Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.8)
Index Copernicus  – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Ahead of print

doi: 10.17219/acem/186846

Publication type: review

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Roszkowski S, Durczynska Z. Advantages and limitations of nanostructures for biomedical applications [published online as ahead of print on June 11, 2024]. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2025. doi:10.17219/acem/186846

Advantages and limitations of nanostructures for biomedical applications

Szymon Roszkowski1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Zofia Durczynska1,C,E,F

1 on of Biochemistry and Biogerontology, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Graphical abstract


Graphical abstracts

Abstract

This review examines recent progress in developing nanoscale drug delivery systems for biomedical applications. Key nanocarriers, including inorganic nanoparticles, dendrimers, protein nanoparticles, polymeric micelles, liposomes, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), quantum dots (QDs), and biopolymeric nanoparticles, were summarized. Compared with free drugs, the tunable physicochemical properties of these materials allow for the encapsulation of therapeutics and improved pharmacokinetics. However, limitations such as toxicity, poor biodegradability, lack of controlled release, and low encapsulation efficiency remain. Inorganic nanoparticles exhibit issues with accumulation and toxicity. Dendrimers require complex syntheses and demonstrations of long-term safety. Protein nanoparticles suffer from low drug loading and stability. Polymeric micelles have stability and tumor penetration limitations. Liposomes exhibit low encapsulation efficiency and rapid clearance. Carbon nanotubes demonstrate toxicity and poor aqueous solubility. Quantum dots contain heavy metals, leading to toxicity. Biopolymeric nanoparticles have low stability and control over release kinetics. Strategies such as surface engineering with polymers and ligands aim to enhance nanoparticle targeting and biocompatibility. The combination of nanostructures in hybrid systems aims to synergize benefits while mitigating individual limitations. Stimulus-responsive and multifunctional nanoparticles enable triggered release and imaging capabilities. Overall, continued research into novel bioinspired designs, smart responsiveness and hybrid approaches is critical to fully realize the clinical potential of engineered nanomedicines for advanced drug delivery applications.

Key words: drug delivery, nanoparticles, nanomedicine, targeted delivery, clinical translation

Introduction

Modern encapsulation methods demonstrate an advantage over conventional methods of delivering biologically active substances to the target site.1 Nanostructures are materials with at least 1 dimension in the 1–100 nm range. Their small size imparts novel optical, electronic and chemical properties compared to those of bulk materials. This has generated great interest in using nanostructures for biomedical applications such as drug delivery, bioimaging and biosensing.2, 3 However, the unique properties of nanostructures can also lead to toxicity, making it critical to consider both advantages and limitations during development.4, 5

Nanocapsules (NCs) can target and enter select tissues at the molecular level. They provide a high absorption rate, increased cellular uptake, and precise and targeted delivery of substances to target cells without interacting with the environment.6 In addition, nanoencapsulation of drugs results in improved absorption of poorly soluble drugs, reduces drug toxicity and minimizes or suppresses resistance resulting from physiological barriers in the body.7

Over the past few decades, nanostructures of various shapes and sizes have been developed for encapsulating many substances, including inorganic nanoparticles, dendrimers, protein nanoparticles, polymeric micelles, liposomes, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), quantum dots (QDs), and biopolymeric nanoparticles. Table 1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these nanoparticles.8Figure 1 summarizes main classes of nanoparticles and their properties.

The current solution to the limitations of using each of these nanostructures individually is to use a combination of different nanostructures, resulting in a hybrid nanocapsule.9, 10 On the other hand, protein nanoparticles have attracted great interest in the field of nanotechnology due to their excellent biodegradability, low toxicity, water solubility, and high similarity to the components of the extracellular matrix.11, 12 The surface of protein nanoparticles can be chemically functionalized by adding directing ligands, such as peptides, antibodies, vitamins, hormones, or enzymes. These ligands accurately identify cells and tissues, promoting and improving the targeting mechanism.13, 14

Objectives

This review summarizes the current knowledge on major nanostructure classes for biomedical applications and discusses their advantages and limitations for drug delivery, bioimaging and biosensing. We discuss key challenges related to toxicity, stability, pharmacokinetics, and accumulation that need to be addressed to enable the clinical translation of nanostructures. Our study highlights promising strategies for improving biocompatibility and innovative stimulus-responsive approaches that could optimize nanostructures for biomedicine.

Inorganic nanoparticles

Inorganic nanoparticles such as gold, iron oxide and silica nanoparticles have been widely studied for biomedical applications due to their unique properties and relative ease of synthesis.15 Gold nanoparticles exhibit strong surface plasmon resonance, allowing for enhanced contrast in imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), photoacoustic imaging and multiphoton microscopy.16 The inert nature of these materials also makes them useful for surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy sensing.17 Iron oxide nanoparticles demonstrate superparamagnetism, enabling their use as T2 contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic particle imaging.18 Mesoporous silica nanoparticles have high surface areas and pore volumes, permitting high payloads of imaging agents and therapeutics.19

However, toxicity concerns remain a significant barrier to the clinical translation of many nanomaterials.20 Factors influencing toxicity include composition, size, shape, surface charge, and coating.21 Inorganic nanoparticles tend to accumulate in organs such as the liver and spleen.22 Iron oxide nanomaterials could alter iron homeostasis.23 Silica nanoparticles have been associated with liver enzyme release.24 Strategies, such as surface coating with proteins or polymers (e.g., polyethylene glycol (PEG); PEGylation), are being explored to improve biocompatibility.25 The need for surface modification also complicates regulatory approval.26 There are still open questions regarding the long-term safety, metabolism and excretion of nanoparticles.27 Their non-biodegradable nature may lead to potential accumulation and unintended effects.28 Overall, a thorough evaluation of nanoparticle toxicity through both in vitro and in vivo studies across multiple models is necessary to enable successful clinical translation.29

Dendrimers

Dendrimers are highly branched polymeric nanostructures with definable compositions and monodisperse size distributions.30 Their stability, high loading capacity and modifiable surfaces are beneficial for drug and gene delivery.31, 32 For example, polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers have been extensively studied for use in siRNA and drug delivery due to their cationic surface charge, which allows electrostatic complexation with nucleic acids.33 Strategies such as PEGylation or acetylation have been used to reduce cytotoxicity.34 Drawbacks include complex syntheses, especially for higher generations, and the need to demonstrate long-term safety.35 Toxicity has been linked to cationic charge and immunostimulation, although neutral and anionic dendrimers appear safer.36 Additional studies focused on metabolism and excretion over months or years are still needed.37 Overall, dendrimers are a versatile platform that shows promise for drug and gene delivery, but further studies are needed to establish clinical translatability.38

