Cited by 141Field-Flow Fractionation TechniquesMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsAnalytical chemistry methods development

Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation in the Field of Nanomedicine

Wagner, Michael, Holzschuh, Stephan, Traeger, Anja, Fahr, Alfred, Schubert, Ulrich. S.·2014·Analytical Chemistry

Abstract

Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) is a widely used and versatile technique in the family of field-flow fractionations, indicated by a rapidly increasing number of publications. It represents a gentle separation and characterization method, where nonspecific interactions are reduced to a minimum, allows a broad separation range from several nano- up to micrometers and enables a superior characterization of homo- and heterogenic systems. In particular, coupling to multiangle light scattering provides detailed access to sample properties. Information about molar mass, polydispersity, size, shape/conformation, or density can be obtained nearly independent of the used material. In this Perspective, the application and progress of AF4 for (bio)macromolecules and colloids, relevant for "nano" medical and pharmaceutical issues, will be presented. The characterization of different nanosized drug or gene delivery systems, e.g., polymers, nanoparticles, micelles, dendrimers, liposomes, polyplexes, and virus-like-particles (VLP), as well as therapeutic relevant proteins, antibodies, and nanoparticles for diagnostic usage will be discussed. Thereby, the variety of obtained information, the advantages and pitfalls of this emerging technique will be highlighted. Additionally, the influence of different fractionation parameters in the separation process is discussed in detail. Moreover, a comprehensive overview is given, concerning the investigated samples, fractionation parameters as membrane types and buffers used as well as the chosen detectors and the corresponding references. The perspective ends up with an outlook to the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ac501664t

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagner, M., Holzschuh, S., Traeger, A., Fahr, A., & Schubert, U. S.
Affiliations
Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
Corresponding author
Schubert, Ulrich. S.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Published
2014-05-20
Volume
86
Issue
11
Pages
5201-5210
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
OpenAlex
W2319623974
Cited by
141
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Analytical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Field-Flow Fractionation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical chemistry methods development
Keywords
asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation, nanomedicine, macromolecule characterization, colloids, multi-angle light scattering, drug delivery systems, nanoparticles, micelles, dendrimers, liposomes, polyplexes, virus-like particles, therapeutic proteins, immunoglobulins, membrane type, buffering effect
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Light, Molecular Conformation, Scattering, Radiation, Drug Delivery Systems, Fractionation, Field Flow, Nanomedicine

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