Delivery Strategies for Skin: Comparison of Nanoliter Jets, Needles and Topical Solutions

  1. Katharina Cu
  2. Ruchi Bansal
  3. Samir Mitragotri
  4. David Fernandez Rivas

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Drug diffusion within the skin with a needle-free micro-jet injection (NFI) device was compared with two well-established delivery methods: topical application and solid needle injection. A permanent make-up (PMU) machine, normally used for dermal pigmentation, was utilized as a solid needle injection method. For NFIs a continuous wave (CW) laser diode was used to create a bubble inside a microfluidic device containing a light absorbing solution. Each method delivered two different solutions into ex vivo porcine skin. The first solution consisted of a red dye (direct red 81) and rhodamine B in water. The second solution was direct red 81 and rhodamine B in water and glycerol. We measured the diffusion depth, width and surface area of the solutions in all the injected skin samples. The NFI has a higher vertical dispersion velocity of 3 × 10 5 μ m/s compared to topical (0.1  μ m/s) and needle injection (53  μ m/s). The limitations and advantages of each method are discussed, and we conclude that the micro-jet injector represents a fast and minimally invasive injection method, while the solid needle injector causes notable tissue damage. In contrast, the topical method had the slowest diffusion rate but causes no visible damage to the skin.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10103937.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Very clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1007/s10439-019-02383-1
  3. Version published to 10.1101/694943v1 on bioRxiv