Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
One of the main things restricting yields of crops is diseases that affect plants. Which continue to be the major agricultural threat in the globe and drastically reduce yields of crops internationally, creating serious issues for the availability of food. Despite the fact that chemical-based medication persists as the main tactic for lowering the incidence of agricultural ailments, their frequent usage can make the microorganisms less likely to spread. Consequently, effective screening techniques for the immediate detection of plant-borne pathogens in the initial phases of infection have becoming vital to preserving sustainable farming and adequate nutrition. Quantum dots (QDs), nanoparticles, and nanotechnology have become crucial instruments for the rapid and highly accurate assessment of a specific biochemical marker. Tools including such as biosensors, QDs, nanostructured platforms, nanoimaging, and nanopore DNA sequencing have an opportunity to enhance infection detection’s accuracy, precision, and efficiency. They can also make rapid analysis easier and be utilized for crop protection and high-quality monitoring. Additionally, nanodiagnostic tool technology enables professionals to assist producers in avoiding the emergence of pandemics by swiftly and simply identifying potentially hazardous pathogenic organisms in crops.
Department Plant Pathology, MPDC, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, U.P., India
Prem Chandra*
School of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, India
*Address all correspondence to: p.chandrabbau@gmail.com
1. Introduction
The worldwide transmission of plant pathogens has grown, although the expense associated with identification of pathogens and eradication are relatively low (i.e., less than 3% of the overall expenses associated with agricultural output). According to estimates, 14% of global losses were attributed to pests of insects, 13% to cultivar ailments, and 13% to herbicides [1, 2]. It was estimated that this crop loss costs the United States $2000 billion year. Due to the creation of persistent stressful diseases pathogens limit plant development and output, and precise diagnosis and treatment techniques are costly [3]. Several efforts have been made to produce crops more safely in various conditions using safeguards or optimal managing practices. However, crop protection is essential for ensuring sustained crop output, particularly in challenging situations [4]. In institutions around the world, conventional molecular diagnostic procedures are frequently utilized to detect phyto pathogenic microorganisms having an elevated level of sensitivity as well as specificity. However, almost all of the aforementioned techniques cannot be used in rural areas (on-site detection) or in low-income developing countries [5]. In addition, the use of conventional molecular techniques in emerging economies is constrained by the expensive nature and brief lifespan of particular molecular biology ingredients, such as catalysts and primers [6].
A vast field, the nanotechnology integrates information from sciences such as chemistry, physics, along with other academic areas. Nanotechnology, as defined by Joseph and Morrison [7], is the technique of arranging tiny atoms, molecules, which are or molecular groups into nanostructures to create substances that are capable of carrying out one-of-a-kind or very varied activities. The use of nanotechnologies in farming has the potential to transform farming research as well as bring about the development of innovative instruments for the early and immediate identification of plant-borne infections and illnesses [8]. Because they typically range in size from 1 to 100 nm and can provide enhanced surface-to-volume ratios as well as special chemical, optical, and electrical properties that are not present in their bulk substitutes, nanoparticles are outstanding options for enabling the identification of plant-borne pathogens [9]. Cylindrical fragments, cubes, rods, wires, plates, prisms, core-shell frameworks, and other structures with three dimensions are just a few of the configurations that nanostructures can take [10].
One of the most well-known detecting techniques used by nonmaterial is their capacity to alter their form when exposed to various environmental stimuli, which affects physical and chemical characteristics. It therefore has an enormous capacity to identify infections more quickly and correctly than other pathogen detection techniques now in use [11]. We focused on the recently created uses of nanotechnology instruments for detecting pathogens in plants and diagnosing agricultural illnesses.
2. Types, synthesis, and characterization of nanoparticles used in plants
Microscopic molecules or structures known as nanoparticles usually have a size between 1 and 100 nm. Compared to its mass equivalent, they are more effective, quick to respond, reliable, and operationally engaged [12]. The term “nanotechnology” was first defined scientifically by Norio Taniguchi of Tokyo, Japan. It is the research of atomic or molecular scales of matter. Currently, different kinds of nanoparticles are known to exist [13]. Several factors, including functionalization, surface appearance, chemical nature, physicochemical qualities, scale, genesis and origin, magnetic characteristics, crystalline structure, etc. are taken into account when classifying nanoparticles [14]. Metals and metallic oxide nanoparticles are frequently utilized in crops. Both bottom-up and top-down strategies are two essential ideas that are capable of helping create nanoparticles in physical, chemical, and natural (green synthesis) ways. The first technique uses physical and chemical processes to break down macro-scale or bulky substances into extremely small particles (1–100 nm). Top-down techniques are used to lower the atom size, including mechanical machining, etching, the process of s electro-explosion, and ablation with lasers [15]. The synthesis of green nanoparticles employing living things and plants is a component of the strategy known as bottom-up. Various processes, including chemical vapor deposition, laser pyrolysis, and atomic the process of condensation, are used in this technique for assembling very small atoms into nanoparticles [16]. The physical properties of nanoparticles can be modified by altering reaction circumstances such as chemical concentrations of substances, reaction duration, temperature, and pH. Therefore, anyone is able to create their chosen nanomaterials by altering these parameters [17].
A method that has promise for locating infections is the advancement or incorporation of molecular detection on a microscopic level. Nanomolecular evaluation, often known as nanodiagnostics, is the application of nanobiotechnology to the diagnosis of plant illnesses [18]. The sequencing of individual DNA molecules especially makes use of a number of tiny devices and nanosystems. Testing methods that examine DNA sequences and identify diseases are getting quicker, easier to modify, and more powerful with the introduction of nano-size devices [19].
It is interesting that this tendency is likely to be supported by novel methods of detection that use nano-biosensors to identify pathogens. Phytopathologists used visual evaluation to recognize plant ailments in the 1980s and 1990s. The standard methods to detect crop infections can take several days, thus researchers require quick detection instruments that can yield results in a few hours [20]. Nanotechnologists and phytopathologists are continually collaborating to create such detecting technologies. Researchers in nanotechnology and/or the phytopathology are working to create a simple, portable assessment that is reliable and does not require a complicated technique so that growers can make use of the transportable laboratory independently to identify particular ailments [21].
Previously created nanoparticles with unique nanoscale properties could represent a significant advance in identifying the presence of contaminants and pathogens [15]. Lab-on-a-chip devices for monitoring micronutrients in water used for irrigation, identifying poisoning in waterways, and regulating the nutritional value of food are also being developed as a result of nanotechnology [22, 23]. The scientific discipline of nano-phytopathology uses nanotechnology in the early phases of disease detection, diagnosis, and management in plants. Nano-phytopathology provides data that can be utilized to identify and track the traits associated with plant illnesses, identify dangerous toxins, evaluate the sustainability of the environment, and spot relationships between pathogenic microbes and their hosts [21, 24]. A more affordable method of protecting plants involves recognizing, detecting, and controlling plant diseases when they are still in their initial phases. Immediate phyto disease detection with nanotechnology-based assays is possible for more cost-effective plant protection control. They are quick and extremely sensitive [25]. Additionally, biological barcoding technique based on nanotechnology provides extremely high specificity for DNA and protein identification. It is possible to create packages for the quick and on-site identification of plant ailments using barcode-based technologies [26]. As a whole, there are many potential uses for nanotechnology with regard to plant monitoring (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Potential nanotechnology applications in plant pathology: (A) plant disease control and (B) detection of plant pathogens.
One of two methods can be used to apply nanoparticles for crop safeguarding: either the microscopic particles themselves protect agricultural products, or they operate as carriers for active ingredients like double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), which can be applied by spraying or wet into the seeds, foliar connective tissue, or roots [27].
Particles as carriers can have a number of benefits, such as (i) an extended shelf life, (ii) improved pesticide aqueous fluctuation, (iii) decreased toxic effects, and (iv) more site-specific incorporation into the pest being targeted [28]. Improved functionality and longevity of small-molecule pesticide under environmental stress (UV and rain) could be another advantage of nanocarriers [29].
This would lead to significantly less usage, minimal negative outcomes, and lower costs (Figure 2). This schematic diagram shows different nanomaterials as either protectants or carriers for actives such as insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, or RNA-interference molecules, targeting a wide range of pests and pathogens. It also highlights the potential benefits of nanomaterial applications, such as improved shelf-life, target site-specific uptake, and increased solubility, while decreasing soil leaching and toxicity [27].
Figure 2.
Nonmaterial as protectants or carriers to provide crop protection.
Plant disease detection and identification can be done directly or indirectly. The examination of plant pathogens, such as bacteria, oomycetes, fungi, and viruses, as well as bio molecular markers, such as nucleic acids, proteins, and carbohydrates, isolated from diseased plant tissues, is the norm for direct techniques [30]. Through changes in physiological or histological markers including variations in leaf surface temperature or humidity, spectroscopic properties of plant tissues, shape, growth rate, and emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), indirect diagnostics can identify plant illnesses [31]. Numerous spectroscopic, electrochemical, or molecular technologies may be used as direct or indirect detection techniques [32].
4.1 Nanobiosensors: a tool for plant pathogens diagnosis
Nano biosensors are nanosensors with bioreceptor devices immobilized that are unique for the molecules that are in the material being studied and have the beneficial properties of being portable, small, and adaptable to real-time screening, accurate, computational, reliable, stable, repeatable, and resiliency for identifying expected and complicated plant health issues [33]. Toxins, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and other bio dangerous substances are some examples of the pollutants that have already been identified and measured using this equipment in the food and agricultural industries. As a result, these nanosensors might have a big impact on precision agricultural methods [34]. Early on-site diagnosis of cultivar diseases using portable nano biosensors can also result from the study of disease epidemiology and the creation of ailment-prevention techniques. For real-time ailments, quality of soil, and crop wellness tracking, these sensors can be positioned throughout the agricultural area and linked to a Global Positioning System [35, 36].
By integrating biotechnological and nanotechnological strategies, biosensors could be created that have greater sensibility, allowing an earlier reaction to changes in the environment and the incidence of diseases [37]. Plant illnesses will be straightforward to manage since we will be able to identify them before any visible symptoms show up. Biosensors will promote precision farming, which will increase productivity and output in agriculture by giving precise data and supporting farmers to make superior choices [38].
Due to their large particular area of surface, size-dependent electrical characteristics, and ability to facilitate machine restructuring, nanostructures have been exploited as creative sensing platforms as a consequence of breakthroughs in nanotechnology and biotechnology [39]. In order to identify microorganisms and mycotoxins, a nano sensing platform was created employing nanomaterials like carbon nanomaterials (nanotubes and graphene), nanofibers, nanotubes, and nanostructured metal oxide nanoparticles [40]. This process speeds up the recognition of microorganisms. Nanostructures based on microfluidic platforms are also effective at promptly and accurately detecting diseases. Food rot triggered by bacterial and fungal pathogens can be detected using a variety of nanostructured devices [41]. Inbaraj and Chen [42], created a structure that contained tens of thousands of nanomaterials that changed color when they got into proximity to food-borne pathogens.
In order to immobilize r-IgG and BSA for the identification of OTA (Aspergillus ochraceus), [43] found that an immunoelectrode made of nanoSiO2 and chitosan worked best. In order to detect very small quantities of AFM1 (up to 0.01 ppb) produced by A. flavus in food, [44] used magnetic nanoparticles to build an electrochemical immunosensor [45], created a prototype that measures zearalenone produced by Fusarium sp. quickly, cautiously, and precisely by employing a microfluidic chip and an electro kinetic magnetic bead-based electrochemical immunoassay. Furthermore, an ultrasensitive immunosensor developed for the precise and speedy determination of zearalenone in samples of maize silage using continuous-flow technology and multiwall carbon nanotubes.
4.1.1 Colorimetric biosensors
Colorimetric biological sensors are intriguing optical biosensors since they can quickly and accurately identify visually by a color shift the presence of hazardous bacteria in the sample without requiring the application of any extra instruments or chemicals [46]. Similar to how the lateral flow test works, the solution-based colorimetric sensor also measures flow. When target pathogens interact with a colloidal gold nanoparticle-mounted receptor, the color of the nanoparticles changes from red to purple as a result of agglomeration. Horizontal flow immunoassays based on colloidal gold-plated nanoparticles have been developed for a number of agricultural diseases, including Potato Virus X in potatoes, Fusarium species in maize, and Pantoea stewartii bacteria in maize [41]. Although it is a serious drawback, all lateral flow assays-based biosensors lacked a high level of sensitivity. Artificial biology and bio sensing technologies are now being used to quickly, accurately, and successfully diagnose plant diseases. However, before they are extensively utilized and applied in plan disease diagnostics, there are a few more aspects and potential obstacles to take into account, such as previous understanding of agricultural systems, a sufficient in-field sampling approach, and a suitable biological concentration of targeted pathogenic [47].
While data-based biological sensors have certainly grown in importance, there are now fewer opportunities for research. An adequate campaign is expected to motivate scientists to refocus their attention on botanical pathogen evaluation and other abnormalities facets employing nanobiosensors due to the importance of plant infectious agent evaluation, the current state of nanobiosensors, and additionally the drawbacks of presently accessible assessment approaches and progressed nanomaterials [34].
4.1.2 Array-based nanosensors
Modern multi-chromophores array-based sensing gatherings, which are analogous to the human sense of smell and have the ability of multiplexed and distinguishing between different investigations [48]. A common variation of the array-based sensor is the “electronic nose” (e-nose), which replaces the chemical sensors in the array with electronic transducers. Because of its capacity to assess chemical fingerprints and cross-reactivity, the array-based technique is useful in discriminating analysis combinations that are similar to one another. It is possible to obtain remarkably precise and prognostic results from supervised or unattended chemometric analysis of the heterogeneous data output of sensing arrays [49]. Unlike e-nose signals, array-based chemical sensors can produce visual readout (such as colorimetric or fluorescent), which is easier to perceive and analyze. Chemical sensor networks are also less expensive, simpler to build, and more immune to outside influences like shifts in temperature and humidity than the bulk of e-nose devices [46]. They also typically have much better chemical specificity because they have their foundation on a particular chemical reaction. Numerous analyteresponsive dyes, such as Lewis acid-based colorants, Bronsted acidic or basic colorants, solvatochromic or vapochromic dyes, and redox indicator colorants, could be embedded in hydrophilic nano porous materials, like altered silica sol-gels, to create chemical detector panels with ease [50].
4.2 Nano barcode assay
Advances in nanotechnology have contributed to the development of a novel technique termed “bio-barcoding” for the identification of enzyme-free ultra-sensitive proteins and DNAs. Protein barcode assays would be more complex, delicate, and thorough than conventional ELISA-based assays that rely on target and sample densities [51]. The nanoparticle-based bio barcode test is sensitive to identifying pathogens and aids in the early detection of plant ailments when compared with different commonly used methods like ELISA, qPCR, etc. Two devices are used in the bio barcode approach [52].
Nanotechnology advancements have led to changes in bio barcode technology. It is an excellent technique for identifying protein complexes and nucleic acids without requiring the use of enzymes or PCR. Modifications have been implemented in a number of categories to expand the usefulness of bio barcodes across multiple domains [53]. DNA barcoding has been suggested as a method for identifying fungus. Standardization, scalability, reproducibility of protein-coding area copies, and accessibility should all be features of a DNA barcode. Gold nanoparticles and the fluorescence bio-barcoding technology are used to identify P. aeroginosa. In order to determine a specific DNA at the other side of the probe 1 bio barcode DNA, which acts as a signal identifier, a second probe has been established [25].
As a consequence of this, the two probes formed covalent connections with their appropriate sequences and became triggered. Fluorescence spectroscopy is used to show that this test has a broad linear range of measurement (5–200 ng/mL) and is quick, simple, sensitive, and reliable [54]. When molecular targets use a specific gene as a linker, the oligo-AuNP sensors hybridized with magnetic micro particle (MMP) probes having oligonucleotide functionality. Following magnetic separation of these complicated systems, the oligonucleotides were subsequently freed from the Oligo-AuNP tags. These emitting bio barcodes are quantitatively analyzed by the scientometric test [55]. Under optimal conditions, the test is particularly interesting since it can swiftly detect nucleotides at higher zeptomolar levels and protein complexes at lower up to mole amounts. Similar methods can be established for the fast and on-site detection of agricultural illnesses like viruses, in order to reduce losses in crops [24].
4.3 Quantum dots (QDs)
Quantum dots (QDs), a luminescent semiconductor nanocrystal, produce photons at a certain spectrum depending on their dimension. With magnitude, an infrared light’s intensity lengthens [56]. They come with a number of benefits over organic dyes because of their broad stimulation spectra. Quantum dots are resistant to light bleached due to their 10–100 times higher molar attenuation value, distinguishable tunable fluorescence peak, and extended fluorescence lifetime [57]. The aforementioned features of quantum dots make them brighter than conventional fluorophores since they may be activated in a variety of colors from just one source without their emission impulses conflicting [58]. Due to these benefits, QDFRET-based nanosensors have become widely used in the farming and accompanying applications. The measurement of enzyme and nucleic acid activation is the most widespread application for these types of sensors [57]. It was shown that single-cell yeast was able to forming crystallites of cadmium sulfide (CdS) when subjected to cadmium salt exposure, which led to the finding of semiconductor nanomaterials mycosynthesis [59].
Numerous microbes, including fungi, have the potential of biosynthesizing nanoparticles; the internal production of metal nanoparticles may result from the decreased levels of ionized metals by proteins found in the cell membranes. For example, when reacting with a mixture of CdCl2 and SeCl4 at ambient temperature, Fusarium oxysporum was capable of to generate extremely luminous CdTe quantum dots [60]. Knudsen et al. [61] showed that QD-based nanosensors may demonstrate a variety of enzyme activity. In recent years, CdTe quantum dots coated with particular antibodies that target the glutathione S transferase (GST) protein found in Polymyxa beta have been employed as biosensors that work [62].
Quantum dots have been placed close enough to one another to make room for the resonant dipole–dipole relationship necessary for fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) due to their shared attraction for antigen and antibody, rhodamine and CdTe [63]. The created immunosensor showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity and was successfully used for rapid screening for plant tests, producing results in less as 30 minutes. In an associated discovery, demonstrated a 100% accuracy for determining the presence of lime plants infested with phytoplasma (P. aurantifolia) using a nano biosensor utilizing quantum dots (QDs) [64]. In recent years, a DNA biosensor comprising an artificial quantum dot (QD) and an optical fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) base was created to detect a specific DNA sequence of Ganoderma boninense. A single-stranded DNA probe (ssDNA) has been linked to an enhanced quantum dot (5–8 nm) with carboxylic acid groups through an amide coupling [65]. It has been shown that a QD-FRET-based sensor can recognize Polymyxa betae, the sole known vector of the beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV), which infects beetroot crops. Cadmium selenide (CdSe) quantum dots (QDs) were used [66], as signal amplifiers for more accurate and reliable diagnosis of the banana bunchy top virus. The recombinant coat protein of BBTV was employed to create the primary antibody in the present investigation. This assay’s impulses of electricity might be enhanced substantially by CdSe QDs, which makes it suitable to use in a lab [67]. Very little investigation has been performed on applying QD-based biosensors for the detection of crop infections, despite the fact that they have just emerged as an additional kind of sensor and are projected to offer fresh possibilities for accurate identification of pathogenic organisms in plants [68]. It is possible to forecast that quantum dots will play a role in an upcoming breakthrough in the area of agriculture detection of pathogens if the distinctive photo physical properties of quantum dots are put into consideration as an interface element [69].