Protein nanoparticles

Nanoparticles fabricated from proteins such as albumin have good biocompatibility and biodegradability.39 As natural materials, they are generally nontoxic and do not elicit unwanted immunological responses.40 Albumin is particularly attractive due to the presence of numerous functional groups, which enable modifications as well as high thermal and aqueous solution stability.41 Albumin nanoparticles can transport drugs via both encapsulation in the core and absorption on the surface.42 They have been applied for the delivery of anticancer compounds, including paclitaxel, doxorubicin and methotrexate.43, 44, 45

However, under physiological conditions, albumin undergoes relatively rapid enzymatic degradation and breakdown, which can limit controlled drug release.46 Therefore, it is important to modify the surface of these carriers to impart desired stimuli-responsive release properties.47 For example, researchers have developed a new drug delivery system based on amine-functionalized mesoporous silica (SBA-15) loaded with bovine serum albumin (BSA), which was subsequently coated with a thin layer of poly(acrylic acid) (PAA). It was found that BSA is released from such a system at a higher pH of 7.4 rather than at a lower pH of 1.2. This finding suggested that this approach may be useful for the release of protein or drugs in environments with higher pH values, such as the small intestine or colon.48 The proposed drug carrier utilizes electrostatic interactions between the protein and the silica nanoparticles and regulates drug release through changes in the pH of the environment. Therefore, these findings highlight the prospect of targeted delivery of protein drugs to specific organs of the gastrointestinal tract. Another strategy of targeted delivery is crosslinking albumin using aldehydes, which enhances its stability and allows for the conjugation of ligands recognized by cancer cells.49

For some hydrophobic drugs, a low loading efficiency of less than 10% into albumin nanoparticles has been demonstrated.50 This may require surface modification with amphiphilic substances or solvent saturation techniques.51 Other limitations include a potentially overly slow release of active compounds, as well as difficulties with scalability and standardization of manufacturing processes.52

The main methods for preparing albumin nanoparticles include desolvation, self-assembly, thermal gelation, spray-drying, emulsification, double emulsification, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Nab)-technology, and pH coacervation.51 The resulting carriers differ in size, morphology and surface properties depending on the production conditions. For example, high temperature and pH lead to the aggregation and formation of larger particles.50 In addition to albumin, other proteins, such as gelatin, are used. Gelatin can ionize and form complexes with nucleic acids.52 However, the surface properties of these materials are inferior to those of albumin and their stability is lower.

Despite certain challenges, protein nanoparticles constitute a promising therapeutic platform, and further research into improving their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties is warranted.53 For instance, the modification of albumin with PEG can increase the plasma circulation time and tumor accumulation via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect.54 Conjugation with targeting ligands enables active targeting of cancer cells.45 Novel approaches also include using albumin in hybrid nanostructures together with lipids, polymers, or CNTs.55 These systems combine the advantages of different materials and may enhance therapeutic performance.

In summary, protein nanoparticles, especially albumin-based nanoparticles, demonstrate several promising properties as anticancer drug carriers. One successful example of protein nanoparticles already used in clinical practice is albumin-bound paclitaxel nanoparticles, which are sold under the name Abraxane®. This drug was obtained through high-pressure homogenization of a drug and bovine albumin solution, resulting in nanoparticles approx. 130 nm in size that are easy to administer intravenously. The production of Abraxane could be easily scaled up to an industrial level without loss of stability or therapeutic activity. Therefore, methods such as simple pressure homogenization used in Abraxane constitute a promising strategy for the development of other albumin-based formulations. Nevertheless, there is still a need to optimize advanced protein nanostructures in terms of pharmacokinetic properties and drug release profiles.

Polymeric micelles

Polymeric micelles formed through the self-assembly of amphiphilic block copolymers have emerged as promising carriers for delivering hydrophobic drugs such as anticancer agents.56 The core-shell nanostructure comprises an inner hydrophobic domain stabilized by a hydrophilic outer layer, allowing encapsulation of water-insoluble drugs within the core. Polymeric micelles can enhance the solubility, bioavailability and tumor-targeting potential of hydrophobic therapeutics.57 Common polymers investigated include PEG, poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) and poly(lactic acid) (PLA) due to their biocompatibility and biodegradability. Polyethylene glycol results in an outer brush-like “stealth” layer that inhibits protein adsorption and opsonization, thereby increasing circulation time.58

A key advantage of polymeric micelles is their ability to accumulate in tumors through the EPR effect from leaky tumor vasculature and poor lymphatic drainage.56 Passive targeting of tumors has been demonstrated with various micelle formulations.59 Active targeting can also be achieved by attaching targeting ligands to recognize receptors overexpressed on cancer cells.6 However, limitations exist, such as a lack of adequate tumor penetration into poorly permeable tumors and toxicity concerns.60

Stability is a major issue affecting polymeric micelle drug carriers. Upon dilution, micelles can dissociate below the critical micelle concentration, interact with cells/proteins or undergo changes in temperature, pH or ionic strength.59 This can lead to premature drug release during circulation. Strategies to improve stability include core crosslinking, increasing polymer hydrophobicity, introducing hydrogen bonding, and shell crosslinking.61 Shell crosslinking with disulfide bonds can provide redox-responsive release intracellularly.62

Controlling the rate of drug release remains a key challenge. Drug release from polymeric micelles relies on diffusion and polymer erosion mechanisms. Diffusion-controlled release can be too slow, while erosion-dominated release decreases control.62 Tuning polymer properties, such as molecular weight and copolymer block ratios, modulates degradation.61 The introduction of stimuli-responsive components triggers release in response to changes in pH, temperature or enzymatic activity.63

