Nano-Based Interventions for Sustainable Fruit Production and Protection
Bikash Hazarika *
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Bibungsar Bargayary
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Utpal Kotoky
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Kankana Deka
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Sudeshna Baruah
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Sangita Mahanta
Department of Horticulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Manha Bathari
Zonal Research Station, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Fruit production is increasingly constrained by nutrient inefficiency, salinity and other abiotic stresses, emerging and persistent pests and diseases, postharvest decay, and pressure to reduce the environmental burden of conventional agrochemicals. Nano-enabled interventions have therefore attracted attention as fertilisers, stress-mitigation agents, crop-protection materials, controlled-release carriers, edible coatings and packaging components. This critical narrative review evaluates whether these applications currently support defensible claims of sustainability in fruit production and protection. Literature published principally from 2005 to 6 August 2026 was examined, with emphasis on peer-reviewed fruit-crop studies and on mechanistic, environmental and regulatory evidence needed to interpret them. The evidence indicates that nano-enabled materials can improve nutrient delivery, fruit quality, stress responses, disease control and postharvest preservation under specific experimental conditions. Particularly informative fruit-crop examples include selenium nanoparticles in strawberry and pomegranate, zinc oxide and chitosan-based nanocomposites in grape, iron-based materials in citrus and apple, photoactivated zinc oxide in strawberry disease management, copper oxide in citrus disease suppression, sulfur nanoparticles in mango, protein-gated mesoporous silica for fruit-fly control, and chitosan-based nano-coatings for citrus and mango preservation. Nevertheless, superiority over well-matched conventional formulations is not consistently demonstrated, and responses are strongly dependent on particle composition, size, coating, dose, route of application, crop genotype and environmental context. Evidence for long-term field performance, residue behaviour, trophic exposure, soil microbiome effects, life-cycle impacts and cost-effectiveness remains substantially weaker than evidence for short-term efficacy. The most credible sustainability pathway is therefore not the indiscriminate substitution of conventional inputs with nanoscale products, but targeted use of well-characterised formulations that demonstrably reduce total input, improve delivery efficiency or extend marketable life without transferring risk elsewhere in the production chain. Future work should prioritise multi-season orchard trials, matched nano-versus-conventional comparators, mass-balance and transformation studies, residue and dietary-exposure assessment, harmonised characterisation, and techno-economic and life-cycle evaluation.
Keywords: Nanoagriculture, nonfertilizer, nanopesticides, fruit crops, abiotic stress, postharvest preservation, controlled release, nanosafety