Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Superparamagnetic Superparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia Therapy: Overcoming the Particle Size Limit

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Polycrystalline iron oxide 'superparticles' as large as 400 nm remain superparamagnetic at room temperature because the 10–15 nm nanocrystals inside them, not the whole particle, set the magnetic response.

desk verdict A genuinely new demonstration that 160-400 nm polycrystalline iron oxide particles can stay superparamagnetic and heat well, but the quantitative claims need tightening before they are publishable as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17172 v1 pith:OGKKB7XS submitted 2024-11-26 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Supun B. Attanayake , Minh Dang Nguyen , Amit Chanda , Javier Alonso , Inaki Orue , T. Randall Lee , Hariharan Srikanth , Manh-Huong Phan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords SuperparticlesSuperparamagnetismIronoxidenanoparticlesPolycrystallineMagnetichyperthermiaSpecificabsorptionrateBiomedicalapplications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Polycrystalline iron oxide 'superparticles' (SUPAs) from 160 to 400 nm in diameter remain superparamagnetic at room temperature, even though single-domain iron oxide particles normally lose superparamagnetism above about 20 nm. The paper argues that the superparamagnetic response is controlled by the 10–15 nm nanocrystals inside each superparticle, not by the superparticle size, so the two can be tuned independently. In 2% agar at 0.5 mg/mL, the particles produce specific absorption rates of 241–286 W/g at an 800 Oe, 310 kHz alternating field, with the highest values exceeding 250 W/g. This offers a way to build larger, potentially safer hyperthermia agents that are less likely to cross the blood-brain barrier and require lower doses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the superparticle (SUPA), a polycrystalline iron oxide particle assembled from 10–15 nm magnetite nanocrystals. The carrying identity is the superparamagnetic size threshold: coercivity $H_c$ and remanence $M_r$ vanish when the magnetically active crystallite size drops below the ~20 nm SPM limit, regardless of the overall particle diameter. The argument is carried by the Langevin model of non-interacting superparamagnetic particles (Eq. 1) with a log-normal size distribution, whose fitted magnetic diameter matches the TEM crystallite size and thereby identifies the nanocrystals as the relaxing units; the zero-field-cooled/field-cooled magnetization curves and the rise in coercivity below about 150 K supply a consistent blocking signature. Two independent SAR measures complete the machinery: the calorimetric initial-slope method (Eq. 4) and the area of dynamic AC hysteresis loops (Eq. 5).

What would settle it

Measure the zero-field-cooled blocking temperature and the magnetic size extracted from magnetization-curve fits for SUPAs with roughly 10 nm crystallites but particle sizes from 100 to 500 nm. The paper's claim predicts both stay constant near 150 K and near 10 nm, so a systematic rise of either with particle diameter would show that the whole particle, not the nanocrystals alone, controls the superparamagnetic response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the SPM characteristics of SUPAs are primarily influenced by the size of the nanocrystals within each individual SUPA, rather than the size of the SUPA itself. At room temperature the M-H loops show zero coercivity and zero remanence; the zero-field-cooled/field-cooled magnetization curves show a nanocrystal blocking feature near 150 K that does not move with particle size; and fits to the Langevin superparamagnetic model with a log-normal size distribution return magnetic diameters of 9.3–9.4 nm, matching the transmission-electron-microscopy crystallite sizes. With crystallites held in the 10–15 nm window, the authors tune the overall particle size from about 160 to 400 nm while keeping saturation magnetization at 60–68 emu/g and SAR above 240 W/g at 0.5 mg/mL in agar, and they verify the calorimetric SAR with independent AC-hysteresis-loop measurements on the largest particles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 10–15 nm nanocrystals inside each superparticle relax magnetically on their own, so a model that ignores interactions between them describes the magnetization; the paper's evidence for this is that the model's fitted magnetic size matches the crystal size seen under the electron microscope, even though the broadened magnetization curves indicate the nanocrystals do interact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Superparamagnetism can be preserved in iron oxide particles up to 400 nm in diameter, breaking the usual ~20 nm ceiling that forces a choice between magnetic softness and particle size.
  • At an 800 Oe, 310 kHz alternating field, SAR values of 241–286 W/g are reached in 2% agar at only 0.5 mg/mL, roughly half the concentration typical of the comparison nanostructures cited in the paper.
  • Dynamic AC-hysteresis measurements on the largest SUPAs give SAR near 600 W/g at 638 kHz, showing that heating output rises strongly with frequency within the measured range.
  • Because the magnetic response tracks nanocrystal size rather than particle size, the same superparamagnetic behavior is maintained across the entire 160–400 nm range, allowing particle size to be chosen independently for biological or sensing purposes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the nanocrystal-control mechanism holds generally, the same polycrystalline design should work with magnetically stronger or exchange-coupled ferrites, letting clinicians tune particle size for biodistribution without sacrificing the zero-remanence, zero-coercivity behavior needed for safe imaging and heating.
  • Inference: the authors' observation that SAR falls when concentration rises from 0.5 to 1 mg/mL suggests interparticle dipole coupling is already limiting heating, so coatings or non-magnetic spacers that keep SUPAs apart may raise the achievable SAR more than dose increases would.
  • Inference: large SPM particles with a narrow nanocrystal core could be attractive tracers for magnetic particle imaging, where the harmonic signal is governed by the same nanocrystal relaxation physics while the micron-scale hydrodynamic size changes clearance and tissue distribution.
  • Inference: the safety motivation rests on the untested assumption that 160–400 nm particles do not cross the blood-brain barrier; a direct biodistribution study comparing these SUPAs with sub-20 nm particles would turn the paper's design rationale into a clinically testable claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the synthesis and characterization of polycrystalline iron oxide 'superparticles' (SUPAs) with overall diameters from 160 to 400 nm, assembled from 10-15 nm nanocrystals. Using VSM magnetometry, ZFC/FC curves, and Langevin fits to room-temperature M-H loops, the authors argue that the superparamagnetic response is governed by the nanocrystal size rather than the SUPA size. They further report calorimetric magnetic hyperthermia data in 2% agar, with SAR values up to 286 W/g at 0.5 mg/mL, and conclude that SUPAs can overcome the particle-size limit for SPM behavior while maintaining high heating efficiency.

Significance. If verified, the size-decoupling claim would be of practical interest for magnetic hyperthermia, since larger particles may reduce concerns about translocation across biological barriers. The paper includes multiple independent characterizations (XRD, TEM, XPS, ZFC/FC, M(H)) and compares calorimetric and AC-magnetometry SAR. However, the central mechanistic interpretation relies on a non-interacting Langevin model that the manuscript itself acknowledges may be affected by inter-nanocrystal interactions, and the SAR reporting contains internal inconsistencies. The strengths are the multi-method structural confirmation and the clear presentation of raw heating curves; the weaknesses are the fitting-based inference and the absence of uncertainty estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 and Conclusions] The statement in the Conclusions that 'across all samples, a low concentration of 0.5 mg/mL consistently yielded a SAR exceeding 250 W/g' is contradicted by Table 1, which lists S5 as 241 W/g. The abstract's 'exceed 250 W/g' is likewise true only for S1-S4. Please correct the claim and provide error bars or replicate measurements for the SAR values, since the hyperthermia claims are central to the paper's conclusions.
  2. [Magnetic properties, Eq. (1)] The use of Eq. (1) (non-interacting Langevin model with log-normal size distribution) to extract a magnetic diameter and then to conclude that the nanocrystals are the SPM units is partly circular. The text itself states that broadened ZFC/FC curves and 'competing interactions among nanocrystals within each SUPA' are present. These interactions can modify the magnetization curve and produce an apparent diameter different from the physical crystallite size. The extracted magnetic diameters (9.4 nm for S1 and 9.3 nm for S5) are also consistently lower than the TEM crystallite sizes (12 nm and 10 nm). To strengthen the claim, the authors should either compare with a model that includes interparticle interactions, or demonstrate that the Langevin fit is robust to the observed interaction effects (e.g., by showing that the fit quality and extracted diameters do not change for samples with different SUPA packing).
  3. [Magnetic hyperthermia properties, Fig. 6] The claim that the AC-hysteresis SAR for S5 at 300 kHz and 800 Oe (~150 W/g) 'aligns closely' with the calorimetric value is inaccurate: the calorimetric SAR for S5 at 310 kHz and 800 Oe is 241 W/g (Table 1). The ~40% discrepancy is not discussed. Please clarify how the two methods should be compared (frequency difference is small) or explain the discrepancy, as this is a validation of the SAR results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Magnetic properties, Fig. 3(a)] In the Magnetic properties section, the phrase 'a conspicuous cusp or peak is evident in the FC magnetization curves' is unusual; maxima in FC curves are not typically used to define a blocking temperature, and the ZFC curves in Fig 3a show a broad maximum. Please clarify which curve is used for TBp and how it relates to the blocking temperature of the nanocrystals.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lists dcs values (12, 15, 12, 10, 10 nm) without error bars; since the Scherrer formula and TEM both involve uncertainty, please include standard deviations.
  3. [Eq. (4) and hyperthermia methods] The heat capacity in Eq. (4) is taken as that of water (4.186 J/g·K) even though the measurements are in 2% agar; please state whether the heat capacity of the agar solution is approximated as that of water and discuss the associated uncertainty.
  4. [Experimental Methods] The text says the AC magnetometry frequencies are 149, 300, and 638 kHz in the Methods, but Fig. 6 caption says 132, 300, and 638 kHz; please reconcile.
  5. [Introduction] In the Introduction, the claim that particles below ~20 nm 'tend to penetrate highly sensitive areas of the body such as the Blood-Brain Barrier' should be supported by a specific reference; the general statement is not directly evidenced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim is supported by independent measurements, with only a mild model-consistency caveat in the Langevin-fit interpretation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular at the level of the paper's equations or citations. The central claim that the SPM character is set by the 10-15 nm nanocrystals is supported by direct, independent observations: zero coercivity and remanence at 300 K, ZFC-FC blocking features near 250 K and 150 K that are size-independent across SUPAs from 160 to 400 nm, TEM crystallite sizes, and two independent SAR determinations (calorimetric and AC hysteresis-loop area). The Langevin fit (Eq. 1) is used as a consistency check: it assumes a distribution of non-interacting SPM units and returns magnetic diameters 9.4 nm (S1) and 9.3 nm (S5), which are then compared with TEM crystallite sizes rather than set equal to them by construction. The fitted diameters could have come out different or the fit could have failed, so the agreement is evidence, not a tautology. Self-citations (e.g., refs [8], [12], [47], [74]) supply synthesis methods and context but are not the sole load-bearing justification for the main physical conclusion; the samples are characterized in this paper. A genuine weakness is that the paper notes 'competing interactions among nanocrystals within each SUPA' and broadened ZFC curves, which complicate the non-interacting Langevin interpretation, but this is an experimental-modeling concern, not circular reasoning. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is used to prove, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard magnetism assumptions: the Langevin SPM model, log-normal size distribution, and water-like heat capacity of agar. The synthesis uses prior work for size tuning. No new fundamental entities or fitted constants beyond the usual magnetic characterization are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • M0 (saturation magnetization in Langevin fit) = 60-68 emu/g per sample
    Fitted to each room-temperature M-H loop in Eq. (1); the extracted magnetic diameter depends on M0.
  • alpha (log-normal median diameter) = not reported; derived D ~9.3-9.4 nm
    Fitted log-normal parameter in Eq. (2) for the SPM size distribution.
  • beta (log-normal width) = not reported; sigma from 0.1 to 0.9 nm
    Fitted log-normal parameter; controls the magnetic diameter distribution.
  • SAR slope time window = 60 s
    SAR computed from the temperature rise after a 60-second interval (Eq. 4); a hand-chosen window that affects the reported SAR values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Langevin superparamagnetic model with non-interacting particles
    Used to fit M-H loops and extract magnetic diameter (Eq. 1); the paper acknowledges competing interactions among nanocrystals, so the non-interaction assumption is approximate.
  • domain assumption Log-normal crystallite size distribution
    Assumed in Eq. (2) for the nanocrystal size distribution; no justification beyond typical nanoparticle distributions.
  • domain assumption Heat capacity of agar medium equals that of water (4.186 J/g K)
    Used in Eq. (4) for SAR; the 2% agar solution's heat capacity is approximated by water, introducing unknown systematic error.
  • domain assumption Particles larger than ~100 nm cannot cross the blood-brain barrier
    Motivates the size increase (intro, refs [28-30]); not directly tested in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superparamagnetic Superparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia Therapy: Overcoming the Particle Size Limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGKKB7XS