4.4 Diagnosis of phytopathogens using NPs
Plant illnesses are typically acknowledged directly by human assessors, and then diagnosed through microscopic examination. The pathogen morphology including spore shape, color, and pattern, mycelium, and flowering bodies—is a component of microbial diagnostics. For later treatment and research, pathogens can be separated and grown on specific culture media [70]. These procedures that are regularly carried out in academic institutions and enterprises take time, money, skilled labor, and laboratory space. Their extensive application in identifying illnesses has been constrained by these constraints, particularly in underdeveloped nations. Additionally, genetic, serological, and microbiological investigations are used to find seedling illnesses [71]. For the purpose of tracking plant diseases, a number of direct techniques can be used, including PCR-based nucleic acid identification, fluorescence in situ hybridization, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunofluorescence, flow cytometry, and methods that are indirect like thermography, fluorescence imaging, Hyperspectral approaches, and gas chromatography [25]. Examples of this include diagnosing plant pathogens and investigating fungicide resistance in wheat are both done using molecular techniques. These studies’ initial results have aided in the creation of more effective fungicides and resistant hybrids. Additionally, the study of phytopathogen species and how they communicate with plants has been done using molecular approaches [72]. Lateral rotation Erwinia amylovora (fire blight), Phytophthora infestans (late blight), Ralstonia solanacearum (brown rot), Pepino mosaic virus, Tomato mosaic virus, Potato virus Y, and Potato virus X were all identified using ELISA [73]. Techniques that are automated, inexpensive, portable, exact, dependable, and capable of detecting are needed for the advancement of phytopathological disease diagnosis in the years to come. The majority of phytopathological research must be devoted to creating biosensors for the diagnosis of vegetative diseases [74].
The created detectors are capable of detecting variations in tissue of plants color, leaf shape, transpiration rate, canopy morphology, plant density, and fluctuation in wavelength of reflected light from the leaves. They can monitor the reflectance, temperature, and fluorescence of a canopy [75]. There are now being developed new NP-based sensors that could quickly, cheaply, and effectively identify pathogenic organisms in plants. They are giving producers the tools they need to spot infections, volatile substances, chemical residues in crops, and changes in the environment [76]. The most often employed NPs in farming are metal, carbon, and metal oxide NPs. The widespread use of nanosensing tools coupled with fresh, cutting-edge approaches will undoubtedly revolutionize farming. The following describes a few different kinds of nanosensors [77].
4.5 Diagnosis through magnetic NPs
Due to their size being similar to the proportions of the magnetically domain, magnetic NPs have unique features. They exhibit both single-domain ferromagnetism and superparamagnetism as dual behaviors. Although it is not a brand-new idea, pathology of plants has not entirely investigated the use of magnetic nanoparticles (NPs) in biological research [78].
It has been possible to see the route, accumulation, and transportation of magnetic nanoparticles inside plant cells by using carbon-coated magnetic NPs. Using magnetic nanotags on a spin valve sensor surface immobilized with trap antibodies, a unique NP immunoassay was created to detect the quantity of mycotoxins, which in vegetation in instantaneously [79]. Super paramagnetic NPs were used to create a dependable and quick ELISA approach that decreased the time needed for coating, enzyme preventing, and competitiveness. Magnetic NPs that have been packed with vegetation-protection compounds can be used in a novel way to fill the within-cell gaps of plant cells [80]. Such particles can be directed to disease-specific locations in crops with the aid of strong magnets. They can be utilized to create developed, target-specific compounds for discharge and to create a method to monitor the motion of internalized magnetic NPs. For instance, carbon-coated magnetic NPs have been created to enable visualization of the transportation channel and NP deposit within the plant [81].
4.6 Diagnosis through polymeric NPs
The phrase “polymer nanoparticle” especially encompasses tiny spheres and nanocapsules made from either synthetic or natural polymers, including as albumin, alginates, chitosan, DNA, gelatin, gliadin, and poly (L-lactides). Synthetic polymers include polyacrylamide, polyacrylate, polyanhydrides, and polycaprolactone [82]. While conductive substances like polyacetylene, polyaniline, or polypyrrole transform biological messages into electrical signals, polymeric nanomaterials are especially utilized for creating biosensors. Conjugated polymer nanoparticles have been shown to be effective as a transferring carrier for the transport of short interfering RNA (siRNA) in plant protoplasts. Other transfected techniques on the market result in a 40% loss of viable protoplast [83, 84]. However, during the first 24 hours after their delivery, CPN-assisted delivery only results in a 5–25% loss of protoplasts. Due to its biological compatibility, high surface area, and significant porosity, findings support the use of chitosan nanofibrous membranes in the immobilization of enzymes [85].
The technique center around chitosan is now able to be utilized to create biosensors. By using a carbon electrode transformed with a tyrosinase-Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles-chitosan nanobiocomposite film, phenolic chemicals were detected using a tyrosinase biosensor [86] Glutathione has a widely recognized function as a signaling molecule in plant’s defense mechanism. By permanently immobilizing glutathione oxidase on the surface of gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles-modified Pt electrodes, amperometric nanobiosensors have been produced to determine glutathione content. The ability to identify the presence of glutathione was highly sensitive when glutathione oxidase, chitosan, and gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles were integrated [87].
4.7 Diagnosis through carbon NPs
Among the more prevalent substances on Earth, carbon serves as the building block for the majority of biological processes. Compared to other elements, carbon has several unique benefits. As a consequence, of all of the synthesized nanomaterials, carbon NPs are the most commonly employed NPs [9]. Carbon allotropes known as CNTs are cylindrical and promote the development of plants by improving water intake. CNTs are employed as parts in biosensors because of their distinct electrochemical characteristics. Their characteristics comprise having the capacity to combine using any kind of chemical organisms, a higher length to dimension ratio, and fast electron transfer kinetics [88, 89]. Since most phytopathological disorders can be connected to alterations in the absorption and utilization of fragrant chemicals, CNTs are being used to detect metabolites from plants and diagnose plant diseases. Phenolic chemicals, which are volatile compounds, are crucial in controlling diseases of plants [90].
Because phenols are easily oxidized, they can be identified with amperometric and potentiometric instruments. However, electrode corrosion in electrochemical sensors is a significant downside brought on by phenol being exposed, which produces dimeric or polymeric oxidation products [91]. By collecting biomolecules like nucleic acids, electrodes built of CNT minimize the effect of the electrode’s outer contamination. In order to detect phenolic compounds, CNTs are either utilized alone or in conjunction with enzyme. The main hormone controlling the development of plants, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), is linked to numerous processes related to development. The coating of DHP (dihydropyran)-stabilized MWCNT scattering onto a carbon electrode has been used to create sensors for IAA identification. CNTs have been used to construct a variety of electrolytic nanosensors, including DNA hybridization biological sensors and amperometric enzymatic electrodes [92].
Inorganic material nanostructures including Ag, Au, Si, and other metal oxide nanoparticles belong to a class of nanosensors that are able to identify and measure molecular targets of interest using signal transducers and identification ligands like antibodies or DNA oligos [93]. These tiny particles can be used as special sensing instruments to examine relationships in vitro or in living systems of plants between the nanoparticles and bioanalytes that are specifically relevant for agricultural diseases. Changes in the surface-enhanced optical properties, which result from the localized surfaces plasmon resonance (LSPR) of tiny particles, are frequently used to record distinctive sensor responses [94]. To create accurate and target-specific nanobiosensors, a wide range of oligonucleotide- or protein-based formed themselves nanomaterials have been investigated [95]. For instance, substrate enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) has been frequently employed to identify different plant illnesses or generated poisons utilizing Ag nanorods as sensor substrates. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI MS) was enhanced significantly to identify plant-associated bacteria in soil and carrots by the incorporation of Pt nanosensors personalized with IgG antibodies [96]. It has been established that fluorescent silica nanoparticles coupled with a secondary antibody and doped with a Ru (II) complex may effectively identify plant-borne pathogens like X. campestris that cause bacterial spot sickness in nightshades plants. Although the procedure was extremely delicate, the concerns about the environment raised by the usage of potentially hazardous heavy metal complexes were not taken into consideration [97].
The genomic DNA of R. solanacearum, a transmitted by soil organism that could trigger potato wilt due to bacteria, was detected using au nanoparticles modified with a particular single-stranded DNA at concentrations as low as 15 ng. However, additional quantitative calibration information at the lower observable spectrum was not accessible, despite the test exhibiting an adequate degree of sensitivity toward the target DNA [98]. Additionally, pesticides, fertilizers, and numerous additional crop-related characteristics are detected and controlled by nanosensors or nanobiosensors, which provides current data for precise choice-making and agricultural management. For sensor use in agricultural precision farming, extra field validation tests are nonetheless required [99].
A list of representative nanosensors or biosensors used for plant disease diagnosis, their detection mechanisms, and associated performance is summarized in Table 1.
Sensor component
Sensor fabrication
Target
Specificity
Detection mechanism
Toxicity
Reference
Au NPa-ssDNA
Nanoparticle functionalization and DNA hybridization
Summary of nanoparticle-based sensors for plant pathogen or disease marker detection.
a Nanoparticle, b Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, c Tris(bipyridine)ruthenium(II)chloride, d Immunoglobulin G, e Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectroscopy, f 3-Mercaptopropionic acid, g Quantum dot, h Polyethylenimine, i Carbon dot, j Förster resonance energy transfer, k Rhodamine 123. l Single-walled carbon nanotube, m Volatile organic compounds.
Films produced using cardamom or oregano oil, nanoparticles of zinc or calcium, or additional substances that destroy germs are currently being tested as antibacterial packaging for consumable foods [109]. Another effort to ensure the integrity of food is environmentally friendly packaging, which uses nanofibers produced from organic maize or lobster shells (both of which are antibacterial and compostable). Packing materials with endurance, protective qualities, and resilience to both heat as well as cold are necessary for enhanced food packing [110]. These are achieved with the use of nanocomposite substances.
The ‘Durethan’ nanocomposite coating, created by Bayer Polymers, is loaded with silicate nanoparticles to inhibit the entry into oxygen and other pollutants while maintaining humidity and avoiding food spoilage [111]. In future generations, contaminating will be prevented by adding silver, magnesium oxide, or zinc oxide nanoparticles (which can destroy hazardous microbes) to foodstuff or beverage packaging. Prospects for the future call for the ability to incorporate nano-sensors to food packaging to impart antimicrobial properties [112]. These tiny sensors may be utilized to identify pollutants, infections, and poisons in nourishment, according to McHugh. Upcoming packaging for food may contain RFID tags for radio frequency identification (RFID). These allow the identification of hundreds of tags in a second and do not require the line of sight processing like bar codes do. The properties of food packaging are currently being enhanced by the incorporation of nanowheels, nanofibers, and nanotubes [113].
Since only a few years ago, the number of people has been growing at a pace that is unprecedented, leading to the growth of industry, the reduction of land used for agriculture, and an increasing urbanization of territory. Immediate and highly sensitive disease probing made possible by nanotechnology technologies provide substantial advancements in the field of agricultural detection of pathogenic organisms. The present-day plant technology for diagnosis continues to face certain substantial obstacles, though. Whenever any tiny sensors are utilized in their natural environment, safety risks have to be addressed since some micron-sized particles like QDs may be hazardous. Health and safety evaluation and monitoring must be more stringent. The starting forecast of longer-lasting and more resilient sensors that can tolerate an extensive variety of ambient fluctuations is necessary for nano-based instruments. This calls for more thorough research on the novel sensor ingredients, such as nonmaterial and substances resilient to the surroundings.
References
1.Shivashakarappa K, Reddy V, Tupakula VK, Farnian A, Vuppula A, Gunnaiah R. Nanotechnology for the detection of plant pathogens. Plant Nano Biology. 2022;2:100018
2.Lahlali R, Ezrari S, Radouane N, Kenfaoui J, Esmaeel Q , El Hamss H, et al. Biological control of plant pathogens: A global perspective. Microorganisms. 2022;10(3):596
3.Buja I, Sabella E, Monteduro AG, Chiriacò MS, De Bellis L, Luvisi A, et al. Advances in plant disease detection and monitoring: From traditional assays to in-field diagnostics. Sensors. 2021;21(6):2129
4.Deguine JP, Aubertot JN, Flor RJ, Lescourret F, Wyckhuys KA, Ratnadass A. Integrated pest management: Good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2021;41(3):38
5.Hariharan G, Prasannath K. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics of fungal plant pathogens: A mini review. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2021;10:600234
6.Mondini L, Noorani A, Pagnotta MA. Assessing plant genetic diversity by molecular tools. Diversity. 2009;1(1):19-35
7.Joseph T, Morrison M. Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food. A Nanoforum Report. Institute of Nanotechnology; 2006. Available from: https://www.nanoforum.org
8.Alaa YG, Al TM. Applications of Nanotechnology in Agriculture. United Kingdom: Intech Open; 2020. pp. 1-14
9.Khan Y, Sadia H, Ali Shah SZ, Khan MN, Shah AA, Ullah N, et al. Classification, synthetic, and characterization approaches to nanoparticles, and their applications in various fields of nanotechnology: A review. Catalysts. 2022;12(11):1386
10.Arenal R, Henrard L, Roiban L, Ersen O, Burgin J, Treguer-Delapierre M. Local plasmonic studies on individual core–shell gold–silver and pure gold nano-bipyramids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. 2014;118(44):25643-25650
11.Ravichandran R. Nanotechnology applications in food and food processing: Innovative green approaches, opportunities and uncertainties for global market. International Journal of Green Nanotechnology: Physics and Chemistry. 2010;1(2):72-96
12.Altammar KA. A review on nanoparticles: Characteristics, synthesis, applications, and challenges. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023;14:1155622
13.Mulvaney P. Nanoscience vs nanotechnology-defining the field. ACS Nano. 2015;9(3):2215-2217
14.Joudeh N, Linke D. Nanoparticle classification, physicochemical properties, characterization, and applications: A comprehensive review for biologists. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. 2022;20(1):262
15.Baig N, Kammakakam I, Falath W. Nanomaterials: A review of synthesis methods, properties, recent progress, and challenges. Materials Advances. 2021;2(6):1821-1871
16.Jassal PS, Kaur D, Prasad R, Singh J. Green synthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles: Development and applications. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2022;10:100361
17.Khan I, Saeed K, Khan I. Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 2019;12(7):908-931
18.Govindaraju M, Li Y, Zhang M. Emerging bacterial disease (leaf scald) of sugarcane in China: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. In: Plant Diseases-Current Threats and Management Trends. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2019. pp. 117-128
19.Jain KK. Nanomolecular diagnostics. In: The Handbook of Nanomedicine. York, NY: Humana Press; 2017
20.Dyussembayev K, Sambasivam P, Bar I, Brownlie JC, Shiddiky MJ, Ford R. Biosensor technologies for early detection and quantification of plant pathogens. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2021;9:636245
21.Das K, Jhan PK, Das SC, Aminuzzaman FM, Ayim BY. Nanotechnology: Past, present and future prospects in crop protection. In: Technology in Agriculture. 2021. pp. 1-22
22.Yadav A, Yadav K, Ahmad R, Abd-Elsalam KA. Emerging Frontiers in nanotechnology for precision agriculture: Advancements, hurdles and prospects. Agrochemicals. 2023;2(2):220-256
23.Yoon JY, Kim B. Lab-on-a-chip pathogen sensors for food safety. Sensors (Basel). 2012;12(8):10713-10741
24.Ray MK, Mishra AK, Mohanta YK, Mahanta S, Chakrabartty I, Kungwani NA, et al. Nanotechnology as a promising tool against phytopathogens: A futuristic approach to agriculture. Agriculture. 2023;13(9):1856
25.Fang Y, Ramasamy RP. Current and prospective methods for plant disease detection. Biosensors. 2015;5(3):537-561
26.Munir S, Ahmed S, Ibrahim M, Khalid M, Ojha SC. A spellbinding interplay between biological barcoding and nanotechnology. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2020;8:883
27.Worrall EA, Hamid A, Mody KT, Mitter N, Pappu HR. Nanotechnology for plant disease management. Agronomy. 2018;8(12):285
28.Damalas CA, Eleftherohorinos IG. Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2011;8(5):1402-1419
29.Asif M, Islam S, Malik MA, Dar ZM, Masood A, Shafi S, et al. Nano pesticides application in agriculture and their impact on environment. In: Agricultural Development in Asia-Potential Use of Nano-Materials and Nano-Technology. London, UK: Intech Open; 2021. pp. 43-53
30.Marwal A, Gaur RK. Nanophytovirology: An Emerging Field for Disease Management. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2020. pp. 19-29
31.Li Z, Yu T, Paul R, Fan J, Yang Y, Wei Q. Agricultural nanodiagnostics for plant diseases: Recent advances and challenges. Nanoscale Advances. 2020;2(8):3083-3094
32.Boelens HF, Dijkstra RJ, Eilers PH, Fitzpatrick F, Westerhuis JA. New background correction method for liquid chromatography with diode array detection, infrared spectroscopic detection and Raman spectroscopic detection. Journal of Chromatography A. 2004;1057(1-2):21-30
33.Pérez-López B, Merkoçi A. Nanomaterials based biosensors for food analysis applications. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2011;22(11):625-639
34.Mathivanan S. Perspectives of nano-materials and nanobiosensors in food safety and agriculture. UK: Intech Open; 2021. pp. 197-217
35.Ngashangva L, Hemdan BA, El-Liethy MA, Bachu V, Minteer SD, Goswami P. Emerging bio analytical devices and platforms for rapid detection of pathogens in environmental samples. Micromachines. 2022;13(7):1083
36.Yusof NA, Isha A. Nanosensors for early detection of plant diseases. In: Nanomaterials for Agriculture and Forestry Applications. UK: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 407-419
37.Ramesh M, Janani R, Deepa C, Rajeshkumar L. Nanotechnology-enabled biosensors: A review of fundamentals, design principles, materials, and applications. Biosensors. 2022;13(1):40
38.Fang W, Wu J, Cheng M, Zhu X, Du M, Chen C, et al. Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: Challenges and recent developments. Journal of Biomedical Science. 2023;30(1):42
39.Díez-Pascual AM. Surface engineering of nanomaterials with polymers, biomolecules, and small ligands for nano medicine. Materials. 2022;15(9):3251
40.Mohammadi Z, Jafari SM. Detection of food spoilage and adulteration by novel nanomaterial-based sensors. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2020;286:102297
41.Enespa, Dwivedi SK. Effectiveness of some antagonistic fungi and botanicals against Fusarium solani and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici infecting brinjal and tomato plants. Asian Journal of Plant Pathology. 2014;8(1):18-25
42.Inbaraj BS, Chen BH. Nanomaterial-based sensors for detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens and toxins as well as pork adulteration in meat products. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 2016;24(1):15-28
43.Kaushik A, Solanki PR, Ansari AA, Sumana G, Ahmad S, Malhotra BD. Iron oxide-chitosan nanobiocomposite for urea sensor. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2009;138(2):572-580
44.Paniel N, Radoi A, Marty JL. Development of an electrochemical biosensor for the detection of aflatoxins M1 in milk. Sensors. 2010;10(10):9439-9448
45.Hervas-Stubbs S, Perez- Gracia JL, Rouzaut A, Sanmamed MF, Le Bon A, Melero I. Direct effects of type I interferon on cells of the immune system. Clinical Cancer Research. 2011;17(9):2619-2627
46.Wu Y, Feng J, Hu G, Zhang E, Yu HH. Colorimetric sensors for chemical and biological sensing applications. Sensors. 2023;23(5):2749
47.Lowdon JW, Diliën H, Singla P, Peeters M, Cleij TJ, van Grinsven B, et al. MIPs for commercial application in low-cost sensors and assays–An overview of the current status quo. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2020;325:128973
48.Geng Y, Peveler WJ, Rotello VM. Array-based “chemical nose” sensing in diagnostics and drug discovery. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2019;58(16):5190-5200
49.Wilson AD, Baietto M. Applications and advances in electronic-nose technologies. Sensors. 2009;9(7):5099-5148
50.Suslick KS, Rakow NA, Kosal ME, McNamara WB III, Sen A. Chemsensing: A colorimetric array detector. In: Proceeding International Society. Olfaction Electron. Noses. 2003;6:46-52
51.Wang Y, Jin M, Chen G, Cui X, Zhang Y, Li M, et al. Bio-barcode detection technology and its research applications: A review. Journal of Advanced Research. 2019;20:23-32
52.Venbrux M, Crauwels S, Rediers H. Current and emerging trends in techniques for plant pathogen detection. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2023;14:1120968
53.Abu-Salah KM, Zourob MM, Mouffouk F, Alrokayan SA, Alaamery MA, Ansari AA. DNA-based nanobiosensors as an emerging platform for detection of disease. Sensors. 2015;15(6):14539-14568
54.Arai MS, de Camargo AS. Exploring the use of up conversion nanoparticles in chemical and biological sensors: From surface modifications to point-of-care devices. Nanoscale Advances. 2021;3(18):5135-5165
55.Rajasundari K, Ilamurugu K. Nanotechnology and its applications in medical diagnosis. Journal of Basic and Applied Chemistry. 2011;1(2):26-32
56.Pietryga JM, Park YS, Lim J, Fidler AF, Bae WK, Brovelli S, et al. Spectroscopic and device aspects of nanocrystal quantum dots. Chemical Reviews. 2016;116(18):10513-10622
57.Stanisavljevic M, Krizkova S, Vaculovicova M, Kizek R, Adam V. Quantum dots-fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based nanosensors and their application. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2015;74:562-574
58.Brkić S. Applicability of quantum dots in biomedical science. In: Ionizing Radiation Effects and Applications. New York: Humana Press; 2018
59.Ghasempour A, Dehghan H, Ataee M, Chen B, Zhao Z, Sedighi M, et al. Cadmium sulfide nanoparticles: Preparation, characterization, and biomedical applications. Molecules. 2023;28(9):3857
60.Dwivedi SK, Enespa. In vitro efficacy of some fungal antagonists against Fusarium solani and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici causing brinjal and tomato wilt. International Journal of Biological & Pharmaceutical Research. 2013;4(1):46-52
61.Knudsen BR, Jepsen ML, Ho YP. Quantum dot-based nanosensors for diagnosis via enzyme activity measurement. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics. 2013;13(4):367-375
62.Safarpour H, Safarnejad MR, Tabatabaei M, Mohsenifar A, Rad F, Basirat M, et al. Development of a quantum dots FRET-based biosensor for efficient detection of Polymyxa betae. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 2012;34(4):507-515
63.Shamirian A, Ghai A, Snee PT. QD-based FRET probes at a glance. Sensors. 2015;15(6):13028-13051
64.Rad F, Mohsenifar A, Tabatabaei M, Safarnejad MR, Shahryari F, Safarpour H, et al. Detection of Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia with a quantum dots fret-based biosensor. Journal of Plant Pathology. 2012;94(3):525-534
65.Mohd Bakhori N, Yusof NA, Abdullah AH, Hussein MZ. Development of a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based DNA biosensor for detection of synthetic oligonucleotide of Ganoderma boninense. Biosensors. 2013;3(4):419-428
66.Majumder S, Bhattacharya B, Singh PK, Johari S, Singh B, Rahman R. Impedimetric detection of banana bunchy top virus using CdSe quantum dots for signal amplification. SN Applied Sciences. 2020;2:1-7
67.Thomas JE, Dietzgen RG. Purification, characterization and serological detection of virus-like particles associated with banana bunchy top disease in Australia. Journal of General Virology. 1991;72(2):217-224
68.Hong S, Lee C. The current status and future outlook of quantum dot-based biosensors for plant virus detection. The Plant Pathology Journal. 2018;34(2):85
69.James Singh K, Ahmed T, Gautam P, Sadhu AS, Lien DH, Chen SC, et al. Recent advances in two-dimensional quantum dots and their applications. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(6):1549
70.Henson JM, French R. The polymerase chain reaction and plant disease diagnosis. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1993;31(1):81-109
71.Vasala A, Hytönen VP, Laitinen OH. Modern tools for rapid diagnostics of antimicrobial resistance. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2020;10:308
72.Hahn M. The rising threat of fungicide resistance in plant pathogenic fungi: Botrytis as a case study. Journal of Chemical Biology. 2014;7:133-141
73.Whisson SC, Boevink PC, Wang S, Birch PR. The cell biology of late blight disease. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2016;34:127-135
74.Srinivasan B, Tung S. Development and applications of portable biosensors. Journal of Laboratory Automation. 2015;20(4):365-389
75.West JS, Bravo C, Oberti R, Moshou D, Ramon H, McCartney HA. Detection of fungal diseases optically and pathogen inoculum by air sampling. In: Oerke EC, Gerhards R, Menz G, Sikora R, editors. Precision Crop Protection - The Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. pp. 135-149
76.Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Rab S, Suman R. Exploring the potential of nanosensors: A brief overview. Sensors International. 2021;2:100130
77.Ijaz M, Khan F, Ahmed T, Noman M, Zulfiqar F, Rizwan M, et al. Nanobiotechnology to advance stress resilience in plants: Current opportunities and challenges. Materials Today Bio. 2023;22:100759
