Silica-based nanopesticides vs. non-nano formulations: a comparative study for sustainable agriculture

Abstract

The use of nanopesticides has emerged as a sustainable alternative to conventional formulations, offering improved delivery and minimized environmental harm. This review critically analyzes 99 peer-reviewed studies from 2016 to 2024, comparing silica-based nanopesticides to their non-nano counterparts in terms of physicochemical properties, efficacy, and environmental performance. Silica-based nanoparticles (SiO₂ NPs), with high surface area, tunable porosity, and excellent biocompatibility, are shown to improve bioavailability, photostability, and controlled-release efficiency. On average, these nanoformulations demonstrate 32% greater pest control efficacy than conventional alternatives. Special attention is given to particle size, polydispersity index (PDI), and responsiveness to external environmental triggers such as pH, temperature, and ultraviolet (UV) exposure. This review also examines the uptake and translocation pathways of silica nanocarriers in plants and their interaction with active ingredients (AIs) at the molecular level. Despite laboratory success, limited field studies and unclear regulatory frameworks restrict their broader application. The porous nature of silica enables high pesticide loading and environmental responsiveness but may also pose long-term accumulation risks. Current definitions of “nanopesticides” based solely on particle size are critically challenged, as many silica-based formulations exceed the 100 nm threshold. Future efforts should prioritize biodegradable silica hybrids, scalable synthesis, and robust, multi-season field validation across diverse agroecological contexts. This review is the first to systematically compare silica-based and non-nano pesticide systems, offering comprehensive insights into performance trade-offs and practical limitations. Our findings highlight the urgent need for interdisciplinary research and harmonized regulatory frameworks to facilitate the safe and effective integration of silica-based nanocarriers into real-world agricultural practice.

---

Yilan Zeng

MSc Yilan Zeng received her MSc degree in Environmental Sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD at the Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, under the supervision of Dr. Martin Motola. Her research focuses on the intersection of materials science and environmental sustainability, with particular interest in the development of functional materials with improved environmental compatibility. Her work aims to support the advancement of safer and more sustainable material systems for real-world environmental applications.

Martin Motola

Dr. Martin Motola, after a 2.5-year postdoctoral fellowship at the Center of Materials and Nanotechnologies, University in Pardubice, Czech Republic, returned to his alma mater, where he is currently working as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, and as a Senior Researcher at the Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University Bratislava, Slovakia. Dr. Martin Motola conducts scientific research in the field of nanostructured inorganic materials with applications in environmental remediation, sustainable agriculture, hydrogen technologies, and energy conversion systems.

---

Environmental significance

The overuse of conventional pesticides poses severe threats to ecosystems and human health. This review addresses the urgent need for safer, more efficient alternatives by critically evaluating silica-based nanopesticides. These nanocarriers offer targeted, stimuli-responsive delivery, significantly reducing off-target contamination and pesticide leaching. The key finding is that silica-based formulations improve pesticide efficiency by an average of 32% over non-nano versions. Although current research is limited, the findings highlight a scalable, environmentally conscious strategy for pest control. By minimizing pesticide overuse while maintaining yield, this approach supports sustainable agriculture and mitigates chemical pollution in soils and waterways.

1. Introduction

Food security is a crucial issue in contemporary society, as it encompasses not only the availability of food, but also its quality and accessibility.^1–7 According to the Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food security is defined as a condition in which all individuals have constant access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary requirements and personal preferences.^8–15 The agricultural industry may face numerous obstacles in the near future as it strives to ensure an adequate food supply for the rapidly growing population, which could reach approximately 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050, and 10.4 billion in 2100.¹⁶ Between 2015 and 2019, the prevalence of undernourishment remained stable at 8.0%, but in 2020, it increased to 9.3% and rose further to 9.8% in 2021, implicating an estimated 702–828 million people (i.e., from 8.9% to 10.5% of the world's population) experiencing hunger in 2021.^{11–13,15,17} It is further projected that by 2030, approximately 670 million individuals (8% of the global population) will continue to suffer from undernourishment.¹⁸ The elimination of hunger remains a significant challenge, necessitating a substantial increase in agricultural productivity to meet the food demands of a growing population.^3,5,7,19

Over the last 50 years, modern agriculture has made remarkable progress driven by the Green Revolution, leading to increased agricultural productivity through the widespread use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.^20–28 Pesticides have become indispensable for crop protection and livestock management because they are cost-effective and efficient.^27,29–32 Despite its potential benefits, the strategy of intensive food production cannot be deemed sustainable at present, as it entails substantial environmental costs, which include detrimental effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,^30,31 significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,^28,30,31,33 and depletion of water resources (Fig. 1).^{6,7,23,26,28,31,34} At the same time, it is difficult to reduce the use of pesticides.^35–39 These methods have enabled farmers to achieve unprecedented higher crop yields,^{26,31,35,36,40} and intensive agriculture relies heavily on pesticides to ensure these high levels that are nowadays necessary due to the global consumption need.^{11,12,14,15,41} Assessing the global usage and impact of pesticides requires accurate data, which are challenging to obtain.^23,42,43 A recent FAO analysis (from 2022) showed that pesticide use plateaued.⁵ However, Shattuck et al. reported new methods for assessing global usage and obtained contradictory results, indicating a continuous increase in pesticide use.²³ The authors pointed out that the previous assessments were significantly underestimated in low- and lower-middle-income countries, where pesticide use grew by 153% over the last decade.²³ These findings highlight the urgent need for alternative methods that can sustain high crop yields while mitigating the impact on human health and the environment.

Fig. 1 Negative effects of traditional pesticides on humans and the environment. Created with https://Biorender.com.

The nanotechnology revolution has brought about significant progress in modern agriculture, as highlighted in several reviews.^44–48 Nanopesticides are primarily prepared via two distinct methods: (i) direct processing of active ingredients (AIs) into nanoparticles (e.g., nano/microemulsions) and (ii) loading of AIs into nanocarriers such as clays, inorganic carbon, and silica.⁴⁹ Among these nanocarrier materials, silica nanoparticles (SiO₂ NPs) seem promising^50,51 due to their large specific surface area, low cost, biocompatibility, and tunable pore size, which allows for high loading capacity.^52,53 SiO₂ NPs hold promise for sustainable agricultural production with particular attention given to the development of stimuli-responsive delivery systems.⁵⁴ In particular, stimuli-responsive nanocarriers have emerged as a promising approach in which pesticide release can be triggered by specific environmental or biological cues.^{46,48,49,53–64} These systems are designed to respond to changes in environmental factors (e.g., pH, temperature, and UV light exposure), enabling on-demand release and improving the precision of pesticide delivery.^61–70 By aligning the release profile with the actual pest presence or plant needs, such intelligent systems can enhance efficacy while reducing off-target exposure and environmental residues.^45,71–74 Besides enhancing delivery efficiency, nanocarriers can also act as active antimicrobial agents.^63,75,76 Some silica-based systems have shown the ability to disrupt microbial membranes or biofilms, which are common defense mechanisms of plant pathogens. Recent reports have suggested that oxidative stress induction, membrane perturbation, and ferroptosis-like cell death can be triggered by nanoparticle–pathogen interactions,^77–81 offering a new perspective on nanopesticide functionality besides conventional direct-release delivery.

The presented review seeks to address the existing gap in the literature by conducting a comprehensive review of 99 key publications from 2016 to 2024, comparing the essential parameters of silica-based nanopesticides with their non-nanoscale counterparts. Despite the increasing use of silica nanoparticles in agriculture, evaluating SiO₂ NPs as nanocarriers for pesticide delivery has been lacking. This review not only aims to provide critical insights into the unique properties and performance of silica-based nanopesticides, but also explores their potential applications under real-field conditions.

2. Challenges of conventional pesticides in agriculture

Although the use of nanotechnology in agriculture dates back to 1999,⁸² its practical applications were dominated by other fields, particularly biomedicine and biotechnology.^83,84 However, in recent years, the development and applications of nanotechnology in the agriculture sector have drastically increased,⁸⁵ driven by overcoming several significant obstacles, e.g., insufficient funding by governments and low implementation of innovations by research organizations.

The trend towards simplified production systems and out-of-diversity breeding has led to crops that are more vulnerable to different diseases and pests. An illustrative example is the ban on neonicotinoid seed dressings in the European Union, which shows that many farmers have faced difficulties in the successful production of oilseed rape crops.⁸⁶ Thus, effective alternative strategies for pest control are needed. In this context, nanoagrochemicals may offer promising potential for sustainable food while minimizing environmental costs.^71,87–90

Effective pesticide application still remains a challenge and nowadays only a small portion of the applied pesticides can actually reach their intended target (with off-target loss reaching up to 90%), leading to significant contamination in both aquatic and terrestrial environments.⁹¹ Pesticide dose is a critical parameter with numerous implications, as it is typically determined by the level needed to effectively eliminate the most resistant pests targeted by a particular product. In practice, the recommended dose may be significantly higher than that required for effective crop management.⁹² This issue is linked to the variability in pest populations and the environmental processes that influence the fate of pesticides before they reach their intended targets (Fig. 2), including volatilization, drift, biotic and abiotic degradation, and adsorption–desorption dynamics.²¹ However, the effects of these processes are greatly dependent on the physicochemical nature of the pesticides and soil.²² Understanding the fate and behavior of pesticides in the receiving environment is important for assessing their potential impact on ecosystems.

Fig. 2 Processes that control the fate of pesticides to reach their targets.

Effective targeting of biological entities (e.g., pests and pathogens) is challenging. When applied to crop foliage, pesticides can form deposition zones that exert sustained toxic stress to pests.⁹³ However, most conventional AIs are water-insoluble compounds, thus necessitating the inclusion of auxiliary agents such as dispersants, solvents, and carriers to create formulations suitable for their field application.⁹⁴ Crop foliage mostly possesses hydrophobic or even superhydrophobic properties, with several micro-or nanostructured mastoids created by the aggregation of epicuticular wax. These waxy formations are composed of cyclic (e.g., flavonoids) and aliphatic (e.g., hydrocarbons, fatty acids) compounds⁹⁵ which represent formidable barriers to pesticide adhesion and efficacy. Nevertheless, foliage-targeted pesticide deposition remains a critical strategy for effective pest management.

