4 ms·
Scientists use nanoparticles to provide plants with nutrients
- hinkley 7y agoPunchline: by using microparticulates. We have been learning a lot of bad things about the effects of tiny particles on respiratory systems. I hope this doesn't turn into another "shocking update" 20 years from now when lawsuits make them admit they've known all along that they are causing cancer or birth defects.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoHey, what could possibly go wrong? /s
- londons_explore 7y agoIt's about time that rather than regulators saying "you can put up to 10 kilograms of this substance into the environment", they should say "you can put up to 10 kilograms, with a surface area of up to 10 meters squared". That way, if it gets ground too fine, all the safety tests will have to be redone.
- ptah 7y agoagreed, the precautionary principle should apply
- hnruss 7y agoSpraying nanoparticles sounds like it could easily lead to air pollution, but I am not an expert. Is this something we should be concerned about if this ever becomes industrialized?
- stevespang 7y agoYet another fake news title claiming big results for what really turns out to be gold nanoparticles assimilated on and into aquatic plants only. Note: Gold is NOT a beneficial macronutrient or micronutrient in plant physiology.
- taejavu 7y agoElectrolytes?
- qwerty456127 7y ago> pesticides delivered as nanoparticles (particles smaller than 50 nanometers across – a human hair is about 75,000 nanometers wide, for context) sprayed onto the leaves of plants, which then make their way through the plant’s internal vascular system Sounds scary. What if a human or another animal gets sprayed? What if the plants accumulate (and humans eat then) dangerous amounts of substance they were "smart" enough to avoid sucking in when they were not forced?
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoStill early days. For instance, it won't be cheaper because they use less of the applied substance. That's about the cheapest part of the whole process. Its the equipment and time that costs. Not to mention the land. Even the seed can cost more than the applications. Still, less accumulation in the soil is good.
- gravelc 7y agoNanoparticles aren't inherently bad; after all a portion of the particle size distribution of clay sits down in the low nano range. Due to its inertness, I suspect gold is on the relatively safe end of the spectrum. However, whatever it's funcionalized with could certainly be an issue, and if the nanoparticles don't breakdown in the environment, multiple applications on the same field would lead to accumulation over time. There are plenty of nanoparticles that do degrade fairly rapidly, so might well be a safer alternative.
- astazangasta 7y agoPlants already have a method for nutrient exchange, with a symbiotic network called the mycorrhizal mutualistic association, formed by soil fungae. It is beautiful, fascinating, and deeply organic. Life on this planet is very ancient and its habits are not merely complex, they are transcendent. But sure, let's spray pesticide nanoparticles, that'll no doubt be equally subtle.