Fig 1.
A schematic view of the MFH process of a breast tumor.
Fig 2.
3D presentation of the whole considered model geometry.
Fig 3.
Different steps of creating a 3D breast phantom: (a) point cloud obtained from the database, (b) surfaces created from the point cloud, and (c) the volume created from knitted surfaces.
Fig 4.
3D geometry of different tissue types separately and all together, (a) FCG tissue, (b) transitional tissue, (c) fatty tissue and muscle, (d) skin, (e) tumor and injected nanofluid, and (f) all of the tissues inside of each other as the ARBP.
Table 1.
Properties of different materials used for frequency of 400 kHz [6, 10, 45, 49–55].
Fig 5.
Boundary conditions considered in different physics, (a) transport of diluted species, (b) magnetic fields, and (c) bioheat transfer.
Fig 6.
Considered cut surfaces that pass through the center of the tumor.
Fig 7.
Position of observation points and their considered numbers on the cut surface 1.
Fig 8.
Grid independency test in the present study.
Table 2.
Quantitative amounts and relative errors of different cases.
Fig 9.
Optimum grid generation considered.
(a) whole geometry, (b) sliced magnified model.
Fig 10.
Comparison among current simulation, Suleman et al. simulation, and Crank analytic study plots of concentration distribution for a spherical source with uniformly initial concentration distribution.
Fig 11.
Comparison among current simulation, Suleman et al. simulation, and Miaskowski simulation plots of the maximum temperature in the breast model versus time.
Table 3.
Comparison between present simulation results and Miaskowski et al. and Suleman et al.’s simulation results [6, 10].
Fig 12.
Distribution of MNPs’ concentration after 1 day of diffusion, (a) cut surface 1, (b) cut surface 2, (c) cut surface 3, (d) 3D view.
Fig 13.
Concentration of MNPs versus, (a) time at different considered points, (b) distance from tumor’s center at different times.
Fig 14.
Magnetic flux density norm, (a) x-y surface, (b) z-y surface, (c) x-z surface, (d) 3D view.
Fig 15.
Distribution of temperature after 30-min-exposure to the magnetic field, (a) cut surface 1, (b) cut surface 2, (c) cut surface 3, (d) 3D view.
Fig 16.
Temperature generated versus, (a) time at different considered points, (b) distance from tumor’s center at different times.
Fig 17.
Distribution of fraction of necrotic tissue after 30 minutes of exposure to the magnetic field, (a) cut surface 1, (b) cut surface 2, (c) cut surface 3, (d) 3D view.
Fig 18.
Fraction of necrotic tissue versus, (a) time at different considered points, (b) distance from tumor’s center at different times.