Transport of Nanoparticles into Plants

Transport of Nanoparticles into Plants: History

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contributor:

The transport of matter into plants, also known as plant uptake, is a crucial process for the growth and development of plants. Plants require various essential nutrients, water, and gases for their survival and growth. The transport in plants extends beyond water, nutrients, and gases, encompassing the movement of various particles or nanoparticles, as well as other exogenous materials. This includes genetic material such as double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). Nanoparticles can be transported into plants for several reasons, often as a result of environmental exposure or as a part of research and development efforts. The transport of nanoparticles into plants can have various implications, both beneficial and potentially concerning, depending on the type of nanoparticles and the intended purpose.

assisted delivery
passive delivery
vascular bundles
localization
quantification
nanoparticle characterization

1. Introduction

Understanding the transport of nanoparticles into plants is crucial for harnessing their potential in agriculture and biotechnology. The journey of nanoparticles from external environments to internal plant tissues involves intricate processes influenced by both the properties of the nanoparticles and the characteristics of plant structures. Nanoparticles can be designed to transport specific materials, compounds, or genetic information within plants, acting as carriers to deliver these payloads to target locations. The controlled delivery of nanoparticles can be advantageous for precise and efficient plant applications. Nanoparticles can be used for fertilizer or nutrient delivery, genetic material delivery, and pesticide or herbicide delivery (Figure 1). Nanoparticles can be used to transport essential nutrients, including micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and other trace elements, into plant cells ^[1]^[2]^[3]. Tombuloglu et al. successfully synthesized composites of micronutrient nanoparticles (NPs) and applied them to Hordeum vulgare L. ^[3]. They demonstrated the effective incorporation of these micronutrients into plant tissue. The transportation of these NPs significantly increased the quantity of elements in both the root and leaf tissues. Specifically, the contents of Fe, Zn, and Cu were raised to approximately 5, 3, and 18 times higher than the control, respectively ^[3]. This approach is known as nanoparticle-mediated nutrient delivery and is aimed at enhancing the nutrient uptake and utilization of plants. Nanoparticles, due to their small size, can be taken up by plant roots or leaves. The nanoparticles may enter plant cells through various mechanisms, such as diffusion, endocytosis, or direct uptake through ion channels and transporters ^[4]^[5]. Once inside the plant cells, the nanoparticles release the encapsulated nutrients. This controlled release ensures that the nutrients are made available within the plant at a rate that matches the plant’s needs ^[3]. By improving nutrient uptake and utilization, nanoparticle-mediated nutrient delivery can reduce the number of traditional fertilizers needed, minimizing the environmental impact associated with excess nutrient runoff and leaching.

Figure 1. Nanoparticles used as carriers for nutrient (fertilizer), genetic material, and pesticide delivery into plants.

Nanoparticles can also serve as vehicles for delivering genetic material, such as DNA, RNA, or small interfering RNA (siRNA), into plant cells ^[6]^[7]. This technology, often referred to as “nanoparticle-mediated gene delivery”, has several applications in plant biotechnology and agriculture. Nanoparticles are engineered to encapsulate, bind, or complex with genetic material. These nanoparticles are designed to protect the genetic material from degradation and facilitate its delivery into plant cells ^[8]. Wang et al. used several types of NPs (CS, PEI, protamine, CQD, PAMAM, and CSC) to deliver dsRNA against rice sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) in Oryza sativa L. ^[9]. These nanoparticles could protect dsRNA from degradation by nucleases. Nanoparticles are introduced to plant tissues through various methods, such as direct injection into plant cells, root soaking, or foliar spray. Once inside the plant cells, the nanoparticles release the encapsulated genetic material. This can be achieved through controlled release mechanisms or by breaking down the nanoparticle complexes under specific conditions. Nanoparticles can be used to transport pesticides or herbicides to specific target areas within plants ^[10]. This approach can enhance the precision and efficiency of pesticide application and reduce the environmental impact associated with conventional spray applications. Nanoparticles can be designed to target specific plant tissues or cell types, ensuring that the pesticides or herbicides are delivered directly to the intended areas, such as the leaves, stem, or root system ^[10]^[11]. A water-soluble chitosan (CS) derivative (N-(2-hydroxyl)propyl-3-trimethyl ammonium CS chloride, HTCC) was successfully capped on the surface of pyraclostrobin-loaded MSNs by Cao et al. ^[12]. This particle directly targeted Phomopsis asparagi (Sacc.) and had fungicidal activity against it. By improving the targeted delivery of pesticides and herbicides, nanoparticle-mediated delivery can reduce the amount of chemicals needed, minimize off-target effects, and reduce environmental pollution and contamination.

Nanoparticles have also shown potential impacts on plant development and growth, and their applications in agriculture are an active area of research. Nanoparticles can influence seed germination rates and early plant growth ^[13]^[14]. They may enhance seedling vigor and promote healthier plant establishment. Previous study showed that the use of SiO₂ NPs could improve tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Momotaro) seed germination ^[14]. Some nanoparticles have been studied for their potential to enhance plant stress tolerance, such as resistance to drought, salinity, or heavy metal toxicity ^[15]. These nanoparticles may act as stress mitigators and improve overall plant health. The presence of nanoparticles in soil can also influence microbial communities and soil health ^[16]. The impact depends on the type of nanoparticles used and their interactions with soil microorganisms. Some nanoparticles may exhibit phytotoxic effects. This can result in stunted growth, reduced photosynthesis, or other negative impacts on plant health ^[17]. The fate of nanoparticles in the environment, including their persistence and potential for leaching into water sources, is an important consideration for sustainable agricultural practices. Balancing the potential benefits with environmental and human health considerations is crucial for the sustainable integration of nanotechnology in agriculture.

2. Types of Nanoparticles Used for Transport

Various types of nanoparticles are used for transport in plants, depending on the specific application and the payload (substance being transported). Different nanoparticles possess unique properties that make them suitable for diverse purposes in plant biology and agriculture. The choice of nanoparticle type in plant-related applications depends on several critical factors, as listed in Table 1. The careful consideration of these factors is essential when choosing the appropriate nanoparticle type for specific plant-related applications. The goal is to ensure that the selected nanoparticles align with the objectives of the application, provide benefits, and minimize potential risks to plants and the environment.

Nanoparticles can be categorized into commercial (engineered) and biogenic (naturally occurring) based on their origin ^[18]. Commercial nanoparticles, also referred to as engineered nanoparticles, are particles that are intentionally designed, synthesized, and produced with specific characteristics for various industrial, technological, agricultural, or consumer applications such as metal nanoparticles, metal oxide nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, nanocomposites, and polymeric nanoparticles ^[18]^[19]. These nanoparticles are created through engineering processes to achieve desired properties at the nanoscale, typically ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers. The intentional manipulation of the size, shape, surface properties, and composition distinguishes engineered nanoparticles from naturally occurring nanoparticles. On the other hand, biogenic nanoparticles refer to nanoparticles that are naturally formed or synthesized by living organisms or natural processes without human intervention. Unlike engineered nanoparticles, which are intentionally produced by humans for specific purposes, biogenic nanoparticles occur naturally because of biological and environmental processes ^[20]. These nanoparticles can be found in various natural sources and are often associated with specific organisms or geological phenomena such as bacterial nanoparticles, fungal nanoparticles, volcanic ash, clay minerals, and wildfire ash ^[20].

Table 1. Factors influencing nanoparticle selection for plant transport-related applications.

Factor	Description
Desired application	Different applications, such as nutrient delivery, genetic material transfer, or pesticide transport, require specific nanoparticle types with suitable properties ^[3]^[9]^[12].
Payload type	The nature of the payload, whether it is nutrients, genetic material (DNA or RNA), pesticides, or other substances, influences the selection of the appropriate nanoparticle ^[2]^[7]^[10].
Payload size and solubility	The size and solubility of the payload may determine the choice of nanoparticle, as some nanoparticles are better suited for carrying particular types of cargo ^[21].
Targeted delivery	If precise delivery to specific plant tissues or cells is required, the nanoparticle type should allow for targeted delivery ^[22].
Biocompatibility	Some applications, such as those involving genetic material delivery or interactions with living organisms, necessitate biocompatible nanoparticles ^[23].
Environmental considerations	The environmental impact of nanoparticle use, including factors like biodegradability and safety, is crucial in agriculture and ecological applications ^[24]. In addition to these considerations, environmental conditions such as soil pH, temperature, and relative humidity play pivotal roles in determining the fate and impact of nanoparticles ^[25].
Size and shape	The size and shape of nanoparticles can influence their ability to enter plant cells or tissues. In some cases, specific shapes or sizes may be more effective ^[10]^[26].
Crop or plant type	Different plant species or crops may have varying requirements and responses to nanoparticle-based applications, affecting the selection of nanoparticle types ^[27].

There are numerous types of nanoparticles, and the field of nanotechnology continues to evolve, leading to the development of new types and functionalities. Examples of nanoparticles used for transport in plants are presented in Table 2 along with their introduction site. Metals and metal oxides are types of nanoparticles that are commonly used in various plant transportation applications.

Table 2. Types of nanoparticles used for transport in plants and their places of introduction.

Type	NPs	Size (nm)	Plants	Introduction Site	Ref.
Metal or metalloid	Ag	1–10	Tomato	Roots	^[28]
	Ag	10	Triticum aestivum	Roots	^[29]
	Ag	20 ± 3	Linum usitatissimum, Lolium perenne, Hordeum vulgare	Roots	^[30]
	Ag	20	Arabidopsis thaliana	Roots	^[31]
	Ag	10	Phaseolus radiatus, Sorghum bicolor	Roots	^[32]
	Ag	10–15	Lycopersicum esculentum	Roots	^[33]
	Ag	27.3 ± 6	Populus deltoides, Arabidopsis thaliana	Roots	^[34]
	Al	18	Brassica napus, Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, Lactuca sativa, Zea mays, Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[35]
	Au	1–3	Oryza sativa	Roots	^[36]
	Au	3.5 and 18	Nicotiana xanthi	Roots	^[37]
	Au	6–10	Oryza sativa, Lolium perenne, Raphanus sativus, Cucurbita mixta	Roots	^[38]
	Co	28	Tomato	Roots	^[28]
	Ni	28	Tomato	Roots	^[28]
	Si	14	Arabidopsis thaliana	Roots	^[39]
	Zn	35	Brassica napus, Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, Lactuca sativa, Zea mays, Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[35]
Metal or metalloid oxide	CeO₂	25	Holcus lanatus, Diplotaxis tenuifolia	Roots	^[40]
	CeO₂	8	Glycine max	Roots	^[41]
	CeO₂	8 ± 1	Oryza sativa	Roots	^[42]
	CeO₂	20 ± 2	Solanum lycopersicum	Roots	^[43]
	CeO₂	6.6 ± 1; 25.2 ± 2	Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[44]
	Fe₃O₄	20–30	Tomato	Roots	^[28]
	Fe₃O₄	8	Cucurbita maxima	Roots	^[45]
	SiO₂	10–20	Chelidonium majus	Leaves	^[46]
	SiO₂	20	Cucumis sativus	Leaves	^[47]
	TiO₂	20	Tomato	Roots	^[28]
	TiO₂	20 ± 5	Triticum aestivum	Roots	^[48]
	TiO₂	27 ± 4	Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[49]
	TiO₂	27	Lycopersicum esculentum	Roots	^[33]
	TiO₂	2.8 ± 1	Arabidopsis thaliana	Roots	^[50]
	ZnO	10	Glycine max	Roots	^[41]
	ZnO	20 ± 5	Brassica napus, Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, Lactuca sativa, Zea mays, Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[35]
Carbon-based	C	20	Zea mays	Roots	^[51]
	Carbon nanotubes (CNT)	10–30	Cicer arietinum	Roots	^[52]
	Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)	10–20	Brassica napus, Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, Lactuca sativa, Zea mays, Cucumis sativus	Roots	^[35]
	MWCNT	6–9	Zea mays	Roots	^[53]
	MWCNT	4–13	Lactuca sativa, Oryza sativa, Cucumis sativus, Amaranthus tricolor, Abelmoschus esculentus, Capsicum annuum, Glycine max	Roots	^[54]
	MWCNT	30	Brassica juncea	Roots	^[55]
	MWCNT	6–13	Triticum aestivum	Roots	^[56]
	Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT)	20	Nicotiana benthamiana	Leaves	^[57]
Semiconductor	3-mercaptopropionic acid (MPA) quantum dots (QDs)	4–5.4	Lemna minor	Leaves	^[58]
	Cd-based QDs	1.9 and 2.4	Allium cepa	Roots	^[59]
	CdSe/CdZnS QDs	19.5 ± 7	Populus deltoides	Roots	^[60]
	CdTe QDs	4	Oryza sativa	Roots
	Glutathione (GSH) QDs	4–4.4	Lemna minor	Leaves	^[58]
Polymeric	Chitosan	19–21	Oryza sativa	Roots	^[61]
Polymeric	Thiamine loaded chitosan	10	Cicer arietinum	Roots	^[62]
Magnetic	Superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPION)	9	Glycine max	Roots	^[63]

Research on the interaction of nanomaterials with plants has mainly focused on phytotoxicology. At the same time, less research has been conducted on positive effects such as increasing crop productivity and enhancing plant resistance, and research on beneficial effects on plants is still incomplete. The entry of nanoparticles into plants, especially at high concentrations, can lead to phytotoxicity. Geisler-Lee et al. showed that Ag NPs could exert detrimental effects on A. thaliana, but the phytotoxic effect of Ag NPs could not be fully explained by the released silver ions ^[31]. Another study also indicated that the internalization and upward translocation of ZnO NPs by Lolium perenne could significantly reduce the biomass and cause damage to root epidermal and cortical cells ^[35]. Some nanoparticles, such as certain metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, can generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) when they enter plant cells ^[64]. Elevated ROS levels can damage cell structures, disrupt cellular functions, and cause oxidative stress, leading to plant injury or even cell death ^[64]^[65]. High nanoparticle concentrations can disrupt the integrity of plant cell membranes ^[66]. This can lead to the leakage of cellular contents and negatively impact cell viability. Rossi et al. stated that NPs could also influence plant symplastic pathways by altering ion transport activity or root cell membrane integrity ^[67]. Excessive nanoparticle accumulation can interfere with the uptake and distribution of essential nutrients, disrupting nutrient balance in plants and causing nutrient deficiencies or toxicities. High nanoparticle concentrations may also physically obstruct the plant’s nutrient and water transport systems, impeding the movement of substances throughout the plant ^[5]. Plants exposed to high nanoparticle concentrations may activate stress responses, diverting resources away from growth and development and reducing overall plant health ^[27]^[68]. The phytotoxicity of nanoparticles can vary depending on factors such as nanoparticle type, size, shape, surface properties, and the plant species involved. Therefore, selecting the appropriate concentration of nanoparticles is a critical decision, as it can significantly impact the performance and effectiveness of nanoparticle transport.

Nanoparticles, whether naturally occurring or engineered, can have various negative effects on plants. The impact of nanoparticles on plants depends on factors such as the type of nanoparticles, their concentration, exposure duration, and the specific plant species ^[69]. Nanoparticles can exhibit phytotoxic effects, leading to damage being caused to the plant cells, tissues, and overall plant structure. This can result in stunted growth, reduced biomass, and compromised plant health ^[17]. Exposure to certain nanoparticles can alter the root morphology and function. This includes changes in the root length, surface area, and the structure of root hairs, which can impact nutrient and water uptake ^[70]. Nanoparticles can induce oxidative stress in plants by generating reactive oxygen species (ROS). Elevated ROS levels can lead to the damage of cellular components, such as membranes, proteins, and DNA, affecting plant health ^[71]. Some nanoparticles may persist in the environment, leading to long-term exposure for plants. Additionally, there is a concern about the potential bioaccumulation of nanoparticles in plant tissues, which can have implications for organisms higher up the food chain ^[72].

3. Modes of Transport of Nanoparticles into Plants

Nanoparticle transport in plants can be categorized based on two main mechanisms, i.e., assisted delivery and passive delivery. When referring to assisted delivery in the context of transporting nanoparticles to the plant body, it means that external power or forces are applied to facilitate the transport of nanoparticles into the plant tissues ^[73]. This external power or force assists in the delivery process, often overcoming barriers that would hinder passive transport ^[74]. Examples of assisted delivery techniques in plant nanoparticle applications are shown in Figure 2 and described briefly in Table 3. The biolistic (gene gun) is a device that uses an external force, such as compressed gas or helium, to propel nanoparticles ^[75]^[76]. Rajkumari et al. reported the use of Ag NPs as gene carriers, replacing Au microcarriers for biolistic gene delivery in Nicotiana tabacum L., and showed that the transformation efficiency was significantly higher with Ag NPs than Au microparticles as carriers ^[76]. Sonoporation involves the application of ultrasound waves to create temporary pores in plant cell membranes, allowing nanoparticles to enter the cells ^[77]. The external force of ultrasound assists in the delivery process. Zolghadrnasab et al. showed that ultrasonic treatment provides an economical and straightforward approach for poly-ethyleneimine (PEI)-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) transferring into plant cells without any need for complicated devices and without concerns about safety issues ^[78]. Magnetic nanoparticles can be guided to specific plant tissues using external magnetic fields, effectively assisting in the targeted delivery of these nanoparticles ^[79]. Characterizing the intrinsic magnetic properties of nanoparticles involves understanding their behavior at the bulk level as well as at the level of individual molecules. Various techniques are employed for both bulk and single-molecule investigations. Bulk techniques include vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM), superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Mössbauer spectroscopy, and X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) ^[80]^[81]. Single-molecule techniques include magnetic force microscopy (MFM), scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), electron magnetic circular dichroism (EMCD), single-particle magnetometry, and fluorescence-based techniques ^[82]^[83]. Electroporation involves applying external electric fields to plant cells, creating temporary pores in the cell membranes ^[84]. This method uses an external electrical power source to facilitate nanoparticle entry. Microinjection, combined with external manipulation, can be used to introduce nanoparticles into specific plant cells ^[85]. Most of the assisted delivery methods are used for transporting nanoparticles in vitro (outside living organisms, typically in a controlled laboratory setting) as indicated in Figure 2. Nanoparticles can be introduced to plant embryos cultivated in a controlled laboratory setting ^[86]. Plant embryos, which are the earliest stages of plant development, offer a convenient point of entry for introducing nanoparticles that can influence the growth and characteristics of the resulting plant. Nanoparticles can also be introduced to plant callus cultures, which are undifferentiated masses of plant cells grown in vitro ^[87]. Plant callus cultures are typically initiated from explants, such as leaf pieces, stem segments, or immature embryos. These explants are sterilized and placed on a suitable culture medium containing plant growth regulators to induce callus formation. Introducing nanoparticles to plant protoplasts is also a technique that is commonly used in plant biotechnology. Protoplasts are plant cells that have had their cell walls enzymatically removed, leaving behind the cell membrane and cytoplasm ^[88].

Figure 2. Assisted delivery techniques for introducing nanoparticles into plants in vitro.

Assisted delivery methods can facilitate the delivery of relatively larger particles due to the external forces involved, as indicated in Table 3. These methods are valuable for overcoming natural barriers and transporting particles efficiently. However, there are still many big issues related to this transport method, especially regarding their scalability to larger scales. Therefore, passive delivery still has advantages over it. In a controlled laboratory setting, it is easier to maintain uniform conditions for assisted delivery, ensuring consistency in nanoparticle uptake ^[89]. On larger scales, achieving uniformity across a field or agricultural area becomes more challenging. Variability in environmental conditions, soil composition, and plant physiology can affect the effectiveness of delivery methods ^[90]. Assisted delivery in vitro also allows for precise control over factors such as temperature, humidity, and nutrient levels. However, real-world conditions vary widely in agricultural settings. Adapting in vitro strategies to diverse environments becomes complex, and factors like wind, rainfall, and temperature fluctuations can impact the efficacy of nanoparticle delivery ^[91]. Implementing these assisted delivery methods on a large scale also requires significant resources and may not be economically feasible. Factors such as the cost of materials, equipment, and labor must be considered for practical application in agriculture. The large-scale implementation of assisted delivery may face regulatory challenges related to environmental impact, safety, and ethical considerations ^[92]. Demonstrating the safety and environmental compatibility of nanoparticle delivery systems becomes essential.

Table 3. Examples of assisted delivery techniques for introducing nanoparticles into plants.

Method	NPs	Size (nm)	Plants	Target	Ref.
Biolistic (gene gun)	Ag	100	Nicotiana tabacum	Leaf explants	^[76]
	Au	712 ± 95	Nicotiana benthamiana	Leaf explants	^[88]
	Au-MSN	600	Nicotiana tabacum, Teosinte	Leaf explants	^[93]
	Au-MSN	600	Zea mays	Embryos	^[85]
	Fe	255 ± 170	Nicotiana benthamiana	Leaf explants	^[88]
Sonoporation	hPAMAM-G2	123 ± 21	Medicago sativa	Cells	^[94]
Sonoporation	PEI-MSN	100 ± 87	Nicotiana tabacum	Cells	^[78]
Magnetic field	γ-Fe₂O₃	21.2 ± 3	Zea mays	Roots	^[95]
	Carbon-coated iron	10–50	Cucurbita pepo	Roots	^[96]
	Fe₂O₃	10	Solanum lycopersicum	Roots	^[97]
	Fe₃O₄	13	Hordeum vulgare	Roots	^[98]
Electroporation	CPNs	60–80	Tobacco	Protoplasts	^[87]
Microinjection	mGNPs	20–30	Brassica napus	Cells	^[99]
Microinjection	SWNTs	500	Nicotiana tabacum	Cells	^[100]

In contrast to assisted delivery, passive delivery in the context of nanoparticle transport in plants typically refers to the movement of nanoparticles through natural routes without the assistance of external forces or active mechanisms. It encompasses various methods through which nanoparticles enter the plant body, often via sites such as roots and leaves. In summary, assisted delivery and passive delivery are different concepts. Assisted delivery involves an intervention to enhance nanoparticle uptake, while passive delivery relies on natural processes, without external assistance. These approaches cater to different research goals and applications in the field of nanotechnology for plant science. These passive delivery routes include root uptake and foliar uptake ^[10]. Plants naturally absorb water and dissolved substances, and nanoparticles can enter the plant through the roots as they take up water and nutrients ^[5]^[10]. This is a common method for delivering nanoparticles to plants in vivo. When discussing in vivo delivery in the context of plants, it typically involves the intact, living plant. In vivo experiments aim to study the interaction between nanoparticles and the entire living organism, considering the complexities of the plant’s biological systems ^[101]. Nanoparticles can also be sprayed or applied to the leaves of plants ^[5]^[102]. Lian et al. showed that the response of Zea mays L. to Cd and TiO₂ NPs was highly dependent on the exposure mode. They reported that leaf exposure provided more benefits than root exposure ^[102]. Some nanoparticles, like those used in foliar fertilizers or pesticides, can be taken up by the plant through the stomata (small openings on leaf surfaces) or through the leaf cuticle ^[10]. Examples of these two methods are shown in Table 1 above, which use the in vivo nanoparticle transport route (Figure 3). After nanoparticles enter the roots or leaves of a plant, they can be transported throughout the plant’s vascular system, which includes the xylem and phloem in the stem ^[103]. The vascular system plays a crucial role in the distribution of water, nutrients, and various substances, including nanoparticles, to different parts of the plant.

