What percentage of the primary exposure to the patient will reach the technologist 1 meter away?

Br J Radiol. 2012 Apr; 85(1012): 293–312.

Abstract

This article reviews occupational exposure in clinical MRI; it specifically considers units of exposure, basic physical interactions, health effects, guideline limits, dosimetry, results of exposure surveys, calculation of induced fields and the status of the European Physical Agents Directive. Electromagnetic field exposure in MRI from the static field B0, imaging gradients and radiofrequency transmission fields induces electric fields and currents in tissue, which are responsible for various acute sensory effects. The underlying theory and its application to the formulation of incident and induced field limits are presented. The recent International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers limits for incident field exposure are interpreted in a manner applicable to MRI.

Field measurements show that exposure from movement within the B0 fringe field can exceed ICNIRP reference levels within 0.5 m of the bore entrance. Rate of change of field dB/dt from the imaging gradients is unlikely to exceed the new limits, although incident field limits can be exceeded for radiofrequency (RF) exposure within 0.2–0.5 m of the bore entrance.

Dosimetric surveys of routine clinical practice show that staff are exposed to peak values of 42±24% of B0, with time-averaged exposures of 5.2±2.8 mT for magnets in the range 0.6–4 T. Exposure to time-varying fields arising from movement within the B0 fringe resulted in peak dB/dt of approximately 2 T s−1.

Modelling of induced electric fields from the imaging gradients shows that ICNIRP-induced field limits are unlikely to be exceeded in most situations; however, movement through the static field may still present a problem. The likely application of the limits is discussed with respect to the reformulation of the European Union (EU) directive and its possible implications for MRI.

The formulation of EU directive 2004/40/EC on physical agents (electromagnetic fields) [1] has focused attention on the issue of occupational exposure in MRI. Numerous articles and editorials have been published outlining the concerns of the MR and wider radiology community regarding the possible implications of the directive [2-4]. Subsequently commissioned studies [5,6] have indicated that exposure limits contained in the original directive, which were based on guidelines from the ICNIRP dating back to 1998, would adversely impact several aspects of clinical and research MRI within the EU. As a consequence, implementation of the directive has been delayed until 2012 [7] and will be formulated in the light of new ICNIRP guidance [8] and other international standards.

The situation in Europe has shown that little is known about the actual levels of exposure of MR workers, despite the prior existence of relevant national and international occupational exposure guidance [8-11] and a significant body of literature on MRI safety for the patient [12-14]. This review aims to summarise the relevant information for the radiology community by specifically considering units of exposure, basic physical interactions, health effects and limits, dosimetry, results of exposure surveys and calculation of induced fields. The latter two will be considered with regard to the recently published ICNIRP guidelines, other existing limits and how they might inform the reworked EU directive.

Overview of MRI technology

MRI has evolved rapidly over the past 30 years to become a major imaging modality. An estimated 60 million MRI scans are performed worldwide each year. There are currently over 500 scanners in the UK [14], the majority of which operate at 1.5 T, but 3 T scanners are proliferating in the clinical setting and a small number of 7 T scanners are emerging within universities.

MRI uses the combination of a strong static magnetic field (B0) and pulsed gradient (Gx, Gy, Gz) fields in the extremely low frequency (ELF) and voice frequency (VF) regions, and pulsed RF magnetic fields (B1) in the very high frequency (VHF) region. Ionising radiation, with its associated health risks, is not used. Table 1 shows the typical range of magnetic field exposures in MRI.

Table 1

Typical range of magnetic field exposures in MRI

The static field B0 is most commonly produced by a solenoidal superconducting magnet in a closed bore configuration producing a magnetic field horizontally along the bore axis. Various so-called open systems using superconductive, resistive or permanent magnets also exist, usually with a vertical field. These allow better access to the patient to provide essential care or carry out interventional procedures, and offer a less claustrophobic environment for the patient [15]. Higher field strengths offer the advantage of greater signal-to-noise ratio, which benefits most clinical applications, permitting faster scan times or higher spatial resolution, but potentially with greater artefacts [16].

The static field extends beyond the confines of the scanner bore and this fringe field is important with regard to interference with medical devices such as pacemakers. Consequently the area around the scanner is subject to strict control of access [17-18]. The rate at which the static field changes over distance, or the B0 fringe field spatial gradient, is responsible for the magnetic attraction of ferromagnetic objects. Movement within the fringe field is deemed to be responsible for various mild sensory effects (described later) and becomes more of an issue at high field strengths. Patients and staff are routinely exposed to the fringe field of B0.

The B1 field is an amplitude-modulated sinusoid used to effect transitions between magnetic spin states of the nucleus, most commonly of hydrogen (1H), according to the Larmor equation:

(1)

where

To acquire an image, three orthogonal magnetic field gradients provide short-term linear variations of the z component of static magnetic field. The gradients and RF pulses together form a pulse sequence that manipulates the phase and frequency of the MR signals and encode them to enable image reconstruction, usually by two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) Fourier transformation. The particular waveforms, amplitudes and timings of the gradient pulses vary for different sequences, and the gradient amplitudes generally scale with the spatial resolution. There is a trend for more powerful and rapid gradient systems to enable faster scanning. This is particularly important for MRI guidance of interventions [19] and biopsies [20], especially when using open magnet systems [21]. Occupational exposure during interventional MRI has been one of the major areas of concern regarding the EU directive and exposure guidelines [2-4].

The combination of the large current pulses through the gradient coils and the static field produces significant levels of acoustic noise [22]; hence, ear protection is required for anyone in the magnet room during scanning. Staff are only exposed to the fringe fields of the gradients if they remain within the MR room during the scan acquisition. All the fringe fields from B0, B1 and Gx,y,z decrease rapidly with distance from the bore entrance.

Electromagnetic fields

Units and definitions

Magnetic field intensity (H) is measured in amperes per metre (A m−1). However, in MRI it is more usual to consider magnetic induction or flux density, commonly called magnetic field strength B0, measured in tesla (T). In a medium, the magnetic flux density, B, is:

(2)

where μ0, the permeability of vacuum, has a value 4π×10−7 henry m−1 and χm is the dimensionless magnetic susceptibility. Schenk [23] has provided a comprehensive overview of magnetic materials in MRI. The fringe field of B0 varies spatially and has a gradient dB/dr measured in tesla per metre (T m−1).

The imaging gradients are defined as linear spatial variations in Bz:

(3)

and are specified in millitesla per metre (mT m−1). Within the imaging field of view the gradients produce a static magnetic field whose z-axis components are additive to B0:

(4)

The gradient slew rate (SR), defined in T m−1 s−1, is given by:

(5)

The RF field B1 is measured in microtesla (μT), but is also specified as H1 (Equation 2) and has an electric field component E1. Electric fields (E) are measured in volts per metre (V m−1). For a plane wave in the far field, the ratio of E/H has a constant value of 337 Ω and the power density is:

(6)

measured in watts per square metre (W m−2). The specific absorption rate (SAR) is the RF power absorbed per unit body mass (W kg−1). An SAR value may apply for the whole or partial body (e.g. head or extremities).

In general, all the field quantities defined above (B, H, E) are vectors and may have directional components that are not used in image formation. For both patient and occupational exposure, it is important to consider the magnitude of these vector fields, e.g. for B:

(7)

Exposure limits are often expressed as root mean square (RMS) values. The RMS value of a time-varying function (e.g. B1 and the imaging gradients) is derived by squaring the function and then determining the mean value of the squares obtained, and taking the square root of that mean value. For a sinusoidal waveform the peak value is √2 times the RMS value.

Basic physical laws

Faraday's law of induction underpins the generation of induced fields in tissue:

(8)

where Ei is the induced electric field around a closed path and dS is the differential area vector normal to the applied field. For a circular loop of radius, r, in a uniform medium normal to the applied field this simplifies to [24]:

(9)

Thus, the magnitude of induced electric field around a closed loop in tissue is proportional to the loop radius and the rate of change of magnetic field. The induced electric field generates a current density Ji (A m−2) in tissue:

(10)

where σ is the electrical conductivity of the tissue in siemens per metre (S m−1). Both induced Ei and Ji vary linearly with the loop radius, and therefore increase with body size.

In a more realistic geometry with an elliptical body cross-section perpendicular to the magnetic field, the maximum current density was calculated by McRobbie and Foster [25] as:

(11)

where a is the semi-major axial length and b the semi-minor. The choice of axes will depend upon the orientation of the subject within the field. For a patient lying in a conventional closed bore magnet, a would be in the left–right direction and b in the anteroposterior. Typical values of a and b might be 0.2 m and 0.1 m, respectively, giving a geometric multiplier of 0.08. For a person standing close to the bore, a would be in the head–foot direction and b in the left–right; typical values for a and b are 0.4 m and 0.2 m, respectively, and the geometric multiplier would be 0.16. This latter orientation is generally the more relevant to occupational exposure.

Movement through the gradient of the static field (i.e. through the fringe field) effectively acts as a time-varying magnetic field. In the simplest case of a uniform body moving with a constant velocity, v, (m s−1):

(12)

and therefore moving more slowly will result in lower induced fields in tissues. The elliptical geometric term (Equation 11) may also be used in place of r, with appropriate values of a and b.

Concerning the RF field B1, for a spatially uniform rectangular RF pulse with duty cycle, D, and a uniform spherical medium of density ρ (kg m−3) [26]:

(13)

thus, SAR has a square dependence upon Larmor frequency or B0, B1 and patient “radius” and a linear dependence upon duty cycle or sequence repetition time (TR). SAR can be reduced by reducing the number of RF pulses (smaller echo-train length, fewer slices), reducing the flip angle (and hence B1) and increasing TR.

Equations 9–13 represent an ideal geometry because the electrical properties and morphology of the human body are highly inhomogeneous and anisotropic, but they serve to illustrate general principles and are used within the established guidance [8-11] to derive some of the occupational limits for incident fields.

Health effects and occupational exposure limits

There have been a number of recent reviews of the biological effects of magnetic fields [23,27-30] and this review will only highlight key effects relevant to MRI and occupational exposure limits. Exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields cover the frequency range 0–300 GHz for all aspects of work-related exposure, not just MRI. The European directive formalised the 1998 ICNIRP guideline limits into a regulatory framework. The reformulated directive, postponed to April 2012, is now unlikely to become effective within UK law until 2014 [31]. MR manufacturers are already subject to self-regulation through compliance with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 60601-2-33 [32]. Patient exposure limits have been considered elsewhere [14,32-35].

In most guidance, basic restrictions are set to avoid short-term acute adverse effects and are defined in terms of RMS induced electric field Ei in tissue. The United States-based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has separate induced field limits for three tissue types: brain, heart and other [9,11]. New German Federal Ministry of Work and Social Affairs [Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS)] limits [36] specify exposure limit value (ELV) for whole-body induced Ei with a higher trunk-only limit for controlled situations. In the UK the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) basic restrictions [10], which are identical to the 1998 ICNIRP limits, are specified as RMS induced current densities Ji. The induced field limits for 0–100 kHz have complex frequency dependences, as shown in Figure 1a.

Induced and incident field limits up to 100 kHz. All values are RMS except BMAS (peak). (a) Basic restrictions and exposure limit values. NRPB values have been recalculated as induced electric field for a CNS tissue conductivity σ=0.1 S m−1 [10]. (b) Reference levels, action levels and maximum permissible exposures. Lines of constant dB/dt (oblique dashed lines) and approximate regions for sensory effects are shown after Glover et al [38]. BMAS, Bundesministerium für Arbeit and Soziales; CNS, central nervous system; ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission; IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; NRPB, National Radiological Protection Board; PNS, peripheral nerve stimulation; RMS, root mean square.

As the induced fields are not directly measurable, compliance can be demonstrated using derived reference levels (RL) (ICNIRP, NRPB), maximum permissible exposures (MPE, IEEE) or upper and lower action levels (AL, BMAS) specified in terms of the incident fields. These are commonly derived using the simple models in the Electromagnetic Fields section, particularly Equations 9–11, using a worst-case scenario or some other estimate of uncertainty. Compliance with the incident field limits is sufficient to ensure that the basic restrictions will not be exceeded. In cases where an incident field limit is exceeded, further calculation of the induced fields is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the basic restrictions. The various incident field limits for 0–100 kHz are shown in Figure 1b as RMS values. A comparison review of these and other national standards is given by Roy and Martin [37].

Static fields

Biological effects

The principal established biological effects of static fields in and around MR scanners are dizziness, nausea, headaches, a metallic taste and visual disturbances [38-42]. Cognitive effects are extremely mild [43] or absent [39,44]. Sensory effects are thought to arise as a consequence of head motion in the static field and have thresholds in the region of 2 T s−1. Visual electrophosphenes (induced from currents passed through tissue via external electrodes) have been used by ICNIRP to provide the lowest limit value of 50 mV m−1 for 10–25 Hz. Magnetophosphenes (induced by time-varying magnetic fields without direct electrical connection) have a peak sensitivity for a dB/dt of approximately 1.5 T s−1 occurring within the frequency range 10–20 Hz [45]. The approximate loci of these and other sensory effects with regard to stimulus amplitude, frequency and rate of change (dB/dt) are shown in relation to the incident field limits in Figure 1b.

Occupational limits

Occupational limits for static fields are shown in Table 2. ICNIRP has a 2 T ceiling, but allows for peak exposures of up to 8 T in controlled situations [46]. Notably the EU directive did not have an ELV for static fields—only an action value of 200 mT, which was applied as a ceiling rather than a time-weighted average (TWA), as in the NRPB guidelines [10]. With a time-averaged limit of 200 mT applied to an 8 h day, a worker, for example, could be exposed to 1.5 T for up to 64 min, but 3 T for only 32 min. The IEEE limit [9] applies for a slowly varying sinusoidal field of <0.153 Hz and is given as an RMS value, but in Table 2 it is converted to a peak value for comparison. IEC 60601-2-33 [32] operates a three-tier system of limits, with the limit shown being the first (intermediate) level controlled operating mode.

Table 2

Static field limits for occupational exposure. All values peak

Movement of persons within the static fringe field gradient (|dB/dr|) will induce fields within tissues, and these may exceed some low-frequency exposure limits. For example, a movement that takes 1 s could be related to a frequency of 1 Hz, whereas more rapid movements relate to higher frequencies. Table 3a shows the induced and incident field limits that are most relevant to movement within the static field gradient. These limits are presented here as peak rather than RMS values as these are more relevant to MRI, and the basic restrictions for NRPB are shown in terms of induced electric field rather than current density as published [assuming a central nervous system (CNS) tissue conductivity of 0.1 S m−1 [10]]. Both ICNIRP and BMAS have a general basic restriction based on the avoidance of all acute sensory effects, and a less stringent one applicable to a controlled situation, where the worker is conversant with the possible effects and may control his or her movement. Equivalent values of dB/dt are shown in the final column of Table 3a. In frequency ranges where the incident field limit has a 1/f dependence, the equivalent maximum dB/dt is constant [47,48].

Table 3a

Low frequency occupational exposure limits relevant to movement within the static field. All values are peak. Italics denote derived values. For simplicity H field limits are omitted. They can be calculated from Equation 2

To illustrate the extent of variations between the guidelines, we can compare incident field limits for a movement, e.g. head nodding with a notional frequency of 1 Hz (0.5 s upward motion, followed by 0.5 s down, repeatedly); this gives limit values of 48 mT (BMAS), 76.8 mT (IEEE) and 280 mT (NRPB, ICNIRP), which gives an overall a range of nearly 6 times. For the induced field limits we have the extremes of 0.025 V m−1 (IEEE) to 0.7 V m−1 (ICNIRP), which gives a range of 28 times.

Time-varying fields up to 100 kHz

Biological effects

Time-varying field exposure from the imaging gradients is one of the best studied aspects of biomagnetism. Glover [30] has provided a recent MR-related review. The basic effects are stimulation of the CNS or peripheral nervous system and other electrically excitable tissues. ELF time-varying magnetic fields are used in clinical practice to purposely induce peripheral (motor nerves and skeletal muscle) and central (cerebral cortex) nerve stimulation in humans [49]. Much greater exposures are achievable than in MR scanners. Disruption of respiration [50] in humans and cardiac stimulation [51,52] in dogs has been demonstrated, but, notably, ventricular fibrillation has not.

The basic law of magnetic stimulation is largely analogous to electrical stimulation resulting in the magnetic strength duration (SD) curve first demonstrated by McRobbie and Foster [53]:

(14)

where (dB/dt)rheo is the rheobase or the minimum stimulation threshold for long stimuli, τ is the stimulus duration and tc is the cell membrane time constant. Time constants vary according to tissue type; peripheral motor nerves have time constants of the order of 0.1 ms, while cardiac muscle has tc in the region 2–3 ms and synapses up to 25 ms [54]. The alternative Weiss–Lapicque [55] hyperbolic form for the SD curve is sometimes used. Expressed below in terms of induced Ei this is:

(15)

where c is the chronaxie or the stimulus duration for a threshold double the rheobase. The forms for Equations 14 and 15 are shown in Figure 2. In both versions the minimum stimulation threshold in either dB/dt or induced Ei (or current density Ji) occurs for long stimulus durations or for low frequencies. For longer stimuli (lower frequencies) a larger amplitude of B field (in comparison to its rate of change) is required to achieve stimulation.

Strength-duration curves for dB/dt and B. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) curve is the 100% median threshold following the hyperbolic form (Equation 15) with rheobase and chronaxie indicated. The cardiac curve includes a factor of three safety margin, following the exponential form (Equation 14). Both curves are from the International Electrotechnical Commission [32]. The second axis shows the B field stimulus for PNS (Equation 16).

An alternative approach is to consider the B field as the stimulus, in which case [56]:

(16)

where Bmin is the minimum changing field to cause stimulation in the limit of a very short or high-frequency stimulus, as shown in Figure 2, for the IEC peripheral nerve stimulation curve.

Many authors have investigated peripheral nerve stimulation perception thresholds for various combinations of axes on whole-body MR gradient systems [57-62]. By taking an average of all these results, we can deduce a peripheral nerve stimuation rheobase for dB/dt of 19.9±3.9 T s−1 and a chronaxie of 0.5±0.14 ms. For a circular body cross-section with r=0.2 m perpendicular to the dB/dt field and an average tissue conductivity, σ, of 0.2 S m−1 [32], we can calculate (from Equations 9 and 10) the rheobase for Ei and Ji to be in the region of 2 V m−1 and 0.4 A m−2, respectively. Applying Equation 16 indicates a Bmin of 10 mT for very short stimuli. This means that, in terms of the change in B field, peripheral nerve stimulation, and not magnetophosphenes, has the lowest threshold as is indicated in Figure 1b.

The threshold for discomfort or pain from peripheral nerve stimuation is approximately 50–100% higher than the perception threshold [63]. The longer time constant for heart tissue and the smaller conduction loops make direct cardiac stimulation extremely unlikely with an estimated dB/dt rheobase for the most sensitive percentile of the population of 62 T s−1 [32]. It is estimated that at least 50 times the electrical stimulus for cardiac stimulation is required to cause ventricular fibrillation [54].

Occupational limits

Table 3b shows the occupational exposure limits most relevant to the imaging gradients. The values are all expressed as peak values, with equivalent dB/dt shown in the final column. The IEEE basic restrictions are specific to body part—brain, heart and other—while ICNIRP's are for CNS tissues in the head or for any tissue in a controlled situation. BMAS also have a general and a controlled exposure limit value. The NRPB basic restrictions are here reinterpreted as induced electric fields (using σ=0.1 S m−1). The various incident field limits generally apply to the whole body. BMAS has a lower and upper action level.

Table 3b

Occupational exposure limits relevant to the imaging gradients. All values are peak. Italics denote derived values. For simplicity H field limits are omitted. They can be calculated from Equation 2

The final column shows the equivalent peak dB/dt limits. For ICNIRP this is constant (2.6 T s−1) over the frequency range 300–3000 Hz, most relevant to certain fast MRI sequences. IEC 60601-2-33 stipulates that the MR worker should not experience peripheral nerve stimulation and, in the absence of experimental data from a specific MR system, proposes a rheobase of 2.2 V m−1 or 20 T s−1 and chronaxie of 0.36 ms, as shown in ​Figures 1a and 2.

Comparing the incident field limits at a notional frequency of 1 kHz, appropriate to an echo-planar imaging (EPI) acquisition, we have 0.043 mT (NRPB), 0.42 mT (ICNIRP), 1.92 mT, (BMAS) and 2.91 mT (IEEE), which is a range of 68 times. For the induced field limits we have 0.56 V m−1, (NRPB), 1.1 V m−1 (ICNIRP), 2 V m−1 (BMAS), 2.97 V m−1 (IEEE, other) and 3.78 V m−1 (IEC), which is a range of seven times. In terms of dB/dt the IEC limit would be 23.6 T s−1 (using a geometric factor of 0.16 from Equation 11) compared with 12 T s−1 for BMAS, but only 2.6 T s−1 for ICNIRP, which is a discrepancy of 13 times.

Radiofrequency exposures

Biological effects

RF effects in MRI have been reviewed previously [26,64]. The main effect of acute EMF exposures in the RF region is tissue heating. ICNIRP has recently stated that “the plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low” and reconfirms its exposure limits for frequencies over 100 kHz [65].

Occupational limits

Both ICNIRP and IEEE define their basic restrictions in terms of whole-body SAR as 0.4 W kg−1 time-averaged over 6 min. This is one-tenth of the upper limit suggested for patients, deemed to restrict core body temperature rise to ≤1°C. Also specified are localised (over 10 g of tissue) SAR limits of 10 W kg−1 for the head and trunk and 20 W kg−1 for the limbs. The IEEE incident field limits have a frequency, and therefore scanner B0, dependence. The IEC standard allows the MR worker to receive the same RF exposure as the patient, i.e. a whole body SAR of up to 4 W kg−1 [32]. The limits relevant to various scanner field strengths are given in Table 4.

Table 4

Radiofrequency limits for occupational exposure as applicable to MRI. All time-averaged over 6 min

Interpreting the limits for MRI

All the limit values for incident and induced time-varying EMF exposures apply to single-frequency sinusoidal fields, and in the case of RF limits, plane waves. None of these conditions are valid for MRI. For non-sinusoidal pulses, in the region 1–100 kHz, one approach advocated by ICNIRP [47] is to apply the limits to each frequency component present in the waveform:

(17)

where Bi are the individual frequency components of the field, Li the appropriate limit values and fmin and fmax define the frequency range. This can lead to overly conservative limits, as it assumes a coherent phase between the spectral components [48].

An alternative approach is the weighted dB/dt method [47,48], which uses the property that the maximum value of the time derivative of a sinusoid Bsin(2πft) is |2πf B| to deduce the peak dB/dt limit relating to limit BL as:

(18)

For the frequency range where the incident field limit has an inverse relationship to frequency, its time derivative dB/dt will be constant and the peak dB/dt may be used to test compliance even for complex waveforms. The other frequency ranges of the limits can be investigated by using a measurement instrument with a high- or low-pass filter that matches the frequency weighting of the reference level. Applying this approach, the ICNIRP reference level becomes 2.6 T s−1 from 300 to 3000 Hz. Similarly, the IEEE head and trunk MPEs below 20 Hz become 0.48 T s−1 and for the heart below 3.325 kHz become 18.4 T s−1. Equivalent dB/dt limits are shown in the final column of Table 3a,​b. This methodology is particularly useful for MRI where gradient waveforms are usually of trapezoidal form with multiple harmonics but a single peak dB/dt.

Measurement of electromagnetic fields

Static field

The static magnetic field can be measured using a hall-effect gaussmeter. It is important to recognise that although MRI is only sensitive to the z-component, Bz, other components, Bx and By, may also be present, particularly in the fringe field, and therefore three-axis probes are required. Commercial gaussmeters are capable of measuring up to 2 T with a resolution of 0.01 mT, which is sufficient to plot the fringe field outside the bore for a clinical 3 T MR system. Careful zeroing of the probe is required prior to its use near an MR facility. The earth's field is approximately 0.05 mT. Fringe field measurements are often carried out on new systems to verify the position of the 0.5 mT (pacemaker) limit. All equipment should be calibrated to traceable standards.

Static fringe field and fringe field gradient plots are provided in manufacturers' compatibility statements. In addition, IEC60601-2-33 requires MR manufacturers to indicate the locations of the highest spatial gradient of the static field and the largest value of the product of static field and its spatial gradient where projectile effects are at their greatest.

Time-varying gradient fields

The imaging gradient fringe fields inside and outside the magnet bore can be measured using instruments based upon a search coil [32] giving direct measurement of dB/dt from:

(19)

where V is the induced voltage, n the number of turns and A the coil area. More sophisticated commercial instruments allow three-axis vector measurement and use an integrator to provide readings of magnetic flux density, B. Some instruments also use the weighted dB/dt method of checking compliance with the older ICNIRP limits [47]. These instruments will require recalibration to apply to the current RLs. Nominal sensitivities of 1 nT, with a range up to tens of millitesla, are achievable to frequencies well over 100 kHz. The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) has recently published a review of measurement techniques and technology for EMF exposure [66].

Radiofrequency fields

A search coil will enable the measurement of B1 outside the bore of the magnet and may be used to demonstrate compliance with the B1 RL and MPEs of Table 4. As the RF exposure occurs in the near field, independent measurement of E1 and H1 is required. Commercial systems have three-axis dipoles (for E) and loops (for H) with sensitivities up to approximately 0.01 Vm−1 and 0.01 mA m−1. Measurement of SAR requires a phantom containing tissue-equivalent material. IEC 60601-2-33 also defines methodologies for assessing temperature rise (in a phantom) and SAR or RF pulse energy calculation from forward and reflected power measurements from the RF transmission system [32]. A device for monitoring SAR, which does not involve a phantom, has recently been proposed [67], although it may not be sensitive enough to monitor occupational exposure outside the magnet bore. IPEM reports 98 reviews of RF measurement equipment [66].

Staff dosemeters

Monitoring of staff directly requires the ability to measure static and time-varying magnetic fields. Several commercial and bespoke devices have used a combination of Hall effect sensors, induction coils and integrators [68-72] to measure B and dB/dt or, uniquely, to measure the induced Ei field directly [73]. Any monitoring device must be lightweight, unobtrusive, non-ferromagnetic and have sufficient battery life for at least one work shift. An isotropic spatial response and an appropriate frequency response and sampling rate are required, particularly if dB/dt from the imaging gradients is to be monitored. Possible dose metrics are peak static field, TWA static field, field-time product and instantaneous and peak dB/dt, along with its spectral components. RF personal dosemeters also exist [66], but there has been no report of their use in MRI.

Field survey results

Static field

Static field surveys [6,74] show that 200 mT (the action value for 0 Hz in the original EU directive and the current ICNIRP RMS reference level below 1 Hz) is exceeded at approximately 0.5 m from the bore opening for most 1.5 T and 3 T systems (Table 5). Of particular interest are open MR systems where, although the 200 mT field contour is very close to the edge of the scanner, an MR worker may be wholly or partially within the bore [6,75]. The 500 mT contour (IEEE MPE for <0.153 Hz) lies in the region 0.2−0.3 m from the bore entrance. Capstick et al [6] measured the field throughout a 3D gridded volume within the MR examination room, and from these measurements calculated the fringe field gradient. Examples are shown in Figures 3a,b.

Table 5

B0 fringe field measurements (from bore entrance)

(a) Static field contours and (b) static field gradient contours from a 3 T MRI system. Centre of bore entrance is at position (0,0,0). With permission from Capstick et al [6].

Time-varying gradient fields

The fringe field of the gradients was the original point of contention with both the 1998 ICNIRP guidance and the European directive. Early measurements involving a single search coil established that significant gradient fringe fields exist beyond the bore of the scanner [76]. These results have been extended using three-axis calibrated meters [6,70,74,77-80]. Table 6 summarises all the known results for exposure measurements at the entrance of the bore in terms of peak B, dB/dt or percentage of the ICNIRP and NRPB (old ICNIRP) RLs. While the old (NRPB) RLs were readily exceeded for many pulse sequences, the new ICNIRP RL is rarely exceeded outside the bore.

Table 6

B and dB/dt fringe field values and percentage limit exposures from the imaging gradients. Negative distance indicates distance into the bore

In general, fast sequences [e.g. EPI, balanced turbo field echo (b-TFE), balance fast field echo (b-FFE), true fast imaging with steady state precession (TrueFISP)] had higher peak dB/dt. However, it should be noted that some systems are programmed to use the highest possible SR, making the peak dB/dt more independent of the sequence type. For the open systems [Fonar Upright Multi-Position MRI (Fonar, Melville, NY) and Philips Panorama (Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands)], where it is possible for MR staff to have a significant part of their head or trunk within the bore, much greater exposures may occur [6,78,79]. For the other scanners, bore length is important, with the very long bore of the 7 T scanner ensuring that the fringe field of the gradients is negligible outside the bore [6]. In general, all these studies used parameters from typical clinical scan protocols. The exposure values scale with various factors including pixel size, field-of-view [74], slice thickness and orientation, bandwidth, echo time and acoustic noise reduction [80]. Figure 4 shows the instantaneous |dB/dt| (vector sum for all gradients) for various sequences from one system measured at the bore entrance [6]. In addition to z-axis measurements, Capstick et al [6,78] also measured the gradient fringe fields from a test sequence throughout a 3D volume.

Instantaneous dB/dt from the imaging gradients (vector sum of all gradients) measured outside the bore 95 cm from the isocentre: BOLD-EPI, BOLD-echo planar imaging; DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; b-TFE, balanced turbo-field echo; TSE, turbo spin-echo. With permission from Capstick et al [6].

The fundamental frequency of the sequences ranged from as low as 80 Hz (turbo spin-echo) to 1 kHz (EPI). Most of the fast sequences relevant to interventional MRI (b-TFE, b-FFE, TrueFISP) had fundamental frequencies in the range 300–500 Hz, appropriate to the application of the ICNIRP dB/dt limit of 2.6 T s−1. Figure 5 shows the frequency components of two different MR sequences on different scanners. In both cases, there are significant harmonic components. For establishing compliance with the RLs, the weighted dB/dt or the summation of Fourier components can be used [46,47]. The summation method (Equation 17) results in significantly greater estimations of exposure than either the weighted dB/dt or RMS value of the fundamental frequency [74].

Examples of spectral content of pulse sequences. (a) Balanced SSFP from Riches et al [74]; (b) echo planar imaging from Capstick et al [6], with permission.

Radiofrequency field

The RF fringe field has received much less attention, but has been assessed for an RF-dense TSE sequence used for MRCP examinations [77] and a bespoke test sequence on a range of scanners [6,78]. Table 7 shows that RLs can be exceeded close to the bore, within 0.45 m for an open scanner and 0.2 m for a short closed bore system.

Table 7

Radiofrequency fringe field measurements, root-mean square values. Italics indicate calculated values

Staff survey results

Time-motion studies

Capstick et al [6] observed staff during real clinical procedures using an MR-compatible two-camera video system and, combined with their 3D volumetric field measurements, characterised staff exposure during actual clinical activities in a 1 T open and 1.5, 3 and 7 T closed-bore scanners. They measured the position, velocity and exposure times for the key staff member (e.g. radiographer, anaesthetist, interventionalist or cleaner) and determined the maximum and mean static field, maximum static field gradient (|dB/dr|), maximum B, dB/dt and fundamental frequency from the imaging gradients, B1, H1 and E1 (time-averaged over 6 min). From these they were able to calculate induced currents in tissue from movement and imaging gradients, and the SAR from simple models (Equations 9–13) or by complex numerical modelling (Modelling of induced fields in tissue section).

The largest velocities occurred for emergency evacuation of the patient (range, 0.8–2.3 m s−1). Other velocities recorded for both head and body lay in the range 0.2–2.0 m s−1. Figure 6a [81] summarises the results for B, both from the static field and the gradients shown, with respect to the various incident field limits. All the static field limits were exceeded for all the activities at 7 T and a majority of the others. ICNIRP RLs for exposure from the imaging gradients were exceeded for clip insertion (by 7% with a sequence fundamental frequency of 260 Hz) and monitoring patients under general anaesthesia (by 16% for a fundamental frequency of 670 Hz). None of the exposures exceeded the relevant IEEE or BMAS incident field limits.

(a) Peak B and (b) dB/dt exposures from a survey of working practices from 1 T–7 T. With permission from McRobbie et al [81]. The solid lines and black bars relate to static field exposures. The dashed lines and hatched bars relate to the imaging gradient exposures AL, action level; BMAS, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales; EEG, electroencephalogram; GA, general anaesthesia; ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; NRPB, National Radiological Protection Board; MPE, maximum permissible exposure; RL, reference level.

For non-sinusoidal waveforms, it is better to consider dB/dt as shown in Figure 6b for movement and imaging gradient exposures. Most movement-related exposures exceeded the various low frequency limits. Imaging gradient dB/dt exceeded the ICNIRP RL (300–3000 Hz) for the clip insertion by 1.9 times. This is in marked contrast to the NRPB limits, which were exceeded in several of the out-of-bore procedures.

In no instance was a RF reference level exceeded, although for the breast intervention this was largely due to time averaging (the procedure only lasted 42 s).

A similar study was carried out for MRI engineers [40] where the speed of movement for particular actions correlated with the occurrence of sensory effects. Riches et al [74] also examined movement in the static field and concluded that, for the 1.5 T systems, examined staff should restrict their velocity to <0.26 m s−1 to comply with the NRPB (ICNIRP 1998) basic restrictions. Assuming a movement equivalent to a 1 Hz changing B field, this translates to 0.32 m s−1 in order to comply with the new ICNIRP limits, with a velocity of up to 0.5 m s−1 permitted in a controlled situation. It has been shown that staff do exceed this velocity and consequently will have exposures exceeding the reference level [6].

Dosimetry studies

There are two substantive studies where EMF dosemeters were worn by MRI radiographers and technologists while they undertook routine duties. In an Oxford-based study [70] static fields were measured in four closed bore systems of 1.5 T, one closed bore system of 3 T and one open 0.6 T magnet. Staff carried the dosemeter in the pocket closest to the magnet. Peak and 24 h time-averaged B fields were reported. The Queensland study [5,71] involved thee clinical 1.5 T scanners and research systems at 2 T and 4 T. Peak B, peak dB/dt and average B over the shift were reported. The results are summarised in Table 8 where the time-weighting from the Oxford study has been recalculated over 8 h for consistency.

Table 8

Occupational exposure measurements from radiographers/technologists

The average maximum instantaneous exposure from both studies combined was 42±24% of B0. There is a remarkable consistency regarding the TWA fields, with a weighted mean of 5.2±2.8 mT over all 165 shifts. This is significantly less than the UK general public time-weighted limit of 40 mT [10]. The IEEE limit (500 mT) is exceeded in a majority of cases irrespective of field strength and the ICNIRP 1 Hz reference level (280 mT) is universally exceeded. Interpretation of the results with respect to field strength is complicated by the different configurations and bore lengths of the systems. In particular the 2 T and 4 T systems had longer bore lengths, hence their lower-than-expected peak B values.

For the Queensland survey, the study mean of peak dB/dt exposures was 2.1±1.3 T s−1. These are harder to interpret as the precise frequency component or duration of the event is unknown. However, from time-motion studies, it is reasonable to assume a maximum frequency of 1 Hz for voluntary body motion and if this is the case, then all the applicable limits (last column Table 3a) are routinely exceeded except for the BMAS controlled situation limit.

Other studies [73,79] have investigated exposures and induced fields from specific movements by volunteers chosen to mimic actual movements performed by staff carrying out their duties close to the magnet. dB/dt values in the range 1–3 T s−1 are in good agreement with the dosimetric studies. The directly measured induced electric field Ei was in the range 0.042–0.17 V m−1 for movements, compared with 2.4–3.8 m Vm−1 from the gradients for a person standing next to the bore opening and a gradient slew rate of 10 T m−1s−1 [73].

De Vocht et al [72] monitored occupational exposure for MR engineering staff who performed various tasks, including shimming, body coil adjustment, magnet ramping and system tests. Of these, shimming generally produced the worst exposures with TWA B values of 17, 25 and 86 mT for 1.0, 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners, respectively. Peak exposures lay in the range 54–1094 mT with a mean of 549±303 mT. Values for dB/dt of up to 3.97 T s−1 were recorded, but did not correlate with B0.

Modelling of induced fields in tissue

As the basic restrictions are given in terms of induced fields or SAR, numerical simulations [82] of the field interactions using anatomically realistic models may be required to demonstrate compliance. Both quasistatic finite difference [83,84] and finite integration numerical [85] techniques have been applied. These techniques provide highly detailed anatomical distributions of induced fields and currents, but inherently involve several uncertainties. The first is that detailed knowledge of the coil windings and MR system construction is required to calculate the incident fields. This information is generally proprietary, thus generic coil geometries have to be assumed. The second approximation is that gradient and RF waveforms are usually simplified, possibly to a single frequency and normalised to a standard amplitude, e.g. 1 m Tm−1. Approximations in the computational methodology may arise owing to computational time-saving techniques such as frequency scaling. The basic restrictions require spatial averaging over a specified extent, which may introduce partial volume errors where multiple tissue types exist within a voxel. For estimation of SAR most models do not account for the body's thermoregulation and blood flow. Finally, virtual human models are generally immobile having limited flexibility and therefore may not adequately simulate real human motion or posture.

Motion in the static field

Studies of linear motion of workers around MR magnets (1.5–7 T) have confirmed that induced field limits may be exceeded for motion at 1 m s−1 within 0.5–1 m of the magnet [86]. Induced electric field and current density scaled with B0. Figure 7a summarises the worst case situations, irrespective of sex. Generally these occurred for motion parallel to the z-axis towards the magnet (motion I in Figure 7b). The ICNIRP 1 Hz basic restriction is exceeded in the spine and brain for 4 T and 7 T. The IEEE basic restriction for brain of 0.025 V m−1 is exceeded in every case. Figure 7b shows the Ei field distributions in the body, the greatest towards the body's periphery as expected from Equation 12. A further study of bending towards high field scanners [87] revealed similar Ei in CSF with 0.16 to 0.56 V m−1 in the brain but much less in the spine.

Induced Ei fields from movement around 1.5, 4 and 7 T magnets at 1 m s−1. (a) Maximum values for different tissues. (b) Distribution of Ei field in the body and movement types examined. With permission from Crozier et al [89]. BR, basic restriction; ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection; IEEE, Institue of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Capstick et al [6] calculated induced current densities from observed motion of clinical staff in the fringe field. Emergency evacuation which had the greatest velocities (mean, 1.5±0.5 m s−1) gave a maximum Jrms in the range 9.1 for 1 T to 24.6 mA m−2 for 7 T with the maximum induced current in neural tissue approximately 60% less. RMS current densities from movement during other activities [tactile fMRI, general anaesthesia (GA) monitoring, cardiac stress test, manual contrast injection] were in the range 5.7–32.9 mA m−2. Cleaning the bore of the magnet gave up to 16.7 mA m−2. All of these are lower than the NRPB basic restrictions. It is hard to estimate the maximum Ei in neural tissue from movement in these instances, but using a maximum conductivity of neural tissue of 0.10 S m−1 (brain grey matter [88]) most of these activities exceed the IEEE basic restriction of 0.0177 V m−1 RMS. The only activity investigated that may exceed the ICNIRP basic restriction of 0.5 V m−1 RMS (0.8 V m−1 controlled situation) was the interventional breast clip insertion in the open 1 T system, which gave maximum Jrms of 84 mA m−2 (estimated 0.85 V m−1) averaged over 1 cm2 in neural tissue.

Induced fields from the imaging gradients

Crozier [89] considered a 1 kHz trapezoidal gradient similar to that used in an EPI sequence normalised to 1 mT m−1 with a 0.1 ms rise time. Care is required when scaling up because the full gradient strength assumed in this study (40 mT m−1) is not typical for most clinical scans and would result in an unrealistically high SR. However, assuming this is the worst case, peak Ei >2.2 V m−1 (Jmax=815 mA m−2) in the spinal cord was calculated on axis close to the end of the coil for combined Gx, Gy and Gz.. For a more realistic gradient amplitude of 20 mT m−1 the ICNIRP head CNS basic restriction was only exceeded within 0.01 m of the end of the coil. However, other tissues also exceeded tissue limits: skin, up to 0.4 m; fat, 0.3 m; muscle, 0.25 m; and heart, 0.1 m.

Li et al [85], in a more occupationally feasible position (0.35 m off-axis laterally, 0.19 m from the end of the coil) with a Gz of 10 mT m−1 at 1 kHz, obtained a more conservative Ei of 32 m Vm−1 RMS in CNS tissue (Ji=20.6 m Am−2, 1 cm2 average), a maximum Ji of 59 m Am−2 in muscle tissue and maximum Ei of 4.1 V m−1 in skin.

A European study [6,90] calculated induced current densities from the imaging gradients in situations where NRPB and previous ICNIRP RLs (EU action values) were exceeded for real clinical tasks: performing tactile fMRI and GA monitoring near closed-bore 1.5 T and 3 T scanners; and the exposure to the interventionalist within the bore of a 1 T open scanner. These produced up to 60 mA m−2 and 220 mA m−2 RMS averaged over 1 cm2 in any tissue, respectively, with values of 10 m A m−2 and 140 m A m−2 RMS in neural tissue. For the first two scenarios, the maximum Ei of 1.05 V m−1 RMS from the x-gradient occurred in the skin of the head (Figure 8a). For the interventionalist in the bore of the 1 T system the peak Ei was 0.74 V m−1 RMS in the skin of the head (Figure 8b). As tissue conductivities vary considerably, the maximum Ji does not necessarily coincide with the maximum Ei; nevertheless, these simulations suggest compliance with both the IEEE and ICNIRP basic restrictions.

Induced current densities and electric fields from the gradients in staff. Ei field colour bars are shown in volts per meter, Ji colour bars are normalised to the maximum value. (a) Standing adjacent to bore opening closed bore scanner from 40 mT m−1 x-gradient at 1 kHz. The maximum single voxel Ji is 69 mA m−2 (41 mA m−2 averaged over 1 cm2). (b) Induced fields in an interventionalist within the bore of a 1 T open scanner, z-gradient, 26 mT m−1. The maximum single voxel Ji is 1.2 A m−2 (510 mA m−2 averaged over 1 cm2) and occurs in the central nervous system. With permission from Capstick et al [6].

Radiofrequency exposure and specific absorption rate

A European study [6,90] investigated two instances when a member of staff may exceed an RF reference level. From their numerical simulations a bystander close to the bore entrance would receive 0.9 mW kg−1 whole-body and 14 mW kg−1 peak in 10 g SAR. The second situation was an interventionalist within the bore of an open system, who received 0.053 W kg−1 whole-body and 0.44 W kg−1 in 10 g of tissue. These are well below any SAR limit.

Discussion

The large discrepancies in both magnitude and frequency bands of the various limits arise from the diverse methodologies applied. The IEEE basic restrictions are based upon rheobases and chronaxies derived from the spatially extended non-linear node model of electrical stimulation applied to the brain, heart and other tissues [54]. The limits are based upon the 50% median threshold Ei rheobase multiplied by factors to account for pain, the probability of inducing the effect in the first percentile and a safety factor (set to 1.0 in a controlled environment). The frequency dependence of the IEEE basic restrictions follow the equation:

(20)

for Ei at frequency f and where fe is the breakpoint defined in the limits. This results in more conservative limits above fe. A further level of conservatism is arguably introduced by the use of electrical rather than magnetic stimulation data, owing to reported discrepancies between the chronaxies for each modality [91], and there are issues about waveform dependence differences between the stimulation modes [53,92,93]. The IEEE basic restriction for brain remains overly conservative for normal movement around MRI scanners.

The ICNIRP's rationale for frequencies 0–100 kHz is based upon analysis of experimental data from two key areas: visual phosphenes and peripheral nerve stimulation, the latter derived from MR-related peripheral nerve stimulation studies [57-62]. The new basic restrictions are raised with respect to their 1998 values over the whole range to 100 kHz, excluding the phosphene-sensitive band from 10–25 Hz (Figure 1a). The basic restriction for controlled situations is based upon a stimulation threshold of 4 V m−1 with a five-fold safety margin. The ICNIRP have also used more sophisticated numerical modelling rather than applying the simple geometries of Equations 9–11 to calculate the geometric coefficient between incident and induced fields. Also, by defining the limit in terms of the induced electric field, uncertainties regarding the conductivity of tissues are removed. The new basic restrictions and RLs are helpful for MRI because, as we have seen for some of the worst-case clinical and research scenarios [6], the RLs are only just exceeded while the basic restrictions are not.

The BMAS exposure limit values and action levels are also based upon phosphenes and peripheral nerve simulation data, but include low-frequency sensory effects (vertigo, taste and nausea) and a thorough review of electrophysiological mechanisms, particularly for short stimuli where the threshold is given by the integral of Ei over the stimulus duration. This is analogous to the Bmin approach of Equation 16. They are more conservative than ICNIRP for frequencies below 10 Hz. They also incorporate a √10 safety margin. The use of the controlled situation limits should, however, enable MRI practice to comply, particularly for the gradient frequency range for which a 12 T s−1 dB/dt limit applies.

The IEC standard proposes that the worker avoids peripheral nerve stimulation. For patient exposures the standard uses the hyperbolic SD equation (Equation 15) with a simple elliptical body geometry (Equation 12). In terms of the induced field, this means that the occupational limit is the same as patient exposures. The chronaxie value used (0.36 ms) is derived from models, but is slightly less than the available published experimental data (0.5 ms). This results in a slightly more conservative limit, but the limit in terms of dB/dt, using the vertical bystander configuration from Equation 11, is still approximately double the BMAS dB/dt limit. The IEC limit for cardiac stimulation uses the same theoretical model, but applies the exponential SD curve (Equation 14).

There is more of a consensus between standards regarding the RF exposure. While incident field limits may be exceeded close to the magnet, it has been shown that, even for an interventional procedure involving a radiologist within the bore of an open system, the 0.4 W kg−1 whole-body SAR limit is not exceeded. The IEC's standard is the only one that is markedly different; its occupational limit is set equal to the patient limit (4 W kg−1).

It has been shown that time-averaged static field exposures to clinical staff are low, in the region of 5 mT, with peak static field exposures of about 40% of B0. These are probably higher for engineering staff and researchers. Further study of the occupational RF exposure of MR engineering staff would be welcome. Present RLs for imaging gradients are unlikely to be exceeded in most circumstances. The increase in limits below 100 kHz means that, in contradiction to earlier studies [6,77,78,90], RF exposure is now more likely to become an issue than ELF exposure from imaging gradients for staff who remain close to the bore during scanning. However, this may only affect certain short bore or open scanners, but it is uncertain what the effect would be for the new generations of wide bore systems. It has been estimated that a worker remains in the MR examination room during scanning for 3% of clinical scans in the UK, or 40 000 examinations a year [94], but this proportion is much higher for research scans [95]. Further analysis or measurement of the RF exposure in these cases may be required.

For higher field strengths, induced fields due to movement become comparable with those generated by the gradients and, because of the lower limits in the low-frequency range, routine activity around scanners will frequently result in the exceeding one or more limits. For high field systems the occurrence of sensory effects (nausea, vertigo and metallic taste) is evidence that limits are being exceeded. These induced field exposures can be minimised through staff training and appropriate control measures. Dosimetric surveys of dB/dt for clinical and research staff indicate they receive peak dB/dt of approximately 2 T s−1.

This review has not included a discussion of occupational exposure during pregnancy. Current UK advice for pregnant staff is to avoid being in the MR examination room during scan acquisition, principally on account of the risk to foetal hearing from acoustic noise [14].

Much of the present review has been concerned with the complexities of the various limits in existence. It is our view that there is merit in the short stimulus approach followed by BMAS. This shows that the lowest B field threshold occurs for peripheral nerve stimulation and provides a scientifically sound basis for incident field limits. Furthermore, it can be argued that the restriction of peripheral nerve stimulation is more worthy of regulation because the effect is involuntary, whereas the other sensory effects are related to motion and are generally under the worker's own control.

Previous literature on occupational exposure in MRI has specifically focused on problems arising from the implementation of the original European directive. The replacement directive is currently being drafted. It is likely to define limits based on a combination of international standards, be divided into zones and only specify limits in terms of the measurable incident fields [31]. This will make the demonstration of compliance much simpler. In the current proposals Zone 0 is equivalent to public exposure, Zone 1 corresponds to a level where no adverse health effect should occur, the upper boundary of Zone 2 corresponds to the maximum directly measurable value that guarantees automatic compliance with the exposure limit and Zone 3 is for exposures greater than Zone 2. The intention is to use a combination of various guidelines to define the zones up to 100 kHz, but to use ICNIRP limits from 100 to 300 GHz. The directive may also include details of control measures appropriate to activities in Zones 1 and 2. Although the directive will apply to MRI, there may be scope, provided effective control measures are in place, for MRI activities to not strictly adhere to the limits. It is unlikely that the directive will be incorporated into UK law before 2014; nevertheless, the consideration of occupational exposure in MRI needs to remain on the radiology community’s agenda.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Jeff Hand and Kjell Hansson-Mild for their helpful comments made during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

1. Publications Office of the European Union European Commission directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) Official Journal of the European Union L 159 April 2004. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

2. Keevil SF, Gedroyc W, Gowland P, Hill DLG, Leach MO, Ludman CN, et al. Electromagnetic field exposure limitation and the future of MRI. Br J Radiol 2005;78:973–5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Young I, McRobbie D, Keevil S, Taylor A. Unintended consequences of an unwarrantedly cautious approach to safety. Br J Hosp Med 2006;67:174–5 [Google Scholar]

4. Hill DLG, McLeish K, Keevil S., F Impact of electromagnetic field exposure limits in Europe: is the future of interventional MRI safe? Acad Radiol 2005;12:1135–42 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Chadwick P. Assessment of electromagnetic fields around magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment. UK Health and Safety Executive 2007;RR570. Accessed 21 December 2011. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr570.pdf.

6. Capstick M, McRobbie D, Hand J, Christ A, Kuhn S, Hansson Mild K, et al. An investigation into occupational exposure to electro-magnetic fields for personnel working with and around medical magnetic resonance imaging equipment. Report on Project VT/2007/017 of the European Commission Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG. 2008 [Accessed 21 October 2010]. Available from: http://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/VT2007017FinalReportv04.pdf.

7. European Commission. Directive 2008/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields). 18th individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union 2008;L114:88. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:114:0088:0089:EN:PDF.

8. ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection) Guidelines for limiting exposure to electric and magnetic fields (1 kHz to 100 kHz). Health Physics 2010;99:818–36 and Erratum Health Physics 2011;100:112 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. 0–3 kHz, C95.6–2002 New York, USA: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002 [Google Scholar]

10. National Radiological Protection Board Advice on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0–300GHz). Documents of the NRPB. Didcot, UK: National Radiological Protection Board; 2004

11. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHzto300GHz-description, C95. 1-199.. New York, USA: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2005

12. Shellock FR, Magnetic resonance procedures: health effects and safety. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2001 [Google Scholar]

13. Partain CL, Journal of MRI special edition: MRI safety, J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1175–344 [Google Scholar]

14. Protection of patients and volunteers undergoing MRI procedures, documents of the Health Protection Agency RCE-7. Chilton, UK: Health Protection Agency; 2008 [Google Scholar]

15. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF. Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1322–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Norris DG. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imag 2003;18:519–29 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Safety guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging equipment in clinical use. MHRA DB2007. London, UK: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; 2007 [Google Scholar]

18. Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley WG, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on MR safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;178:1335–47 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Schulz T, Puccini S, Schneider JP, Kahn T. Interventional and intraoperative MR: review and update of techniques and clinical experience. Eur Radiol 2004;14:2212–27 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Weiss CR, Gamal Nour S, Lewin JS. MR-guided biopsy: A review of current techniques and applications. J Magn Reson Imag 2008;27:311–25 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Hushek SG, Martin AJ, Steckner M, Bosak E, Debbins J, Kucharzyk W. Systems for MRI-guided interventions. J Magn Reson Imag 2008;27:253–66 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Price DL, De Wilde JP, Papadaki AM, Curren JS, Kitney RI. Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T. J Magn Reson Imag 2001;13:288–93 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Schenk JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. J Magn Reson Imag 2000;12:2–19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Budinger TF. Thresholds for physiological effects due to RF and magnetic fields used in NMR imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1979;NS-26:2821–5 [Google Scholar]

25. McRobbie D, Foster MA. Pulsed magnetic field exposure during pregnancy and implications for NMR foetal imaging: a study with mice. Magn Reson Imag 1985;3:231–4 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Shaefer D, Shellock FR. Health effects and safety of radiofrequency power deposition associated with magnetic resonance procedures. Shellock FG. (ed). Magnetic resonance procedures: health effects and safety. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2001:75–96 [Google Scholar]

27. Kangarlu A, Robitaille P-ML. Biological effects and health implications in magnetic resonance imaging. Concepts Magn Reson 2000;12:321–59 [Google Scholar]

28. World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria 232: Static Fields. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2006 [Google Scholar]

29. World Health Organisation Environmental Health Criteria 238: Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2007 [Google Scholar]

30. Glover PM. Interaction of MRI field gradients with the human body. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:R99–115 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Medical electrical equipment—Part 2–33: particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. IEC 60601-2-33 3rd edn. Geneva: IEC; 2009 [Google Scholar]

33. Food and Drugs Administration Criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. Rockville, MD: Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration; 2003 [Google Scholar]

34. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Medical magnetic resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients. Health Phys 2004;87:197–216 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Amendment to the ICNIRP “statement on medical magnetic resonance procedures: protection of patients”. Health Physics 2009;97:259–61 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Börner F, Brüggemeyer H, Eggert S, Fishcer M, Heinrich H, Hentschel K, et al. Electromagnetic fields at workplaces: A new scientific approach to occupational health and safety. Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales. Accessed 20 Ocober 2010. Available from: http://www.bmas.de/portal/44700/fb400__elektromagnetische__felder.html.

37. Roy CR, Martin LJ. A comparison of important international and national standards for limiting exposure to EMF including scientific rationale. Health Physics 2007;92:635–41 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Glover PM, Cavin I, Qian W, Bowtell R, Gowland PA. Magnetic-field-induced vertigo: a theoretical and experimental investigation. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28:349–61 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Atkinson IC, Renteria L, Burd H, Pliskin NH, Thulborn KR. Safety of human MRI at static fields above the FDA 8 T guideline: sodium imaging at 9.4 T does not affect vital signs or cognitive ability. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1222–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. de Vocht F, van Drooge H, Engels H, Kromhout H. Exposure, health complaints and cognitive performance among employees of an MRI scanners manufacturing department. J Magn Reson Imag 2006;23:197–204 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Cavin I, Glover PM, Bowtell R, Gowland PA. Thresholds for perceiving a metallic taste at large magnetic field. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1357–61 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Patel M, Williamson RA, Dorevitch S, Buchanan S. Pilot study investigating the effect of the static magnetic field from a 9.4 T MRI on the vestibular system. J Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2008;50:576–83 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. De Vocht F, Stevens T, Glover P, Sunderland A, Gowland P, Kromhout H. Cognitive effects of head movements in stray fields generated by a 7 tesla whole-body MRI magnet. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28:247–55 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Glover PM, Eldeghaidy S, Mistry T, Gowland PA. Measurement of visual evoked potential during and after periods of pulsed magnetic field exposure. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1353–56 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Lovsund P, Oberg PA, Nilsson SEG. Magnetophosphenes: a quantitative analysis of thresholds. Med Biol Eng Comput 1980;18:326–34 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Guidelines on limits to exposure from static magnetic field. Health Physics 2009;96:504–14 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Guidance on determining compliance of exposure to pulsed and complex non-sinusoidal waveforms below 100 kHz with ICNIRP guidelines. Health Physics 2003;84:383–87 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Jokela K. Assessment of complex EMF exposure situations including inhomogeneous field distribution. Health Physics 2007;92:531–40 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Barker AT, Freeston IL, Jalinous R, Jarratt JA. Magnetic stimulation of human brain and peripheral nervous system: an introduction and the results of an initial clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery 1987;20:100–09 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Mouchawar G, Bourland JD, Voorhees WD, Geddes LA. Stimulation of inspiratory motor nerves with a pulsed magnetic field. Med Biol Eng Comput 1990;28:613. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Bourland JD, Mouchawarg G, Geddes LA, Foster KS, Jones JT, Graber GP. Trans chest magnetic (eddy current) stimulation of the dog heart. Med Biol Eng Comput 1990;28:196–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Yamaguchi M, Andoh T, Goto T, Hosono A, Kawakami T, Okumura F, et al. Effects of strong pulsed magnetic field on the cardiac activity of an open chest dog. IEEE Trans BioMed Eng 1994;41:1188–91 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. McRobbie D, Foster MA. Thresholds for biological effects of magnetic fields. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1984;5:67–78 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Reilly JP. Neuroelectric mechanisms applied to low frequency electric and magnetic field exposure guidelines – part 1: sinusoidal waveforms. Health Physics 2002;83:341–55 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Irnich W. The fundamental law of electrostimulation. Pacing Clin Electro-physiol 1990;13:1433–47 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Irnich W, Schmitt F. Magnetostimulation in MRI. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:619–23 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Ehrhardt JC, Lin CS, Magnotta VA, Fisher DJ, Yuh WT. Peripheral nerve stimulation in a whole-body echo-planar imaging system. J Magn Reson Imag 1997;7:405–09 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Ham CL, Engels JM, van deWiel GT, Machielsen A. Peripheral nerve stimulation during MRI: effects of high gradient amplitudes and switching rates. J Magn Reson Imag 1997;7:933–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Schaefer DJ. Physiologic effects of intense MR imaging gradient fields. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 1999;9:363–77 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Den Boer JA, Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Ham CL, Engels JM, Hebrank FX, et al. Comparison of the threshold for peripheral nerve stimulation during gradient switching in whole body MR systems. J Magn Reson Imag 2002;15:520–5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Zhang B, Yen YF, Chronik BA, McKinnon GC, Schaefer DJ, Rutt BK. Peripheral nerve stimulation properties of head and body gradient coils of various sizes. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:50–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Hebrank FX, Gebhardt M. SAFE-model—a new method for predicting peripheral nerve stimulation in MRI. Proceedings of the Joint Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology, 19–25 May 2007, Berlin. Berkeley CA, USA: ISMRM, 2007; 2007 [Google Scholar]

63. Schaefer DJ, Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA. Review of patient safety ion time-varying magnetic fields. J Mag Res Imag 2000;12:20–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Shellock FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imag 2000;12:30–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP statement on the “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)”. Health Physics 2009;93:257–58 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Reeves J. Measurement techniques and technology. Robinson M, Grant L, Reeves J, Guidance on the measurement and use of EMF and EMC. Report 98. York, UK: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, 2010:28–44 [Google Scholar]

67. Stralka JP, Bottomley PA. A prototype RF dosimeter for independent measurement of the average specific absorption rate (SAR) during MRI. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1296–1302 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Cavagnetto F, Prati P, Ariola V, Corvisiero P, Marinelli M, Pilot A, et al. A personal dosimeter prototype for static magnetic fields. Health Physics 1993;65:172–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Cavin I, Gowland P, Glover P, Bowtell RW, Chettle R, Taylor I, et al. Static B0 field monitoring at 3 T and 7 T using an MRI portable dosemeter. Proceedings of ISMRM Workshop on MRI Safety: update, practical information and future implications, 5–6 November 2005, McLean Virginia. Berkeley, USA: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2005 [Google Scholar]

70. Bradley JK, Nyekiova M, Price DL, D'jon Lopez L, Crawley T. Occupational exposure to static and time-varying gradient magnetic fields in MR units. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1204–09 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Fuentes MA, Trakic A, Wilson SJ, Crozier S. Analysis and measurements of magnetic field exposures for healthcare workers in selected MR environments. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008;55:1355–64 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. de Vocht F, Muller F, Engels H, Kromhout H. Personal exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields during MRI system test procedure. J Magn Reson Imag 2009;30:1223–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Glover PM, Bowtell R. Measurement of electric fields induced in a human subject due to natural movements in static magnetic fields or exposure to alternating gradient fields. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:361–73 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Riches SF, Charles-Edwards GD, Shafford JC, Cole J, Keevil SF, Leach MO. Measurements of occupational exposure to switched gradient and spatially-varying magnetic fields in areas adjacent to 1.5 T clinical MRI systems. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1346–52 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Bassen H, Shaefer DJ, Zaremba L, Bushberg J, Ziskin M, Foster KR. IEEE committee on man and radiation (COMAR) technical information statement. Exposure of medical personnel to electromagnetic fields from open magnetic resonance imaging systems. Health Physics 2005;89:684–89 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. McRobbie DW, Cross T. Occupational exposure to time varying magnetic gradient fields (dB/dt) in MRI and European limits. Proceedings of ISMRM Workshop on MRI Safety: update, practical information and future implications, 5–6 November 2005, McLean Virginia. Berkeley, USA: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2005 [Google Scholar]

77. Riches SF, Collins DJ, Scuffham JW, Leach MO. EU Directive 2004/40: field measurements of a 1.5 T clinical MR scanner. Br J Radiol 2007;80:483–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Capstick M, Kuehn S, Oberle M, Quest R, Papadaki A, Rea MA, et al. Measurement of occupational exposure to RF and gradient fields in an open 1 T MR system. Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 17th Annual Meeting, 18–24 April 2009, Honolulu, USA. Berkeley, USA: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2009:3035 [Google Scholar]

79. Kannala S, Toivo T, Alanko T, Jokela K. Occupational exposure measurements of static and pulsed gradient magnetic fields in the vicinity of MRI scanners. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:2243–57 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

80. Wilen J, Hauksson J, Hansson Mild K. Modification of pulse sequences reduces occupational exposure from MRI switched gradient fields: preliminary results. Bioelectromagnetics 2010;31:85–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. McRobbie D, Oberle M, Papadaki A, Quest R, Hansson Mild K, Hand J, et al. Occupational exposure to electro-magnetic fields in MRI: a survey of working practices from 1 T–7 T. Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 17th Annual Meeting, 18–24 April 2009, Honolulu, USA. Berkeley, USA: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2009:4800 [Google Scholar]

82. Hand JW. Modelling the interaction of electromagnetic fields (10 MHz–10 GHz) with the human body: methods and applications. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:R243–86 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Liu F, Crozier S. A distributed equivalent magnetic current based FDTD method for the calculation of E-fields induced by gradient coils. J Magn Reson Imag 2004;169:323–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Liu F, Zhao H, Crozier S. Calculation of electric fields induced by body and head motion in high-field MRI. J Magn Reson Imag 2003;161:99–107 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Li Y, Hand JW, Wills T, Hajnal JV. Numerically simulated induced electric field and current density within a human model located close to a z-gradient coil. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1286–95 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Crozier S, Trakic A, Wang H, Liu F. Numerical study of currents in workers induced by body-motion around high-ultrahigh field MRI magnets. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1261–77 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Wang H, Trakic A, Lui F, Crozier S. Numerical field evaluation of healthcare workers when bending towards high-field MRI magnets. Magn Reson Med 2008;59:410–22 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

88. Gabriel S, Lau RW, Gabriel C. The dielectric properties of biological tissues: II. Measurements in the frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:2251–69 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

89. Crozier S, Wang H, Trakic A, Lui F. Exposure of workers to pulsed gradients in MRI. J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1236–54 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

90. Li Y, Hand J, Christ A, Cabot E, McRobbie D, Capstick M, et al. Modeling occupational exposure to RF and gradient fields associated with an interventional procedure in an open 1 T MR system. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 17th Annual Meeting, 18–24 April 2009, Honolulu, USA. Berkeley, USA: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2009:3042 [Google Scholar]

91. Recoskie BJ, Scholl TJ, Chronik BA. The discrepancy between human peripheral nerve chronaxie times as measured using magnetic and electric field stimuli: the relevance to MRI gradient coil safety. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:5965–79 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

92. Maccabee PJ, Amassian VE, Cracco RQ, Cadwell JA. An analysis of peripheral motor nerve stimulation in humans using the magnetic coil. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;70:524–33 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

93. Claus D, Murray NM, Spitzer A, Flugel D. The influence of stimulus type on the magnetic excitation of nerve structures. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990;75:342–49 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Moore EA, Scurr ED. British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) safety survey 2005: Potential impact of European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF). J Magn Reson Imag 2007;26:1303–07 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

95. Perrin N, Morris CJ. A survey of the potential impact of the European Union Physical Agents Directive (EU PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF) on MRI research practice in the United Kingdom. J Magn Reson Med 2008;28:482–92 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Radiology are provided here courtesy of British Institute of Radiology