Nanomaterial Effects on Photosynthesis in C3 and C4 Crops: A Comparative Review and Tentative Design Principles
4 affiliations
- 1State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, Beijing Key Laboratory of Farmland Soil Pollution Prevention and Remediation, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
- 2Professor Workstation in Shanghe County, China Agricultural University, Jinan 251600, China
- 3Professor Workstation in Wuqiang County, China Agricultural University, Hengshui 053300, China
- 4Professor Workstation of Beijing Yuzeshengda Technology Development Co., Ltd., Huairou District, China Agricultural University, Beijing 101400, China
Abstract
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) can regulate crop photosynthesis, but the same nanoparticle may stimulate or inhibit carbon assimilation depending on dose, material properties, delivery route, and crop species. Existing reviews largely treat crops as interchangeable and report rather than predict effects. This review organizes the evidence around the C3/C4 photosynthetic distinction. We contrast C3 and C4 architectures, and CO2-limited, photorespiration-prone C3 leaves versus Kranz-type, CO2-concentrating C4 leaves and synthesize how metal-based nanoparticles, carbon dots, and nanofertilizers affect light harvesting, electron transport, Calvin-cycle enzymes, stomatal behavior, and source–sink relations, separating direct interactions from nutrient-, water-, and redox-mediated indirect effects. Head-to-head C3–C4 trials remain uncommon, yet those that exist point the same way: the two groups move in one direction within a given experiment, differing only in how large the movement is. The administered dose is also a poor guide to the dose that actually reaches a chloroplast. As the dose rises, plants pass through a sequence—no response, adaptive signaling, physiological stress, and finally harm. Whether the outcome is positive or negative is governed by material and dose rather than by photosynthetic type; the latter changes only the strength of the response. These observations suggest tentative rules: C3 crops are best served by ENMs aimed at CO2 supply and photorespiration, whereas C4 crops benefit more from ENMs targeting electron transport, sink strength, and stress. The way forward lies not in inventing still more materials but in standardized, physiology-informed designs that let the field predict responses instead of merely cataloging them.
Related
- Janus XSSe (X = Sc, Ti, Zr, Nb, Pd) monolayers for toxic gas sensing: a comparative first-principles study of CH₂O, COCl₂, and O₃ adsorption.
- Factors contributing to high-performance competitive swimsuits: a review from materials science and engineering principles.
- Flame-Exposed Aluminium Foil as a Low-Cost, Customizable TEM Grid for Nanomaterial Imaging
- Nanomaterial-Enabled Flexible Wearable Sensors for Sports Monitoring and Rehabilitation: Material Architectures, Interface Design, and Signal Reliability
- Nanomaterial-genetics enables near-infrared-driven genetically targeted neuromodulation
BibTeX
@article{wu2026nanomaterial,
title = {{Nanomaterial Effects on Photosynthesis in C3 and C4 Crops: A Comparative Review and Tentative Design Principles}},
author = {Yihan Wu and Jingyi Zhang and Yukui Rui},
journal = {Nanomaterials},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/nano16211437},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/16/21/1437},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Nanomaterial Effects on Photosynthesis in C3 and C4 Crops: A Comparative Review and Tentative Design Principles
AU - Yihan Wu
AU - Jingyi Zhang
AU - Yukui Rui
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/06
JO - Nanomaterials
DO - 10.3390/nano16211437
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/16/21/1437
AB - Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) can regulate crop photosynthesis, but the same nanoparticle may stimulate or inhibit carbon assimilation depending on dose, material properties, delivery route, and crop species. Existing reviews largely treat crops as interchangeable and report rather than predict effects. This review organizes the evidence around the C3/C4 photosynthetic distinction. We contrast C3 and C4 architectures, and CO2-limited, photorespiration-prone C3 leaves versus Kranz-type, CO2-concentrating C4 leaves and synthesize how metal-based nanoparticles, carbon dots, and nanofertilizers affect light harvesting, electron transport, Calvin-cycle enzymes, stomatal behavior, and source–sink relations, separating direct interactions from nutrient-, water-, and redox-mediated indirect effects. Head-to-head C3–C4 trials remain uncommon, yet those that exist point the same way: the two groups move in one direction within a given experiment, differing only in how large the movement is. The administered dose is also a poor guide to the dose that actually reaches a chloroplast. As the dose rises, plants pass through a sequence—no response, adaptive signaling, physiological stress, and finally harm. Whether the outcome is positive or negative is governed by material and dose rather than by photosynthetic type; the latter changes only the strength of the response. These observations suggest tentative rules: C3 crops are best served by ENMs aimed at CO2 supply and photorespiration, whereas C4 crops benefit more from ENMs targeting electron transport, sink strength, and stress. The way forward lies not in inventing still more materials but in standardized, physiology-informed designs that let the field predict responses instead of merely cataloging them.
SN - 2079-4991
ER -