Review Nanopesticide research: Current trends and future priorities Melanie Kah ⁎, Thilo Hofmann ⁎ Department of Environmental Geosciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria abstract article info Article history: Received 12 September 2013 Accepted 21 November 2013 Available online xxxx Keywords: Nanoemulsion Pesticide Plant protection Agriculture Fate Nanoparticle The rapid developments in nanopesticide research over the last two years have motivated a number of interna- tional organizations to consider potential issues relating to the use of nanotechnology for crop protection. This analysis of the latest research trends provides a useful basis for identifying research gaps and future priorities. Polymer-based formulations have received the greatest attention over the last two years, followed by formula- tions containing inorganic nanoparticles (e.g., silica, titanium dioxide) and nanoemulsions. Investigations have addressed the lack of information on the efficacy of nanopesticides and a number of products have been demon- strated to have greater efficacy than their commercial counterparts. However, the mechanisms involved remain largely unknown and further research is required before any generalizations can be made. There is now increased motivation to develop nanopesticides that are less harmful to the environment than con- ventional formulations, and future investigations will need to assess whether any promising products developed are able to compete with existing formulations, in terms of both cost and performance. Investigations into the environmental fate of nanopesticides remain scarce, and the current state of knowledge does not appear to be sufficient for a reliable assessment to be made of their associated benefits and risks. A great deal of research will therefore be required over the coming years, and will need to include (i) the devel- opment of experimental protocols to generate reliable fate properties, (ii) investigations into the bioavailability and durability of nanopesticides, and (iii) evaluation of current environmental risk assessment approaches, and their refinement where appropriate. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 2. Definition and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 3. General trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 4. Latest research by type of nanopesticide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 4.1. Nanoemulsions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 4.2. Polymer-based nanopesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 4.2.1. Release and efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 4.2.2. Towards “greener” nanopesticides? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 4.3. Hybrid nanoformulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.4. Inorganic nanoparticles associated with an organic active ingredient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.5. Inorganic nanoparticles as active ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.5.1. Silica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.5.2. Titanium dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.5.3. Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.5.4. Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 4.5.5. Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 5. Considerations concerning environmental fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 5.1. Facilitated transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 5.2. Bioavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 5.3. Release profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 5.3.1. Release mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 5.3.2. Models used for nanopesticide release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Environment International 63 (2014) 224–235 ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: melanie.kah@univie.ac.at (M. Kah), thilo.hofmann@univie.ac.at (T. Hofmann). 0160-4120/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.11.015 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environment International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint