J Soils Sediments
DOI 10.1007/s11368-017-1793-2
RECLAMATION AND MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTED SOILS: OPTIONS AND CASE STUDIES
Effect of nanoparticles on crops and soil microbial communities
Vishnu D. Rajput 1 & Tatiana Minkina 1 & Svetlana Sushkova 1 & Viktoriia Tsitsuashvili 2 &
Saglara Mandzhieva 1 & Andrey Gorovtsov 1 & Dina Nevidomskyaya 1 &
Natalya Gromakova 1
Received: 21 December 2016 / Accepted: 20 July 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract
Purpose Nanoparticles (NPs) have received increased atten-
tion in recent past due to their unique distinct properties.
Metal-based NPs are widely used in chemical and allied sec-
tor. Most of the research is directed to study the efficiency of
NPs in medicine and agriculture. The aim of this review is to
explore the possible threats posed by toxicity of various NPs
on plants and microbial diversity.
Materials and methods First, major sources of NPs to the
environment were analyzed. The effects of metal-based NPs
on the microbiota and plants are presented in this review. The
results obtained by the authors during last 12 years of research
are used.
Results and discussion The exposure of soil to nanoparticles
causes a decrease in soil microbial biomass and enzymatic
activity, which impacts microbial community composition in-
cluding yeasts, bacteria, fungi, and biological diversity. The
effects of NPs on plants result in various types of abnormali-
ties. Nanoparticles can also pose risks to human health.
Conclusions Increased applications of NPs pose a threat to
beneficial microbial communities as well as crops and soils.
Thus, it is important to explore whether NPs could compro-
mise crop yield, soil properties, soil organisms, and functional
activities of soil.
Responsible editor: Maria Manuela Abreu
* Vishnu D. Rajput
rajput.vishnu@gmail.com
1
Academy of Biology and Biotechnology of D.I. Ivanovsky, Southern
Federal University, Rostov-on-Donprosp. Stachki 194/1, Russia
344090
2
International Research Center BSmart Materials^, Southern Federal
University, Rostov-on-DonSladkova street, 178/24, Russia 344090
Keywords Microbes . Nanoparticles . Plant . Soil . Toxicity
1 Introduction
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter of
sizes roughly in the range of 1 to 100 nm. If one of the dimen-
sions is in this range, it is considered as a nanoparticle (Klaine
et al. 2008). The term Bnanotechnology^ was coined in a
paper published by Norio Taniguchi from the University of
Tokyo (Taniguchi 1974). The term nanotechnology was intro-
duced to the world by Eric Drexler in his book BEngines of
Creation^ (Drexler 1986).Nanoparticles (NPs) have received
increased attention in the recent past due to their unique dis-
tinct properties which are intermediate to those of individual
molecules and bulk matter. Nanoparticles can be either natural
or engineered and distinguished based on their core material.
Inorganic NPs are divided into metal (Al, Bi, Co, Cu, Au, Fe,
In, Mo, Ni, Si, Ag, Sn, Ti, W, Zn), metal oxide (Al2O3, CeO2,
CuO, Cu2O, In2O3, La2O3, MgO, NiO, SiO2, TiO2, SnO2,
ZnO, ZrO2), and quantum dots, while fullerenes and carbon
nanotubes are defined as organic NPs. Metal-based NPs (Ag,
ZnO, TiO2, FeO, CuO) are widely used and monitored for
their toxic effects on activity, abundance, and diversity of flora
and fauna (Ebbs et al. 2016; Ebrahimi et al. 2016; Olkhovych
et al. 2016; Singh and Kumar 2016; Van et al. 2016a, b;
Cvjetko et al. 2017; McGee et al. 2017; Priester et al. 2017;
You et al. 2017).
Due to their wide range of applications, different NPs are
being used by agriculture industry, coatings, consumer prod-
ucts, cosmetics, chemical industry, electronics and optics, en-
vironmental remediation, food industry, fuel additives, textile
industries, medical industry, paints, plastics, and wastewater
treatment (Salata 2004; Weir et al. 2012; Keller and Lazareva
2014; Yadav et al. 2014; Servin et al. 2017). To bring out more

types of NPs with new characteristics and novel applications,
research in this field is increasing and more money is under
investment. Therefore, the total amount being produced and
utilized is also increasing continuously. An inventory of nano-
technology based consumer products introduced in the market
lists 1600+ products (Vance et al. 2015), and an online data-
base (www.nanodb.dk) enlists 2870 products in different
categories containing NPs or based on nanotechnology
(Hansen et al. 2016). It is estimated that 260,000–309,000 t
of NPs were produced globally in 2010 (Yadav et al. 2014).
Another estimate for worldwide NPs consumption is to grow
from 225,060 t in 2014 to nearly 584,984 t in 2019 (BCC
Research 2014a). Actual figure of the global production of
NPs to the knowledge of authors is unavailable.
An estimate in 2010 showed that 200 t of nanosize Cu and
CuO were produced (Zuverza-Mena et al. 2015). Production
estimate for TiO2 NPs increased from 2000 t in 2005 to 5000 t
in 2010 (Weir et al. 2012). Use of NPs in medicine and biol-
ogy was valued at US$17.5 billion in 2011 with further esti-
mate to reach approximately US$53.5 billion in 2017 and
US$79.8 billion in 2019 (BCC Research 2014b; Soni et al.
2015). Silver NPs are estimated to be used up to 450 t per year
(McGillicuddy et al. 2017). Zinc NPs are estimated to
be produced up to 5500 t per year replacing their bulk
counterparts in a range of products (Connolly et al.
2016).
The studies based on data and modeling analysis indicate
that production, use, and disposal of various NPs leads to
annual release of thousands of tons of most common NPs
(Ag, Al, C, Ce, Cu, Fe, Si, Ti, Zn) into the environment.
The majority of them end up in soil, being introduced directly
or through landfills from sludge and other wastes. Water and
air also get significantly a high amount of share (Keller et al.
2013). The increasing amount of NPs synthesis will lead to
elevated concentrations in the environment and higher
chances of exposure for living organisms. Elevated concentra-
tions will increase the possibility of adverse interactions be-
tween life forms and NPs (Yadav et al. 2014).
It is reported that NPs affect microscopic properties of soil,
e.g., humic acid content and soil bacterial community (Ben-
Moshe et al. 2013). Nanoparticles once released in the envi-
ronment have influence on microbial diversity and can also
affect plant growth (Kumar et al. 2012). Nano-Cu is very toxic
to aquatic life and is used as fungicide and bactericide in
agriculture, marketed as CuPRO® 2005 and Kocide® 3000
(Zuverza-Mena et al. 2015). Increased concentration of NPs
can also inhibit normal microflora. The use of nanotechnology
in consumer products is increasing and hence raises a number
of issues like environmental, ethical, health and safety, tech-
nological, policy, and regulatory. Some uses include purpose-
fully release of NPs into the environment resulting in in-
creased concentrations after long time (Tiede et al. 2016). In
the absence of acute toxicity, bioaccumulation and long-term
J Soils Sediments
exposure have hardly predictable impacts on food chain,
which is unanswered (Tiede et al. 2008).
In the present review, we focus on recent findings on the
possible threats posed by toxicity of various NPs on plants and
soil microbial diversity.
2 Major sources of nanoparticles in the environment
Nanoparticles are being used in a diverse range of products for
multiple applications, which increase the chances to contam-
inate the environment. Nanomaterials can be released acciden-
tally or intentionally. Being released to air, soil, and water,
NPs pose a threat as they are very small particles and can float
into air or get transported to another place through water. Soil
contamination leads to accumulation for long time and can
cause pollution of groundwater (Tripathi et al. 2012).
Among the applications, coatings, paints, and pigments are
quite important and have the highest possibility of being re-
leased into soil and water. Electronics and optics signify a
major application, and NPs used are more likely to be disposed
in landfills. Nanoparticles used in cosmetics are released at the
time of use and further contaminate soils and surface waters.
Leaching rate among NPs is more dependent upon the process
used in manufacturing of the products (Keller et al. 2013).
Sources of NPs can be described as point or non-point
sources. Point sources comprise production and storage units,
research laboratories, disposal of nanomaterial-containing
consumer products, and wastewater treatment plants (Soni
et al. 2015; Tiede et al. 2016). Treatment plants add NPs to
the environment in the form of sludge and treated water, as
NPs do not get separated but are concentrated in final sludge
or water. Sewage sludge may have Ag NPs from cosmetics
and personal care products, food and drink, and washing of
textile products (McGillicuddy et al. 2017).
The use of TiO2 NPs has been mentioned in water purifi-
cation reactors and for wastewater treatment (Yadav et al.
2014). Up to 99% of the TiO2 NPs entering wastewater treat-
ment plants are retained within the sludge (Tourinho et al.
2012). Moreover, treatment plants have various types of mi-
croorganisms which themselves can transform metals into
NPs, e.g., selenate (SeO42−) and selenite (SeO32−) being re-
duced to elemental Se NPs by active sludge (Jain et al. 2016).
Therefore, landfill of these types of sludge will contaminate
the environment. Nanoparticles being highly reactive particles
can interact with other components of the waste to make new
compounds and thus pass through different treatment process-
es (Soni et al. 2015). There are many different non-point
sources occurring through wear and tear of NPs containing
p ai n t s , co s m et i c pr od u ct s , a nd c l e an i n g ag e nt s .
Photocatalytic TiO2 NPs are used in paints for their antimicro-
bial and self-cleaning characters. Paint coatings undergo dif-
ferent environmental conditions in the long term resulting in
J Soils Sediments
release of NPs to the environment (Shandilya et al. 2015).
Zinc oxide and TiO2 are the NPs used in manufacturing of
cosmetics (Nowack and Bucheli 2007). A study has revealed
increased concentration of TiO2 NPs in coastal water samples
of Palmira beach (Majorca Island, Spain) due to sunscreen
accumulation in water from the bathers (Sanchez-Quiles and
Tovar-Sanchez 2014).
Nanotechnology has also been explored for its potential of
environmental remediation and organic pollution decrease in
soil, e.g., organic solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphe-
nyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and pharmaceutical
and personal care products (Li et al. 2016). However, the use
of NPs to remediate other pollutants on soil adds up NPs to soil
and the surrounding environment. Research on NPs in agricul-
ture and their use at mass scale will act as another source.
Nanofertilizers have emerged as new nutrient delivery systems
using C, Fe, Mn, and ZnO (Liu and Lal 2015). Nanosensors
and smart delivery system are employed to control pathogens,
pests, and to improve nutrient management (Kashyap et al.
2015). Sources of NPs for air are combustion process, con-
sumer product aerosol, vehicle exhaust release, and release of
industrial smoke and soot (Nowack and Bucheli 2007).
3 Effect of nanoparticles
The rapidly increasing diverse use of metallic NPs in biosen-
sors, catalysts, cosmetics, electronics, food packaging, fuel
cells, medicine, optics, textiles, environmental remediation,
and wastewater treatment technology has necessitated evalu-
ation of their impact on environmental and human health.
These NPs could have toxic effect on various organisms in-
cluding yeasts, bacteria, fungi, marine diatom (Thalassiosira
weissflogii, Chlamydomonas), and fish (zebrafish) and may
also pose risks to human health (Kim et al. 2007, 2008;
Panyala et al. 2008; Griffitt et al. 2009; Karlsson et al. 2009;
Kasemets et al. 2009; Miao et al. 2009; Saison et al. 2010).
The soil microbiota and plants are among the major co-
receptors of NPs; especially, the soil microbial biomass is a
sensitive indicator of microbial changes in soils (Atlas 1984).
Soil microbial biomass and diversity are among the major
challenges for a viable use of resources and electronics. Soil
and plants are closely linked in the Bsoil-plant system,^ where
a potential direct impact of NPs in soil may harm microorgan-
isms and plants, which may then affect consumers such as
animals/human beings. However, the research on NPs toxicity
as compared to their chemical composition and properties is
markedly insufficient.
3.1 Effect of nanoparticles on microbial diversity
The introduction of NPs into the natural environment may
pose threat to beneficial microbial communities (bacteria and
fungi) (Table 1). Nanoparticles accumulate in the soil as a
result of technogenic activities including deliberate re-
leases via soil and water remediation technologies, appli-
cation in agriculture (in the form of fertilizers and pesti-
cides), and unintentional releases via air, water, sewage,
and sludge (Tourinho et al. 2012; Tripathi et al. 2012;
Maurer-Jones et al. 2013; Shandilya et al. 2015; Coll
et al. 2016). The impact of NPs on microbial activity
could be determined through measurement of soil respi-
ration and enzymatic activities (Simonin and Richaume
2015).
According to the study conducted by Xu et al. (2015) TiO2
and CuO NPs decreased soil microbial biomass and enzymatic
activities, affected on their community structures in flooded
paddy soil. Similar results were obtained by You et al. (2017),
who studied the effect of ZnO, TiO2,CeO2, and Fe3O4 NPs on
soil enzymatic activities (invertase, urease, catalase, and phos-
phatase) and bacterial communities of saline-alkali and black
soils. The results showed influence on soil enzyme activities
and changes in soil bacterial community and threat on
biological nitrogen fixation. Results obtained by Jiling et al.
(2016) have shown that a high concentration of Fe3O4 NPs
significantly decreased the content of bacteria in soil. Zinc
oxide and CeO 2 NPs affected the plate counts of
Azotobacter, P-solubilizing, and K-solubilizing bacteria and
inhibit enzymatic activities (Chai et al. 2015). Titanium diox-
ide NPs reduced the abundance of functional soil bacteria and
enzymatic activity and pose detrimental effect on microbial
activity, abundance, and diversity (Buzea et al. 2007;
Solanki et al. 2008). The data obtained by Maliszewska
(2016) demonstrated that the biogenic Au NPs up to the con-
centration of 33 mg kg−1 do not affect the soil processes and
can be classified as not harmful. However, antibacterial activ-
ities (growth inhibition zone) were observed on clinical iso-
lates (Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella
pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhi,
and Staphylococcus aureus) treated with ZnO NPs synthe-
sized by biological and chemical methods (Lakshmi et al.
2012).
Copper ions, released from the Cu NPs, were considered
as a major cause of lethality to both the pathogenic and the
beneficial bacteria (Lofts et al. 2013). Concha-Guerrero
et al. (2014) have shown that CuO NPs were very toxic
for native soil bacteria, as the authors observed formation
of cavities, holes, membrane degradation, blebs, cellular
collapse, and lysis in the cell of soil bacterial isolates.
Little is explored on the effect of CuO NPs on the soil
microbial community. Inorganic NPs seem to have a greater
toxic threat than organic NPs on soil microorganisms
(Frenk et al. 2013). Pradhan et al. (2011) investigated the
effect of CuO and Ag NPs on leaf microbial decomposition
showing that exposure to these NPs led to a decrease in leaf
decomposition rate.
 J Soils Sediments

Table 1 Effects of nanoparticles on soil microbial communities

Nanoparticle Type of soil Concentrations in soil Major impact Source

Ag Sandy loam 0.14 mg kg−1 Modification of bacterial community Colman et al. (2013)
−1
Ag Sandy 1.25 μg–30 mg kg Decreases in enzymatic activities Peyrot et al. (2014)
Ag Sandy 1–1000 mg kg−1 Effect on enzymes Shin et al. (2012)
−1
Mixture of Cu, Sandy peat arctic soil 220 mg kg Reduction of C and N biomass and modification Kumar et al. (2012)
Ag, and Si of microbial community structure
TiO2 Sandy clay loam 20 g kg−1 Decreases in bacterial diversity and modification Ge et al. (2012)
of bacterial community
CuO, Fe3O4 Red sandy loam and 10 g kg−1 Affected soil microbial community, both types Ben-Moshe et al. (2013)
rendzina soil of soil were less affected by Fe3O4, changes
in humic substances
Co, Fe, Ni, Ag Acidic top soil 550 mg pot Pyrosequence analysis showed no significant Shah et al. (2014)
effect on soil microbial richness; individual
analysis affected bacterial groups
Ag, Al2O3, SiO2 Soil 50 mg kg−1 Reduce: dehydrogenase and urease activity, McGee et al. (2017)
bacterial and archaeal amoA gene
abundance in soil
Au Sandy 0.1–100 mg kg−1 Significant effects on soil enzyme activities, Asadishad et al. (2017)
microbial communities, and nutrient cycling

3.2 Effects of nanoparticles on crops
Rapid growth of NPs production and their wide application in
agriculture has increased the possibilities to reach the soil. It is
now well recognized that some NPs affect crop development,
yield, and many of them are accumulated in plant tissues,
including the edible part of plant tissues (Table 2). It is not
easy to estimate the severity of the NPs’ impact on the eco-
systems and human health. Invisible pollution caused by NPs
is considered to be the most difficult type of pollutant to man-
age and control because of its ultrafine size. Various studies of
the NPs’ effect on crops such as onion, spinach, coriander,
wheat, rice, soybean, mung bean, radish, lettuce, barley, cu-
cumber, and tobacco have shown inhibition of germination,
reduced shoots and root growth, toxicity, and decreases in
photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll concentrations (Shaw
and Hossain 2013; Corral-Diaz et al. 2014; Frazier et al.
2014; Moon et al. 2014; Nair and Chung 2014; Nair et al.
2014; Trujillo-Reyes et al. 2014; Vannini et al. 2014; Yoon
et al. 2014; Hong et al. 2015; Nair and Chung 2015; Yang
et al. 2015; Zuverza-Mena et al. 2015; Singh and Kumar
2016; Cvjetko et al. 2017; Priester et al. 2017; Tripathi et al.
2017).
3.3 Effect of nanoparticles on soil
Soil is predicted to be the largest recipient of NPs.
Understanding the behavior of NPs in the soil and their risk
evaluation in arable soil ecosystems or other real environmen-
tal scenarios is very topical to date (Chai et al. 2015). Soil is
the environmental matrix that is the richest in natural NPs both
as primary particles and as agglomerates/aggregates. Artificial
introduction of NPs into the soil might have significant im-
pact, as they may be extremely resistant to degradation and
have the potential to accumulate in the soil. According to Ben-
Moshe et al. (2013) NPs appear to affect many microscopic
properties of the soil. The protection of soil microbial biomass
and diversity is one of the major issues in the field of sustain-
able use of soils (Torsvik and Øvreås 2002). The effect of NPs
on the soil depends on their concentration, soil type, and en-
zymatic activity of soil. At high concentrations of NPs, the
negative effect on dehydrogenase activity was observed by
Josko et al. (2014). Another adverse effect caused by NPs is
the influence on the rate of soil self-cleaning as well as on the
balance of nutrients, which is the basis for the regulation of the
processes of plant nutrition and soil fertility improvement
(Janvier et al. 2007; Suresh et al. 2013). Considering the pres-
ence of NPs in soil, it is significant to study their influence on
soil biodiversity (Bondarenko et al. 2013).
Soil properties play a key role in the toxic effect of NPs.
Soil properties, such as pH, texture, structure, and organic
matter content, influence the soil microbial community and
the ability of pollutants to have toxic effects on microorgan-
isms (bioavailability) (Fierer and Jackson 2006; Simonin and
Richaume 2015). Nanoparticles could affect mobility of soil
pollutants. Therefore, there is a need to compare the toxicity of
the NPs in various types of soils. The soil amended with
digestate and fly ash reduced the pollutant bioavailability
(Garcia-Sanchez et al. 2015). Another study suggests that par-
ticle size distribution and the composition of the organic mat-
ter altered microbial populations in the contaminated soils
(Calvarro et al. 2014).
Intentional influence on soil properties and composition by
amending the soil with various substances can also alter the
J Soils Sediments

Table 2 An overview of toxicological effect of NPs on cultivated plants

Plant species/organ Type of NPs Size and concentration Biological effects Source

Triticum aestivum L. Ag 1–10 mg L−1 Adversely affect seedling growth and Vannini et al. (2014)
modifications in root tip cells
Pisum sativum L. Ag 1000–3000 mM Decreased photosynthetic pigments and Tripathi et al. (2017)
chlorophyll fluorescence
Allium cepa Ag Caused oxidative stress and exhibited toxicity Cvjetko et al. (2017)
Phaseolus radiatus, Ag 5–25 nm; 0–40 mg L−1 Higher accumulation in roots and shoots. Lee et al. (2012)
Sorghum bicolor Growth inhibition
A. cepa Ag 5–20 μg L−1 Chromosomal aberrations in both mitotic and Saha and Dutta (2017)
meiotic cells
Arabidopsis thaliana, Au 25–100 mg L−1 Root length reduced by 75%. Accumulation Taylor et al. (2014)
Medicago sativa L. in shoots and roots
Glycine max CeO2 ZnO 0.05–0.5 g kg−1 soil Increased ROS, lipid peroxidation, visible Priester et al. (2017)
damage, and decreased total chlorophyll
T. aestivum L. CeO2 0–400 mg kg−1 Changes in leaf cells microstructure, swollen Du et al. (2015)
chloroplasts, squeezed nuclei, bent and
loosely arranged thylakoids, decreased
chlorophyll
R. sativus L. CeO2 0–500 mg kg−1 Retarded germination Corral-Diaz et al. 2014)
Solanum lycopersicum L. CoFe2O4 0–1000 mg L−1 Increased uptake of Fe and Co inside plant Lopez-Moreno et al. (2016)
tissues, with increasing dose of CoFe2O4 in
hydroponics condition
Pistia stratiotes L. CuO <100 nm Decreased ascorbic acid, total content of Olkhovych et al. (2016)
amino acids
Conventional and CuO 0–1000 mg L−1 Inhibited the growth, development, nutrient Van et al. (2016a)
transgenic cotton content, IAA and ABA, and aggregates
accumulated in outer epidermis and
intercellular root
Coriandrum sativum CuO 0–80 mg kg−1 Reduced germination and shoot elongation Zuverza-Mena et al. (2015)
−1
Spinach oleracea CuOZnO 1000 mg L Reduction in root length, shoot length, total Singh and Kumar (2016)
weight, chlorophyll, and carotenoid content
Ipt-cotton CuO 10–1000 mg L−1 Height and root length decreased, increased Van et al. (2016b)
isopentenyl adenine in shoots, which
delayed senescence
Vigna radiata L. CuO 200–500 mg L−1 Affected root length, biomass, total chlorophyll Nair et al. (2014)
content, primary and lateral root growth
R. sativus, Lolium perenne, CuO 10–1000 mg L−1 Induced DNA damage in agricultural and Atha et al. (2011)
L. rigidum grassland plants. DNA lesion and
accumulation
G. max, Cicer arietinum CuO 5–600 mg L−1 Affects germination, root elongation Adhikari et al. (2012)
inhibition; root necrosis occurs with
increasing concentration
Lactuca sativa, M. sativa CuO 0–20 mg L−1 Reduced the root length, increased Cu, P, and Hong et al. (2015)
S in alfalfa shoots and decreased P and Fe
in lettuce
G. max CuO 50–500 mg L−1 Significantly reduced the shoot growth, Nair and Chung (2014)
weight, total chlorophyll content and root
length
Brassica juncea L. CuO 0–500 mg L−1 Affected shoot and root growth Nair and Chung (2015)
Hordeum vulgare L. CuO 40–120 mg L−1 Affected shoot and root growth, membrane, Shaw et al. (2014)
induced the release of ROS
Cucumis sativus CuO 100–600 mg L−1 Inhibited the seed germination and root Moon et al. (2014)
elongation
Landoltia punctata CuO 0.1–10.0 g kg−1 Reduced chlorophyll, increased number of Lalau et al. (2015)
plastoglobuli and irregularly shaped
mitochondria, dilation in chloroplast
membrane
L. sativa Fe/Fe3O4 50–60 nm 10, 20 mg L−1 Increased antioxidant activities, reduced root Trujillo-Reyes et al. (2014)
size, affected chlorophyll, particle
aggregation on the root, affected water
entrance
 J Soils Sediments

Table 2 (continued)

Plant species/organ Type of NPs Size and concentration Biological effects Source

Nicotiana tabacum TiO2 0–50 g kg−1 Reduced biomass, inhibited germination and Frazier et al. (2014)
root length in artificial media
P. vulgaris L. TiO2 100–500 mg L−1 Significant effect on activity of superoxide Ebrahimi et al. (2016)
dismutase, peroxidase, malonyldialdehyde,
and 8-deoxy-2-hydroxyguanosine content
L. sativa, Lycopersicon TiO2 250–1000 mg L−1 Altered germination and affected root length, Andersen et al. (2016)
lycopersicum, B. oleracea, genotoxic effect
G. max, Daucus carota,
L. perenne, Z. mays,
C. sativus, Avena sativa,
A. cepa
D. carota ZnO, CuO 1–1000 mg L−1 Decreased biomass Ebbs et al. (2016)
G. max ZnO 500 mg kg−1 Reduced root and shoot growth and affected Yoon et al. (2014)
seed formation
Zea mays ZnO 800 mg kg−1 Affected growth and inhibited arbuscular Wang et al. (2016)
mycorrhizal fungi
Z. mays, O. sativa ZnO <50 nm; 2000 mg L−1 No effect on seed germination but inhibited Yang et al. (2015)
root elongation
Z. mays ZnO 50–2000 mg L−1 Higher accumulation of zinc in grains Subbaiah et al. (2016)

effects of NPs. Biochar is a soil amendment used for increas-
ing soil fertility and productivity. Servin et al. (2017) show
minimal effects of CeO2 NPs on plants in biochar-amended
soil. Interaction between NPs and biochar-amended soil is not
well studied.
