Chitosan Nanoparticles-Based Ionic Gelation Method: A Promising Candidate for Plant Disease Management
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Ionic Gelation Method
Mass Ratio | Volume Ratio | Condition Synthesis | DLS | SEM, TEM | FTIR (cm−1) | UV (nm) | XRD | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2:5 | 1:10 | CS 0.2%: TPP 0.05% (1:10), 25 °C, pH 4 | 50 nm | Spherical | 3428, 1580: hydrogen bonding between polyphosphoric of TPP and ammonium group of CS | - | - | [57] |
3:1 | 3:1 | 3 mL of 0.5% CS varying between (A) low molecular weight (Mw = 161 kDa), (B) medium molecular weight (Mw = 300 kDa), (C) high molecular weight (Mw = 810 kDa), and 1 mL of 0.5% TPP, centrifuge 25,000 rpm for 30 min | (A) 180.9 nm, PDI 0.31, 45.6 mV (B) 309.9 nm, PDI 0.46, 33.2 mV (C) 339.4 nm, PDI 0.52, 21.7 mV | - | - | - | - | [52] |
3:1 | 3:1 | 3 mL of 0.5% CS (pH 4.7–5) varying between (D) low molecular weight (Mw = 161 kDa), (E) medium molecular weight (Mw = 300 kDa), (F) high molecular weight (Mw = 810 kDa), and 1 mL of 0.5% TPP, adjust pH to 4.5–5, and discard supernatant to collect CS-NPs | (D) 225.7 nm, PDI 0.44, 33.4 mV (E) 301.5 nm, PDI 0.2, 20.2 mV (F) 595.7 nm, PDI 0.92, 16 mV | - | - | - | - | |
5:4 | 1:1 | 0.25 g CS and 0.2 g TPP/40 mL, pH 3.6, 2% TWEEN 80, and 40,000 rpm for 10 min | Bimodal particle with 2.3 and 7.5 nm | 1.5 nm Spherical | 3288, 1647: hydrogen bonding between amino of CS and phosphate of TPP | Amorphous | [58] | |
1:10 | 1:1 | 0.1% CS and 1% TPP with ratio 1:1; 10,000 rpm for 10 min and ultrasonication | 192.5 nm PDI 0.6 +45.33 mv | Spherical | 1636, 3410: hydrogen bonding | - | - | [51] |
6:1 | 3:1 | 0.5% CS (pH 5) and 0.25% TPP with ratio 3:1, 10,000 rpm for 10 min | 83.32 nm PDI 0.31 −28 mV | Spherical 20–50 nm | 1648.84, 1527.35: interaction between ammonium group of CS and polyphosphoric group of TPP | 295 nm | Amorphous | [59] |
5:1 | 5:1 | 5 mL of 0.1% CS (pH 5.5) and 1 mL of 0.1% TPP, 20,000 rpm for 30 min | 86.8 nm +32.4 mV | Spherical | 1563: interaction of amide and phosphate | - | - | [60] |
69.4:1 | 5:2 | 15 mL of 0.5% CS (pH 4.8) and 6 mL of 0.018% anionic protein of P. oxalicum, stirring 30 min, and centrifuge 10,000× g for 10 min | 89.8 nm PDI 0.225 −37 mV | Spherical 10–30 nm | 1602.8, 1564.18, 1403.5: binding of Protein and CS | 285 nm | Amorphous | [63] |
10:1 8:1 | 5:1 4:1 | 0.2% Hydrolyzed CS (by chitinase from Burkholderia cepacia E76) and 0.1% TPP with varying ratio (A) 5:1 and stirring 60 min, (B) 5:1 and stirring 30 min, (C) 4:1 and stirring 60 min, and (D) 4:1 and stirring 30 min | (A) 126.2 nm, PDI 0.44, 27.8 mV (B) 167.1 nm, PDI 0.47, 25.4 mV (C) 493.3 nm, PDI 0.69, 22.9 mV (D) 573.1, PDI 0.54, 20.8 mV | Spherical-like | - | - | - | [56] |
2:5 | 1:1 | 0.1% CS, 0.25% TPP with ratio 1:1, centrifuge 10,000 rpm for 10 min, and ultrasonication 28% pulse for 100 s at 4 °C | 100–1000 nm | 100 nm Spherical-like High porous surface | 1576: NH2 bond (wagging) 1412: C-H bending vibration of alkyl group | 320 nm | - | [54] |
5:1 10:1 15:1 20:1 | 2:1 | 10 mL of 0.1% TPP, 20 mL of CS varying between (A) 0.25%, (B) 0.5%, (C) 0.75% and (D) 1%; stirring 8 h, and sonication 45 min | (A) 238.17 nm (B) 575.2 nm (C) 706.01 nm (D) 1315.37 nm | - | 3421.2: interaction between phosphate and NH2 | - | - | [53] |
15:2 | 25:1 | 25 mL of 0.3% CS, 1 mL of 1% TPP; stirring 20 min, sonication 1.5 kW for 30 min, and centrifuge 12,000× g for 10 min | 53.99 nm PDI 1.0 51.37 mV | - | - | - | - | [32] |
5:1 | 1:2 | 10 mL of 1% CS, 20 mL of 0.1% TPP, pH 5.5, stirring 1000 rpm for 5 min, sonication 30% amplitude, varying between (A) 3, (B) 5, (C) 10, and (D) 20 min | (A) 344.6 nm, PDI 0.57, 44.1 mV (B) 472.1 nm, PDI 0.507, 42.9 mV (C) 261.3 nm, 0.195 PDI, 42.8 mV (D) 204.8 nm, 0.205 PDI, 36.0 mV | Globular | - | - | - | [55] |
NPs | Mass Ratio | Volume Ratio | Condition Synthesis | DLS | SEM, TEM | FTIR (cm−1) | UV (nm) | XRD | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CS-NP-loaded copper (Cu) | 1:10 | 1:1 | 0.1% CS and 1% TPP with ratio 1:1, added 0.01% CuSO4 to final concentration of Cu2+ 0.012% in mixture, 10,000 rpm for 10 min, and ultrasonication | 196.4 nm PDI 0.5 +88 mv | Compact polyhedron | 1631: -CONH2 1536: -NH2 | - | - | [51] |
CS-NP-loaded mental ion (Ag, Cu, Zn, Mn, and Fe) | 15:2 | 25:1 | 25 mL of 0.3% CS, 1 mL of 1% TPP, and salt solution at 0.3% added to mixture to ion final concentration 0.012%; stirring 20 min, sonication 1.5 kW for 30 min, and centrifuge 12,000× g for 10 min | (Ag) 90.29 nm, 92.05 mV (Cu) 121.9 nm, 88.69 mV (Zn) 210.9 nm, 86.65 mV (Mn) 102.3 nm, 75.74 mV (Fe) 95.81 nm, 71.42 mV | - | - | - | - | [32] |
CS-NP-loaded Silver-Furosemide complex | 10:2:0.01 | 1:2 | 10 mL of 1% CS, 20 mL of 0.1% TPP, pH 5.5, stirring 1000 rpm for 5 min, and sonication 30% amplitude for 10 min. (A) 5, (B) 10 mg Silver-Furosemide complex was mixed with TPP solution | (A) 210.5 nm, PDI 0.232, and 41.5 mV (B) 197.1 nm, PDI 0.234, and 36.7 mV | - | - | - | Amorphous | [55] |
CS-NP-loaded Harpin (P. syringae pv. syringae) | 100:20:1 | 10:2:1 | 5 mL of 0.1% CS (pH 5.5) and 1 mL of 0.1% TPP, 0.5 mL of 0.01% Harpin, and 20,000 rpm for 30 min | 133.7 nm +48.6 mV | - | 1345, 1095: Harpin assigned to C-N stretch and C-O stretch in CS-NP-loaded Harpin | - | - | [60] |
