Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transcranial magnetic stimulation safety from operator exposure perspective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A simulated model of a commercial transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil is analyzed to determine electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure for an operator while holding or adjusting the coil. Induced EMF strengths are calculated using a commercial figure-8 coil geometry and pulse configuration, with geometrical representations of the subject’s head and the operator’s head, torso, and hand. Exposure levels are compared to experimental results in the literature and international guidelines for occupational EMF exposure limits. Exposure limit guidelines of 0.8 V/m rms are exceeded at approximately 24.6 cm from the coil for the torso model and at 20.3 cm for the head model measured perpendicular to the plane of the coil. In the plane of the coil, the operator can approach closer without exceeding guidelines. The results in the hand model along the edge of the coil give 9.9 V/m and 88.5 V/m for average and peak field strength, respectively. A discussion of the potential consequences of operator exposure to fields exceeding published guidelines concludes that since the guidelines are only concerned with acute effects and do not suggest any potential chronic effects, occupational exposure in the context of delivering TMS treatment may be considered reasonable.

A model of an operator’s head/torso was moved in space relative to a standard TMS coil and subject. Positions at which safety guidelines are exceeded were calculated. The maximum induced electric field was also calculated in a hand model placed in a position commonly used to hold TMS coils during treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A, Safety of TMS Consensus Group (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 120:2008–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2003) Guidance on determining compliance of exposure to pulsed and complex non-sinusoidal waveforms below 100 kHz with ICNIRP guidelines. Health Phys 84:383–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Directive EU (2004) Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields). Eighteenth individual D. Off J Eur Union L159:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  4. Karlström EF, Lundström R, Stensson O, Mild KH (2006) Therapeutic staff exposure to magnetic field pulses during TMS/rTMS treatments. Bioelectromagnetics 27:156–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bottauscio O, Zucca M, Chiampi M, Zilberti L (2016) Evaluation of the electric field induced in transcranial magnetic stimulation operators. IEEE Trans Magn 52:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2015.2489561

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zucca M, Bottauscio O, Chiampi M, Zilberti L (2017) Operator safety and field focality in aluminum shielded transcranial magnetic stimulation. IEEE Trans Magn 53:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2017.2709402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cincotta M, Giovannelli F, Borgheresi A, Balestrieri F, Toscani L, Zaccara G, Carducci F, Viggiano MP, Rossi S (2010) Optically tracked neuronavigation increases the stability of hand-held focal coil positioning: evidence from “transcranial” magnetic stimulation-induced electrical field measurements. Brain Stimul 3:119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2010.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2010) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz TO 100 kHz). Health Phys 99:818–836. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3181f06c86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Directive EU (2013) Directive no. 2013/35/EU, of 26 June 2013, on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields). Off J Eur Union L179:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  10. Li H, Ruan J, Xie Z et al (2007) Investigation of the critical geometric characteristics of living human skulls utilising medical image analysis techniques. Int J Veh Saf 2:345. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVS.2007.016747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lew S, Wolters CH, Anwander A et al (2009) Improved EEG source analysis using low-resolution conductivity estimation in a four-compartment finite element head model. Hum Brain Mapp 30:2862–2878. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20714

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Riches SF, Collins DJ, Charles-Edwards GD, Shafford JC, Cole J, Keevil SF, Leach MO (2007) Measurements of occupational exposure to switched gradient and spatially-varying magnetic fields in areas adjacent to 1.5T clinical MRI systems. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1346–1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davey K, Epstein CM (2000) Magnetic stimulation coil and circuit design. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47:1493–1499. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.880101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998) ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 Ghz). Health Phys 74:494–522. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3181f06c86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nyenhuis JA, Bourland JD, Kildishev A V, Schaefer DJ (2001) Health effects and safety of intense gradient fields. In: Shellock F (ed) Magnetic resonance procedures: health effects and safety. oca Raton, CRC Press, pp 31–54

  16. So PPM, Stuchly MA, Nyenhuis JA (2004) Peripheral nerve stimulation by gradient switching fields in magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51:1907–1914. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2004.834251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Keevil SF, Lomas DJ (2013) The European Union Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive: an update for the MRI community. Br Inst Radiol 86:20130492. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

COMSOL software licenses were provided through a CMC Microsystems subscription.

Funding

Financial support was received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program in Biomedical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V6, Canada

    Grant Rutherford, Brian Lithgow & Zahra Moussavi

  2. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V6, Canada

    Brian Lithgow & Zahra Moussavi

Authors
  1. Grant Rutherford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Lithgow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahra Moussavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant Rutherford.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rutherford, G., Lithgow, B. & Moussavi, Z. Transcranial magnetic stimulation safety from operator exposure perspective. Med Biol Eng Comput 58, 249–256 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-019-02084-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-019-02084-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation