Advertisement

Evaluation of Different Magnetic Particle Systems with Respect to Its MPI Performance

  • Dietmar Eberbeck
  • Lutz Trahms
  • Harald Kratz
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 140)

Abstract

The Magnetic Particle Spectroscopy (MPS)-amplitudes were measured on 7 suspensions of magnetite based magnetic particles (MNP) differing in core size and magnetic anisotropy. The distributions of the effective domain sizes, estimated by means of quasistatic M(H) measurements and Magnetorelaxometry (MRX), matches well the core size distribution for the single core MNP-systems estimated by electron microscopy. Two systems, namely Resovist and M4E clearly exhibit a bimodal domain size distribution. It was shown, that the MPS amplitudes strongly increase with increasing domain size up to 21 nm, the mean value of the larger fraction of Resovist. For M4E with a mean size of the larger fraction of 33 nm the measured MPS-amplitudes became much smaller than those of Resovist, in particular for the higher harmonics. That behaviour was attributed to the mean anisotropy energy of these MNPs, estimated by MRX, exceeding that of Resovist by one order of magnitude. The effect of the MNP’s magnetic anisotropy is also supported by comparison of measured MPS-amplitudes with those which were calculated on the base of M(H)-data.

Keywords

Magnetic Particle Magnetic Anisotropy Domain Size Prussian Blue Core Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gleich, B.: WO2004/091398 A2 (December 28, 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberbeck, D., Wiekhorst, F., Wagner, S., Trahms, L.: How the size distribution of magnetic nanoparticles determines their magnetic particle imaging performance. Appl. Phys. Let. 98, 182502 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun, K.-F., Sievers, S., Eberbeck, D., Gustafsson, S., Olsson, E., Schumacher, H.W., Siegner, U.: arXiv:1002.3739 (unpublished)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andres Verges, M., Costo, R., Roca, A.G., Marco, J.F., Goya, G.F., Serna, C.J., Morales, M.P.: Uniform and water stable magnetite nanoparticles with diameters around the monodomain-multidomain limit. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41, 134003 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morales, M.P.: Private communication (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chantrell, R.W., Popplewell, J., Charles, S.W.: Measurements of particle size distribution parameters in ferrofluids. IEEE Trans. Mag. 14(5), 975–977 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eberbeck, D., Müller, R., Schmidt, C., Wagner, S., Löwa, N., Trahms, L.: Evidence of bimodal distribution of the effective magnetic sizes of magnetic nanaoparticles. In: Book of Abstracts of the 11th German Ferrofluid Workshop, Benediktbeuern, September 28–30, pp. 16–17 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matz, H., Drung, D., Hartwig, S., Groß, H., Kötitz, R., Müller, W., Vass, A., Weitschies, W., Trahms, L.: A SQUID measurement system for immunoassay. Appl. Supercond. 6(10-12), 577–583 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eberbeck, D., Wiekhorst, F., Steinhoff, U., Trahms, L.: Aggregation behaviour of magnetic nanoparticle suspensions investigated by magnetorelaxometry. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 18, S2829–S2846 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physikalisch-Technische BundesanstaltBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, CharitéCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations