4.7 Article

Computational modeling of magnetic nanoparticle targeting to stent surface under high gradient field

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 403-412

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00466-013-0968-y

关键词

Targeted delivery; Magnetic nano-particles; Magnetic force; Particle size; Magnetic stent

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [EB015105]
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-1113040, CBET-1067502]
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1113040] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multi-physics model was developed to study the delivery of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) to the stent-implanted region under an external magnetic field. The model is firstly validated by experimental work in literature. Then, effects of external magnetic field strength, magnetic particle size, and flow velocity on MNPs' targeting and binding have been analyzed through a parametric study. Two new dimensionless numbers were introduced to characterize relative effects of Brownian motion, magnetic force induced particle motion, and convective blood flow on MNPs motion. It was found that larger magnetic field strength, bigger MNP size, and slower flow velocity increase the capture efficiency of MNPs. The distribution of captured MNPs on the vessel along axial and azimuthal directions was also discussed. Results showed that the MNPs density decreased exponentially along axial direction after one-dose injection while it was uniform along azimuthal direction in the whole stented region (averaged over all sections). For the beginning section of the stented region, the density ratio distribution of captured MNPs along azimuthal direction is center-symmetrical, corresponding to the center-symmetrical distribution of magnetic force in that section. Two different generation mechanisms are revealed to form four main attraction regions. These results could serve as guidelines to design a better magnetic drug delivery system.

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

4.7
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