This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Exchange-coupled magnetic nanoparticles forefficient heat inductionJae-Hyun Lee1, Jung-tak Jang1, Jin-sil Choi1, Seung Ho Moon1, Seung-hyun Noh1, Ji-wook Kim1,
Jin-Gyu Kim2, Il-Sun Kim3, Kook In Park3 and Jinwoo Cheon1*
The conversion of electromagnetic energy into heat by nano-particles has the potential to be a powerful, non-invasive tech-nique for biotechnology applications such as drug release1–3,disease treatment4–6 and remote control of single cellfunctions7–9, but poor conversion efficiencies have hinderedpractical applications so far10,11. In this Letter, we demonstratea significant increase in the efficiency of magnetic thermalinduction by nanoparticles. We take advantage of the exchangecoupling between a magnetically hard core and magneticallysoft shell to tune the magnetic properties of the nanoparticleand maximize the specific loss power, which is a gauge of theconversion efficiency. The optimized core–shell magnetic nano-particles have specific loss power values that are an order ofmagnitude larger than conventional iron-oxide nanoparticles.We also perform an antitumour study in mice, and find thatthe therapeutic efficacy of these nanoparticles is superior tothat of a common anticancer drug.
Thermal energy is emerging as an important means of triggeringfunctions for various applications in biomedical systems. Forexample, gold nanoparticles can successfully convert photons intothermal energy in drug release systems and for photothermalcancer therapy12–16. However, limited penetration depth and inter-ferences of photons with tissues and surrounding media couldhamper the effectiveness of these materials17. Magnetic nanopar-ticles are also attracting considerable interest for their ability tomediate heat induction. When an external alternating current(a.c.) magnetic field is applied, a magnetization reversal processoccurs18. Thermal energy is produced continuously as these par-ticles return to their relaxed states19,20. Because this magnetic heatinduction makes use of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves,tissue penetration is not limited. Theoretically, at 400 kHz forexample, 99% of energy can be transferred to magnetic nanopar-ticles located 15 cm inside the body21. In addition to its non-invasivecharacter, this thermal energy generation technique via magneticnanoparticle mediators can be controlled remotely and actuatedon-command. Such applications include the release of drugs frommesoporous nanoparticles and thermosensitive polymer-coatedcarriers3,22, treatment of diseases with hyperthermia6,9, thermalimaging of target lesions23 and the development of thermallydriven ion channel controls for cell signalling7. However, for mostof these exciting new imaging and therapeutic applications ofthermal actuation, the relatively poor energy transfer efficiency ofthe nanoparticle mediators presents a challenging obstacle, whicheither hinders full functionality or leads to a requirement forrelatively large amounts of nanoparticles10, with the concomitantpotential for side effects.
In an attempt to develop new nanoparticles with high thermalenergy transfer capability, we first examined the effects of size and
composition on the magnetic heating power of ferrite magneticnanoparticles (MFe2O4, M¼Mn, Fe, Co) (Fig. 1a,b). The specificloss powers (SLPs) of nanoparticles can depend on nanoparticlesize, composition and magnetic field (Fig. 1b)19. (Note that syn-thesized nanoparticles are highly uniform in size (s¼ 0.05;Supplementary Fig. S1.) When SLPs were measured (seeMethods), it was found that Fe3O4 nanoparticles had values of152, 349 and 333 W g21 for diameters of 9, 12 and 15 nm, respect-ively. Similarly, MnFe2O4 had a SLP maximum of 411 W g21 at15 nm and CoFe2O4 had its SLP maximum of 443 W g21 at9 nm. Unfortunately, these values do not significantly exceedthose reported for conventional magnetic nanoparticles19,24, indicat-ing that size and compositional effects are marginal.
