sustained delivery of 2, 4-dichloropheoxyacetic acid has been formulated to regulate release behaviour of hydrophilic pesticides, enhance its utilization efficiency,

10

S. Naaz et al.

and abridge loss via leaching [72]. A controlled-release system for the insecticide spirotetramat was formulated using starch-chitosan-alginate encapsulation, which reduced its degradation rate, improved shelf-life of active ingredient (spirotetramat) and alleviated environmental contamination [73]. Application of nanotechnology to fabricate nanopesticides is of great relevance for improving crop productivity in a sustainable manner. It improve the efficiency of the pesticides, reduces application dose, and alleviated leaching of pesticides and environmental contamination.

4 Toxic Implications of Nanomaterials on Seed Germination, Plant Growth and Activity Nanomaterials are used in agriculture to improve plant productivity with minimum input of agrochemicals. Nanomaterials due to their unconventional properties have advantage over conventional agricultural activities but are also associated with the potential to contaminate the environment and harm the living organisms. Moreover, application of nanomaterials for plant production have been reported to induce toxicity in plants in several cases [55, 74]. The phytotoxic effect of nanomaterials depend on the size, dose, and nature of nanomaterials as well as on exposure time and conditions [55, 75]. Besides this, detoxification process recruited by particular plant determine the phytotoxic effect of NMs [76]. Active detoxification process increases resilience strength of plant against toxic effects of NMs. As different plants show dissimilar detoxification potential, thus, toxicity influence of a specific NMs differ from species to species [76]. NMs-induced phytotoxicity have been observed on physiological parameters like seed germination, plant biomass, root elongation and leaf numbers [55, 77]. NMs can negatively stimulate plant growth, resulting in reduced rate of seed germination and root elongation, slow down the plant growth, alter water uptake, alleviate phytohormone level, and abridge cellular metabolism [55]. At cellular and molecular level, NMs trigger generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that causes oxidative damage and eventually reduces photosynthesis, induces chromosomal abnormalities, and bring changes in the transcriptional profile of genes [55]. Interaction of NMs with plants, alter gene expression as well as molecular pathways, which ultimately abridge plant growth and development [55]. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are most commonly used carbon NMs that can easily enter plant cell walls and membranes. CNTs therefore have great promise for use in agriculture as targeted delivery systems for insecticides, fertilizer, and other chemicals. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of these CNTs can be beneficial for the growth and development of plants, however, CNT-induced phytotoxicity and inhibition has also been noted [78–81]. At high concentrations, they can shoot production of ROS, leading to redox imbalance. Although ROS generation under stress can have beneficial effects since they operate as signalling molecules, causing cellular responses to increase antioxidant production to scavenge ROS and allowing

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

11

the plant to withstand stress [82–84]. Nevertheless, excess ROS affect biomolecules triggering oxidative stress in plants, which eventually result in damage [85–88]. Analogous to CNT, other carbon NMs have also been observed to induce phytotoxicity. According to [89] high dosage of carbon nanodots (1000 and 2000 mg L−1 ) resulted in decreased root and shoot biomass of maize plants because of H2 O2 buildup and intensified lipid peroxidation. In addition, antioxidant enzymes like CAT, APX, GPX, and SOD were activated by carbon nanodots exposure. It was observed that carbon nanodots were present in the root-cap cells, cortical cells, vascular bundle of roots, as well as the in the mesophyll tissue of the leaves. Moreover, secretion of carbon nanodots from leaf blades was noted. Growth of Arabidopsis seedlings grown in media containing water soluble fullerene malonic acid derivative (FMAD) were reported to be negatively stimulated [90]. FMAD hindered the elongation of the roots and hypocotyls in a concentration-dependent manner, but did not had an impact on germination capacity, probably due to the protective properties of seed coat. The interruption of cell division, improper microtubule organization, reduced auxin and intracellular ROS levels, and abridged mitochondrial activity in roots were reported. Graphene, a key carbon NM has been demonstrated to show toxic effects on living organisms and cater environmental toxicity [91]. Begum and Fugetsu ([92]) in a study found that the red spinach (Amaranthus tricolour and Amaranthus lividus), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), and cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) plants exposed to graphene showed decreased growth and biomass with an increase in ROS production and cell death, and moreover, the effects were concentration-dependent. Graphene significantly increased root elongation, but hindered the growth of root hair, which may be related to the oxidative stress that graphene-induced in the roots of wheat seedlings [93]. Sulfonated graphene NPs stimulated growth in maize seedlings (plant height, root and shoot biomass) at low concentrations (50 mg/L) but at high concentrations (500 mg/L), had a potent inhibitory effect that was accompanied by Ca2+ signalling, ROS production, and lipid peroxidation [94]. Exposure of wheat seedlings to graphene oxide induced toxicity at high concentration which was evident from severe damage to the morphology of seedlings, reduced growth parameters including biomass and increased electrolyte leaking from roots [95]. Besides carbon NMs, application of metal- and metalloid-based NMs have been documented to induce toxicity in plants and other living organisms [55]. ZnO NPs which is used as nanofertilizer have been reported to induce toxic effect on rice seedlings [96]. The exposure rice to ZnO inhibit growth of seedlings, reduced chlorophyll content by down-regulating genes related with photosynthetic pigments, and induced oxidative damage. Plants subjected to AgNPs have shown genotoxic effects as well as negative biochemical and physiological changes [97, 98]. This is a severe issue as AgNPs does not enter the soil environment as a result of their purposeful use as agrochemicals, but also indirectly through the use of consumer and industrial products. Similarly, TiO2 and CeO2 which are extensively used in paints, cosmetics, fuel additives, polished glass mirror, and other products are released into the environment [99, 100] and may induce oxidative stress, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity in plants [101, 102]. In a study conducted by Lopez-Moreno et al. [100, 103], genotoxicity in

12

S. Naaz et al.

soybean and zucchini were reported to be induced on exposure to CeO2 and TiO2 NP. In many studies, the impact of NMs have been observed to be size and concentration dependent. For instance, CuO NPs with smaller size were reported to induce greater toxic effect on soybean than larger NPs [104]. Similarly, CeO2 NPs at higher concentration displayed phytotoxic effects on rice [105]. At highest concentration of CeO2 NPs (500 mg/L), membrane damage, lipid peroxidation, electrolyte leakage, altered enzymatic activity, and affected photosynthesis were reported in shoot of rice seedlings. Moreover, it has been found that CeO2 NPs can alter the nutritional profile of rice grain, affecting food quality [106]. Fe NPs at low concentration were reported to induce growth promoting effects on Capsicum annum by changing leaf organization, regulating development of vascular bundles, and elevating number of chloroplast as well as grana stacking, however, at high concentration, NPs negatively affected the plants [63]. Thus, it is imperative to assess the impact of NMs, particularly, their size and concentration on various plant species before their release to environmental matrix, particularly, to agricultural ecosystem.

5 Conclusion and Future Prospects Use of nanotechnology to develop new age smart delivery system for fertilizers and pesticides is an asset for achieving sustainable agriculture, boosting food security, and managing environmental pollution. Input of nanomaterials can transform the agriculture sector into more efficient and resilient system. Nanomaterials used as nanofertilizers, nanopesticides, and nanosensors could significantly improve crop productivity with reduced consumption of agro-chemicals by significantly reducing dose application, improving their shelf life, and abridging nutrient or active ingredient loss via leaching. Though nanomaterials application can notably promote sustainable agriculture in regime of climate change, but their use may also pose risk of environment contamination and toxicity in living organisms, owing to their small size and reactive nature. Thus, it is essential to gain deeper understanding on action mechanisms of different nanomaterials under different concentration and different environmental conditions. Although, at present the development of nano-based formulations for agriculture are in juvenile stage and require more in depth understanding, yet they exhibit immense potential to transform agricultural practices and therefore more efforts are needed to attain significant achievements. To promote the use of nanotechnology in agriculture at large scale, more research is required at national and international level. Moreover, collaboration between research institutes, universities, and industries is needed to transfer knowledge into product. Further, transparency in methodology and scientific output obtained is imperative to support policymakers and increase confidence in nanotechnology for commercial application.

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

13

References 1. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2023) Advances in smart nanomaterials and their applications. Elsevier Inc., 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 2. Husen A (2022) Engineered nanomaterials for sustainable agricultural production, soil improvement and stress management. Elsevier Inc., 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 3. Shang H, Guo H, Ma C, Li C, Chefetz B, Polubesova T, Xing B (2019) Maize (Zea mays L.) root exudates modify the surface chemistry of CuO nanoparticles: Altered aggregation, dissolution and toxicity. Sci Total Environ 690:502–510 4. Al-Khayri JM, Rashmi R, Surya Ulhas R, Sudheer WN, Banadka A, Nagella P, Almaghasla MI (2023) The role of nanoparticles in response of plants to abiotic stress at physiological, biochemical, and molecular levels. Plants 12(2):292 5. Kumar PM, Anandkumar R, Sudarvizhi D, Mylsamy K, Nithish M (2020) Experimental and theoretical investigations on thermal conductivity of the paraffin wax using CuO nanoparticles. Mater Today: Proc 22:1987–1993 6. Sachdev S, Ahmad S (2021) Role of nanomaterials in regulating oxidative stress in plants. In: Al-Khayri JM, Ansari MI, Singh AK (Eds.) Nanobiotechnology: mitigation of abiotic stress in plants. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 305–326 7. European Commission (2011) Recommendation 2011/696/ EU of 18 October (2011) on the Definition of Nanomaterial; OJEU L 275/38; European Commission Recommendation: Brussel, Belgium. p 3 8. Baig MM, Zulfiqar S, Yousuf MA, Shakir I, Aboud MFA, Warsi MF (2021) DyxMnFe2-xO4 nanoparticles decorated over mesoporous silica for environmental remediation applications. J Hazard Mater 402:123526 9. Singh R, Shedbalkar UU, Wadhwani SA, Chopade BA (2015) Bacteriagenic silver nanoparticles: synthesis, mechanism, and applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:4579–4593 10. Jo YH, Jung I, Choi CS, Kim I, Lee HM (2011) Synthesis and characterization of low temperature Sn nanoparticles for the fabrication of highly conductive ink. Nanotechnology 22(22):225701 11. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Carbon and fullerene nanomaterials in plant system. J Nanobiotechnology 12(16):1–10 12. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Phytosynthesis of nanoparticles: Concept, controversy and application. Nanoscale Res Lett 9(229):1–24 13. Jin-Chul K, Madhusudhan A, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterials in biomedical applications. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland 14. Siddiqi KS, Husen A (2022) Plant response to silver nanoparticles: a critical review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 42(7):773–990 15. Husen A (2023a) Secondary metabolites based green synthesis of nanomaterials and their applications. Springer Nature, Singapore https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0927-8 16. Husen A (2023b) Nanomaterials from agricultural and horticultural products. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore 17. Mittal D, Kaur G, Singh P, Yadav K, Ali SA (2020) Nanoparticle-based sustainable agriculture and food science: Recent advances and future outlook. Front Nanotechnol 2:579954 18. Yang K, Huang LJ, Wang YX, Du YC, Tang JG, Wang Y, Wickramasinghe SR (2019) Graphene oxide/nanometal composite membranes for nanofiltration: synthesis, mass transport mechanism, and applications. New J Chem 43(7):2846–2860 19. Younes NA, Hassan HS, Elkady MF, Hamed AM, Dawood MF (2020) Impact of synthesized metal oxide nanomaterials on seedlings production of three Solanaceae crops. Heliyon 6(1):e03188 20. F Elkady M, Shokry Hassan H (2015) Equilibrium and dynamic profiles of azo dye sorption onto innovative nano-zinc oxide biocomposite. Curr Nanosci 11(6):805-814

14

S. Naaz et al.

21. Konappa N, Udayashankar AC, Dhamodaran N, Krishnamurthy S, Jagannath S, Uzma F, Jogaiah S (2021) Ameliorated antibacterial and antioxidant properties by Trichoderma harzianum mediated green synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Biomolecules 11(4):535 22. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterial and nanocomposite with advanced agrochemical activities. Nanoscale Res Lett 16(156):1–26 23. Mondal R, Dam P, Chakraborty J, Paret ML, Katı A, Altuntas S, Sarkar R, Ghorai S, Mandal AK, Husen A (2022) Potential of nanobiosensor in sustainable agriculture: the state-of-art. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4134873 24. Sharma G, Nim S, Alle M, Husen A, Kim JC (2022) Nanoparticle-mediated delivery of flavonoids for cancer therapy: prevention and treatment. In: Kim JC, Alle M, Husen A (eds) Smart nanomaterials in biomedical applications. Nanotechnology in the life sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84262-8_3 25. Sharma P, Pandey V, Sharma MMM, Patra A, Singh B, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) A Review on biosensors and nanosensors application in agroecosystems. Nanoscale Res Lett 16(136):1–24 26. Guha S, Jindal AB (2020) An insight into obtaining of non-spherical particles by mechanical stretching of micro-and nanospheres. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol 59:101860 27. Feregrino-Perez AA, Magaña-López E, Guzmán C, Esquivel K (2018) A general overview of the benefits and possible negative effects of the nanotechnology in horticulture. Sci Hortic 238:126–137 28. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Metal-based nanoparticles, sensors and their multifaceted application in food packaging. J Nanobiotechnology 19(256):1–25 29. Kaphle A, Navya PN, Umapathi A, Daima HK (2018) Nanomaterials for agriculture, food and environment: applications, toxicity and regulation. Environ Chem Lett 16:43–58 30. Sharma N, Kumar J, Thakur S, Sharma S, Shrivastava V (2013) Antibacterial study of silver doped zinc oxide nanoparticles against Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis. Drug Invention Today 5(1):50–54 31. Chauhan PS (2020) Lignin nanoparticles: Eco-friendly and versatile tool for new era. Bioresour Technol Rep 9:100374 32. Khan FA (2020) Nanomaterials: types, classifications, and sources. Appl Nanomater Hum Health:1–13 33. Majhi KC, Yadav M (2021) Synthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using carbohydrates. In: Green sustainable process for chemical and environmental engineering and science. Elsevier, pp 109–135 34. Joudeh N, Linke D (2022) Nanoparticle classification, physicochemical properties, characterization, and applications: a comprehensive review for biologists. J Nanobiotechnology 20(1):262 35. Mansoor S, Zahoor I, Baba TR, Padder SA, Bhat ZA, Koul AM, Jiang L (2021) Fabrication of silver nanoparticles against fungal pathogens. Front Nanotechnol 3:679358 36. Mallmann EJJ, Cunha FA, Castro BN, Maciel AM, Menezes EA, Fechine PBA (2015) Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles obtained by green synthesis. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 57:165–167 37. Thomas MG, Abraham E, Jyotishkumar P, Maria HJ, Pothen LA, Thomas S (2015) Nanocelluloses from jute fibers and their nanocomposites with natural rubber: Preparation and characterization. Int J Biol Macromol 81:768–777 38. Khan I, Saeed K, Khan I (2019) Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arab J Chem 12(7):908–931 39. Vedhanarayanan B, Praveen VK, Das G, Ajayaghosh A (2018) Hybrid materials of 1D and 2D carbon allotropes and synthetic π-systems. NPG Asia Materials 10(4):107–126 40. Jani M, Arcos-Pareja JA, Ni M (2020) Engineered zero-dimensional fullerene/carbon dotspolymer based nanocomposite membranes for wastewater treatment. Molecules 25(21):4934 41. Han X, Li S, Peng Z, Al-Yuobi AO, Bashammakh ASO, Leblanc RM (2016) Interactions between carbon nanomaterials and biomolecules. J Oleo Sci 65(1):1–7 42. He B, Feng M, Chen X, Sun J (2021) Multidimensional (0D–3D) functional nanocarbon: Promising material to strengthen the photocatalytic activity of graphitic carbon nitride. Green Energy & Environ 6(6):823–845

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

15

43. Rauti R, Musto M, Bosi S, Prato M, Ballerini L (2019) Properties and behavior of carbon nanomaterials when interfacing neuronal cells: How far have we come? Carbon 143:430–446 44. Taherpour AA, Mousavi F (2018) Carbon nanomaterials for electroanalysis in pharmaceutical applications. In: Fullerens, Graphenes and Nanotubes, pp 169–225. William Andrew Publishing 45. Zhi D, Li T, Li J, Ren H, Meng F (2021) A review of three-dimensional graphene-based aerogels: Synthesis, structure and application for microwave absorption. Compos B Eng 211:108642 46. Omanovi´c-Mikliˇcanin E, Badnjevi´c A, Kazlagi´c A, Hajlovac M (2020) Nanocomposites: A brief review. Heal Technol 10:51–59 47. Sahay R, Reddy VJ, Ramakrishna S (2014) Synthesis and applications of multifunctional composite nanomaterials. Int J Mech Mater Eng 9:1–13 48. Sen M (2020) Nanocomposite materials. Nanotechnol. Environ:1–12 49. Wang DY, Song YP, Wang JS, Ge XG, Wang YZ, Stec AA, Hull T, R. (2009) Double in situ approach for the preparation of polymer nanocomposite with multi-functionality. Nanoscale Res Lett 4(4):303–306 50. Nair RV, Thomas RT, Mohamed AP, Pillai S (2020) Fluorescent turn-off sensor based on sulphur-doped graphene quantum dots in colloidal and film forms for the ultrasensitive detection of carbamate pesticides. Microchem J 157:104971 51. Jampílek J, Kráˇlová K (2017) Nanomaterials for delivery of nutrients and growth-promoting compounds to plants. Nanotechnol: Agric Parad:177–226 52. Babu S, Singh R, Yadav D, Rathore SS, Raj R, Avasthe R, Yadav SK, Das A, Yadav V, Yadav B, Shekhawat K, Upadhyay PK, Yadav DK, Singh VK (2022) Nanofertilizers for agricultural and environmental sustainability. Chemosphere 292:133451 53. Zulfiqar M, Samsudin MFR, Sufian S (2019) Modelling and optimization of photocatalytic degradation of phenol via TiO2 nanoparticles: An insight into response surface methodology and artificial neural network. J Photochem Photobiol, A 384:112039 54. Iavicoli I, Leso V, Beezhold DH, Shvedova AA (2017) Nanotechnology in agriculture: Opportunities, toxicological implications, and occupational risks. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 329:96–111 55. Usman M, Farooq M, Wakeel A, Nawaz A, Cheema SA, ur Rehman H, Sanaullah M (2020) Nanotechnology in agriculture: Current status, challenges and future opportunities. Science of the Total Environment 721:137778 56. Alipour ZT (2016) The effect of phosphorus and sulfur nanofertilizers on the growth and nutrition of Ocimum basilicum in response to salt stress. J Chem Health Risks (2) 57. DeRosa MC, Monreal C, Schnitzer M, Walsh R, Sultan Y (2010) Nanotechnology in fertilizers. Nat Nanotechnol 5(2):91–91 58. Basak BB, Pal S, Datta SC (2012) Use of modified clays for retention and supply of water and nutrients. Curr Sci:1272–1278 59. Hussein MZ (2002) Nanotechnology in fertilizers. J Control Release 82:417–427 60. Liu R, Lal R (2014) Synthetic apatite nanoparticles as a phosphorus fertilizer for soybean (Glycine max). Sci Rep 4(1):5686 61. Sun D, Hussain HI, Yi Z, Rookes JE, Kong L, Cahill DM (2016) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles enhance seedling growth and photosynthesis in wheat and lupin. Chemosphere 152:81–91 62. Rico CM, Majumdar S, Duarte-Gardea M, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2011) Interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants and their possible implications in the food chain. J Agric Food Chem 59(8):3485–3498 63. Yuan J, Chen Y, Li H, Lu J, Zhao H, Liu M, Glushchenko NN (2018) New insights into the cellular responses to iron nanoparticles in Capsicum annuum. Sci Rep 8(1):3228 64. Li R, He J, Xie H, Wang W, Bose SK, Sun Y, Yin H (2019) Effects of chitosan nanoparticles on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int J Biol Macromol 126:91–100

16

S. Naaz et al.

65. Khodakovskaya MV, De Silva K, Biris AS, Dervishi E, Villagarcia H (2012) Carbon nanotubes induce growth enhancement of tobacco cells. ACS Nano 6(3):2128–2135 66. Nejatzadeh F (2021) Effect of silver nanoparticles on salt tolerance of Satureja hortensis l. during in vitro and in vivo germination tests. Heliyon 7(2):e05981 67. Luyckx M, Hausman JF, Lutts S, Guerriero G (2017) Silicon and plants: current knowledge and technological perspectives. Front Plant Sci 8:411 68. Elsheery NI, Sunoj VSJ, Wen Y, Zhu JJ, Muralidharan G, Cao KF (2020) Foliar application of nanoparticles mitigates the chilling effect on photosynthesis and photoprotection in sugarcane. Plant Physiol Biochem 149:50–60 69. Mohamed AKS, Qayyum MF, Abdel-Hadi AM, Rehman RA, Ali S, Rizwan M (2017) Interactive effect of salinity and silver nanoparticles on photosynthetic and biochemical parameters of wheat. Arch Agron Soil Sci 63(12):1736–1747 70. Ur Rahim H, Qaswar M, Uddin M, Giannini C, Herrera ML, Rea G (2021) Nano-enable materials promoting sustainability and resilience in modern agriculture. Nanomaterials 11(8):2068 71. del Carmen Galán-Jiménez M, Morillo E, Bonnemoy F, Mallet C, Undabeytia T (2020) A sepiolite-based formulation for slow release of the herbicide mesotrione. Appl Clay Sci 189:105503 72. Xiang Y, Lu X, Yue J, Zhang Y, Sun X, Zhang G, Cai D, Wu Z (2020) Stimuli-responsive hydrogel as carrier for controlling the release and leaching behavior of hydrophilic pesticide. Sci Total Environ 722:137811 73. Xie YL, Jiang W, Li F, Zhang Y, Liang XY, Wang M, Zhou X, Wu S-Y, Zhang CH (2020) Controlled release of spirotetramat using starch–chitosan–alginate-encapsulation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 104:149–155 74. Aslani F, Bagheri S, Muhd Julkapli N, Juraimi AS, Hashemi FSG, Baghdadi A (2014) Effects of engineered nanomaterials on plants growth: an overview. Sci World J 2014 75. Noori A, Donnelly T, Colbert J, Cai W, Newman LA, White JC (2020) Exposure of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) to silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate: Physiological and molecular response. Int J Phytorem 22(1):40–51 76. Dev A, Srivastava AK, Karmakar S (2018) Nanomaterial toxicity for plants. Environ Chem Lett 16:85–100 77. Doshi R, Braida W, Christodoulatos C, Wazne M, O’Connor G (2008) Nano-aluminum: transport through sand columns and environmental effects on plants and soil communities. Environ Res 106(3):296–303 78. Jordan JT, Singh KP, Cañas-Carrell JE (2018) Carbon-based nanomaterials elicit changes in physiology, gene expression, and epigenetics in exposed plants: A review. Curr Opin Environ Sci & Health 6:29–35 79. Majeed N, Panigrahi KC, Sukla LB, John R, Panigrahy M (2020) Application of carbon nanomaterials in plant biotechnology. Mater Today: Proc 30:340–345 80. Vithanage M, Seneviratne M, Ahmad M, Sarkar B, Ok YS (2017) Contrasting effects of engineered carbon nanotubes on plants: a review. Environ Geochem Health 39:1421–1439 81. Wang Q, Li C, Wang Y, Que X (2019) Phytotoxicity of graphene family nanomaterials and its mechanisms: A review. Front Chem 7:292 82. Marslin G, Sheeba CJ, Franklin G (2017) Nanoparticles alter secondary metabolism in plants via ROS burst. Front Plant Sci 8:832 83. Mittler R (2017) ROS are good. Trends Plant Sci 22(1):11–19 84. Zaytseva O, Neumann G (2018) Penetration and accumulation of carbon-based nanoparticles in plants. Phytotoxicity Nanoparticles:103–118 85. Hao Y, Ma C, Zhang Z, Song Y, Cao W, Guo J, Xing B (2018) Carbon nanomaterials alter plant physiology and soil bacterial community composition in a rice-soil-bacterial ecosystem. Environ Pollut 232:123–136 86. Hu X, Lu K, Mu L, Kang J, Zhou Q (2014) Interactions between graphene oxide and plant cells: Regulation of cell morphology, uptake, organelle damage, oxidative effects and metabolic disorders. Carbon 80:665–676

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Significant Uses in Plant …

17

87. Sachdev S, Ansari SA, Ansari MI, Fujita M, Hasanuzzaman M (2021) Abiotic stress and reactive oxygen species: Generation, signaling, and defense mechanisms. Antioxidants 10(2):277 88. Sachdev S, Jaiswal P, Ansari MI Coordinated functions of reactive oxygen species metabolism and defense systems in abiotic stress tolerance. In: Advancements in developing abiotic stressresilient plants. CRC Press, pp 23–44 89. Chen J, Dou R, Yang Z, Wang X, Mao C, Gao X, Wang L (2016) The effect and fate of water-soluble carbon nanodots in maize (Zea mays L.). Nanotoxicology 10(6):818–828 90. Liu Q, Zhao Y, Wan Y, Zheng J, Zhang X, Wang C, Lin J (2010) Study of the inhibitory effect of water-soluble fullerenes on plant growth at the cellular level. ACS Nano 4(10):5743–5748 91. Devasena T, Francis AP, Ramaprabhu S (2021) Toxicity of graphene: an update. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 259:51–76 92. Begum P, Fugetsu B (2012) Phytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on red spinach (Amaranthus tricolor L) and the role of ascorbic acid as an antioxidant. J Hazard Mater 243:212–222 93. Zhang P, Zhang R, Fang X, Song T, Cai X, Liu H, Du S (2016) Toxic effects of graphene on the growth and nutritional levels of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): short-and long-term exposure studies. J Hazard Mater 317:543–551 94. Ren W, Chang H, Teng Y (2016) Sulfonated graphene-induced hormesis is mediated through oxidative stress in the roots of maize seedlings. Sci Total Environ 572:926–934 95. Chen J, Yang L, Li S, Ding W (2018) Various physiological response to graphene oxide and amine-functionalized graphene oxide in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Molecules 23(5):1104 96. Chen J, Dou R, Yang Z, You T, Gao X, Wang L (2018) Phytotoxicity and bioaccumulation of zinc oxide nanoparticles in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Physiol Biochem 130:604–612 97. Kumari M, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2009) Genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in Allium cepa. Sci Total Environ 407(19):5243–5246 98. Vannini C, Domingo G, Onelli E, Prinsi B, Marsoni M, Espen L, Bracale M (2013) Morphological and proteomic responses of Eruca sativa exposed to silver nanoparticles or silver nitrate. PLoS ONE 8(7):e68752 99. Morales MI, Rico CM, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Nunez JE, Barrios AC, Tafoya A, GardeaTorresdey JL (2013) Toxicity assessment of cerium oxide nanoparticles in cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) plants grown in organic soil. J Agric Food Chem 61(26):6224–6230 100. Moreno-Olivas F, Gant VU Jr, Johnson KL, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) Random amplified polymorphic DNA reveals that TiO2 nanoparticles are genotoxic to Cucurbita pepo. J Zhejiang Univ, Sci, A 15(8):618–623 101. Cox A, Venkatachalam P, Sahi S, Sharma N (2016) Silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticle toxicity in plants: a review of current research. Plant Physiol Biochem 107:147–163 102. Liman R, Acikbas Y, Ci˘gerci ˙IH (2019) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of cerium oxide micro and nanoparticles by Allium and Comet tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 168:408–414 103. López-Moreno ML, de la Rosa G, Hernández-Viezcas JÁ, Castillo-Michel H, Botez CE, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2010) Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7315–7320 104. Yusefi-Tanha E, Fallah S, Rostamnejadi A, Pokhrel LR (2020) Particle size and concentration dependent toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuONPs) on seed yield and antioxidant defense system in soil grown soybean (Glycine max cv. Kowsar). Sci Total Environ 715:136994 105. Rico CM, Hong J, Morales MI, Zhao L, Barrios AC, Zhang JY, Peralta-Videa JR, GardeaTorresdey JL (2013) Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on rice: a study involving the antioxidant defense system and in vivo fluorescence imaging. Environ Sci Technol 47(11):5635–5642

18

S. Naaz et al.

106. Rico CM, Morales MI, Barrios AC, McCreary R, Hong J, Lee WY, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2013b) Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the quality of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains. J Agric Food Chem 61(47):11278–11285 107. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Guha S, Mehta S, Husen A (2022) Potential applications of engineered nanoparticles in plant disease management: a critical update. Chemosphere 295:133798

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani, Saeedeh Rahimzadeh, and Salar Farhangi-Abriz

Abstract Application of nanomaterials with unique physicochemical properties and beneficiary effects is a novel technique that can enhance plant growth and productivity under a wide range of environmental conditions. Nanomaterials are cost-effective and eco-friendly products, which can replace conventional materials in agriculture. The special properties of nanomaterials such as high specific surface area, high surface energy, functional groups, and a high adsorption capacity play a major role in plant production. There are several types of nanomaterials, which are classified on the basis of their chemical properties, shape and size. Nanoparticles could be beneficial for plant production, if they are applied at a rate of less than toxic level. Application of nanoparticles and nanocomposites improves physicochemical properties of soils and physiological and biochemical processes of plants. These nanomaterials can also play a supportive role in enhancing stress tolerance of plants by invigorating plant defense system. Based on the important roles of nanoparticles and nanocomposites in nontoxic levels on plant growth and development, this chapter overviews the advantages and limitations of using nanomaterials as soil amender and plant growth stimulators. Keywords Metal nanoparticle · Nanocomposite · Application forms · Uptake · Plant production

1 Introduction Nanotechnology as an eco-friendly alternative in agriculture offers solutions for increasing sustainable production and lowering adverse environmental impacts on plants [1]. Rapid developments of nanotechnology introduced new ways of using nanomaterials in biotechnology and plant production. Nanomaterials can influence plant performance by improving the soil quality and nutrient supply (nano-fertilizers) [2–4]. These materials usually aim to reduce nutrient losses in fertilization and K. Ghassemi-Golezani (B) · S. Rahimzadeh · S. Farhangi-Abriz Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Eco-Physiology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 A. Husen (ed.), Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants, Smart Nanomaterials Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6_2

19

20

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

improve nutrient management and minimize the spread of chemicals [5]. Nanomaterials, especially nanoparticles (NPs) with differences in size, shape, surface area, and particle morphology, are produced to reduce application of fertilizers, while increasing plant production and quality [6–8]. Nanoparticles are defined as materials in the size range of 1–100 nm in diameter with unique physiochemical properties [6, 9, 10]. The size of the nanoparticle is an effective factor in their efficiency. The smaller nanoparticles can easily enter into the plant cells [4, 11, 12]. Nanomaterials are usually classified according to their chemical composition: inorganic-based nanomaterials (metal and metal oxide nanomaterials), carbonbased nanomaterials (graphene, fullerene, single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, and activated carbon), and nanocomposites (combination of NPs with metal, metal oxide, chitosan, and carbon-based materials) [13]. Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles are produced by addition of reducing or oxidizing/precipitating agents during their synthesis, respectively. The nano-based fertilizers such as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Mo NPs can promote plant growth and development at a small dose [14]. In the rhizosphere of plants, metal oxide nanoparticles are preferable to promote plant growth since they are easily released and absorbed as micronutrients [15]. Nanocomposites are materials with unique thermal and chemical properties that incorporate nanoparticles into a matrix of standard material [16]. The biochar-based metal oxide nanocomposites are the other new class of nanocomposites, which combine the benefits of biochar with nanomaterials. These materials can noticeably improve plant tolerance and physiological performance under stress conditions [17, 18]. Nanoparticles can enter the higher plants by the roots or by foliar spray of vegetative parts. Foliar NPs (water-based nanoparticles) are usually absorbed through the stomata and transported to different plant parts via apoplastic and symplastic pathways [19]. In soil application, nanoparticles depending on the type and size may diffuse into the seeds and change the water uptake. Moreover, nanoparticles can transmit to the roots and enter to the xylem and epidermal cells. After seedlings establishment, nanoparticles are transported from roots to the stem and then to the leaves [20]. Nano-priming (priming is defined as seed treatment by water or nutrient solutions to improve germination) is another method of nanoparticle application to prevent seed contamination by soil microorganisms, increase plant tolerance to abiotic stresses, and improve its productivity [21]. The physical and chemical characteristics of NPs and also the rate of their application may lead to beneficial or toxic effects on plants [22]. The positive effects of NPs in different forms and application methods have been reported on different physiological parameters, antioxidantdefense and photosynthesis efficiency, growth and development of plants [21, 23]. Additionally, plant species vary in the rate of absorption, transport, and accumulation of NPs [22]. The nanoparticles concentration in plants is usually related to the application rate and the growth medium including soil and solution [24]. Depending on the NPs and plant features, the general impact of NPs can be inhibitory, stimulatory, toxic, and neutral [25–27, 12]. The toxicity of NPs may be a combination result of various factors or conditions. In high concentrations, these nanoparticles can negatively impact the soil ecosystem and limit soil microorganisms and plant growth.

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

21

Fig. 1 Classification of the most important nanomaterials used in plants production

This toxicity is related to size, shape, concentration, solubility, specific surface area, surface charge, and plant species [28–30]. This chapter emphasizes on the classification of nanomaterials (Fig. 1), properties and application forms, and the possible harmful and beneficial effects of these materials on plant growth and development.

2 Classification of Nanoparticles 2.1 Metal-Based Nanoparticles Nanomaterials have generally been used in agriculture in the form of nano-fertilizers with the aims of nutrients availability, soil amendment and protection of plants. Application of slow-release fertilizers for the management of nutrients, helps plants to receive available nutrients for a longer time. The nutrients such as K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Mo are essential for the growth of plants. The Ni, Se, Si and Co can be also beneficial at low concentrations [31]. Metal-based nanoparticles (MNPs) are classified to metal NPs, metal oxide NPs and magnetic NPs. Metal NPs are flexible nanomaterials because of the ability to control their size, shape, composition, and structure during synthesis [32]. The metal ions used in the formation process, enhance the beneficial characteristics of NPs. These nanoparticles with different physicochemical properties and biological activities tend to induce more positive effects on plants in comparison to their bulk materials [14]. The metal-based NPs are produced from pure metals such as zinc, iron, copper, silicon, titanium, gold, silver, and other metallic NPs. Better physiochemical properties and high stability, reactivity, and surface area make these materials more capable for improving plant performance. The metal-oxides, such as TiO2 , Fe2 O3 ,

22

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

Al2 O3 , ZnO, and SiO2 , are generally synthesized by sol–gel or hydrothermal reactions. Some of the important characteristics of these materials are suitable pore size, high specific surface area, proper crystallinity and porosity [33]. The nanoscale materials change the properties and behavior of bulk materials, thus high level of these materials may show toxic effects on plants and environment. The adverse effects of metal-based NPs on plants have been reported at physiological, morphological and cellular levels [34, 35]. It is, therefore, crucial to estimate the concentration range for different plant species. Moreover, the NPs phytotoxicity is related to the uptake, translocation and accumulation of NPs in plants [36]. The NPs could be applied as soil amendment or foliar spray on plants. It is important to understand the distribution and final destination of particles in plant tissues [35]. The intake of NPs by plants can be affected by aggregation, surface properties, and solubility. The plant uptake of metal-based nanoparticles could be influenced by some properties of these materials including hydrodynamic diameter, zeta potential, and ion release (Jampílek and Králová 2019). Furthermore, differences in plant species, growth conditions (such as soil, light, humidity, temperature) and duration of NPs availability can directly affect their uptake by plants. The foliar entry of metal NPs to plants occurs through stomatal and cuticular pathways [23]. In root exposure, the NPs may move through the symplastic or apoplastic pathways to penetrate to the epidermis of roots, translocate and finally distribute to stems and leaves via the xylem and phloem. Surface chemistry, distribution, solubility, and transformation of nanoparticles are affected by phyllospheric and rhizosphere processes, including root exudates and microorganisms [23, 37].

