No, at least for biotechnological protocols it may not be possible. Glycerol still remains the best cryoprotectant as it is not only cost effective (cheaper) but also a compatible solute (i.e. it does not generally interfere with any cellular functions). No one at this stage aware of impact(s) (negative or positive) of nanoparticles (even if modified with silica coating by the sonogel process). Moreover, they will be expensive (cost will depend on the chemical nature of nanoparticles and the protocol).   

HiI Amit, I agree with P. Pardha. In order for cryoprotectants to be effective, they have to be small enough to permeate cells and retard the formation of ice crystals.

Only small molecules, like glycerol and DMSO, have been shown to accomplish this.

A nano particle is just 2 - 3atom arranged side by side which is too much smaller than  glycerol(propane-1,2,3-triol). I do not know still the negative or positive impacts or it may be costly. there are lots of parameters to be optimized.

@Amit, what nanoparticle is just 2-3 atoms long?

Hello!

if it is there any NP having 2-3 atom or comes in  existence then it

may be thaught to be used as crypreservant. 

I have started thinking so.

I would like to take information about such NP.

thanks...

I am using trehalose which do not penetrate the membrane. It works well with boar spermatozoa but I don't know about other cells. It is cheap as well. NP sound expensive but might work. 

Trehalose like mannitol, proline and glycinebetaine is a compatible solute and hence will not perturb cellular metabolism. Further, trehalose like sucrose is a disaccharide and non-reducing sugar. Yeasts and certain plants do accumulate trehalose as a compatible solute. However, it is more expensive than glycerol and I am not aware of many published papers where trehalose has been used as a cryoprotectant. Therefore, I still prefer glycerol.