Figure 3. Passive delivery introduction sites for in vivo transport of nanoparticles into plants.

4. Challenges during Nanoparticle Transport

One of the primary challenges of using assisted delivery techniques is the potential for plant cell damage ^[104]. Assisted delivery methods, especially those involving physical forces or electrical pulses, can cause physical stress or damage to the target plant cells ^[105]. This may result in cell death, reduced viability, or altered cell function. Each assisted delivery method often requires the careful optimization of parameters. Finding the optimal parameters for different applications can be labor-intensive and may involve trial and error. Some assisted delivery methods may raise safety concerns due to potential unintended biological effects. Some assisted delivery methods may also be less suitable for in vivo applications due to challenges related to safety, depth of penetration, and the potential for systemic effects. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of each assisted delivery method can be seen in Table 4. Some of the disadvantages associated with assisted delivery methods are precisely what make passive delivery methods preferable in certain situations. Passive delivery methods are often favored when conducting studies in living plants, particularly when the goal is to minimize risks to plant health and create conditions that more closely resemble real-world scenarios.

Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of using assisted delivery methods to introduce nanoparticles into plants.

Method of Assisted Delivery	Advantages	Disadvantages
Biolistic (gene gun)	- Can be applied to a wide range of plant species. - No need for specific plant developmental stages ^[106].	- Can cause physical damage to plant cells, potentially leading to cell death or reduced regeneration efficiency ^[107]. - Requires specialized equipment. - The composition of the delivery buffer can influence the stability of nanoparticles and their tendency to aggregate ^[108].
Sonoporation	- Non-invasive method, making it less damaging to plant cells. - Pores created are temporary and typically reseal over time ^[109].	- Optimization can be complex and may require extensive experimentation. - May have limited penetration into deep tissues ^[110]. - The composition of the medium in which sonoporation is conducted can influence nanoparticle stability ^[111].
Magnetic field	- Enable highly targeted and localized delivery to specific plant tissues or cells ^[79]. - Allows for precise control over the release of nanoparticles.	- Require the use of magnetic nanoparticles, which can limit their applicability ^[112]. - Methods are well suited for in vitro applications, and not in vivo.
Electroporation	- Can be used for a broad range of plant species. - Relatively fast, allowing for efficient delivery within a short time frame ^[113].	- Can lead to physical damage to the cell membranes, potentially causing cell death or reducing cell viability ^[114]. - Can induce cellular stress responses.
Microinjection	- Allows for precise and targeted delivery of nanoparticles into specific cells or locations within an organism. - Can be used to introduce a wide range of nanoparticles, making it a versatile technique ^[115].	- Can be invasive and potentially damaging to the plant cells, which may lead to stress or mortality. - Low-throughput method, making it unsuitable for large-scale applications ^[116].

Passive delivery methods in plants have several advantages over assisted delivery methods, especially in certain applications and contexts. Passive delivery methods do not require the application of external forces, such as mechanical or electrical forces, which can potentially damage plant cells or tissues ^[8]^[104]. This results in less invasive effects on the plant, reducing the risk of cell damage or stress. Characterizing the mechanical and electrical properties of nanoparticles is essential for understanding their behavior and performance, especially when they interact with plant tissues ^[117]. Mechanical properties at the bulk level are characterized by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) ^[118]. In contrast, AFM-based nanoindentation and scanning probe microscopy (SPM) are the techniques commonly used to characterize at the nanoscale level ^[119], and techniques used to characterize electrical properties at the bulk level are impedance spectroscopy and four-point probe measurement ^[120]. On the other hand, techniques used to characterize at the nanoscale level are conductive AFM (cAFM), Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) ^[121]. Passive delivery methods are often simpler and more straightforward to implement. They do not require specialized equipment or complex optimization processes, making them accessible to a wider range of researchers and practitioners. Passive delivery methods are generally more cost-effective because they do not necessitate the use of expensive equipment or consumables. However, there are several challenges, particularly when it comes to particle size limitations. Passive delivery methods are often constrained by the physical characteristics of the nanoparticles being transported ^[122]. In the case of roots and leaves, the size of particles that can be transported is limited by the size of pores, channels, or structures within the plant tissue ^[123]. Large particles may encounter limitations in passing through these structures, thereby constraining the efficacy of passive transport. The examples presented in Table 1 indicate that the majority of the particle sizes utilized are below 40 nm. Particles with sizes above 40 nm may not be accommodated through passive delivery via roots and leaves. Plant cells have rigid cell walls, and the pore size diameter ranges from less than 10 nm in most pores to a rare maximum size of 40 nm ^[124]^[125]^[126]. McCann et al. observed that intact cell walls of Allium cepa var. Jumbo generally measure 10–20 nm ^[124]. The average cell wall size was 30 nm in width, which was visualized using spectroscopic methods ^[127]. The same is true for foliar uptake, where a waxy cuticle in leaves acts as a barrier for particles entering the plant ^[128]. Many particles, particularly larger ones, will not be able to pass through the stomata (microscopic openings) on the leaf surface, as these typically have diameters of less than 10 nm to 20 nm ^[129]. Passive delivery methods often involve incorporating nanoparticles into the growth medium, soil, or other components of the plant’s environment during specific developmental stages, such as seed germination or seedling growth, as indicated in Table 5. Passive delivery via root uptake and foliar uptake has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, as also listed in Table 5. Exploring alternative introduction sites for passive transport in plants is a worthwhile direction for future research and development. It allows for the customization of delivery methods and the potential to overcome limitations associated with roots and stems.

Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of using existing passive delivery methods and plant developmental stages to introduce nanoparticles into plants.

Passive Delivery	Advantages	Disadvantages
Methodology
Root uptake	- Plant roots are naturally adapted to take up water and nutrients from the soil. Nanoparticles can leverage these existing uptake mechanisms, making it a relatively non-invasive and eco-friendly method ^[10]. - Nanoparticles introduced through the root system can potentially provide longer-lasting effects compared to foliar applications, as they may be less prone to weathering and degradation ^[130].	- The transport of nanoparticles through the root system may be subject to size and charge limitations, as not all nanoparticles can efficiently pass through the root cell walls or move within the plant ^[124]^[127]. - The efficiency of nanoparticle uptake through roots can vary among different plant species. Some plants may not readily take up nanoparticles or may do so less efficiently ^[10]^[131].
Foliar uptake	- Leaves are the primary sites for photosynthesis and gas exchange in plants. Nanoparticles applied to leaves can be directly taken up by the plant, potentially leading to faster effects compared to root uptake ^[132]. - Leaf-based applications eliminate the need for nanoparticles to interact with soil components, which may affect the stability and bioavailability of the nanoparticles ^[133].	- Not all nanoparticles are efficiently taken up by leaves, and the extent of uptake can vary among plant species. Leaf properties, such as waxes and surface structures, can create barriers to nanoparticle penetration ^[5]^[131]. - Nanoparticles may not efficiently translocate to other plant tissues beyond the treated leaves, limiting their systemic effects ^[134].
Plant developmental stages
Seed germination	- Nanoparticles become integrated into the plant from the earliest stages, potentially influencing overall development ^[14]. - Since seeds are typically uniform in size and structure, introducing nanoparticles during germination allows for relatively uniform exposure across a population of plants ^[135].	- During germination, the developing seedling may have limited root development, potentially limiting the uptake of nanoparticles ^[35]. - Nanoparticles introduced during germination might have a higher chance of causing toxicity, as developing seedlings are often more sensitive to external factors ^[136].
Seedling growth	- Seedlings generally have more developed root systems compared to germinating seeds, allowing for potentially higher uptake of nanoparticles ^[137]. - Seedlings are often more robust and resilient compared to germinating seeds, making them potentially better equipped to handle the introduction of nanoparticles without adverse effects on growth ^[137].	- Seedlings may exhibit variability in size and developmental stage, leading to potentially inconsistent exposure to nanoparticles across a population ^[138]. - Growing seedlings requires more resources such as space, light, and nutrients compared to germinating seeds ^[14].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/nano14020131

