Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 19, 2026.

Review on Nanoparticles and Nanostructured Materials: Bioimaging, Biosensing, Drug Delivery, Tissue Engineering, Antimicrobial, and Agro-Food Applications

Vancha Harish, Devesh Tewari, Manish Gaur and 4 more

Nanomaterials · 2022 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3390/nano12030457

Abstract

In the last few decades, the vast potential of nanomaterials for biomedical and healthcare applications has been extensively investigated. Several case studies demonstrated that nanomaterials can offer solutions to the current challenges of raw materials in the biomedical and healthcare fields. This review describes the different nanoparticles and nanostructured material synthesis approaches and presents some emerging biomedical, healthcare, and agro-food applications. This review focuses on various nanomaterial types (e.g., spherical, nanorods, nanotubes, nanosheets, nanofibers, core-shell, and mesoporous) that can be synthesized from different raw materials and their emerging applications in bioimaging, biosensing, drug delivery, tissue engineering, antimicrobial, and agro-foods. Depending on their morphology (e.g., size, aspect ratio, geometry, porosity), nanomaterials can be used as formulation modifiers, moisturizers, nanofillers, additives, membranes, and films. As toxicological assessment depends on sizes and morphologies, stringent regulation is needed from the testing of efficient nanomaterials dosages. The challenges and perspectives for an industrial breakthrough of nanomaterials are related to the optimization of production and processing conditions.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 19, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

In the last 50 years, material researchers have been extensively studying how to exploit nanoparticles and nanostructured materials in different biomedical and healthcare sectors. The term “NP” usually defines minute particles of matter (1 to 100 nm in diameter), but other names can be used to describe larger particles (up to 500 nm in diameter). For example, nanorods, nanowires, and nanofibers are nanoparticles with a diameter in the 1–100 nm range but with one dimension outside the nanoscale dimension. Nanostructured materials are nanomaterials with one dimension in the nanoscale range (<100 nm) and are made of a single material or multiple materials. Therefore, nanostructured materials are composed of interlinked parts in the nanoscale range. Nanoparticles and nanostructured materials can be made of simple materials (e.g., metal, carbon, polymer), of composites (e.g., polymer-metal, silica-metal, graphene-metal), or in the core-shell form.

Nanomaterials are typically synthesized by one of two main approaches, i.e., bottom-up approach and top-down approach. Among all the methods, recently, the synthesis of nanomaterials by physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, electrospinning, 3D printing, biological synthesis, and supercritical fluid have gained importance, which is mingled with other methods to improve the synthesis efficiency. Nanomaterials display many interesting features, such as superior mechanical performance, the possibility of surface functionalization, large surface area, and tunable porosity, compared to their bulk materials. These outstanding features explain why nanomaterials are the perfect candidates in the biomedical sector for the production of tissue-engineered scaffolds (e.g., blood vessels, bone), drug delivery systems (gene therapy, cancer treatments, drugs for chronic respiratory infections), chemical sensors, biosensors, and wound dressings. Remarkably, several studies suggest that ancient civilizations in India, Egypt, and China used nanotechnology (metallic gold) for therapeutic purposes in 2500 BC. Nanomaterials’ discrete features can complicate the assessment of the effects and the toxicity risk associated with their use in a biological environment. Indeed, nanomaterials’ chemical composition, size, shape, surface charge, area, and entry route in the body can influence their biological activities and effects.

In bioimaging, tailored fluorescent nanoparticles could outperform traditional molecular probes as fluorescent indicators, particularly in terms of sensitivity. Tissue-engineered nanofiber scaffolds are considered the best option to manage tissue loss and end-stage organ failure and have already helped millions of patients worldwide. Three-dimensional nanofibrous scaffolds are polymer-based structures with balanced moisture, absorption, strongly organized porosity (60–90%), and gas permeability, comparable to native extracellular matrices. One and two-dimensional nanomaterials can be used for signal amplification, are nanosized (≤100 nm), have high electrical conductivity, and are compatible with drugs and biological molecules. They have also been used for the early detection of diseases (e.g., virus, bacterial, cancer). Antimicrobial nanomaterials (e.g., Ag, Au, CuO NPs) are frequently employed in dermatology because they contribute to accelerating wound healing and preventing/treating bacterial infections.

Based on dimensionality, nanomaterials are classified mainly into four groups: 0D, where length, height, and width are fixed at a single point; 1D, where only one parameter exists (e.g., carbon nanotubes); 2D, where length and width exist (e.g., graphene); and 3D, where length, height, and width exist. For example, a graphene nanosheet is a typical example of a 2D nanostructure with a thickness in the nanoscale range. Theoretically, single-layer graphene is 0.345 nm thick (one atom thickness) and up to 500 nm in diameter. Based on their chemical composition, nanoparticles and nanostructured materials can be categorized into four types: organic nanomaterials (e.g., micelles, dendrimers, polymersomes, hydrogels, nanoconjugates), inorganic nanomaterials (e.g., metals, metal oxide, and ceramic nanomaterials), carbon-based nanomaterials (fullerenes, carbon nanofibers, diamonds carbon nanotubes, and graphene), and composite nanostructures. The synthesis of traditional nanosized products contributes to the present and future economic growth of many countries. Based on porosity, nanomaterials can be classified into porous and non-porous materials. Porous materials have a less dense molecular structure to allow airflow or the absorption of atoms, ions, and molecules. Non-porous materials are denser, do not absorb well, and allow limited airflow. Mesoporous (or super-nanoporous) nanomaterials are nanoporous materials with pores of 2–50 nm in diameter. Recent research has focused on mesoporous nanomaterials for delivering therapeutic agents to tumor cells with little drug leakage into healthy cells. The high porosity, surface functionality, and small pore size of mesoporous nanoparticles allow the controlled release and efficient drug loading at the target site.

Considering the growing use of nanomaterials over the last decades, our group reviewed the key aspects of different types of nanomaterial design and their emerging applications in the biomedical fields. This review article discusses the unique features of nanomaterials that are exploited for different biomedical applications (Figure 1). It also presents recent trends on nanomaterials use for biomedical engineering, with a particular emphasis on the preparation methods used for designing nanomaterials. The advancement of nanomaterials in the biomedical and health sectors (bioimaging, tissue engineering, wound dressings, drug delivery, biosensors, food industry, and agriculture) is discussed. The review deals with various relevant nanomaterials variables, such as charge, concentration, particle surface modification, and size, which must be considered during the bioimaging of living cells. Various targeted drug delivery systems for treating chronic diseases are described. The use of nanomaterials to improve dental implants is also discussed, as well as the fabrication methods. As many review articles have already described the biomedical applications of nanomaterials, this review will be extended to discuss the nanomaterial’s toxicity, risks, and regulations in the biomedical sector.

2. Fluorescent Nanomaterials for Bioimaging

Bioimaging is an advanced non-invasive technology used to visualize internal structures and physiological processes in living cells/organisms in real-time. It is a safe and effective technique for monitoring biological functions without affecting normal life processes (e.g., respiration and movement). It also helps to obtain data on the sample 3D nanostructure and to investigate tissues at the subcellular and multicellular scale. Several nanoprobes have been developed for bioimaging and the treatment of many diseases (cancer, heart, and inflammatory diseases). Nanomaterials are ideal materials for nanoprobes because they can be exactly characterized using nuclear magnetic resonance or gel permeation chromatography and are easily secreted from the body. However, their functions are limited, and researchers are always looking for new materials. In recent days, magnetic nanoparticles have gained great interest because of their progress in image-guided therapy (e.g., fluorescence, magnetic resonance, X-ray CT) and cancer theranosis favorable properties, such as tunable size, generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) or heat, simple fabrication, energy transfer, and X-ray absorption properties (Figure 2). Moreover, their long-term toxicity and dispersion stability must be specifically investigated.

Fluorescent nanoparticles’ specificity, light-emission (NIR-IR emission), and biocompatibility with the target tissues can be customized by changing their shape, size, and surface properties. The cell uptake of nanoparticles used for bioimaging is influenced mainly by the following factors: (i) size, smaller nanoparticles with identical surface properties are better absorbed than bigger nanoparticles; (ii) charge, positively charged nanoparticles are preferentially taken up by living cells due to the cell membrane negative charge; (iii) cell-specific targeting, this is achieved by conjugating nanoparticles with ligands that can interact with receptors at the cell surface; (iv) the conjugation of proteins on the nanoparticles’ surface may promote rapid absorption and endosome bypass; (v) oligodeoxynucleotide conjugation can help in the presence of complementary cellular DNA at a specific subcellular location; (vi) endosome egress of nanoparticles that are positively charged at the surface in the low pH environment of late endosomes. It was reported that small nanoparticles can bypass the degradation pathways more efficiently than larger size particles with the same chemical composition.

The fluorescent nanoparticles used in bioimaging can be classified into two categories: (1) fluorescent nanoparticles that can emit specific optical signals, such as carbon and metallic quantum dots, (2) fluorescent nanoparticles that require labeling with a fluorophore to be visualized, such as fluorescence mesoporous SiO2 and Fe2O3 NPs, liposomes, protein-based, and polymeric nanoparticles. Many classical fluorophores emit fluorescence at a short wavelength (e.g., the ultraviolet (UV) and visible regions) that can be easily absorbed and scattered by human tissues. This can lead to specific issues, for instance, elevated auto-fluorescence, low signal-to-background ratio, and limited tissue penetration. High-energy light could be used to overcome these drawbacks, but it can cause phototoxicity in human tissues. Optical imaging in the near-infrared (NIR) region is a possible alternative (Figure 3). Fluorophores in the first near-infrared window (NIR-I, 700–900 nm) have been tested and show good sensitivity; however, their application in bioimaging is limited due to their poor tissue penetration (less to 1 cm) and large photon scattering losses in biological matter. Therefore, fluorescent quantum dots (≤10 nm) that allow fluorescent bioimaging in the NIR-II window (1000–1700 nm) have been developed.

Fluorescent metal quantum dots (e.g., Au, ZnSe, InAs, CdTe, InP, or CdS) with a size in the 1–10 nm range show broad absorbance bands and narrow emission bands and are interesting for bioimaging in the NIR range. These inorganic nanoparticles are the most frequently used in bioimaging because of their intense color, shape, size, and high-power surface photoluminescence. They allow the non-invasive detection of disease and the monitoring of its progression/response to treatments in humans and animals. Metal oxide (Fe3O4, WO3, WO2.9), lanthanide-doped nanoparticles, and quantum dots (QDs) have also been tested for bioimaging and therapy. The nanoparticles optical and physical features can be tailored by structure amplification, which is their most distinctive advantage for optical imaging. Ceramic nanomaterials (mesoporous TiO2 and SiO2 NPs) also are among the most interesting candidates for bioimaging because of their size-manageable morphology, easy functionalization, and biocompatible hydrophilic surface. FDA-approved silica is less toxic and is biocompatible. Magnetic metal oxide nanoparticles can be exploited as nanocarriers for substances that are optically active or that can emit optical signals upon excitation, depending on their structural composition. However, using magnetic metal oxide nanoparticles in bioimaging is challenging due to their loading capability, synthesis complexity, regulatory hurdles, imaging efficiency, toxicity of the intrinsic ingredients, batch reproducibility, production cost, in vivo stability, and storage.

Fluorescent carbon nanoparticles are also interesting for bioimaging applications for several reasons, particularly source abundance, simple synthesis, low cost, and non-toxicity. Fluorescent carbon nanoparticles, such as fullerenes and carbon quantum dots, are considered to be promising nanomaterials alternatives to fluorescent semiconductor quantum dots, which are composed of toxic heavy metals, such as cadmium. Fullerenes and carbon quantum dots are strong candidates for bioimaging applications. Indeed, they are superior to the currently used inorganic quantum dots and traditional organic fluorophores in terms of photo-bleaching resistance, easy surface functionalization, and chemical inertness. Their greater aqueous solubility, minimum cytotoxicity, and substantial fluorescence quantum yields explain their suitability for biomedical applications, specifically for in-vitro and in-vivo bioimaging.

Rare-earth metals are primarily used to develop nanoparticles with persistent luminescence. However, the major issue linked to the use of rare-earth metal-based nanoparticles in vivo is their potential cytotoxicity and their low tunability for surface modification. Therefore, non-toxic conjugated polymer nanoparticles with tremendous optical properties have been developed to act as persistent luminescence materials that can replace the conventional rare-earth metal-based nanoparticles. Conjugated polymer nanoparticles display excellent photoelectronic properties due to the highly localized π electrons on their backbones. Additionally, due to their light-harvesting and light-amplifying properties, conjugated polymers act as biological photoactive materials. Water-soluble conjugated polymers have been developed and used in drug/gene delivery, biosensing, bioimaging, and antitumor/antimicrobial therapeutics. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that conjugated polymers do not have any cytotoxic effect on the host cells and have structure-dependent tunable optical properties. Currently, conjugated polymer nanoparticles can be prepared using four different approaches: solvent exchange (nanoprecipitation), mini-emulsion, self-assembly, and emulsion polymerization.

Du et al. described a fast and multimodal approach for in vivo fluorescence bioimaging through the synthesis of Fe and Zn nanoclusters in HepG2, HeLa, and U87 cancer cells. They showed that fluorescent magnetic Fe3O4 nanoclusters and ZnO nanoclusters are synthesized by cancer cells in which Zn2+ and Fe2+ (which are biocompatible) have been introduced. These nanoclusters are promising candidates for multiplexed imaging that integrates fluorescence imaging, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Moreover, they did not observe any significant variation in the fluorescence signal before and after the injection of Zn2+ and Fe2+ in normal human liver cells (L02) and tissues. This suggests that this multiplexed bioimaging system could be interesting for monitoring the response to cancer treatment and also for cancer diagnosis. Wang et al. manufactured multi-colored conjugated polymer nanoparticles for targeted tumor imaging (Figure 4). Functionalized conjugated polymer nanoparticles with carboxyl groups were fabricated by coprecipitation of poly (styrene co-maleic anhydride) (PSMA) with four conjugated polymers (P1, P2, P3, and P4) with blue, green, yellow, and red fluorescence emission, respectively. Energy could be transferred from nanoparticles with shorter wavelength emission to nanoparticles with longer wavelength emission, leading to the formation of multi-colored nanoparticles with whole visible light absorption and emission spectrum via only one excitation. For enhancing their specificity towards tumor cells, conjugated polymers (P1-4/PSMA) were labeled with an antibody against EpCAM (a protein overexpressed in many cancer types). Excitation was recorded in antibody-labeled conjugated polymers (P1-4/PSMA/anti-EpCAM) at different wavelengths. Then, due to the antibody cross-reactivity, Wang et al. used P3/PSMA/anti-EpCAM and P3/PSMA/anti-ErbB2 to differentiate between HeLa and MCF-7 cells (EpCAM), and SK-BR-3 cells (ErbB2), although MCF-7 and SK-BR-3 cells were derived from the same patient.

Understanding biological causes and developing therapeutic strategies requires the ability to track cell migration and circulation in vivo. Many attempts have been undertaken to investigate novel and improved cell labeling and imaging techniques, and much has already been learned from these approaches. The capacity to visualize these cells precisely could help in the diagnosis and prognosis of disorders, such as atherosclerosis, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and myocardial infarction. Understanding the behavior of circulating cell populations, such as monocytes, macrophages, and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) spread from solid tumors, could provide crucial information on features that could aid in the development of better treatments. Chen’s team observed CTC behavior in blood arteries surrounding solid tumors using a multiphoton device with a 30 Hz collection rate. The highest number of circulating tumor cells each minute was estimated to be around 100, which could be linked to cancer progression. Furthermore, by labeling circulating tumor cells with antibody-conjugated quantum dots, the behavior of uncommon subpopulations of circulating tumor cells with higher metastatic potential, such as CD24+ and CD133+ CTCs, has been observed. Jia’s team produced doxorubicin (DOX)-loaded MSNs that are decorated with anti-EpCAM and anti-CD44 aptamers to deliver cancer metastasis chemopreventive medications selectively toward circulating tumor cells. DOX-fluorescence MSNs enable the self-tracking of targeting efficacy and drug administration into colorectal cancer cells. It was possible to track not only how the transplanted CD45-CD541CD1571 lung stem/progenitor cells were precisely located in vivo but also how these cells incorporated and reformed themselves over time at a single-cell resolution using a combination of fluorescent nanodiamonds, fluorescence-activated cell sorting, and fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy. HNF3 plasmid DNA (pDNA) was efficiently transported by fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-tagged MSNs as a differentiating agent for iPSCs. The indoctrination procedure was simultaneously observed due to their self-monitoring capacity.

Surface functionalization of nanoparticles is a crucial issue for their use in bioimaging applications (Table 1). However, the selection of the most suitable nanoparticles for a specific bioimaging application (e.g., computed tomography) is difficult, and several aspects (biological safety, sensor capacity, size, brightness, and photostability) must be taken into account. After finding the best material for a specific application, all experimental methods must be adapted and adjusted to the selected material. This is not an easy task. A deeper knowledge of the impact of nanoparticles on living cells will help to understand the imaging potential of those nanoparticles and how it is adsorbed by cells. Therefore, more research efforts are needed to promote nanoparticle exploitation in bioimaging applications.

3. Nano-Drug Delivery Systems

Drug delivery systems are quite new, but is a rapidly expanding technology. In these systems, nanoscale materials are used to deliver the therapeutically active drug or the imaging molecule (when used as diagnostic tools) to the targets. Nanostructures (made of metals, organic/inorganic, and polymeric materials) are often used for the development of drug delivery systems (Figure 5). Nanoparticles and nanostructured materials are crucial components in these carrier systems that play a key role in personalized medicine by improving drug formulation/targeting/controlled release. Such systems can deliver a drug to a specific site at a predetermined rate and in a predesigned manner; consequently, the drug bioavailability will be enhanced, while side effects will be reduced. Drugs can be physically or chemically adsorbed into the nanoparticles surface through various adsorption methods, or they can be loaded on nanoparticles during their production. The drug and carrier properties, such as drug-carrier solubility, molecular weight, drug-carrier chemical interaction, and carrier size, will determine the drug loading efficacy on/into the carrier. The drug release rate from the nanoparticlesis mainly influenced by (1) the release of the adsorbed drug from the surface of the nanoparticles; (2) the drug diffusion from thenanoparticles; and (3) the nanoparticle erosion and drug diffusion from the nanoparticles. Therefore, the drug release rate from the nanoparticles will be governed by polymer biodegradation and drug diffusion. The drug release time and location can be modulated by the nanoparticles composition (e.g., thermosensitive and pH-sensitive materials) and engineering (e.g., monolayer and multilayer nanoparticles, nanocapsules), and also by better understanding the physiological factors involved in this process (Figure 5).

Many researchers worldwide are investigating whether and how nanoparticles (e.g., metals, metal oxides, carbon, quantum dots, liposomes, dendrimers) can be used as carriers for different therapeutic agents. Graphene oxide nanosheets, graphene quantum dots, single/multiwalled carbon nanotubes, and graphene oxide nanosheets are carbon-based nanomaterials with different drug-loading capacities, targeting specificity, and drug release kinetics. This partly explains the discrepancies in the therapeutic efficiency of these different nanomaterials when used as drug-carrier systems. Biodegradable polymer nanoparticles are used in new drug delivery systems because of their flexibility and many interesting characteristics, such as controlled release, stability in blood, non-immunogenic, and non-toxic nature. Micelles, liposomes, emulsions, and nanoparticles are colloidal drug carriers that are used to increase the number of drugs that can pass through the blood–brain barrier. Similarly, colloidal systems are used to regulate the drug release rate at target locations (cells or tissues).

Drug delivery via nanocarrier systems presents some strengths compared with conventional drug administration methods, particularly very high accuracy, targeting ability, stability, and sustainability at the target location. Delivery systems made of large-size materials display major drawbacks, such as poor absorption, in vivo stability, bioavailability, and solubility, which may decrease their efficacy and target specificity. The major goal of using nanoparticles as drug carriers is to reduce the drug toxicity and increase its bioavailability, target specificity, and delivery without any loss of the therapeutic effects. The key challenges when looking for suitable carriers are: (1) drug release kinetics and integration, (2) shelf life and stability of the formulation, (3) biocompatibility of the formulation, (4) biodistribution and targeting, and (5) possible nanocarrier accumulation in the body in the case of prolonged treatment using drug-loaded nanocarriers. Currently, the available data do not allow the determination of the toxicological and environmental impacts of drug-loaded nanocarriers. Furthermore, drugs can also be synthesized at the nanoscale, and then they can act as their own “carrier” for delivery. Table 2 lists different nanocarriers used for the delivery of therapeutic molecules/drugs.

3.1. Nano-Vehicles for Anticancer Drugs

After heart disease, cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide. Functionalized nanocarriers can be used to develop targeted anticancer treatments. Compared with systemic chemotherapy, in these systems, nanoparticles loaded with therapeutics and targeting molecules are specifically delivered to the tumor cells and show good efficacy at lower doses and, consequently, with fewer undesirable effects. Several studies suggest that nanocarriers are interesting tools to improve cancer diagnosis (as imaging agents) and treatment. Over the last two decades, nanoparticles products have been evaluated in several clinical trials.

The efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents at the target site can be increased by encapsulating them in nanoparticles that target the tumor cells actively or passively. Nanoparticles offer various advantages when used for drug delivery: (i) overcoming the stability and solubility issues of chemotherapeutic drugs; (ii) protecting the drug from modifications by enzymes (e.g., proteases and other metabolic enzymes) and, thus, also increasing the drug half-life in blood; (iii) increasing drug targeting and distribution; (iv) modulating the drug release kinetics; and (v) reducing resistance to treatment by delivering multiple drugs.

Often, after reaching the target, the anticancer drug efficacy is significantly reduced for many different reasons (e.g., too low concentration). As the therapeutic effect of a drug is possible only if present at the right concentration and in the correct form, nanoparticles used as carriers could increase the local drug concentration inside and around tumor cells. This also decreases the risk of toxicity for healthy cells. The drug-carrying nanoparticles deliver the drug directly into its targeted body area (organ, cellular, and subcellular level of specific tissue) to overcome the specific toxic effect of conventional drug delivery, thereby reducing the amount of drug required for therapeutic efficacy. As a result, the use of nanoparticles in drug delivery opens new possibilities for improving drug distribution and changing cancer management. The interaction of nanoparticles with ligands (nucleic acid aptamers, peptides, antibodies, carbon dioxide, and tiny molecules) may contribute to the active targeting of cancer cells and organs.

Polymeric nanoparticles can be used for the controlled release of the encapsulated drugs by surface erosion, diffusion, and swelling, followed by diffusion, depending on the time and condition. The most widely used biocompatible polymers for controlling drug release are poly(D, L-lactide), poly(glycolide), and its co-polymer poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid). Biodegradable polymer nanoparticles for cancer treatment have been extensively studied. Liposomes were the first nanoparticles to be used to administer chemotherapy. Cohen and Bangham were the first to describe liposomes 40 years ago. Liposomes are structured like vesicles with an aqueous interior and one or more concentrically phospholipid bilayers with diameters ranging from 30 nm to several microns. They are produced using different methods and display different sizes, lipid compositions, and surface chemistry. Liposomes can be used as flexible carriers that can be tailored to various functions and have a specific drug delivery role. Several materials, such as biodegradable polymers, dendrimers, and nucleic acid-based nanoparticles, have also been used to develop targeted cancer treatments.

Electrospun nanofibers have also been evaluated for localized anticancer drug delivery. They can efficiently deliver the desired drug to the target cancer cells compared with conventional diffusion-based drug delivery vehicles. Zhang et al. manufactured a nanofiber-based localized anticancer drug delivery system by electrospinning a solution containing self-assembled PEG2000-Pt(IV) micelles with dichloroacetate (DCA) that “acts as a prodrug” and with polyvinyl alcohol. This delivery system allowed the quick release of PEG2000-Pt(IV)-based micelles and DCA that showed a synergistic apoptotic effect on cancer cells through two apoptotic mechanisms. Table 3 lists various nanomaterial types exploited in delivery systems for anticancer agents.

3.2. Nanostructured Materials as Drug Delivery Vehicles for Antioxidant Drugs

Antioxidants are reactive molecules that are produced by the body in response to environmental stress and other stimuli and that contribute to limiting cell damage by free radicals. Therefore, they are also called “free-radical scavengers”. Antioxidants are present in many food types and can also be synthesized. However, due to their limited cellular absorption, potency, and lack of precise transportation systems to a specific organ, cell, and tissue, their use for treating diseases in which oxidative stress plays a major role is still limited, particularly for neurodegenerative diseases where the brain targeting is still challenging. Nanotechnology can address these drawbacks, especially the targeting of dietary antioxidants with neuroprotective properties. Indeed, antioxidant molecules can be protected from degradation using nanotechnology-based delivery mechanisms that improve their bioavailability and physicochemical drug-like properties.

However, most nanoparticle-based formulations tend to cause oxidative stress in the cells, and this hampers their routine clinical use. Importantly, the amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by the cells is proportional to the concentration of nanoparticles to which the cells were exposed. Moreover, the cellular redox balance is influenced by nanomaterials, and this can lead to the inhibition or induction of ROS production. Excess reactive oxygen species production and endogenous antioxidant system overload are common side effects of high nanoparticle concentrations, resulting in cytotoxicity and inflammation. As a result, determining the maximum permissible doses is important to minimize negative effects. However, several studies suggest that low nanoparticle exposure levels can unintentionally boost the antioxidant defenses and reduce oxidative stress. Moreover, some nanomaterials have enzyme-like antioxidant properties, and they reduce oxidative damage and scavenge reactive oxygen species and free radicals.

Nanoparticles’ antioxidant properties depend on their surface load, volume surface ratio, chemical composition, particle size, and surface coating. Nanoparticles offer many advantages compared with traditional methods of antioxidant supplementation, including the environmental safety of bioactive materials, improved bioavailability and selective antioxidant supplementation, and controlled release at the target site. The antioxidant function of transition metal oxide nanoparticles (CuO, NiO NPs) has been widely studied and exploited. Cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs) are particularly interesting because of their reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging and regenerative effects. These nanoparticles display special features: the coexistence in both oxidation states (Ce3+ and Ce4+), reversible switching between these states, and reduction potential of 1.52 V. Gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) have been extensively evaluated by the pharmacology and biomedical sectors due to their inert and non-toxic nature. Silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) also have a strong antioxidant capacity (reduction power and free-radical scavenging). Arriagada et al. prepared antioxidant mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticles on porous nanoplatforms with rosmarinic acid (nano-RA) as an antioxidant that was loaded on the mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticle surface. Morin flavonoids were incorporated on the antioxidant nanocarrier by the impregnation/solvent evaporation technique with high drug loading (23% wt/wt) compared to bare mesoporous SiO2 NPs (9% w/w). In addition, the rosmarinic acid and mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticle (nano-RA) release profile was evaluated using two biorelevant media. The antioxidant activity of the rosmarinic acid and mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticles (nano-RA) was maintained, suggesting the correct disposition of the moiety (Figure 6). These results suggest a promising antioxidant nanocarrier suitable for future application in drug delivery. Table 4 lists different nanomaterial types used as carriers for antioxidant delivery.

4. Antimicrobial Materials

Antibacterial agents are used in the biomedical sector, textile industry, water treatment, and food industries. The antimicrobial characteristics of nanoparticles are influenced by several factors, including size, shape, and the type of encapsulated antibiotics drug. For instance, nanoparticles with angular shapes (e.g., triangular, cubic, tetrahedral) cause mechanical harm to the microbial membrane, and this contributes to increased microbial growth inhibition compared to spherical nanoparticles. Based on their antimicrobial properties, antimicrobial nanoparticles can be classified into four main categories: antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, and antiparasitic nanoparticles. Table 5 lists these different types of antimicrobial nanoparticles, their mode of action, and targeted microorganisms. For millennia, metals and metallic salts have been used for their antibacterial properties. For instance, silver pots have been used for drinking water since 4000 BCE.

Surface functionalization allows the production of antibacterial nanoparticles with two different antibiotics to concomitantly kill, for instance, Gram-positive (encapsulated) and Gram-negative (attached) bacterial strains. Inorganic disinfectants, such as metal oxide nanoparticles, are gaining popularity because of the limitations of organic disinfectants, such as toxicity to humans. Currently, nanophysics researchers are investigating the effects of different metallic nanoparticles in bacteria. The antibacterial mechanism of metallic nanoparticles is still debated, but three major mechanisms are proposed: (i) reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation; (ii) metal ion release from metallic nanoparticles; and (iii) metallic nanoparticles interaction with the cell membrane. Metallic nanoparticles display higher antibacterial effects than their salts. The antibacterial function is often influenced by the size of the metallic nanoparticles.

The antimicrobial properties of silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) are very well known, and when compared to other metallic nanoparticles, they have higher toxicity against microorganisms. As they are currently used as an alternative to antibiotic treatment, Ag NPs are often referred to as “next-generation antibiotics”. The antimicrobial potential of Ag NPs has been tested in many different pathogens, including Gram-(+)/(−) bacteria, viruses, and fungi. These particles also show antimicrobial activity in many multidrug-resistant bacteria. Despite the many studies on Ag NPs, the precise mechanism of their antimicrobial effect is still unknown. It is thought that their antibacterial activity relies mainly on the generation of Ag+ ions. Some studies showed that Ag+ ion generation is influenced by the nanoparticle’s surface area. Specifically, nanoparticles with a larger surface area generate higher Ag+ concentrations, which leads to enhanced antimicrobial activity. Conversely, nanoparticles with a smaller surface area generate lower Ag+ concentrations and thus display lower antimicrobial activity. This also indicates that the antibacterial activity is linked to the amount and quality of Ag+ ions generated. In addition, Ag NPs’ toxic effects against bacteria are influenced by the nanoparticle’s physicochemical properties. Many studies have shown that Ag NPs disrupt several metabolic pathways and cellular pathways inside the bacterial cell. The antibacterial activity of Ag NPs is influenced by several factors related to the nanoparticles (size, shape, coating) and the medium (light, oxidative species, ligands, ionic strength). The mechanisms whereby these factors can modify the antibacterial activity of Ag NPs are many (Figure 7) and include ligand replacement, oxidative dissolution, Ag+ ions reduction, passivation of the Ag surface, passivation layer puncturing, silver speciation, and nanoparticle aggregation. These phenomena may also be influenced by some chemical species. For instance, chloride can accelerate or slow down corrosion in the function of its concentration. Therefore, the antimicrobial activity of Ag NPs should be assessed in controlled conditions to limit/prevent unexpected changes in the system. Specifically, Ag NPs must be stored in the dark and without oxygen. Antibacterial mechanisms can be classified in two groups: non-oxidative and oxidative mechanisms (Figure 7).

The antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties of TiO2 NPs are widely known and are active against pathogens, such as fungi, viruses, parasites, and bacteria. Recently, the use of TiO2 NPs in the food industry has started and has been approved by the FDA for their use in drugs, food, and cosmetics. The quantum size effects and photocatalytic effects of these NPs made them ideal in various antimicrobial applications, such as antimicrobial coatings on medical devices, air, and water purification. Anti Gram-positive and Gram-negative effects of TiO2 NPs are well known, but the bactericidal activity of these NPs has been enhanced by plant extracts, such as Garcinia zeylanica. The combination of inherent antimicrobial activity with plant extract and photocatalytic property of TiO2 NPs have enhanced their potency as microbicidal agents. ROS generated by TiO2 NPs destruct the microorganisms by oxidizing the cell membrane. Apart from antimicrobial activity due to photocatalytic activity TiO2 NPs, these nanoparticles also show activity in the absence of light by direct contact and adsorption of cells and cause the loss of membrane integrity. The antimicrobial properties of Cu NPs are widely known on various species of bacteria (e.g., bacillus subtilis, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, salmonella choleraesuis). The level of agglomeration of Cu NPs decides the microbicidal activity, which is a common issue with them. Sammler-sized Cu NPs result from a reduction in the agglomeration, which increases the surface area and interaction with bacterial membranes that lead to more toxicity. Hydroxyl radicals were produced from the ionic and metallic forms of copper that damage essential DNA and proteins. Many other nanoparticles, such as Si NPs, CaO NPs, MgO NPs, and Al2O3 NPs, have good antimicrobial properties with good biocompatibility. Most of them will act by damaging the bacterial cell wall.

5. Gene Therapy

Gene therapy is a method in which genes are modified to prevent and/or treat disease. With this revolutionary technique, clinicians can treat a disease simply by incorporating the modified gene into the patient’s cells, without the need for surgery or drugs. Depending on the disorder, gene therapy may be used to add a functional copy of a gene that is not working properly or to switch off the gene that is causing the problem. These modified genes are delivered into the cells using a vector (i.e., a genetically modified transporter). Due to their nanometric size, large surface-to-volume ratio, and stability, nanoparticles are attractive agents as gene carriers.

Surface modifications may be used to bind an infinite number of ligands and receptors. Alternatively, nanoparticles may encapsulate and release nucleic acids into target cells, with superior efficacy in gene therapy compared with non-viral vectors and without immunogenicity. Liposomes have been studied as medication and also as a DNA delivery device. For instance, gene therapy in which liposomes act as vectors has been used to treat corneal diseases, cardiovascular diseases, cystic fibrosis, and cancer. In lung carcinoma, cancer with low survival rate, DOTAP:cholesterol liposomes were used to deliver the tumor suppressor gene FUS1 in mice harboring lung cancer xenografts. Liposome–DNA complexes were synthesized using a simple mixing method. The complex efficacy in inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis development was evaluated.

Designing nanoparticles for gene delivery is not easy because many factors must be taken into account. First, nanoparticle functionalization should bring biocompatible layers and contribute to maintaining the structural integrity and activity of the transported genes/drugs in the biological fluids. Second, nanoparticle production, like for any therapeutic product, must take into account the following issues: physicochemical properties, biopharmaceutical properties, and pharmacological properties. Therefore, nanoparticles should have the capacity to treat directly, and this requires new design parameters. Studies on the Administration, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME) of nanoparticles should be designed to take into account their aggregation and surface characteristics (Figure 8).

In plant science, gene delivery plays a vital part in the growth of new plant varieties and the development of drought-resistant, pest-resistant, high-yield plants. The main inherent obstacle to gene delivery in plants is the biomolecule movement within cells through the rigid and multilayered cell wall. Many delivery methods have several disadvantages, including low production, contamination, and foreign DNA incorporation into the plant genome. The functionalization of biomaterials allows the development of bionanomaterials to deliver a gene into plant cells through a nanoneedle that can overcome the existing limitations in delivering biomolecules to plants. Intracellular gene delivery has been performed using conventional synthetic vehicles, such as cationic lipids, dendrimers, and polymers. It safeguards DNA from nuclear enzyme degradation, ensures efficient movement inside the cells and tissues, as well as the active gene transfer to the cell nucleus. Mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticles have also been tested to deliver genetic material to plant cells. Traditional methods of gene transfer have some drawbacks, such as the limited amount of delivered DNA, cell degradation, limited plant diversity, and toxicity; however, new vehicles for activators, nucleic acids, and proteins into vegetable cells are now available showing higher efficiency and additional safety features.

6. Biosensors

Biosensors are devices that combine organic components (e.g., antibodies, enzymes) and an electronic element to yield a detectable signal that can be quantified. The electronic elements detect the physiological change produced by the interaction of the organic component with environmental chemical or biological elements. A typical biosensor consists of five main components (Figure 9): (i) the analyte, a substance the presence and amount of which are detected; (ii) the receptor, an organic molecule that can detect the analyte; (iii) the transducer, a device that converts the physiological change occurring following the analyte-receptor interaction to a quantitatively measurable optical or electrical signal; (iv) the electronic part that receives and quantifies the signals from the transducer; and (v) the display, an interpretation system (a computer and a printer) to display the response output in a manner that can be understood by the user.

The efficient signal collection is one of the main challenges in biosensor development (transduction). The interaction of the analyte with the biological element is converted into gravimetric, electrochemical, magnetic, electro-chemiluminescent, or optical signals using a transducer. Engineered nanomaterials have a greater electrical conductivity, are nanosized, may be used to amplify desired signals, and are biocompatible. Due to their potential to trap huge amounts of specific binding units and to operate as a conductive medium, nanomaterials are good candidates to improve the biosensor detection sensitivity for specific molecules. Carbon nanotubes, nanodiamonds, semiconductor quantum dots, polymer nanofibers, and graphene are some of the most studied nanomaterials for biosensing applications. Indeed, carbon compounds can be used to conjugate biomolecules (enzymes, antibodies, DNA, cells). Nanomaterials can improve biosensor performance (better sensitivity and lower limit of detection). Nanomaterials with optimal surface-to-volume ratio, chemical activity, mechanical strength, electrocatalytic capabilities, and diffusivity can profoundly influence biosensor performance. Moreover, nanomaterials biocompatibility is a key feature in building biosensors to monitor bacteria, viruses, DNA, and other biomolecules.

Nanomaterial-based biosensors have been used for diagnostic purposes through the detection of specific biomarkers in biological samples. For example, Tang et al. manufactured a complex biosensor for the detection of prostate cancer biomarkers by using magnetic nanoparticles as a carrier for the labels and as separators. Specifically, the magnetic nanoparticles used for the amperometry detection of four prostate cancer biomarkers (interleukin-6, prostate-specific antigen, platelet factor-4, and prostate-specific membrane antigen) were labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and secondary antibodies (Ab2) to yield Ab2-MNP-HRP beads. Then, beads were resuspended in a phosphate-based buffer and incubated with a mixture of protein standards to detect the four markers within this mixture. Afterward, the mixture was transferred to the sensing compartment labeled with primary antibodies against the four markers under which ring-shaped magnets were fixed to facilitate the bead migration to the sensing surface. Following the incubation and washing steps, the addition of the HRP substrate enabled the development of a detectable and measurable electrochemical signal. Table 6 lists the benefits of various nanomaterials.

7. Tissue Engineering

Tissue engineering is a multidisciplinary approach to develop structures that are made of biological components (e.g., cells, stimulatory molecules) and biomaterials that can mimic the native organ/tissue. Engineered tissues may be used at the place of conventional organ/tissue transplant procedures to lower the cost burden. The rapidly evolving nanotechnological and fabrication techniques have allowed the incorporation of various biocompatible nanomaterials in tissue engineering, including nanoporous scaffolds and nanofiber membranes. Nanomaterials have been used in various tissue engineering applications (periodontal, neural, bone, and skin tissue engineering). Nanomaterials can contribute to finely tuning the scaffold characteristics, particularly the mechanical strength, and regulating the release of bioactive molecules (growth factors, cytokines, inhibitors, genes, drugs).

In dental tissue engineering, novel treatments are required for the effective reconstruction of periodontal tissue damage due to the gradual loss of the self-healing capacities of periodontal tissue with age. Nanomaterials have emerged as promising candidates for the reconstruction of periodontal tissue. Nanomaterials are interesting materials in dental tissue engineering as (i) nano-coatings for dental implants, (ii) nanofillers to enhance the mechanical properties of the biomaterials used in dental tissue engineering, (iii) antimicrobial agents to prevent oral infections, and (iv) as ingredients for novel personal care products and toothpaste. Xi et al. prepared multifunctional vesicles by co-assembling poly(ε-caprolactone)-block-poly(lysine-stat-phenylalanine) and poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(ε-caprolactone) that were loaded with ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (an antibiotic used to treat periodontitis) (Figure 10). Their in vitro and in vivo experiments showed that these multifunctional vesicles eliminated biofilms made by Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus and greatly contributed to periodontitis treatment.

In humans, the nervous system is an extremely complex system that comprises the peripheral nervous system (PNS, motor, and sensory nerves) and the central nervous system (CNS, spinal cord, and the brain). The nervous system lacks self-healing capacities; therefore, any trauma or disease-related damage to the CNS or PNS is permanent. The frequency of neurological damage increases with age and is becoming a public health issue due to the aging population. Currently, protocols of neurological damage treatment are based on autologous or allogeneic cell grafts and neurosurgery. However, these approaches often require the inhibition of the immune response (grafts) and additional surgical procedures and show moderate effects.

Nanofibers were initially defined as fibers with diameters below 100 nm. However, the scope of nanofibers has been broadened in recent years, with all fibers of diameter less than 1 μm included. Several techniques have been reported to prepare nanofibers, including the splitting of bicomponent fibers, melt-blowing, physical drawing, flash-spinning, phase separation, self-assembling, solvent dispersion, centrifugal spinning, hydrothermal, and electrospinning. Nanofibers present diverse applications, such as molecular filters, bioseparation, bio-sensing, crop protection, bioremediation, anti-counterfeiting, and antibacterial. The high surface area to weight ratio of nanofibers makes an ideal substrate for molecular filtration and shows potential for forming a scaffold for protective clothing applications against biochemical attacks. Nanofibrous materials are gaining interest for tissue engineering applications, including skin regeneration. Nanofibrous structures mimic the native extracellular matrix and promote the adhesion of various cells and soluble factors that may promote cell function and tissue regeneration (Figure 11).

Wound healing is a natural process that involves hemostasis, inflammation at the site of injury, the proliferation of keratinocytes, and remodeling. Based on the healing time, skin wounds are categorized in chronic and acute wounds. Compared with acute wounds, chronic wounds need much more time to heal, and they are mainly observed in people with comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, obesity). The formation of a new blood vessel (angiogenesis) is crucial for the wound healing process because it is required for the flow of nutrients, waste, and oxygen to the wound site. It also accelerates the rate of granulation tissue formation. Any angiogenesis impairment will result in a chronic wound. Therefore, during the treatment of a skin wound, the successful formation of the new blood supply must be taken into consideration. Currently, various protocols are available for chronic wound management, such as ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, oxygen therapy, and negative pressure wound therapy. Moreover, for large skin wounds, autologous skin grafts are considered the gold standard. However, their use is limited by the small amount of donor tissue that can be obtained and by the morbidity at the donor site.

Recently, nanomaterials have been proposed as candidates for nanostructured scaffold architectures for the management of large skin wounds. This is explained mainly by their distinct physicochemical features, particularly their nanoscale dimensions and their very high surface-area-to-volume ratio. Nanomaterials can also be used in skin tissue engineering as delivery vehicles of therapeutic molecules. Randeria et al. prepared Au NPs functionalized with small interfering RNAs against ganglioside-mono sialic acid 3 synthase (GM3S), thiolated ethylene glycol, and dispersed in Aquaphor. GM3S is an enzyme the expression of which is increased in diabetic mice and that causes insulin resistance, thus slowing down wound healing. The authors found that in diabetic mice, these functionalized Au NPs could downregulate GM3S expression and that skin wounds in nanoparticle-treated mice fully healed in 12 days compared with untreated mice.

8. Agriculture and Food Industry

Nanotechnology is used in agriculture to enhance food production and also to improve/preserve the nutritional content, quality, and safety of foods. Fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and plant growth factors/regulators are used to enhance agricultural yields. Nanotechnology is also more and more implicated in the development of approaches to stimulate seed germination, plant growth, and plant defenses. Metal nanoparticles (Ag NPs and Cu NPs) have been particularly studied in plant science. Their organic synthesis is very expensive and involves dangerous chemicals; however, nanoparticle surface functionalization allows the accommodation of more micronutrients in one nanoparticle for efficient delivery to the plants. These micronutrients may enhance productivity and increase the nutrient content in agriproducts. Carbon nanomaterials are commonly used in agriculture because they can influence the plant’s metabolic functions, and ultimately, its growth. Therefore, these nanomaterials, used at very small concentrations, can go into the plant cells and could be an effective answer to increase crop yield and fruit production.

The plant’s response to nanomaterials is influenced by different factors, including the nanoparticle’s size, shape, application process, and chemical and physical properties. Nanomaterials can be used as nanostructured fertilizers to increase the absorption and efficiency of traditional fertilizers (nutrients and phosphates). It has been shown that soybean growth and seed yield are increased by 33% and 20%, respectively, when treated with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (phosphorous nano-fertilizers) compared with normal phosphorous fertilizers. Moreover, nano-fertilizers are used at lower concentrations, thus limiting the nutrient spreading to runoff or groundwater and reducing the risks of degradation and toxic effects due to over-application. Mung bean, cucumber, and rapeseed plants have been treated with ZnO, Fe2O3, TiO2, and CuONPs, as nano-fertilizers, by direct addition to the soil or through irrigation or foliar application. In tomato cultures, soil supplements have doubled the number of flowers and fruits, probably by activating plant-based genes/proteins.

In wheat cultures, chitosan nanoparticles have been used to manage the release of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium via foliar intake. In terms of environmental degradation, organic nanoparticles are more appropriate. However, their nutrient supply advantages compared with conventional fertilizers need to be more rigorously demonstrated. Microgel-based fertilizers biofunctionalized for the delivery of the micronutrients to the plant have been developed for foliar delivery of nutrients. Nano-fertilizers distributed in a controlled manner can boost crop development, yield, and productivity. Crop enhancement can also be obtained by gene transfer using nano-based target delivery approaches. Nano-pesticides can protect crops effectively. Precision farming is considerably promoted by the development of nanosensors and digital controls. Plant drought tolerance and soil enrichment can both benefit from nanomaterials. Figure 12 shows some potential applications of nanomaterials in the animals and agriculture industry, i.e., nano-fertilizers and nano-pesticides, which stimulate animal and plant growth using nanomaterials; smart monitoring for animals and plants using nanosensors by wireless communication devices and smart packaging.

Fertilizers significantly increase farm productivity. However, as their over use irreversibly changes the soil chemistry, nanomaterial-based fertilizers are more frequently proposed to increase the fertilizer uptake by plants and to minimize the amount of fertilizer needed, and thus, its concentration in the soil. Sustainable farming implies minimal use of chemicals to protect the environment and various plant/animal species against extinction. Nanomaterials can boost crop growth/yield by facilitating the fertilizer uptake by the plant, thus ensuring minimal use of inputs and encouraging site-oriented, regulated nutrient supply. Indeed, nanotechnology research (and funding) on plant protection has been growing to guarantee better crop yields. Many plants exposed to toxic concentrations of metal ions and nanoparticles attempt to prevent or reduce uptake into root cells by restricting metal ions (nanoparticles) to the apoplast, binding them to the cell wall or cellular exudates, or by inhibiting long-distance transport.

Through effective farming, irrigation, and utilization of quality seeds, agricultural yields can be improved by 35–40%. The use of nano-formulation fertilizers strongly improves crop productivity. Carbon nanoparticles in fertilizers, for example, increase the yield of rice (by 10.29%), soybean (by 16.74%), winter wheat (by 28.81%), vegetables (by 12.34–19.76%), and spring maize (by 10.93%). Nanomaterials are the best strategy to bring nutrients to plants that are extremely porous at the nanoscale through the activation of different biological plant processes. As a consequence, nano-fertilizers may increase the absorption of nutrients through the plant pores. Furthermore, extensive research has clearly shown that reducing the nanomaterials size increases the surface mass of particles, thus adsorbing and slowly and steadily desorbing a vast amount of nutrient ions over a long period. Surface-modified nanomaterials-based fertilizers can accommodate more than one nutrient into the same carrier. Thus, nano-fertilizer formulations enhance the growth of nutritionally healthy crops and increase yields. It should be remembered that improved crop production will push farmers to increase the use of that product (Figure 12).

To protect the crops from diseases caused by fungi and other plant pathogens and to increase productivity, pesticides and herbicides can be encapsulated into surface-functionalized nanoparticles. The use of this nano-formulation type has increased exponentially. Traditional crop management practices involve the large-scale use of fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at large concentrations. Nanotechnology has been extensively employed to regulate the application of phytopathogens, and nano-fungicides and nano-pesticides are now commonly used in agriculture. Encapsulation in nanoparticles allows the gradual and regulated release of the pesticide active ingredients, often leading to the decrease of pesticide utilization and, consequently, of their emissions into the atmosphere. The nanosensor-based detection of pathogens may also reduce the risk of disease in addition to nano-pesticides.

Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are fast-selling consumer items, such as household cleaning materials, toiletries, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and also include many non-sustainable items, such as batteries, glassware, and light bulbs. However, the main segment consists of food and beverage items that have a limited shelf life, either because of strong market demand or because the commodity depreciates rapidly or is perishable. Therefore, the packaging of such products is crucial to reduce waste and to avoid product damage during its transport to stores and the consumers’ houses. Nanotechnology research in the food industry is focused on the development of techniques for food manufacturing, packaging, and distribution. Many food items are now supplemented with nanoparticles that enhance nutrient and bioactive distribution mechanisms, taste and texture, and microbiological safety. In the field of food production and labeling, nanoparticles are also used as antimicrobials or as extremely reactive biosensors for the identification of bacteria, allergens, pollutants, and degradants that may influence food quality and health. Therefore, today, many food products contain nanoparticles (intentionally introduced or due to contamination). Nanomaterial pollution may also originate in the agricultural environment where many nanomaterials are used (pesticides and fertilizers, cattle protection, poultry development). Table 7 summaries the nanomaterial applications in the agri-food sector

9. Risks of Exposure to Nanomaterials

Despite their advantages, nanomaterials may also be associated with risk factors. Nanoparticles can adversely affect different organs/tissues in the body and can be associated with different disorders (Figure 13). Nanoparticle exposure can promote the development of neurological disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease), lung (asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and cancer), and cardiovascular diseases (atherosclerosis, arrhythmia, thrombosis, and hypertension). In addition, exposure to nanoparticles can cause skin irritation, dermatitis, urticaria, and other skin problems.

Various factors influence the toxicity of the different nanomaterials, particularly the exposure time and dose. The exposure dose can be determined by multiplying the molar concentration of nanoparticles in the medium by the exposure time. However, other factors (e.g., aggregation and concentration effects) may also influence the nanoparticle’s toxicity. For instance, some nanoparticles can aggregate. These aggregates (in the micrometer range) might not easily penetrate the body, and thus their toxicity is decreased. Toxicity is also influenced by the nanoparticle’s size because nanoparticles with a size of ~10 nm can go through the cell membrane, and thus, can be more toxic than larger nanoparticles. Nanoparticles’ shape also influences their toxicity, which may vary in function of the aspect ratio. For instance, 10 µm asbestos fibers cause lung cancer, whereas smaller fibers induce mesothelioma and asbestosis. Similarly, the nanoparticle effect is inversely proportional to the nanoparticles size and directly proportional to the surface area. The cell uptake, subcellular localization, and oxidative mechanisms can also be influenced by the crystal structure. For example, a comparison of two polymorphous structures of TiO2 NPs showed that one causes DNA damage through oxidation but not the other. The nanoparticle’s surface properties can also contribute to their toxic effects through translocation and oxidation processes. Table 8 summarizes the risk of toxicity of different nanoparticles.

10. Global Market and Future of Nanomaterials

Nanotechnology has evolved as a solution to many unsolved fundamental biological problems in the field of medicine, healthcare, and human life. This technology helps in the identification of various pathogens, toxins, pesticides, imaging of cancers, and also helps in the transport of active medicaments to the target sites effectively. Currently, many research institutes are involved in nanosystem research. Some of the outcomes of these studies are approved by internal nanotechnology organizations (e.g., the National Center for Nanoscience and Technology and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and are commercialized for their better applications in the fields mentioned above, and some of them are in the investigational stage. The biomedical application segment led the market and accounted for the largest revenue share of around 29.98% in 2020. The global nanomaterials market is expected to reach USD 57,608.26 million by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 19.86% during the forecast period (2021–2026). This growth is attributed to the wide range of applications of nanomaterials in the biomedical sector, including imaging, targeted drug delivery, nanorobots for surgery, nanodiagnostics, cell repair, and nanobiosensors.

