A Novel Two-Stage 3D-Printed Halbach Array-Based Device for Magneto-Mechanical Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented original studies of a novel two-stage 3D-printed Halbach-array device for magneto-mechanical applications in biomedical engineering. The device showcases a unique design that allows for precise control of magnetic fields, enabling targeted therapy and disease management. Computational modeling software was utilized to define the magnetic properties of the device, ensuring optimal performance in biomedical applications. Experimental validation of numerical findings confirmed the device's potential in magneto-mechanical modalities, highlighting its promising role in advancing targeted drug delivery and therapeutic interventions. Overall, this study demonstrates the innovative use of magnetic technology in biomedical engineering, opening new avenues for personalized and effective treatments.

Several comments can be made on the article:

1. From Figure 1 it can be seen that the authors use magnetic pins to connect the upper and lower groups of magnets, how does this affect the symmetry of the magnetic fields?

2. In Figure 3, the authors presented the results of calculations of the magnetic field and its gradient. From Figure 3b it can be seen that the gradient has a chaotic distribution, in contrast to Figures 3d-3f. How do the authors explain this difference?

3. In the introduction, the authors state that these magnetic systems have the potential for hyperthermia. However, from Figure 3 it follows that the maximum distance between the magnets is 3 cm; when calculating the ponderomotive forces in Figure 4, a layer depth of 2 mm is used. How correct are these distances for hyperthermia?

After these minor changes, the article can be published.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the referee's positive assessment of our manuscript. In the attached pdf we respond point by point to the referee’s comments and concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work reports the effect of magnetic field on multi nanoparticle in magnetic flux and magnetic force by simulation and also experimental. The topic is interesting and the methods is sound good. However, it still has some rooms to be improved. I will list some of them as folow.

1. The size dependence of magnetic properties of nanoparticle such as magnetic forces in figure 7 is look quite simple as proportional to volume of nanoparticle. I guess because the size is quite large. Recently there is a theoretical paper of L10 FePt nanoparticle as (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2023.115947) , which give the size dependence behavior quite significant at small nanoparticle size. Can authors give some discussion on smaller size of nanoparticle like 1 or 2 nm and compare with previous work?

2. The Figure 5 has not so good resolution and color, please improve it.

The quality of English Language is not so bad, but it still can be improved for readability by some English Agency.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comments and suggestions. We appreciate the acknowledgement of the interesting topic and sound methodology of our work. In the attached pdf file we address each point raised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes the design, simulation, and experimental investigation of  a two-stage 3D-printed Halbach-array based device for magneto-mechanical applications using COMSOL and Hall probe measurement, respectively. The Halbach-array based device was fabricated using 3D-printer and permanent magnets. The COMSOL library based on electromagnetic principles was employed to calculate the magnetic field and magnetic field gradient inside the device. The computational result shows good agreement with experimental data. This manuscript is organized and containing interesting details. However, some experimental details and results presented are unclearly described.  I would suggest revising the manuscript in according to the below comments.  The manuscript may be reconsidered after major revision.

1.      On page 3, the computational steps or algorithm of the computer simulation should be given in section 2.2.   

2.      On page 3, line-105, some parts of the device are metal, what would be the effect of those parts on measurement?

3.      On page 4, line-118, the electromagnetic principles or rigorous references should be given.  The authors might see the following reference: 

(i) J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics 3rd ed., Wiley & Sons., New Jersey, 1999. Page 195.

4.      On page 5, line-184, the magnetic force is a vector quantity, the net force should be the summation of all vectors.  

5.      On page 6, line-197 Figure 2 should be rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise like Figure 4(d).

6.      On page 8, line-255, the additional references and further discussion should be provided in this section. The authors might see the following references: 

(i)                 Moghanizadeh, A., Ashrafizadeh, F., Varshosaz, J. and Ferreira, A. (2021). Study the effect of static magnetic field intensity on drug delivery by magnetic nanoparticles. Sci Rep, 11(1), 18056. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-97499-7.

(ii)              Sandhu A. and Handa H. (Ed.) (2018). Magnetic Nanoparticles for Medical Diagnostics. Bristal: IOP Publishing.

7.      On pages 9-10,  Figure 6s (a)-(e) and  Figure 7s (a)-(b) should be labelled for the readers.

8.      On page 11, line-317, the Hall probe model or measurement accuracy should be provided.

9.      On pages 12,  Figure 9s (a)-(c) should be labelled for the readers. On pages 12,  Figure 9s (a)-(c) should be labelled for the readers.

10.  On page 12, line-326, what is the meaning of “the model can be safely utilized”?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments and thorough review of our manuscript. His/her feedback is invaluable to us.

We have carefully considered each of the comments and have provided a detailed point-by-point response in the attached file. The reviewer's insights will guide us in improving the clarity and comprehensibility of our manuscript.

Once again, we appreciate for the time and the effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the improvement of the manuscript. I would recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors efforts in revising the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments. Current version of the manuscript has been improved significantly.  The manuscript is suitable for publication in Magnetochemistry.