4.8 Article

Joining Time-Resolved Thermometry and Magnetic-Induced Heating in a Single Nanoparticle Unveils Intriguing Thermal Properties

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 3134-3142

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b00059

关键词

nanothermometers; nanoheaters; magnetic hyperthermia; intracellular temperature; heat diffusion

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [MAT2011-259911]
  2. project CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials - Portuguese funds through the FCT/MEC [FCT UID/CTM/50011/2013, RECI-CTM-CER-0336-2012, EXPL-CTM-NAN-0295-2012]
  3. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement
  4. FCT [SFRH/BPD/89003/2012]
  5. ICMA-CSIC
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [EXPL/CTM-NAN/0295/2012] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whereas efficient and sensitive nanoheaters and nanothermometers are demanding tools, in modern bio- and nanomedicine, joining both features in a single nanoparticle still remains a real challenge, despite the recent progress achieved, Most Of it Within the last year. Here we demonstrate a successful realization of this challenge. The heating is magnetically induced, the temperature readout is optical, and the ratiometric thermometric probes are dual-emissive Eu3+/Tb3+ lanthanide complexes. The low thermometer heat capacitance (0.021 center dot K-1) and heater/thermometer resistance (1 K center dot W-1), the high temperature sensitivity (5.8%center dot K-1 at 296 K) and uncertainty (0.5 K), the physiological working temperature range (295-315 K), the readout reproducibility (>99.5%), and the fast time response (0.250 s) make the heater/thermometer nanoplatform proposed here unique. Cells were incubated with the nanoparticles, and fluorescence microscopy permits the mapping of the intracellular local temperature using the pixel-by-pixel ratio of the Eu3+/Tb3+ intensities. Time-resolved thermometry under an ac magnetic field evidences the failure of using Macroscopic thermal parameters to describe heat diffusion at the nanoscale.

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

4.8
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