2.2 Chitosan-Based Nanoparticles Chitosan as an amino-polysaccharide biopolymer and its derivatives are biodegradable, non-toxic and eco-friendly, which are used for plant growth stimulation [38]. Furthermore, chitosan has antibacterial and antifungal properties [39]. The chitooligosaccharides are obtained through physical, chemical and enzymatic degradation of the chitosan, which can act as molecular signals to regulate defense and growth processes of plants. They can also activate more genes related to metabolisms and plant defense [40]. The nanometer-sized chitosan nanoparticles are capable of entering plant cells to enhance plant bioactivities [41]. Various methods with various advantages and disadvantages are introduced for the production of chitosan nanoparticles. The most common and simple methods are ionotropic gelation and polyelectrolyte complexes [39]. Various active ingredients, such as nutrients, insecticides, and herbicides, can be combined and used with chitosan nanoparticles [42]. The controlled release of nutrients and agrochemicals by chitosan nanoparticles can improve plant production by reducing the effects of leaching, degradation and phytotoxicity [43]. In recent years, various synthetic strategies have been employed to couple different metals with chitosan nanoparticles. Because of its affinity for metals, the most

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

23

common combinations of chitosan with metals are copper, silver, zinc, and iron, which produce non-toxic nanomaterials with better biological and physicochemical properties [44]. Characteristics of chitosan nanoparticles vary, depending on the biomaterials or active compounds in their combination form. For example, chitosanbased nanometals including iron, zinc, copper, silicon, silver, and zinc oxides with excellent antimicrobial properties can act directly on bacteria or fungi, or help as stimuli in the production of defense compounds by the plants [45]. According to the reports, chitosan-based NPs can potentially improve plant growth and yield by proper delivery of NPK and other nutrients, immobilization of metal ions and contaminants [41, 46, 47]. The chitosan-based NPs have identified as powerful stimulators of antioxidant enzymes that can enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stresses including salt, cold and heat [48, 49]. Plant response to chitosan-based nanoparticles are directly influenced by their physicochemical properties including particle size, surface charge (zeta-potential) and functional groups [38]. The high surface charge of chitosan-NPs provides higher binding with biological membranes. In agriculture, most researches focus on plant protection (against fungi, bacteria, and virus) and growth utilizing chitosan nanomaterials. The physico-chemical properties of these nano-structural materials accelerate their penetration through membranes [50].

2.3 Carbon-Based Nanomaterials Carbon-based nanomaterials with nanoscale sizes and unique properties influence growth and development by accumulating in plant tissues [51, 52]. Among these, the carbon nanotubes (CNTs, with a hollow structure containing linked carbon atoms in hexagonal structures) are more efficiently used in agriculture, because of their ability to enter seeds and plant cells in order to increase plant growth and development [51, 53, 54]. The CNTs are directly synthesized by chemical vapor deposition, which allow to control their sizes [55]. The CNTs are classified into two main single-walled and multi-walled types, depending on the structure. The singlewalled CNTs contain a single layer of a graphene sheet with diameters ranging from 0.4 to 2 nm. The multi-walled carbon nanotubes are made up multilayer graphene sheets with outer and inner diameters of 2–100 nm and 1–3 nm, respectively [53]. The CNTs can promote plant growth and reduce water pollution. The CNTs with high water conductivity are appropriate for plant water uptake, especially under stress conditions. The delivery of agrochemical materials to plants using CNTs can reduce chemical emissions into the environment and prevent damage to plant tissues [56]. Physiological and morphological features of CNTs treated plants can change under normal and stress conditions, depending on the size, concentration and type of CNTs, as well as plant species. Under saline conditions, the CNTs accumulate in plant cells at high concentration and enhance the transport of aquaporins (the most important membrane proteins and water channels), which can improve water uptake and transport across the cell membranes to reduce the adverse effects of salinity

24

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

[52]. According to [57], multi-walled carbon nanotubes not only act as molecular channels, but also elevated the gene expression of aquaporin that positively affect the water uptake and transport, especially in stress conditions. Additionally, multiwalled carbon nanotubes have a positive effect on the activity of plasma membrane H+ -ATPase and balance of Na+ /K+ ratio in plant that limit Na entry into the plant cells [52]. According to the Vithanage et al. [54] and Safdar et al. [53], the CNTs can be applied as stimulants of seed germination and plant growth. Authors suggested that multi-walled carbon nanotubes by improving the uptake of water and nutrients act as a growth regulator, which improve the plants growth and tolerance against environmental stress conditions.

2.4 Nanocomposites Nanocomposites are combination of different materials to enhance the efficiency of the main matrix material by improving its efficiency (physical, chemical, and biological properties) [16]. Depending on the components, the nanocomposite can display a combination of mechanical, electrochemical, catalytic, and thermal characteristics [58]. These properties of nanocomposites are more beneficial than individual nanomaterials. Nanocomposites have a great potential to enhance nutrient availability for plants. Nutrients can be easily released from these nanocomposites in the form of soluble ions [16]. Nanocomposites can be classified according to their matrix such as chitosanbased, zeolite-based and biochar-based nanocomposites. Since chitosan contains free amine groups across its polymeric structure, it has a strong preference for metals and can be applied as a blended with other elements to produce nanocomposite [44]. Poly-catalytic properties of chitosan-based nanocomposites let them to have a controlled-release of agrochemicals to the plants [59]. Several studies have found that chitosan-metal nanocomposites are more beneficial than chitosan and metal in individual forms [60, 61]. Another group of nanocomposites are based on Zeolite. Zeolite as a microporous, crystalline aluminosilicate material can be applied to facilitate nutrients and water uptakes by plants. The slow decomposition rate of this material in soil leads to a prolonged use of nutrients by plants [62]. The synthesis of zeolite-based nanocomposites can enhance the ion exchange capacity and act as a continuous source of macro and micro-nutrients, which are necessary during of plant growth [63]. The biochar-based nanocomposites have been also studied for their specialized properties and applications. Biochar is a solid soil amendment, produced from agricultural wastes by pyrolysis processes, with a high potential in reducing the application of chemical fertilizers and increasing soil fertility and plant productivity [64, 65]. Production of biochar-based nanocomposites can create new complex materials with the benefits of biochar and nanomaterials. These nanocomposites are categorized in three types including oxide/hydroxide, magnetic and functional nanoparticlescoated biochar [66]. The oxide/hydroxide biochar nanocomposites are produced

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

25

by pre-treatment of biomass or post-treatment of solid biochar by metal salt or oxide/hydroxide nano-metals [67]. Magnetic biochar nanocomposites are formed by pretreating biomass with iron ions or precipitating iron oxides on biochar matrix. The magnetic property of biochar improves its adsorption capacity and pollutant remediation [68]. In order to produce functional NPs-coated biochar, solid biochar is coated with functional NPS for instance chitosan and carbon nanotubes [66]. The composition process of a biochar-based nanocomposite creates an effective complex material with improved physical and chemical properties, which could be helpful in enhancing the growth and stress tolerance of plants [6, 17]. The increased surface area, cation exchange capacity, and porous structure of biochar in nanocomposite forms, promotes the adsorption process and mitigates detrimental effects of salinity. Compared with solid biochar, biochar-based nanocomposites of iron and zinc increased the sodium sorption capacity by about 72 and 131%, respectively [6]. The performance of nanocomposites by high adsorption capacity assists in balancing of nutrient uptake, especially under stress conditions [17]. A reduction in sodium content and an increase in biomass were found in dill and safflower plants after their exposure to biochar-based nanocomposites (Fig. 2).

Plant biomass (g per plant)

f f

Control Biochar BNC-MgO BNC-MnO BNC-MgO + BNC-MnO

d 20

12

Non-saline

b c c c e e e

ef f f f f

0

6 Salinity (dS m-1)

12

20

c

a

Plant biomass (g per plant)

Sodium content (mg g-1 DW)

e

g

6 Salinity (dS m-1)

c

10

h

30

0.25

0.00 Non-saline

40

d

0

i

g g g g g

g

10

0.50

g

de

f f f

0.75

d

cd e

c

c

b

b b b

a

cd 20

1.00

a

a

30

Non-biochar Biochar BNC-FeO BNC-ZnO BNC-FeO+BNC-ZnO

d

Sodium content (mg g-1 DW)

40

d

15 c

b b

a

d 10

hi

fg f f

e j

gh i hi hi

5

0 Non-saline

6 Salinity (dSm-1)

12

Non-saline

6 Salinity (dSm-1)

12

Fig. 2 Means of sodium content and biomass in dill (A, B) and safflower (C, D) plants affected by biochar-based nanocomposites under different levels of salinity. BNC-FeO: Biochar-based nanocomposite of iron, BNC-ZnO: biochar-based nanocomposite of zinc, BNC-MgO: Biocharbased nanocomposite of magnesium, BNC-MnO: Biochar-based nanocomposite of manganese, DW: Dry weight. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05) (F adopted from a [17, 69])

26

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

3 Application of Nanomaterials and Their Beneficial Effects on Plants Due to their special physico-chemical properties, nanomaterials have a high ability to improve the growth and overall plant performance. These materials have a wide range of application methods for improving the growth and performance of plants under various growth conditions (Fig. 3). In this chapter, we will discuss these materials in three major sections: seed priming, foliar application, and addition to the rhizosphere.

3.1 Nano-Priming For rapid germination and uniform emergence, seed priming is a valuable technique to treat seed lots [70]. Seed germination and seedling establishment of numerous field and horticultural crops are enhanced by different priming methods [71]. Rapid and synchronized germination, higher nutrient uptake, relief from dormancy, germination a wider range of temperatures, improvement of water use efficiency, and synchronous crop maturity are some of the advantages of seed priming that have been reported [72]. Literally, “priming” refers to the activation of stress tolerance, especially to moderate and intermittent stress. The ability of plants to withstand biotic and abiotic challenges is increased by seed priming, which has long been recognized as a potential method

Fig. 3 Preparation, application methods, entry and effect of nanomaterials or nanocomposites to plant growth and performance (adopted from [4])

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

27

of boosting crop production. It truly increases seed vigor, a complicated agronomic attribute influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, as well as germination [73]. Priming, in its simplest form, is a water-based approach that permits carefully regulated seed hydration to start pre-germinative metabolism but prevents the seed from moving toward full germination. Although seed priming is interesting for a very long time, its complete physiological underpinnings have not been well understood. However, a deeper knowledge of pregermination metabolism during priming and following germination will make it more effective, inexpensive, and yet distinctive approach. Based on the choice of priming ingredients, seed priming procedures are typically divided into various categories, including hydro-priming, osmo-priming, chemo-priming, hormonal priming, solid matrix-priming, bio-priming, nutritional priming, and thermo-priming [73, 74]. Application of nanomaterials as the main material for seed pretreatment has a long research background. Many reports are available on application of metal and carbon nanomaterials for seed pretreatment. According to the available reports, pretreatment of seeds by nanomaterials has beneficial effects on germination and establishment of seedlings in different environmental conditions. Many carbon and metal-based nanoparticles, such as carbon nanotubes are employed as seed priming agents to accelerate seed germination, and improve stress tolerance of seedlings [75]. Chickpea seed priming with Fe, Zn, and Ca nanoparticles increased seed weight and grain yield [75, 76]. Hussain et al. [77] found that priming of wheat seeds with different concentrations of nano silicon particles for 24 h can improve antioxidant activity, chlorophyll content, and plant growth under cadmium stress. Srivastava et al. [78] reported that plants from primed spinach seeds with iron pyrite nanoparticle (FeS2 + H2 O) have better carbohydrate metabolism during seedling growth and as a result, leading to higher biomass production and leaf expansion. According to An et al. [79] priming of cotton seeds with nano-cerium oxide particles increases the root and shoot growth under saline conditions. These researchers have stated that treating seeds with cerium oxide enhances the absorption of nutrients such as calcium and magnesium by plants grown in saline conditions. Anand et al. [80] have reported an increase in the seed germination percentage and seedling vigor of mung bean in response to seed priming with magnesium oxide nanoparticles. Kasote et al. [81] showed that watermelon seedlings’ antioxidant potential and defense-related hormones (jasmonates-linked defense) are increased by seed priming with iron oxide nanoparticles. Improvement of seed germination and physiological characteristics of plants by priming is not only achieved by metal nanoparticles, but also by nanoparticles based on carbon. In a field study, Joshi et al. [82] showed that seed priming with multiwall carbon nanotubes improves germination rate, absorption of phosphorus and potassium nutrients, plant growth and the size of xylem and phloem in wheat plants. Chen [14] studied the impact of multiwall carbon nanotubes on the growth and physiological efficiency of maize under cadmium stress and concluded that this treatment increases the growth and antioxidant activity of plants. [83] reported similar effects

28

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

of multiwall carbon nanotubes on increasing maize growth under normal condition. Some of the effects of seed pretreatments with nano materials on growth and physiological efficiency of plants are shown in Table 1.

3.2 Foliar Application of Nanoparticles Foliar spraying of nutrients on plants can facilitate the absorption and transfer of nutrients from the rhizosphere to the leaves and improve the nutrients use efficiency. The use of nanomaterials for nutritional treatment on plants has advantages such as higher absorption rate and lower amount of consumption, compared to soil application. This encouraged researchers to conduct many studies to assess the possible effects of these materials on plant growth under various environmental conditions. Due to their small size, nano nutrients can pass through many biological layers and can directly enter the leaves of plants. In addition, plants have transfer genes that provide the ability of foliar absorption of elements. For example, Deshmukh et al. [91] showed that silicon transporter genes GmNIP2-1 and GmNIP2- 2 belonging to the NIP2 subfamily of aquaporins are active in soybean leaves and can absorb silicon from the leaf. Zhu et al. [92] studied the zinc absorption in nano-oxide form by plant leaves and concluded that nano-zinc oxide particles can easily pass-through plant stomata and enter the mesophyll of leaf cells. Muñoz-Márquez reported that the foliar application of nano molybdenum fertilizer has a better effect than molybdenum chelates and sodium molybdate fertilizers on rising green bean growth and nitrogen use efficiency (Fig. 4). Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of foliar spray of nano nutrients on the growth and physiological efficiency of plants, which generally showed better effects of these materials compared to the normal form of the nutrients [94–97]. However, excess use of nano nutrients has caused toxicity in plant tissues [98]. Foliar spray of nano-nutrients in favorable and unfavorable environmental conditions has had positive effects on the growth and physiological characteristics of plants. In research conducted by [99], it was found that the application of nano zinc significantly increases the growth and physiological efficiency of plants. The use of nano iron particles in saline conditions decreased the oxidative stress in plant tissues and increased the synthesis of secondary metabolites and resistance of plants to salinity stress [100]. In another study by [101], foliar spray of plants with nano silicon has increased resistance to water stress through reducing lipid peroxidation and enhancing nutrient uptake by plants. Foliar application of nano zinc oxide particles on maize plants under cadmium stress has improved the stress resistance and growth of plants [102]. In addition to metallic nanomaterials, carbon and hydrogen nano-compounds have also been sprinkled on plants, which in most cases had positive effects on plant growth and efficiency. It has been reported that the negative effects of stress can be reduced and the growth of plants can be enhanced under water stress [103], salinity [104, 105] and heavy metals [41] in response to foliar spray of chitosan.

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

29

Table 1 The effects of seed pretreatment with various nanomaterials on seedling performance of different plants Material

Plant

Result

Reference

Carbon nanotubes and silicon dioxide nanoparticles

Brassica juncea

Seed pretreatment with Dhingra et al. [84] nanomaterials caused improvements in agronomic potential of Brassica juncea

Multiwall carbon nanotubes

Zea mays

Plant growth was accelerated and cadmium toxicity in maize plants was reduced by seed treatment

Chen et al. [85]

Iron oxide nanoparticles

Citrullus lanatus

The nonenzymatic antioxidant capacity and prime or elicit jasmonates-linked defensive responses in watermelon seedlings were boosted

Kasote et al. (2020)

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes

Triticum aestivum

Grains per plant, Joshi et al. [82] biomass, stomatal density, xylem–phloem size, epidermal cells, and water uptake of plants were enhanced, without DNA damage

Iron oxide nanoparticles

Linum usitatissimum

The levels of Waqas Mazhar et al. malondialdehyde and [86] hydrogen peroxide were dropped by 66% and 71%, respectively. The activities of the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase were increased by 28%, 56%, and 39%, respectively

Graphene oxide nanoparticles

Cucumis melo

The germination percentage and seedling growth of Cucumis melo under salt stress were enhanced

Kaymak et al. [87]

(continued)

30

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

Table 1 (continued) Material

Plant

Result

Reference

Magnesium oxide nanoparticles

Vigna radiata

Primed seeds of Vigna radiata showed a higher seed germination and seedling vigor, compared to conventional hydropriming method

Anand et al. [80]

Zinc oxide nanoparticles

Zea mays

Maize seed Salam et al. [88] pretreatment with zinc oxide nanoparticles noticeably protected stomatal and ultra-cellular structure of plant under cobalt stress and enhanced photosynthetic efficiency and biomass accumulation

Silver and titanium oxide nanoparticles

Solanum lycopersicum

Seed pretreatment improved seed germination, seedling growth, chlorophyll content and antioxidative activities of Solanum lycopersicum

Silicon nanoparticle

Melissa officinalis

Seed priming with Hatami et al. [90] silicon nanoparticles and seedling inoculation with pseudomonas strains had a significant role in increasing primary and secondary metabolites of Melissa officinalis

Sonawane et al. [89]

In most cases, this was achieved via reduction of lipid peroxidation and increment of antioxidant activities. Hajihashemi and Kazemi [106] found that foliar spray of nano-chitosan-encapsulated nano-silicon donor on plants under salt stress significantly improves osmotic adjustment via increasing proline, glycine betaine, and carbohydrates production in plant cells. Some of the effects of foliar spraying of plants with nanomaterials are summarized in Table 2.

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

31

Fig. 4 The effects of molybdenum nano fertilizer, chelate and sodium molybdate on green been growth (adopted from [93])

3.3 Addition of Nanoparticles and Nanocomposites to the Soil Soil fertility is an important factor affecting the plant growth and development [114]. Supplying nutrients to the plants is one of the basic challenges in the agricultural sector, so using inorganic nano materials as soil amendments is one of the most interesting topics in terms of providing adequate nutrients for plants growth. Adding nanomaterials to the soil in most cases has far better effects than the usual form of nutrients in increasing plant yield. For example, the yield improvement due to nano fertilizers in rice was about 10% [115] and due to nano-encapsulated phosphorous treatment on wheat [116], soybean [117], and maize [116] was about 28%, 16% and 10%, respectively. The potassium nano fertilizers have increased the rice yield by 40%, compared to the usual potassium fertilizers [118]. Although addition of nanomaterials to the soil in most cases has positive effects on the growth and efficiency of plants, it has caused a decrease in soil health in some cases. For example, application of titanium dioxide has reduced soil carbonization and reduced its microbial population [119, 120]. Similar results have been reported in the reduction of soil microbial activity in response to copper and iron oxide nanoparticles [121]. Shalaby et al. [122] showed that the addition of nano-Se and nano-Cu in growth medium noticeably enhances banana seedlings (Musa spp) via increasing photosynthetic pigments and antioxidant activities in plant tissues (Fig. 5). The soil could be treated with pure or composite forms of nanomaterials, among which the biochar-based nanocomposites have received most attention in recent years. Due to the high cation exchange capacity of these materials and their high specific surface area, biochar-based nanocomposites have a high ability to inject elements into the rhizosphere and maintain its moisture. In the recent research conducted on the effects of magnesium, manganese, iron, and zinc nanocomposites

32

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

Table 2 The effect of foliar application of nanoparticles on plant performance Material

Plant

Result

Magnesium oxide nanoparticles

Gossypium

Treatment with Kanjan [107] nanoparticles increased cotton seed production by 42.2, 39.9, and 24.8% in comparison to control. The MgO nanoparticles were superior than Mg fertilizers in the sulfate form in terms of cotton fiber quality including fiber length and strength. Foliar application of MgO nanoparticles also enhanced the concentration of some macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium in cotton plants

Reference

Iron oxide nanoparticles

Oryza sativa

A potential treatment Rizwan et al. [108] for decreasing harmful effects of Cd toxicity in plants, as evidenced by increasing in biomass, and Fe concentrations in tissues, and decreasing Cd levels in plants

Zinc oxide nanoparticles

Solanum melongena

Foliar spray of zinc Semida et al. [109] oxide nanoparticles alleviated osmotic stress effects on eggplant cultivated in saline soil

Manganese nano-chelates

Glycine max

Foliar treatment Vaghar et al. [110] increased the soybean resistance against water stress

Chitosan nanoparticle

millet plants

This treatment Sathiyabama and increased finger millet’s Manikandan [111] yield and mineral nutrients content (continued)

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

33

Table 2 (continued) Material

Plant

Result

Silicon nanoparticles

Oryza sativa

The nano-silicon Wang et al. [97] treatment reduced cadmium accumulation, cadmium partitioning in shoots, and oxidative stress, while boosted the amount of several mineral elements (Mg, Fe, and Zn) and antioxidative activities in rice, leading to a higher plant biomass

Silicon and titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Oryza sativa

Application of these nanoparticles on rice leaves improved photosynthesis and plant biomass through reducing cadmium accumulation and improving the antioxidant defense system

Rizwan et al. [112]

Treatment on leafy vegetables (5 mg L−1 Selenium) mitigated heavy metal toxicity in plants

Zhu et al. [113]

Selenium nanoparticles Brassica chinensis

Reference

Fig. 5 Banana seedlings growth in response to different application rates of nano-Cu and Nano-Se (adopted from [122])

34

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

based on biochar, it has been found that these materials in the rhizosphere improve the water retention capacity of the soil and the growth of plants in normal and saline conditions. According to available reports, magnesium, manganese, iron, and zinc nanocomposites based on biochar reduce the availability and absorption of sodium by plants under salt stress, thereby reducing the harmful impacts of this stress on plants [17, 18, 69, 124, 123]. One of the up-to-date topics in the discussion of fertilizers based on nanoscience is the production of fertilizers based on nano chitosan with a greater stability in the rhizosphere [44, 47]. Fertilizers based on nano-chitosan can carry many nutrients such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus. There are many reports of soil treatment by these nanomaterials [38, 125]. Production and application of chitosanbased nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash fertilizers by [46] significantly improved the growth and physiological efficiency of wheat. Addition of nano-chitosan containing potassium to the soil not only increased microbial activity in the soil and seed yield of corn, but also reduced the need for chemical fertilizers consumption [126]. Production and application of zinc fertilizer based on chitosan significantly increased the growth of plants [127].

4 Conclusions and Future Perspective Utilization of nanomaterials has led to important progress in improving the growth and development of plants. Most of the nanomaterial treatments are currently related to plant nutrition. In addition to increasing the growth and physiological efficiency of plants under normal conditions, application of nanomaterials is also successful in increasing the growth and productivity of plants under environmental stresses. Our current knowledge about the mechanisms of the nanomaterial’s actions on the growth and physiological cycles of plants is insufficient, and thus it is necessary to investigate the cellular and sub-cellular effects of different nanomaterials on plants.

References 1. Fiol DF, Terrile MC, Frik J, Mesas FA, Álvarez VA, Casalongué CA (2021) Nanotechnology in plants: recent advances and challenges. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 96:2095–2108 2. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2023) Advances in smart nanomaterials and their applications. Elsevier Inc., 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 3. Husen A (2022) Engineered nanomaterials for sustainable agricultural production, soil improvement and stress management. Elsevier Inc., 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 4. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterial and nanocomposite with advanced agrochemical activities. Nanoscale Res Lett 16(156):1–26 5. Kranjc E, Drobne D (2019) Nanomaterials in plants: a review of hazard and applications in the agri-food sector. Nanomaterials 9:1094

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

35

6. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WC (2012) The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:1–16 7. Husen A (2023a) Secondary metabolites based green synthesis of nanomaterials and their applications. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-990927-8 8. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Phytosynthesis of nanoparticles: Concept, controversy and application. Nanoscale Res Lett 9(229):1–24 9. Maurer-Jones MA, Gunsolus IL, Murphy CJ, Haynes CL (2013) Toxicity of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Anal Chem 85:3036–3049 10. Husen A (2023b) Nanomaterials from agricultural and horticultural products. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore 11. Ameh T, Sayes CM (2019) The potential exposure and hazards of copper nanoparticles: A review. Env Toxicol Pharm 71:103220 12. Siddiqi KS, Husen A (2022) Plant response to silver nanoparticles: A critical review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 42:973–990 13. Liu R, Lal R (2015) Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci Total Env 514:131–139 14. Chen H (2018) Metal based nanoparticles in agricultural system: behavior, transport, and interaction with plants. Chem Spec Bioavailab 30:123–134 15. Panakkal H, Gupta I, Bhagat R, Ingle AP (2021) Effects of different metal oxide nanoparticles on plant growth. Nanotechnology in plant growth promotion and protection: Recent Advances and Impacts pp. 259–282. John Wiley & Sons Ltd 16. Kumar A, Kaur H, Choudhary A, Mehta K, Chattopadhyay A, Mehta S (2023) Role of nanocomposites in sustainable crop plants’ growth and production. Plant biology, sustainability and climate change. In: Azamal Husen (ed) engineered nanomaterials for sustainable agricultural production, soil improvement and stress management. Academic press, pp 161–181 17. Farhangi-Abriz S, Ghassemi-Golezani K (2021) Changes in soil properties and salt tolerance of safflower in response to biochar-based metal oxide nanocomposites of magnesium and manganese. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 211:111904 18. Rahimzadeh S, Ghassemi-Golezani K (2022) Biochar-based nutritional nanocomposites altered nutrient uptake and vacuolar H+ -pump activities of dill under salinity. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 22:3568–3581 19. Eichert T, Kurtz A, Steiner U, Goldbach HE (2008) Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water-suspended nanoparticles. Physiol Plant 134:151–160 20. Ahmadov IS, Ramazanov MA, Gasimov EK, Rzayev FH, Veliyeva SB (2020) The migration study of nanoparticles from soil to the leaves of plants. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 10:6101– 6111 21. Abbasi Khalaki M, Moameri M, Asgari Lajayer B, Astatkie T (2020) Influence of nanopriming on seed germination and plant growth of forage and medicinal plants. Plant Growth Regul 93:13–28 22. Tighe-Neira R, Carmora E, Recio G, Nunes-Nesi A, Reyes-Diaz M, Alberdi M, Rengel Z, Inostroza-Blancheteau C (2018) Metallic nanoparticles influence the structure and function of the photosynthetic apparatus in plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 130:408–417 23. Lv J, Christie P, Zhang S (2019) Uptake, translocation, and transformation of metal-based nanoparticles in plants: recent advances and methodological challenges. Environ Sci Nano 6:41–59 24. Servin A, Elmer W, Mukherjee A et al (2015) A review of the use of engineered nanomaterials to suppress plant disease and enhance crop yield. J Nanopart Res 17:92 25. Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh S, Pandey R, Singh VP, Sharma NC, Prasad SM, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK (2017) An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:2–12

36

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

26. Husen A (2020a) Interactions of metal and metal-oxide nanomaterials with agricultural crops: an overview, In: Nanomaterials for Agriculture and Forestry Applications (Eds. Husen, A, Jawaid M) Elsevier Inc. 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, pp 167– 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817852-2.00007-X 27. Husen A (2020b) Carbon-based nanomaterials and their interactions with agricultural crops (Eds. Husen, A, Jawaid M) Elsevier Inc. 50 Hampshire St., 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, pp 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817852-2.00008-1 28. Husen A, Iqbal M (2019) Nanomaterials and plant potential: An overview, In: Nanomaterials and Plant Potential (Eds. Husen A, Iqbal M) Springer International Publishing AG, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, pp 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05569-1_1 29. Liu Y, Pan B, Li H, Lang D, Zhao Q, Zhang D, Wu M, Steinberg CEW, Xing B (2020) Can the properties of engineered nanoparticles be indicative of their functions and effects in plants? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 205:111128 30. Wohlmuth J, Tekielska D, Cechová J, Baránek M (2022) Interaction of the nanoparticles and plants in selective growth stages- Usual effects and resulting impact on usage perspectives. Plants 11:2405 31. López-Valdez F, Miranda-Arámbula M, Ríos-Cortés AM, Fernández-Luqueño F, de-la-Luz V, (2018) Nanofertilizers and their controlled delivery of nutrients. In: López-Valdez F, Fernández-Luqueño F (eds) Agricultural nanobiotechnology. Springer, Cham, pp 35–48 32. Ladj R, Bitar A, Eissa M, Mugnier Y, Le Dantec R, Fessi H, Elaissari A (2013) Individual inorganic nanoparticles: preparation, functionalization and in vitro biomedical diagnostic applications. J Mater Chem B 1:1381–1396 33. Aboualigaledari N, Rahmani M (2021) A review on the synthesis of the TiO2 -based photocatalyst for the environmental purification. J Compos Compd 3:25–42 34. Jampílek J, Kralov´a K, (2019) Impact of nanoparticles on photosynthesizing organisms and their use in hybrid structures with some components of photosynthetic apparatus. In: Prasad R (ed) Plant Nanobionics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences, pp 255–332 35. Wu J, Wang G, Vijver MG, Bosker T, Peijnenburg WJGM (2020) Foliar versus root exposure of AgNPs to lettuce: Phytotoxicity, antioxidant responses and internal translocation. Environ Pollut 261:114117 36. Sengul AB, Asmatulu E (2020) Toxicity of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles: a review. Environ Chem Lett 18:1659–1683 37. Spielman-Sun E, Lombi E, Donner E, Howard D, Unrine JM, Lowry GV (2017) Impact of surface charge on cerium oxide nanoparticle uptake and translocation by wheat (Triticum aestivum). Environ Sci Technol 51:7361–7368 38. Kumaraswamy RV, Kumari S, Choudhary RC, Pal A, Raliya R, Biswas P, Saharan V (2018) Engineered chitosan based nanomaterials: Bioactivities, mechanisms and perspectives in plant protection and growth. Int J Biol Macromol 113:494–506 39. Maluin FN, Hussein MZ (2020) Chitosan-based agronanochemicals as a sustainable alternative in crop protection. Molecules 25:1611 40. Yin H, Du Y, Dong Z (2016) Chitin oligosaccharide and chitosan oligosaccharide: two similar but different plant elicitors. Front Plant Sci 7:522 41. Faizan M, Rajput VD, Al-Khuraif AA, Arshad M, Minkina T, Sushkova S, Yu F (2021) Effect of foliar fertigation of chitosan nanoparticles on cadmium accumulation and toxicity in Solanum lycopersicum. Biology 10:666 42. Maruyama CR, Guilger M, Pascoli M, Bileshy-José N, Abhilash PC, Fraceto LF, Lima R (2016) Nanoparticles based on chitosan as carriers for the combined herbicides imazapic and imazapyr. Sci Rep 6:19768 43. Valderrama NA, Jacinto HC, Lay J, Flores EY, Zavaleta CD, Delfın AR (2020) Factorial design for preparing chitosan nanoparticles and its use for loading and controlled release of indole-3-acetic acid with effect on hydroponic lettuce crops. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 26:101640

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

37

44. Yu J, Wang D, Geetha N, Khawar KM, Jogaiah S, Mujtaba M (2021) Current trends and challenges in the synthesis and applications of chitosan-based nanocomposites for plants: A review. Carbohydr Polym 261:117904 45. Saharan V, Sharma G, Yadav M, Choudhary MK, Sharma SS, Pal A, Raliya R, Biswas P (2015) Synthesis and in vitro antifungal efficacy of Cu-chitosan nanoparticles against pathogenic fungi of tomato. Int J Biol Macromol 75:346–353 46. Abdel-Aziz HMM, Hasaneen MNA, Omer AM (2016) Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Span J Agric Res 14:e0902 47. Michalik R, Wandzik I (2020) A mini-review on chitosan-based hydrogels with potential for sustainable agricultural applications. Polymers 12:2425 48. Choudhary RC, Kumaraswamy RV, Kumari S, Sharma SS, Pal A, Raliya R, Biswas P, Saharan V (2017) Cu-chitosan nanoparticle boost defense responses and plant growth in maize (Zea mays L.). Sci Rep 7: 9754 49. Sen SK, Chouhan D, Das D, Ghosh R, Mandal P (2020) Improvisation of salinity stress response in mung bean through solid matrix priming with normal and nanosized chitosan. Int J Biol Macromol 145:108–123 50. Hernández-Téllez CN, Plascencia-Jatomea M, Cortez-Rocha MO (2016) Chitosan-based bionanocomposites: Development and perspectives in food and agricultural applications. Chitosan Preserv Agric Commod:315–338 51. Azamal H (2020) Nanomaterials for agriculture and forestry applications: Carbon-based nanomaterials and their interactions with agricultural crops.pp 199–218 52. Martínez-Ballesta MC, Zapata L, Chalbi N, Carvajal M (2016) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes enter broccoli cells enhancing growth and water uptake of plants exposed to salinity. J nanobiotechnol 14:1–14 53. Safdar M, Kim W, Park S, Gown Y, Kim YO, Kim J (2022) Engineering plants with carbon nanotubes: a sustainable agriculture approach. J Nanobiotechnol 20:275 54. Vithanage M, Seneviratne M, Ahmad M, Sarkar B, Ok YS (2017) Contrasting effects of engineered carbon nanotubes on plants: a review. Environ Geochem Health 39:1421–1439 55. Saleh TA (2020) Nanomaterials: classification, properties, and environmental toxicities. Environ Technol Innov 20:101067 56. Mathew S, Tiwari D, Tripathi D (2021) Interaction of carbon nanotubes with plant system: a review. Carbon Lett 31:167–176 57. Karami A, Sepehri A (2018) Beneficial role of MWCNTs and SNP on growth, physiological and photosynthesis performance of barley under NaCl stress. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 18:752–771 58. Guha T, Gopal G, Kundu R, Mukherjee A (2020) anocomposites for delivering agrochemicals: A comprehensive review. J Agric Food Chem 68:3691–3702 59. Saharan V, Pal A (2016) Chitosan based nanomaterials in plant growth and protection. Springer 60. Kaur P, Duhan JS, Thakur R (2018) Comparative pot studies of chitosan and chitosan-metal nanocomposites as nano-agrochemicals against fusarium wilt of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 14:466–471 61. Saharan V, Kumaraswamy R, Choudhary RC, Kumari S, Pal A, Raliya R, Biswas P (2016) Cu-chitosan nanoparticle mediated sustainable approach to enhance seedling growth in maize by mobilizing reserved food. J Agric Food Chem 64:6148–6155 62. Sodha V, Shahabuddin S, Gaur R, Ahmad I, Bandyopadhyay R, Sridewi N (2022) Comprehensive review on zeolite-based nanocomposites for treatment of effluents from wastewater. Nanomaterials 12:3199 63. Lateef A, Nazir R, Jamil N, Alam S, Shah R, Khan MN, Saleem M (2016) Synthesis and characterization of zeolite based nano–composite: An environment friendly slow release fertilizer. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 232:174–183 64. Muhammad N, Hussain M, Ullah W et al (2018) Biochar for sustainable soil and environment: a comprehensive review. Arab J Geosci 11:731 65. Sakhiya AK, Anand A, Kaushal P (2020) Production, activation, and applications of biochar in recent times. Biochar 2:253–285

