RESUMEN
Recently, agriculture systems have faced numerous challenges involving sustainable nutrient use efficiency and feeding, environmental pollution especially heavy metals (HMs), infection of harmful microorganisms, and maintenance of crop production quality during postharvesting and packaging. Nanotechnology and nanomaterials have emerged as powerful tools in agriculture applications that provide alternatives or support traditional methods. This review aims to address and highlight the current overarching issue and various implementation strategies of nanotechnology for sustainable agriculture development. In particular, the current progress of different nano-fertilizers (NFs) systems was analyzed to show their advances in enhancing the uptake and translocations in plants and improving nutrient bioavailability in soil. Also, the design strategy and application of nanotechnology for rapid detection of HMs and pathogenic diseases in plant crops were emphasized. The engineered nanomaterials have great potential for biosensors with high sensitivity and selectivity, high signal throughput, and reproducibility through various detection approaches such as Raman, colorimetric, biological, chemical, and electrical sensors. We obtain that the development of microfluidic and lab-on-a-chip (LoC) technologies offers the opportunity to create on-site portable and smart biodevices and chips for real-time monitoring of plant diseases. The last part of this work is a brief introduction to trends in nanotechnology for harvesting and packaging to provide insights into the overall applications of nanotechnology for crop production quality. This review provides the current advent of nanotechnology in agriculture, which is essential for further studies examining novel applications for sustainable agriculture.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cognitive enhancers (CE) are prescription drugs taken, either without a prescription or at a dose exceeding that which is prescribed, to improve cognitive functions such as concentration, vigilance or memory. Previous research suggests that users believe the drugs to be safer than non-users and that they have sufficient knowledge to judge safety. However, to date no research has compared the information sources used and safety knowledge of users and non-users. OBJECTIVES: This study compared users and non-users of CE in terms of i) their sources of knowledge about the safety of CE and ii) the accuracy of their knowledge of possible adverse effects of a typical cognitive enhancer (modafinil); and iii) how the accuracy of knowledge relates to their safety beliefs. METHODS: Students (N = 148) from King's College London (UK) completed an anonymous online survey assessing safety beliefs, sources of knowledge and knowledge of the safety of modafinil; and indicated whether they used CE, and, if so, which drug(s). RESULTS: The belief that the drugs are safe was greater in users than non-users. However, both groups used comparable information sources and have similar, relatively poor drug safety knowledge. Furthermore, despite users more strongly believing in the safety of CE there was no relationship between their beliefs and knowledge, in contrast to non-users who did show correlations between beliefs and knowledge. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the differences in safety beliefs about CE between users and non-users do not stem from use of different information sources or more accurate safety knowledge.