References

Ramírez-Rodríguez, G.B.; Dal Sasso, G.; Carmona, F.J.; Miguel-Rojas, C.; Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Masciocchi, N.; Guagliardi, A.; Delgado-López, J.M. Engineering biomimetic calcium phosphate nanoparticles: A green synthesis of slow-release multinutrient (NPK) nanofertilizers. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2020, 3, 1344–1353.
Monreal, C.M.; DeRosa, M.; Mallubhotla, S.C.; Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C. Nanotechnologies for increasing the crop use efficiency of fertilizer-micronutrients. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2016, 52, 423–437.
Tombuloglu, H.; Ercan, I.; Alshammari, T.; Tombuloglu, G.; Slimani, Y.; Almessiere, M.; Baykal, A. Incorporation of micro-nutrients (nickel, copper, zinc, and iron) into plant body through nanoparticles. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 1872–1881.
Liu, J.; Shabala, S.; Zhang, J.; Ma, G.; Chen, D.; Shabala, L.; Zeng, F.; Chen, Z.H.; Zhou, M.; Venkataraman, G.; et al. Melatonin improves rice salinity stress tolerance by NADPH oxidase-dependent control of the plasma membrane K+ transporters and K+ homeostasis. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 2591–2605.
Hong, J.; Wang, C.; Wagner, D.C.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; He, F.; Rico, C.M. Foliar application of nanoparticles: Mechanisms of absorption, transfer, and multiple impacts. Environ. Sci. Nano 2021, 8, 1196–1210.
Wang, J.W.; Grandio, E.G.; Newkirk, G.M.; Demirer, G.S.; Butrus, S.; Giraldo, J.P.; Landry, M.P. Nanoparticle-mediated genetic engineering of plants. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1037–1040.
Mujtaba, M.; Wang, D.; Carvalho, L.B.; Oliveira, J.L.; Espirito Santo Pereira, A.D.; Sharif, R.; Jogaiah, S.; Paidi, M.K.; Wang, L.; Ali, Q.; et al. Nanocarrier-mediated delivery of miRNA, RNAi, and CRISPR-Cas for plant protection: Current trends and future directions. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2021, 1, 417–435.
Jat, S.K.; Bhattacharya, J.; Sharma, M.K. Nanomaterial based gene delivery: A promising method for plant genome engineering. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 4165–4175.
Wang, Y.; Yan, Q.; Lan, C.; Tang, T.; Wang, K.; Shen, J.; Niu, D. Nanoparticle carriers enhance RNA stability and uptake efficiency and prolong the protection against Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathol. Res. 2023, 5, 2.
Su, Y.; Ashworth, V.; Kim, C.; Adeleye, A.S.; Rolshausen, P.; Roper, C.; White, J.; Jassby, D. Delivery, uptake, fate, and transport of engineered nanoparticles in plants: A critical review and data analysis. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 2311–2331.
Singh, R.P.; Handa, R.; Manchanda, G. Nanoparticles in sustainable agriculture: An emerging opportunity. J. Control. Release 2021, 329, 1234–1248.
Cao, L.; Zhang, H.; Cao, C.; Zhang, J.; Li, F.; Huang, Q. Quaternized chitosan-capped mesoporous silica nanoparticles as nanocarriers for controlled pesticide release. Nanomaterials 2016, 6, 126.
Sembada, A.A.; Lenggoro, I.W. Comparative analysis of germination performance from several species of seeds under influence of silica nanoparticles. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1271, 012085.
Sembada, A.A.; Maki, S.; Faizal, A.; Fukuhara, T.; Suzuki, T.; Lenggoro, I.W. The role of silica nanoparticles in promoting the germination of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) seeds. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2110.
Faizan, M.; Yu, F.; Chen, C.; Faraz, A.; Hayat, S. Zinc oxide nanoparticles help to enhance plant growth and alleviate abiotic stress: A review. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2021, 22, 362–375.
Asadishad, B.; Chahal, S.; Akbari, A.; Cianciarelli, V.; Azodi, M.; Ghoshal, S.; Tufenkji, N. Amendment of agricultural soil with metal nanoparticles: Effects on soil enzyme activity and microbial community composition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1908–1918.
Yan, A.; Chen, Z. Impacts of silver nanoparticles on plants: A focus on the phytotoxicity and underlying mechanism. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1003.
Jeevanandam, J.; Barhoum, A.; Chan, Y.S.; Dufresne, A.; Danquah, M.K. Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials: History, sources, toxicity and regulations. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 1050–1074.
Barhoum, A.; García-Betancourt, M.L.; Jeevanandam, J.; Hussien, E.A.; Mekkawy, S.A.; Mostafa, M.; Omran, M.M.; Abdalla, M.S.; Bechelany, M. Review on natural, incidental, bioinspired, and engineered nanomaterials: History, definitions, classifications, synthesis, properties, market, toxicities, risks, and regulations. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 177.
Patil, S.; Chandrasekaran, R. Biogenic nanoparticles: A comprehensive perspective in synthesis, characterization, application and its challenges. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2020, 18, 67.
Vega-Vásquez, P.; Mosier, N.S.; Irudayaraj, J. Nanoscale drug delivery systems: From medicine to agriculture. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 79.
Santana, I.; Wu, H.; Hu, P.; Giraldo, J.P. Targeted delivery of nanomaterials with chemical cargoes in plants enabled by a biorecognition motif. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2045.
Schubert, J.; Chanana, M. Coating matters: Review on colloidal stability of nanoparticles with biocompatible coatings in biological media, living cells and organisms. Curr. Med. Chem. 2018, 25, 4553–4586.
Sampathkumar, K.; Tan, K.X.; Loo, S.C.J. Developing nano-delivery systems for agriculture and food applications with nature-derived polymers. Iscience 2020, 23, 101055.
Goswami, L.; Kim, K.H.; Deep, A.; Das, P.; Bhattacharya, S.S.; Kumar, S.; Adelodun, A.A. Engineered nano particles: Nature, behavior, and effect on the environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 297–315.
Zhang, H.; Goh, N.S.; Wang, J.W.; Pinals, R.L.; González-Grandío, E.; Demirer, G.S.; Butrus, S.; Fakra, S.C.; Flores, A.D.R.; Zhai, R.; et al. Nanoparticle cellular internalization is not required for RNA delivery to mature plant leaves. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2022, 17, 197–205.
Mittal, D.; Kaur, G.; Singh, P.; Yadav, K.; Ali, S.A. Nanoparticle-based sustainable agriculture and food science: Recent advances and future outlook. Front. Nanotechnol. 2020, 2, 579954.
Antisari, L.V.; Carbone, S.; Gatti, A.; Vianello, G.; Nannipieri, P. Uptake and translocation of metals and nutrients in tomato grown in soil polluted with metal oxide (CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO2, TiO2) or metallic (Ag, Co, Ni) engineered nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 22, 1841–1853.
Dimkpa, C.O.; McLean, J.E.; Martineau, N.; Britt, D.W.; Haverkamp, R.; Anderson, A.J. Silver nanoparticles disrupt wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth in a sand matrix. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1082–1090.
El-Temsah, Y.S.; Joner, E.J. Impact of Fe and Ag nanoparticles on seed germination and differences in bioavailability during exposure in aqueous suspension and soil. Environ. Toxicol. 2012, 27, 42–49.
Geisler-Lee, J.; Wang, Q.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Geisler, M.; Li, K.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Kolmakov, A.; Ma, X. Phytotoxicity, accumulation and transport of silver nanoparticles by Arabidopsis thaliana. Nanotoxicology 2013, 7, 323–337.
Lee, W.M.; Kwak, J.I.; An, Y.J. Effect of silver nanoparticles in crop plants Phaseolus radiatus and Sorghum bicolor: Media effect on phytotoxicity. Chemosphere 2012, 86, 491–499.
