Outlooks of Nanotechnology in Organic Farming Management

Technological advances are getting monitored with time, and science suggests nanotechnology as the emerging future. This even holds correct with human food consumption for health benefits, where organic farming is a better solution for the rising population and is even supported by major countries instead of using chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Nanotechnology provides a platform where nanoparticles help in better management for organic farming by using it as nano fertilisers, nanocides, nano biosensors, nano growth promoters, etc. These nanomaterials can be synthesised by three different mechanisms namely; chemical, physical, and biological methods. Since the chemical and physical mode of synthesis does not follow the criteria of organic farming and have their drawbacks. Hence, the biological method, also known as the green synthesis of nanomaterials fulfills the requirement of organic farming and has achieved the attention of researchers. Extracts of plant parts (stems, roots, leaves, flowers and, fruits) and different microbes, including bacteria, fungus, and mycorrhiza can be used as a base material for the synthesis of nanoparticles under green synthesis mode. The vision behind the green synthesis of nanoparticles was to curb the hazardous effects of chemically synthesised nanoparticles. In the present review, green synthesis of major elements of organic farming namely; nano fertilisers, nano-pesticides, and nano growth promoters, their modes of transportation, their advantages, and disadvantages in organic farming are discussed

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries