图1，不同流式分析技术散射光分析不同大小，不同材质标准微球可靠性比较

图2，不同流式分析技术分析不同大小Silica标准微球计数稳定性性比较

图3，不同流式分析技术分析不同大小Silica标准微球计数稳定性性比较

部分节选内容参考如下：

 “In line with observations for LoD and LoQ, Apogee A60 Micro-PLUS tended to be more sensitive in detecting small silica nanospheres, scattering very small amounts of light than all other platforms, followed by ImageStream X Mk II and, lastly, FACS Aria III. For larger silica nanospheres, all platforms performed similarly. Finally, results for fluorescent polystyrene nanospheres reflected those for silica nanospheres, where Apogee A60 Micro-PLUS performed better than other platforms in detecting small nanospheres”

  “In summary, the Apogee A60 Micro-PLUS demonstrated the overall lowest variabilities in EV concentration determinations, and global and inter-day variabilities did not differ much from intra-day variabilities. The FACS Aria III performed similarly and ex- hibited somewhat increased variabilities in EV concentration determinations compared to the Apogee A60 Micro-PLUS. Finally, although the average concentrations of EV phe- notypes did not differ between analysis days on the ImageStream X Mk II, it presented with the highest intra-day and global variabilities in EV concentrations across EV samples and phenotypes”

更多其他相关内容，可参考文章全文。

参考资料

1. Botha J, Pugsley H R, Handberg A. Conventional, High-Resolution and Imaging Flow Cytometry: Benchmarking Performance in Characterisation of Extracellular Vesicles[J]. Biomedicines, 2021, 9(2): 124.