4 Conclusion and future prospects
Recently, NPs received tremendous attention due to their
unique properties and beneficiary applications in different sec-
tors. The number of publications dealing with NPs has in-
creased exponentially, although research about synthesis and
applications clearly dominates. However, increased applica-
tions and usage quantity also lead to threat of release of NPs to
the environment. Potential risk and consequences in the envi-
ronment are difficult to quantify and are poorly understood.
As the behavior of NPs differs significantly in laboratory con-
ditions and the natural environment, there is a need to increase
the knowledge on final fate and effect of NPs in every differ-
ent type of contaminated environment and appropriate guide-
lines are required to be framed to avoid contamination.
Analytical and modeling methods for estimation, detection,
and characterization of NPs in environmental samples (air,
soil, and water) and other consumer products need improve-
ment. Moreover, it can be made mandatory to annually test the
dumping grounds and aquatic bodies near industrial sites.
Nanoparticles which have been known for toxicity only at
elevated concentration may be getting accumulated at these
sites and are underestimated. It will be more helpful if all
countries maintain a database of NP-producing companies,
their products, and end user companies. A real data of annual
NPs production will help researchers to estimate the real threat
level. The increasing number of results discussing toxicity of
NPs requires to be considered, as the research has demonstrat-
ed the hazardous effect of NPs on living organisms. Proper
assessment and guidelines will be helpful for the future direc-
tion of nanotechnology research and its applications, so that it
does not become a menace for ecosystem health.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the projects of the
Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, no. 5.948.2017/PP, and the
Grant of President of Russia, no. MK-7285.2016.5.
References
Adhikari T, Kundu S, Biswas AK, Tarafdar JC, Rao AS (2012) Effect of
copper oxide nanoparticle on seed germination of selected crops. J
Agric Sci Technol 2:815–823
Andersen CP, King G, Plocher M, Storm M, Pokhrel LR, Johnson MG,
Rygiewicz PT (2016) Germination and early plant development of
ten plant species exposed to TiO2 and CeO2 nanoparticles. Environ
Toxicol Chem 35(9):2223–2229
Asadishad B, Chahal S, Cianciarelli V, Zhou K, Tufenkji N (2017) Effect
of gold nanoparticles on extracellular nutrient-cycling enzyme ac-
tivity and bacterial community in soil slurries: role of nanoparticle
size and surface coating. Environ Sci Nano 4:907–918
Atha DH, Wang H, Petersen EJ, Cleveland D, Holbrook RD, Jaruga P,
Dizdaroglu M, Xing B, Nelson BC (2011) Copper oxide nanoparti-
cle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models. Environ Sci
Technol 46:1819–1827
Atlas RM (1984) Use of microbial diversity measurements to assess
environmental stress. Current perspectives in microbial ecology.
American Society of Microbiology, USA, pp 540–545
BCC research (2014a) Global markets for nanocomposites, nanoparticles,
nanoclays, and nanotubes.https://www.bccresearch.com/market-
J Soils Sediments
research/nanotechnology/nanocomposites-market-nan021f.html?
vsmaid=203
BCC research (2014b) Nanoparticles in biotechnology, drug develop-
ment and drug delivery.https://www.bccresearch.com/market-
research/biotechnology/nanoparticles-biotechnology-drug-
development-drug-delivery-report-bio113b.html
Ben-Moshe T, Frenk S, Dror I, Minz D, Berkowitz B (2013) Effects of
metal oxide nanoparticles on soil properties. Chemosphere 90(2):
640–646
Bondarenko O, Juganson K, Ivask A, Kasemets K, Mortimer M, Kahru A
(2013) Toxicity of Ag, CuO and ZnO nanoparticles to selected en-
vironmentally relevant test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro:
a critical review. Arch Toxicol 87:1181–1200
Buzea C, Pacheco II, Robbie K (2007) Nanomaterials and nanoparticles:
sources and toxicity. Biointerphases 2:MR17–MR71
Calvarro LM, de Santiago-Martín A, Gomez JQ, Gonzalez-Huecas C,
Quintana JR, Vazquez A, Lafuente AL, Rodríguez Fernandez TM,
Ramírez VR (2014) Biological activity in metal contaminated cal-
careous agricultural soils: the role of the organic matter composition
and the particle size distribution. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:6176–
6187
Chai H, Yao J, Sun J, Zhang C, Liu W, Zhu M, Ceccanti B (2015) The
effect of metal oxide nanoparticles on functional bacteria and meta-
bolic profiles in agricultural soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94:
490–495
Coll C, Notter D, Gottschalk F, Sun T, Som C, Nowack B (2016)
Probabilistic environmental risk assessment of five nanomaterials
(nano-TiO 2 , nano-Ag, nano-ZnO, CNT, and fullerenes).