To investigate other means for obtaining higher heat inductionpower, we simulated SLP as a function of magnetocrystalline aniso-tropy K, diameter of the nanoparticle D, and magnetization M(Fig. 1c,d). We adopted a theoretical model consolidated byRosensweig in which the SLP of superparamagnetic nanoparticlesprimarily depends on magnetic spin relaxation processes20. The plotof SLP shows a sharp maximum: the marked dependency on Kchiefly results from the internal magnetic spin fluctuation (Neelrelaxation), and the dependency on D is due to both Neel andBrownian relaxation (Fig. 1). This plot indicates the optimal rangeof K and D for nanoparticles with high SLP values: values between0.5 × 104 and 4.0 × 104 J m23 for K and between 10 and 30 nm forD exhibit SLP values from 1,000 to 4,000 W g21 (Fig. 1c). Highmagnetization M is also beneficial, and there have been studiesaimed at increasing SLP25,26. Figure 1d clearly shows the proportionalrelationship between M and SLP. For maghemite (g-Fe2O3), thelow SLP primarily originates from the relatively small value of M(�40–60 emu g21), although its K (1.6 × 104 J m23) is withinoptimal range (Fig. 1d)19.
Because the magnetocrystalline anisotropy K is an intrinsicmaterials property for each of the metal ferrite nanoparticles, it isa challenging task to tune K values of nanoparticles as desired.However, an exchange-coupled magnet, by means of the interfacialexchange interaction between hard and soft magnetic phases, hasthe potential to exhibit tunable magnetism27–29. Here, we usenanoparticles with a core–shell structure, with mutual coupling ofmagnetically hard and soft components. This coupling can allowoptimal tuning of K values in particular. Because of the facilesynthetic controls that result in nanoparticles with uniform coresize and shell thickness, excellent crystallinity and size mono-dispersity, spherical core–shell-type nanoparticles are a desirablestructure. To examine the tunability of K and its magnetic heatingpower, a representative magnetically hard material (CoFe2O4,K¼ 2.0 × 105 J m23; Supplementary Table S1) was coupled toa representative soft material (MnFe2O4, K¼ 3.0 × 103 J m23;
1Department of Chemistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, 120-749, Korea, 2Division of Electron Microscopic Research, Korea Basic Science Institute, Daejeon,305-333, Korea, 3Department of Pediatrics and BK 21, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. *e-mail: [email protected]
LETTERSPUBLISHED ONLINE: 26 JUNE 2011 | DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2011.95
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 6 | JULY 2011 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology418
Supplementary Table S1). For the synthesis, we modified a seed-mediatedparticle growth method (see Methods)30. Figure 2a presents atransmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of core–shellnanoparticles with CoFe2O4 in the core and MnFe2O4 in the shell(CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4), showing their homogeneity in size(s ¼ 0.05). The core–shell structure was confirmed by electronenergy-loss spectrum (EELS) mapping analysis. Figure 2c–f showsEELS mapped images of CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 nanoparticles, inwhich Co, Fe and Mn are colour-coded green, red and blue,respectively. Co is present only in the core region of each nanoparticle(Fig. 2c), but Fe is distributed throughout the nanoparticle (Fig. 2d)and Mn only on the shell (Fig. 2e). A composite image (Fig. 2f)reveals a homogeneous coating of 3 nm MnFe2O4 on the initial9 nm CoFe2O4 nanoparticles to give a 15 nm core–shell structure.The core–shell structure showing Co inside, Mn outside and Fedistributed throughout the nanoparticle is confirmed by theline-scanned EELS data of a single nanoparticle shown in Fig. 2g.
To investigate the coupled magnetism of these nanoparticles, wemeasured a M–H curve with a superconducting quantum interferencedevice (SQUID). The M–H curve of CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 demonstratescoupled magnetism, exhibiting a smooth hysteresis M–H loop at bothlow and ambient temperatures (Fig. 2h). The coercivity value (Hc) at5 K falls between the values for CoFe2O4 and MnFe2O4 nanoparticles:Hc (CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4)¼ 2,530 Oe; Hc (CoFe2O4)¼ 11,600 Oe;Hc (MnFe2O4)¼ 0 Oe. This clearly indicates that the obtainedCoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 nanoparticles are magnetically exchange-coupled. The K value of 1.5× 104 J m23 for CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4was obtained by measuring the effective anisotropy field(Supplementary Table S1)31. We then extended this magneticallycoupled binary system to various core and shell combinations includ-ing CoFe2O4@Fe3O4, MnFe2O4@CoFe2O4 and Fe3O4@CoFe2O4(Supplementary Figs S2 and S3). In addition to the appropriate Kand M values, the uniformity of nanoparticles is another importantfactor for high SLP19,20. For example, a size deviation s of 0.05 canresult in an 8–15% decrease in SLP value from perfect monodisper-sity (Supplementary Table S2).
The SLP values of core–shell nanoparticles were compared withsingle-component magnetic nanoparticles (Fig. 3). Although theSLPs of single-component nanoparticles range from 100 to
450 W g21 (Fig. 3b), the SLPs of core–shell nanoparticles exhibitvalues approximately one order of magnitude higher (Fig. 3c). Inaddition, SLPs of core–shell nanoparticles can be tuned to someextent by varying the combination of the core and shell components(CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4, 2,280 W g21; CoFe2O4@Fe3O4, 1,120 W g21;MnFe2O4@CoFe2O4, 3,034 W g21; Fe3O4@CoFe2O4, 2,795 W g21)(Fig. 3c). The magnetic coupling of core and shell components pro-vides K values of �1.5 × 104 to 2.0 × 104 J m23, which fit in theoptimal K range (Fig. 1c).
The key advantage of our nanoparticle system lies in the fact thatversatile combinations of core–shell components can bring faciletuning of K, as well as M, to achieve high SLP while maintainingthe superparamagnetism. For example, when core–shell nano-particles ([email protected]) with high M(150 emu g21) were used32, SLP was 3,886 W g21
. This is 1.7times higher than that for CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 and 34 timeslarger than for Feridex, a conventional iron-oxide magnetic nano-particle (115 W g21). Our core–shell nanoparticles typically showSLP values that are superior to those of superparamagnetic nano-particles and comparable to those of ferromagnetic nanoparticles(Supplementary Table S3)19,33,34. These nanoparticles demonstratesuperparamagnetism at room temperature (Fig. 2h, inset), animportant property for biomedical applications. In contrast to ferro-magnetic nanoparticles, superparamagnetism can prevent nanopar-ticle aggregation or cluster formation, because the spin relaxesquickly and demagnetizes at room temperature35.
Magnetic nanoparticles with high SLP values can be used formany applications. Because core–shell nanoparticles have adequatebiocompatibility without noticeable cytotoxicity (SupplementaryFig. S4), we decided to test the efficacy of CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4in antitumour hyperthermia therapy. U87MG human braincancer cells were xenografted to the abdomen of nude mice inseveral experimental groups (n¼ 3). CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 nano-particles (75 mg), dispersed in normal saline (50 ml), were injectedsubcutaneously into the tumour (100 mm3). The mouse wasplaced in a water-cooled magnetic induction coil with a diameterof 5 cm (Fig. 4a). An a.c. magnetic field of 500 kHz at37.3 kA m21 was applied for 10 min. Following treatment, thetumour burden was monitored for up to one month. For the
Water-cooled coil
Heat insulatorSample
6 9 12 15 180
200
400
600
800
1,000MnFe2O4Fe3O4CoFe2O4
SLP
(W g−1
)
Size (nm)
a
b
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000
0
4
8
12
20
510
1520
25
40 60 80 100 1200
24 0
16
M (emu g−1)
K (10 4 J m
−3)
Size (nm)
M = 100 emu g −1
Maghemite
Magnetic anisotropy
constant, K (10 4 J m
−3)
c
d
MnFe2O4Fe3O4CoFe2O4
4008001,2001,600
12 nm SLP (W g
−1)
SLP (W g
−1)
Figure 1 | Experimental setup, measurements and simulations of SLP of magnetic nanoparticles. a, Samples are placed in the water-cooled magnetic
induction coil with a heat insulator (Styrofoam). b, Experimentally observed SLP values of MFe2O4 (M¼Mn, Fe, Co) nanoparticles of different sizes
( f¼ 500 kHz, H0¼ 37.3 kA m21). The maximum peak of SLP changes with the size and composition of nanoparticles. Error bars indicate standard deviation
(n¼ 5). c, Simulated plot of SLP based on nanoparticle size D and magnetic anisotropy constant K at a magnetization value M of 100 emu g21. d, Simulated
plot of SLP based on K and M for 12 nm nanoparticle. SLP of maghemite is indicated by the blue line. Simulations are based on the superparamagnetic
Figure 2 | TEM analyses and magnetic measurements of core–shell nanoparticles. a,b, TEM image (a) and high-resolution TEM image (b) of 15 nm
CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4, showing the narrow size distribution and single crystallinity. c–f, EELS mapped images: Co mapped image (c), Fe mapped image (d), Mn
mapped image (e) and overlay image of c–e (f). g, Co, Fe and Mn line-scanned EELS profiles of a nanoparticle. EELS images and line-scan profiles confirm
the CoFe2O4 core and MnFe2O4 shell. h, Schematic drawing of core–shell nanoparticle with an exchange-coupled magnetism, and M–H curve of 15 nm
CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4, 15 nm MnFe2O4 and 9 nm CoFe2O4 nanoparticles measured at 5 K using a SQUID magnetometer. The magnetization curve of the
core–shell nanoparticle (red curve) shows the hard–soft exchange-coupled magnetism with a smooth hysteresis curve. Inset: M–H curve of
CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 at 300 K, showing its superparamagnetic nature with zero coercivity.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
9 nmCoFe2O4
15 nmMnFe2O4
CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4
SLP
(W g−1
)
Single-componentmagnetic nanoparticles
Exchange-coupledcore−shell nanoparticles
SLP
(W g
−1)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
SLP
(W g−1
)
Ferid
ex
15 n
mM
nFe 2O
415
nm
Fe3O
412
nm
CoF
e 2O4
CoF
e 2O4@
MnF
e 2O4
CoF
e 2O4@
Fe3O
4M
nFe 2O
4@C
oFe 2O
4Fe
3O4@
CoF
e 2O4
Zn0.
4Co 0.
6Fe 2O
4@Zn
0.4M
n 0.6F
e 2O4
a b c
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
CoFe2O4 MnFe2O4
9 nm 15 nm
Figure 3 | SLP comparison of magnetic nanoparticles. a, Schematic of 15 nm CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 nanoparticle and its SLP value in comparison with the
values for its components (9 nm CoFe2O4 and 15 nm MnFe2O4). b,c, SLP values of single-component magnetic nanoparticles (Feridex and MFe2O4; M¼Mn,
Fe and Co) (b) and various combinations of core–shell nanoparticles (CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4, CoFe2O4@Fe3O4, MnFe2O4@CoFe2O4, Fe3O4@CoFe2O4,
[email protected]) (c). SLP values range from 100 to 450 W g21 for single-component magnetic nanoparticles, and values for core–shell
nanoparticles range from 1,000 to 4,000 W g21 ( f¼ 500 kHz, H0¼ 37.3 kA m21). Error bars indicate standard deviation (n¼ 5).
untreated control group of mice, tumour size increased ninefold byday 18 (Fig. 4b,c). However, for the group that received thehyperthermia treatment with core–shell nanoparticles, the tumourwas eliminated during the same period (Fig. 4b,c). For comparison,another group of mice underwent hyperthermia treatment withFeridex, and the other group was treated with the chemotherapeuticdrug doxorubicin (75 mg) with an identical dosage of core–shellnanoparticles. Both groups were monitored in the same way.Although the tumours initially regressed in the mice treated withdoxorubicin, by day 26 the tumour had regrown to four times itsoriginal size (Fig. 4b,c). The mice treated with Feridex hyperthermia(Fig. 4b,c) and mice from the other control groups (treated witheither an a.c. magnetic field only or core–shell nanoparticles onlyshowed growth behaviours similar to the untreated control (Fig. 4c).
We then analysed the tissue subjected to hyperthermia treatmentwith core–shell nanoparticles using immunofluorescence histology.The absence of fluorescence confirmed the elimination of tumour ina treated mouse (Fig. 4d, upper image), in contrast with the brightfluorescence observed in tissue from an untreated control mouse(Fig. 4d, lower image). We also conducted a dosage study tocompare the effects of core–shell nanoparticle hyperthermia, doxor-ubicin, and Feridex hyperthermia for the treatment of a same-sizedtumour (100 mm3) (Fig. 4e). For treatment with hyperthermia andcore–shell nanoparticles, a dose of 75 mg of nanoparticles wasneeded to completely eliminate the tumour; achieving the same
result with doxorubicin required a dose of 300 mg (Fig. 4e). Forthe Feridex hyperthermia treatment, even a dose in excess of1,200 mg did not produce any significant reduction in tumour size(Fig. 4e). The a.c. magnetic field used here was safe for micewithout physical injuries or weight loss (Supplementary Fig. S5)and the heat transport profile of nanoparticles was consistentwith the Pennes model (Supplementary Fig. S6). As a note, theimplementation of ‘self-regulated heating’ near body temperaturewas not applicable due to high spin transition temperatures (Tc)of �600 K for ferrite nanoparticles (Supplementary Fig. S6)36–38.
