4.4 Article

The magnetic and hyperthermia studies of bare and silica-coated La0.75Sr0.25MnO3 nanoparticles

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 1237-1252

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-010-0117-x

关键词

Perovskite manganite; Magnetic nanoparticles; Hyperthermia; Size distribution; Synthesis; Nanomedicine

资金

  1. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [KAN200200651]
  2. DFG [SPP 1415]
  3. APVV [0728-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The magnetic nanoparticles of La0.75Sr0.25MnO3 perovskite manganite with a controlled size were prepared via sol-gel procedure, followed by thermal treatment and subsequent mechanical processing of the resulting raw product. The prepared materials were structurally studied by the XRD and TEM methods and probed by DC magnetic measurements. The nanoparticles of the mean crystallite sizes 11-40 nm exhibit T (C) in the range of a parts per thousand 310-347 K and the sample possessing 20-nm crystallites was identified as the most suitable for hyperthermia experiments. In order to obtain a colloidally stable suspension and prevent toxic effects, the selected magnetic cores were further encapsulated into silica shell using tetraethoxysilane. The detailed magnetic studies were focused on the comparison of the raw product, the bare nanoparticles after mechanical processing and the silica-coated nanoparticles, dealing also with effects of size distribution and magnetic interactions. The heating experiments were carried out in an AC field of frequencies 100 kHz-1 MHz and amplitude 3.0-8.9 kA m(-1) on water dispersions of the samples, and the generated heat was deduced from their warming rate taking into account experimentally determined thermal losses into surroundings. The experiments demonstrate that the heating efficiency of the coated nanoparticles is generally higher than that of the bare magnetic cores. It is also shown that the aggregation of the bare nanoparticles increases heating efficiency at least in a certain concentration range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据