3. Silica-based nanopesticides: characteristics and practical performance

In light of the various challenges associated with the functionalization of pesticide application, nanopesticides as an innovative class of agricultural chemicals gradually came into the spotlight in the early 2000s.^93,96,97 Common nanopesticides based on materials (e.g., silica, lipids, polymers, ceramics, metals, carbon) as nanocarriers are applied specifically in the field of pest control and crop protection.^97–99 Nanoscale materials are generally defined to have a specific particle size in the range from 1 nm to 100 nm and possess peculiar properties not found in bulk materials of the same chemical composition.¹⁰⁰ But in the case of pesticides at the nanoscale, the particle size can extend from a few nanometers up to 500 nm.^55,73,93,101 The use of nanotechnology in the agricultural sector may help to reduce pesticide use while enhancing the overall efficiency.^44,93 By incorporating nanoscale materials, nanopesticides offer several advantages, including improved solubility of poorly water-soluble active ingredients, better adhesion to plant surfaces, and controlled release mechanisms that respond to environmental triggers,^48,56,72,97 resulting in better bioavailability, stability, and coverage uniformity.¹⁰²

The majority of the nanopesticides that have been developed involve the reformulations of already registered AIs to surpass the performance of their conventional counterparts, which are designed to overcome the limitations of conventional agrichemicals.¹⁰² Silicon (Si) is the most common metalloid found on earth and the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust,¹⁰³ and recently has become a primary focus in this advancement, particularly in its nanoscale form. Although silicon is not classified as an essential element for plants, its roles in plant nutrition have earned it the recognition of a “beneficial” or “quasi-essential” element in agriculture.¹⁰⁴ Nanotechnology offers an advantage of maximizing the unique nanoscale properties of the materials (e.g., specific surface area, size, and surface chemistry) used in agriculture. Mesoporous and porous hollow SiO₂ NPs have received considerable attention in agriculture due to the extreme flexibility of their properties by changing their synthesis conditions,¹⁰⁵ and the ability to control the diffusion of AIs and maintain high loading rates.¹⁹ This controlled release process refers to the “stimuli-responsive delivery systems”, which were designed to accurately deliver a predetermined concentration of AIs and sustained release properties.¹⁰⁶ This approach is effective in addressing the pesticide levels for longer durations and enhancing pest control efficiency, while simultaneously reducing the amount of pesticide residues in the environment.¹⁰⁷ In the presented review, the term “silica-based nanopesticide” specifically refers to a unity that comprised silica-based nanoparticles used as the nanocarriers and active ingredients.

4. Potential of silica-based nanoparticles in agroecosystems

Although the primary focus of this discussion is on silica-based nanopesticides, it is worth noting that silica-based nanoparticles (SiO₂-based NPs) have proven to be effective multifunctional agents in sustainable agriculture, offering benefits far beyond solely acting as nanocarriers for pesticide delivery in agrochemical applications. SiO₂-based NPs have found profound performance in promoting plant growth, development, and stress defense mechanisms, and remediating the phytotoxicity caused by potentially toxic elements.^108–112 Many functionalities of SiO₂-based NPs have been widely reported in the literature, highlighting their versatile nature for sustainable agriculture. For instance, SiO₂-based NPs have been shown to increase the oil content of Cymbopogon citratus¹¹³ and promote lignification and growth in oats.¹¹⁴ There are also some significant improvements in growth, yields and seed germination that were reported on crops including soybean, sunflower, wheat, and lupin when SiO₂-based NPs were used as a fertilizer.^115–118 Additionally, SiO₂-based NPs maintain photosynthetic activity by increasing the pigment content, photochemical efficiency, enzyme activity, and photosystem stability under stress conditions, as demonstrated in Lycopersicum esculentum seeds Mill.,¹¹⁹Cucurbita pepo L.,¹²⁰ and Solanum tuberosum.¹²¹ Recent studies further highlighted the significant positive effects of SiO₂-based NPs on various plant species by inducing regulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and enhancing the tolerance/resistance under stress conditions, alleviating both biotic and abiotic stresses. In Arabidopsis thaliana, a concentration of 100 mg L⁻¹ SiO₂ NPs induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR) against Pseudomonas syringae, reducing bacterial growth by over 90% compared to untreated controls. Similarly, in rice (Oryza sativa) under saline conditions (up to 800 mM NaCl), SiO₂ NPs improved plant tolerance by enhancing calcium and potassium uptake in leaves, reducing sodium content, and increasing the activities of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT),¹²² which mitigated the oxidative stress, lowering lipid peroxidation and hydrogen peroxide accumulation.

However, it should be noted that although SiO₂ NPs are generally considered safe for the environment due to their over-time degradation into non-toxic monosilicic acid (making them a low-risk option for agricultural applications¹¹²), there is still a need to acknowledge the potential toxic effects that may arise. Generally, their toxicity varies depending on dose, size, and environmental conditions. Overall, smaller SiO₂ NPs with larger surface area typically show higher toxicity due to enhanced cellular penetration, while aggregated SiO₂ NPs demonstrate reduced toxicity.^123,124 In most plant species, SiO₂ NPs have been found to be non-toxic at typical agricultural concentrations. For example, 1000 ppm of SiO₂ NPs did not cause any adverse effects in Arabidopsis thaliana, while higher concentrations of up to 2000 ppm only resulted in mild growth retardation.^125,126 Under extreme conditions, such as high concentrations or combined stress (e.g., drought in sugar beet), SiO₂ NPs may induce ROS generation, membranal damage, and autophagy,¹²⁷ highlighting the importance of optimizing application conditions. In animal/human cell models, SiO₂ NPs have been shown to cause immunotoxicity and organ-specific effects, but these outcomes are often dose-dependent and only occur at significantly higher levels than those used in agriculture.^128–130

4.1. Size distribution

The impact of SiO₂-based nanopesticides extends beyond their immediate efficacy; their physicochemical properties, particularly particle size, play a critical role in their overall environmental behavior and biological interactions. For their efficient usage, size is a key determinant of how these agrichemicals move, adhere, and are metabolized within biological systems influencing their adsorption, excretion, and distribution.¹³¹ Based on 134 comparisons across 99 studies published between 2016 and 2024, the sizes of these analyzed nanopesticides generally ranged from a few nanometers to approximately 1355 nm, with median sizes of 223.5 nm as measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), 150 nm as measured by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and 291.8 nm as measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS) (Fig. 3f). Compared to the sizes measured by TEM (64 studies), those measured by SEM (38 studies) and DLS (34 studies) were generally larger. Specifically, the 75th percentile size of silica-based nanopesticides was approximately 500 nm. This size distribution can be further visually exemplified in Fig. 3, where TEM images from two studies of silica-based nanopesticides loaded with prochloraz (Pro) are depicted in Fig. 3a–d,¹³² with the corresponding EDX mapping presented in Fig. 3e. The results clearly indicated that these nanomaterials indeed possess sizes that exceed the conventional nanoscale range (>100 nm). Fig. 3g presents a comparison of polydispersity index (PDI) values for nanopesticides utilizing silica as a nanocarrier, based on data across 15 available studies. The degree of uniformity in nanoparticle size distribution can be measured by the PDI,¹³³ a PDI value of up to 0.25 indicates a narrow size distribution, whereas a PDI greater than 0.5 signifies a broader distribution.¹³⁴ The average polydispersity index (PDI) of the reviewed silica-based nanopesticides was 0.209 (n = 15), with a median of 0.204 and a standard deviation of 0.153 (Text S1, Table S2), indicating a generally narrow particle size distribution. Notably, 75% of the PDI values fell below 0.32, reinforcing the prevalence of mono- to mildly polydisperse systems in these formulations.

Fig. 3 Characterization of mesoporous silica-based nanopesticides loaded with prochloraz (Pro). TEM images of HMSNs@ZnO QDs (a) and HMSNs@Pro@ZnO QDs (b), reproduced with permission.¹³⁶ Copyright Creative Common CC BY 4.0 license 2024, MDPI. TEM images of Fe-MSNs (c) and Pro@Fe-MSNs/TA (d), and corresponding EDS element analysis (e), reproduced with permission.¹³⁷ Copyright Creative Common CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 2022, Elsevier. Comparison of the particle sizes of silica-based nanopesticides analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and dynamic light scattering (DLS) techniques. A total of 134 comparisons were conducted based on studies published between 2016 and 2024, where relevant size data were available. In the figure, the boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR) of particle sizes, with the bottom and top edges indicating the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The line and square within each box represent the median and mean values of particle size measurements. Whiskers extending from the boxes show the 10th and 90th percentiles of the data distribution. The dashed horizontal lines at 100 nm serve as thresholds, representing the upper size limit typically associated with nanomaterials (f). PDI value comparison of nanopesticides (g).

Interestingly, despite the varying characterization methods, the upper particle size limit for many of the silica-based nanopesticides reaches 500 nm across our comparison analysis (this is significantly larger than the typical nanoscale threshold, i.e., <100 nm). In contrast, the commercial capsule suspension (CS) formulations, often used as a benchmark, are reported to have an average particle size in the micron range, typically between 20 μm and 50 μm. Given this variability in size, it becomes evident that defining “nanopesticides” solely based on a nanoscale range of 1–100 nm is insufficient. This concern can be also reflected from the recent guidance by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSI), where there is a lack of a clear and universally accepted definition for nanopesticides.¹³⁵ Relying strictly on particle size could exclude larger yet functionally significant formulations (e.g., nanoemulsions). Thus, the traditional definition of nanomaterials cannot entirely reflect the diversity and functional advantages and more flexible definition should be implemented.

4.2. Efficacy

The concept of efficacy is centered on providing data that demonstrates the ability of pesticides to effectively eliminate target pests. Efficacy assessments typically include data on direct effectiveness, such as the percentage of pests killed or inhibited, as well as the economic impact of pesticide use. In some cases, these assessments also consider the sustainability of the application, evaluating how long-term exposure impacts both the environment and agricultural productivity.¹³⁸ We identified 49 studies from 99 analyzed papers that allow for comparisons of the overall efficiency of nanopesticides and their non-nano analogs against target organisms in both in vitro and field experiments. It is worth mentioning that since this review exclusively focuses on silica-based nanopesticides, slight differences may appear in our analysis compared to previous research findings. Data were derived from dose–response relationships (i.e., % mortality, % inhibition, % lure rate) and were compared with the corresponding parameter for non-nano formulations at any nominal concentration using ratios (the value obtained for the endpoint was normalized by dividing it by the corresponding value for the non-nano counterparts). The obtained ratios were presented in box plots, as shown in Fig. 4a. Our analysis showed that, on average, silica-based nanopesticides demonstrated 31% greater efficiency than non-nano formulations, largely due to the presence of stimuli-responsive delivery systems. These results align with previously reported studies, which found that silica-based nanopesticides were 31.5% and 24% more efficient than non-nano counterparts in comparisons involving 314 and 42 pairs, respectively. To further confirm the statistical difference between the nano and non-nano pesticides, an independent “t-test” was performed (Table S2), with the obtained p-value < 0.05 indicating a significant difference in the efficiency of both tested subjects.

Fig. 4 Summary of the efficiency (a) and photostability (b) between SiO₂-based nanopesticides and non-nano formulations across 44 in vitro studies and 5 field experiments. The bottom and top edges of both the box plots indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the line and square within each box represent the median and mean values. Whiskers extending from the boxes show the 10th and 90th percentiles of the data distribution.

Most published studies are based on in vitro experiments; however, these do not comprehensively reflect the real efficacy under field conditions. Therefore, a critical assessment of the efficacy of nanopesticides in field trials is essential, yet only a limited number of such studies are available. The data from available field experiments were plotted as shown in Fig. 3a, clearly demonstrating that nanopesticides are more efficient than non-nano pesticides (Table S2). However, these findings cannot be considered fully conclusive due to the limited amount of data.

4.3. Environmental factors

Environmental-stimulus-responsive nanocomposites with silica carriers that enable intelligent, slow, and controlled release of cargos can maximize the utilization of pesticides, as shown in our previous analysis (Fig. 4). This improvement was achieved by the stimuli-responsive delivery systems for ‘on-demand’ release that are designed to respond to specific environmental triggers such as pH,^{65,137,139–145} temperature,^68,97,146 UV light,^{67,68,147,148} and redox condition mediators.^67,148–151 Therefore, it is necessary to explore and assess how these environmental variables impact silica-based nanopesticides during and after application, as well as their potential environmental fate.

pH sensitivity plays a significant role in the sustained release of silica-based nanopesticides. For example, the Cu-MCM-41 synthesized system demonstrated notable pH sensitivity, with the fastest release rate observed under acidic conditions.⁶⁹ The instability of the Schiff base under acidic conditions causes the C=N bond to break down. Consequently, the coordination bond between the copper ion and the C=N bond broke down, and the nitrogen in the Schiff base became protonated. A study by Xu et al. showed that CMCS-modified MSN (MSN-CMCS) as a carrier for the pesticide azoxystrobin (AZOX) is pH-sensitive.¹⁵² The release of AZOX was faster under basic and neutral conditions compared to acidic ones, which was attributed to the decrease in the dissociation degree of –COOH in acidic solutions because of protons (H⁺), resulting in shrinkage of CMCS polymer chains. Another study demonstrated pH-responsive release behaviors of the synthesized pH/cellulase dual stimuli-responsive controlled-release formulations (PYR-HMS-HPC). Different pH values such as 3, 5, and 7 were tested, with the greatest PYR release observed under the most acidic conditions. In most of the analyzed papers in this study, pH is considered to play a crucial role in the sustained release of pesticides,^{61,137,151,153,154} thus emphasizing the importance of developing pH-sensitive delivery systems for effective nanopesticide application under field conditions.

Temperature is another important parameter that significantly influences the release behavior of nanopesticides. For example, the release of 2,4-D sodium salt was found to be temperature-dependent.¹⁵⁵ Three different temperatures (i.e., 20, 30, and 40 °C) were tested with more release at the highest temperature. The temperature-controlled release could possibly occur through a temperature-dependent, diffusion-controlled process. High temperatures can enhance the diffusion of payloads from the pores of MSN to the release medium. Wan et al. examined the photothermal responsive release of dinotefuran (DNF) from polydopamine-doped dendritic silica carriers.⁶⁶ The results revealed that an increase in temperature leads to improved drug release due to the destruction of the interaction between DNF and polydopamine (PDA), and a reduction in the blocking effect of the polyethyleneimine (PEI) layer.

Inducing UV-resistant formulations is crucial when designing stimuli-responsive delivery systems to prevent pesticide decomposition and enhance their utilization efficiency. Pure AIs can be easily degraded by UV light in the environment, significantly limiting their applications under field conditions.¹⁵⁶ Silica-based nanocarriers are used to improve the UV resistance of nanoformulations, thereby minimizing the decomposition and improving their efficiency.^{144,157–159} We identified 37 studies investigating the UV resistance of non-nanoactive ingredients compared to nanoformulations, as shown in Fig. 3b. Pesticides are generally susceptible because they are intended to provoke a reaction in biological systems, often resulting in lethal effects on the targeted organisms.¹⁶⁰ Increasing the overall UV resistance is indeed one of the most important objectives to address for nanopesticides for their potential agricultural application. Our analysis revealed that silica can help design formulations that protect AIs against photodegradation when used as an encapsulator. Experiments in all analyzed papers showed improved radiation stability compared to their non-nanoscale counterparts, indicating promising applications under real field conditions. For example, it has been reported that dimethomorph (DMM) encapsulated in disulfide bond (SS)-modified and chitosan oligosaccharide (COS)-capped hollow mesoporous silica possess only 11.89% of DMM that was degraded after 24 h of UV exposure, while the non-encapsulated DMM showed 53.68% degradation.¹⁴⁴ Similarly, pure imidacloprid (IMI) solution degraded rapidly under UV radiation, with a residual rate of only 21.52% after 200 min. In contrast, when encapsulated in IMI@HCuS@mSiO₂-ss-CβCD, the residual rate significantly increased to 92%, indicating 4.28 times higher resistance to UV radiation. However, comparisons under realistic conditions should be performed to critically evaluate how silica nanocarriers can protect AIs against light.

Another factor influencing the overall efficiency of nanopesticides is leaching. The loss of AIs due to leaching not only contributes to the low efficiency of the nanopesticides but also poses a potential threat to ecosystems and human health.¹⁶¹ Approximately 90% of applied pesticides are not effectively utilized because of environmental processes, including degradation, volatilization, leaching, and others. This often leads to the concentration of nanopesticides under field conditions being higher than the required actual levels, to ensure that sufficient amounts reach the target pests.¹⁶² Only two papers were identified that investigated the leaching loss of nano and non-nano formulations, with reductions of 48.4% vs. 97.3% and 7.4% vs. 23.1%, respectively.^68,155 However, an in-depth evaluation of leaching loss in nanoscale pesticides still urgently requires further field experiment data.

4.4. Interaction between silica-based nanocarriers and crops

The uptake and transportation of SiO₂-based nanocarriers in crops are crucial processes that determine their effectiveness as delivery agents for pesticide molecules. As nanocarriers, SiO₂-based NPs exhibit unique properties such as high surface area, stability, and biocompatibility, which enable efficient entry into plant cells and facilitate the targeted transportation. SiO₂-based NPs can be absorbed by plants through both root and foliar pathways (Fig. 5).^{110,112,163–172} In roots, the nanoparticles penetrate root hairs or epidermal cells, initially following either the symplastic or apoplastic pathway.¹⁷³ The symplastic pathway allows SiO₂-based NPs to move through the cytoplasm of cells via plasmodesmata, enabling them to bypass barriers like the Casparian strip and reach the vascular tissues. Conversely, the apoplastic pathway involves the movement of SiO₂-based NPs through the intercellular spaces until they encounter the Casparian strip, where their movement is redirected to the symplastic route to gain access to the stele and subsequently the xylem. Once internalized, the high surface area of SiO₂-based NPs increases their reactivity and interaction with intracellular structures, influencing physiological pathways and facilitating their translocation through both apoplastic (cell wall and intercellular spaces) and symplastic (cytoplasmic) pathways.^{112,163,164,172,174,175} This dynamic movement enables SiO₂-based NPs to efficiently navigate plant tissues, where they are transported through the xylem and phloem to different tissues, including leaves, stems, and reproductive organs.

Fig. 5 Interaction pathways of silica-based nanocarriers in crops.¹⁷² Created with https://BioRender.com. Reproduced with permission.¹¹⁷ Copyright Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 2024, Elsevier.

The permeability and stability of SiO₂-based NPs enable efficient foliar application, allowing them to enter the plant through the cuticle or stomata and subsequently translocate within leaf tissues¹⁷⁶ (Fig. 5). The route of entry is largely determined by the surface properties of the nanoparticles.^171,177 Hydrophilic SiO₂-based NPs can traverse aqueous channels within the cuticle, while lipophilic SiO₂-based NPs diffuse through lipid-rich regions of the cuticle. Alternatively, nanoparticles can enter through open stomata and travel through intercellular spaces to reach mesophyll cells. Once absorbed into the leaf tissues, SiO₂-based NPs can move systemically through the vascular system, distributing to various parts of the plant via the xylem and phloem, which enables effective delivery and redistribution of pesticides. Their compatibility with both hydrophilic and lipophilic routes, coupled with their ability to interact with organelles and signaling pathways,¹⁷⁸ further enhances their potential for precise intracellular delivery and the systemic application of pesticides.

These interactions are largely governed by the physicochemical properties of SiO₂-based NPs, such as size, shape, and surface charge.^{163,164,171,179–181} For example, smaller SiO₂-based NPs are more readily translocated to aerial tissues, whereas larger particles are often confined to root tissues due to physical size constraints at the endodermal cell wall.^182,183 The high surface reactivity of SiO₂-based NPs also allows them to form stable complexes with biomolecules, which can modulate gene expression and enhance the activity of specific proteins involved in nutrient uptake and stress responses.¹⁸⁴ This capability underscores their versatility as nanocarriers for targeted delivery and controlled release of active compounds. Moreover, SiO₂-based NPs can selectively accumulate in specific tissues, usually deposited in the epidermal cells or trichomes, forming silica bodies that contribute to mechanical strength and protect against environmental stressors.^168,185,186 The accumulation also serves as reservoirs for sustained pesticide release over time, ensuring prolonged protection against pests without less demand for repeated applications.

The unique physicochemical properties of SiO₂-based NPs, particularly their high surface area, porous structure, and biocompatibility, make them ideal candidates for stimuli-responsive pesticide delivery systems.⁴⁹ Their porous/hollow structure allows for the encapsulation and controlled release of pesticide molecules in response to the specific environmental stimuli such as pH, temperature, UV light, and redox condition mediators as previously discussed. Under pest infestation or pathogen attack, local changes in the physiological conditions of crops can trigger the release of pesticides from the nanocarriers, ensuring that the active compounds are released precisely where and when they are needed. This targeted release minimizes pesticide wastage and reduces environmental contamination, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency of the pesticide application. As stimuli-responsive delivery systems, they not only enhance the uptake and transport of pesticides but also ensure precise and controlled release in response to the plant's physiological status or external environmental factors.⁵⁶ This capability positions silica-based nanocarriers as a transformative technology in agricultural pest management, offering a high degree of control, efficiency, and sustainability in pesticide delivery within crop systems.

5. Interaction between porous silica-based nanocarriers and pesticide molecules

Nanodelivery systems, particularly silica nanocarriers, have recently shown great potential in the agricultural sector. Their unique properties make them ideal for developing sustainable delivery systems, enhancing efficiency, and potentially increasing crop production to meet the global food demand.^187,188 While a significant number of studies have been published on silica nanocarriers for pesticide delivery, the interaction between the porous structure and pesticide molecules remains a complex and not fully understood area. As the interest in the practical application of nanocarriers continues to grow, there is a clear need for further research to better understand these interactions and develop more effective pest control strategies.

The high surface area and porous structure of silica allow the AIs to be loaded via an adsorption process or entrapment within the porous cavities.¹⁸⁹ Additionally, molecules can be loaded through ligand-mediated attachment, achieved through surface functionalization. Another possible pathway of loading is encapsulation as core–shell structures. Generally, two main techniques for loading pesticides into silica nanocarriers are preloading (during synthesis) and postloading (after synthesis).¹⁹⁰ The former technique involves solubilizing the AIs and subsequently forming the silica shell.¹⁹¹ This method is advantageous as it creates a core–shell structure, with the outer silica shell encapsulating the AIs in the core, thereby enhancing the stability and controlled release. The latter technique involves the synthesis of silica nanoparticles first, followed by molecular loading, mostly via immersion,¹⁹² impregnation, or high-pressure supercritical fluid approaches.¹⁹³ The outcome specifically depends on the porous structure of silica nanoparticles. However, surface-associated active molecules can promote an initial burst release in aqueous-based environments, which is considered the main drawback of this technique.¹⁹⁰

The effectiveness of the delivery systems heavily depends on the control over the morphology, uniformity, and particle size of silica nanoparticles, as these factors directly influence the morphology and structure of the material¹⁵⁹ (Fig. 6). The porous structure of silica nanomaterials, in turn, determines the surface area and internal structure, which are crucial for the effective loading and controlled release of AIs to target pests. Porosity is particularly important as it provides additional binding sites and serves as reservoirs for pesticides, thereby controlling the release kinetics of AIs.⁵⁷ Porous silica nanomaterials are distinguished by their high degree of customization, with the ability to fabricate different shapes and forms depending on the synthesis conditions.

Fig. 6 Adjustable physicochemical properties of mesoporous silica.¹⁹⁵ Copyright CC BY 4.0 license 2021, MDPI.

Wang et al. (2014) demonstrated that the porous structure of silica nanoparticles (PSNs) significantly influences the loading capacity of abamectin, as depicted in Fig. 7.¹⁹⁴ Their study revealed that variations in porous structures resulted in different morphologies, which in turn affected the overall efficiency of molecule loading and subsequent release. Notably, the abamectin loading capacity increased with prolonged etching time, i.e., the time needed to form a porous structure via etching (from 45 to 120 minutes), highlighting the importance of controlled morphology and adjustable porosity in enhancing the effectiveness of silica-based nanopesticides.¹⁹⁴ These findings underscore that the value of structural characteristics of nanocarriers in determining the overall efficiency of pesticide delivery systems is comparable to that of the external environmental factors mentioned in the previous section.

Fig. 7 TEM images of synthesized Abam-PSNs at various etching times possessing different morphologies and structures.¹⁹⁴ Copyright © 2014 licensee Springer, Springer Nature.

6. Future outlook: opportunities and limitations

In addition to their role as pesticide carriers, silica-based nanoparticles themselves possess intrinsic agro-beneficial properties that merit further attention. Numerous studies have shown that SiO₂-based NPs can enhance nutrient uptake as previously discussed, which improves plant stress tolerance under abiotic conditions such as drought or salinity, and even contribute directly to growth promotion by acting as a bioavailable silicon source.^98,108–110 When integrated into active ingredients, these plant-enhancing properties synergize with controlled pesticide delivery, enabling a dual-function system that both protects and strengthens crops. This multifunctionality is particularly relevant in the context of sustainable agriculture, where inputs are increasingly expected to serve multiple roles without largely increasing environmental burden.

Despite these clear benefits, the widespread agricultural deployment of silica-based nanopesticides still faces several challenges across formulation science, field compatibility, manufacturing feasibility, and regulatory adaptation. To realize the practical benefits of this technology, future work must address not only technical refinement, but also the broader contextual factors that determine real-world viability. A central issue lies in the material design itself. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles offer structural advantages such as high surface area and tunable pore geometries,^{52,105,196,197} but they are intrinsically inorganic and non-biodegradable.¹⁹⁷ While their intrinsic chemical properties support the physical and chemical stability of these formulations, they also complicate their environmental degradability, potentially leading to long-term accumulation in soil ecosystems.^197–204 To overcome this, future materials development should explore hybrid strategies that combine the structural benefits of MSNs with biodegradable organic components,^205–207 or turn to silica derived from biological sources such as rice husks and corn starch,^{197,208–211} which may offer more favorable environmental degradation profiles. While current studies have demonstrated a variety of stimuli-responsive coatings and surface functionalizations, such as pH-, enzyme-, or light-triggered release mechanisms, these strategies often lack robustness in real agricultural environments. Variables such as fluctuating soil parameters (structure, fertility, and microbial activity)²⁰⁸ or UV intensity and exposure can unpredictably alter nanocarrier stability, trigger behavior, and affect degradation profiles. However, most published experiments have been conducted under highly controlled conditions that do not adequately reflect these agro-environmental complexities. This disconnect raises significant uncertainties regarding the practical efficacy and environmental fate of silica-based nanopesticides in open-field scenarios. To address this gap, long-term, multi-season field trials should be prioritized across diverse soil types and climatic zones, with a focus not only on pest control performance but also on nanocarrier mobility, residue dynamics, and interactions with crop–soil–microbiome systems. Establishing such evidence is essential for validating the translational potential of these delivery platforms beyond proof-of-concept.

Equally important is the challenge of scalability. Many current synthesis protocols for silica nanocarriers require precise control over sol–gel conditions,^{170,187,212,213} narrow reaction windows, or template-removal steps that may be difficult to reproduce at industrial volumes. While a few recent studies have demonstrated continuous-flow synthesis routes,²¹⁴ these processes are still in their infancy and not yet optimized for cost, yield, or formulation stability. Furthermore, the shelf life and physical dispersion behavior of silica-based nanopesticides remain underexplored, particularly in formulations intended for distribution across varying climates and storage infrastructures. Addressing these formulation and processing challenges is essential to ensure product consistency, handling safety, and ease of integration into existing agricultural supply chains. Moreover, the regulatory framework for nanopesticides remains underdeveloped and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Most pesticide approval systems have not been updated to account for nanoscale formulations, and standard risk assessment protocols may not adequately capture nanomaterial-specific behaviors such as particle aggregation, altered bioavailability, or transformations in soil matrices.^{45,71,72,203,215} In the case of silica-based systems, there is also insufficient data regarding long-term exposure effects, bioaccumulation risks, and potential interference with soil microbial networks.^{52,212,216,217} To address these knowledge gaps, more studies are needed that go beyond acute toxicity and explore chronic, low-dose effects as well as possible impacts on non-target species. Engaging regulatory bodies early in the development pipeline and aligning product design with foreseeable safety requirements will help reduce uncertainty and accelerate approval timelines.

The future of silica-based nanopesticides depends on an integrated approach that spans materials science, agronomy, environmental toxicology, and policy development. Instead of focusing narrowly on technical optimization, research efforts should shift toward field relevance, production scalability, and life-cycle safety. Only through this broader and more applied perspective can these promising systems evolve into mature technologies that meaningfully contribute to the sustainability and resilience of modern agriculture, ultimately bridging the gap between nanotechnological innovation and global food security goals.

7. Conclusions

Silica-based nanopesticides represent a strategically significant advancement in sustainable crop protection and food safety. The integration of mesoporous silica nanocarriers facilitates high pesticide encapsulation efficiency, improved stability under environmental conditions, and tunable release kinetics. Compared to conventional formulations, silica-based nanoformulations demonstrate improved bioavailability and persistence, while reducing volatilization and off-target impacts. Their integration into modern agriculture holds the potential to increase the efficiency of active ingredients in pesticide formulations, mitigate environmental burden, and contribute to global food security under resource-constrained conditions. A comprehensive review of recent literature indicates that silica-based nanopesticides frequently outperform their non-nano counterparts across multiple technical parameters, confirming the stable efficiency and high uniformity and reproducibility of particle size distribution in current formulations. Additionally, the inherent physicochemical properties of silica not only support effective delivery systems but also provide secondary benefits, such as improved plant stress resistance and nutrient uptake.

However, it is evident that these advantages remain largely confined to the laboratory scale. The lack of robust field validation, uncertainties surrounding environmental interactions, and limited scalability hinder the immediate adoption of silica-based nanopesticides in practical agricultural contexts. Moreover, the absence of regulatory frameworks specific to nano-formed pesticides introduces delays and ambiguities that further restrict real-world implementation.

In summary, while silica-based nanopesticides offer compelling advantages over traditional approaches, their transition from innovation to application depends on addressing both scientific and systemic challenges. With continued interdisciplinary research and regulatory engagement, these technologies may fulfill their promise as a solution for safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible pest management and crop production for our future generation.

Author contributions

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript. Yilan Zeng: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, software, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing. Martin Motola: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Data availability

Supplementary information: SI contains: i) Table showing categorization of silica-based nanopesticide formulations according to the target ii) Text S1 with description and interpretation of PDI values, and iii) Table with summary statistics of key formulation parameters and performance indicators for silica-based nanopesticides. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D5EN00408J.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

The authors have no acknowledgements to declare.

References

1. U. K. Pata, Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO₂ emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective, Renewable Energy, 2021, 173, 197–208.
2. Z. Chen, M. Zhang, R. K. Dong and S. Wang, Building Resilient Food Security Against Global Crisis: New Evidence From China, Food Energy Secur., 2024, 13, e70008.
3. R. Brenya, J. Zhu and A. K. Sampene, Can agriculture technology improve food security in low- and middle-income nations? a systematic review, Sustainable Food Technol., 2023, 1, 484–499.
4. A. de Janvry and E. Sadoulet, World Poverty and the Role of Agricultural Technology: Direct and Indirect Effects, J. Dev. Stud., 2002, 38, 1–26.
5. FAO, World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2022, Rome, 2022,  DOI:10.4060/cc2211en.
6. J. Lynch, M. Cain, D. Frame and R. Pierrehumbert, Agriculture's Contribution to Climate Change and Role in Mitigation Is Distinct From Predominantly Fossil CO₂-Emitting Sectors, Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 2021, 4 DOI:10.3389/fsufs.2020.518039.
7. OECD & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022-2031, OECD, 2022,  DOI:10.1787/f1b0b29c-en.
8. E. Clay, Food security: concepts and measurement. trade reforms and food security: conceptualizing the linkages, Rome, 2002, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285667097.
9. D. Gallegos, S. Booth, C. M. Pollard, M. Chilton and S. Kleve, Food security definition, measures and advocacy priorities in high-income countries: a Delphi consensus study, Public Health Nutr., 2023, 26, 1986–1996.
10. W. A. Masters, A. B. Finaret and S. A. Block, Chapter 90 - The economics of malnutrition: Dietary transition and food system transformation, in Handbook of Agricultural Economics. ed. C. B. Barrett and D. R. Just, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 4997–5083.
11. L. Costlow, A. Herforth, T. B. Sulser, N. Cenacchi and W. A. Masters, Global analysis reveals persistent shortfalls and regional differences in availability of foods needed for health, Glob. Food Secur., 2025, 44, 100825.
12. O. Oluwole, O. Ibidapo, T. Arowosola, F. Raji, R. P. Zandonadi, I. Alasqah, L. H. Lho, H. Han and A. Raposo, Sustainable transformation agenda for enhanced global food and nutrition security: a narrative review, Front. Nutr., 2023, 10 DOI:10.3389/fnut.2023.1226538.
13. P. Atukunda, W. B. Eide, K. R. Kardel, P. O. Iversen and A. C. Westerberg, Unlocking the potential for achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 – ‘Zero Hunger’ – in Africa: targets, strategies, synergies and challenges, Food Nutr. Res., 2021, 65 DOI:10.29219/fnr.v65.7686.
14. D. Poudel and M. Gopinath, Exploring the disparity in global food security indicators, Glob. Food Secur., 2021, 29, 100549.
15. E. Mumah, Y. Hong and Y. Chen, Exploring the reality of global food insecurity and policy gaps, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., 2025, 12, 1241.
16. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division World Population Prospects 2022, 2022.
17. O. A. Otekunrin, Assessing the Prevalence and Severity of Global Hunger and Food Insecurity: Recent Dynamics and Sub-Saharan Africa's Burden, Sustainability, 2024, 16, 4877.
18. Rising Global Food Insecurity: Assessing Policy Responses, 2022.
19. T. Hofmann, G. V. Lowry, S. Ghoshal, N. Tufenkji, D. Brambilla and J. R. Dutcher, et al. Technology readiness and overcoming barriers to sustainably implement nanotechnology-enabled plant agriculture, Nat. Food, 2020, 1, 416–425.
20. P. A. Matson, W. J. Parton, A. G. Power and M. J. Swift, Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties, Science, 1997, 277, 504–509.
21. M. Taylor, S. M. Lyons, C. L. Davie-Martin, T. S. Geoghegan and K. J. Hageman, Understanding Trends in Pesticide Volatilization from Agricultural Fields Using the Pesticide Loss via Volatilization Model, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54, 2202–2209.
22. S. Rasool, T. Rasool and K. M. Gani, A review of interactions of pesticides within various interfaces of intrinsic and organic residue amended soil environment, Chem. Eng. J. Adv., 2022, 11, 100301.
23. A. Shattuck, M. Werner, F. Mempel, Z. Dunivin and R. Galt, Global pesticide use and trade database (GloPUT): New estimates show pesticide use trends in low-income countries substantially underestimated, Glob. Environ. Change, 2023, 81, 102693.
24. P. Bjerregaard, H. S. Pedersen, N. O. Nielsen and E. Dewailly, Population surveys in Greenland 1993-2009: Temporal trend of PCBs and pesticides in the general Inuit population by age and urbanisation, Sci. Total Environ., 2013, 454–455, 283–288.
25. F. L. Mayer and J. L. Hamelink, Aquatic toxicology and hazard evaluation: proceedings of the first annual Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology: a symposium/sponsored by ASTM Committee E-35 on Pesticides, American Society for Testing and Materials, Memphis, Tenn., 1977, p. 317.
26. F. H. M. Tang, A. Malik, M. Li, M. Lenzen and F. Maggi, International demand for food and services drives environmental footprints of pesticide use, Commun. Earth Environ., 2022, 3, 272.
27. E. Rufo, R. Brouwer and P. van Beukering, The social costs of pesticides: a meta-analysis of the experimental and stated preference literature, Sci. Rep., 2024, 14, 31905.
28. M. W. Aktar, D. Sengupta and A. Chowdhury, Impact of Pesticides Use in Agriculture: Their Benefits and Hazards, Interdiscip. Toxicol., 2009, 2, 1.
29. T. Pirzada, B. V. de Farias, R. Mathew, R. H. Guenther, M. V. Byrd and T. L. Sit, et al. Recent advances in biodegradable matrices for active ingredient release in crop protection: Towards attaining sustainability in agriculture, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2020, 48, 121–136.
30. V. M. Pathak, V. K. Verma, B. S. Rawat, B. Kaur, N. Babu, A. Sharma, S. Dewali, M. Yadav, R. Kumari, S. Singh, A. Mohapatra, V. Pandey, N. Rana and J. M. Cunill, Current status of pesticide effects on environment, human health and it's eco-friendly management as bioremediation: A comprehensive review, Front. Microbiol., 2022, 13 DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2022.962619.
31. W. Zhou, M. Li and V. Achal, A comprehensive review on environmental and human health impacts of chemical pesticide usage, Emerging Contam., 2025, 11, 100410.
32. A. Singh, N. Shraogi, R. Verma, J. Saji, A. Kumar Kar and S. Tehlan, et al. Challenges in current pest management practices: Navigating problems and a way forward by integrating controlled release system approach, Chem. Eng. J., 2024, 498, 154989.
33. T. Boonupara, P. Udomkun, E. Khan and P. Kajitvichyanukul, Airborne Pesticides from Agricultural Practices: A Critical Review of Pathways, Influencing Factors, and Human Health Implications, Toxics, 2023, 11, 858.
34. J. Poore and T. Nemecek, Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science, 2018, 360, 987–992.
35. L. Bakker, J. Sok, W. van der Werf and F. J. J. A. Bianchi, Kicking the Habit: What Makes and Breaks Farmers' Intentions to Reduce Pesticide Use?, Ecol. Econ., 2021, 180, 106868.
36. T. Brunelle, R. Chakir, A. Carpentier, B. Dorin, D. Goll and N. Guilpart, et al. Reducing chemical inputs in agriculture requires a system change, Commun. Earth Environ., 2024, 5, 369.
37. H. Na, X. Yan, R. Xing and A. Jiang, The empirical effect of agricultural social services on pesticide inputs, Sci. Rep., 2024, 14, 15907.
38. E. Meunier, P. Smith, T. Griessinger and C. Robert, Understanding changes in reducing pesticide use by farmers: Contribution of the behavioural sciences, Agric. Syst., 2024, 214, 103818.
39. F. Femenia and E. Letort, How to significantly reduce pesticide use: An empirical evaluation of the impacts of pesticide taxation associated with a change in cropping practice, Ecol. Econ., 2016, 125, 27–37.
40. I. Pergner and C. Lippert, On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review, Agron. Sustainable Dev., 2023, 43, 24.
41. S. Knapp and M. G. A. van der Heijden, A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture, Nat. Commun., 2018, 9, 3632.
42. S. Sabzevari and J. Hofman, A worldwide review of currently used pesticides' monitoring in agricultural soils, Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 812, 152344.
43. Y. Huang, X. Zhang and Z. Li, Analysis of nationwide soil pesticide pollution: Insights from China, Environ. Res., 2024, 252, 118988.
44. M. Kah, N. Tufenkji and J. C. White, Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2019, 14, 532–540.
45. Z. Xu, T. Tang, Q. Lin, J. Yu, C. Zhang and X. Zhao, et al. Environmental risks and the potential benefits of nanopesticides: a review, Environ. Chem. Lett., 2022, 20, 2097–2108.
46. I. O. Adisa, V. L. R. Pullagurala, J. R. Peralta-Videa, C. O. Dimkpa, W. H. Elmer and J. L. Gardea-Torresdey, et al. Recent advances in nano-enabled fertilizers and pesticides: a critical review of mechanisms of action, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2019, 6, 2002–2030.
47. H. Singh, A. Sharma, S. K. Bhardwaj, S. K. Arya, N. Bhardwaj and M. Khatri, Recent advances in the applications of nano-agrochemicals for sustainable agricultural development, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2021, 23, 213–239.
48. N. Rani, A. Duhan, A. Pal, P. Kumari, R. K. Beniwal and D. Verma, et al. Are nano-pesticides really meant for cleaner production? An overview on recent developments, benefits, environmental hazards and future prospectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 2023, 411, 137232.
49. J. Zhou, G. Liu, Z. Guo, M. Wang, C. Qi and G. Chen, et al. Stimuli-responsive pesticide carriers based on porous nanomaterials: A review, Chem. Eng. J., 2023, 455, 140167.
50. A. F. Thabet, H. A. Boraei, O. A. Galal, M. F. M. El-Samahy, K. M. Mousa and Y. Z. Zhang, et al. Silica nanoparticles as pesticide against insects of different feeding types and their non-target attraction of predators, Sci. Rep., 2021, 11, 14484.
51. T. K. Barik, B. Sahu and V. Swain, Nanosilica—from medicine to pest control, Parasitol. Res., 2008, 103, 253–258.
52. Y. Song, Y. Li, Q. Xu and Z. Liu, Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for stimuli-responsive controlled drug delivery: Advances, challenges, and outlook, Int. J. Nanomed., 2017, 12, 87–110.
53. D. Tarn, C. E. Ashley, M. Xue, E. C. Carnes, J. I. Zink and C. J. Brinker, Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle Nanocarriers: Biofunctionality and Biocompatibility, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 792–801.
54. S. Kumar, M. Nehra, N. Dilbaghi, G. Marrazza, A. A. Hassan and K.-H. Kim, Nano-based smart pesticide formulations: Emerging opportunities for agriculture, J. Controlled Release, 2019, 294, 131–153.
55. D. Wang, N. B. Saleh, A. Byro, R. Zepp, E. Sahle-Demessie and T. P. Luxton, et al. Nano-enabled pesticides for sustainable agriculture and global food security, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2022, 17, 347–360.
56. D. Xiao, H. Wu, Y. Zhang, J. Kang, A. Dong and W. Liang, Advances in stimuli-responsive systems for pesticides delivery: Recent efforts and future outlook, J. Controlled Release, 2022, 352, 288–312.
57. S. O. Nasif, M. Nuruzzaman and R. Naidu, Porous Silica Nanocarriers: Advances in Structural Orientation and Modification to Develop Sustainable Pesticide Delivery Systems, ACS Agric. Sci. Technol., 2024, 4, 144–172.
58. A. Jakhmola, R. Vecchione, D. Guarnieri, V. Belli, D. Calabria and P. A. Netti, Bioinspired Oil Core/Silica Shell Nanocarriers with Tunable and Multimodal Functionalities, Adv. Healthcare Mater., 2015, 4, 2688.
59. Y. Hao, D. Liu, Y. Song, X. Yin, J. Liu and R. Na, et al. Mitochondria-targeted nanocarriers doubled the toxicity of oxidative phosphorylation and ATP synthesis disruptive insecticides against Spodoptera frugiperda, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2022, 9, 3873–3884.
60. Y. Ding, Z. Xiao, F. Chen, L. Yue, C. Wang and N. Fan, et al. A mesoporous silica nanocarrier pesticide delivery system for loading acetamiprid: Effectively manage aphids and reduce plant pesticide residue, Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 863, 160900.
61. T. Hong, M. Wan, S. Lv, L. Peng and Y. Zhao, Metal-phenolic coated rod-like silica nanocarriers with pH responsiveness for pesticide delivery, Colloids Surf., A, 2023, 662, 130989.
62. P.-Y. Qi, L.-H. Shi, Z.-C. Zheng, Y.-M. Feng, T.-H. Zhang, R.-S. Luo, S. Tan, A.-L. Tang, H.-Y. Huang, X. Zhou, H.-M. Xiang, L.-W. Liu and S. Yang, Beyond convention: Construction of β-cyclodextrin-based shape-changing particles capable of light-responsive control and bioactivity application, Carbohydr. Polym., 2025, 363, 123733.
63. W.-B. Shao, R.-S. Luo, Y.-W. Huang, L. Cheng, D. Zeng, X. Zhou, L.-W. Liu and S. Yang, Construction of phenothiazine-decorated ZnO quantum dots with intelligent response to bacterial pH/amidase microenvironment for inducing bacterial ferroptosis-like death, Chem. Eng. J., 2025, 509, 161352.
64. J. Yang, H.-J. Ye, H.-M. Xiang, X. Zhou, P.-Y. Wang, S.-S. Liu, B.-X. Yang, H.-B. Yang, L.-W. Liu and S. Yang, Photo-Stimuli Smart Supramolecular Self-Assembly of Azobenzene/β-Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complex for Controlling Plant Bacterial Diseases, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2023, 33, 2303206.
65. Y. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Yan, Z. Huang, Y. Zhang, X. Wang and N. Zhou, pH-Responsive Pesticide-Loaded Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles with ZnO Quantum Dots as a Gatekeeper for Control of Rice Blast Disease, Materials, 2024, 17, 1344.
66. M. Wan, Y. Zhao, H. Li, X. Zou and L. Sun, pH and NIR responsive polydopamine-doped dendritic silica carriers for pesticide delivery, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2023, 632, 19–34.
67. K. Wang, J.-Q. Li, S. He, J. Lu, D. Wang and J.-X. Wang, et al. Redox/Near-Infrared Dual-Responsive Hollow Mesoporous Organosilica Nanoparticles for Pesticide Smart Delivery, Langmuir, 2023, 39, 18466–18475.
68. W. Xu, Z. Yang, G. Zhang and H. Liu, Light and temperature dual responsive pesticide release system based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles modified by dopamine, J. Cent. South Univ., 2022, 29, 397–409.
69. H. Chen, Y. Lin, H. Zhou, X. Zhou, S. Gong and H. Xu, Synthesis and Characterization of Chlorpyrifos/Copper(II) Schiff Base Mesoporous Silica with pH Sensitivity for Pesticide Sustained Release, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2016, 64, 8095–8102.
70. M. Wan, T. Hong, G. He, Y. Zhao and L. Sun, Multifunctional hollow silica carriers with spiny structure for enhanced foliar adhesion and triple-responsive pesticide delivery, Chem. Eng. J., 2023, 475, 146461.
71. H. Chhipa, Nanofertilizers and nanopesticides for agriculture, Environ. Chem. Lett., 2017, 15, 15–22.
72. M. Kah, S. Beulke, K. Tiede and T. Hofmann, Nanopesticides: State of Knowledge, Environmental Fate, and Exposure Modeling, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 43, 1823–1867.
73. M. Kah, L. J. Johnston, R. S. Kookana, W. Bruce, A. Haase and V. Ritz, et al. Comprehensive framework for human health risk assessment of nanopesticides, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2021, 16, 955–964.
74. M. Kah, Nanopesticides and Nanofertilizers: Emerging Contaminants or Opportunities for Risk Mitigation?, Front. Chem., 2015, 3, 64.
75. S. Noimark, J. Weiner, N. Noor, E. Allan, C. K. Williams and M. S. P. Shaffer, et al. Dual-Mechanism Antimicrobial Polymer–ZnO Nanoparticle and Crystal Violet-Encapsulated Silicone, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2015, 25, 1367–1373.
76. F. Gao, H. Zhou, Z. Shen, H. Qiu, L. Hao and H. Chen, et al. Synergistic antimicrobial activities of tea tree oil loaded on mesoporous silica encapsulated by polyethyleneimine, J. Dispersion Sci. Technol., 2020, 41, 1859–1871.
77. A. Saeed, Y. Modafer, A. A. Ageeli, A. Y. Madkhli, R. A. Pashameah and F. A. Al-Marhaby, et al. Harnessing volcanic silica nanoparticles for antibacterial applications, Environ. Technol. Innovation, 2023, 30, 103111.
78. C. H. N. Barros, S. Fulaz, S. Vitale, E. Casey and L. Quinn, Interactions between functionalised silica nanoparticles and Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilm matrix: A focus on the protein corona, PLoS One, 2020, 15, e0236441.
79. Y. Abdallah, Y. Nehela, S. O. Ogunyemi, M. Ijaz, T. Ahmed, R. Elashmony, M. Alkhalifah Dalal Hussien, N. Hozzein Wael, L. Xu, C. Yan, J. Chen and B. Li, Bio-functionalized nickel-silica nanoparticles suppress bacterial leaf blight disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.), Front. Plant Sci., 2023, 14 DOI:10.3389/fpls.2023.1216782.
80. A. García, B. González, C. Harvey, I. Izquierdo-Barba and M. Vallet-Regí, Effective reduction of biofilm through photothermal therapy by gold core@shell based mesoporous silica nanoparticles, Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 2021, 328, 111489.
81. C. H. N. Barros, S. Fulaz, S. Vitale, E. Casey and L. Quinn, Interactions between functionalised silica nanoparticles and Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilm matrix: A focus on the protein corona, PLoS One, 2020, 15, e0236441.
82. M. C. Roco, (IWGN Chair) RSW (private sector), PA (academe), Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report, Springer, Dordrecht, 1st edn, 2000.
83. S. Cozzens, R. Cortes, O. Soumonni and T. Woodson, Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: water, energy, and agri-food, J. Nanopart. Res., 2013, 15, 2001.
84. M. Karimi, P. Sahandi Zangabad, S. Baghaee-Ravari, M. Ghazadeh, H. Mirshekari and M. R. Hamblin, Smart Nanostructures for Cargo Delivery: Uncaging and Activating by Light, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2017, 139, 4584–4610.
85. M. Kah, R. S. Kookana, A. Gogos and T. D. Bucheli, A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2018, 13, 677–684.
86. C. Scott and P. E. Bilsborrow, The impact of the EU neonicotinoid seed-dressing ban on oilseed rape production in England, Pest Manage. Sci., 2019, 75, 125–133.
87. J. S. Duhan, R. Kumar, N. Kumar, P. Kaur, K. Nehra and S. Duhan, Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture, Biotechnol. Rep., 2017, 15, 11–23.
88. S. S. Mukhopadhyay, Nanotechnology in agriculture: Prospects and constraints, Nanotechnol., Sci. Appl., 2014, 7, 63–71.
89. C. Ma, J. C. White, J. Zhao, Q. Zhao and B. Xing, The Annual Review of Food Science and Technology is online at food, Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol., 2018, 9, 129–153.
90. R. Prasad, A. Bhattacharyya and Q. D. Nguyen, Nanotechnology in Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Developments, Challenges, and Perspectives, Front. Microbiol., 2017, 8 DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01014.
91. J. He, J. Li, Y. Gao, X. He and G. Hao, Nano-based smart formulations: A potential solution to the hazardous effects of pesticide on the environment, J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 456, 131599.
92. S. O. Duke, Pesticide Dose – A Parameter with Many Implications. in Pesticide Dose: Effects on the Environment and Target and Non-Target Organisms. American Chemical Society, 2017, pp. 1–13.
93. X. Zhao, H. Cui, Y. Wang, C. Sun, B. Cui and Z. Zeng, Development Strategies and Prospects of Nano-based Smart Pesticide Formulation, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2018, 66, 6504–6512.
94. V. Ghormade, M. V. Deshpande and K. M. Paknikar, Perspectives for nano-biotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants, Biotechnol. Adv., 2011, 29, 792–803.
95. L. Schreiber, Transport barriers made of cutin, suberin and associated waxes, Trends Plant Sci., 2010, 15, 546–553.
96. H. Guan, D. Chi, J. Yu and X. Li, A novel photodegradable insecticide: Preparation, characterization and properties evaluation of nano-Imidacloprid, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol., 2008, 92, 83–91.
97. P. Yao, A. Zou, Z. Tian, W. Meng, X. Fang and T. Wu, et al. Construction and characterization of a temperature-responsive nanocarrier for imidacloprid based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles, Colloids Surf., B, 2021, 198, 111464.
98. A. Gogos, K. Knauer and T. D. Bucheli, Nanomaterials in Plant Protection and Fertilization: Current State, Foreseen Applications, and Research Priorities, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2012, 60, 9781–9792.
99. G. Oskam, Metal oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization and application, J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol., 2006, 37, 161–164.
100. M. Auffan, J. Rose, J.-Y. Bottero, G. V. Lowry, J.-P. Jolivet and M. R. Wiesner, Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2009, 4, 634–641.
101. R. J. B. Peters, H. Bouwmeester, S. Gottardo, V. Amenta, M. Arena and P. Brandhoff, et al. Nanomaterials for products and application in agriculture, feed and food, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2016, 54, 155–164.
102. G. W. Walker, R. S. Kookana, N. E. Smith, M. Kah, C. L. Doolette and P. T. Reeves, et al. Ecological Risk Assessment of Nano-enabled Pesticides: A Perspective on Problem Formulation, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2018, 66, 6480–6486.
103. A. Rastogi, D. K. Tripathi, S. Yadav, D. K. Chauhan, M. Živčák and M. Ghorbanpour, et al. Application of silicon nanoparticles in agriculture, 3 Biotech, 2019, 9, 90.
104. A. Manivannan, P. Soundararajan and B. R. Jeong, Editorial: Silicon: A “Quasi-Essential” element's role in plant physiology and development, Front. Plant Sci., 2023, 14 DOI:10.3389/fpls.2023.1157185.
105. B. Xu, S. Li, R. Shi and H. Liu, Multifunctional mesoporous silica nanoparticles for biomedical applications, Signal Transduction Targeted Ther., 2023, 8, 435.
106. O. I. Parisi, C. Morelli, L. Scrivano, M. S. Sinicropi, M. G. Cesario and S. Candamano, et al. Controlled release of sunitinib in targeted cancer therapy: smart magnetically responsive hydrogels as restricted access materials, RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 65308–65315.
107. A. Popat, J. Liu, Q. Hu, M. Kennedy, B. Peters and G. Q. (Max) Lu, et al. Adsorption and release of biocides with mesoporous silica nanoparticles, Nanoscale, 2012, 4, 970–975.
108. E. S. Okeke, E. J. Nweze, T. C. Ezike, C. O. Nwuche, T. P. C. Ezeorba and C. E. I. Nwankwo, 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.
109. A. Emamverdian, Y. Ding, F. Mokhberdoran, Y. Xie, X. Zheng and Y. Wang, Silicon dioxide nanoparticles improve plant growth by enhancing antioxidant enzyme capacity in bamboo (Pleioblastus pygmaeus) under lead toxicity, Trees, 2020, 34, 469–481.
110. Q. Huang, A. Ayyaz, M. A. Farooq, K. Zhang, W. Chen and F. Hannan, 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.
111. P. G. Jeelani, P. Mulay, R. Venkat and C. Ramalingam, Multifaceted Application of Silica Nanoparticles, A Review, Silicon, 2020, 12, 1337–1354.
112. I. Khan, S. A. Awan and M. Rizwan, et al. Nanoparticle's uptake and translocation mechanisms in plants via seed priming, foliar treatment, and root exposure: a review, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2022, 29, 89823–89833.
113. M. Mukarram, M. M. A. Khan and F. J. Corpas, Silicon nanoparticles elicit an increase in lemongrass (Cymbopogon flexuosus (Steud.) Wats) agronomic parameters with a higher essential oil yield, J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 412, 125254.
