Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39599346›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Uptake, Translocation, Toxicity, and Impact of Nanoparticles on Plant Physiological Processes.

Maduraimuthu Djanaguiraman, Veerappan Anbazhagan, Om Parkash Dhankher, P V Vara Prasad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. RSC advances · 2026
    Article
  5. Starch-Coated Superparamagnetic FeNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Nanomaterials on Plant Growth and Stress Adaptation.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maduraimuthu DjanaguiramanDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-7562
Veerappan AnbazhaganDepartment of Chemistry, School of Chemical and Biotechnology, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur 613401, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0931-8192
Om Parkash DhankherStockbridge School of Agriculture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0737-6783
P V Vara PrasadDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6632-3361

Funding

Department of Biotechnology BT/PR36115/NNT/28/1814/2021Science and Engineering Research Board CRG/2023/001338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of nanotechnology in agriculture has increased rapidly. However, the fate and effects of various nanoparticles on the soil, plants, and humans are not fully understood. Reports indicate that nanoparticles exhibit positive and negative impacts on biota due to their size, surface property, concentration within the system, and species or cell type under test. In plants, nanoparticles are translocated either by apoplast or symplast pathway or both. Also, it is not clear whether the nanoparticles entering the plant system remain as nanoparticles or are biotransformed into ionic forms or other organic compounds. Controversial results on the toxicity effects of nanomaterials on the plant system are available. In general, the nanomaterial toxicity was exerted by producing reactive oxygen species, leading to damage or denaturation of various biomolecules. The intensity of cyto- and geno-toxicity depends on the physical and chemical properties of nanoparticles. Based on the literature survey, it is observed that the effects of nanoparticles on the growth, photosynthesis, and primary and secondary metabolism of plants are both positive and negative; the response of these processes to the nanoparticle was associated with the type of nanoparticle, the concentration within the tissue, crop species, and stage of growth. Future studies should focus on addressing the key knowledge gaps in understanding the responses of plants to nanoparticles at all levels through global transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome assays and evaluating nanoparticles under field conditions at realistic exposure concentrations to determine the level of entry of nanoparticles into the food chain and assess the impact of nanoparticles on the ecosystem.

Indexed as

abiotic stressmetabolismnanoparticlestoxicitytranslocationuptake

Identifiers

PMID39599346
PMCPMC11597231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.