Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:20:54.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Achieving electromagnetic compatibility of wireless power transfer antennas inside MRI system

Part of: Biomedical Applications and Biological Implications of Wireless Power Transfer Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

Aasrith Ganti Open the ORCID record for Aasrith Ganti [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenshan Lin ,
Tracy Wynn  and
Timothy Ortiz
Aasrith Ganti*
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Jenshan Lin
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Tracy Wynn
Affiliation:
Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Timothy Ortiz
Affiliation:
Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, Florida, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Aasrith Ganti, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Radiofrequency surface coils used as receivers in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) rely on cables for communication and power from the MRI system. Complex surface coil arrays are being designed for improving acquisition speed and signal-to-noise ratio. This, in-turn makes the cables bulky, expensive, and the currents induced on cables by time-varying magnetic fields of the MRI system may cause patient harm. Though wireless power transfer (WPT) can eliminate cables and make surface coils safer, MRI poses a challenging electromagnetic environment for WPT antennas because the antennas made using long conductors interact with the static and dynamic fields of the MRI system. This paper analyses the electromagnetic compatibility of WPT antennas and reveals that commercially available antennas are not compatible with MRI systems, presenting a safety risk for patients. Even when the risk is minimized, the antennas couple with surface coils leading to misdiagnosis. This paper presents an approach to eliminate safety risks and minimize coupling using a filter named “floating filter.” A WPT antenna without a filter has a distortion of 27%, and floating filters reduce the distortion to 2.3%. Secondly, the floating filter does not affect the power transfer efficiency, and the transfer efficiency of 60% is measured with and without filters.

Keywords

Biomedical applicationselectromagnetic compatibilityfilterspatient safetyWPT antennas
Type
Research Article
Information
Wireless Power Transfer , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , September 2019 , pp. 138 - 153
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Tesla, N (1891) Experiments with alternate currents of very high frequency and their application to methods of artificial illumination. American Institute of Electrical Engineers VIII, 266–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Riffe, MJ, Twieg, MD, Gudino, N, Blumenthal, CJ, Heilman, JA and Griswold, MA (2013) Identification and mitigation of interference sources present in SSB-based wireless MRI receiver arrays. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 70, 1775–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Agarwal, K, Jegadeesan, R, Guo, Y-X and Thakor, NV (2017) Wireless power transfer strategies for implantable bioelectronics. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 10, 136–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Byron, K, Robb, F, Stang, P, Vasanawala, S, Pauly, J and Scott, G (2017) An RF-gated wireless power transfer system for wireless MRI receive arrays. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B: Magnetic Resonance Engineering 47, e21360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Ganti, A, Lin, J, Wynn, T and Ortiz, T (2018) Achieving Electromagnetic Compatibility of WPT Antennas for Medical Imaging in MRI. In 2018 IEEE Wireless Power Transfer Conference (WPTC), June 2018, pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Haacke, EM, Brown, RW, Thompson, MR and Venkatesan, R and others (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design, vol. 82. New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
7.Caverly, RH (2015) MRI fundamentals: RF aspects of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). IEEE Microwave Magazine 16, 20–33.Google Scholar
8.Ganti, A, Ortiz, T, Wynn, TA, Lin, J and Duensing, R (2018) Effect of PIN diode nonlinearity on decoupler circuits in magnetic resonance imaging surface coils. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B: Magnetic Resonance Engineering 48B, 1–12.Google Scholar
9.Hardy, CJ, Giaquinto, RO, Piel, JE, Rohling, AAS KW, Marinelli, L, Blezek, DJ, Fiveland, EW, Darrow, RD and Foo, TFK (2008) 128-Channel body MRI with a flexible high-density receiver-coil array. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 28, 1219–1225.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Peterson, DM, Beck, BL, Duensing, GR and Fitzsimmons, JR (2003) Common mode signal rejection methods for MRI: reduction of cable shield currents for high static magnetic field systems. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B: Magnetic Resonance Engineering 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
11.Taracila, V, Chan, P and Robb, F (2010) Minimal acceptable blocking impedance for RF receive coils. Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 18, 3928.Google Scholar
12.Roemer, PB, Edelstein, WA, Hayes, CE, Souza, SP and Mueller, OM (1990) The NMR phased array. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 16, 192–225.Google ScholarPubMed