ArticleNanoscale2026
Comparison of magnetic nanoparticle immobilization methods using MPS and MRX.
Article in Nanoscale, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic nanoparticles (MNP) are employed in many technical and clinical applications for which the knowledge of their magnetic properties is mandatory. This comprises not only the intrinsic magnetic parameters, but especially in biomedical applications the changes of the MNP behavior in a certain environment or binding state such as the immobilization of the MNP after cellular uptake, blood contact or injection into tissue. Therefore, the magnetic properties of MNP samples that have been immobilized are considered to mimic the binding of MNP to human tissue. However, the procedure and materials used for immobilization differently impact their magnetic properties. Here, we investigated common immobilization methods regarding reproducibility and variation in terms of the magnetic properties of the commercial nanoparticle system perimag® for the three available surface coatings. We considered immobilization by polyacrylamide embedding, freeze drying, gypsum crystallization, filter paper as well as cotton wool drying. We used the two magnetic measurement techniques magnetic particle spectroscopy (MPS) and magnetorelaxometry (MRX) to assess the magnetic properties and changes thereof for all immobilization methods. We found highest reproducibility and less variation in magnetic parameters for freeze dried and gypsum immobilization. A higher variation of magnetic properties was observed for evaporation-based methods filter paper and cotton wool attributed to unstructured arrangement of MNP on the fibers of the immobilization materials. The surface modification of the MNP system shows a minor impact on immobilization procedure. From our results, we deduce recommendations and practicability considerations for immobilization methods in preparation and handling of MNP reference samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.