Environmental Sustainability and MRI: Challenges, Opportunities, and a Call for Action

Overview

Journal J Magn Reson Imaging

Date 2023 Sep 11

PMID 37694980

Authors

Yuri V Chaban

Jan Vosshenrich

Hayley McKee

Suvai Gunasekaran

Maura J Brown

Michael K Atalay

Tobias Heye

Michael Markl

Sean A Woolen

Orlando P Simonetti

Kate Hanneman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The environmental impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has recently come into focus. This includes its enormous demand for electricity compared to other imaging modalities and contamination of water bodies with anthropogenic gadolinium related to contrast administration. Given the pressing threat of climate change, addressing these challenges to improve the environmental sustainability of MRI is imperative. The purpose of this review is to discuss the challenges, opportunities, and the need for action to reduce the environmental impact of MRI and prepare for the effects of climate change. The approaches outlined are categorized as strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from MRI during production and use phases, approaches to reduce the environmental impact of MRI including the preservation of finite resources, and development of adaption plans to prepare for the impact of climate change. Co-benefits of these strategies are emphasized including lower GHG emission and reduced cost along with improved heath and patient satisfaction. Although MRI is energy-intensive, there are many steps that can be taken now to improve the environmental sustainability of MRI and prepare for the effects of climate change. On-going research, technical development, and collaboration with industry partners are needed to achieve further reductions in MRI-related GHG emissions and to decrease the reliance on finite resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

Citing Articles

Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents (GBCAs) for MRI: A Benefit-Risk Balance Analysis from a Chemical, Biomedical, and Environmental Point of View.

Scarciglia A, Papi C, Romiti C, Leone A, Di Gregorio E, Ferrauto G Glob Chall. 2025; 9(3):2400269.

PMID: 40071223 PMC: 11891575. DOI: 10.1002/gch2.202400269.

Nanophotonic-enhanced photoacoustic imaging for brain tumor detection.

Rizwan A, Sridharan B, Park J, Kim D, Vial J, Kyhm K J Nanobiotechnology. 2025; 23(1):170.

PMID: 40045308 PMC: 11881315. DOI: 10.1186/s12951-025-03204-5.

Sustainability in radiology: position paper and call to action from ACR, AOSR, ASR, CAR, CIR, ESR, ESRNM, ISR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

Rockall A, Allen B, Brown M, El-Diasty T, Fletcher J, Gerson R Eur Radiol. 2025; .

PMID: 40009087 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11413-7.

Environmental Sustainability in the Outpatient Clinic Setting.

Sattler M, Abdelnour M, McKay V, Burnham J Open Forum Infect Dis. 2025; 12(2):ofae586.

PMID: 39958525 PMC: 11825988. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofae586.

Use of AI in Cardiac CT and MRI: A Scientific Statement from the ESCR, EuSoMII, NASCI, SCCT, SCMR, SIIM, and RSNA.

Mastrodicasa D, van Assen M, Huisman M, Leiner T, Williamson E, Nicol E Radiology. 2025; 314(1):e240516.

PMID: 39873607 PMC: 11783164. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.240516.

References

Heiss R, Nagel A, Laun F, Uder M, Bickelhaupt S . Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A New Generation of Breakthrough Technology in Clinical Imaging. Invest Radiol. 2021; 56(11):726-733. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000805. View

Romanello M, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Green C, Kennard H, Lampard P . The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels. Lancet. 2022; 400(10363):1619-1654. PMC: 7616806. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01540-9. View

Rudie J, Gleason T, Barkovich M, Wilson D, Shankaranarayanan A, Zhang T . Clinical Assessment of Deep Learning-based Super-Resolution for 3D Volumetric Brain MRI. Radiol Artif Intell. 2022; 4(2):e210059. PMC: 8980882. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.210059. View

Sumner C, Ikuta I, Garg T, Martin J, Mansoori B, Chalian M . Approaches to Greening Radiology. Acad Radiol. 2022; 30(3):528-535. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.08.013. View

Inoue K, Fukushi M, Furukawa A, Sahoo S, Veerasamy N, Ichimura K . Impact on gadolinium anomaly in river waters in Tokyo related to the increased number of MRI devices in use. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020; 154:111148. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111148. View

Brassil M, Torreggiani W . Recycling in IR, What IR Specialists Can Do to Help. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019; 42(6):789-790. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-019-02206-9. View

Kjelle E, Andersen E, Soril L, van Bodegom-Vos L, Hofmann B . Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):983. PMC: 8449221. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07004-z. View

Shrank W, Rogstad T, Parekh N . Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings. JAMA. 2019; 322(15):1501-1509. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.13978. View

Ahmadinejad N, Azhdeh S, Arian A, Eslami B, Mehrabinejad M . Implementation of abbreviated breast MRI in diagnostic and screening settings. Acta Radiol. 2022; 64(3):987-992. DOI: 10.1177/02841851221114434. View

10.

Grimm L, Soo M, Yoon S, Kim C, Ghate S, Johnson K . Abbreviated screening protocol for breast MRI: a feasibility study. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22(9):1157-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.06.004. View

11.

Martin M, Mohnke A, Lewis G, Reed Dunnick N, Keoleian G, Maturen K . Environmental Impacts of Abdominal Imaging: A Pilot Investigation. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15(10):1385-1393. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.015. View

12.

Cheung R, Ito E, Lopez M, Rubinstein E, Keller H, Cheung F . Evaluating the Short-term Environmental and Clinical Effects of a Radiation Oncology Department's Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022; 115(1):39-47. PMC: 9598491. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.054. View

13.

Souza L, Pedreira R, Miro M, Hatje V . Evidence of high bioaccessibility of gadolinium-contrast agents in natural waters after human oral uptake. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 793:148506. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148506. View

14.

Hussey P, Timbie J, Burgette L, Wenger N, Nyweide D, Kahn K . Appropriateness of advanced diagnostic imaging ordering before and after implementation of clinical decision support systems. JAMA. 2015; 313(21):2181-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.5089. View

15.

Breit H, Vosshenrich J, Hofmann V, Rusche T, Kovacs B, Bach M . Image Quality of Lumbar Spine Imaging at 0.55T Low-Field MRI is Comparable to Conventional 1.5T MRI - Initial Observations in Healthy Volunteers. Acad Radiol. 2023; 30(11):2440-2446. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2023.01.037. View

16.

Hanneman K, Araujo-Filho J, Nomura C, Jakubisin J, Moy L . Climate Change and Sustainability. Radiology. 2023; 307(4):e230903. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230903. View

17.

Ip I, Schneider L, Seltzer S, Smith A, Dudley J, Menard A . Impact of provider-led, technology-enabled radiology management program on imaging. Am J Med. 2013; 126(8):687-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.11.034. View

18.

Vosshenrich J, Heye T . Small Steps toward a More Sustainable and Energy-efficient Operation of MRI. Radiology. 2023; 307(4):e230874. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230874. View

19.

Baig T, Amin A, Deissler R, Sabri L, Poole C, Brown R . Conceptual designs of conduction cooled MgB2 magnets for 1.5 and 3.0T full body MRI systems. Supercond Sci Technol. 2017; 30(4). PMC: 5695883. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6668/aa609b. View

20.

Cooley C, McDaniel P, Stockmann J, Srinivas S, Cauley S, Sliwiak M . A portable scanner for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Nat Biomed Eng. 2020; 5(3):229-239. PMC: 8597947. DOI: 10.1038/s41551-020-00641-5. View