Skip to main content
. 2024 Jan 10;14:1330029. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1330029

Table 3.

Several drug delivery systems have been developed.

Delivery system Preparation method Encapsulated compound Size effect Advantages (+) or disadvantages (−) Ref.
Chitosan nanoparticles based on sodium alginate-polyethylene glycol Ionotropic gelation Ovalbumin as model antigen 211 ± 5–319 ± 5 The highest adhesion rate in vitro was 63% + Sodium alginate embedded nanoparticles have higher mucin binding level Amin and Boateng (2022)
Sterculia foetida and pullulan-based semi-interpenetrating polymer network gastroretentive microsphere (Chitosan system) Emulsion crosslinking Amoxicillin,Trihydrate 57.99 ± 1.53–121.90 ± 1.38 μm Drug entrapment efficiency: 88.75 ± 1.18%Mucoadhesion rate: 81.73 ± 1.50%,Drug release rate: 80.43 ± 1.2% + Acid resistant, long retention time in the stomach,– The encapsulation efficiency is affected by glutaraldehyde concentration Hadke and Khan (2021)
Carbopol-loaded amoxicillin nanospheres (Chitosan system) Spray drying Amoxicillin 280–320 nm Yield: 92.8% ± 0.9% + High stability in 15°C–25°C,– Clumping is observed at 37°C Harsha (2012)
Mannosylerythritol Lipid-B-Phospholipidnanoliposome (Lipid system) Thin-film hydration methods with ultrasonication Amoxicillin 100 nm Drug entrapment efficiency: 65%,Drug release rate: 84.6% + Acid resistance Wu et al. (2022)
Nanostructured lipid carrier (Lipid system) Thermal homogenization and ultrasonic methods Hesperidin (Hesp), clarithromycin (CLR) 221–638 nm Drug entrapment efficiency CLR and Hesp: 13%–28%,Inhibition rate: 94.34% ± 3.68% + Biocompatibility, stable in water Sharaf et al. (2021)
HHS Vulnerability Disclosure