CS-NP-loaded Hexaconazole | 5:1:10 5:2:10 5:4:10 5:8:10 | 5:2:5 | 100 mL of 0.5% CS and 100 mL of 1% hexaconazole, 2% TWEEN 80, 40 mL of TPP varying between (A) 0.25%, (B) 0.5%, (C) 1%, and (D) 2% | (A) 220.2 nm (B) 164.2 nm (C) 68.1 nm (D) 2 peaks (6.5 and 18.1 nm) | (A) 271.4 nm (B) 168.5 nm (C) 32.3 nm (D) 8.1 nm | 3218: hydrogen bonding of 3 chemicals | - | Crystalline peak of hexaconazole clear embedded in amorphous phase of CS | [58] |
CS-NP-loaded saponin | 2:20:1 | 10:10:1 | 0.1% CS, 1% TPP and 0.5% saponin with ratio 10:10:1, 10,000 rpm for 10 min, and ultrasonication | 373.9 nm (2 peaks) PDI 1.0 +31 mV | Spherical | 1560: amide linkage between saponin and CS-NPs 3430: hydrogen bonding between saponin and CS | - | - | [51] |
CS-NP-loaded SA | 4:2:1 | 1:1:1 | 0.4% CS, 0.2% TPP and 0.1% SA with ratio 1:1:1 | 368.7 nm PDI 0.1 +34.1 mV | Spherical and porous | 1541, 1639: acetoxy group of SA 1317: interaction between COOH group of SA with primary amide of CS | Peak at 2θ of 10°–20° denoted SA Peak 2θ of 18°–30° confides CS | [65] | |
CS-NP-loaded gentamicin (GM) and SA | - | - | 0.1% SA and 0.2% GM with ratio 3:2, 0.2% CS (pH 5). A mass TPP solution added into CS with ratio varying between (A) 1:3, (B) 1:4, (C) 1:5, (D) 1:6, (E) 1:7; stirring 1 h, and centrifuge 16,000 rpm for 30 min | (A) 343.3 nm, PDI 0.41, 34.26 mV (B) 217.7 nm, PDI 0.275, 35.77 mV (C) 180.0 nm, PDI 0.235, 37.12 mV (D) 172.2 nm, PDI 0.308, 39.44 mV (E) 150.8 nm, PDI 0.237, 42.43 mV | - | - | - | - | [64] |
- | - | CS/TPP ratio 4:1, pH 5.0, drug-to-polymer ratio 1:4, and feed ratio of SA to GM 1.5:1.0. | 180 nm PDI 0.235 37.12 mV | Spherical 200 nm | 3423: hydrogen bonding between -OH group bending of GM and CS 1542, 1637: interaction between NH3+ of CS and TPP 1300: C-N bending (interaction between -COOH of SA and primary amide of CS) | - | - | ||
CS-NP-loaded Thiamine | 24:4:25 | 24:8:25 | 375 mg Thiamine/75 mL, 360 mg CS/72 mL and 60 mg TPP/24 mL, stirring overnight, and centrifuge 10,000× g for 30 min | 596 nm 37.7 mV | 10–60 nm | 1657: binding of Thiamine to CS | 267 nm | - | [66] |
CS-NP-loaded A. millefolium extract | 1:5:200 | 2:1:- | A. millefolium extract (semi solid form) added into 10 mL of 0.1% CS to obtain final concentration at 20%, 5 mL of 1% TPP, stirring 2 h and centrifuge 10,000× g for 10 min | 118 nm with 3 peaks (10, 122 and 712 nm) | Spherical 4.15–100 nm | 3281.73, 2163.36 and 1636.78: interaction in NP | 417 nm | - | [67] |
CS-NP-loaded SA | 2:1:2 | 1:1:1 | 0.4% CS, 0.2% TPP, and 0.2% SA with ratio 1:1:1 | 89.86 nm PDI 0.36 22.27 mV | Spherical | 3421: NH2 stretch 1640: CO-NH2 1540: NH2 bend 1314: COOH and NH2 895: Anhydro glycoside | - | - | [69] |
CS-NP-loaded silver (Ag) | 5:5:0.51 | 1:1:1 | 0.5% CS, 0.5% TPP, and 3 mM silver nitrate with ratio 1:1:1 | 249 nm PDI 0.53 13.53 mV | Spherical | 3423: NH2 stretch 1643: CO-NH2 1542: NH2 bend 894: Anhydro gly-coside | - | - | [69] |
3. Application of CS-NPs-Based Ionic Gelation Method in Plant Disease Management
3.1. Chitosan Nanoparticles (CS-NPs)
3.1.1. Directly
3.1.2. Indirectly
3.2. Chitosan-Nanoparticles-Loaded Active Ingredients
3.2.1. Directly
3.2.2. Indirectly
3.3. Plant Growth Promotion
NPs | Plant | Pathogen | Summary Research | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
CS-NPs with DLS (83.32 nm, PDI 0.31, −28 mV), HRTEM (20–50 nm). | Rice | P. grisea /Blast | In vitro: Treat CS-NPs not cause inhibit mycelial and spore germination even 0.1%. Detach leaves assay: painting brush 500 µL onto surface each leave. After 24 h, inoculate with similar method. Treating CS-NPs 0.1% could prevent blast symptoms up to 10 DAI (suppression 100%). | [59] |
CS-NPs described as [59] | Fingermillet | P. grisea /Blast | In vitro: CS-NPs at 0.1% inhibited nearly 65% mycelial growth and did not sporulate compared with the control. Greenhouse: seed was soaked overnight, foliar sprayed at 20 and 30 DAP, and inoculated at 30 DAP. Treatment with CS-NPs delay symptom by 10 days and decreased disease incidence 2.8-fold. Moreover, treatment with CS-NPs increased dry weight (148.8%), yield (93.2%), peroxidase (1.6-fold), and reactive oxygen species activity. | [71] |
CS-NPs with DLS (9.8 nm, PDI 0.225, −37 mV), HRTEM (10–30 nm). | Chickpea | P. grisea A. solani F. oxysporum | In vitro: CS-NPs with amount 100 µg inhibited mycelial growth of P. grisea, A. solani, F. oxysporum by 92, 87, and 72%, respectively. Seeding: Treatment with NPs increased seedling vigor index (57.1%), number lateral root (133.3%), and dry weight (200%). | [63] |
CS-NPs Centrifuge method with DLS (180.9 nm, PDI 0.31, and 45.6 mV). pH change method with DLS (225.7 nm, PDI 0.44, and 33.4 mV). | Wheat | F. graminearum /Head blight | In vitro: CS-NPs synthesized by CS low molecular weight significantly inhibited pathogens, more than low molecular weight and high molecular weight at the same concentration. MIC of CS-NPs prepared by centrifuge and pH change method were 0.05% and 0.09% with 31.97% and 29.67%, respectively. Greenhouse: Spraying after inoculate The area under the disease progress curve at 28 DAI of treatment CS-NPs 0.05% was reduced 2.2-fold compared with the control. The CS-NPs caused structural damage in mycelium and cell pathogen and increased superoxide and H2O2 content. | [52] |
CS-NPs with DLS (126.2 nm, PDI 0.44, and 27.8 mV). | Chilli Papaya | C. gloeosporioides /Anthracnose | In vitro: CS-NPs inhibited mycelial growth (85.7%) and spore germination (61.2%). In vivo: preventive (soaking onto CS-NPs 2 mL/L for 60 min before inoculate), curative (soaking onto spore suspension for 15 min following air-dried and soaking onto CS-NPs for 60 min). Inhibition rates of preventive and curative treatment were 87.5% and 75% for chilli and 50% and 10% for papaya. | [56] |
CS-NPs with size 100 nm | Tomato | C. gloeosporioides, P. capsici, S. sclerotiorum, F. oxysporum, G. fujikuori, E. carotovora subsp. carotovora, X. campestris pv. vesicatoria | In vitro: CS-NPs at 0.5% inhibited mycelial growth of C. gloeosporioides, P. capsici, S. sclerotiorum, F. oxysporum, and G. fujikuori by 37.8, 50.7, 39.5, 50.3, and 56.3% at day 10 (except S. sclerotiorum was at day 5), respectively. CS-NPs at 0.5% reduced OD600 nm of E. carotovora subsp. carotovora strains 113114, 113154, and YKB133061, and X. campestris pv. vesicatoria strain 11,154, by 41.3, 55.5, 48.5, and 52.1, respectively. Interestingly, CS-NPs at 0.05% were similarly reduced by 64.7, 76.3, 78.0, 73.8%, respectively. | [54] |
CS-NPs | Rice | R. solani /Sheath blight | Detach leaves assay: Pre-treated CS-NPs and CS at 0.1% reduced disease leaf area by 92.78% and 78.89%, respectively. Greenhouse: Seed treat 2 h, soil amended and foliar spraying 15 and 30 DAP, inoculate 45 DAP The disease was suppressed 75.01% and 44.82% when treated with CS-NPs and CS, respectively. Peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, and chitinase activity were increased 19-, 1.5-, and 1.9-fold, respectively. | [74] |
CS-NPs with DLS (47 nm, PDI 0.45, and 26.8 mV) | Tomato Cereal | C. michiganensis /Bacterial canker A. solani /Leaf spot F. graminearum /Head blight and root rot | In vitro: lysis zone diameters of C. michiganensis- and F. graminearum-treated CS-NPs at 0.014% (in acetate buffer) were 29.5 and 20 mm, respectively. Similarly, CS were 22.5 and 18.0 mm. CS-NPs at 0.03 and 0.04% (in acetate buffer) inhibited mycelial of A. solani by 10 and 70% compared with CS, respectively. | [72] |
CS-NPs with DLS (192.5 nm, PDI 0.6, +45.33 mv) CS-NPs-loaded saponin with DLS (373.9 nm (2 peaks), PDI 1.0, +31 mV) And CS-NPs-loaded copper (Cu) with DLS (196.4 nm, PDI 0.5, +88 mV) | - | A. alternata M. phaseolina R. solani | In vitro: CS-NPs, CS-NPs-loaded saponin, and CS-NPs-loaded copper at 0.06–0.1% inhibited mycelial growth of A. alternate (80.1–82.2, 78.3–80.9, and 82.1–89.5%) and R. solani (32.2–34.4, 27.7, and 62.5–63.0%) respectively. For M. phaseolina, 3 NPs at 0.1% inhibited 84, 66.2, and 60.1%, respectively. Moreover, 3 NPs at 0.06–0.1% inhibited A. alternate spore germination by 84.4–87.1, 78.3–82.9, and 83.3–87.4%, respectively. | [51] |
CS-NPs-loaded copper (Cu) with DLS (374.3 nm, PDI 0.33, and 22.6 mV), TEM (150 nm) | Tomato | A. solani /Early blight F. oxysporum /Wilt | Seeding: Treatment with CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.08, 0.1, and 0.12% increased seedling vigor index (33.9, 33.7, and 24.3%), fresh weight (18.9, 21.6, and 16.2%), and dry weight (20.0, 26.7, and 13.3%), respectively. In vitro: CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.1% inhibited mycelium growth and spore germination of A. solani and F. oxysporum by 84.2% and 60.1%, and 73.3% and 79.9%, respectively. Greenhouse: Spray at 3–4 DAI (A. solani); apply to soil at 3 DAI (F. oxysporum). NPs at 0.1 and 0.12% reduced early blight at 84.2% and 87.7%, fusarium wilt at 49.9%, and 61.1%, respectively. | [75] |
CS-NPs-loaded copper (Cu) with DLS (295.4 nm, PDI 0.28, and 19.6 mV) | Maize | F. verticillioides /Post flowering stalk rot | Greenhouse: Inoculate before planting by mix with soil, seed treat for 4, 8 h, and spray at 45 and 65 DAP. NP treatment at 0.02–0.14% reduced disease severity 38.2–48.1% and 24.8–49.6% for seeds treated for 4 and 8 h, respectively. Field: similar greenhouse experiments except inoculate at flowering stage. NP treatment at 0.02–0.14% reduced disease severity by 23.5–33.9% and 2.55–15.8% for seed treated for 4 and 8 h, respectively. | [78] |
CS-NPs-loaded copper (Cu) with DLS (361.3 nm, PDI 0.2, and 22.1 mV) | Maize | C. lunata /Leaf spot | In vitro: CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.12 and 0.16% inhibited mycelial growth at 50.0 and 52.7%, respectively. Greenhouse: Treat seeds for 4 h, foliar spray 35 DAP, and inoculate 45 DAP. Treatment with CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.01–0.08% increased plant height (15.9–47.0%), stem diameter (82.9–102.9%), root length (9.5–15.8%), root number (20.9–46.3%), and chlorophyll content (67.3–182.6%). However, treatment at 0.16% reduced root length (9.8%) and chlorophyll content (4.6–9.7%), although the difference was non-significant. Moreover, treatment with NPs at 0.04–0.16 increased superoxide dismutases (1.8–2.2-fold), peroxidase (1.5–2.1-fold), phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (1.3–2.0-fold), and polyphenol oxidase (1.1–1.2-fold, which also reduced disease severity 43.86–48.48%). Field: Treatment with CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.01–0.08% reduced disease severity by 27.72–28.53%. Similarly, NPs at 0.12–0.16% reduced it by 30.42–33.88% and increased grain yield (25.4–29.3%), 100 grain weight (14.4–16.9%). | [75] |
CS-NPs with DLS (86.8 nm, 32.4 mV), CS-NPs load Harpin (P. syringae pv. syringae), and DLS (133.7 nm, 48.6 mV) | Tomato | R. solani | In planta: Treated amount of 20 µg of CS-NPs load Harpin enhanced cell death, necrotic lesion, and H2O2 accumulation faster and stronger than Harpin protein only. Moreover, treatment with NPs reduced fungal biomass (5 folds), lesion diameter (12 folds), and failed colonization in leaves, when compared with control. For mechanism, peroxidase and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity steadily increased up to 72 h. The transcriptome change, including defense response, signal transduction, transport, transcription, photosynthesis, housekeeping, and aromatics biosynthesis, was enhanced more than 2-fold at 24, 48, and 72 h after spraying. | [60] |
CS-NPs 50 nm | Date palm | F. oxysporum /Vascular wilt | Mix CS-NPs (ionic gelation method) and Cu-NPs (chemical reduction method) to obtain copper-chitosan nanocomposition (CuCs) In vitro: CuCs at 0.05–0.2% could inhibit 61.94–100% mycelial growth. Greenhouse: Apply 50 mL of CuCs to root zone of seeding. Treated CuCs increased plant immunomodulatory, including total phenol (1.1–1.5 folds), phenoloxidase (1.1–2.0 folds), and peroxidase (1.6–3.0 folds), which led to reduced disease by 16.2–59.3%. | [57] |
CS-NPs (DLS 180 nm with range 500–800 nm) | Ground nut oil seed | A. tenuis A. niger A. terreus B. bassiana F. graminearum F. oxysporum S. rolfsii | In vitro: CS-NP at 800 ppm inhibited mycelial growth of A. tenuis, A. niger, A. terreus, B. bassiana, F. graminearum, F. oxysporum, and S. rolfsii by 67.67, 62.75, 74.67, 76.08, 60.37, 66.60, and 37.41%, respectively. Moreover, 0.2 mL of CS-NP at 125 ppm inhibited F. graminearum by 44.3%, higher than fungicide (8-hydroxy quinoline), which was 42.33%. In addition, the CS-NP at 800 ppm reduced zearalenone secreted by F. graminearum. | [73] |
CS-NPs-loaded zinc (Zn) with DLS (387 nm, PDI 0.22, and 34 mV), TEM/SEM (200–300 nm, spherical) | Maize | C. lunata | In vitro: NPs could inhibit mycelium growth at 47.7–65.2% and 0.08–0.16% and spore germination at 50.5–73.3% and 0.01–0.16%. Greenhouse: Seed treat 4 h, foliar spraying 35 DAP, inoculate 45 DAP. The superoxide dismutases, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, polyphenol oxidase, H2O2 activity could be increased at 1.2–2.0, 2.0–3.0, 17.24–49.37, 1.5–2.6 folds when compared with the control, respectively. H2O2 and lignin localization were also increased. The DS was reduced 32.3–50.77%. The plant height, stem diameter, root length were increased 30.3–60.3, 66.3–237.5, 2.7–61.1%, respectively. Field: The DS was reduced at 25.42–39.67%. | [77] |
CS-NPs-loaded SA with DLS (368.7 nm, PDI 0.1, and 34.1 mV) | Maize | F. verticillioides /Post-flowering stalk rot | In vitro: CS-NPs-loaded SA treatment at 0.08–0.16% could evade mycelial growth at 62.2–100% and spore germination at 48.3–60.5%. Greenhouse: Treat seeds for 4 h, foliar spray 55 DAP, and inoculate 60 DAP. NP treatment at 0.01–0.16% reduced disease severity at 37.33–49.5% and increased leaf area (160.6–224.7%), shoot length (38.5–76.9%), root length (66.9–111.5%), root length (59.6–91.8%), stem diameter (22.8–53.9%), and total chlorophyll (54.2–141.4%). Moreover, at 2 and 3 days after spraying NPs, superoxide dismutases (1.8- and 3.2-fold), peroxidase (7.0- and 4.6-fold), catalase (3.1- and 2.6-fold), phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (2.0- and 1.7-fold), polyphenol oxidase (1.7- and 2.0-fold), O2− (1.1- and 1.1-fold), H2O2 (17.5- and 37.0-fold), and lignin accumulation also increased. Field: NP treatment reduced disease severity at 40.5–59.47%. At 0.08%, 50% tasseling was early by 4 days. Moreover, the plant height (25.5%), ear height (12.1%), cob length (44.8%), test weight (71.1%) and grain yield (48.3%) also increased. | [65] |
CS-NPs with DLS (bimodal particle with 2.3 and 7.5 nm), TEM (1.5 nm), and CS-NPs-loaded [H]hexaconazole, as described in Table 1 | Oil palm | G. boninense | In vitro: EC50 of hexaconazole, CS-NPs, and four formulate CS-NPs-loaded hexaconazole were 21.4, 1534.5, 8.0, and 18.4 ppb, respectively. Similar, fiducial limit (lower-upper) was 16.7–27.3, 494.0–13280.4, 6.0–10.9 and 13.0–32.8 ppb, respectively. | [58] |
CS-NPs-loaded Thiamine with DLS (596 nm, 37.7 mV), HRTEM (10–60 nm) | Chickpea | F. oxysporum /Wilt | Seeding: soaking seed overnight at 0.1% increased seedling vigor index by 64.2% and Indole-3-acetic acid content 10-fold. In vitro: CS-NPs-loaded thiamine did not inhibit fungi even by 0.1%. Greenhouse: Spraying 12 DAP and inoculating 15 DAP NP treatment at 0.1% reduced cell death in 2 DAI compared with the control. Moreover, shoot length, number of leaves per plant, fresh weight, dry weight, and number of secondary roots per plant also were increased by 15.3, 14.4, 37.7, 20.0, and 52.8%, respectively. In leaves, polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase, β-1,3-glucanase, chitinase, chitosanase, and protease were increased by 2.1-, 2.0-, 1.4-, 1.4-, 1.4-, and 1.1-fold, respectively. In root, this enzyme activity was increased 2.0-, 1.3-, 1.1-, 1.3-, 1.3-, and 1.1-fold, respectively. | [66] |
