> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
1
A Standard Protocol for Reliable and TimeSaving Shielding Effectiveness Measurements
for MRI Faraday Cages
L. Mirarchi, V. Giaquinto, S. Silvestri, R. Massa
Abstract— Objective: Aim of this work is to suggest a new
procedure for evaluation of shielding performance of
Radiofrequency cabins for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
Methods: On the basis of the only reference document currently
available (IEEE-Std 299/2006), some critical aspects on shielding
effectiveness measurements are highlighted due to the particular
environment and involved frequencies. Results: A strong gap
existing between the Std suggested procedure and practical
approach towards the shielding performance evaluation came out
from our investigations. Conclusion: Taking into account
theoretical considerations, measurements carried out in real
scenarios, and the consciousness of a lack of suitable normative
references in magnetic resonance structures, a novel approach is
suggested in order to overcome the inadequacy of the standard in
MRI environments. Significance: The simple and practical
approach increases the repeatability and reproducibility of
measurements
allowing
quantitative
comparisons
and
performance assessments.
Index
Terms
—
Electromagnetic
compatibility,
Electromagnetic shielding, Interference, MRI Faraday cage, RF
signals, Shielding Effectiveness measurements, Standard Protocol
confused with pathology. There are multiple causes of artifacts
that can be patient-related, signal processing-dependent and
hardware (machine)-related [1,2,3]. One of the latter is due to
RF noise. RF pulses of MRI instruments and precessional
frequencies occupy the same frequency band as common
sources such as TV, radio, fluorescent lights and computers.
Stray RF signals can cause various artifacts (Fig.1): narrowband noise is projected perpendicular to the frequencyencoding direction, broadband noise disrupts the image over a
much larger area due to the Fourier transform needed to
reconstruct the image. However, stray RF interferences
reduction or elimination can be achieved with appropriate site
planning and proper installation but overall with RF shielding
realized by means of Faraday cages.
I. INTRODUCTION
M
AGNETIC Resonance Imaging (MRI) is nowadays a
powerful diagnostic method; its diffusion is increasing
because of its known advantages in terms of high quality
images, non-ionizing radiations and relative low risks. The
main Healthcare companies are continuously improving their
MR devices, developing innovative solutions about MR
scanners, Radiofrequency (RF) coils, hardware components
and magnets. All MR scanners are recognized as medical
devices.
In this contest, artifacts are a constant issue in MRI, because
they can affect the diagnostic quality or, worst, may be
Fig. 1. Examples of RF Artifacts in MRI imaging
Manuscript received on
Corresponding author: Rita Massa
L.M., is with Siemens Healthineers – Via Vipiteno 4 -20124 Milano
luciano.mirarchi@siemens.com
V.G., is with the Department of Electronic Engineering University of Naples
Federico
II,
Piazzale
V.Tecchio 80,
80125,
Naples,
Italy
va.giaquinto@studenti.unina.it
S.S., is with Unit of Measurement and Biomedical Instrumentation, University
Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 21, 00128 Rome.
s.silvestri@unicampus.it
R.M. is with Department of Physics ―Ettore Pancini‖ University of Naples
Federico II, CMSA, Via Cintia, 80126 Naples, Italy
rmassa@na.infn.it
Each MR device, independently from the magnetic static field
intensity, needs this particular hosting enclosure, which is
strictly dependent on the specific device features. Anyway,
differently from the design and installation of MR systems, the
design and setup of the shielding enclosures is currently quite
simple and it often deals with handed down ―best practice‖; a
RF shielding cabin is quite simple from a structural point of
view and, after all, the consolidated techniques are in most
cases sufficient to guarantee good performances. However,
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
this relative simplicity often leads to underestimate some
important aspects that instead would deserve more attention,
as they can reveal critical consequences. A meaningful
example is represented by the shielding effectiveness (SE)
measurement methods. Objective of this work is to highlight
some critical aspects on SE measurements of MRI Faraday
cages due, on the basis of our experience, to a strong gap
existing between the reference standard suggested procedure
(IEEE-Std 299/2006 [4]) and the practical approach. Our aim
is to begin a way into an almost unexplored field, in order to
organize current knowledge and to introduce innovation
elements. At the end of this work we, thus, suggest a sort of
new protocol for SE measurements for MRI shielded rooms.
In section II a short description of the electromagnetic
scenario is reported, as well as the critical points in designing
RF enclosures. Among the quality and safety aspects, the SE
measurements are deepened and the IEEE Std 299/2006 is
presented in Section III. In Section IV the inadequacy of the
standard in the case of MRI Faraday cages is underlined and a
novel approach is suggested in order to uniform SE
measurements in MRI environments and guarantee the
required high accuracy. The conclusions of the study are in
Section V.
II. MRI ELECTROMAGNETIC SCENARIO
Although the complexity of current MRI scanners, the
hardware of a MRI system is basically composed of four main
elements, which can be easily summarized as follows: 1) main
magnet, whose function is to generate a static and
homogeneous magnetic induction field (B0) for the nuclei
magnetization; 2) gradient coils, responsible for magnetic
induction fields linearly varying in space, necessary for
images generation; 3) ancillary coils, useful to compensate
non-homogeneities and to modify the shapes of main fields; 4)
RF coils, that provoke the induction magnetic oscillating field
at the desired Larmor frequency that is proportional to B0.
Worldwide, more than 60 million clinical MRI scans are
performed annually on over 25,000 MRI systems. Most of
these systems are used purely for clinical purposes and operate
at field strength at or below 3 T. Nevertheless, major
neuroimaging centers of hospitals and universities are using or
planning to use even higher field strength systems (7 T, 9.4 T,
10.4 T, 11 T) primarily for research applications [5]. In the
case of Hydrogen proton, Larmor frequency is 42.57 MHz/T.
Thus, for clinical purposes RF transmitting and receiving
systems operate at frequencies as 8.514 MHz, 63.85 MHz and
127 MHz for 0.2 T, 1.5 T and 3 T field strengths, respectively.
Thus, the widest considerable range of frequencies in MRI
applications is estimated approximately around [8 MHz-150
MHz], whereas for very high field MRI scanners (7 T and
higher) higher RF signals (i.e. 300 MHz and higher) result.
This frequency range is the same as used by common sources
present in the environment. Thus, the need of a RF shielded
enclosure to prevent radio waves to enter the scanner room,
which may cause artifacts on the MRI image as shown in
Fig.1. Such enclosure is usually called ―Faraday cage‖, even
if, more properly, ―Faraday cages‖ usually indicate enclosures
which protect from electrostatic fields. However, in this
2
discussion both the terms, Faraday cage and RF cabin, are
used to mean the shielding enclosure surrounding an MRI
device. They are realized by means either of aluminum selfsupporting panels, bolted together with steel screws and a
conductive scrim, or copper sheets, fixed on wooden panels.
The RF cabin is provided with a grounding system, whose
resistance should not exceed 1 Ω (connections between RFshield and the equipotential hub), and an electrically insulating
carpet (about 2 mm thick).
Very high levels of attenuation, about 70-130 dB, are expected
according to the specifications required from a given MRI
scanner and generally specified at the time cabins are
designed, ordered or built. To improve the effectiveness, the
cage must have the minimum number of conveniently
designed apertures; the electrical continuity has to be
guaranteed through the use of specific gaskets, conductive
scrims, metallic fingers and so on. The most critical points in
designing this RF enclosure are:
● the access door, which must guarantee perfect adherence
with the rest of the structure when it is closed. This
electrical continuity is achieved through creeping
contacts,
called
fingers
(usually
made
of
copper/beryllium) and through the minimization of
mechanical stresses;
● the view-window, made in double glass or polycarbonate,
with a metal grid inside;
● the apertures for air-vent, realized with particular
honeycomb filters or waveguides;
● the filter panel connecting the electronic systems in the
adjacent technical area to the Magnet Room;
● the waveguides used to introduce in the MRI room medical
gases or liquids.
Although the normative overview about medical devices,
electromedical equipment and magnetic resonance is
abundant, a lack of a specific reference for the SE
measurements methods, suitable in MRI locations, results.
That is why the manufacturers of MRI Faraday cages, or
responsible of the maintenance service have to address their
attention to more general documents concerning this issue. A
key role is played by the standard IEEE 299-2006 [4],
presented in next paragraph.
III. THE STANDARD IEEE 299-2006
As in [6] we define SE as follows: “The ratio of the signal
received (from a transmitter) without the shield, to the signal
received inside the shield; it’s the insertion loss when the
shield is placed between the transmitting antenna and the
receiving antenna”
The IEEE Std 299-2006 is nowadays the only reference for SE
measurements of large enclosures (smallest linear dimension
greater than or equal to 2.0 m) and it incorporates the basic
concepts of MIL-STD 285 [7]. Uniform measurement
procedures are suggested for frequencies from 9 kHz up to 18
GHz (extendable down to 50 Hz and up to 100 GHz). As
discussed in the next section, although MRI intended rooms
fully fall under the domain of applicability of the standard it is
often impossible (or redundant) to respect it in all its
requirements and this is a relevant issue for producers, testing
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
companies, clinical engineers or MRI professionals involved
in the acceptance process, installation or maintenance
management of MRI cabins.
Briefly, following [4], before the SE evaluation preliminary
procedures are recommended: preparation of a test plan,
calibration of any piece of instrument equipment, evaluation
of an appropriate reference level, preliminary shield check,
removal of objects not belonging to the usual electromagnetic
scenario. For each configuration two measures are required:
the first one in absence of the shield (H1 (E1)) indicates the
magnetic (electric) field measured with the antennas in
absence of the enclosure (reference reading); the second one,
with the interposition of the shield between the transmitting
and the receiving antennas, (H2 (E2)) is the magnetic (electric)
field measured with the receiving antenna inside the enclosure.
The whole frequency range (9 kHz-18 GHz) is divided into:
low range (9 kHz-20 MHz), resonant range (20 MHz-300
MHz) and high range (300 MHz-18 GHz), for which different
procedures, antennas and formulas are required. Specific test
frequencies are not declared, but some sub intervals are
recommended for each range. In the low range the definition
of SE takes into account the magnetic component of the EM
field, in the resonant range the electrical one, in the high range
power is considered. Measured quantities, related units and SE
definitions are resumed in Table I, where they are expressed
also in nonlinear units.
In the case of MRI scanners (0.2 T-7 T) the frequency range
involved is 8 MHz -300 MHz, thus our attention is focused on
low and resonant ranges where measurements are carried out.
For low range measurements, the use of a small
electrostatically shielded loop (0.3 m diameter) is suggested.
The measurement chain is composed of a signal generator
(plus amplifier) connected by a shielded cable to the
transmitting small loop, the receiving small loop and a field
detector (preferably a spectrum analyzer although selective
receivers are often used). Hence, in the low-range, a magnetic
field shall be generated by a current in the small loop antenna,
driven by a continuous wave (CW) signal, the transmit loop is
placed outside the shield, whereas the receiver one is inside
the enclosure and the distance between them shall be 0,60 m
(edge to edge) plus the thickness of shielding barrier. The
antennas shall be coplanar in a plane perpendicular to the wall,
ceiling, or other surface being measured, as sketched in Fig.2.
Fig. 2. Coplanar horizontal loop antennas (with or without shield)
3
Around single-panel entry doors, tests should be conducted for
14 loop positions around the door. In areas where shielding
enclosure construction is electrically non-uniform (for
TABLE I
MATHEMATICAL SHIELDING RELATIONSHIPS
(ADAPTED FROM IEEE STD 299™-2006)
Frequency Range
9 kHz-20 MHz
(Extendable
Down to 50 Hz)
20 MHz -300
MHz
Measured
Quantities
|H1|, |H2|
(or |V1|, |V2|)
|E1|, |E2|
300 MHz-18
GHz
(up to 100
GHz)
P1, P2
Linear Units
μA/m, μT
(or μV)
μV/m
W
Shielding
Effectiveness
(dB)
Logarithmic
Units
(All
Frequencies)
SE=|E1|(dB)-|E2|(dB);
SE=|H1|(dB)-|H2|(dB)
SE=|V1|(dB)-|V2|(dB);
SE=P1 (dB) - P2 (dB)
example air vent, or connector panel, panel-to-panel seams),
measurements shall be conducted in a similar manner.
