ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2024
Computational-Aided Approach for the Optimization of Microfluidic-Based Nanoparticles Manufacturing Process.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrodynamically decoupled nanoprecipitation (HDNP): A multi-stage strategy for supersaturation, controlled delayed nucleation, and stabilization of low LogP poorly-water soluble drugs.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Advanced antibacterial wound management: comparative study of non-antibiotic drug elution and nanoparticle integration.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Lab-on-a-Chip and Microfluidics Technologies for Nano Drug Delivery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Rewriting Tumor Entry Rules: Microfluidic Polyplexes and Tumor-Penetrating Strategies-A Literature Review.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last few years, the microfluidic production of nanoparticles (NPs) is becoming a promising alternative to conventional industrial approaches (e.g., nanoprecipitation, salting out, and emulsification-diffusion) thanks to the production efficiency, low variability, and high controllability of the production parameters. Nevertheless, the development of new formulations and the switching of the production process toward microfluidic platforms requires expensive and time-consuming number of experiments for the tuning of the formulation to obtain NPs with specific morphological and functional characteristics. In this work, we developed a computational fluid dynamic pipeline, validated through an ad hoc experimental strategy, to reproduce the mixing between the solvent and anti-solvent (i.e., acetonitrile and TRIS-HCl, respectively). Moreover, beyond the classical variables able to describe the mixing performances of the microfluidic chip, novel variables were described in order to assess the region of the NPs formation and the changing of the amplitude of the precipitation region according to different hydraulic conditions. The numerical approach proved to be able to capture a progressive reduction of the nanoprecipitation region due to an increment of the flow rate ratio; in parallel, through the experimental production, a progressive increment of the NPs size heterogeneity was observed with the same fluid dynamic conditions. Hence, the preliminary comparison between numerical and experimental evidence proved the effectiveness of the computational strategy to optimize the NPs manufacturing process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.