Another major limitation is the systemic toxicity of polymers and degradation products. Polymers need to be safely eliminated from the body. Polymer cytotoxicity has been associated with effects on membranes, protein binding, mitochondria, and the induction of apoptosis. Strategies to reduce toxicity include utilizing biodegradable and biocompatible polymers, limiting molecular weights, and optimizing micelle stability to prevent premature release.64 Extensive in vitro and in vivo testing is critical.65, 66

While polymeric micelles offer versatility in design and tunable properties for cancer therapy, key challenges in stability, drug release kinetics, tumor penetration, and toxicity must still be overcome for clinical translation.67, 68 Further optimization of polymeric micelle systems through novel bioinspired designs and stimulus-responsive approaches continues to be an active area of pharmaceutical research.69, 70

Liposomes

Liposomes are biocompatible vesicles composed of phospholipid bilayers that can encapsulate both hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs.71 The tunable surface chemistry and composition of these materials make them versatile drug carriers.72, 73 Conventional liposomes constructed from phospholipids such as phosphatidylcholine have been extensively investigated for the delivery of anticancer agents, antibiotics, peptides, proteins, and nucleic acids.74, 75 Hydrophobic drugs can be incorporated into the lipid bilayer, while hydrophilic drugs can be entrapped in the aqueous core.76

However, conventional liposomes have significant limitations, including poor stability, short circulation half-lives and low encapsulation efficiency. Liposomes are prone to aggregation, fusion, lipid oxidation, and enzymatic degradation.77 Upon intravenous administration, liposomes are rapidly cleared by the mononuclear phagocyte system, limiting bioavailability.78 Strategies to overcome these issues include the use of a cholesterol formulation to strengthen membranes, PEGylation to provide a steric barrier against opsonization, and charge modulation to increase stability.79

Another key challenge is the low encapsulation efficiency of conventional formulations for hydrophilic drugs. Remote loading approaches have been developed to actively load preformed liposomes using an ionic or pH gradient. Active loading provides high-efficiency encapsulation but requires an optimized lipid composition and consideration of drug ionization. Alternative methods using new drug encapsulation methodologies, such as the use of genetically engineered elastin-like recombinamers and supercritical fluid techniques, could lead to more precise drug delivery systems.80

Controlling the release rate of encapsulated drugs also remains an issue. Conventional liposomes exhibit burst release and limited ability to provide sustained, localized delivery. Stimulus-responsive liposomes engineered to be thermosensitive, pH sensitive or degrade enzymatically allow for triggered release.78 Localized delivery can also be achieved using liposomes embedded within hydrogel matrices.81

Overall, liposomal drug carriers have progressed significantly with innovations in formulation, stimulus responsiveness and surface functionality. However, the stability, encapsulation efficiency, sustained release, and therapeutic efficacy of these materials must continue to be enhanced for clinical translation.82 Further advances in liposome technology through multicomponent systems and synergistic delivery with external triggers show promise for cancer therapy.83

Carbon nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes have emerged as promising nanocarriers for drug delivery due to their high aspect ratio, ultrahigh surface area and ability to penetrate cells. Both single-walled CNTs (SWCNTs) and multi-walled CNTs (MWCNTs) have been explored for biomedical applications. The needle-like shape of these cells allows for the piercing of cell membranes, enabling penetration of the cytoplasm and nucleus.84 This approach facilitates the delivery of therapeutics such as small molecule chemotherapeutics, proteins, peptides, and nucleic acids into hard-to-access cells. Carbon nanotubes also have a very high drug-loading capacity due to their extensive surface area. Drugs can be loaded inside CNTs, in the interstitial spaces between nanotubes in bundles or attached to the external surface.85

However, concerns about CNT toxicity have hindered its clinical translation. Toxicity is influenced by structural factors such as length, diameter, surface chemistry, and degree of aggregation. Longer CNTs appear more toxic due to frustrating phagocytosis, where immune cells cannot fully engulf lengthy nanotubes.86 Chemical functionalization of CNT surfaces with -COOH groups reduces toxicity compared to that of pristine nanotubes.87 PEGylation is another strategy for decreasing immunogenicity and increasing biocompatibility. Carbon nanotubes have also demonstrated dose-dependent toxicity to vital organs such as the lungs, liver and kidneys after intravenous administration.88

Another major limitation of CNTs is their non-biodegradable nature, which can lead to long-term accumulation in the body.89 To date, attempts have been made to develop biodegradable CNTs using techniques such as oxidation cutting, polymer coating and nucleic acid hybridization, but with only partial degradation.90 Carbon nanotube aggregation and poor solubility in aqueous solutions also pose challenges.91 Ultrasonication and the use of surfactants such as sodium dodecyl sulfate improve dispersibility but may inadvertently increase toxicity.89 An alternative method for dispersing CNTs is their noncovalent functionalization with amphiphilic polymers or DNA; however, maintaining the stability of CNTs in a biological environment remains a challenge.92

A promising strategy to improve the biocompatibility and solubility of CNTs while decreasing their systemic toxicity is encapsulation of CNTs in micelles, liposomes or hydrogel particles.93 Although CNTs have great potential as nanocarriers for drugs, overcoming key limitations related to their toxicity, degradability and solubility is necessary. Possible solutions include engineering new hybrid structures that combine CNTs with organic and polymeric materials. This approach allows the unique properties of CNTs to be exploited for drug delivery and release.94

Quantum dots

Quantum dots are semiconductor nanocrystals that possess unique optical properties derived from quantum confinement effects.95 By tuning the QD size and composition, the fluorescence emission can be precisely controlled from the visible to near-infrared range.96 This has enabled widespread exploration of QDs for biomedical imaging both in vitro and in vivo.97 Compared with organic dyes and fluorescent proteins, QDs have greater brightness, greater stability against photobleaching, and narrower emission spectra. These advantages have led to QD applications in immunofluorescence assays, targeted cancer cell imaging, lymph node mapping, and multifunctional nanoparticles.98

However, the toxicity of QDs remains a major concern hindering clinical translation. Most QDs contain heavy metal components such as cadmium that are known to be cytotoxic.99 Metal release through QD oxidation or degradation is a primary toxicity mechanism.100 Quantum dots can also induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, leading to oxidative stress and inflammation.101 Coating strategies using inert shells and polymers aim to prevent direct QD exposure, but stability and potential leaching issues persist. The coating thickness and charge affect cellular interactions and toxicity profiles. Furthermore, there are remaining questions regarding the long-term accumulation, metabolism and excretion of QDs in vivo.102

A key limitation of QDs is their non-biodegradable nature. Attempts have been made to develop biodegradable QDs using less toxic elements such as indium, zinc and silicon.103 Combining QDs with organic polymers and biomolecules is another approach to impart biodegradability.104 However, maintaining the optical properties of QDs after biodegradation remains challenging. Engineering smaller QDs less than 5 nm in diameter may enable renal clearance and prevent bioaccumulation.105 However, ultrasmall QDs sacrifice brightness and tend to be less stable.

The solubility and dispersion of QDs in biological environments also require optimization. Quantum dot surface modification with hydrophilic ligands, polymers, silica shells, and amphiphilic coatings enhances water solubility.106 Conjugation to proteins, peptides and DNA improves colloidal stability and biocompatibility.107 Incorporating QDs into larger nanocarriers such as liposomes may help overcome limitations related to their toxicity and solubility.108 However, maintenance of fluorescence and prevention of leaching needs to be demonstrated.

Overall, despite their advantageous optical properties, QDs still have significant unresolved issues associated with the toxicity of heavy metals they contain, lack of biodegradability, oxidative effects, and colloidal stability. Before fully harnessing their potential in biomedicine, advanced engineering approaches are necessary to address these key challenges.99, 109

Biopolymeric nanoparticles

Nanoparticles fabricated from natural biopolymers have attracted increasing interest as drug delivery systems due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability and abundance in nature. Chitosan, alginate, gelatin, and albumin are among the most extensively explored materials.110 Chitosan is derived from chitin found in crustacean shells and has mucoadhesive properties useful for mucosal delivery.111 The alginate obtained from seaweed contains carboxyl groups that enable crosslinking for hydrogel particle formation.112 Gelatin is derived from collagen and has excellent cell adhesion potential and low antigenicity. The serum albumin concentration is known to be derived from serum and has versatile drug-binding abilities.113 These biopolymers are generally regarded as safe and have low toxicity.

However, biopolymeric nanoparticles, especially those containing hydrophobic drugs, have limitations, including poor encapsulation efficiency.110 The porous structures of these materials allow rapid diffusion and burst release of payloads. Chemical or ionic crosslinking is often required to reinforce structures, control swelling and enable sustained release.114 However, excessive crosslinking can improperly retard drug release. Biopolymers also tend to have low stability against enzymatic degradation, limiting their circulation time. Shell hardening techniques such as polyelectrolyte coating provide some protection.115

Another challenge is scaling up biopolymeric nanoparticle production while maintaining consistent physicochemical properties between batches. Variables such as polymer source, purification methods and crosslinking affect reproducibility.110 The storage stability over the shelf life also needs to be demonstrated. Sterilization methods can impact drug release characteristics and particle integrity.116

Furthermore, compared with synthetic polymers, most biopolymers lack functional groups for facile surface modification and ligand conjugation. This restricts opportunities for active targeting. The intrinsic immunogenicity of some biopolymers, such as chitosan, may also cause concerns.117

In summary, biopolymeric nanoparticles offer the advantages of biocompatibility, sustainability and tunable properties that provide versatility in drug delivery design. However, continued research to improve the encapsulation efficiency, colloidal and enzymatic stability, scale-up processes, and reproducible manufacturing is needed to fully harness the potential of these materials.

Limitations

While this review provides a broad overview of nanostructures for biomedical applications, it has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the focus was on summarizing key nanostructure classes without comprehensive coverage of all existing and emerging nanostructures. However, certain novel systems, such as protein-polymer hybrids, DNA origami and lipid-polymer assemblies, have not been discussed in depth. Second, the review was limited to nanostructures for drug delivery, bioimaging and biosensing, while excluding other biomedical areas such as tissue engineering, biomarkers and nanostructured surfaces. Furthermore, only selected key references were cited for each nanostructure type and application due to space constraints. The examples highlighted specific advantages and challenges but did not capture all ongoing research or clinical developments related to nanostructures.

Conclusions

Nanotechnology has enabled the engineering of nanoparticles with tremendous potential for targeted drug delivery and controlled release. Key advancements have been made in the field of inorganic nanoparticles, dendrimers, protein nanoparticles, polymeric micelles, liposomes, CNTs, QDs, and biopolymeric nanoparticles. Each platform offers unique advantages but also limitations that must be mitigated. Surface modification strategies, including PEGylation and ligand bioconjugation, can enhance nanoparticle biocompatibility, stability and active targeting abilities. Stimulus-responsive engineered nanoparticles enable triggered release in response to tumor microenvironment cues. The combination of nanostructures in multifunctional hybrid systems aims to synergize benefits while compensating for individual drawbacks. However, issues related to scale-up manufacturing, storage stability, pharmacokinetics, tumor penetration, and clinical toxicity remain barriers to translation. Overall, continued interdisciplinary research across chemistry, materials science, biology, and medicine focused on bioinspired designs, multifunctionality and novel responsiveness mechanisms is critical to fully realize the clinical potential of engineered nanoparticles for advanced drug delivery.

Tables


Table 1. Advantages and drawbacks of nanostructures8

Nanostructure

Advantages

Drawbacks

Inorganic nanoparticles

facile synthesis

easy surface functionalization

good stability

versatility

exceptional optical and electronic properties

nonbiodegradable

toxicity

coating required

Dendrimers

synthesis of well-defined structures

high chemical and biological stability

efficacy, purity and long shelf life

high surface area, loading capacity and targeting

biodegradable and biocompatible

complex synthetic route

low yield and difficulties in obtaining higher generations

Protein nanoparticles

low toxicity

biodegradability

good mechanical properties

versatility

chemical modifications of their surface are usually required to yield stimulus-responsive nanomedicines

low drug loading efficiency

Polymeric micelles

efficient carrier system for hydrophilic drugs

biodegradable and biocompatible

self-assembling

potential targeting

functional modification

low toxicity

short circulation times in blood-specific cytotoxicity

need of surface modifications

Liposomes

amphiphilic structures

easy surface functionalization

biocompatibility

conventional liposomes: instability

insufficient drug loading

faster drug release

shorter circulation times in blood

Carbon nanotubes

quasi-1D nanostructure

easy surface functionalization

exceptional surface area and cell membrane penetrability

efficient loading

remarkable optical and electronic properties

poor solubility in many solvents including water

low biodegradability

toxicity

Quantum dots

good solubility in water after surface modification

strong fluorescence intensity

nonbiodegradable

cytotoxicity to lung cells

induction of oxidative stress

Biopolymeric nanoparticles

isolated from different natural resources (abundance)

excellent geometrical dimensions

high specific surface area

good mechanical and barrier properties

lack of toxicity

biodegradable and biocompatible

hydrophobic materials

poor encapsulation efficiency of medicines

resistance against enzymatic degradation

Figures


Fig. 1. Main classes of nanoparticles and their properties. The sizes given are the most common diameter ranges of these nanoparticles. However, these are approximate values because the dimensions of actual nanoparticles depend on many factors, such as the method of their synthesis or the materials used

