SynthesisJournal of separation science2025
Advances in ICP-MS-Based Nanoparticle Characterization: Techniques and Challenges in Biological Sample Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of separation science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Harnessing plant growth-promoting bacteria for nanoparticle biosynthesis: a systematic review of mechanisms, agricultural applications, and biomedical potential.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Pooled it
- Advances in ICP-MS-Based Nanoparticle Characterization: Techniques and Challenges in Biological Sample Analysis.Journal of separation science · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of extraction capabilities of protease, proteinase K, and TMAH for nanoparticle characterization in biological CRMs by spICP-MS.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Micro- and Nanoplastics Exposure Across the Lifespan: One Health Implications for Aging and Longevity.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of engineered nanoparticles (NPs) in consumer and biomedical products has raised concern over their potential accumulation, transformation, and toxicity in biological systems. Accurate analytical methods are essential to detect, characterize, and quantify NPs in complex biological matrices. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has emerged as a leading technique due to its high sensitivity, elemental selectivity, and quantitative capabilities. This review critically evaluates recent advances (from January 2020 onward) in ICP-MS-based methods for analysis of NPs in biological samples. Two main strategies are discussed: single-particle ICP-MS (spICP-MS) and hyphenated techniques coupled to ICP-MS. spICP-MS allows direct determination of particle size, concentration, and metal content at environmentally relevant levels. It is the most widely used approach and is therefore examined in greater detail, with attention to extraction procedures, particle types, sample matrices, and inherent limitations. Advances in laser ablation spICP-MS for tissue imaging and spatially resolved NPs detection are also covered. Methods using hyphenated techniques, such as hydrodynamic chromatography, size-exclusion chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, Taylor dispersion analysis, and field-flow fractionation, are increasingly employed to address limitations spICP-MS. These approaches can provide enhanced insight into particle size distributions, aggregation behavior, and interactions with complex sample matrices. This review offers a comparative evaluation of both single-particle and hyphenated methods, discussing their respective advantages and limitations. Emphasis is placed on the complementarity of these techniques and how their combined use can offer a more complete understanding of NPs' fate in biological systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.