4.5 Article

Practical methods for generating alternating magnetic fields for biomedical research

期刊

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
卷 88, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4999358

关键词

-

资金

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the ElectRx Program [HR001-15-C-0155]
  2. National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative [IR01MH111872-01]
  3. Department of Defense through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship
  4. National Science Foundation under CAREER Award [CBET-1253890]
  5. Center for Materials Science and Engineering Research Experience for Undergraduates program, as part of the MRSEC program [DMR-1419807]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternating magnetic fields (AMFs) cause magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) to dissipate heat while leaving surrounding tissue unharmed, a mechanism that serves as the basis for a variety of emerging biomedical technologies. Unfortunately, the challenges and costs of developing experimental setups commonly used to produce AMFs with suitable field amplitudes and frequencies present a barrier to researchers. This paper first presents a simple, cost-effective, and robust alternative for small AMF working volumes that uses soft ferromagnetic cores to focus the flux into a gap. As the experimental length scale increases to accommodate animal models (working volumes of 100s of cm(3) or greater), poor thermal conductivity and volumetrically scaled core losses render that strategy ineffective. Comparatively feasible strategies for these larger volumes instead use low loss resonant tank circuits to generate circulating currents of 1 kA or greater in order to produce the comparable field amplitudes. These principles can be extended to the problem of identifying practical routes for scaling AMF setups to humans, an infrequently acknowledged challenge that influences the extent to which many applications of MNPs may ever become clinically relevant. Published by AIP Publishing.

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

4.5
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