Nano fertilizer for smart agriculture by Parvez Kabir (seminar paper)

A Seminar Paper
on
Nano-fertilizer for smart agriculture
Course code: SSC 598
Term: Summer, 2019
Submitted To:
Course Instructors:
Dr. Md. Rafiqul Islam
Professor,
Department of Agronomy
Dr. Md. Abdullahil Baki Bhuiyan
Associate Professor,
Department of Plant Pathology
Dr. Md. Moinul Hosain Oliver
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Dr. Dinesh Chandra Shaha
Department of Fisheries Management
Major Professor:
Dr. Mohammed Ziauddin Kamal
Department of Soil Science
Submitted By:
Md. Parvez Kabir
Reg no.: 14-05-3218
MS Student
Department of Soil Science
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur-1706

i
Nano-fertilizer for smart agriculture1
By
Md. Parvez Kabir2
ABSTRACT
The increasing food demand as a result of the rising global population has provoked a huge
scale use of fertilizer. Due to lack of resource and less use efficiency of fertilizer, the expense
to the farmer is increasing dramatically. Nano-technology offers incredible potential to tailor
fertilizer production with the desired chemical composition. It enhances the nutrient use
efficiency that may reduce environmental impact, and also accelerate the plant productivity.
Moreover, controlled release and targeted delivery of nano-scale active ingredients can
realize the potential of precision agriculture. A review of nano-fertilizer-base smart
agriculture is discussed in this paper. Scientific gaps to be overcome and fundamental
questions to be answered for safe and effective utilization and crop production by nano-
fertilizer are addressed.
KEYWORDS: Nano-technology, Nano-particle, Nano-fertilizer, Plant nutrition,
Agrochemicals.
1
A seminar paper for the course SSC 598, Summer, 2019
2
MS student, Department of Soil Science, BSMRAU, Gazipur 1706

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No. Contents Page No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Introduction
i
ii
iii
iv
1-2
6. Objectives 2
7. Approaches to the Preparation 3
8. Review of Findings 4-17
9. Summary 18
10. Conclusions 19
11. References 20-23

iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.
Title Page
No.
1 Comparison of nanotechnology-based formulations and conventional
fertilizers applications
6
2 Percent (%) use efficiency of Zn and Fe (average of four crops) 10
3 Percent (%) enhancement of organic acid concentration in the
rhizosphere and P uptake by the following crops
11
4 Increase in activity of beneficial enzymes with nano-fertilizer
application
12
5 Positive effects of nanoparticles on plants 13
6 Adverse effects of nanoparticles on plants 14
7 A comparison of cost of cultivation of Nano-P with SSP and DAP for
pearl millet
17

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
Title Page No.
1 The size of nanoparticles 4
2 The properties of nanoparticles 5
3 Nitrogen use efficiency (%) of conventional and nano-fertilizer 7
4 Smart Delivery System of Nano-fertilizer 8
5 Comparison of P use efficiency of single super phosphate (SSP),
soluble P (KH2PO4) and Nano-P
10
6 The effect of normal and nanofertilizers on (a) root length, (b)
shoot length, (c) fresh weight, (d) dry weight of wheat plants
grown on sandy soil, 46 and 71 days after sowing
16

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The First Green Revolution during 1970s focused on the four basic components of production
system. They are semi-dwarf high yielding varieties of rice and wheat, extensive use of
irrigation, fertilizers and agro-chemicals and consequently resulted in terrific increase in the
agricultural production. But the agricultural production is experiencing a plateau nowadays,
which has negative impact on the livelihood for the large farming community. Truth be told,
the nation need a Second Green Revolution. In this case, nanoscale science and
nanotechnologies are imagined to have the potential to revolutionize the agriculture and crop
production systems (Qureshi et al., 2018).
In 1974, Norio Taniguchi of the Tokyo Science University first defined the term
"Nanotechnology". Nanotechnology, abbreviated to "Nanotech", is the study of manipulating
matter on an atomic and molecular scale. All things considered, nanotechnology manages
structures in the size range between 1 to 100 nm and includes developing materials or devices
within that size.
The world’s agriculture is now facing a lot of challenges. For example, static crop yields, low
nutrient use efficiency, declining soil organic matter, multi-nutrient deficiencies, shrinking
arable land, water availability, and shortage of labor, etc. Therefore, people are not interested
on farming (Godfray et al., 2010). FAO demonstrated that depletion and degradation of land
and water pose serious troubles to produce enough food and other agricultural products to
sustain livelihoods and to fulfill the demands of the world’s ever-increasing population
(DESA, 2015). Nanotechnology, planning ultra-small particles having exceptional properties
compared to their bulk counterparts. Now, it becomes an emerging and promising strategy to
increase plant growth and productivity (Raliya et al., 2017). This idea is the part of evolving
science of precision agriculture, in which farmers make use of this technology to efficient use
of water, fertilizer, and other inputs. Precision farming makes agriculture more sustainable by
reducing the waste and energy demand (McBratney et al., 2005).
In agriculture, nanotechnology and its derivative results are being assessed for various
applications. For example, nanoscale sensors for sensing nutrients, pesticides, and
contamination, postharvest processing of agriculture products for improved shelf life.
Moreover, nanotechnology provides an effective control of plant diseases through nano-
pesticides, smart and target conveyance of biomolecules and nutrients, agronomic