Song, U.; Jun, H.; Waldman, B.; Roh, J.; Kim, Y.; Yi, J.; Lee, E.J. Functional analyses of nanoparticle toxicity: A comparative study of the effects of TiO2 and Ag on tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 93, 60–67.
Wang, J.; Koo, Y.; Alexander, A.; Yang, Y.; Westerhof, S.; Zhang, Q.; Schnoor, J.L.; Colvin, V.L.; Braam, J.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Phytostimulation of poplars and Arabidopsis exposed to silver nanoparticles and Ag+ at sublethal concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5442–5449.
Lin, D.; Xing, B. Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: Inhibition of seed germination and root growth. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 243–250.
Koelmel, J.; Leland, T.; Wang, H.; Amarasiriwardena, D.; Xing, B. Investigation of gold nanoparticles uptake and their tissue level distribution in rice plants by laser ablation-inductively coupled-mass spectrometry. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 174, 222–228.
Sabo-Attwood, T.; Unrine, J.M.; Stone, J.W.; Murphy, C.J.; Ghoshroy, S.; Blom, D.; Bertsch, P.M.; Newman, L.A. Uptake, distribution and toxicity of gold nanoparticles in tobacco (Nicotiana xanthi) seedlings. Nanotoxicology 2012, 6, 353–360.
Zhu, Z.J.; Wang, H.; Yan, B.; Zheng, H.; Jiang, Y.; Miranda, O.R.; Rotello, V.M.; Xing, B.; Vachet, R.W. Effect of surface charge on the uptake and distribution of gold nanoparticles in four plant species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12391–12398.
Slomberg, D.L.; Schoenfisch, M.H. Silica nanoparticle phytotoxicity to Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 10247–10254.
Lizzi, D.; Mattiello, A.; Adamiano, A.; Fellet, G.; Gava, E.; Marchiol, L. Influence of cerium oxide nanoparticles on two terrestrial wild plant species. Plants 2021, 10, 335.
Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Andrews, J.C.; Cotte, M.; Rico, C.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Ge, Y.; Priester, J.H.; Holden, P.A.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. In situ synchrotron X-ray fluorescence mapping and speciation of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles in soil cultivated soybean (Glycine max). ACS Nano 2013, 7, 1415–1423.
Rico, C.M.; Morales, M.I.; McCreary, R.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Barrios, A.C.; Hong, J.; Tafoya, A.; Lee, W.Y.; Varela-Ramirez, A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; et al. Cerium oxide nanoparticles modify the antioxidative stress enzyme activities and macromolecule composition in rice seedlings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 14110–14118.
Wang, Q.; Ma, X.; Zhang, W.; Pei, H.; Chen, Y. The impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its implications for food safety. Metallomics 2012, 4, 1105–1112.
Zhang, Z.; He, X.; Zhang, H.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, P.; Ding, Y.; Zhao, Y. Uptake and distribution of ceria nanoparticles in cucumber plants. Metallomics 2011, 3, 816–822.
Zhu, H.; Han, J.; Xiao, J.Q.; Jin, Y. Uptake, translocation, and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by pumpkin plants. J. Environ. Monit. 2008, 10, 713–717.
Lysenko, V.; Guo, Y.; Rajput, V.D.; Chalenko, E.; Yadronova, O.; Zaruba, T.; Varduny, T.; Kirichenko, E. Changes of dorsoventral asymmetry and anoxygenic photosynthesis in response of Chelidonium majus leaves to the SiO2 nanoparticle treatment. Photosynthetica 2023, 61, 275–284.
Li, S.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, J.; Xing, G. Comparative physiological and metabolomic analyses revealed that foliar spraying with zinc oxide and silica nanoparticles modulates metabolite profiles in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Food Energy Secur. 2021, 10, e269.
Du, W.; Sun, Y.; Ji, R.; Zhu, J.; Wu, J.; Guo, H. TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles negatively affect wheat growth and soil enzyme activities in agricultural soil. J. Environ. Monit. 2011, 13, 822–828.
Servin, A.D.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Diaz, B.C.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Synchrotron micro-XRF and micro-XANES confirmation of the uptake and translocation of TiO2 nanoparticles in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7637–7643.
Wang, S.; Kurepa, J.; Smalle, J.A. Ultra-small TiO2 nanoparticles disrupt microtubular networks in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34, 811–820.
Zhao, F.; Xin, X.; Cao, Y.; Su, D.; Ji, P.; Zhu, Z.; He, Z. Use of carbon nanoparticles to improve soil fertility, crop growth and nutrient uptake by corn (Zea mays L.). Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2717.
Tripathi, S.; Sonkar, S.K.; Sarkar, S. Growth stimulation of gram (Cicer arietinum) plant by water soluble carbon nanotubes. Nanoscale 2011, 3, 1176–1181.
Tiwari, D.K.; Dasgupta-Schubert, N.; Villaseñor Cendejas, L.M.; Villegas, J.; Carreto Montoya, L.; Borjas García, S.E. Interfacing carbon nanotubes (CNT) with plants: Enhancement of growth, water and ionic nutrient uptake in maize (Zea mays) and implications for nanoagriculture. Appl. Nanosci. 2014, 4, 577–591.
Begum, P.; Ikhtiari, R.; Fugetsu, B.; Matsuoka, M.; Akasaka, T.; Watari, F. Phytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes assessed by selected plant species in the seedling stage. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 262, 120–124.
Mondal, A.; Basu, R.; Das, S.; Nandy, P. Beneficial role of carbon nanotubes on mustard plant growth: An agricultural prospect. J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 4519–4528.
Wang, X.; Han, H.; Liu, X.; Gu, X.; Chen, K.; Lu, D. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes can enhance root elongation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants. J. Nanopart. Res. 2012, 14, 841.
Demirer, G.S.; Zhang, H.; Goh, N.S.; Pinals, R.L.; Chang, R.; Landry, M.P. Carbon nanocarriers deliver siRNA to intact plant cells for efficient gene knockdown. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz0495.
Modlitbová, P.; Novotný, K.; Pořízka, P.; Klus, J.; Lubal, P.; Zlámalová-Gargošová, H.; Kaiser, J. Comparative investigation of toxicity and bioaccumulation of Cd-based quantum dots and Cd salt in freshwater plant Lemna minor L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 334–341.
Modlitbová, P.; Pořízka, P.; Novotný, K.; Drbohlavová, J.; Chamradová, I.; Farka, Z.; Zlámalová-Gargošová, H.; Romih, T.; Kaiser, J. Short-term assessment of cadmium toxicity and uptake from different types of Cd-based Quantum Dots in the model plant Allium cepa L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 153, 23–31.
Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Braam, J.; Schnoor, J.L.; Alvarez, P.J. Uptake, translocation, and transformation of quantum dots with cationic versus anionic coatings by Populus deltoides× nigra cuttings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6754–6762.
Lian, F.; Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Gu, S.; Cao, X. Variety-dependent responses of rice plants with differential cadmium accumulating capacity to cadmium telluride quantum dots (CdTe QDs): Cadmium uptake, antioxidative enzyme activity, and gene expression. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 697, 134083.
Muthukrishnan, S.; Murugan, I.; Selvaraj, M. Chitosan nanoparticles loaded with thiamine stimulate growth and enhances protection against wilt disease in Chickpea. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 212, 169–177.