Regarding the resonant range, in the case of 20 MHz-100
MHz frequency range the use of biconical antennas is
suggested, whereas λ/2 dipoles are recommended for
frequencies at or above 100 MHz. Again, the basic
measurement procedure consists of positioning the
transmitting antenna outside the shield and the receiving one
inside the shield and measuring the magnitude of the largest
received signal. Measurements shall be repeated with antennas
in both horizontal and vertical polarization. For both dipole
and loop antenna the same method is proposed. The antennas
shall be positioned at a distance of 2 m. The reference reading
will be the maximum reading among different position
readings of both transmitting and receiving antennas. When
the shield is inserted, the receiving antenna must be swept in
position (throughout the interior shield) and in polarization to
obtain the largest detector response that will be recorded for
determining the worst SE besides a series of transmit antenna
positions shall be selected to cover the overall surfaces. This
second measure is schematically represented in figg.3a and 3b,
for horizontal and vertical transmitting antenna configuration
respectively.
It is also suggested the calculation of the lowest resonant
frequency of the shielded enclosure.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
4
7. it does not foresee indications for measurement uncertainty
evaluation;
8. in many cases the use of dipole and biconical antenna is
impossible/useless to apply in MR environments because
of space and logistic limitations1;
9. it never refers to the use of nonmagnetic devices/materials;
10. the resonant frequency calculation should be mandatory
in this contest because is very often close to the operating
frequency of the machine, and it is currently never
calculated.
Fig. 3a. Measurement set up, horizontal transmitting antenna configuration
resonant range (20-100 MHz), distance = 2 m
Fig. 3b. Measurement set up, vertical transmitting antenna configuration
resonant range (20-100 MHz), distance = 2 m
IV. NEW STANDARD PROCEDURE
The inadequacy of the standard currently used came out from
our surveys on SE measurements in several MRI units. A
strong gap between the approaches suggested in the standard
and the practical execution emerged, and in no case the IEEE
Std 299-2006 has been rigorously applied.
As matter of fact, even if the suggested procedures are detailed
and rigorous, a lot of independence is left to the testing
organization.
In particular, the following issues came out and these are key
starting points for our investigations:
1. the standard is too general (wide frequency ranges, since it
refers to more complex cages);
2. it suggests very time-consuming procedures going in
conflict with the short time machine availability;
3. it requires high dynamic range (which implies high
performing instruments);
4. in resonant range test locations for the door, or other crucial
points are not specified;
5. the set up showed in figg.3 shall be repeated for each
position of the transmitting antenna, with a high waste of
time and often not outstanding information;
6. it does not indicate specific set-up parameters (signal level,
RBW) nor Pass/Fail limits;
In this section we suggest guidelines which borrow from the
IEEE Std-299 (2006) but more suitable for MRI RF cabins,
highlighting only the procedures that we found inadequate.
Thus, if not specified, the details of procedures are assumed to
be the same as those suggested in the standard. We here
describe a vademecum for a typical measurement at 63 MHz.
For measurements at additional frequencies (i.e. 15 MHz, 127
MHz, etc.) one can apply the same proposed procedure.
Before starting the test, preliminary activities and checks are
required. They can be resumed as follows:
1. preparation of a test plan which shall include: dimensions of
the cage, test frequencies, test locations, limits of SE to
pass/fail the test, brand and model of the MR device,
including the static B0 field value, a detailed description
of the instrument set up and other notes;
2. removal of metallic equipment that is not a normal part of
the enclosure while ancillary equipment (blower fans,
carts, coils) normally present inside the enclosure shall
remain in place during the test;
3. restriction of people within the shielded enclosure (if
required, a maximum of two (2) persons should be
allowed);
4. visual check inside and outside the MR room, in order to
identify inaccessible surfaces and areas of leakage and
repair them before measurements take place (cleaning of
door contacts, replacement of damaged fingers); in
addition, an ―electromagnetic check‖ should be done both
inside and outside the magnet room in order to evaluate if
possible radiofrequency interferences sources are present
due to medical devices (RX tomography, Marconi therapy
devices), light systems, electronic devices (switching
power suppliers, digital thermometers etc.).
5. The range of interest shall be reduced to a restricted RF
interval which is strictly linked to the MR apparatus.
Thus, for the selection of test frequencies it is necessary
to know the operating frequencies of the MR device and
the bandwidth of receivers. The widest range that we can
currently consider is about 8 MHz - 300 MHz.
Given a B0 strength the corresponding Larmor frequency (ftest)
is known (e.g. for a 1.5 T device ftest = 63.86 MHz) and
measurement at this frequency is mandatory. However, other
frequencies, around the operating ftest, can be established. As a
matter of fact, we can reasonably believe that the shielding
behavior of a surface is quite similar in this very narrow
frequency range, so it is up to tester and to testing conditions
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
the decision of verifying further test frequencies as in case of a
future new machine installation. In addition, variability of data
can occur due to the cavity resonance effects. In effect, the
operating frequency often belongs to the interval 0.8 fijk < ftest
< 3 fijk, where fijk is the fundamental resonant frequency; hence
we suggest the calculation of the fundamental resonant
frequency (according to the formula presented in [3]) which
shall be noted it in the final report:
2
2
1
 i   j k
fijk 
     
2   a   b   c 
2
Where:
µ, ɛ are the permeability and permittivity inside the enclosure
a, b and c indicate the three dimensions of the enclosure in
meters (length, height and width respectively)
i, j, k, are positive integers 0,1,2,3… (and not more than one
of i,j,k can be zero at the same time). Under ideal conditions,
the resonant frequency in MHz is given by
2
2
 i   j k
f ijk  150        
a b c
2
and the lowest resonant frequency for the shielding enclosure,
where c is the smallest dimension, is
2
 i   j
f r  f110  150     
a b
2
Once established the frequencies of interest, the test points
must be selected. Among the most critical locations in a MR
Faraday cage, we suggest, as minimum testing surfaces, the
door and the view-window (for each of them specific points
are described later); these already give a meaningful idea of
shielding behavior of the enclosure, then if further analysis are
required, additional testing surfaces could be identified such as
filter panel, blind panel, other surfaces containing visible
penetrations. Consultation of technical documents of the
structure is strongly recommended before selecting test
locations since penetrations are often not visible and all
surfaces under test shall be noted in the final technical report.
Concerning the selection of test points another clarification is
needed. Currently, the standard defines an accessible test
location as a location that can be reached by a test antenna or
probe without modifying a parent structure; in MRI units it
often happens that it is not possible to position the transmit
and the receiving antennas over a surface, or it is not possible
to position them at the same height, or at a given distance. The
instrumentation chain suggested by the IEEE standard of
course remains valid (signal generator plus amplifier, Tx and
Rx antennas, spectrum analyzer plus attenuator), however all
instruments and auxiliary equipment (other probes, cables,
tripods) must be nonmagnetic to access the magnet room.
The instruments, whose operation directly affects the
numerical value of the SE, shall be regularly calibrated before
any measurement. Since it is a relative measurement it is
5
unnecessary to calibrate every piece of the equipment (each
antenna), but it can be sufficient to trust on the spectrum
analyzer calibration.
The dynamic range (DR) of the spectrum analyzer must be
adequate. It is the difference between the reference level and
the minimum discernable signal above the noise floor (3 dB or
more above the noise floor). We do not require a high DR
because, if the spectrum analyzer is calibrated, it is sufficient
to reduce the maximum readable level on its display
(―Reference Level‖), in combination with an appropriate
RBW selection, when executing the closed-door measurement.
With the reduction of noise floor the visibility of even a small
peak, without requiring a high-performance instrument is
guaranteed. The measurement procedure requires two different
stages: in the first one, the reference level shall be evaluated
(i.e. the measure acquired with transmitting and receiving
antennas one in front of the other, without the shielding
surface), then the measure of the signal received with TX and
RX over a shielding surface follows. The measure of reference
level should be done (almost) in the same conditions of the
other measurement, to guarantee a more accurate SE
evaluation. Besides, the reference level should not be less than
-10 dBm.
Notice that the setting parameters do not affect significantly
the peak value, but can only have influence on noise level, that
is why a small RBW is suitable especially for low level
signals.
For measurements in the radiofrequency range we strongly
encourage to prefer dipole antennas to biconical ones, since
they are more appropriate for this kind of measurements (test
frequencies are fixed, a broadband analysis is not required). It
is currently on study the possibility of using custom magnetic
loop antennas as probes for SE measurements purpose also in
the resonant range. The potential substitution of the biconical
(or dipoles) antenna would produce numerous advantages for
MRI SE measurements, object of this work.
The EM fields should be generated by power applied to Tx
antenna, and received from a similar Rx antenna.
A continuous wave signal shall be used to drive the Tx
antenna with a power adequate to maintain a suitable DR.
Over the door, we retain that 5 points are sufficient (instead of
14 as indicated by the standard, fig. 4a and 4b). These
positions allow the evaluation of shielding behavior at the
center of the door and along the weakest lines. The same
configuration could be adopted for the view-window.
About the distance between Tx and Rx antennas we suggest to
get the measurements at two distances: 0.60 m and 2.50 m
(instead of 2 m only) plus the thickness of the shield, for 1.5 T
MRI for a better characterization of the enclosure when
different field sources are considered. For each selected
distance (and at each frequency), the antennas shall be in the
same configuration (i.e. the same polarization and position)
over the shielding surface. For the calculation of the SE, we
can use the following equation
SE=Pref-Pshield [dB]
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
being Pref and Pshield the values obtained in absence and in
presence of the screen respectively.
However, we also suggest to note the maximum value found
on the spectrum analyzer, which corresponds to minimum SE
(SEMIN), this one can be obtained by varying the receiver
antenna position and polarization
SEMIN=Pref-Pshield,MAX [dB]
In this way, for each point we shall have two Shielding
Effectiveness values which shall be noted it in the final report.
6
3.
Set up of instruments.
Then, for each selected frequency:
4.
measurement of the reference level (in each antenna
configuration and for each selected distance).
For each point on the surface:
5.
Measurement of the minimum SE (by varying the
position and the orientation of the receiving antenna);
6.
Measurement of effective SE (with antennas aligned
and in the same polarization).
Then:
7.
Analysis of collected data (to establish the test results
(passed/failed));
8.
Calculus of average SE as a qualitative indicator of
the global shield performance;
9.
Test Report.
We hope that our contribution can help in adopting a simple
and practical approach when facing SE assessments of MRI
cabin which could allow to increase the repeatability and
reproducibility of measurements thus, allowing quantitative
comparisons and performance assessments. These are
nowadays unavoidable tasks, even more so in public or private
health structure.
a
b
Fig. 4 Single panel entry door (view-window). Measurement points and
antenna orientations suggested in reference [4] (a), in this study (b).
Finally, once all data have been collected, one can mediate all
the results obtained at a specific frequency and distance if a
unique value of SE is desired for each shielding surface.
At the end of each measurement a test report shall be fullyformed. The information to be reported are almost the same of
those indicated in the standard [4].
Conclusions about the test data (pass/fail) shall also be
included in the final report, according to specific attenuation
performances required by the MR producers.
Typical required values are > 80 dB.
V CONCLUSIONS
Although the design and building of MRI shielding enclosures
undergo affirmed best-practice, there are still many aspects
which cannot be taken for granted. The rapid and increasing
development of MR devices calls for modernization of hosting
environments
too.
About
Shielding
Effectiveness
measurements methods, we believe that important goals have
been achieved in this work: first of all, we highlighted the
inadequacy of current normative references and attempted a
possible path towards an effective standardization that we
retain an urgent task because this problem deals with quality,
safety and safeguard.
In conclusion, the present proposal suggests a novel approach
to SE measurements in MRI environments in a narrow range
of frequencies of interest; we can summarize it with the
following steps:
1.
Preliminary check procedures;
2.
Test plan;
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research support from
INES S.r.l. Company.
REFERENCES
[1] L. J. Erasmus, D. Hurter, M. Naudé, H. G. Kritzinger, S. Acho ―A short
overview of MRI artefacts‖ SA J of Radiology, pp 13-17, August, 2004
[2] E. Pusey, D. D. Stark, R.B. Lufkin, R. W. Tarr, R.K.J. Brown, W. N.
Hanafee, M.A. Solomon, ―Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts: Mechanism
and clinical significance‖, RadioGraphics, vol. 6, n.149, pp.891-911
September, 1986
[3] M.J.Lee, S. Kim, S.A. Lee, HT Song, Y.M. Huh, DH Kim, SH Han, JS
Suh, ―Overcoming Artifacts from Metallic Orthopedic Implants at High-Field
Strenght MR Imaging and Multidetector CT‖ , RadioGraphics 27, pp. 791803, 2007
[4] IEEE Std-299-2006. ―IEEE Standard method for measuring the
effectiveness of electromagnetic shielding enclosures‖. Institute of electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Piscataway, NJ, Feb.28, 2007
[5] J. H. Duyn: ―The future of ultra-high field MRI and fMRI for study of the
human
brain‖,
NeuroImage
62,
pp.
1241–1248,2012,doi:
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.065
[6] IEEE100. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th
ed.New York:IEEE Press.2000
[7] MIL-STD-285, Method of Attenuation Measurements for Enclosures,
Electromagnetic Shielding, for Electronic Test Purposes, U.S. Department of
Defense (June 1956)
Luciano Mirarchi Chartered Engineer Member of Institution of Engineering and
Technology,
has been MR Support
Specialist in Siemens Healthcare . He
joined the University Campus BioMedico in Rome as contract professor
and he is teaching equipments for
Nuclear Medicine, CT and MR.
Author of many publications and 2 books
with focus on MR, CT and HTA.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Valentina Giaquinto received the Master
Degree in Biomedical Engineering (summa cum
laude) from University of Naples, Federico II,
on July, 2017.
Her thesis project concerned quality and safety
aspects in MRI environments (with particular
focus to shielding effectiveness measurements).
It was supervised by Professor Rita Massa and
Luciano Mirarchi and received the Italian
Electrotechnical Committee award ―Best Thesis
Degree 2017‖. During the internship c/o INES
Srl, her main activities were ordinary
maintenances on Faraday Cages for MRI and
related technical reports. She currently works
for Altran Italy, a multinational company operating in different engineering
fields and she is involved in electromagnetic compatibility and human
exposure to EM fields analysis in railway sector.
Sergio Silvestri is full professor of
Measurement for the Departmental Faculty of
Engineering at University Campus Bio-Medico
of Rome. The scientific activity is mainly
focused on measurements and measurement
systems for clinical diagnostics and
monitoring, in particular: on non-invasive
biomedical
instrumentation,
contactless
measurement of respiratory parameters, novel
methodologies for obtaining temperature maps
by imaging instrumentation such as TC, US
and RM. He is Head of the Clinical
Engineering Service of University Hospital Campus Bio-Medico of Rome and
carries out researches on performance assessment and quality evaluation of
medical instruments. The scientific activity scientific activity is resumed in a
monograph, a book chapter, more than 50 print publications, more than 70
contributions to national and international conferences, one international
patent pending, one Italian granted patent on a novel non-invasive cardiac
output measurement method, two collaborations in books ―Fondamenti di
Ingegneria Clinica‖ Vol 1 and 2.
Rita Massa received the Physics degree
(summa cum laude) and Ph.D. degree in
Electronic and Computer Science from the
University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
In 1992, she became a Researcher, and in 2001,
a Professor of Electromagnetic Fields of the
University of Naples Federico II, with the
Department
of
Electronic
and
Telecommunication Engineering (DIET), and,
actually, the Department of Physics (DP) ―Ettore
Pancini‖. She has been the chief of the
Microwave Interaction Division (MIND) Laboratory (DIET), responsible for
the Biophysics Laboratory (DP) and actually she is the chief of Non Ionizing
Radiation Laboratory (DP). She is currently the Director of the
―Interuniversity Center for the Study of Interactions between Electromagnetic
Fields and Biosystems (ICEmB)‖. Her research interests are is in the
framework of the interactions of electromagnetic fields and materials, dealing
with the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic
dosimetry/exposure assessment, therapeutic and industrial applications of
electromagnetic fields, and nondestructive testing of materials. She was and is
currently involved in research projects, in cooperation with small, medium
and/or great enterprises, for which she played and is currently playing the role
of scientific coordinator/WP Leader. She has coauthored more than 200
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, proceedings, and conference
papers.
7