Next Article in Journal
The First 1H NMR Total Assignment and a Quantum-Mechanically Driven Full Spin Analysis of the Steroid Hormone Equilenin
Previous Article in Journal
Engineering Cobalt Ferrite Nanofilms for Magnetically Assisted Oxygen Evolution: Interplay of Doping, Nanostructure, and Electrode Magnetism
Previous Article in Special Issue
Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Enabled Ultrasound-Guided Theranostic Systems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ferrofluids Based on Anionic Polysaccharide-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeted Magnetocatalytic-Driven Multimodal Anticancer Therapy

by
Liliane A. S. Angelo
1,†,
Alexandra A. P. Mansur
1,†,
Sandhra M. Carvalho
1,2,
Klaus Krambrock
3,
Isadora C. Carvalho
1 and
Herman S. Mansur
1,*
1
Center of Nanoscience, Nanotechnology, and Innovation—CeNano2I, Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
2
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biological Sciences-ICB, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
3
Department of Physics, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Magnetochemistry 2026, 12(3), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031
Submission received: 21 January 2026 / Revised: 20 February 2026 / Accepted: 26 February 2026 / Published: 3 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Magnetic Nano- and Microparticles in Biotechnology)

Abstract

Regrettably, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains the deadliest form of brain cancer, with a very unfavorable prognosis for life expectancy for the patient. We report, for the first time, the green colloidal synthesis of cobalt-doped magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (Co-MNPs) as aqueous ferrofluids, using two anionic polysaccharide biopolymers, hyaluronic acid (HA) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), as surfactants. These ferrofluids based on magnetite nanoparticles (HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP) demonstrated superparamagnetic properties and magnetic-to-thermal conversion upon exposure to an alternating magnetic field (AMF), with the extent of conversion dependent on surfactant type. In addition, the ferrophase acted as a nanozyme, mimicking peroxidase-like activity in response to hydrogen peroxide, which is present at higher levels in tumor cells. The coupling of magnetic-heat capabilities with biocatalytic behavior enhances glioblastoma cell elimination and suppresses 3D neurospheroid growth. The results also showed that active targeting based on the HA biopolymer shell, due to its affinity for CD44 membrane receptors overexpressed in GBM, outperformed CMC-coated ferrofluid analogs. These magnetocatalytic-responsive nanoplatforms offer a broad avenue for the diagnosis and therapy of numerous cancers, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and prognoses.

1. Introduction

Primary brain cancers, particularly glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), remain among the most lethal and therapeutically challenging malignancies, presenting a very unfavorable prognosis for patient life expectancy [1]. Despite the undeniable progress achieved in the last 2–3 decades in the treatment involving maximal surgical resection, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the median survival of GBM patients rarely exceeds 12–16 months [1,2]. Consequently, there is a critical gap in the development of innovative therapeutic platforms capable of selective targeting and integrated multimodal action to overcome tumor resistance while reducing the toxicity to healthy tissue/cells [1,3].
Nanotechnology, particularly nanomedicine in combination with biomedical fields, has emerged as a frontier for the design of nanosystems for the therapy of numerous cancers. In this context, iron oxide-based nanoparticles (MNPs) are of particular interest due to their superparamagnetic properties, which enable magnetic-to-thermal conversion upon exposure to an exogenous alternating magnetic field (AMF). Also, they behave as nanozymes (i.e., enzyme-like nanomaterials), mimicking peroxidase-like (i.e., POD-like) activity to catalyze the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from endogenous hydrogen peroxide, which is usually present at higher levels in tumor cells than in healthy cells [4,5,6,7].
In this sense, the coupling of this magnetic-to-heat-induced capability with POD-like biocatalytic behavior offers the fascinating opportunities of novel multimodal therapy that targets the tumor through both magnetic hyperthermia (MHT) and chemodynamic (CDT) pathways, where the responses could also be boosted by doping the nanosized ferrites with transition metals such as cobalt [8,9]. Nevertheless, the literature still lacks scalable nanoplatforms that integrate tumor targeting and therapy within a single integrated biocompatible system capable of bypassing brain biological barriers, reaching the tumor site, and effectively eliminating resistant cancer cells without inducing severe systemic toxicity [1,3].
A scalable option is the use of ferrofluids, which offer numerous advanced properties for nanomedicine applications and are suitable for developing large-scale manufacturing processes, particularly chemical bottom-up approaches such as co-precipitation, which offer additional advantages in cost-effectiveness and reproducibility [10]. However, the colloidal stability and biocompatibility of these single-domain magnetic nanoparticles, even in the presence of AMF and in high-ionic physiological environments, depend on the surface coating, due to their very small dimensions [11,12,13]. Considering their potential as nanomedicines for oncological applications, biopolymers such as hyaluronic acid (HA) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are excellent candidates for chemical stabilization of nanostructures, serving as anionic surfactants for the green colloidal synthesis of aqueous ferrofluids. Both CMC and HA can create physical (i.e., steric hindrance) and electrical (i.e., electrostatic repulsion of negatively charged groups) barriers to promote the colloidal stability of the ferrophase [14]. Moreover, they provide functional groups for further conjugation with targeting molecules. It is also noteworthy that, in addition to these advantages, HA has been reported to target GBM cells and facilitate receptor-mediated transport across the BBB (blood–brain barrier) [15,16]. These features are associated with its high affinity for CD44 membrane receptors, which are highly overexpressed in glioblastoma cells and in a subpopulation of cancer stem cells (CSCs) that are extremely invasive and metastatic [17].
Hence, in this research, the synthesis and extensive physicochemical, magnetic, catalytic, and biological characterization of aqueous ferrofluids based on superparamagnetic cobalt-doped magnetite nanoparticles chemically stabilized with two anionic polysaccharides, CMC and HA, for targeted magnetocatalytic-driven multimodal anticancer therapy are reported.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Two polysaccharides were selected as anionic surfactants for stabilization of ferrofluids: (I) sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) with degree of substitution, DS, 0.7, molar mass, MM, 90,000 Da (catalog number #419273, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA); and (II) hyaluronic acid sodium salt (HA) with MM = 80,000–100,000 Da (catalog number #FH63427, Biosynth Carbosynth Group, Compton, UK). To avoid redundancy with published literature, common reagents and conventional materials used in this work are listed in the Supplementary Material.

2.2. Ferrofluid Synthesis

A co-precipitation approach through “bottom-up” colloidal chemistry was employed to synthesize cobalt-doped magnetic nanoparticles (Co-MNP), as outlined in the Supplementary Material. Cobalt doping, i.e., a well-controlled partial substitution of the divalent transition-metal cation endowing new characteristics to the hosting nanosystem, replaced 40 mol% of Fe2+ with Co2+ species (CoxFe3−xO4, x = 0.4, Co0.4Fe2.6O4). This value corresponds to a theoretical molar content of 5.7 mol% (or 10.9 wt%) of cobalt in the ferrite, which increases magnetic and catalytic responses of the nanoferrites, while presenting limited cytotoxicity for biomedical applications.
The concentration of the polysaccharides were 1.0% w/v and 1.2% w/v of CMC and HA, respectively (i.e., 1.1 ± 0.1%; 1.0% vs. 1.2% w/v), corresponding to approximately Metal:Carboxylate of 1:0.5 mol:mol. Fixing the ratio between carboxylate groups and iron (or transition metal) groups is pivotal in bottom-up nanoparticle synthesis, where colloidal systems are produced through well-controlled nucleation, growth, and stabilization stages, and the proportion Metal (M):Ligand (anionic polymer, Lpol) is critical (i.e., Mx+: Lpoly− → kinetics and thermodynamics).
In summary, Co2+, Fe2+, and Fe3+ ions were dissolved and homogeneized in the polysaccharide solutions in a ratio of 0.02 M of Fe2+ + Co2+ and 0.04 M of Fe3+. In the sequence, under a nitrogen atmosphere, the medium was heated to 80 ± 2 °C, and the pH was raised to alkaline levels using ammonium hydroxide solution. The obtained ferrofluids were referred to as HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP depending on the polysaccharide surfactant used, hyaluronic acid or carboxymethylcellulose, respectively.

2.3. Polymer and Ferrofluid Characterization

The characterization of polysaccharides and ferrofluids was carried out relying on Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR, transmission mode, Nicolet 6700, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) and, for surface analysis, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, Mg-Kα radiation, 120 W, Amicus spectrometer, Kratos, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan). Samples were films dried from polymer solutions and ferrofluid suspensions. For ferrofluid suspensions, zeta potential (ZP) and dynamic light scattering (DLS) analyses were performed using the ZetaPlus system (Brookhaven Instruments Corporation, Holtsville, NY, USA).
The spectroscopic, structural, morphological, and magnetic features of the inorganic core were also assessed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM, 200 kV, TEM, Tecnai G2-20, FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX, Xplore, Oxford Instruments, Abingdon, UK), X-ray diffraction (XRD, Cu-Kα radiation, PANalytical Empyrean diffractometer, Malvern Panalytical Ltd., Malvern, UK), X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (WD-XRF, Supermini200 spectrometer, Rigaku Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR, 77 K and 300 K, MiniScope MS400, Magnettech, Freiberg, Germany), and vibrating-sample magnetometer (VSM, 300 K, 7404 VSM, Lake Shore Cryotronics, Inc., Westerville, OH, USA).
The evaluation of magnetic-to-thermal conversion capacity was performed using the Magnetherm™ instrument (nanoTherics, Staffordshire, UK) at different magnetic field strengths (H = 10, 15, 20 kA/m) and a frequency of f = 110 kHz. The AMF used in the experiment is water-cooled (Twater ~24 °C), and the plastic vial (cryotube) with ferrofluid was positioned within the coil using an insulating (expanded polystyrene) sample holder, which maintains the vial sample in the region of maximum field homogeneity. The heating procedures were extended to 60 min to allow all samples to reach steady-state thermal equilibrium (the thermal energy generated by the MNP is equilibrated with heat losses to the surroundings) across all experimental conditions and to evaluate whether the nanomaterials remain stable following a long AMF stimulation period. The temperature changes in the samples were measured with a non-ferromagnetic Type T thermocouple (Copper/Constantan) with twisted-wire geometry to reduce direct interaction with the magnetic field [18,19,20]. The specific absorption rate (SAR) was calculated using the initial slope method, as described in Equation (1) [21,22].
S A R = c ρ ϕ Δ T Δ t
where c is the specific heat capacity of the colloid (J/g·°C), ρ is the colloid density (g/mL), ϕ is the metal concentration (Fe + Co, g/mL), and ΔT/Δt is the experimentally measured heating rate (°C/s).
Aiming to evaluate heat losses, Box-Lucas fits were also performed (Equation (2)) to estimate the linear loss parameter, L (Equation (3)), for HA- and CMC-stabilized ferrofluids, and SARBox-Lucas was calculated using the fitting parameters (Equation (4)) [23,24].
T = a ( 1 e b ( t t 0 ) )
L = b · C
S A R B o x L u c a s = a · b · C / m M N P
where C is the heat capacity of the colloid (J/K), a (K) and b (1/s) are fit constants, L is the linear loss parameter (W/K), mMNP is the mass of metal in the nanoparticles (g), and (t − t0) is the experimental time (s).
The study of the catalytic properties was performed at room temperature (RT, 25.0 ± 2.5 °C) based on the oxidation of 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine hydrochloride (TMB) by the H2O2 substrate mediated by the ferrofluids (i.e., acting as nanozymes) at pH 5.0 (phosphate-citrate buffer), as previously described by our group [7]. TMBox species were detected at wavelength 654 nm using a microplate (96-well) absorbance reader (iMark, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, USA). The Michaelis–Menten (M–M) kinetic model curves (Equation (5)) were obtained by plotting the respective initial velocities (v0 calculated using TMBox molar extinction coefficient, ε = 3.9 × 104 M−1·cm−1 [25]) versus H2O2 substrate concentration ([S]) and the maximal velocities (Vmax) and Michaelis constant (Km) were calculated using the Lineweaver–Burk plot in Origin software (OriginPro, v.2015 SR2, OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). Electron paramagnetic resonance tests, combined with the spin-trap methodology using DMPO (5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline n-oxide), were also performed to confirm the formation of ROS, as previously described by our group [26].
v 0 = V m a x × [ S ] K m + [ S ]

2.4. Cellular Experiments

In vitro tests were performed using U-87 MG (referred to as U87, American Type Culture Collection, ATCC® HTB-14, purchased from the Banco de Células do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and HEK 293T (referred to as HEK, ATCC® CRL-1573, supplied by the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil). These cell lines were cultured in DMEM (with 10% FBS) at 37 °C with 5% CO2.
Biocatalytic activity of ferrofluids in vitro was evaluated as reported in the literature [7] by the direct measurement of ROS based on the fluorescent probe DCF-DA (2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate). Also, lipid damage due to ROS was assessed by measuring MDA levels based on the thiobarbituric acid method (TBAR) [26].
To evaluate the magnetocatalytic therapeutic potential of ferrofluids in a 2D cell culture model, the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) bioassay was performed, which is the most widely accepted test for assessing the cytotoxicity of (nano)materials for biomedical applications, as previously described by our group [22]. For ROS-based therapy (ROS+), HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP were incubated with cells at concentrations ranging from 0.003 to 100 µg/mL (corresponding to the inorganic core concentration) for 24 h to determine the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50). For magnetocatalytic therapy, cells were incubated for 24 h at 0.6 μg/mL. After that, the hyperthermia groups (AMF+) were exposed to an alternating magnetic field (20 kA/m, 110 kHz) for 60 min, followed by the MTT test to evaluate cell viability compared with the group without MHT.
For 3D cell culture tests, neurospheroids were grown for 10 days as previously described by our group [27]. Then, they were treated (Day 0, 1st dose) with HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP (0.6 and 6.0 µg/mL). After 3 days, a second dose of ferrofluids was administered (Day 3, 2nd dose). On Day 7, cell viability was assessed using the MTT assay [27]. For the AMF+ group, neurospheoids were exposed to AMF (20 kA/m and 110 kHz for 60 min) before the MTT assay. Control samples were untreated neurospheroids (ROS− and AMF−) and neurospheroids without ferrofluid treatment but exposed to AMF on Day 7 (ROS−/AMF+). Bright-field images of spheroids were captured at Day 0 and Day 7, before and after AMF exposure (Eclipse Ti-U microscope, Nikon Instruments, Melville, NY, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Colloidal Characterization of Ferrofluids Stabilized by HA and CMC Anionic Polysaccharides

It is of paramount importance to characterize ferrofluids using a colloidal chemistry approach, in which the anionic biopolymers HA and CMC play a pivotal role in the nucleation (N), growth (G), and stabilization (S) of the inorganic Co-MNP nanoparticles in aqueous media.
In this view, CMC is a linear cellulose derivative made by D-glucose monosaccharides linked by β-1,4-glycosidic bonds, where carboxymethyl groups partially replace (depending on the degree of substitution) OH groups at positions O-2, O-3, or O-6 (Figure 1A), rendering hydroxyl and carboxyl functional groups [28]. On the other side, HA (Figure 1B) is also an unbranched polysaccharide having a repeating unit of a disaccharide of glucuronic acid and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine that are linked by alternating β1–4 and β1–3 glycosidic linkages [29]. The glucuronic acid (GlcA) unit is derived from glucose oxidation, where the primary alcohol group at C6 was converted to a –COOH group [30]. N-acetyl-D-Glucosamine (GlcNAc) is also a monosaccharide derivative of glucose, in which the hydroxyl group at C2 was replaced with an N-acetylamino group [31]. This disaccharide unit gives rise to the hydroxyl, carboxyl, and acetamido functional groups of the HA polymer.
FTIR spectra revealed these main functional groups of anionic polysaccharides and the carbon backbone, as depicted in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1C. The spectra confirmed the similarity of the functionalities of these polysaccharides except for the presence of the acetamido group (–N(H)–C(=O)) in the GlcNAc unit.
For both polymers, the region below 950 cm−1 includes complex overlapping of deformations and stretching [32,33]. However, upon Co-MNP synthesis (Figure 1D,E), the stretching bands of the ferrophase (Fe–O and Co–O) were found at frequencies lower than 650 cm−1 (615–600 cm−1 for the octahedral group of Co-O and 590 cm−1 for the tetrahedral group Fe–O), overlapped with these vibrations of polymeric surfactants [22,27,33]. In addition, the polysaccharide (HA and CMC) binding to the ferrophase surface resulted in several alterations in the IR spectra, including wavenumber shifts (mainly, νasCOO band at 1600–1610 cm−1), changes in the inter-/intrachains hydrogen bonds (3600–3000 cm−1), some protonation of CMC (1730 and 1235 cm−1), and changes in the relative intensity of specific vibrational bands [33].
For surface chemical characterization, high-resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (HR-XPS) was performed, focusing on C, O, and N species (Figure 2A,B). For both polysaccharides, in C 1s spectra, deconvolution of curves revealed four major sub-peaks, which can be attributed to C–C/C–H bonds, C–O/C–OH bonds, N–C=O/O–C–O bonds, and O=C–O bonds. Also, the O 1s spectra showed sub-peaks of R–C=O, C–OH/C–O, and O–C=O. For HA, the signal of the amide linkage peak (N–C=O) was detected [34,35,36,37,38]. Upon ferrofluid synthesis, narrow-energy-range analysis revealed changes in the intensities of the characteristic binding energies (BE) of neat polysaccharides. Also, for some peaks, shifts in BE values were observed.
DLS analysis revealed hydrodynamic diameters (DH) consistent with an aqueous colloidal supramolecular hybrid ferrofluid, composed of the magnetic inorganic core and the polysaccharide shell, where HA-based presented a higher hydrodynamic size (ca. 116 nm) than that of the CMC-stabilized suspensions (ca. 91 nm). Zeta potential (ZP) surface charges are consistent with the presence of anionic functional groups in the polysaccharides (−63 mV and −71 mV for HA and CMC surfactants) and indicate ferrofluid stabilization as a result of the combination of electrostatic repulsion of adjacent charged groups with steric hindrance of polymer chains (Figure 2C).

