Rational design of block copolymer self-assemblies in photodynamic therapy

• Maxime Demazeau,
• Laure Gibot,
• Anne-Françoise Mingotaud,
• Patricia Vicendo,
• Clément Roux and
• Barbara Lonetti

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2020, 11, 180–212, doi:10.3762/bjnano.11.15

• examples based on various techniques, which examined the stability of polymeric vectors using field flow fractionation, enabling therefore an efficient separation between the proteins of the medium and the vectors [45][144]. As exemplified in Figure 9, field flow fractionation allows for a confirmation of

The different ways to chitosan/hyaluronic acid nanoparticles: templated vs direct complexation. Influence of particle preparation on morphology, cell uptake and silencing efficiency

• Arianna Gennari,
• Julio M. Rios de la Rosa,
• Erwin Hohn,
• Maria Pelliccia,
• Enrique Lallana,
• Roberto Donno,
• Annalisa Tirella and
• Nicola Tirelli

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2019, 10, 2594–2608, doi:10.3762/bjnano.10.250

• in the template process and significant aggregation takes place during the TPP–HA exchange. The templated chitosan/HA nanoparticles therefore have a mildly larger size (measured by dynamic light scattering alone or by field flow fractionation coupled to static or dynamic light scattering), and above

• performing better in macrophages and those with high-MW chitosan in HCT-116. Keywords: aggregation; chitosan; field flow fractionation; light scattering; targeted drug delivery; Introduction Chitosan is a linear copolymer of β-1,4-ᴅ-glucose-2-amine and N-acetyl-ᴅ-glucose-2-amine, and is commonly employed

• concentration (47, 188 and 750 g/mL), thus allowing to quantify the amount of unbound HA from the area of its peak at 22 min. Asymmetric-flow field flow fractionation (AF4). An AF2000 TM (Postnova Analytics, Landsberg, Germany) featuring an A4F channel an equipped with a 350 µm spacer and a regenerated

Imaging the intracellular degradation of biodegradable polymer nanoparticles

• Anne-Kathrin Barthel,
• Martin Dass,
• Melanie Dröge,
• Jens-Michael Cramer,
• Daniela Baumann,
• Markus Urban,
• Katharina Landfester,
• Volker Mailänder and
• Ingo Lieberwirth

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 1905–1917, doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.201

• . The latter group typically comprises techniques such as mass spectroscopy, field-flow fractionation or radioactive labelling, whereas conserving techniques are usually based on microscopic methods. A good comparison of these different quantification methods is given by Elsaesser et al. [15]. For

The surface properties of nanoparticles determine the agglomeration state and the size of the particles under physiological conditions

• Christoph Bantz,
• Olga Koshkina,
• Thomas Lang,
• Hans-Joachim Galla,
• C. James Kirkpatrick,
• Roland H. Stauber and
• Michael Maskos

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 1774–1786, doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.188

• characterization to investigate the agglomeration behavior under physiological conditions. To combine the benefits of different characterization techniques and to compensate for their respective drawbacks, transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering and asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation were

• techniques, that is, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), multiangle dynamic light scattering (DLS) and asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF-FFF). By combining the strengths of each of the individual techniques, their drawbacks are compensated for and a comprehensive characterization in

• coefficients. This is the so-called structure factor, S(q) [30][31]. AF-FFF: Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF-FFF) describes a quasi-chromatographic, semi-preparative particle separation method and is the best known and best established representative of the versatile field-flow fractionation (FFF