Page 30 - AJWEP-v22i3

Al-Juthery, et al.

environmental assessments of nano-biofertilizers. Overall, toxicity regulations and production costs. Extensive
1
79
while nano-biofertilizers have the potential to reduce the research is needed to evaluate their long-term impacts on
environmental footprint of agriculture by lowering fertilizer ecosystems and human health. This should be a priority
80
requirements, a cautious approach is warranted. Potential for governments and research institutions – to develop
risks—such as nanoparticle accumulation, impacts on safe, cost-effective, and environmentally benign products
the soil microbiome, and unknown long-term ecosystem that can be widely adopted. However, implementation
effects—should be transparently acknowledged. This in numerous regions remains hindered by high costs,
balanced perspective ensures that the review does not difficulties in scaling up production, and regulatory
appear overly optimistic and aligns with current calls in approval hurdles. Future research should focus on:
16
the literature for comprehensive risk–benefit analyses of (i) The development of biodegradable nano-carriers for
nanotechnology in agriculture. 70 microbial stabilization.
(ii) The assessment of long-term impacts on soil health.
7.3. Environmental benefits of nano-biofertilizers (iii) The commercialization of low-cost nano-
Nano-biofertilizers combine nanotechnology with bio- biofertilizers for global agriculture.
based nutrient sources to improve nutrient use efficiency
while reducing environmental degradation. The release There is significant potential for nano-biofertilizers
nutrients more slowly than conventional fertilizers, to revolutionize sustainable and precise food production
19
minimizing leaching into water bodies and reducing soil systems in agriculture. Key regulatory challenges
contamination. The use of nanocarrier-encapsulated include the absence of clear legal frameworks governing
74
essential nutrients improves bioavailability, allowing the use of nanoparticles in agriculture, which delays
for lower application rates while maintaining high their commercial adoption. Economic challenges
crop yields. In addition, nano-biofertilizers stimulate also persist, such as high initial production costs and
75
microbial diversity and soil health by promoting limited government support in many developing
beneficial microbial interactions. For example, nitrogen- countries. Barriers to farmer adoption include a lack of
fixing bacteria in bio-nanocomposites enhance nitrogen awareness, limited technical knowledge, and concerns
74
availability and reduce dependence on synthetic about potential environmental impacts. As Rai et al.
nitrogen, a major contributor to nitrate pollution. Such emphasized, the limited availability of long-term studies
76
biological interventions help maintain long-term soil and insufficient understanding of nanoparticle behavior
fertility and support environmental stability. in the environment remain major obstacles to the
widespread application of this technology in agriculture.
7.4. Contribution to sustainability
The application of nanotechnology in biofertilizers aligns 8.1. Regulatory frameworks and global examples
closely with the principles of sustainable agriculture, The regulatory landscape for nano-biofertilizers is still
aiming to lower chemical inputs and maximize resource developing, with approaches varying widely across
efficiency. Furthermore, nano-biofertilizers help reduce countries. Globally, no unified regulatory framework
77
the carbon footprint, as their precision application exists for nanofertilizers. This regulatory gap means
reduces the need for energy-intensive manufacturing, that approval processes, safety evaluations, and
transportation, and excessive usage. 18 labeling requirements for nano-enabled fertilizers are
They also support plant climate resilience by handled differently depending on jurisdiction. Several
mitigating the effects of abiotic stress factors like drought illustrative examples can be provided: (i) India –
and salinity. Nanoparticles such as ZnO and silica, when proactive regulatory inclusion: India has been one of
incorporated into biofertilizers, have been shown to the early adopters of nanofertilizer regulation. In 2021,
improve water retention and enable plant growth under the Indian government amended its fertilizer control
adverse conditions. These features position nano- order (FCO) to officially include “nanofertilizers”
78
biofertilizers as a strategic tool in addressing the effects as a distinct category. Specific guidelines and quality
of climate change on agriculture. standards were issues – for instance, the FCO now
defines and sets specifications for nano urea (liquid),
8. Challenges and future perspectives including permissible nutrient content and particle size.
Initially, the IFFCO was authorized to commercially
Challenges in the large-scale adoption of nano- produce nano-urea. As a result, any nano-fertilizer
81
biofertilizers include concerns regarding nanoparticle in India must undergo a government approval process,

Volume 22 Issue 3 (2025) 24 doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025160123