Abstract
Nanofertilizers (NFs) and engineered nanoparticles (NPs) are increasingly used in agriculture, yet their environmental safety remains poorly understood. This study evaluated the comparative phytotoxicity of zinc oxide (ZnO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), and clinoptilolite nanoparticles, three commercial nanofertilizers, and potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions. Seeds were exposed to varying concentrations of each xenobiotic material (0.5–3% for NFs; 10–50% for NPs), with systematic assessment of seedling survival, root and hypocotyl length, dry biomass, germination index (GI), and median effective concentration (EC50) values. Nanofertilizers demonstrated significantly greater phytotoxicity than engineered nanoparticles despite lower application concentrations. The toxicity ranking was established as NF1 > NF3 > NF2 > NM2 > NM1 > NM3, with NF1 being most toxic (EC50 = 1.2%). Nanofertilizers caused 45–78% reductions in root length and 30–65% decreases in dry biomass compared with controls. GI values dropped to ≤70% in NF1 and NF3 treatments, indicating concentration-dependent growth inhibition. While nanofertilizers offer agricultural benefits, their elevated phytotoxicity compared with conventional nanoparticles necessitates rigorous pre-application safety assessment. These findings emphasize the critical need for standardized evaluation protocols incorporating both physiological and ecotoxicological endpoints to ensure safe xenobiotic nanomaterial deployment in agricultural systems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nanofertilizers were more phytotoxic to lettuce than engineered nanoparticles despite lower application concentrations.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativae0 - Treatment
- Nanofertilizerse1
- Outcome
- phytotoxicitye1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Comparator
- engineered nanoparticlese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e1“Nanofertilizers demonstrated significantly greater phytotoxicity than engineered nanoparticles despite lower application concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
NF1 was the most toxic tested material to lettuce, with EC50 of 1.2%.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- NF1e2
- Outcome
- EC50e2
- Direction
- most toxice2
- Value
- 1.2%e2
- Comparator
- NF3 > NF2 > NM2 > NM1 > NM3e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e2“The toxicity ranking was established as NF1 > NF3 > NF2 > NM2 > NM1 > NM3, with NF1 being most toxic (EC50 = 1.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nanofertilizers reduced lettuce root length by 45–78% compared with controls.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- Nanofertilizerse3
- Outcome
- root lengthe3
- Direction
- reductionse3
- Value
- 45–78%e3
- Comparator
- controlse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e3“Nanofertilizers caused 45–78% reductions in root length”
e4“30–65% decreases in dry biomass compared with controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Nanofertilizers reduced lettuce dry biomass by 30–65% compared with controls.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- Nanofertilizerse3
- Outcome
- dry biomasse4
- Direction
- decreasese4
- Value
- 30–65%e4
- Comparator
- controlse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e3“Nanofertilizers caused 45–78% reductions in root length”
e4“30–65% decreases in dry biomass compared with controls”
Claim · model-written summary
NF1 and NF3 treatments reduced germination index of lettuce to 70% or less.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- NF1 and NF3 treatmentse5
- Outcome
- GI valuese5
- Direction
- droppede5
- Value
- ≤70%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e5“GI values dropped to ≤70% in NF1 and NF3 treatments, indicating concentration-dependent growth inhibition”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth inhibition of lettuce by nanofertilizers was concentration-dependent.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- concentratione5
- Outcome
- growth inhibitione5
- Qualifier
- concentration-dependente5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e5“GI values dropped to ≤70% in NF1 and NF3 treatments, indicating concentration-dependent growth inhibition”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend a rigorous pre-application safety assessment of nanofertilizers.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativaLactuca sativae0
- Outcome
- pre-application safety assessmente6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“using Lactuca sativa seeds under adapted OECD-208 protocol conditions”
e6“necessitates rigorous pre-application safety assessment”
The same questions in other papers
nanoparticle · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.