| Literature DB >> 34947789 |
Eman Jaradat1, Edward Weaver1, Adam Meziane2, Dimitrios A Lamprou1.
Abstract
In conventional drug administration, drug molecules cross multiple biological barriers, distribute randomly in the tissues, and can release insufficient concentrations at the desired pathological site. Controlling the delivery of the molecules can increase the concentration of the drug in the desired location, leading to improved efficacy, and reducing the unwanted effects of the molecules under investigation. Nanoparticles (NPs), have shown a distinctive potential in targeting drugs due to their unique properties, such as large surface area and quantum properties. A variety of NPs have been used over the years for the encapsulation of different drugs and biologics, acting as drug carriers, including lipid-based and polymeric NPs. Applying NP platforms in medicines significantly improves the disease diagnosis and therapy. Several conventional methods have been used for the manufacturing of drug loaded NPs, with conventional manufacturing methods having several limitations, leading to multiple drawbacks, including NPs with large particle size and broad size distribution (high polydispersity index), besides the unreproducible formulation and high batch-to-batch variability. Therefore, new methods such as microfluidics (MFs) need to be investigated more thoroughly. MFs, is a novel manufacturing method that uses microchannels to produce a size-controlled and monodispersed NP formulation. In this review, different formulation methods of polymeric and lipid-based NPs will be discussed, emphasizing the different manufacturing methods and their advantages and limitations and how microfluidics has the capacity to overcome these limitations and improve the role of NPs as an effective drug delivery system.Entities:
Keywords: PLGA; drug delivery; liposomes; microfluidics; nanomedicine; nanoparticles
Year: 2021 PMID: 34947789 PMCID: PMC8707902 DOI: 10.3390/nano11123440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Thin film hydration method for empty liposome preparation. The liposomes produced from this method are often polydisperse; however, there is a correlation between the duration spent during the rotary evaporation step and the quality of thin film produced. Factors such as mixing speed and temperature after the hydration will also effect the quality of the liposomes so this must be monitored.
Figure 2An illustration for the procedure of the solvent injection method to produce empty liposomes. The major factors to consider during the solvent injection method are the temperature during injection (as this will vary depending upon the phase transition temperatures of individual lipids), and the injection rate. These factors will affect the size, shape and polydispersity of the liposomes produced. A following method such as micro-extrusion is normally required after solvent injection to obtain a therapeutically viable formulation.
Figure 3The preparation of liposomes by extrusion method using polycarbonate filters. Increasing the number of transitions through the membrane will reduce the polydispersity of the formulation. The process should also be performed at a temperature similar to that of the lipid transition temperature, to prevent lipid cleavage (and subsequent liposome breakdown) upon extrusion.
Comparison of the Advantages and disadvantages of manufacturing methods of lipid NP and polymeric NP.
| Nanoparticles Type | Manufacturing Method | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipid formulation | Film hydration |
Established method Understood method |
High consuming of the organic solvents High PDI Lack of reproducibility Need for additional downsizing step Difficulties in scaling-up | [ |
| Solvent injection |
Simple and fast Scaling- up possibility |
Exposing to organic solvent high PDI stability problems | [ | |
| Extrusion |
uniform and homogenous formulation |
possible clogging of the membrane pores. Difficulties in scaling-up | [ | |
| High pressure homogenization |
Scaling- up possibility Uniform formulation |
High energy consumption Multiple steps Bulky system | [ | |
| Microemulsion |
Small particle size Homogenous formulation |
Difficulty in removing the excess water Use high concentration of surfactants | [ | |
| Polymeric | Emulsification -salting out |
Avoids surfactants and chlorinated solvents. |
Need for purification steps Encapsulate lipophilic drugs only | [ |
| Emulsification- solvent diffusion |
Scaling- up possibility Batch-to-batch reproducibility |
The possible diffusion of the hydrophilic drug into the aqueous phase The need to eliminate high volume of aqueous phase from the colloidal dispersion | [ | |
| Emulsification- evaporation |
Simple and versatile |
Risk of nanodroplets coalescence during the evaporation process Time consuming | [ | |
| Dialysis |
Effective and simple method Produce PNP with narrow distribution |
Time consuming Use of high amount of dialyzing medium, which stimulate the premature release of NPs content | [ | |
| Nonparticipation |
simple and established method use low concentrations of surfactant |
Restricted for lipophilic drugs Low polymer concentration obtained | [ |
Summary of materials used for microfluidic chips, including advantages and disadvantages.
| Material | Tg 1 (°C) | Advantages | Disadvantages | Manufacturing Method | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PDMS | −125 | Low Tg, easiness of shaping in the channels, optical transparency, resistance to water, ability to produce microscale features precisely. | hydrophobic nature, sensitive to organic solvents (e.g., strong acids, hydrocarbon, amines. | soft lithography, plasma-enhanced bonding | [ |
| PMMA | 105 | low cost, optical transparency, attractive mechanical/chemical characteristics, and simple fabrication processes. | High Tg, Sensitive to alcohol, isopropyl alcohol and acetone, high bonding temperature, Commercial availability | solvent imprinting, hot embossing thermal bonding, injection molding and laser ablation. | [ |
| PET | 69–78 | Low Tg, low rigidity, low surface energy, easiness of molding, chemically inertness, good gas and moisture barrier characteristics, recyclable. | reduced chemical resistance, require surface treatment for bonding due to the low plasma bonding strength. | hot embossing, thermal bonding | [ |
| COP | 70–180 | High stability, low interaction with protein, suitable rigidity, resistance to almost all solvents including ethanol, IPA, and acetone, low water absorbency, high moisturiser barrier. | High Tg, brittleness and low heat diffusivity, not resistance to the non-polar organic solvent (e.g., hexane). | hot embossing, chemical etching, thermal bonding methods. | [ |
Figure 4Schematic presentation of liposomes manufacturing using the microfluidic system. Figure adapted from Weaver et al. [152].