240
Nanocantilevers are another class of biosensors. Detection of biological-binding
interactions between antigen-antibody, enzyme-substrate, etc. through physical
and/or electro-mechanical signaling is the basis of these biosensors (Hall 2002).
Their tiny parts of silicon-based materials make them capable of recognizing proteins and detecting pathogenic microorganisms (Kumar 2007). Molecular interaction studies and detection of food chemicals such as antibiotics and toxins are
already indebted to the nanocantilever devices (Ramírez-Frómeta 2006). A European
Union-funded project called Bio-Finger developed a nanocantilever device that
could be used to detect pathogens in food and water based on the sensing of ligandreceptor interactions (Jain and Jain 2008).
Nanotracers and nanomonitors are another monitoring tool to detect and measure
the concentration, surface, and size of nanoparticles. Nanotracer usage in air quality
monitoring, environmental monitoring, and the nanoparticle exposure assessment
leads to the food safety, food chain security, and human health (Diallo and Brinker
2011; Marra et al. 2010).
9.7 Nanomaterial Toxicity in Food Animals and Plants
Although the application of nano-based sciences has pushed various industries forward quickly, the development of this technology may have adverse consequences
on the environment and different creatures.
The lengthy food chain and the simplicity of nanomaterial motion have some
negative effects on water, soil, vegetation, aquatic life, and human. Nano-fertilizers
could be detrimental to the beneficial microorganisms and fertility of the soil and
moreover changes its structure and texture. The size and concentration of nanoparticles are the principal agents for eco-toxicity (Raliya et al. 2013).
Despite the plant growth stimulation at low doses of nanomaterials, they mostly
prevent the growth at high levels (Zheng et al. 2005). The high concentration of
nanomaterials leads to oxidative damage by the stimulation of ROS production and
accumulation, which inhibits photosynthesis, promotes stomatal closure, and alters
enzyme activities. Electron leakage, lipid peroxidation, and subsequent membrane
damage, as well as nucleic acids and proteins damage, make ROS a threat to the
cells (Fig. 9.3) (Li et al. 2003; Donaldson et al. 2004).
The responses of plants to the phytotoxicity of nanomaterials not only depend on
the plant species, genotype, age, and stage of development but also they are influenced by the concentration and size of nanoparticles. To assess the exposure effects
of nanomaterials on plants, phytotoxicity evaluations are being executed mostly
during (i) plant germination or (ii) seedling elongation (Lin and Xing 2007; Ma
et al. 2010). Due to the augmented reactivity and toxicity of smaller-sized nanoparticles at especially elevated doses, the plant photosynthesis and respiration processes are drastically being affected (Navarro et al. 2008). The phytotoxicity impact
of Al 2 O 3 nanoparticle caused a reduction in Zea mays root. Alumina nanoparticles
enhanced root growth of Raphanus raphanistrum and Brassica napus while
H. Ebrahimnejad et al.
Nanocantilevers are another class of biosensors. Detection of biological-binding
interactions between antigen-antibody, enzyme-substrate, etc. through physical
and/or electro-mechanical signaling is the basis of these biosensors (Hall 2002).
Their tiny parts of silicon-based materials make them capable of recognizing proteins and detecting pathogenic microorganisms (Kumar 2007). Molecular interaction studies and detection of food chemicals such as antibiotics and toxins are
already indebted to the nanocantilever devices (Ramírez-Frómeta 2006). A European
Union-funded project called Bio-Finger developed a nanocantilever device that
could be used to detect pathogens in food and water based on the sensing of ligandreceptor interactions (Jain and Jain 2008).
Nanotracers and nanomonitors are another monitoring tool to detect and measure
the concentration, surface, and size of nanoparticles. Nanotracer usage in air quality
monitoring, environmental monitoring, and the nanoparticle exposure assessment
leads to the food safety, food chain security, and human health (Diallo and Brinker
2011; Marra et al. 2010).
9.7 Nanomaterial Toxicity in Food Animals and Plants
Although the application of nano-based sciences has pushed various industries forward quickly, the development of this technology may have adverse consequences
on the environment and different creatures.
The lengthy food chain and the simplicity of nanomaterial motion have some
negative effects on water, soil, vegetation, aquatic life, and human. Nano-fertilizers
could be detrimental to the beneficial microorganisms and fertility of the soil and
moreover changes its structure and texture. The size and concentration of nanoparticles are the principal agents for eco-toxicity (Raliya et al. 2013).
Despite the plant growth stimulation at low doses of nanomaterials, they mostly
prevent the growth at high levels (Zheng et al. 2005). The high concentration of
nanomaterials leads to oxidative damage by the stimulation of ROS production and
accumulation, which inhibits photosynthesis, promotes stomatal closure, and alters
enzyme activities. Electron leakage, lipid peroxidation, and subsequent membrane
damage, as well as nucleic acids and proteins damage, make ROS a threat to the
cells (Fig. 9.3) (Li et al. 2003; Donaldson et al. 2004).
The responses of plants to the phytotoxicity of nanomaterials not only depend on
the plant species, genotype, age, and stage of development but also they are influenced by the concentration and size of nanoparticles. To assess the exposure effects
of nanomaterials on plants, phytotoxicity evaluations are being executed mostly
during (i) plant germination or (ii) seedling elongation (Lin and Xing 2007; Ma
et al. 2010). Due to the augmented reactivity and toxicity of smaller-sized nanoparticles at especially elevated doses, the plant photosynthesis and respiration processes are drastically being affected (Navarro et al. 2008). The phytotoxicity impact
of Al 2 O 3 nanoparticle caused a reduction in Zea mays root. Alumina nanoparticles
enhanced root growth of Raphanus raphanistrum and Brassica napus while
H. Ebrahimnejad et al.