@misc{pith2026241117172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superparamagnetic Superparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia Therapy: Overcoming the Particle Size Limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGKKB7XS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17172}
}
abstract

Iron oxide (e.g., Fe$_3$O$_4$ or Fe$_2$O$_3$) nanoparticles are promising candidates for a variety of biomedical applications ranging from magnetic hyperthermia therapy to drug delivery and bio-detection, due to their superparamagnetism, non-toxicity, and biodegradability. While particles of small size (below a critical size, ~20 nm) display superparamagnetic behavior at room temperature, these particles tend to penetrate highly sensitive areas of the body such as the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), leading to undesired effects. In addition, these particles possess a high probability of retention, which can lead to genotoxicity and biochemical toxicity. Increasing particle size is a means for addressing these problems but also suppresses the superparamagnetism. We have overcome this particle size limit by synthesizing unique polycrystalline iron oxide nanoparticles composed of multiple nanocrystals of 10 to 15 nm size while tuning particle size from 160 to 400 nm. These so-called superparticles preserve superparamagnetic characteristics and exhibit excellent hyperthermia responses. The specific absorption rates (SAR) exceed 250 W/g (HAC = 800 Oe, f = 310 kHz) at a low concentration of 0.5 mg/mL, indicating their capability in cancer treatment with minimum dose. Our study underscores the potential of size-tunable polycrystalline iron oxide superparticles with superparamagnetic properties for advanced biomedical applications and sensing technologies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Coercivity-size map of magnetic nanoflowers: spin disorder tunes the vortex reversal mechanism and tailors the hyperthermia sweet spot

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Micromagnetic simulations show that disordered iron-oxide nanoflowers exhibit a secondary coercivity maximum in the vortex state, at the transition between core-dominated and flux-closure-dominated reversal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Chauhan, M

    I. Chauhan, M. Yasir, M. Verma, A. P. Singh, Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2020, 10, 150

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Conde, R

    J. Conde, R. Langer, J. Rueff, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2023, 18, 537

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    T. I. Janjua, Y . Cao, A. Ahmed-Cox, A. Raza, M. Moniruzzaman, D. T. Akhter, N. L. Fletcher, M. Kavallaris, K. J. Thurecht, A. Popat, J. Control. Release 2023, 357, 161

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Omidiyan, P

    M. Omidiyan, P. Srinoi, P. Tajalli, T. R. Lee, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2024, 7, 8377

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Medhi, P

    R. Medhi, P. Srinoi, N. Ngo, H.-V . Tran, T. R. Lee, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020, 3, 8557

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    N. M. Ngo, H.-V . Tran, T. R. Lee, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022, 5, 14051

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Medhi, M

    R. Medhi, M. D. Marquez, T. R. Lee, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020, 3, 6156

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    S. B. Attanayake, A. Chanda, T. Hulse, R. Das, M.-H. Phan, H. Srikanth, Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 1340

    work page 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    L. Chen, R. Luque, Y . Li, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 4614

    2017

  2. [10]

    F. A. Jung, M. Schart, L. Bührend, E. Meidinger, J.-J. Kang, B.-J. Niebuur, S. Ariaee, D. S. Molodenskiy, D. Posselt, H. Amenitsch, C. Tsitsilianis, C. M. Papadakis, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2102905

    2021

  3. [11]

    M. D. Nguyen, H.-V . Tran, S. Xu, T. R. Lee, Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11301

    2021

  4. [12]

    Y.-T. Chen, R. Medhi, I. Nekrashevich, D. Litvinov, S. Xu, T. R. Lee, Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 6749

    2018

  5. [13]

    A. G. Kolhatkar, Y .-T. Chen, P. Chinwangso, I. Nekrashevich, G. C. Dannangoda, A. Singh, A. C. Jamison, O. Zenasni, I. A. Rusakova, K. S. Martirosyan, D. Litvinov, S. Xu, R. C. Willson, T. R. Lee, ACS Omega 2017, 2, 8010

    2017

  6. [14]