38

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

66. Li J, Cai X, Liu Y, Gu Y, Wang H, Liu S, Liu S, Yin Y, Liu S (2020) Design and synthesis of a biochar-supported nano manganese dioxide composite for antibiotics removal from aqueous solution. Front environ Sci 8:62 67. Ghassemi-Golezani K, Rahimzadeh S (2022) Biochar modification and application to improve soil fertility and crop productivity. Agriculture 68:45–61 68. Huang Q, Song S, Chen Z, Hu B, Chen J, Wang X (2019) Biochar-based materials and their applications in removal of organic contaminants from wastewater: state-of-the-art review. Biochar 1:45–73 69. Ghassemi-Golezani K, Rahimzadeh S (2022b) Biochar-based nutritional nanocomposites: A superior treatment for alleviating salt toxicity and improving physiological performance of dill (Anethum graveolens). Environ Geochem Health 70. Dastborhan S, Ghassemi-Golezani K (2015) Influence of seed priming and water stress on selected physiological traits of borage. Folia Hortic 27:151–159 71. Singh H, Jassal RK, Kang JS, Sandhu SS, Kang H, Grewal K (2015) Seed priming techniques in field crops-A review. Agric Rev 36:251–264 72. Paparella S, Araújo SS, Rossi G, Wijayasinghe M, Carbonera D, Balestrazzi A (2015) Seed priming: state of the art and new perspectives. Plant Cell Rep 34:1281–1293 73. Jisha KC, Vijayakumari K, Puthur JT (2013) Seed priming for abiotic stress tolerance: an overview. Acta Physiol Plant 35:1381–1396 74. Rhaman MS, Imran S, Rauf F, Khatun M, Baskin CC, Murata Y, Hasanuzzaman M (2020) Seed priming with phytohormones: An effective approach for the mitigation of abiotic stress. Plants 10:37 75. Mahakham W, Sarmah AK, Maensiri S, Theerakulpisut P (2017) Nanopriming technology for enhancing germination and starch metabolism of aged rice seeds using phytosynthesized silver nanoparticles. Sci Rep 7:1–21 76. Srivastava G, Das A, Kusurkar TS, Roy M, Airan S, Sharma RK, Singh SK, Sarkar S, Das M (2014) a) Iron pyrite, a potential photovoltaic material, increases plant biomass upon seed pretreatment. Mater Express 4:23–31 77. Hussain A, Rizwan M, Ali Q, Ali S (2019) Seed priming with silicon nanoparticles improved the biomass and yield while reduced the oxidative stress and cadmium concentration in wheat grains. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:7579–7588 78. Srivastava G, Das CK, Das A, Singh SK, Roy M, Kim H, Sethy N, Kumar A, Sharma RK, Singh SK, Philip D (2014) b) Seed treatment with iron pyrite (FeS2 ) nanoparticles increases the production of spinach. RSC Adv 4:58495–58504 79. An J, Hu P, Li F, Wu H, Shen Y, White JC, Tian X, Li Z, Giraldo JP (2020) Emerging investigator series: molecular mechanisms of plant salinity stress tolerance improvement by seed priming with cerium oxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Nano 7:2214–2228 80. Anand KV, Anugraga AR, Kannan M, Singaravelu G, Govindaraju, K (2020) Bio-engineered magnesium oxide nanoparticles as nano-priming agent for enhancing seed germination and seedling vigour of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Mater Lett 271:127792 81. Kasote DM, Lee JH, Jayaprakasha GK, Patil BS (2019) Seed priming with iron oxide nanoparticles modulate antioxidant potential and defense-linked hormones in watermelon seedlings. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 7:5142–5151 82. Joshi A, Kaur S, Dharamvir K, Nayyar H, Verma G (2018) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes applied through seed-priming influence early germination, root hair, growth and yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J Sci Food Agric 98:3148–3160 83. Tiwari DK, Dasgupta-Schubert N, Villaseñor Cendejas LM, Villegas J, Carreto Montoya L, Borjas García SE (2014) Interfacing carbon nanotubes (CNT) with plants: enhancement of growth, water and ionic nutrient uptake in maize (Zea mays) and implications for nanoagriculture. Appl Nanosci 4:577–591 84. Dhingra P, Sharma S, Singh KH, Kushwaha HS, Barupal JK, Haq S, Kothari SL, Kachhwaha S (2022) Seed priming with carbon nanotubes and silicon dioxide nanoparticles influence agronomic traits of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) in field experiments. Journal of King Saud University-Science 34:102067

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

39

85. Chen J, Zeng X, Yang W, Xie H, Ashraf U, Mo Z, Liu J, Li G, Li W (2021) Seed priming with multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) modulates seed germination and early growth of maize under cadmium (Cd) toxicity. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 21:1793–1805 86. Waqas Mazhar M, Ishtiaq M, Maqbool M, Akram R, Shahid A, Shokralla S, Al-Ghobari H, Alataway A, Dewidar AZ, El-Sabrout AM, Elansary HO (2022) Seed Priming with Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Raises Biomass Production and Agronomic Profile of Water-Stressed Flax Plants. Agronomy 12:982 87. Kaymak HÇ, Sevim M, Metin O (2022) Graphene oxide: a promising material for the germination of melon seeds under salinity stress. Turk J Agric For 46:863–874 88. Salam A, Khan AR, Liu L, Yang S, Azhar W, Ulhassan Z, Zeeshan M, Wu J, Fan X, Gan Y (2022) Seed priming with zinc oxide nanoparticles downplayed ultrastructural damage and improved photosynthetic apparatus in maize under cobalt stress. J Hazard Mater 423:127021 89. Sonawane H, Arya S, Math S, Shelke D (2021) Myco-synthesized silver and titanium oxide nanoparticles as seed priming agents to promote seed germination and seedling growth of Solanum lycopersicum: a comparative study. Int Nano Lett 11:371–379 90. Hatami M, Khanizadeh P, Bovand F, Aghaee A (2021) Silicon nanoparticle-mediated seed priming and Pseudomonas spp. inoculation augment growth, physiology and antioxidant metabolic status in Melissa officinalis L plants. Ind Crops Prod 162:113238 91. Deshmukh RK, Vivancos J, Guérin V, Sonah H, Labbé C, Belzile F, Bélanger RR (2013) Identification and functional characterization of silicon transporters in soybean using comparative genomics of major intrinsic proteins in Arabidopsis and rice. Plant Mol Biol 83:303–315 92. Zhu J, Li J, Shen Y, Liu S, Zeng N, Zhan X, White JC, Gardea-Torresdey J, Xing B (2020) Mechanism of zinc oxide nanoparticle entry into wheat seedling leaves. Environ Sci Nano 7:3901–3913 93. Muñoz-Márquez E, Soto-Parra JM, Noperi-Mosqueda LC, Sánchez E (2022) Application of molybdenum nanofertilizer on the nitrogen use efficiency, growth and yield in green beans. Agronomy 12:3163 94. Drostkar E, Talebi R, Kanouni H (2016) Foliar application of Fe, Zn and NPK nano-fertilizers on seed yield and morphological traits in chickpea under rainfed condition. J Resour Ecol 4:221–228 95. Mahdieh M, Sangi MR, Bamdad F, Ghanem A (2018) Effect of seed and foliar application of nano-zinc oxide, zinc chelate, and zinc sulphate rates on yield and growth of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars. J Plant Nutr 41:2401–2412 96. Turan M, Ekinci M, Kul R, Kocaman A, Argin S, Zhirkova AM, Perminova IV, Yildirim E (2022) Foliar applications of humic substances together with fe/nano fe to increase the iron content and growth parameters of Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Agronomy 12:2044 97. Wang S, Wang F, Gao S (2015) Foliar application with nano-silicon alleviates Cd toxicity in rice seedlings. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2837–2845 98. Jo´sko I, Oleszczuk P, Skwarek E (2017) Toxicity of combined mixtures of nanoparticles to plants. J Hazard Mater 331:200–209 99. Du W, Yang J, Peng Q, Liang X, Mao H (2019) Comparison study of zinc nanoparticles and zinc sulphate on wheat growth: From toxicity and zinc biofortification. Chemosphere 227:109–116 100. Hassanpouraghdam MB, Mehrabani LV, Tzortzakis N (2020) Foliar application of nano-zinc and iron affects physiological attributes of Rosmarinus officinalis and quietens NaCl salinity depression. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 20:335–345 101. Desoky ESM, Mansour E, El-Sobky ESE, Abdul-Hamid MI, Taha TF, Elakkad HA, Arnaout SM, Eid RS, El-Tarabily KA, Yasin MA (2021) Physio-biochemical and agronomic responses of faba beans to exogenously applied nano-silicon under drought stress conditions. Front Plant Sci 12 102. Rizwan M, Ali S, ur Rehman MZ, Adrees M, Arshad M, Qayyum MF, Ali L, Hussain A, Chatha SAS, Imran M (2019 a) Alleviation of cadmium accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) by foliar spray of zinc oxide nanoparticles and biochar to contaminated soil. Environ Pollut 248:358-367

40

K. Ghassemi-Golezani et al.

103. Varamin JK, Fanoodi F, Sinaki JM, Rezvan S, Damavandi A (2020) Foliar application of chitosan and nano-magnesium fertilizers influence on seed yield, oil content, photosynthetic pigments, antioxidant enzyme activities of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) under water-limited conditions. Not Bot Horti Agrobot 48:2228 104. Attia MS, Osman MS, Mohamed AS, Mahgoub HA, Garada MO, Abdelmouty ES, Abdel Latef AAH (2021) Impact of foliar application of chitosan dissolved in different organic acids on isozymes, protein patterns and physio-biochemical characteristics of tomato grown under salinity stress. Plants 10:388 105. Sheikhalipour M, Esmaielpour B, Behnamian M, Gohari G, Giglou MT, Vachova P, Rastogi A, Brestic M, Skalicky M (2021) Chitosan–selenium nanoparticle (Cs–Se NP) foliar spray alleviates salt stress in bitter melon. Nanomaterials 11:684 106. Hajihashemi S, Kazemi S (2022) The potential of foliar application of nano-chitosanencapsulated nano-silicon donor in amelioration the adverse effect of salinity in the wheat plant. BMC Plant Biol 22:1–15 107. Kanjana D (2020) Foliar application of magnesium oxide nanoparticles on nutrient element concentrations, growth, physiological, and yield parameters of cotton. J Plant Nutr 43:3035– 3049 108. Rizwan M, Noureen S, Ali S, Anwar S, Qayyum MF, Hussain A (2019) c) Influence of biochar amendment and foliar application of iron oxide nanoparticles on growth, photosynthesis, and cadmium accumulation in rice biomass. J Soils Sediments 19:3749–3759 109. Semida WM, Abdelkhalik A, Mohamed GF, Abd El-Mageed TA, Abd El-Mageed SA, Rady MM, Ali EF (2021) Foliar application of zinc oxide nanoparticles promotes drought stress tolerance in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Plants 10:421 110. Vaghar MS, Sayfzadeh S, Zakerin HR, Kobraee S, Valadabadi SA (2020) Foliar application of iron, zinc, and manganese nano-chelates improves physiological indicators and soybean yield under water deficit stress. J Plant Nutr 43:2740–2756 111. Sathiyabama M, Manikandan A (2021) Foliar application of chitosan nanoparticle improves yield, mineral content and boost innate immunity in finger millet plants. Carbohydr Polym 258:117691 112. Rizwan M, Ali S, Malik S, Adrees M, Qayyum MF, Alamri SA, Alyemeni MN, Ahmad P (2019) b) Effect of foliar applications of silicon and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on growth, oxidative stress, and cadmium accumulation by rice (Oryza sativa). Acta Physiol Plant 41:1–12 113. Zhu Y, Dong Y, Zhu N, Jin H (2022) Foliar application of biosynthetic nano-selenium alleviates the toxicity of Cd, Pb, and Hg in Brassica chinensis by inhibiting heavy metal adsorption and improving antioxidant system in plant. Ecotoxicol Environ + 240:113681 114. Farhangi-Abriz S, Ghassemi-Golezani K (2023) Improving electrochemical characteristics of plant roots by biochar is an efficient mechanism in increasing cations uptake by plants. Chemosphere 313:137365 115. Naseem F, Zhi Y, Farrukh MA, Hussain F, Yin Z (2020) Mesoporous ZnAl2Si10O24 nano fertilizers enable high yield of Oryza sativa L. Sci Rep 10:1–11 116. Naik BSS, Mahawar N, Rupesh T, Dhegavath S, Singh Meena R (2021). Nanotechnology based nano-fertilizer: a sustainable approach for enhancing crop productivity under climate changing situations. Agrifarming 117. Kenari RE, Amiri ZR, Motamedzadegan A, Milani JM, Farmani J, Farahmandfar R (2020) Optimization of Iranian golpar (Heracleum persicum) extract encapsulation using sage (Salvia macrosiphon) seed gum: chitosan as a wall materials and its effect on the shelf life of soybean oil during storage. J Food Meas Charact 14:2828–2839 118. Lemraski MG, Normohamadi G, Madani H, Abad HHS, Mobasser HR (2017) Two Iranian rice cultivars’ response to nitrogen and nano-fertilizer. Open J Ecol 7:591–603 119. Arshad M, Nisar S, Gul I, Nawaz U, Irum S, Ahmad S, Sadat H, Mian IA, Ali S, Rizwan M, Alsahli AA (2021) Multi-element uptake and growth responses of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) to TiO2 nanoparticles applied in different textured soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 215:112149

Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants: An Overview

41

120. Perez-Hernandez H, Huerta-Lwanga E, Mendoza-Vega J, Alvarez-Solís JD, PampillonGonzalez L, Fernandez-Luqueno F (2021) Assessment of TiO2 nanoparticles on maize seedlings and terrestrial isopods under greenhouse conditions. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 21:2214–2228 121. Petrova A, Plaksenkova I, Kokina I, Jerma¸lonoka M (2021) Effect of Fe3 O4 and CuO Nanoparticles on morphology, genotoxicity, and miRNA expression on different barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes. Sci World J 2021: 6644689 122. Shalaby TA, El-Bialy SM, El-Mahrouk ME, Omara AED, El-Beltagi HS, El-Ramady H (2022) Acclimatization of in vitro banana seedlings using root-applied bio-nanofertilizer of copper and selenium. Agronomy 12:539 123. Ghassemi-Golezani K, Farhangi-Abriz S (2021) Biochar-based metal oxide nanocomposites of magnesium and manganese improved root development and productivity of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) under salt stress. Rhizosphere 19:100416 124. Ghassemi-Golezani K, Farhangi-Abriz S (2022) Improving plant available water holding capacity of soil by solid and chemically modified biochars. Rhizosphere 21:100469 125. Qu B, Luo Y (2020) Chitosan-based hydrogel beads: Preparations, modifications and applications in food and agriculture sectors-A review. Int J Biol Macromol 152:437–448 126. Kubavat D, Trivedi K, Vaghela P, Prasad K, Vijay Anand GK, Trivedi H, Patidar R, Chaudhari J, Andhariya B, Ghosh A (2020) Characterization of a chitosan-based sustained release nano fertilizer formulation used as a soil conditioner while simultaneously improving biomass production of Zea mays L. Land Degrad Dev 31:2734–2746 127. Yuvaraj M, Subramanian KS (2015) Controlled-release fertilizer of zinc encapsulated by a manganese hollow core shell. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 61:319–326 128. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Carbon and fullerene nanomaterials in plant system. J Nanobiotechnology 12(16):1–10 129. Shameem MM, Sasikanth SM, Annamalai R, Raman RG (2021) A brief review on polymer nanocomposites and its applications. Mater Today Proc 45:2536–2539

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms of Nanocomposites/Mixture of Nanoparticles Muhammad Ansar Farooq, Afsheen Fatima, Sana Rehman, Ayesha Batool, Iram Gul, Aamir Alaud Din, Hassan Anwer, and Muhammad Arshad

Abstract Nanocomposites (NCs) and mixture of nanomaterials (NMs) are used in different sectors including agricultural with the intention of increasing the crop productivity and protection. Depending on the particle type, concentration, and size, as well as the plant species, NCs application can have either beneficial or detrimental effects on plant growth. Plants species encounter NCs applied either directly in soil, through irrigation, or foliar application. To comprehend the transport and accumulation of NMs in plants, it is crucial to understand how plants interact with nanoparticles (NPs) and NCs as well as their defense mechanisms. There is a dearth of knowledge regarding the mechanisms of NMs translocation in plants and NMinduced activation of defense systems. This chapter covered the phytotoxic effects of NCs and/or mixture of NMs, the pathways involved in the capture and transport of NMs within plants, as well as the plants’ defense response. Keywords Nanotoxicology · Nanocomposite · Nanomaterials · ROS · Defense mechanism · Antioxidant enzymes

Abbreviations AgNPs AHA2 Al2 O3 APX/POX CaBPs CAT

Silver nanoparticles Autoinhibited H+ -ATPase Aluminum oxide Ascorbate peroxidase Calcium-binding proteins Catalase

M. A. Farooq · A. Fatima · S. Rehman · A. Batool · A. A. Din · H. Anwer · M. Arshad (B) Institute of Environmental Sciences and Engineering (IESE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan e-mail: [email protected] I. Gul Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Hazara University, Mansehra 21120, Pakistan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 A. Husen (ed.), Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants, Smart Nanomaterials Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6_3

43

44

CeO2 CNPs Co3 O4 CuO DHAR DNA Fe2 O3 Fe3 O4 GPX GR H2 O2 MDA MnO2 NCs NMs NPs nZVI PUFAs ROS SOD TiO2 ZnO

M. A. Farooq et al.

Cerium oxide Composite nanoparticles Cobalt oxide Copper (II) oxide Dehydroascorbatereductase Deoxyribonucleic acid Iron oxide Magnetite Guaiacol peroxidase Glutathione reductase Hydrogen peroxide Malondialdehyde Manganese oxide Nanocomposites Nanomaterials Nanoparticles Nano-zero-valent iron Polyunsaturated fatty acids Reactive oxygen species Superoxide dismutase Titanium dioxide Zinc oxide

1 Introduction Nanotechnology is transforming the world with groundbreaking discoveries that promise to improve human well-being and have the potential to play to improve the agriculture and food industries in the future. Nanotechnology is usually applied in the agro-industrial sector to produce goods including fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and nanosensors [1–4]. These innovations could assist in meeting future agricultural requirements by improving crop quality and yield, protecting crops from multiple environmental stresses, and minimizing chemical pollution [5]. Numerous nanoparticles (NPs) including zinc oxide NPs, iron oxide NPs, and titanium dioxide NPs have been tested and results showed that these NPs help in increasing nutrients’ availability, reduce abiotic stress, and enhance plant growth [6–9]. After studying the impacts of NPs on individual plant parameters, researchers focused on identifying the impacts of nanocomposites on plant ecosystem. Regardless of the wide range of advantages of nanotechnology in agricultural sector, the uncontrolled application of NPs/nanocomposites (NCs) could lead to a lot of difficulties for animals, plants, and ultimately for humanity [10]. Recently, the researchers focused on nanotoxicology in which the harmful impacts of nanomaterials (NMs)/NCs and their associated interactions with plants have been

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

45

evaluated. The phytotoxic impacts of the NMs on the plants have been studied but limited information is available on NCs’ impacts on plants. Even though the exact mechanisms of nanotoxicity are still unknown, it is implicit that the toxicity of NMs/NCs might be due to the chemical structure, characteristics, concentration, size, and surface area of NPs [11]. Depending on the use and application, several types of NMs/NCs are developed, including those that contain: (i) inorganic nonmetallic NPs, (ii) metallic NPs, (iii) organic polymeric components, and (iv) carbon-based NPs [12]. Unique characteristics of NMs enable unusual interactions with biological systems. Besides specific nano-size effects, plant species, NPs characteristics, and environmental conditions are the main determinants of how NMs will interact with plants [13]. NMs toxicity not only threaten living organisms but they are also leaving behind unknown byproducts in the environment. Autotrophs (plants) are the vital constituent of environment and have direct interactions with the water, soil, and atmosphere, each of which has the potential to be a pathway for the interaction and distribution of NMs [14]. Accordingly, the interaction of NMs with various plant species (such as the uptake and storage of NMs in plants) may impact the fate and transit of NMs in the environment [15]. Potential threat is that agriculture and human health, indirectly through the food chain, could be inimically affected by direct exposure of plants to various types of NMs [16]. Generally, the NMs interact with plants either through physical or chemical contact which leads to signaling in plants, and produces unidentified compounds like reactive oxygen species (ROS) that could affect plant growth and development [17]. The production of ROS which is generally triggered by extreme environmental factors, leads to the breakdown of membrane and macromolecules, reduces plant growth, and triggers cell toxicity. To reduce oxidative stress, the antioxidant mechanism of plants scavenges ROS through enzymatic and non-enzymatic processes to defend plant against varying environmental stresses [12]. The primary focus of this chapter is the current knowledge of the toxicological repercussions that NPs and NCs have in plants. Further, the production of ROS, its role in inducing oxidative stress, and the ability of plants’ antioxidative defense mechanisms to detoxify excessive ROS have all been thoroughly discussed.

2 Nanomaterials/Nanocomposites Characteristics Nanosized particles with nanoscale dimensions are incorporated into a matrix of conventional material to create NCs. The NMs included in NCs are nanoparticles, nanotubes, and nanofibers [18]. NCs are generally classified into three groups: (i) ceramic matrix NC, (ii) polymer matrix NC, and (iii) metal matrix NC. NMs or mixture of nanomaterials’ characteristics like particle size and shape, concentration, porosity, surface charge, and higher surface area to mass ratio, promote plant maturation and productivity while also protect them from a variety of abiotic challenges. In contrast, these same characteristics make them lethal, because NMs also cause

46

M. A. Farooq et al.

oxidative stress, and genotoxic and cytotoxic reactions in plants, which affect physiological and biochemical activity, plant growth, and calorific value of plants [19]. In a study Allium cepa root hairs were exposed to gold (Au) NPs of three distinct sizes (15, 30, and 40 nm) at different concentrations of 0.1, 1, and 10 µg mL−1 , and the results showed that the plant system responded differently to each size and concentration. The malondialdehyde (MDA) content, an indication of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation, increased significantly with the decreasing NPs size and increasing dose of AuNPs [20]. From the results, it is evident that NPs have different effects on plants depending on both the size of the NPs and the treatment dose that is applied to the plant. The toxicity of NPs and NCs primarily occurs in two ways: first, due to chemical toxicity induced by the chemical makeup of NMs, and second, due to stress impetus caused by the morphology of particles [15]. Considering that NPs have a greater ratio of surface area to volume and have the potential to be highly reactive, it is projected that they will be absorbed 15–20 times more than their corresponding parent material [21]. The effect of NMs on plants system can be assessed by the physicochemical properties of the NMs as they are considered as the primary cause of phytotoxicity in plant system. The type and NP morphology, crystal structure, concentration, size distribution, agglomeration, and surface charge are some of the parameters that, if they are individually modified, can relate to the poisonous level of NPs properties and can produce different effects in the same system [22]. Apart from the physicochemical characteristics of NMs, the toxicity also depends on some other factors including: (a) experimental design, (b) the phase in which NPs will come in contact with plants, (c) exposure time, (d) the entry routes and interplay of NPs, and (e) plant species [22].

3 NMs Uptake by Plants Plants have the ability to thrive in environments with naturally occurring concentrations of NMs or mixtures of NPs. However, the risk of plants’ exposure to NMs (single and/or composite) has increased to a greater extent, as NMs are synthesized and employed in a wide range of devices and products [23]. NMs could invade plants through different sources such as direct application of NMs, accidental release, uptake through polluted soil or sediments, or by atmospheric fallout. In several studies, application of NMs on plants showed both positive and negative impacts and these effects are due to the NM’s characteristics such as (i) particle size, (ii) concentration, (iii) chemical composition, (iv) surface activity, (v) modification, and (vi) aggregation [22]. Insight into the processes involved in the uptake and passage of NMs is crucial, regardless of the nature of their action. Uncertainty exists regarding the precise mechanisms underlying NPs’ absorption and translocation. However, based on the chemical composition, size, charge, and shape of NMs, studies have examined the three pathways by which NMs enter plant

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

47

cells (Mehrian et al. 2016). Diffusion over the phospholipid bilayer is the initial step in the entry of NMs into plant cells. The second way NMs can invade is through endocytosis, which requires the plasma membrane to be involved. Aquaporins and ion channels make up the third mechanism mentioned in the literature. Once NMs have entered a plant cell, they can follow either the apoplastic or symplastic pathway as they make their way through the xylem. There is species-specific variation in NM absorption and translocation in plants. The features of NMs, such as size, shape, etc., also influence the NM’s mobility in plants [24]. There are active and passive processes at work in the entrance and translocation of NPs. The former, plant absorption from the growth medium, is regarded as an active occurrence, whereas the latter, plant entrance and translocation, are more or less passive processes [25]. The NPs’ ability to enter a plant does not guarantee their capacity to move anywhere within the plant. In addition to uptake and movement, NPs can also accumulate or agglomerate in distinct plant systems [26].

4 Phytotoxicity of Nanomaterials/Nanocomposites Several studies available on the plant–NMs interaction include the silica NPs, metallic NPs, and composite NPs (CNPs). In the literature, several studies explored the interactivity of metallic NPs with plants due to their absorption capacity and enhancing the essential nutrient availability for plants [27]. It is well noted that depending on the qualities of the NMs and plant types, after the NMs are assimilated by the plants, they may have both beneficial and harmful effects. Therefore, Fig. 1 summarizes the plant–NMs interaction as well as the effect of NMs on plant. To varying degrees, depending on the conditions under which they are grown, plants can take in both necessary and non-essential elements in amounts required for proper growth. It is possible that plant health will be jeopardized by the ingestion of excessive non-essential components [28]. It has been discerned that plant growth is stunted when toxic compounds build up in their tissues, and ultimately, the plants die from their inability to cope with the accumulated toxins [29]. Numerous experiments have been carried out to ascertain the deleterious impacts of NMs on some of the edible plants such as radish (Raphanus sativus), cucumber (Cucumis sativus), lettuce (Lactuca sativa), rapeseed (Brassica napus), and corn (Zea mays) [30–33]. Among different NMs, the effect of metallic NPs including titanium dioxide (TiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ), iron oxide (Fe2 O3 ), and zinc oxide (ZnO) on plants have been studied. It has been stated that Hordeum sativum biomass, root, and shoot length were all decreased by the application of copper oxide (CuO) NPs. CuO NPs phytotoxic effects on the rate of transpiration, photosynthetic activity, and stomatal conductance were linked to this decline in plant growth [34]. In another study, 20% deduction in root length of Lactuca sativa was observed upon application of 50 mg/L Fe2 O3 NPs. Table 1 summarizes the effects of NPs on various plant species that are phytotoxic.

48

M. A. Farooq et al.

Fig. 1 Interaction and effects of nanomaterials/nanocomposites on plants Table 1 Phytotoxic impacts of nanomaterials on different plant species Nanomaterial and size (nm)

Plant species

Effect on plants

Key references

CuO NPs (30–50 nm)

Hordeum sativum

Reduced root and shoot length Reduced transpiration rate

Rajput et al. [34]

TiO2 NPs

Lactuca sativa

Reduced nutritional quality [35]

Fe2 O3 NPs (60 nm)

Lactuca sativa

Decreased the root length by 20%

SiO2 NPs (35 nm)

Bt-transgenic cotton

Reduced plant height and biomass Affected micronutrient contents in roots

Le et al. [36]

CuO NPs (43 nm)

Rice

Reduced root length Abnormalities in ultrastructure

[37]

ZnO NPs (50 nm)

Pisum sativum

Reduced root elongation

TiO2 NPs (25 nm)

Tobacco

Inhibited germination rate, biomass, and root length

[38]

Cu NPs (40 nm)

Pisum sativum

Reduced biomass, root length

[39]

ZnO NPs (50 nm)

Cucumis sativus

Reduced seedling biomass

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

49

5 Plant Response to Nanomaterials’ Toxicity NMs mainly enter plant system either through the leaves (floral application) or roots (directly added in soil or irrigation). After the entry of NMs into plants, they interact at cellular and subcellular levels that affect the physiology and morphology of the plants. A plant is said to be under “oxidative stress” when certain stressors, such as water deficiency, salinity, heavy metals’ baneful effects, and excessive NMs, are present. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced by plants as a reactionary measure to the stress brought on by NMs through oxidative damage. These different ROS are a consequence of the detoxifying process of the plant. When plants are stressed, they produce more ROS, which leads to oxidative harm and cell death in several plant species. Direct appraisal of oxidative stress can be taken by tracking ROS production, lipid peroxidation, and electrolyte loss. Plants are broadly categorized into two groups in accordance with their reaction to NMs: (1) Physiological indicators and (2) Biochemical indicators (Fig. 2).

5.1 Physiological Indicators Numerous studies have shown the physiological indicators caused by toxicity of NMs such as biomass, leaf number, growth rate, germination percentage, and root

Fig. 2 Classification of plants based on their response to nanomaterials (NMs)

50

M. A. Farooq et al.

elongation. Other significant plant physiological indicators of NMs harmful effects include decrease in seed germination, repression of plant length, and can even lead to plant mortality [40]. Previous studies have shown that the growth of plant species, for instance, soybean, wheat, ryegrass, and barley, were found to be inhibited by exposure to NMs and various attributes of plant growth were influenced including seed germination, shoot length, and plant biomass [41]. Several studies documented how NMs adversely influenced the physiology of a variety of plants. Lee and his coworkers [42] studied the application of ZnO NPs (44 nm mean size) and found that they reduced the sprouting percentage, primary root maturation, and leaves quantity in A. thaliana. Likewise, in another study application of silver NPs (AgNPs, size: 20 nm) reduced the growth of peanuts due to the inhibition of photosynthetic activity [43].

5.2 Biochemical Indicators The plants in which chlorophyll content and enzymatic activities (such as catalase and ascorbate peroxidase role) are affected due to the application of NMs are grouped as biochemical indicators. Furthermore, the NMs also cause changes in the metabolites and protein content, as well as affect the gene expression of these plants [44]. Different studies documented the detrimental impacts of NMs on plants including reduction in mineral intake, a drop in photosynthetic activity, disruptions in the microscopic structure ultrastructure of cellular organelles, oxidative strain, and DNA damage [45]. Zhao et al. [46] found a decline in photosynthesis key content, stomatal conductance, and net photosynthesis in corn upon application of nZnO (24 ± 3 nm) at 800 mg/kg. Furthermore, electron transport chain was blocked which hinder the photosynthetic pathway [46]. In another research study, the DNA damage and growth retardation of Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, and Lolium rigidum was found upon CuO NPs (size: 58 nm) application [47].

5.2.1

Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Generation

The consumption of oxygen (O2 ) generates ROS, which consists of a collection of free radicals, ions, and reactive molecules. According to studies, plants divert 1% of the oxygen they consume at several subcellular sites like chloroplasts, mitochondria, peroxisomes, plasma membranes, and endoplasmic reticulum to generate ROS [22]. By-products of numerous ongoing metabolic processes in different parts of the cell, or the impending electrons leakage into O2 from electron transport activities, which converts ground state oxygen (O2 ) into O singlets, superoxide anions (O2 − ), hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), and hydroxyl radicals (OH+ ), are the two primary sources of ROS [48]. Hydroxyl radicals (OH+ ), which have one unpaired electron and cannot be detoxified by any known enzyme system, are the most hazardous and reactive of all ROS [49].

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

51

Normally, in a typical plant, ROS are considered as signaling molecules created as a subsidiary product of aerobic metabolism. When conditions are strenuous, there is a disruption in the balance that exists between the production and degeneration of ROS. It is well known that, depending on their concentration, ROS can act either as harmful or beneficial species in plants. When ROS levels are low to moderate, they function as a second messenger in intracellular signaling cascades that regulate a variety of plant cells responses including stomatal exchange discontinuation, induction of apoptosis, seed germination, gravitropism, and tolerance development against varying stresses [50, 51]. However, at excess concentrations when ROS levels are high, they cause damage to biomolecules such as altering the intrinsic membrane properties by inducing protein oxidation, lipid peroxidation, DNA damage, electrolyte leakage, and membrane damage, ultimately leading cell towards expiration [26, 48, 49]. Lipid peroxidation: By producing lipid-derived radicals, which have the capacity to interact and harm proteins and DNA, lipid peroxidation amplifies cell damage. Particularly vulnerable to damage by ROS are the multiple bonded fatty acids (FA) found in membrane phospholipids. One of the byproducts of the oxidative damage of triglycerides in phospholipids is malondialdehyde (MDA) that causes the cell membrane mutilation [52]. Because the reactions taking place during this process are cyclic, even a single •OH can lead to the peroxidation of a large number of multiple bonded FAs [20]. Such as nCuO significantly increased the amount of ROS and MDA in rice, resulting in oxidative stress [53]. Protein oxidation: In general, ROS can cause protein oxidation, a covalent alteration of a protein. The locale-specific amino acids substitution, the disintegration of bonded amino acids or protein chains, the agglomeration of cross-linked reaction products, the alteration of electric charge, and accelerated proteins degradation can all be brought on by excessive ROS formation [48]. Carbonylated proteins, which are frequently utilized as a determinant of protein oxidation, are typically present in higher concentrations in tissues that have been damaged by oxidative stress. Hancock et al. [54] recognized that activated oxygen can absorb the hydrogen atom from cysteine residues and produce a thiyl radical as a result. The disulfide bridge will then be created by crosslinking this radical with another thiyl radical, which is produced when thiol undergoes one electron oxidation [54]. DNA damage: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in mitochondria, the cell’s nucleus, and chloroplasts can all be harmed by excessive ROS production through oxidative injury. DNA is attacked by oxidants, which cause deoxyribose oxidation, strand structural breakage, nucleotide loss, amendments to the organic bases of the nucleotides, and DNA–protein crosslinks. Additionally, modifications in one strand’s nucleotides may result in discrepancies with those in the other strand’s nucleotides, leading to mutations down the road. Single-strand breakage is triggered by ROS attacks on DNA sugars. Deoxyribose radical is formed when ROS removes an atom of hydrogen from its C4_ site and then it reacts further to cause DNA strand breakage. DNA protein crosslinks are generated when hydroxyl radical assaults either the proteins interacting with DNA or the DNA itself. If cloning or transcription antecedes repair, DNA protein crosslinks cannot be readily restored and may prove fatal [16, 55].

52

M. A. Farooq et al.

6 Plants Defense Mechanism Plants are subjected to a wide range of environmental challenges, and in order to maintain their vitality under these conditions, they have evolved a variety of defense mechanisms. They could alter the biochemical, physiological, and molecular mechanisms that result in the emergence of a resistant response to environmental stimuli [56, 57]. Plants have chemical defense based on the manufacture and accumulation of naturally occurring bioactive molecules, such as alkaloids, terpenoids, phenolic compounds, and many polypeptides [58]. Moreover, as signaling molecules, the plant hormones salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, and ethylene can also play influential roles in defensive feedbacks [59]. Additionally, plants have several enzymatic and nonenzymatic stress-resistant mechanisms that can also be stimulated [60]. The gene networks are also activated during this first response, which results in a powerful defense that shields the plant from damage brought on by the stressors [61]. NPs have the potential to interfere with a plant’s ability to photosynthesize, which could result in an overabundance of ROS. As a result of the variation in ROS concentration, enzymatic content frequently varies, which activates plant natural defense mechanisms [57]. However, plant defense mechanisms that could mitigate nanotoxicity are not properly explored in the literature [62].

6.1 Antioxidative Defense Mechanism Plants have an antioxidant defense system that employs both enzymatic antioxidants like superoxide dismutase (SOD), ascorbate peroxidase (APX or POX), guaiacol peroxidase (GPX), dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR), and glutathione reductase (GR), as well as nonenzymatic antioxidants like ascorbate, glutathione, thiols, and phenolics [60]. Around the world, plants have evolved an antioxidant mechanism that tends to stop the excessive production of ROS, such as H2 O2 , OH, and O2 free radicals. By removing ROS, these enzymes help protect plants from oxidative damage. SOD converts superoxide (O2 − ) into hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), which is then broken down into water (H2 O) and oxygen (O2 ) by CAT. POX is involved in the breakdown of H2 O2 and other peroxides [62, 63]. Hence, an increase in antioxidative enzyme levels, such as those of SOD, CAT, and POX could help plant cells lessen the oxidative stress that could lead to optimum growth and yield of crop plants [57, 62]. According to Prasad et al. [62], among the most notable biochemical alterations after NP exposure is the emergence of oxidative pressure, which alters the equilibrium between cellular functions and plant defense mechanism. Multiple nanostructures can trigger biochemical changes that lead to free radical production, disruption of membrane transport systems, cellular membrane oxidative damage, and DNA degradation [62]. While some NMs can cause toxicity due to the oxidative stress by producing free radicals, some can function as antioxidants to neutralize these free radicals and support the preservation of a healthy metabolism [64]. The increased

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

53

ROS level caused by NMs might be linked to the amplified stress signal, which may more effectively activate plant defense mechanisms. For example, the activation of antioxidant enzymes in response to NM administration has been examined in many studies. Different NMs can activate antioxidant enzymes, such as nCeO2 , nFe3 O4 , and nCo3 O4 for CAT, nCeO2 , nFe3 O4 , nCo3 O4 , nMnO2 , nCuO, and nAu (gold) for GPX, and nCeO2 , nPt (platinum), and fullerene for SOD [65, 66]. It has been observed in an experimental study that the application of TiO2 NPs on Moldavian dragonhead decreased the oxidative stress and reduced the membrane damage and production of H2 O2 [67]. However, NPs oxidant and antioxidant properties depend on a variety of elements, such as size, shape, or chemical composition [64]. Moreover, these effects can often be dose-dependent. For instance, according to Rizwan et al. [68], plant’s defense mechanism can effectively scavenge ROS by enzymes at lower concentrations of NPs. However, it could be hindered at higher concentrations.

6.2 Gene Modification Molecular machinery is activated by a signaling network as the primary defense system activation mechanism, when dealing with a particular stress. Along with serving as a messenger, calcium (Ca) is crucial for signaling reactions to different stimuli. The cytosolic Ca ion (Ca2+ ) concentration [(Ca2 )cyt] increases in response to stress stimuli. Ca2+ -binding proteins (CaBPs) sense the elevated cytosolic Ca2+ concentration, and subsequently, CaBPs attach to the promoters of specific genes and either promote or downregulate their expression, allowing plants to hold out against stress [69]. The NPs can boost CaBPs’ expression and bind to them, which can subsequently result in downstream signaling, which in turn triggers the expression of stress-associated genes and the stimulation of the plant’s defensive mechanisms. According to research by Goyer [70] and Mirzajani et al. [71], Ag NPs or discharged ions interfere with cell metabolism through interactions with second Ca2 messenger receptors, ion channels, and Ca2 /Na (sodium) pumps. According to the study conducted by Miao et al. [72], the Ca2+ /calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II was found to be functionally modified as a result of interactions between watersuspended fullerene C60 nanocrystals. Similarly, Kim et al. [73] discovered that the administration of nano-ZVI (nZVI) improved drought tolerance by increasing the expression of AHA2 , a gene linked to the stomatal opening procedure in Arabidopsis. In addition, it appears that a crucial aspect of the reciprocity between NPs and plant responses to stress is the regulation of gene expression at the mRNA level by microRNA molecules. Several studies have also found that gene expression associated with cell division and cell elongation is increased following NMs treatment [74, 75]. Furthermore, plant responses to stress include epigenetic regulation of gene expression [76]. According to Berger [77], epigenetics regulates gene expression without changing the DNA sequence through altering histones or DNA methylation.

54

M. A. Farooq et al.

However, just as the antioxidant property, this mitigating function of NMs is also dependent on NP size, shape, and dosage because some concentrations have been demonstrated to be hazardous for plants while lesser quantities have beneficial benefits. For example, according to Khan et al. [69], Tobacco plants exposed to nano-TiO2 and nano-Al2 O3 exhibit yellowing, wilting, smaller leaf diameters and quantity, stunted root growth, and a decline in biomass, and these NMs play a critical role in the plant response to metal stress [69]. Moreover, there are still many genes that need to be identified that take part in plant defense mechanisms before gene networks that are involved in stress reduction can be fully understood. Therefore, additional probing is required in order to acquire a rigorous insight into how genes are regulated when plants are subjected to varying concentrations of NPs [76].

7 Conclusions and Future Outlook Nanomaterials/nanocomposites are widely employed by the agricultural sector for the enhancement of crop yield. The phytotoxic effects, however, are a direct result of the unchecked and unregulated dissemination of these NMs/NCs. Understanding the mechanistic framework involved in the uptake of nanocomposites by plants is crucial for mitigating their potentially harmful effects on plants. But there is still limited and conflicting information available regarding conduiting pathways and operative mechanisms of nanomaterials/nanocomposites. Moreover, it has been difficult to draw definitive conclusions because of the complicated behavior of NMs. Therefore, the current research system must be expanded to include extensive field investigations in representative settings. Hence, it must be underlined that more research needs to be done on the propensities and effects of NCs/NMs resulting from their transmission and accumulation. Moreover, it is crucial to take into account the possibilities and consequences that NCs/NMs could build up in the food chain in the longer run, without compromising the pursuit of food security and crop protection.

References 1. Husen A (2022) Engineered nanomaterials for sustainable agricultural production, soil improvement and stress management. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA 2. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterial and nanocomposite with advanced agrochemical activities. Nanoscale Res Lett 16(156):1–26 3. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Guha S, Mehta S, Husen A (2022) Potential applications of engineered nanoparticles in plant disease management: a critical update. Chemosphere 295:133798 4. Zhang Q, Ying Y, Ping J (2022) Recent advances in plant nanoscience. Adv Sci 9(2):1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202103414 5. Liu R, Lal R (2015) Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci Total Environ 514(2015):131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2015.01.104

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

55

6. Arshad M, Nisar S, Gul I, Nawaz U, Irum S, Ahmad S, ... Alyemeni MN (2021) Multi-element uptake and growth responses of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) to TiO2 nanoparticles applied in different textured soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 215:112149 7. Singh S, Husen A (2019) Role of nanomaterials in the mitigation of abiotic stress in plants. Nanomaterials and plants potential. Springer, Switzerland, pp 441–471 8. Singh S, Husen A (2020) Behavior of agricultural crops in relation to nanomaterials under adverse environmental conditions. In: Husen A, Jawaid M (eds) Nanomaterials for agriculture and forestry applications. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 219–256 9. Waani SPT, Irum S, Gul I, Yaqoob K, Khalid MU, Ali MA, ... Arshad M (2021) TiO2 nanoparticles dose, application method and phosphorous levels influence genotoxicity in Rice (Oryza sativa L.), soil enzymatic activities and plant growth. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 213:111977 10. Iavicoli I, Leso V, Beezhold DH, Shvedova AA (2017) Nanotechnology in agriculture: opportunities, toxicological implications, and occupational risks. In: Toxicology and applied pharmacology, vol 329. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2017.05.025 11. Darlington TK, Neigh AM, Spencer MT, Nguyen OT, Oldenburg SJ (2009) Nanoparticle characteristics affecting environmental fate and transport through soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 28(6):1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-341.1 12. Sarraf M, Vishwakarma K, Kumar V, Arif N, Das S, Johnson R, Janeeshma E, Puthur JT, Aliniaeifard S, Chauhan DK, Fujita M, Hasanuzzaman M (2022) Metal/metalloid-based nanomaterials for plant abiotic stress tolerance: an overview of the mechanisms. Plants 11(3):1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11030316 13. Tarafdar JC, Xiong Y, Wang W, Quin D, Biswas P (2012) Standardization of size, shape and concentration of nanoparticle for plant application. Appl Biol Res 14(02):138–144. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/262178158 14. Miralles P, Church TL, Harris AT (2012) Toxicity, uptake, and translocation of engineered nanomaterials in vascular plants. Environ Sci Technol 46(17):9224–9239. https://doi.org/10. 1021/es202995d 15. Ruttkay-Nedecky B, Krystofova O, Nejdl L, Adam V (2017) Nanoparticles based on essential metals and their phytotoxicity. J Nanobiotechnol 15(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951017-0268-3 16. Van Aken B (2015) Gene expression changes in plants and microorganisms exposed to nanomaterials. Curr Opin Biotechnol 33:206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015. 03.005 17. Stark WJ (2011) Nanoparticles in biological systems. Angew Chem - Int Ed 50(6):1242–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200906684 18. Omanovi´c-Mikliˇcanin E, Badnjevi´c A, Kazlagi´c A, Hajlovac M (2020) Nanocomposites: a brief review. Health Technol 10:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-019-00380-x 19. Du W, Tan W, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL, Ji R, Yin Y, Guo H (2017) Interaction of metal oxide nanoparticles with higher terrestrial plants: physiological and biochemical aspects. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.04.024 20. Rajeshwari A, Suresh S, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A (2016) Toxicity evaluation of gold nanoparticles using an Allium cepa bioassay. RSC Adv 6(29):24000–24009. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/c6ra04712b 21. Rico CM, Majumdar S, Gardea MD, Videa JRP, JLG T (2011) When help goes wrong: suboxone and methadone | The Oaks at La Paloma Treatment Center. Front Plant Sci 59(8):3485–3498. http://theoakstreatment.com/opiate-abuse-treatment/help-goes-wrong-suboxone-methadone/ 22. Paramo LA, Feregrino-Pérez AA, Guevara R, Mendoza S, Esquivel K (2020) Nanoparticles in agroindustry: applications, toxicity, challenges, and trends. Nanomaterials 10(9):1–33. https:// doi.org/10.3390/nano10091654 23. Pan B, Xing B (2010) Manufactured nanoparticles and their sorption of organic chemicals. In: Advances in agronomy, 1st edn, vol 108, issue C. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652113(10)08003-X 24. Singh D, Kumar A (2016) Impact of irrigation using water containing CuO and ZnO nanoparticles on spinach oleracea grown in soil media. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 97:548–553

56

M. A. Farooq et al.

25. Etxeberria E, Gonzalez P, Pozueta J (2009) Evidence for two endocytic transport pathways in plant cells. Plant Sci 177(4):341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.06.014 26. Rienzie R, Adassooriya NM (2018) Nanomaterials: ecotoxicity, safety, and public perception. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05144-0 27. McKee MS, Filser J (2016) Impacts of metal-based engineered nanomaterials on soil communities. Environ Sci Nano 3(3):506–533 28. Ke W, Xiong ZT, Chen S, Chen J (2007) Effects of copper and mineral nutrition on growth, copper accumulation and mineral element uptake in two Rumex japonicus populations from a copper mine and an uncontaminated field sites. Environ Exp Bot 59(1):59–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.10.007 29. Arias JA, Peralta-Videa JR, Ellzey JT, Viveros MN, Ren M, Mokgalaka-Matlala NS, CastilloMichel H, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2010) Plant growth and metal distribution in tissues of Prosopis Juliflora-velutina grown on chromium contaminated soil in the presence of Glomus deserticola. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7272–7279. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1008664 30. Andy RIDH, Yon DEYL, Ahendra SHM, Aughlin MIJMCL, Ead JARL (2008) Critical review and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(9):1825–1851. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-090.1 31. Barrena R, Casals E, Colón J, Font X, Sánchez A, Puntes V (2009) Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles. Chemosphere 75(7):850–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere. 2009.01.078 32. Lee WM, An YJ, Yoon H, Kweon HS (2008) Toxicity and bioavailability of copper nanoparticles to the terrestrial plants mung bean (Phaseolus radiatus) and wheat (Triticum aestivum): plant agar test for water-insoluble nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(9):1915–1921. https://doi.org/10.1897/07-481.1 33. Lin D, Xing B (2007) Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and root growth. Environ Pollut 150(2):243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.01.016 34. Rajput V, Minkina T, Fedorenko A, Sushkova S, Mandzhieva S, Lysenko V, Duplii N, Fedrenko G, Dvadnenko K, Ghazaryan K (2018) Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles on spring barley (Hordeum sativum distichum). Sci Total Environ 645:1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci totenv.2018.07.211 35. Hu J, Wu X, Wu F et al (2020) TiO2 nanoparticle exposure on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.): dose-dependent deterioration of nutritional quality. Environ Sci: Nano 7(2):501–513 36. Le VN, Rui Y, Gui X, Li X, Liu S, Han Y (2014) Uptake, transport, distribution, and Bio-effects of SiO2 nanoparticles in Bt-transgenic cotton. J Nanobiotechnol 12:50. https://www.jnanobiot echnology.com/content/12/1/50 37. Peng C, Zhang H, Fang H et al (2015) Natural organic matter-induced alleviation of the phytotoxicity to rice (Oryza sativa L.) caused by copper oxide nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Chem 34(9):1996–2003 38. Frazier TP, Burklew CE, Zhang B (2014) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles affect the growth and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Funct Integr Genomics 14(1):75–83 39. Zhao LJ, Huang YX, Hu J, Zhou HJ, Adeleye AS, Keller AA (2016) H-1 NMR and GC-MS based metabolomics reveal defense and detoxifcation mechanism of cucumber plant under nano-Cu stress. Environ Sci Technol 50:2000–2010 40. Ma X, Geiser-Lee J, Deng Y, Kolmakov A (2010) Interactions between engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) and plants: phytotoxicity, uptake and accumulation. Sci Total Environ 408(16):3053–3061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.031 41. Shaw AK, Hossain Z (2013) Impact of nano-CuO stress on rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 93(6):906–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.05.044 42. Lee CW, Mahendra S, Zodrow K, Li D, Tsai YC, Braam J, Alvarez PJJ (2010) Developmental phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):669–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.58 43. Rui M, Ma C, Tang X, Yang J, Jiang F, Pan Y, Xiang Z, Hao Y, Rui Y, Cao W, Xing B (2017) Phytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.): physiological responses and food safety. Am Chem Soc Sustain Chem Eng 05:6557–6567. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs suschemeng.7b00736

Phytotoxicity Response and Defense Mechanisms …

57

44. Khan MR, Adam V, Rizvi TF, Zhang B, Ahamad F, Jo´sko I, Zhu Y, Yang M, Mao C (2019) Nanoparticle–plant interactions: two-way traffic. Small 15(37):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smll.201901794 45. Rajput VD, Minkina T, Feizi M, Kumari A, Khan M, Mandzhieva S, Sushkova S, El-ramady H, Verma KK, Singh A, van Hullebusch ED, Singh RK, Jatav HS, Choudhary R (2021) Effects of silicon and silicon-based nanoparticles on rhizosphere microbiome, plant stress and growth. Biology 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10080791 46. Zhao L, Sun Y, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Hong J, Majumdar S, Niu G, Duarte-Gardea M, PeraltaVidea JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2015) Monitoring the environmental effects of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles through the life cycle of corn (Zea mays) plants and in situ µ-XRF mapping of nutrients in kernels. Environ Sci Technol 49(5):2921–2928. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5060226 47. Atha DH, Wang H, Petersen EJ, Cleveland D, Holbrook RD, Jaruga P, Dizdaroglu M, Xing B, Nelson BC (2012) Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models. Environ Sci Technol 46(3):1819–1827. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202660k 48. Sharma P, Jha AB, Dubey RS, Pessarakli M (2012) Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J Bot 2012:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/217037 49. Yanga J, Cao W, Rui Y (2017) Interactions between nanoparticles and plants: phytotoxicity and defense mechanisms. J Plant Interact 12(1):158–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145. 2017.1310944 50. Farooq MA, Zhang X, Zafar MM, Ma W, Zhao J (2021) Roles of reactive oxygen species and mitochondria in seed germination. Front Plant Sci 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021. 781734 51. Miller G, Shulaev V, Mittler R (2008) Reactive oxygen signaling and abiotic stress. Physiol Plant 133(3):481–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01090.x 52. Apel K, Hirt H (2004) Reactive oxygen species: metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:373–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903. 141701 53. Da Costa MVJ, Sharma PK (2016) Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on growth, morphology, photosynthesis, and antioxidant response in Oryza sativa. Photosynthetica 54(1):110–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-015-0167-5 54. Hancock J, Desikan R, Harrison J, Bright J, Hooley R, Neill S (2006) Doing the unexpected: proteins involved in hydrogen peroxide perception. J Exp Bot 57(8):1711–1718. https://doi. org/10.1093/jxb/erj180 55. Dev A, Srivastava AK, Karmakar S (2018) Nanomaterial toxicity for plants. Environ Chem Lett 16(1):85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-017-0667-6 56. Gull A, Lone AA, Wani NI (2019) Biotic and abiotic stresses in plants. IntechOpen. https:// doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77845 57. Singh S, Husen A (2019) Role of nanomaterials in the mitigation of abiotic stress in plants. In: Husen A, Iqbal M (eds) Nanomaterials and plant potential. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 441–471 58. Mithöfer A, Maffei ME (2017) General mechanisms of plant defense and plant toxins. In: Plant toxins, pp 3–24 59. Robert-Seilaniantz A, Grant M, Jones JD (2011) Hormone crosstalk in plant disease and defense: more than just jasmonate–salicylate antagonism. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:317–343 60. Rico CM, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2015) Chemistry, biochemistry of nanoparticles, and their role in antioxidant defense system in plants. Nanotechnol Plant Sci 1–17 Springer International Publishing 61. Rejeb IB, Pastor V, Mauch-Mani B (2014) Plant responses to simultaneous biotic and abiotic stress: molecular mechanisms. Plants 03(04):458–475. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3040458 62. Prasad R, Gupta N, Kumar M, Kumar V, Wang S, Abd-Elsalam KA (2017) Nanomaterials act as plant defense mechanism. Nanotechnology. Springer, Singapore, pp 253–269 63. Rajput VD, Minkina TM, Behal A, Sushkova SN, Mandzhieva S, Singh R, Gorovtsov A, Tsitsuashvili VS, PurvisWO GKA, Movsesyan HS (2017) Effects of zinc-oxide nanoparticles

58

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69. 70. 71.

72.

73.

74.

75. 76.

77.

M. A. Farooq et al. on soil, plants, animals and soil organisms: a review. Environ Nanotechnol, Monit Manag 9:76–84 Samrot AV, Ram Singh SP, Deenadhayalan R, Rajesh VV, Padmanaban S, Radhakrishnan K (2022) Nanoparticles, a double-edged sword with oxidant as well as antioxidant properties—a review. Oxygen 2(4):591–604 Tripathi DK, Gaur S, Singh S, Singh S, Pandey R, Singh VP, Sharma NC, Prasad SM, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK (2016) An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pla phy.2016.07.030 Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh S, Srivastava PK, Singh VP, Singh S, Prasad SM, Singh PK, Dubey NK, Pandey AC, Chauhan DK (2017) Nitric oxide alleviates silver nanoparticles (Agnps)induced phytotoxicity in Pisum Sativum seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:167–177 Mohammadi H, Esmailpour M, Gheranpaye A (2016) Effects of TiO2 nanoparticles and water-deficit stress on morpho-physiological characteristics of dragonhead (Dracocephalum moldavica L.) plants. Acta agricul Slov 107 (02):385–396. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2016. 107.2.11 Rizwan M, Ali S, Qayyum MF, Ok YS, Adrees M, Ibrahim M, Zia-ur-Rehman M, Farid M, Abbas F (2017) Effect of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on growth and physiology of globally important food crops: a critical review. J Hazard Mater 322:2–16. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jhazmat.2016.05.061 Khan MN, Mobin M, Abbas ZK, AlMutairi KA, Siddiqui ZH (2017) Role of nanomaterials in plants under challenging environments. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:194–209 Goyer RA (1995) Nutrition and metal toxicity. Am J Clin Nutr 61(03):646S-650S. https://doi. org/10.1093/ajcn/61.3.646S Mirzajani F, Askari H, Hamzelou S, Schober Y, Reompp A, Ghassempour A, Spengler B (2014) Proteomics study of silver nanoparticles toxicity on Oryza sativa L. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 108:335–339 Miao Y, Xu J, Shen Y, Chen L, Bian Y, Hu Y, Zhou W, Zheng F, Man N, Shen Y, Zhang Y, Wang M, Wen L (2014) Nanoparticle as signaling protein mimic: robust structural and functional modulation of CaMKII upon specific binding to fullerene C60 nanocrystals. Am Chem Soc (ACS) NANO 08(06):6131–6144 Kim JH, Oh Y, Yoon H, Hwang I, Chang Y-S (2015) Iron nanoparticle-induced activation of plasma membrane H+ -ATPase promotes stomatal opening in Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Sci Technol 49:1113–1119 Khodakovskaya MV, de Silva K, Nedosekin DA, Dervishi E, Biris AS, Shashkov EV, Galanzha EI, Zharov VP (2011) Complex genetic, photothermal, and photoacoustic analysis of nanoparticle-plant interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:1028–1033 Khodakovskaya MV, de Silva K, Biris AS, Dervishi E, Villagarcia H (2012) Carbon nanotubes induce growth enhancement of tobacco cells. ACS Nano 6:2128–2135 Almutair ZM (2019) Plant molecular defense mechanisms promoted by nanoparticles against environmental stresses. Int l Agricul Biol 21(02):259–270. https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15. 0890 Berger SL (2007) The complex language of chromatin regulation during transcription. Nature 447:407–412. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05915

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal and Metal-Based Nanoparticles Taruni Bajaj, Hina Alim, Ahmad Ali, and Nimisha Patel

Abstract Since the past several years, there has been a lot of focus on the soil-borne accumulation of heavy metals in plants. The agroecosystem has been found to be substantially impacted by the excess of dangerous heavy metals present in soil, such as Ni, Pb, Cd, Ag, Co, Cu, Zn, Mn and Cr, in a number of ways involving physical, morphological and biochemical aspects. By damaging the cellular structure of the plant, causing oxidative stress through the generation of ROS, manipulating the composition of biomolecules, altering the content and fluorescence of chlorophyll, reducing crop yields and depleting soil fertility, nanoparticles carrying heavy metals have contributed to the development of phytotoxicity in plants. However, it has been found that applying designed nanomaterials through solution, seed priming, spraying, etc., increases plants’ resilience to metal stress. Plants use a variety of defence mechanisms to defend themselves from Heavy Metal (HM) stress, including controlling metabolic responses (antioxidants and other enzymatic activities), altering gene expression, changing cellular composition, etc. To create plant varieties that can withstand nanotoxicity, various plants are genetically modified. Numerous PGPR (plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria) are useful in reducing the effects of phytotoxicity, which in turn improves crop production in metal-contaminated soil. They are also known to have high tolerance to heavy metals. Utilising a variety of plant species, detoxification programmes and phytoremediation techniques are used to deal with these heavy metal contaminants and preserve soil microbiota. Additional research is required to ascertain the threshold at which these heavy metals and/or nanoparticles alone can induce phytotoxicity and to take advantage of methodologies and plant regulatory mechanisms that can be used to remove these contaminants. Keywords Nanoparticles · Phytotoxicity · ROS · Antioxidants · HM stress

T. Bajaj · N. Patel (B) Department of Life Sciences, J. C Bose University of Science and Technology, YMCA, Faridabad 121006, Haryana, India e-mail: [email protected] H. Alim · A. Ali Department of Life Sciences, University of Mumbai, Mumbai 400098, Maharashtra, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 A. Husen (ed.), Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants, Smart Nanomaterials Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6_4

59

60

T. Bajaj et al.

Abbreviations Ag AgNPs Al Al2 O3 AMF APX As ATP ATPase C3 C4 plants CAT Cd CdONPs CeO2 CeO2 NPs Chlorella vulgaris Co CO2 Cr Cu Cu(OH)2 Cu(OH)2 NPs CuNPs CuO DNA ENPs ETC Fe FeO4 GO GR GRSP GSH H2 O2 H3 BO3 Hg HM MDA Mn3 O4 MWCNTs NADPH dehydrogenase

Silver Silver nanoparticles Aluminium Aluminium oxide Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Ascorbate peroxidase Arsenic Adenosine 5’ triphosphate Adenosine triphosphatase Calvin cycle Plants undergoing Hatch and Slack cycle Catalase Cadmium Cadmium oxide nanoparticles Cerium (IV) oxide Cerium (IV) oxide nanoparticles Chlorella vulgaris Cobalt Carbon dioxide Chromium Copper Copper (II) hydroxide Copper (II) hydroxide nanoparticles Copper nanoparticles Copper oxide Deoxyribonucleic acid Engineered nanoparticles Electron transport cycle Iron Ferrate (IV) Graphene oxide Glutathione reductase Glomalin-related soil protein Glutathione Hydrogen peroxide Boric acid Mercury Heavy metal Malondialdehyde Trimanganese tetraoxide Multi-walled carbon nanotubes Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

Ni OS Pb PIP PPP PUFAs RG II RNA ROS Se SOD SWCNTs TCA cycle TiO2 TiO2 NPs U WS2 NPs Zn ZnO

61

Nickel Oxidative stress Lead Plasma membrane intrinsic proteins Pentose phosphate pathway Polyunsaturated fatty acids Rhamnogalacturonan II Ribonucleic acid Reactive oxygen species Selenium Superoxide dismutase Single-walled carbon nanotubes Tricarboxylic acid cycle Titanium dioxide Titanium dioxide nanoparticles Uracil Tungsten disulfide nanoparticles Zinc Zinc oxide

1 Introduction Soil has been contaminated by the deposition of various heavy metals and metalloids with a density of more than 5 gcm−3 , which are the common natural habitat of millions of microbiota species. This has led to a fall in the amount of land that can be used for agriculture and has become the principal hazard to the environment and maintenance of the agroecosystem [1–5]. Due to the rising expansion of industries, the concentration of HM in the environment has increased [6–8], having dangerous consequences on the development and regular metabolic processes of flora [9]. HMs are created at a level that is deemed trace (less than 1000 mg kg−1 ), rarely dangerous, and can only be obtained in the soil ecosystem due to the pedogenetic processes of decomposing parent chemicals [10–13]. Other sources such as volcanoes, wastes containing metal dust and weathering of rocks, etc., leads to HM contamination in soil [14] as well as its addition to agricultural land through various anthropogenic activities for instance, industrialisation, mining, smelting [15, 16], release of HM wastes, paints and gasoline, use of fertilisers [17, 18], bio-wastes (compost, manure, domestic sewage waste) [19, 20], pesticides such as fungicidal chemicals containing copper (copper oxychloride and copper sulphate) [21], petrochemicals and atmospheric pollution [22, 23] and unprocessed water [24]. These anthropogenic metal contaminants can be recovered via chemical extraction methods since they are readily accessible and mobile in nature [25–28]. Its nature and mobility in soil are determined by a number of factors, including composition, speciation and metal content. The metals present in soil are

62

T. Bajaj et al.

classified as exchangeable metal, carbonate phase-bound metal, Fe and Mn oxideattached metal, organic matter-bound metal and residual metal on the basis of control of certain characteristics of metals such as (i) ion exchange, adsorbing and desorbing capacity, (ii) dissolution and precipitation, (iii) aqueous complexation, (iv) uptake by plants and (v) biological mobilisation and immobilisation [29, 30]. Microbes are able to bond strongly with metal ions present in soil mixtures because of the ionic charges present on their surface [31]. Growing plants under unfavourable conditions can lead to a variety of HMs stressors that reduce the translocation of important macro- and micronutrients, changing the metabolism of the plant and its growth in general [32–34]. The toxicity of HMs has a significant impact on a number of cellular systems and activities, including regulatory mechanisms, plant tissue growth, accumulation of ROS, nutrient uptake, etc. As a result, membrane lipid peroxidation and occasionally plant mortality occur [35–39]. Vascular plants have developed a variety of coping mechanisms, such as chelation, detoxification, sequestration and efflux, to lessen the harmful effects of toxic metals [40, 41]. When it comes to reducing the high concentration of HMs present in agro-ecosystems that adversely affect the food chain when transferred to those edible parts of plants present above ground region, the most appropriate and practical methods, such as phytoremediation and bioremediation, are frequently used [42–44]. The accumulation of HM in the food chain destroys not just plant growth but also human health, softening systemic bone, harming the neurological system, impairing reproductive function, and in extreme situations, even causing death [45, 46]. Due to numerous benefits like effective catalytic activity, distinctive magnetic and optical character, presence of numerous surface reaction sites and high surface activity, the usage of nanoparticles (NPs) in medical industry, agriculture, cosmetics and food technology has become increasingly important in recent years [47–61]. When used as nanopesticides and nanofertilisers [62–64], nanoparticles have been shown to have many benefits for vegetation [65–68], including improving seed germination, photosynthesis, OS (oxidative stress) resistance, rhizome growth and maturation and crop quality and yield [69–76]. Some nanoparticles, such as TiO2 , CeO2 and Mn3 O4 , are effective for enhancing the antioxidation capability of enzymes, which in turn is useful for improving crop yield and quality overall by minimising the creation of ROS (reactive oxygen species) in plants [77, 78]. Additionally, it has been found that applying nanoparticles to the leaves of plants can increase their ability to absorb and assimilate foliar fertilisers, lessen the damage caused by abiotic stress and thus increase their resistance to it, increase the antioxidative activity of enzymes and decrease the uptake of various HMs by plants, such as cadmium and lead [4, 79–82]. It has been reported that numerous detrimental effects in plants from the application of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs), particularly metal-based nanoparticles that cause phytotoxic effects including root pores blockage, inhibition of flow of nutrients and water and accumulation of ROS that in turn leads to cell membrane and cell wall structure alteration [83–86] as well as genotoxic effects including cell division impairment, cellular aberrations and cell disintegration [87–91].

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

63

This chapter wraps up the current understanding of how HMs and metal-based nanoparticles negatively affect plants, their interactions with both plants and each other, and the protective measures taken by plants to counteract abiotic stress.

2 Toxicity Caused by Metals in Plants The appearance of metal in soil is governed by multiple soil characteristics, including pH of the soil, the cation exchange potential, the proportion of organic matter present and clay adsorption [92, 93]. Toxic heavy metal accumulation and absorption in the vegetal region of flora cause damage to plants by interfering with the functions of cell membranes, inhibiting the enzymatic action, inactivating photosystems and changing the metabolism of minerals [94–99]. Metal toxicity is largely responsible for OS, altering protein function and interfering with the function of pigment molecules [100]. Metal toxicity causes an overproduction of ROS, which damages several cellular components such as lipid and protein oxidation, genetic material damage, suppression of enzyme activity and even death [101, 102].

2.1 Seed Growth and Germination Process When germination conditions are favourable, seeds have a variety of sensing mechanisms that allow them to finish the advancement process. However, hazardous metals including Pb, Hg, Ag, Ni, Co, Cd, etc., have an unfavourable effect on seeds that are in the germination process [103–105]. Seed tolerance level for hazardous metals in soil is determined by their capacity to sprout in their presence [106]. For instance, the high concentration of Cr (VI) in wheat plants considerably inhibits seed germination and reduces root growth [107].

2.2 Inhibited Root Elongation The root region’s growth is very susceptible to the presence of HMs because they are absorbed by roots through mass and diffusion, which immediately inhibits root growth. As a result, the roots that are produced are shorter, ramified and irregular in shape [108–111]. Because of resistance to cellular division in the tip of the roots, metals like Cr and Pb, for example, inhibit the root growth and crop production of wheat plants [108, 112, 113]. Metals interfere with the apoplastic and symplastic pathways of metabolism after entering the tissues of roots and binding with the carboxylic group of the pectin component of cell walls, preventing root growth [114, 115]. A number of impacts of metal-induced inhibition can be seen in roots, including a reduction in the length

64

T. Bajaj et al.

of lateral roots and root hair, a change in colour, curvature, atrophy and thickening and broadening of roots [116]. The stiffness of the cell wall is impacted by longer exposure times and higher metal concentrations, which damages the rhizodermis and meristematic cortical layer and prevents root extension [117, 118].

2.3 Cell Membrane and Cell Wall A root’s cellular membrane experiences numerous physiological and structural changes as a result of exposure to metal ions, including the destruction of the plasma membrane by oxygen radicals produced freely under metal stress, which leads to ATPase inhibition and, in turn, a reduction in proton transport and overall transport activity (such as nutrient uptake). For instance, it has been noted that the build-up of Cr can disrupt a variety of mechanisms and metabolic processes in plants, such as changing the pigment molecules in chlorophyll, changing the pH and increasing the formation of biometabolites like glutathione and ascorbic acid [119–121]. Besides these, denaturation of proteins, lipid fluidity and cross-linking of thiol proteins are other effects of metal stress [122].

2.4 Effect on Photosynthesis Toxic metals like Cd and Zn have been found to stimulate a number of photosynthesisrelated components, including pigment molecules, light-capturing centres, electron transport, CO2 access, stomatal enzyme conductance, thylakoid membrane structure and C3 cycle enzymes [123, 124] (Fig.1). These components tend to slow down electron transport and more effectively inhibit photosystem II [125]. The symptoms such as leaf death (chlorosis), underdevelopment of the plant and a decrease in biomass production were noted as a result [99, 126–128]. In general, any changes to the concentration of plant pigment, whether they are quantitative or qualitative, can have a deleterious effect on the physiology of flora and its growth. Studies have shown that while Cr is known to have a stronger hazardous effect on plants when administered at low concentrations, HMs like Selenium and Ni, which are not necessary for growth, cause toxicity to plants like Brassica oleracea as their concentrations rise [129].

2.5 Oxidative Stress and Lipid Peroxidation According to studies, the toxicity of HMs causes an increase in OS [130–132]. ROS which has a serious impact on cells is produced when oxygen is excited to the singlet form of oxygen (1 O2 ), hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), the superoxide radical or

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

65

Fig. 1 Brief of the consequences of toxicity of HM on photosynthesis

the hydroxyl radical by transferring an electron to oxygen [133]. Particularly, free radical-containing ROS molecules exhibit an immediate and untargeted interaction with the lipids, proteins and nucleic acids of the cells. Therefore, plants produce a variety of antioxidative enzymes to deal with oxygen species (excessive accumulation of ROS) produced under stress, including catalase (CAT, dismutating H2 O2 ), glutathione reductase (GR), NADPH dehydrogenase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), the ascorbate– glutathione cycle, etc. Under typical circumstances, the production and neutralisation of ROS are well maintained. OS is caused by a build-up of ROS in cells and tissues of plants, which occurs when the balance of ROS production is disturbed under stress or unfavourable conditions [134]. By reacting with various proteins, lipids, pigment molecules involved in photosynthesis and other organelles, the production of ROS (for example, radical O2− ) and H2 O2 by various metal pollutants, such as Pb in plants, causes alterations in the membrane structural configuration and peroxidation of lipids present, which ultimately results in cell damage and death [135–140]. Malondialdehyde (MDA), the principal byproduct of lipid peroxidation, is formed in plants by the oxidation of PUFAs when plants experience significant OS in the absence of ROS, and it is primarily responsible for cell membrane rupture [141]. Additionally, [142], the increased peroxidation of cell lipid caused by the production of free radicals by HMs like Fe and Cu modifies membrane properties like permeability and flexibility as well as the activity of membrane-bound ATPase [143]. According to studies, metals like Cr can interfere with a variety of physiological processes, including lipid peroxidation, which produces many small hydrocarbon molecules like malondialdehyde from unsaturated fatty acids [144, 145], a reduction in plant growth and simulating OS and anti-oxidative defence in plants [94].

66

T. Bajaj et al.

2.6 Genotoxicity The term “mutagens” or “genotoxic agents” refers to molecules or substances that have the capacity to damage cells’ genomes (including nuclear and extra-nuclear genetic material). For instance, it has been discovered that Pb is a genotoxic substance that may cause cancer in humans [146]. The toxicity caused by Pb can be seen in plants as a variety of negative effects, including disruption of spindle formation [147], rupture of the cytoskeleton and nuclear damage [148], formation of micronuclei and DNA strand breaks [149, 150], chromosomal abnormalities, instable microsatellites [151] and depolymerisation of microtubules [152]. The normal functioning of genetic material (RNA and DNA is interrupted by damage or change to the sugar or base content in its structure as a result of the creation of ROS either directly or indirectly via Pb. This results in breaking in strands of DNA or RNA and fragmentation [153, 154]. In turn, this prevents DNA repair and replication [113]. Additionally, the presence of Pb in plant cells alters protein structure and/or suppresses protein synthesis at the transcriptional level, which in turn prevents nuclear proteins involved in DNA topoisomerase II, DNA repair and chromosomal segregation from functioning [146, 155]. Another example of resultant genotoxicity (possible impact on cell nucleus and other nuclear materials) and root extension suppression is the reduced cell division caused by high Al concentrations in plants including Cicer arietinum, Hordeum vulgare and Populus tomentosa [156–159]. However, the root cells of Populus tomentosa are not directly threatened by Al exposure,rather, this is because Al inhibits auxin transporters, which reduces cell division [159]. Additionally, excessive amounts of Al in plants have a negative impact on the DNA double helix, which slows both cell growth and DNA replication [4, 160].

3 Phytotoxicity Induced by Nanoparticles 3.1 Phytotoxic Effect of Nanoparticles on Soil It has been found that soil has a much higher concentration of ENPs than its composition in the air and water, indicating that soil is the main source of the nanoparticles present in the environment [161–171]. Nanoparticles have a wide range of unfavourable effects, including those on structural morphology, the microbiota, mineralisation and extracellular enzymes, with the most detrimental effects on soil microbes known to result from the leaking of nanoparticles among soil constituents [163, 172]. ENPs can possibly harm the soil microorganisms directly or indirectly. While the indirect effects are shown as a result of the interaction of nanoparticles with numerous naturally occurring organic chemicals found in soil, as shown in Fig. 2, the direct toxic effects are observed to have the proper mechanism of toxicity against bacteria.

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

67

Fig. 2 Mode of nanoparticles to induce toxicity in soil microbiota

Despite this, higher plants help mitigate their effects by employing a variety of strategies, such as subsurface intentional release for nano remediation, application of nano-land of polluted bio-solids, use of nano-enabled products in leaching, surface runoff for waste polluted with nanomaterial effluent release and irrigation using nanoparticle-polluted water due to strong binding with these nanomaterials [173, 174].

3.2 Phytotoxic Effect of Nanoparticles on Plants According to studies [175–177], plants are subject to a variety of biotic and abiotic conditions, including salinity and drought, pathogen and drought and heat and salinity. These conditions are based on molecular, physiological, biochemical, morphological and anatomical principles [178, 179]. Due to their phytotoxicity and other damage, the use of nanoparticles at larger concentrations worsens the condition of plants. Plants experience OS, due to the toxic effects of nanoparticles [180–184]. The image below illustrates several possible methods via which nanoparticles can interact with plants (Fig. 3). However, it has also been found that nanoparticles can help plants cope better with both biotic and abiotic stresses like drought, cold, salinity, UV-B rays and floods [185–196]. For example, exposure to zinc and copper nanoparticles has a beneficial impact on plants by minimising the effects of drought stress by enhancing antioxidative enzyme activities, increasing the water content of foliage, maintaining

68

T. Bajaj et al.

Fig. 3 Different pathways of interaction between nanoparticles and plants

the pigment content and lowering the degree of lipid peroxidation [189]. Therefore, it is possible to see both beneficial and harmful effects of designed NPs in plants. As illustrated in Fig. 4, certain metals (such as Ag, Se, Co and Ni) and metal-based nanoparticles (such as CeO2 , Al2 O3 , FeO4 , TiO2 , CuO and ZnO) have been thought to have both negative and favourable effects on vegetation at different concentrations [197, 198]. The influence of nanomaterials can be seen in the physiological, biochemical, seed germination, biomass generation, photosynthetic process and other areas [194].

3.3 Regulation of Metabolic Pathways Due to ENPs Toxicity Typically, plants’ metabolites become disorganised in response to any unfavourable circumstance and/or as a result of the transport or ingestion of designed nanoparticles (ENPs). The metabolic pathways comprising lipid metabolism, glucose metabolism, amino acid metabolism, energy metabolism and secondary metabolism are frequently altered by ENPs.

3.3.1

Carbohydrate and Energy Metabolism

By weakening the activity of the photosynthetic process, which in turn results in declines in the amount of primary product decreased, nanoparticles like WS2 NPs and CdONPs are responsible for down-regulating the metabolism of carbohydrates.

Fig. 4 The effect on plants when exposed to nanoparticles: left side represents the positive impact, whereas the right side of diagram represents the negative impact

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal … 69

70

T. Bajaj et al.

For instance, the generation of starch in Chlorella vulgaris and fructose, glucose and sucrose in barley [199, 200]. Contrarily, the resistance in the pathway of carbohydrate metabolism demonstrates that the rise in substance build-up by plant energy expenditure accounts for the decrease in biomass output [201]. Cu(OH)2 and CdONPs are nanopesticides that are concerned with downregulating energy metabolism by interfering with the TCA cycle in barley roots and lettuce leaves [199, 202]. This could be because nanoparticles are preventing citrate synthase and/or malate dehydrogenase from performing their functions [199]. Additionally, as a result of plants’ defence against metal ENPs, the TCA cycle pathway is hindered, which prevents the breakdown of metal iron [199, 203]. Despite this, if the TCA cycle regenerates the citric acid, ATP generation will be reduced and plant development will be constrained as a result of the initial disruption [199, 204] as shown in Fig. 5. Additionally, due to their antioxidant, osmo-protective and phospholipid roles in cell membranes, nanoparticles like Cu(OH)2 and hydrated graphene ribbon have been found to up-regulate the major products of photosynthesis by foliar spray and glucose metabolism [205]. TiO2 NPs, Cu(OH) and AgNPs are three further examples of nanoparticles that have been discovered to perform a substantial role in the upregulation of energy metabolism, which is based on the breakdown of sugar to

Fig. 5 Overview of the regulation of metabolic pathways (carbohydrate metabolism and energy metabolism) by the toxicity of nanoparticles in plants

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

71

maintain their regular physiological and defensive functions [201, 202]. Increased PPP in algae cells caused by oxidised MWCNTs (multi-walled carbon nanotubes) causes an increase in pathway intermediates such as ribulose 5 phosphate. PPP serves as the starting material for the formation of nucleic acids, nucleotides and NADPH in access, all of which give protection against OS [204].

3.3.2

Amino Acid Metabolism

The bioprocessing of proteins requires amino acids, which also play a role in a number of signalling processes and the defence mechanisms used by plants when under stress [206]. According to studies, exposure to ENPs causes disturbances in the metabolism of amino acids. As a result of the accumulation and toxicity of nanoparticles, the plant either experiences upregulation or downregulation [207] in the pathway of amino acid metabolism. Numerous mechanisms exist for how nanoparticles promote amino acid metabolism. In Table 1, some of them are listed. AgNPs disrupt the inorganic nitrogen fixation pathway by lowering the concentration of amino acids like asparagine and glutamine, which also causes the senescence of leaves and inhibits photorespiratory activity by diminishing the glycine/serine ratio. The rise in ROS level caused by GO (graphene oxide), which inhibits plant development in C. vulgaris, can also diminish amino acid expression [211]. Additionally, nanocolloid toxicity in plants like rice and C. vulgaris has been linked to downregulation of the expression of amino acid metabolism (e.g., serine, alanine, glycine, glutamate, threonine and aspartate), which not only prevents cellular division but also causes cell membrane shrinkage due to decreased osmotic pressure in cytoplasm [212–214].

3.3.3

Lipid Metabolism

. Knowing that all cells’ structural membranes are primarily composed of fats, any alteration to fatty acids has an impact on the viability and sustainability of cells in adverse conditions [68]. Lipid metabolism is controlled by the following factors: . Cell membrane stability: Nanoparticles like TiO2 NPs, hydrated graphene ribbon and nanopesticides of Cu(OH)2 are involved in increasing the concentration of fatty acids (namely stearic acid, hexadecenoic acid, linolenic acid, linoleic acid, palmitic acid and octa-decadienoic acid) and the precursors for the synthesis of lipid present in membrane [68, 201, 205]. Contrarily, it has been shown that C60 fullerols inhibit fatty acid metabolism in cucumber plants, which affects the structural makeup of the cell membrane [215]. . Membrane fluidity: The fluidity of the membrane, which also depends on the amount of unsaturated fatty acids present, is related to the physiological functioning of the cell membrane and maintenance of the cellular metabolic pathway [68, 216]. For instance, C. vulgaris cells exposed to nanoparticles SWCNTs (single-walled carbon nanotubes) and GO have fewer unsaturated fatty acids,

72

T. Bajaj et al.

Table 1 Different defence mechanisms against stress are displayed by plants as a result of amino acid upregulation brought on by nanoparticle exposure Type of nanoparticle

Amino acid upregulated

Pathway of stress defence Key reference

Metal ENPs like CdONPs, CuNPs, Cu(OH)2

Proline, asparagine, Amino acid reduces the [199, 202, 203] glycine, histidine, aspartic bioavailability of acid, tryptophan nanoparticles by acting as metal ion chelators

CuNPs

Beta-alanine, leucine, alanine, glycine, proline, phenylalanine, lysine, valine, threonine, serine

Translocation of copper is [203] hindered across the cell membrane of roots by providing site for its binding

Proline

Stress-induced acidification of cell, thereby dropping down the release of metal ions

[201]

HMs

Glutamine, glycine, proline

Promoting the synthesis of antioxidants like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione (GSH) which is vital for maintenance of redox state and reduce ROS

[201–203, 208]

Cu(OH)2 and CuNPs

Valine, alanine, leucine

Source of oxidative phosphorylation energy act as adaptation process against stress

[68, 208, 209]

CdONPs

Tryptophan, phenylalanine, tyrosine

Act as precursor for the biosynthesis of protective secondary metabolites like phenolics, anthocyanins, plastoquinone, flavonoids

[199, 210]

CdONPs

Tryptophan

Increase tolerance against [199] Cd by reducing lipid peroxidation

CdONPs

Tryptophan and phenylalanine

Protection of cell membrane and increase tolerance against Cd

[199]

which induces osmotic stress and causes the fluid property of the cell membrane to disintegrate, which in turn inhibits the movement of NPs towards the cytosol [199, 217]. Unlike SWCNTs, oxidised MWCNTs have been found to increase the amount of unsaturated fatty acids in Chlorella pyrenoidosa, hence enhancing membrane fluidity.

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

73

Therefore, the destabilisation and disruption of cell structure as well as cell plasmolysis are linked to an increase in the fluidity of cellular membrane [204].

3.4 Impact on Human Health via Food Chain Nanoparticles like AgNPs, CeO2 NPs [218], La2 O3 NPs [219] and AuNPs [220] pose a serious risk to human health by entering the food chain and subsequently entering the human body. This is because they are transferred to the terrestrial trophic level in the food chain via primary producer, i.e. plants [221–223]. According to studies, transferring hazardous nanoparticles like AgNPs into mammalian cells has serious effects on the body. In rats, for example, it produces inflammatory lesions and reduces the function of the lungs [224]. AgNP levels rise in the rat brain and olfactory bulbs as a result [225]. AgNP exposure also increases OS, cellular damage, immune response, inflammation and other adverse effects in human cells [226–228]. Therefore, to lessen the effect on human health, it is necessary to access and minimise the bioaccumulation of nanoparticles in the trophic food chain and their subsequent transfer into the human body.

4 Foliar Application of Nanomaterials Plants often absorb NPs through their stomata, ion channels, endocytosis, pores or fissures, protein transporters and trichomes [129, 229–232]. The primary mechanisms by which metals are absorbed by leaves are through the epidermis and stomata permeation [233], which are subsequently translocated via symplastic or apoplastic routes [232, 234]. Numerous variables, including the type of flora [235], microorganisms in the foliage and rhizosphere [236], the dosage of nanoparticles (NPs used [237, 238], the particle shape, size and charge [4, 239, 240], pH and matrix of soil [241], impact NPs’ entry into the leaves and their effect are impacted by changes to their surface, such as encapsulation or coating, which alters their attributes like lipophilicity and adhesion [231]. Humic acid, citrate, polyvinylpyrrolidone, iron, aminopropyl triethoxysilane, polyethylene glycol, fluorescein isothiocyanate and natural organic matter are frequently used to modify the surface of NPs in order to increase their capacity for absorption [242–246]. The charge, porosity, redox potential, catalytic activity, crystallinity and aggregation capability of NPs all affect how well they penetrate foliage [247]. The many stages of plant development and life cycle determine the concentration of NPs absorbed, stored and transported into the plants [242, 248]. It has been pointed out that applying a sufficient amount of macroor micronutrients to leaves can lessen the harm caused by root application techniques [230]. But depending on the size of the particle, the shape of the epidermis, the leaf area and the stage of plant growth, cuticular wax and leaf hair prevent the absorption of NPs by leaves [249, 250].

74 Table 2 The advantages and disadvantages of foliar spray

T. Bajaj et al. Adverse effects

Beneficial effects

Stoma closure and blockage Enhance germination of seeds of pores Reduction in photosynthetic activity

Increment in shelf life of plant

Young leaf dysplasia, chlorosis, foliar burns

Increased tolerance to unfavourable condition

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity

Enhance fruit quality

Increase in OS and plant necrosis

Increased photosynthetic as well as enzymatic activity

Reduced enzymatic activity Increase resistance to pathogens Electrolytic leakage

Provide sufficient nutrients

Reduced biomass production

Increase crop yield

4.1 Outcomes of Application of Foliar NPs on Flora According to reports, nanoparticles can have a beneficial or negative effect on plants. When applied to plants in sufficient amounts, nanoparticles increase crop yield, reduce OS, improve the quality of the crop and increase its resistance to disease [245, 251, 252], whereas high concentration has a negative impact on the plant’s overall development [253]. ZnNPs, for instance, can be applied topically to plants to encourage fertilisation. However, excessive Zn spraying prevents seed development [254]. Additionally, when plants experience a Zn deficit, it slows down their growth [255]. Table 2 provides a summary of the many positive and negative consequences of foliar spraying nanoparticles on plants.

5 Plant Defensive Mechanism to Mitigate HM Stress 5.1 Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals It is well recognised that plants perform a significant part in mediating the transit and uptake of numerous harmful compounds, including both inorganic and organic pollutants, in order to lessen environmental pollution and enhance environmental quality. Using plants to clean up the environment is a method called phytoremediaion. For the phytoremediation of both organic and inorganic contaminants, various techniques are developed. Rhizofilteration, which involves the uptake of pollutants

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

75

like Pb by plant roots from polluted soil or other aquatic environments [256], phytovolatilisation, which removes volatile substances like mercury [257], phytoextraction, which removes contaminants by harvesting inorganic substances accumulated in plant shoots and other aerial parts [258] and phytostabilisation are some other techniques [259]. However, adopting phytoremediation solutions has a number of drawbacks, including dependence on the climate, soil quality and processing times. As a result, little attention is paid to these techniques. Additionally, the process of phytoremediation is impacted by the physiology and age of the plant. The process is also limited by other elements like surface area, depth and root volume.

5.2 Effect of AMF and Regulation of ENMs Toxicity on Plants The microbiota that exists in the rhizosphere of plants controls the process of phytoabsorption of ENMs [260, 261]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), the most prevalent microbial population, develop mutually beneficial symbiotic associations with 80% of vascular plants and play a role in root architecture and ETC (electron transport cycle) functions [262, 263]. The symbiotic relationship between AMF and host plants is made possible by the fast-growing hyphae’s ability to proliferate under unfavourable stress conditions like metal poisoning [264, 265]. Due to AMF’s symbiotic relationship with plants, study is currently concentrated on the effect of AMF as well as the bioaccumulation of ENMs and the method by which they are introduced into plants. Through the immobilisation of metals by the glomalin-related soil protein (GRSP and the production of the appropriate transporter, the AMF can control the mass consumption of ENMs in plants and their transportation throughout the host [266, 267]. However, enhanced antioxidant activity and nutrient uptake by plant roots also support the development of plant resistance to ENMs [268–270]. Furthermore, by stimulating and restricting other soil microbes through the species-specific effects of AMF on them, the rhizosphere soil’s enzymatic activity can be improved and the transformation of nutrients and plant growth processes can be expedited [5].

5.3 ENMs Immobilisation in Soil by AMF Hyphae Secretion The immobilisation of GRSP, an obligatory glycoprotein with metal ions produced by AM hyphae, on ENMs inhibits the bioavailability of ENMs. This glycoprotein is highly effective in binding HMs, which serves to decrease metal bioavailability and prevents excessive metal accumulation in the host [271, 272]. The host plant Trigonella foenum-gracum (fenugreek) showed a decrease in the Zn content in ZnONPs as a result of an increase in the amount of GRSP produced by Rhizophagus

76

T. Bajaj et al.

intraradices. Wherein the complexation and fixing of ZnO nanoparticles and Zn ions existing in it by chelation of metals due to weak ionic contact and strong chemical bonding reduces the transport of ZnONPs from the soil to the host plant (fenugreek) [260, 273]. Researchers have discovered that the mycelial secretion of glomamycin can improve the immobilisation of metal in soil. For instance, one of the researches indicated that the low concentration of FeONPs stimulated Glomus caledonium’s secretion process. However, when the amount of FeONPs increases, the amount of GRSP drops, increasing the likelihood that GRSP will get metal complexed. Because there are more active sites and adsorption sites on the surface at both high and low FeONP concentrations, the detectable amount of glomalin falls with high mass concentrations of FeONPs [267] As shown in Fig. 6, the plants utilize a variety of mechanisms to combat the stress caused by HMs and metal-based nanoparticles.

5.4 Membrane Transport Genes Inhibition by AMF Many additional HMs are still present in soil with permeable ability, ensuring their passage into the plant through passive or active pathways despite the hyphae secretions that stop some nanoparticles from entering the host plant [234]. By suppressing the expression of membrane transporter genes, AM colonisation aids in blocking the passage of HM into the plant cell. Additionally, this controls the expression of aquaporins, which aids in preserving the equilibrium of cellular osmotic pressure [274– 277]. Scientists have discovered that, in contrast to non-mycorrhizal tissues, tomato mycorrhizal tissues play a role in the downregulation of potassium channel genes and PIP genes (plasma membrane intrinsic proteins), as well as the decrease of Ag concentration in hosts [268]. It was proposed that the transport of Ag into the shoot is mediated by the downregulation of intrinsic protein genes and potassium channel genes. Additionally, the OS brought on by AgNPs affects aquaporin expression and function, which in turn affects how plants respond to osmotic stress [268].

5.5 Effect of AMF on Oxidative Stress Caused by ENMs Due to their build-up and toxicity in cells, ENMs are known to induce ROS in plants. Numerous antioxidants (such as POD, CAT, and SOD) are improved by AMF, which lowers the OS caused by nanoparticles and HM toxicity and stabilises the cellular redox balance [269]. For instance, it has been discovered that corn’s exposure to Fe3 O4 NPs inhibits the action of antioxidative enzymes. In contrast, when maize plants are inoculated with AMF, the Glomus in the AMF increases CAT activity, boosting the breakdown of H2 O2 and preserving the oxidation-reduction balance in cells [278].

Fig. 6 The toxicity induced by various HMs and metal-based nanoparticles and the defensive strategies used by plants for their removal

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal … 77

78

T. Bajaj et al.

5.6 Promotion of Enzymatic Activity in Soil and Enhancement of Nutrient Transformation by Rhizosphere AMF is renowned for giving the host plant nutrients. AMFs are known to work with other microbial communities in soil that are beneficial for nutrient consumption because they are unable to directly absorb organic nutrients due to a lack of the enzymes needed for the mineralisation of organic compounds [279, 280]. The growth of AMF and their attraction to these microbes are influenced by the carbon-rich chemicals generated as a result of the recruitment of soil-dwelling microorganisms [279, 281]. AMF changes the composition of the soil, i.e., the species diversity and richness of microbes present at low soil phosphorus content, in order to gain more nutrients for the host plant, such as maize [282]. Although species-specific AMF affects the absorption of nutrients from particular microbial communities in soil to a large degree [283]. In plants where AM is inoculated, as opposed to non-inoculated plants, it has been reported that the relative abundance of bacteria such as Bacilli that participates in Phosphorus mineralisation and Anaerolineae that are involved in the decomposition process of carbon and amino acid metabolic pathway is enhanced and the population of Nitrospira that contributes to nitrite-oxidising process is reduced [284]. AMF competes with Nitrospira and other nitrogen-converting bacteria for inorganic nitrogen uptake because it is also known to help the host plant absorb nitrogen [285, 286]. AMF are also in charge of enhancing the enzymatic activity in soil by altering the species population and variety of the soil microbiota, which is also involved in stimulating the nutrition cycle between plants and microorganisms that takes place in the rhizosphere of the host plant. Additionally, this improves and stabilises the microbial community’s homeostasis in the soil environment. Nevertheless, research is currently being done to determine the phytotoxic effects and AMF’s modes of action on nanoparticles [287].

5.7 Improvement in Biomass Production in Mycorrhizal Plants The HMs’ detoxification method is determined by their chemical makeup, supply and diffusion following absorption in the tissues of the host plant. Numerous plant species’ tolerance mechanisms have been discovered to be caused by the compartmentalisation and detoxification of HMs in plants [282, 288]. For instance, when mycorrhizal fungi like Glomus intraradices colonise the alfalfa roots, the biomass output of shoots improves and the distribution of Cd is improved in the cell walls of shoots and roots [289]. AMF induces plant tolerance to HM stress and increases biomass output. AMF mediates HM remediation by changing the chemical form and compartmentalisation of HM in the host plant’s numerous cellular organelles [290].

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

79

5.8 Exogenous Supply of Chemical Compounds for Reducing Toxicity Heavy metal toxicity can be reduced by altering the rhizospheric region by adding various chemical compounds, metals or elements, as well as metal-containing nanoparticles exogenously. The use of various elements and their contribution to plant growth and the reduction of HMs are listed in Table 3.

6 Conclusion and Future Perspectives Due to the phytotoxicity it causes, the widespread use of HM and metal-based nanoparticles has garnered a lot of attention. Studies have shown that increased mass accumulation of toxic metals in soil and consequently in plants are to blame for the rapid decline in crop development and yield output on both a small and large scale. After entering the plant through the roots and moving into the shoot and other aerial parts of the host, toxic metals and nanoparticles such as Al, Cu, Cr, Pb, Ag, Cd, CuONPs, ZnONPs, TiO2 NPs, etc., disrupt the cell and other organelles as well as the redox balance, change the integrity of the cell membrane, alter the activity of various enzymes and hormones, damage DNA and inhibit protein synthesis and induce OS by On the development and maturation of plants, numerous harmful impacts can be seen at both the cellular and molecular levels. The build-up of different HM affects the creation of ATP, photosynthesis, respiration and other metabolic biochemical pathways, as well as the formation of intermediate and end products. The concentration of the metals and the level of plant tolerance to it determine how strongly the metals cause toxicity. Despite this, plants employ a variety of defence mechanisms and tolerance techniques to lessen the toxicity of HMs. To lessen the harm they cause, various detoxification techniques are applied, such as phytoremediation and AMF-assisted bioremediation of heavy metal-polluted soil. Future studies and research are necessary to ascertain and utilise the defence mechanisms employed in order to remove the poisonous HMs present, preserve the environment and identify various flora species and their mechanisms of action in regulating the harmful effect.

80

T. Bajaj et al.

Table 3 The numerous factors’ contributions to enhance plant development Element supplement

Function

Key reference

Boron (H3 BO3 , boric acid)

Progression of plant Formation of primary cell wall by the complex formation of borate-RG II between the network of RG II (rhamnogalacturonan II) and boric acid

[291, 292]

Reduces the pectin methyl esterification and formation of a negative layer for immobilisation of metal (e.g., Al) in pectin present in cell wall

[293]

Sulfur (GSH, cysteine, hydrogen sulfide)

Alleviate OS [291] Mitigate HM stress (e.g., Al) in Triticum aestivum, Hordeum vulgare and Brassica napus by enhancing antioxidant activity and reducing ROS and oxidised/peroxidised products of proteins and lipids Reduction in metal uptake and upgraded [294] absorption of nutrients such as Mg, P and Ca along with citrate secretion from roots

Magnesium

Replace toxic metals in the binding sites due to its similarity in sizes

[295]

Increase in citrate efflux induced by Mg accumulation to upregulate membrane H + ATPase in plants like Populus tomentosa

[159]

Mg transporters when expressed in [296] excess resist the metal accumulation (Al) in Nicotiana benthamiana Phosphorus

Helps in precipitating Al on the surface [295, 297] of roots or apoplastic pathway which inhibits the entry of metal via symplastic pathway also. Although, the accumulation of Al reduces the availability of P present in acidic environment of soil to the plants

Fluoride

Highly phytotoxic, available for plants in [298] acidic environment. Alters the uptake of nutrients by manipulating the type or quantity of soil containing F or Al which both when present quickly react to form AlF3. This complex, in turn, helps in F uptake by plants (Phaseolus vulgaris) (continued)

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

81

Table 3 (continued) Element supplement

Function

Key reference

Silicon

Helps in alleviation of toxic metals like Mn, Fe, Al, Zn, Pb, Cd, As and Cr

[299]

Resistance towards metal stress by [300, 301] increasing pH of solution, producing the complex like hydroxyaluminosilicate or aluminosilicate complex in plant, enhancing the chlorophyll and carotenoid content in leaves and synthesising phenolic and organic acid Enhance antioxidative defence mechanism to alleviate Al-induced toxicity

[299]

References 1. Alekseenko VA, Bech J, Alekseenko AV, Shvydkaya NV, Roca N (2018) Environmental impact of disposal of coal mining wastes on soils and plants in Rostov Oblast, Russia. J Geochem Explor 184:261–270 2. Kamitani T, Oba H, Kaneko N (2006) Microbial biomass and tolerance of microbial community on an aged heavy metal polluted floodplain in Japan. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 172:185–200 3. Wang L, Cho DW, Tsang DCW, Cao X, Hou D, Shen Z, Alessi DS, Ok YS, Poon CS (2019) Green remediation of As and Pb contaminated soil using cementfree clay-based stabilization/solidification. Environ Int 126:336–345 4. Awad KM, Salih AM, Khalaf Y, Suhim AA, Abass MH (2019) Phytotoxic and genotoxic effect of aluminum to date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) in vitro cultures. JGEB 17:7 5. Wang FY, Adams CA, Shi ZY, Sun YH (2018) Combined effects of ZnO NPs and Cd on sweet sorghum as influenced by an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Chemosphere 209:421–429 6. Cheng SP (2003) Heavy metal pollution in China: origin, pattern and control. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10:192–198 7. Yabe J, Ishizuka M, Umemura T (2010) Current levels of heavy metal pollution in Africa. J Vet Med Sci 72:1257–1263 8. Azevedo R, Rodriguez E (2012) Phytotoxicity of mercury in plants: a review. Aust J Bot 2012:848614 9. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 8:199–216 10. Algreen M, Rein A, Legind CN, Amundsen CE, Karlson UG (2012) Test of tree core sampling for screening of toxic elements in soils from a Norwegian site. Int J Phytoremediation 14:305– 319 11. Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H (2001) Trace elements in plants. In: Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press, pp 73–98 12. Pierzynski GM, Sims JT, Vance G (2000) Soils and environmental quality. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL 13. Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ (2012) Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. In: Molecular, clinical and environmental toxicology. Springer, Basel, pp 133– 164 14. Gautam PK, Gautam RK, Banerjee S, Chattopadhyaya MC, Pandey JD (2016) Heavy metals in the environment: fate, transport, toxicity and remediation technologies. In: Pathania D (ed) Heavy metals. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-63484-740-7

82

T. Bajaj et al.

15. DeVolder PS, Brown SL, Hesterberg D, Pandya K (2003) Metal bioavailability and speciation in a wetland tailings repository amended with biosolids compost, wood ash, and sulfate. J Environ Qual 32:851 16. Ettler V (2016) Soil contamination near non-ferrous metal smelters: a review. Appl Geochem 64:56–74 17. Munir M, Khan ZI, Ahmad K, Wajid K, Bashir H, Malik IS, Nadeem M, Ashfaq A, Ugulu I (2019) Transfer of heavy metals from different sources of fertilizers in wheat variety (Galaxy13). Asian J Biol Sci 12:832–841 18. Raven PH, Berg LR, Johnson GB (1998) Environment, 2nd edn. Saunders College Publishing, New York, NY, USA 19. Khan MS, Zaidi A, Ahemad M, Oves M, Wani PA (2010) Plant growth promotion by phosphate solubilizing fungi current perspective. Arch Agron Soil Sci 56:73–79 20. Smith SR (2009) A critical review of the bioavailability and impacts of heavy metals in municipal solid waste composts compared to sewage sludge. Environ Int 35:142–156 21. Jones LHP Jarvis SC (1981) The fate of heavy metals. In: The chemistry of soil process, pp 593–620 22. Zhang MK, Liu ZY, Wang H (2010) Use of single extraction methods to predict bioavailability of heavy metals in polluted soils to rice. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 41:820–831 23. Khan S, Cao Q, Zheng YM, Huang YZ, Zhu YG (2008) Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China. Environ Pollut 152:686–692 24. Kabir E, Ray S, Kim KH, Yoon HO, Jeon EC (2012) Current status of trace metal pollution in soils affected by industrial activities. Sci World J 916705 25. Kuo S, Heilman PE, Baker AS (1983) Distribution and forms of copper, zinc, cadmium, iron, and manganese in soils near a copper smelter. Soil Sci 135:101–109 26. Kaasalainen M, Yli-Halla M (2003) Use of sequential extraction to assess metal partitioning in soils. Environ Pollut 126:225–233 27. Huang HX, Wei ZB, Guo XF, Shi XF, Wu QT (2010) Metal removal from contaminated soil by co-planting phytoextraction and soil washing. Huanjing Kexue 31:3067–3074 28. Zhang JJ, Liu TY, Chen WF, Wang ET, Sui XH (2012) Mesorhizobium muleiense sp. nov., nodulating with Cicer arietinum L. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62:2737–2742 29. Alamgir M (2016) The effects of soil properties to the extent of soil contamination with metals. In: Hiroshi H, Rahman Ismail MM, Azizur MR (eds) Environmental remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils. Springer, Tokyo, pp 1–19 30. Patel DK, Archana G, Kumar GN (2008) Variation in the nature of organic acid secretion and mineral phosphate solubilization by Citrobacter sp. DHRSS in the presence of different sugars. Curr Microbiol 56:168–174 31. Beveridge TJ, Schultze-Lam S, Thompson JB (1995) Detection of anionic sites on bacterial walls, their ability to bind toxic heavy metals and form sedimentable flocs and their contribution to mineralization in natural freshwater environments. In: Metal speciation and contamination of soil. Lewis Publishers, pp 183–200 32. Turan V (2020) Potential of pistachio shell biochar and dicalcium phosphate combination to reduce Pb speciation in spinach, improved soil enzymatic activities, plant nutritional quality, and antioxidant defense system. Chemosphere 245:125611 33. Wu S, Zhang X, Huang L, Chen B (2019) Arbuscular mycorrhiza and plant chromium tolerance. Soil Ecol Lett 1:94–104 34. Zhao L, Zhang H, Wang J, Tian L, Li F, Liu S, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL, White JC, Huang Y, Keller A, Ji R (2019) C60 fullerols enhance copper toxicity and alter the leaf metabolite and protein profile in cucumber. Environ Sci Technol 53(4):2171–2180 35. Berni R, Luyckx M, Xu X, Legay S, Sergeant K, Hausman JF, Lutts S, Cai G, Guerriero G (2019) Reactive oxygen species and heavy metal stress in plants: impact on the cell wall and secondary metabolism. Environ Exp Bot 161:98–106

