British association of MR radiographers (BAMRR) safety survey 2005: Potential impact of European union (EU) physical agents directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF)

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1303-1307

  Moore, Elizabeth A ^a   Scurr, Erica D ^b,c  

^a PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^b ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c British Association of MR Radiographers   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Electromagnetic fields; MRI; Occupational exposure; Physical agents directive; Safety

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOLUS INJECTION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; EUROPEAN UNION; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION SAFETY; UNITED KINGDOM;

DATA COLLECTION; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; EUROPEAN UNION; GREAT BRITAIN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 35848938296     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21154     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. 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 L159 of 30 April 2004, and corrigenda L184 of 24 May 2004. Brussels, Belgium: 2004.
2. Keevil SF, Gedroyc W, Gowland P, et al. Electromagnetic field exposure limitation and the future of MRI. Br J Radiol 2005;78:973-975.
3. Hill DL, McLeish K, Keevil SF. Impact of electromagnetic field exposure limits in Europe: is the future of interventional MRI safe? Acad Radiol 2005;12:1135-1142.
4. Medical Devices Agency (now Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency). Guidelines for magnetic resonance equipment in clinical use. London: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; 2002.
5. National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division). Statement on clinical magnetic resonance diagnostic procedures. Documents of the NRPB 1991, Vol. 2.
6. National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division). Restrictions on human exposure to static and time-varying electromagnetic fields and radiation. Documents of the NRPB 1993; Vol. 4, No. 5.
7. National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division). Advice on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300GHz). Documents of the NRPB 2004; Vol 15, No. 2.
8. Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on MR safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:1335-1347.
9. US Food and Drug Administration. Criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. US Food and Drug Administration; Washington, DC: 2003.
10. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. IEC Standard 60601-2-33. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); Geneva, Switzerland: 2002.
11. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP). Medical MR procedures: protection of patients, volunteers and staff. Health Physics 2004;87:197-216.
12. MagNET (NHS MRI Evaluation Centre). Private communication, 2005.
13. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division). Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2003 review. Documents of the NRPB 2003 NRPB-W67.
14. Russell JG, Webb GAM. Valuing the man-Sievert in X-ray diagnosis. Br J Radiol 1987;60:681-684.
15. UK Office for National Statistics. Retail Prices Index: quarterly index numbers of retail prices 1948-2007 (RPI) (RPIX). Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=7173&More= N&All=Y. Last accessed: July 18, 2006.
16. 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 Imaging 2005; 23:197-204.
17. Crozier S, Liu F. Numerical evaluation of the fields induced by body motion in or near high-field MRI scanners. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;87:267-278.
18. Crozier S, Trakic A, Wang H, Liu F. Numerical study of currents in occupational workers induced by body-motion around high-ultra-high field MRI magnets. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Berlin, Germany, 2007 (Abstract 1098).
19. Li Y, Hand J, Wills T, Hajnal J. Numerically simulated induced electric field and current density within a human model located close to a Z-gradient coil. In: MR Safety Update Meeting, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, May 2007, London, UK.