Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Advanced Biotechnology logoLink to Advanced Biotechnology
. 2025 Apr 28;3(2):14. doi: 10.1007/s44307-025-00067-7

Advances in silica nanoparticles for agricultural applications and biosynthesis

Fei Li 1, Yuxi Hou 1,2, Lu Chen 1,2, Yimin Qiu 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC12034607  PMID: 40289240

Abstract

Nanotechnology has emerged as a revolutionary force in modern agriculture, opening new avenues for crop enhancement and sustainable farming practices. This review systematically evaluates the roles of silica nanoparticles (SiO2 NPs) in agricultural applications, with particular emphasis on their biosynthesis pathways and functional mechanisms. SiO2 NPs have demonstrated considerable potential to enhance crop resilience against both biotic (pathogens, pests) and abiotic (heavy metals, salinity, drought) stresses through phytohormonal regulation, defense gene activation, and metabolic modulation. As nanocarriers, these particles enhance pesticide and fertilizer delivery accuracy, reduce environmental contamination, and promote plant growth. Biosynthesis methods of SiO2 NPs range from conventional physical–chemical techniques to eco-friendly green approaches, including the utilization of biological cells/extracts, natural biomaterials, and peptide templates. Although green synthesis offers sustainability advantages, the agricultural adoption of SiO2 NPs faces critical challenges, such as insufficient understanding of their long-term environmental persistence and ecotoxicological impacts, high production costs related to green synthesis, and incomplete regulatory frameworks. Addressing these challenges is essential to enable their broader use in agriculture.

Keywords: Nanotechnology, SiO2 NPs, Agricultural applications, Biosynthesis, Stress resistance

Introduction

Global agricultural development faces unprecedented challenges due to escalating food demand driven by population growth and climate change-induced adversities. These challenges manifest in three critical areas: (1) biotic stress, where pathogens (bacteria, fungi, viruses) and pests threaten crop health, leading to 10%–40% annual yield losses in major crops (e.g., wheat, rice, maize) ‌and quality degradation (Fu et al. 2020; Savary et al. 2019); (2) abiotic stresses, with droughts, salinity, and extreme temperatures reducing crop productivity by over 50% under conventional farming practices (Rakkammal et al. 2022); and (3) environmental degradation‌, exemplified by soil acidification (e.g., pH of the surface soil in the Chengdu Plain of China decreased by 1.2 units during 1980 s–2010 s) and water eutrophication caused by excessive agrochemical use (Adisa et al. 2019; Li et al. 2020).

Nanotechnology has emerged as a revolutionary paradigm to address these challenges. Silicon (Si), constituting ~ 26% of Earth's crust, plays an essential role in plant physiology as a beneficial element (Guntzer et al. 2012). Among its various forms, silica nanoparticles (SiO2 NPs) are nanoscale materials with diameters between 1–100 nm. Reduced particle size sharply increases their specific surface area, triggering a surface-interface effect (Rastogi et al., 2019). This enhances surface-active sites and chemical reactivity (Yan et al. 2024). Moreover, smaller particle sizes enable SiO2 NPs to penetrate plant cell walls and organelles, facilitating direct interaction with cellular components (Pan et al., 2023). These properties establish SiO2 NPs as versatile platforms for agricultural innovation.

Recent studies ‌demonstrate‌ the remarkable potential of SiO2 NPs as precision-engineered solutions in agriculture. They ‌exhibit exceptional efficacy in combating biotic and abiotic stresses in plants, achieved through induction of defense responses, suppression of phytopathogens, and enhancement of stress tolerance via various physiological mechanisms (Cáceres et al. 2019; Verma et al. 2022). As intelligent carriers‌, these nanomaterials revolutionize pesticide/fertilizer delivery by improving payload utilization efficiency and minimizing environmental contamination (Kong et al., 2021, Mathur & Roy, 2020). Advances in green synthesis protocols further strengthen‌ their sustainability profile, offering eco-friendly alternatives to conventional chemical synthesis (Bazzi et al. 2023).

Despite their broad potential, the agricultural application of SiO2 NPs remains constrained by several critical challenges spanning environmental, economic, and regulatory domains. Environmentally, uncertainties regarding degradation kinetics, bioaccumulation patterns, and interactions with co-pollutants pose risks to non-target organisms and overall ecosystems stability (Yadav et al. 2022). Economically, the high production costs, driven by energy-intensive conventional synthesis methods and resource-demanding biosynthetic routes, along with low conversion efficiency and inconsistent batch quality, impede commercial scalability. Regulatory heterogeneity further complicates global deployment, with divergent definitions, risk assessment frameworks, and certification requirements across regions (Kumari et al. 2023).

This review systematically evaluates three critical dimensions of SiO2 NPs in agriculture: (1) their applications in crop protection, nutrient management, and stress alleviation; (2) the molecular mechanisms underlying their bioactivity; and (3) innovations in sustainable production technologies. The analysis ‌provides actionable insights for optimizing SiO2 NP-based interventions to advance precision agriculture and sustainable cropping systems. Furthermore, the review critically examines implementation challenges, including environmental risk quantification, cost-efficient scale-up strategies, and international regulatory harmonization, and proposes suggestions for future research priorities in sustainable nanopesticide development.

Applications of SiO2 NPs in agriculture

Modern agricultural systems face dual challenges of intensifying environmental stressors and inefficient agrochemical utilization, both of which directly impair crop growth, reduce yields, and exacerbate pollution. SiO2 NPs have emerged as multifunctional solutions to these issues, enhancing crop resilience while optimizing resource-use efficiency, thereby advancing‌ sustainable agriculture (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Application of SiO2 NPs in agriculture

Role in coping with crop biotic stresses

SiO2 NPs conferring resistance to plant pathogens

Upon application, SiO2 NPs penetrate root cell walls, diffuse through plasmodesmata, and are transported to aerial plant tissues, such as stems and leaves, via the xylem. These nanoparticles exist in various aggregation states (e.g., phytoliths and amorphous silica deposits) and function as biostimulants, triggering systemic defense responses against pathogens (Mathur & Roy, 2020). Evidence has shown their efficacy in diverse crops, including rice, wheat, carrot, mango, sorghum, and tomato, with reported reductions in disease index ranging from 60 to 87% (Debona et al. 2017, JUNIOR et al., 2019, Ahamad & Siddiqui 2021). For instance, SiO2 NPs suppress major rice diseases, such as sheath blight, blast, brown spot, leaf blight, stem rot, and grain discoloration (Gabr et al., 2017, Du et al. 2022). They control root rot, leaf spot, rust, and powdery mildew in vegetables like cucumbers and peas, as well as in sugarcane and wheat (Souri et al. 2021). Additionally, SiO2 NPs mitigate early blight in tomato caused by Alternaria solani, bacterial necrosis in mango roots caused by Pseudomonas syringae, and anthracnose in sorghum caused by Colletotrichum sublineolum (Resende et al. 2013, Derbalah et al. 2018, Gutiérrez‐Barranquero et al., 2012).

The mechanisms by which SiO2 NPs confer resistance to plant pathogens involve both physical and biochemical processes. Physically, SiO2 NPs accumulate in epidermal tissues and form silica-bilayer complexes by cross-linking with hemicellulose in cell walls, blocking pathogen invasion (Luyckx et al. 2017). Biochemically, SiO2 NPs bind to receptors on plant cell surfaces, initiating signal transduction cascades that activate host defense mechanisms. These responses include the upregulation of defense-related enzymes (e.g., 1,3-beta-glucanase, peroxidase, chitinase, glutathione reductase, lipoxygenase, polyphenol oxidase, and phenylalanine lyase) and synthesis of antimicrobial compounds like phenols, flavonoids, diterpenoids, and other plant antibiotics. Simultaneously, SiO2 NPs modulate key hormone signaling pathways, including salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) pathways (Wang et al. 2017, Kandhol et al., 2022). Such integrated defense responses were evidenced in tomato trials against Ralstonia solanacearum, where SiO2 NPs treatment resulted in a 1.79–2.58-fold increase in peroxidase (POD) activity, a 1.46–1.52-fold elevation in superoxide dismutase (SOD), and 1.59–1.64-fold increase in catalase (CAT) enzyme activities, along with upregulation of PR- 1, PR- 5, and PAL genes associated with SA signaling in tomato leaves (Wang et al. 2022).

SiO2 NPs conferring resistance to pests

SiO2 NPs exhibit broad-spectrum insecticidal activity and are increasingly employed‌ to combat pest pressures in agriculture. When applied to the cuticles of insects or their larvae, the nanoparticles adsorb onto lipid layers, interfering with spiracular gas exchange and tracheal contraction rhythms, leading to respiratory disorders. Alternatively, the nanoparticles may abrade the epicuticular wax layer, causing dehydration-induced mortality (Barik et al. 2008). Following ingestion, they may physically damage the digestive tract or generate free radicals via siloxane bond cleavage, disrupting insect metabolism and exerting an indirect insecticidal effect (Ayoub et al. 2017). Notably, their physical mode of action circumvents conventional pesticide resistance mechanisms.

Rouhani et al. (2012) reported‌ that SiO2 NPs achieved LC50 values of 1.03 g/kg (larvae) and 0.68 g/kg (adults) against the cowpea seed beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus). Field trials by‌ Thabet et al. (2021) demonstrated 100% population reduction for cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis), aphid (Aphis craccivora) and Liriomyza trifolii on faba beans using 75–425 mg/L SiO2 NPs within 7–15 days, with aphids showing the highest susceptibility‌. Additionally‌, Elsadany et al. (2015) ‌observed‌ a sigmoidal dose–response in SiO2 NPs'acaricidal activity against the spider mite (Tetranychus cucurbitacearum), achieving 78.91% mortality at 450 ppm.

The insecticidal efficacy of SiO2 NPs is critically influenced by‌ their physicochemical properties. Size-dependent toxicity was evident in the rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae), where 15–30 nm particles induced 97% mortality versus 23% for 100–400 nm particles at 2 g/kg (Debnath et al., 2011). Morphological engineering via surfactant templates significantly enhanced their bioactivity. SiO2 NPs synthesized using Triton X- 100, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) exhibited 96.6%, 93.3%, and 90.0% mortality in Spodoptera littoralis, ‌respectively, while commercial SiO2 material showed no entomotoxic effects within the first 3 days (Ayoub et al. 2017). Surface functionalization with‌ 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane (MPTMS) ‌and‌ hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) ‌increased‌ larval mortality in cabbage armyworm (Spodoptera litura) to 64% and 58% within 24 h, ‌likely through enhanced lipid adsorption (Debnath et al. 2012).

Role in coping with crop abiotic stresses

Heavy metal stress

Heavy metal stress exerts detrimental effects on plants by suppressing growth, disrupting photosynthesis, and inducing oxidative damage via the overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Ghori et al. 2019). SiO2 NPs mitigate‌ these impacts ‌through multi-level defense modulation‌. At the photosynthetic level, they enhance‌ chlorophyll and carotenoid accumulation, improving‌ photosynthetic capacity under metal stress (Okeke et al. 2023). At the antioxidant defense level, SiO2 NPs boost antioxidant enzyme activities (e.g., SOD, POD, CAT, ascorbate peroxidase (APX)), and promote the accumulation of antioxidant substances like glutathione (GSH). These effects enable plants to scavenge excessive ROS, mitigate heavy metal-induced oxidative stress (Roy et al. 2025). Additionally, they regulate genes involved in heavy metal transport, such as inhibiting OsHMA2 and OsHMA3 in rice, as well as ST1 and MT in Brassica napus, thereby reducing metal uptake and accumulation (Kim et al. 2014; Huang et al. 2024).

These mechanisms synergistically enhance‌ plant resilience. For instance, Ahmed et al. (2023) demonstrated that SiO2 NPs alleviated cadmium (Cd) stress in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) by increasing photosynthetic efficiency. SiO2 NPs-treated rapeseed exhibited 31.8% higher chlorophyll content and 38% improved net photosynthetic rate under Cd stress. Meanwhile, SiO2 NPs reduced oxidative stress through the activation of antioxidant enzymes (19.1% increase in SOD, 33.4% in POD, 14.4% in CAT, and 33.8% in APX), thereby lowering ROS generation. Moreover, SiO2 NPs treatment decreased Cd translocation by 25.4% in roots and 33.3% in shoots.

Similarly, Saadony et al. (2021) reported that 5.0 mM SiO2 NPs induced dose-dependent increases in chlorophyll (by 12.3%) and carotenoid (by 16.5%) levels in common bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown on Cd–Pb-Ni contaminated soil. The nanoparticles induced 40.9%–178% increase in enzymatic antioxidants (SOD, POD, CAT, APX) and non-enzymatic antioxidants (proline), reducing bioavailable metals by 31%–58%, while increasing dry weight by 22.5% and shoot length by 21.8%.

Salt stress

Salt stress induces multifaceted plant homeostasis disruption ‌via‌ osmotic imbalance and ion toxicity, compromising photosynthesis, enzymatic catalysis, and hormonal regulation. ROS overproduction further exacerbates oxidative damage to cellular macromolecules, including lipids, proteins, and DNA, thereby hindering plant growth and development, which may ultimately reduce crop yields (Ondrasek et al. 2022).

SiO2 NPs mitigate‌ salt stress ‌through dual protective mechanisms‌. Morphologically, SiO2 NPs ‌enhance‌ cell wall thickness ‌and‌ mechanical strength ‌by‌ epidermal deposition, effectively counteracting osmotic pressure and water loss (Dhiman et al. 2021). This structural modification was evidenced by Avestan et al. (2019), who demonstrated that SiO2 NPs-treated strawberry plants exhibited enhanced epicuticular wax accumulation, reducing water loss under NaCl stress. Metabolically‌, SiO2 NPs stimulate the biosynthesis of osmolytes, such as proline, soluble sugars, and glycine betaine, maintaining intracellular turgor pressure and osmotic balance (Liang et al. 2023). Specifically‌, lentil seedlings treated with SiO2 NPs exhibited significant upregulation of sugar and osmolytes under NaCl stress, correlating with improved water retention capacity and enhanced germination ‌and‌ biomass (Sarkar et al. 2022).

Ion homeostasis regulation by SiO2 NPs involves‌ Na+ influx suppression ‌and‌ K+ selectivity enhancement ‌via‌ membrane transporter modulation (Yin et al. 2016). In salt-stressed cucumbers‌, SiO2 NPs treatment resulted in a 7.2%–34.5% decrease in cytosolic Na+ concentration and a 14%–47.4% increase in K+/Na+ ratio (Alsaeedi et al. 2018). This ion selectivity directly impacts membrane potential stabilization, enzyme activity optimization, and overall metabolic functionality. Similarly‌, Singh et al. (2022) documented that SiO2 NPs alleviated NaCl-induced electrolyte leakage in wheat leaves and roots by up to 26% and 43%, indicating restoration of membrane integrity.

Drought stress

Drought stress ‌induces physiological and biochemical dysregulation in plants by disrupting water balance and metabolic dysfunction. Physiological constraints primarily arise from impaired water uptake and translocation, which lead to stomatal closure to minimize water loss through transpiration. This, in turn, suppresses photosynthetic activity and nutrient assimilation (Seleiman et al. 2021). Concurrently, ROS overproduction overwhelms cellular antioxidant defenses, ‌causing‌ oxidative damage to membranes and biomolecules.

SiO2 NPs demonstrate‌ broad-spectrum drought mitigation across diverse plant species, including cereals (rice, wheat, maize), horticultural plants (tomato), and legumes (broad bean). Their protective mechanisms involve coordinated regulation of water relations and stress-responsive pathways. In experiments, SiO2 NPs enhanced hydraulic conductivity by stimulating root architectural modifications, such as increasing the root length to 2 times, thereby expanding the absorptive surface area (Du et al. 2022). Stomatal aperture modulation further reduced transpiration rates, optimizing water retention capacity (Malik et al. 2021). Additionally, they stabilized thylakoid membranes and elevated chlorophyll biosynthesis: chlorophyll a content was increased by 9.1%–16.7%, and chlorophyll b content was increased by 100%–166.7% under treatment with 900 mg/L SiO2 NPs, ensuring sustained photochemical efficiency under drought (Raza et al. 2023). Biochemically, SiO2 NPs augment osmoregulation by accelerating the accumulation of compatible solutes, particularly proline (increased by 25.7%–133.8%), which collectively lower osmotic potential and maintain turgor pressure (Abdo et al., 2024). Simultaneously, they reinforce the activities of SOD and CAT, and promote the accumulation of non-enzymatic scavengers (e.g., ascorbate, glutathione), effectively neutralizing ROS overproduction and mitigating oxidative injury (Esmaili et al. 2022).

These adaptations demonstrate synergistic enhancement of drought resilience. ‌In broad beans, exposure to 1.5 mM SiO2 NP ‌increased‌ net photosynthetic rate by 18.1%, elevated relative water content by 7.3%, ‌and boosted nutrient uptake by 22.6%–120%, ‌while reducing‌ hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and superoxide radical (O2−) levels by 39% and 16.9% respectively ‌through‌ redox homeostasis regulation (Desoky et al., 2021).

Applications in the fields of pesticides and fertilizers

SiO2 NPs as multifunctional pesticide delivery platforms

SiO2 NPs possess unique physicochemical properties. In particular, mesoporous variants can function as advanced delivery systems for a wide range of agrochemical formulations. Their high surface-area-to-volume ratio, tunable pore architecture, and modifiable surface chemistry facilitate‌ bioactive compounds encapsulation via physisorption, covalent conjugation, or matrix entrapment strategies (Kong et al., 2021). This nano-engineering approach significantly enhances payload stability against environmental degradation while providing spatiotemporal control over active ingredient release kinetics. Notably, SiO2 NPs exhibit‌ broad compatibility with chemical pesticides and biopesticides, offering a unified platform for precision agrochemical delivery.

The prolonged and unsustainable application of conventional chemical pesticides has led to escalating ecotoxicological impacts and environmental contamination. The nano-biointerface characteristics of SiO2 NPs present a transformative solution by facilitating targeted pesticide deposition and translocation within plant tissues, thereby improving their utilization efficiency and reducing residual pesticide runoff. Their nanoscale dimensions (< 200 nm) promote cuticular permeation and stomatal entry, as evidenced by size-dependent translocation efficiency of pyraclostrobin, where 15 nm particles showed 2.5-fold higher pyraclostrobin mobility than 200 nm counterparts in cucumber roots (Xu et al. 2021). Foliar formulations‌ ‌with‌ SiO2 NPs achieved a‌ 89.2% ‌higher‌ rainfastness ‌on‌ cucumber leaves (Zhao et al. 2018). Integration of smart gatekeeper systems with SiO2 NPs enables precise pesticide delivery, further improving pesticide utilization efficiency. Pectin-coated mesoporous SiO2 NPs selectively released prochloraz in response to Magnaporthe oryzae-secreted pectinases, demonstrating prolonged antifungal efficacy (> 14 days) and improved uptake and translocation performance in rice tissues (e.g., the concentration of prochloraz in rice leaves increased by 1.5–7 times after treatment for 3–14 days) (Abdelrahman et al. 2021). These attributes synergistically improve pesticide utilization efficiency while reducing environmental leakage, aligning with sustainable agricultural goals.

Biopesticides (e.g., rotenone, avermectin derivatives and dsRNA) offer environmental advantages but exhibit inherent instability under ambient conditions. For instance, the light-sensitive emamectin benzoate (EB) showed improved photostability (2.25-fold increase) when encapsulated in amino-functionalized rough mesoporous silica nanoparticles coated with poly maleic anhydride (PMA). Notably, this formulation retained 37% insecticidal activity after 21 days, approximately fourfold higher than that of pristine EB (Yu et al. 2024). Amino-functionalized SiO2 NPs complexed with dsRNA targeting Potato virus Y (PVY) coat protein-maintained RNA integrity for 14 days while facilitating systemic silencing of viral replication machinery (Xu et al. 2023b).

Accumulating evidence demonstrates that SiO2 NPs-mediated delivery systems effectively mitigate the intrinsic limitations of both chemical and biopesticides, while exhibiting superior efficacy and sustainability over conventional formulations. The convergence of stimuli-responsive release, enhanced bioavailability, and environmental resilience establishes SiO2 NPs as transformative tools for next-generation crop protection strategies.

Applications in the field of fertilizers

Conventional fertilizer application faces critical inefficiencies, with over 50% of nutrient loss occurring through physicochemical dissipation pathways such as runoff, leaching, and degradation (Liu et al. 2024). This suboptimal nutrient delivery necessitates excessive chemical inputs, exacerbating environmental eutrophication and reducing crop productivity (Zulfiqar et al. 2019). As a transformative nanofertilizer, SiO2 NPs reconfigure nutrient delivery through three synergistic mechanisms: enhanced fertilizer utilization, physiological processes stimulation, and rhizosphere microecology modulation.

SiO2 NPs serve as effective carriers by encapsulating macronutrients (N, P, K) within their porous matrices, decoupling nutrient availability from environmental conditions. This encapsulation improves fertilizer solubility and enables‌ controlled release, ‌reducing‌ application frequency ‌and‌ nutrient loss (Goswami et al. 2022). For example‌, urea-loaded mesoporous SiO2 NPs extended nitrogen release duration by 5 folds compared to conventional formulations (Wanyika et al. 2012). Similarly, N-P-K co-loaded nanocomposites ‌achieved‌ sustained nutrient release over 30 days, whereas‌ conventional fertilizers depleted‌ nutrients within 7 days (Rahman et al., 2024).

Beyond carrier functionality, SiO2 NPs directly enhance‌ plant physiology (Awad-Allah 2023). In cucumber plants, SiO2 NPs application led to increases in plant height (by 29.4%), leaf number (by 50%), and fruit yield (134.8%). They increased cell wall strength and elasticity during growth extension, slowed down Na+ uptake (by 7.65%), increased the K+ uptake (by 111.08%) (Yassen et al., 2017). Furthermore, Roohizadeh et al. (2015) found that 1.5 mM SiO2 NPs increased broad bean germination rate by about 12.5% and hypocotyl length by about 9%, likely through‌ improved plant water status and photosynthetic efficiency.

At the soil-microbe interface, SiO2 NPs act‌ as edaphic conditioners by modifying soil physicochemical parameters. Field studies on maize demonstrated SiO2 NPs significantly enhanced the microbial population in rhizosphere soil, particularly enriching nitrogen-fixing bacteria and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria by around 53.3% and 52%, respectively, as well as increasing soil silica content by 140% (Rangaraj et al. 2014). Foliar application of SiO2 NPs elevated Paenibacillus abundance by 16% at a concentration of 5 mg per plant in pakchoi soil (Tian et al., 2020). Such modifications synergize‌ with microbial diversity ‌to establish‌ nutrient cycling feedback loops, thereby ‌enhancing‌ crop biomass (Sharma & Kumar 2024; Rajput et al. 2021).

Biosynthesis methods of SiO2 NPs

The synthesis of SiO2 NPs is widely explored using traditional physical and chemical methods. However, these conventional approaches ‌require‌ high energy consumption and generate‌ chemical pollutants, which pose challenges to sustainability and environmental protection. ‌Recent advances in biosynthesis methods utilize biological cells or extracts, natural biological materials as precursors, and peptide-mediated biomimetic silicification ‌to achieve‌ resource-efficient ‌and‌ eco-friendly synthesis, ‌thereby addressing‌ the limitations of conventional techniques (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Traditional and biosynthesis methods of SiO2 NPs

Overview of traditional synthesis methods

Physical methods

Mechanical comminution remains‌ a conventional physical synthesis method for SiO2 NPs, utilizing high-energy collisions from ball mills or ultrasonic devices to break bulk silica into nanoscale particles (Stopic et al. 2021). This approach is operationally simple and scalable for industrial applications without complex chemical steps. However, it struggles with precision control, often yielding particles with broad size distributions and irregular morphologies due to uncontrolled fracture dynamics. Additionally, prolonged mechanical processing introduces impurities (such as metallic residues) and causes structural defects, ‌reducing‌ colloidal stability and functional performance. These inherent limitations underscore the need for supplementary techniques to enhance purity and uniformity in mechanically synthesized SiO2 NPs.

Chemical methods

Chemical synthesis routes for SiO2 NPs rely‌ on controlled molecular interactions to engineer‌ tailored nanostructures. Techniques such as microemulsion, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), sol–gel, and precipitation offer varying balances of precision and scalability.

The ‌microemulsion method‌ confines silicon precursor reactions within surfactant-stabilized aqueous nanodroplets (5–50 nm diameter), allowing for precise size control under mild conditions. Nevertheless‌, it ‌demands‌ excessive organic solvents (25–100 L/kg) and multi-step purification, raising environmental and scalability concerns (Finnie et al. 2007).

CVD method uses gas-phase precursors (e.g., SiH4, SiCl4) that decompose or react on heated substrates (800–2000 °C), producing‌ high-purity SiO2 films or nanoparticles with sub-nm thickness uniformity. Despite achieving exceptional crystallinity and monodispersity, CVD requires specialized vacuum systems and energy-intensive thermal cycles, resulting in prohibitive costs for industrial-scale adoption (Silva 2004).

In the ‌sol-gel process‌, silicate esters (such as tetraethyl orthosilicate) undergo hydrolysis and polycondensation in solution to form a porous gel network, which then calcine into high-surface-area SiO2 NPs (100–1000 m2/g). This technique features mild reaction conditions, ease of operation, and the capacity to prepare high-purity SiO2 NPs with large surface areas. However, extended reaction durations (1–7 days) and the risk of irreversible agglomeration during drying stages frequently compromise structural homogeneity, affecting the quality of the final product (Trewyn et al., 2007).

The ‌precipitation method‌ involves the acid-induced gelation of Na2SiO3 solution, followed by filtration and calcination, yielding SiO2 NPs at a relatively low cost. However‌, rapid nucleation in this system often leads to polydisperse particle distributions and the presence of residual ionic impurities, requiring additional purification steps for advanced applications (Jal et al. 2004).

Detailed description of biosynthesis methods

Synthesis using biological cells or extracts

Use of biological cells or extracts for SiO2 NP synthesis emerges‌ as an innovative green approach, leveraging the inherent molecular complexity and enzymatic activities of biological systems. Diverse bioresources, including bacteria, fungi, algae, and plant-derived phytochemicals (such as proteins, polyphenols, terpenoids, and polysaccharides), serve as multifunctional bio-templates or provide redox-active molecules that facilitate nanoparticle formation (Mohanpuria et al. 2008). At the molecular level, specific reductases present in these biological matrices convert‌ silicate precursors (e.g., sodium silicate) into amorphous silica nuclei. Surface-exposed functional groups (-OH, -COOH, -NH2) from biomolecules coordinate with silica nuclei, acting as capping agents around the nanoparticles. These biomolecular functional groups not only stabilize the nanoparticles but also enhance their biocompatibility and overall functionality (Shah et al. 2015).

This bio-mediated process operates under mild conditions, typically at ambient temperature (20–30 °C) and atmospheric pressure, which minimizes energy consumption and eliminates toxic byproducts generation. The resultant SiO2 NPs exhibit intrinsic bioactivity, making them ideal ‌for agricultural applications. For instance, yeast-mediated synthesis ‌produced‌ spherical amorphous nanoparticles (40–70 nm) ‌at‌ 29 °C, ‌achieving‌ near-zero environmental contamination (Zamani et al. 2020). Bryophyllum pinnatum leaf extract-capped nanoparticles enhanced shoot length and root length of Vigna radiata by‌ 7.5% and 50% respectively ‌at‌ 5 μg/mL, demonstrating‌ their nano-fertilizer potential (Sankareswaran et al. 2022). Systematic cytotoxicity assessments demonstrated the biosafety of SiO2 NPs produced using Pseudomonas fluorescens, Trichoderma atroviride, and Streptomyces griseus. These assessments revealed that zebrafish embryo survival rates were 94% ‌at 125 µg/mL ‌for‌ bio-synthesized nanoparticles, ‌outperforming‌ chemically synthesized SiO2 NPs (26.67% survival at‌ 200 µg/mL) (Natesan et al., 2021, Duan et al. 2013).

