Victor Fritz1, Petros Martirosian1, Jürgen Machann1,2, Rolf Daniels3, and Fritz Schick1
1Section on Experimental Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 2Institute for Diabetes Research and Metabolic Diseases of the Helmholtz Centre Munich at the University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 3Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Synopsis
The aim of this work was to develop stable and homogeneous oil-in-water emulsions for tissue simulation in MRI. For this purpose, three different emulsifiers (polysorbate 60, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and soy lecithin) were examined for their stabilizing ability. In addition, their potential impact on the MR-measurements was investigated. Sufficient stability can be achieved using both emulsifier, polysorbate and lecithin. Emulsions stabilized by SDS showed a visually lower stability. Due to its sufficient stabilizing ability, promising relaxometric properties (r1,lecithin=0,11wt%-1s-1, r2,lecithin =0,62wt%-1s-1), and no additional spectral resonances, lecithin is suggested as the preferred emulsifier for use in MRI.
Introduction
Tissue-like
replications are used in many areas of MRI to optimize and calibrate imaging
techniques.1-5 Emulsions are particularly suitable for simulation of in-vivo
conditions, combining both, the properties of water and fat, and thus provide an
excellent material for phantoms simulating tissue in MRI. However, a major
problem with emulsions is their thermodynamic instability as they tend to
separate in a water and an oil phase.6 A large number of emulsifiers such as
polysorbates, sodium dodecyl sulfate or soy lecithin are used for
stabilization. Those substances are usually not present in human tissues and
their signals might lead to undesired effects.
The
overall purpose of this work was to develop stable and homogeneous oil-in-water
emulsions for use in MRI. The potential impact of emulsifiers was investigated
and analyzed. For a reliable simulation of tissue, it is essential that the emulsifiers used for stabilization have no or precisely calculable effects on
the MR-measurements. Against this background, the suitability of various emulsifiers was examined in MRI and MRS experiments. Methods
Data
acquisition and analysis:
Imaging
and spectroscopy was performed on a 3.0T whole-body MR system (MAGNETOM Prismafit,SIEMENS
Healthineers,Erlangen,Germany) using a standard 20-channel head coil. All data
were carried out at room temperature of 22°C and analyzed offline using
in-house-developed software (MATLAB,MathWorks,Natick,MA).
Preparation
of oil-in-water emulsions:
Oil-in-water
emulsions in volumes of 50ml were prepared using various types of emulsifiers. The
composition of all samples was as follows: peanut oil: 20wt%; distilled water:
77wt%, and emulsifier: 3wt%. Polysorbate 60 (BASF,Ludwigshafen,Germany), sodium
dodecyl sulfate (SDS,C.Roth,Karlsruhe,Germany) and soy lecithin (C.Roth,Karlsruhe,Germany) were used as emulsifier and trialed individually. The emulsifier concentration was chosen sufficiently high in order to
prevent oil-droplets from coalescence during emulsification.
Emulsions were prepared by ultrasonication using
UP200Ht (Hielscher Ultrasonics,Teltow,Germany). First, emulsifier solutions were prepared by
dissolving the emulsifiers in distilled water. To increase solubility, the distilled water was heated to
30-40°C using a water bath. Then the amount
of peanut oil was added to the solution while stirring gently. Finally, the
mixtures were emulsified by sonication for 90s with an output of 70W. The
prepared emulsions were kept in CELLSTAR polypropylene tubes (Greiner Bio-One,Frickenhausen,Germany)
at room temperature.
Emulsion
stability analysis:
Since
T2-mapping
enables monitoring of emulsion stability,7 the oil-in-water emulsions were scanned using a
CPMG multiple spin-echo pulse sequence with a TR of 5000ms and 32 TEs ranging
from 12ms to 384ms (increment:12ms). The selected slice was placed in a central plane through
the samples and quantitative T2-maps
were generated. Experiments were carried out 3h, 12h and 44h after preparation.
Spectroscopic characterization of the emulsifiers:
Additionally, a solution
of each emulsifier (3wt%) in water was spectrally analyzed. A 1H-MR spectrum
was acquired from each sample using a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) sequence with TR
of 10000ms and TE of 10ms. The VOI was positioned in the center of each
sample.
Relaxivity
of
aqueous solutions of emulsifiers:
Emulsifier solutions of varying concentrations (0wt%, 0.5wt%, 1wt%, 1.5wt%, 2wt%, 2.5wt%,
3wt%) have been prepared for polysorbate and lecithin. The solutions were kept
in CELLSTAR tubes and fixed in a commercially available cylindrical phantom.
Quantitative T1-maps
in the coronal plane were acquired using inversion-recovery pulse sequence with
seven different TIs ranging from 25ms to 8000ms. TR and TE were set to 10000ms
and 9.9ms, respectively. Quantitative
T2-maps
were acquired using multiple spin-echo pulse sequence with a TR of 6000ms and
32 different TEs in the same slice. The initial and final TE were set to 50ms
and 1600ms (increment:50ms), respectively.Results
Emulsion
stability analysis:
Emulsions
stabilized by SDS had a significantly lower stability compared to those
stabilized by polysorbate and lecithin (fig.1). Emulsions prepared with
polysorbate were the most stable. Creaming was hardly observed within the first
12h.
Spectroscopic
characterization of the emulsifiers:
The
results of the spectral analysis are shown in figure 2. Spectra of water and
peanut oil were acquired as reference (fig.2a). Several peaks (indicated by
arrows) could be observed for polysorbate and SDS (fig.2b-c). With the
exception of a slight line broadening of the water signal, no further signals
can be observed for lecithin (fig.2d).
Relaxivity of
aqueous solutions of emulsifiers:
Relaxometry
measurements revealed completely different influences of polysorbate and
lecithin (fig.3). Polysorbate showed only minor effects on T1 and T2 of distilled water (relaxivity: r1,polysorbat=0.01wt%-1s-1 (R2 =0.99), r2,polysorbat=0.04wt%-1s-1 (R2=0.95)), whereas lecithin on the
other hand showed a strong decrease in T1 and T2 with increasing concentration (relaxivity: r1,lecithin=0.11wt%-1s-1 (R2=0.99), r2,lecithin=0.62wt%-1s-1 (R2=0.99)).Discussion and Conclusion
Sufficient
stability can be achieved using both emulsifiers, polysorbate and lecithin. In
contrast, SDS couldn’t be used as a suitable stabilizer with the preparation
method chosen in this study. For SDS, creaming was observed immediately after
preparation. The spectral analysis of the surfactants showed several additional
resonances for polysorbate and SDS. Especially the resonances at 1.3ppm and
0.9ppm, which are usually seen in triglycerides, are considered to be critical
with regard to fat quantification methods. In the case of lecithin, however, no
conspicuous signals were detected. Due to this and the sufficient stabilizing
ability, lecithin is suggested as the preferred emulsifier for use in
MRI-experiments. In addition to its function as a stabilizer, lecithin can also
be used to shorten relaxation times.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
- Bernard CP, Liney GP, Manton DJ, Turnbull LW, Langton CM. Comparison of fat quantification methods: a phantom study at 3.0T. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2008; 27(1):192-7.
- Fukuzawa K, Hayashi T, Takahashi J, Yoshihara C, Tano M, Kotoku J, Saitoh S. Evaluation of six-point modified dixon and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for fat quantification: a fat-water-iron phantom study. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 2017; 10(3):349-358.
- Poon CS, Szumowski J, Plewes DB, Ashby P, Henkelman RM. Fat/water quantitation and differential relaxation time measurement using chemical shift imaging technique. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1989; 7(4):369-82.
- Schick F, Machann J, Brechtel K, Strempfer A, Klumpp B, Stein DT, Jacob S. MRI of muscular fat. Magn. Reson. Med. 2002; 47(4):720-7.
- Bush EC, Gifford A, Coolbaugh CL, Towse TF, Damon BM, Welch EB. Fat-Water Phantoms for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Validation: A Flexible and Scalable Protocol. J. Vis. Exp. 2018; (139):e57704.
- Kutz G, Daniels R, Trommer H. Emulsionen: Entwicklung, Herstellung, Prüfung. Aulendorf: ECV Editio-Cantor-Verlag, 2011.
- Onuki Y, Kida C, Funatani C, Hayashi Y, Takayama K. MRI as a promising tool for evaluation of the stability of cosmetic emulsions. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2016; 38(3):272-8.