Inventory of MRI applications and workers exposed to MRI-related electromagnetic fields in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE This study aims to characterise and quantify the population that is occupationally exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices and to identify factors that determine the probability and type of exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS A questionnaire survey was used to collect information about scanners, procedures, historical developments and employees working with or near MRI scanners in clinical and research MRI departments in the Netherlands. RESULTS Data were obtained from 145 MRI departments. A rapid increase in the use of MRI and field strength of the scanners was observed and quantified. The strongest magnets were employed by academic hospitals and research departments. Approximately 7000 individuals were reported to be working inside an MRI scanner room and were thus considered to have high probability of occupational exposure to static magnetic fields (SMF). Fifty-four per cent was exposed to SMF at least one day per month. The largest occupationally exposed group were radiographers (n ~ 1700). Nine per cent of the 7000 involved workers were regularly present inside a scanner room during image acquisition, when exposure to additional types of EMF is considered a possibility. This practice was most prevalent among workers involved in scanning animals. CONCLUSION The data illustrate recent trends and historical developments in magnetic resonance imaging and provide an extensive characterisation of the occupationally exposed population. A considerable number of workers are potentially exposed to MRI-related EMF. Type and frequency of potential exposure depend on the job performed, as well as the type of workplace.

[1]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Personal exposure to static and time‐varying magnetic fields during MRI system test procedures , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  Graeme Davison,et al.  Public life and public space: A lament for Melbourne's city square , 1994 .

[3]  Nicola M R Perrin,et al.  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 , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Frank de Vocht,et al.  Health complaints among nurses working near MRI scanners--a descriptive pilot study. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[5]  P. Gowland,et al.  Present and future magnetic resonance sources of exposure to static fields. , 2005, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[6]  E. Scurr,et al.  British association of MR radiographers (BAMRR) safety survey 2005: Potential impact of European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF) , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  Kate McLeish,et al.  Impact of electromagnetic field exposure limits in Europe: is the future of interventional MRI safe? , 2005, Academic radiology.

[8]  D J Collins,et al.  EU Directive 2004/40: field measurements of a 1.5 T clinical MR scanner. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  M O Leach,et al.  Electromagnetic field exposure limitation and the future of MRI. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  Jill K Bradley,et al.  Occupational exposure to static and time‐varying gradient magnetic fields in MR units , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.