3.2. Characterization of Ferrophase Stabilized by HA and CMC Polysaccharides

TEM images (Figure 3(Aa,Ba)) indicated that both ferrofluids were made of an inorganic core (ferrophase) with an assessed typical mean diameter of 5–6 nm (Figure 3(Ab,Bb)) and displayed a predominant spherical morphology. The average nanoparticle size is critical for the application, indicating that Néel relaxations are expected to be predominantly active in magneto-to-thermal conversion [39,40]. A slight contrast was detected at the nanoparticle surfaces, ascribed to a “dry” polysaccharide shell layer overcoating the ferrophase.
High-resolution (HR) TEM images, for both surfactants, revealed the presence of interference fringes compatible with the interplanar distances (d ± 0.1 Å) of the nanosized magnetite (i.e., nanomagnetites) according to the JCPDS (Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards)-89-0691 file (Figure 3(Ac,Bc)). This crystalline cubic spinel structure of ferrites (and their doped derivatives) was also observed in SAED (selected-area electron diffraction) analysis (Figure 3(Ad,Bd)) and confirmed by XRD (Figure 3(Ae,Be)). It is noteworthy that the co-precipitation route used in this work was specifically designed to produce single-phase magnetite (e.g., salt precursors, concentrations, Fe2+(Co2+):Fe3+ 1:2 mol:mol ratio, controlled pH, N2 non-oxidant environment, thermodynamics, kinetics, etc.), as Co0.4Fe2.6O4, thereby avoiding multiphase formation. In addition, based on the (311) plane of the XRD pattern, crystallite sizes were calculated using Scherrer’s equation to be about 6–7 nm for both HA and CMC surfactants. Compared with diameters measured from microscopy images, these values indicate that the nanoparticles correspond mostly to monocrystals.
In chemical elemental analysis, EDX spectra showed the incorporation of Co species into the magnetite nanoparticle structure as a metal dopant, and peaks associated with the chemical constituents of biopolymers (HA and CMC) were observed (Figure 3(Af,Bf)). Cobalt (Co) and iron (Fe) content were estimated using WD-XRF. The results indicated Co/Fe mass ratios of 0.16 ± 0.01 for CMC@Co-MNP and 0.18 ± 0.01 for HA@Co-MNP, and the theoretical value was 0.16 [molar equivalent, Co0.4Fe2.6O4, 0.4/2.6 = 0.15]. Based on these results, cobalt cations were effectively incorporated by partial substitution of Fe2+ ions, as designed, within the experimental statistical variation for very small nanoparticles (i.e., <13% HA@Co-MNP).

3.3. Characterization of Magnetic Properties of Ferrofluids

The RT (300 K) hysteresis curves of magnetization versus the external magnetic field obtained from colloidal suspensions are shown in Figure 4A (HA) and Figure 4B (CMC). Upon application of an external magnetic field (AMF), the systems align in the field direction, and the VSM curves exhibit similar behavior for cobalt-doped magnetite ferrophase stabilized by the anionic polysaccharides HA and CMC. The magnetization curves indicate superparamagnetic behavior for both systems, with saturation, zero remanence, and zero coercivity, consistent with the magnetite-based core size [14,41,42,43,44].
This superparamagnetic property was confirmed by EPR analysis (Figure 4C,D), which also showed the characteristic broadening associated with Co2+ partial substitution in magnetite (Co-doped ferrite) and revealed that the ferrofluids maintained this behavior at 77 K (Figure 4E,F).
The magneto-to-thermal conversion capability of ferrofluids was demonstrated by an increase in temperature over time upon exposure to an AMF. In response to an AMF, heat is expected to be generated from the superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles primarily through Néel relaxations due to the size of the nanoparticles (~5 nm, below 12 nm) as schematically depicted in Figure 5A [39]. The AMF will essentially induce the magnetic moments to align with the applied field (spin rotation), and the Néel mechanism is characterized by heat dissipation from electromagnetic energy losses due to the reorientation of magnetic moments over an energy barrier within the magnetic core [41,45,46,47].
First, the heating efficacy of HA@Co-MNP was investigated under magnetic fields of different powers (H = 10, 15, and 20 kA/m), with the frequency fixed at 110 kHz. As expected, a large amount of heat was generated by increasing the intensity of the magnetic field (Figure 5B). Specific absorption rate (SAR), an essential parameter for evaluating the magnetic-to-heat conversion ability of magnetic materials, which describes the heat generated per second per gram of magnetic element (i.e., Fe + Co), followed the same trend (Figure 5C, left axis) [48,49].
Based on these results, H of 20 kA/m, f of 110 kHz (H × f = 2.2 × 109 A/m.s < 5 × 109 A/m·s, Hergt’s limit), were used in the experiments, as they fulfill the clinical safety recommendations/limitations for H, f, and H × f to avoid damage to the body/healthy cells due to induced eddy currents and peripheral muscle stimulation [48,50,51].
When comparing the effect of polysaccharide (H = 20 kA/m and f = 110 kHz, Co-MNP = 2.5 mg/mL, Fe + Co = 1.81 mg/mL), a higher temperature increase (~34%, Figure 5D,E, right y-axis) and associated SAR (~25%, Figure 5E, left y-axis) values were observed for the HA-stabilized nanoparticle. Regarding the stability of ferrofluids under these AMF exposure conditions, both ferrofluids remained chemically stable, without forming aggregates or precipitates, and retained their original hydrodynamic diameter and ZP after 60 min of AMF exposure.
Due to the non-adiabatic nature of the experimental setup, the SAR was initially determined using the initial-slope method within a restricted time window to ensure quasi-adiabatic conditions, as presented in Figure 5. To quantify heat dissipation, the experimental heating curves for HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP ferrofluids were fitted using the Box-Lucas model (Figure S1 and Table S1), yielding estimates of the linear loss parameter. For both samples, the L values were approximately ~1 × 10−4 W/K, consistent with non-adiabatic setups operating over a temperature range of 20K [23]. By incorporating L, the SAR values for these samples were recalculated to account for linear heat losses to the surroundings. For HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP, the Box-Lucas method yielded SARBox-Lucas values of 33.1 ± 2.3 W/g and 24.8 ± 2.5 W/g, respectively. These values represent a 15–20% increase over the initial-slope calculations, and the difference in performance induced by the specific surface functionalization with HA or CMC remains significant.
The observed variations in the magnetothermal response of nanoparticles coated with hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose, which share very similar core characteristics (i.e., size, composition, crystalline structure, single-phase magnetite, etc.), hydrodynamic radii, zeta potential, and biopolymer coating mass ratios, can be fundamentally interpreted by the distinct coordination environments at the organic–inorganic interface provided either by the CMC or the HA chains [12,13,52]. In the superparamagnetic regime of inorganic cores about 5 nm, heat generation is governed by Néel relaxation, which is highly sensitive to the effective magnetic anisotropy, a parameter that is significantly modulated by surface spin pinning [40,53,54,55]. The presence of surface ligands creates a strong field that stabilizes metallic ions on the surface, an effect that propagates into the nanoparticle interior via magnetic exchange interactions. Regarding HA, the perfectly alternating 1:1 periodicity of meres, featuring both carboxyl and acetamido groups, creates a uniform, dense coordination cage through multidentate chelation. The nitrogen atoms within the acetamido groups of HA play a decisive role, as nitrogen possesses a lower electronegativity compared to the oxygen atoms of COOH/COO. Thus, its lone electron pairs are more readily available for coordination with surface metal ions (Co2+/Fe2+/Fe3+), thereby fostering stronger covalency. Indeed, the N 1s XPS spectra shown in Figure 2A reveal this trend. While the N 1s peak for pure HA appears at a characteristic binding energy associated with the secondary amide group, the peak for HA@Co-MNP tends to higher binding energies as a result of the decrease in negative charge on the nitrogen nucleus (deshielding effect), indicating a coordinated interaction between nitrogen and metallic surface ions. These nitrogen-based donors induce greater crystal-field splitting than oxygen-only ligands. Such a modification of the electronic environment of the surface iron d-orbitals effectively tunes the orbital contribution to magnetic anisotropy and, therefore, reduces surface spin disorder, leading to the enhanced heating behavior observed for the HA ligand compared to the CMC-functionalized counterparts [54]. In contrast, although surface passivation is provided by COOH/COO, the relatively random substitution of these chemical groups throughout CMC (DS 0.7) results in a less ordered chemical environment, which could have led to lower effective pinning of surface moments. Although intriguing, a more in-depth investigation of this trend is not the major focus of this study, which would certainly require a sophisticated design and the production of additional nanosystems to address this complex topic.

