Review reveals diverse nanoparticle synthesis methods, highlighting scalability and application requirements.
Nanoparticles, typically ranging from 1–100 nm, possess unique physical, chemical, and biological properties that make them indispensable across medicine, electronics, energy, and advanced materials. Their growing importance has driven the development of diverse production methods, each with distinct advantages and limitations. This review provides an overview of modern nanoparticle synthesis technologies, including Flame Spray Pyrolysis (FSP), Continuous Hydrothermal Flow Synthesis (CHFS), Spark Discharge Generation (SDG), classical chemical synthesis, and Pulsed Laser Ablation in Liquid (PLAL). FSP enables large-scale production with high throughput and uniformity, but faces challenges of aggregation and high infrastructure costs. CHFS offers continuous, “green” synthesis in aqueous environments with fine control over particle properties, though it requires complex post-processing to ensure purity and sterility. SDG produces highly pure nanoparticles directly from conductive materials using compact equipment, yet its productivity remains limited. Traditional chemical synthesis excels in shape and size control and is cost-efficient, but sterility issues and organic residues hinder biomedical translation. By contrast, PLAL combines simplicity, compact instrumentation, and the ability to generate sterile, ligand-free colloidal nanoparticles in solution, eliminating many post-synthesis steps. Comparative analysis demonstrates that no single approach is universally optimal; instead, method selection must balance scalability, cost, sterility, and application-specific requirements. Among these, PLAL emerges as a particularly promising technique for biotechnology and medicine, where rapid, clean, and scalable nanoparticle production is critical. The review highlights how aligning synthesis methods with end-use needs can accelerate translational applications in diagnostics, therapeutics, and advanced material technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalinin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: