Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40859628›Full record

ReviewPhysiologia plantarum

Translocation of Foliar-Applied Nanoparticles: A Critical Review From a Plant Science Perspective.

Andrea Pinna, Søren Husted

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiologia plantarum. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Andrea PinnaDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5130-1071
Søren HustedDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF21OC0066114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in plant science have greatly enhanced agronomic practices involving the foliar application of agrochemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides. However, the limited phloem mobility of certain nutrients and nonsystemic pesticides reduces the effectiveness of these strategies. Nanoparticles (NPs) have emerged as promising carriers to improve nutrient use efficiency (NUE) and crop protection by enabling long-distance transport and targeted delivery of essential nutrients and active ingredients. While increasing evidence suggests that foliar-applied NPs can translocate within plants, a mechanistic understanding and agronomically relevant case studies remain scarce. As a result, the extent to which NP translocation can facilitate significant distribution and cargo release within plants is yet to be fully established. This review critically evaluates existing research on foliar NP translocation, emphasizing key findings within a plant science framework. Specifically, we examine how NP design can influence translocation and assess the existing quantitative data of NP remobilization within plants. Additionally, we explore how physiological processes affect NP transport and highlight alternative, often overlooked translocation pathways. Lastly, we assess current techniques used to study NP transport, discussing their applicability and limitations. This review identifies significant research gaps that must be addressed to advance nano-enabled plant nutrition as well as crop protection and can therefore be used to inspire future research.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesPlant LeavesPlantsBiological TransportPhloemfoliar nanoparticlesnanofertilizersnanopesticidesphloemtranslocation pathways

Identifiers

PMID40859628
PMCPMC12381517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.