Table 8.
Antimicrobial activity of some biopolymeric nanocomposites.
| Nanoparticle Matrices | Active Agent | Pathogens | Disease | Characteristics | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag/chitosan nanoformulations | - | Alternaria and Rhizoctonia species | Seed-borne diseases | NPs exhibited inhibition against Aspergillus > Alternaria > Rhizoctonia species | [162] |
| Chitosan nanoparticles LMW/HMW |
Chitosan NPs of different molecular weights |
C. albicans
F. solani Aspergillus niger |
- | Except for HMW, all showed high antimicrobial activity against Aspergillus niger | [157] |
| Cu–chitosan nanoparticles | - | Fusarium greminaerum | - | Inhibited the mycelial growth | [163] |
| Chitosan–Cu nanoparticles | Different concentrations | A. alternata, M. phaseolina, R. solani, and F. oxysporum | - | Chitosan–Cu NPs inhibited the mycelial growth of these fungi | [164] |
| Chitosan–silver nanoparticle composite |
- | Colletotrichum gloeosporioides | Anthracnose mango | Composite inhibited conidial germination of C. gloeosporioides and reduced the anthracnose incidence in mango | [158] |
| Chitosan–copper nanocomposites (Cu/Ch) and chitosan–zinc nanocomposites |
- | A. alternata, R. solani and A. flavus | - | All the fungi showed maximum activity | [165] |
| β-D-glucan nanoparticles | - | Pythium aphanidermatum | Rhizome rot disease of turmeric | About 77% protection against rhizome rot disease was found in NP-treated plants | Anusuya [166] |
| Chitosan–g-acrylonitrile silver nanocomposite | - | Aspergillus niger | - | 18 mm inhibition zone was observed against Aspergillus niger | [167] |
| Chitosan–Cu NPs | - | A. solani, F. oxysporum | Tomato | NPs showed good antimicrobial activity | [168] |
| Cu–chitosan and Zn chitosan NPs | - | Rhizoctonia solani and Trichoderma logibrachiatum | Cotton seedlings damping-off disease | Cu–chitosan nanocomposite showed the highest antifungal activity against R. solani | [169] |
| Chitosan–Ag nanocomposite and chitosan NPs | - | Fusarium oxysporum | - | Chitosan–Ag nanocomposite showed a significantly higher radial growth inhibition than chitosan NPs for all the tested concentrations |
[170] |
| Cu–chitosan nanocomposite | - | R. solani and S. rolfsii | - | Inhibited the growth of both S. rolfsii and R. solani; AG-4 was observed solvent; a loss of the cytoplasm content and destruction in the hyphae was confirmed | [100] |
| Starch nanoparticles | Phenyl and cyclohexyl groups | Phomopsis asparagi, Colletotrichum lagenarium, and Fusarium oxysporum | Watermelon fusarium | Nanoformulation showed good antifungal efficacy | [171] |
| Cu–chitosan | - | Pyricularia grisea | Finger millet | 75% control of the disease | [22] |
| Ch-CuO and Ch-ZnO nanocomposites | Copperoxy-chloride (CuOCl) | Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri (FOC) | Fusarium wilt disease of chickpea | All NPs showed good antifungal efficacy and were found to promote the growth of chickpea plants | [9] |
| Oligochitosan–silica/carboxymethyl cellulose | - | Phytophthora infestans | - | 800 mg/L was the lowest concentration that inhibited fungal growth | [161] |