Divya, K.; Vijayan, S.; Nair, S.J.; Jisha, M.S. Optimization of chitosan nanoparticle synthesis and its potential application as germination elicitor of Oryza sativa L. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 124, 1053–1059.
Rastogi, A.; Zivcak, M.; Sytar, O.; Kalaji, H.M.; He, X.; Mbarki, S.; Brestic, M. Impact of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on plant: A critical review. Front. Chem. 2017, 5, 78.
Nair, P.M.G.; Chung, I.M. Physiological and molecular level effects of silver nanoparticles exposure in rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 2014, 112, 105–113.
Wang, Q.; Ebbs, S.D.; Chen, Y.; Ma, X. Trans-generational impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on tomato plants. Metallomics 2013, 5, 753–759.
Rossi, L.; Sharifan, H.; Zhang, W.; Schwab, A.P.; Ma, X. Mutual effects and in planta accumulation of co-existing cerium oxide nanoparticles and cadmium in hydroponically grown soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Environ. Sci. Nano 2018, 5, 150–157.
Rani, N.; Kumari, K.; Sangwan, P.; Barala, P.; Yadav, J.; Vijeta; Rahul; Hooda, V. Nano-iron and nano-zinc induced growth and metabolic changes in Vigna radiata. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8251.
Ali, S.; Mehmood, A.; Khan, N. Uptake, translocation, and consequences of nanomaterials on plant growth and stress adaptation. J. Nanomater. 2021, 2021, 6677616.
Wang, X.; Xie, H.; Wang, P.; Yin, H. Nanoparticles in plants: Uptake, transport and physiological activity in leaf and root. Materials 2023, 16, 3097.
Kralova, K.; Jampilek, J. Responses of medicinal and aromatic plants to engineered nanoparticles. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1813.
Abbas, Q.; Yousaf, B.; Ullah, H.; Ali, M.U.; Ok, Y.S.; Rinklebe, J. Environmental transformation and nano-toxicity of engineered nano-particles (ENPs) in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 50, 2523–2581.
Yan, Y.; Zhu, X.; Yu, Y.; Li, C.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, F. Nanotechnology strategies for plant genetic engineering. Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2106945.
Ahmar, S.; Mahmood, T.; Fiaz, S.; Mora-Poblete, F.; Shafique, M.S.; Chattha, M.S.; Jung, K.H. Advantage of nanotechnology-based genome editing system and its application in crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 663849.
Roychoudhury, A. Nanobiolistics: New generation transfection system for animals and plants. J. Mol. Cell. Biol. Forecast 2020, 3, 1020.
Rajkumari, N.; Alex, S.; Soni, K.B.; Anith, K.N.; Viji, M.M.; Kiran, A.G. Silver nanoparticles for biolistic transformation in Nicotiana tabacum L. 3 Biotech 2021, 11, 497.
Das, A.K.; Gupta, P.; Chakraborty, D. Physical methods of gene transfer: Kinetics of gene delivery into cells: A Review. Agric. Rev. 2015, 36, 61–66.
Zolghadrnasab, M.; Mousavi, A.; Farmany, A.; Arpanaei, A. Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery into suspended plant cells using polyethyleneimine-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2021, 73, 105507.
González-Melendi, P.; Fernández-Pacheco, R.; Coronado, M.J.; Corredor, E.; Testillano, P.S.; Risueño, M.C.; Marquina, C.; Ibarra, M.R.; Rubiales, D.; Pérez-de-Luque, A. Nanoparticles as smart treatment-delivery systems in plants: Assessment of different techniques of microscopy for their visualization in plant tissues. Ann. Bot. 2008, 101, 187–195.
Calvo, R.; Rodriguez Mariblanca, I.; Pini, V.; Dias, M.; Cebrian, V.; Thon, A.; Saad, A.; Salvador-Matar, A.; Ahumada, Ó.; Silván, M.M.; Saunders, A.E.; et al. Novel characterization techniques for multifunctional plasmonic–magnetic nanoparticles in biomedical applications. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2929.
Nisticò, R.; Cesano, F.; Garello, F. Magnetic materials and systems: Domain structure visualization and other characterization techniques for the application in the materials science and biomedicine. Inorganics 2020, 8, 6.
Winkler, R.; Ciria, M.; Ahmad, M.; Plank, H.; Marcuello, C. A review of the current state of magnetic force microscopy to unravel the magnetic properties of nanomaterials applied in biological systems and future directions for quantum technologies. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2585.
Adhikari, S.; Orrit, M. Progress and perspectives in single-molecule optical spectroscopy. J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 160903.
Eggenberger, K.; Frey, N.; Zienicke, B.; Siebenbrock, J.; Schunck, T.; Fischer, R.; Bräse, S.; Birtalan, E.; Nann, T.; Nick, P. Use of nanoparticles to study and manipulate plant cells. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2010, 12, B406–B412.
Martin-Ortigosa, S.; Peterson, D.J.; Valenstein, J.S.; Lin, V.S.Y.; Trewyn, B.G.; Lyznik, L.A.; Wang, K. Mesoporous silica nanoparticle-mediated intracellular Cre protein delivery for maize genome editing via loxP site excision. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164, 537–547.
Golkar, P.; Moradi, M.; Garousi, G.A. Elicitation of stevia glycosides using salicylic acid and silver nanoparticles under callus culture. Sugar Tech 2019, 21, 569–577.
Silva, A.T.; Nguyen, A.; Ye, C.; Verchot, J.; Moon, J.H. Conjugated polymer nanoparticles for effective siRNA delivery to tobacco BY-2 protoplasts. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 291.
Makhotenko, A.V.; Snigir, E.A.; Kalinina, N.O.; Makarov, V.V.; Taliansky, M.E. Data on a delivery of biomolecules into Nicothiana benthamiana leaves using different nanoparticles. Data Br. 2018, 16, 1034–1037.
Zhang, T.; Xu, Q.; Huang, T.; Ling, D.; Gao, J. New insights into biocompatible iron oxide nanoparticles: A potential booster of gene delivery to stem cells. Small 2020, 16, 2001588.
Ahmad, A.; Hashmi, S.S.; Palma, J.M.; Corpas, F.J. Influence of metallic, metallic oxide, and organic nanoparticles on plant physiology. Chemosphere 2022, 290, 133329.
Kjeldskov, J.; Skov, M.B. Studying usability in sitro: Simulating real world phenomena in controlled environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2007, 22, 7–36.
Foulkes, R.; Man, E.; Thind, J.; Yeung, S.; Joy, A.; Hoskins, C. The regulation of nanomaterials and nanomedicines for clinical application: Current and future perspectives. Biomater. Sci. 2020, 8, 4653–4664.
Martin-Ortigosa, S.; Valenstein, J.S.; Lin, V.S.Y.; Trewyn, B.G.; Wang, K. Gold functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticle mediated protein and DNA codelivery to plant cells via the biolistic method. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 3576–3582.
Amani, A.; Zare, N.; Asadi, A.; Zakaria, R.A. Ultrasound-enhanced gene delivery to alfalfa cells by hPAMAM dendrimer nanoparticles. Turk. J. Biol. 2018, 42, 63–75.
Li, J.; Hu, J.; Ma, C.; Wang, Y.; Wu, C.; Huang, J.; Xing, B. Uptake, translocation and physiological effects of magnetic iron oxide (γ-Fe2O3) nanoparticles in corn (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 2016, 159, 326–334.
Ozyigit, I.I. Gene transfer to plants by electroporation: Methods and applications. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2020, 47, 3195–3210.
Shankramma, K.; Yallappa, S.; Shivanna, M.B.; Manjanna, J. Fe2O3 magnetic nanoparticles to enhance S. lycopersicum (tomato) plant growth and their biomineralization. Appl. Nanosci. 2016, 6, 983–990.
Tombuloglu, H.; Slimani, Y.; Tombuloglu, G.; Almessiere, M.; Baykal, A. Uptake and translocation of magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and its impact on photosynthetic genes in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Chemosphere 2019, 226, 110–122.
Hao, Y.; Yang, X.; Shi, Y.; Song, S.; Xing, J.; Marowitch, J.; Chen, J.; Chen, J. Magnetic gold nanoparticles as a vehicle for fluorescein isothiocyanate and DNA delivery into plant cells. Botany 2013, 91, 457–466.
