## 5 Nanocarriers as a Strategy to Fight Biofilms
### Synergy with Antimicrobial Drugs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Nanocarriers** & **Benefits** & **Drawbacks** & **References** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Liposomes} & Easy to modify. Fusion with bacterial & \multirow{2}{*}{Poor storage stability.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101]} \\  & cell. Reduce side effects. & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Quatosomes} & Biocompatibility. Good stability. Ability & \multirow{3}{*}{Unknown in vivo targeting.} & \multirow{3}{*}{[102; 103; 104; 105]} \\  & to efficiently deliver therapeutic agents & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Solid lipid nanoparticles} & Sustained release. Improved & Poor solubility. Limitation & \\  & drug stability. & of drug load. & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lipid micelles} & Effectively deliver antimicrobial agents & \multirow{2}{*}{Poor storage stability.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[114; 115]} \\  & to the biofilm matrix. & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Polymeric nanoparticles} & Biocompatibility. Controlled drug & \multirow{2}{*}{Poor storage stability.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[116; 117; 118; 119; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124]} \\  & release. High stability in the body. & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Polymeric micelles} & Effectively deliver antimicrobial agents & \multirow{2}{*}{Poor storage stability.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[125]} \\  & to the biofilm matrix. & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dendrimers} & Controlled release of the antibiotic, & \multirow{2}{*}{Unknown in vivo behavior.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[126; 127; 128; 129; 130; 131; 132]} \\  & targeting the bacteria more effectively. & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Metallic nanoparticles} & Potent antimicrobial effects. & Potentially cytotoxic. & [133; 134; 135; 136; 137; 138; 139; 140; 141; 142; 143; 144; 145; 146; 147; 148] \\  & Physical targeting, Enhanced capacity & \multirow{2}{*}{Potentially cytotoxic.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[134; 136; 140; 141; 145; 149]} \\  & to penetrate biofilm. Biofilm & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Silica nanoparticles} & Biocompatibility and stability. & Limited understanding of the & \multirow{2}{*}{[150; 151; 152; 153; 154; 155]} \\  & & long-term safety implications. & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Quantum dots} & Photothermal and photodynamic & \multirow{2}{*}{Potentially cytotoxic.} & \multirow{2}{*}{[156; 157; 158]} \\  & effects. Controlled release. Good & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Benefits and drawbacks of nanocarriers in combating biofilms. Understanding the pharmacokinetics of nanocarriers is essential to predict how long they will circulate in the bloodstream, how effectively they will reach their target tissues, and how they will be cleared from the body. Factors such as particle size, surface charge, and the presence of targeting ligands on the nanocar surface influence these pharmacokinetic properties. For example, smaller particles may circulate longer and penetrate tissues more effectively, while surface modifications can enhance the targeting of specific cells or organs. Biodistribution studies are equally important as they reveal how nanocarriers are distributed across different tissues and organs. Ideally, nanocarriers should accumulate predominantly in the target tissue, such as a tumor or site of infection, while minimizing exposure to healthy tissues to reduce side effects. However, challenges remain in achieving this ideal distribution as nanocarriers can be taken up by the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS), leading to accumulation in the liver, spleen, and other organs. Recent advances in nanotechnology are addressing these challenges by optimizing nanocarrier design to improve pharmacokinetic profiles and achieve more favorable biodistribution patterns. This includes the development of \"stealth\" nanocarriers that evade immune detection, as well as responsive nanocarriers that release their payload only in specific environments, such as acidic tumor microenvironments or inflamed tissues.