Nanopesticides Most developments seem to be currently at the R&D stage, and it is likely that the agriculture sector will

ll see some large-scale applications of nanotechnologies in the future. The use of nanosized active ingredients has been suggested to offer improved delivery of agrochemicals in the eld, better efcacy of pesticides and better control over dosing of veterinary products.

Examples(From http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241563932_eng.pdf) Nano-encapsulated and solid lipid nanoparticles have been explored for the delivery of agrochemicals (Frederiksen et al., 2003) combined fertilizer and pesticide formulation encapsulated in nanoclay for the slow release of growth stimulants and biocontrol agents (Friends of the Earth, 2008). The development of a nano-emulsion (water/poly-oxyethylene) nonionic surfactant (methyl decanoate) containing the pesticide beta-cypermethrin has been described by Wang et al. (2007b). Porous hollow silica nanoparticles, developed for the controlled delivery of the water-soluble pesticide validamycin with a high loading capacity (36 wt%), have been shown to have a multistaged release pattern (Liu et al., 2006). Similarly, the development of organicinorganic nanohybrid material for controlled release of the herbicide 2,4dichlorophenoxyacetate has been described by Bin Hussein et al.(2005). The study used zincaluminium layered double hydroxide to host the herbicide active ingredient by self-assembly. A few fertilizers claimed to contain nanosized micronutrients (mainly oxides and carbonates of zinc, calcium, magnesium, molybdenum, etc.) are available. A commercial product, which comprises sulphates of iron, cobalt, aluminium, magnesium, manganese, nickel and silver, is available for treatment of seed and bulbs before planting. The product claims to have been derived from nanotechnology but the particle size range is not given.

TOXICITY TO MICE

Similar DNA damage in the peripheral blood lymphocytes of the mouse and chromosome damage in bone marrow cells of the mouse occurred with chlorfenapyr nano preparation; however, the severity of these effects was less than that found in common preparation. It is noteworthy that there were no differences in apoptotic ratio and live cell percentage in the liver cells of the mouse between these two pesticide formulations using flow cytometry. Data indicate that chlorfenapyr nanoformulation is less toxic to mouse cells than the common formulation. (from: Effects of nanopesticide chlorfenapyr on mice) Gao, Lu, and Zhou (2006) found that mice administered with these formulations (common formulation, nanoformulation, and nanofunctional formulation) chlorfenapyr through IP at different doses of 4.9, 9.8, or 19.6mgkg1 exhibited genotoxicity, and the potency of genotoxicity of nanoformulation and nanofunctional formulation was less than that of common formulation. (from:: Study on genotoxicity of three chlorfenapyr formulation)

TOXICITY TO ENVIRONMENT Cao et al. (2005b) reported that the degradation rate of chlorfenapyr nanoformulation was faster than chlorfenapyr common suspension concentration, and lower quantities of the residues of the former were detected in the soil. Chlorfenapyr nanoformulation was safer than suspension concentration (Cao et al. 2005b) Rebuttal: The initial concentrations of chlorfenapyr on cabbage leaves immediately after application were similar for both formulations, whereas the initial deposit in soil was slightly lower for the nano-formulations (0.425 mg/kg, as opposed to 0.565 mg/kg for the suspension concentrate). The authors interpreted these observations as being due to the photo-catalytic action of TiO2 on the degradation of the a.i., but it is not clear why photo-catalysis occurred in soil and not on the plant surfaces. Degradation on cabbage leaves was slightly faster for the nano-formulation than for the suspension concentrate but the opposite trend was observed for the persistence in soil. It is not clear why Cao et al. (2005) concluded that the nano-formulation was safer than the suspension concentrate (e.g., residues of nano-TiO2 on the cabbage were not measured). The differences between the half-lives were very small and probably not significant. The observed difference in initial soil deposits may also be questionable considering the difficulties involved in reaching spatially homogeneous application and high accuracies in complex matrices. Despite intensive research over the past decade the environmental fate of nano-sized metals and metal oxides remains poorly understood. (from: HPLC/UV analysis of chlorfenapyr residues in cabbage and soil to study the dynamics of different formulations )

TESTING METHODS AND REBUTTALS One important concern, the researchers said, will be for manufacturers to disclose exactly what nanoparticles are involved in their products and what their characteristics are. Another issue is to ensure that compounds are tested in the same way humans would be exposed in the real world. "You can't use oral ingestion of a pesticide by a laboratory rat and assume that will tell you what happens when a human inhales the same substance," Stone said. "Exposure of the respiratory tract to nanoparticles is one of our key concerns, and we have to test compounds that way." (from: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/osu-nan100110.php)