In summary, we have developed exchange-coupled magneticnanoparticles as a new means of modulating magnetism, resultingin a significant enhancement of magnetic heat induction;however, conventional approaches of altering the size and compo-sition of the nanoparticles had comparatively marginal effects onmagnetic heating power. These magnetically coupled nanoparticlescan be a highly effective new nanoscale tool useful for a variety ofsystems that rely on heat induction, including magnetic hyperther-mia therapy and other advanced nanobiotechnology applicationssuch as on-demand drug release and thermal activation of metabolicpathways within a single cell.
MethodsSynthesis of core–shell nanoparticles. For the synthesis of 15 nm CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4nanoparticles, a 9 nm CoFe2O4 nanoparticle was used as a seed and MnFe2O4 was
Tumour
Magnetic induction coil
Tum
our v
olum
e (V
/Vin
itial
)18
day
s af
ter t
reat
men
t
Dosage (μg/100 mm3 tumour)
a
c d e
PlaqueformationTu
mou
r vol
ume
(V/V
initi
al)
Day0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0
2
4
6
8
10
Feridex hyperthermiaa.c. field onlyCore−shellnanoparticle onlyUntreated control
Figure 4 | In vivo hyperthermia treatment of cancer. a, Schematics of magnetic in vivo hyperthermia treatment in a mouse. Magnetic nanoparticles were
directly injected into the tumour of a mouse and an a.c. magnetic field was applied. b, Nude mice xenografted with cancer cells (U87MG) before treatment
(upper row, dotted circle) and 18 days after treatment (lower row) with untreated control, CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4 hyperthermia, Feridex hyperthermia and
doxorubicin, respectively. The same amounts (75 mg) of nanoparticles and doxorubicin were injected into the tumour (tumour volume, 100 mm3, n¼ 3).
c, Plot of tumour volume (V/Vinitial) versus days after treatment with core–shell nanoparticle hyperthermia, doxorubicin, Feridex hyperthermia, a.c. field only,
core–shell nanoparticles only and untreated control. In the doxorubicin-treated group, tumour growth slowed initially, but then regrew after 18 days. In the
group treated with core–shell nanoparticles hyperthermia, the tumour was clearly eliminated in 18 days. The suppression of tumour growth was not observed
for the groups of Feridex hyperthermia, a.c. field only, core–shell nanoparticles only and the untreated control. d, Immunofluorescence histological images of
the tumour region after hyperthermia treatment with core–shell nanoparticles (upper image) and the control tumour region (lower image). e, Plot of dose
dependency on tumour volume measured 18 days after the treatment. For core–shell nanoparticle hyperthermia and doxorubicin treatments, doses of 75 mg
and 300 mg, respectively, were needed to completely eliminate a tumour with a volume of 100 mm3. For Feridex hyperthermia, even a 1,200mg nanoparticle
dose did not adequately suppress tumour growth. Error bars in c,e, indicate standard deviation (n¼ 5).
over-grown by thermal decomposition onto the surface of the seed particle.(See Supplementary Section 1 for details of the synthesis of a seed nanoparticle).MnCl2 (3.25 mmol) and Fe(acac)3 (5 mmol) were placed in a 250 ml three-neckround-bottom flask in the presence of oleic acid, oleylamine and trioctylamine. Afterinjection of 9 nm CoFe2O4 nanoparticles suspended in hexane, the reaction mixturewas heated at 365 8C for 1 h. After removing the heat source, the reaction productswere cooled to room temperature and 15 nm core–shell CoFe2O4@MnFe2O4nanoparticles were isolated using procedures described previously32. Different kindsof core–shell nanoparticles were synthesized using the appropriate reactants (CoCl2,FeCl2 and MnCl2) and similar reaction conditions. As-synthesized nanoparticleswere transferred to the aqueous phase by modification of the surface using2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid32.
Measurement of SLP value. Measurement of heat generation of the nanoparticleswas carried out using a high-radiofrequency heating machine (HF 10K, TaeyangSystem Co. Korea) that radiated an a.c. magnetic field at a frequency f of 500 kHzand strength H0 of 37.3 kA m21. The a.c. magnetic field generated sinusoidalmagnetic field H as a function of time t, frequency f and maximum field strength H0:
H = H0 sin(2pft) (1)
The sample vial was thermally insulated using Styrofoam and inserted in awater-cooled magnetic induction coil (diameter, 5 cm) where the nanoparticleconcentration in toluene was 5 mg ml21. The SLP was calculated using equation (2),
SLP = CVs
mdTdt
(2)
where dT/dt is the initial slope of the graph of the change in temperature versus time,C is the volumetric specific heat capacity of the sample solution, Vs is the samplevolume and m is the mass of magnetic material in the sample. See SupplementarySection 10 for the complete parameters and detailed simulation procedure.
In vivo mouse experiments. We maintained six-week-old female BALB/c nudemice under the approval of and in accordance with the guidelines of the AnimalCare Committee of Yonsei University, Korea. U87MG cells (7 × 106) in 100 mlHanks’ balanced salt solution were xenografted into the abdomen of each mouse.When the size of the tumour reached 100 mm3, a solution of 75 mg nanoparticles ordoxorubicin dissolved in normal saline (50 ml) were injected intratumorally. Micewere treated with an a.c. magnetic field for 10 min (frequency, 500 kHz; strength,37.3 kA m21). For the dosage comparison study, same-sized tumours (100 mm3) weretreated by either nanoparticles or doxorubicin of different amounts in saline (50 ml).
Received 7 April 2011; accepted 19 May 2011;published online 26 June 2011
References1. Timko, B. P. et al. Advances in drug delivery. Ann. Rev. Mater. Res. 41,
3.1–3.20 (2011).2. Yavuz, M. S. et al. Gold nanocages covered by smart polymers for controlled
release with near-infrared light. Nature Mater. 8, 935–939 (2009).3. Liu, T. Y., Hub, S. H., Liu, D. M., Chen, S. Y. & Chen, I. W. Biomedical
nanoparticle carriers with combined thermal and magnetic responses. NanoToday 4, 52–65 (2009).
4. Cherukuri, P., Glazer, E. S. & Curley, S. A. Targeted hyperthermia using metalnanoparticles. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 62, 339–345 (2010).
5. Kam, N. W. S, O’Connell, M., Wisdom, J. A. & Dai, H. Carbon nanotube asmultifunctional biological transporters and near-infrared agents for selectivecancer cell destruction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 11600–11605 (2005).
6. Thiesen, B. & Jordan, A. Clinical applications of magnetic nanoparticles forhyperthermia. Int. J. Hyperthermia 24, 467–474 (2008).
7. Huang, H., Delikanli, S., Zeng, H., Ferkey, D. M. & Pralle, A. Remote control ofion channels and neurons through magnetic-field heating of nanoparticles.Nature Nanotech. 5, 602–606 (2010).
8. Chen, C. C. et al. DNA-gold nanorod conjugates for remote control oflocalized gene expression by near infrared irradiation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128,3709–3715 (2006).
9. Jordan, A. et al. Presentation of a new magnetic field therapy system for thetreatment of human solid tumors with magnetic fluid hyperthermia. J. Magn.Magn. Mater. 225, 118–126 (2001).
10. Hergt, R. & Dutz, S. Magnetic particle hyperthermia—biophysical limitations ofa visionary tumour therapy. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 311, 187–191 (2007).
11. Hergt, R. et al. Physical limits of hyperthermia using magnetite fine particles.IEEE Trans. Magn. 34, 3745–3754 (1998).
12. Link, S. & El-Sayed, M. A. Shape and size dependence of radiative, non-radiativeand photothermal properties of gold nanocrystals. Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 19,409–453 (2000).
13. Lal, S., Clare, S. E. & Halas, N. J. Nanoshell-enabled photothermal cancertherapy: impending clinical impact. Acc. Chem. Res. 41, 1842–1851 (2008).
14. Norman, R. S., Stone, J. W., Gole, A., Murphy, C. J. & Sabo-Attwood, T.Photothermal destruction of the bacterium Pseudomonas Ariginosa by goldnanorods. Nano Lett. 8, 302–306 (2008).
15. O’Neal, D. P., Hirsch, L. R., Halas, N. J., Payne, J. D. & West, J. L. Photo-thermaltumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles. Cancer Lett.209, 171–176 (2004).
16. Loo, C., Lowery, A., Halas, N., West, J. & Drezek, R. Immunotargeted nanoshellsfor integrated cancer imaging and therapy. Nano Lett. 5, 709–711 (2005).
17. Stolik, S., Delgado, J. A., Perez, A. & Anasagasti, L. Measurement of thepenetration depths of red and near infrared light in human ‘ex vivo’ tissues.J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biology 57, 90–93 (2000).
18. Hergt, R., Dutz, S., Muller, R., & Zeisberger, M. Magnetic particle hyperthermia:nanoparticle magnetism and materials development for cancer therapy. J. Phys.:Condens. Matter 18, S2919–S2934 (2006).
19. Fortin, J-P. et al. Size-sorted anionic iron oxide nanomagnets as colloidalmediators for magnetic hyperthermia. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 2628–2635 (2007).
20. Rosensweig, R. E. Heating magnetic fluid with alternating magnetic field.J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 252, 370–374 (2002).
21. Derfus, A. M. et al. Remotely triggered release from magnetic nanoparticles.Adv. Mater. 19, 3932–3936 (2007).
22. Thomas, C. R. et al. Noninvasive remote-controlled release of drug molecules invitro using magnetic actuation of mechanized nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc.132, 10623–10625 (2010).
23. Levy, A., Dayan, A., Ben-David, M. & Gannot, I. A new thermography-basedapproach to early detection of cancer utilizing magnetic nanoparticles theorysimulation and in vitro validation. Nanomedicine 6, 786–796 (2010).
24. Pradhan, P. et al. Comparative evaluation of heating ability and biocompatibilityof different ferrite-based magnetic fluids for hyperthermia application.J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B 81, 12–22 (2007).
25. Habib, A. H., Ondeck, C. L., Chaudhary, P., Bockstaller, M. R. & McHenry, M. E.Evaluation of iron–cobalt/ferrite core shell nanoparticles for cancerthermotherapy. J. Appl. Phys. 103, 07A307 (2008).
26. Kappiyoor, R., Liangruksa, M., Ganguly, R. & Puri, I. K. The effects of magneticnanoparticle properties on magnetic fluid hyperthermia. J. Appl. Phys. 108,094702 (2010).
27. Kneller, E. F. The exchange-spring magnet: a new material principle forpermanent magnets. IEEE Trans. Magn. 27, 3588–3600 (1991).
28. Zeng, H., Li, J., Liu, J. P., Wang, Z. L. & Sun, S. Exchange-coupled nanocompositemagnets by nanoparticle self-assembly. Nature 420, 395–398 (2002).
29. Jiang, J. S. et al. A new approach for improving exchange-spring magnets.J. Appl. Phys. 97, 10K311 (2005).
30. Sun, S. H. et al. Monodisperse MFe2O4 (M¼Fe, Co, Mn) nanoparticles. J. Am.Chem. Soc. 126, 273–279 (2004).
31. Cullity, B. D. Introduction to Magnetic Materials (Addison-Wesley, 1972).32. Jang, J-t. et al. Critical enhancements of MRI contrast and hyperthermic effects
by dopant-controlled magnetic nanoparticles. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48,1234–1238 (2009).
33. Hergt, R. et al. Magnetic properties of bacterial magnetosomes as potentialdiagnostic and therapeutic tools. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 293, 80–86 (2005).
34. Gonzales-Weimuller, G., Zeisberger, M. & Krishnan, K. M. Size-dependentheating rates of iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetic fluid hyperthermia.J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 321, 1947–1950 (2009).
35. Pankhurst, Q. A., Connolly, J., Jones, S. K. & Dobson, J. Applications of magneticnanoparticles in biomedicine. J. Phys. D 36, R167–R181 (2003).
36. Ondeck, C. L. et al. Theory of magnetic fluid heating with an alternatingmagnetic field with temperature dependent materials properties forself-regulated heating. J. Appl. Phys. 105, 07B324 (2009).
37. Franco, A. & e Silva, F. C. High temperature magnetic properties of cobalt ferritenanoparticles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 172505 (2010).
38. Kulkarni, G. U., Kannan, K. R., Arunarkavalli, T. & Rao, C. N. R. Particle-sizeeffects on the value of Tc of MnFe2O4: evidence for finite-size scaling. Phys. Rev. B49, 724–727 (1994).
AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by Creative Research Initiative (2010-0018286), WCU Program(R32-2009-10217) and BK21 Project. The authors thank H. Nah for preliminary SLPmeasurements and Y. Jo at KBSI for magnetism measurements. K.I.P. was supported by theStem Cell Research Center and Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project (A091159).
Author contributionsJ.C. conceived and designed the experiment. J-H.L, J-t.J., S.H.M., J-G.K. and S-h.N. performedsyntheses, characterizations and property measurements of the nanoparticles. J-s.C., I-S.K. andK.I.P. performed in vivo experiments. J-H.L., J-w.K. and J.C. wrote the manuscript.
Additional informationThe authors declare no competing financial interests. Supplementary informationaccompanies this paper at www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology. Reprints andpermission information is available online at http://www.nature.com/reprints/.Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.C.
Supplementary Section 10: SLP comparison of core-shell nanoparticles with other
reported values
Table S3 summarizes SLP values of core-shell nanoparticles and other representative magnetic
nanoparticles.
Table S3. Reported SLP values of various magnetic nanoparticles.*
Material Size (nm)
Frequency f (kHz)
Amplitude, H0
(kA m-1) f·H0
(A m-1 s-1)
Reported SLP
(W g-1) Magnetism Reference
γ-Fe2O3 16.5 700 24.8 17.36 x 109 1650 superpara 12
CoFe2O4 9.1 700 24.8 17.36 x 109 360 superpara 12
CoFe2O4 3.9 700 24.8 17.36 x 109 40 superpara 12
Fe3O4 10 300 15 4.1 x 109 168 superpara 13
MnFe2O4 10 300 15 4.1 x 109 136 superpara 13
CoFe2O4 10 300 15 4.1 x 109 52 superpara 13
Fe3O4 14 400 24.5 9.8 x 109 447 superpara 14
Fe3O4 40 410 10 4.1 x 109 960 ferro 15
CoFe2O4@ MnFe2O4
15 500 37.3 18.7 x 109 2280 superpara this study
MnFe2O4@ CoFe2O4
15 500 37.3 18.7 x 109 3034 superpara this study
Fe3O4@ CoFe2O4
15 500 37.3 18.7 x 109 2795 superpara this study
Zn0.4Co0.6Fe2O4
@ Zn0.4Mn0.6Fe2O4
15 500 37.3 18.7 x 109 3886 superpara this study
* This comparison cannot absolutely be perfect and should be rather regarded as an approximate guideline because the dimensions of inductive coil, which also affect the SLP, are not incorporated due to their unavailability from literatures.
The values of the variables: µ0: permeability in free space (4π x 10-7 T m A-1)
f: frequency of magnetic field (500 kHz) H0: magnetic field intensity (37.4 kA m-1) ω: angular frequency (= 2πf = 3.14 x 10-6 s) φ: nanoparticle volume fraction (0.13%) ρ: particle density (5.3 x 103 kg m-3) Md: domain magnetization of suspended particle (6.36 x 105 A m-1) Vm: nanoparticle volume (m3) Vh: hydrodynamic volume of nanoparticle (m3): 2 nm diameter increase to Vm K: magnetic anisotropy constant (J m-3) η: viscosity of solution (toluene 550 µPa s; water 894 µPa s) kBT: Boltzman constant product (4.14 x 10-21)
This calculation successfully reproduces the other ones reported. Below are the SLP graphs
excerpted from the other’s report and the reproduced graph by using our calculation.
Figure S8. SLP graphs excerpted from the other report and the reproduced graphs by using our
calculation. (a) Original SLP graphs from Fortin et al and (b) reproduced graph by our