3.4. Characterization of Catalytic Behavior of Ferrofluids

XPS analysis of the surface of the inorganic core (polysaccharide shell removed by Ar+ etching) was performed for the identification of the presence and oxidation states of Fe and Co. It is recognized as a highly “phase-sensitive” characterization technique, which was used to demonstrate the formation of magnetite. The XPS results are depicted in the high-resolution spectra of the Fe region (Figure 6A), which display binding energy peaks at 710.5 eV and 723.7 eV, assigned to Fe 2p3/2 and Fe 2p1/2 peaks of magnetite nanoparticles, shifted by about 0.5 eV towards lower binding energies in comparison to their values in maghemite and hematite [56]. In addition, another piece of evidence supporting the existence of both Fe2+ and Fe3+ species in the lattice is the absence of a satellite peak neighboring 719 eV, which is clearly observed in maghemite and hematite [56,57,58]. Co2+ species were also verified based on the narrow spectra of the Co 2p region (Figure 6B) [59].
The occurrence of these species at the ferrophase surface is usually associated with the peroxidase-like activity of the inorganic core based on Fenton-like reactions (Equations (6) and (7)), schematically depicted in Figure 6C [60,61].
Co-MNP-Metal2+(surface) + H2O2(ads) → Co-MNP-Metal3+(surface) + •OH + OH (ROS)
Co-MNP-Metal3+(surface) + H2O2(ads) → Co-MNP-Metal2+(surface) + •OOH + H+ (ROS)
To confirm the peroxidase-like ability of the ferrofluids, the progress of the blue absorbance of oxidized TMB (TMBox) with time (Figure 6D) upon the injection of hydrogen peroxide substrate (H2O2) into ferrofluid suspensions at pH 5.0 ± 0.2 was investigated [62]. This acidic pH range was selected based on the well-known characteristic of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and of endo-lysosomal compartments of cells [6,63,64]. Similar to natural enzymes, a positive dependence of catalytic activity on nanocatalyst concentration (Figure 6E and Figure S2) and substrate amount (Figure 6F and Figure S3) was observed. In addition, they followed the Michaelis–Menten model, characteristic of nanozyme behavior, yielding results that were relatively similar for the Michaelis constant (Km) and maximum velocity (Vmax) (Figure 6G).
For a more in-depth analysis, electron spin resonance (ESR) was employed to monitor the formation of •OH using DMPO as a trapping agent. As illustrated in Figure 6H,I, the characteristic DMPO/•OH spin adduct was observed in the EPR spectra. These results indicated that both HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP were capable of generating hydroxyl radicals in the presence of H2O2, confirming their peroxidase-like activity [62].
These results demonstrated the potential of ferrofluids for ROS-based catalytic therapy, leveraging their nanozyme-bearing peroxidase-like activity, which was largely independent of the surfactant polysaccharide type.

3.5. Magnetocatalytic Therapy in 2D Cell Model

For 2D cell model experiments, two cell lines were selected to demonstrate the potential of magnetocatalytic therapy to kill GBM cells while preserving non-tumoral cells and to assess the targeting effects of ferrofluids, depending on the surfactant type.
The U-87 MG cell line (likely glioblastoma) was chosen to model human GBM due to its high expression of the CD44 membrane receptor (CD44+). In contrast, HEK 293T (human embryonic kidney cells) is a non-tumoral cell line used as a reference for CD44- [65,66]. According to data extracted from the international source, freely available from the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) project [67,68], the expression level of the CD44 gene in U-87 MG (828.3 nTPM) is approximately 140 times higher than in HEK 293T (5.8 nTPM).
To assess the intracellular levels of ROS, that is, the biocatalytic activity of the ferrofluids, 5-(and-6)-carboxy-2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate (DCF-DA) analysis was performed [69,70]. The results (Figure 7A) demonstrated higher ROS levels in the U-87 MG tumoral cell line, although no significant dependence on surfactant type was observed. In addition, it is noteworthy that the lower content of ROS is observed in the absence of the ferrofluids.
The thiobarbituric acid method (TBAR test [71]) was also used to determine malondialdehyde (MDA) formation, an indicator of lipid damage and cell death by ferroptosis, and to assess the biocatalytic activity of ferrofluids. The results (Figure 7B) revealed dependence on both cell type and surfactant, with the highest MDA levels observed in the U-87 MG, as the CD44+ cell line, treated with HA@Co-MNP.
Regarding cell viability associated with the biocatalytic-based therapy (Figure 7C), MTT bioassays showed higher cell viability in the HEK 293T (CD44−) cell line. They depended on concentration, but not on the surfactant polysaccharide (HA or CMC). In U-87 MG (CD44+), a trend toward greater cell killing with the HA stabilizer compared to CMC was observed. These results are summarized in the EC50 (half-maximal effective concentration) analysis, which demonstrates the therapeutic potency (Figure 7D). The lowest EC50 value (0.42 µg/mL) was obtained for the U-87 MG cell line treated with HA@Co-MNP, demonstrating the targeting effect of HA towards cells that overexpress the CD44 receptor. In addition, the selectivity index (SI, ratio between the EC50 of non-tumoral cells and the EC50 of cancer cells) for ferrofluids stabilized by both CMC (SI = 2.0) and HA (SI = 2.4) surfactants indicated a higher “protective effect” to the CD44-deficient non-tumoral cell line [72]. This cytotoxicity of the synthesized anionic-ferrofluids arises from the POD-like catalytic activity of cobalt-doped magnetite core that generates highly toxic hydroxyl radicals (•OH) in the presence of intracellular hydrogen peroxide. Their cytotoxicity underlies biocatalytic therapy, which relies on the overproduction of “exogenous” ROS at very high levels, above the toxic threshold, to eliminate tumor cells (often termed as chemodynamic therapy, CDT) [6,73].
Next, the cancer therapy combining ROS-based and magnetic hyperthermia was studied using the HA@Co-MNP ferrofluid (Figure 7E). As expected, HA@Co-MNP at a concentration of 0.6 µg/mL killed about 32% of U-87 MG tumor cells after 24 h of incubation (ROS+/AMF−). After these 24 h, exposure to an AMF increased cell death to 55% (ROS+/AMF+), representing a 32% decrease in cell viability associated with intracellular heat effects from magnetic-to-thermal conversion. It was noteworthy that the selected concentration of ferrophase (0.6 μg/mL), without AMF (AMF−), was not cytotoxic for HEK 293T non-tumoral cells (targeting effect). Conversely, upon exposure to an AMF, cell viability decreased below the considered cytotoxic threshold (<70%), confirming the significant therapeutic gain of magnetic hyperthermia, a non-invasive focal anticancer strategy. Similar findings were observed in CMC@Co-MNP (Figure 7F).
However, no statistical difference in cell viability was observed between the HEK 293T and U-87 MG cell lines without AMF (ROS+/AMF−, no targeting effect). On the contrary, a lower impact on reducing the cell viability responses to AMF exposure was observed (i.e., 18–22% for CMC@Co-MNP compared with 30–32% for HA@Co-MNP). This effect is likely to be associated with the inferior ferrofluid cell uptake and, consequently, a lower magnetic-to-heat conversion capacity by intracellular CMC@Co-MNP nanohybrids.

3.6. Magnetocatalytic Therapy in 3D Neurospheroids

To closely resemble in vivo solid tumor suppression [64,74], 3D neurospheroids were prepared and treated with two doses of ferrofluid nanotherapeutic at two concentrations (0.6 and 6.0 µg/mL) before exposure to an alternating magnetic field (Figure 8A).
The results of ROS-based therapy for ferrofluids with CMC and HA as surfactants and functional ligands are displayed in Figure 8B. Similar to the 2D cell model, the reduction in cell viability promoted by the POD-like behavior of the ferrofluids indicated a significant difference arising from the surfactant, consistent with tumor targeting via interaction of CD44 membrane receptors with HA at the highest concentration after two doses.
The magnetocatalytic therapeutic effects after the two doses of HA@Co-MNP, followed by exposure to an AMF, clearly demonstrated a reduction in tumor diameter (Figure 8C). Also, cell viability further decreases 24% (0.6 μg/mL) and 51% (6.0 μg/mL), depending on nanozyme concentration, upon magneto-thermal therapy (Figure 8D).
Thus, the results of magnetocatalytic therapy based on 2D cell models and 3D neurospheroids are consistent with the use of combined or multimodal therapies to circumvent the limitations of monotherapy, through additive or synergistic effects [6,75,76,77,78,79]. For systems based on nanozymes (i.e., “enzyme-like nanomaterials”) combined with thermal-induced therapies, some authors have reported a synergistic effect: enhanced nanozyme activity with increasing temperature (i.e., biomimicking enzymes) exhibits catalytic bioactivity that depends on temperature. Also, the synergistic effect of nanozymes at higher temperatures in cancer treatment may arise from accelerated reaction kinetics and diffusion, improved permeability of the tumor microenvironment, enhanced hydrogen peroxide decomposition, reduced glutathione levels, etc. [6,75,76,77,78,79]. In this scenario, the results from magnetocatalytic-driven multimodal anticancer therapy based on Co-doped magnetite ferrofluids showed that the combined effect of both therapies was clearly demonstrated and should therefore be highlighted, with a possible enhancement of ROS generation upon AMF exposure at the intracellular level. Still, current research is not focused on designing and demonstrating synergistic effects (i.e., combined treatments yielding an antitumor effect greater than the sum of their individual effects), but rather on their multimodal anticancer effects.
Thus, these results are highly meaningful, confirming that the HA@Co-MNP ferrofluid offers the opportunity for targeted magnetocatalytic-driven anticancer therapy to enhance the elimination of glioblastoma cells. Figure 9 summarizes the HA@Co-MNP strategy for fighting against GBM tumors.

4. Conclusions

This study reports the successful green synthesis of aqueous ferrofluids based on cobalt-doped magnetite nanoparticles via a co-precipitation strategy, effectively stabilized by two different anionic polysaccharides—carboxymethylcellulose (CMC@Co-MNP) and hyaluronic acid (HA@Co-MNP). Polysaccharides served as both nucleation templates and colloidal stabilizers, rendering a negatively charged supramolecular structure. Comprehensive physicochemical, morphological, and magnetic characterization confirmed the formation of superparamagnetic nanocrystals (mean size of 5–6 nm) with a spinel structure. The magnetic-to-thermal conversion capacity upon exposure to an alternating magnetic field depended on polysaccharide type, with HA-based ferrofluids enabling a higher temperature increase and greater heat dissipation, as evaluated by SAR values. Beyond their hyperthermic capabilities, these ferrofluids behaved as POD-like nanozymes, triggering the generation of cytotoxic hydroxyl radicals from hydrogen peroxide under in chimico and in vitro conditions. In the chemodynamic therapy (CDT) approach, HA-coated ferrofluids demonstrated superior therapeutic efficacy compared to their CMC counterparts, attributed to active targeting of CD44 receptors overexpressed in glioblastoma cells, thereby significantly enhancing cellular lethality in both 2D monolayers and 3D neurospheroid models while sparing non-tumoral cells. The combination of this selective affinity for CD44-overexpressing glioblastoma, bimodal therapy driven by POD-like nanozyme activity under acidic conditions, and externally triggered hyperthermal treatment resulted in enhanced elimination of GBM tumor cells. These scalable, stimuli-responsive ferrofluids open a broad and promising avenue for the future development of precision cancer therapies, aiming to significantly improve patient prognosis and life expectancy.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031/s1. Materials and Methods: Materials; and Ferrofluid Synthesis; Supplementary Table: Table S1: Fitting parameters of magnetic-to-thermal conversion properties of ferrofluids to the Box-Lucas model; Supplementary Figures: Figure S1: Fit of the curves of magnetic-to-thermal conversion properties of ferrofluids to the Box-Lucas model. Figure S2: Evolution of TMBox absorbance with time for different concentrations of Co-MNP for the two ferrofluids; Figure S3: Evolution of TMBox absorbance with time for different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide substrate for the two ferrofluids.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S.M., A.A.P.M.; methodology, L.A.S.A., A.A.P.M., S.M.C., I.C.C., K.K., H.S.M.; validation, H.S.M., K.K.; formal analysis, L.A.S.A., A.A.P.M., S.M.C., I.C.C., K.K.; investigation, L.A.S.A., A.A.P.M., S.M.C., I.C.C.; resources, H.S.M.; data curation, A.A.P.M., S.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.M., A.A.P.M.; writing—review and editing, H.S.M., A.A.P.M.; supervision, H.S.M., K.K.; project administration, H.S.M.; funding acquisition, H.S.M., K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Brazilian Government Research Agencies: CNPq (PQ1A-307720/2023-3; UNIVERSAL-407686/2023-1; PDS-102412/2024-3; INCT-APS-46/2024); FAPEMIG (APQ-01838-22; UNIVERSAL-APQ-00291-18); CAPES (PROINFRA-2010–2014; PROEX-2018-2025); FINEP (CTINFRA/PROINFRA 2008/2010/2011/2018; SOS/Equipamentos/2018—01.19.0032.00); and PRPq/PRPG-UFMG.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the researchers for the spectroscopy and DLS/ZP analyses (Center of Nanoscience, Nanotechnology, and Innovation-CeNano2I/CEMUCASI/UFMG). The authors are also grateful to Andreia Bicalho (XRD analysis), Elaine M. Souza-Fagundes (facilities to perform the oxygen reactive species bioassays), Fátima Leite (facilities to perform the cell viability tests), and the Microscopy Center/UFMG (TEM/HR-TEM/EDX/SAED) analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
GBMglioblastoma multiforme
Co-MNPcobalt-doped magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles
MNPMagnetic nanoparticles
HAhyaluronic acid sodium salt
CMCsodium carboxymethylcellulose
BBB (blood–brain barrier)
CSCscancer stem cells
DSdegree of substitution
MMmolar mass
HA@Co-MNPhyaluronic acid-coated Co-MNP (HA@Co-MNP)
CMC@Co-MNPcarboxymethylcellulose-coated Co-MNP (CMC@Co-MNP)
Mmetal
Lpolanionic polymer used as a ligand
AMFalternating magnetic field
PODperoxidase
ROSreactive oxygen species
MHTmagnetic hyperthermia therapy
CDTchemodynamic therapy
XPSX-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
ZPzeta potential
DLSdynamic light scattering
TEMtransmission electron microscopy
EDXenergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
XRDX-ray diffraction
WD-XRFX-ray fluorescence spectrometry
EPRelectron paramagnetic resonance
VSMvibrating-sample magnetometer
Hmagnetic field strength
fmagnetic field frequency
SARspecific absorption rate
cspecific heat capacity of the colloid
ρcolloid density
ϕmetal concentration
RTroom temperature
ΔT/Δt heating rate
SARBox-Lucasspecific absorption rate calculated using the Box-Lucas model
Cheat capacity of the colloid
Llinear loss parameter and (t-t0)
a and bfitting parameters of the Box-Lucas model
mMNPmass of metal in nanoparticles
t − t0 experimental time
TMBtetramethylbenzidine hydrochloride
TMBoxoxidized TMB
M-MMichaelis–Menten
v0initial velocity of the catalytic reaction
εmolar extinction coefficient
[S]substrate concentration
Vmaxmaximal velocity of the catalytic reaction
KmMichaelis constant
DMPO5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline n-oxide
U-87 MG/U87human glioblastoma cell line
ATCCAmerican Type Culture Collection
HEK 293T/HEKhuman embryonic kidney cell line
DMEMDulbecco’s modified Eagle medium
FBSfetal bovine serum
DCF-DA2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate
MDAmalondialdehyde
TBARthiobarbituric acid method
MTT3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl-) 2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide
ROS−reference sample for ROS-based therapy (without Co-MNP)
ROS+sample treated with Co-MNP at 0.6 μg/mL
ROS++sample treated with Co-MNP at 6.0 μg/mL
EC50half-maximal effective concentration
AMF+exposure to AMF
AMF−without AMF
Nnucleation
Ggrowth
Sstabilization
GlcNAcN-acetyl-D-Glucosamine
νstretching vibration
δbending vibration
HR-XPShigh-resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
BEbinding energy
DHhydrodynamic diameter
JCPDSJoint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards
SAEDselected area electron diffraction
HR-TEMhigh-resolution transmission electron microscopy
TMEtumor microenvironment
ESRelectron spin resonance
•OH hydroxyl radical
•OOHhydroperoxyl radical
CD44cell membrane receptor
CD44+cells that overexpress the CD44 membrane receptor
CD44−cells with low expression of the CD44 membrane receptor
HPAHuman Protein Atlas
SIselectivity index

References

  1. Rahman, M.A.; Jalouli, M.; Yadab, M.K.; Al-Zharani, M. Progress in Drug Delivery Systems Based on Nanoparticles for Improved Glioblastoma Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Investigating Opportunities. Cancers 2025, 17, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Salvato, I.; Marchini, A. Immunotherapeutic Strategies for the Treatment of Glioblastoma: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives. Cancers 2024, 16, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zeinali, R.; Zaeifi, D.; Zolfaghari-Moghaddam, S.Y.; Paul, M.K.; Biazar, E. Current Advances in Nanocarriers for Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2025, 20, 12217–12262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. PN, N.; Mehla, S.; Begum, A.; Chaturvedi, H.K.; Ojha, R.; Hartinger, C.; Plebanski, M.; Bhargava, S.K. Smart Nanozymes for Cancer Therapy: The Next Frontier in Oncology. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2023, 12, 2300768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Xu, M.; Zhao, R.; Liu, B.; Geng, F.; Wu, X.; Zhang, F.; Shen, F.; Lin, H.; Feng, L.; Yang, P. Ultrasmall copper-based nanoplatforms for NIR-II light-triggered photothermal/photodynamic and amplified nanozyme catalytic therapy of hypoxic tumor. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 491, 151776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mansur, A.A.P.; Mansur, H.S. Nanozyme-Based Cancer Nanotheranostics: Emerging Applications and Challenges in Brain Cancer Therapeutics. J. Nanotheranostics 2025, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mansur, A.A.P.; Carvalho, S.M.; Mansur, H.S. Engineered hybrid nanozyme catalyst cascade based on polysaccharide-enzyme-magnetic iron oxide nanostructures for potential application in cancer therapy. Catal. Today 2022, 388–389, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. de Almeida, A.A.; Fabris, F.; da Silva, G.S.; Pirota, K.R.; Knobel, M.; Muraca, D. Control of anisotropy and magnetic hyperthermia effect by addition of cobalt on magnetite nanoparticles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2025, 17, 13083–13093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cross, S.N.; Fataftah, M.; Jonderian, A.; McCalla, E.; Szuchmacher Blum, A. Preparation and characterization of ultra-small, monodisperse CoxFe3−xO4 nanoparticles. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2023, 567, 170345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Socoliuc, V.; Avdeev, M.V.; Kuncser, V.; Turcu, R.; Tombácz, E.; Vékás, L. Ferrofluids and bio-ferrofluids: Looking back and stepping forward. Nanoscale 2022, 14, 4786–4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pucci, C.; Degl’Innocenti, A.; Gümüş, M.B.; Ciofani, G. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetic hyperthermia: Recent advancements, molecular effects, and future directions in the omics era. Biomater. Sci. 2022, 10, 2103–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Iacob, N. Pitfalls and Challenges in Specific Absorption Rate Evaluation for Functionalized and Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles Used in Magnetic Fluid Hyperthermia. Coatings 2025, 15, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aurélio, D.; Mikšátko, J.; Veverka, M.; Michlová, M.; Kalbáč, M.; Vejpravová, J. Thermal Traits of MNPs under High-Frequency Magnetic Fields: Disentangling the Effect of Size and Coating. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sonia, L.C.; Phanjoubam, S. Structural and magnetic studies of cobalt substituted magnetite ferrofluids. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2022, 544, 168675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miao, T.; Ju, X.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Q.; Sun, T.; Lu, C.; Han, L. Nanoparticles surmounting blood–brain tumor barrier through both transcellular and paracellular pathways to target brain metastases. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1900259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mittapalli, R.K.; Liu, X.; Adkins, C.E.; Nounou, M.I.; Bohn, K.A.; Terrell, T.B.; Qhattal, H.S.; Geldenhuys, W.J.; Palmieri, D.; Steeg, P.S.; et al. Paclitaxel–hyaluronic nanoconjugates prolong overall survival in a preclinical brain metastases of breast cancer model. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2013, 12, 2389–2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lin, J.; Sun, Z.; Huang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Shen, M.; Shao, C.; Liao, W.; Yang, Y.; Song, Y.; Wang, Y.; et al. Glioma stem cell membrane-camouflaged photothermal nanozyme for synergistic antitumor via dual-targeted drug delivery across blood-brain barrier. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 507, 160181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Beguš, S.; Bojkovski, J.; Drnovšek, J.; Geršak, G. Magnetic effects on thermocouples. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2014, 25, 035006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lu, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, K.; Zhao, J.; Quan, W.; Han, B.; Ding, M. In-situ measurement of electrical-heating-induced magnetic field for an atomic magnetometer. Sensors 2020, 20, 1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shir, F.; Mavriplis, C.; Bennett, L.H. Effect of magnetic field dynamics on the copper-constantan thermocouple performance. Instrum. Sci. Technol. 2005, 33, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lanier, O.L.; Korotych, O.I.; Monsalve, A.G.; Wable, D.; Savliwala, S.; Grooms, N.W.F.; Nacea, C.; Tuitt, O.R.; Dobson, J. Evaluation of magnetic nanoparticles for magnetic fluid hyperthermia. Int. J. Hyperth. 2019, 36, 686–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leonel, A.G.; Mansur, A.A.P.; Carvalho, S.M.; Outon, L.E.F.; Ardisson, J.D.; Krambrock, K.; Mansur, H.S. Tunable magnetothermal properties of cobalt-doped magnetite–carboxymethylcellulose ferrofluids: Smart nanoplatforms for potential magnetic hyperthermia applications in cancer therapy. Nanoscale Adv. 2021, 3, 1029–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wildeboer, R.R.; Southern, P.; Pankhurst, Q.A. On the reliable measurement of specific absorption rates and intrinsic loss parameters in magnetic hyperthermia materials. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2014, 47, 495003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Papadopoulos, C.; Efthimiadou, E.K.; Pissas, M.; Fuentes, D.; Boukos, N.; Psycharis, V.; Kordas, G.; Loukopoulose, V.C.; Kagadis, G.C. Magnetic fluid hyperthermia simulations in evaluation of SAR calculation methods. Phys. Med. 2020, 71, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Huo, M.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Shi, J. Tumor-selective catalytic nanomedicine by nanocatalyst delivery. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mansur, A.A.P.; Carvalho, S.M.; Lobato, Z.I.P.; Leite, M.F.; Krambrock, K.; Mansur, H.S. Bioengineering stimuli-responsive organic–inorganic nanoarchitectures based on carboxymethylcellulose–poly-L-lysine nanoplexes: Unlocking the potential for bioimaging and multimodal chemodynamic–magnetothermal therapy of brain cancer cells. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 290, 138985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Carvalho, S.M.; Mansur, A.A.P.; da Silveira, I.B.; Pires, T.F.S.; Victória, H.F.V.; Krambrock, K.; Leite, M.F.; Mansur, H.S. Nanozymes with Peroxidase-like Activity for Ferroptosis-Driven Biocatalytic Nanotherapeutics of Glioblastoma Cancer: 2D and 3D Spheroids Models. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shakun, M.; Heinze, T.; Radke, W. Determination of the DS distribution of non-degraded sodium carboxymethyl cellulose by gradient chromatography. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 98, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dicker, K.T.; Gurski, L.A.; Pradhan-Bhatt, S.; Witt, R.L.; Farach-Carson, M.C.; Jia, X. Hyaluronan: A simple polysaccharide with diverse biological functions. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 1558–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, J.; Wang, Z.; Wu, K.; Ruan, J.; Nie, B.; Zhou, Q.; Li, L.; Luo, L.; Zhang, F.; Shi, M.; et al. Identification of glucuronic acid as a biomarker of poor prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia based on plasma metabolomics. Clin. Exp. Med. 2025, 25, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, J.K.; Shen, C.R.; Liu, C.L. N-acetylglucosamine: Production and applications. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 2493–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gilli, R.; Kacuráková, M.; Mathlouthi, M.; Navarini, L.; Paoletti, S. FTIR studies of sodium hyaluronate and its oligomers in the amorphous solid phase and in aqueous solution. Carbohydr. Res. 1994, 263, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Răcuciu, M.; Oancea, S.; Barbu-Tudoran, L.; Drăghici, O.; Agavriloaei, A.; Creangă, D.A. Study of Hyaluronic Acid’s Theoretical Reactivity and of Magnetic Nanoparticles Capped with Hyaluronic Acid. Materials 2024, 17, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mansur, A.A.P.; de Carvalho, F.G.; Mansur, R.L.; Carvalho, S.M.; de Oliveira, L.C.; Mansur, H.S. Carboxymethylcellulose/ZnCdS fluorescent quantum dot nanoconjugates for cancer cell bioimaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 96, 675–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pan, N.C.; Pereira, H.C.B.; da Silva, M.L.C.; Vasconcelos, A.F.D.; Celligoi, M.A.P.C. Improved production of hyaluronic acid by Streptococcus zooepidemicus in sugarcane molasses. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 182, 276–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. López, G.P.; Castner, D.G.; Ratner, B.D. XPS O 1s binding energies for polymers containing hydroxyl, ether, ketone and ester groups. Surf. Interface Anal. 1991, 17, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Y.; Hu, H.; Yang, X.; Lv, J.; Zhou, L.; Luo, Z. Hydrophilic modification on polyvinyl alcohol membrane by hyaluronic acid. Biomed. Mater. 2019, 14, 055009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Grulich, O.; Kregar, Z.; Modic, M.; Vesel, A.; Cvelbar, U.; Mracek, A.; Ponizil, P. Treatment and Stability of Sodium Hyaluronate Films in Low Temperature Inductively Coupled Ammonia Plasma. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2012, 32, 1075–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zeinoun, M.; Domingo-Diez, J.; Rodriguez-Garcia, M.; Garcia, O.; Vasic, M.; Ramos, M.; Olmedo, J.J.S. Enhancing magnetic hyperthermia nanoparticle heating efficiency with non-sinusoidal alternating magnetic field waveforms. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jeyadevan, B. Present status and prospects of magnetite nanoparticles-based hyperthermia. J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 2010, 118, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, W.; Li, G.; Ma, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, S.; Tiwari, S.; Shi, K.; et al. Comprehensive understanding of magnetic hyperthermia for improving antitumor therapeutic efficacy. Theranostics 2020, 10, 3793–3815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sahayaraj, R.; Enoch, K.; Pati, S.S.; Somasundaram, A.A. Cobalt-doped Fe3O4 nanoparticles with improved magnetic anisotropy and enhanced hyperthermic efficiency. Ceram. Int. 2025, 51, 20786–20797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sezer, N.; Arı, İ.; Biçer, Y.; Koç, M. Superparamagnetic nanoarchitectures: Multimodal functionalities and applications. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2021, 538, 168300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shah, S.A.; Reeves, D.B.; Matthew Ferguson, R.; Weaver, J.B.; Krishnan, K.M. Mixed Brownian alignment and Néel rotations in superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle suspensions driven by an ac field. Phys. Rev. B 2015, 92, 094438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cotin, G.; Perton, F.; Blanco-Andújar, C.; Pichon, B.; Mertz, D.; Bégin-Colin, S. Design of anisotropic iron-oxide-based nanoparticles for magnetic hyperthermia. In Nanomaterials for Magnetic and Optical Hyperthermia Applications; Micro and Nano Technologies; Fratila, R.M., Martínez de la Fuente, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Botez, C.E.; Musslewhite, Z. Effect of Microstructural Changes on the Magnetization Dynamics Mechanisms in Ferrofluids Subjected to Alternating Magnetic Fields. Magnetochemistry 2025, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kötitz, R.; Weitschies, W.; Trahms, L.; Semmler, W. Investigation of Brownian and Néel relaxation in magnetic fluids. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1999, 201, 102–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Soleymani, M.; Velashjerdi, M.; Shaterabadi, Z.; Barati, A. One-pot preparation of hyaluronic acid-coated iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetic hyperthermia therapy and targeting CD44-overexpressing cancer cells. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 237, 116130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Epherre, R.; Goglio, G.; Mornet, S.; Duguet, E. Hybrid magnetic nanoparticles for targeted delivery. In Comprehensive Biomaterials; Ducheyne, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 575–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Obaidat, I.M.; Narayanaswamy, V.; Alaabed, S.; Sambasivam, S.; Muralee Gopi, C.V.V. Principles of Magnetic Hyperthermia: A Focus on Using Multifunctional Hybrid Magnetic Nanoparticles. Magnetochemistry 2019, 5, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kita, E.; Oda, T.; Kayano, T.; Sato, S.; Minagawa, M.; Yanagihara, H.; Kishimoto, M.; Mitsumata, C.; Hashimoto, S.; Yamada, K. Ferromagnetic nanoparticles for magnetic hyperthermia and thermoablation therapy. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2010, 43, 474011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, F.; Lahiri, B.B.; Srujana, M.; Vidya, R.; Philip, J. Induction heating of magnetic nanoparticles: Role of thermo-physical properties of the coating moieties. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2024, 692, 133982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mbuyazi, T.B.; Ajibade, P.A. Influence of different capping agents on the structural, optical, and photocatalytic degradation efficiency of magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sathish, S.; Balakumar, S. Influence of physicochemical interactions of capping agent on magnetic properties of magnetite nanoparticles. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2016, 173, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ilg, P.; Kröger, M. Dynamics of interacting magnetic nanoparticles: Effective behavior from competition between Brownian and Néel relaxation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020, 22, 22244–22259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Radu, T.; Iacovita, C.; Benea, D.; Turcu, R. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopic Characterization of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 405, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Grosvenor, A.P.; Kobe, B.A.; Biesinger, M.C.; McIntyre, N.S. Investigation of multiplet splitting of Fe 2p XPS spectra and bonding in iron compounds. Surf. Interface Anal. 2004, 36, 1564–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wan, L.; Yan, D.; Xu, X.; Li, J.; Lu, T.; Gao, Y.; Yao, Y.; Pan, L. Self-assembled 3D flower-like Fe3O4/C architecture with superior lithium ion storage performance. J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 24940–24948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, H.; Wei, G.; Xu, Z.; Liu, P.; Li, Y. Quantitative analysis of Fe and Co in Co-substituted magnetite using XPS: The application of non-linear least squares fitting (NLLSF). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 389, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kessler, A.; Hedberg, J.; Blomberg, E.; Odnevall, I. Reactive Oxygen Species Formed by Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles in Physiological Media—A Review of Reactions of Importance to Nanotoxicity and Proposal for Categorization. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nguyen, K.D.; Tran, K.D.; Le, H.V.; Pham, V.T.T.; Ho, P.H. Enhanced Fenton–photocatalytic degradation of Rhodamine B over cobalt ferrite nanoparticles synthesized by a polyvinylpyrrolidone-assisted grinding method. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 23586–23600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gao, L.; Fan, K.; Yan, X. Iron oxide nanozyme: A multifunctional enzyme mimetic for biomedical applications. Theranostics 2017, 7, 3207–3227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hu, Y.B.; Dammer, E.; Ren, R.-J.; Wang, G. The endosomal–lysosomal system: From acidification and cargo sorting to neurodegeneration. Transl. Neurodegener. 2015, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jo, Y.; Choi, N.; Kim, K.; Koo, H.J.; Choi, J.; Kim, H.N. Chemoresistance of cancer cells: Requirements of tumor microenvironment-mimicking in vitro models in anticancer drug development. Theranostics 2018, 8, 5259–5275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hartheimer, J.S.; Park, S.; Rao, S.S.; Kim, Y. Targeting hyaluronan interactions for glioblastoma stem cell therapy. Cancer Microenviron. 2019, 12, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, C.-Y.; Basu, K.; Ruusala, A.; Kozlova, I.; Li, Y.-S.; Skandalis, S.S.; Heldin, C.-H.; Heldin, P. Hyaluronan-induced CD44–iASPP interaction affects fibroblast migration and survival. Cancers 2023, 15, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. The Human Protein Atlas. The Open-Access Resource for Human Proteins. Available online: https://www.proteinatlas.org (accessed on 1 December 2025).
  68. Thul, P.J.; Åkesson, L.; Wiking, M.; Mahdessian, D.; Geladaki, A.; Blal, H.A.; Alm, T.; Asplund, A.; Björk, L.; Lundberg, E. A subcellular map of the human proteome. Science 2017, 356, eaal3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Katerji, M.; Filippova, M.; Duerksen-Hughes, P. Approaches and methods to measure oxidative stress in clinical samples: Research applications in the cancer field. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2019, 2019, 1279250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mansur, A.A.P.; Carvalho, S.M.; Oliveira, L.C.A.; Souza-Fagundes, E.M.; Lobato, Z.I.P.; Leite, M.F.; Mansur, H.S. Bioengineered Carboxymethylcellulose–Peptide Hybrid Nanozyme Cascade for Targeted Intracellular Biocatalytic–Magnetothermal Therapy of Brain Cancer Cells. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kinter, M. Analytical technologies for lipid oxidation products analysis. J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl. 1995, 671, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Bieszczad, B.; Garbicz, D.; Switalska, M.; Dudek, M.K.; Warszycki, D.; Wietrzyk, J.; Grzesiuk, E.; Mieczkowski, A. Improved HDAC Inhibition, Stronger Cytotoxic Effect and Higher Selectivity against Leukemias and Lymphomas of Novel, Tricyclic Vorinostat Analogues. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jiang, D.; Ni, D.; Rosenkrans, Z.T.; Huang, P.; Yan, X.; Cai, W. Nanozyme: New horizons for responsive biomedical applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019, 48, 3683–3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhu, Y.; Kang, E.; Wilson, M.; Basso, T.; Chen, E.; Yu, Y.; Li, Y.-R. 3D Tumor Spheroid and Organoid to Model Tumor Microenvironment for Cancer Immunotherapy. Organoids 2022, 1, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zheng, J.; Peng, W.; Shi, H.; Zhang, J.; Hu, Q.; Chen, J. Emerging engineered nanozymes: Current status and future perspectives in cancer treatments. Nanoscale Adv. 2025, 7, 1226–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Chu, C.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, B.; Pang, X.; Lin, G.; Lin, H.; Guo, Y.; Ren, E.; et al. Genetically engineered magnetic nanocages for cancer magneto-catalytic theranostics. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rais Sadati, S.M.M.; Zamanian, J.; Moshiri, M.; Ghayour Mobarhan, M.; Abnous, K.; Taghdisi, S.M.; Etemad, L. Advancing cancer treatment with nanozyme frameworks: Integrating photothermal, photodynamic, sonodynamic, and chemodynamic therapies. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2025, 28, 533–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yulong, Y.; Weiheng, Z.; Xianglin, Y.; Rui, L. Progress and prospects of nanozymes for enhanced antitumor therapy. Front. Chem. 2022, 10, 1090795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hu, Z.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, L.; Li, L.; Gao, Y.; Wang, C. Photothermal amplified multizyme activity for synergistic photothermal-catalytic tumor therapy. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2025, 679, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. (A) HA and (B) CMC polysaccharide molecules. (C) FTIR spectra of HA and CMC polysaccharides. FTIR spectra of biopolymer in comparison to ferrofluids for (D) HA and HA@Co-MNP and (E) CMC and CMC@Co-MNP.
Figure 1. (A) HA and (B) CMC polysaccharide molecules. (C) FTIR spectra of HA and CMC polysaccharides. FTIR spectra of biopolymer in comparison to ferrofluids for (D) HA and HA@Co-MNP and (E) CMC and CMC@Co-MNP.
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g001
Figure 2. XPS narrow scan analysis for C 1s, O 1s, and N 1s (only for HA) obtained from polysaccharide and ferrofluids with sub-peak components obtained by spectra deconvolution procedure: (A) HA and HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC and CMC@Co-MNP. (C) Schematic representation of hydrodynamic diameter and surface charges (not to scale).
Figure 2. XPS narrow scan analysis for C 1s, O 1s, and N 1s (only for HA) obtained from polysaccharide and ferrofluids with sub-peak components obtained by spectra deconvolution procedure: (A) HA and HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC and CMC@Co-MNP. (C) Schematic representation of hydrodynamic diameter and surface charges (not to scale).
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g002
Figure 3. (a) TEM images, (b) histogram of size distribution, (c) HR-TEM images, (d) SAED pattern, (e) XRD pattern, and (f) EDX spectra of (A) HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC@Co-MNP ferrofluids.
Figure 3. (a) TEM images, (b) histogram of size distribution, (c) HR-TEM images, (d) SAED pattern, (e) XRD pattern, and (f) EDX spectra of (A) HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC@Co-MNP ferrofluids.
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g003
Figure 4. Hysteresis loop of the (A) HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC@Co-MNP ferrofluids. EPR signal obtained from ferrofluids at 300 K ((C) HA@Co-MNP and (D) CMC@Co-MNP) and 77 K ((E) HA@Co-MNP and (F) CMC@Co-MNP).
Figure 4. Hysteresis loop of the (A) HA@Co-MNP and (B) CMC@Co-MNP ferrofluids. EPR signal obtained from ferrofluids at 300 K ((C) HA@Co-MNP and (D) CMC@Co-MNP) and 77 K ((E) HA@Co-MNP and (F) CMC@Co-MNP).
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g004
Figure 5. (A) Schematic representation of the Néel relaxation mechanism. Magnetic-to-thermal conversion properties of ferrofluids: effects of (B) magnetic field power (HA@Co-MNP) and (D) polysaccharide type with respective SAR values (C,E).
Figure 5. (A) Schematic representation of the Néel relaxation mechanism. Magnetic-to-thermal conversion properties of ferrofluids: effects of (B) magnetic field power (HA@Co-MNP) and (D) polysaccharide type with respective SAR values (C,E).
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g005
Figure 6. HR-XPS spectra with sub-peak components obtained by spectra deconvolution procedure of (A) Fe 2p and (B) Co 2p regions for HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP. (C) Schematic illustration of Fenton-like reactions taking place on the surface of the Co-MNP core. (D) Blue color evolution of TMBox in the presence of HA@Co-MNP compared to the sample without Co-MNP nanozyme (blank). Absorbance of TMBox: (E) effect of Co-MNP concentration and (F) effect of H2O2 concentration (pH = 5.0; RT; after 60 min). (G) Michaelis–Menten kinetics curves. DMPO/•OH spin adduct analysis for (H) HA@Co-MNP and (I) CMC@Co-MNP (pH = 5.0; RT; after 20 min).
Figure 6. HR-XPS spectra with sub-peak components obtained by spectra deconvolution procedure of (A) Fe 2p and (B) Co 2p regions for HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP. (C) Schematic illustration of Fenton-like reactions taking place on the surface of the Co-MNP core. (D) Blue color evolution of TMBox in the presence of HA@Co-MNP compared to the sample without Co-MNP nanozyme (blank). Absorbance of TMBox: (E) effect of Co-MNP concentration and (F) effect of H2O2 concentration (pH = 5.0; RT; after 60 min). (G) Michaelis–Menten kinetics curves. DMPO/•OH spin adduct analysis for (H) HA@Co-MNP and (I) CMC@Co-MNP (pH = 5.0; RT; after 20 min).
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g006
Figure 7. Catalytic properties in vitro: (A) DCF-DA PL intensity results and (B) lipid damage based on MDA content (HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP at 6 µg/mL). Effect of ligand and cell line on (C) cell viability responses and (D) EC50 values. Combined impact of ROS-based therapy (CDT, Co-MNP at 0.6 µg/mL) and AMF exposure (MHT) for cells treated with (E) HA@Co-MNP and (F) CMC@Co-MNP. Statistical analysis: “one way” ANOVA, Bonferroni, multiple comparisons, **** = p < 0.0001, ** = p < 0.01, and * = p < 0.05.
Figure 7. Catalytic properties in vitro: (A) DCF-DA PL intensity results and (B) lipid damage based on MDA content (HA@Co-MNP and CMC@Co-MNP at 6 µg/mL). Effect of ligand and cell line on (C) cell viability responses and (D) EC50 values. Combined impact of ROS-based therapy (CDT, Co-MNP at 0.6 µg/mL) and AMF exposure (MHT) for cells treated with (E) HA@Co-MNP and (F) CMC@Co-MNP. Statistical analysis: “one way” ANOVA, Bonferroni, multiple comparisons, **** = p < 0.0001, ** = p < 0.01, and * = p < 0.05.
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g007
Figure 8. (A) Timeline of treatment schedule. (B) Cell viability responses at Day 7 after two doses of ferrofluids at 0.6 μg/mL (ROS+) and 6.0 μg/mL (ROS++) and control (ROS−). (C) Cell viability responses at Day 7 after two doses of ferrofluids (0.6 μg/mL (ROS+) and 6.0 μg/mL (ROS++)) followed by exposure to AMF (AMF+). (D) Bright-field images of neurospheroids at Day 0 (before treatment), Day 7, and Day 7 after AMF exposure (scale bar = 100 µm).
Figure 8. (A) Timeline of treatment schedule. (B) Cell viability responses at Day 7 after two doses of ferrofluids at 0.6 μg/mL (ROS+) and 6.0 μg/mL (ROS++) and control (ROS−). (C) Cell viability responses at Day 7 after two doses of ferrofluids (0.6 μg/mL (ROS+) and 6.0 μg/mL (ROS++)) followed by exposure to AMF (AMF+). (D) Bright-field images of neurospheroids at Day 0 (before treatment), Day 7, and Day 7 after AMF exposure (scale bar = 100 µm).
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g008
Figure 9. Schematic representation of HA@Co-MNP ferrofluids for targeted magnetocatalytic-driven anticancer therapy to augment glioblastoma cell elimination.
Figure 9. Schematic representation of HA@Co-MNP ferrofluids for targeted magnetocatalytic-driven anticancer therapy to augment glioblastoma cell elimination.
Magnetochemistry 12 00031 g009
Table 1. FTIR vibrational band assignments of HA and CMC polysaccharides [32,33,34,35].
Table 1. FTIR vibrational band assignments of HA and CMC polysaccharides [32,33,34,35].
AssignmentWavenumber (cm−1)
HACMC
νOH (H–bonded)3500–31003500–3100
νN-H (H–bonded)3150–3050-
νC–H3000–28003000–2800
νasCOO1650 and 16101650 and 1590
νsCOO1420 and 13251410 and 1325
Amide I1650-
Amide II1560-
δC–H13801380
νC–OH primary alcohol10801024 and 995
νC–OH secondary alcohol10461100 and 1060
νC–O–C11521155
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Angelo, L.A.S.; Mansur, A.A.P.; Carvalho, S.M.; Krambrock, K.; Carvalho, I.C.; Mansur, H.S. Ferrofluids Based on Anionic Polysaccharide-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeted Magnetocatalytic-Driven Multimodal Anticancer Therapy. Magnetochemistry 2026, 12, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031

AMA Style

Angelo LAS, Mansur AAP, Carvalho SM, Krambrock K, Carvalho IC, Mansur HS. Ferrofluids Based on Anionic Polysaccharide-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeted Magnetocatalytic-Driven Multimodal Anticancer Therapy. Magnetochemistry. 2026; 12(3):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Angelo, Liliane A. S., Alexandra A. P. Mansur, Sandhra M. Carvalho, Klaus Krambrock, Isadora C. Carvalho, and Herman S. Mansur. 2026. "Ferrofluids Based on Anionic Polysaccharide-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeted Magnetocatalytic-Driven Multimodal Anticancer Therapy" Magnetochemistry 12, no. 3: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031

APA Style

Angelo, L. A. S., Mansur, A. A. P., Carvalho, S. M., Krambrock, K., Carvalho, I. C., & Mansur, H. S. (2026). Ferrofluids Based on Anionic Polysaccharide-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles for Targeted Magnetocatalytic-Driven Multimodal Anticancer Therapy. Magnetochemistry, 12(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry12030031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop