Liposomes |
50–200 nm |
Neutral |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Spherical structures composed of a lipid bilayer enclosing an aqueous core |
First-generation nanocarriers for drug delivery, used in clinical practice |
Good biocompatibility, low immunogenicity, versatility in drug loading and targeting |
Short circulation time, potential drug leakage, lack of tumor specificity |
Limited drug payload capacity, challenges in scaling up production, difficulty in achieving controlled drug release in vivo |
[13] |
Polymeric nanoparticles |
10–200 nm |
Variable |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Solid particles made of synthetic or natural polymers |
Wide range of materials and formulations, suitable for various administration routes |
High drug loading capacity, stable in circulation, tunable surface properties |
Potential toxicity, burst release of drug, batch-to-batch variation, difficulty in achieving targeted drug delivery to tumors |
Challenges in achieving controlled release, low targeting efficiency, limited biocompatibility of some materials |
[14, 15] |
Dendrimers |
1–10 nm |
Variable |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Non-biodegradable |
Branched, highly branched or spherical molecules with defined size and shape |
Highly customizable, multivalent surface chemistry, high drug loading capacity |
High biotoxicity, low biodegradability, challenges in scaling up production |
Limited blood circulation time, potential renal toxicity, difficulty in achieving targeted drug delivery to tumors |
Limited targeting efficiency, challenges in achieving controlled release, potential immunogenicity |
[15] |
Gold nanoparticles |
1–100 nm |
Neutral |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Non-biodegradable |
Spherical or rod-shaped particles made of gold |
Excellent biocompatibility, high surface plasmon resonance effect, stability in biological fluids |
Low drug loading capacity, limited tumor penetration, challenges in scaling up production |
Potential toxicity, limited targeting efficiency, difficulty in achieving controlled drug release in vivo |
Limited biocompatibility of some surface modifications, potential immunogenicity |
[16, 17] |
Carbon nanotubes |
1–100 nm |
Negative |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Non-biodegradable |
Hollow cylindrical structures made of carbon atoms |
High aspect ratio, high drug loading capacity, potential for multi-functionalization |
High toxicity, limited biocompatibility, challenges in achieving controlled release |
Limited blood circulation time, potential clearance by the reticuloendothelial system, difficulty in achieving targeted drug delivery to tumors |
Potential immunogenicity, difficulty in scaling up production |
[18, 19] |
Iron oxide nanoparticles |
5–100 nm |
Negative |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Magnetic particles made of iron oxide |
High targeting specificity, potential for MRI imaging and magnetic hyperthermia |
Low drug loading capacity, limited blood circulation time, challenges in achieving controlled release |
Potential toxicity, limited tumor penetration, difficulty in scaling up production |
Potential immunogenicity, low biocompatibility of some surface modifications |
[20] |
Quantum dots |
1–10 nm |
Negative |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Non-biodegradable |
Semiconductor nanocrystals |
High brightness, tunable emission spectrum, potential for multiplexed imaging |
High toxicity, potential for heavy metal leaching, challenges in achieving targeted drug delivery |
Limited blood circulation time, potential clearance by the reticuloendothelial system, difficulty in scaling up production |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[21] |
Silica nanoparticles |
10–500 nm |
Negative |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Solid particles made of silica |
High drug loading capacity, good stability, tunable surface properties |
Potential toxicity, limited blood circulation time, difficulty in achieving targeted drug delivery to tumors |
Limited biocompatibility, challenges in achieving controlled release |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[22] |
Mesoporous silica nanoparticles |
20–200 nm |
Negative |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Porous particles made of silica |
High surface area, high drug loading capacity, tunable pore size and surface chemistry |
Potential toxicity, limited blood circulation time, difficulty in achieving controlled drug release in vivo |
Limited biocompatibility, challenges in achieving targeted drug delivery to tumors |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[23] |
Lipid-nucleic acid nanoparticles |
50–200 nm |
Neutral |
Low-Moderate |
Active |
Biodegradable |
Nanoparticles made of lipids and nucleic acids |
Suitable for nucleic acid delivery, good biocompatibility, low toxicity |
Limited drug loading capacity, potential instability, challenges in achieving efficient delivery |
Potential immunogenicity, limited blood circulation time |
Limited targeting efficiency, difficulty in scaling up production |
[24, 25] |
Protein nanoparticles |
2–200 nm |
Variable |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Nanoparticles made of proteins or peptides |
Good biocompatibility, low toxicity, potential for targeted delivery |
Limited drug loading capacity, challenges in achieving efficient drug release in vivo |
Potential immunogenicity, limited stability, limited blood circulation time |
Limited targeting efficiency, difficulty in scaling up production |
[26, 27] |
Inorganic–organic hybrid nanoparticles |
10–200 nm |
Variable |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Nanoparticles made of a combination of inorganic and organic components |
Highly customizable, multifunctional, high drug loading capacity |
Potential toxicity, limited blood circulation time, challenges in achieving controlled drug release in vivo |
Limited biocompatibility, difficulty in achieving efficient targeting |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[28] |
Metal–organic frameworks |
10–500 nm |
Variable |
Low–High |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Porous crystalline materials made of metal ions and organic ligands |
Highly customizable, tunable pore size and surface chemistry, high drug loading capacity |
Potential toxicity, limited blood circulation time, challenges in achieving efficient targeting |
Limited biocompatibility, potential for drug leakage, limited stability |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[29] |
Exosomes |
30–150 nm |
Negative |
Low-Moderate |
Active |
Biodegradable |
Small extracellular vesicles derived from cells |
High biocompatibility, potential for targeted delivery, natural carriers of biological cargoes |
Limited drug loading capacity, challenges in achieving efficient targeting, potential for premature drug release |
Limited blood circulation time, difficulty in scaling up production |
Limited targeting efficiency, potential for immune system recognition |
[30] |
Bacterial nanoparticles |
10–300 nm |
Negative |
Low-Moderate |
Active |
Biodegradable |
Nanoparticles produced by bacteria |
High biocompatibility, potential for targeted delivery, easy to produce |
Limited drug loading capacity, potential for immunogenicity, limited control over drug release |
Limited blood circulation time, difficulty in achieving efficient targeting |
Limited targeting efficiency, potential for clearance by the immune system |
[31] |
Polymeric micelles |
10–100 nm |
Variable |
Low-Moderate |
Passive/Active |
Biodegradable |
Spherical particles made of block copolymers |
High drug loading capacity, good stability, easy to produce |
Limited blood circulation time, challenges in achieving efficient targeting, potential for premature drug release |
Limited biocompatibility, difficulty in achieving controlled release |
Potential immunogenicity, limited tumor specificity |
[32] |