4.6 Article

A Single Picture Explains Diversity of Hyperthermia Response of Magnetic Nanoparticles

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
Volume 119, Issue 27, Pages 15698-15706

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b02555

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EU [NNP3-SL-2012-281043, 246479]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [FIS2010-20979-C02-02, MAT2009-08165, MAT2011-23641, MAT2013-47395-C4-3-R, CONSOLIDER CSD2007-00041]
  3. Xunta de Galicia [INCITE 08PXIB236052PR, EM2013/037]
  4. Gobiemo de la Comunidad de Madrid (NANO-FRONTMAG) [S2013/MIT-2850]
  5. FPI subprogram [BES-2010-033138]
  6. Ramon y Cajal subprogram [RYC-2008-02054, RYC-2011-09617]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Progress in the design of nanoscale magnets for localized hyperthermia cancer therapy has been largely driven by trial-and-error approaches, for instance, by changing of the stoichiometry composition, size, and shape of the magnetic entities. So far, widely different and often conflicting heat dissipation results have been reported, particularly as a function of the nanopartide concentration. Thus, achieving hyperthermia-efficient magnetic ferrofluids remains an outstanding challenge. Here we demonstrate that diverging heat-dissipation patterns found in the literature can be actually described by a single picture accounting for both the intrinsic magnetic features of the particles (anisotropy, magnetization) and experimental conditions (concentration, magnetic field). Importantly, this general magnetic-hyperthermia scenario also predicts a novel non-monotonic concentration dependence with optimum heating features, which we experimentally confirmed in iron oxide nanoparticle ferrofluids by fine-tuning the particle size. Overall, our approach implies a magnetic hyperthermia trilemma that may constitute a simple strategy for development of magnetic nanomaterials for optimal hyperthermia efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available