Liu, Q.; Chen, B.; Wang, Q.; Shi, X.; Xiao, Z.; Lin, J.; Fang, X. Carbon nanotubes as molecular transporters for walled plant cells. Nano Lett. 2009, 9, 1007–1010.
Anjum, N.A.; Rodrigo, M.A.M.; Moulick, A.; Heger, Z.; Kopel, P.; Zítka, O.; Kizek, R. Transport phenomena of nanoparticles in plants and animals/humans. Environ. Res. 2016, 151, 233–243.
Lian, J.; Zhao, L.; Wu, J.; Xiong, H.; Bao, Y.; Zeb, A.; Tang, J.; Liu, W. Foliar spray of TiO2 nanoparticles prevails over root application in reducing Cd accumulation and mitigating Cd-induced phytotoxicity in maize (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 2020, 239, 124794.
Wang, Z.; Xie, X.; Zhao, J.; Liu, X.; Feng, W.; White, J.C.; Xing, B. Xylem-and phloem-based transport of CuO nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4434–4441.
Cunningham, F.J.; Goh, N.S.; Demirer, G.S.; Matos, J.L.; Landry, M.P. Nanoparticle-mediated delivery towards advancing plant genetic engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 882–897.
Rivera, A.L.; Gómez-Lim, M.; Fernández, F.; Loske, A.M. Physical methods for genetic plant transformation. Phys. Life Rev. 2012, 9, 308–345.
O’brien, J.A.; Lummis, S.C. Biolistic transfection of neuronal cultures using a hand-held gene gun. Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1, 977–981.
Lv, Z.; Jiang, R.; Chen, J.; Chen, W. Nanoparticle-mediated gene transformation strategies for plant genetic engineering. Plant J. 2020, 104, 880–891.
Du, S.; Kendall, K.; Toloueinia, P.; Mehrabadi, Y.; Gupta, G.; Newton, J. Aggregation and adhesion of gold nanoparticles in phosphate buffered saline. J. Nanopart. Res. 2012, 14, 758.
Lentacker, I.; De Cock, I.; Deckers, R.; De Smedt, S.C.; Moonen, C.T.W. Understanding ultrasound induced sonoporation: Definitions and underlying mechanisms. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2014, 72, 49–64.
Rich, J.; Tian, Z.; Huang, T.J. Sonoporation: Past, present, and future. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2022, 7, 2100885.
Snipstad, S.; Hanstad, S.; Bjørkøy, A.; Mørch, Ý.; de Lange Davies, C. Sonoporation using nanoparticle-loaded microbubbles increases cellular uptake of nanoparticles compared to co-incubation of nanoparticles and microbubbles. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 640.
Cardoso, V.F.; Francesko, A.; Ribeiro, C.; Bañobre-López, M.; Martins, P.; Lanceros-Mendez, S. Advances in magnetic nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1700845.
Young, J.L.; Dean, D.A. Electroporation-mediated gene delivery. Adv. Genet. 2015, 89, 49–88.
Napotnik, T.B.; Polajžer, T.; Miklavčič, D. Cell death due to electroporation—A review. Bioelectrochemistry 2021, 141, 107871.
Zhang, Y.; Yu, L.C. Microinjection as a tool of mechanical delivery. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2008, 19, 506–510.
Noori, A.; Selvaganapathy, P.R.; Wilson, J. Microinjection in a microfluidic format using flexible and compliant channels and electroosmotic dosage control. Lab Chip 2009, 9, 3202–3211.
Narita, F.; Wang, Y.; Kurita, H.; Suzuki, M. Multi-scale analysis and testing of tensile behavior in polymers with randomly oriented and agglomerated cellulose nanofibers. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 700.
Magazzù, A.; Marcuello, C. Investigation of soft matter nanomechanics by atomic force microscopy and optical tweezers: A comprehensive review. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 963.
Angeloni, L.; Reggente, M.; Passeri, D.; Natali, M.; Rossi, M. Identification of nanoparticles and nanosystems in biological matrices with scanning probe microscopy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2018, 10, e1521.
Okpara, E.C.; Nde, S.C.; Fayemi, O.E.; Ebenso, E.E. Electrochemical characterization and detection of lead in water using SPCE modified with BiONPs/PANI. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 1294.
Zhang, K.; Jariwala, B.; Li, J.; Briggs, N.C.; Wang, B.; Ruzmetov, D.; Burke, R.A.; Lerach, J.O.; Ivanov, T.G.; Haque, M.; et al. Large scale 2D/3D hybrids based on gallium nitride and transition metal dichalcogenides. Nanoscale 2018, 10, 336–341.
Rico, C.M.; Majumdar, S.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants and their possible implications in the food chain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 3485–3498.
Navarro, E.; Baun, A.; Behra, R.; Hartmann, N.B.; Filser, J.; Miao, A.J.; Quigg, A.; Santschi, P.H.; Sigg, L. Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 2008, 17, 372–386.
McCann, M.C.; Wells, B.; Roberts, K. Direct visualization of cross-links in the primary plant cell wall. J. Cell Sci. 1990, 96, 323–334.
Fujino, T.; Itoh, T. Changes in pectin structure during epidermal cell elongation in pea (Pisum sativum) and its implications for cell wall architecture. Plant Cell Physiol. 1998, 39, 1315–1323.
Rose, J.K.; Bennett, A.B. Cooperative disassembly of the cellulose–xyloglucan network of plant cell walls: Parallels between cell expansion and fruit ripening. Trends Plant Sci. 1999, 4, 176–183.
Caffall, K.H.; Mohnen, D. The structure, function, and biosynthesis of plant cell wall pectic polysaccharides. Carbohydr. Res. 2009, 344, 1879–1900.
Eichert, T.; Kurtz, A.; Steiner, U.; Goldbach, H.E. Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water-suspended nanoparticles. Physiol. Plant. 2008, 134, 151–160.
Eichert, T.; Goldbach, H.E. Equivalent pore radii of hydrophilic foliar uptake routes in stomatous and astomatous leaf surfaces–further evidence for a stomatal pathway. Physiol. Plant. 2008, 132, 491–502.
Malejko, J.; Godlewska-Żyłkiewicz, B.; Vanek, T.; Landa, P.; Nath, J.; Dror, I.; Berkowitz, B. Uptake, translocation, weathering and speciation of gold nanoparticles in potato, radish, carrot and lettuce crops. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126219.
Avellan, A.; Yun, J.; Morais, B.P.; Clement, E.T.; Rodrigues, S.M.; Lowry, G.V. Critical review: Role of inorganic nanoparticle properties on their foliar uptake and in planta translocation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 13417–13431.
Deans, R.M.; Brodribb, T.J.; Busch, F.A.; Farquhar, G.D. Optimization can provide the fundamental link between leaf photosynthesis, gas exchange and water relations. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 1116–1125.
García-Gómez, C.; Pérez, R.A.; Albero, B.; Obrador, A.; Almendros, P.; Fernández, M.D. Interaction of ZnO nanoparticles with metribuzin in a soil–plant system: Ecotoxicological effects and changes in the distribution pattern of Zn and metribuzin. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2004.
Avellan, A.; Yun, J.; Zhang, Y.; Spielman-Sun, E.; Unrine, J.M.; Thieme, J.; Li, J.; Lombi, E.; Bland, G.; Lowry, G.V. Nanoparticle size and coating chemistry control foliar uptake pathways, translocation, and leaf-to-rhizosphere transport in wheat. ACS Nano 2019, 13, 5291–5305.
Stanton, M.L. Seed variation in wild radish: Effect of seed size on components of seedling and adult fitness. Ecology 1984, 65, 1105–1112.
Lamichhane, J.R.; Debaeke, P.; Steinberg, C.; You, M.P.; Barbetti, M.J.; Aubertot, J.N. Abiotic and biotic factors affecting crop seed germination and seedling emergence: A conceptual framework. Plant Soil 2018, 432, 1–28.
Ibrahim, E.A. Seed priming to alleviate salinity stress in germinating seeds. J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 192, 38–46.
Chen, Y.; Palta, J.; Prasad, P.V.; Siddique, K.H. Phenotypic variability in bread wheat root systems at the early vegetative stage. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 185.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.