Nanotoxicology 10:4
Colman BP, Arnaout CL, Anciaux S, Gunsch CK, Hochella MF Jr, Kim
B, Lowry GV, McGill BM, Reinsch BC, Richardson CJ, Unrine JM,
Wright JP, Yin L, Bernhardt ES (2013) Low concentrations of silver
nanoparticles in sewage sludge cause adverse ecosystem responses
under realistic field scenario. PLoS One 8:57189
Corral-Diaz B, Peralta-Videa JR, Alvarez-Parrilla E, Rodrigo-Garcia J,
Morales MI, Osuna-Avila P, Niu G, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Gardea-
Torresdey JL (2014) Cerium oxide nanoparticles alter the antioxi-
dant capacity but do not impact tuber ionome in Raphanus sativus
(L). Plant Physiol Biochem 84:277–285
Concha-Guerrero SI, Brito EMS, Piñón-Castillo HA et al (2014) Effect of
CuO nanoparticles over isolated bacterial strains from agricultural
soil. J Nanomater 2014:13
Connolly M, Fernández M, Conde E, Torrent F, Navas JM, Fernández-
Cruz ML (2016) Tissue distribution of zinc and subtle oxidative
stress effects after dietary administration of ZnO nanoparticles to
rainbow trout. Sci Total Environ 551-552:334–343
Cvjetko P, Milošić A, Domijan AM, Vinković Vrček I, Tolić S, Peharec
Štefanić P, Letofsky-Papst I, Tkalec M, Balen B (2017) Toxicity of
silver ions and differently coated silver nanoparticles in Allium cepa
roots. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 137:18–28
Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnol-
ogy. Anchor Books Edition, USA
Du WC, Gardea-Torresdey JL, Ji R, Yin Y, Zhu JG, Peralta-Videa JR,
Guo HY (2015) Physiological and biochemical changes imposed by
CeO2 nanoparticles on wheat: a life cycle field study. Environ Sci
Technol 49:11884–11893
Ebbs SD, Bradfield SJ, Kumar P, White JC, Musante C, Ma X (2016)
Accumulation of zinc, copper, or cerium in carrot (Daucus carota)
exposed to metal oxide nanoparticles and metal ions. Environ Sci
Nano 3:114–126
Ebrahimi A, Galavi M, Ramroudi M, Moaveni P (2016) Effect of TiO2
nanoparticles on antioxidant enzymes activity and biochemical bio-
markers in Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) J Mol Biol Mol 6(1):
58–66
Fierer N, Jackson RB (2006) The diversity and biogeography of soil
bacterial communities. PNAS 103(3):626–631
Frazier TP, Burklew CE, Zhang B (2014) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles
affect the growth and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana
tabacum). Funct Integr Genomics 14:75–83
Frenk S, Ben-Moshe T, Dror I, Berkowitz B, Minz D (2013) Effect of
metal oxide nanoparticles on microbial community structure and
function in two different soil types. PLoS One 8:84441
Garcia-Sanchez М, Garcia-Romera I, Cajthaml T, Tlusto P, Szakov J
(2015) Changes in soil microbial community functionality and
structure in a metal-polluted site: the effect of digestate and fly ash
applications. J Environ Manag 162:63–73
Ge YG, Schimel JP, Holden PA (2012) Identification of soil bacteria
susceptible to TiO 2 and ZnO nanoparticles. Appl Environ
Microbiol 78:6749–6758
Griffitt RJ, Hyndman K, Denslow ND, Barber DS (2009) Comparison of
molecular and histological changes in zebrafish gills exposed to
metallic nanoparticles. Toxicol Sci 107:404–415
Hansen SF, Heggelund RL, Besora PR, Mackevica A, Boldrin A, Baun A
(2016) Nanoproducts: what is actually available to European con-
sumers? Environ Sci Nano 3:169–180
Hong J, Rico CM, Zhao L, Adeleye AS, Keller AA, Peralta-Videa JR,
GardeaTorresdey JL (2015) Toxic effects of copper-based nanopar-
ticles or compounds to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and alfalfa
(Medicago sativa). Environ Sci Process Impact 17:177–185
Jain R, Matassa S, Singh S, van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G, Lens PN
(2016) Reduction of selenite to elemental selenium nanoparticles by
activated sludge. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23(2):1193–1202
Janvier C, Villeneuve F, Alabouvette C, Edel-Hermann V, Mateille T,
Steinberg C (2007) Soil health through soil disease suppression:
which strategy from descriptors to indicators? Soil Biol Biochem
39:1–23
Jiling C, Youzhi F, Xiangui L, Junhua W (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi alleviate the negative effects of iron oxide nanoparticles on
bacterial community in rhizospheric soils. Front Environ Sci 4:10
Josko I, Oleszczuk P, Futa B (2014) The effect of inorganic nanoparticles
(ZnO, Cr2O3, CuO and Ni) and their bulk counterparts on enzyme
activities in different soils. Geoderma 232:528–537
Karlsson HL, Gustafsson J, Cronholm P, Möller L (2009) Sizedependent
toxicity of metal oxide particles–a comparison between nano- and
micrometer size. Toxicol Lett 188:112–118
Kasemets K, Ivask A, Dubourguier HC, Kahru A (2009) Toxicity of
nanoparticles of ZnO, CuO and TiO2 to yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. Toxicol Vitro 23:1116–1122
Kashyap PL, Xiang X, Heiden P (2015) Chitosan nanoparticle based
delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. Int J Biol Macromol
77:36–51
Keller AA, Lazareva A (2014) Predicted releases of engineered
nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci
Technol Lett 1:65–70
Keller AA, McFerran S, Lazareva A, Suh S (2013) Global life cycle
releases of engineered nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 15:1692
Kim JS, Kuk E, Yu KN, Kim JH, Park SJ, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Park YK,
Park YH, Hwang CY, Kim YK, Lee YS, Jeong DH, Cho MH (2007)
Antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 3:95–
101
Kim KJ, Sung WS, Moon SK, Choi JS, Kim JG, Lee DG (2008)
Antifungal effect of silver nanoparticles on dermatophytes. J
Microbiol Biotechnol 18:482–1484
Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY,
Mahendra S, McLaughlin MJ, Lead JR (2008) Nanomaterials in the
environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ
Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851
Kumar N, Shah V, Walker VK (2012) Influence of a nanoparticle mixture
on an arctic soil community. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:131–135
Lakshmi JV, Sharath R, Chandraprabha MN, Neelufar E, Abhishikta H,
Malyasree P (2012) Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of

antimicrobial activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Biochem
Technol 3:S151–S154
