Role of Nanostructured Materials in Biomedical Applications

Barner Wang^*

Department of Advanced Materials science, Gambia

Received: 03-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. AAAMSR-23-97148; Editor assigned: 05-Apr-2023, Pre-QC No. AAAMSR-23-97148 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-Apr-2023, QC No. AAAMSR-23-97148; Revised: 21-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. AAAMSR-23-97148 (R); Published: 28-Apr-2023; DOI: 10.37532/ aaasmr.2023.6(2).43-45

Abstract

Nanostructured materials have made recent advances that are widely used in many fields, especially in the biomedical field. Numerous significant issues, particularly those pertaining to their applications in biomedicine, must be resolved before using nanostructured materials in clinical settings. Biomedical issues include compatibility, toxicity, biological activity, and nano-bio interfacial characteristics. We may in this way explore the nanostructured materials for biomedical applications with the guide of present day portrayal procedures. Using cutting-edge characterization techniques, this overview article demonstrates the current state of nanostructured materials in the biomedical field, their applications, and the significance of characterization methods. In this article, the methods for examining the geography of nanostructures, including Field Emanation Filtering Electron Microscopy (FESEM), Dynamic Light Dispersing (DLS), Checking Test Microscopy (SPM), Close field Checking Optical Microscopy (NSOM), and Confocal microscopy, are portrayed. X-ray diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) are also discussed as internal structural investigation methods. Composition analysis methods like X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), and Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) have also been talked about. This overview provides a comprehensive explanation of the essence of nanomaterials in relation to physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as case studies for characterization methods. Moreover, the imperatives and hardships with example and examination that are connected with appreciating nanostructured materials have been recognized and tended to in this review.

Keywords

Nanostructured materials • Compatibility • Secondary ion mass spectroscopy

Introduction

Nanotechnology in material science and engineering has made significant progress in many fields over the past ten years. The development of technologies based on nanomaterials with sizes ranging from 1 to 100 nm and a variety of morphologies is centered on the science field known as NANO. Nanostructured materials with extremely small grain sizes have been shown to possess unusually high strength and toughness, higher diffusivity, advantageous sintering capabilities, and other characteristics. Biomedicine, energy generation, storage systems, coatings, fertilizers, and farming are just a few of the applications for which these materials lend themselves because of their dimensions and shapes. Given that the majority of biological systems, particularly viruses, membranes, and protein complexes, possess inherent nanostructures; it is not surprising that nanostructures can be modified and incorporated into biomedical tools. One of the most intriguing and challenging current applications of nanostructures is in medicine and biomedical technology. Different biomedical applications, such as tissue engineering scaffolds, implant engineering, cell culture, and drug delivery, are the result of the continuous growth and advancements in nanostructures. The development, production, characterization, and application of functional nanoscale devices that take advantage of their distinct chemical, physical, and biological characteristics in comparison to those of individual substances are just a few of the many steps that make up nanotechnology [1-5].

Discussion

Because of advancements in characterization techniques and the distinctive properties of nanomaterials, researchers have studied them in bio-imaging and biosensors, which have led to the development of a number of essential diagnostic instruments. Non-specific protein adhesion to the surface of a material is much more common on nanostructures with a high surface-to-volume ratio, which may have more active areas for future interaction with body cells. Stuck proteins are called as opsonins, which adjust the surface's compound sytheses and condition it. Nanostructures must be characterized using advanced methods before all of these interfacial features and applications can be examined. Practically, not every type of nanostructured material (metals, carbonbased materials, polymers, biomolecules, etc.) can be characterized using any method. due to the sensitivity of the material and various handling methods. The nature of the material and its surface characteristics typically play a significant role in determining which technique to use. Particular care must be taken when characterizing the biological sample to preserve its natural vitality. Because of the possibility of morphological changes, imaging biological samples is an important and challenging task. A few nanostructured substances have proactively been explored for biomedical purposes. The most frequently studied substances in various rod, tube, cylinder, and sphere shapes are various forms of carbon, silica, and metals. These central point like poisonousness and biocompatibility depend on various factors, including their size, surface region, carboxyl gatherings, amount, and portion [10]. The topological examinations (spatial connection, mathematical properties) of nanostructures is feasible to break down utilizing procedures like Field Outflow Checking Electron Microscopy (FESEM), Dynamic Light Dispersing (DLS), Filtering Test Microscopy (SPM), Close field Filtering Optical Microscopy (NSOM), and Confocal microscopy. In contrast, methods like X-ray diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) are used to investigate the internal structure. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS), and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) are also tools that can be used for composition analysis. The case studies of the aforementioned techniques were the primary focus of this review, which also included some biomedical applications of nanostructured materials.

In terms of their physicochemical properties, nanomaterials differ in form, constitution, surface characteristics, molecular weight, solubility, and sustainability. These attributes are the major basic boundaries that characterize the physiological exhibition. As a result, the development of nanomedicines necessitates the characterization of nanomaterials to guarantee their safety and dependability. Because nanomaterials have distinct physicochemical properties that have an impact on their behavior and circulation in vivo, it is essential to identify these characteristics. The actual connections of body cells and tissues with nanostructures are totally or to some degree not quite the same as regular meds, thus it is important to use viable and vigorous portrayal strategies for nanomaterials which helps in giving a course to controlling harmfulness, quality, and security [6-10].

Conclusion

The super significant figure oppressing nanomaterials to biomedical field is the biosimilarity; consequently biocompatibility study is genuinely necessary through potential portrayal methods. Specialized methods that provide appropriate spatial resolutions for the structural and compositional study of nanostructured materials in various forms, such as thin films, nanoparticles, and bulk nanostructures, are required for the evaluation of these materials. As a result, the biomedical sector requires additional specialized characterization methods in addition to the fundamental procedures that are available in materials research. The optical, electrical, thermal, and structural properties of these novel nanomaterials are determined by their size, form, and structure. For the examination of these inventive nanomaterials, portrayal strategies are basic. Advanced characterization methods make it possible to obtain precise results and gain an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of individual nanomaterials. Different characterization methods make it simple to carry out the in-depth structural analysis, molecular interactions, surface purity analysis, and elemental identifications. The majority of characterization methods are non-destructive, use direct measurement tools, are reproducible, and have the highest spatial resolution at the atomic scale, all of which are advantages for the biomedical sector's characterization of nanostructures.

References

1. Goswami U. Neuroscience and education: From research to practice. Nat Rev Neurosci. 7, 406–13 (2006).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Pickering SJ, Howard‐Jones PA. Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind Brain Educ.1, 13-109(2007).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Zardetto-Smith AM, Mu K, Phelps CL. Brains rule! fun learning neuroscience literacy. Neuroscientist. 8, 396–404 (2002).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Geake J. Neuromythologies in education. Educ Res. 50, 123–33 (2008).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Dekker S, Lee NC, Howard-Jones P. Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front Psychol. 3, 429 (2012).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Szűcs D, Goswami U. Educational neuroscience: Defining a new discipline for the study of mental representations. Mind Brain Educ.1, 114–27 (2007).

Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Van A, Krabbendam L, Ruyter D. Educational neuroscience: Its position aims and expectations. Br J Educ Stud. 63, 229–43 (2015).

Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Lehman DR, Lempert RO, Nisbett RE. The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. Am Psychol.43, 431–42 (1988).

Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Hook CJ, Farah MJ. Look again: Effects of brain images and mind–brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. J Cognitive Neurosci. 25, 1397–405 (2013).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Im S, Varma K, Varma S. Extending the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations effect to popular articles about educational topics. Br J Educ Psychol. 87, 518–34 (2017).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref