Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection


Various nano-enabled strategies are proposed to improve crop production and meet the growing global demands for food, feed and fuel while practising sustainable agriculture. After providing a brief overview of the challenges faced in the sector of crop nutrition and protection, this Review presents the possible applications of nanotechnology in this area. We also consider performance data from patents and unpublished sources so as to define the scope of what can be realistically achieved. In addition to being an industry with a narrow profit margin, agricultural businesses have inherent constraints that must be carefully considered and that include existing (or future) regulations, as well as public perception and acceptance. Directions are also identified to guide future research and establish objectives that promote the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology in the agri-business sector.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Key figures for the top four crops produced globally: sugar cane, maize, rice and wheat.
Fig. 2: Key data capturing the current context of crop production.
Fig. 3: Number of patents returned from a Google Patents search.
Fig. 4: Field-scale performance of different nano-agrochemicals relative to non-nano formulations.


  1. 1.

    The State of Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2017);

  2. 2.

    The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges (FAO, 2017);

  3. 3.

    Creating a Sustainable Food Future (World Resources Institute, 2018).

  4. 4.

    King, A. Technology: the future of agriculture. Nature 544, S21–S23 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Roco, M., Williams, R. & Alivisatos, P. Nanotechnology Research Directions. IWGN Workshop Report. (Springer, 1999);

  6. 6.

    Scott, N. R. & Chen, H. Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems. Roadmap Report of National Planning Workshop (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service of the US Department of Agriculture, 2002);

  7. 7.

    Cozzens, S., Cortes, R., Soumonni, O. & Woodson, T. Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: water, energy, and agri-food. J. Nanopart. Res. 15, 2001 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kah, M. & Hofmann, T. Nanopesticide research: current trends and future priorities. Environ. Int. 63, 224–235 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Achari, G. A. & Kowshik, M. Recent developments on nanotechnology in agriculture: plant mineral nutrition, health, and interactions with soil microflora. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 8647–8661 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chhipa, H. Nanofertilizers and nanopesticides for agriculture. Environ. Chem. Lett. 15, 15–22 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Duhan, J. S. et al. Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol. Rep. 15, 11–23 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Feregrino-Perez, A. A., Magaña-López, E., Guzmán, C. & Esquivel, K. A general overview of the benefits and possible negative effects of the nanotechnology in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 238, 126–137 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hong, J., Peralta-Videa, J. R. & Gardea-Torresdey, J. L. in Sustainable Nanotechnology and the Environment: Advances and Achievements, 73–90 (ACS Symposium Series 1124, 2013).

  14. 14.

    Fraceto, L. F. et al. Nanotechnology in agriculture: which innovation potential does it have? Front. Environ. Sci. 4, (2016).

  15. 15.

    Huang, S., Wang, L., Liu, L., Hou, Y. & Li, L. Nanotechnology in agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 369–400 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Iavicoli, I., Leso, V., Beezhold, D. H. & Shvedova, A. A. Nanotechnology in agriculture: opportunities, toxicological implications, and occupational risks. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 329, 96–111 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jain, A., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N. & Ramalingam, C. Nanomaterials in food and agriculture: an overview on their safety concerns and regulatory issues. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58, 297–317 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kah, M. Nanopesticides and nanofertilizers: emerging contaminants or opportunities for risk mitigation? Front. Chem. 3, 64 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Liu, R. & Lal, R. Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci. Total Environ. 514, 131–139 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mukherjee, A. et al. Carbon nanomaterials in agriculture: a critical review. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 172 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mukhopadhyay, S. S. Nanotechnology in agriculture: prospects and constraints. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 7, 63–71 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Parisi, C., Vigani, M. & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Agricultural nanotechnologies: what are the current possibilities? Nano Today 10, 124–127 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Prasad, R., Bhattacharyya, A. & Nguyen, Q. D. Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: recent developments, challenges, and perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1014 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Servin, A. D. & White, J. C. Nanotechnology in agriculture: next steps for understanding engineered nanoparticle exposure and risk. NanoImpact 1, 9–12 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Servin, A. et al. A review of the use of engineered nanomaterials to suppress plant disease and enhance crop yield. J. Nanopart. Res. 17, 92 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ma, C., White, J. C., Zhao, J., Zhao, Q. & Xing, B. Uptake of engineered nanoparticles by food crops: characterization, mechanisms, and implications. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 9, 129–153 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kah, M., Beulke, S., Tiede, K. & Hofmann, T. Nanopesticides: state of knowledge, environmental fate, and exposure modeling. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1823–1867 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    FAOSTAT (FAO, 2018);

  29. 29.

    Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G. & Field, C. B. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 179–204 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wessells, K. R. & Brown, K. H. Estimating the global prevalence of zinc deficiency: results based on zinc availability in national food supplies and the prevalence of stunting. PLoS One 7, e50568 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cassman, K. G., Dobermann, A., Walters, D. T. & Yang, H. Meeting cereal demand while protecting natural resources and improving environmental quality. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 315–358 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Jägermeyr, J. et al. Water savings potentials of irrigation systems: global simulation of processes and linkages. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 3073–3091 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Urso, J. H. & Gilbertson, L. M. Atom conversion efficiency: a new sustainability metric applied to nitrogen and phosphorus use in agriculture. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6, 4453–4463 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: The 2012 Edition (FAO, 2012);

  35. 35.

    Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Fernández, V. & Eichert, T. Uptake of hydrophilic solutes through plant leaves: current state of knowledge and perspectives of foliar fertilization. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 36–68 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pimentel, D. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7, 229–252 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D. & Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2, 1–12 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ruyters, S., Salaets, P., Oorts, K. & Smolders, E. Copper toxicity in soils under established vineyards in Europe: a survey. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 470–477 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Schwab, F. et al. Barriers, pathways and processes for uptake, translocation and accumulation of nanomaterials in plants—critical review. Nanotoxicology 10, 257–278 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Al-Kodmany, K. The vertical farm: a review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings 8, 24 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Carrington, D. EU agrees total ban on bee-harming pesticides.The Guardian (27 April 2018);

  43. 43.

    Xu, J. B. China’s new pesticide regulations become effective. B&C Pesticide Law & Policy Blog (2017);

  44. 44.

    Phillips, D. ‘Toxic garbage will be sold here’: outcry as Brazil moves to loosen pesticide laws. The Guardian (26 June 2018);

  45. 45.

    Monreal, C. M., DeRosa, M., Mallubhotla, S. C., Bindraban, P. S. & Dimkpa, C. Nanotechnologies for increasing the crop use efficiency of fertilizer-micronutrients. Biol. Fertil. Soils 52, 423–437 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Bhattacharyya, A., Duraisamy, P., Govindarajan, M., Buhroo, A. A. & Prasad, R. in Advances and Applications Through Fungal Nanobiotechnology (ed. Prasad, R.) 307–319 (Springer, 2016).

  47. 47.

    Mitter, N. et al. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 3, 16207 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Young, M. et al. Multimodal generally recognized as safe ZnO/nanocopper composite: a novel antimicrobial material for the management of citrus phytopathogens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 6604–6608 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Elmer, W. et al. Effect of metalloid and metal oxide nanoparticles on fusarium wilt of watermelon. Plant Dis. 102, 1394–1401 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Borgatta, J. et al. Copper based nanomaterials suppress root fungal disease in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus): role of particle morphology, composition and dissolution behavior. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Wang, Z. et al. Xylem- and phloem-based transport of CuO nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 4434–4441 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    de la Torre-Roche, R. et al. Impact of Ag nanoparticle exposure on p,p′-DDE bioaccumulation by Cucurbita pepo (Zucchini) and Glycine max (Soybean). Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 718–725 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Dimkpa, C. O., White, J. C., Elmer, W. H. & Gardea-Torresdey, J. Nanoparticle and ionic Zn promote nutrient loading of sorghum grain under low NPK fertilization. J. Agric. Food Chem. 65, 8552–8559 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Dasgupta, N., Ranjan, S. & Ramalingam, C. Applications of nanotechnology in agriculture and water quality management. Environ. Chem. Lett. 15, 591–605 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kashyap, P. L. et al. in Microbes for Climate Resilient Agriculture, 279–344 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017).

  56. 56.

    Cui, Y., Wei, Q., Park, H. & Lieber, C. M. Nanowire nanosensors for highly sensitive and selective detection of biological and chemical species. Science 293, 1289–1292 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Yao, K. S. et al. Fluorescence silica nanoprobe as a biomarker for rapid detection of plant pathogens. Adv. Mater. Res. 79–82, 513–516 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lin, H.-Y., Huang, C.-H., Lu, S.-H., Kuo, I.-T. & Chau, L.-K. Direct detection of orchid viruses using nanorod-based fiber optic particle plasmon resonance immunosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 51, 371–378 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Kearns, H., Goodacre, R., Jamieson, L. E., Graham, D. & Faulds, K. SERS detection of multiple antimicrobial-resistant pathogens using nanosensors. Anal. Chem. 89, 12666–12673 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Mastronardi, E., Monreal, C. & DeRosa, M. C. Personalized medicine for crops? Opportunities for the application of molecular recognition in agriculture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 6457–6461 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Koman, V. B. et al. Persistent drought monitoring using a microfluidic-printed electro-mechanical sensor of stomata in planta. Lab. Chip 17, 4015–4024 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Rossi, L., Zhang, W. & Ma, X. Cerium oxide nanoparticles alter the salt stress tolerance of Brassica napus L. by modifying the formation of root apoplastic barriers. Environ. Pollut. 229, 132–138 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Wu, H., Tito, N. & Giraldo, J. P. Anionic cerium oxide nanoparticles protect plant photosynthesis from abiotic stress by scavenging reactive oxygen species. ACS Nano 11, 11283–11297 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Djanaguiraman, M., Belliraj, N., Bossmann, S. H. & Prasad, P. V. V. High-temperature stress alleviation by selenium nanoparticle treatment in grain sorghum. ACS Omega 3, 2479–2491 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Lahiani, M. H., Nima, Z. A., Villagarcia, H., Biris, A. S. & Khodakovskaya, M. V. Assessment of effects of the long-term exposure of agricultural crops to carbon nanotubes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 6654–6662 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Pandey, K. et al. Effects of carbon-based nanomaterials on seed germination, biomass accumulation and salt stress response of bioenergy crops. PLoS One 13, e0202274 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    McGehee, D. L., Lahiani, M. H., Irin, F., Green, M. J. & Khodakovskaya, M. V. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes dramatically affect the fruit metabolome of exposed tomato plants. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 32430–32435 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Deng, R. et al. Nanoparticle interactions with co-existing contaminants: joint toxicity, bioaccumulation and risk. Nanotoxicology 11, 591–612 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Asadishad, B. et al. Amendment of agricultural soil with metal nanoparticles: effects on soil enzyme activity and microbial community composition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1908–1918 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Das, P. et al. Novel synthesis of an iron oxalate capped iron oxide nanomaterial: a unique soil conditioner and slow release eco-friendly source of iron sustenance in plants. RSC Adv. 6, 103012–103025 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    El-Ramady, H. et al. Selenium and nano-selenium in plant nutrition. Environ. Chem. Lett. 14, 123–147 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Subbaiah, L. V. et al. Novel effects of nanoparticulate delivery of zinc on growth, productivity, and zinc biofortification in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 64, 3778–3788 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Golubkina, N. A. et al. Comparative evaluation of spinach biofortification with selenium nanoparticles and ionic forms of the element. Nanotechnol. Russ. 12, 569–576 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Sundaria, N. et al. Seed priming with iron oxide nanoparticles triggers iron acquisition and biofortification in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grains. J. Plant Growth Regul. (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Du, W. et al. Elevated CO2 levels modify TiO2 nanoparticle effects on rice and soil microbial communities. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 408–416 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Zhu, C. et al. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains with potential health consequences for the poorest rice-dependent countries. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq1012 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Kabiri, S. et al. Graphene oxide: a new carrier for slow release of plant micronutrients. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 43325–43335 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Chariou, P. L. & Steinmetz, N. F. Delivery of pesticides to plant parasitic nematodes using tobacco mild green mosaic virus as a nanocarrier. ACS Nano 11, 4719–4730 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Elmer, W. & White, J. C. The future of nanotechnology in plant pathology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 56, 111–133 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Hao, Y. et al. Engineered nanomaterials suppress turnip mosaic virus infection in tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana). Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 1685–1693 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Guidelines on Efficacy Evaluation for the Registration of Plant Protection Products (FAO, 2006).

  82. 82.

    Efficacy Experimental Design and Analysis (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 2013);

  83. 83.

    Abdel-Aziz, H. M. M., Hasaneen, M. N. A. & Omer, A. M. Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Span. J. Agric. Res. 14, 0902 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Delfani, M., Firouzabadi, M. B., Farrokhi, N. & Makarian, H. Some physiological responses of black-eyed pea to iron and magnesium nanofertilizers. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 45, 530–540 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Elmer, W. H. & White, J. C. The use of metallic oxide nanoparticles to enhance growth of tomatoes and eggplants in disease infested soil or soilless medium. Environ. Sci. Nano 3, 1072–1079 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Prasad, T. N. V. K. V. et al. Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide particles on the germination, growth and yield of peanut. J. Plant Nutr. 35, 905–927 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Kah, M., Kookana, R. S., Gogos, A. & Bucheli, T. D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 677–684 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Grow More Produce.

  89. 89.

    Berg, P. S. & Pullen, M. D. Nano particulate delivery system. US patent US20160174546A1 (2016).

  90. 90.

    Li, F., Pham, H. H. & Anderson, D. J. Methods to produce polymer nanoparticles and formulations of active ingredients. US patent US8741808B2 (2014).

  91. 91.

    Memarizadeh, N., Adeli, M. & Ghadamyari, M. Photodegradable, biocompatible and efficient nano-encapsulated formulation. US patent US20160000071A1 (2016).

  92. 92.

    Deb, N. Plant nutrient coated nanoparticles and methods for their preparation and use. US patent US9359265B2 (2016).

  93. 93.

    Lombi, E., Donner, E., Dusinska, M. & Wickson, F. A One Health approach to managing the applications and implications of nanotechnologies in agriculture. Nat. Nanotechnol. (2019).

  94. 94.

    Kookana, R. S. et al. Nanopesticides: guiding principles for regulatory evaluation of environmental risks. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62, 4227–4240 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Walker, G. W. et al. Ecological risk assessment of nano-enabled pesticides: a perspective on problem formulation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 6480–6486 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Hansen, S. F., Sørensen, S. N., Skjolding, L. M., Hartmann, N. B. & Baun, A. Revising REACH guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment for engineered nanomaterials for aquatic ecotoxicity endpoints: recommendations from the EnvNano project. Environ. Sci. Eur. 29, 14 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Kah, M., Weniger, A.-K. & Hofmann, T. Impacts of (nano)formulations on the fate of an insecticide in soil and consequences for environmental exposure assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10960–10967 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Hardy, A. et al. Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. Part 1, Human and animal health. EFSA J. 16, e05327 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Gardea-Torresdey, J. L., Rico, C. M. & White, J. C. Trophic transfer, transformation, and impact of engineered nanomaterials in terrestrial environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 2526–2540 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Revel, M., Chatel, A. & Mouneyrac, C. Omics tools: new challenges in aquatic nanotoxicology? Aquat. Toxicol. 193, 72–85 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Bergin, I. L. & Witzmann, F. A. Nanoparticle toxicity by the gastrointestinal route: evidence and knowledge gaps. Int. J. Biomed. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 3, (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Stauber, R. H. et al. Small meets smaller: effects of nanomaterials on microbial biology, pathology, and ecology. ACS Nano 12, 6351–6359 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Pourzahedi, L. et al. Life cycle considerations of nano-enabled agrochemicals: are today’s tools up to the task? Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 1057–1069 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Beumer, K. Nat. Nanotechnol. On the elusive nature of the public. (2019).

  105. 105.

    Scott, N. R., Chen, H. & Schoen, R. in Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence (eds. Bainbridge, W. S. & Roco, M. C.) 651–668 (Springer, 2016).

  106. 106.

    Siebert, S. et al. A global data set of the extent of irrigated land from 1900 to 2005. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 1521–1545 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Siebert, S. & Döll, P. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol. 384, 198–217 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage (US-EPA, 2017);

  109. 109.

    Maxmen, A. Crop pests: under attack. Nature 501, S15–S17 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    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 Secur. 4, 519–537 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


M.K. was partially supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 18-19324S). N.T. was supported by the Canada Research Chairs program. J.C.W. acknowledges support from USDA-NIFA-AFRI 2016-67021-24985. Synthesis of Cu-based nanoparticles was supported by US National Science Foundation Centers for Chemical Innovation Program CHE-1503408, the Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology. The authors thank Vive Crop Protection Inc. for sharing and discussing data, and S. Chahal for his support with graphic preparation.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Melanie Kah or Jason C. White.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Nanotechnology thanks Hongda Chen and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kah, M., Tufenkji, N. & White, J.C. Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 532–540 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Find nanotechnology articles, nanomaterial data and patents all in one place. Visit Nano by Nature Research