114. F. Asgari, A. Majd, P. Jonoubi and F. Najafi, Effects of silicon nanoparticles on molecular, chemical, structural and ultrastructural characteristics of oat (Avena sativa L.), Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2018, 127, 152–160.
115. R. Azimi, M. J. Borzelabad, H. Feizi and A. Azimi, Interaction of SiO Nanoparticles with Seed Prechilling on Germination and Early Seedling Growth of Tall Wheatgrass (Agropyron Elongatum L.), Pol. J. Chem. Technol., 2014, 16, 25–29.
116. T. Suciaty, D. Purnomo, A. T. Sakya and Supriyadi, The effect of nano-silica fertilizer concentration and rice hull ash doses on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) growth and yield, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 2018, 129, 012009.
117. N. Sabaghnia and M. Janmohammadi, Biplot Analysis of Silicon Dioxide on Early Growth of Sunflower, Plant Breed. Seed Sci., 2016, 73, 87–98.
118. D. Sun, H. I. Hussain, Z. Yi, J. E. Rookes, L. Kong and D. M. Cahill, Mesoporous silica nanoparticles enhance seedling growth and photosynthesis in wheat and lupin, Chemosphere, 2016, 152, 81–91.
119. M. H. Siddiqui and M. H. Al-Whaibi, Role of nano-SiO2 in germination of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum seeds Mill.), Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 2014, 21, 13–17.
120. M. H. Siddiqui, M. H. Al-Whaibi, M. Faisal and A. A. Al Sahli, Nano-silicon dioxide mitigates the adverse effects of salt stress on Cucurbita pepo L, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2014, 33, 2429–2437.
121. L. Coscia, P. Causa, E. Giuliani and A. Nunziata, Pharmacological properties of new neuroleptic compounds, Arzneim.-Forsch., 1975, 25(9), 1436–1442.
122. M. E. F. Abdel-Haliem, H. S. Hegazy, N. S. Hassan and D. M. Naguib, Effect of silica ions and nano silica on rice plants under salinity stress, Ecol. Eng., 2017, 99, 282–289.
123. J. G. Croissant, K. S. Butler, J. I. Zink and C. J. Brinker, Synthetic amorphous silica nanoparticles: toxicity, biomedical and environmental implications, Nat. Rev. Mater., 2020, 5, 886–909.
124. J. G. Croissant, Y. Fatieiev and N. M. Khashab, Degradability and Clearance of Silicon, Organosilica, Silsesquioxane, Silica Mixed Oxide, and Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles, Adv. Mater., 2017, 29, 1604634.
125. C. W. Lee, S. Mahendra, K. Zodrow, D. Li, Y.-C. Tsai and J. Braam, et al. Developmental phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to Arabidopsis thaliana, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2010, 29, 669–675.
126. D. L. Slomberg and M. H. Schoenfisch, Silica Nanoparticle Phytotoxicity to Arabidopsis thaliana, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46, 10247–10254.
127. S. Namjoyan, A. Sorooshzadeh, A. Rajabi and M. Aghaalikhani, Nano-silicon protects sugar beet plants against water deficit stress by improving the antioxidant systems and compatible solutes, Acta Physiol. Plant., 2020, 42, 157.
128. A. Abulikemu, X. Zhao, Y. Qi, Y. Liu, J. Wang and W. Zhou, et al. Lysosomal impairment-mediated autophagy dysfunction responsible for the vascular endothelial apoptosis caused by silica nanoparticle via ROS/PARP1/AIF signaling pathway, Environ. Pollut., 2022, 304, 119202.
129. R. Xing, K.-L. Li, Y.-F. Zhou, Y.-Y. Su, S.-Q. Yan and K.-L. Zhang, et al. Impact of fluorescent silicon nanoparticles on circulating hemolymph and hematopoiesis in an invertebrate model organism, Chemosphere, 2016, 159, 628–637.
130. J. Duan, Y. Yu, Y. Li, Y. Li, H. Liu and L. Jing, et al. Low-dose exposure of silica nanoparticles induces cardiac dysfunction via neutrophil-mediated inflammation and cardiac contraction in zebrafish embryos, Nanotoxicology, 2016, 10, 575–585.
131. B. S. Zolnik and N. Sadrieh, Regulatory perspective on the importance of ADME assessment of nanoscale material containing drugs, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2009, 61, 422–427.
132. A. B. Asha and R. Narain, Chapter 15 - Nanomaterials properties. in Polymer Science and Nanotechnology, ed. R. Narain, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 343–359.
133. G. Singh, H. Arora, P. Hariprasad and S. Sharma, Development of clove oil based nanoencapsulated biopesticide employing mesoporous nanosilica synthesized from paddy straw via bioinspired sol-gel route, Environ. Res., 2023, 220, 115208.
134. L. Wu, J. Zhang and W. Watanabe, Physical and chemical stability of drug nanoparticles, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2011, 63, 456–469.
135. E. S. Committee, S. More, V. Bampidis, D. Benford, C. Bragard and T. Halldorsson, et al. Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health, EFSA J., 2021, 19, e06768.
136. Y. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Yan, Z. Huang, Y. Zhang, X. Wang and N. Zhou, pH-Responsive Pesticide-Loaded Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles with ZnO Quantum Dots as a Gatekeeper for Control of Rice Blast Disease, Materials, 2024, 17, 1344.
137. L. Wu, H. Pan, W. Huang, M. Wang, Z. Hu and F. Zhang, Self-assembled degradable iron-doped mesoporous silica nanoparticles for the smart delivery of prochloraz to improve plant protection and reduce environmental impact, Environ. Technol. Innovation, 2022, 28, 102890.
138. Guidelines on Efficacy Evaluation for the Registration of Plant Protection Products, 2006.
139. H. Pan, W. Huang, L. Wu, Q. Hong, Z. Hu, M. Wang and F. Zhang, A pH Dual-Responsive Multifunctional Nanoparticle Based on Mesoporous Silica with Metal-Polymethacrylic Acid Gatekeeper for Improving Plant Protection and Nutrition, Nanomaterials, 2022, 12, 687.
140. W. Li, Q. Wang, F. Zhang, H. Shang, S. Bai and J. Sun, pH-sensitive thiamethoxam nanoparticles based on bimodal mesoporous silica for improving insecticidal efficiency, R. Soc. Open Sci., 2021, 8(2), 201967.
141. H. Bataineh, O. Pestovsky and A. Bakac, pH-induced mechanistic changeover from hydroxyl radicals to iron(iv) in the Fenton reaction, Chem. Sci., 2012, 3, 1594–1599.
142. Y. Liang, J. Song, H. Dong, Z. Huo, Y. Gao and Z. Zhou, et al. Fabrication of pH-responsive nanoparticles for high efficiency pyraclostrobin delivery and reducing environmental impact, Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 787, 147422.
143. Y. Wang, M. Zhu, T. Shi, X. Ma, X. Wu and Q. X. Li, et al. Construction of a novel fluorescent nanocarrier with double hollow shells for pH-controlled release of imidacloprid and its distribution and transport in bok choy, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2022, 246, 114132.
144. L. Yang, H. Chen, W. Yan, S. Huang, D. Cheng and H. Xu, et al. A pH- and redox-stimulated responsive hollow mesoporous silica for triggered delivery of fungicides to control downy mildew of Luffa cylindrica, Pest Manage. Sci., 2022, 78, 3365–3375.
145. Y. Ma, Y. Wang, R. Zhao, Z. Wang, S. Li and M. Yu, et al. pH-responsive ZIF-8 film-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles for clean, targeted delivery of fungicide and environmental hazard reduction, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2023, 11, 111513.
146. Y. Yu, F. Song, M. Yang, S. Tian, X. Ji and X. Yu, 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.
147. A. Aparna, H. Sreehari, A. Chandran, K. P. Anjali, A. M. Alex and P. Anuvinda, et al. Ligand-protected nanoclusters and their role in agriculture, sensing and allied applications, Talanta, 2022, 239, 123134.
148. M. Zong, C. Yu, J. Li, D. Sun, J. Wang and Z. Mo, et al. Redox and Near-Infrared Light-Responsive Nanoplatform for Enhanced Pesticide Delivery and Pest Control in Rice: Construction, Efficacy, and Potential Mechanisms, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2023, 15, 41351–41361.
149. L. Ren, B. Huang, W. Fang, D. Zhang, H. Cheng and Z. Song, et al. Multi-Encapsulation Combination of O/W/O Emulsions with Polyurea Microcapsules for Controlled Release and Safe Application of Dimethyl Disulfide, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 1333–1344.
150. L. Yang, H. Chen, W. Yan, S. Huang, D. Cheng and H. H. Xu, et al. A pH- and redox-stimulated responsive hollow mesoporous silica for triggered delivery of fungicides to control downy mildew of Luffa cylindrica, Pest Manage. Sci., 2022, 78, 3365–3375.
151. L. Wu, H. Pan, W. Huang, Z. Hu, M. Wang and F. Zhang, pH and Redox Dual-Responsive Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle as Nanovehicle for Improving Fungicidal Efficiency, Materials, 2022, 15, 2207.
152. C. Xu, L. Cao, P. Zhao, Z. Zhou, C. Cao and F. Li, et al. Emulsion-based synchronous pesticide encapsulation and surface modification of mesoporous silica nanoparticles with carboxymethyl chitosan for controlled azoxystrobin release, Chem. Eng. J., 2018, 348, 244–254.
153. J. Feng, J. Yang, Y. Shen, W. Deng, W. Chen and Y. Ma, et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles prepared via a one-pot method for controlled release of abamectin: Properties and applications, Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 2021, 311, 110688.
154. Y. Gao, Y. Liang, Z. Zhou, J. Yang, Y. Tian and J. Niu, et al. Metal-organic framework nanohybrid carrier for precise pesticide delivery and pest management, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 422, 130143.
155. L. Cao, Z. Zhou, S. Niu, C. Cao, X. Li and Y. Shan, et al. Positive-Charge Functionalized Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as Nanocarriers for Controlled 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid Sodium Salt Release, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2018, 66, 6594–6603.
156. Y. Gao, Y. Zhang, S. He, Y. Xiao, X. Qin and Y. Zhang, et al. Fabrication of a hollow mesoporous silica hybrid to improve the targeting of a pesticide, Chem. Eng. J., 2019, 364, 361–369.
157. C. Zhao, M. Tao, L. Xu, N. Fan, Y. Shu and Z. Xiao, et al. Silica-Based Nanodelivery Systems Loaded with Matrine for the Brown Planthopper Green Control and Rice Growth Promotion, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2023, 11, 17299–17309.
158. A. E. Kaziem, L. Yang, Y. Lin, Y. Tan, Z. Song and H. Xu, et al. Pest Invasion-Responsive Hollow Mesoporous Silica-Linked Carboxymethyl Starch Nanoparticles for Smart Abamectin Delivery, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 2022, 5, 3458–3469.
159. J. Feng, L. Sun, W. Chen, N. Wei, C. Hou and Z. Chen, et al. Synthesis, antifungal evaluation, and safety assessment of mesoporous silica nanoparticles loaded with prothioconazole against crop pathogens, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2022, 9, 2548–2558.
160. M. Kah, H. Walch and T. Hofmann, Environmental fate of nanopesticides: durability, sorption and photodegradation of nanoformulated clothianidin, Environ. Sci.:Nano, 2018, 5, 882–889.
161. Y. Xiang, M. Wang, X. Sun, D. Cai and Z. Wu, Controlling Pesticide Loss through Nanonetworks, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2014, 2, 918–924.
162. P. Zhao, W. Yuan, C. Xu, F. Li, L. Cao and Q. Huang, Enhancement of Spirotetramat Transfer in Cucumber Plant Using Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as Carriers, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2018, 66, 11592–11600.
163. J. F. Ma and N. Yamaji, Silicon uptake and accumulation in higher plants, Trends Plant Sci., 2006, 11, 392–397.
164. X. Ma, J. Geiser-Lee, Y. Deng and A. Kolmakov, Interactions between engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) and plants: Phytotoxicity, uptake and accumulation, Sci. Total Environ., 2010, 408, 3053–3061.
165. J. Lv, P. Christie and S. Zhang, Uptake, translocation, and transformation of metal-based nanoparticles in plants: recent advances and methodological challenges, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2019, 6, 41–59.
166. F. Zhu, X. Liu, L. Cao, C. Cao, F. Li, C. Chen, C. Xu, Q. Huang and F. Du, Uptake and Distribution of Fenoxanil-Loaded Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles in Rice Plants, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2018, 19, 2854.
167. J. Wang, R. Li, Z. Zhao, M. Zhu and Y. Wang, Bioactivity, Uptake, and Distribution of Prothioconazole Loaded on Fluorescent Double-Hollow Shelled Mesoporous Silica in Soybean Plants, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2023, 71, 4521–4535.
168. B. Bokor, S. Ondoš, M. Vaculík, S. Bokorová, M. Weidinger, I. Lichtscheidl, J. Turňa and A. Lux, Expression of Genes for Si Uptake, Accumulation, and Correlation of Si with Other Elements in Ionome of Maize Kernel, Front. Plant Sci., 2017, 8 DOI:10.3389/fpls.2017.01063.
169. C. Santibáñez, C. Verdugo and R. Ginocchio, Phytostabilization of copper mine tailings with biosolids: Implications for metal uptake and productivity of Lolium perenne, Sci. Total Environ., 2008, 395, 1–10.
170. Z. Wang, W. Xu, Z. Meng, T. Fan, C. Yang and J. Wang, et al. Development of spirotetramat nanoparticles based on mesoporous silica: improving the uptake and translocation of spirotetramat in plants, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2023, 30, 12618–12627.
171. J. F. Ma and N. Yamaji, Functions and transport of silicon in plants, Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 2008, 65, 3049–3057.
172. Y. Zeng, M. Molnárová and M. Motola, Metallic nanoparticles and photosynthesis organisms: Comprehensive review from the ecological perspective, J. Environ. Manage., 2024, 358, 120858.
173. W. J. Lucas, B.-K. Ham and J.-Y. Kim, Plasmodesmata &#x2013; bridging the gap between neighboring plant cells, Trends Cell Biol., 2009, 19, 495–503.
174. D. K. Tripathi, A. Tripathi, Shweta, S. Singh, Y. Singh, K. Vishwakarma, G. Yadav, S. Sharma, K. Singh Vivek, K. Mishra Rohit, R. G. Upadhyay, K. Dubey Nawal, Y. Lee and K. Chauhan Devendra, Uptake, Accumulation and Toxicity of Silver Nanoparticle in Autotrophic Plants, and Heterotrophic Microbes: A Concentric Review, Front. Microbiol., 2017, 8 DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00007.
175. L. Hazeem, Single and Combined Toxicity Effects of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Uptake and Accumulation in Marine Microalgae, Toxicity Mechanisms, and Their Fate in the Marine Environment, Water, 2022, 14, 2669.
176. L.-H. Wang, Q. Wang, X. Zhang, W. Cai and X. Sun, A bibliometric analysis of anaerobic digestion for methane research during the period 1994–2011, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage., 2013, 15, 1–8.
177. C. Popp, M. Burghardt, A. Friedmann and M. Riederer, Characterization of hydrophilic and lipophilic pathways of Hedera helix L. cuticular membranes: permeation of water and uncharged organic compounds, J. Exp. Bot., 2005, 56, 2797–2806.
178. Y. Lin, Z. Sun, Z. Li, R. Xue, W. Cui, S. Sun, T. Liu, R. Zeng and Y. Song, Deficiency in Silicon Transporter Lsi1 Compromises Inducibility of Anti-herbivore Defense in Rice Plants, Front. Plant Sci., 2019, 10 DOI:10.3389/fpls.2019.00652.
179. A. E. Nel, L. Mädler, D. Velegol, T. Xia, E. M. V. Hoek and P. Somasundaran, et al. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface, Nat. Mater., 2009, 8, 543–557.
180. N. K. Geitner, W. Zhao, F. Ding, W. Chen and M. R. Wiesner, Mechanistic Insights from Discrete Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Pesticide-Nanoparticle Interactions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51, 8396–8404.
181. Y. Ju-Nam and J. R. Lead, Manufactured nanoparticles: An overview of their chemistry, interactions and potential environmental implications, Sci. Total Environ., 2008, 400, 396–414.
182. M. El-Shetehy, A. Moradi, M. Maceroni, D. Reinhardt, A. Petri-Fink and B. Rothen-Rutishauser, et al. Silica nanoparticles enhance disease resistance in Arabidopsis plants, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2021, 16, 344–353.
183. C. M. Rico, S. Majumdar, M. Duarte-Gardea, J. R. Peralta-Videa and J. L. Gardea-Torresdey, Interaction of Nanoparticles with Edible Plants and Their Possible Implications in the Food Chain, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2011, 59, 3485–3498.
184. S. Soni, A. B. Jha, R. S. Dubey and P. Sharma, Nanowonders in agriculture: Unveiling the potential of nanoparticles to boost crop resilience to salinity stress, Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 925, 171433.
185. L. Bao-shan, D. Shao-qi, L. Chun-hui, F. Li-jun, Q. Shu-chun and Y. Min, Effect of TMS (nanostructured silicon dioxide) on growth of Changbai larch seedlings, J. For. Res., 2004, 15, 138–140.
186. Y. Zhu and H. Gong, Beneficial effects of silicon on salt and drought tolerance in plants, Agron. Sustainable Dev., 2014, 34, 455–472.
187. P. Goswami, J. Mathur and N. Srivastava, Silica nanoparticles as novel sustainable approach for plant growth and crop protection, Heliyon, 2022, 8, e09908.
188. J. A. Adebisi, J. O. Agunsoye, S. A. Bello, M. Haris, M. M. Ramakokovhu and M. O. Daramola, et al. Extraction of silica from cassava periderm using modified sol-gel method, Niger. J. Technol. Dev., 2018, 15, 57.
189. K. Tamarov, S. Näkki, W. Xu and V.-P. Lehto, Approaches to improve the biocompatibility and systemic circulation of inorganic porous nanoparticles, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2018, 6, 3632–3649.
190. D. Wibowo, C.-X. Zhao, B. C. Peters and A. P. J. Middelberg, Sustained Release of Fipronil Insecticide in Vitro and in Vivo from Biocompatible Silica Nanocapsules, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2014, 62, 12504–12511.
191. K. Qian, T. Shi, S. He, L. Luo, X. Liu and Y. Cao, Release kinetics of tebuconazole from porous hollow silica nanospheres prepared by miniemulsion method, Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 2013, 169, 1–6.
192. W.-M. Tan, N. Hou, S. Pang, X.-F. Zhu, Z.-H. Li and L.-X. Wen, et al. Improved biological effects of uniconazole using porous hollow silica nanoparticles as carriers, Pest Manage. Sci., 2012, 68, 437–443.
193. F. Liu, L.-X. Wen, Z.-Z. Li, W. Yu, H.-Y. Sun and J.-F. Chen, Porous hollow silica nanoparticles as controlled delivery system for water-soluble pesticide, Mater. Res. Bull., 2006, 41, 2268–2275.
194. Y. Wang, H. Cui, C. Sun, X. Zhao and B. Cui, Construction and evaluation of controlled-release delivery system of Abamectin using porous silica nanoparticles as carriers, Nanoscale Res. Lett., 2014, 9, 655.
195. E. Rastegari, Y.-J. Hsiao, W.-Y. Lai, Y.-H. Lai, T.-C. Yang, S.-J. Chen, P.-I. Huang, S.-H. Chiou, C.-Y. Mou and Y. Chien, An Update on Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle Applications in Nanomedicine, Pharmaceutics, 2021, 13, 1067.
196. Y. Xu, C. Xu, Q. Huang, L. Cao, F. Teng and P. Zhao, et al. Size effect of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on pesticide loading, release, and delivery in cucumber plants, Appl. Sci., 2021, 11, 1–15.
197. A. D. Bulfa, M. C. Alvarado, P. B. Sanchez, Ma. L. S. Edaño, P. C. Sta. Cruz and E. T. M. Ocampo, Sustainable synthesis of silica nanoparticles (SNPs) from agricultural residues: A review on plant stress mitigation and the sustainability triangle, Green Technol. Sustainability, 2025, 3, 100221.
198. L. Li, Z. Xu, M. Kah, D. Lin and J. Filser, Nanopesticides: A Comprehensive Assessment of Environmental Risk Is Needed before Widespread Agricultural Application, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 7923–7924.
199. G. Yan, Q. Huang, S. Zhao, Y. Xu, Y. He, M. Nikolic, N. Nikolic, Y. Liang and Z. Zhu, Silicon nanoparticles in sustainable agriculture: synthesis, absorption, and plant stress alleviation, Front. Plant Sci., 2024, 15 DOI:10.3389/fpls.2024.1393458.
200. S. Sułowicz, S. Borymski, M. Dulski, A. Nowak, K. Bondarczuk and A. Markowicz, Nanopesticide risk assessment based on microbiome profiling – Community structure and functional potential as biomarkers in captan@ZnO35–45 nm and captan@SiO2 20–30 nm treated orchard soil, J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 458, 131948.
201. N. Kumar, P. Kumar and R. C. Dubey, Nanomaterials in soil science for agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability, Discov. Environ., 2025, 3, 27.
202. S. A. Atanda, R. O. Shaibu and F. O. Agunbiade, Nanoparticles in agriculture: balancing food security and environmental sustainability, Discov. Environ., 2025, 3, 26.
203. S. Shekhar, S. Sharma, A. Kumar, A. Taneja and B. Sharma, The framework of nanopesticides: a paradigm in biodiversity, Mater. Adv., 2021, 2, 6569–6588.
204. R. Zainab, M. Hasnain, F. Ali, Z. Abideen, Z. S. Siddiqui and F. Jamil, et al. Prospects and challenges of nanopesticides in advancing pest management for sustainable agricultural and environmental service, Environ. Res., 2024, 261, 119722.
205. A. Nair, H. R. Chandrashekhar, C. M. Day, S. Garg, Y. Nayak and P. A. Shenoy, et al. Polymeric functionalization of mesoporous silica nanoparticles: Biomedical insights, Int. J. Pharm., 2024, 660, 124314.
206. L. Luo, Y. Liang, E. S. Erichsen and R. Anwander, Hierarchical Mesoporous Organosilica–Silica Core–Shell Nanoparticles Capable of Controlled Fungicide Release, Chem. – Eur. J., 2018, 24, 7200–7209.
207. H. Lin, N. Ma, L. He, P. Xu, F. Wang and C. You, High deposition and precise stimulus-response release performance of lignin-coated dendritic mesoporous organosilica nanoparticles for efficient pesticide utilization, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2024, 259, 129163.
208. D. Dorairaj, N. Govender, S. Zakaria and R. Wickneswari, Green synthesis and characterization of UKMRC-8 rice husk-derived mesoporous silica nanoparticle for agricultural application, Sci. Rep., 2022, 12, 20162.
209. H. Chen, F. Wang, C. Zhang, Y. Shi, G. Jin and S. Yuan, Preparation of nano-silica materials: The concept from wheat straw, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 2010, 356, 2781–2785.
210. W. Guo, G. Li, Y. Zheng and K. Li, Nano-silica extracted from rice husk and its application in acetic acid steam reforming, RSC Adv., 2021, 11, 34915–34922.
211. V. Mamidi, R. Katakojwala and S. V. Mohan, Amorphous nano-silica from sugarcane bagasse ash – process optimization, characterization, and sustainability analysis, Biomass Convers. Biorefin., 2025, 15, 4059–4071.
212. J. Zhang, S. Kothalawala and C. Yu, Engineered silica nanomaterials in pesticide delivery: Challenges and perspectives, Environ. Pollut., 2023, 320, 121045.
213. Y. Gao, Y. Liu, X. Qin, Z. Guo, D. Li and C. Li, et al. Dual stimuli-responsive fungicide carrier based on hollow mesoporous silica/hydroxypropyl cellulose hybrid nanoparticles, J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 414, 125513.
214. R. B. Jundale, J. R. Sonawane, A. V. Palghadmal, H. K. Jaiswal, H. S. Deore and A. A. Kulkarni, Scaling-up continuous production of mesoporous silica particles at kg scale: design & operational strategies, React. Chem. Eng., 2024, 9, 1914–1923.
215. R. S. Kookana, A. B. A. Boxall, P. T. Reeves, R. Ashauer, S. Beulke and Q. Chaudhry, et al. Nanopesticides: Guiding Principles for Regulatory Evaluation of Environmental Risks, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2014, 62, 4227–4240.
216. H. Naaz, K. Rawat, P. Saffeullah and S. Umar, Silica nanoparticles synthesis and applications in agriculture for plant fertilization and protection: a review, Environ. Chem. Lett., 2023, 21, 539–559.
217. P. Zhao, L. Cao, D. Ma, Z. Zhou, Q. Huang and C. Pan, Translocation, distribution and degradation of prochloraz-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles in cucumber plants, Nanoscale, 2018, 10, 1798–1806.

---