References (117)

  1. Farokhzad OC, Langer R. Impact of nanotechnology on drug delivery. ACS Nano. 2009;3(1):16–20. doi:10.1021/nn900002m
  2. Suk JS, Xu Q, Kim N, Hanes J, Ensign LM. PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;99:28–51. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2015.09.012
  3. Ertas YN, Abedi Dorcheh K, Akbari A, Jabbari E. Nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery to cancer stem cells: A review of recent advances. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(7):1755. doi:10.3390/nano11071755
  4. Ventola CL. Progress in nanomedicine: Approved and investigational nanodrugs. P T. 2017;42(12):742–755. PMID:29234213. PMCID:PMC5720487.
  5. Forest V. Experimental and computational nanotoxicology: Complementary approaches for nanomaterial hazard assessment. Nanomaterials. 2022;12(8):1346. doi:10.3390/nano12081346
  6. Senapati S, Mahanta AK, Kumar S, Maiti P. Controlled drug delivery vehicles for cancer treatment and their performance. Sig Transduct Target Ther. 2018;3(1):7. doi:10.1038/s41392-017-0004-3
  7. De Jong. Drug delivery and nanoparticles: Applications and hazards. Int J Nanomed. 2008;3(2):133–139. doi:10.2147/IJN.S596
  8. Montané X, Bajek A, Roszkowski K, et al. Encapsulation for cancer therapy. Molecules. 2020;25(7):1605. doi:10.3390/molecules25071605
  9. Wang Y, Zhao Q, Han N, et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles in drug delivery and biomedical applications. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2015;11(2):313–327. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2014.09.014
  10. Song X, Feng L, Liang C, Yang K, Liu Z. Ultrasound triggered tumor oxygenation with oxygen-shuttle nanoperfluorocarbon to overcome hypoxia-associated resistance in cancer therapies. Nano Lett. 2016;16(10):6145–6153. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b02365
  11. Nel AE, Mädler L, Velegol D, et al. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nature Mater. 2009;8(7):543–557. doi:10.1038/nmat2442
  12. Hong S, Choi DW, Kim HN, Park CG, Lee W, Park HH. Protein-based nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(7):604. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12070604
  13. Veselov VV, Nosyrev AE, Jicsinszky L, Alyautdin RN, Cravotto G. Targeted delivery methods for anticancer drugs. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3):622. doi:10.3390/cancers14030622
  14. Thomas TP, Huang B, Choi SK, et al. Polyvalent dendrimer-methotrexate as a folate receptor-targeted cancer therapeutic. Mol Pharm. 2012;9(9):2669–2676. doi:10.1021/mp3002232
  15. Parveen S, Misra R, Sahoo SK. Nanoparticles: A boon to drug delivery, therapeutics, diagnostics and imaging. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2012;8(2):147–166. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2011.05.016
  16. Jokerst JV, Cole AJ, Van De Sompel D, Gambhir SS. Gold nanorods for ovarian cancer detection with photoacoustic imaging and resection guidance via Raman imaging in living mice. ACS Nano. 2012;6(11):10366–10377. doi:10.1021/nn304347g
  17. Zeng Y, Ananth R, Dill TJ, et al. Metasurface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (mSERS) for oriented molecular sensing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2022;14(28):32598–32607. doi:10.1021/acsami.2c01656
  18. Fernández-Barahona I, Muñoz-Hernando M, Ruiz-Cabello J, Herranz F, Pellico J. Iron oxide nanoparticles: An alternative for positive contrast in magnetic resonance imaging. Inorganics. 2020;8(4):28. doi:10.3390/inorganics8040028
  19. Slowing I, Viveroescoto J, Wu C, Lin V. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as controlled release drug delivery and gene transfection carriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(11):1278–1288. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.03.012
  20. Fröhlich E. The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles. Int J Nanomed. 2012;7:5577–5591. doi:10.2147/IJN.S36111
  21. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WCW. The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14(1):1–16. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124
  22. Zhang XD, Wu, Shen, et al. Size-dependent in vivo toxicity of PEG-coated gold nanoparticles. Int J Nanomed. 2011;6:2071–2081. doi:10.2147/IJN.S21657
  23. Singh N, Jenkins GJS, Asadi R, Doak SH. Potential toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPION). Nano Rev. 2010;1(1):5358. doi:10.3402/nano.v1i0.5358
  24. Napierska D, Thomassen LC, Lison D, Martens JA, Hoet PH. The nanosilica hazard: Another variable entity. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2010;7(1):39. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-7-39
  25. Torres-Obreque KM, Meneguetti GP, Muso-Cachumba JJ, et al. Building better biobetters: From fundamentals to industrial application. Drug Discov Today. 2022;27(1):65–81. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2021.08.009
  26. Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, McArthur SL. Physicochemical surface modification of materials used in medicine. In: Wagner W, Zhang G, Sakiyama-Elbert S, Yaszemski M, eds. Biomaterials Science. Cambridge, USA: Academic Press; 2020:487–505. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-816137-1.00033-7
  27. Yang ST, Luo J, Zhou Q, Wang H. Pharmacokinetics, metabolism and toxicity of carbon nanotubes for biomedical purposes. Theranostics. 2012;2(3):271–282. doi:10.7150/thno.3618
  28. Kalia VC, Singh Patel SK, Shanmugam R, Lee JK. Polyhydroxyalkanoates: Trends and advances toward biotechnological applications. Bioresour Technol. 2021;326:124737. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124737
  29. Dobrovolskaia MA. Pre-clinical immunotoxicity studies of nanotechnology-formulated drugs: Challenges, considerations and strategy. J Control Release. 2015;220:571–583. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.08.056
  30. Nan W, Zhang C, Wang H, Chen H, Ji S. Direct modification of extracellular vesicles and its applications for cancer therapy: A mini-review. Front Chem. 2022;10:910341. doi:10.3389/fchem.2022.910341
  31. Paris JL, Vallet-Regí M. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for co-delivery of drugs and nucleic acids in oncology: A review. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(6):526. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12060526
  32. Carvalho AM, Cordeiro RA, Faneca H. Silica-based gene delivery systems: from design to therapeutic applications. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(7):649. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12070649
  33. Zhou J, Wu J, Hafdi N, Behr JP, Erbacher P, Peng L. PAMAM dendrimers for efficient siRNA delivery and potent gene silencing. Chem Commun (Camb). 2006;22:2362. doi:10.1039/b601381c
  34. El-Shafie S, Fahmy SA, Ziko L, Elzahed N, Shoeib T, Kakarougkas A. Encapsulation of nedaplatin in novel PEGylated liposomes increases its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity against A549 and U2OS human cancer cells. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(9):863. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12090863
  35. Svenson S. Dendrimers as versatile platform in drug delivery applications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;71(3):445–462. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.09.023
  36. Jain K, Kesharwani P, Gupta U, Jain NK. Dendrimer toxicity: Let’s meet the challenge. Int J Pharm. 2010;394(1–2):122–142. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.04.027
  37. Kaminskas LM, Boyd BJ, Porter CJ. Dendrimer pharmacokinetics: The effect of size, structure and surface characteristics on ADME properties [erratum in: Nanomedicine (Lond). 2012;7(1):167–168. PMID:21955077]. Nanomedicine. 2011;6(6):1063–1084. doi:10.2217/nnm.11.67
  38. Bober Z, Bartusik-Aebisher D, Aebisher D. Application of dendrimers in anticancer diagnostics and therapy. Molecules. 2022;27(10):3237. doi:10.3390/molecules27103237
  39. Abdelhamid MAA, Ki MR, Abd El-Hafeez AA, Son RG, Pack SP. Tailored functionalized protein nanocarriers for cancer therapy: Recent developments and prospects. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(1):168. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics15010168
  40. Elzoghby AO, Samy WM, Elgindy NA. Protein-based nanocarriers as promising drug and gene delivery systems. J Control Release. 2012;161(1):38–49. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.04.036
  41. Kratz F. Albumin as a drug carrier: Design of prodrugs, drug conjugates and nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2008;132(3):171–183. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.05.010
  42. Desai N. Challenges in development of nanoparticle-based therapeutics. AAPS J. 2012;14(2):282–295. doi:10.1208/s12248-012-9339-4
  43. Hawkins MJ, Soon-Shiong P, Desai N. Protein nanoparticles as drug carriers in clinical medicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(8):876–885. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2007.08.044
  44. Vonarbourg A, Passirani C, Desigaux L, et al. The encapsulation of DNA molecules within biomimetic lipid nanocapsules. Biomaterials. 2009;30(18):3197–3204. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.03.009
  45. Chu KS, Schorzman AN, Finniss MC, et al. Nanoparticle drug loading as a design parameter to improve docetaxel pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Biomaterials. 2013;34(33):8424–8429. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.038
  46. Yang Z, Zhang N, Ma T, Liu L, Zhao L, Xie H. Engineered bovine serum albumin-based nanoparticles with pH-sensitivity for doxorubicin delivery and controlled release. Drug Deliv. 2020;27(1):1156–1164. doi:10.1080/10717544.2020.1797243
  47. Hu Q, Sun W, Wang C, Gu Z. Recent advances of cocktail chemotherapy by combination drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;98:19–34. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2015.10.022
  48. Song SW, Hidajat K, Kawi S. pH-Controllable drug release using hydrogel encapsulated mesoporous silica. Chem Commun (Camb). 2007;(42):4396. doi:10.1039/b707626f
  49. Li L, Yang J, Soodvilai S, Wang J, Opanasopit P, Kopeček J. Drug-free albumin-triggered sensitization of cancer cells to anticancer drugs. J Control Release. 2019;293:84–93. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.11.015
  50. Hao L, Zhou Q, Piao Y, Zhou Z, Tang J, Shen Y. Albumin-binding prodrugs via reversible iminoboronate forming nanoparticles for cancer drug delivery. J Control Release. 2021;330:362–371. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.12.035
  51. Meng R, Zhu H, Wang Z, Hao S, Wang B. Preparation of drug-loaded albumin nanoparticles and its application in cancer therapy. Pugazhendhi A, ed. J Nanomater. 2022;2022:1137145. doi:10.1155/2022/3052175
  52. Margulis-Goshen K, Magdassi S. Formation of simvastatin nanoparticles from microemulsion. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2009;5(3):274–281. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2008.11.004
  53. Kreuter J, Hekmatara T, Dreis S, Vogel T, Gelperina S, Langer K. Covalent attachment of apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B-100 to albumin nanoparticles enables drug transport into the brain. J Control Release. 2007;118(1):54–58. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.12.012
  54. Lee JH, Nan A. Combination drug delivery approaches in metastatic breast cancer. J Drug Deliv. 2012;2012:915375. doi:10.1155/2012/915375
  55. Ghorbanizamani F, Moulahoum H, Zihnioglu F, Timur S. Nanohybrid carriers: The yin–yang equilibrium between natural and synthetic in biomedicine. Biomater Sci. 2020;8(12):3237–3247. doi:10.1039/D0BM00401D
  56. Maeda H, Nakamura H, Fang J. The EPR effect for macromolecular drug delivery to solid tumors: Improvement of tumor uptake, lowering of systemic toxicity, and distinct tumor imaging in vivo. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(1):71–79. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.10.002
  57. Gong J, Chen M, Zheng Y, Wang S, Wang Y. Polymeric micelles drug delivery system in oncology. J Control Release. 2012;159(3):312–323. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.12.012
  58. Otsuka H, Nagasaki Y, Kataoka K. PEGylated nanoparticles for biological and pharmaceutical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003;55(3):403–419. doi:10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00226-0
  59. Danquah MK, Zhang XA, Mahato RI. Extravasation of polymeric nanomedicines across tumor vasculature. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(8):623–639. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2010.11.005
