Experimental evaluation of ballistic hazards in imaging diagnostic center

BACKGROUND Serious hazards for human health and life and devices in close proximity to the magnetic resonance scanners (MRI scanners) include the effects of being hit by ferromagnetic objects attracted by static magnetic field (SMF) produced by scanner magnet - the so-called ballistic hazards classified among indirect electromagnetic hazards. International safety guidelines and technical literature specify different SMF threshold values regarding ballistic hazards - e.g. 3 mT (directive 2004/40/EC, EN 60601-2-33), and 30 mT (BMAS 2009, directive proposal 2011). Investigations presented in this article were performed in order to experimentally verify SMF threshold for ballistic hazards near MRI scanners used in Poland. MATERIAL/METHODS Investigations were performed with the use of a laboratory source of SMF (0-30 mT) and MRI scanners of various types. The levels of SMF in which metal objects of various shapes and 0.4-500 g mass are moved by the field influence were investigated. The distance from the MRI scanners (0.2-3T) where hazards may occur were also investigated. RESULTS Objects investigated under laboratory conditions were moved by SMF of 2.2-15 mT magnetic flux density when they were freely suspended, but were moved by the SMF of 5.6-22 mT when they were placed on a smooth surface. Investigated objects were moved in fields of 3.5-40 mT by MRI scanners. Distances from scanner magnet cover, where ballistic hazards might occur are: up to 0.5 m for 0.2-0.3T scanners; up to 1.3 m for 0.5T scanners; up to 2.0 m for 1.5T scanners and up to 2.5 m for 3T scanners (at the front and back of the magnet). CONCLUSIONS It was shown that SMF of 3 mT magnetic flux density should be taken as the threshold for ballistic hazards. Such level is compatible with SMF limit value regarding occupational safety and health-protected areas/zones, where according to the Polish labor law the procedures of work environment inspection and prevention measures regarding indirect electromagnetic hazards should be applied. Presented results do not support the increase up to 30 mT of the SMF limit for protected area.