Lalau CM, Mohedano RA, Schmidt ÉC, Bouzon ZL, Ouriques LC, dos
Santos RW, da Costa CH, Vicentini DS, Matias WG (2015)
Toxicological effects of copper oxide nanoparticles on the growth
rate, photosynthetic pigment content, and cell morphology of the
duckweed Landoltia punctata. Protoplasma 252(1):221–229
Lee WM, Kwak JI, An YJ (2012) Effect of silver nanoparticles in crop
plants Phaseolus radiatus and Sorghum bicolor: media effect on
phytotoxicity. Chemosphere 86:491–499
Li Q, Chen X, Zhuang J, Chen X (2016) Decontaminating soil organic
pollutants with manufactured nanoparticles. Environ Sci Pollut Res
23(12):11533–11548
Liu R, Lal R (2015) Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers
for increasing agronomic productions. Sci Total Environ 514:131–
139
Lofts S, Criel P, Janssen CR, Lock K, McGrath SP, Oorts K, Rooney CP,
Smolders E, Spurgeon DJ, Svendsen C, Eeckhout HV, Zhao FZ
(2013) Modelling the effects of copper on soil organisms and pro-
cesses using the free ion approach: towards a multi-species toxicity
model. Environ Pollut 178:244–253
Lopez-Moreno ML, Aviles LL, Perez NG, Irizarry BA, Perales O,
Cedeno-Mattei Y, Roman F (2016) Effect of cobalt ferrite
(CoFe2O 4) nanoparticles on the growth and development of
Lycopersicon lycopersicum (tomato plants). Sci Total Environ 550:
45–52
Maliszewska I (2016) Effects of the biogenic gold nanoparticles on mi-
crobial community structure and activities. Ann Microbiol 66:785–
794
Maurer-Jones MA, Ian L, Gunsolus IL, Murphy CJ, Haynes CL (2013)
Toxicity of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Anal
Chem 85(6):3036–3049
McGee CF, Storey S, Clipson N, Doyle E (2017) Soil microbial commu-
nity responses to contamination with silver, aluminium oxide and
silicon dioxide nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology:1–10
McGillicuddy E, Murray I, Kavanagh S, Morrison L, Fogarty A,
Cormican M, Dockery P, Prendergast M, Rowan N, Morris D
(2017) Silver nanoparticles in the environment: sources, detection
and ecotoxicology. Sci Total Environ 575:231–246
Miao AJ, Schwehr KA, Xu C, Zhang SJ, Luo Z, Quigg A, Santschi PH
(2009) The algal toxicity of silver engineered nanoparticles and
detoxification by exopolymeric substances. Environ Pollut 157:
3034–3041
Moon YS, Park ES, Kim TO, Lee HS, Lee SE (2014) SELDI-TOF MS-
based discovery of a biomarker in Cucumis sativus seeds exposed to
CuO nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Phar 38(3):922–931
Nair PG, Chung I (2014) A mechanistic study on the toxic effect of
copper oxide nanoparticles in soybean (Glycine max L.) root devel-
opment and lignification of root cells. Biol Trace Element Res 162:
342–352
Nair PMG, Kim SH, Chung IM (2014) Copper oxide nanoparticle toxic-
ity in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seedlings: physiological and
molecular level responses of in vitro grown plants. Acta Physiol
Plant 36:2947–2958
Nair PMG, Chung IM (2015) Study on the correlation between copper
oxide nanoparticles induced growth suppression and enhanced lig-
nification in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf 113:302–313
Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nano-
particles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150(1):5–22
Olkhovych O, Volkogon M, Taran N, Batsmanova L, Kravchenko I
(2016) The effect of copper and zinc nanoparticles on the growth
parameters, contents of ascorbic acid, and qualitative composition of
amino acids and acylcarnitines in Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae).
Nanoscale ResLett 11:–218
J Soils Sediments
Panyala NR, Peña-Méndez EM, Havel J (2008) Silver or silver nanopar-
ticles: a hazardous threat to the environment and human health? J
Appl Biomed 6:117–119
Peyrot C, Wilkinson KJ, Desrosiers M, Sauvé S (2014) Effects of silver
nanoparticles on soil enzyme activities with and without added or-
ganic matter. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:115–125
Pradhan A, Seena S, Pascoal C, Cássio F (2011) Can metal nanoparticles
be a threat to microbial decomposers of plant litter in streams?
Microb Ecol 62:58–68
Priester JH, Moritz SC, Espinosa K, Ge Y, Wang Y, Nisbet RM, Schimel
JP, Goggi SA, Gardea-Torresdey JL, Holden PA (2017) Damage
assessment for soybean cultivated in soil with either CeO2 or ZnO
manufactured nanomaterials. Sci Total Environ 579:1756–1768
Saha N, Dutta GS (2017) Low-dose toxicity of biogenic silver nanopar-
ticles fabricated by Swertia chirata on root tips and flower buds of
Allium cepa. J Hazard Mater 330:18–28
Saison C, Perreault F, Daigle JC, Fortin C, Claverie J, Morin M, Popovic
R (2010) Effect of core shell copper oxide nanoparticles on cell
culture morphology and photosynthesis (photosystem II energy dis-
tribution) in the green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Aquat
Toxicol 96:109–114
Salata OV (2004) Applications of nanoparticles in biology and medicine.
J Nanobiotechnology 2:3
Sanchez-Quiles D, Tovar-Sanchez A (2014) Sunscreens as a source of
hydrogen peroxide production in coastal waters. Environ Sci
Technol 48(16):9037–9042
Servin AD, De la Torre-Roche R, Castillo-Michel H, Pagano L,
Hawthorne J, Musante C, Pignatello J, Uchimiya M, White JC
(2017) Exposure of agricultural crops to nanoparticle CeO2 in
biochar-amended soil. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:147–157
Shah V, Collins D, Walker VK, Shah S (2014) The impact of engineered
cobalt, iron, nickel and silver nanoparticles on soil bacterial diversity
under field conditions. Environ Res Lett 9(2):024001
Shandilya N, Le BO, Bressot C, Morgeneyer M (2015) Emission of
titanium dioxide nanoparticles from building materials to the envi-
ronment by wear and weather. Environ Sci Technol 49(4):2163–
2170
Shaw AK, Hossain Z (2013) Impact of nano-CuO stress on rice (Oryza
sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 93:906–915
Shaw AK, Ghosh S, Kalaji HM, Bosa K, Brestic M, Zivcak M, Hossain Z
(2014) Nano-CuO stress induced modulation of antioxidative de-
fense and photosynthetic performance of syrian barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.). Environ Exp Bot 102:37–47
Shin YJ, Kwak JI, An YJ (2012) Evidence for the inhibitory effects of
silver nanoparticles on the activities of soil exoenzymes.
Chemosphere 88:524–529
Simonin M, Richaume A (2015) Impact of engineered nanoparticles on
the activity, abundance, and diversity of soil microbial communities:
a review. Environ Sci Poll Res 22:13710–13723
Singh D, Kumar A (2016) Impact of irrigation using water containing
CuO and ZnO nanoparticles on Spinach oleracea grown in soil
media. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 97:548–553
Solanki A, John DK, Ki-Bum L (2008) Nanotechnology for regenerative
medicine: nanomaterials for stem cell imaging. Nanomedicine 3:
567–578
Soni D, Naoghare PK, Saravanadevi S, Pandey RA (2015) Release, trans-
port and toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. Rev Environ Contam
Toxicol 234:1–47
Subbaiah LV, Prasad TN, Krishna TG, Sudhakar P, Reddy BR, Pradeep T
(2016) Novel effects of nanoparticulate delivery of zinc on growth,
productivity, and zinc biofortification in maize (Zea mays L.) J Agric
Food Chem 64:3778–3788
Suresh AK, Pelletier DA, Doktycz MJ (2013) Relating nanomaterial
properties and microbial toxicity. Nano 5:463–474
J Soils Sediments
Taniguchi N (1974) On the Basic Concept of Nanotechnology.
Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Production
Engineering, Tokyo, pp 18-23
Taylor AF, Rylott EL, Anderson C, Bruce NC (2014) Investigating the
toxicity, uptake, nanoparticle formation and genetic response of
plants to gold. PLoS One 9(4):93793
Tiede K, Boxall A, Tear S, Lewis J, David H, Hassellov M (2008)
Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food
and the environment. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal
Control Expo Risk Assess 7:795–821
Tiede K, Hanssen SF, Westerhoff P, Fern GJ, Hankin SM, Aitken RJ,
Chaudhry Q, Boxall AB (2016) How important is drinking water
exposure for the risks of engineered nanoparticles to consumers?
Nanotoxicology 10(1):102–110
Torsvik V, Øvreås L (2002) Microbial diversity and function in soil: from
genes to ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:240–245
Tourinho PS, van Gestel CA, Lofts S, Svendsen C, Soares AM, Loureiro
S (2012) Metal-based nanoparticles in soil: fate, behavior, and ef-
fects on soil invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(8):1679–1692
Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh S, Srivastava PK, Singh VP, Singh S, Prasad
SM, Singh PK, Dubey NK, Pandey AC, Chauhan DK (2017) Nitric
oxide alleviates silver nanoparticles (AgNPs)-induced phytotoxicity
in Pisum sativum seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:167–177
Tripathi S, Champagne D, Tufenkji N (2012) Transport behavior of se-
lected nanoparticles with different surface coatings in granular po-
rous media coated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm. Environ
Sci Technol 46(13):6942–6949
Trujillo-Reyes J, Peralta-Videa J, Majumdar S, Botez C, Gardea-
Torresdey J (2014) Exposure studies of core–shell Fe/Fe3O4 and
Cu/CuO NPs to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) plants: are they a potential
physiological and nutritional hazard? J Hazard Mater 267:255–263
Van NL, Ma C, Shang J, Rui Y, Liu S, Xing B (2016a) Effects of CuO
nanoparticles on insecticidal activity and phytotoxicity in conven-
tional and transgenic cotton. Chemosphere 144:661–670
Van NL, Rui Y, Cao W, Shang J, Liu S, Quang TN, Liu L (2016b)
Toxicity and bio-effects of CuO nanoparticles on transgenic Ipt-cot-
ton. J Plant Interact 11(1):108–116
Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MFJ, Rejeski
D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping
the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J
Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780
Vannini C, Domingo G, Onelli E, De Mattia F, Bruni I, Marsoni M,
Bracale M (2014) Phytotoxic and genotoxic effects of silver nano-
particles exposure on germinating wheat seedlings. J Plant Physiol
171:1142–1148
Wang F, Liu X, Shi Z, Tong R, Adams CA, Shi X (2016) Arbuscular
mycorrhizae alleviate negative effects of zinc oxide nanoparticle and
zinc accumulation in maize plants—a soil microcosm experiment.
Chemosphere 147:88–97
Weir A, Westerhoff P, Fabricius L, Hristovski K, von Goetz N (2012)
Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products.
Environ Sci Technol 46:2242–2250
Xu C, Peng C, Sun L, Zhang S, Huang H, Chen Y, Shi J (2015)
Distinctive effects of TiO2 and CuO nanoparticles on soil microbes
and their community structures in flooded paddy soil. Soil Biol
Biochem 86:24–33
Yadav T, Mungray AA, Mungray AK (2014) Fabricated nanoparticles:
current status and potential phytotoxic threats. Rev Environ Contam
Toxicol 230:83–110
Yang Z, Chen J, Dou R, Gao X, Mao C, Wang L (2015) Assessment of
the phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles on two crop plants,
maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) Int J Environ Res
Public Health 12:15100–15109
Yoon SJ, Kwak JI, Lee WM, Holden PA, An YJ (2014) Zinc oxide
nanoparticles delay soybean development: a standard soil micro-
cosm study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 100:131–137
You T, Liu D, Chen J, Yang Z, Dou R, Gao X, Wang L (2017) Effects of
metal oxide nanoparticles on soil enzyme activities and bacterial
communities in two different soil types. J Soils Sediments. doi:10.
1007/s11368-017-1716-2
Zuverza-Mena N, Medina-Velo IA, Barrios AC, Tan W, Peralta-Videa JR,
Gardea-Torresdey JL (2015) Copper nanoparticles/compounds im-
pact agronomic and physiological parameters in cilantro
(Coriandrum sativum). Environ Sci Process 17:1783–1793