Cited by 49Field-Flow Fractionation TechniquesNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications

The utility of asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation for preclinical characterization of nanomedicines

Hu, Yingwen, Crist, Rachael M., Clogston, Jeffrey D.·2020·Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Abstract

Dynamic light scattering (DLS), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and reversed phase-high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) are staples of nanoparticle characterization for size distribution, shape/morphology, and composition, respectively. These techniques are simple and provide important details on sample characteristics. However, DLS and TEM are routinely done in batch-mode, while RP-HPLC affords separation of components within the entire sample population, regardless of sample polydispersity. While batch-mode analysis is informative and should be a first-step analysis for any material, it may not be ideal for polydisperse formulations, such as many nanomedicines. Herein, we describe the utility of asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) as a useful tool for a more thorough understanding of these inherently polydisperse materials. AF4 was coupled with in-line DLS for an enhanced separation and resolution of various size populations in a nanomaterial. Additionally, the various size populations were collected for offline analysis by TEM for an assessment of different shape populations, or RP-HPLC to provide a compositional analysis of each individual size population. This technique was also extended to assess nanoparticle stability, i.e., drug release, both in buffer and physiologically relevant matrix, as well as qualitatively evaluate the protein binding capacity of nanomedicines. Overall, AF4 is proven to be a very versatile technique and can provide a wealth of information on a material's polydispersity and stability. Moreover, the ability to conduct analysis in physiological matrices provides an advantage that many other routine analytical techniques do not. Graphical Abstract.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00216-019-02252-9

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, Y., Crist, R. M., & Clogston, J. D.
Affiliations
Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (US)
Corresponding author
Clogston, Jeffrey D.
Venue
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Published
2019-11-27
Volume
412
Issue
2
Pages
425-438
ISSN
  • 1618-2642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-2650
OpenAlex
W2991326193
Cited by
49
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (Contract No. HHSN261200800001E)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Field-Flow Fractionation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Keywords
asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation, polydispersity, nanoparticle size distribution, nanoparticle morphology, nanoparticle composition, nanoparticle stability, drug release, protein binding, transmission electron microscopy, reversed-phase HPLC
MeSH terms
Dynamic Light Scattering, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Humans, Fractionation, Field Flow, Microscopy, Electron, Transmission, Nanomedicine, Nanoparticles, Chromatography, Reverse-Phase

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review