| Literature DB >> 33919859 |
Supandeep Singh Hallan1, Maddalena Sguizzato1, Elisabetta Esposito1, Rita Cortesi1,2.
Abstract
Nano-sized drug transporters have become an efficient approach with considerable commercial values. Nanomedicine is not only limited to drug delivery by means of different administration routes, such as intravenous, oral, transdermal, nasal, pulmonary, and more, but also has applications in a multitude of areas, such as a vaccine, antibacterial, diagnostics and imaging, and gene delivery. This review will focus on lipid nanosystems with a wide range of applications, taking into consideration their composition, properties, and physical parameters. However, designing suitable protocol for the physical evaluation of nanoparticles is still conflicting. The main obstacle is concerning the sensitivity, reproducibility, and reliability of the adopted methodology. Some important techniques are compared and discussed in this report. Particularly, a comparison between different techniques involved in (a) the morphologic characterization, such as Cryo-TEM, SEM, and X-ray; (b) the size measurement, such as dynamic light scattering, sedimentation field flow fractionation, and optical microscopy; and (c) surface properties, namely zeta potential measurement, is described. In addition, an amperometric tool in order to investigate antioxidant activity and the response of nanomaterials towards the skin membrane has been presented.Entities:
Keywords: cubosomes; ethosomes; gels; liposomes; nanoparticles; nanostructured lipid carriers; nanotechnology; novel drug delivery system; solid lipid nanoparticles
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919859 PMCID: PMC8070758 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13040549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Principal methods of lipid-based nanoparticle production together with their advantages and limitations.
| Nano-Carrier | Method of Preparation | Merits | Demerits | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liposomes | Ethanol injection | - Simple and safe | - Heterogeneous population | [ |
| Direct hydration | - Simple | - Not transposable on industrial scale | [ | |
| Reverse phase | - Uniformity of size and Lamellarity | - Denaturation of loaded proteins due to exposure of organic solvents | [ | |
| Ethosomes | Cold Method | - Simple approach | N/A | [ |
| Hot method | - Ehanolic mixture is heated to 40 °C | N/A | ||
| SLN/ NLC | Hot high-Pressure Homogenization | - Scaling up feasible | - Extremely energy intensive process | [ |
| Cold high-pressure | - No drug degradation | - Larger diameter of particles | [ | |
| Micro emulsion-based method | - No energy required | - Very much susceptible towards alterations | [ | |
| MAD/ Cubosomes | Top-down approach | - No aggregation | - High energy input | [ |
| Bottom-up approach | - Required less energy inputs | - Higher dilution used | [ |
Figure 1Schematic representation of functionalized MNP. The surface of MNP can be functionalized by the insertion of specific molecules, such as antibodies, peptides, drugs, fluorescent dye, and/or contrast agents for computerized tomography.
Figure 2Schematic resume of the principal parameters (a) and techniques (b) used for nanoparticles characterization.
Figure 3SEM photographs of polymeric microparticles, namely eudragit RS (a,b) and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (c), and lipid-based microparticles, namely tripalmitin:glyceryl monostarate 2:1 by weight (d–f). Bar represents 20 μm in panels (a,b), 10 μm in panel (c,d), and 40 μm in panel (e,f).
Figure 4Cryo-TEM images of empty liposomes (a), ethosomes (b), and cubosomes (c).
Figure 5Cryo-TEM images of SLN (a) and NLC (b).
Figure 6Cryo-TEM images of MAD obtained with hydrotrope (a) or hot homogenization (b) method in the presence of poloxamer 407 as surfactant.
Structural properties of some lipid phases.
| Phase | Type | Structure Elements | Class |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1D: lamellar | - | Lamellae | - |
| 2D: hexagonal | I or II | Infinitely long rods | Rod-like |
| 3D: Cubic, P4332 | II | Rod network and micelles | Mixed rod-like and micellar |
| 3D: Cubic, Pm3n | I | Micelles | Micellar |
| 3D: Cubic, Pn3m | II | Intertwined rod networks | Bicontinuous |
| 3D: Cubic, Fd3m | II | Micelles | Micellar |
| 3D: Cubic, Im3m | II | Intertwined rod networks | Bicontinuous |
| 3D: Cubic, Ia3d | I or II | Intertwined rod networks | Bicontinuous |
* IPMS = infinite periodic minimal surfaces.
Figure 7SdFFF operation diagram (a) and instrument configuration set up (b).
Factors affecting accuracy of DLS measurements.
| Factor | Description | References |
|---|---|---|
|
| It should be underlined that some solvents (toluene) have tendency to scatter the light up to certain extent, which can create background noise in results. Secondly, dimethyl sulfoxide can alter viscosity of the sample at different temperature conditions | [ |
|
| Higher concentration of sample corresponds to higher number of particles. It means that light hit so many times before reaching to detector and finally loses intensity. Too diluted sample cannot produce scattered light to be analyzed. DLS is only useful in case of diluted samples. | [ |
|
| Nanomaterials have tendency to undergo agglomeration. The bigger size of agglomerate scatter light with great extent. Even it can destroy the detector also. | [ |
|
| Use of organic solvent or temperature conditions higher than 50 °C can interfere with Cuvette made up of plastic. Cuvette should be clean properly with detergent or distilled water. | [ |
Comparison between SdFFF, DLS, and cryo-TEM.
| Technique | Principle | References |
|---|---|---|
|
| Based on separation of nano/ micro scale particles as a function of their specific mass with known particle density by assuming that particles are spherical. The dimensions illustrate the diameter of an equivalent sphere. It gives higher resolution comparably to PCS because it fractionates different sized particles first more specific for the dispersions having multimodal size distributions. | [ |
|
| It measures the particle diameter by light scattering could give misleading interpretation with systems having non-spherical particles. Moreover, larger spheres monopolize the scattering behavior of the sample, small numbers of large nanoparticles result in a considerable enlargement of size and dispersity of nano-dispersion. | [ |
|
| It is not possible for all the particles to be imaged because larger particles can be neglected in the analysis. Therefore, usage of cryo-TEM for estimating diameter could give uncertain results because distances or geometries may be over- or under assessed. | [ |
Z-average and zeta potential values of some nanoparticles reported in literature.
| Type of Nanoparticle | Active Molecules | Z-Ave | ζ Potential | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLN | caffeic acid | 201 ± 11 | −4.92 ± 0.01 | [ |
| ethosomes | caffeic acid | 219 ± 21 | +1.99 ± 2.48 | [ |
| liposomes | QSi 3 | 230 ± 12 | +55.8 ± 0.4 | [ |
| liposomes | Peptides | 200–350 | 17.8 ±13 | [ |
| cationic particles | Peptide | 870–1140 | +27.9 ± 4.2 | [ |
| chitosan | Enoxaparin | 135.2 ± 3.1 | 31.67 ± 4.6 | [ |
| stearylamine lipid | 180.3 ± 3.6 | −13.52 ± 2.3 | ||
| polymer lipid hybrid | Selegiline | 178.7 ± 3.4 | −25.07 ± 3.4 | [ |
| thiolated chitosan | 215 ± 34.7 | +17.06 |
1 Zeta average diameter (mean size). 2 Zeta Potential. 3 Quorum sensing inhibitors.
Figure 8Relative amperometric current response of SCOE dipped in citrate buffer saline, pH 5.5.