CS-NPs-loaded copper (Cu) with DLS (314 nm, PDI 0.48, and 19.5 mV) | Soybean | X. axonopodis pv. glycine /Bacterial pustule | Greenhouse: Seed treatment for 4 h; foliar spraying at trifoliate stage; and, after disease occurrence, inoculate 35 DAP. CS-NPs-loaded Cu at 0.12–0.06% reduced disease by 40.6–49.7%. NP treatment at 0.06% increased plant height (56.8%), root length (40.3%), and pod number (7.2%). NP treatment at 0.02% increased root weight (46.8%), nodule number (44.2%), and nodule weight (125.8%). Field: CS-NPs load Cu treatment at 0.06% reduced disease by 51.3% and increased root length (60.9%), root weight (46.8%), and pod number (29.7%). | [80] |
CS-NP-loaded SA with DLS (89.86 nm, PDI 0.36, and 22.27 mV), CS-NP-loaded silver (Ag) with DLS (249 nm, PDI 0.53, and 13.53 mV) | Cassava | A. alternata /Leaf spot | Leaf disk assay: two NP formulations not caused phytotoxicity upto 800 ppm. Greenhouse: Cassava stalk-soaking for 5 min, foliar spraying at 28 and 42 DAP, and inoculate 44 DAP with density 104 conidial per mL and 63 DAP with density 105 conidial per mL. CS-NP-loaded SA at 400 ppm and CS-NP-loaded Ag at 200, 400, and 800 ppm reduced disease by 68.9–73.6% at 56 DAP (first inoculate) and by 37.0–37.7% at 75 DAP (second inoculate). These treatments increased the number of leaves (45.1–82.4%), the number of shoots (38.5–46.2%), the largest leaf area (29.6–41.9%), root length (11.6–29.9%), and root weight (27.6–82.8%). | [69] |
4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Islam, S.M.F.; Karim, Z. World’s demand for food and water: The consequences of climate change. In Desalination-Challenges and Opportunities; Farahani, M.H.D.A., Vatanpour, V., Taheri, A.H., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; Chapter 4; pp. 57–84. [Google Scholar]
- van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, D.; Robson, G.D.; Trinci, A.P.J. 21st Century Guidebook to Fungi, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 367–391. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.R.; Sharma, R.K. Fusarium-nematode wilt disease complexes, etiology and mechanism of development. Indian Phytopathol. 2020, 73, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savary, S.; Ficke, A.; Aubertot, J.N.; Hollier, C. Crop losses due to diseases and their implications for global food production losses and food security. Food Sec. 2012, 4, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Robinson, S. Food system consequences of a fungal disease epidemic in a major crop. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schreinemachers, P.; Chen, H.P.; Nguyen, T.T.L.; Buntong, B.; Bouapao, L.; Gautam, S.; Le, N.T.; Pinn, T.; Vilaysone, P.; Srinivasan, R. Too much to handle? Pesticide dependence of smallholder vegetable farmers in Southeast Asia. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimentel, D. Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental impacts and ethics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1995, 8, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, G.A. Pesticides: Health, Safety and the Environment, 1st ed.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 168–183. [Google Scholar]
- Piesse, M. Global Food and Water Security in 2050: Demographic Change and Increased Demand. Strategic Analysis Paper. 2020. Available online: https://www.futuredirections.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Global-Food-and-Water-Security-in-2050-Demographic-Change-and-Increased-Demand.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
- Duhan, J.S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, N.; Kaur, P.; Nehra, K.; Duhan, S. Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 15, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanzari, I.; Leone, A.; Ambrosone, A. Nanotechnology in plant science: To make a long story short. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shang, Y.; Hasan, M.; Ahammed, G.J.; Li, M.; Yin, H.; Zhou, J. Applications of nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: A review. Molecules 2019, 24, 2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paramo, L.A.; Feregrino-Pérez, A.A.; Guevara, R.; Mendoza, S.; Esquivel, K. Nanoparticles in agroindustry: Applications, toxicity, challenges, and trends. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Zhou, H.; Zhou, J. The Applications of Nanotechnology in Crop Production. Molecules 2021, 26, 7070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajput, V.D.; Singh, A.; Minkina, T.; Rawat, S.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Shuvaeva, V.; Nazarenko, O.; Rajput, P.; Verma, K.K.; et al. Nano-Enabled Products: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture. Plants 2021, 10, 2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hassanisaadi, M.; Barani, M.; Rahdar, A.; Heidary, M.; Thysiadou, A.; Kyzas, G.Z. Role of agrochemical-based nanomaterials in plants: Biotic and abiotic stress with germination improvement of seeds. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashyap, P.L.; Xiang, X.; Heiden, P. Chitosan nanoparticle based delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 77, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Das, S.S.; Bharadwaj, P.; Bilal, M.; Barani, M.; Rahdar, A.; Taboada, P.; Bungau, S.; Kyzas, G.Z. Stimuli-Responsive Polymeric Nanocarriers for Drug Delivery, Imaging, and Theragnosis. Polymers 2020, 12, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amiri, M.S.; Mohammadzadeh, V.; Yazdi, M.E.T.; Barani, M.; Rahdar, A.; Kyzas, G.Z. Plant-Based Gums and Mucilages Applications in Pharmacology and Nanomedicine: A Review. Molecules 2021, 26, 1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barani, M.; Sangiovanni, E.; Angarano, M.; Rajizadeh, M.A.; Mehrabani, M.; Piazza, S.; Gangadharappa, H.V.; Pardakhty, A.; Mehrbani, M.; Dell’Agli, M.; et al. Phytosomes as innovative delivery systems for phytochemicals: A comprehensive review of literature. Int. J. Nanomed. 2021, 16, 6983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani, M.D.; Meftahizadeh, H.; Barani, M.; Rahdar, A.; Hosseinikhah, S.M.; Hatami, M.; Ghorbanpour, M. Guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.) plant gum: From biological applications to advanced nanomedicine. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 193, 1972–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worrall, E.A.; Hamid, A.; Mody, K.T.; Mitter, N.; Pappu, H.R. Nanotechnology for plant disease management. Agronomy 2018, 8, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elmer, W.; White, J.C. The future of nanotechnology in plant pathology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2018, 56, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Servin, A.; Elmer, W.; Mukherjee, A.; De la Torre-Roche, R.; Hamdi, H.; White, J.C.; Bindraban, P.; Dimkpa, C. A review of the use of engineered nanomaterials to suppress plant disease and enhance crop yield. J. Nanopart Res. 2015, 17, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okey-Onyesolu, C.F.; Hassanisaadi, M.; Bilal, M.; Barani, M.; Rahdar, A.; Iqbal, J.; Kyzas, G.Z. Nanomaterials as nanofertilizers and nanopesticides: An overview. ChemistrySelect 2021, 6, 8645–8663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J.; Dutta, T.; Kim, K.H.; Rawat, M.; Samddar, P.; Kumar, P. ‘Green’synthesis of metals and their oxide nanoparticles: Applications for environmental remediation. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2018, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goutam, S.P.; Saxena, G.; Roy, D.; Yadav, A.K.; Bharagava, R.N. Green Synthesis of Nanoparticles and Their Applications in Water and Wastewater Treatment. In Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety; SaxenaRam, G., Bharagava, N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Chapter 16; pp. 349–379. [Google Scholar]
- Calvo, P.; Remunan-Lopez, C.; Vila-Jato, J.L.; Alonso, M.J. Novel hydrophilic chitosan-polyethylene oxide nanoparticles as protein carriers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1997, 63, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvo, P.; Remuñan-López, C.; Vila-Jato, J.L.; Alonso, M.J. Chitosan and chitosan/ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymer nanoparticles as novel carriers for proteins and vaccines. Pharm. Res. 1997, 14, 1431–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Du, W.L.; Niu, S.S.; Xu, Y.L.; Xu, Z.R.; Fan, C.L. Antibacterial activity of chitosan tripolyphosphate nanoparticles loaded with various metal ions. Carbohydr. Polym. 2009, 75, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debnath, S.; Kumar, R.S.; Babu, M.N. Ionotropic gelation–a novel method to prepare chitosan nanoparticles. Res. J. Pharm. Tech. 2011, 4, 492–495. [Google Scholar]
- Koukaras, E.N.; Papadimitriou, S.A.; Bikiaris, D.N.; Froudakis, G.E. Insight on the formation of chitosan nanoparticles through ionotropic gelation with tripolyphosphate. Mol. Pharm. 2012, 9, 2856–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunjachan, S.; Jose, S.; Lammers, T. Understanding the mechanism of ionic gelation for synthesis of chitosan nanoparticles using qualitative techniques. Asian J. Pharm. 2014, 4, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giri, T.K. Alginate containing nanoarchitectonics for improved cancer therapy. In Nanoarchitectonics for Smart Delivery and Drug Targeting; Holban, A.M., Grumezescu, A.M., Eds.; William Andrew: Norwich, NY, USA, 2016; Chapter 20; pp. 565–588. [Google Scholar]
- Pedroso-Santana, S.; Fleitas-Salazar, N. Ionotropic gelation method in the synthesis of nanoparticles/microparticles for biomedical purposes. Polym. Int. 2020, 69, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, D.D.S.; Gullon, B.; Cardelle-Cobas, A.; Brito, L.M.; Rodrigues, K.A.; Quelemes, P.V.; Ramos-Jesus, J.; Arcanjo, D.D.; Plácido, A.; Batziou, K.; et al. Chitosan-based silver nanoparticles: A study of the antibacterial, antileishmanial and cytotoxic effects. J. Bioact. Compat. Polym. 2017, 32, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Google Schoolar. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%9Cionic+gelation%E2%80%9D+%2B+%22nanoparticles%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1 (accessed on 13 January 2022).
- Racoviţă, S.; Vasiliu, S.; Popa, M.; Luca, C. Polysaccharides based on micro-and nanoparticles obtained by ionic gelation and their applications as drug delivery systems. Rev. Roum. Chim. 2009, 54, 709–718. [Google Scholar]
- Mudgil, M.; Gupta, N.; Nagpal, M.; Pawar, P. Nanotechnology: A new approach for ocular drug delivery system. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 4, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
- Malerba, M.; Cerana, R. Recent applications of chitin-and chitosan-based polymers in plants. Polymers 2019, 11, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chakraborty, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Rahman, M.; Khan, M.; Rahman, A.; Bhowmik, P.; Mahmud, N.U.; Tanveer, M.; Islam, T. Mechanism of plant growth promotion and disease suppression by chitosan biopolymer. Agriculture 2020, 10, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3720e/i3720e.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action. 2020. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
- Agarwal, M.; Nagar, D.P.; Srivastava, N.; Agarwal, M.K. Chitosan nanoparticles-based drug delivery: An update. Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Res. 2015, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Title 21-Food and drugs. Chapter I-Food and Drug Administration. Subchapter B—Food for Human Consumption. Part 182-Substances Generally Recognized as Safe. 2021. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=182.6810 (accessed on 13 January 2022).
- Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Truong-Dinh Tran, T.; Zhang, J.; Kong, L. Manufacturing techniques and surface engineering of polymer based nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery to cancer. Nanomaterials 2016, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maluin, F.N.; Hussein, M.Z. Chitosan-based agronanochemicals as a sustainable alternative in crop protection. Molecules 2020, 25, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Devi, K.A.; Prajapati, D.; Kumar, A.; Pal, A.; Bhagat, D.; Singh, B.R.; Adholeya, A.; Saharan, V. Smart Nano-Chitosan for Fungal Disease Control. In Nanopesticides; Fraceto, L.F., de Castro, V.L.S.S., Grillo, R., Ávila., D., Oliveira, H.C., Lima, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Chapter 2; pp. 23–47. [Google Scholar]
- Saharan, V.; Mehrotra, A.; Khatik, R.; Rawal, P.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A. Synthesis of chitosan based nanoparticles and their in vitro evaluation against phytopathogenic fungi. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2013, 62, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kheiri, A.; Jorf, S.M.; Malihipour, A.; Saremi, H.; Nikkhah, M. Synthesis and characterization of chitosan nanoparticles and their effect on Fusarium head blight and oxidative activity in wheat. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 102, 526–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bangun, H.; Tandiono, S.; Arianto, A. Preparation and evaluation of chitosan-tripolyphosphate nanoparticles suspension as an antibacterial agent. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 8, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, J.W.; Chun, S.C.; Chandrasekaran, M. Preparation and in vitro characterization of chitosan nanoparticles and their broad-spectrum antifungal action compared to antibacterial activities against phytopathogens of tomato. Agronomy 2019, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodriguez, V.A.; Bolla, P.K.; Kalhapure, R.S.; Boddu, S.H.S.; Neupane, R.; Franco, J.; Renukuntla, J. Preparation and Characterization of Furosemide-Silver Complex Loaded Chitosan Nanoparticles. Processes 2019, 7, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suryadi, Y.; Priyatno, T.P.; Samudra, I.; Susilowati, D.N.; Sriharyani, T.S.; Syaefudin, S. Control of anthracnose disease (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) using nano chitosan hydrolyzed by chitinase derived from Burkholderia cepacia Isolate E76. J. AgroBiogen 2019, 13, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, E.A.; Gaber, M.H.; Elsharabasy, S.F. Evaluating the in vivo efficacy of copper-chitosan nanocomposition for treating vascular wilt disease in date palm. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2018, 3, 239085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maluin, F.N.; Hussein, M.Z.; Yusof, N.A.; Fakurazi, S.; Idris, A.S.; Zainol Hilmi, N.H.; Jeffery Daim, L.D. Preparation of chitosan–hexaconazole nanoparticles as fungicide nanodelivery system for combating Ganoderma disease in oil palm. Molecules 2019, 24, 2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manikandan, A.; Sathiyabama, M. Preparation of chitosan nanoparticles and its effect on detached rice leaves infected with Pyricularia grisea. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 84, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadendla, S.R.; Rani, T.S.; Vaikuntapu, P.R.; Maddu, R.R.; Podile, A.R. HarpinPss encapsulation in chitosan nanoparticles for improved bioavailability and disease resistance in tomato. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 199, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, K.N.; Salameh, J.W.; Wereley, S.T.; Kinzer-Ursem, T.L. Physical characterization of nanoparticle size and surface modification using particle scattering diffusometry. Biomicrofluidics 2016, 10, 054107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selvamani, V. Stability studies on nanomaterials used in drugs. In Characterization and Biology of Nanomaterials for Drug Delivery; Mohapatra, S., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N., Mishra, R., Thomas, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Chapter 15; pp. 425–444. [Google Scholar]
- Sathiyabama, M.; Parthasarathy, R. Biological preparation of chitosan nanoparticles and its in vitro antifungal efficacy against some phytopathogenic fungi. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 151, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ji, J.; Hao, S.; Wu, D.; Huang, R.; Xu, Y. Preparation, characterization and in vitro release of chitosan nanoparticles loaded with gentamicin and salicylic acid. Carbohydr. Polym. 2011, 85, 803–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Choudhary, R.C.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Salicylic acid functionalized chitosan nanoparticle: A sustainable biostimulant for plant. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 123, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kain, D.; Kumar, S. Synthesis and characterization of chitosan nanoparticles of Achillea millefolium L. and their activities. F1000Research 2020, 9, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocchetta, P. Ionotropic gelation of chitosan for next-generation composite proton conducting flat structures. Molecules 2020, 25, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoang, N.H.; Le Thanh, T.; Thepbandit, W.; Treekoon, J.; Saengchan, C.; Sangpueak, R.; Papathoti, N.K.; Kamkaew, A.; Buensanteai, N. Efficacy of chitosan nanoparticle loaded-salicylic acid and -silver on management cassava leaf spot disease. Polymers 2022. accepted. [Google Scholar]
- Das, S.; Pattanayak, S. Nanotechnological Approaches in Sustainable Agriculture and Plant Disease Management. In Organic Agriculture; Das, S.K., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; Chapter 2; pp. 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Sathiyabama, M.; Manikandan, A. Chitosan nanoparticle induced defense responses in fingermillet plants against blast disease caused by Pyricularia grisea (Cke). Sacc. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 154, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popova, E.V.; Zorin, I.M.; Domnina, N.S.; Novikova, I.I.; Krasnobaeva, I.L. Chitosan–Tripolyphosphate Nanoparticles: Synthesis by the Ionic Gelation Method, Properties, and Biological Activity. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 2020, 90, 1304–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Aliem, H.A.; Gibriel, A.Y.; Rasmy, N.M.; Sahab, A.F.; El-Nekeety, A.A.; Abdel-Wahhab, M.A. Antifungal efficacy of chitosan nanoparticles against phytopathogenic fungi and inhibition of zearalenone production by Fusarium graminearum. Comun. Sci. 2019, 10, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Divya, K.; Thampi, M.; Vijayan, S.; Varghese, S.; Jisha, M.S. Induction of defence response in Oryza sativa L. against Rhizoctonia solani (Kuhn) by chitosan nanoparticles. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 149, 104525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choudhary, R.C.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Cu-chitosan nanoparticle boost defense responses and plant growth in maize (Zea mays L.). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saharan, V.; Sharma, G.; Yadav, M.; Choudhary, M.K.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Synthesis and in vitro antifungal efficacy of Cu–chitosan nanoparticles against pathogenic fungi of tomato. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 75, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhary, R.C.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Kumari, S.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Saharan, V. Zinc encapsulated chitosan nanoparticle to promote maize crop yield. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 127, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choudhary, M.K.; Joshi, A.; Sharma, S.S.; Saharan, V. Effect of laboratory synthesized Cu-Chitosan nanocomposites on control of PFSR disease of Maize caused by Fusarium verticillioids. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1656–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dong, H.; Delaney, T.P.; Bauer, D.W.; Beer, S.V. Harpin induces disease resistance in Arabidopsis through the systemic acquired resistance pathway mediated by salicylic acid and the NIM1 gene. Plant J. 1999, 20, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swati, K.J.A.J. Cu-chitosan nanoparticle induced plant growth and antibacterial activity against bacterial pustule disease in soybean [Glycine max (L.)]. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2020, 9, 450–455. [Google Scholar]
- Elemike, E.E.; Uzoh, I.M.; Onwudiwe, D.C.; Babalola, O.O. The role of nanotechnology in the fortification of plant nutrients and improvement of crop production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashraf, S.A.; Siddiqui, A.J.; Abd Elmoneim, O.E.; Khan, M.I.; Patel, M.; Alreshidi, M.; Moin, A.; Singh, R.; Snoussi, M.; Adnan, M. Innovations in nanoscience for the sustainable development of food and agriculture with implications on health and environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 768, 144990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ur Rahim, H.; Qaswar, M.; Uddin, M.; Giannini, C.; Herrera, M.L.; Rea, G. Nano-enable materials promoting sustainability and resilience in modern agriculture. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zielińska, A.; Costa, B.; Ferreira, M.V.; Miguéis, D.; Louros, J.; Durazzo, A.; Lucarini, M.; Eder, P.; Chaud, M.V.; Morsink, M.; et al. Nanotoxicology and nanosafety: Safety-by-design and testing at a glance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choudhary, R.C.; Joshi, A.; Kumari, S.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Saharan, V. Preparation of Cu-chitosan nanoparticle and its effect on growth and enzyme activity during seed germination in maize. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2017, 6, 669–673. [Google Scholar]
- Ha, N.M.C.; Nguyen, T.H.; Wang, S.L.; Nguyen, A.D. Preparation of NPK nanofertilizer based on chitosan nanoparticles and its effect on biophysical characteristics and growth of coffee in green house. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2019, 45, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Saharan, V.; Kumari, S.; Choudhary, R.C.; Pal, A.; Sharma, S.S.; Rakshit, S.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Chitosan-silicon nanofertilizer to enhance plant growth and yield in maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 159, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hoang, N.H.; Le Thanh, T.; Sangpueak, R.; Treekoon, J.; Saengchan, C.; Thepbandit, W.; Papathoti, N.K.; Kamkaew, A.; Buensanteai, N. Chitosan Nanoparticles-Based Ionic Gelation Method: A Promising Candidate for Plant Disease Management. Polymers 2022, 14, 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14040662
Hoang NH, Le Thanh T, Sangpueak R, Treekoon J, Saengchan C, Thepbandit W, Papathoti NK, Kamkaew A, Buensanteai N. Chitosan Nanoparticles-Based Ionic Gelation Method: A Promising Candidate for Plant Disease Management. Polymers. 2022; 14(4):662. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14040662
Chicago/Turabian StyleHoang, Nguyen Huy, Toan Le Thanh, Rungthip Sangpueak, Jongjit Treekoon, Chanon Saengchan, Wannaporn Thepbandit, Narendra Kumar Papathoti, Anyanee Kamkaew, and Natthiya Buensanteai. 2022. "Chitosan Nanoparticles-Based Ionic Gelation Method: A Promising Candidate for Plant Disease Management" Polymers 14, no. 4: 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14040662
APA StyleHoang, N. H., Le Thanh, T., Sangpueak, R., Treekoon, J., Saengchan, C., Thepbandit, W., Papathoti, N. K., Kamkaew, A., & Buensanteai, N. (2022). Chitosan Nanoparticles-Based Ionic Gelation Method: A Promising Candidate for Plant Disease Management. Polymers, 14(4), 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14040662