Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Occupational exposure in MR facilities due to movements in the static magnetic field

TitleOccupational exposure in MR facilities due to movements in the static magnetic field
Publication TypeArticolo su Rivista peer-reviewed
Year of Publication2017
AuthorsAndreuccetti, D., Biagi L., Burriesci G., Cannatà V., Contessa G.M., Falsaperla R., Genovese E., Lodato R., Lopresto Vanni, Merla Caterina, Napolitano A., Pinto Rosanna, Tiberi G., Tosetti M., and Zoppetti N.
JournalMedical Physics
Volume44
Pagination5988-5996
ISSN00942405
Keywordsadult, article, body position, comparative study, density, Female, health practitioner, human, magnetic field, male, measurement repeatability, normal human, Nuclear magnetic resonance, occupational exposure, occupational safety, Radiation exposure, vertigo, work environment
Abstract

Purpose: The exposure of operators moving in the static field of magnetic resonance (MR) facilities was assessed through measurements of the magnetic flux density, which is experienced as variable in time because of the movement. Collected data were processed to allow the comparison with most recent and authoritative safety standards. Methods: Measurements of the experienced magnetic flux density B were performed using a probe worn by volunteers moving in MR environments. A total of 55 datasets were acquired nearby a 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T whole body scanners. Three different metrics were applied: the maximum intensity of B, to be compared with 2013/35/EU Directive exposure limit values for static fields; the maximum variation of the vector B on every 3s-interval, for comparison with the ICNIRP-2014 basic restriction aimed at preventing vertigo effects; two weighted-peak indices (for "sensory" and "health" effects: SENS-WP, HLTH-WP), assessing compliance with ICNIRP-2014 and EU Directive recommendations intended to prevent stimulation effects. Results: Peak values of |B| were greater than 2 T in nine of the 55 datasets. All the datasets at 1.5 T and 3 T were compliant with the limit for vertigo effects, whereas six datasets at 7 T turned out to be noncompliant. At 7 T, all 36 datasets were noncompliant for the SENS-WP index and 26 datasets even for the HLTH-WP one. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that compliance with EU Directive limits for static fields does not guarantee compliance with ICNIRP-2014 reference levels and clearly show that movements in the static field could be the key component of the occupational exposure to EMF in MR facilities. © 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Notes

cited By 0

URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85030109641&doi=10.1002%2fmp.12537&partnerID=40&md5=2cc277f6ea7642306cfe35a578db8622
DOI10.1002/mp.12537
Citation KeyAndreuccetti20175988