Issue

Vol. 34 No. 2 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 2

Copyright (c) 2022 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Plant Based Biosynthesis of Copper Nanoparticles and its Efficacy on Seed Viability and Seedling Growth in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn.)

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23553
S. Lakshmi Tulasi
Department of Freshman Engineering, P.V.P. Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007, India
A.V.V.S. Swamy
Department of Environmental Science, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur-522510, India
Pavani Peddi
Department of Freshman Engineering, P.V.P. Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007, India
N. Usha Rani
Department of Freshman Engineering, P.V.P. Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007, India

Corresponding Author(s) : A.V.V.S. Swamy

arzavvsswamy1962@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 34 No. 2 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 2

Abstract

Nano-fertilizers can easily adsorb into the plant and can increase the reactive points in the plant and hence are treated as an efficient alternative to the conventional fertilizers. Based on this, the present study was intended to synthesize copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) using aqueous root extract of Schrebera swietenioides Roxb. as green reducing agent. The synthesized nanoparticles were studied for its effectiveness on enhancement of seed germination and plant growth promotion on peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn.). The formation of nanoparticles was confirmed by observing colour change in the reaction mixture, which shows characteristic absorption maxima at 340 nm. The SEM and TEM analysis confirmed that the nanoparticles were in monodispersed with spherical to irregular shape with an average particle size of 35 nm. The EDX analysis confirmed that the nanoparticles contain 82.5% copper metal. The synthesized nanoparticles were applied for its seed germination enhancement activity on peanut seeds and results confirms that the nanoparticles were significantly enhances the germination of peanut seeds with decrease in mean germination time. The peanut plant growth also enhances when compared with metal solution treatment and untreated plants. The root length of CuNPs treated plants was observed to be 9.27 ± 0.15 cm, which is significantly more than the untreated (6.40 ± 0.10 cm) as well as treated copper metal (7.13 ± 0.25 cm) plants. The shoot length of 19.13 ± 0.20 cm was observed for nano-treated plants and is greatly enhanced than the untreated (10.30 ± 0.20 cm) and treated copper metal (11.27 ± 0.25 cm) plants. The protease activity on day 5 of the germination study was found to be 0.904 ± 0.004, 0.133 ± 0.002 and 0.095 ± 0.002 units/mL, respectively for the peanut seeds treated with CuNPs, copper metal solution and untreated conditions. The catalase activity at 5th day of seed germination studies the activity was observed to be 45.177 ± 0.192, 23.691 ± 0.074 and 18.331 ± 0.209 units/min/g, respectively for CuNPs treated, copper sulphate treated and untreated pea nut seeds. The water update of the nano treated seeds was observed to be very high along with high quantity of photosynthetic pigments when compared with the other treatments in the study. Based on the results achieved, it can be confirmed that the nano-treatment enhances the seed germination and plant growth promotion on peanut seeds.

Keywords

Copper nanoparticles Nano priming Seed germination Growth enhancement Peanut
Lakshmi Tulasi, S., Swamy, A., Peddi, P., & Usha Rani, N. (2022). Plant Based Biosynthesis of Copper Nanoparticles and its Efficacy on Seed Viability and Seedling Growth in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn.). Asian Journal of Chemistry, 34(2), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23553
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. J. Danie Kingsley, S. Ranjan, N. Dasgupta and P. Saha, J. Pharm. Res., 7, 200 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopr.2013.02.021
  2. P. Singh, Y.-J. Kim, D. Zhang and D.-C. Yang, Trends Biotechnol., 34, 588 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.02.006
  3. J.S. Duhan, R. Kumar, N. Kumar, P. Kaur, K. Nehra and S. Duhan, Biotechnol. Rep., 15, 11 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2017.03.002
  4. S.K. Chandraker, M. Lal and R. Shukla, RSC Adv., 9, 23408 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA03590G
  5. S. Sukumar, A. Rudrasenan and D.P. Nambiar, ACS Omega, 5, 1040 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b02857
  6. S. Wu, S. Rajeshkumar, M. Madasamy and V. Mahendran, Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol., 48, 1153 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2020.1817053
  7. S. Mahmoodi, A. Elmi and S. Hallaj-Nezhadi, J. Mol. Pharm. Org. Process Res., 6, 140 (2018); https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9053.1000140
  8. L. Dong, L. Han, T. Duan, S. Lin, J. Li and X. Liu, RSC Adv., 10, 2027 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA07799E
  9. S.C. Mali, A. Dhaka, C.K. Githala and R. Trivedi, Biotechnol. Rep., 27, e00518 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00518
  10. M. Siddique, N. Fayaz and M. Saeed, Physica B Condens. Matter, 602, 412504 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2020.412504
  11. P.T.S.R.K. Pavani Peddi, P. Rao, N.U. Rani and S.L. Tulasi, J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol., 19, 131 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-021-00229-9
  12. S. Liu, C. Yang, W. Xie, C. Xia and P. Fan, Procedia Environ. Sci., 16, 293 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.10.041
  13. N. Pariona, M.I. Arturo, H. Hernandez-Flores and R. Clark-Tapia, Sci. Total Environ., 575 869 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.128
  14. Y. Tian, B. Guan, D. Zhou, J. Yu, G. Li and Y. Lour, The Scient. World, 2014, 834630 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/834630
  15. P. Acharya, G.K. Jayaprakasha, K.M. Crosby, J.L. Jifon and B.S. Patil, Sci. Rep., 10, 5037 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61696-7
  16. S.R. Tariq and A. Ashraf, Arab. J. Chem., 9, 806 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.09.024
  17. P. Bernfeld, Methods Enzymol., 1, 149 (1955); https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(55)01021-5
  18. H.K. Schachman, Methods Enzymol., 4, 32 (1957); https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(57)04050-1
  19. H. Alebi, Methods Enzymol., 105, 121 (1984); https://doi.org/10.1016/s0076-6879(84)05016-3
  20. O.H. Lowry, N.J. Rosebrough, A.L. Farr, and Randall, J. Biol. Chem., 1, 193 (1951).
  21. S. Shinde, P. Paralikar, A.P. Ingle and M. Rai, Arab. J. Chem., 13, 3172 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2018.10.001
  22. D.I. Arnon, Plant Physiol., 24, 1 (1949); https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.24.1.1
  23. I. Khan, K. Saeed and I. Khan, Arab. J. Chem., 12, 908 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.05.011
  24. J. Suárez-Cerda, H. Espinoza-Gómez, G. Alonso-Núñez, I.A. Rivero, Y. Gochi-Ponce and L.Z. Flores López, J. Saudi Chem. Soc., 21, 341 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscs.2016.10.005
  25. J. Ramyadevi, K. Jeyasubramanian, A. Marikani, G. Rajakumar, A.A. Rahuman, T. Santhoshkumar, A.V. Kirthi, C. Jayaseelan and S. Marimuthu, Parasitol. Res., 109, 1403 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-011-2387-3
  26. A. Parveen and S. Rao, J. Cluster Sci., 26, 693 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10876-014-0728-y
  27. C. Srinivasan and R. Saraswathi, Curr. Sci., 99, 274 (2010).
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 9 Download : 0