Synthesis using natural biomaterials as precursors

Silicon-rich biomass-derived synthesis represents a sustainable pathway for SiO2 NPs production. Agricultural and industrial residues such as monocotyledonous crop byproducts (e.g., sorghum, rice husks, corn stalks) and processing wastes (e.g., bamboo leaf ash, sugarcane bagasse), contain silicon contents exceeding 50% by mass, with some species holding silica over 90% (Setiawan & Chiang 2021). Through sequential drying (100–500 °C), alkaline delignification (using 2–5 M NaOH), and mechanical milling (particle sizes of raw materials < 100 μm), these low-cost biological resources are converted into high-purity silica precursors while simultaneously achieving waste valorization.

This biosynthesis approach offers three advantages over conventional chemical methods. Firstly, it utilizes abundant raw materials available at minimal procurement costs. Secondly, it reduces the carbon footprint through circular economy implementation. Thirdly, the resultant nanoparticles often retain biologically active trace elements (e.g., Fe and Zn) that enhance nanoparticle functionality.

Recent studies validate these benefits across multiple systems. Mor et al. (2017) achieved 98.9% pure porous SiO2 NPs with an average diameter of 10–15 nm using rice husk ash-derived precursor. Similarly, Rangaraj et al. (2017) synthesized amorphous SiO2 NPs (diameters of 10–60 nm) from bamboo leaf ash, which maintained > 70% viability in MG- 63 cells at therapeutic concentrations (< 125 mg/L). The integration of waste-to-nanomaterial conversion with green chemistry principles positions this method as a scalable and eco-efficient solution for nanomanufacturing, particularly in applications such as cost-effective adsorbents or drug delivery carriers.

Peptide-mediated synthesis

Peptide-mediated biosilicification has redefined precision control in silica nanotechnology, inspired by the molecular machinery of biosilicification observed in marine diatoms. Central to this approach are silica-forming proteins and peptides (SFPs), which typically exhibit high isoelectric points (pI) and are rich in positively charged amino acids, such as lysine (Lys), arginine (Arg), and histidine (His) (Lim & Jo 2025). A representative example is the R5 peptide (SSKKSGSYSGSKGSKRRIL), a bioengineered variant derived from silaffin proteins originally discovered in Cylindrotheca fusiformis (Kroger et al. 1999).

The R5 peptide enabled rapid silicic acid polycondensation under physiologically benign conditions (pH 7.0–8.0, room temperature), achieving > 90% silica conversion within 5 min (Senior et al. 2015). The resulting SiO2 NPs exhibited superior biocompatibility compared to chemically synthesized counterparts, maintaining 100% viability in mouse fibroblast assays at even 500 μg/mL, whereas conventional nanoparticles induced a 20% decrease in cell viability at concentrations as low as 5 μg/mL (Steven et al. 2014). In addition to the R5 peptide, two other natural SFPs, EctP1 and EctP2, identified from the brown alga Ectocarpus siliculosus, exhibited significantly enhanced silica mineralization capacities, achieving 30% to 300% higher silica precipitation across pH gradients compared to the R5 peptide. Notably, EctP1 demonstrated superior performance under acidic conditions (pH 6), where R5 displayed negligible silicification activity (Yeo et al. 2017). Another multifunctional SFP, lysozyme, combines silica-guiding capability with intrinsic antibacterial properties. Its high basicity and hydroxyl group density facilitate silica condensation, while its enzymatic activity enables bacterial cell wall hydrolysis and subsequent cytolysis. These dual-functional attributes make lysozyme a versatile candidate for agricultural applications requiring simultaneous pathogen control and bioactive silica formation (Macchiagodena et al. 2024).

Recent advancements have expanded this biomimetic principle to multifunctional hybrid material fabrication. Elastin-like polypeptides (ELPs) are a class of artificially synthesized polymers. They exhibit unique properties including thermoresponsiveness, self-assembly, and high elasticity (Guo et al. 2023). ELPs have been conjugated with R5 peptides to fabricate hybrid nanocomposites featuring core–shell architectures. These systems exhibited monodisperse ELP micelles (diameters < 100 nm) with precisely controlled silica shell thickness, demonstrating discrete particle morphology and size uniformity (Han et al. 2015). Moreover, genetic fusion of R5 peptides with structural proteins enables programmable hierarchical assembly. For instance, chimeric R5-spider silk proteins self-assembled into β-sheet-rich architectures, guiding the formation of silica-organic composite films and fibers (Wong Po Foo et al., 2006). Further innovation was exemplified by CsgA-R5 amyloid scaffolds, which self-assembled into self-supporting porous structures (1 cm × 1 cm × (412 ± 15) nm, pore size: ~ 10 μm), through in situ mineralization. These composites exhibited excellent mechanical properties, with a threefold increase in Young's modulus after mineralization (from 4.84 ± 0.46 GPa to 14.16 ± 0.58 GPa) (Li et al., 2021).

This interdisciplinary synthesis platform bridges molecular biology and nanotechnology, providing scalable routes for engineering multifunctional silica composites. The resultant materials demonstrate promising applications in catalysis, environmental remediation, and precision drug delivery.

Comparative analysis and strategic selection of SiO2 NP synthesis methodologies

Contemporary SiO2 NP synthesis methods exhibit distinct technical trajectories shaped by their foundational mechanisms. ‌Physical and chemical approaches‌ (e.g., sol–gel, flame pyrolysis) dominate industrial-scale production, offering rapid reaction kinetics (< a few days synthesis cycles) and precise stoichiometric control (< 30% size variation) (Wu et al. 2013). However, these methods incur substantial sustainability costs due to energy-intensive conditions and significant carbon emissions. The reliance on cytotoxic surfactants like cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) exacerbates environmental risks, with studies showing its toxicity to human osteoblasts and keratinocytes even at a low concentration of 0.2 mM (Carvalho et al. 2022).

Biosynthetic platforms‌ counter these limitations through biologicallly mediated precision. Diatom-derived silaffin peptides achieve ambient-temperature silicification (20–25 °C) with atomic-level replication of pore structures. These systems offer significant environmental advantages, such as agricultural waste valorization (e.g., extracting silica from rice husks at a cost of about $1.33/kg), which simultaneously reduces production costs and environmental burdens (Nandiyanto et al. 2020). The genetic programmability of biomolecular templates further allows modular material engineering. For instance, the R5 peptide can be fused with other proteins (e.g., CsgA and spider silk proteins) via genetic engineering, which is a feature unattainable through traditional synthesis. For cell-based or extractive biosynthesis, process optimization and bioreactor engineering represent critical scalability determinants. Automated continuous-flow bioreactors integrating real-time monitoring systems enable synchronized cultivation of biosynthetic agents (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae engineered for SiO2 NP synthesis), nanoparticle production, and downstream applications like nutrient recovery from agricultural runoff (Ali et al. 2024).

Despite the notable advantages of biosynthetic approaches, their agricultural implementation requires careful evaluation of scalability and economic feasibility. For instance, in the case of synthesis using biological cells or extracts, process optimization and bioreactor design represent critical scalability determinants. Automated continuous-flow bioreactors equipped with real-time monitoring systems enable synchronized cultivation of biosynthetic agents, nanoparticle production, and downstream processes (such as wastewater treatment), thus improving production efficiency and reducing operational costs (Ali et al. 2024). In contrast, approaches employing natural biomaterials prioritize feedstock accessibility and pretreatment efficiency. Agricultural residues, such as rice husks, can either undergo localized preprocessing or be transported to centralized facilities for further treatment. Optimization of pretreatment processes, such as drying, alkaline delignification, and mechanical milling, is essential to minimize energy input and overall production cost (Malpani & Goyal 2023). Peptide-mediated synthesis, which is based on the principles of genetic engineering, also holds considerable potential for industrial scalability. For example, through synthetic biology techniques, microbial cell factories can be engineered to express SFPs and cultured in large-scale fermenters, enabling efficient and cost-effective mass production.

The selection of an appropriate synthesis method for SiO2 NPs requires a multidimensional evaluation. ‌Agriculture-centric applications‌ favor biosynthesis for enhanced soil compatibility and smart delivery capabilities, while industrial manufacturing retains physical and chemical methods for scalability (> 10,000 ton/year throughput). Hybrid systems that integrate electrochemistry or microwave activation with traditional chemical methods are emerging as promising solutions. These systems prove to be capable of improving synthesis efficiency, slashing reaction times from several hours to dozens of minutes, and enabling precise size (20–500 nm) and morphology control (mesoporous or non-mesoporous) through parameter modulation (Ding & Su 2015, Díaz de Greñu et al., 2020, Snoussi et al. 2018).

Challenges in the agricultural application of SiO2 NPs‌

The integration of SiO2 NPs into agricultural systems confronts multidimensional challenges that demand strategic interventions to ensure their sustainable and safe implementation. This section critically analyzes three key barriers and outlines actionable pathways for advancement.

Environmental safety concerns

The agricultural application of SiO2 NPs raises significant environmental concerns that require comprehensive investigation. Although SiO2 NPs demonstrate potential for enhancing crop productivity, their environmental fate and ecosystem interactions remain poorly characterized (Wang et al. 2016). Critical knowledge gaps persist in their degradation kinetics and bioaccumulation pathways, which could inadvertently pose risks to non-target organisms.

In soil environments, most engineered nanomaterials can interact with co-existing contaminants, which often lead to antagonism, reducing contaminant concentrations in crops (Zuverza-Mena & White 2018). Depending on the species characteristics and exposure conditions, these co-contaminant interactions may also promote the transfer of organic pollutants from soil to edible plant parts, causing their accumulation in the food chainand subsequent adverse health effects (Wu et al. 2018). SiO2 NPs exhibit bidirectional regulatory effects on pollutant mobility, showing potential to reduce transport of certain contaminants while enhancing others. For instance, the addition of 10 mg SiO2 NPs per 8 g soil increased the adsorption of rac-metalaxyl in agricultural soil by ~ 120%, while simultaneously weakening its fluidity (Huang et al. 2017). Similarly, SiO2 NPs reduced Cd leaching ability by 36.0% and bioavailability by 54.3%, and caused a maximum 61.9% decrease in Cd accumulation in wheat grains (Wang et al. 2020). Contrary to these findings, a recent investigation demonstrated that SiO2 NPs enhanced the removal efficiency of persistent organic pollutants including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) through phytoremediation mediated by Sedum spectabile, achieving 2.1- and 3.4-fold increases in dissipation rates respectively (Liu et al. 2023). These contradictory outcomes underscore the necessity for risk-centric evaluations to be complemented with context-specific application strategies that account for pollutant physicochemical properties and nanomaterial-bioenvironment interactions.

Bioaccumulation across trophic levels emerges as another critical challenge. Current evidence suggests that nanoparticles may translocate from soil to crops (e.g., translocation factor of Zn nanoparticles from rice roots to shoots up to 1.5) and the aquatic environments, eventually entering the food chain (Maharramov et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2020). These biomagnification dynamics underscore chronic exposure concerns, particularly as recent mechanistic studies reveal that SiO2 NPs induce subcellular perturbations including oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and autophagy impairment upon cellular internalization. Such disturbances disrupt cellular homeostasis through multiple signaling cascades, ultimately leading to programmed cell death. Of particular significance is their capacity to induce DNA damage, a critical hallmark of genotoxicity that exacerbates long-term health risks (Ding et al. 2023).

Ecotoxicological assessments demonstrate concentration-dependent toxicity patterns, with the concentration reported to cause toxic effects spanning six orders of magnitude (ranging from 0.01–1000 mg/L) across species (Andrade et al. 2023; Abdel-Latif et al. 2021; Manzo et al. 2015). Algae, bacteria, and fish embryos exhibited higher tolerance (EC50 > 20 mg/L in most studies), attributed to protective cell walls/chorion. In contrast, fish, bivalves, and insects displayed greater susceptibility, with EC50 values below 1 mg/L under specific exposure conditions (Book & Backhaus 2022). Comparative toxicity assessments reveal pronounced interspecies differences in SiO2 NP responses. Zebrafish embryos and larvae tolerated 200 mg/L SiO2 NPs (diameters of 60–200 nm) for 96 h without mortality, whereas Danio rerio adults showed significant reproductive dysfunction at 15 μg/L SiO2 NPs (35 nm diameter) through 28-day exposure, evidenced by 28.1% fecundity reduction and 20% antioxidant enzyme (SOD/CAT) induction (Fent et al. 2010; Rashidian et al. 2023). Nevertheless, substantial uncertainties persist regarding human bioaccumulation patterns and dose–response relationships, primarily due to the absence of longitudinal human biomonitoring data and population-level health outcome assessments. This knowledge deficit hinders the establishment of species-specific extrapolation models, particularly for nanomaterials demonstrating nonlinear toxicokinetics in aquatic organisms.

Furthermore, surface-functionalized SiO2 NPs, designed to improve agricultural efficacy, may introduce additional complexity: exhibit distinct environmental behaviors compared to pristine SiO2 NPs, such as dispersion and aggregation in environmental media, uptake, distribution, and toxicity in organisms (Liu & Sayes 2022). These modifications could affect their persistence, bioavailability, and interaction with biological systems, necessitating separate risk assessments and regulatory frameworks.

Economic viability and scalability barriers

The translation of SiO2 NPs from laboratory synthesis to agricultural deployment faces critical economic and scalability barriers rooted in production paradigms. Conventional methods like CVD, sol–gel processes, and mechanical comminution, require energy-intensive conditions (e.g., 800–1200 °C for CVD), platinum catalysts, and costly precursors, resulting in exorbitantly costly agricultural use. Biosynthetic routes leveraging agricultural waste, such as rice husk silica extraction ($1.33–8.13/kg raw material cost), demonstrate theoretical sustainability but face translational bottlenecks (Nandiyanto et al. 2020). The extraction and purification of SiO2 NPs synthesized from biological matrices require the identification of inexpensive biological resources and the development of scalable extraction protocols, which are often resource-intensive. Furthermore, downstream processing steps, such as ultracentrifugation and lyophilization, further increase costs, while low silica conversion efficiency and batch-to-batch inconsistency continue to hinder industrial adoption. In addition to these challenges, structural inconsistencies in the derived nanoparticles, evidenced by a polydispersity index (PDI) > 0.2, compromise their performance in precision agricultural applications (Uda et al., 2021).

To make SiO2 NPs economically viable for agricultural use, significant advancements are needed in the optimization of biosynthesis processes, automation, and cost reduction strategies. Only through these advancements can SiO2 NPs become a commercially feasible and widely adopted solution in agricultural practices.

Regulatory fragmentation

The regulatory fragmentation surrounding SiO2 NPs presents significant challenges to their global agricultural deployment, with divergent risk assessment paradigms and inconsistent governance frameworks exacerbating implementation challenges. Current regulations exhibit marked regional disparities in definitions, risk classification, and testing protocols. For instance, the European Union requires detailed toxicological data submissions under REACH regulations (Hunt et al., 2025), whereas the U.S. EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) lacks standardized nanoscale characterization criteria (Kumari et al. 2023). This regulatory misalignment forces multinational producers into redundant testing cycles, increasing compliance costs for cross-border market entry.

Disparate risk assessments also persist due to unresolved questions about the bio-nano interactions of SiO2 NPs, particularly their translocation across biological barriers and environmental persistence (Meng et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2023a). Compounding these issues, inconsistent technical standards for particle characterization, emission limits, and environmental monitoring impede cross-border regulatory alignment (López-Serrano et al., 2014).

Efforts to establish global governance frameworks emphasize three synergistic pathways. First, international coordination mechanisms are emerging through initiatives like the OECD's standardized toxicity testing protocols and UNEP's Global Chemicals Outlook, which aim to unify chemical inventories and data-sharing platforms (Carnesecchi et al. 2023). Second, advancing foundational research on the structure–property correlations of SiO2 NPs is essential, as it provides critical insights for evidence-based policymaking (Tkachenko et al. 2020). Finally, public–private partnerships are driving technological innovations, such as green synthesis methods for SiO2 NPs and industry-led environmental standards in construction materials, which help bridge regulatory gaps through voluntary compliance (Karande et al., 2021, Lee et al. 2010).

These strategies collectively address the dual imperatives of enabling the rapid advancement of nanotechnology while mitigating unintended health and ecological impacts through science-driven, adaptive governance.

Conclusions and future perspectives

In conclusion, SiO2 NPs demonstrate multifunctional potential in agricultural innovation through their dual capacity to enhance crop stress resilience and enable precision agrochemical delivery. Their biosynthetic production pathways offer environmentally sustainable alternatives to conventional synthesis methods, though critical challenges persist in environmental safety assessment, cost-effective scale-up, and global regulatory alignment. The current fragmented policy landscape continues to hinder standardized commercialization pathways across jurisdictions.

Future progress necessitates interdisciplinary synergies to simultaneously address environmental, economic, and regulatory challenges. A deeper understanding of their interaction mechanisms with plants, soil microbes, and environmental systems, especially at the molecular level, is essential. It is also important to develop predictive frameworks for environmental impact assessment, which will advance our knowledge of SiO2 NPs ecotoxicity and biogeochemical cycling. To achieve cost-effective scalability and improved agronomic performance, innovative synthesis and application technologies such as hybrid synthesis methods and smart agricultural uses should be prioritized. Moreover, fostering international cooperation in data sharing, resources integration, and the establishment of unified regulations is imperative. Building global consensus on nano-agriculture governance will play a pivotal role in ensuring the responsible and sustainable deployment of silica nanoparticles in agricultural systems. By addressing these challenges, SiO2 NPs technologies may ultimately catalyze a transformative shift toward sustainable and precision-driven agricultural systems, balancing productivity demands with ecological stewardship.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

Fei Li: Writing-Conceptualization, Writing original draft. Yuxi Hou: Data curation. Lu Chen: Data curation. Yimin Qiu: Data curation, Supervision, Writing-Revising original draft.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32302446), the Key Research and Development Program of Hubei Province (2024BBB064), Wuhan Knowledge Innovation Special Project'Dawning Program'(2023020201020433), Youth Science Fund Project of Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2024NKYJJ34).

