4.8 Review

Challenges for optical nanothermometry in biological environments

Journal

CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS
Volume 51, Issue 11, Pages 4223-4242

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2cs00069e

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant) [787510]
  2. MCIN/AEI [MDM-2017-0720, PID2019-110632RB-I00]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [787510] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the various methods of using nanothermometers for temperature sensing in heterogeneous environments, with a focus on recent developments in incorporating luminescent nanoparticles into complex in vitro and in vivo models. Methods for avoiding thermal misreading are also discussed, considering their respective advantages and drawbacks.
Temperature monitoring is useful in medical diagnosis, and essential during hyperthermia treatments to avoid undesired cytotoxic effects. Aiming to control heating doses, different temperature monitoring strategies have been developed, largely based on luminescent materials, a.k.a. nanothermometers. However, for such nanothermometers to work, both excitation and emission light beams must travel through tissue, making its optical properties a relevant aspect to be considered during the measurements. In complex tissues, heterogeneity, and real-time alterations as a result of therapeutic treatment may have an effect on light-tissue interaction, hindering accuracy in the thermal reading. In this Tutorial Review we discuss various methods in which nanothermometers can be used for temperature sensing within heterogeneous environments. We discuss recent developments in optical (nano)thermometry, focusing on the incorporation of luminescent nanoparticles into complex in vitro and in vivo models. Methods formulated to avoid thermal misreading are also discussed, considering their respective advantages and drawbacks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available