Here, it is a brief presentation regarding nanofertilizer, in relation to its role in enhancing the use efficiency of concerned nutrient, along with some experimrntal findings. Thank you for ur kind consideration.

1. NANOFERTILIZERS: A NOVEL
APPROACH TO INCREASE
NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY
B AVINASH
VB-1538 of 2016-17
Department of Agronomy
Institute of Agriculture, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva Bharati

2. Need for adoption of new technology
Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE)
Nanotechnology and Nanofertilizers
Formulation, characterization and application
of Nanofertilizers
Nanotechnology in increasing NUE
Research findings
Cons of Nanotechnology
Conclusion
Future prospects

3. 3
Issues being faced:
Increasing
population
Stagnation in
productivity
Limited arable
land and water
resources
Low fertilizer
use efficiency
Fertilizer Production
(MT)
Consumption
(MT)
Deficit
(MT)
N 12.39 16.94 4.55
P 3.87 6.09 2.22
K - 2.53 2.53
FAI, 2015

4. Nutrient Efficiency Cause of low efficiency
Nitrogen 30-35 %
Immobilization, volatilization, denitrification,
leaching
Phosphorus 15-20% Fixation in soils Al – P, Fe – P, Ca – P
Potassium 35-40% Fixation in clay - lattices
Sulphur 8-10% Immobilization, Leaching with water
Micro nutrients (Zn,
Fe, Cu, Mn, B)
2-5% Fixation in soils
Problems with conventional fertilizers
 Highly prone to losses
 Pollution of environment
 Low nutrient use efficiency
4
Tarafdar et al., 2015

5. WHAT??? WHY???
• YIELD
• ECONOMICS
• ECOLOGY
• HEALTH
5
Nutrient Use Efficiency

6. • Nutrient
placement
• Foliar
spray
Cultural
methods
• Chlorophyll
content
• LCC, SPAD
meter
• SSNM
Management
aspect
Novel
fertilizer
production
method
Nanofertilizer
6
Approaches to increase NUE

7. 1. Agronomic use efficiency = yield (kg/ha) in fertilized
treatment - yield (kg/ha) in control/ Nutrient applied (kg/ha)
2. Physiological use efficiency = yield fertilized treatment
(kg/ha) - yield unfertilized treatment (kg/ha) / Nutrient uptake in
fertilized treatment (kg/ha) - Nutrient uptake unfertilized
treatment (kg/ha)
3. Apparent recovery efficiency = Nutrient uptake in fertilized
treatment (kg/ha) - Nutrient uptake unfertilized treatment (kg/ha)
/ Nutrient applied (kg/ha)
Indices of Nutrient Use Efficiency
7Moiser et al., 2004

8. A group of emerging technologies in which the
structure of the matter is controlled at the
nanometre scale to produce materials having
unique properties.
The term “Nano” is derived from the Greek word
nanos meaning ‘DWARF’
Nanoparticles: Particles with size in the range of 1-100nm
Small objects which behave as a whole unit
Types: (i) Incidental nanoparticles (ii) Engineered nanoparticles
Nanotechnology
8
Norio Taniguchi, Professor
coined the term “Nanotechnology”
(1974)

9. 9

10. 10
Unique Properties of Nanoparticles
 Smaller size, Larger surface area
 Increased surface area to volume ratio
 Nanoparticles can even pass through the plant and
animal cell, which is the main clue through which
nanotechnologists able to achieve the phenomena of
delivering the required product at cellular level, also
this thing make nanotechnology advantageous over
conventional method.
 Slow release
 Specific release

11. 11

12. Synthesis of Nanoparticles
Top-down Bottom-up
Physical method
Chemical
Method
Biological
Method
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004)
11

13. 13

14. TEM: Transmission
electron microscopy
SEM: Scanning
electron microscopy
DLS: Dynamic
light scattering
Characterization of Nanofertilizers
14

15. 15
TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy) :
•It provides with the 3D measurements of nanoparticles.
•It allows the rotation of sample by a desired angle to obtain a
proper image.
SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) :
•It uses a high beam of electrons in a raster scan pattern imaging
the surface of the sample.
•For such microscopy, the sample must be solid.
•It gives information regarding the surface structure of particle.
DLS (Dynamic Light Scattering) :
•It measures the time dependent fluctuation in scattering
intensity to determine the translational diffusion coefficient,
subsequently hydrodynamic diameter.
Contd..

16. TEM image of nanoparticles SEM image of nanoparticles
Iron oxide
Zinc oxide
16

17. 17
Properties
High
surface area
to volume
ratio
High
mobility
More
efficient

18. Mode of action
18

19. Nanotechnological approach to enhance NUE
Encapsulation of fertilizer with
nanoparticles
Slow delivery
Smart delivery system
Nanobiosensor
19

20. Encapsulation of fertilizer with nanoparticles
20
Encapsulation:- It is packaging
the fertilizers within a kind of
tiny 'envelope' or 'shell’
 Protection
 Decrease solubility
 Reduce the contact of active
ingredients with agricultural
workers
 Environment- reducing run-off rates

21. 21
Slow delivery
• SRF - related to their water solubility, microbial degradation and chemical
hydrolysis.
• CRF - soluble fertilizers coated with materials that limit the exposure of
material to water and/or release the resultant nutrient to solution by
diffusion.
• Coating and binding of nano and sub-nano composites are able to regulate
the release of nutrients from the fertilizer capsule.(Liu et al., 2006)
• Jinghua(2004) showed application of a nano-composite having N, P, K,
micronutrient, mannose and amino acids enhance uptake and use of
nutrients by grain crops.
• Fertiliser incorporation into nanotubes makes it for slow and controlled
release.

22. 22
Smart Delivery System
• Smart delivery includes timely controlled, spatially targeted, self regulated,
pre-programmed, avoid biological barrier to successful targeting.
• In smart delivery system, a small sealed package carries the drug which
opens up only when the desirable location or site of plant system is
reached.
• A molecular-coded ‘address label’ on the outside of the package could
allow the package to be delivered to the correct site in the body.
• Similarly, implanting nanoparticles in the plants could determine nutrient
status in plants and take up suitable remedial measures before the malady
causes yield reduction in crops.
• This system can significantly reduce the response-time to sense the
problem in field.

23. 23
Nanobiosensor
• Under nutrient limitation, crops
can secrete certain compounds
into rhizosphere to enable biotic
mineralization of N or P from SOM
and P-associated with soil organic
colloids.
• These root exudates can be
considered as environmental
signals that can be recognised by
nanobiosensor and release of
nutrient occurs that synchronise
with the plant’s need.

24. 24
Method of Application of Nanofertilizer

25. Nano porous Zeolites
• Zeolites are naturally occurring minerals honeycomb like structure
arrangement of Al and Si in 3-dimensional framework creates
channels and voids that are in nano scale.
• Because of the nano porous structures they have high specific
surface area, CEC and highly selective towards macronutrient K+
and NH4
+.
• These essential minerals can be exchanged onto zeolite exchange
site, where nutrient can slowly release for plant uptake, so reduce
runoff, leaching and environmental pollution.
25

26. 26
Research

27. Treatments No. of Grains/Spike 100-Grain weight
(g)
Yield/Pot (g)
0 ppm 18.5 3.35 7.18
25 ppm 29.0 4.66 13.25
50 ppm 22.0 4.53 12.45
75 ppm 25.0 4.40 10.40
100 ppm 22.3 4.43 10.36
125 ppm 22.5 3.94 9.90
150 ppm 11.5 3.78 9.73
CD at 5% 3.52 0.25 1.77
Effect of silver nanoparticles on yield attributes
of wheat
RDF: 90-60-40 kg/ha
Soil pH: 7.09
Jhanzab et al., 2015
27

28. Treatments Nitrogen use
efficiency (%)
Phosphorus use
efficiency (%)
Potassium use
efficiency (%)
0 ppm 69.75 68.44 69.00
25 ppm 74.25 72.53 89.03
50 ppm 55.13 61.15 79.25
75 ppm 41.38 46.79 61.06
100 ppm 40.88 47.30 59.41
125 ppm 39.56 43.50 54.50
150 ppm 36.38 41.28 67.88
CD at 5% 1.42 0.66 0.6851
Effect of silver nanoparticles on N, P and K use
efficiency in wheat
Jhanzab et al., 2015
28

29. a) Higher root growth of peanut plant after nanoscale ZnO treatment (1000 ppm).
The plants were uprooted after 110 days
b) Higher plant growth after nanoscale ZnO treatment (1000 ppm), after 110 days
Prasad et al., 2012
29

30. Effect of nanoscale ZnO and bulk ZnSO4 on Plant
height, root dry weight, and pod yield in peanut .
Conc.
(ppm)
Plant height
(cm)
Root dry weight
(g)
No. Of filled
pod/plant
Pod dry wt (g)
ZnSO4 Nano
ZnO
ZnSO4 Nano ZnO ZnSO4 Nano
ZnO
ZnSO
4
Nano
ZnO
400
9.3* 13.4**
0.72* 1.21** 1.93 1.96 2.70* 3.04*
1000
12.4** 15.4**
0.54 1.20** 5.96* 6.59** 3.97* 5.39**
2000
9.5* 10.4**
0.47 0.92* 3.05* 2.04 1.70 1.09
Control
8.22
0.47 2.00 1.18
CD@5
%
0.16
0.07 0.08 0.60
Prasad et al., 2012
*significant at p less than 0.05
**Highly significant at p less than 0.01
30
ZnO NPs size: 20nm
Seed soaking for 3 hrs

31. Treatments Plant height
(cm)
No. of
pods/plant
100 pod
weight (g)
Pod yield
(kg/ha)
Control 36.5 9.20 77.27 2391.56
NPK+
ZnSO4
37.1 10.10 74.82 2410.82
NPK+ Nano
ZnO
43.8* 16.80* 83.90∗∗ 3121.54**
CD at 5% 4.47 3.76 2.89 199.92
Prasad et al., 2012
NPK: 30-40-50 kg/ha
ZnSO4: 30g / 15 l
Nano ZnO: 2g / 15 l
*Significant at p less than 0.05
** Highly Significant at p less than 0.01
Effect of foliar spray of nano ZnO on yield attributes of Peanut
31

32. 32
Effect of nano ZnO on uptake of zinc by leaf and kernel
of peanut
Treatment Zinc content (ppm)
2008–2009 (Rabi season)
Zinc content (ppm)
2009–2010(Rabi season)
Leaf
(post harvest) Kernel
Leaf
(post harvest)
Kernel
T1 = NPK
(Control) 22.31 21.84 22.81 20.46
T2 = NPK + ZnSO4
(chelated @ 30g/15 L)
31.46∗ 28.32∗ 32.36∗ 29.21∗
T3 = NPK + ZnO
(Nano @ 2g/ 15 L) 44.80∗∗ 40.20∗∗ 41.83∗∗ 39.90∗∗
CD@ 5% 1.50 1.36 1.46 1.35
Prasad et al., 2012

33. Treatment Shoot length
(cm)
Root length
(cm)
Dry biomass
(kg/ha)
Grain yield
(kg/ha)
Control 152 58.6 5192 1065
Ordinary ZnO 158 60.9 5214 1217
Nano ZnO 175 61.1 5841 1467
CD @ 5% 0.10 0.14 52.2 17.6
Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on pearl millet
Tarafdar et al., 2014
33
ZnO NP size: 18.5nm
Foliar application rate @ 16 litre/ha at 10ppm conc.

34. Treatments Acid
phosphatase
(EU× 10-4)
Alkaline
phosphatase
(EU× 10-4)
Phytase
(EU× 10-2)
Control 9.1 4.7 0.9
Ordinary ZnO 14.1 6.2 2.2
Nano ZnO 16.1 7.6 3.8
CD @ 5% 1.4 0.8 0.5
EU : Enzymatic Units
P-solubilising enzyme activity in rhizosphere of 6 week old
pearl millet
34
Tarafdar et al., 2014

35. Treatments 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 CD at 5%
Leaf Area
(cm2/plant)
6.81 8.87 12.83 10.53 10.10 7.90 0.59
Chlorophyll
Content (SPAD
Units)
38.28 40.43 51.23 46.87 48.50 37.90 4.03
DW (g/plant) 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.01
Root DW/plant
(mg)
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.007
Effect of different concentrations Copper Nanoparticles on growth
parameters of wheat seedlings at 4 week
Concentration (in ppm) of Copper Nanoparticles
Hafeez et al., 2015
35

36. 36
From left to right: Treated with fertilizer and nano-sized hydroxyapatite (nHA),
treated with fertilizer and regular P, treated with fertilizer without P, and treated with
tap water only.
Crop: Soybean
Liu and Lal, 2014

37. 37
Effect of nano P on biomass and yield of Soybean
Liu and Lal, 2014
USA

38. Growth of soybean plants under different treatments
Liu and Lal, 2014
USA 38

39. Yield
variables
Control NPK 10% NPK 25% NPK
100%
Nano
NPK 10%
Nano
NPK 25%
Nano
NPK
100%
Plant
height
(cm)
36.2 37.5 38.4* 38.8 51.3* 44.76* 41.3*
No. of
grains per
spike
4.00 4.50* 4.80* 5.25* 8.66* 6.40 5.78*
Grain
yield/plan
t (g)
2.75 2.83 2.85 3.03* 4.28* 4.10* 3.88*
Effect of bulk material NPK and nano-engineered composite-NPK
fertilizer(CS-PMAA-NPK) on yield variables of wheat on sandy soil
Heba et al., 2016
Egypt
39
CS-PMAA:- Chitosan poly-methacrylic acid
100% conc. of NPK= 500,60,400 ppm NPK, respectively
Foliar spray @ 20ml/plant
* Mean values are significantly different from control at p < =0.05

40. Controlled release fertilizer of zinc encapsulated by hollow
core shell (nano size)
Yuvaraj and Subramanian, 2015
40
Hollow core size: 155 nm

41. 41
Days after planting
NO3-N concentration in leachate for different soil amendment types (Z- zeolite; C-
unamended soil control; N- nanometer size; a-20g kg-1; b-60g kg-1)
Malekian et al., 2011
Iran
Sandy loam soil
Influence of nano-clinoptilolite zeolite on nitrate leaching
N @ 150kg/ha through fertigation

42. Effect of copper nanoparticles on root growth of
wheat
0.4ppm Control
Micrograph of root
indicating absorption of
Cu-NPs
Hafeez et al., 2015
42

43. Treatment Spike/m² Grains /spike 1000 grains
weight(g)
Grains yield
(q/ha)
Control 244 23 28 12
50%RDF 340 41 32 37
100%RDF 352* 44* 37* 41*
50%RDF+
NM
381* 46* 37* 45*
100%RDF+NM 374 42 35 40
S.Em± 17 2.4 1 2.0
C.D(5%) 56 7.8 2 5.0
C.V(%) 8.3 10.3 3 8
Kumar, 2014RDF: 150:60:40 kg NPK/ ha
NM: 3 kg/ ha
Effect of Nanofertilizer on yield indices of wheat (Triticum aestivum)
43

44. Treatment Recovery efficiency
(%)
Agronomic efficiency
(kg grain/kg nutrient applied)
N P K N P K
50%RDF 88.3 32.3 340.5 0.33 0.83 1.25
100%RDF 61.6 32.8 218.0 0.22 0.55 0.83
50%RDF+NM 104.8 43.3 380.5 0.49 0.97 1.45
100%RDF+N
M
42.5 22.7 153.0 0.19 0.47 0.70
RDF:150:60:40 kg NPK/ha NM: 3kg/ha(NM of gypsum & rock phosphate)
Kumar, 2014
Effect of nanomaterials on nutrient use efficiency of wheat under
different fertilizer doses
44

45. Effect of zinc nanofertilizer on growth and yield of pearl
millet crop
Tarafdar et al., 2014
Treatments Root
Length
(cm)
Root
Area
(cm2)
Total
chlorophyll
content
(µg-1)
Grain Yield
(kg /ha)
Dry biomass
(kg /ha)
Control 58.6 60.1 30.3
1065 5192
ZnSO4 60.9 63.8 31.5
1217 5214
Nano Zn 61.1 74.7 37.7
1467 5841
CD at 5% 0.14 0.17 0.46
17.6 52.2
45
Foliar spray after two weeks
of germination @10mg/l

46. 46
Cons of Nanotechnology
• These nanoparticles produce waste toxic materials which if
contacted with soil and aquatic environment can cause
contamination or pollution.
• It need safety measures during its handling, because it has a lot
of potential to cause respiratory disorder and carcinogenic effect
on human health. So it need expertise persons during its
application.
• It has also ill-effect upon plant system viz; by it may plug the
stomata pore, forming a toxic layer upon the stigmatic surface,
which further prevent pollen tube penetration, it may enter into
vascular tissue and impair translocation of water, minerals and
photosynthates.

47. Conclusion
• Nano-fertilizers have potential to increase crop
productivity through slow or controlled
delivery.
• Due to their small size and target specificity,
they increase the use efficiency of the fertilizer,
which are applied in nanoparticle form.
• It may reduces ill effects due to overuse of
conventional fertilizers.
47

48. 48
Future prospects
• Understanding nanoparticles in agro-ecological
ramification (plant specificity, dose dependancy
and biotoxicity)
• Physiological explanation of mechanism of uptake
and translocation by plants
• Influence of nanoparticles in rhizosphere and on
root surface
• Effect on environment and human health
• Minimising the residual effect
• Lab to land

49. 49
Potential application of nanotechnology in agriculture

50. 50