1
|
Occupational Exposure Assessment of the Static Magnetic Field Generated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case Study. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19137674. [PMID: 35805332 PMCID: PMC9265854 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Magnetic resonance (MR) systems are used in academic research laboratories and industrial research fields, besides representing one of the most important imaging modalities in clinical radiology. This technology does not use ionizing radiation, but it cannot be considered without risks. These risks are associated with the working principle of the technique, which mainly involves static magnetic fields that continuously increase—namely, the radiofrequency (RF) field and spatial magnetic field gradient. To prevent electromagnetic hazards, the EU and ICNIRP have defined workers’ exposure limits. Several studies that assess health risks for workers and patients of diagnostic MR are reported in the literature, but data on workers’ risk evaluation using nuclear MR (NMR) spectroscopy are very poor. Therefore, the aim of this research is the risk assessment of an NMR environment, paying particular attention to workers with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs). Our perspective study consisted of the measurement of the static magnetic field around a 300 MHz (7 T) NMR research spectrometer and the computation of the electric field induced by the movements of an operator. None of the calculated exposure parameters exceeded the threshold limits imposed by legislation for protection against short-term effects of acute occupational exposure, but our results revealed that the level of exposure exceeded the action level threshold limit for workers with AIMD during the execution of tasks requiring the closest proximity to the spectrometer. Moreover, the strong dependence of the induced electric field results from the walking speed models is shown. This case study represents a snapshot of the NMR risk assessment with the specific goal to increase the interest in the safety of NMR environments.
Collapse
|
2
|
Ayasrah M. MRI Safety Practice Observations in MRI Facilities Within the Kingdom of Jordan, Compared to the 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology. MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH 2022; 15:131-142. [PMID: 35592097 PMCID: PMC9113556 DOI: 10.2147/mder.s360335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The absence of ionizing radiation in MRI applications does not guarantee absolute safety. Implementing of safety guidelines can ensure high-quality practice in the clinical MRI with the minimum risk. For this purpose, this cross-section quantitative study conducted in Jordan Kingdom aimed to assess current MRI safety guidelines in comparison with those of 2020 Manual on MR Safety of the American College of Radiology (ACR). Patients and Methods A site observation study of 38 MRI units was undertaken in June 2021. A well-structured MRI safety questionnaire was the primary data collection method. Data were subjected to a descriptive statistics content analysis by the SPSS version 20. The results were analyzed to yield comprehensive discussions. Results A total of 38 MRI facilities in participated in this study with the responding rate of 44.7%. Patient screening areas and changing rooms were available in about 29% (11/38) of the MRI facilities. Most facilities (55%, 21/38) conducted verbal screening only whereas 21% implemented both written and verbal screening for their patients and companions in zone II, which was present in a percentage of 29% in the approached facilities. Meanwhile, only 13 (43.2%) of 38 facilities used handheld magnets for physical screening, 25 (65.8%) of MRI units did not use any kind of ferromagnetic metal detection systems. Three (7.9%) participating centers had MR-safe wheelchairs, ventilators, anesthesia machines, and stretchers. Most MRI facilities participating in this study (71%) had emergency preparedness plans for alternative power outages. Despite a relatively low number of participating centers having an emergency exit or code (26.3% and 10.5%, respectively), none of them performed practice drills for such scenarios. Conclusion Investing in new MR-safe equipment requires introducing ferromagnetic detecting systems. More research is needed to establish the degree of MRI professional’s safety-related education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Ayasrah
- Department of Allied Medical Sciences-Radiologic Technology, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Amman, Jordan
- Correspondence: Mohammad Ayasrah, Department of Allied Medical Sciences-Radiologic Technology, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Science and Technology, PO Box 3030, Irbid, 22110, Jordan, Tel +962 27201000-26939, Fax +962 27201087, Email
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hartwig V, Virgili G, Mattei FE, Biagini C, Romeo S, Zeni O, Scarfì MR, Massa R, Campanella F, Landini L, Gobba F, Modenese A, Giovannetti G. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance. Med Biol Eng Comput 2021; 60:297-320. [PMID: 34586563 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-021-02435-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 08/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the most-used diagnostic imaging methods worldwide. There are ∼50,000 MRI scanners worldwide each of which involves a minimum of five workers from different disciplines who spend their working days around MRI scanners. This review analyzes the state of the art of literature about the several aspects of the occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in MRI: regulations, literature studies on biological effects, and health surveillance are addressed here in detail, along with a summary of the main approaches for exposure assessment. The original research papers published from 2013 to 2021 in international peer-reviewed journals, in the English language, are analyzed, together with documents published by legislative bodies. The key points for each topic are identified and described together with useful tips for precise safeguarding of MRI operators, in terms of exposure assessment, studies on biological effects, and health surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Hartwig
- Institute of Clinical Physiology (IFC), Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124, Pisa, San Cataldo, Italy.
| | - Giorgio Virgili
- Virgili Giorgio, Via G. Pastore 2, 26040, Crespina-Lorenzana, Italy
| | - F Ederica Mattei
- West Systems S.R.L, Via Don Mazzolari 25, 56025, Pontedera, PI, Italy
| | - Cristiano Biagini
- Associazione Italiana Tecnici Dell'Imaging in Risonanza Magnetica, AITIRM, Via XX Settembre 76, 50129, Florence, Italy
| | - Stefania Romeo
- Institute for Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA) , Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy
| | - Olga Zeni
- Institute for Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA) , Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy
| | - Maria Rosaria Scarfì
- Institute for Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA) , Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy
| | - Rita Massa
- Institute for Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA) , Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy.,Department of Physics, University Federico II, Via Cinthia 21, 80126, Naples, Italy
| | - Francesco Campanella
- Dipartimento di medicina, epidemiologia, Igiene del Lavoro E Ambientale, Inail, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone, Rome, Italy
| | - Luigi Landini
- Fondazione Toscana "G. Monasterio", Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124, Pisa, San Cataldo, Italy
| | - Fabriziomaria Gobba
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 287, 41125, Modena, Italy
| | - Alberto Modenese
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 287, 41125, Modena, Italy
| | - Giulio Giovannetti
- Institute of Clinical Physiology (IFC), Italian National Research Council (CNR), Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124, Pisa, San Cataldo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|