Emerging technologies for EV isolation

Extracellular vesicle (EV) research has expanded faster than the toolkit used to isolate them. For decades, differential ultracentrifugation has been treated as the default, with size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and polymer precipitation as the convenient laboratory alternatives, tangential flow filtration (TFF) as the option of choice when volumes get serious, and immunoaffinity capture as the standard route to subpopulation-specific isolation. Each of these methods delivers EVs, but each carries well documented compromises in yield, purity, scalability or vesicle integrity. Over the past decade, a substantial body of work has emerged exploring fundamentally different physical principles for separating nanoscale vesicles from complex biofluids: acoustic radiation forces, dielectrophoresis, deterministic lateral displacement, viscoelastic and inertial focusing, asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation and aqueous two-phase partitioning, among others.

This article covers the landscape of EV purification beyond the established mainstream. The criterion for inclusion is not novelty alone but validation: each method discussed has been demonstrated on biological EV samples (not merely on polystyrene size standards) with characterisation using accepted EV markers, electron microscopy or comparable orthogonal techniques. The review begins with a brief overview of mainstream methods to anchor the comparison, then works through the alternatives in turn. The intended reader is a researcher choosing an EV isolation method, or considering whether one of the emerging techniques might solve a problem the mainstream methods cannot.

The Mainstream Methods: A Brief Reference

Differential ultracentrifugation (UC) remains the most widely cited isolation method in the EV literature. EVs are pelleted at 100,000 g or above, often after preliminary centrifugation steps to remove cells and debris. UC is accessible, scalable to moderate volumes and amenable to standardisation, but co-pellets soluble protein and lipoprotein contaminants, can damage vesicle integrity through aggregation, and gives variable recoveries between operators and rotors. It is widely regarded as a method that delivers EVs at moderate purity rather than as the gold standard its ubiquity would suggest.

Size exclusion chromatography separates EVs from soluble proteins on the basis of hydrodynamic size. SEC is gentler than UC, gives more reproducible results and is well suited to analytical workflows. Its weakness is co-elution of similarly sized contaminants: ApoB-positive lipoproteins in plasma, in particular, fractionate together with EVs and can dominate the yield by particle number. Direct comparisons of UC and SEC report higher particle yields with SEC at the cost of greater protein and lipoprotein co-isolation, and higher purity but lower yield with UC.

Tangential flow filtration concentrates EVs by recirculating sample across a membrane with a defined molecular weight cut-off, retaining vesicles while permeating soluble protein and small molecules. TFF is gentler than UC, scales readily to litre volumes and gives reproducible recoveries, making it the method of choice for therapeutic-grade EV preparations and large-volume cell culture supernatant. Its weakness is limited resolution between EVs and similarly sized particles such as larger lipoproteins, which may require a polishing step.

Polymer precipitation kits, typically based on polyethylene glycol, capture EVs and contaminants together by reducing solubility. The approach is fast and simple but co-precipitates substantial non-EV protein and is generally unsuitable for proteomic or functional studies where contaminants confound interpretation.

Immunoaffinity capture isolates EVs through antibody binding to surface markers, most commonly the tetraspanins CD9, CD63 and CD81, although markers such as EpCAM, CD41 and CD61 are used to enrich tissue-specific or disease-relevant subpopulations. Capture surfaces include magnetic beads, monolithic columns, microfluidic channels and high-gradient magnetic separation chips. The approach delivers high specificity at the cost of yielding only the marker-defined subpopulation, and is widely used as a polishing step on top of an upstream size-based or precipitation-based concentration step. Commercial kits and reagents are widely available, and the method is well established in liquid biopsy workflows where subpopulation specificity is the primary requirement. Co-isolation of non-vesicular ribonucleoprotein contaminants such as vault particles is a recognised limitation; recent protocols using mixed CD9/CD63/CD81 capture, optimised elution buffers, or aptamer-based reversible capture address this to varying degrees.

Each of the alternative methods discussed below should be read against this reference frame: an emerging method earns its place by solving a problem the mainstream cannot, not by simply offering a different route to the same compromised outcome.

Acoustofluidics: Sound Waves as a Separation Force

Acoustic separation exploits the fact that particles in an ultrasound standing wave field experience an acoustic radiation force whose magnitude depends on particle size, density and compressibility. Larger particles experience proportionally larger forces and migrate to acoustic nodes faster than smaller ones, allowing size-based fractionation in a continuous flow channel. The technique is label-free, contact-free and gentle, with no requirement for sample preprocessing beyond removal of cells and large debris.

The seminal demonstration on EVs came from the Lee group, who built an acoustic nanofilter that fractionates microvesicles by size using ultrasound standing waves with electronically tunable cut-off [1]. The system isolated exosomes (sub-200 nm) from cell culture media and from stored red blood cell units, with the smaller fraction enriched for canonical exosome markers (CD63, Flotillin-1, HSP90, HSP70) and the larger fraction enriched for beta-1 integrin, a marker of larger membrane vesicles.

The approach was extended to whole blood by Wu, Huang and colleagues, who integrated a cell-removal module and an EV-isolation module on a single acoustofluidic chip, achieving over 99.999% blood cell depletion and 98.4% purity in the EV-isolation step [2]. The device handled undiluted whole blood, demonstrating that acoustic separation could be implemented as a single-step operation suitable for point-of-care contexts.

More recent acoustic implementations have pushed resolution further. Acoustic Nanoscale Separation via Wave-pillar Excitation Resonance (ANSWER) is reported to achieve single-step, sub-10-minute fractionation of small EV subpopulations at over 96% purity for small exosomes and over 80% for exomeres, without sample preprocessing [3]. The FLOAT method (Flocculation via Orbital Acoustic Trapping) combines an acoustofluidic droplet centrifuge with a thermoresponsive flocculant to concentrate nanoparticles as small as 20 nm at the centre of a rotating droplet, with reported recoveries above 90% in under 10 minutes [4]. Immuno-acoustic sorting combines antibody-coated microparticles with acoustophoretic manipulation to give specificity that pure size-based acoustics cannot, demonstrated for HER2-positive EV separation [5].

Acoustofluidics is, on current evidence, the most thoroughly validated of the alternative methods, with multiple independent groups reporting high purity and recovery on biological samples, and with subpopulation resolution that mainstream methods cannot match. The remaining barrier is access: device fabrication requires lithography and piezoelectric transducer integration, and commercial systems are only now beginning to appear.

Deterministic Lateral Displacement at the Nanoscale

Deterministic lateral displacement (DLD) uses an array of micropillars arranged so that particles above a critical size are deflected laterally as they flow through the array, while smaller particles follow the bulk flow. The technique was developed for cell-scale separation but was extended to the nanoscale by Wunsch and colleagues at IBM, who used silicon processing to fabricate pillar arrays with gap sizes between 25 and 235 nm, achieving displacement of exosome-sized particles down to approximately 20 nm [6]. The work demonstrated complete displacement of 110 nm beads from 50 nm beads in pillar arrays with 235 nm spacing.

Subsequent work has refined the technique with thermally oxidised tapered pillar arrays, achieving over 90% purity on both polystyrene reference particles and biological exosomes, with thermal oxidation reducing the lithographic precision required for fabrication [7]. Combinations of DLD with dielectrophoresis have been proposed to distinguish particles that are similar in size but differ in dielectric properties, allowing discrimination between EVs and lipoproteins or retroviruses of comparable size.

The strengths of nano-DLD are continuous flow operation, label-free size-based separation and tunable cut-off through array geometry. The weaknesses are throughput (channels are narrow and parallelisation adds fabrication cost), susceptibility to clogging from large debris in unprocessed biofluids, and the need for specialised silicon fabrication. The technique has been validated on biological EV samples but has not yet broken into routine laboratory workflows.

Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation

Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) separates particles in a thin flat channel using two perpendicular flows: a channel flow that carries particles through the channel and a cross-flow that drives particles towards a semi-permeable accumulation wall. Diffusion drives smaller particles further from the wall, where channel flow is faster, so particles elute in order of hydrodynamic size. The technique is label-free, gentle, rapid (under one hour for typical EV samples) and reproducible.

AF4 attracted significant attention in EV research after Zhang and colleagues used it to resolve a previously unrecognised subpopulation of extracellular nanoparticles, exomeres, distinct from small and large exosomes [8]. The protocol that followed [9] established AF4 as an analytical and preparative method capable of separating EV subpopulations that mainstream size-based methods cannot resolve. AF4 has also been applied to plasma EV separation from lipoproteins, with optimisation of cross-flow gradients and focusing time required to retain EV recovery [10]. Offline coupling with capillary electrophoresis has been demonstrated to add a charge-based dimension to the size-based AF4 separation [11].

AF4 is one of the few alternative methods that has reached genuine commercial availability, with instruments from established analytical chemistry vendors. Its principal limitations are sample volume (the channel processes microlitre to millilitre quantities, not litres), the need for upstream concentration of dilute samples, and a learning curve in method development for EV applications.

Dielectrophoresis and Electrokinetic Methods

Dielectrophoresis (DEP) is the motion of polarisable particles in a non-uniform electric field. The DEP force depends on particle size, the dielectric properties of the particle relative to the surrounding medium, and the field gradient. EVs and lipoproteins of similar size have different dielectric signatures and can in principle be separated electrokinetically where they cannot be separated by size alone.

DEP has been applied to EV isolation in several configurations. Insulator-based DEP devices use micropipette geometries to create field gradients without electrode contact, balancing DEP force against electroosmosis and electrophoresis to trap small EVs from serum, plasma and urine, with downstream characterisation by flow cytometry, ImageStream and microRNA sequencing [12]. Interdigitated electrode arrays integrated in microfluidic cells have been used for label-free trapping and detection of EVs, with theoretical and experimental validation of the dielectric response. Dielectrophoresis has also been used as a glioblastoma biomarker platform.

The strengths of DEP are speed (trapping occurs in minutes), label-free operation and orthogonality to size-based methods. The weaknesses are limited throughput, dependence on sample conductivity (which must be controlled), and electrode fouling over extended operation. Combination of DEP with DLD or other size-based methods is an active area of development, since the orthogonality of the two principles addresses each other's weaknesses.

Viscoelastic and Inertial Microfluidics

Inertial microfluidics exploits hydrodynamic forces in curved or shaped channels to focus particles into size-dependent streamlines, with no external field required. The technique is well established for cell-scale separation but is more challenging for nanoscale particles, where Brownian motion competes with the focusing forces. Viscoelastic microfluidics extends the approach by using a non-Newtonian carrier fluid containing dilute polymer additives, which generates elastic lift forces that focus particles down to the nanometre scale.

Meng and colleagues developed a cascaded viscoelastic microfluidic device for direct isolation of small EVs (under 200 nm) from whole blood, reporting purities above 97%, recoveries above 87% and throughputs of 3 ml/min, with proteomic profiles comparable to ultracentrifugation [13]. The two-module design first removes cells and large vesicles, then fractionates EVs by size in the second module. Spiral channel and elasto-inertial designs have been used to separate small and medium EVs from glioblastoma cell culture supernatants. Electro-viscoelastic systems combine viscoelastic carrier fluids with applied electric fields to enhance lateral migration of nanoparticles.

The appeal of viscoelastic microfluidics is direct processing of complex biofluids without preprocessing, at high throughput and high purity. The challenges are reproducibility under high-throughput operation, residual viscoelastic polymer in the output (which must be removed for some downstream assays) and translation from prototype devices to commercial systems.

Aqueous Two-Phase Systems

Aqueous two-phase systems (ATPS) form when two incompatible polymers in water separate into distinct phases at sufficient concentration. The classic system uses polyethylene glycol (PEG) and dextran. EVs partition preferentially into one phase (typically the dextran-rich phase) on the basis of surface properties and the energetics of phase boundary crossing, allowing rapid bulk separation without specialised instrumentation.

The technique was applied to EV isolation by Shin and colleagues, who reported approximately 70% recovery from cell culture media in 15 minutes [14]. ATPS has subsequently been applied to urine for prostate cancer diagnostics with reported recovery near 100% in 30 minutes [15], to high-purity EV isolation through repeated batch partitioning [16], and to a range of biological sources including plant, parasite and cell culture EVs [17]. A next-generation ATPS protocol that incorporates dextranase for downstream RNA extraction has been reported to outperform ultracentrifugation and commercial kits for transcriptomic analysis [18].

The strengths of ATPS are speed, simplicity, low cost and gentle handling. The weaknesses are residual polymer in the EV-containing phase (which interferes with some downstream assays), variable selectivity depending on EV surface chemistry, and a comparatively shallow body of validation literature relative to size-based methods. ATPS is, however, one of the few alternative methods that requires no specialised equipment and can be implemented in a standard biology laboratory with reagents on the shelf.

Multimodal and Multi-Step Methods

A consistent finding across the EV literature is that no single isolation principle (size, density, charge, hydrophobicity or affinity) cleanly separates EVs from all relevant contaminants. Lipoproteins overlap EVs in size; soluble protein aggregates overlap in density; ribonucleoprotein particles overlap in charge. Combining two or more isolation principles in sequence, or in a single resin that exploits more than one principle simultaneously, has therefore become a major direction of method development. The combinations that have reached genuine validation can be grouped into three categories.

Multi-step combinations of mainstream methods. Pairing TFF with SEC (TFF-SEC) gives concentration plus polishing in two stages, with the TFF removing soluble proteins and concentrating dilute samples to volumes compatible with SEC, and the SEC step resolving residual contaminants from EVs. The approach is now widely used for cell culture supernatant and is reported to outperform single-step methods on yield, purity and reproducibility [19]. Ultrafiltration combined with SEC (UF-SEC) is a closely related variant validated on bronchial epithelial conditioned media, with proteomic profiles comparable to ultracentrifugation but higher EV-to-protein purity ratios [20]. Density gradient ultracentrifugation followed by bind-elute chromatography (DGUC-BEC) has been reported to give very high purity from blood plasma where lipoprotein contamination is the principal concern [21]. The general principle is straightforward: each step removes a different class of contaminant, and the combination cleans up what one step alone cannot.

Multimodal flowthrough chromatography. Porous resins have an inert outer shell that is permeable to molecules below approximately 700 kDa, while the bead core is functionalised with both hydrophobic and positively charged (octylamine) ligands. Small contaminants diffuse into the core and are retained by combined hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions; EVs, being too large to enter the core, flow through the column. The result is a single-column step that exploits size, hydrophobicity and charge simultaneously. Corso and colleagues established the method for EV purification in 2017, reporting yields above 80% and purity comparable to differential ultracentrifugation [22]. Subsequent work has applied Capto Core 700 to EVs from bioreactor cultures, where multimodal flowthrough chromatography (MFC) gave purer EVs in a single run than three sequential SEC runs could achieve [23]. The same column has been combined with TFF and PEG precipitation in a multi-step protocol designed for large-scale, high-purity EV preparation from conditioned cell culture medium [24]. Capto Core has also been combined with affinity chromatography (using poly-histidine tagged surface markers expressed on the EV-producing cells) for high-grade preparations suitable for therapeutic applications [25].

Hybrid microfluidic platforms. The same logic applies at chip scale: combining DLD with dielectrophoresis to discriminate EVs from similarly sized lipoproteins and retroviruses by exploiting their different dielectric signatures, combining inertial focusing with viscoelastic flow to extend size resolution into the sub-200 nm range, or integrating cell-removal and EV-isolation modules on a single acoustofluidic chip. Hybrid electrokinetic and TFF approaches have been reported to give improved yield and purity over either method alone for plasma EVs [26]. The microfluidic literature increasingly treats hybrid devices as the default rather than the exception, on the recognition that single-principle separation cannot meet the purity requirements of clinical or therapeutic applications.

The strengths of multimodal approaches are well aligned with the most demanding EV applications: clinical-grade preparations, biomarker discovery from plasma where lipoproteins outnumber EVs by orders of magnitude, and therapeutic-scale production where neither yield nor purity can be compromised. The weaknesses are operational: more steps means more time, more equipment, more opportunities for sample loss, and more validation work to characterise the combined process. For analytical-scale workflows where any single mainstream method delivers adequate purity for the downstream assay, the additional complexity is often unnecessary. The multimodal approach earns its place when single-step methods provably fall short.

Other Methods Worth Noting

Several additional approaches have reached the validation threshold but address narrower niches. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography and capillary-channeled polymer fibre solid-phase extraction separate EVs from lipoproteins on the basis of hydrophobicity. Multimode chromatography combines size, charge and hydrophobicity in a single resin. Centrifugal microfluidic discs (Exodisc) automate filtration-based EV enrichment with on-disc washing and analysis chambers. Ciliated micropillar microfluidic devices trap exosome-like vesicles on porous nanowires for subsequent recovery by chemical dissolution of the matrix. Aptamer-based capture, using oligonucleotides selected against EV surface markers, offers reversible release through complementary sequence hybridisation, addressing a limitation of antibody-based capture where elution can damage vesicle integrity.

Comparing the Alternatives

The methods differ enough that direct comparison on a single set of criteria is reductive, but a summary of where each sits on the most important practical axes is nonetheless useful.

Where Mainstream Methods Still Win

For most laboratory workflows producing EVs from cell culture supernatants, the mainstream methods remain the practical choice. They are accessible, well documented, supported by commercial reagents and consumables, and validated across thousands of published studies. SEC and TFF in particular have matured into reliable workhorses: SEC for analytical-scale, gentle separation from soluble protein, and TFF for the kind of throughput that downstream therapeutic and analytical applications demand. The case for switching to an alternative is strongest when the mainstream methods specifically fail: when subpopulation resolution matters more than yield, when sample volume is too small for column or filter formats, when speed at the point of care is paramount, or when lipoprotein contamination cannot be resolved by size alone.

It is also worth noting that several of the alternative methods are best regarded as complements rather than replacements. AF4 as an analytical follow-up to TFF or SEC concentration. DEP combined with DLD for orthogonal selectivity. Acoustofluidic subpopulation fractionation downstream of an established mainstream concentration step. The future of EV purification is unlikely to be a single technique displacing UC, but rather a layered toolkit where each method is selected for what it does best within a specific application.

Cell Guidance Systems EV Purification Products and Services

Cell Guidance Systems offers established, validated tools for EV purification that fit the practical workflows described above.

Exo-spin columns use size exclusion chromatography for gentle, rapid EV purification from a wide range of biological sources. The Exo-spin range is suitable for analytical-scale isolation where vesicle integrity and reproducibility matter.

EVlution TFF provides a tangential flow filtration system for scalable EV concentration and buffer exchange from larger cell culture supernatant volumes. EVlution TFF is designed for laboratory workflows that need to bridge between bench-scale isolation and the volumes required for downstream applications.

EV and exosome services. For projects that need outsourced EV isolation or characterisation, the EV and Exosome Services team handles isolation, NTA size profiling, custom freeze-drying and bespoke EV preparation for research and therapeutic development applications.

For introductory background on EVs and exosomes, our exosome resources page covers the broader context of EV biology and applications.

References

[1] Lee K, Shao H, Weissleder R, Lee H. Acoustic purification of extracellular microvesicles. ACS Nano. 2015;9(3):2321-2327.

[2] Wu M, Ouyang Y, Wang Z, Zhang R, Huang PH, Chen C, Li H, Li P, Quinn D, Dao M, Suresh S, Sadovsky Y, Huang TJ. Isolation of exosomes from whole blood by integrating acoustics and microfluidics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(40):10584-10589.

[3] Zhang J, Chen C, Becker R, Rufo J, Yang S, Mai J, Zhang P, Gu Y, Wang Z, Ma Z, Xia J, Hao N, Tian Z, Wong DTW, Sadovsky Y, Lee LP, Huang TJ. A solution to the biophysical fractionation of extracellular vesicles: Acoustic Nanoscale Separation via Wave-pillar Excitation Resonance (ANSWER). Sci Adv. 2022;8(47):eade0640.

[4] Rufo J, Zhang P, Wang Z, Gu Y, Yang K, Rich J, Chen C, Zhong R, Jin K, He Y, Xia J, Li K, Wu J, Ouyang Y, Sadovsky Y, Lee LP, Huang TJ. High-yield and rapid isolation of extracellular vesicles by flocculation via orbital acoustic trapping: FLOAT. Microsyst Nanoeng. 2024;10:23.

[5] Liu J, Qu Y, Wang H. Immuno-acoustic sorting of disease-specific extracellular vesicles by acoustophoretic force. Micromachines. 2021;12(12):1534.

[6] Wunsch BH, Smith JT, Gifford SM, Wang C, Brink M, Bruce RL, Austin RH, Stolovitzky G, Astier Y. Nanoscale lateral displacement arrays for the separation of exosomes and colloids down to 20 nm. Nat Nanotechnol. 2016;11(11):936-940.

[7] Hochstetter A, Vernekar R, Austin RH, Becker H, Beech JP, Fedosov DA, Gompper G, Kim SC, Smith JT, Stolovitzky G, Tegenfeldt JO, Wunsch BH, Zeming KK, Krüger T, Inglis DW. Deterministic lateral displacement: challenges and perspectives. ACS Nano. 2020;14(9):10784-10795.

[8] Zhang H, Freitas D, Kim HS, Fabijanic K, Li Z, Chen H, Mark MT, Molina H, Martin AB, Bojmar L, Fang J, Rampersaud S, Hoshino A, Matei I, Kenific CM, Nakajima M, Mutvei AP, Sansone P, Buehring W, Wang H, Jimenez JP, Cohen-Gould L, Paknejad N, Brendel M, Manova-Todorova K, Magalhães A, Ferreira JA, Osório H, Silva AM, Massey A, Cubillos-Ruiz JR, Galletti G, Giannakakou P, Cuervo AM, Blenis J, Schwartz R, Brady MS, Peinado H, Bromberg J, Matsui H, Reis CA, Lyden D. Identification of distinct nanoparticles and subsets of extracellular vesicles by asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(3):332-343.

[9] Zhang H, Lyden D. Asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation technology for exomere and small extracellular vesicle separation and characterization. Nat Protoc. 2019;14(4):1027-1053.

[10] Wu B, Chen X, Wang J, Qing X, Wang Z, Ding X, Xie Z, Niu L, Guo X, Cai T, Guo X, Yang F. Separation and characterization of extracellular vesicles from human plasma by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation. Anal Chim Acta. 2020;1127:234-245.

[11] Gao Z, Hutchins Z, Li Z, Zhong W. Offline coupling of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation and capillary electrophoresis for separation of extracellular vesicles. Anal Chem. 2022;94(41):14083-14091.

[12] Ayala-Mar S, Perez-Gonzalez VH, Mata-Gómez MA, Gallo-Villanueva RC, González-Valdez J. Electrokinetically driven exosome separation and concentration using dielectrophoretic-enhanced PDMS-based microfluidics. Anal Chem. 2019;91(23):14975-14982.

[13] Meng Y, Zhang Y, Bühler M, Wang S, Asghari M, Stürchler A, Mateescu B, Weiss T, Stavrakis S, deMello AJ. Direct isolation of small extracellular vesicles from human blood using viscoelastic microfluidics. Sci Adv. 2023;9(40):eadi5296.

[14] Shin H, Han C, Labuz JM, Kim J, Kim J, Cho S, Gho YS, Takayama S, Park J. High-yield isolation of extracellular vesicles using aqueous two-phase system. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13103.

[15] Kim J, Shin H, Kim J, Kim J, Park J. Isolation of high-purity extracellular vesicles by extracting proteins using aqueous two-phase system. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129760.

[16] Shin H, Park YH, Kim YG, Lee JY, Park J. Aqueous two-phase system to isolate extracellular vesicles from urine for prostate cancer diagnosis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194818.

[17] KırbaÅŸ OK, Bozkurt BT, Asutay AB, Mat B, Ozdemir B, ÖztürkoÄŸlu D, Ölmez H, Ä°ÅŸlek Z, Åžahin F, TaÅŸlı PN. Optimized isolation of extracellular vesicles from various organic sources using aqueous two-phase system. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):19159.

[18] Su B, Jeyhani M, Thillainadesan G, Sheng M, Wunsche R, Dayarathna T, Cimolai K, Weng H, Jerzak KJ, Liu SK, Tsai SSH, Leong HS. Next generation aqueous two-phase system for gentle, effective, and timely extracellular vesicle isolation and transcriptomic analysis. J Extracell Vesicles. 2025;14(3):e70058.

[19] Visan KS, Lobb RJ, Ham S, Lima LG, Palma C, Edna CPZ, Wu LY, Gowda H, Datta KK, Hartel G, Salomon C, Möller A. Comparative analysis of tangential flow filtration and ultracentrifugation, both combined with subsequent size exclusion chromatography, for the isolation of small extracellular vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles. 2022;11(9):e12266.

[20] Benedikter BJ, Bouwman FG, Vajen T, Heinzmann ACA, Grauls G, Mariman EC, Wouters EFM, Savelkoul PHM, Lopez-Iglesias C, Koenen RR, Rohde GGU, Stassen FRM. Ultrafiltration combined with size exclusion chromatography efficiently isolates extracellular vesicles from cell culture media for compositional and functional studies. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):15297.

[21] Onódi Z, Pelyhe C, Terézia Nagy C, Brenner GB, Almási L, Kittel Á, Manček-Keber M, Ferdinandy P, Buzás EI, Giricz Z. Isolation of high-purity extracellular vesicles by the combination of iodixanol density gradient ultracentrifugation and bind-elute chromatography from blood plasma. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1479.

[22] Corso G, Mäger I, Lee Y, Görgens A, Bultema J, Giebel B, Wood MJA, Nordin JZ, Andaloussi SE. Reproducible and scalable purification of extracellular vesicles using combined bind-elute and size exclusion chromatography. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11561.

[23] Bonner SE, van de Wakker SI, Phillips W, Willms E, Sluijter JPG, Hill AF, Wood MJA, Vader P. Scalable purification of extracellular vesicles with high yield and purity using multimodal flowthrough chromatography. J Extracell Biol. 2024;3(1):e138.

[24] McNamara RP, Caro-Vegas CP, Costantini LM, Landis JT, Griffith JD, Damania BA, Dittmer DP. Large-scale, cross-flow based isolation of highly pure and endocytosis-competent extracellular vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles. 2018;7(1):1541396.

[25] Bellotti C, Lang K, Kuplennik N, Sosnik A, Steinfeld R. High-grade extracellular vesicles preparation by combined size-exclusion and affinity chromatography. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10550.

[26] Kim YW, Jeon SY, Lee KM, Shin S. Advanced extracellular vesicle isolation: a hybrid electrokinetic-tangential flow filtration approach for improved yield, purity, and scalability. Anal Chem. 2025;97(31):16878-16887.

IMAGE: acoustic standing wave EV separation CREDIT CellGS

Related Cell Guidance Systems Products and Services

• Exo-spin EV Purification Columns
• EVlution TFF
• EV and Exosome Services
• NTA Size Profiling Service
• ExoLISA Assays
•