2
fortifications, water purification, nutrient recovery, and smart fertilizers and their efficient
delivery (Nair et al., 2010).
But this review paper specially focused on nanotechnology for smart fertilization. As
fertilizers supply nutrients required by the plants for optimum crop growth. Farmers typically
apply fertilizers through soil by surface broadcasting, subsurface placement, or mixing with
irrigation water. However, a large portion of fertilizers applied using these methods is lost to
the atmosphere or surface water bodies and pollutes the environments (Tilman et al., 2002).
For instance, excess nitrogen is lost through volatilization as NH3 or emission as N2O or NO
or through NO3
-
leaching or runoff to water bodies. Eventually, rain-washes the nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds into waterways such as rivers, lakes, and the sea, where they can
cause serious water pollution (Carpenter et al., 1998).
Worldwide fertilizer application is increasing, along with increasing global population. Now,
farmers are using nearly 85% of the world’s total mined phosphorus as fertilizer, although the
plants can uptake only about 42% of the supplied phosphorus (Raliya et al., 2017). If this
scenario persists, the world’s supply of phosphorus could run out within the next 80 years,
affecting agricultural productivity (Dawson et al., 2011). Now a day, organic farming become
popular mainly in developed countries but it is very costly. Some crops can be grown under
artificial conditions using hydroponic techniques, but the cost (in energy and Tk.) is nearly 10
times that of conventional agriculture, which is neither affordable nor sustainable for the
future agriculture (Pimentel and Wilson, 2004). Thus, develop sustainable strategies for
effective and efficient delivery of fertilizer is essential to maintain soil health and precision
agriculture. Although, nano-fertilization becomes an emerging tool for minimizing nutrient
losses through leaching and avoid rapid changes in their chemical nature, improving the
nutrient use efficiency and addressing fertilizer for environmental concerns. But, there is a
huge knowledge gap concerning the nano-fertilizer. Based on the above mentioned
background the present study emphasizes on the following objectives-
 To highlight the fundamental and applied aspect of nano-fertilizers for precision
agriculture and
 To highlight the impact of nano-fertilizers on nutrient use efficiency and crop
productivity

3
CHAPTER II
APPROACHES TO THE PREPARATION
This paper is exclusively a review paper. Therefore, all the information’s were collected from
secondary sources. During the preparation of this review paper, I went through various
relevant books, journals, publications etc. The related topics have additionally been explored
with the help of library facilities of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural
University (BSMRAU). The latest information’s were being collected from Google
searching. Valuable suggestions and relevant data from resource personnel help to enrich this
paper. After collecting necessary information, it has been complied and arranged
chronologically for better understanding and clarifications.

4
CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF FINDINGS
3.1 What is nano-particle?
A nano-particle (or nano-powder or nanocluster or nanocrystal) is a small particle with at
least one dimension less than 100 nm.
1 Nanometer = 10-9
m = 1 billionth of a meter. There are 2,54,00000 nanometers in an inch.
Here are a few illustrative examples:
A virus is roughly 100 nanometers (nm) in size. For comparison, a sheet of newspaper is
about 1,00000 nanometers thick. On a comparative scale, if a marble were a nanometer, then
one meter would be the size of the Earth (Qureshi et al., 2018). So, it’s hard to imagine how
small nano-particle is!
Figure 1. The size of nano-particles
(Source: Qureshi et al., 2018)

5
3.2 Properties of nano-particle:
Extensive extent of surface atoms - Smaller particles permit better coverage of surface area.
Plants cell wall are porous and nano sized particles can easily pass through the cell wall.
Nano technologists utilize this process to convey at cellular level, which is more effective
than the conventional method.
Figure 2. The properties of nanoparticles
(Source: Manjunatha et al., 2016)
3.3 What is nano-fertilizer?
Nano fertilizers are synthesized or modified form of traditional fertilizers, fertilizer mass
materials or extracted from different vegetative or reproductive parts of the plant by different
chemical, physical, mechanical or biological methods with the help of nanotechnology used
to improve soil fertility, productivity, and quality of agricultural produces (Qureshi et al.,
2018).
3.4 Why farmers use nano-fertilizer rather than conventional fertilizer?
Nano-fertilizers are advantageous over conventional fertilizers are shown in Table 1, as they
enhance soil fertility, yield and quality parameters of the crops. They are non-toxic and less
harmful to the ecosystem. Nanoparticle increases nutrients use efficiency and reduces the
costs of environmental protection (Naderi and Abedi, 2012). It improves the nutritional
 Morphology-aspect ratio/size
 Hydrophilic
 Surface area-roughness/porosity
 High solubility
 Surface species- quick adsorption
 Capacity to produce ROS
 Structure/composition
 Surface charge
 Competitive binding sites with receptor
 Dispersion/aggregation

6
content of crops and the quality of the taste. For example, the optimum application of iron
enhances protein content in the grain of the wheat (Farajzadeh et al., 2009). It also enhances
plants growth by resisting diseases and improving stability of the plants by anti-bending and
deeper rooting of crops (Tarafdar et al., 2012) and also suggested that balanced fertilization
to the crop plant may be achieved through nano-technology. The basic comparison has been
shown in the followings-
Table1. Comparison of nanotechnology-based formulations and conventional fertilizers
applications
Properties Nano-fertilizers-based technology Conventional technology
Solubility of
micronutrients
Have the capability to improve solubility,
dissolution of insoluble nutrients, reduce soil
absorption or fixation and increase the
microbial activities in soil
Less microbial activities to the
rhizosphere due to large
particle size and less solubility
Nutrient
uptake
efficiency
Increase fertilizer efficiency and nutrients
uptake ratio in crop production thus, save
fertilizers
All bulk composites are not
available for root resources
thus, decrease efficiency and
loss of fertilizers
Controlled
release modes
Have the potential to control both release
rate and release pattern of nutrients for water
soluble fertilizers through encapsulation of
semi permeable membranes coated by resin-
polymer, waxes, and sulfur
Toxicity may create and
destroy ecological balance in
the rhizosphere by excess
release of fertilizers
Effective
duration of
nutrient
release
Have the capability to extend effective
duration of nutrient of fertilizer into the soil
Plants can only use it just after
the application, the rest is
converted into insoluble salts
or fixed in the soil
Loss rate of
nutrients
Have the potential to reduce the loss of
fertilizer into soil by leaching
High nutrient loss by leaching,
run off, and drift
(Source: Cui et al., 2010)

7
Finally, to clarify the advantages of nano-technology based fertilizer over conventional
fertilizer is that nano-nitrogen fertilizer shows a tremendous result over traditional
nitrogenous fertilizer. The nano-clay is fully filled with different nutrients like N, P, K and
release slowly due interaction of those nutrients with clay particles. For example, nano-
fertilizers are capable of releasing nitrate 50 days’ slower compare to the conventional form
of urea fertilizer (Subramanian and Rahale, 2009).
27
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Conventional Nanofertilizer
%Nuseefficiency
Figure 3. Nitrogen use efficiency (%) of conventional and nano-fertilizer
(Source: Somasundaran et al., 2010)
In figure 3, we can see that % N use efficiency was 27% only in case of conventional N
fertilizer. Whereas % N use efficiency was 75% in case of nano-fertilizer. So, this indicates
that in nano-fertilizer, % N use efficiency was 3 times higher than conventional N fertilizer
(Somasundaran et al., 2010).
3.5 Smart nutrient delivery system
Farmer utilizes enormous amounts of fertilizer in the form of ammonium salts, urea, nitrate or
phosphate compounds and so on. Though it is increasing crop production, it has numerous
harmful effects on the beneficial soil microflora. Most of the fertilizers are not available to
plants due to run-off, leaching, denitrification, volatilization, and cause pollution to the water
bodies (Morales-Díaz et al., 2017). Fertilizers that coated with nanomaterials can solve this
problem. Foliar application is also helpful in case of micronutrients. Nanomaterials can play a
role in slow release of fertilizers through holding the material more strongly from the plant

8
due to the higher surface tension of nanoparticles than the conventional surfaces. Also, nano-
coatings give surface assurance to bigger particles. Nanoscale devices are envisioned that
would have the capability to detect nutrient deficiencies in crop before symptoms were
visually exhibited (Anjum and Pradhan, 2018). The “smart delivery systems” for agriculture
possess-
 pre-programmed,
 self-regulated,
 remotely regulated,
 timely controlled,
 spatially targeted,
 multifunctional characteristics.
Figure 4. Smart delivery system of nano-fertilizer
(Source: Morales-Díaz et al., 2017)
Figure 4 shows, on left side, the nanomaterials containing essential nutrients that may be
applied directly to the soil, irrigation water or the surface of plants or seeds as a foliar spray
and on the right side, nanomaterials containing essential nutrients under a controlled release
as a function of time or environmental stimuli. Thus, nano-fertilizer can monitor the impacts
of conveyance of nutrients or bioactive molecules; this would permit sensible utilization of
inputs. For example, if nano rock phosphate is applied, it may increase the phosphorus
availability of plants because the direct application of rock phosphate nano-particles prevent
fixation in the soil (Qureshi et al., 2018).

9
3.6 Effect of nano-fertilizer on nutrient use efficiency (NUE)
Nutrient use efficiency (NUE) is simply said as yield per unit of input. In agriculture, the
NUE is defined as fresh mass or product yield per unit content of nutrients. NUE is pre-
requisite for increasing crop production in marginal lands where low nutrient availability
prevailed. NUE depends not only on the capability of growing crop to efficiently up take the
nutrients from the soil, but also on transportation, storage, mobilization, utilization within the
plant, and even on the environment.
Two major ways may be taken to understand NUE. First one, the response of plants to
nutrient deficient condition can be explored to identify processes affected by such deficiency
condition and those that may serve to sustain growth at minimum nutrient input. A second
strategy makes use of natural or induced genetic variation.
The nano-fertilizers have a higher surface area, which provides more sites to facilitate the
different metabolic process in the plant system that produces more photosynthets (Qureshi et
al., 2018). Due to higher surface area and very minute size, they are highly reactive with
other compounds. They have high solubility in different solvent such as water and facilitate
more penetration of nano particles in to the plant from applied surface such as soil or leaves.
Because of their less particle size than the pore size of root and leaves of the plant. Thus it
improves the uptake and nutrient use efficiency in plants.
After nano-fertilizers application, the NUE increases tremendously. In general, 3-4 times
improvement of nutrient use efficiency was noticed of P, Zn, Fe and Mg nanoparticles
(Tarafdar et al., 2015). In figure 5, the results are clearly demonstrated that the nutrient use
efficiency of P enhanced many folds when P was applied as a nano form compared to Simple
Super Phosphate (SSP) and KH2PO4.

10
Figure 5. Comparison of P use efficiency of single super phosphate (SSP), soluble P
(KH2PO4) and Nano-P
(Source: Tarafdar et al., 2015)
Here, P use efficiency from SSP was only 15.1% and from KH2 PO4 was 29.8% but P use
efficiency was 57.8% due to application of Nano-P which indicates that Nano P was 2 and 4
folds more efficient than SSP and KH2PO4, respectively (Tarafdar et al., 2015).
Tarafdar et al. also observed on four different crops named cluster bean, moth bean, mung
bean and pearl millet that the use efficiency of micronutrients like zinc and iron had also been
improved many-fold with the application as nano form of the fertilizers.
Table 2. Percent (%) use efficiency of Zn and Fe (average of four crops)
Micronutrient Mega particles as fertilizer Nanoparticle (<20 nm size)
Zn 3.5 78.6
Fe 4.6 81.2
*Doses of nano-Zn application 160 mg/ha and nano-Fe 480 mg/ha
% P Use Efficiency,
SSP, 15.1
% P Use Efficiency,
KH2PO4, 29.8
% P Use Efficiency,
Nano P, 57.8
%PUseEfficiency
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

11
3.7. Nano-fertilizer increases enzymatic activities and organic acid concentration in the
rhizosphere
Rhizosphere is known as the root zone of the soil. Microbial activities are higher in the
rhizosphere rather than others in the soil as plant root secretes some exudates which are
attracted them, they take these exudates as a food and become multiplied. When nano-
fertilizers are applied, microbes easily assimilate these without any modifications and
accelerate their population. These huge number of microbes produce huge amount of
hormones, organic acids (Table 3) and plant growth promoting enzymes (Table 4) which
accelerate the mineralization of soil. After death and decomposition of microorganisms’
plants get nutrients from those. Thus, the nutrient availability become increased for plants
uptake.
Another experiment was conducted by Tarafdar in 2015 on similar crops in the following.
Table 3 and Table 4 show the percent increment of organic acid concentration, P uptake and
enzymatic activities when Nano P was applied @ 640 mg/ ha.
Table 3. Percent (%) enhancement of organic acid concentration in the rhizosphere and
P uptake by the following crops
Crops Organic acid concentration P Uptake
Cluster bean 23.2 27.2
Moth bean 19.5 23.5
Mung bean 20.7 22.7
Pearl millet 15.5 17.3
*Nano-P application @ 640 mg ha-1
Table 3 shows that in cluster bean, organic acid concentration and P uptake increased 23.2%
and 27.2%, respectively. In moth bean organic acid concentration and P uptake increased
19.5% and 23.5%, respectively. In mung bean organic acid concentration and P uptake
increased 20.7% and 22.7%, respectively. In pearl millet organic acid concentration and P
uptake increased 15.5% and 17.3%, respectively.

12
Table 4. Increase in activity of beneficial enzymes with nano-fertilizer application
Beneficial Enzymes Percent (%)increase in activity
Dehydrogenase 25-68
Esterase 23-90
Acid phosphatase 21-72
Alkaline phosphatase 18-136
Phytase 23-83
Nitrate reductase 12-47
Aryl sulphatase 19-68
Cellulase 48-243
Hemi-cellulase 37-115
Table 4 shows the name of some beneficial enzymes which activities and production become
increased due to application of nano-fertilizers.
According to the discussion of the above two tables, it may be concluded that application of
nano-fertilizer plays an incredible role on the increment of organic acid concentrations and
enzymatic activities in the soil rhizosphere which helps in nutrient use efficiency and also the
crop productivity.
3.8 Seeds germination and growth parameters of the plant
Nano-fertilizers have a significant influence on the seed germination and seedlings vigor.
Due to its minute size, nano-fertilizers easily penetrate the epidermis of the seed. Thus, young
seedlings get enough available nutrients for their growth and development in early stages and
increase yield later on. Sometimes it may exhibit inhibitory effects due to excessive amounts
of nano-fertilizers application.
Several research findings enumerate the both positive and negative impacts of nano particles
on plant growth are represent Table 5 and 6 respectively. For example, seed germination and
root growth become higher in nano ZnO application on peanuts than traditional zinc sulphate
(Prasad et al., 2012). But toxicity develops on the root growth of garlic (Allium sativum L.)
due to excessive application of ZnO nano-aprticles (Nel et al., 2006).
Similarly, positive effective of nano-scale SiO2 and TiO2 on germination was observed in
soybean that showed higher seed germination, shoot length, root length under nano-fertilizers

13
treatment over control (Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2013). Nano fertilizer increases nutrient
availability of growing plant that enhances chlorophyll formation, photosynthesis rate, dry
matter production and these improve the overall yield of the crops (Singh et al., 2017). It
indicates that nano fertilizers significantly improve seed germination and overall growth of
the plant although it may have some negative impacts. Some positive and negative effects of
nano-fertilizers on the plant are in the following-
Table 5. Positive effects of nano-fertilizers on plants
(Source: Duhan et al., 2017)
SL.
No.
Nano-
fertilizers
Effects Plants References
1. Al Improved root growth Raphanus sativus,
Brassica napus
Lin and Xing, 2007.
2. TiO2 Increased shoot and seedling
lengths
Triticum aestivum
L. var. Pishtaz
Feizi et al., 2012.
3. Ag Enhanced plant growth and
diosgenin synthesis
Trigonella
foenum-graecum
L.
Jasim et al., 2017.
4. ZnO Improved growth and yield Arachis hypogaea Prasad et al., 2012.
5. ZnO Improved shoot-root growth,
chlorophyll, total soluble
leaf protein content,
rhizospheric microbial
population and P nutrient-
mobilizing enzymes
including phytase, acid and
alkaline phosphatase
Cyamopsis
tetragonoloba L.
Raliya and Tarafdar,
2013.
6. SiO2 Improved seed germination Lycopersicum
esculentum Mill
Siddiqui and Al-
Whaibi, 2014.

14
Table 6. Adverse effects of nano-fertilizers on plants
SL.
No.
Nano-fertilizers Effects Plants References
1. TiO2 Inhibition in cell growth
and
nitrogen fixation activity
Anabaena variabilis Cherchi and
Gu, 2010.
2. TiO2 Reduced germination Triticum aestivum L.
var. Pishtaz
Feizi et al.,
2012.
4. Al Reduced root length Zea mays, Lactuca
Sativa
Lin and Xing,
2007.
5. Ag Reduced shoot and root
Length
Triticum aestivum L. Dimkpa et al.,
2013.
6. Ag Reduced germination (Hordeum vulgare L.,
cv. Annabell
El‐Temsah and
Joner, 2012.
7. Ag Decreased mitosis,
disturbed metaphase,
sticky chromosome, cell
wall disintegration and
breaks
Allium cepa Kumari et al.,
2009.
8. Ag Reduced transpiration Cucurbita pepo Stampoulis et
al., 2009.
9. Zn Reduced root growth
and elongation
Zea mays, Cucumis
Sativus, Raphanus
sativus, Brassica
napus
Lin and Xing,
2007.
11. Cu Reduced biomass and root
Growth
Cucurbita pepo Stampoulis et
al., 2009.
12. Al2O3 Reduced root length Zea mays Lin and Xing,
2007.
(Source: Duhan et al., 2017)

15
3.9 Yield and yield parameters
Nano fertilizers increase the seed germination, vigor, growth parameters (plant height, leaf
area, leaf area index, number of leaves per plant) dry matter production, chlorophyll
production, rate of the photosynthesis, etc. These result in more production and translocation
of photosynthets to different parts of the plant. Thus, the crop produces higher yields.
In 2009, Farajzadeh et al., observed that nano-TiO2 treated seed produced more dry weight,
higher photosynthetic rate, chlorophyll-a formation than control and improved translocation
of photosynthets from source (leaves) to sink (economic part of the plant) which resulted in
more yield and quality parameters than traditional fertilizers treated plants.
The following Figure 6 shows that the changes of yield variables of wheat plants cultivated
on sandy soil applying different treatments. As compared with control values, treatments of
the crop grown on poor sandy soil with normal and nano-NPK fertilizer are increased up to a
certain level then gradually induced significant increment in all yield variables determined
(Abdel-Aziz et al., 2016).
The following sequence of treatments Nano 10 > Nano 25 > Nano 100 > NPK 100 > NPK 25
> NPK 10 >showed that better result was found for all the yield parameters. For this, the
following sequence of treatments was Nano 10 > Nano 25 > Nano 100 > NPK 100 > NPK 25
> NPK 10 > C.

16
Figure 6. The effect of normal and nanofertilizers on (a) root length, (b) shoot length, (c)
fresh weight, (d) dry weight of wheat plants grown on sandy soil, 46 and 71 days after
sowing (Source: Abdel-Aziz et al., 2016)
(b)
C
NPK10
NPK25
NPK100
Nano10
Nano25
Nano100
C
NPK10
NPK25
NPK100
Nano10
Nano25
Nano100
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Rootlength(cm/plant)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Shootlength(cm/plant)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Freshweight(g/plant)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.5
0
Dryweight(g/plant)
C
NPK10
NPK25
NPK100
Nano10
Nano25
Nano100
Treatment
s
Treatment
s
(a)
(c)
C
NPK10
NPK25
NPK100
Nano10
Nano25
Nano100
(d)
Treatment
s
Treatment
s
46 d 71 d
46 d 71 d

17
Figure 6(a) and 6(b) shows that root length is high in nano 10 after 46 and 71 days after
sowing followed by nano 25 and nano 100, respectively. And in case of shoot length, it is
same as the root length. Minimum root and shoot length are observed in control condition
followed by NPK 10, NPK 25 and NPK 100, respectively (Abdel-Aziz et al., 2016).
Figure 6(c) and 6(d) shows that fresh weight is high in nano 10 after 46 and 71 days after
sowing followed by nano 25 and nano 100, respectively. And in case of dry weight of plant, it
is same as the fresh weight of plant. Minimum fresh and the dry weight are observed in
control condition followed by NPK 10, NPK 25 and NPK 100, respectively (Abdel-Aziz et
al., 2016).
Considering the above plant parameters, it is easily concluded that application of nano-
fertilizers on a particular dose on a particular crop increases yield.
3.10 Cost of Cultivation
In general, it has been found that the cost of cultivation due to application of nano-fertilizers
is 2-6 times less as compared to application of chemical fertilizer for equivalent yield of the
crops (Tarafdar et al., 2015). A comparison of extra benefit accruing with the application of
nano-P vis-à-vis chemical fertilizer is presented in Table 7.
Table 7. A comparison of cost of cultivation of Nano-P with SSP and DAP for pearl
millet
Name of the Fertilizer Recommended
Doses
Cost of Cultivation
(Tk./ha)
Yield Status
(Kg/ha)
Single Super Phosphate
(SSP)
80 Kg/ha 772 950
Diammonium Phosphate
(DAP)
80 Kg/ha 2412 963
Nano-P 720 mg/ha 425 1093
Table 7. shows that the cost of cultivation of pearl millet was 772 Tk. and 2412 Tk. for
application of SSP and DAP respectively and yield was 950, 963 kg/ha but the cost of
cultivation was only 425 Tk. and yield was 1093 kg/ha for nano-P application. This results
clearly indicate that the application of Nano-P declined in cost of cultivation and increased
nutrient use efficiencies and crop yields.

18
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY
Nano fertilization has a vast research area in agriculture. In the recent past efforts have been
made to enrich soil health and improve agricultural productivity through comprehensive
research in nanotechnology. The present green revelation is the outcome of non-judicious
application of pesticides and chemical fertilizer, causes degradation of agro-ecosystem.
Nanoparticle mediated materials delivery and precision farming is possible due to its unique
properties. Nano fertilization has domination over conventional fertilization. Like, Nano
encapsulated conventional fertilizer encourage slow and target oriented nutrient release with
precise nutrient dose. Moreover, nano-particles influence metabolic activities of the plants in
different degrees compared to conventional fertilizers. It has the potential to mobilize
inherent nutrients, such as phosphorus, potassium etc. in the soil. It increases nutrient use
efficiency, enzymatic activity and organic acid concentration in the rhizosphere. Seed
germination, growth parameters, yield and yield contributing characters also influenced a lot
by nano-fertilizers. Nano-fertilizer reduces the loss of fertilizer due to its smart nutrient
releasing systems and keep the environment ecofriendly. Finally, it reduces the cost of
cultivation of crops which helps the farmer a lot.

19
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of some loopholes, nanotechnology has shown great potential in precision
agriculture. Based on the aforesaid discussion it has been concluded that-
1. Nanoparticles have a great potential as ‘magic bullets’ loaded with nutrients,
fertilizers and targeting specific plant tissues to achieve desired goals and provides
smart agricultural input delivery system.
2. Nano fertilizers facilitate slow and steady release of nutrients and thereby reduce the
loss of nutrients and enhance nutrient use efficiency but decrease soil degradation.
Overall, the advances of nanotechnology can improve the way; agriculture is seen and
has the promising future in the upcoming age of agricultural modernization.

20
REFERENCES
Qureshi, A., Singh, D. K., & Dwivedi, S. (2018). Nano-fertilizers: a novel way for enhancing
nutrient use efficiency and crop productivity. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci, 7, 3325-
3335.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., ... &
Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. science,
327(5967), 812-818.
DESA, U. (2015). World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Retrieved
August, 30.
Raliya, R., Saharan, V., Dimkpa, C., & Biswas, P. (2017). Nanofertilizer for precision and
sustainable agriculture: current state and future perspectives. Journal of agricultural
and food chemistry, 66(26), 6487-6503.
McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Ancev, T., & Bouma, J. (2005). Future directions of precision
agriculture. Precision agriculture, 6(1), 7-23.
Nair, R., Varghese, S. H., Nair, B. G., Maekawa, T., Yoshida, Y., & Kumar, D. S. (2010).
Nanoparticulate material delivery to plants. Plant science, 179(3), 154-163.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671.
Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., & Smith, V.
H. (1998). Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen.
Ecological applications, 8(3), 559-568.
Dawson, C. J., & Hilton, J. (2011). Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world:
Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy, 36, S14-S22.
Pimentel, D., & Wilson, A. (2004). World population agriculture and malnutrition. World
Watch, 22-25.

21
Manjunatha, S. B., Biradar, D. P., & Aladakatti, Y. R. (2016). Nanotechnology and its
applications in agriculture: A review. Journal of Farm Science, 29(1), 1-13.
Naderi, M. R., & Abedi, A. (2012). Application of nanotechnology in agriculture and
refinement of environmental pollutants. J Nanotechnol, 11(1), 18-26.
Farajzadeh Memari Tabrizi, E., Yarnia, M., Khorshidi, M. B., & Ahmadzadeh, V. (2009).
Effects of micronutrients and their application method on yield, crop growth rate
(CGR) and net assimilation rate (NAR) of corn cv. Jeta. International journal of food,
agriculture and environment, 7(2), 611-615.
Tarafdar, J. C., Raliya, R., & Rathore, I. (2012). Microbial synthesis of phosphorous
nanoparticle from tri-calcium phosphate using Aspergillus tubingensis TFR-5. Journal
of Bionanoscience, 6(2), 84-89.
Cui, H. X., Sun, C. J., Liu, Q., Jiang, J., & Gu, W. (2010, June). Applications of
nanotechnology in agrochemical formulation, perspectives, challenges and strategies.
In international conference on Nanoagri, Sao pedro, Brazil (pp. 28-33).
Subramanian, K. S., & Rahale, C. S. (2009). Synthesis of nanofertiliser formulations for
balanced nutrition. Proceedings of the Indian society of Soil Science-Platinum Jubilee
Celebration, December, 22-25.
Somasundaran, P., Fang, X., Ponnurangam, S., & Li, B. (2010). Nanoparticles:
characteristics, mechanisms and modulation of biotoxicity. KONA powder and
particle journal, 28, 38-49.
Morales-Díaz, A. B., Ortega-Ortíz, H., Juárez-Maldonado, A., Cadenas-Pliego, G., González-
Morales, S., & Benavides-Mendoza, A. (2017). Application of nanoelements in plant
nutrition and its impact in ecosystems. Advances in Natural Sciences: Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology, 8(1), 013001.
Anjum, M., & Pradhan, S. N. (2018). Application of nanotechnology in precision farming: A
review. IJCS, 6(5), 755-760.
Tarafdar, J., Rathore, I., & Thomas, E. (2015). Enhancing nutrient use efficiency through
nano technological interventions. Indian J Fertil, 11(12), 46-51.

22
Prasad, T. N. V. K. V., Sudhakar, P., Sreenivasulu, Y., Latha, P., Munaswamy, V., Reddy, K.
R., ... & Pradeep, T. (2012). Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide particles on the
germination, growth and yield of peanut. Journal of plant nutrition, 35(6), 905-927.
Nel, A., Xia, T., Mädler, L., & Li, N. (2006). Toxic potential of materials at the
nanolevel. science, 311(5761), 622-627.
Mahmoodzadeh, H., Nabavi, M., & Kashefi, H. (2013). Effect of nanoscale titanium dioxide
particles on the germination and growth of canola (Brassica napus).
Singh, M. D., Gautam, C., Patidar, O. P., & Meena, H. M. (2017). Nano fertilizers is a new
way to increase nutrients use efficiency in crop production. International Journal of
Agriculture Sciences, ISSN, 0975-3710.
Lin, D., & Xing, B. (2007). Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and
root growth. Environmental Pollution, 150(2), 243-250.
Feizi, H., Moghaddam, P. R., Shahtahmassebi, N., & Fotovat, A. (2012). Impact of bulk and
nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO 2) on wheat seed germination and seedling growth.
Biological trace element research, 146(1), 101-106.
Jasim, B., Thomas, R., Mathew, J., & Radhakrishnan, E. K. (2017). Plant growth and
diosgenin enhancement effect of silver nanoparticles in Fenugreek (Trigonella
foenum-graecum L.). Saudi Pharmacutical Journal, 25(3), 443-447.
Raliya, R., & Tarafdar, J. C. (2013). ZnO nanoparticle biosynthesis and its effect on
phosphorous-mobilizing enzyme secretion and gum contents in Clusterbean
(Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.). Agricultural Research, 2(1), 48-57.
Siddiqui, M. H., & Al-Whaibi, M. H. (2014). Role of nano-SiO2 in germination of tomato
(Lycopersicum esculentum seeds Mill.). Saudi journal of biological sciences, 21(1),
13-17.
Cherchi, C., & Gu, A. Z. (2010). Impact of titanium dioxide nanomaterials on nitrogen
fixation rate and intracellular nitrogen storage in Anabaena variabilis. Environmental
science & technology, 44(21), 8302-8307.
Feizi, H., Moghaddam, P. R., Shahtahmassebi, N., & Fotovat, A. (2012). Impact of bulk and
nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO 2) on wheat seed germination and seedling growth.
Biological trace element research, 146(1), 101-106.

23
Lin, D., & Xing, B. (2007). Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and
root growth. Environmental Pollution, 150(2), 243-250.
Dimkpa, C. O., McLean, J. E., Martineau, N., Britt, D. W., Haverkamp, R., & Anderson, A.
J. (2013). Silver nanoparticles disrupt wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth in a sand
matrix. Environmental science & technology, 47(2), 1082-1090.
El‐Temsah, Y. S., & Joner, E. J. (2012). Impact of Fe and Ag nanoparticles on seed
germination and differences in bioavailability during exposure in aqueous suspension
and soil. Environmental toxicology, 27(1), 42-49.
Kumari, M., Mukherjee, A., & Chandrasekaran, N. (2009). Genotoxicity of silver
nanoparticles in Allium cepa. Science of the Total Environment, 407(19), 5243-5246.
Stampoulis, D., Sinha, S. K., & White, J. C. (2009). Assay-dependent phytotoxicity of
nanoparticles to plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(24), 9473-9479.
Lee, W. M., An, Y. J., Yoon, H., & Kweon, H. S. (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.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal, 27(9), 1915-
1921.
Abdel-Aziz, H. M., Hasaneen, M. N., & Omer, A. M. (2016). Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer
enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Spanish
Journal of Agricultural Research, 14(1), 0902.
Tarafdar, J., Rathore, I., & Thomas, E. (2015). Enhancing nutrient use efficiency through
nano technological interventions. Indian J Fertil, 11(12), 46-51.
Saharan, V., Kumaraswamy, R. V., Choudhary, R. C., 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. Journal of agricultural

Nano fertilizer for smart agriculture by Parvez Kabir (seminar paper)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Nano fertilizer for smart agriculture by Parvez Kabir (seminar paper)

Semelhante a Nano fertilizer for smart agriculture by Parvez Kabir (seminar paper) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Nano fertilizer for smart agriculture by Parvez Kabir (seminar paper)