78.Wallyn J, Anton N, Vandamme TF. Synthesis, principles, and properties of magnetite nanoparticles for in vivo imaging applications—A review. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(11):601
79.Cifuentes Z, Custardoy L, de la Fuente JM, Marquina C, Ibarra MR, Rubiales D, et al. Absorption and translocation to the aerial part of magnetic carbon-coated nanoparticles through the root of different crop plants. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. 2010;8:1-8
80.Bilal M, Iqbal HM, Adil SF, Shaik MR, Abdelgawad A, Hatshan MR, et al. Surface-coated magnetic nanostructured materials for robust bio-catalysis and biomedical applications-A review. Journal of Advanced Research. 2022;38:157-177
81.Naidu S, Singh IK, Singh A. Microbial synthesis of magnetic nanoparticles for plant science and agriculture. Plant Nano Biology. 2023;4:100036
82.Alkubaisi NAO, Aref NMA. The intervention of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) interactions lead to the disappearing of virus particles. In: Atlas of Ultrastructure Interaction Proteome between Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus and Gold Nanoparticles. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2021. pp. 97-443
83.El-Said WA, Abdelshakour M, Choi JH, Choi JW. Application of conducting polymer nanostructures to electrochemical biosensors. Molecules. 2020;25(2):307
84.Kuznetsova LS, Arlyapov VA, Plekhanova YV, Tarasov SE, Kharkova AS, Saverina EA, et al. Conductive polymers and their nanocomposites: Application features in biosensors and biofuel cells. Polymers. 2023;15(18):3783
85.Agnihotri SA, Mallikarjuna NN, Aminabhavi TM. Recent advances on chitosan-based micro-and nanoparticles in drug delivery. Journal of Controlled Release. 2004;100(1):5-28
86.Wang S, Tan Y, Zhao D, Liu G. Amperometric tyrosinase biosensor based on Fe3O4 nanoparticles–chitosan nanocomposite. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2008;23(12):1781-1787
87.Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Anee TI, Fujita M. Glutathione in plants: Biosynthesis and physiological role in environmental stress tolerance. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2017;23:249-268
89.Sharma R, Dewanjee S, Kole C. Utilization of nanoparticles for plant protection. In: Kole C, Kumar D, Khodakovskaya M, editors. Plant Nanotechnology. Cham: Springer; 2016
90.Ziyatdinova G, Guss E, Yakupova E. Electrochemical sensors based on the electropolymerized natural phenolic antioxidants and their analytical application. Sensors. 2021;21(24):8385
91.Zhao Q , Gan Z, Zhuang Q. Electrochemical sensors based on carbon nanotubes. Electroanalysis: An International Journal Devoted to Fundamental and Practical Aspects of Electroanalysis. 2002;14(23):1609-1613
92.Leveau JH, Lindow SE. Utilization of the plant hormone indole-3-acetic acid for growth by Pseudomonas putida strain 1290. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71(5):2365-2371
93.Malik P, Gupta R, Malik V, Ameta RK. Emerging nanomaterials for improved biosensing. Measurement: Sensors. 2021;16:100050
94.Unser S, Bruzas I, He J, Sagle L. Localized surface plasmon resonance biosensing: Current challenges and approaches. Sensors. 2015;15(7):15684-15716
95.Huang X, Zhu Y, Kianfar E. Nano biosensors: Properties, applications and electrochemical techniques. Journal of Materials Research and Technology. 2021;12:1649-1672
96.Prabakaran E, Pillay K. Nanomaterials for latent fingerprint detection: A review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology. 2021;12:1856-1885
97.Gubala V, Giovannini G, Kunc F, Monopoli MP, Moore CJ. Dye-doped silica nanoparticles: Synthesis, surface chemistry and bio applications. Cancer Nanotechnology. 2020;11(1):1-43
98.Ferreira V, González M, Pianzzola MJ, Coll NS, Siri MI, Valls M. Molecular detection of Ralstonia solanacearum to facilitate breeding for resistance to bacterial wilt in potato. In: Dobnik D, Gruden K, Ramšak Ž, Coll A, editors. Solanum tuberosum. Methods in Molecular Biology. Vol. 2354. New York, NY: Humana; 2021
99.Duhan JS, Kumar R, Kumar N, Kaur P, Nehra K, Duhan S. Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnology Reports. 2017;15:11-23
100.Ma X, Li X, Luo G, Jiao J. DNA-functionalized gold nanoparticles: Modification, characterization, and biomedical applications. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2022;10:1095488
101.Fahrina A, Arahman N, Aprilia S, Bilad MR, Silmina S, Sari WP, et al. Functionalization of PEG-AgNPs hybrid material to alleviate biofouling tendency of polyethersulfone membrane. Polymers. 2022;14(9):1908
102.Lin B, Kannan P, Qiu B, Lin Z, Guo L. On-spot surface enhanced Raman scattering detection of Aflatoxin B1 in peanut extracts using gold nanobipyramids evenly trapped into the AAO nanoholes. Food Chemistry. 2020;307:125528
103.Chen M, Wei X, Zhang J, Zhou H, Chen N, Wang J, et al. Differentiation of Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis using genome-guided MALDI-TOF MS based on variations in ribosomal proteins. Microorganisms. 2022;10(5):918
104.Wang H, Song D, Zhou Y, Liu J, Zhu A, Long F. Fluorescence enhancement of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots induced by mercury ions and its applications to the on-site sensitive detection of mercury ions. Microchimica Acta. 2021;188(6):215
105.Pavlicek A, Neubauer S, Zafiu C, Huber-Humer M, Ehmoser EK, Part F. The use and detection of quantum dots as nanotracers in environmental fate studies of engineered nanoparticles. Environmental Pollution. 2023;317:120461
106.Wang Y, Darling SB, Chen J. Selectivity of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substance sensors and sorbents in water. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2021;13(51):60789-60814
107.Li G, Fei X, Liu H, Gao J, Nie J, Wang Y, et al. Fluorescence and optical activity of chiral CdTe quantum dots in their interaction with amino acids. ACS Nano. 2020;14(4):4196-4205
108.Gao W, Wang X, He Y, Yu H, Zheng Y, Yin R, et al. Sub-ppm NO2 gas sensing in CdTe quantum dots functionalized hollow-core anti-resonant fiber. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2024;405:135350
109.Duda-Chodak A, Tarko T, Petka-Poniatowska K. Antimicrobial compounds in food packaging. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023;24(3):2457
110.Kuswandi B. Environmental friendly food nano-packaging. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2017;15(2):205-221
111.Naseer B, Srivastava G, Qadri OS, Faridi SA, Islam RU, Younis K. Importance and health hazards of nanoparticles used in the food industry. Nanotechnology Reviews. 2018;7(6):623-641
112.Jagtiani E. Advancements in nanotechnology for food science and industry. Food Frontiers. 2022;3(1):56-82
113.Zuo J, Feng J, Gameiro MG, Tian Y, Liang J, Wang Y, et al. RFID-based sensing in smart packaging for food applications: A review. Future Foods. 2022;6:100198
Written By
Enespa and Prem Chandra
Submitted: 04 October 2023Reviewed: 17 February 2024Published: 08 May 2024
Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST
