| Title |
Continuous synthesis of drug-loaded nanoparticles using microchannel emulsification and numerical modeling: effect of passive mixing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s108812 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabel Ortiz de Solorzano, Laura Uson, Ane Larrea, Mario Miana, Victor Sebastian, Manuel Arruebo |
| Abstract |
By using interdigital microfluidic reactors, monodisperse poly(d,l lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles (NPs) can be produced in a continuous manner and at a large scale (~10 g/h). An optimized synthesis protocol was obtained by selecting the appropriated passive mixer and fluid flow conditions to produce monodisperse NPs. A reduced NP polydispersity was obtained when using the microfluidic platform compared with the one obtained with NPs produced in a conventional discontinuous batch reactor. Cyclosporin, an immunosuppressant drug, was used as a model to validate the efficiency of the microfluidic platform to produce drug-loaded monodisperse poly(d,l lactic-co-glycolic acid) NPs. The influence of the mixer geometries and temperatures were analyzed, and the experimental results were corroborated by using computational fluid dynamic three-dimensional simulations. Flow patterns, mixing times, and mixing efficiencies were calculated, and the model supported with experimental results. The progress of mixing in the interdigital mixer was quantified by using the volume fractions of the organic and aqueous phases used during the emulsification-evaporation process. The developed model and methods were applied to determine the required time for achieving a complete mixing in each microreactor at different fluid flow conditions, temperatures, and mixing rates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 15 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 13 | 12% |
| Chemical Engineering | 13 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 38 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,886
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,987
of 367,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#65
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.