TABLE 2.

Comparison of emerging isolation methods of exosomes.

Method	Principles	Purity	Recovery	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation	Size	High	Relatively high	Label-free	Capacity limitation	Manning et al. (2021)
				Little damage to exosomes	Required specialized equipment
				Subpopulations can be isolated	Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
Deterministic Lateral Displacement	Size	Low	High	Label-free	Clogging membrane pores	Smith et al. (2018); Hochstetter et al. (2020)
				Time-saving	Specific instrumentation
				Labor-saving	Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
				Maintain the biological activity of exosomes
Dielectrophoretic	Size	Relatively low	Relatively low	Label-free	Low purity	Tayebi et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2022a)
				High selectivity	The device will overheat
				High controllability	Tumor-derived exosomes are not separable
				Little damage to exosomes
Acoustic Fractionation	Size	High	Relatively high	Simple	Specialized instrumentation	Wang et al. (2021)
				Label-free	Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
				Good biocompatibility
Non-contact microfluidics	Viscoelastic media flow	Relatively high	Relatively high	Less contaminations	Relatively low sensitivity	Rodriguez-Quijada and Dahl, (2021)
					Weak anti-interference ability
EXODUS	Size	High	Relatively high	Fast	Capacity limitation	Chen et al. (2021)
	Specific binding			No clogging	Required expertise and specialized equipment
				Repeatability
				Isolation and detection integration
Exo-CMDS	Charge	High	Relatively high	Fast	Membrane clogging	Zhao et al. (2022)
				Low cost	Relatively expensive
				High purity	Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
				High selectivity
3D ZnO Nanoarrays	Acoustic fluid	Relatively low	Relatively low	Fast	Specialized	Hao et al. (2020)
				High sensitivity	Relatively expensive
				Multifunction
				Downstream analysis is possible
Lipid microarrays	Specific binding	High	Relatively low	Fast	Expensive	Liu et al. (2021)
				High sensitivity	Low yield
				Small volume samples	Difficult to apply to the clinic
				Inherent antifouling properties
Capture by immunomagnetic beads	Size	High	Relatively low	High purity	Capacity limitation	Cheng et al. (2022); Zhang et al. (2022c); Zheng et al. (2022)
	Specific binding			Maintain the biological activity and morphological integrity of exosomes Easy to combine with specific analysis tools	Chelator adverse effects
					Expensive
					Membrane clogging
					Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
Synthetic polypeptide	Specific binding	Relatively high	Relatively low	Clinical application	Expensive	Bathini et al. (2021)
Vn96 captures exosomes				High-throughput analysis	Low yield
				Maintain the biological activity and morphological integrity of exosomes	Relatively troublesome
ExoSD	Size	Relatively high	Relatively high	Relatively high purity	Specialized	Yu et al. (2021)
				Multifunction	Capacity limitation
				Relatively high recovery rate
Capturing exosomes with covalent chemistry	Covalent chemistry	Relatively high	Relatively low	Fast and automatic	Relatively complex	Dong et al. (2020); Han et al. (2020); Liu et al. (2022b); Sun et al. (2022)
				High efficiency	Relatively expensive
				Maintain the integrity of exosomes	Relatively specialized
				Easy to combine with specific analysis tools	Not suitable for larger volume samples
					Co-isolation with non-EVs particles
					Downstream analysis may be affected