The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nanoparticle Charge and Size Control Foliar Delivery Efficiency to Plant Cells and Organelles
Abstract
Fundamental and quantitative understanding of the interactions between nanoparticles and plant leaves is crucial for advancing the field of nanoenabled agriculture. Herein, we systematically investigated and modeled how ζ potential (−52.3 mV to +36.6 mV) and hydrodynamic size (1.7–18 nm) of hydrophilic nanoparticles influence delivery efficiency and pathways to specific leaf cells and organelles. We studied interactions of nanoparticles of agricultural interest including carbon dots (CDs, 0.5 and 5 mg/mL), cerium oxide (CeO 2, 0.5 mg/mL), and silica (SiO 2, 0.5 mg/mL) nanoparticles with leaves of two major crop species having contrasting leaf anatomies: cotton (dicotyledon) and maize (monocotyledon). Biocompatible CDs allowed real-time tracking of nanoparticle translocation and distribution in planta by confocal fluorescence microscopy at high spatial (∼200 nm) and temporal (2–5 min) resolution. Nanoparticle formulations with surfactants (Silwet L-77) that reduced surface tension to 22 mN/m were found to be crucial for enabling rapid uptake (<10 min) of nanoparticles through the leaf stomata and cuticle pathways. Nanoparticle–leaf interaction (NLI) empirical models based on hydrodynamic size and ζ potential indicate that hydrophilic nanoparticles with <20 and 11 nm for cotton and maize, respectively, and positive charge (>15 mV), exhibit the highest foliar delivery efficiencies into guard cells (100%), extracellular space (90.3%), and chloroplasts (55.8%). Systematic assessments of nanoparticle–plant interactions would lead to the development of NLI models that predict the translocation and distribution of nanomaterials in plants based on their chemical and physical properties.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050
Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., & Foley, J. A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066428 · Cited by 3,415
Monopoli, M. P., Walczyk, D., Campbell, A., Elia, G., Lynch, I., Baldelli Bombelli, F., & Dawson, K. A. (2011) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja107583h · Cited by 1,835
Albersheim, P., Darvill, A., Roberts, K., Sederoff, R., & Staehelin, A. (2010) · doi:10.1201/9780203833476 · Cited by 252
Cited by
Nanoparticle-Based Sustainable Agriculture and Food Science: Recent Advances and Future Outlook
Mittal, D., Kaur, G., Singh, P., Yadav, K., & Ali, S. A. (2020) · Frontiers in Nanotechnology · doi:10.3389/fnano.2020.579954 · Cited by 788
Nanoparticles in Plants: Uptake, Transport and Physiological Activity in Leaf and Root
Wang, X., Xie, H., Wang, P., & Yin, H. (2023) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma16083097 · Cited by 518
Avellan, A., Yun, J., Morais, B. P., Clement, E. T., Rodrigues, S. M., & Lowry, G. V. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c00178 · Cited by 412
Nanoparticles in Agroindustry: Applications, Toxicity, Challenges, and Trends
Paramo, L. A., Feregrino-Pérez, A. A., Guevara, R., Mendoza, S., & Esquivel, K. (2020) · Nanomaterials · doi:10.3390/nano10091654 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, P., An, J., Faulkner, M. M., Wu, H., Li, Z., Tian, X., & Giraldo, J. P.
- Venue
- ACS Nano
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2020-07-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 7970-7986
- ISSN
- 1936-0851 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-086X
- OpenAlex
- W3039581945
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.