By the nanoparticles was “. . . adjusted somewhat until the experiment maximum transient temperature (or steady state) temperature record from the embedded probes was closely approximated by the numerical model outcome.”. In addition they report that the exact same strategy was followed for the blood perfusion: “. . . adjusted to improve match towards the measurements. . . “. The numerical benefits provided by [92] are shown in Figure 12 with broken lines. The adjusted by Pearce et al. [92] worth for the generated heat by the nanoparticles was 1.1 106 W/m3 . For the adjusted perfusion, in line with Pearce et al. [92], the initial tumor perfusion, 3 10-3 s-1 was Cyfluthrin MedChemExpress increased to as much as 7 10-3 s-1 , as essential to match experimental final results. If we stick to the Pearce et al. [92] method of adjusting the heat generated along with the perfusion rate we locate very good agreement together with the measurements for the probe location center, as shown in Figure 12c (Case A), making use of the values of 1.75 106 W/m3 and two.five 10-3 s-1 . It must be pointed out that at t = 0 we’ve made use of the experimentally measured temperature (32 C), although in the numerical model in [92] a higher temperature of around 36 C was assumed by Pearce et al. [92], without having giving an explanation for this selection. This perhapsAppl. Sci. 2021, 11,15 ofexplains the differences amongst our adjusted values together with the ones by Pearce et al. [92]. Very good agreement with all the measured temperature and our model is also observed for the tip location, observed in Figure 12e, while in the prediction by Pearce et al. [92], the computational model offers higher temperatures than the experiment at this place. For the tumor geometry of Case B, we use the adjusted heat generated and blood perfusion values from Case A and evaluate our predictions together with the experiments in Figure 12d (center place) and Figure 12f (tip place). Needless to say, as a result of bigger AR from the tumor than in Case A, the maximum temperatures are somewhat decrease but reasonably close to the measurements. Unfortunately, due to the huge selection of two simultaneous parameters, namely, the nanoparticle diameter (ten to 20 nm) and the applied magnetic field (20 to 50 kA/m) reported in Pearce et al. [92], we could not apply Rosensweig’s theory as we did for Hamaguchi et al. [86]. Subsequently, we compared the cumulative equivalent minutes at 43 C (CEM43) of our model using the CEM43 measurements and model predictions reported by Pearce et al. [92]. In line with Pearce et al. [92], the CEM43 in discrete interval type is written as CEM43 =i =RCEM (43-Ti ) tiN(16)exactly where RCEM will be the time scaling ratio, 43 C is definitely the reference temperature and ti (min) is spent at temperature Ti ( C). In their work RCEM = 0.45 was chosen. Employing Equation (16) for our model predictions in Figure 12 we acquire CEM43 values close for the calculated by Pearce et al. [92], as shown in Table five.Figure 12. Two situations approximating the tumor shape from a histological cross-section by Pearce et al. [92] using a prolate spheroid. Note that the tumor histological cross-section has been redrawn in the original: (a) prolate spheroid shape, case A with AR 1.29, on prime on the redrawn tumor and (b) prolate spheroid shape, case B with AR 1.57, on prime from the redrawn tumor. Comparison with the present numerical model using the 3D numerical model and experiments by Pearce et al. [92] in the tumor center (probe center) for (c) Case A and (d) Case B and in the probe tip (about three mm from tumor center) for (e) Case A and (f).