    E. A. Périgo, G. Hemery, O. Sandre, D. Ortega, E. Garaio, F. Plazaola, F. J. Teran, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2015, 2, 041302

    2015

  7. [15]

    X. Liu, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, W. Zhu, G. Li, X. Ma, Y . Zhang, S. Chen, S. Tiwari, K. Shi, S. Zhang, H. M. Fan, Y . X. Zhao, X.-J. Liang, Theranostics 2020, 10, 3793

    2020

  8. [16]

    Chang, M

    D. Chang, M. Lim, J. A. C. M. Goos, R. Qiao, Y . Y . Ng, F. M. Mansfeld, M. Jackson, T. P. Davis, M. Kavallaris, Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00831

    2018

  9. [17]

    G. C. Lavorato, R. Das, J. A. Masa, M. H. Phan, H. Srikanth, Nanoscale Adv. 2021, 3, 867

    2021

  10. [18]

    Gavilán, S

    H. Gavilán, S. Kumar Avugadda, T. Fernández-Cabada, N. Soni, M. Cassani, B. T. Mai, R. Chantrell, T. Pellegrino, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 11614

    2021

  11. [19]

    G. Y . Yi, M. J. Kim, H. I. Kim, J. Park, S. H. Baek, Antioxidants 2022, 11, 625

    2022

  12. [20]

    M. IJff, J. Crezee, A. L. Oei, L. J. A. Stalpers, H. Westerveld, Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2022, 32, DOI 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002473

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Ademaj, D

    A. Ademaj, D. P. Veltsista, P. Ghadjar, D. Marder, E. Oberacker, O. J. Ott, P. Wust, E. Puric, R. A. Hälg, S. Rogers, S. Bodis, R. Fietkau, H. Crezee, O. Riesterer, Cancers 2022, 14, 625

    2022

  14. [22]

    Mantso, S

    T. Mantso, S. Vasileiadis, I. Anestopoulos, G. P. V oulgaridou, E. Lampri, S. Botaitis, E. N. Kontomanolis, C. Simopoulos, G. Goussetis, R. Franco, K. Chlichlia, A. Pappa, M. I. Panayiotidis, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10724

    2018

  15. [23]

    Soetaert, P

    F. Soetaert, P. Korangath, D. Serantes, S. Fiering, R. Ivkov, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 163–164, 65

    2020

  16. [24]

    A. S. Thakor, J. V . Jokerst, P. Ghanouni, J. L. Campbell, E. Mittra, S. S. Gambhir, J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 1833

    2016

  17. [25]

    D. Bobo, K. J. Robinson, J. Islam, K. J. Thurecht, S. R. Corrie, Pharm. Res. 2016, 33, 2373

    2016

  18. [26]

    R. A. Revia, M. Zhang, Mater. Today 2016, 19, 157

    2016

  19. [27]

    Peeters, E

    H. Peeters, E. M. van Zwol, L. Brancato, M. G. M. C. da Cunha, J. Bogers, Int. J. Hyperth. 2022, 39, 806. 22

    2022

  20. [28]

    C. H. Sutton, F. B. Carroll, Radio Sci. 1979, 14, 329

    1979

  21. [29]

    Segarra, M

    M. Segarra, M. R. Aburto, A. Acker-Palmer, Trends Neurosci. 2021, 44, 393

    2021

  22. [30]

    R. R. Shivers, J. A. Wijsman, in Progress in Brain Research (Eds.: H. S. Sharma, J. Westman), Elsevier, 1998, pp. 413–424

    1998

  23. [31]

    H. Mok, M. Zhang, Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2013, 10, 73

    2013

  24. [32]

    I. S. Caizer, C. Caizer, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4350

    2022

  25. [33]

    Koplovitz, G

    G. Koplovitz, G. Leitus, S. Ghosh, B. P. Bloom, S. Yochelis, D. Rotem, F. Vischio, M. Striccoli, E. Fanizza, R. Naaman, D. H. Waldeck, D. Porath, Y . Paltiel, Small 2019, 15, 1804557

    2019

  26. [34]

    V odenicarevic, N

    D. V odenicarevic, N. Locatelli, A. Mizrahi, J. S. Friedman, A. F. Vincent, M. Romera, A. Fukushima, K. Yakushiji, H. Kubota, S. Yuasa, S. Tiwari, J. Grollier, D. Querlioz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2017, 8, 054045

    2017

  27. [35]

    Neuberger, B

    T. Neuberger, B. Schöpf, H. Hofmann, M. Hofmann, B. von Rechenberg, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2005, 293, 483

    2005

  28. [36]

    V . O. Jimenez, K. Y . Hwang, D. Nguyen, Y . Rahman, C. Albrecht, B. Senator, O. Thiabgoh, J. Devkota, V . D. A. Bui, D. S. Lam, T. Eggers, M. H. Phan, Biosensors 2022, 12, 517

    2022

  29. [37]

    Suter, O

    M. Suter, O. Ergeneman, J. Zürcher, S. Schmid, A. Camenzind, B. J. Nelson, C. Hierold, J. Micromech. Microeng. 2011, 21, 025023

    2011

  30. [38]

    Müller, R

    R. Müller, R. Hergt, S. Dutz, M. Zeisberger, W. Gawalek, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2006, 18, S2527

    2006

  31. [39]

    T. Wang, D. LaMontagne, J. Lynch, J. Zhuang, Y . Charles Cao, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 2804

    2013

  32. [40]

    R. K. Thapa, J. O. Kim, J. Pharm. Investig. 2023, 53, 19

    2023

  33. [41]

    Rodríguez, P

    F. Rodríguez, P. Caruana, N. De la Fuente, P. Español, M. Gámez, J. Balart, E. Llurba, R. Rovira, R. Ruiz, C. Martín-Lorente, J. L. Corchero, M. V . Céspedes, Biomolecules 2022, 12, 784

    2022

  34. [42]

    Alonso, H

    J. Alonso, H. Khurshid, V . Sankar, Z. Nemati, M. H. Phan, E. Garayo, J. A. García, H. Srikanth, J. Appl. Phys. 2015, 117, 17D113

    2015

  35. [43]

    B. B. Lahiri, S. Ranoo, J. Philip, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2018, 451, 254

    2018

  36. [44]

    Salloum, R

    M. Salloum, R. H. Ma, D. Weeks, L. Zhu, Int. J. Hyperth. 2008, 24, 337

    2008

  37. [45]

    Global Cancer Observatory,

    T. I. A. for R. on Cancer (IARC), “Global Cancer Observatory,” can be found under https://gco.iarc.fr/, n.d

  38. [46]

    Y . Jun, J. Seo, J. Cheon, Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 179

    2008

  39. [47]

    M. H. Phan, J. Alonso, H. Khurshid, P. Lampen-Kelley, S. Chandra, K. Stojak Repa, Z. Nemati, R. Das, Ó. Iglesias, H. Srikanth, Nanomaterials 2016, 6, 221

    2016

  40. [48]

    S. D. Shingte, A. H. Phakatkar, E. McKiernan, K. Nigoghossian, S. Ferguson, R. Shahbazian-Yassar, D. F. Brougham, Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 10801

    2022

  41. [49]

    Herzer, IEEE Trans

    G. Herzer, IEEE Trans. Magn. 1990, 26, 1397

    1990

  42. [50]

    E. C. Stoner, E. P. Wohlfarth, Nature 1947, 160, 650

    1947

  43. [51]

    J. D. Livingston, J. Appl. Phys. 1981, 52, 2544

    1981

  44. [52]

    Petracic, Superlattices and Microstruct

    O. Petracic, Superlattices and Microstruct. 2010, 47, 569

    2010

  45. [53]

    Reichel, A

    V . Reichel, A. Kovács, M. Kumari, É. Bereczk-Tompa, E. Schneck, P. Diehle, M. Pósfai, A. M. Hirt, M. Duchamp, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, D. Faivre, Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45484

    2017

  46. [54]

    Q. Li, C. W. Kartikowati, S. Horie, T. Ogi, T. Iwaki, K. Okuyama, Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9894

    2017

  47. [55]

    Suvorova, Buffat, J. Microsc. 1999, 196, 46

    1999

  48. [56]

    A. G. Kolhatkar, A. C. Jamison, D. Litvinov, R. C. Willson, T. R. Lee, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 15977. 23

    2013

  49. [57]

    Knobel, W

    M. Knobel, W. C. Nunes, L. M. Socolovsky, E. De Biasi, J. M. Vargas, J. C. Denardin, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8, 2836

    2008

  50. [58]

    B. D. Cullity, C. D. Graham, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    2011

  51. [60]

    P. Q. Thong, L. T. Thu Huong, N. D. Tu, H. T. My Nhung, L. Khanh, D. H. Manh, P. H. Nam, N. X. Phuc, J. Alonso, J. Qiao, S. Sridhar, H. P. Thu, M. H. Phan, N. T. Kim Thanh, Nanomedicine 2022, 17, 1677

    2022

  52. [61]

    R. Das, J. Alonso, Z. Nemati Porshokouh, V . Kalappattil, D. Torres, M. H. Phan, E. Garaio, J. Á. García, J. L. Sanchez Llamazares, H. Srikanth, J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 10086

    2016

  53. [62]

    Nemati, J

    Z. Nemati, J. Alonso, L. M. Martinez, H. Khurshid, E. Garaio, J. A. Garcia, M. H. Phan, H. Srikanth, J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 8370

    2016

  54. [63]

    S. B. Attanayake, A. Chanda, R. Das, N. Kapuruge, H. R. Gutierrez, M. H. Phan, H. Srikanth, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2022, 34, 495301

    2022

  55. [64]

    V . E. Noval, J. G. Carriazo, Mat. Res. 2019, 22, e20180660

    2019

  56. [65]

    H. Kok, P. Wust, P. Stauffer, F. Bardati, G. van Rhoon, J. Crezee, Radiat. Oncol. 2015, 10, 196

    2015

  57. [66]

    J. J. W. Lagendijk, Phys. Med. Biol. 2000, 45, R61

    2000

  58. [67]

    Chou, Int

    C.-K. Chou, Int. J. Hyperth. 1990, 6, 367

    1990

  59. [68]

    H. L. Ring, A. Sharma, R. Ivkov, J. C. Bischof, Int. J. Hyperth. 2020, 37, 100

    2020

  60. [69]

    Andreu, E

    I. Andreu, E. Natividad, Int. J. Hyperth. 2013, 29, 739

    2013

  61. [70]

    Nemati, J

    Z. Nemati, J. Alonso, I. Rodrigo, R. Das, E. Garaio, J. Á. García, I. Orue, M. H. Phan, H. Srikanth, J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 2367

    2018

  62. [71]

    H. Deng, X. Li, Q. Peng, X. Wang, J. Chen, Y . Li, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 2782

    2005

  63. [72]

    Xuan, Y .-X

    S. Xuan, Y .-X. J. Wang, J. C. Yu, K. Cham-Fai Leung, Chem. Mater. 2009, 21, 5079

    2009

  64. [73]

    Y . Liu, T. Cui, Y . Li, Y . Zhao, Y . Ye, W. Wu, G. Tong, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2016, 173, 152

    2016

  65. [74]

    M. D. Nguyen, L. Deng, J. M. Lee, K. Mariel, M. Fuller, S. Hoijang, F. C. Robles Hernandez, C.-W. Chu, D. Litvinov, V . G. Hadjiev, S. Xu, M. H. Phan, T. R. Lee, Small 2024, 20, 2402940

    2024

  66. [75]

    Rodrigo, I

    I. Rodrigo, I. Castellanos-Rubio, E. Garaio, O. K. Arriortua, M. Insausti, I. Orue, J. Á. García, F. Plazaola, Int. J. Hyperth. 2020, 37, 976. 24 Table of Contents 25 Supporting Information Superparamagnetic Superparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia Therapy: Overcoming the Part...

    2020

  67. [76]

    Nemati, R

    Z. Nemati, R. Das, J. Alonso, E. Clements, M. H. Phan, H. Srikanth, J. Electron. Mater. 2017, 46, 3764

    2017

  68. [77]

    R. Das, J. Alonso, Z. Nemati Porshokouh, V . Kalappattil, D. Torres, M.-H. Phan, E. Garaio, J. Á. García, J. L. Sanchez Llamazares, H. Srikanth, J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 10086. Sample D (nm) Concentration (mg/mL) SAR in Agar at 800 Oe (W/g) Ms at 300 K (emu/g) Hc (Oe) Ref. ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.