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors approved the final manuscript and the submission to this journal.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Abdel-Latif HMR, Shukry M, El Euony OI, Mohamed Soliman M, Noreldin AE, Ghetas HA, et al. Hazardous effects of SiO2 nanoparticles on liver and kidney functions, histopathology characteristics, and transcriptomic responses in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Juveniles. Biology. 2021;10(3):183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdelrahman TM, Qin X, Li D, Senosy IA, Mmby M, Wan H, et al. Pectinase-responsive carriers based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles for improving the translocation and fungicidal activity of prochloraz in rice plants. Chem Eng J. 2021;404:126440. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdo RA, Hazem MM, El-Assar AEM, Saudy HS, El-Sayed SM. Efficacy of nano-silicon extracted from rice husk to modulate the physio-biochemical constituents of wheat for ameliorating drought tolerance without causing cytotoxicity. Beni-Suef U J Basic. 2024;13(1):75. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adisa IO, Pullagurala VLR, Peralta-Videa JR, Dimkpa CO, Elmer WH, Gardea-Torresdey JL, et al. Recent advances in nano-enabled fertilizers and pesticides: a critical review of mechanisms of action. Environ Sci: Nano. 2019;6(7):2002–30. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ahamad L, Siddiqui ZA. Effects of silicon dioxide, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on Meloidogyne incognita, Alternaria dauci and Rhizoctonia solani disease complex of carrot. Exp Parasitol. 2021;230:108176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ahmed T, Masood HA, Noman M, Al-Huqail AA, Alghanem SM, Khan MM, et al. Biogenic silicon nanoparticles mitigate cadmium (Cd) toxicity in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) by modulating the cellular oxidative stress metabolism and reducing Cd translocation. J Hazard Mater. 2023;459:132070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ali SAK, Abudi ZN, Abbas MN, Alsaffar MA, Ibrahim TA. Synthesis of nano-silica particles using eucalyptus globulus leaf extract and their innovative application as an adsorbent for malachite green dye. Russ J Appl Chem. 2024;97(1):75–87. [Google Scholar]
  8. Alsaeedi A, El-Ramady H, Alshaal T, El-Garawani M, Elhawat N, Al-Otaibi A. Exogenous nanosilica improves germination and growth of cucumber by maintaining K+/Na+ ratio under elevated Na+ stress. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2018;125:164–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Andrade VS, Ale A, Municoy S, Bacchetta C, Desimone MF, Gutierrez MF, et al. Nanosilica size-dependent toxicity in Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Cladocera). Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023;102:104238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Avestan S, Ghasemnezhad M, Esfahani M, Byrt CS. Application of nano-silicon dioxide improves salt stress tolerance in strawberry plants. Agronomy. 2019;9(5):246. [Google Scholar]
  11. Awad-Allah EF. Effectiveness of silica nanoparticle application as plant nano-nutrition: a review. J Plant Nutr. 2023;46(11):2763–76. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ayoub HA, Khairy M, Rashwan FA, Abdel-Hafez HF. Synthesis and characterization of silica nanostructures for cotton leaf worm control. J Nanostruct Chem. 2017;7:91–100. [Google Scholar]
  13. Barik T, Sahu B, Swain V. Nanosilica-from medicine to pest control. Parasitol Res. 2008;103:253–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bazzi L, Hesemann P, Laassiri S, El Hankari S. Alternative approaches for the synthesis of nano silica particles and their hybrid composites: synthesis, properties, and applications. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2023;20(10):11575–614. [Google Scholar]
  15. Book F, Backhaus T. Aquatic ecotoxicity of manufactured silica nanoparticles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2022;806:150893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cáceres M, Vassena CV, Garcerá MD, Santo-Orihuela PL. Silica nanoparticles for insect pest control. Curr Pharm des. 2019;25(37):4030–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Carnesecchi E, Langezaal I, Browne P, Batista-Leite S, Campia I, Coecke S, et al. OECD harmonised template 201: structuring and reporting mechanistic information to foster the integration of new approach methodologies for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 2023;142:105426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Carvalho GC, Marena GD, Karnopp JCF, Jorge J, Sábio RM, Martines MAU, et al. Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide in the synthesis of mesoporous silica nanoparticles: General aspects and in vitro toxicity. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2022;307:102746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Debnath N, Das S, Seth D, Chandra R, Bhattacharya SC, Goswami A. Entomotoxic effect of silica nanoparticles against Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J Pest Sci. 2011;84:99–105. [Google Scholar]
  20. Debnath N, Mitra S, Das S, Goswami A. Synthesis of surface functionalized silica nanoparticles and their use as entomotoxic nanocides. Powder Technol. 2012;221:252–6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Debona D, Rodrigues FA, Datnoff LE. Silicon’s role in abiotic and biotic plant stresses. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2017;55:85–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Derbalah A, Shenashen M, Hamza A, Mohamed A, El Safty S. Antifungal activity of fabricated mesoporous silica nanoparticles against early blight of tomato. Egypt J Basic Appl Sci. 2018;5(2):145–50. [Google Scholar]
  23. Desoky ESM, Mansour E, El-Sobky E-SE, Abdul-Hamid MI, Taha TF, Elakkad HA, et al. Physio-biochemical and agronomic responses of faba beans to exogenously applied nano-silicon under drought stress conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2021;12:637783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dhiman P, Rajora N, Bhardwaj S, Sudhakaran SS, Kumar A, Raturi G, et al. Fascinating role of silicon to combat salinity stress in plants: an updated overview. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2021;162:110–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Díaz de Greñu B, de Los Reyes R, Costero AM, Amorós P, Ros-Lis JV. Recent progress of microwave-assisted synthesis of silica materials. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(6):1092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ding L, Su B. An electrochemistry assisted approach for fast, low-cost and gram-scale synthesis of mesoporous silica nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 2015;5(81):65922–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ding R, Li Y, Yu Y, Sun Z, Duan J. Prospects and hazards of silica nanoparticles: Biological impacts and implicated mechanisms. Biotechnol Adv. 2023;69:108277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Du J, Liu B, Zhao T, Xu X, Lin H, Ji Y, et al. Silica nanoparticles protect rice against biotic and abiotic stresses. J Nanobiotechnol. 2022;20(1):197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Duan J, Yu Y, Shi H, Tian L, Guo C, Huang P, et al. Toxic effects of silica nanoparticles on zebrafish embryos and larvae. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. El-Saadony MT, Desoky E-SM, Saad AM, Eid RS, Selem E, Elrys AS. Biological silicon nanoparticles improve Phaseolus vulgaris L. yield and minimize its contaminant contents on a heavy metals-contaminated saline soil. J Environ Sci. 2021;106:1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Elsadany MF, Aboulila AA, Abo-Sein T, Magouz R. Effect of silica nano-particles in control of mite, Tetranychus cucurbitacearum (Sayed) and agronomic traits of soybean plants and qualitative assessment of its genotoxicity using total protein and RAPD analysis. J Agric Chem Biotechnol. 2015;6(11):529–44. [Google Scholar]
  32. Esmaili S, Tavallali V, Amiri B, Bazrafshan F, Sharafzadeh S. Foliar application of nano-silicon complexes on growth, oxidative damage and bioactive compounds of feverfew under drought stress. Silicon. 2022;14(16):10245–56. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fent K, Weisbrod CJ, Wirth-Heller A, Pieles U. Assessment of uptake and toxicity of fluorescent silica nanoparticles in zebrafish (Danio rerio) early life stages. Aquat Toxicol. 2010;100(2):218–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Finnie KS, Bartlett JR, Barbé CJ, Kong L. Formation of silica nanoparticles in microemulsions. Langmuir. 2007;23(6):3017–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fu L, Wang Z, Dhankher OP, Xing B. Nanotechnology as a new sustainable approach for controlling crop diseases and increasing agricultural production. J Exp Bot. 2020;71(2):507–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gabr WE, Hassan AA, Hashem IM, Kalboush ZA. Effect of biogenic silica nanoparticles on blast and brown spot diseases of rice and yield component. J Plant Prod. 2017;8(8):869–76. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ghori N-H, Ghori T, Hayat M, Imadi S, Gul A, Altay V, et al. Heavy metal stress and responses in plants. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2019;16:1807–28. [Google Scholar]
  38. Goswami P, Mathur J, Srivastava N. Silica nanoparticles as novel sustainable approach for plant growth and crop protection. Heliyon. 2022;8(7):e09908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Guntzer F, Keller C, Meunier J-D. Benefits of plant silicon for crops: a review. Agron Sustainable Dev. 2012;32:201–13. [Google Scholar]
  40. Guo Y, Liu S, Jing D, Liu N, Luo X. The construction of elastin-like polypeptides and their applications in drug delivery system and tissue repair. J Nanobiotechnol. 2023;21(1):418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gutiérrez-Barranquero J, Arrebola E, Bonilla N, Sarmiento D, Cazorla FM, De Vicente A. Environmentally friendly treatment alternatives to Bordeaux mixture for controlling bacterial apical necrosis (BAN) of mango. Plant Pathol. 2012;61(4):665–76. [Google Scholar]
  42. Han W, MacEwan SR, Chilkoti A, López GP. Bio-inspired synthesis of hybrid silica nanoparticles templated from elastin-like polypeptide micelles. Nanoscale. 2015;7(28):12038–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Huang J, Liang C, Zhang X. Effects of nano-SiO2 on the adsorption of chiral metalaxyl to agricultural soils. Environ Pollut. 2017;225:201–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Huang Q, Ayyaz A, Farooq MA, Zhang K, Chen W, Hannan F, et al. Silicon dioxide nanoparticles enhance plant growth, photosynthetic performance, and antioxidants defence machinery through suppressing chromium uptake in Brassica napus L. Environ Pollut. 2024;342:123013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hunt N, Kestens V, Rasmussen K, Badetti E, Soeteman-Hernández LG, Oomen AG, et al. Regulatory preparedness for multicomponent nanomaterials: current state, gaps and challenges of REACH. NanoImpact. 2025;37:100538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jal P, Sudarshan M, Saha A, Patel S, Mishra B. Synthesis and characterization of nanosilica prepared by precipitation method. Colloids Surf, A. 2004;240(1–3):173–8. [Google Scholar]
  47. Junior E, Rosas JTF, Damascena AP, Silva MA, Camara GdR, Gonçalves AO, et al. Resistance induction efficiency of silicon dioxide against Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Hortícolas. 2019;13(1):55–63. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kandhol N, Singh VP, Peralta-Videa J, Corpas FJ, Tripathi DK. Silica nanoparticles: the rising star in plant disease protection. Trends Plant Sci. 2022;27(1):7–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Karande SD, Jadhav SA, Garud HB, Kalantre VA, Burungale SH, Patil PS. Green and sustainable synthesis of silica nanoparticles. Nano Environ Eng. 2021;6(2):29. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim YH, Khan AL, Kim DH, Lee SY, Kim KM, Waqas M, et al. Silicon mitigates heavy metal stress by regulating P-type heavy metal ATPases, Oryza sativa low silicon genes, and endogenous phytohormones. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kong XP, Zhang BH, Wang J. Multiple roles of mesoporous silica in safe pesticide application by nanotechnology: a review. J Agric Food Chem. 2021;69(24):6735–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kroger N, Deutzmann R, Sumper M. Polycationic peptides from diatom biosilica that direct silica nanosphere formation. Science. 1999;286(5442):1129–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kumari R, Suman K, Karmakar S, Mishra V, Lakra SG, Saurav GK, et al. Regulation and safety measures for nanotechnology-based agri-products. Front Genome Edit. 2023;5:1200987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee J, Mahendra S, Alvarez PJJ. Nanomaterials in the construction industry: a review of their applications and environmental health and safety considerations. ACS Nano. 2010;4(7):3580–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Li K, Li Y, Wang X, Cui M, An B, Pu J, et al. Diatom-inspired multiscale mineralization of patterned protein–polysaccharide complex structures. Natl Sci Rev. 2021;8(8):nwaa191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Li Q, Li A, Yu X, Dai T, Peng Y, Yuan D, et al. Soil acidification of the soil profile across Chengdu Plain of China from the 1980s to 2010s. Sci Total Environ. 2020;698:134320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Liang Y, Liu H, Fu Y, Li P, Li S, Gao Y. Regulatory effects of silicon nanoparticles on the growth and photosynthesis of cotton seedlings under salt and low-temperature dual stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2023;23(1):504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lim GT, Jo BH. Exploiting silica-binding and silica-forming proteins as versatile tools for one-step enzyme immobilization on siliceous materials. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(3):1304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu JY, Sayes CM. A toxicological profile of silica nanoparticles. Toxicol Res. 2022;11(4):565–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu J, Wang Y, Wang M, Feng X, Liu R, Xue Z, et al. Improving the uptake of PAHs by the ornamental plant Sedum spectabile using nano-SiO2 and nano-CeO2. Sci Total Environ. 2023;870:161808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Liu Y, Zhuang M, Liang X, Lam SK, Chen D, Malik A, et al. Localized nitrogen management strategies can halve fertilizer use in Chinese staple crop production. Nat Food. 2024;5(10):825–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. López-Serrano A, Olivas RM, Landaluze JS, Cámara CJAM. Nanoparticles: a global vision. Characterization, separation, and quantification methods. Potential environmental and health impact. Anal Methods. 2014;6(1):38–56. [Google Scholar]
  63. Luyckx M, Hausman J-F, Lutts S, Guerriero G. Silicon and plants: current knowledge and technological perspectives. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Macchiagodena M, Fragai M, Gallo A, Pagliai M, Ravera E. The role of lysozyme in the formation of bioinspired silicon dioxide. Chem Eur J. 2024;30(38):e202401249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Maharramov A, Hasanova U, Suleymanova I, Osmanova G, Hajiyeva N. The engineered nanoparticles in food chain: potential toxicity and effects. SN Appl Sci. 2019;1(11):1–25. [Google Scholar]
  66. Malik MA, Wani AH, Mir SH, Rehman IU, Tahir I, Ahmad P, et al. Elucidating the role of silicon in drought stress tolerance in plants. Plant Physiol Bioch. 2021;165:187–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Malpani SK, Goyal D. Synthesis, analysis, and multi-faceted applications of solid wastes-derived silica nanoparticles: a comprehensive review (2010–2022). Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(11):28321–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Manzo S, Buono S, Rametta G, Miglietta M, Schiavo S, Di Francia G. The diverse toxic effect of SiO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles toward the marine microalgae Dunaliella tertiolecta. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(20):15941–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mathur P, Roy S. Nanosilica facilitates silica uptake, growth and stress tolerance in plants. Plant Physiol Bioch. 2020;157:114–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Meng H, Leong W, Leong KW, Chen C, Zhao Y. Walking the line: the fate of nanomaterials at biological barriers. Biomaterials. 2018;174:41–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Mohanpuria P, Rana NK, Yadav SK. Biosynthesis of nanoparticles: technological concepts and future applications. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10:507–17. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mor S, Manchanda CK, Kansal SK, Ravindra K. Nanosilica extraction from processed agricultural residue using green technology. J Cleaner Prod. 2017;143:1284–90. [Google Scholar]
  73. Nandiyanto ABD, Ragadhita R, Istadi I. Techno-economic analysis for the production of silica particles from agricultural wastes. Morrocan J Chem. 2020;8(4):2801–18. [Google Scholar]
  74. Natesan K, Ponmurugan P, Gnanamangai BM, Manigandan V, Joy SPJ, Jayakumar C, et al. Biosynthesis of silica and copper nanoparticles from Trichoderma, Streptomyces and Pseudomonas spp. evaluated against collar canker and red root-rot disease of tea plants. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2021;54(1–2):56–85. [Google Scholar]
  75. Okeke ES, Nweze EJ, Ezike TC, Nwuche CO, Ezeorba TPC, Nwankwo CEI. Silicon-based nanoparticles for mitigating the effect of potentially toxic elements and plant stress in agroecosystems: a sustainable pathway towards food security. Sci Total Environ. 2023;898:165446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ondrasek G, Rathod S, Manohara KK, Gireesh C, Anantha MS, Sakhare AS, et al. Salt stress in plants and mitigation approaches. Plants. 2022;11(6):717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Pan W, Zhang H-J, Zhang Y-F, Wang M, Tsui MT-K, Yang L, et al. Silica nanoparticle accumulation in plants: Current state and future perspectives. Nanoscale. 2023;15(37):15079–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Peng C, Tong H, Shen C, Sun L, Yuan P, He M, et al. Bioavailability and translocation of metal oxide nanoparticles in the soil-rice plant system. Sci Total Environ. 2020;713:136662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Rahman RMA, Paraman MP, Christopher SR, Pandian K, Solomon RV, Sevathapandian SK, et al. Molecular docking and controlled release of NPK nanocomposites using mesoporous nanosilica synthesized from rice husk. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2024:1–16. Published online.
  80. Rajput VD, Minkina T, Feizi M, Kumari A, Khan M, Mandzhieva S, et al. Effects of silicon and silicon-based nanoparticles on rhizosphere microbiome, plant stress and growth. Biology. 2021;10(8):791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Rakkammal K, Priya A, Pandian S, Maharajan T, Rathinapriya P, Satish L, et al. Conventional and omics approaches for understanding the abiotic stress response in cereal crops-an updated overview. Plants. 2022;11(21):2852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Rangaraj S, Venkatachalam R. A lucrative chemical processing of bamboo leaf biomass to synthesize biocompatible amorphous silica nanoparticles of biomedical importance. Appl Nanosci. 2017;7:145–53. [Google Scholar]
  83. Rangaraj S, Gopalu K, Rathinam Y, Periasamy P, Venkatachalam R, Narayanasamy K. Effect of silica nanoparticles on microbial biomass and silica availability in maize rhizosphere. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2014;61(6):668–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rashidian G, Mohammadi-Aloucheh R, Hosseinzadeh-Otaghvari F, Chupani L, Stejskal V, Samadikhah H, et al. Long-term exposure to small-sized silica nanoparticles (SiO2-NPs) induces oxidative stress and impairs reproductive performance in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Comp Biochem Physiol c: Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023;273:109715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Rastogi A, Tripathi DK, Yadav S, Chauhan DK, Živčák M, Ghorbanpour M, et al. Application of silicon nanoparticles in agriculture. 3 Biotech. 2019;9:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Raza MAS, Zulfiqar B, Iqbal R, Muzamil MN, Aslam MU, Muhammad F, et al. Morpho-physiological and biochemical response of wheat to various treatments of silicon nano-particles under drought stress conditions. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Resende R, Rodrigues F, Gomes R, Nascimento K. Microscopic and biochemical aspects of sorghum resistance to anthracnose mediated by silicon. Ann Appl Biol. 2013;163(1):114–23. [Google Scholar]
  88. Roohizadeh G, Majd A, Arbabian S. The effect of sodium silicate and silica nanoparticles on seed germination and growth in the Vicia faba L. Trop Plant Res. 2015;2(2):85–9. [Google Scholar]
  89. Rouhani M, Samih M, Kalantari S. Insecticidal effect of silica and silver nanoparticles on the cowpea seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Col.: Bruchidae). J Entomol Res. 2012;4(4):297–305.
  90. Roy TK, Islam MS, Mahiddin NA, Hossain SA, Biswas T, Antu UB, et al. Application of nanoparticles (NPs) to ameliorate abiotic stress in economically important crop species: a potential review. J Crop Health. 2025;77(1):1–20. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sankareswaran M, Periakaruppan R, Sasivarnam M, Danaraj J, Dhanasekaran S, Abomughaid MM. Bio-fabrication of bio-inspired silica nanomaterials from Bryophyllum pinnatum leaf for agricultural applications. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2022;194(9):4266–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Sarkar MM, Mukherjee S, Mathur P, Roy S. Exogenous nano-silicon application improves ion homeostasis, osmolyte accumulation and palliates oxidative stress in Lens culinaris under NaCl stress. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2022;192:143–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3(3):430–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Seleiman MF, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, et al. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants. 2021;10(2):259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Senior L, Crump MP, Williams C, Booth PJ, Mann S, Perriman AW, et al. Structure and function of the silicifying peptide R5. J Mater Chem B. 2015;3(13):2607–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Setiawan WK, Chiang KY. Crop residues as potential sustainable precursors for developing silica materials: a review. Waste Biomass Valori. 2021;12:2207–36. [Google Scholar]
  97. Shah M, Fawcett D, Sharma S, Tripathy SK, Poinern GEJ. Green synthesis of metallic nanoparticles via biological entities. Materials. 2015;8(11):7278–308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Sharma R, Kumar V. Nano enabled agriculture for sustainable soil. Waste Manage Bull. 2024;2(1):152–61. [Google Scholar]
  99. Silva GA. Introduction to nanotechnology and its applications to medicine. Surg Neurol. 2004;61(3):216–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Singh P, Kumar V, Sharma J, Saini S, Sharma P, Kumar S, et al. Silicon supplementation alleviates the salinity stress in wheat plants by enhancing the plant water status, photosynthetic pigments, proline content and antioxidant enzyme activities. Plants. 2022;11(19):2525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Snoussi Y, Bastide S, Abderrabba M, Chehimi MM. Sonochemical synthesis of Fe3O4@ NH2-mesoporous silica@ Polypyrrole/Pd: A core/double shell nanocomposite for catalytic applications. Ultrason Sonochem. 2018;41:551–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Souri Z, Khanna K, Karimi N, Ahmad P. Silicon and plants: current knowledge and future prospects. J Plant Growth Regul. 2021;40:906–25. [Google Scholar]
  103. Steven CR, Busby GA, Mather C, Tariq B, Briuglia ML, Lamprou DA, et al. Bioinspired silica as drug delivery systems and their biocompatibility. J Mater Chem B. 2014;2(31):5028–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Stopic S, Wenz F, Husovic T-V, Friedrich B. Synthesis of silica particles using ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method. Metals. 2021;11(3):463. [Google Scholar]
  105. Thabet AF, Boraei HA, Galal OA, El-Samahy MF, Mousa KM, Zhang YZ, et al. Silica nanoparticles as pesticide against insects of different feeding types and their non-target attraction of predators. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Tian L, Shen J, Sun G, Wang B, Ji R, Zhao L. Foliar application of SiO2 nanoparticles alters soil metabolite profiles and microbial community composition in the pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) rhizosphere grown in contaminated mine soil. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54(20):13137–46. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Tkachenko T, Yevdokymenko V, Kamenskyh D, Sheludko Y, Povazhnyi V, Kashkovskyi VJAN. Physico-chemical properties of biogenic SiO2 nanoparticles obtained from agriculture residue. Appl Nanosci. 2020;10(12):4617–23. [Google Scholar]
  108. Trewyn BG, Slowing II, Giri S, Chen H-T, Lin VS-Y. Synthesis and functionalization of a mesoporous silica nanoparticle based on the sol–gel process and applications in controlled release. Acc Chem Res. 2007;40(9):846–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Uda MNA, Gopinath SCB, Hashim U, Halim NH, Parmin NA, Afnan Uda MN, et al. Production and characterization of silica nanoparticles from fly ash: conversion of agro-waste into resource. Prep Biochem Biotech. 2021;51(1):86–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Verma KK, Zeng Y, Song X-P, Singh M, Wu K-C, Rajput VD, et al. Nanosilicon: an approach for abiotic stress mitigation and sustainable agriculture. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:1025974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Wang Y, Kalinina A, Sun T, Nowack B. Probabilistic modeling of the flows and environmental risks of nano-silica. Sci Total Environ. 2016;545:67–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wang M, Gao L, Dong S, Sun Y, Shen Q, Guo S. Role of silicon on plant–pathogen interactions. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhan W, Zheng K, Lian M, Zhang C, et al. Long-term stabilization of Cd in agricultural soil using mercapto-functionalized nano-silica (MPTS/nano-silica): a three-year field study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020;197:110600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Wang L, Pan T, Gao X, An J, Ning C, Li S, et al. Silica nanoparticles activate defense responses by reducing reactive oxygen species under Ralstonia solanacearum infection in tomato plants. NanoImpact. 2022;28:100418. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Wanyika H, Gatebe E, Kioni P, Tang Z, Gao Y. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles carrier for urea: potential applications in agrochemical delivery systems. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2012;12(3):2221–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Wong Po Foo C, Patwardhan SV, Belton DJ, Kitchel B, Anastasiades D, Huang J, et al. Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins. P Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103(25):9428–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Wu S-H, Mou C-Y, Lin H-P. Synthesis of mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Chem Soc Rev. 2013;42(9):3862–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Wu X, Wang W, Zhu L. Enhanced organic contaminants accumulation in crops: mechanisms, interactions with engineered nanomaterials in soil. Environ Pollut. 2018;240:51–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Xu Y, Xu C, Huang Q, Cao L, Teng F, Zhao P, et al. Size effect of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on pesticide loading, release, and delivery in cucumber plants. Appl Sci. 2021;11(2):575. [Google Scholar]
  120. Xu D, Ge M, Zong M, Wu C, Chen Z, Zhang Z, et al. Revisiting the impacts of silica nanoparticles on endothelial cell junctions and tumor metastasis. Chem. 2023;9(7):1865–81. [Google Scholar]
  121. Xu X, Yu T, Zhang D, Song H, Huang K, Wang Y, et al. Evaluation of the anti-viral efficacy of three different dsRNA nanoparticles against potato virus Y using various delivery methods. Ecotox Environ Safe. 2023;255:114775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Yadav M, Dwibedi V, Sharma S, George N. Biogenic silica nanoparticles from agro-waste: properties, mechanism of extraction and applications in environmental sustainability. J Environ Chem Eng. 2022;10(6):108550. [Google Scholar]
  123. Yan G, Huang Q, Zhao S, Xu Y, He Y, Nikolic M, et al. Silicon nanoparticles in sustainable agriculture: synthesis, absorption, and plant stress alleviation. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1393458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Yassen A, Abdallah E, Gaballah M, Zaghloul S. Role of silicon dioxide nano fertilizer in mitigating salt stress on growth, yield and chemical composition of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Int J Agric Res. 2017;22:130–5.
  125. Yeo KB, Ki M-R, Park KS, Pack SP. Novel silica-forming peptides derived from Ectocarpus siliculosus. Process Biochem. 2017;58:193–8. [Google Scholar]
  126. Yin L, Wang S, Tanaka K, Fujihara S, Itai A, Den X, et al. Silicon-mediated changes in polyamines participate in silicon-induced salt tolerance in Sorghum bicolor L. Plant, Cell Environ. 2016;39(2):245–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Yu Y, Song F, Yang M, Tian S, Ji X, Yu X, et al. Dual-stimuli-responsive silica-based emamectin benzoate nanodelivery system for effective control of Spodoptera frugiperda and safety assessment toward Microplitis manilae. Chem Eng J. 2024;497:154998.
  128. Zamani H, Jafari A, Mousavi SM, Darezereshki E. Biosynthesis of silica nanoparticle using Saccharomyces cervisiae and its application on enhanced oil recovery. J Petrol Sci Eng. 2020;190:107002.
  129. Zhao P, Yuan W, Xu C, Li F, Cao L, Huang Q. Enhancement of spirotetramat transfer in cucumber plant using mesoporous silica nanoparticles as carriers. J Agric Food Chem. 2018;66(44):11592–600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Zulfiqar F, Navarro M, Ashraf M, Akram NA, Munné-Bosch S. Nanofertilizer use for sustainable agriculture: advantages and limitations. Plant Sci. 2019;289:110270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Zuverza-Mena N, White JC. Engineered nanomaterials in terrestrial systems: interactions with co-existing contaminants and trophic transfer. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2018;6:60–5. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Articles from Advanced Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES