| Literature DB >> 34947589 |
Michael Zeinoun1,2, Javier Domingo-Diez1,2, Miguel Rodriguez-Garcia1,2, Oscar Garcia3, Miroslav Vasic3, Milagros Ramos1,2, José Javier Serrano Olmedo1,2.
Abstract
For decades now, conventional sinusoidal signals have been exclusively used in magnetic hyperthermia as the only alternating magnetic field waveform to excite magnetic nanoparticles. However, there are no theoretical nor experimental reasons that prevent the use of different waveforms. The only justifiable motive behind using the sinusoidal signal is its availability and the facility to produce it. Following the development of a configurable alternating magnetic field generator, we aim to study the effect of various waveforms on the heat production effectiveness of magnetic nanoparticles, seeking to prove that signals with more significant slope values, such as the trapezoidal and almost-square signals, allow the nanoparticles to reach higher efficiency in heat generation. Furthermore, we seek to point out that the nanoparticle power dissipation is dependent on the waveform's slope and not only the frequency, magnetic field intensity and the nanoparticle size. The experimental results showed a remarkably higher heat production performance of the nanoparticles when exposed to trapezoidal and almost-square signals than conventional sinusoidal signals. We conclude that the nanoparticles respond better to the trapezoidal and almost-square signals. On the other hand, the experimental results were used to calculate the normalized power dissipation value and prove its dependency on the slope. However, adjustments are necessary to the coil before proceeding with in vitro and in vivo studies to handle the magnetic fields required.Entities:
Keywords: alternating magnetic field; hyperthermia; iron oxide; magnetic nanoparticles; nanomedicine; non-harmonic waveforms; superparamagnetic
Year: 2021 PMID: 34947589 PMCID: PMC8704388 DOI: 10.3390/nano11123240
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Hyperthermia system workflow.
Figure 2AMF generator waveforms.
Figure 3Fiber optic temperatue sensor placement.
Figure 4Sample temperature isolation test using de-ionized water.
Figure 5JEOL JEM 1011 TEM images of the superparamagnetic iron oxide NPs with Gatan ES1000Ww camera.
Figure 6Slope measurement via oscilloscope.
Slope factor.
| Waveform |
|
|---|---|
| SN | 1/ |
| TR | 1/2 |
| TT | 3/8 |
| TP | 1/4 |
| TS | 1/8 |
Figure 7Comparing the curve fittings of the value generated by OriginPro (in green) to the one deduced from the - (in cyan) using the experimental results of the TP signal at 100 and 500 kHz.
Figure 8Magnetic intensity effect experiments results of 75 mgFe/mL MNPs at 100 kHz for 900 s at B going from to mT. The Error bars are barely seen due to their small value (<10).
Figure 9Frequency effect experiments result of 75 mgFe/mL MNPs at frequencies going from 100 kHz to 1 MHz for 900 s at B going from to mT.
Figure 10Comparing the 900 s experiment results of all signals at , (except for TS at ), and mT and 1 MHz, 500, 200 and 100 kHz frequency, respectively.
Figure 11Concentration effect experiments result of mgFe/mL MNPs at frequencies going from 100 kHz to red 1 Hz for 900 s at B going from to mT. The Error bars are barely seen due to their small value (<10).
Figure 12Repeating the fitting of Figure 7 while fixing equal to the calibration result value.
Thermal power increment ratio calculation of the values from Figure 8, Figure 10 and Figure 11.
| 75 mgFe/mL | 38.6 mgFe/mL | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waveform | AMF(mT) | SAR (W/mg) |
| Waveform | AMF (mT) | SAR (W/mg) |
| ||
|
| |||||||||
|
| 3.21 | 4.79 | 0.56 | - |
| 3.21 | 2.38 | 0.54 | - |
|
| 3.21 | 4.42 | 0.52 | −7.79% |
| 3.21 | 1.93 | 0.44 | −18.95% |
|
| 3.21 | 4.36 | 0.51 | −8.98% |
| 3.21 | 2.09 | 0.47 | −12.46% |
|
| 3.21 | 6.34 | 0.74 | +32.12% |
| 3.21 | 2.63 | 0.60 | +10.20% |
|
| 3.21 | 6.99 | 0.82 | +45.73% |
| 3.21 | 3.79 | 0.86 | +59.10% |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 2.14 | 3.99 | 0.47 | - |
| 2.14 | 2.74 | 0.62 | - |
|
| 2.14 | 3.03 | 0.35 | −24.04% |
| 2.14 | 2.02 | 0.46 | −26.15% |
|
| 2.14 | 3.54 | 0.41 | −11.32% |
| 2.14 | 2.78 | 0.63 | +1.65% |
|
| 2.14 | 4.89 | 0.57 | +22.46% |
| 2.14 | 3.51 | 0.80 | +28.09% |
|
| 2.14 | 6.85 | 0.80 | +71.49% |
| 2.14 | 4.41 | 1.00 | +61.00% |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 1.07 | 2.4 | 0.28 | - |
| 1.07 | 1.85 | 0.42 | - |
|
| 1.07 | 2.01 | 0.23 | −16.24% |
| 1.07 | 1.83 | 0.41 | −1.25% |
|
| 1.07 | 2.26 | 0.26 | −5.95% |
| 1.07 | 2.02 | 0.46 | +9.22% |
|
| 1.07 | 3.28 | 0.38 | +36.5% |
| 1.07 | 2.75 | 0.62 | +48.26% |
|
| 0.89 | 2.52 | 0.29 | +5.08% |
| 0.89 | 2.49 | 0.57 | +34.18% |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.53 | 1.32 | 0.15 | - |
| 0.53 | 1.27 | 0.29 | - |
|
| 0.53 | 1.14 | 0.13 | −13.29% |
| 0.53 | 1.39 | 0.32 | +9.67% |
|
| 0.53 | 1.26 | 0.15 | −4.4% |
| 0.53 | 1.51 | 0.34 | +19.44% |
|
| 0.53 | 1.15 | 0.13 | −4.64% |
| 0.53 | 1.97 | 0.44 | +55.46% |
|
| 0.53 | 1.22 | 0.14 | −7.86% |
| 0.53 | 1.54 | 0.35 | +21.52% |
Figure 13Normalized calculation plot using a logarithmic scale plot.