Krzysztof Wawrzyn1, Jack Hendriks1, William B. Handler1, and Blaine A. Chronik1
1The xMR Labs, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Western University, London, ON, Canada
Synopsis
The in vitro assessment of true
radiofrequency whole body averaged specific absorption rate (WB-SAR) is
described in the technical specification standard of ASTM F2182-11a, by direct measure of RF-induced heating within a standardized
phantom centered inside the RF birdcage coil. F2182-11a does not address uncertainty assessment of the heating
experiment. In this study, we present
our measured values for short-term measurement repeatability and long-term measurement reproducibility. These measurements support the conclusion that RF-induced WB-SAR measurements
made with bench-top RF exposure systems can be made with a total estimated
measurement uncertainty of approximately 7% (k=1).
INTRODUCTION
The in vitro assessment of true radiofrequency whole body averaged
specific absorption rate (WB-SAR) is described in the technical specification
standard of ASTM International F2182-11a, by direct measure of RF-induced
heating within a standardized phantom centered inside the RF birdcage coil [1]. For the characterization of MR-conditional medical
devices, the WB-SAR value is used to determine the effective exposure level and
to normalize the heating results of devices under test. Because the WB-SAR
value associated with a device heating measurement factors directly into the
final labeling conditions, it is of paramount importance to continually
characterize and understand the uncertainty in the WB-SAR measurement. F2182-11a
does not address uncertainty assessment of the heating experiment. In this study, we present our measured values
for short-term measurement repeatability (repeated measurements within a single
session) and long-term measurement reproducibility (across multiple sessions).METHODS
All calorimetry
measurements were performed according to ASTM International F2182-11a [1]. Two different RF bench top exposure
systems were used, commercially available as “Medical Implant Testing Systems”,
or MITS 1.5 and 3.0, corresponding to frequencies of 64 and 128 MHz [2]. The RF exposure parameters for the MITS 1.5 and 3.0 were
(respectively): pulse type = sinc2π, duty cycle = 40 %, pulse repetition rate =
1 kHz, polarization = circular 270 ° & 90 °, frequency = 63.3 & 127.6
MHz, input power = 59.0 & 60.2 dBm, and B1,rms = 2.86 & 4.40
µT in air at coil isocenter. Two different rectangular acrylic phantom containers
(42×65×16.5 cm and 42×60×16.5 cm) were filled with saline (2.5 g/L NaCl in
distilled water, yielding electrical conductivity of 0.47 S/m +/- 10%), to a
fluid height of 9.0 cm, corresponding to a total volume of ~24.5 L. The phantoms were thermally insulated
with 1” thick polystyrene foam. The geometric center of the phantom
fluid (height of 4.5 cm) was aligned with the geometric center of the MITS. Eleven T1C fiber optic
temperature sensors [3] (resolution = 0.1 °C, accuracy = 0.2 °C) were submerged
near the isocenter of the fluid to monitor temperature with a calibrated
Omniflex signal conditioner [3]. Three (n = 3) repeated measurements of 15-, 20- and
30-minute RF exposure at both 64 and 128 MHz. Measurement repeatability was evaluated
within a single session (i.e. same day) by repeating measurement without any
changes to the physical setup.
Measurement reproducibility was performed on different sessions,
separated by approximately 6 months, by replicating the experiment setup (i.e.
phantom position, probe placement). The measured temperature change after
exposure was converted to a WB-SAR value by using:
$$$SAR=c\frac{\triangle T}{\triangle t}$$$ ,
where c is 4150 J/kg°C (the heat capacity of the
phantom material), ∆T is temperature
change in °C, and ∆t is RF exposure duration in seconds. A
precision calibrated RTD TL1-R thermometer [4] was used to verify the average of the 11 fiber-optic probe
temperature measurements.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the calorimetrically
determined WB-SAR using the 65-cm and 60-cm long phantom containers, respectively.
The overall WB-SAR value, determined by calorimetry, for the 65 cm long phantom
was 2.96 ± 0.09 W/kg and 2.85 ± 0.18 W/kg for MITS 1.5 and MITS 3.0,
respectively. The WB-SAR value for the
60 cm-long phantom was measured as 3.18 ± 0.09 W/kg (MITS 1.5) and 3.27 ± 0.12
W/kg (MITS 3.0). The percent error of all measurements was under 7%, the
highest being for the 65-cm long phantom in MITS 3.0. There was not a substantial difference
between the within-session and the between-session measurement uncertainties. As
shown in Figure 3, the difference
between multi-probe averaged fiber optic temperature-resolved and RTD
thermometer-resolved WB-SAR was 9.6% and 5.0%, for MITS 1.5 and MITS 3.0,
respectively.CONCLUSION
These measurements support the conclusion that RF-induced WB-SAR measurements
made with bench-top RF exposure systems can be made with a total estimated
measurement uncertainty (EMU) of approximately 7% (k=1). Additional data will
enable the EMU to be estimated with more confidence.Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ryan Chaddock, Brian Dalrymple, and
Frank Van Sas for technical support. This work was funded by NSERC Industrial
Research Chairs Program, Ontario Research Fund Research Excellence Program, and
Canadian Foundation for Innovation.References
[1] ASTM
F2182-11a. [2] (ZMT, Zurich,
Switzerland). [3] (Neoptix, Québec,
Canada). [4] (ThermoProbe Inc., Pearl,
MS USA).