ArticlePloS one2025
Non-thermal plasma activated water is an effective nitrogen fertilizer alternative for Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Shaping the future of sustainable agriculture: an interdisciplinary review of plasma technology for enhanced nutrient use efficiency.Biologia futura · 2026Review
- Plasma activation of plant-based biostimulants enhances growth and defense responses in soybean (Glycine max (L.)).BMC plant biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nitrogen (N) fixation with non-thermal plasmas has been proposed as a sustainable alternative to meet growing N fertilizer demands for agriculture. This technology generates Plasma Activated Water (PAW) with a range of chemical compositions, including different concentrations of nitrate (NO₃⁻) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), among other compounds. Potential use of PAW as an effective crop fertilizer necessitates a robust understanding of the underlying biology of the plant, which is not yet available. The lack of a unified standard in PAW production and the varying chemical make-up that results from different devices and protocols hampers comparative studies and adoption of this technology. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two PAW solutions with differing concentrations of H2O2 produced from a Radio Frequency (RF) glow discharge plasma source. The effect of these solutions on plant growth, ROS accumulation, gene expression and heat stress response were compared to N-equivalent controls in the model plant Arabidopsis to assess their potential as an alternative N fertilizer. While PAW solutions lacking detectable H2O2 enhanced seedling growth, those containing approximately 0.3 µM of H2O2 did not. ROS accumulation in root tissues was similar between PAW and chemically equivalent solutions, suggesting H2O2 is the primary ROS present in the PAW at the time of treatment. Gene expression studies showed induction of genes involved in N uptake and assimilation in PAW-treated seedlings. Pre-treatment of seedlings with PAW solutions containing H2O2 improved root growth under heat stress which indicates that this treatment may induce plant stress response pathways. Finally, mature plants showed similar growth when fertilized with PAW lacking H2O2 or NO3- control regimes for over 5 weeks indicating equivalency in chemical composition, plant nutrient uptake and utilization. Overall, these results demonstrate that PAW is an effective alternative to NO3- fertilizers for plant cultivation but the levels of H2O2 need to be carefully controlled.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.