Plant abiotic stress leads to accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and a consequent decrease in photosynthetic performance. We demonstrate that a plant nanobionics approach of localizing negatively charged, sub-11 nm, spherical cerium oxide nanoparticles (nanoceria) inside chloroplasts in vivo augments ROS scavenging and photosynthesis of Arabidopsis thaliana plants under excess light (2000 μmol m s, 1.5 h), heat (35 °C, 2.5 h), and dark chilling (4 °C, 5 days). Poly(acrylic acid) nanoceria (PNC) with a hydrodynamic diameter (10.3 nm)-lower than the maximum plant cell wall porosity-and negative ζ-potential (-16.9 mV) exhibit significantly higher colocalization (46%) with chloroplasts in leaf mesophyll cells than aminated nanoceria (ANC) (27%) of similar size (12.6 nm) but positive charge (9.7 mV). Nanoceria are transported into chloroplasts via nonendocytic pathways, influenced by the electrochemical gradient of the plasma membrane potential. PNC with a low Ce/Ce ratio (35.0%) reduce leaf ROS levels by 52%, including hydrogen peroxide, superoxide anion, and hydroxyl radicals. For the latter ROS, there is no known plant enzyme scavenger. Plants embedded with these PNC that were exposed to abiotic stress exhibit an increase up to 19% in quantum yield of photosystem II, 67% in carbon assimilation rates, and 61% in Rubisco carboxylation rates relative to plants without nanoparticles. In contrast, PNC with high Ce/Ce ratio (60.8%) increase overall leaf ROS levels and do not protect photosynthesis from oxidative damage during abiotic stress. This study demonstrates that anionic, spherical, sub-11 nm PNC with low Ce/Ce ratio can act as a tool to study the impact of oxidative stress on plant photosynthesis and to protect plants from abiotic stress.

No abstract

Fundamental and quantitative understanding of the interactions between nanoparticles and plant leaves is crucial for advancing the field of nanoenabled agriculture. Herein, we systematically investigated and modeled how ζ potential (−52.3 mV to +36.6 mV) and hydrodynamic size (1.7−18 nm) of hydrophilic nanoparticles influence delivery efficiency and pathways to specific leaf cells and organelles. We studied interactions of nanoparticles of agricultural interest including carbon dots (CDs, 0.5 and 5 mg/mL), cerium oxide (CeO 2 , 0.5 mg/mL), and silica (SiO 2 , 0.5 mg/mL) nanoparticles with leaves of two major crop species having contrasting leaf anatomies: cotton (dicotyledon) and maize (monocotyledon). Biocompatible CDs allowed real-time tracking of nanoparticle translocation and distribution in planta by confocal fluorescence microscopy at high spatial (∼200 nm) and temporal (2−5 min) resolution. Nanoparticle formulations with surfactants (Silwet L-77) that reduced surface tension to 22 mN/m were found to be crucial for enabling rapid uptake (<10 min) of nanoparticles through the leaf stomata and cuticle pathways. Nanoparticle−leaf interaction (NLI) empirical models based on hydrodynamic size and ζ potential indicate that hydrophilic nanoparticles with <20 and 11 nm for cotton and maize, respectively, and positive charge (>15 mV), exhibit the highest foliar delivery efficiencies into guard cells (100%), extracellular space (90.3%), and chloroplasts (55.8%). Systematic assessments of nanoparticle−plant interactions would lead to the development of NLI models that predict the translocation and distribution of nanomaterials in plants based on their chemical and physical properties.

Sustainable agriculture is a key component of the effort to meet the increased food demand of a rapidly increasing global population. Nano-biotechnology is a promising tool for sustainable agriculture. However, rather than acting as nanocarriers, some nanoparticles (NPs) with unique physiochemical properties inherently enhance plant growth and stress tolerance. This biological role of nanoparticles depends on their physiochemical properties, application method (foliar delivery, hydroponics, soil), and the applied concentration. Here we review the effects of the different types, properties, and concentrations of nanoparticles on plant growth and on various abiotic (salinity, drought, heat, high light, and heavy metals) and biotic (pathogens and herbivores) stresses. The ability of nanoparticles to stimulate plant growth by positive effects on seed germination, root or shoot growth, and biomass or grain yield is also considered. The information presented herein will allow researchers within and outside the nano-biotechnology field to better select the appropriate nanoparticles as starting materials in agricultural applications. Ultimately, a shift from testing/utilizing existing nanoparticles to designing specific nanoparticles based on agriculture needs will facilitate the use of nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture.