Occupational Exposure of Healthcare and Research Staff to Static Magnetic Stray Fields from 1.5-7 Tesla MRI Scanners is Associated with Reporting of Transient Symptoms

Overview

Journal Occup Environ Med

Specialties Environmental Health
Occupational Medicine

Date 2014 Apr 10

PMID 24714654

Citations 28

Authors

Kristel Schaap

Yvette Christopher-de Vries

Catherine K Mason

Frank De Vocht

Lutzen Portengen

Hans Kromhout

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Limited data is available about incidence of acute transient symptoms associated with occupational exposure to static magnetic stray fields from MRI scanners. We aimed to assess the incidence of these symptoms among healthcare and research staff working with MRI scanners, and their association with static magnetic field exposure.

Methods: We performed an observational study among 361 employees of 14 clinical and research MRI facilities in The Netherlands. Each participant completed a diary during one or more work shifts inside and/or outside the MRI facility, reporting work activities and symptoms (from a list of potentially MRI-related symptoms, complemented with unrelated symptoms) experienced during a working day. We analysed 633 diaries. Exposure categories were defined by strength and type of MRI scanner, using non-MRI shifts as the reference category for statistical analysis. Non-MRI shifts originated from MRI staff who also participated on MRI days, as well as CT radiographers who never worked with MRI.

Results: Varying per exposure category, symptoms were reported during 16-39% of the MRI work shifts. We observed a positive association between scanner strength and reported symptoms among healthcare and research staff working with closed-bore MRI scanners of 1.5 Tesla (T) and higher (1.5 T OR=1.88; 3.0 T OR=2.14; 7.0 T OR=4.17). This finding was mainly driven by reporting of vertigo and metallic taste.

Conclusions: The results suggest an exposure-response association between exposure to strong static magnetic fields (and associated motion-induced time-varying magnetic fields) and reporting of transient symptoms on the same day of exposure.

Trial Registration Number: 11-032/C.

Citing Articles

Modeling of magnetic vestibular stimulation experienced during high-field clinical MRI.

Aran-Tapia I, Perez-Munuzuri V, Munuzuri A, Soto-Varela A, Otero-Millan J, Roberts D Commun Med (Lond). 2025; 5(1):27.

PMID: 39837985 PMC: 11751175. DOI: 10.1038/s43856-024-00667-9.

Relationship Between Occupational Exposure to Noise and Vibrations and Vertigo: A Prospective Case-Control Study.

Sanchez-Sellero I, Soto-Varela A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39597794 PMC: 11595169. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226650.

Neurobiological effects and mechanisms of magnetic fields: a review from 2000 to 2023.

Wang X, Ye Y, Zuo H, Li Y BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):3094.

PMID: 39516768 PMC: 11545338. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18987-9.

Behavioral and neural responses to high-strength magnetic fields are reduced in otolith mutant mice.

Cote J, Hood A, Kwon B, Smith J, Houpt T Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023; 325(2):R181-R192.

PMID: 37306398 PMC: 10393321. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00317.2022.

Occupational Exposure Assessment of the Static Magnetic Field Generated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case Study.

Hartwig V, Sansotta C, Morelli M, Testagrossa B, Acri G Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(13).

PMID: 35805332 PMC: 9265854. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137674.

References

Versluis M, Teeuwisse W, Kan H, van Buchem M, Webb A, van Osch M . Subject tolerance of 7 T MRI examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 38(3):722-5. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23904. View

Schaap K, Christopher-de Vries Y, Slottje P, Kromhout H . Inventory of MRI applications and workers exposed to MRI-related electromagnetic fields in the Netherlands. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82(12):2279-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.023. View

Schenck J, Dumoulin C, Redington R, Kressel H, Elliott R, McDougall I . Human exposure to 4.0-Tesla magnetic fields in a whole-body scanner. Med Phys. 1992; 19(4):1089-98. DOI: 10.1118/1.596827. View

Atkinson I, Sonstegaard R, Pliskin N, Thulborn K . Vital signs and cognitive function are not affected by 23-sodium and 17-oxygen magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain at 9.4 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 32(1):82-7. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22221. View

Reilly J . Principles of nerve and heart excitation by time-varying magnetic fields. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992; 649:96-117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb49600.x. View

Glover P . Interaction of MRI field gradients with the human body. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(21):R99-R115. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/21/R01. View

Cavin I, Glover P, Bowtell R, Gowland P . Thresholds for perceiving metallic taste at high magnetic field. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 26(5):1357-61. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21153. View

Chakeres D, De Vocht F . Static magnetic field effects on human subjects related to magnetic resonance imaging systems. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004; 87(2-3):255-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.08.012. View

Shellock F, Crues J . MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004; 232(3):635-52. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323030830. View

10.

Glover P, Cavin I, Qian W, Bowtell R, Gowland P . Magnetic-field-induced vertigo: a theoretical and experimental investigation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007; 28(5):349-61. DOI: 10.1002/bem.20316. View

11.

Wilen J, De Vocht F . Health complaints among nurses working near MRI scanners--a descriptive pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 80(2):510-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.021. View

12.

Gowland P . Present and future magnetic resonance sources of exposure to static fields. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004; 87(2-3):175-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.08.006. View

13.

Weintraub M, Khoury A, Cole S . Biologic effects of 3 Tesla (T) MR imaging comparing traditional 1.5 T and 0.6 T in 1023 consecutive outpatients. J Neuroimaging. 2007; 17(3):241-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2007.00118.x. View

14.

Atkinson I, Renteria L, Burd H, Pliskin N, Thulborn K . 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 Imaging. 2007; 26(5):1222-7. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21150. View

15.

Yang M, Christoforidis G, Abduljali A, Beversdorf D . Vital signs investigation in subjects undergoing MR imaging at 8T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006; 27(4):922-8. PMC: 3491816. View

16.

Heilmaier C, Theysohn J, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Ladd M, Ladd S . A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011; 32(8):610-9. DOI: 10.1002/bem.20680. View

17.

Theysohn J, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Moenninghoff C, Ladd M, Ladd S . Subjective acceptance of 7 Tesla MRI for human imaging. MAGMA. 2007; 21(1-2):63-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-007-0095-x. View

18.

Mian O, Li Y, Antunes A, Glover P, Day B . On the vertigo due to static magnetic fields. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e78748. PMC: 3813712. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078748. View

19.

Antunes A, Glover P, Li Y, Mian O, Day B . Magnetic field effects on the vestibular system: calculation of the pressure on the cupula due to ionic current-induced Lorentz force. Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57(14):4477-87. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/14/4477. View

20.

Heinrich A, Szostek A, Meyer P, Nees F, Rauschenberg J, Grobner J . Cognition and sensation in very high static magnetic fields: a randomized case-crossover study with different field strengths. Radiology. 2012; 266(1):236-45. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112172. View