The importance of nanotechnology and nanosciences open a wider scope for new biomedical-based applications using newly discovered nanomaterials. However, this growth in the use of nanomaterials will be limited by several challenges, including: (1) the ability to deliver cost-effective production of nanomaterials in large volumes; (2) defined production techniques that can be scaled up sufficiently to cover the cost required for targeting volume markets; (3) the rapid identification of priorities in nanoresearch to guarantee nanotechnologies’ and nanomaterial’s safety in the future; (4) address the gaps for current research in risk/toxicity/safety assessment for nanomaterials; and (5) develop an international standard for nanomaterial’s safety; to assist in the determination of appropriate risk management of nanomaterials.

The new and future innovation is nanomaterials that have exceptionally extraordinary properties in the food source chain (enhancement of food texture and quality, bioavailability, nutrient values, nano-pesticides, nano-fertilizers, and nano-herbicides) in the world agricultural sector. A large proportion of nanomedicines fail to meet such criteria, and as a result, they are not available in the pharmaceutical sector. Additionally, the scale-up and reproducibility of nanomedicines will be a future issue in formulation development. In the coming decade, nanomaterials will create a new history in the medical field by advancing new nanomaterials for their sustainable development. Synthesis of newer nanomaterials in the near future will revolutionize the treatment strategies for many diseases. There is a lot to achieve in the future in nanomaterial research for their extensive applications in various fields, such as biomedicine (bioimaging, biosensor), agriculture, environmental protection, and food processing.

11. Conclusions

Nanomaterials are interesting materials because of their superior and tunable physical, chemical, and biological features compared with bulk materials. Nanomaterials can be classified in function of their size, shape, composition, and origin. Researchers have exploited nanomaterial features by grafting different groups on them, thus making nanoparticles suitable for biomedical applications. In this review, we presented the applications of nanomaterials in bioimaging, skincare, tissue-engineered scaffolds, drug delivery systems, biosensors, and wound healing, as well as in the food and agricultural industries. The use of nanomaterials for targeted drug delivery has also dramatically progressed with exceptional applications to reduce the limitations of conventional drug delivery systems. Different nanomaterial types (e.g., spherical nanoparticles, core-shell, nanorods, nanowires, hollow, nanofibers, and mesoporous) are studied for the targeted delivery of drugs. Encapsulation techniques have also been tested to deliver various bioactive cytotoxic agents. Nanoparticles also have their place in tissue reengineering for the repair of various tissues. Thanks to their larger surface-area-to-volume ratio, nanostructured scaffolds can act as selective substrates to absorb specific proteins and promote cell adhesion. Carbon and metal-based nanoparticles for biosensor development can lead to many applications in agriculture and in the biomedical sector. The review also presented the fluorescence nanoparticles and the in vivo and in vitro fate of nanoparticles. The applications of fluorescence nanomaterials in bioimaging were explained clearly. The antimicrobial activities of various nanomaterials and their advantages and disadvantages are also discussed individually.

References 327

  1. 1.

    Gaur M., Misra C., Yadav A.B., Swaroop S., Maolmhuaidh F., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Biomedical Applications of Carbon Nanomaterials: Fullerenes, Quantum Dots, Nanotubes, Nanofibers, and Graphene. Materials. 2021;14:5978.

    Not in our library10.3390/ma14205978

  2. 2.

    Barhoum A., Pal K., Rahier H., Uludag H., Kim I.S., Bechelany M. Nanofibers as new-generation materials: From spinning and nano-spinning fabrication techniques to emerging applications. Appl. Mater. Today. 2019;17:1-35.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.apmt.2019.06.015

  3. 3.
    Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials: history, sources, toxicity and regulations · 2018
    No notice
  4. 4.

    Barhoum A., El-Maghrabi H.H., Nada A.A., Sayegh S., Roualdes S., Renard A., Iatsunskyi I., Coy E., Bechelany M. Simultaneous hydrogen and oxygen evolution reactions using free-standing nitrogen-doped-carbon–Co/CoOx nanofiber electrodes decorated with palladium nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. A. 2021;9:17724-17739.

    Not in our library10.1039/d1ta03704h

  5. 5.

    Prasad S., Kumar V., Kirubanandam S., Barhoum A. Engineered nanomaterials: Nanofabrication and surface functionalization. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018;305-340.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51254-1.00011-7

  6. 6.

    Cremers V., Rampelberg G., Barhoum A., Walters P., Claes N., de Oliveira T.M., Van Assche G., Bals S., Dendooven J., Detavernier C. Oxidation barrier of Cu and Fe powder by Atomic Layer Deposition. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2018;349:1032-1041.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.06.048

  7. 7.

    Hammani S., Moulai-Mostefa N., Samyn P., Bechelany M., Dufresne A., Barhoum A. Morphology, Rheology and Crystallization in Relation to the Viscosity Ratio of Polystyrene/Polypropylene Polymer Blends. Materials. 2020;13:926.

    Not in our library10.3390/ma13040926

  8. 8.

    Barhoum A., Van Lokeren L., Rahier H., Dufresne A., Van Assche G. Roles of in situ surface modification in controlling the growth and crystallization of CaCO3 nanoparticles, and their dispersion in polymeric materials. J. Mater. Sci. 2015;50:7908-7918.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10853-015-9327-z

  9. 9.

    Rehan M., Barhoum A., Khattab T., Gätjen L., Wilken R. Colored, photocatalytic, antimicrobial and UV-protected viscose fibers decorated with Ag/Ag2CO3 and Ag/Ag3PO4 nanoparticles. Cellulose. 2019;26:5437-5453.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10570-019-02497-8

  10. 10.

    Abdel-Haleem F.M., Salah A., Rizk M.S., Moustafa H., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Carbon-based Nanosensors for Salicylate Determination in Pharmaceutical Preparations. Electroanalysis. 2019;31:778-789.

    Not in our library10.1002/elan.201800728

  11. 11.

    Abdel-Haleem F., Mahmoud S., Abdel-Ghani N., El Nashar R., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Polyvinyl Chloride Modified Carbon Paste Electrodes for Sensitive Determination of Levofloxacin Drug in Serum, Urine, and Pharmaceutical Formulations. Sensors. 2021;21:3150.

    Not in our library10.3390/s21093150

  12. 12.

    Abdel-Haleem F.M., Gamal E., Rizk M.S., Madbouly A., El Nashar R.M., Anis B., Elnabawy H.M., Khalil A.S.G., Barhoum A. Molecularly Imprinted Electrochemical Sensor-Based Fe2O3@MWCNTs for Ivabradine Drug Determination in Pharmaceutical Formulation, Serum, and Urine Samples. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021;9:648704.

    Not in our library10.3389/fbioe.2021.648704

  13. 13.

    Parikha Mehrotra, Biosensors and their applications—A review. J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2016;6:153-159.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.12.002

  14. 14.

    Rasouli R., Barhoum A., Uludag H. A review of nanostructured surfaces and materials for dental implants: Surface coating, patterning and functionalization for improved performance. Biomater. Sci. 2018;6:1312-1338.

    Not in our library10.1039/c8bm00021b

  15. 15.

    Rasouli R., Barhoum A., Bechelany M., Dufresne A. Nanofibers for Biomedical and Healthcare Applications. Macromol. Biosci. 2018;19:e1800256.

    Not in our library10.1002/mabi.201800256

  16. 16.

    Singh K.R., Nayak V., Singh J., Singh A.K., Singh R.P. Potentialities of bioinspired metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in biomedical sciences. RSC Adv. 2021;11:24722-24746.

    Not in our library10.1039/d1ra04273d

  17. 17.

    Tan K.X., Barhoum A., Pan S., Danquah M.K. Risks and toxicity of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018;121-139.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51254-1.00005-1

  18. 18.

    Kim D., Kim J., Park Y.I., Lee N., Hyeon T. Recent Development of Inorganic Nanoparticles for Biomedical Imaging. ACS Central Sci. 2018;4:324-336.

    Not in our library10.1021/acscentsci.7b00574

  19. 19.
    Nanomaterials for Wound Healing and Infection Control · 2019
    No notice
  20. 20.

    Said M.M., Rehan M., El-Sheikh S.M., Zahran M.K., Abdel-Aziz M.S., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Multifunctional Hydroxyapatite/Silver Nanoparticles/Cotton Gauze for Antimicrobial and Biomedical Applications. Nanomaterials. 2021;11:429.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano11020429

  21. 21.

    Kumar S., Bhushan P., Bhattacharya S. Fabrication of Nanostructures with Bottom-up Approach and Their Utility in Diagnostics, Therapeutics, and Others. Environmental, Chemical and Medical Sensors. 2017;167-198.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-981-10-7751-7_8

  22. 22.

    Sawy A.M., Barhoumbb A., Gaber S.A.A., El-Hallouty S.M., Shousha W.G., Maarouf A.A., Khalilaf S.G.A. Insights of doxorubicin loaded graphene quantum dots: Synthesis, DFT drug interactions, and cytotoxicity. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2021;122:111921.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2021.111921

  23. 23.

    Barhoum A., Van Assche G., Rahier H., Fleisch M., Bals S., Delplancked M.-P., Leroux F., Bahnemann D. Sol-gel hot injection synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles into a porous silica matrix and reaction mechanism. Mater. Des. 2017;119:270-276.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matdes.2017.01.059

  24. 24.

    Barhoum A., Melcher J., Van Assche G., Rahier H., Bechelany M., Fleisch M., Bahnemann D. Synthesis, growth mechanism, and photocatalytic activity of Zinc oxide nanostructures: Porous microparticles versus nonporous nanoparticles. J. Mater. Sci. 2016;52:2746-2762.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10853-016-0567-3

  25. 25.

    Hong G., Antaris A.L., Dai H. Near-infrared fluorophores for biomedical imaging. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2017;1:10.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41551-016-0010

  26. 26.

    Malik N., Arfin T., Khan A.U., Grumezescu T. Graphene nanomaterials: Chemistry and pharmaceutical perspectives. Nanomaterials for Drug Delivery and Therapy. 2019;373-402.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-816505-8.00002-3

  27. 27.

    Yang Y., Wang L., Wan B., Gu Y., Li X. Optically Active Nanomaterials for Bioimaging and Targeted Therapy. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019;7:320.

    Not in our library10.3389/fbioe.2019.00320

  28. 28.
    Systemic Review of Biodegradable Nanomaterials in Nanomedicine · 2020
    No notice
  29. 29.

    Siafaka P.I., Okur N.Ü., Karantas I.D., Okur M.E., Gündoğdu E.A. Current update on nanoplatforms as therapeutic and diagnostic tools: A review for the materials used as nanotheranostics and imaging modalities. Asian J. Pharm. Health Sci. 2021;16:24-46.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajps.2020.03.003

  30. 30.

    Yoon H.Y., Jeon S., You D.G., Park J.H., Kwon I.C., Koo H., Kim K. Inorganic Nanoparticles for Image-Guided Therapy. Bioconjug. Chem. 2017;28:124-134.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00512

  31. 31.

    Snipstad S., Hak S., Baghirov H., Sulheim E., Mørch Y., Lélu S., Von Haartman E., Bäck M., Nilsson K.P.R., Klymchenko A.S., et al. Labeling nanoparticles: Dye leakage and altered cellular uptake. Cytom. Part A. 2016;91:760-766.

    Not in our library10.1002/cyto.a.22853

  32. 32.

    Shandilya P., Sambyal S., Sharma R., Mandyal P., Fang B. Properties, optimized morphologies, and advanced strategies for photocatalytic applications of WO3 based photocatalysts. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022;428:128218.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128218

  33. 33.

    Rees P., Wills J.W., Brown R., Barnes C.M., Summers H.D. The origin of heterogeneous nanoparticle uptake by cells. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:2341.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-10112-4

  34. 34.
    Dependence of Nanoparticle Toxicity on Their Physical and Chemical Properties · 2018
    No notice
  35. 35.

    Forest V., Pourchez J. Preferential binding of positive nanoparticles on cell membranes is due to electrostatic interactions: A too simplistic explanation that does not take into account the nanoparticle protein corona. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2017;70:889-896.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.016

  36. 36.
    Insight into Cellular Uptake and Intracellular Trafficking of Nanoparticles · 2018
    No notice
  37. 37.

    Friedman A.D., Claypool S.E., Liu R. The Smart Targeting of Nanoparticles. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2013;19:6315-6329.

    Not in our library10.2174/13816128113199990375

  38. 38.
    Active Targeting Strategies Using Biological Ligands for Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Systems · 2019
    No notice
  39. 39.

    Spicer C.D., Jumeaux C., Gupta B., Stevens M.M. Peptide and protein nanoparticle conjugates: Versatile platforms for biomedical applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018;47:3574-3620.

    Not in our library10.1039/c7cs00877e

  40. 40.

    Kher G., Trehan S., Misra A. Antisense Oligonucleotides and RNA Interference. Challenges in Delivery of Therapeutic Genomics and Proteomics. 2011;325-386.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-384964-9.00007-4

  41. 41.

    Cremers G.A.O., Rosier B.J.H.M., Brillas R.R., Albertazzi L., de Greef T.F.A. Efficient Small-Scale Conjugation of DNA to Primary Antibodies for Multiplexed Cellular Targeting. Bioconjug. Chem. 2019;30:2384-2392.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b00490

  42. 42.

    Gao J., Yao X., Chen Y., Gao Z., Zhang J. Near-Infrared Light-Induced Self-Powered Aptasensing Platform for Aflatoxin B1 Based on Upconversion Nanoparticles-Doped Bi2S3 Nanorods. Anal. Chem. 2020;93:677-682.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04248

  43. 43.

    Yu Z., Eich C., Cruz L.J. Recent Advances in Rare-Earth-Doped Nanoparticles for NIR-II Imaging and Cancer Theranostics. Front. Chem. 2020;8:496.

    Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2020.00496

  44. 44.
    Recent advances on fluorescent biomarkers of near-infrared quantum dots for in vitro and in vivo imaging · 2019
    Not checked
  45. 45.

    Arvizo R., Bhattacharya R., Mukherjee P. Gold nanoparticles: Opportunities and challenges in nanomedicine. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2010;7:753-763.

    Not in our library10.1517/17425241003777010

  46. 46.

    Dong H., Sun L.-D., Yan C.-H. Lanthanide-Doped Upconversion Nanoparticles for Super-Resolution Microscopy. Front. Chem. 2021;8:619377.

    Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2020.619377

  47. 47.

    El-Sheikh S.M., Barhoum A., El-Sherbiny S., Morsy F., El-Midany A.A.-H., Rahier H. Preparation of superhydrophobic nanocalcite crystals using Box–Behnken design. Arab. J. Chem. 2019;12:1479-1486.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.11.003

  48. 48.

    Rehan M., Khattab T.A., Barohum A., Gätjen L., Wilken R. Development of Ag/AgX (X = Cl, I) nanoparticles toward antimicrobial, UV-protected and self-cleanable viscose fibers. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018;197:227-236.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.010

  49. 49.

    Wahajuddin, Arora S. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Magnetic nanoplatforms as drug carriers. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012;7:3445-3471.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s30320

  50. 50.

    Lim W.Q., Phua S.Z.F., Xu H.V., Sreejith S., Zhao Y. Recent advances in multifunctional silica-based hybrid nanocarriers for bioimaging and cancer therapy. Nanoscale. 2015;8:12510-12519.

    Not in our library10.1039/c5nr07853a

  51. 51.

    Liang R., Wei M., Evans D.G., Duan X. Inorganic nanomaterials for bioimaging, targeted drug delivery and therapeutics. Chem. Commun. 2014;50:14071-14081.

    Not in our library10.1039/c4cc03118k

  52. 52.

    Bhunia S.K., Saha A., Maity A., Ray S.C., Jana N.R. Carbon Nanoparticle-based Fluorescent Bioimaging Probes. Sci. Rep. 2013;3:srep01473.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep01473

  53. 53.

    Karatutlu A., Barhoum A., Sapelkin A. Theories of nanoparticle and nanostructure formation in liquid phase. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018;597-619.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51254-1.00020-8

  54. 54.

    Barhoum A., García-Betancourt M.L. Physicochemical characterization of nanomaterials: Size, morphology, optical, magnetic, and electrical properties. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018;279-304.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51254-1.00010-5

  55. 55.

    Karatutlu A., Barhoum A., Sapelkin A. Liquid-phase synthesis of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018;1-28.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51254-1.00001-4

  56. 56.

    Tian P., Tang L., Teng K., Lau S. Graphene quantum dots from chemistry to applications. Mater. Today Chem. 2018;10:221-258.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mtchem.2018.09.007

  57. 57.

    Singh I., Arora R., Dhiman H., Pahwa R. Carbon Quantum Dots: Synthesis, Characterization and Biomedical Applications. Turk. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018;15:219-230.

    Not in our library10.4274/tjps.63497

  58. 58.

    Jhonsi M.A. Carbon Quantum Dots for Bioimaging. State of the Art in Nano-Bioimaging. 2018.

    Not in our library10.5772/intechopen.72723

  59. 59.

    Ravichandiran P., Subramaniyan S.A., Bella A.P., Johnson P.M., Kim A.R., Shim K.S., Yoo D.J. Simple Fluorescence Turn-On Chemosensor for Selective Detection of Ba2+ Ion and Its Live Cell Imaging. Anal. Chem. 2019;91:10095-10101.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.analchem.9b02057

  60. 60.

    Hubbs A.F., Sargent L.M., Porter D.W., Sager T.M., Chen B.T., Frazer D.G., Castranova V., Sriram K., Nurkiewicz T.R., Reynolds S.H., et al. Nanotechnology: Toxicologic Pathology. Toxicol. Pathol. 2013;41:395-409.

    Not in our library10.1177/0192623312467403

  61. 61.

    Maldiney T., Richard C., Seguin J., Wattier N., Bessodes M., Scherman D. Effect of Core Diameter, Surface Coating, and PEG Chain Length on the Biodistribution of Persistent Luminescence Nanoparticles in Mice. ACS Nano. 2011;5:854-862.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn101937h

  62. 62.

    Heeger A.J. Semiconducting and Metallic Polymers: The Fourth Generation of Polymeric Materials (Nobel Lecture). Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2001;40:2591-2611.

    Not in our library10.1002/1521-3773(20010716)40:14<2591::aid-anie2591>3.0.co;2-0

  63. 63.

    Thomas S.W., Joly G.D., Swager T.M. Chemical Sensors Based on Amplifying Fluorescent Conjugated Polymers. Chem. Rev. 2007;107:1339-1386.

    Not in our library10.1021/cr0501339

  64. 64.

    Feng X., Liu L., Wang S., Zhu D. Water-soluble fluorescent conjugated polymers and their interactions with biomacromolecules for sensitive biosensors. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010;39:2411-2419.

    Not in our library10.1039/b909065g

  65. 65.

    Khanbeigi R.A., Abelha T.F., Woods A., Rastoin O., Harvey R.D., Jones M.-C., Forbes B., Green M.A., Collins H., Dailey L.A. Surface Chemistry of Photoluminescent F8BT Conjugated Polymer Nanoparticles Determines Protein Corona Formation and Internalization by Phagocytic Cells. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16:733-742.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm501649y

  66. 66.

    Tuncel D., Demir H.V. Conjugated polymer nanoparticles. Nanoscale. 2010;2:484-494.

    Not in our library10.1039/b9nr00374f

  67. 67.

    Du T., Zhao C., Lai L., Luo S., Selke M., Rehman F.U., Li X., Sun Y., Jiang H., Wang X. Rapid and multimodal in vivo bioimaging of cancer cells through in situ biosynthesis of Zn&Fe nanoclusters. Nano Res. 2017;10:2626-2632.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12274-017-1465-y

  68. 68.

    Feng L., Liu L., Lv F., Bazan G.C., Wang S. Preparation and Biofunctionalization of Multicolor Conjugated Polymer Nanoparticles for Imaging and Detection of Tumor Cells. Adv. Mater. 2014;26:3926-3930.

    Not in our library10.1002/adma.201305206

  69. 69.

    Ravichandiran P., Prabakaran D., Maroli N., Kim A.R., Park B.-H., Han M.-K., Ramesh T., Ponpandian S., Yoo D.J. Mitochondria-targeted acridine-based dual-channel fluorescence chemosensor for detection of Sn4+ and Cr2O72-ions in water and its application in discriminative detection of cancer cells. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021;419:126409.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126409

  70. 70.

    Rhim W.-K., Kim M., Hartman K.L., Kang K.W., Nam J.-M. Radionuclide-labeled nanostructures for In Vivo imaging of cancer. Nano Converg. 2015;2:10.

    Not in our library10.1186/s40580-014-0041-3

  71. 71.

    Xu Y., Wang C., Jiang T., Ran G., Song Q. Cadmium induced aggregation of orange–red emissive carbon dots with enhanced fluorescence for intracellular imaging. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021;427:128092.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128092

  72. 72.

    Zhao W., Yu X., Peng S., Luo Y., Li J., Lu L. Construction of nanomaterials as contrast agents or probes for glioma imaging. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021;19:1-31.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12951-021-00866-9

  73. 73.

    Pratiwi F., Kuo C.W., Chen B.-C., Chen P. Recent advances in the use of fluorescent nanoparticles for bioimaging. Nanomedicine. 2019;14:1759-1769.

    Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2019-0105

  74. 74.

    Chen S., Wang H., Hong Y., Tang B.Z. Fabrication of fluorescent nanoparticles based on AIE luminogens (AIE dots) and their applications in bioimaging. Mater. Horizons. 2016;3:283-293.

    Not in our library10.1039/c6mh00060f

  75. 75.

    Caponetti V., Trzcinski J.W., Cantelli A., Tavano R., Papini E., Mancin F., Montalti M. Self-Assembled Biocompatible Fluorescent Nanoparticles for Bioimaging. Front. Chem. 2019;7:168.

    Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2019.00168

  76. 76.

    Lin J., Chen X., Huang P. Graphene-based nanomaterials for bioimaging. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016;105:242-254.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2016.05.013

  77. 77.

    Yadav V., Roy S., Singh P., Khan Z., Jaiswal A. 2D MoS2-Based Nanomaterials for Therapeutic, Bioimaging, and Biosensing Applications. Small. 2018;15:e1803706.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201803706

  78. 78.

    Zhao W., Li A., Zhang A., Zheng Y., Liu J. Recent Advances in Functional-Polymer-Decorated Transition-Metal Nanomaterials for Bioimaging and Cancer Therapy. ChemMedChem. 2018;13:2134-2149.

    Not in our library10.1002/cmdc.201800462

  79. 79.

    Yi Z., Luo Z., Qin X., Chen Q., Liu X. Lanthanide-Activated Nanoparticles: A Toolbox for Bioimaging, Therapeutics, and Neuromodulation. Accounts Chem. Res. 2020;53:2692-2704.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.accounts.0c00513

  80. 80.

    Xu Y., Li P., Cheng D., Wu C., Lu Q., Yang W., Zhu X., Yin P., Liu M., Li H., et al. Group IV nanodots: Synthesis, surface engineering and application in bioimaging and biotherapy. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2020;8:10290-10308.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0tb01881c

  81. 81.

    Esmaeili Y., Bidram E., Zarrabi A., Amini A., Cheng C. Graphene oxide and its derivatives as promising in-vitro bio-imaging platforms. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:18052.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-75090-w

  82. 82.

    Das A.K., Gavel P.K. Low molecular weight self-assembling peptide-based materials for cell culture, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, wound healing, anticancer, drug delivery, bioimaging and 3D bioprinting applications. Soft Matter. 2020;16:10065-10095.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0sm01136c

  83. 83.

    Tan P., Li H., Wang J., Gopinath S.C. Silver nanoparticle in biosensor and bioimaging: Clinical perspectives. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2021;68:1236-1242.

    Not in our library10.1002/bab.2045

  84. 84.

    Bao C., Beziere N., del Pino P., Pelaz B., Estrada G., Tian F., Ntziachristos V., de la Fuente J.M., Cui D. Gold Nanoprisms as Optoacoustic Signal Nanoamplifiers for In Vivo Bioimaging of Gastrointestinal Cancers. Small. 2012;9:68-74.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201201779

  85. 85.

    Chen N.-T., Tang K.-C., Chung M.-F., Cheng S.-H., Huang C.-M., Chu C.-H., Chou P.-T., Souris J.S., Chen C.-T., Mou C.-Y., et al. Enhanced Plasmonic Resonance Energy Transfer in Mesoporous Silica-Encased Gold Nanorod for Two-Photon-Activated Photodynamic Therapy. Theranostics. 2014;4:798-807.

    Not in our library10.7150/thno.8934

  86. 86.

    Yadav A., Rao C., Verma N.C., Mishra P.M., Nandi C.K. Magnetofluorescent Nanoprobe for Multimodal and Multicolor Bioimaging. Mol. Imaging. 2020;19:1-8.

    Not in our library10.1177/1536012120969477

  87. 87.

    Klymchenko A.S., Liu F., Collot M., Anton N. Dye-Loaded Nanoemulsions: Biomimetic Fluorescent Nanocarriers for Bioimaging and Nanomedicine. Adv. Health Mater. 2020;10:e2001289.

    Not in our library10.1002/adhm.202001289

  88. 88.

    Xu Y.-M., Tan H.W., Zheng W., Liang Z.-L., Yu F.-Y., Wu D.-D., Yao Y., Zhong Q.-H., Yan R., Lau A.T.Y. Cadmium telluride quantum dot-exposed human bronchial epithelial cells: A further study of the cellular response by proteomics. Toxicol. Res. 2019;8:994-1001.

    Not in our library10.1039/c9tx00126c

  89. 89.
    Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects · 2018
    No notice
  90. 90.
    Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery in Cancer Therapy and Its Role in Overcoming Drug Resistance · 2020
    No notice
  91. 91.

    Kim B., Shin J., Wu J., Omstead D.T., Kiziltepe T., Littlepage L.E., Bilgicer B. Engineering peptide-targeted liposomal nanoparticles optimized for improved selectivity for HER2-positive breast cancer cells to achieve enhanced in vivo efficacy. J. Control. Release. 2020;322:530-541.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.04.010

  92. 92.

    Deng Y., Zhang X., Shen H., He Q., Wu Z., Liao W., Yuan M. Application of the Nano-Drug Delivery System in Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020;7:489.

    Not in our library10.3389/fbioe.2019.00489

  93. 93.
    Polymeric Nanocapsules as Nanotechnological Alternative for Drug Delivery System: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities · 2020
    No notice
  94. 94.

    du Toit L., Pillay V., Choonara Y., Pillay S., Harilall S.-L. Patenting of Nanopharmaceuticals in Drug Delivery: No Small Issue. Recent Patents Drug Deliv. Formul. 2007;1:131-142.

    Not in our library10.2174/187221107780831941

  95. 95.

    Narducci D. An Introduction to Nanotechnologies: What’s in it for Us? Veter-Res. Commun. 2007;31:131-137.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11259-007-0082-8

  96. 96.
    Current trends and challenges in cancer management and therapy using designer nanomaterials · 2019
    No notice
  97. 97.

    Wen H., Jung H., Li X. Drug Delivery Approaches in Addressing Clinical Pharmacology-Related Issues: Opportunities and Challenges. AAPS J. 2015;17:1327-1340.

    Not in our library10.1208/s12248-015-9814-9

  98. 98.

    Debnath S.K., Srivastava R. Drug Delivery with Carbon-Based Nanomaterials as Versatile Nanocarriers: Progress and Prospects. Front. Nanotechnol. 2021;3:15.

    Not in our library10.3389/fnano.2021.644564

  99. 99.

    Marcelo G., Kaplan E., Tarazona M.P., Mendicuti F. Interaction of gold nanoparticles with Doxorubicin mediated by supramolecular chemistry. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2015;128:237-244.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.01.041

  100. 100.

    Zhang Y., Walker J.B., Minic Z., Liu F., Goshgarian H., Mao G. Transporter protein and drug-conjugated gold nanoparticles capable of bypassing the blood-brain barrier. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:25794.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep25794

  101. 101.

    Muhammad Z., Raza A., Ghafoor S., Naeem A., Naz S.S., Riaz S., Ahmed W., Rana N.F. PEG capped methotrexate silver nanoparticles for efficient anticancer activity and biocompatibility. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016;91:251-255.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejps.2016.04.029

  102. 102.

    Prabha G., Raj V. Sodium alginate–polyvinyl alcohol–bovin serum albumin coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles as anticancer drug delivery vehicle: Doxorubicin loading and in vitro release study and cytotoxicity to HepG2 and L02 cells. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2017;79:410-422.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.075

  103. 103.

    Prabha G., Raj V. Formation and characterization of β-cyclodextrin (β-CD)-polyethyleneglycol (PEG)-polyethyleneimine (PEI) coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles for loading and releasing 5-Fluorouracil drug. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2016;80:173-182.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2016.03.015

  104. 104.

    Luo X., Matranga C., Tan S., Alba N., Cui X.T. Carbon nanotube nanoreservior for controlled release of anti-inflammatory dexamethasone. Biomaterials. 2011;32:6316-6323.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.020

  105. 105.

    Bhirde A.A., Patel S., Sousa A.A., Patel V., Molinolo A.A., Ji Y., Leapman R.D., Gutkind J.S., Rusling J.F. Distribution and clearance of PEG-single-walled carbon nanotube cancer drug delivery vehicles in mice. Nanomedicine. 2010;5:1535-1546.

    Not in our library10.2217/nnm.10.90

  106. 106.

    Ruzycka M., Kowalik P., Kowalczyk A., Bujak P., Nowicka A., Wojewódzka M., Kruszewski M., Grudzinski I. Quantum dots as targeted doxorubicin drug delivery nanosystems in human lung cancer cells. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2021;12:8.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12645-021-00077-9

  107. 107.

    Roozbahani M., Kharaziha M., Emadi R. pH sensitive dexamethasone encapsulated laponite nanoplatelets: Release mechanism and cytotoxicity. Int. J. Pharm. 2017;518:312-319.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.01.001

  108. 108.

    Gurdag S., Khandare J., Stapels S., Matherly L.H., Kannan R.M. Activity of Dendrimer−Methotrexate Conjugates on Methotrexate-Sensitive and -Resistant Cell Lines. Bioconjug. Chem. 2006;17:275-283.

    Not in our library10.1021/bc0501855

  109. 109.

    Cirstoiu-Hapca A., Buchegger F., Lange N., Bossy L., Gurny R., Delie F. Benefit of anti-HER2-coated paclitaxel-loaded immuno-nanoparticles in the treatment of disseminated ovarian cancer: Therapeutic efficacy and biodistribution in mice. J. Control. Release. 2010;144:324-331.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.02.026

  110. 110.

    Wilson B., Samanta M.K., Santhi K., Kumar K.S., Ramasamy M., Suresh B. Chitosan nanoparticles as a new delivery system for the anti-Alzheimer drug tacrine. Nanomed. NanotechnoL. Biol. Med. 2010;6:144-152.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2009.04.001

  111. 111.

    Anderson R., Franch A., Castell M., Perez-Cano F.J., Bräuer R., Pohlers D., Gajda M., Siskos A.P., Katsila T., Tamvakopoulos C., et al. Liposomal encapsulation enhances and prolongs the anti-inflammatory effects of water-soluble dexamethasone phosphate in experimental adjuvant arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2010;12:R147.

    Not in our library10.1186/ar3089

  112. 112.

    Zalba S., Contreras-Sandoval A., Haeri A., Hagen T.L.T., Navarro-Blasco I., Koning G., Garrido M.J. Cetuximab-oxaliplatin-liposomes for epidermal growth factor receptor targeted chemotherapy of colorectal cancer. J. Control. Release. 2015;210:26-38.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.05.271

  113. 113.

    Zhang Z., Wu Y., Kuang G., Liu S., Zhou D., Chen X., Jing X., Huang Y. Pt(iv) prodrug-backboned micelle and DCA loaded nanofibers for enhanced local cancer treatment. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2017;5:2115-2125.

    Not in our library10.1039/c7tb00178a

  114. 114.

    Liu S., Zhou G., Liu D., Xie Z., Huang Y., Wang X., Wu W., Jing X. Inhibition of orthotopic secondary hepatic carcinoma in mice by doxorubicin-loaded electrospun polylactide nanofibers. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2012;1:101-109.

    Not in our library10.1039/c2tb00121g

  115. 115.

    Adeel M., Duzagac F., Canzonieri V., Rizzolio F. Self-Therapeutic Nanomaterials for Cancer Therapy: A Review. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020;3:4962-4971.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsanm.0c00762

  116. 116.

    Sutradhar K.B., Amin L. Nanotechnology in Cancer Drug Delivery and Selective Targeting. ISRN Nanotechnol. 2014;2014:1-12.

    Not in our library10.1155/2014/939378

  117. 117.
    Controlled drug delivery vehicles for cancer treatment and their performance · 2018
    No notice
  118. 118.

    Farokhzad O.C., Langer R. Impact of Nanotechnology on Drug Delivery. ACS Nano. 2009;3:16-20.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn900002m

  119. 119.

    Gong Y.-K., Winnik F.M. Strategies in biomimetic surface engineering of nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Nanoscale. 2011;4:360-368.

    Not in our library10.1039/c1nr11297j

  120. 120.

    Khan I., Saeed K., Khan I. Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arab. J. Chem. 2019;12:908-931.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.05.011

  121. 121.

    Zhu Y., Liao L. Applications of Nanoparticles for Anticancer Drug Delivery: A Review. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2015;15:4753-4773.

    Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2015.10298

  122. 122.

    Wen R., Umeano A.C., Kou Y., Xu J., Farooqi A.A. Nanoparticle systems for cancer vaccine. Nanomedicine. 2019;14:627-648.

    Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2018-0147

  123. 123.

    James H.P., John R., Alex A., Anoop K. Smart polymers for the controlled delivery of drugs—A concise overview. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2014;4:120-127.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.apsb.2014.02.005

  124. 124.

    Fleige E., Quadir M.A., Haag R. Stimuli-responsive polymeric nanocarriers for the controlled transport of active compounds: Concepts and applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012;64:866-884.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.01.020

  125. 125.

    Cohen B.E., Bangham A.D. Diffusion of Small Non-Electrolytes across Liposome Membranes. Nature. 1972;236:173-174.

    Not in our library10.1038/236173a0

  126. 126.

    Thanou M. Nanoparticles for Drug and Gene Delivery. Encyclopedia of Biophysics. 2013;1686-1691.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-642-16712-6_709

  127. 127.

    Vahed S.Z., Fathi N., Samiei M., Dizaj S.M., Sharifi S. Targeted cancer drug delivery with aptamer-functionalized polymeric nanoparticles. J. Drug Target. 2018;27:292-299.

    Not in our library10.1080/1061186x.2018.1491978

  128. 128.

    Gugulothu D., Barhoum A., Afzal S.M., Venkateshwarlu B., Uludag H. Structural Multifunctional Nanofibers and their Emerging Applications. Handbook of Nanofibers. 2018;1-41.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-42789-8_16-2

  129. 129.

    Bubakir M.M., Li H., Barhoum A., Yang W. Advances in Melt Electrospinning Technique. Handbook of Nanofibers. 2019;125-156.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-53655-2_8

  130. 130.

    Sasikala A.R.K., Unnithan A.R., Yun Y.-H., Park C.H., Kim C.S. An implantable smart magnetic nanofiber device for endoscopic hyperthermia treatment and tumor-triggered controlled drug release. Acta Biomater. 2016;31:122-133.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2015.12.015

  131. 131.

    Kim Y.-J., Ebara M., Aoyagi T. A Smart Hyperthermia Nanofiber with Switchable Drug Release for Inducing Cancer Apoptosis. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2013;23:5753-5761.

    Not in our library10.1002/adfm.201300746

  132. 132.

    Ankegowda V.M., Kollur S.P., Prasad S.K., Pradeep S., Dhramashekara C., Jain A.S., Prasad A., Srinivasa C., Sridhara Setty P., Gopinath S.M., et al. Phyto-Mediated Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Using Terminalia chebula Fruit Extract and Evaluation of Its Cytotoxic and Antimicrobial Potential. Molecules. 2020;25:5042.

    Not in our library10.3390/molecules25215042

  133. 133.

    Gagliardi A., Cosco D., Udongo B.P., Dini L., Viglietto G., Paolino D. Design and Characterization of Glyceryl Monooleate-Nanostructures Containing Doxorubicin Hydrochloride. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12:1017.

    Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics12111017

  134. 134.

    Faisalina A., Sonvico F., Colombo P., Amirul A., Wahab H., Majid M. Docetaxel-Loaded Poly(3HB-co-4HB) Biodegradable Nanoparticles: Impact of Copolymer Composition. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:2123.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano10112123

  135. 135.

    Nicosia A., Cavallaro G., Costa S., Utzeri M.A., Cuttitta A., Giammona G., Mauro N. Carbon Nanodots for On Demand Chemophotothermal Therapy Combination to Elicit Necroptosis: Overcoming Apoptosis Resistance in Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Cancers. 2020;12:3114.

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers12113114

  136. 136.

    Sui J., He M., Yang Y., Ma M., Guo Z., Zhao M., Liang J., Sun Y., Fan Y., Zhang X. Reversing P-Glycoprotein-Associated Multidrug Resistance of Breast Cancer by Targeted Acid-Cleavable Polysaccharide Nanoparticles with Lapatinib Sensitization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2020;12:51198-51211.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsami.0c13986

  137. 137.

    Tieu T., Wojnilowicz M., Huda P., Thurecht K.J., Thissen H., Voelcker N.H., Cifuentes-Rius A. Nanobody-displaying porous silicon nanoparticles for the co-delivery of siRNA and doxorubicin. Biomater. Sci. 2020;9:133-147.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0bm01335h

  138. 138.

    Dorjsuren B., Chaurasiya B., Ye Z., Liu Y., Li W., Wang C., Shi D., Evans C.E., Webster T.J., Shen Y. Cetuximab-Coated Thermo-Sensitive Liposomes Loaded with Magnetic Nanoparticles and Doxorubicin for Targeted EGFR-Expressing Breast Cancer Combined Therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020;15:8201-8215.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s261671

  139. 139.

    Chu I.-M., Tseng S.-H., Chou M.-Y. Cetuximab-conjugated iron oxide nanoparticles for cancer imaging and therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015;10:3663-3685.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s80134

  140. 140.

    Fernandes C., Oliveira C., Benfeito S., Soares P., Garrido J., Borges F. Nanotechnology and antioxidant therapy: An emerging approach for neurodegenerative diseases. Curr. Med. Chem. 2014;21:4311-4327.

    Not in our library10.2174/0929867321666140915141836

  141. 141.

    Martinelli C., Pucci C., Battaglini M., Marino A., Ciofani G. Antioxidants and Nanotechnology: Promises and Limits of Potentially Disruptive Approaches in the Treatment of Central Nervous System Diseases. Adv. Health Mater. 2019;9:e1901589.

    Not in our library10.1002/adhm.201901589

  142. 142.

    Swain S., Sahu P.K., Beg S., Babu S.M. Nanoparticles for Cancer Targeting: Current and Future Directions. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2016;13:1290-1302.

    Not in our library10.2174/1567201813666160713121122

  143. 143.

    Vaiserman A., Koliada A., Zayachkivska A., Lushchak O. Nanodelivery of Natural Antioxidants: An Anti-aging Perspective. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020;7:447.

    Not in our library10.3389/fbioe.2019.00447

  144. 144.

    Shah S.T., Yehya W.A., Saad O., Simarani K., Chowdhury Z., Alhadi A.A., Al-Ani L.A. Surface Functionalization of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles with Gallic Acid as Potential Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Agents. Nanomaterials. 2017;7:306.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano7100306

  145. 145.

    Verma A.K. Anti-oxidant activities of biopolymeric nanoparticles: Boon or bane. J. Pharm. Res. 2014;8:871.

    Not in our library

  146. 146.

    Sharpe E., Andreescu D., Andreescu S. Artificial Nanoparticle Antioxidants. Oxidative Stress: Diagnostics, Prevention, and Therapy. 2011;235-253.

    Not in our library10.1021/bk-2011-1083.ch008

  147. 147.

    Yusof F., Ismail N. Antioxidants effects of Platinum Nanoparticles: A Potential Alternative Treatment to Lung Diseases. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2015;5:140-145.

    Not in our library10.7324/japs.2015.50722

  148. 148.

    Watanabe A., Kajita M., Kim J., Kanayama A., Takahashi K., Mashino T., Miyamoto Y. In vitro free radical scavenging activity of platinum nanoparticles. Nanotechnology. 2009;20:455105.

    Not in our library10.1088/0957-4484/20/45/455105

  149. 149.

    Patlolla A.K., Hackett D., Tchounwou P.B. Genotoxicity study of silver nanoparticles in bone marrow cells of Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015;85:52-60.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.fct.2015.05.005

  150. 150.

    Saikia J.P., Paul S., Konwar B.K., Samdarshi S.K. Nickel oxide nanoparticles: A novel antioxidant. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2010;78:146-148.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.02.016

  151. 151.

    Keshari A.K., Srivastava R., Singh P., Yadav V.B., Nath G. Antioxidant and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized by Cestrum nocturnum. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. 2018;11:37-44.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaim.2017.11.003

  152. 152.

    Kumar H., Bhardwaj K., Nepovimova E., Kuca K., Dhanjal D.S., Bhardwaj S., Bhatia S.K., Verma R., Kumar D. Antioxidant Functionalized Nanoparticles: A Combat against Oxidative Stress. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:1334.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano10071334

  153. 153.

    Khan M.S., Vishakante G.D., Siddaramaiah H. Gold nanoparticles: A paradigm shift in biomedical applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013;199–200:44-58.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cis.2013.06.003

  154. 154.
    Nanoantioxidants: Recent Trends in Antioxidant Delivery Applications · 2019
    No notice
  155. 155.

    Arriagada F., Günther G., Morales J. Nanoantioxidant–Based Silica Particles as Flavonoid Carrier for Drug Delivery Applications. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12:302.

    Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics12040302

  156. 156.

    Yi X., Zimmerman M.C., Yang R., Tong J., Vinogradov S., Kabanov A.V. Pluronic-modified superoxide dismutase 1 attenuates angiotensin II-induced increase in intracellular superoxide in neurons. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 2010;49:548-558.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2010.04.039

  157. 157.

    Tong J., Yi X., Luxenhofer R., Banks W.A., Jordan R., Zimmerman M.C., Kabanov A.V. Conjugates of Superoxide Dismutase 1 with Amphiphilic Poly(2-oxazoline) Block Copolymers for Enhanced Brain Delivery: Synthesis, Characterization and Evaluation in Vitro and in Vivo. Mol. Pharm. 2012;10:360-377.

    Not in our library10.1021/mp300496x

  158. 158.

    Christofidou-Solomidou M., Scherpereel A., Wiewrodt R., Ng K., Sweitzer T., Arguiri E., Shuvaev V., Solomides C.C., Albelda S.M., Muzykantov V.R. PECAM-directed delivery of catalase to endothelium protects against pulmonary vascular oxidative stress. Am. J. Physiol. Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2003;285:L283-L292.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajplung.00021.2003

  159. 159.

    Brynskikh A.M., Zhao Y., Mosley R.L., Li S., Boska M.D., Klyachko N.L., Kabanov A.V., Gendelman H.E., Batrakova E.V. Macrophage delivery of therapeutic nanozymes in a murine model of Parkinson’s disease. Nanomedicine. 2010;5:379-396.

    Not in our library10.2217/nnm.10.7

  160. 160.

    Williams S.R., Lepene B.S., Thatcher C.D., Long T.E. Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(ethylene glycol)−Glutathione Conjugate Self-Assembled Nanoparticles for Antioxidant Delivery. Biomacromolecules. 2008;10:155-161.

    Not in our library10.1021/bm801058j

  161. 161.

    Gonnet M., Lethuaut L., Boury F. New trends in encapsulation of liposoluble vitamins. J. Control Release. 2010;146:276-290.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.01.037

  162. 162.

    Wegmann J., Krucker M., Bachmann S., Fischer G., Zeeb D., Lienau A., Glaser T., Runge F., Lüddecke E., Albert K. Characterization of Lycopene Nanoparticles Combining Solid-State and Suspended-State NMR Spectroscopy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002;50:7510-7514.

    Not in our library10.1021/jf020715g

  163. 163.

    Mignet N., Seguin J., Romano M.R., Brullé L., Touil Y., Scherman D., Bessodes M., Chabot G.G. Development of a liposomal formulation of the natural flavonoid fisetin. Int. J. Pharm. 2012;423:69-76.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.04.066

  164. 164.

    Deligiannakis Y., Sotiriou G.A., Pratsinis S.E. Antioxidant and Antiradical SiO2 Nanoparticles Covalently Functionalized with Gallic Acid. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2012;4:6609-6617.

    Not in our library10.1021/am301751s

  165. 165.

    Liu P., Tang H., Lu M., Gao C., Wang F., Ding Y., Zhang S., Yang M. Preparation of nanosilica-immobilized antioxidant and the antioxidative behavior in low density polyethylene. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2016;135:1-7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2016.10.013

  166. 166.

    Du L., Suo S., Wang G., Jia H., Liu K.J., Zhao B., Liu Y. Mechanism and Cellular Kinetic Studies of the Enhancement of An-tioxidant Activity by Using Surface-Functionalized Gold Nanoparticles. Chem. Eur. J. 2013;19:1281-1287.

    Not in our library10.1002/chem.201203506

  167. 167.

    Sahiner N., Sagbas S., Aktas N. Preparation and characterization of monodisperse, mesoporous natural poly (tannic acid)–silica nanoparticle composites with antioxidant properties. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2016;226:316-324.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.micromeso.2016.02.012

  168. 168.

    Arriagada F., Correa O., Gunther G., Nonell S., Mura F., Olea-Azar C., Morales J. Morin Flavonoid Adsorbed on Mesoporous Silica, a Novel Antioxidant Nanomaterial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0164507.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0164507

  169. 169.

    Kang D.-W., Kim C.K., Jeong H.-G., Soh M., Kim T., Choi I.-Y., Ki S.-K., Kim D.Y., Yang W., Hyeon T., et al. Biocompatible custom ceria nanoparticles against reactive oxygen species resolve acute inflammatory reaction after intracerebral hemorrhage. Nano Res. 2017;10:2743-2760.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12274-017-1478-6

  170. 170.

    Joseph A., Wood T., Chen C.-C., Corry K., Snyder J.M., Juul S.E., Parikh P., Nance E. Curcumin-loaded polymeric nanoparticles for neuroprotection in neonatal rats with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Nano Res. 2018;11:5670-5688.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12274-018-2104-y

  171. 171.

    Yalcinkaya F., Komarek M., Lubasová D., Sanetrnik F., Maryska J. Preparation of Antibacterial Nanofibre/Nanoparticle Covered Composite Yarns. J. Nanomater. 2016;2016:7565972.

    Not in our library10.1155/2016/7565972

  172. 172.

    Salama A., Abouzeid R., Leong W.S., Jeevanandam J., Samyn P., Dufresne A., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Nanocellulose-Based Materials for Water Treatment: Adsorption, Photocatalytic Degradation, Disinfection, Antifouling, and Nanofiltration. Nanomaterials. 2021;11:3008.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano11113008

  173. 173.

    Shahriary M., Veisi H., Hekmati M., Hemmati S. In situ green synthesis of Ag nanoparticles on herbal tea extract (Stachys lavandulifolia)-modified magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as antibacterial agent and their 4-nitrophenol catalytic reduction activity. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2018;90:57-66.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.044

  174. 174.

    Youssef A.M., Moustafa H.A., Barhoum A., Hakim A.E.-F.A.A., Dufresne A. Evaluation of the Morphological, Electrical and Antibacterial Properties of Polyaniline Nanocomposite Based on Zn/Al-Layered Double Hydroxides. ChemistrySelect. 2017;2:8553-8566.

    Not in our library10.1002/slct.201701513

  175. 175.

    Sudha P.N., Sangeetha K., Vijayalakshmi K., Barhoum A. Nanomaterials History, Classification, Unique Properties, Production and Market. Emerging Applications of Nanoparticles and Architecture Nanostructures: Current Prospects and Future Trends. 2018.

    Not in our library

  176. 176.

    Nnaji C.O., Jeevanandam J., Chan Y.S., Danquah M.K., Pan S., Barhoum A. Engineered nanomaterials for wastewater treatment: Current and future trends. Fundamentals of Nanoparticles. 2018;129-168.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51255-8.00006-9

  177. 177.

    Jung W.K., Koo H.C., Kim K.W., Shin S., Kim S.H., Park Y.H. Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Action of the Silver Ion in Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008;74:2171-2178.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.02001-07

  178. 178.

    Smetana A.B., Klabunde K.J., Marchin G.R., Sorensen C.M. Biocidal Activity of Nanocrystalline Silver Powders and Particles. Langmuir. 2008;24:7457-7464.

    Not in our library10.1021/la800091y

  179. 179.

    Panacek A., Kvitek L., Prucek R., Kolar M., Vecerova R., Pizurova N., Sharma V.K., Nevecna T., Zboril R. Silver colloid nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization, and their antibacterial activity. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2006;110:16248-16253.

    Not in our library10.1021/jp063826h

  180. 180.

    Nanda A., Saravanan M. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from Staphylococcus aureus and its antimicrobial activity against MRSA and MRSE. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2009;5:452-456.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2009.01.012

  181. 181.

    Matsunaga T., Tomoda R., Nakajima T., Nakamura N., Komine T. Continuous-sterilization system that uses photosemiconductor powders. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1988;54:1330-1333.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.54.6.1330-1333.1988

  182. 182.

    Kim B., Kim D., Cho D., Cho S. Bactericidal effect of TiO2 photocatalyst on selected food-borne pathogenic bacteria. Chemosphere. 2003;52:277-281.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0045-6535(03)00051-1

  183. 183.

    Sunada K., Kikuchi Y., Hashimoto K., Fujishima A. Bactericidal and Detoxification Effects of TiO2 Thin Film Photocatalysts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998;32:726-728.

    Not in our library10.1021/es970860o

  184. 184.

    Ren G., Hu D., Cheng E.W., Vargas-Reus M.A., Reip P., Allaker R.P. Characterisation of copper oxide nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2009;33:587-590.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.12.004

  185. 185.

    Cioffi N., Torsi L., Ditaranto N., Tantillo G., Ghibelli L., Sabbatini L., Bleve-Zacheo T., D’Alessio M., Zambonin A.P.G., Traversa E. Copper Nanoparticle/Polymer Composites with Antifungal and Bacteriostatic Properties. Chem. Mater. 2005;17:5255-5262.

    Not in our library10.1021/cm0505244

  186. 186.

    Rajakumar G., Rahuman A.A., Roopan S.M., Khanna V.G., Elango G., Kamaraj C., Zahir A.A., Velayutham K. Fungus-mediated biosynthesis and characterization of TiO2 nanoparticles and their activity against pathogenic bacteria. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2012;91:23-29.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.saa.2012.01.011

  187. 187.

    Gómez-Ortíz N., De la Rosa-García S., González-Gómez W., Soria-Castro M., Quintana P., Oskam G., Ortega-Morales B. Antifungal Coatings Based on Ca(OH)2 Mixed with ZnO/TiO2 Nanomaterials for Protection of Limestone Monuments. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2013;5:1556-1565.

    Not in our library10.1021/am302783h

  188. 188.

    Herman A., Herman A.P. Nanoparticles as Antimicrobial Agents: Their Toxicity and Mechanisms of Action. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014;14:946-957.

    Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2014.9054

  189. 189.

    Mageshwari K., Sathyamoorthy R. Flower-shaped CuO Nanostructures: Synthesis, Characterization and Antimicrobial Activity. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2013;29:909-914.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmst.2013.04.020

  190. 190.

    Panáček A., Kolář M., Večeřová R., Prucek R., Soukupová J., Kryštof V., Hamal P., Zbořil R., Kvítek L. Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles against Candida spp. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6333-6340.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.065

  191. 191.

    Sawai J., Yoshikawa T. Quantitative evaluation of antifungal activity of metallic oxide powders (MgO, CaO and ZnO) by an indirect conductimetric assay. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2004;96:803-809.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02234.x

  192. 192.

    Sawai J., Yoshikawa T. Measurement of fungi by an indirect conductimetric assay. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003;37:40-44.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1472-765x.2003.01344.x

  193. 193.

    Di Gianvincenzo P., Marradi M., Martínez-Ávila O.M., Bedoya L.M., Alcami J., Penadés S. Gold nanoparticles capped with sulfate-ended ligands as anti-HIV agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010;20:2718-2721.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.03.079

  194. 194.
    Mode of antiviral action of silver nanoparticles against HIV-1 · 2010
    No notice
  195. 195.

    Lu L., Sun R.W.-Y., Chen R., Hui C.-K., Ho C.-M., Luk J.M., Lau G.K.K., Che C.-M. Silver nanoparticles inhibit hepatitis B virus replication. Antivir. Ther. 2008;13:253-262.

    Not in our library10.1177/135965350801300210

  196. 196.

    Zheng Y., Cloutier P., Hunting D.J., Sanche L. Radiosensitization by Gold Nanoparticles: Comparison of DNA Damage Induced by Low and High-Energy Electrons. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2008;4:469-473.

    Not in our library10.1166/jbn.2008.012

  197. 197.

    Syngouna V.I., Chrysikopoulos C.V. Inactivation of MS2 bacteriophage by titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the presence of quartz sand with and without ambient light. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017;497:117-125.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcis.2017.02.059

  198. 198.

    Cui H., Jiang J., Gu W., Sun C., Wu D., Yang T., Yang G. Photocatalytic Inactivation Efficiency of Anatase Nano-TiO2 Sol on the H9N2 Avian Influenza Virus. Photochem. Photobiol. 2010;86:1135-1139.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1751-1097.2010.00763.x

  199. 199.

    Baiocco P., Ilari A., Ceci P., Orsini S., Gramiccia M., Di Muccio T., Colotti G. Inhibitory Effect of Silver Nanoparticles on Trypanothione Reductase Activity and Leishmania infantum Proliferation. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2010;2:230-233.

    Not in our library10.1021/ml1002629

  200. 200.

    Allahverdiyev A.M., Abamor E., Bagirova M., Ustundag C.B., Kaya C., Rafailovich M. Antileishmanial effect of silver nanoparticles and their enhanced antiparasitic activity under ultraviolet light. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011;6:2705-2714.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s23883

  201. 201.

    Nadhman A., Nazir S., Khan M.I., Arooj S., Bakhtiar M., Shahnaz G., Yasinzai M. PEGylated silver doped zinc oxide nanoparticles as novel photosensitizers for photodynamic therapy against Leishmania. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 2014;77:230-238.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.09.005

  202. 202.

    Saad A.H.A., Soliman M.I., Azzam A.M. Antiparasitic Activity of Silver and Copper Oxide Nanoparticles against Entamoeba histolytica and Cryptosporidium parvum Cysts. J. Egypt. Soc. Parasitol. 2015;45:593-602.

    Not in our library10.12816/0017920

  203. 203.

    Ramyadevi J., Jeyasubramanian K., Marikani A., Rajakumar G., Rahuman A.A., Santhoshkumar T., Kirthi A.V., Jayaseelan C., Marimuthu S. Copper nanoparticles synthesized by polyol process used to control hematophagous parasites. Parasitol. Res. 2011;109:1403-1415.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00436-011-2387-3

  204. 204.

    Barhoum A., Rehan M.F., Rahier H., Bechelany M., Van Assche G. Seed-Mediated Hot-Injection Synthesis of Tiny Ag Nanocrystals on Nanoscale Solid Supports and Reaction Mechanism. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2016;8:10551-10561.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsami.5b10405

  205. 205.

    Rehan M., Barhoum A., Van Assche G., Dufresne A., Gätjen L., Wilken R. Towards multifunctional cellulosic fabric: UV photo-reduction and in-situ synthesis of silver nanoparticles into cellulose fabrics. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017;98:877-886.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.02.058

  206. 206.

    Barhoum A., Rahier H., Benelmekki M., Van Assche G. Recent trends in nanostructured particles: Synthesis, functionalization, and applications. Fundamentals of Nanoparticles. 2018;605-639.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-51255-8.00024-0

  207. 207.

    Rastogi A., Singh P., Haraz F.A., Barhoum A. Chapter 19—Biological Synthesis of Nanoparticles: An Environmentally Benign Approach.

    Not in our library

  208. 208.
    Mechanistic Basis of Antimicrobial Actions of Silver Nanoparticles · 2016
    No notice
  209. 209.

    Möhler J.S., Sim W., Blaskovich M.A., Cooper M.A., Ziora Z.M. Silver bullets: A new lustre on an old antimicrobial agent. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018;36:1391-1411.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.05.004

  210. 210.

    Gupta N., Upadhyaya C.P., Singh A., Abd-Elsalam K.A., Prasad R. Applications of Silver Nanoparticles in Plant Protection. Nanobiotechnology Applications in Plant Protection. 2018;247-265.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-91161-8_9

  211. 211.

    Abdel-Aziz M., Shaheen M.S., El-Nekeety A.A., Abdel-Wahhab M.A. Antioxidant and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles biosynthesized using Chenopodium murale leaf extract. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2013;18:356-363.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jscs.2013.09.011

  212. 212.

    Belaiche Y., Khelef A., Laouini S.E., Bouafia A., Tedjani M.L., Barhoum A. Green synthesis and characterization of silver/silver oxide nanoparticles using aqueous leaves extract of artemisia herbaalba as reducing and capping agents. Rom. J. Mater. 2021;51:342-352.

    Not in our library

  213. 213.

    Fatima S., Ali K., Ahmed B., Al Kheraif A.A., Syed A., Elgorban A.M., Musarrat J., Lee J. Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce Inhibitory Effects against Planktonic Cells and Biofilms of Human Oral Cavity Isolates of Rothia mucilaginosa, Georgenia sp. and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:1564.

    Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics13101564

  214. 214.

    Al-Shabib N.A., Husain F.M., Qais F.A., Ahmad N., Khan A., Alyousef A.A., Arshad M., Noor S., Khan J.M., Alam P., et al. Phyto-Mediated Synthesis of Porous Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles From Withania somnifera Root Extract: Broad-Spectrum Attenuation of Biofilm and Cytotoxic Properties Against HepG2 Cell Lines. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:1680.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2020.01680

  215. 215.

    Ilyas M., Waris A., Khan A.U., Zamel D., Yar L., Baset A., Muhaymin A., Khan S., Ali A., Ahmad A. Biological synthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles from plants and microorganisms and their potential biomedical applications. Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2021;133:108968.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.inoche.2021.108968

  216. 216.

    Balaraman R.P., Mendel J., Flores L., Choudhary M. Nanoparticle Biosynthesis and Interaction with the Microbial Cell, Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effects, and Environmental Impact. Nanomaterial Biointeractions at the Cellular, Organismal and System Levels. 2021;371-405.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-65792-5_15

  217. 217.

    Jardón-Maximino N., Cadenas-Pliego G., Ávila-Orta C., Comparán-Padilla V., Lugo-Uribe L., Pérez-Alvarez M., Tavizón S., Santillán G. Antimicrobial Property of Polypropylene Composites and Functionalized Copper Nanoparticles. Polymers. 2021;13:1694.

    Not in our library10.3390/polym13111694

  218. 218.

    Gharpure S., Akash A., Ankamwar B. A Review on Antimicrobial Properties of Metal Nanoparticles. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2020;20:3303-3339.

    Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2020.17677

  219. 219.

    El-Sheikh S., El-Sherbiny S., Barhoum A., Deng Y. Effects of cationic surfactant during the precipitation of calcium carbonate nano-particles on their size, morphology, and other characteristics. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013;422:44-49.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.01.020

  220. 220.

    Sharma U., Badyal P.N., Gupta S. Polymeric nanoparticles drug delivery to brain: A review. Int. J. Pharmacol. 2015;2:60-69.

    Not in our library

  221. 221.

    Jun A.S., Larkin D.F.P. Prospects for gene therapy in corneal disease. Eye. 2003;17:906-911.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.eye.6700565

  222. 222.

    Dzau V.J., Mann M.J., Morishita R., Kaneda Y. Fusigenic viral liposome for gene therapy in cardiovascular diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1996;93:11421-11425.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.93.21.11421

  223. 223.

    Caplen N., Gao X., Hayes P., Elaswarapu R., Fisher G., Kinrade E., Chakera A., Schorr J., Hughes B., Dorin J.R. Gene therapy for cystic fibrosis in humans by liposome-mediated DNA transfer: The production of resources and the regulatory process. Gene Ther. 1994;1:139-147.

    Not in our library

  224. 224.
    Liposomes for Use in Gene Delivery · 2011
    No notice
  225. 225.

    Ito I., Ji L., Tanaka F., Saito Y., Gopalan B., Branch C.D., Xu K., Atkinson E.N., Bekele B.N., Stephens L.C., et al. Liposomal vector mediated delivery of the 3p FUS1 gene demonstrates potent antitumor activity against human lung cancer in vivo. Cancer Gene Ther. 2004;11:733-739.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cgt.7700756

  226. 226.

    Singh B.N., Prateeksha, Gupta V.K., Chen J., Atanasov A. Organic Nanoparticle-Based Combinatory Approaches for Gene Therapy. Trends Biotechnol. 2017;35:1121-1124.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.010

  227. 227.

    Chen J., Guo Z., Tian H., Chen X. Production and clinical development of nanoparticles for gene delivery. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2016;3:16023.

    Not in our library10.1038/mtm.2016.23

  228. 228.

    Nagamune T. Biomolecular engineering for nanobio/bionanotechnology. Nano Converg. 2017;4:1-56.

    Not in our library10.1186/s40580-017-0103-4

  229. 229.

    Prabu S.L., Suriyaprakash T.N.K., Thirumurugan R. Medicated Nanoparticle for Gene Delivery. Advanced Technology for Delivering Therapeutics. 2017.

    Not in our library10.5772/65709

  230. 230.

    Jat S.K., Bhattacharya J., Sharma M.K. Nanomaterial based gene delivery: A promising method for plant genome engineering. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2020;8:4165-4175.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0tb00217h

  231. 231.

    Abdel-Haleem F.M., Gamal E., Rizk M.S., El Nashar R.M., Anis B., Elnabawy H.M., Khalil A.S., Barhoum A. t-Butyl calixarene/Fe2O3@MWCNTs composite-based potentiometric sensor for determination of ivabradine hydrochloride in pharmaceutical formulations. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2020;116:111110.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2020.111110

  232. 232.

    Abdel-Haleem F.M., Saad M., Barhoum A., Bechelany M., Rizk M.S. PVC membrane, coated-wire, and carbon-paste ion-selective electrodes for potentiometric determination of galantamine hydrobromide in physiological fluids. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2018;89:140-148.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.001

  233. 233.

    El Nashar R.M., Ghani N.T.A., El Gohary N.A., Barhoum A., Madbouly A. Molecularly imprinted polymers based biomimetic sensors for mosapride citrate detection in biological fluids. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2017;76:123-129.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.087

  234. 234.

    El-Beshlawy M.M., Abdel-Haleem F.M., Barhoum A. Molecularly Imprinted Potentiometric Sensor for Nanomolar Determination of Pioglitazone Hydrochloride in Pharmaceutical Formulations. Electroanalysis. 2021;33:1244-1254.

    Not in our library10.1002/elan.202060141

  235. 235.
    A Review on Biosensors and Recent Development of Nanostructured Materials-Enabled Biosensors · 2021
    No notice
  236. 236.

    Abdel-Karim R., Reda Y., Abdel-Fattah A. Review—Nanostructured Materials-Based Nanosensors. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020;167:037554.

    Not in our library10.1149/1945-7111/ab67aa

  237. 237.

    Tang C.K., Vaze A., Shen M., Rusling J.F. High-Throughput Electrochemical Microfluidic Immunoarray for Multiplexed Detection of Cancer Biomarker Proteins. ACS Sens. 2016;1:1036-1043.

    Not in our library10.1021/acssensors.6b00256

  238. 238.

    Wang Z., Hu T., Liang R., Wei M. Application of Zero-Dimensional Nanomaterials in Biosensing. Front. Chem. 2020;8:320.

    Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2020.00320

  239. 239.

    Cotta M.A. Quantum Dots and Their Applications: What Lies Ahead? ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020;3:4920-4924.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsanm.0c01386

  240. 240.

    Abraham J., Arunima R., Nimitha K., George S.C., Thomas S. One-dimensional (1D) nanomaterials: Nanorods and nanowires. Nanoscale Processing. 2021;71-101.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-820569-3.00003-7

  241. 241.

    Erol O., Uyan I., Hatip M., Yilmaz C., Tekinay A.B., Guler M.O. Recent advances in bioactive 1D and 2D carbon nanomaterials for biomedical applications. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2017;14:2433-2454.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2017.03.021

  242. 242.

    Dvir T., Timko B.P., Kohane D.S., Langer R. Nanotechnological strategies for engineering complex tissues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2011;6:13-22.

    Not in our library10.1038/nnano.2010.246

  243. 243.

    Shi J., Votruba A.R., Farokhzad O., Langer R. Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery and Tissue Engineering: From Discovery to Applications. Nano Lett. 2010;10:3223-3230.

    Not in our library10.1021/nl102184c

  244. 244.

    Zhang K., Barhoum A., Xiaoqing C., Li H., Samyn P. Cellulose Nanofibers: Fabrication and Surface Functionalization Techniques. Handbook of Nanofibers. 2019;409-449.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-53655-2_58

  245. 245.

    Gugulothu D., Barhoum A., Nerella R., Ajmer R., Bechlany M. Fabrication of Nanofibers: Electrospinning and Non-Electrospinning Techniques. Handbook of Nanofibers. 2018;1-34.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-42789-8_6-2

  246. 246.

    Meftahi A., Samyn P., Geravand S.A., Khajavi R., Alibkhshi S., Bechelany M., Barhoum A. Nanocelluloses as skin biocompatible materials for skincare, cosmetics, and healthcare: Formulations, regulations, and emerging applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021;278:118956.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118956

  247. 247.
    Spontaneous Formation of 3D Breast Cancer Tissues on Electrospun Chitosan/Poly(ethylene oxide) Nanofibrous Scaffolds · 2022
    Not checked
  248. 248.
    Review on Natural, Incidental, Bioinspired, and Engineered Nanomaterials: History, Definitions, Classifications, Synthesis, Properties, Market, Toxicities, Risks, and Regulations · 2022
    No notice
  249. 249.

    Besinis A., De Peralta T., Tredwin C.J., Handy R.D. Review of Nanomaterials in Dentistry: Interactions with the Oral Microenvironment, Clinical Applications, Hazards, and Benefits. ACS Nano. 2015;9:2255-2289.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn505015e

  250. 250.

    Xi Y., Wang Y., Gao J., Xiao Y., Du J. Dual Corona Vesicles with Intrinsic Antibacterial and Enhanced Antibiotic Delivery Capabilities for Effective Treatment of Biofilm-Induced Periodontitis. ACS Nano. 2019;13:13645-13657.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsnano.9b03237

  251. 251.

    Lombardi V.R. Editorial [Exploring Neural-Immune System Interactions]. Curr. Immunol. Rev. 2012;8:37-38.

    Not in our library10.2174/157339512798991191

  252. 252.

    Bertram L. The genetic epidemiology of neurodegenerative disease. J. Clin. Investig. 2005;115:1449-1457.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci24761

  253. 253.

    Faroni A., Mobasseri S.A., Kingham P.J., Reid A.J. Peripheral nerve regeneration: Experimental strategies and future perspectives. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015;82–83:160-167.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2014.11.010

  254. 254.

    Barhoum A., El-Maghrabi H.H., Iatsunskyi I., Coy E., Renard A., Salameh C., Weber M., Sayegh S., Nada A., Roualdes S., et al. Atomic layer deposition of Pd nanoparticles on self-supported carbon-Ni/NiO-Pd nanofiber electrodes for electrochemical hydrogen and oxygen evolution reactions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020;569:286-297.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcis.2020.02.063

  255. 255.

    Barhoum A., Rasouli R., Yousefzadeh M., Rahier H., Bechelany M. Nanofiber Technologies: History and Development. Handbook of Nanofibers. 2019;3-43.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-53655-2_54

  256. 256.

    Barhoum A., Favre T., Sayegh S., Tanos F., Coy E., Iatsunskyi I., Razzouk A., Cretin M., Bechelany M. 3D Self-Supported Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Nanofiber Electrodes Incorporated Co/CoOx Nanoparticles: Application to Dyes Degradation by Electro-Fenton-Based Process. Nanomaterials. 2021;11:2686.

    Not in our library10.3390/nano11102686

  257. 257.

    Turky A.O., Barhoum A., Rashad M., Bechelany M. Enhanced the structure and optical properties for ZnO/PVP nanofibers fabricated via electrospinning technique. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2017;28:17526-17532.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10854-017-7688-6

  258. 258.

    Barhoum A., Jeevanandam J., Rastogi A., Samyn P., Boluk Y., Dufresne A., Danquah M.K., Bechelany M. Plant celluloses, hemicelluloses, lignins, and volatile oils for the synthesis of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials. Nanoscale. 2020;12:22845-22890.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0nr04795c

  259. 259.

    Aljabali A.A.A., Obeid M.A., Al Zoubi M.S., Charbe N.B., Chellappan D.K., Mishra V., Dureja H., Gupta G., Prasher P., Dua K., et al. Nanocelluloses in Sensing Technology. Handbook of Nanocelluloses. 2021;1-30.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-62976-2_44-1

  260. 260.

    Xue J., Pisignano D., Xia Y. Maneuvering the Migration and Differentiation of Stem Cells with Electrospun Nanofibers. Adv. Sci. 2020;7:2000735.

    Not in our library10.1002/advs.202000735

  261. 261.

    Sorg H., Tilkorn D.J., Hager S., Hauser J., Mirastschijski U. Skin Wound Healing: An Update on the Current Knowledge and Concepts. Eur. Surg. Res. 2016;58:81-94.

    Not in our library10.1159/000454919

  262. 262.

    Dreifke M.B., Jayasuriya A.A., Jayasuriya A.C. Current wound healing procedures and potential care. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2014;48:651-662.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2014.12.068

  263. 263.

    Pober J.S., Sessa W.C. Inflammation and the blood microvascular system. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect Biol. 2014;7:a016345.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a016345

  264. 264.

    Bodnar R.J. Chemokine Regulation of Angiogenesis during Wound Healing. Adv. Wound Care. 2015;4:641-650.

    Not in our library10.1089/wound.2014.0594

  265. 265.

    Mechanick J.I. Practical aspects of nutritional support for wound-healing patients. Am. J. Surg. 2004;188:52-56.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9610(03)00291-5

  266. 266.

    Greer N., Foman N.A., Macdonald R., Dorrian J., Fitzgerald P., Rutks I., Wilt T.J. Advanced Wound Care Therapies for Nonhealing Diabetic, Venous, and Arterial Ulcers. Ann. Intern. Med. 2013;159:532-542.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-159-8-201310150-00006

  267. 267.

    Ravichandiran P., Prabakaran D., Maroli N., Boguszewska-Czubara A., Masłyk M., Kim A.R., Chandrasekaran B., Yoo D.J. Construction of a simple dual-channel fluorescence chemosensor for Cu2+ ion and GSSG detection and its mitochondria-targeting bioimaging applications. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2021;1181:338896.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.aca.2021.338896

  268. 268.

    Randeria P.S., Seeger M.A., Wang X.-Q., Wilson H., Shipp D., Mirkin C.A., Paller A.S. siRNA-based spherical nucleic acids reverse impaired wound healing in diabetic mice by ganglioside GM3 synthase knockdown. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:5573-5578.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1505951112

  269. 269.

    Wang P., Lombi E., Zhao F.-J., Kopittke P. Nanotechnology: A New Opportunity in Plant Sciences. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21:699-712.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tplants.2016.04.005

  270. 270.
    Application of silicon nanoparticles in agriculture · 2019
    No notice
  271. 271.

    Jampílek J., Kráľová K. Nanomaterials for delivery of nutrients and growth-promoting compounds to plants. Nano-Technology. 2017;177-226.

    Not in our library

  272. 272.

    Liu R., Lal R. Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci. Total Environ. 2015;514:131-139.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.104

  273. 273.

    Saharan V., Kumaraswamy R.V., Choudhary R.C., Kumari S., Pal A., Raliya R., Biswas P. Cu-Chitosan Nanoparticle Mediated Sustainable Approach To Enhance Seedling Growth in Maize by Mobilizing Reserved Food. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016;64:6148-6155.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02239

  274. 274.

    Verma S.K., Das A.K., Patel M.K., Shah A., Kumar V., Gantait S. Engineered nanomaterials for plant growth and development: A perspective analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;630:1413-1435.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.313

  275. 275.

    Khodakovskaya M.V., Kim B.-S., Kim J.N., Alimohammadi M., Dervishi E., Mustafa T., Cernigla C.E. Carbon Nanotubes as Plant Growth Regulators: Effects on Tomato Growth, Reproductive System, and Soil Microbial Community. Small. 2012;9:115-123.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201201225

  276. 276.

    Abdel-Aziz H., Hasaneen M.N.A., Omer A.M. Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016;14:e0902.

    Not in our library10.5424/sjar/2016141-8205

  277. 277.

    Meurer R.A., Kemper S., Knopp S., Eichert T., Jakob F., Goldbach H.E., Schwaneberg U., Pich A. Biofunctional Microgel-Based Fertilizers for Controlled Foliar Delivery of Nutrients to Plants. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017;56:7380-7386.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201701620

  278. 278.
    Applications of Nanotechnology in Plant Growth and Crop Protection: A Review · 2019
    No notice
  279. 279.

    Qureshi A., Singh D., Dwivedi S. Nano-fertilizers: A Novel Way for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency and Crop Productivity. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018;7:3325-3335.

    Not in our library10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.398

  280. 280.

    Preetha P.S., Balakrishnan N. A Review of Nano Fertilizers and Their Use and Functions in Soil. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017;6:3117-3133.

    Not in our library10.20546/ijcmas.2017.612.364

  281. 281.

    Solanki P., Bhargava A., Chhipa H., Jain N., Panwar J. Nano-fertilizers and Their Smart Delivery System. Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture. 2015;81-101.

    Not in our library

  282. 282.

    Subramanian K.S., Manikandan A., Thirunavukkarasu M., Rahale C.S. Nano-fertilizers for Balanced Crop Nutrition. Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture. 2015;69-80.

    Not in our library

  283. 283.
    Nanotechnology in Plant Science: To Make a Long Story Short · 2019
    No notice
  284. 284.

    Park B. Nanotechnology and the packaging of food and other fast-moving consumer goods. Trends in Packaging of Food, Beverages and Other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). 2013;241-260.

    Not in our library10.1533/9780857098979.241

  285. 285.

    Rossi M., Passeri D., Sinibaldi A., Angjellari M., Tamburri E., Sorbo A., Carata E., Dini L. Nanotechnology for Food Packaging and Food Quality Assessment. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research. 2017;149-204.

    Not in our library10.1016/bs.afnr.2017.01.002

  286. 286.

    Contado C. Nanomaterials in consumer products: A challenging analytical problem. Front. Chem. 2015;3:48.

    Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2015.00048

  287. 287.

    Mu L., Droujinine I.A., Rajan N.K., Sawtelle S.D., Reed M.A. Direct, Rapid, and Label-Free Detection of Enzyme–Substrate Interactions in Physiological Buffers Using CMOS-Compatible Nanoribbon Sensors. Nano Lett. 2014;14:5315-5322.

    Not in our library10.1021/nl502366e

  288. 288.

    Huang Q., Yu H., Ru Q. Bioavailability and Delivery of Nutraceuticals Using Nanotechnology. J. Food Sci. 2010;75:R50-R57.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01457.x

  289. 289.

    Inbaraj B.S., Chen B. Nanomaterial-based sensors for detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens and toxins as well as pork adulteration in meat products. J. Food Drug Anal. 2015;24:15-28.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jfda.2015.05.001

  290. 290.
    Potential of Nanomaterial Applications in Dietary Supplements and Foods for Special Medical Purposes · 2019
    Not checked
  291. 291.

    Mali S.C., Raj S., Trivedi R. Nanotechnology a novel approach to enhance crop productivity. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2020;24:100821.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrep.2020.100821

  292. 292.

    Saifullah M., Shishir M.R.I., Ferdowsi R., Tanver Rahman M.R., Van Vuong Q. Micro and nano encapsulation, retention and controlled release of flavor and aroma compounds: A critical review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019;86:230-251.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.030

  293. 293.

    Kumar V., Guleria P., Mehta S.K. Nanosensors for food quality and safety assessment. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017;15:165-177.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10311-017-0616-4

  294. 294.

    George J., Sabapathi S.N. Cellulose nanocrystals: Synthesis, functional properties, and applications. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2015;8:45-54.

    Not in our library10.2147/nsa.s64386

  295. 295.

    Vong K., Eda S., Kadota Y., Nasibullin I., Wakatake T., Yokoshima S., Shirasu K., Tanaka K. An artificial metalloenzyme biosensor can detect ethylene gas in fruits and Arabidopsis leaves. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:5746.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-13758-2

  296. 296.
    Nanoencapsulation of Promising Bioactive Compounds to Improve Their Absorption, Stability, Functionality and the Appearance of the Final Food Products · 2021
    No notice
  297. 297.

    Wang L., Hu C., Shao L. The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles: Present situation and prospects for the future. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017;12:1227-1249.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s121956

  298. 298.

    Sankar V.R., Reddy Y.D. Nanocochleate—A new approach in lipid drug delivery. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2010;2:220-223.

    Not in our library

  299. 299.

    Sekhon B. Nanotechnology in agri-food production: An overview. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2014;7:31-53.

    Not in our library10.2147/nsa.s39406

  300. 300.

    Prakash J., Vignesh K., Anusuya T., Kalaivani T., Ramachandran C., Sudha R.R., Rubab M., Khan I., Elahi F., Oh D.-H. Ap-plication of Nanoparticles in Food Preservation and Food Processing. J. Food Hyg. Saf. 2019;34:317-324.

    Not in our library

  301. 301.

    Ribeiro T., Baleizão C., Farinha J.P.S. Functional Films from Silica/Polymer Nanoparticles. Materials. 2014;7:3881-3900.

    Not in our library10.3390/ma7053881

  302. 302.

    Hsu C.-Y., Wang P.-W., Alalaiwe A., Lin Z.-C., Fang J.-Y. Use of Lipid Nanocarriers to Improve Oral Delivery of Vitamins. Nutrients. 2019;11:68.

    Not in our library10.3390/nu11010068

  303. 303.

    Pakrashi S., Dalai S., Sabat D., Singh S., Chandrasekaran N., Mukherjee A. Cytotoxicity of Al2O3Nanoparticles at Low Exposure Levels to a Freshwater Bacterial Isolate. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2011;24:1899-1904.

    Not in our library10.1021/tx200244g

  304. 304.

    Park E.-J., Lee G.-H., Yoon C., Jeong U., Kim Y., Cho M.-H., Kim D.-W. Biodistribution and toxicity of spherical aluminum oxide nanoparticles. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2015;36:424-433.

    Not in our library10.1002/jat.3233

  305. 305.

    Minigalieva I.A., Katsnelson B.A., Privalova L.I., Sutunkova M.P., Gurvich V.B., Shur V.Y., Shishkina E.V., Valamina I.E., Makeyev O.H., Panov V.G., et al. Combined Subchronic Toxicity of Aluminum (III), Titanium (IV) and Silicon (IV) Oxide Nanoparticles and Its Alleviation with a Complex of Bioprotectors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018;19:837.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms19030837

  306. 306.

    Asharani P.V., Lianwu Y., Gong Z., Valiyaveettil S. Comparison of the toxicity of silver, gold and platinum nanoparticles in developing zebrafish embryos. Nanotoxicology. 2010;5:43-54.

    Not in our library10.3109/17435390.2010.489207

  307. 307.

    Tao C. Antimicrobial activity and toxicity of gold nanoparticles: Research progress, challenges and prospects. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2018;67:537-543.

    Not in our library10.1111/lam.13082

  308. 308.

    Boisselier E., Astruc D. Gold nanoparticles in nanomedicine: Preparations, imaging, diagnostics, therapies and toxicity. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009;38:1759-1782.

    Not in our library10.1039/b806051g

  309. 309.

    Ahamed M., Siddiqui M., Akhtar M., Ahmad I., Pant A.B., Alhadlaq H. Genotoxic potential of copper oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010;396:578-583.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.04.156

  310. 310.

    Fahmy B., Cormier S.A. Copper oxide nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and cytotoxicity in airway epithelial cells. Toxicol. Vitro. 2009;23:1365-1371.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2009.08.005

  311. 311.

    Karlsson H.L., Gustafsson J., Cronholm P., Möller L. Size-dependent toxicity of metal oxide particles—A comparison between nano- and micrometer size. Toxicol. Lett. 2009;188:112-118.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.03.014

  312. 312.

    Lei R., Wu C., Yang B., Ma H., Shi C., Wang Q., Wang Q., Yuan Y., Liao M. Integrated metabolomic analysis of the nano-sized copper particle-induced hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity in rats: A rapid in vivo screening method for nanotoxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2008;232:292-301.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.taap.2008.06.026

  313. 313.

    de Lima R., Seabra A.B., Durán N. Silver nanoparticles: A brief review of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of chemically and biogenically synthesized nanoparticles. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2012;32:867-879.

    Not in our library10.1002/jat.2780

  314. 314.

    Hadrup N., Sharma A.K., Loeschner K., Jacobsen N.R. Pulmonary toxicity of silver vapours, nanoparticles and fine dusts: A review. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020;115:104690.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104690

  315. 315.

    Dos Santos C.A., Seckler M., Ingle A.P., Gupta I., Galdiero S., Galdiero M., Gade A., Rai M. Silver Nanoparticles: Therapeutical Uses, Toxicity, and Safety Issues. J. Pharm. Sci. 2014;103:1931-1944.

    Not in our library10.1002/jps.24001

  316. 316.

    Cao Y., Gong Y., Liao W., Luo Y., Wu C., Wang M., Yang Q. A review of cardiovascular toxicity of TiO2, ZnO and Ag nanoparticles (NPs). BioMetals. 2018;31:457-476.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10534-018-0113-7

  317. 317.

    Kumar A., Pandey A.K., Singh S.S., Shanker R., Dhawan A. Engineered ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and DNA damage leading to reduced viability of Escherichia coli. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2011;51:1872-1881.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.08.025

  318. 318.

    Subramaniam V.D., Prasad S.V., Banerjee A., Gopinath M., Murugesan R., Marotta F., Sun X.-F., Pathak S. Health hazards of nanoparticles: Understanding the toxicity mechanism of nanosized ZnO in cosmetic products. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 2018;42:84-93.

    Not in our library10.1080/01480545.2018.1491987

  319. 319.

    Singh S. Zinc oxide nanoparticles impacts: Cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Toxicol. Mech. Methods. 2019;29:300-311.

    Not in our library10.1080/15376516.2018.1553221

  320. 320.

    Sun Z., Yathindranath V., Worden M., Thliveris J.A., Chu S., Parkinson F.E., Hegmann T., Miller D.W. Characterization of cellular uptake and toxicity of aminosilane-coated iron oxide nanoparticles with different charges in central nervous system-relevant cell culture models. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013;8:961-970.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s39048

  321. 321.
    Nanomaterial cytotoxicity is composition, size, and cell type dependent · 2010
    No notice
  322. 322.

    Raghunathan V.K., Devey M., Hawkins S., Hails L., Davis S.A., Mann S., Chang I.T., Ingham E., Malhas A., Vaux D.J., et al. Influence of particle size and reactive oxygen species on cobalt chrome nanoparticle-mediated genotoxicity. Biomaterials. 2013;34:3559-3570.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.085

  323. 323.

    Morimoto Y., Horie M., Kobayashi N., Shinohara N., Shimada M. Inhalation Toxicity Assessment of Carbon-Based Nanoparticles. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012;46:770-781.

    Not in our library10.1021/ar200311b

  324. 324.

    Zhang Y., Petibone D., Xu Y., Mahmood M., Karmakar A., Casciano D., Ali S., Biris A.S. Toxicity and efficacy of carbon nanotubes and graphene: The utility of carbon-based nanoparticles in nanomedicine. Drug Metab. Rev. 2014;46:232-246.

    Not in our library10.3109/03602532.2014.883406

  325. 325.

    Fröhlich E. Role of omics techniques in the toxicity testing of nanoparticles. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2017;15:1-22.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12951-017-0320-3

  326. 326.

    Hamimed S., Abdeljelil N., Landoulsi A., Chatti A., Aljabali A.A.A., Barhoum A., Barhoum A. Bacterial Cellulose Nanofibers. Handbook of Nanocelluloses. 2022.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-62976-2_15-1

  327. 327.

    Moodley K.G., Arumugam V., Barhoum A., Barhoum A. Nanocellulose-Based Materials for Wastewater Treatment. Handbook of Nanocelluloses. 2021.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-62976-2_48-1

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.