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

83

36. Saleem MH, Ali S, Rehman M, Rana MS, Rizwan M, Kamran M, Imran M, Riaz M, Soliman MH, Elkelish A, Liu L (2020) Influence of phosphorus on copper phytoextraction via modulating cellular organelles in two jute (Corchorus capsularis L.) varieties grown in a copper mining soil of Hubei Province, China. Chemosphere 248:126032 37. Seneviratne M, Rajakaruna N, Rizwan M, Madawala HMSP, Ok YS, Vithanage M (2019) Heavy metal-induced oxidative stress on seed germination and seedling development: a critical review. Environ Geochem Health 41:1813–1831 38. Turan V (2019) Confident performance of chitosan and pistachio shell biochar on reducing Ni bioavailability in soil and plant plus improved the soil enzymatic activities, antioxidant defence system and nutritional quality of lettuce. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 183 39. Dixit S, Hering JG (2003) Comparison of arsenic (V) and arsenic (III) sorption onto iron oxide minerals: implications for arsenic mobility. Environ Sci Technol 37:4182–4189 40. Cobbett C, Goldsbrough P, Hytochelatins P, Etallothioneins M (2002) Roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:159–182 41. Hu J, Wu S, Wu F, Leung HM, Lin X, Wong MH (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance both absorption and stabilization of Cd by Alfred stonecrop (Sedum alfredii Hance) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) in a Cd-contaminated acidic soil. Chemosphere 93:1359–1365 42. Sun Y, Yu IKM, Tsang DCW, Cao X, Lin D, Wang L, Graham NJD, Alessi DS, Komarek M, Ok YS, Feng Y, Li XD (2019) Multifunctional iron-biochar composites for the removal of potentially toxic elements, inherent cations, and hetero-chloride from hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Environ Int 124:521–532 43. Yang J, Fan W, Zheng S (2019) Mechanisms and regulation of aluminum-induced secretion of organic acid anions from plant roots. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 20:513–527 44. Lebeau T, Braud A, J´ez´equel K (2008) Performance of bioaugmentation-assisted phytoextraction applied to metal contaminated soils: A review. Environ Pollut 153:497–522 45. Arif N, Sharma NC, Yadav V, Ramawat N, Dubey NK, Tripathi DK, Chauhan DK, Sahi S (2019) Understanding heavy metal stress in a rice crop: toxicity, tolerance mechanisms, and amelioration strategies. J Plant Biol 62:239–253 46. Huang Y, Wang L, Wang W, Li T, He Z, Yang X (2019) Current status of agricultural soil pollution by heavy metals in China: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 651:3034–3042 47. Adeel M, Ma C, Ullah S, Rizwan M, Hao Y, Chen C, Jilani G, Shakoor N, Li M, Wang L, Tsang DCW, Rinklebe J, Rui Y, Xing B (2019) Exposure to nickel oxide nanoparticles insinuates physiological, ultrastructural and oxidative damage: a life cycle study on Eisenia fetida. Environ Pollut 254(Pt B):113032 48. Wang Y, Jiang F, Ma C, Rui Y, Tsang DCW, Xing B (2019) Effect of metal oxide nanoparticles on amino acids in wheat grains (Triticum aestivum) in a life cycle study. J Environ Manag 241:319–327 49. Yang J, Cao W, Rui Y (2017) Interactions between nanoparticles and plants: phytotoxicity and defense mechanisms. J Plant Interact 12:158–169 50. Yang J, Jiang F, Ma C, Rui Y, Rui M, Adeel M, Cao W, Xing B (2018) Alteration of crop yield and quality of wheat upon exposure to silver nanoparticles in a life cycle study. J Agric Food Chem 66:2589–2597 51. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Metal-based nanoparticles, sensors and their multifaceted application in food packaging. J Nanobiotechnol 19(256):1–25. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12951-021-00996-0 52. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterial and nanocomposite with advanced agrochemical activities. Nanoscale Res Lett 16(156):1–26 53. Kumar A, Choudhary A, Kaur H, Guha S, Mehta S, Husen A (2022) Potential applications of engineered nanoparticles in plant disease management: a critical update. Chemosphere 295:133798 54. Husen A (2022) Engineered nanomaterials for sustainable agricultural production, soil improvement and stress management. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

84

T. Bajaj et al.

55. Jin-Chul K, Madhusudhan A, Husen A (2021) Smart nanomaterials in biomedical applications. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland 56. Sharma G, Nim S, Alle M, Husen A, Kim JC (2022) Nanoparticle-mediated delivery of flavonoids for cancer therapy: prevention and treatment. In: Kim JC, Alle M, Husen A (eds) Smart nanomaterials in biomedical applications. Nanotechnology in the life sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84262-8_3 57. Sharma P, Pandey V, Sharma MMM, Patra A, Singh B, Mehta S, Husen A (2021) A review on biosensors and nanosensors application in agroecosystems. Nano Res Lett 16:136. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s11671-021-03593-0 58. Siddiqi KS, Husen A (2022) Plant response to silver nanoparticles: a critical review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 42(7):773–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2021.1975091 59. Husen A (2023b) Nanomaterials from agricultural and horticultural products. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore 60. Husen A (2023a) Secondary metabolites based green synthesis of nanomaterials and their applications. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-990927-8 61. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2023) Advances in smart nanomaterials and their applications. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA 62. Rui M, Ma C, Hao Y, Guo J, Rui Y, Tang X, Zhao Q, Fan X, Zhang Z, Hou T, Zhu S (2016) Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Front Plant Sci 9(7):815 63. Rui M, Ma C, White JC, Hao Y, Wang Y, Tang X, Yang J, Jiang F, Ali A, Rui Y, Cao W, Chenf G, Xing B (2018) Metal oxide nanoparticles alter peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) physiological response and reduce nutritional quality: a life cycle study. Environ Sci Nano 5:2088–2102 64. Li M, Adeel M, Peng Z, Yukui R (2020) Physiological impacts of zero valent iron, Fe3 O4 and Fe2 O3 nanoparticles in rice plants and their potential as Fe fertilizers. Environ Pollut 269:116134 65. Adeel M, Farooq T, White J, Hao Y, He Z, Rui Y (2020) Carbon-based nanomaterials suppress Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) infection and induce resistance in Nicotiana benthamian. J Hazard Mater 404(Pt A):124167 66. Hao Y, Fang P, Ma C, White JC, Xiang Z, Wang H, Zhang Z, Rui Y, Xing B (2019) Engineered nanomaterials inhibit Podosphaera pannosa infection on rose leaves by regulating phytohormones. Environ Res 170:1–6 67. Hao Y, Yuan W, Ma C, White JC, Zhang Z, Adeel M, Zhou T, Rui Y, Xing B (2018) Engineered nanomaterials suppress Turnip mosaic virus infection in tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana). Environ Sci Nano 5:1685–1693 68. Zhao X, Jia Y, Li J, Dong R, Zhang J, Ma C, Wang H, Rui Y, Jiang X (2018) Indole derivativecapped gold nanoparticles as an effective bactericide in vivo. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 10:29398–29406 69. Ghafariyan MH, Malakouti MJ, Dadpour MR, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M (2013) Effects of magnetite nanoparticles on soybean chlorophyll. Environ Sci Technol 47:10645–10652 70. Kah M, Tufenkji N, White JC (2019) Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection. Nat Nanotechnol 14:532–540 71. Li J, Hu J, Ma C, Wang Y, Wu C, Huang J, Xing B (2016) Uptake, translocation and physiological effects of magnetic iron oxide (γ-Fe2 O3 ) nanoparticles in corn (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 159:326–334 72. Palchoudhury S, Jungjohann KL, Weerasena L, Arabshahi A, Gharge U, Albattah A, Miller J, Patel K, Holler RA (2018) Enhanced legume root growth with pre-soaking in α-Fe2 O3 nanoparticle fertilizer. RSC Adv 8:24075–24083 73. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Phytosynthesis of nanoparticles: concept, controversy and application. Nanoscale Res Lett 9(229):1–24 74. Husen A, Siddiqi KS (2014) Carbon and fullerene nanomaterials in plant system. J Nanobiotechnology 12(1):1–16

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

85

75. Husen A (2020a) Interactions of metal and metal-oxide nanomaterials with agricultural crops: an overview. In: Husen A, Jawaid M (eds) Nanomaterials for agriculture and forestry applications. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-817852-2.00007-X 76. Husen A (2020b) Husen A, Jawaid M (eds) Carbon-based nanomaterials and their interactions with agricultural crops. Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 199–218. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-12-817852-2.00008-1 77. Usman M, Farooq M, Wakeel A, Nawaz A, Cheema SA, Rehman HU, Ashraf I, Sanaullah M (2020) Nanotechnology in agriculture: current status, challenges and future opportunities. Sci Total Environ 721:137778 78. Wang Z, Yue L, Dhankher OP, Xing B (2020) Nano-enabled improvements of growth and nutritional quality in food plants driven by rhizosphere processes. Environ Int 142:105831 79. Elsheery NI, Sunoj VSJ, Wen Y, Zhu JJ, Muralidharan G, Cao KF (2020) Foliar application of nanoparticles mitigates the chilling effect on photosynthesis and photoprotection in sugarcane. PPB 149:50–60 80. Ogunkunle CO, Odulaja DA, Akande FO, Varun M, Vishwakarma V, Fatoba PO (2020) Cadmium toxicity in cowpea plant: effect of foliar intervention of nano-TiO2 on tissue Cd bioaccumulation, stress enzymes and potential dietary health risk. J Biotechnol 310:54–61 81. Faizan M, Faraz A, Mir AR, Hayat S (2021) Role of zinc oxide nanoparticles in countering negative effects generated by cadmium in Lycopersicon esculentum. J Plant Growth Regul 40:101–115 82. Gao M, Xu Y, Chang X, Dong Y, Song Z (2020) Effects of foliar application of graphene oxide on cadmium uptake by lettuce. J Hazard Mater 398:122859 83. Lin D, Xing B (2008) Root uptake and phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 42(15):5580–5585 84. Asli S, Neumann PM (2009) Colloidal suspensions of clay or titanium dioxide nanoparticles can inhibit leaf growth and transpiration via physical effects on root water transport. Plant Cell Environ 32(5):577–584 85. Kim JH, Lee Y, Kim EJ, Gu S, Sohn EJ, Seo YS, An HJ, Chang YS (2014) Exposure of iron nanoparticles to Arabidopsis thaliana enhances root elongation by triggering cell wall loosening. Environ Sci Technol 48(6):3477–3485 86. Martinez-Fernandez D, Barroso D, Komarek M (2016) Root water transport of Helianthus annuus L. under iron oxide nanoparticle exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23(2):1732–1741 87. Ghosh M, Bandyopadhyay M, Mukherjee A (2010) Genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2 ) nanoparticles at two trophic levels: plant and human lymphocytes. Chemosphere 81(10):1253– 1262 88. Ghosh MJM, Sinha S, Chakraborty A, Mallick SK, Bandyopadhyay M, Mukherjee A (2012) In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles. Mutat Res 749(1–2):60–69 89. Kumari M, Khan SS, Pakrashi S, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2011) Cytogenetic and genotoxic effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles on root cells of Allium cepa. J Hazard Mater 190(1–3):613–621 90. Kumari M, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2009) Genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in Allium cepa. Sci Total Environ 407(19):5243–5246 91. Atha DH, Wang HH, Petersen EJ, Cleveland D, Holbrook RD, Jaruga P et al (2012) Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models. Environ Sci Technol 46:1819–1827 92. Karaca A (2004) Effect of organic wastes on the extractability of cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in soil. Geoderma 122:297–303 93. Macedo LS, Morril WBB (2008) Origin and behavior of phytotoxic metals: literature review. Technol Agric Sci 2(2):29–38 94. Singh S, Parihar P, Singh R, Singh VP, Prasad SM (2016) Heavy metal tolerance in plants: role of transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and ionomics. Front Plant Sci 6:1143 95. Gadd GM (2007) Geomycology: biogeochemical transformations of rocks, minerals, metals and radionuclides by fungi, bioweathering, and bioremediation. Mycol Res 111:3–49

86

T. Bajaj et al.

96. Lopez-Climent MF, Arbona V, Perez-Clemente VRM, G´omez-Cadenas G (2011) Effects of cadmium on gas exchange and phytohormone contents in citrus. Biol Plant 55:187–190 97. Mahmood T, Gupta KJ, Kaiser WM (2009) Cd stress stimulates nitric oxide production by wheat roots. Pak J Bot 41:1285–1290 98. Mohammad JK, Muhammad T, Khalid K (2013) Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on the heavy metal content of soil and wheat crop irrigated with wastewater, Sarhad. J Agric 29:145–152 99. Pizzeghello D, Francioso O, Ertani A, Muscolo A, Nardi S (2013) Isopentenyl adenosine and cytokinin-like activity of different humic substances. J Geochem Explor 129:70–75 100. Alemzadeh A, Rastgoo L, Tale A, Tazangi S, Eslamzadeh T (2014) Effects of copper, nickel and zinc on biochemical parameters and metal accumulation in gouan, Aeluropus littoralis. Plant Knowl 3:31–38 101. Adrees M, Ali S, Rizwan M, Ibrahim M, Abbas F, Farid M, Zia-Ur-Rehman M, Irshad MK, Bharwana SA (2015) The effect of excess copper on growth and physiology of important food crops: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:8148–8162 102. Pérez-Pérez ME, Lemaire SD, Crespo JL (2012) Reactive oxygen species and autophagy in plants and algae. Plant Physiol 160:156–164 103. Bhalerao SA, Sharma AS (2015) Toxicity of nickel in plants, Indian. J Pure Appl Biosci 3:345–355 104. Li W, Khan MA, Yamaguchi S, Kamiya Y (2005) Effects of heavy metals on seed germination and early seedling growth of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Growth Regul 46:45–50 105. Sethy S, Ghosh S (2013) Effect of heavy metals on germination of seeds. J Nat Sci Biol Med 4:272–275 106. Peralta JR, Torresday G, Tiemann JL, Gomez KJE, Arteaga S, Rascon E (2001) Uptake and effects of heavy metals on seed germination and plant growth in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 66:727–734 107. Datta JK, Bandhyopadhyay A, Banerjee A, Mondal NK (2011) Phytotoxic effect of chromium on the germination, seedling growth of some wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under laboratory condition. J Agric Technol 7:395–402 108. Rees F, Sterckeman T, Morel JL (2016) Root development of non-accumulating and hyperaccumulating plants in metal contaminated soils amended with biochar. Chemosphere 142:48–55 109. Lal N (2010) Molecular mechanisms and genetic basis of heavy metal toxicity and tolerance in plants. In: Plant adaptation and phytoremediation, pp 35–58 110. Al-Othman ZA, Ali R, Al-Othman MA, Ali J, Habila MA (2016) Assessment of toxic metals in wheat crops grown on selected soils, irrigated by different water sources. Arab J Chem 9:S1555–S1562 111. Guilherme MFS, de Oliveira HM, da Silva E (2015) Cadmium toxicity on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat Triticum aestivum. Acta Sci Biol Sci 37:499–504 112. Samardakiewicz S, Wozny A (2005) Cell division in Lemna minor roots treated with lead. Aquat Bot 83:289–295 113. Eun SO, Youn HS, Lee Y (2000) Lead disturbs microtubule organization in the root meristem of Zea mays. Physiol Plant 110:357–365 114. Horst WJ, Wang XY, Eticha D (2010) The role of the root apoplast in aluminium-induced inhibition of root elongation and in aluminum resistance of plants: a review. Ann Bot 106:185– 197 115. Yang JL, Li YY, Zhang YJ, Zhang SS, Wu YR, Wu P, Zheng SJ (2008) Cell wall polysaccharides are specifically involved in the exclusion of aluminum from the rice root apex. Plant Physiol 146:602–611 116. Ciamporova M (2000) Diverse responses of root cell structure to aluminium stress. Plant Soil 226:113–116 117. Jones JDG, Dang JL (2006) The plant immune system. Nature 444:323–329 118. Kopittke PM, Blamey FPC, Menzies NW (2008) Toxicities of soluble Al, Cu, and La include ruptures to rhizodermal and root cortical cells of cowpea. Plant Soil 303:217–227

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

87

119. Quievryn G, Peterson E, Messer J, Zhitkovich A (2003) Genotoxicity and mutagenicity of chromium (VI)/ascorbate-generated DNA adducts in human and bacterial cells. Biochem 42:1062–1070 120. Wani PA, Khan MS, Zaidi A (2007) Chromium reduction, plant growth-promoting potentials, and metal solubilizatrion by Bacillus sp. isolated from alluvial soil. Curr Microbiol 54:237– 243 121. Zaccheo P, Cocucci M, Cocucci S (1985) Effects of Cr on proton extrusion, potassium uptake and transmembrane electric potential in maize root segments. Plant Cell Environ 8:721–726 122. Hossain MA, Piyatida P, da Silva JAT, Fujita M (2012) Molecular mechanism of heavy metal toxicity and tolerance in plants: central role of glutathione in detoxification of reactive oxygen species and methylglyoxal and in heavy metal chelation. J Bot 872875 123. Vassilev A, Nikolova A, Koleva L, Lidon F (2011) Effects of excess Zn on growth and photosynthetic performance of young bean plants. J Phytol 3:58–62 124. Cuypers A, Vangronsve J, Clijsters H (2001) The redox status of plant cells (AsA and GSH) is sensitive to zinc imposed oxidative stress in roots and primary leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Physiol Biochem 39:657–664 125. Vassilev A, Lidon FC, Matos MD, Ramalho JC, Bareiro MG (2004) Shoot cadmium accumulation and photosynthetic performance of barley at high Cd treatments. J Plant Nutr 27:773–793 126. Parsafar N, Maro S (2013) Investigation of transfer coefficients of Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb from soil to potato under wastewater reuse. JWSS 17:199–209 127. Park J, Dane L, Periyasamy P (2011) Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 185:549–574 128. Gilvanise T, Helena G, Josely DF, Danilo RM (2014) Effect of copper, zinc, cadmium and chromium in the growth of crambe, Agric Sci 5:975–983 129. Natasha SM, Dumat C, Khalid S, Rabbani F, Farooq ABU, Amjad M, Abbas G, Niazi NK (2019) Foliar uptake of arsenic nanoparticles by spinach: an assessment of physiological and human health risk implications. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 26(20):20121–20131 130. Prasad MNV, Hagemeyer J (eds) (1999). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 131. Clijsters H, Cuypers A, Vangronsveld J (1999) Physiological responses to heavy metals in higher plants; defence against oxidative stress. Heavy Metals, Photosynth Oxidative Stress 54:730–734 132. Pinto E, Sigaud-Kutner TCS, Leitao MAS, Okamoto OK, Morse D, Colepicolo P (2003) Heavy metal-induced oxidative stress in algae. J Phycol 39:1008–1018 133. Shaw BF, Sahu SK, Mishra RK (2004) In: Prasad MNV (ed) Heavy metal stress in plants: from biomolecules to ecosystems, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 84–126 134. Andresen E, Küpper H (2013) Cadmium toxicity in plants. In: Sigel A, Sigel H, Sigel RKO (eds) Cadmium: from toxicity to essentiality. Metal ions in life sciences, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht 135. Liu DX, Wang Z, Chen L, Xu H, Wang Y (2010) Influence of mercury on chlorophyll content in winter wheat and mercury bioaccumulation. Plant Soil Environ 56:139–143 136. Meisrimler CN, Planchon S, Renaut J, Sergeant K, Luthje S (2011) Alteration of plasma membrane-bound redox systems of iron deficient pea roots by chitosan. J Proteom 74:1437– 1449 137. Nasim SA, Dhir B (2010) Heavy metals alter the potency of medicinal plants. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 203:139–149 138. Reddy AM, Kumar SG, Jyothsnakumari G, Thimmanaik S, Sudhakar C (2005) Lead induced changes in antioxidant metabolism of horsegram (Macrotyloma uniorum (Lam.) Verdc.) and bengalgram (Cicer arietinum L.). Chemosphere 60:97–104 139. Sharma SS, Dietz KJ (2009) The relationship between metal toxicity and cellular redox imbalance. Trends Plant Sci 14:43–50 140. Yamamoto Y, Kobayashi Y, Matsumoto H (2001) Lipid peroxidation is an early symptom triggered by aluminum, but not the primary cause of elongation inhibition in pea roots. Plant Physiol 125:199–208

88

T. Bajaj et al.

141. Song X, Wang Y, Lv X (2016) Responses of plant biomass, photosynthesis and lipid peroxidation to warming and precipitation change in two dominant species (Stipa grandis and Leymus chinensis) from North China Grasslands. Ecol Evol 6:1871–1882 142. Janas KM, Zielinska-Tomaszewska J, Rybaczek D, Maszewski J, Posmyk MM (2010) The impact of copper ions on growth, lipid peroxidation, and phenolic compound accumulation and localization in lentil (Lens culinaris Medic.) seedlings. J Plant Physiol 167:270–276 143. Shewfelt RI, Erickson MC (1991) Role of lipid peroxidation in the mechanism of membrane associated disorders in edible plant tissue. Trends Food Sci Technol 2:152–154 144. Panda S, Biswal UC (1990) Effect of magnesium and calcium ions on photoinduced lipid peroxidation and thylakoid breakdown of cell-free chloroplasts. Indian J Biochem Biophys 27:159–163 145. Witz G, Lawrie NJ, Zaccaria A, Ferran HE Jr (1986) The reaction of 2-thiobarbituric acid with biologically active alpha, beta-unsaturated aldehydes. Free Radicals Biol Med 2:33–39 146. Shahid M, Pinelli E, Pourrut B, Silvestre J, Dumat C (2011) Lead-induced genotoxicity to Vicia faba L. roots in relation with metal cell uptake and initial speciation. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:78–84 147. Patra M, Bhowmik N, Bandopadhyay B, Sharma A (2004) Comparison of mercury, lead and arsenic with respect to genotoxic effects on plant systems and the development of genetic tolerance. Environ Exp Bot 52(3):199–223 148. GichnerT ŽI, Száková J (2008) Evaluation of DNA damage and mutagenicity induced by lead in tobacco plants. Mutat Res/Gene Toxicol Environ Mutagen 652:186–190 149. Pourrut B, Jean S, Silvestre J, Pinelli E (2011) Lead-induced DNA damage in Vicia faba root cells: potential involvement of oxidative stress. Mutat Res/Gene Toxicol Environ Mutagen 726:123–128 150. Kumar A, Pal L, Agrawal V (2017) Glutathione and citric acid modulates lead- and arsenicinduced phytotoxicity and genotoxicity responses in two cultivars of Solanum lycopersicum L. Acta Physiol Planta 39:151 151. Rodriguez E, Azevedo R, Moreira H, Souto L, Santos C (2013) Pb2+ exposure in duced microsatellite instability in Pisum sativum in a locus related with glutamine metabolism. Plant Physiol Biochem 62:19–22 152. Malea P, Adamakis IDS, Kevrekidis T (2014) Effects of lead uptake on microtubule cytoskeleton organization and cell viability in the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 104:175–181 153. Kumar A, Majeti NVP (2014) Proteomic responses to lead-induced oxidative stress in Talinum triangulare Jacq. (Willd.) roots: identification of key biomarkers related to glutathione metabolisms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:8750–8764 154. Malar S, Manikandan R, Favas PJC, Vikram Sahi S, Venkatachalam P (2014) Effect of lead on phytotoxicity, growth, biochemical alterations and its role on genomic template stability in Sesbania grandiflora: a potential plant for phytoremediation. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 108:249– 257 155. Siddiqui S (2012) Lead induced genotoxicity in Vigna mungo var. HD-94. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 11:107–112 156. Tyagi W, Yumnam JS, Sen D, Rai M (2020) Root transcriptome reveals efficient cell signaling and energy conservation key to aluminum toxicity tolerance in acidic soil adapted rice genotype. Sci Rep 10:4580 157. Chandra J, Parkhey S, Varghese D, Sershen, Varghese B, Keshavkant S (2020) Aluminium rhizotoxicity in Cicer arietinum. Russ J Plant Physiol 67:945–952 158. Jaskowiak J, Tkaczyk O, Slota M, Kwasniewska J, Szarejko I (2018) Analysis of aluminum toxicity in Hordeum vulgare roots with an emphasis on DNA integrity and cell cycle. PLoS ONE 13:0193156 159. Zhang Z, Liu D, Meng H, Li S, Wang S, Xiao Z, Sun J, Chang L, Luo K, Li N (2020) Magnesium alleviates aluminum toxicity by promoting polar auxin transport and distribution and root alkalization in the root apex in populous. Plant Soil 448:565–585

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

89

160. Yamamoto Y (2019) Aluminum toxicity in plant cells: mechanisms of cell death and inhibition of cell elongation. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 65:41–55 161. Bour A, Mouchet F, Silvestre J, Gauthier L, Pinelli E (2015) Environmentally relevant approaches to assess nano-particles ecotoxicity: a review. J Hazard Mater 283:764–777 162. Tiede K, Hassellöv M, Breitbarth E, Chaudhry Q, Boxall AB (2009) Considerations for environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing to support environmental risk assessments for engineered nanoparticles. J Chromatogr A 1216(3):503–509 163. Hegde K, Brar SK, Verma M, Surampalli (2016) Current understandings of toxicity, risks and regulations of engineered nanoparticles with respect to environmental microorganisms. Nanotechnol Environ Eng 1:5 164. Cornelis G, Hund-Rinke K, Kuhlbusch T, Brink NVD, Nickel C (2014) Fate and bioavailability of engineered nano-particles in soils: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44:2720–2764 165. Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY, Mahendra S, McLaughlin MJ, Lead JR (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851 166. Xie Y, Dong H, Zeng G, Tang L, Jiang Z, Zhang C, Deng J, Zhang L, Zhang Y (2017) The interactions between nanoscale zero-valent iron and microbes in the subsurface environment: a review. J Hazard Mater 5(321):390–407 167. Schaumann GE, Baumann T, Lang F, Metreveli G, Vogel HJ (2015) Engineered nanoparticles in soils and waters. Sci Total Environ 1(535):1–2 168. Schaumann GE, Philippe A, Bundschuh M, Metreveli G, Klitzke S, Rakcheev D, Grün A, Kumahor SK, Kühn M, Baumann T, Lang F, Manz W, Schulz R, Vogel HJ (2015) Understanding the fate and biological effects of Ag- and TiO2 -nanoparticles in the environment: the quest for advanced analytics and interdisciplinary concepts. Sci Total Environ 1(535):3–19 169. Karimi E, Fard EM (2017) Nanomaterial effects on soil microorganisms. In: Ghorbanpour M et al (eds) Nanoscience and plant–soil systems, soil biology, vol 48. Springer, Cham 170. Peijnenburg W, Praetorius A, Scott-Fordsmand J, Cornelis G (2016) Fate assessment of engineered nanoparticles in solids dominated media—current insights and the way forward. Environ Pollut 218:1365–1369 171. Rodrigues SM, Trindade T, Duarte AC, Pereiraa E, Koopmansc GF, Römkens PFAM (2016) A framework to measure the availability of engineered nanoparticles in soils: trends in soil tests and analytical tools. Trends Anal Chem 75:129–140 172. Terekhova V, Gladkova M, Milanovskiy E, Kydralieva K (2017) Engineered nanomaterials’ effects on soil properties: problems and advances in investigation. In: Ghorbanpour M et al (eds) Nanoscience and plant–soil systems, Soil biol, vol 48. Springer, Cham 173. Anjum NA, Adam V, Kizek R, Duartea AC, Pereiraa E, Iqbald M, Lukatkine AS, Ahmad I (2015) Nanoscale copper in the soil–plant system toxicity and underlying potential mechanisms. Environ Res 138:306–325 174. Pokhrel LR, Dubey B (2013) Evaluation of developmental responses of two crop plants exposed to silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles. Sci Total Environ 452:321–332 175. Li H, Yang S, Xu Z, Yan Q, Li X, Nostrand DJ, He Z, Yao F, Han X, Zhou J, Deng Y, Jianga Y (2017) Responses of soil microbial functional genes to global changes are indirectly influenced by aboveground plant biomass variation. Soil Biol Biochem 104:18–29 176. Nxele X, Klein A, Ndimba BK (2017) Drought and salinity stress alters ROS accumulation, water retention, and osmolyte content in sorghum plants. S Afr J Bot 108:261–266 177. Rossini MA, Maddonni GA, Otegui ME (2016) Multiple abiotic stresses on maize grain yield determination: additive vs. multiplicative effects. Field Crop Res 198:280–289 178. Sinha R, Gupta A, Senthil-Kumar M (2016) Understanding the impact of drought on foliar and xylem invading bacterial pathogen stress in chickpea. Front Plant Sci 7:902 179. Nankishore A, Farrell AD (2016) The response of contrasting tomato genotypes to combined heat and drought stress. J Plant Physiol 202:75–82 180. Mehrian SK, Heidari R, Rahmani F (2015) Effect of silver nanoparticles on free amino acids content and antioxidant defense system of tomato plants. Indian J Plant Physiol 20(3):257–263 181. Cornelis G, Hund-Rinke K, Kuhlbusch T

90

T. Bajaj et al.

182. Ghorbanpour M, Hatami M, Hatami M (2015) Activating antioxidant enzymes, hyoscyamine and scopolamine biosynthesis of Hyoscyamus niger L plants with nano-sized titanium dioxide and bulk application. Acta Agric Slov 105:23–32 183. Rico CM, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2015) Chemistry, biochemistry of nanoparticles, and their role in antioxidant defense system in plants. In: Siddiqui MH et al (eds) Nanotechnology and plant sciences. Springer, Cham 184. Rani PU, Yasur J, Loke KS et al (2016) Effect of synthetic and biosynthesized silver nanoparticles on growth, physiology and oxidative stress of water hyacinth: Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms. Acta Physiol Plant 38:58 185. Martínez-Fernández D, Vítková M, Bernal MP, Komárek M (2015) Effects of nano-maghemite on trace element accumulation and drought response of Helianthus annuus L in a contaminated Mine soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:101 186. Abdel Latef AA, Abu Alhmad MF, Abdelfattah KE (2017) The possible roles of priming with ZnO nanoparticles in mitigation of salinity stress in Lupine (Lupinus termis) plants. J Plant Growth Regul 36:60–70 187. Aghdam MTB, Mohammadi H, Ghorbanpour M (2016) Effects of nanoparticulate anatase titanium dioxide on physiological and biochemical performance of Linum usitatissimum (Linaceae) under well-watered and drought stress conditions. Braz J Bot 39(1):139–146 188. Dimkpa CO, Bindraban PS, Fugice J, Agyin-Birikorang S, Singh U, Hellums D (2017) Composite micronutrient nanoparticles and salts decrease drought stress in soybean. Agron Sustain Dev 37:5 189. Taran N, Storozhenko V, Svietlova N, Batsmanova L, Shvartau V, Kovalenko M (2017) Effect of zinc and copper nanoparticles on drought resistance of wheat seedlings. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):60 190. Amini S, Maali-Amiri R, Mohammadi R, Kazemi-Shahandashti SS (2017) cDNA-AFLP analysis of transcripts induced in chickpea plants by TiO2 nanoparticles during cold stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 111:39–49 191. Hasanpour H, Amiri RM, Zeinali H (2015) Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under cold in chickpea. Russ J Plant Physiol 62(6):779–787 192. Mohammadi R, Maali-Amiri R, Abbasi A (2013) Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on chickpea response to cold stress. Biol Trace Elem Res 152:403–410 193. Mohammadi R, Maali-Amiri R, Mantri NL (2014) Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on oxidative damage and antioxidant defense systems in chickpea seedlings during cold stress. Russ J Plant Physiol 61(6):768–775 194. Tripathi DK, Shweta SS, Singh S, Pandey R, Singh VP, Sharma NC, Prasad SM, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK (2017) An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:2–12 195. Mustafa G, Sakata K, Komatsu S (2015) Proteomic analysis of flooded soybean root exposed to aluminum oxide nanoparticles. J Proteomics 128:280–297 196. Abdel-Haliem MEF, Hegazy HS, Hassan NS et al (2017) Effect of silica ions and nano silica on rice plants under salinity stress. Ecol Eng 99:282–289 197. Landa P, Cyrusova T, Jerabkova J, Ondrej D, Tomas V et al (2016) Effect of metal oxides on plant germination: phytotoxicity of nanoparticles, bulk materials, and metal ions. Water Air Soil Pollut 227:448 198. Antisari LV, Carbone S, Gatti A, Vianello G, Nannipieri P (2015) Uptake and translocation of metals and nutrients in tomato grown in soil polluted with metal oxide (CeO2 , Fe3 O4 , SnO2 , TiO2 ) or metallic (Ag Co, Ni) engineered nanoparticles. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:1841–1853 199. Vecerova K, Vecera Z, Docekal B, Oravec M, Pompeiano A, Triska J, Urban O (2016) Changes of primary and secondary metabolites in barley plants exposed to CdO nanoparticles. Environ Pollut 218:207–218 200. Yuan P, Zhou Q, Hu X (2018) The phases of WS2 nanosheets influence uptake, oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation, membrane damage, and metabolism in algae. Environ Sci Technol 52(22):13543–13552

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

91

201. Wu B, Zhu L, Le XC (2017) Metabolomics analysis of TiO2 nanoparticles induced toxicological effects on rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Pollut 230:302–310 202. Zhao L, Ortiz C, Adeleye AS, Hu Q, Zhou H, Huang Y, Keller AA (2016c) Metabolomics to detect response of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) to Cu(OH)2 nanopesticides: oxidative stress response and detoxification mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 50(17):9697–9707 203. Zhao L, Huang Y, Hu J, Zhou H, Adeleye AS, Keller AA (2016) (1)H NMR and GC-MS based metabolomics reveal defense and detoxification mechanism of cucumber plant under nano-Cu stress. Environ Sci Technol 50(4):2000–2010 204. Zhang L, Lei C, Yang K, White JC, Lin D (2018b) Cellular response of Chlorella pyrenoidosa to oxidized multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci: Nano 5:2415–2425 205. Hu X, Zhou Q (2014) Novel hydrated graphene ribbon unexpectedly promotes aged seed germination and root differentiation. Sci Rep 4:3782 206. Hildebrandt TM, Nunes Nesi A, Araújo WL, Braun HP (2015) Amino acid catabolism in plants. Mol Plant 8(11):1563–1579 207. Zhang H, Du W, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL, White JC, Keller A, Guo H, Ji R, Zhao L (2018) Metabolomics reveals how cucumber (Cucumis sativus) reprograms metabolites to cope with silver ions and silver nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress. Environ Sci Technol 52(14):8016–8026 208. Zhao L, Huang Y, Zhou H, Adeleye AS, Wang H, Ortiz C, Mazere SJ, Keller AA (2016) GCTOF-MS based metabolomics and ICP-MS based metallomics of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) fruits reveal alteration of metabolites profile and biological pathway disruption induced by nano copper. Environ Sci Nano 3:1114–1123 209. Taylor NL, Heazlewood JL, Day DA, Millar AH (2004) Lipoic acid-dependent oxidative catabolism of alpha-keto acids in mitochondria provides evidence for branched-chain amino acid catabolism in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 134(2):838–848 210. Yoo H, Widhalm JR, Qian Y, Maeda H, Cooper BR, Jannasch AS, Gonda I, Lewinsohn E, Rhodes D, Dudareva N (2013) An alternative pathway contributes to phenylalanine biosynthesis in plants via a cytosolic tyrosine:phenylpyruvate aminotransferase. Nat Commun 4:2833 211. Hu X, Lu K, Mu L, Kang J, Zhou Q (2014) Interactions between graphene oxide and plant cells: regulation of cell morphology, uptake, organelle damage, oxidative effects and metabolic disorders. Carbon 80:665–676 212. Hu X, Ren C, Kang W, Mu L, Liu X, Li X, Wang T, Zhou Q (2018) Characterization and toxicity of nanoscale fragments in wastewater treatment plant effluent. Sci Total Environ 626:1332–1341 213. Kang W, Li X, Mub L, Hu X (2019) Nanoscale colloids induce metabolic disturbance of zebrafish at environmentally relevant concentrations. Environ Sci Nano 6:1562–1575 214. Ouyang S, Hu X, Zhou Q, Li X, Miao X, Zhou R (2018) Nanocolloids in natural water: isolation, characterization, and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 52(8):4850–4860 215. Zhao H, Wei Y, Wang J, Chai T (2019) Isolation and expression analysis of cadmiuminduced genes from Cd/Mn hyperaccumulator Phytolacca americana in response to high Cd exposure. Plant Biol 21:15–24 216. Hoekstra FA, Golovina EA, Buitink J (2001) Mechanisms of plant desiccation tolerance. Trends Plant Sci 6(9):431–438 217. Hu X, Ouyang S, Mu L, An J, Zhou Q (2015) Effects of graphene oxide and oxidized carbon nanotubes on the cellular division, microstructure, uptake, oxidative stress, and metabolic profiles. Environ Sci Technol 49(18):10825–10833 218. Hawthorne J, De la Torre Roche R, Xing B, Newman LA, Ma X, Majumdar S, GardeaTorresdey J, White JC (2014) Particle-size dependent accumulation and trophic transfer of cerium oxide through a terrestrial food chain. Environ Sci Technol 48:13102–13109 219. De la Torre RR, Servin A, Hawthorne J, Xing B, Newman LA, Ma X, Chen G, White JC (2015) Terrestrial trophic transfer of bulk and nanoparticle La2 O3 does not depend on particle size. Environ Sci Technol 49:11866–11874

92

T. Bajaj et al.

220. Judy JD, Unrine JM, Rao W, Bertsch PM (2012) Bioaccumulation of gold nanomaterials by Manduca sexta through dietary uptake of surface contaminated plant tissue. Environ Sci Technol 46:12672–12678 221. Monica RC, Cremonini R (2009) Nanoparticles and higher plants. Caryologia 62:161–165 222. Kalman J, Paul KB, Khan FR, Stone V, Fernandes TF (2015) Characterisation of bioaccumulation dynamics of three differently coated silver nanoparticles and aqueous silver in a simple freshwater food chain. Environ Chem 12:662–672 223. Tangaa SR, Selck H, Winther-Nielsen M, Khan FR (2016) Trophic transfer of metal-based nanoparticles in aquatic environments: a review and recommendations for future research focus. Environ Sci Nano 3:966–981 224. Sung JH, Ji JH, Yoon JU, Kim DS, Song MY, Jeong J, Han BS, Han JH, Chung YH, Kim J, Kim TS, Chang HK, Lee EJ, Lee JH, Yu IJ (2008) Lung function changes in Sprague-Dawley rats after prolonged inhalation exposure to silver nanoparticles. Inhal Toxicol 20:567–574 225. Kim YS, Kim JS, Cho HS, Rha DS, Kim JM, Park JD, Choi BS, Lim R, Chang HK, Chung YH, Kwon IH, Jeong J, Han BS, Yu IJ (2008) Twenty-eight-day oral toxicity, genotoxicity, and gender-related tissue distribution of silver nanoparticles in Sprague-Dawley rats. Inhal Toxicol 20:575–583 226. Luo YH, Chang LW, Lin P (2015) Metal-based nanoparticles and the immune system: activation, inflammation, and potential applications. Biomed Res Int 143720 227. Jang J, Lim DH, Choi IH (2010) The impact of nanomaterials in immune system. Immune Netw 10:85–91 228. Arora S, Jain J, Rajwade JM, Paknikar KM (2008) Cellular responses induced by silver nanoparticles: in vitro studies. Toxicol Lett 179:93–100 229. Zahedi SM, Karimi M, Teixeira da Silva JA (2020) The use of nanotechnology to increase quality and yield of fruit crops. J Sci Food Agric 100(1):25–31 230. Alshaal T, El-Ramady HR (2017) Foliar application: from plant nutrition to biofortification. Environ, Biodivers Soil Secur 1:71–83 231. Avellan A, Yun J, Zhang Y, Spielman-Sun E, Unrine JM, Thieme J, Li J, Lombi E, Bland G, Lowry GV (2019) Nanoparticle size and coating chemistry control foliar uptake pathways, translocation, and leaf-to-rhizosphere transport in wheat. ACS Nano 13(5):5291–5305 232. Ullah H, Li X, Peng L, Cai Y, Mielke HW (2020) In vivo phytotoxicity, uptake, and translocation of PbS nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.) plants. Sci Total Environ 737:139558 233. Lian J, Zhao L, Wu J, Xiong H, Bao Y, Zeb A, Tang J, Liu W (2020) Foliar spray of TiO2 nanoparticles prevails over root application in reducing Cd accumulation and mitigating Cdinduced phytotoxicity in maize (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 239:124794 234. Lv J, Christie P, Zhang S (2019) Uptake, translocation, and transformation of metal-based nanoparticles in plants: recent advances and methodological challenges. Environ Sci Nano 6(1):41–59 235. Liu Y, Yue L, Wang C, Zhu X, Wang Z, Xing B (2020) Photosynthetic response mechanisms in typical C3 and C4 plants upon La2 O3 nanoparticle exposure. Environ Sci Nano 7(1):81–92 236. Shelake RM, Pramanik D, Kim JY (2009) Exploration of plant-microbe interactions for sustainable agriculture in CRISPR era. Microorganisms 7(8):1–32 237. López-Luna J, Cruz-Fernández S, Mills DS, Martínez-Enríquez AI, Solís-Domínguez FA, González-Chávez MCÁ, Carrillo-González R, Martinez-Vargas S, Mijangos-Ricardez OF, Del Carmen C-D (2020) Phytotoxicity and upper localization of Ag@CoFe2 O4 nanoparticles in wheat plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27(2):1923–1940 238. Xie C, Ma Y, Yang J, Zhang B, Luo W, Feng S, Zhang J, Wang G, He X, Zhang Z (2019) Effects of foliar applications of ceria nanoparticles and CeCl3 on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Environ Pollut 250:530–536 239. Hu P, An J, Faulkner MM, Wu H, Li Z, Tian X, Giraldo JP (2020) Nanoparticle charge and size control foliar delivery efficiency to plant cells and organelles. ACS Nano 14(7):7970–7986 240. Spielman-Sun E, Avellan A, Bland GD, Tappero RV, Acerbo AS, Unrine JM, Giraldo JP, Lowry GV (2019) Nanoparticle surface charge influences translocation and leaf distribution in vascular plants with contrasting anatomy. Environ Sci Nano 6(8):2508–2519

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

93

241. Adisa IO, Rawat S, Pullagurala VLR, Dimkpa CO, Elmer WH, White JC, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Peralta-Videa JR, GardeaTorresdey JL (2020) Nutritional status of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fruit grown in Fusarium-infested soil: impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles. J Agric Food Chem 68–7:1986–1997 242. Ma C, White JC, Zhao J, Zhao Q, Xing B (2018) Uptake of engineered nanoparticles by food crops: characterization, mechanisms, and implications. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 9:129–153 243. Achari GA, Kowshik M (2018) Recent developments on nanotechnology in agriculture: plant mineral nutrition, health, and interactions with soil microflora. J Agric Food Chem 66(33):8647–8661 244. Duhan JS, Kumar R, Kumar N, Kaur P, Nehra K, Duhan S (2017) Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol Rep 15:11–23 245. Sturikova H, Krystofova O, Huska D, Adam V (2018) Zinc, zinc nanoparticles and plants. J Hazard Mater 349:101–110 246. Su Y, Ashworth V, Kim C, Adeleye AS, Rolshausen P, Roper C, White J, Jassby D (2019) Delivery, uptake, fate, and transport of engineered nanoparticles in plants: a critical review and data analysis. Environ Sci Nano 6(8):2311–2331 247. Jalali M, Ghanati F, Modarres-Sanavi AM, Khoshgoftarmanesh AH (2017) Physiological effects of repeated foliar application of magnetite nanoparticles on maize plants. J Agro Crop Sci 203(6):593–602 248. Peirce CAE, McBeath TM, Priest C, McLaughlin MJ (2019) The timing of application and inclusion of a surfactant are important for absorption and translocation of foliar phosphoric acid by wheat leaves. Front Plant Sci 10:1532 249. Schreck E, Dappe V, Sarret G, Sobanska S, Nowak D, Nowak J, Stefaniak EA, Magnin V, Ranieri V, Dumat C (2014) Foliar or root exposures to smelter particles: consequences for lead compartmentalization and speciation in plant leaves. Sci Total Environ 476–477:667–676 250. Xiong T, Austruy A, Pierart A, Shahid M, Schreck E, Mombo S, Dumat C (2016) Kinetic study of phytotoxicity induced by foliar lead uptake for vegetables exposed to fine particles and implications for sustainable urban agriculture. J Environ Sci (China) 46:16–27 251. Lu L, Huang M, Huang Y, Corvini PFX, Ji R, Zhao L (2020) Mn3 O4 nanozymes boost endogenous antioxidant metabolites in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plant and enhance resistance to salinity stress. Environ Sci Nano 7(6):1692–1703 252. Li Y, Zhu N, Liang X, Bai X, Zheng L, Zhao J, Li Y, Zhang Z, Gao Y (2020) Silica nanoparticles alleviate mercury toxicity via immobilization and inactivation of Hg(II) in soybean (Glycine max). Environ Sci Nano 7(6):1807–1817 253. Tighe-Neira R, Carmora E, Recio G, Nunes-Nesi A, Reyes-Diaz M, Alberdi M, Rengel Z, Inostroza-Blancheteau C (2018) Metallic nanoparticles influence the structure and function of the photosynthetic apparatus in plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 130:408–417 254. Fathi A, Zahedi M, Torabian S, Khoshgoftar A (2017) Response of wheat genotypes to foliar spray of ZnO and Fe2 O3 nanoparticles under salt stress. J Plant Nutr 40(10):1376–1385 255. Deshpande P, Dapkekar A, Oak MD, Paknikar KM, Rajwade JM (2017) Zinc complexed chitosan/TPP nanoparticles: a promising micronutrient nanocarrier suited for foliar application. Carbohyd Polym 165:394–401 256. Dushenkov V, Kumar PBAN, Motto H, Raskin L (1995) Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from aqueous stream. Environ Sci Technol 29:1239–1245 257. Burken JG, Schnoor JL (1999) Distribution and volatilisation of organic compounds following uptake by hybrid poplar trees. Int J Phytoremediation 1999:139–151 258. Kumar PBAN, Dushenkov V, Motto H, Raskin L (1995) Phytoextraction: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from soils. Environ Sci Technol 29:1232–1238 259. Roychoudhury A, Pradhan S, Chaudhuri B, Das K (2012b) Phytoremediation of toxic metals and the involvement of Brassica species. In: Anjum NA, Pereira ME, Ahmad I, Duarte AC, Umar S, Khan NA (eds) Phytotechnologies: remediation of environmental contaminants. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 219–251

94

T. Bajaj et al.

260. Siani NG, Fallah S, Pokhrel LR, Rostamnejadi A (2017) Natural amelioration of zinc oxide nanoparticle toxicity in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-gracum) by arbuscular mycorrhizal (Glomus intraradices) secretion of glomalin. Plant Physiol Biochem 112:227–238 261. Wang FY, Liu XQ, Shi ZY, Tong RJ, Adams CA, Shi XJ (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizae alleviate negative effects of zinc oxide nanoparticle and zinc accumulation in maize plants—a soil microcosm experiment. Chemosphere 147:88–97 262. Wang L, Huang X, Ma F, Ho SH, Wu J, Zhu S (2017) Role of Rhizophagus irregularis in alleviating cadmium toxicity via improving the growth, micro- and macroelements uptake in Phragmites australis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24:3593–3607 263. Wu J, Wang L, Ma F, Yang J, Li S, Li Z (2013) Effects of vegetative-periodicinduced rhizosphere variation on the uptake and translocation of metals in Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin ex. Steudel growing in the sun island wetland. Ecotoxicology 22:608–618 264. Cabral L, Soares CRFS, Giachini AJ, Siqueira JO (2015) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in phytoremediation of contaminated areas by trace elements: mechanisms and major benefits of their applications. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 31:1655–1664 265. Cui G, Ai S, Chen K, Wang X (2019) Arbuscular mycorrhiza augments cadmium tolerance in soybean by altering accumulation and partitioning of nutrient elements, and related gene expression. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 171:231–239 266. Wang FY, Jing XX, Adams CA, Shi ZY, Sun YH (2018) Decreased ZnO nanoparticle phytotoxicity to maize by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and organic phosphorus. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser 25:23736–23747 267. Feng Y, Cui X, He S, Dong G, Chen M, Wang J, Lin X (2013) The role of metal nanoparticles in influencing mycorrhizal fungi effects on plant growth. Environ Sci Technol 47:9496–9504 268. Noori A, White JC, Newman LA (2017) Mycorrhizal fungi influence on silver uptake and membrane protein gene expression following silver nanoparticle exposure. J Nanoparticle Res 19:66–79 269. Xu ZY, Wu Y, Xiao Z, Ban YH, Belvett N (2019) Positive effects of Funneliformis mosseae inoculation on reed seedlings under water and TiO2 nanoparticles stresses. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 35:81 270. Zhang S, Wang L, Ma F, Zhang X, Fu D (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhiza improved phosphorus efficiency in paddy fields. Ecol Eng 95:64–72 271. Yang YR, He CJ, Huang L, Ban YH, Tang M (2017) The effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on glomalin-related soil protein distribution, aggregate stability and their relationships with soil properties at different soil depths in lead-zinc contaminated area. PLoS ONE 12:e0182264 272. Wang Q, Mei D, Chen J, Lin Y, Liu J, Lu H, Yan C (2019) Sequestration of heavy metal by glomalin-related soil protein: implication for water quality improvement in mangrove wetlands. Water Res 148:142–152 273. Gonzalez-Chavez MC, Carrillo-Gonzalez R, Wright SF, Nichols KA (2004) The role of glomalin, a protein produced by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, in sequestering potentially toxic elements. Environ Pollut 130:317–323 274. Chen XW, Wu L, Luo N, Hui C, Wong MH, Li H (2019) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and the associated bacterial community influence the uptake of cadmium in rice. Geoderma 337:749–757 275. Motaharpoor Z, Taheri H, Nadian H (2019) Rhizophagus irregularis modulates cadmium uptake, metal transporter, and chelator gene expression in Medicago sativa. Mycorrhiza 29:389–395 276. Ouziad F, Wilde P, Schmelzer E, Hildebrandt U, Bothe H (2006) Analysis of expression of aquaporins and Na+/H+ transporters in tomato colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and affected by salt stress. Environ Exp Bot 57:177–186 277. Tarnabi ZM, Iranbakhsh A, Mehregan I, Ahmadvand R (2020) Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on gene expression of some cell wall and membrane elements of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under water deficit using transcriptome analysis. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 26:143–162

Phytotoxicity Responses and Defence Mechanisms of Heavy Metal …

95

278. Cao JL, Feng YZ, Lin XG, Wang JH, Xie XQ (2017) Iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles deteriorate the mutual interaction between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant. J Soils Sediments 17:841–851 279. Zhang L, Shi N, Fan J, Wang F, George TS, Feng G (2018) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi stimulate organic phosphate mobilization associated with changing bacterial community structure under field conditions. Environ Microbiol 20:2639–2651 280. Tisserant E, Malbreil M, Kuo A, Kohler A, Symeonidi A, Balestrini R, Charron P, Duensing N, Frei dit Frey N, Gianinazzi-Pearson V, Gilbert LB, Handa Y, Herr JR, Hijri M, Koul R, Kawaguchi M, Krajinski F, Lammers PJ, Masclaux FG, Murat C, Morin E, Ndikumana S, Pagni M, Petitpierre D, Requena N, Rosikiewicz P, Riley R, Saito K, San Clemente H, Shapiro H, van Tuinen D, Bécard G, Bonfante P, Paszkowski U, Shachar-Hill YY, Tuskan GA, Young JP, Sanders IR, Henrissat B, Rensing SA, Grigoriev IV, Corradi N, Roux C, Martin F (2013) Genome of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus provides insight into the oldest plant symbiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(50):20117–20122 281. Nuccio EE, Hodge A, Pett-Ridge J, Herman DJ, Weber PK, Firestone MK (2013) An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus significantly modifies the soil bacterial community and nitrogen cycling during litter decomposition. Environ Microbiol 15(6):1870–1881 282. Xu J, Liu SJ, Song SR, Guo HL, Tang JJ, Yong JWH, Mac Y, Chen X (2018) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence decomposition and the associated soil microbial community under different soil phosphorus availability. Soil Biol Biochem 120:181–190 283. Marschner P, Timonen S (2006) Bacterial community composition and activity in rhizosphere of roots colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. In: Mukerji KG, Manoharachary C, Singh J (eds) Microbial activity in the rhizoshere. Soil biology, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 284. Cao J, Feng Y, Lin X, Wang J (2020) A beneficial role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in influencing the effects of silver nanoparticles on plant-microbe systems in a soil matrix. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27:11782–11796 285. Smith SE, Smith FA (2011) Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant nutrition and growth: new paradigms from cellular to ecosystem scales. In: Merchant SS, Briggs WR, Ort D (eds) Annual review of plant biology, vol 62. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 227–250 286. Leigh J, Fitter AH, Hodge A (2011) Growth and symbiotic effectiveness of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus in organic matter in competition with soil bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:428–438 287. Wang L, Yang D, Ma F, Wang G, You Y (2022) Recent advances in responses of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi—plant symbiosis to engineered nanoparticles. Chemosphere 286:131644 288. Zhao Y, Wu J, Shang D, Ning J, Zhai Y, Sheng X, Ding H (2015) Subcellular distribution and chemical forms of cadmium in the edible seaweed, Porphyra yezoensis. Food Chem 168:48–54 289. Wang Y, Huang J, Gao Y (2012) Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization alters subcellular distribution and chemical forms of cadmium in Medicago sativa L. and resists cadmium toxicity. PLoS One 7 290. Riaz M, Kamran M, Fang Y, Wang Q, Cao H, Yang G, Deng L, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Anastopoulos I, Wang X (2021) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-induced mitigation of heavy metal phytotoxicity in metal contaminated soils: a critical review. J Hazard Mater 402:123919 291. Rahman MA, Lee SH, Ji HC, Kabir AH, Jones CS, Lee KW (2018) Importance of mineral nutrition for mitigating aluminum toxicity in plants on acidic soils: current status and opportunities. Int J Mol Sci 19:3073 292. Yan L, Riaz M, Jiang C (2020) Exogenous application of proline alleviates Bdeficiencyinduced injury while aggravates aluminum toxicity in trifoliate orange seedlings. Sci HorticAmsterdam 268:109372 293. Li XW, Liu JY, Fang J, Tao L, Shen RF, Li YL, Xiao HD, Feng YM, Wen HX, Guam JH, Wu LS, He YM, Goldbach HE, Yu M (2017) Boron supply enhances aluminum tolerance in root border cells of pea (Pisum sativum) by interacting with cell wall pectins. Front Plant Sci 8:742

96

T. Bajaj et al.

294. Dawood M, Cao F, Jahangir MM, Zhang G, Wu F (2012) Alleviation of aluminum toxicity by hydrogen sulfide is related to elevated ATPase, and suppressed aluminum uptake and oxidative stress in barley. J Hazard Mater 209–210:121–128 295. Silva CO, Brito DS, Silva AA, Rosa VR, Santos MFS, de Souza GA, Azevedo AA, DalBianco M, Oliveira JA, Ribeiro C (2020) Differential accumulation of aluminum in root tips of soybean seedlings. Braz J Bot 43:99–107 296. Deng W, Luo K, Li D, Zheng X, Wei X, Smith W, Thammina C, Lu L, Li Y, Pei Y, (2006) Overexpression of an Arabidopsis magnesium transport gene, AtMGT1, in Nicotiana benthamiana confers Al tolerance. J Exp Bot 57:4235–4243 297. Gomez SS, Goncalves JLM, Rocha JHT, Menegale MLC (2018) Tolerance of eucalyptus and pinus seedlings to exchangeable aluminium. Sci Agric 76:494–500 298. Takmaz-Nisancioglu S, Davison AW (1988) Effects of aluminium on fluoride uptake by plants. New Phytol 109:149–155 299. Bhat JA, Shivaraj SM, Singh P, Navadagi DB, Tripathi DK, Dash PK, Solanke AU, Sonah H, Deshmukh R (2019) Role of silicon in mitigation of heavy metal stresses in crop plants. Plants 8:71 300. Zhang X, Long Y, Huang J, Xia J (2019) Molecular mechanisms for coping with Al toxicity in plants. IJMS 20:1551 301. Yang X, Tsibart A, Nam H, Hur J, El-Naggar A, Tack FMG, Wang CH, Lee YH, Tsang DCW, Ok YS (2019) Effect of gasification biochar application on soil quality: trace metal behavior, microbial community, and soil dissolved organic matter. J Hazard Mater 365:684–694

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth Nazneen Akhtar, Sehresh Khan, Shafiq Ur Rehman, and Muhammad Jamil

Abstract Soil and water quality is deteriorating because of the alarming growth in population and rapid industrialization. Heavy metal sludge is widely dumped in soil and water resources is the principal source of contamination. Different techniques have been used to remove these heavy metals. With the development of nanotechnology recently, the usage of nanoparticles in remediation processes has significantly been increased. Previous studies have displayed that metal oxide nanoparticles have been found to be effective at lower concentration for plant growth and metabolism under heavy metal stress. Higher concentrations of nanoparticles cause oxidative stress in plants and increase their toxicity. This chapter examine the synergistic effect of nanoparticles especially zinc, iron, silver oxides, titanium dioxide, and heavy metal on plant growth. Moreover, this chapter also highlights current advances regarding heavy metal stress and the possible mechanism of interaction between nanoparticles and heavy metal in plant growth. Keywords Nanoparticles · Heavy metals · Interaction · Plant growth

1 Introduction Rapid increases in industrialization and anthropogenic activity have damaged our environment due to heavy metal contamination. They contain toxic matters that enter and disturb the physicochemical property of water [1]. The use of nano-materials (NMs) and the advancement of nanotechnology have both greatly increased during the past few decades [2, 3]. Nanoparticles can penetrate plant cell walls and seed coats, depending on their size, concentration, and solubility [4–7]. The metabolic processes of plants may change as a result of this penetration and change the plant biomass N. Akhtar · S. Khan · M. Jamil (B) Department of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Kohat University of Science & Technology (KUST), Kohat 26000, Pakistan e-mail: [email protected] S. U. Rehman Department of Biology, University of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 A. Husen (ed.), Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites Exposures to Plants, Smart Nanomaterials Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2419-6_5

97

98

N. Akhtar et al.

and grain/fruit yield. However, certain plant species have demonstrated the toxicity of combining treatments of HMs and nanoparticles. In general, plants’ reactions to metal oxide nanoparticles (NPs) in terms of their physiological, biochemical, and developmental processes can be both favorable and unfavorable. NPs and heavy metals have the capacity to enter the tissues of living plants and spread throughout the plant system [8]. They move through the soil matrix’s or aqueous medium’s symplastic or apoplastic region to enter the roots’ epidermis, cortex, the xylem and phloem to the stem and leaves. When NPs were applied to some plant species, it changed the expression of heat-shock protein and antioxidant enzyme activity dramatically. However, these defensive mechanisms have not yet been sufficiently studied and understood. Some plant species have developed antioxidant defense mechanisms to decrease oxidative damage and increase plant tolerance to toxicity induced by the metal or metal oxide NMs [9]. The bioavailability, concentration, solubility, and exposure period of the NMs determine their absorption and transport in various regions of the plant. Despite having practical uses, NMs have the potential to be hazardous to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Biodiversity is likely to be impacted since the increased production, use, and discarding NMs will inevitably result in an increase in their ecosystem release. Consequently, the results of their interactions with living things, whether direct or through the food chain (plants, animals, and humans), must be thoroughly researched and understood [10]. Nanoparticles have high reactivity, photolytic properties and affinity to different chemical groups. Metal-based NPs are becoming more popular for use in agricultural sciences and might help to reduce nutrient loss and increase crop production [11]. However, nanoparticles may prove to be poisonous for plants at larger concentrations and prevent it from being used as a nano-fertilizer, while at lower concentrations it may prove beneficial for plants depending on their growing environment and species. Nanoparticles have a variety of cellular functions, including the production of chlorophyll, photosynthesis, the development of chloroplasts, and dark respiration. They can combine more molecules to form complexes, increasing the availability of nutrients for plant organs [12]. Some plant species experience substantial changes in their morphological, physiological, and biochemical characteristics as a result of exposure to nanoparticles [13]. According to reports, nanoparticles boosted the activity of antioxidant and rubisco enzymes, the rate of photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation and chlorophyll synthesis, all of which led to an increase in crop output. Nanoparticles have been shown to positively broad bean plants grown in salty soil in terms of plant growth, antioxidant enzyme activity, soluble sugars, amino acids, and proline content as well as lower levels of H2 O2 and MDA. Reactive Oxygen species (ROS) primarily increased in the presence of high nanoparticles concentrations, followed by chlorophyll breakdown and cellular toxicity. Additionally, NP interacts with a variety of cellular processes and damages cell walls and plasma membranes [14]. This chapter summarizes the findings of numerous researchers that looked at the combined effect of nanoparticles (zinc oxides, iron oxides, silver oxides, titanium dioxide) and heavy metals on plant growth. Furthermore, this chapter also highlights the current knowledge about the recent development in the field of nanoparticles and heavy metal stress and the possible mechanism of interaction during plant growth.

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

99

2 Heavy Metals (HMs) HMs is the radioactive substance whose density is five times greater than that of water. These metals come within the following three basic categories: precious, toxic, and radioactive [14, 15]. In contrast to non-bioavailable HMs, soluble, mobile, non-precipitated are extremely toxic metals (form that is stationary, suspended, and composite). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reported mercury, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, copper, and lead as toxic metals [16, 17].

2.1 Effect of Heavy Metals on Plant HMs come from different sources, including agrochemical, anthropogenic, and environmental ones. Land erosion, volcanic exposures, mineral weathering, and fossil fuel combustion are the natural sources of HMs [18, 19]. Oil, paint, battery, leather, and industrial processes like refining, smelting, and electrolysis are a few examples of anthropogenic sources [14]. Water pollution is also caused by agricultural sources such as agrochemicals, chemicals, sewage, and groundwater drainage. Improper disposal of industrial wastes and pesticides in agricultural practices has a negative impact on water safety [20]. Figure 1 demonstrated that heavy metals from a wide range of sources enter into the soil and water resources and caused significant problems in food crops. [21] reported that the largest concentration of HMs in vegetables was found in crops irrigation water with waste water, in contrast to vegetables without leaves. As a result, these metals impede cellular photosynthesis, which influences plant growth, enzymatic activity, and mediated denaturation in proteins and nucleic acids [22]. Basically, HMs (Pb, Cd, Cr and Cu) alter various processes like water, nutrient, and oxygen intake as well as severely disrupt the pathway involved in chlorophyll production to affect the biological processes of plant growth (Fig. 2). HMs (Pb, Cd, Cr and Cu) increases seed production while harming the seeds, sugar particle surface increases the mitochondria, nucleus, and thicknesses of cell membranes [23]. Toxic metals impair plant microcirculation throughout production by raising osmolality, decrease energy potential, altering plant height and evaporation level, and generating ROS by lipid bilayer, protein, and cause the oxidative DNA rupture [21, 11]. Changes in metabolism and anti-oxidation that occur throughout growth are strongly connected with seedling survival and have an impact on the quality and production of plants [23]. Various heavy metals have different impact on growth through a variety of mechanisms, including decreased water availability, a change in the metabolism and antioxidant activities, as well as an imbalance in growth hormones [24]. Lead (Pb) released toxic ions in plants and caused the DNA disruption, enzyme degradation, and structure immersed in a membrane [25]. HMs cause oxidation and damage the lipids, lipo-membranes, and various enzyme (lipid peroxidation, superoxide anion or reactive oxygen species, per oxidation) cause the severe

100

N. Akhtar et al.

Fig. 1 Different sources of heavy metal caused soil and water pollution ultimately reduced plant growth

Fig. 2 Direct and indirect impact of different heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Cu and Cr on crops

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

101

damage to cell organelles [26]. Cadmium severely damages biological processes by decreasing plant growth, photosynthesis, nutrient absorption, the circulatory tract, causing oxidative stress, chlorosis, and necrosis in plants [27]. Cadmium (Cd) has an impact on plant growth by damaging cytoplasmic enzymes, inducing oxidative damage to moisture cell organelles, and altering critical cations [28]. Cadmium (Cd) cause oxidation of lipids, lipo membranes, and various enzyme (lipid peroxidation, superoxide anion or reactive oxygen species, per oxidation) lead to damage the cell organelles [29], secrete the organic ions with apoplasts and help in root development, metal-binding legends such as metallothioneins and phytochelatins act as anti-oxidative enzymes [30]. Different organic matter such as organic manures, compost, ash, phosphate, lime, and biosolids, plants boosted the comprehensive rooting system and sensitivity towards cadmium (Cd) [11]. Chromium (Cr) severely damages biological processes by decreasing plant growth, photosynthesis, nutrient absorption, the circulatory tract, causing oxidative stress, chlorosis, and necrosis in plants [27]. By damaging cytoplasmic enzymes, inducing oxidative damage to moisture cell organelles and altering critical cations and has an impact on plant growth [31]. Chromium (Cr) cause oxidation of lipids, lipo membranes, and various enzyme (lipid peroxidation, superoxide anion, or reactive oxygen species, per oxidation) lead to damage the cell organelles [29], secrete the organic ions with apoplasts and help in root development, metal-binding legends such as metallothioneins and phytochelatins act as anti-oxidative enzymes [32]. Different organic matter such as organic manures, compost, ash, phosphate, lime, and biosolids, plants boosted the comprehensive rooting system and sensitivity towards chromium [11]. A decrease in antioxidant defenses based on hydrogen peroxide accumulation and related oxidative damage could inhibit plant growth [33]. Copper (Cu) changes a variety of biological plant processes, such as how plants absorb water, nutrients, and oxygen, and obstruct the route that produces chlorophyll [34]. Copper (Cu) metals degraded the plant cells’ mitochondria, nuclear envelopes, and cell wall thickness along with the shape and number area of seeds, sugar grain size, and subcellular structures [27]. Copper (Cu) affect osmoregulation in plants by raising osmolality, lowering water potential, during the growth process by causing an oxidative burst in lipid membranes, proteins, and DNA as well as by increasing leaf area and transpiration level [35].

3 Nanoparticles/Nanomaterials Nanoparticles (NPs) are extremely small entities with high reaction rates, fast suspension, and water uptake rates [1]. They can have a single component (graphene, thin films, or surface coatings), two dimensions (nanowire and nanotube), or three components (nanomaterials in crystals, dendrimers, fullerenes, colloid, or small particles of certain semiconductors (quantum dots) [28]. NPs also form strong bonds (ionic and covalent lattice bonds) with others and reduce their size. These NPs significantly remove the HMs from contaminated areas. NPs (nanoparticles) penetrate in contamination areas where no microbes can enter, and (ii) they make water redox and serve as

102

N. Akhtar et al.

a foundation for water purification [36]. Many non-biodegradable inorganic metals (Cr, Hg, Cd, and Pb) can be harmful to microbes. NPs with a specific quantum effect and surface plasmon ability having less time to extract HMs from water. They will pass through >20 m of groundwater and continue to be active in the water and soil for roughly 8 weeks. Various nano-sized metal oxides such as Al2 O3 , Fe2 O3 , MnO, TiO2 , MnO, CeO, MgO, and ZnO NPs are used for removing HMs from wastewater [12].

3.1 Effect of Nanoparticles on Plant Growth Nanoparticles from a wide range of sources enter the soil and water resources and caused significant problems in food crops. As a result, these nanoparticles impede cellular photosynthesis, which influences plant growth, enzymatic activity, and mediated denaturation in proteins and nucleic acids [22]. Basically, higher concentration of nanoparticles alters various processes like water, nutrient, and oxygen intake as well as severely disrupt the pathway involved in chlorophyll production to affect the biological processes of plant growth [9]. Toxic particles harming the seeds, surface, increases the mitochondria, nucleus, and thicknesses of cell membranes [23], impair plant microcirculation throughout production by raising osmolality, decrease energy potential, altering plant height and evaporation level, and generating ROS by lipid bilayer, protein, and cause the oxidative DNA rupture [20]. Nanoparticles at higher concentration released toxic particles in plants and caused the DNA disruption, enzyme degradation, and structure immersed in a membrane [25]. Nanoparticles cause oxidation and damage the lipids, lipo-membranes, and various enzymes (lipid peroxidation, superoxide anion, or reactive oxygen species, per oxidation) in plant and cause the severe damage to cell organelles [26]. Nanoparticles severely damages biological processes by decreasing plant growth, photosynthesis, and nutrient absorption, the circulatory tract, causing oxidative stress, chlorosis, and necrosis in plants [27]. Different organic matter such as organic manures, compost, ash, phosphate, lime, and bio-solids, plants boosted the comprehensive rooting system and sensitivity towards nanoparticles [37]. Higher concentration of toxic particles severely damages biological processes by decreasing plant growth, photosynthesis, and nutrient absorption, the circulatory tract, causing oxidative stress, chlorosis, and necrosis in plants [27]. A decrease in antioxidant based on hydrogen peroxide accumulation and related oxidative damage could inhibit plant growth [33]. Nanoparticles change a variety of biological plant processes, such as how plants absorb water, nutrients, and oxygen, and obstructs the route that produces chlorophyll [38]. Nanoparticles degraded the plant cells’ mitochondria, nuclear envelopes, and cell wall thickness along with the shape and number, grain size, and sub-cellular structures [27]. Nanoparticles affect osmoregulation in plants by raising osmolality, lowering water potential, during the growth process by causing an oxidative burst in lipid membranes, proteins, and DNA as well as by increasing leaf area and transpiration level [39]. There are different nanoparticles which have different impact on plant growth such as Zinc

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

103

oxide nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles, and titanium oxide nanoparticles.

3.2 Effect of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on Plant Growth ZnO NPs are important due to optical devices, solar cells, and storage systems. ZnO NPs have porous nano semiconductors and longer life cycles [2]. ZnO NPs wire forms determine their contact with the plant cell. NPs easily enter the cell wall as compared to rod-shaped bacteria. The quantity of ZnO NPs also affects their interaction with plants and boosts the scavenging enzyme by generating Zn+2 ions and improves the toleration of plant cells [13]. Low concentrations of ZnO NPs encourage plant development and increase HMs’ ability to withstand stress, however higher quantities of NPs have no positive effects on plants. ZnO NPs function as an essential nutrient for plant growth, a component of enzymes, a regulator of hormones and the manufacture of chlorophyll, and a stimulant of cell defense. Lower zinc ion concentrations boosted the biomass and development of peanut seeds, and other species to promote plumule development in capitata in the presence of heavy metals [40]. The chlorophyll and carotenoids in the cauliflower, tomato, and cabbage plants were boosted by ZnO NPs (9.0 M). ZnO NPs enhanced ryegrass, corn, radish, rapeseed, lettuce, and cucumber germination and roots [41] at 2000 ppm, soybean crop production at 4000 ppm, mung bean seedlings at 20 ppm and grams seedlings at 1 ppm under stress. Small concentrations of ZnO NPs were shown to boost the protein and nitrogen levels in cabbage (brassica, oleracea, capitata), chickpea, peanut, onion, cyamopsis tetragonoloba, and cicer arietinum under heavy metal stress [2]. ZnO NPs (20 and 30 g/ml) also enhanced sesame (sesamum umindicum L) seedling growth and cucumber (cucumis sativus) and kabuli chickpea growth. Many enzymes in plants are known to be activated by Zn+2 ions [34]. Endocytosis enables ZnO NPs to penetrate plant cells, wherein particles form pores, disrupt cell membrane, and reach the cytoplasm. Transporters (aquaporins) are proteins found on the surface that transport NPs throughout plant cells [42]. Additionally, NPs move to the central cylinder and other upper regions of the root through the xylem [13]. Furthermore, NPs are transferred in plant cells by two routes: one lipophilic (cuticular wax diffusion) and one includes hydrophilic (travel through the cuticle and stomata’s polar aqueous pores) [22]. It has been noted that nano-ZnO has a considerable impact on rice roots at the early seedling stage while having no negative effects on the percentage of seeds that germinate [11, 43]. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seeds coated with ZnO nanoparticles gives plants a growth boost by increasing their uptake of zinc and phosphorus and releasing zinc ions slowly and sustainably into their cells without causing phyto-toxicity [44, 45].

104

N. Akhtar et al.

3.3 Effect of Iron Oxide Nano-Particles (Fe2 O3 ) on Plant Growth Iron oxide nanoparticles at low pH levels remove heavy metals by shifting the surface charge to a negative charge while at higher pH levels, repelling other metals with a negative charge [46]. This result showed that a significant amount of unoccupied surface sites was present at the beginning of the process at minute 80 but after that the contact and occupancy became problematic due to repulsion between the adsorbate and adsorbent at 110 min [22]. As a result of decreasing boundary layer resistance, the results demonstrated that adsorption efficiency increased at higher concentration. Arsenic content was dramatically reduced when iron oxide nanoparticle concentrations were lower. Furthermore, it was found that the surface chemistry and characteristics of nanoparticles limit the mobility of arsenic in plants. In response to arsenic stress, lipid per-oxidation activity increased; however, iron oxide nanoparticles reduced arsenic flow in water and plants and balanced ROS production. As a results maximum exchangeable sites are available for heavy metals adsorption. However, when the all metal adsorption sites have been used up, further increasing the adsorption dose does not effect on the presence of heavy metals [36]. According to reports in the literature, iron oxide nanoparticles interact with heavy metals in contaminated media and prevent their migration in plants because of their high surface-to-volume ratio. Iron oxide nanoparticles function as a nutrient to promote plant germination. It was revealed from the study that higher content of heavy metals was observed in plants [47]. It was observed that bioaccumulation factors decrease in the plant after treatment with Bacillus subtilus synthesized Fe2 O3 NPS under metalscontaminated water [22]. According to studies, iron oxide nanoparticles improve plant physiological and germination characteristics [48]. After treatment with Fe2 O3 NPs synthesiszed from Bacillus subtilus, plants cultivated in arsenic-contaminated water showed an improvement in their tolerance index. But the tolerance index decreases in arsenic-treated plants, when iron oxide nanoparticles remove arsenic from water and stop down its mobility in the plant and increase germination [31].

3.4 Effect of Silver Nanoparticles (Ags NPs) on Plant Growth Silver is the metal that aquatic creatures perceive to be the most dangerous as compared with mercury. AgNPs are bio-accumulative and incredibly deadly to the living organisms. The safety and environmental toxicity of AgNPs introduced into ecosystems are therefore raised serious questions. Taking into account that plants are the first trophic level in ecosystems and an essential link in the food chain, assessing the toxicity of AgNPs requires a thorough understanding of their effects on plants [49]. Enzymatic antioxidant activities are increased in plant cells after exposure to AgNPs to shield the cells from the oxidative stress of nanoparticles and heavy metals. For example, Wolffia globosa plants treated with 10 mg/L of

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

105

AgNPs showed clear signs of oxidative damage. Increased SOD activity was seen in tomatoes when exposed to AgNPs (Lycopersicon esculentum). Bacopa monnieri (Linn.) treated with AgNPs showed increased peroxidase and catalase activities while Spirodela polyrhiza cells have considerably higher catalase activity. Additionally, after exposure to AgNPs, the antioxidant glutathione level and SOD and peroxidase activity both increased with increasing dose. Similarly increased antioxidantive activities was observed in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) plant treated with AgNP [50]. In antioxidant defense systems, non-enzymatic antioxidants such thiols, ascorbate, glutathione, and anthocyanins can also be beneficial after AgNP treatment. Anthocyanin accumulation in spherical AgNP-treated Arabidopsis seedlings was shown to be significantly and dose-dependently elevated. Like how anthocyanin accumulation was greatly boosted in turnip after exposure to greater AgNPs concentrations, other antioxidants like ascorbic acid, carotenoids, and proline are also thought to play a role in plants’ antioxidant defense reactions to AgNPs. To potentially lessen the damaging effects of ROS, carotenoids can stimulate antioxidant activity. After exposure to AgNPs, rice showed a large increase in the amount of carotenoid in its shoots, demonstrating carotenoid is utilized by plants to reduce the impact of ROS generated by AgNPs. Asparagus officinalis showed a rise in ascorbic acid concentration after application of AgNPs [12].

3.5 Effect of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2 ) Nanoparticles on Plant Growth Titanium oxide (TiO2 ) nanoparticles have been discovered to enhance plant development by enhancing the intake of vital metal nutrients. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles with concentrations of 0.01 and 0.03%, improved the levels of chlorophyll (a and b), carotenoids, and anthocyanins [51]. Similar studies with beneficial benefits of titanium dioxide nanoparticles were reported in canola (Brassica napus), Solanum lycopersicum (L.), and Vigna radiata (L.). While a study revealed that titanium dioxide nanoparticles are dangerous to Oryza sativa, as evidenced by a decline in seedling development, metabolic processes and photosynthetic activity (1000 ppm). It was also observed that phytotoxic effects caused by industrial nanoparticles on physiological, biochemical, genetic, and molecular aspects in a variety of plants [52].

4 Synergistic Effect of Nanoparticle and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth The synergistic effect of heavy metals and nanoparticles on plant growth depends on the size of the particles and other pertinent environmental parameters like point

106

N. Akhtar et al.

of zero charges and redox potentials. Due to their large surface area and high rate of dissolution, small nanoparticles can easily pass-through plant membranes and interact with plants and improve its growth (Fig. 3). The atomic structure and dissolving speeds of NPs vary due to their variances in form and aggregation property [13]. NPs in the agglomeration or aggregate form exhibit lower internal activity and interaction with plants as compared to disperse NPs [53]. Different functional groups are present on the surfaces of nanoparticles, which causes oxidative stress under heavy metals [16]. Plants release specific proteins that aggregate NPs and heavy metals in media, changing their physicochemical state [54]. According to, [55] NPs become less crystalline and more amorphous under heavy metals because of their contact with plants. It was observed by [56] that plants released specific proteins that broke down the NPs and heavy metals inside the cells. Ions are required for the catalytic, structural, and regulatory activities of plant enzymes, while NPs at lower concentrations serve as micronutrients for plant growth (dehydrogenase, thiol peroxidase, glutathione reductase and protein domains) [23]. It was reported by [57] that the organic form of trace elements (including iron, zinc, magnesium, and selenium) was more available to plants than inorganic versions due to analysis of the adsorption process of plants. There are certain ionizable groups in plant cell walls (amino, carboxyl, phosphate, and hydroxyl groups (OH) that have the capacity to take up metals and NPs ions [43]. In plant cells, NPs ions play a specialized role in cellular respiration, intracellular signaling, DNA replication, and RNA synthesis. The plant addressed its nutrient needs by employing ions as a cofactor in its metabolic activity [54]. NPs ions form a chemical connection with the plant’s carboxyl group and dissolves the zinc ions within the cell wall [56]. By reinforcing the plasma membrane, cell wall, or capsule of microbial cells, lower concentration of NPs ions enhanced the amount of plant resistance against HMs [58]. Most nanoparticles are dangerous to plants in high quantities. It is hypothesized that plants must take up nanoparticles and toxic metals and transmit them to various tissues for them to cause harm. Moreover, depending on their reactivity, mobility, and other properties, the nanoparticles and heavy metals combine to interact with numerous metabolic processes to affect plants [59]. Higher quantities of the nanoparticles-heavy metals are seen to penetrate the plant’s cell wall and plasma membrane, causing harm, and interact with many processes (Fig. 4). Plant tissue can be contaminated by toxic particles through the root or through above-ground areas like wounds and root junctions [43]. Nanoparticles-heavy metals pass through a variety of chemical and physiological barriers in order to be absorbed and transported. The first barrier that toxic particles must pass when interacting with a plant is the cell wall. Smaller toxic particles can pass through this layer rather easily in comparison to larger nanoparticles because plant cell walls are made of cellulose, a structure that allows the passage of small particles while restricting the larger ones. The plant cell wall’s size exclusion ranges from 5 to 20 nm [22]. According to some reports, some nanoparticles cause the cell wall to develop larger pores, which makes it easier for big nanoparticles and heavy metals to enter. The nanoparticles may exit the cell wall by endocytosis and then proceed to different plant tissues via

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

107

Fig. 3 Synergistic effect of lower concentrations of nanoparticles and heavy metals (HMs) improved plant growth by enhancing different processes

symplastic transport. A mathematical model suggests that a lipid exchange mechanism for nanoparticle transport into plant cells was recently put forth. According to the study, zeta potentials, size, and magnitude of nanoparticles play a significant role in transportation inside a plant [50]. Nanoparticles combined with heavy metals may disrupt plant metabolism by supplying micronutrients, regulation of genes, or by interacting with various plant oxidative mechanisms, causing an oxidative burst [54]. It is clear from the earlier portion of this review that different toxic particles can cause oxidative disruption when they are present in excess amounts and produce ROS [50]. The introduced toxic particles and heavy metals may disrupt the mitochondrial and chloroplast electron transport chains, which could lead to an oxidative burst that is indicated by an increase in the quantity of ROS. It has been noted that under the impact of various stressors, the rate of carbon fixation is restricted, increasing photo inhibition and perhaps causing the photo system to overproduce superoxide anion radicals and water [34]. It is understood that once the ROS is generated because of nanoparticle interaction, it interacts with practically all biological components, causing DNA damage, protein changes, and lipid peroxidation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that plants and nanoparticle contact cause increased lipid peroxidation and DNA damage; it demonstrates that plant-nanoparticle interaction causes lipid peroxidation which causes the death of plant cells. ROS are recognized to play a signaling role in a range of cellular activities, including the tolerance to environmental stimuli, despite their destructive

108

N. Akhtar et al.

Fig. 4 Synergistic effect of higher concentrations of nanoparticles and heavy metals (HM) reduced plant growth by affecting different processes

activity [60]. Whether ROS functions destructively or as a signal depends on the balance between ROS creation and scavenging. The creation of enzymatic (superoxide dismutase, catalase, and guaiacol peroxidase) and non-enzymatic (ascorbate, glutathione, carotenoids, tocopherols, and phenolics) molecules is a component of the antioxidant mechanism. Plants enhance the synthesis of antioxidant compounds to deal with stress. According to numerous research, plants exposed to toxic particles produce more of the anti-oxidant chemical that the antioxidant system is regulated in response to the interaction of toxic particles with plants [61]. If the generated antioxidants fail to regulate the ROS, the cell dies by apoptosis or necrosis after the ROS oxidizes the macromolecules in the cell, this ultimately results in the plant’s demise. Additionally, recent research has shown that phytohormones are essential for indicating the plant stress response. It is believed that a complex network of antagonistic and synergistic interactions between numerous hormones results in the hormonal control of plant development and stress adaptation [62]. The ROS are intricately connected to hormone signaling as well and have an impact on one another’s activities. It is known that many hormonal pathways are either activated or deactivated in response to various types of stresses. Another factor regarded as a reliable indicator of a plant’s general performance is photosynthesis [15]. Since it is the only source of energy for plants, it has an effect on every part of their physiology and metabolism. Numerous studies have demonstrated that toxic particles have an impact on plants’ photosynthetic pigment content and activity. The photosynthesis process may be substantially hampered by an extremely high toxic particles concentration,

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

109

which could stunt or kill plant growth. According to several investigations, exposure to toxic particles causes a noticeable decline in plant development. In some plants, the root is the main organ for taking up toxic particles from soil/water and is more negatively impacted than the shoot [43]. By increasing nitrate reductase activity, these NPs improved soil fertility, crop yield, nutrient absorption, and sustainable agriculture production [63]. These findings supported the results showing that nano-TiO2 lengthens spinach crop life by enhancing photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation. The results showed that onion, cucumber, tomato, and Glycine max plants’ seedling growth and photosynthesis were enhanced by lower concentration of toxic metals and particles [64]. HMs have a far lesser propensity to translocation to the higher parts of the plant than toxic metals and particles do, and they are much more likely to be absorbed in the roots. Toxic particles bind to roots to penetrate plant cells and then move apoplectically to the cortex and epidermis. It was also reported through the vascular bundle, AgNPs reach the plant’s roots and are transported to xylem vessels via transpiration. Toxic particles penetrate the plant by building compounds with binding protein and organic residues [36]. Plants transport toxic particles by three different pathways. The first route is based on NP size, with small NPs (5–20 nm) getting taken up by auxin-filled holes in the core epidermis cell wall and then dispersed into the endodermis by osmotic and capillary activity. The single statute pathway, the second approach, involves the root system, cell walls, an ion channel, and a protein known as aquaporins interacting to allow the passage of toxic particles via polysaccharide fiber. The third pathway uses stomata pores, which capture toxic particles and carry them to the lower parts of the plant [2]. Small NPs are absorbed in root plant cells and transported by root parenchyma cells to various areas of the plant. Crystalline nanoparticles reach the top of cells, whereas anatase particles remain in the roots. Plants respond differently to toxic particles with cationic and anionic positive and negative charges. Since electrostatic forces bind with negative charge root cells, in wood plants, toxic particles with cation move quicker than anione. Since electrostatic interactions connect with negatively charged root cells, ion NPs move quicker in hardwood plants than anione-containing NPs [63]. TiO2 nanoparticles remediate lead (Pb) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) plant by bioaccumulation at high exposure levels. TiO2 nanoparticles restrain the growth of duckweed and prevent photosynthesis, protein synthesis, and nitrogen fixation [51]. Magnetic nanoparticles (Fe3 O4 ) successfully absorbed heavy metal ions by mitigate Cd-induced root inhibitory effect and oxidative stress in cucumber and wheat seedlings [47]. The highest Cd accumulation with TiO2 nanoparticles was reported by other scientist [10]. A recent study reported that adding nZVI particles enhanced the stability of arsenic in the rhizosphere of sunflowers. It has been demonstrated that nZVI particles made arsenic in the rhizosphere of sunflower plants more stable. nZVI can restore the stability of Cr by reductively transforming Cr (VI) into a more stable and benign state [21]. Co Fe2 O4 nanoparticles might not pass through the seed coat or root system at the start of germination. There is no discernible difference in the tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum L.) when they are present. According to the

110

N. Akhtar et al.

experimental findings, adding nZVI particles caused a 16, 29.5, and 31.7% increase in Cd accumulation in the roots, stems, and leaves [63]. The impact of nano-hydroxyapatite on the capacity of rye grass to extract lead as well as the efficacy of the remediation at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 12 months. It was stated that employing salicylic acid nanoparticles could enhance the plant’s ability to remove arsenic. Cd and Pb remediation using nano-chlorapatite and metal-phosphate complexes immobilized by precipitation [40]. As the new metal phosphates were being removed by nano-hydroxyapatite, Cu and Zn that were involved in ion exchange, surface complication, and precipitation stabilized them. Al2 O3 nanoparticles caused harm to the epidermal and cortex cells in the wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.) by vacuolization and shrinking, and the toxic effect prevented plant growth [49]. By causing hydroxyl radical-induced cell wall loosening, nZVI particles in Cress Heynh (Arabidopsis thaliana (L.)) increased plant growth and root elongation. Other nano-hydroxyapatite inhibits plant growth in the Phaseolus radiatus L. (mung bean) plant by causing cell death and localized high intracellular concentration caused by hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Plants that produce mung beans (Phaseolus radiatus L.) improved the underlying process [64]. Plants can reduce the toxicity of Cd and Pb in fava beans (Vicia faba L.) and enrich Cd and Pb in the leaves by using utilized carbon nanotubes and carboxylate multiwall carbon nanotubes [2]. CeO2 in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr nanoparticles considerably reduces (70%) the movement of Cd from roots to shoots, which lessens its toxicity. The ability of plants to remove Cd, Cu, and Pb from rice (Oryza sativa L.) depends on the kind of metal ions present, the amounts of those metal ions in the soil, and the accumulation of C60 fullerenes in rice panicles [47]. Plants use many ways to [44] immobilize/mobilize HMs ions in polluted areas [62]. In order to attract rhizo sphere bacteria, plant roots exude organic acids (exudates), which have an impact on the soil’s HM mobility, solubility, and adsorption [50]. These exudates contain anti-oxidants and play a key role in the interactions of bacteria with particles. Active efflux pumps are produced by plants, which also convert metals into less toxic or non-toxic forms [22]. By establishing a relationship with plants and NPs, microbes release exo-polysaccharides and other volatile chemicals. The findings are further supported by Akhter et al. [43], and they reported that metals get adsorbed as a product of microbes and high NP levels. Microbes stimulate crop growth by creating phyto hormones, chelating, exo-polysaccharides, and ethylene [16].

4.1 Synergistic Effect of ZnO Nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth Higher concentration of ZnO NPs and heavy metals caused nitrate reductase activity, metabolic processes, and the development of a plant under oxidative stress. Additionally, it had an impact on the size of the rape plant root ends, the epidermis, the pericycle cell, the quantity of chloroplasts [44]. They triggered phyto toxicity

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

111

by changing the central metal atom (Mg2+ ) in chlorophyll to produce zinc+2 ions. Higher doses of ZnO NPs inhibited the cauliflower germination, lowered the alfalfa and soybean seedling growth (by 80 and 25%) and reduced cucumber growth (75 and 35%) under metal stress [65]. ZnO NPs at 300 mg/L altered leaf stomata, increased carbon monoxide levels, decreased (chlorophyll a and b) levels, and boosted food uptake in Arabidopsis plants under abiotic stress. According to reports, ZnO NPs reduced the growth of chinese cabbage, wheat, soybeans, species roots, and soy (brassica pekinensis L.) and Cucumber in the garden (lepidium sativum L.) [53]. ZnO NPs at 300 mg/L altered leaf stomata, increased carbon monoxide levels, decreased (chlorophyll a and b) levels, and boosted food uptake in Arabidopsis plants. Cowpea plants were shown to be poisonous and reduced the shoots’ and roots’ size [51]. The NPs changed plant nutrition in terms of minerals, photosynthesis, and stress from free radicals and genotoxicity. Antioxidant enzyme activity increased in crops at low levels of NPs toxicity while decreasing at higher ones. Due to exposure of crop plants to NPs, the concentration of NPs increased in different plant parts including fruits and grains which could transfer to the food chain and pose a threat to human health. Regarding plant species, development phases, growth conditions, method, dose, and duration of NPs exposure, among other things, the effects of NPs on crop plants vary substantially. Effect of different concentrations of ZnO NPs on physiological processes of plant (Table 1). Along with the direct toxicity of NPs to crops, which is likely another contributing factor, changes in the indirect growth circumstances may also have an impact on crop growth. NPs may alter the bacterial populations in soils in comparison to bare soils, which may have an impact on crop development and productivity. It is well known that ENPs affected the types and activities of soil microorganisms, which in turn affected crop growth and biomass [67], [68]. Pesticides, paints, and direct releases from industry are all ways that NPs can get into soil [61]. Considering that they are immobile, interact with the soil and the air, and are released into the environment, plants are vulnerable to NPs. However, multiple studies found that major crops like wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), maize (Zea mays L.), and soybean had negative effects from metal NPs on their growth and physiology [22]. According to several studies, NPs changed the expression of genes involved in root growth, lowered the mitotic index, impeded cell division stages, and affected the tips of many plants’ roots. Although nanoparticles may not directly harm plants, they can harm them indirectly by changing the growth medium, harming the roots, changing the bacterial communities in the soil, and leading plants to take in co-contaminants. Thus, NPs have the potential to affect crop development, productivity, and potential for food chain entry [43].

112

N. Akhtar et al.

Table 1 Effect of different concentrations of ZnO NPs on plant physiological process Experimental plant

Physiological process

ZnO–NPs concentration

Size

Key references

Lupinus termis

Zn Boosts plant growth

20, 40, and 60 mg/L

21.3 nm crystal

[63]

Peanut

1000 ppm ZnO NPs encourages the growth of seeds and plants

1000 and 2000 ppm

25 nm

[65]

Gossypium hirsutum L

Growth 25, 50, 75, 100, accelerates as the and 200 mg/L ZnO NPs dose is increased

2–54 nm spherical and rod

[64]

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L

Promotes plant growth

10 mg/L

3.8 nm spherical

[40]

Lupinus termis

Improves the lupine plant’s tolerance to salt by lowering the Na level and raising the Zn concentration

60 mg/L

Rod shaped 21.3 nm

[47]

Zea mays L

No discernible 400 mg/kg impact on macronutrients All decreases, Zn are mostly collected in cucumber seeds

NA

[63]

Lupinus termis

ZnO NPs Increases photosynthetic pigments, which improves photosynthesis

21.3 nm crystal

[49]

Hydrilla verticillata and Phragmites Australis

Chlorophyll 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, content decreases 100, and at high 1000 mg/L concentration of ZnO NPs

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L

Increases photosynthetic chlorophyll pigment

20, 40, and 60 mg/L

10 mg/L

[2]

3.8 nm spherical

[12]

(continued)

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

113

Table 1 (continued) Experimental plant

Physiological process

ZnO–NPs concentration

Size

Key references

Maize

Increases chlorophyll content

10 mg/L

15–25 nm

[66]

Gossypium hirsutum L

Photosynthetic pigment content increases

25, 50, 75, 100, and 200 mg/L

2–54 nm Spherical [65] and rod

Wheat

Total chlorophyll 100 and 200 mM 5–20 nm spherical content increased ZnO NPs

[21]

4.2 Synergistic Effect of Iron Oxide Nano-Particles (Fe2 O3 ) and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth Fe2 O3 NPs in the environment are a threat to plants. Even though plants require iron oxides for survival, iron oxide nanoparticles (NPs) can be harmful to living things. It has been reported that Chlorella pyrenoidosa algae growth was decreased by iron oxide nanoparticles. Similarly when Elodea Canadensis came into contact with Fe2 O3 NPs in the presence of light, major physiological changes occurred, and the plant’s leaves quickly became yellow because the pigment concentration decreased. Effect of different concentrations of Fe2 O3 NPs on different plant activities is given in Table 2. Chlorophyll is necessary for important plant processes, and iron oxide NPs can disrupt its production. Maghemite nanoparticles reduced the overall chlorophyll content of Helianthus annuus L. in the plant roots, hindering the plant’s ability to absorb micronutrients like Mg, a nutrient linked to chlorophyll synthesis [55]. It has been stated that corn (Zea mays L.) at lower concentration increased total chlorophyll as compared to the control sample. Fe2 O3 NP reduced the chlorophyll content by 11.6, 39.9, and 19.6% at doses of 20, 50, and 100 mg respectively. With iron oxide nanoparticles, oxidative stress is a problem since it generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can seriously harm cells [57]. The majority of other ROS are derived from superoxide (O2− ). It results from the breakdown of molecular oxygen (O2 ). Additionally, NPs cause OH· production, and oxidative stress may be brought on the elevated level of ROS in cells. Lipid peroxidation, or the destruction of cell membrane lipids result in ROS generation. These negative effects are explained by the creation of ROS and connected it to protein, lipid, and DNA damage [58].

114

N. Akhtar et al.

Table 2 Effect of higher concentrations of Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 ) on different plant chractreistics Experimental plant

Effect of Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 )

Concentrations

Key references

Solanum lycopersicum

When used under salt stress, MDA concentration reduce and SOD, CAT, POD, and APX activities increases

15 and 30 mg/L

[16]

Solanum lycopersicum

By controlling Na concentration 15 mg/L and manipulating antioxidant enzymes like SOD and guaiacol peroxidase in tomato callus, 15 mg/L of Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 ) reduces the negative effects of NaCl

[2]

Lupinus termis

MDA, SOD, CAT, POD, and APX activities increases under salinity stress

20–60 mg/ L

[15]

Triticum aestivum

Increases the activity of antioxidant enzymes (SOD and CAT)to improve drought resistance

15 and 30 mg/L

[45]

Oryza sativa

Improvements in plant height, 1000 mg/L chlorophyll content, biomass, tiller number, and yield are seen in plants treated with Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 )

[42]

Glycine max

Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 ) boost soybean seed germination and rate during drought stress

0.5–1 mg/L

[47]

Lupinus termis

Iron oxide nanoparticles 20–60 mg/L (Fe2 O3 ) primed seeds primarily encourage development in stressed plants and raise levels of photosynthetic pigments, organic solutes, total phenols, ascorbic acid

[55]

T. aestivum

By boosting the production of lateral roots, Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 ) cause root morphology modification in wheat

[60]

20–60 mg/L

(continued)

Synergistic Effect of Nanomaterials, Nanocomposites and Heavy …

115

Table 2 (continued) Experimental plant

Effect of Iron oxide nanoparticles (Fe2 O3 )

Concentrations

T. aestivum

Iron oxide nanoparticles 20–60 mg/L (Fe2 O3 ) increase the production of lateral roots in wheat, which results in alteration of the root morphology

[65]

Leucaena leucocephala

By reducing the activity of antioxidant enzymes like SOD, CAT, and POX and lowering lipid peroxidation

[57]

20–60 mg/L

Key references

4.3 Synergistic Effect of Silver Nanoparticles (AgsNPs) and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth AgNPs can also change the permeability and fluidity of the membrane; this may affect how well nutrients and water are absorbed. According to a research [46] radish (Raphanus sativus) sprout exposure to AgNPs resulted in a substantial loss in nutritional content and a dose-dependent decrease in water content (Ca, Mg, B, Cu, Mn, and Zn), showing that changes in both water and nutrient content may be how AgNPs affect plant growth [63]. AgNPs have an impact on plant hormones as well as Arabidopsis seedlings’ root gravitropism decreased in a dose-dependent way. Additional research revealed that AgNPs inhibited auxin synthesis, and auxin receptorrelated genes were shown to be down-regulated in response to AgNP exposure. Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography electrospray for hormonal analysis, total cytokinin levels were shown to significantly increased, when AgNP building occurred in pepper tissue. It was found that exposure to Ag2 S-NPs may impair the growth of wheat and cucumber. After exposure to Ag2 S-NPs, expression of six ethylene signaling pathway genes was found to be considerably increased in cucumber, indicating that Ag2 S-NPs may affect plant growth through interacting with this route [63]. AgNPs can potentially be harmful at the cellular and molecular levels in plants (Table 3). Numerous investigations revealed that changes to cell structure and cell division occur along with the restriction of plant growth, when exposed to AgNPs. It was observed that AgNPs may cause a reduction in cell size, turgidity, and vacuole size (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) in cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Similarly it was observed that the vacuoles and the integrity of the cell wall were damaged when AgNPs entered the cell of Brassica campestris, and other organelles may also have been impacted [26]. Furthermore, AgNP treatment in Allium cepa greatly reduced cell division and the mitotic index was decreased. AgNP treatment dramatically decreased the mitotic index (MI), increased chromosomal abnormalities, and micronuclei in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) root tip cells, showing that AgNPs interfered with the cell cycle and mitosis in these cells. According to a

116

N. Akhtar et al.

recent study, the AgNPs may be easily internalized by the wheat root tip cells. After internalization of AgNPs, the root tip cells displayed chromosomal abnormalities including chromosome breakage, spindle failure, fragmentation, uneven separation, and dispersed and lagging chromosomes. These abnormalities greatly impeded cell activity, uptake, movement, and severe phyto-toxicity of AgNPs in plants [46].

4.4 Synergistic Effect of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2 ) Nanoparticles and Heavy Metals on Plant Growth Numerous studies have shown that applying titanium dioxide to chickpeas enhanced their resistance to cold stress (Cicer arietinum L.), heat stress in tomato, drought in wheat and flax (Linumusitatissium L.), cadmium toxicity in green algae (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii P. A. Dang) and soybean and tomato Xanthomonas per forans bacterial spot illness. The chlorophyll content of tomato and oilseeds was raised by foliar spraying with titanium dioxide nanoparticles, improved Rubisco (Ribulose1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) activity and facilitated net photosynthesis in Arabidopsis, spinach, tomato and basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Titanium dioxide nanoparticle treatments significantly increased the biomass or crop yield of wheat, mung bean (Vigna radiata L.), snail clover (Medicago scutellata Mil), tomato, and wheat [45]. The photocatalyzed property of nano-anatase TiO2 enhances light absorption, the conversion of under long-term lighting, the conversion of electricity and chemical energy from light, carbon dioxide absorption, as well as preventing chloroplast ageing. The nano-anatase titanium dioxide nanoparticle improves the absorption of photosynthetic carbon due to the activation of Rubisco, a compound made up of Rubisco and Rubisco activase, which may accelerate Rubisco carboxylation. According to the molecular mechanism of the carbon reaction, nano-anatase induces the Rubisco activase (RCA) marker gene, and higher protein concentrations as a result improved Rubisco activase activities Rubisco carboxylation and a rapid photosynthetic carbon reaction [47]. Plant transpiration and water conductance and net photosynthetic rate are improved by exogenous application of titanium dioxide nanoparticles, while effect of higher concentrations of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 ) reduces different plant activities (Table 4).

5 Conclusion Heavy metals have negative impact on plant growth. Various strategies are used for the remediation of heavy metals, in which nano-remediation plays significant roles. Nanoparticles, which are considered to be a “bio safe” material, have the power to promote plant growth and seed germination. Additionally, nanoparticles affect

12 µg/mL

Mitotic index decrease, increase of 40 µg/mL chromosomal abnormalities, decrease of seed germination (at higher concentrations)

Callus cells of Triticum aestivum Peroxidation of membrane lipids, (wheat) deactivation of antioxidant systems

Seeds of Allium cepa (onion bulbs)

100 µg/mL

Silver oxide nanoparticles (Ags NPs) 10 µg/mL cause cell membrane instability and growth suppression

Green algae (Pseudo kirchneriellasubcapitata)

Root cells of Allium cepa (onion Mitotic index decrease, micronuclei bulbs) index and chromosome aberration index increase

MiRNAs Down-regulated processes include those involved in photosynthesis, hormone signalling, ROS homeostasis, heavy metal transport, and growth and development

Zea mays L. (maize)

800 µg/mL

Root growth is being hindered 20 µg/mL because of a cell-wide buildup of silver oxide nanoparticles (AgsNPs) negative effects on chromosomes and cells

Allium Cepa (onion bulbs)

Max concentration

Effect of silver oxide nanoparticles (AgsNPs)

Experimental plants

Table 3 Effect of higher concentrations of Silver oxide nanoparticles (Ags NPs) on different plant activities

< 100 nm and 500

Iron deficiency↑, chlorosis↑

[28]

Herbaceous cattail

>200

NZVI-treated plants↓, blank-treated plants↑

[29]

nZVI

Reference

Fe3 O4

25

Eruca sativa

4

Plant chlorophyll fluorescence↓, Genomic template stability↓

[30]

Fe3 O4

12

Arabidopsis thaliana

25

Reduced seedlings↓, root length↓

[31]

Fe3 O4

13

Barley

1000

H2 O2 ↓ content in plant leaves and roots

[32]

Fe3 O4

9

Chinese Mung 20 Bean

Plant CAT enzyme activity↓

[33]

Fe3 O4

18

Chinese Mung 10 Bean

Plant CAT enzyme activity↓

Fe3 O4

18

Chinese Mung 20 Bean

POD enzyme activity in plant↓

Fe3 O4

18

Chinese Mung 20 Bean

SOD enzyme activity in plant↓ (continued)

214

N. Shakoor et al.

Table 1 (continued) NPs type

Size (nm)

Crop

Concentration (mg L−1 and mg kg−1 )

Impact

Reference

Fe3 O4

30

Maize

500

Maize root fresh weight↓, roots MDA↓ and polyphenol content↓

[34]

Fe3 O4

21.2

Muskmelon

400

Plant chlorophyll↓ [35] and soluble protein content↓ after 4 weeks of application

nZVI