  60. Xu X, Ho W, Zhang X, Bertrand N, Farokhzad O. Cancer nanomedicine: From targeted delivery to combination therapy. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21(4):223–232. doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.01.001
  61. Gaucher G, Dufresne MH, Sant VP, Kang N, Maysinger D, Leroux JC. Block copolymer micelles: Preparation, characterization and application in drug delivery. J Control Release. 2005;109(1–3):169–188. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.09.034
  62. Mura S, Nicolas J, Couvreur P. Stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nature Mater. 2013;12(11):991–1003. doi:10.1038/nmat3776
  63. Jackson AW, Chennamaneni LR, Thoniyot P. Main-chain degradable, pH-responsive and covalently cross-linked nanoparticles via a one-step RAFT-based radical ring-opening terpolymerization. Eur Polym J. 2020;122:109391. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.109391
  64. Idrees H, Zaidi SZJ, Sabir A, Khan RU, Zhang X, Hassan S.U. A review of biodegradable natural polymer-based nanoparticles for drug delivery applications. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(10):1970. doi:10.3390/nano10101970
  65. Haque FM, Ishibashi JSA, Lidston CAL, et al. Defining the macromolecules of tomorrow through synergistic sustainable polymer research. Chem Rev. 2022;122(6):6322–6373. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00173
  66. Asadi N, Del Bakhshayesh AR, Davaran S, Akbarzadeh A. Common biocompatible polymeric materials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Mater Chem Phys. 2020;242:122528. doi:10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122528
  67. Kotta S, Aldawsari HM, Badr-Eldin SM, Nair AB, Yt K. Progress in polymeric micelles for drug delivery applications. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(8):1636. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14081636
  68. Xie L, Liu R, Chen X, He M, Zhang Y, Chen S. Micelles based on lysine, histidine, or arginine: Designing structures for enhanced drug delivery. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:744657. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.744657
  69. Das SS, Bharadwaj P, Bilal M, et al. Stimuli-responsive polymeric nanocarriers for drug delivery, imaging, and theragnosis. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(6):1397. doi:10.3390/polym12061397
  70. Hwang D, Ramsey JD, Kabanov AV. Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;156:80–118. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2020.09.009
  71. Saraf S, Jain A, Tiwari A, Verma A, Panda PK, Jain SK. Advances in liposomal drug delivery to cancer: An overview. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2020;56:101549. doi:10.1016/j.jddst.2020.101549
  72. Fathi S, Oyelere AK. Liposomal drug delivery systems for targeted cancer therapy: Is active targeting the best choice? Future Med Chem. 2016;8(17):2091–2112. doi:10.4155/fmc-2016-0135
  73. Jahromi LP, Fuhrmann G. Bacterial extracellular vesicles: Understanding biology promotes applications as nanopharmaceuticals. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;173:125–140. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2021.03.012
  74. Guimarães D, Cavaco-Paulo A, Nogueira E. Design of liposomes as drug delivery system for therapeutic applications. Int J Pharm. 2021;601:120571. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120571
  75. Wang S, Chen Y, Guo J, Huang Q. Liposomes for tumor targeted therapy: A review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(3):2643. doi:10.3390/ijms24032643
  76. Zhigaltsev IV, Cullis PR. Morphological behavior of liposomes and lipid nanoparticles. Langmuir. 2023;39(9):3185–3193. doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.2c02794
  77. Gbian DL, Omri A. Lipid-based drug delivery systems for diseases managements. Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2137. doi:10.3390/biomedicines10092137
  78. Eroğlu İ, İbrahim M. Liposome–ligand conjugates: A review on the current state of art. J Drug Target. 2020;28(3):225–244. doi:10.1080/1061186X.2019.1648479
  79. Kim EM, Jeong HJ. Liposomes: Biomedical applications. Chonnam Med J. 2021;57(1):27. doi:10.4068/cmj.2021.57.1.27
  80. Vallejo R, Gonzalez-Valdivieso J, Santos M, Rodriguez-Rojo S, Arias FJ. Production of elastin-like recombinamer-based nanoparticles for docetaxel encapsulation and use as smart drug-delivery systems using a supercritical anti-solvent process. J Industr Eng Chem. 2021;93:361–374. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2020.10.013
  81. Antimisiaris SG, Marazioti A, Kannavou M, et al. Overcoming barriers by local drug delivery with liposomes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;174:53–86. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2021.01.019
  82. Cardoso BD, Cardoso VF, Lanceros-Méndez S, Castanheira EMS. Solid magnetoliposomes as multi-stimuli-responsive systems for controlled release of doxorubicin: Assessment of lipid formulations. Biomedicines. 2022;10(5):1207. doi:10.3390/biomedicines10051207
  83. Pande S. Liposomes for drug delivery: Review of vesicular composition, factors affecting drug release and drug loading in liposomes. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2023;51(1):428–440. doi:10.1080/21691401.2023.2247036
  84. Bianco A, Kostarelos K, Prato M. Applications of carbon nanotubes in drug delivery. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2005;9(6):674–679. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2005.10.005
  85. Liu Z, Chen K, Davis C, et al. Drug delivery with carbon nanotubes for in vivo cancer treatment. Cancer Res. 2008;68(16):6652–6660. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-1468
  86. Bianco A, Kostarelos K, Prato M. Making carbon nanotubes biocompatible and biodegradable. Chem Commun (Camb). 2011;47(37):10182. doi:10.1039/c1cc13011k
  87. Bhattacharya K, Andón FT, El-Sayed R, Fadeel B. Mechanisms of carbon nanotube-induced toxicity: Focus on pulmonary inflammation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(15):2087–2097. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2013.05.012
  88. Madani SY, Mandel A, Seifalian AM. A concise review of carbon nanotube’s toxicology. Nano Rev. 2013;4(1):21521. doi:10.3402/nano.v4i0.21521
  89. Prajapati SK, Malaiya A, Kesharwani P, Soni D, Jain A. Biomedical applications and toxicities of carbon nanotubes. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2022;45(1):435–450. doi:10.1080/01480545.2019.1709492
  90. Meskher H, Ragdi T, Thakur AK, et al. A review on CNTs-based electrochemical sensors and biosensors: Unique properties and potential applications [published online as ahead of print on February 1, 2023]. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2023. doi:10.1080/10408347.2023.2171277
  91. Klumpp C, Kostarelos K, Prato M, Bianco A. Functionalized carbon nanotubes as emerging nanovectors for the delivery of therapeutics. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1758(3):404–412. doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2005.10.008
  92. Podesta JE, Al‐Jamal KT, Herrero MA, et al. Antitumor activity and prolonged survival by carbon‐nanotube‐mediated therapeutic siRNA silencing in a human lung xenograft model. Small. 2009;5(10):1176–1185. doi:10.1002/smll.200801572
  93. Bura C, Mocan T, Grapa C, Mocan L. Carbon nanotubes-based assays for cancer detection and screening. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(4):781. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14040781
  94. Bhirde AA, Patel V, Gavard J, et al. Targeted killing of cancer cells in vivo and in vitro with EGF-directed carbon nanotube-based drug delivery. ACS Nano. 2009;3(2):307–316. doi:10.1021/nn800551s
  95. Michalet X, Pinaud FF, Bentolila LA, et al. Quantum dots for live cells, in vivo imaging, and diagnostics. Science. 2005;307(5709):538–544. doi:10.1126/science.1104274
  96. Resch-Genger U, Grabolle M, Cavaliere-Jaricot S, Nitschke R, Nann T. Quantum dots versus organic dyes as fluorescent labels. Nat Methods. 2008;5(9):763–775. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1248
  97. Gao X, Cui Y, Levenson RM, Chung LWK, Nie S. In vivo cancer targeting and imaging with semiconductor quantum dots. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22(8):969–976. doi:10.1038/nbt994
  98. Yaghini E, Seifalian AM, MacRobert AJ. Quantum dots and their potential biomedical applications in photosensitization for photodynamic therapy. Nanomedicine. 2009;4(3):353–363. doi:10.2217/nnm.09.9
  99. Liu N, Tang M. Toxicity of different types of quantum dots to mammalian cells in vitro: An update review. J Hazard Mater. 2020;399:122606. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122606
  100. Dussert F, Sarret G, Wegner KD, et al. Physico-chemical transformation and toxicity of multi-shell InP quantum dots under simulated sunlight irradiation, in an environmentally realistic scenario. Nanomaterials. 2022;12(20):3703. doi:10.3390/nano12203703
  101. Lovrić J, Bazzi HS, Cuie Y, Fortin GRA, Winnik FM, Maysinger D. Differences in subcellular distribution and toxicity of green and red emitting CdTe quantum dots. J Mol Med. 2005;83(5):377–385. doi:10.1007/s00109-004-0629-x
  102. Clift MJD, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Brown DM, et al. The impact of different nanoparticle surface chemistry and size on uptake and toxicity in a murine macrophage cell line. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008;232(3):418–427. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2008.06.009
  103. He X, Ma N. An overview of recent advances in quantum dots for biomedical applications. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;124:118–131. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.06.002
  104. Susumu K, Uyeda HT, Medintz IL, Pons T, Delehanty JB, Mattoussi H. Enhancing the stability and biological functionalities of quantum dots via compact multifunctional ligands. J Am Chem Soc. 2007;129(45):13987–13996. doi:10.1021/ja0749744
  105. Min J, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, et al. Size engineering of trap effects in oxidized and hydroxylated ZnSe quantum dots. Nano Lett. 2022;22(9):3604–3611. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c00118
  106. Medintz IL, Uyeda HT, Goldman ER, Mattoussi H. Quantum dot bioconjugates for imaging, labelling and sensing. Nature Mater. 2005;4(6):435–446. doi:10.1038/nmat1390
  107. Dennis AM, Rhee WJ, Sotto D, Dublin SN, Bao G. Quantum dot–fluorescent protein FRET probes for sensing intracellular pH. ACS Nano. 2012;6(4):2917–2924. doi:10.1021/nn2038077
  108. Souza SO, Lira RB, Cunha CRA, Santos BS, Fontes A, Pereira G. Methods for intracellular delivery of quantum dots. Top Curr Chem (Cham). 2021;379(1):1. doi:10.1007/s41061-020-00313-7
  109. Kays JC, Saeboe AM, Toufanian R, Kurant DE, Dennis AM. Shell-free copper indium sulfide quantum dots induce toxicity in vitro and in vivo. Nano Lett. 2020;20(3):1980–1991. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b05259
  110. Kumari A, Yadav SK, Yadav SC. Biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles based drug delivery systems. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2010;75(1):1–18. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.09.001
  111. Moura LIF, Dias AMA, Carvalho E, De Sousa HC. Recent advances on the development of wound dressings for diabetic foot ulcer treatment: A review. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(7):7093–7114. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.03.033
  112. Lee KY, Mooney DJ. Alginate: Properties and biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci. 2012;37(1):106–126. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003
  113. Young S, Wong M, Tabata Y, Mikos AG. Gelatin as a delivery vehicle for the controlled release of bioactive molecules. J Control Release. 2005;109(1–3):256–274. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.09.023
  114. Sultana Y, Mall S, Maurya DP, Kumar D, Das M. Preparation and in vitro characterization of diltiazem hydrochloride loaded alginate microspheres. Pharm Dev Technol. 2009;14(3):321–331. doi:10.1080/10837450802626304
  115. Rivera-Gil P, De Koker S, De Geest BG, Parak WJ. Intracellular processing of proteins mediated by biodegradable polyelectrolyte capsules. Nano Lett. 2009;9(12):4398–4402. doi:10.1021/nl902697j
  116. Jafarzadeh S, Mohammadi Nafchi A, Salehabadi A, Oladzad-Abbasabadi N, Jafari SM. Application of bio-nanocomposite films and edible coatings for extending the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables. Adv Coll Interface Sci. 2021;291:102405. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2021.102405
  117. Petroni S, Tagliaro I, Antonini C, et al. Chitosan-based biomaterials: Insights into chemistry, properties, devices, and their biomedical applications. Marine Drugs. 2023;21(3):147. doi:10.3390/md21030147
© Wroclaw Medical University