4.8 Review

Detection and analysis of nanoparticles in patients: A critical review of the status quo of clinical nanotoxicology

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 302-312

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.061

关键词

Clinical; Nanotoxicology; Nanoparticles; Analysis; Qualitative; Quantitative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On the cusp of massive commercialization of nanotechnology-enhanced products and services, the physical and chemical analysis of nanoparticles in human specimens merits immediate attention from the research community as a prerequisite for a confident clinical interpretation of their occurrence in the human organism. In this review, we describe the caveats in current practices of extracting and isolating nanoparticles from clinical samples and show that they do not help truly define the clinical significance of detected exogenous nano-sized objects. Finally, we suggest a systematic way of tackling these demanding scientific tasks. More specifically, a precise and true qualitative evaluation of nanoparticles in human biological samples is still hindered by various technical reasons. Such a procedure is more refined when the nature of the pollutants is known, like in the case of nano-sized wear debris originating from biomedical prostheses. Nevertheless, nearly all available analytical methods provide unknown quantitative accuracy and qualitative precision due to the challenging physical and chemical nature of nanoparticles. Without trustworthy information to describe the nanoparticulate load of clinical samples, it is impossible to accurately assess its pathological impact on isolated cases or allow for relevant epidemiological surveys on large populations. Therefore, we suggest that the many and various specimens stored in hospitals be used for the refinement of methods of exhaustive quantitative and qualitative characterization of prominent nanoparticles in complex human milieu. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据