Table 2.

The strengths and weakness of various purification approaches.

Approaches	Strengths	Weaknesses
Ultracentrifugation	Pervasively adopted Relatively elevated levels of purity	Human resource‐demanding Incapable of facile scalability High costs for machinery Low yield
Density Gradient Centrifugation	High purity Compatible with diverse, well‐prepared biological samples	Human resource‐intensive Requiring extended time allocation Incapable of facile scalability Low yield
Size Exclusion Chromatography	Universally employed across various applications Effectively remove the contaminant proteins Commercially columns accessible	Risk of co‐isolating size‐similar contaminants Low‐concentration EVs necessitate further concentration
Ultrafiltration	Facile scalability High yield Common for initial clean‐up or post‐isolation concentration	Suboptimal purity Pressure‐induced EV damage Filtration clogs in large volumes
Precipitation	Fast processing Low‐cost method High yield	Low purity Non‐specific Binding
Asymmetrical Flow Field‐Flow Fractionation	Rapid and efficient High‐yield potential Easily scalable	Necessitates high‐cost instrumentation Demand comprehensive procedural fine‐tuning
Tangential Flow Filtration	High Throughput Scalability Minimal Sample Damage	Equipment cost Risk of pore blocking Possible Contaminant Co‐isolation
Anion Exchange Chromatography	Low Mechanical Stress Reproducibility No Special Equipment	Limited suitability for complex biofluids Optimization Required
Immunoaffinity	High‐purity EVs Targeted EV subtype isolation No special equipment	Limited scalability Elution difficulty affecting exosomes integrity Antibodies employed for EVs capture lack clinical validation
Microfluidic Platform	Concurrent isolation and profiling Low‐volume samples Enhanced purity in multi‐step protocols	Validation and Standardization High device development costs Scalability challenges