RNX NERO POWER®
Evidence
What has been measured, and what has not.
RNX NERO POWER® has been applied in two separate trials — one greenhouse crop, one open-field crop. Both compared treated irrigation water against untreated water under conditions intended to be otherwise identical. The results below are reported as observed, together with their methodological limits.
Open field · 2025
Field trial — maize, Po Valley, Italy (2025)
Open-field comparative trial, 2025 growing season. Conducted with an Italian producer of gluten-free maize-based food products.
- Control, irrigation water productivity
- 1.36kg/m³
- Treated, irrigation water productivity
- 3.98kg/m³
| Measure | Treated | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Irrigation water productivity | 3.98 kg/m³ | 1.36 kg/m³ |
| Grain yield (14% moisture) | 5.95 t/ha | 2.26 t/ha |
| Irrigation volume applied | 498 m³ | 516 m³ |
| Plot area | 3,331 m² | 3,098 m² |
| Irrigation per hectare | ≈ 1,495 m³/ha | ≈ 1,665 m³/ha |
One treated and one control plot, without randomized replication; no statistical significance claimed.
Same hybrid (P9590, FAO 200), identical fertilization, same irrigation system, shared soil and climate, independent harvest weighing on . The irrigation water treatment was the intended differentiated variable. Per hectare, however, the control plot received about 11% more irrigation water than the treated plot (≈ 1,665 against ≈ 1,495 m³/ha).
Context and limits. The 2025 season was agronomically limiting: above-average temperatures and irregular rainfall. The control plot yielded well below the regional reference range for this hybrid class (approx. 11–13 t/ha), indicating the crop was under stress across the site. The trial used one treated and one control plot of about a third of a hectare each, without randomized replication, and no physiological measurements were taken. No statistical significance can therefore be claimed, and no mechanistic conclusion can be drawn. The result is a preliminary field signal that justifies replicated multi-site validation — not a validated agronomic model.
Full technical documentation, including complete methodology and limitations, available on request.
Greenhouse · 2023
Greenhouse trial — medical cannabis, Israel (2023)
Four-month controlled greenhouse trial, 420 plants (treated n=280, control n=140). Published in GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2023, 23(01), 204–211.
- Control, wet root biomass
- 39.2g
- Treated, wet root biomass
- 50.8g
| Measure | Treated | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Average height, week 6 | 94.48 cm | 74.29 cm |
| Growth rate | 2.39 cm/day | 1.85 cm/day |
| Wet root biomass | 50.8 g | 39.2 g |
| Dry flower biomass | +17% | — |
One treated and one control irrigation line; controlled, not randomized; company-funded.
Differences tested with Kruskal-Wallis across plants, significant at p < 0.05; the plants were subsamples of one treated and one control irrigation line (see limits below). The treated line reached the greenhouse's target height for flowering (35 cm) in three weeks, the control line in four — one week earlier, as observed during the trial. The published weekly height measurements begin at week 4, by which point both lines had passed this height.
Context and limits. A randomized block design was not possible within the greenhouse, so the trial used a controlled rather than randomized design.
Both lines drew from the same water source and the same nutrient solution within the same greenhouse; only one line passed through the system. This controls for water quality, fertilization and climate. It also means the treatment was applied at irrigation-line level, not at plant level: there was one treated line and one control line. The 420 plants are subsamples of those two units rather than independent replicates, so the reported p-value should not be read as evidence of an effect independent of line. Position within the greenhouse was not controlled.
The published article states that the authors declare no conflict of interest. We note here that the study was funded by the company behind the device — then operating as Euronix Sistemas, S.L., today RNX Water Systems, S.L. — and that its then-CEO is listed as an author. The first author is affiliated with the University of Chile.
The results should be read as a single-site, single-crop study awaiting independent replication.
Citation: GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2023, 23(01), 204–211. DOI 10.30574/gscbps.2023.23.1.0164 (external)
Why the evidence is agronomic
We report crop response, not water chemistry. This is a deliberate choice, and it needs stating plainly.
Standard physicochemical parameters of irrigation water — electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature — may show little or no difference across this treatment. We therefore do not use them as evidence, and we do not present the system's effect as a change in water composition. Nothing is added to the water and nothing is removed from it.
The endpoint we report is the biological one: how the crop performed. Using a biological response as the primary endpoint is established practice where no validated physicochemical proxy exists. It is the basis on which plant biostimulants are assessed under EU Regulation 2019/1009, where a product is defined by its agronomic function and demonstrated through replicated field trials rather than through an explained mechanism. RNX NERO POWER® is not a biostimulant and does not fall under this Regulation; we cite it for its method of assessment.
This places a higher burden on trial design, not a lower one. A biological endpoint is only as good as its replication, its controls and its statistics — which is precisely where our current results are weakest, and why independent validation is our priority.
In any validation project we propose, water parameters are recorded upstream and downstream of the system, with the explicit expectation that they may show no measurable difference. That outcome would not invalidate an agronomic effect, and we state it in advance so that it cannot be explained away afterwards.
What we do not claim
We report what was measured. We do not claim that the physiological mechanism behind these observations has been established. No standardised framework currently integrates irrigation water treatment into water productivity assessment models, and the pathways involved remain insufficiently characterised.
This is why independent validation is our priority, not a marketing afterthought.
Frequently asked questions
What trials have been carried out?
Two: an open-field maize trial in the Po Valley, Italy, in 2025, and a four-month greenhouse trial on medical cannabis in Israel, published in 2023. Both compared treated against untreated irrigation water under conditions intended to be otherwise identical.
What was measured in the 2025 maize trial?
Irrigation water productivity was 3.98 kg/m³ treated against 1.36 kg/m³ control, and grain yield (14% moisture) 5.95 t/ha against 2.26 t/ha, with 498 m³ and 516 m³ of irrigation water applied on plots of 3,331 m² and 3,098 m² — per hectare, the control plot received about 11% more water. The harvest was weighed independently on 7 October 2025. It is a preliminary field observation without statistical replication.
Is the maize result statistically significant?
No. The trial used one treated and one control plot without randomized replication, and no physiological measurements were taken. The 2025 season was agronomically limiting, and the control plot yielded well below the regional reference range (approx. 11–13 t/ha). The result is a preliminary field signal, not a validated agronomic model.
What was measured in the 2023 greenhouse trial?
Across 420 plants (treated n=280, control n=140): wet root biomass 50.8 g against 39.2 g, average height at week 6 94.48 cm against 74.29 cm, and dry flower biomass +17%. Differences were significant at p < 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis) across plants, but the plants were subsamples of one treated and one control irrigation line, so the p-value does not show an effect independent of line. The study was company-funded.
Who funded the greenhouse study?
The company behind the device, then operating as Euronix Sistemas, S.L., today RNX Water Systems, S.L. Its then-CEO is listed as an author, although the article declares no conflict of interest. The results should be read as a single-site, single-crop study awaiting independent replication.
Has the mechanism been established?
No. We report what was measured. We do not claim that the physiological mechanism behind these observations has been established.
How can the results be verified?
Through independent replication. We provide the full trial documentation and a proposed validation design, to be defined with the partner who runs the study: randomized replicated plots, a minimum of three replications per treatment, monitored irrigation volumes, local meteorological data, and agronomic parameters beyond final yield.
Validate it yourself
For institutions, research centres and corporate partners: we provide the full trial documentation and a proposed validation design, to be defined with the partner who runs the study — randomized replicated plots, minimum three replications per treatment, monitored irrigation volumes, local meteorological data, and agronomic parameters beyond final yield. See Partner with us.
Invitation
We are not asking you to believe our results. We are asking you to test them.