Magnetic Hyperthermia of NP

 Some recent articles about modeling of hyperthermia in magnetic nanoparticle systems:

1) Role of dipole-dipole interactions for hyperthermia heating of magnetic nanoparticle ensembles.
C. Haase and U. Nowak
Phys. Rev. B 85, 045435 (2012)

Heating power per sample volume Ac vs
particle concentration c. Systems with different spatial distributions
(regular simple cubic and hexagonal structures as well as random
repellent and free particles) are compared. In all cases an optimal
density exists.

2) Optimal Size of Nanoparticles for Magnetic Hyperthermia: A Combined Theoretical and Experimental Study.
Boubker Mehdaoui , Anca Meffre , Julian Carrey , Sébastien Lachaize , Lise-Marie Lacroix , Michel Gougeon , Bruno Chaudret , and Marc Respaud
Adv. Funct. Mater. 21, 4573 (2011)

The heating power of metallic iron magnetic nanoparticles with diameters ranging from 5.5 to 28 nm is measured in an alternating applied magnetic field with a frequency of 54 kHz and an amplitude ranging from 8 to 60 mT. The optimal size is visible as a maximum in the curve. Optimized nanoparticles display losses of 8 mJ g⁻¹ at this frequency.

3) Simple models for dynamic hysteresis loop calculations of magnetic single-domain nanoparticles: Application to magnetic hyperthermia optimization.
J. Carrey, B. Mehdaoui, and M. Respaud 
J. App. Phys. 109, 083921 (2011) 

Comparison between theoretical optimum parameters and experimental bulk parameters of several magnetic materials. Eq. (46) is plotted for l0Hmax¼20 mT (dotted lines) and 50 mT (dashed lines). In each case, the upper curve represents the random orientation case, and the lower one represents the phi=0 case.

4) Influence of dipolar interactions on hyperthermia properties of ferromagnetic particles.
D. Serantes, D. Baldomir, C. Martinez-Boubeta, K. Simeonidis, M. Angelakeris, E. Natividad, M. Castro, A. Mediano, D.-X. Chen, A. Sanchez, LI. Balcells, and B. Martínez
J. App. Phys. 108, 073918 (2010) 

Field-dependence of the SAR for different concentrations c=0.007, 0.070, 0.150. Field data is also expressed in real units in order to make easier the comparison with the experimental values plotted in Fig. 2.