Pyrolytic graphite foam: A passive magnetic susceptibility matching material

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 684-691

  Lee, Gary C ^a   Goodwill, Patrick W ^a   Phuong, Kevin ^b   Inglis, Ben A ^a   Scott, Greig C ^c   Hargreaves, Brian A ^c   Li, Zabeth ^c   Chen, Alex C ^b   Shah, Rachana N ^b   Conolly, Steven M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of California   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bo field homogeneity; Magnetic susceptibility; Pyrolytic graphite; Shim

Indexed keywords

GRAPHITE; WATER;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; FOAM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ARTIFACTS; CARBON; ECHO-PLANAR IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, STRUCTURAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISCOELASTIC SUBSTANCES;

EID: 77956304893     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22270     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Jezzard P, Balaban RS. Correction for geometric distortion in echo planar images from B0 field variations. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:65-73.
2. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996;23:815-850.
3. Jezzard P, Clare S. Sources of distortion in functional MRI data. Hum Brain Mapp 1999;8:80-85.
4. Dixon WT. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1984; 153:189-194.
5. Blamire AM, Rothman DL, Nixon T. Dynamic shim updating: a new approach towards optimized whole brain shimming. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:159-165.
6. Schneider E, Glover G. Rapid in vivo proton shimming. Magn Reson Med 1991;18:335-347.
7. Wilson JL, Jenkinson M, de Araujo I, Kringelbach ML, Rolls ET, Jezzard P. Fast, fully automated global and local magnetic field optimization for fMRI of the human brain. Neuroimage 2002;17: 967-976.
8. Wilson JL, Jenkinson M, Jezzard P. Optimization of static field homogeneity in human brain using diamagnetic passive shims. Magn Reson Med 2002;48:906-914.
9. Wilson JL, Jenkinson M, Jezzard P. Protocol to determine the optimal intraoral passive shim for minimisation of susceptibility artifact in human inferior frontal cortex. Neuroimage 2003;19: 1802-1811.
10. Wilson JL, Jezzard P. Utilization of an intra-oral diamagnetic passive shim in functional MRI of the inferior frontal cortex. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1089-1094.
11. Hsu JJ, Glover GH. Mitigation of susceptibility-induced signal loss in neuroimaging using localized shim coils. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:243-248.
12. Juchem C, Nixon TW, McIntyre S, Rothman DL, Graaf RAd. Magnetic field homogenization of the human prefrontal cortex with a set of localized electrical coils. Magn Reson Med 2009;63: 171-180.
13. Eilenberg SS, Tartar VM, Mattrey RF. Reducing magnetic-susceptibility differences using liquid fluorocarbon pads (Sat Pad(Tm)) - results with spectral presaturation of fat. Artif Cells Blood Subst Immobil Biotechnol 1994;22:1477-1483.
14. Rosen Y, Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Greenman RL, Marquis RP, Rofsky NM. 3T MR of the prostate: reducing susceptibility gradients by inflating the endorectal coil with a barium sulfate suspension. Magn Reson Med 2007;57:898-904.
15. Mitchell DG, Vinitski S, Mohamed FB, Mammone JF, Haidet K, Rifkin MD. Comparison of Kaopectate with barium for negative and positive enteric contrast at MR imaging. Radiology 1991;181: 475-480.
16. Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA, Bakker CJG, Beersma R, Lagendijk JJW. Numerical analysis of the magnetic field for arbitrary magnetic susceptibility distributions in 3D. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:101-107.
17. Pappis J, Blum SL. Properties of pyrolytic graphite. J Am Ceramic Soc 1961;44:592-597.
18. Slack GA. Anisotropic thermal conductivity of pyrolytic graphite. Phys Rev 1962;127:694.
19. Hirono S, Umemura S, Tomita M, Kaneko R. Superhard conductive carbon nanocrystallite films. Appl Phys Lett 2002;80: 425-427.
20. Tarling DH, Hrouda F. The magnetic anisotropy of rocks. London, New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
21. Jelínek V, Kropáček V. Statistical processing of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility measured on groups of specimens. Stud Geophys Geodaet 1978;22:50-62.
22. Chen CN, Hoult DI. Biomedical magnetic resonance technology. Bristol: Adam Hilger; 2005.
23. Johnson CC, Guy AW. Nonionizing electromagnetic wave effects in biological materials and systems. Proc IEEE 1972;60:692-718.
24. McLachlan DS, Blaszkiewicz M, Newnham RE. Electrical resistivity of composites. J Am Ceramic Soc 1990;73:2187-2203.
25. McLachlan DS, Cai K, Sauti G. AC and DC conductivity-based microstructural characterization. Int J Refractory Metals Hard Mater 2001;19:437-445.
26. Brady S, Diamond D, Lau K-T. Inherently conducting polymer modified polyurethane smart foam for pressure sensing. Sensors Actuators A: Phys 2005;119:398-404.
27. Chen P, Wu RX, Zhao T, Yang F, Xiao JQ. Complex permittivity and permeability of metallic magnetic granular composites at microwave frequencies. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2005;38:2302-2305.
28. Yoshimura K, Kato H, Kuroda M, et al. Development of a tissue-equivalent MRI phantom using carrageenan gel. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1011-1017.
29. Maril N, Collins CM, Greenman RL, Lenkinski RE. Strategies for shimming the breast. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:1139-1145.
30. Gilbert KM, Scholl TJ, Chronik BA. RF coil loading measurements between 1 and 50 MHz to guide field-cycled MRI system design. Concepts Magn Reson B: Magn Reson Eng 2008;33B: 177-191.
31. Koch KM, Papademetris X, Rothman DL, Graaf RAd. Rapid calculations of susceptibility-induced magnetostatic field perturbations for in vivo magnetic resonance. Phys Med Biol 2006:6381.
32. Sardanelli F, Schiavoni S, Iozzelli A, et al. The value of chemical fat-saturation pulse added to T1-weighted spin-echo sequence in evaluating gadolinium-enhancing brain lesions in multiple sclerosis. Radiol Med 2007;112:1244-1251.
33. Keller P, Hunter W Jr, Schmalbrock P. Multisection fat-water imaging with chemical shift selective presaturation. Radiology 1987;164:539-541.
34. de Kerviler E, Leroy-Willig A, Clément O, Frija J. Fat suppression techniques in MRI: an update. Biomed Pharmacother 1998;52: 69-75.
35. Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotten A. Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 1999;19:373-382.
36. Glover GH. Multipoint Dixon technique for water and fat proton and susceptibility imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1: 521-530.
37. Wohlgemuth W, Roemer F, Bohndorf K. Short tau inversion recovery and three-point Dixon water-fat separation sequences in acute traumatic bone fractures at open 0.35 Tesla MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2002;31:343-348.
38. Barger AV, DeLone DR, Bernstein MA, Welker KM. Fat signal suppression in head and neck imaging using fast spin-echo-IDEAL technique. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1292-1294.
39. Marques JP, Bowtell R. Application of a Fourier-based method for rapid calculation of field inhomogeneity due to spatial variation of magnetic susceptibility. Concepts in Magn Reson B: Magn Reson Eng 2005;25B:65-78.
40. Salomir R, Denis de Senneville B, Moonen CT. A fast calculation method for magnetic field inhomogeneity due to an arbitrary distribution of bulk susceptibility. Concepts Magn Reson B: Magn Reson Eng 2003;19B:26-34.