ArticleDiscover nano2025
Comparison between using of nanochitosan and nanostarch as the polymers in pesticide nanoformulations synthesis.
Article in Discover nano, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chitosan, as a natural polysaccharide is considered the main polymer in nanopesticide formulation synthesis. As a result of the high price of chitosan, it's badly needed to find another polymer that is cheap and at the same time effective. So, starch as a natural polysaccharide was used as a polymer in nanopesticide formulations. In this work, some insecticides (acetamiprid, chlorfenapyr, emamectin benzoate, etofenprox, imidacloprid and indoxacarb) were loaded on both nanochitosan and nanostarch. By using zeta potential and particle size, the nanoparticles of all tested insecticides loaded on chitosan were 287.5, 99.9, 78.8, 696.6, 685.9 and 295.3 nm for acetamiprid, chlorfenapyr, emamectin benzoate, etofenprox, imidacloprid and indoxacarb, respectively. The corresponding results with starch were 176.1, 342.0, 647.8, 178.8, 809.1, and 68.7 nm, respectively. The zeta potential (charges) of all tested nanoformulations that loaded on chitosan were 0.9, 6.7, 4.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 4.8 mV for acetamiprid, chlorfenapyr, emamectin benzoate, etofenprox, imidacloprid and indoxacarb, respectively, while loading on starch was 4.7, 7.5, 12.9, 19.6, 28.5 and 8.6 mV, respectively. The loading capacity of all tested insecticides was 59.5, 50.6, 44.6, 55.6, 41.1 and 53.2%, respectively, for the chitosan nanocarrier; and 45.8, 46.3, 31.9, 33.7, 35.1 and 51.7%, respectively, for the starch nanocarrier. The obtained results indicated that starch was very effective as a polymer compared with chitosan. The charges of nanostarch were more than those of nanochitosan. This means that the nanostarch formulation was more homogenous than nanochitosan. These results found that starch is a very cheap material, stable, biodegradability, and ease of preparation compared with chitosan. So, starch is considered a promising polymer in nanoformulations as a carrier material, and it can be used in nanopesticide formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.