Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 531–545 | Cite as

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: basic aspects and review of exposure assessment approaches

  • Valentina HartwigEmail author
  • Stefania Romeo
  • Olga Zeni
Review Article


The purpose of this review is to make a contribution to build a comprehensive knowledge of the main aspects related to the occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environments. Information has been obtained from original research papers published in international peer-reviewed journals in the English language and from documents published by governmental bodies and authorities. An overview of the occupational exposure scenarios to static magnetic fields, motion-induced, time-varying magnetic fields, and gradient and radiofrequency fields is provided, together with a summary of the relevant regulation for limiting exposure. A particular emphasis is on reviewing the main EMF exposure assessment approaches found in the literature. Exposure assessment is carried out either by measuring the unperturbed magnetic fields in the MRI rooms, or by personal monitoring campaigns, or by the use of numerical methods. A general lack of standardization of the procedures and technologies adopted for exposure assessment has emerged, which makes it difficult to perform a direct comparison of results from different studies carried out by applying different assessment strategies. In conclusion, exposure assessment approaches based on data collection and numerical models need to be better defined in order to respond to specific research questions. That would provide for a more complete characterization of the exposure patterns and for identification of the factors determining the exposure variability.

Graphical abstract

Main approaches adopted in the literature to perform occupational exposure assessment to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environments. SMF: static magnetic field; GMF: gradient magnetic fields; RF: radio-frequencies.


Magnetic resonance Electromagnetic fields Occupational exposure Exposure assessment Regulations and guidelines 



The authors are thankful to Dr. Mats-Olof Mattsson, (Austrian Institute of Technology, Tulln, Austria) for proof-reading the paper and for the useful comments and suggestions provided.


  1. 1.
    Moser E, Stahlberg F, Ladd ME, Trattnig S (2012) 7-T MR-from research to clinical applications? NMR Biomed 25(5):695–716. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McRobbie DW (2012) Occupational exposure in MRI. Br J Radiol 85(1012):293–312. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lauterbur PC (1973) Image formation by induced local interactions: examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 242(5394):190–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mansfield P (1977) Multi-planar image formation using NMR spin echoes. J Phys C Solid State Phys 10:55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betta G, Capriglione D, Pasquino N (2012) Experimental investigation on workers ’ exposure to electromagnetic fields in proximity of magnetic resonance imaging systems. Measurement 45(2):199–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradley JK, Nyekiova M, Price DL, Lopez LD, Crawley T (2007) Occupational exposure to static and time-varying gradient magnetic fields in MR units. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1204–1209. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McRobbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR (2006) MRI from picture to proton. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edelstein WA, Hutchison JM, Smith FW et al (1981) Human whole-body NMR tomographic imaging: normal sections. Br J Radiol 54(638):149–151. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Slottje P, Kromhout H (2013) Inventory of MRI applications and workers exposed to MRI-related electromagnetic fields in the Netherlands. Eur J Radiol 82(12):2279–2285. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shellock FG, Crues JV (2004) MR Procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient. Radiology 232(3):635–652. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shellock FG, Crues JV (2014) MRI bioeffects, safety, and patient management. Biomedical Research Publishing Group, Los AngelsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim SJ, Kim KA (2017) Safety issues and updates under MR environments. Eur J Radiol 89:7–13. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crook N, Robinson L (2009) A review of the safety implications of magnetic resonance imaging at field strengths of 3Tesla and above. Radiography 15(4):351–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stikova E (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging safety: principles and guidelines. Prilozi 33(1):441–472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kangarlu A, Robitaille PL (2000) Biological effects and health implications in magnetic resonance imaging. Concepts Magn Reson 12(5):321–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Durbridge G (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging: fundamental safety issues. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 41:820–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shigemitsu T, Ueno S (2017) Biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields related to the operation of MRI/TMS. Spine 7:1740009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shellock FG (2014) Reference manual for magnetic resonance safety, implants, and devices: 2014 edition. Biomedical Research Publishing Group, Playa Del ReyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kugel H (2012) Safety considerations in interventional MRI. In: Kahn T, Busse H (eds) Interv. Magn. Reson. Imaging. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woods TO (2007) Standards for medical devices in MRI: present and future. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1186–1189. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alorainy IA, Albadr FB, Abujamea AH (2006) Attitude towards MRI safety during pregnancy. Ann Saudi Med 26(4):306–309. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Wilde JP, Rivers AW, Price DL (2005) A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 87(2-3):335–353. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eskandar O, Eckford S, Watkinson T (2010) Safety of diagnostic imaging in pregnancy. Part 2: magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound scanning and Doppler assessment. Obstet Gynaecol 12(3):171–177. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patenaude Y, Pugash D, Lim K, Morin L, Diagnostic Imaging Committee, Lim K, Bly S, Butt K, Cargill Y, Davies G, Denis N, Hazlitt G, Morin L, Naud K, Ouellet A, Salem S, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (2014) The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the obstetric patient. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 36(4):349–363. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pamboucas CA, Rokas SG (2008) Clinical safety of cardiovascular magnetic resonance: cardiovascular devices and contrast agents. Hell J Cardiol 49:352–356Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10(3):477–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Lombardi M, Landini L, Simi S (2009) Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Int J Env Res Public Health 6(6):1778–1798. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vijayalaxmi, Fatahi M, Speck O (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a review of genetic damage investigations. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res 764:51–63. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghodbane S, Lahbib A, Sakly M, Abdelmelek H (2013) Bioeffects of static magnetic Fields : oxidative stress, genotoxic effects, and cancer studies. Biomed Res Int 2013:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    SCENIHR (2015) Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF).
  31. 31.
    ICNIRP (2009) Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys 96(4):504–514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ICNIRP (2010) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys 99:818–836. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    EU (2013) Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament And Of The Council 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)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Vocht F, Batistatou E, Mölter A et al (2015) Transient health symptoms of MRI staff working with 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla scanners in the UK. Eur Radiol 25(9):2718–2726. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schaap K, Christopher-de Vries Y, Mason CK, de Vocht F, Portengen L, Kromhout H (2014) Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to static magnetic stray fields from 1.5-7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms. Occup Environ Med 71(6):423–429. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Cambron-Goulet É, Kromhout H (2016) Work-related factors associated with occupational exposure to static magnetic stray fields from MRI scanners. Magn Reson Med 75(5):2141–2155. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schaap K, Portengen L, Kromhout H (2016) Exposure to MRI-related magnetic fields and vertigo in MRI workers. Occup Environ Med 73(3):161–166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sammet S (2016) Magnetic resonance safety. Abdom Radiol 41(3):444–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Karpowicz J, Gryz K (2006) Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to a magnetic field from magnetic resonance imaging devices. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 12(2):155–167. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C et al (2013) ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(3):501–530. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gyekye SA (2005) Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety and job satisfaction. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 11(3):291–302. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    ICNIRP (1994) Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys 66(4):100–106. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ICNIRP (1998) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 74(3):494–522. Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    EU (2004) Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields).Official Journal of the EuGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hill DLG, McLeish K, Keevil SF (2005) Impact of electromagnetic field exposure limits in Europe: is the future of interventional MRI safe? Acad Radiol 12(9):1135–1142. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Keevil SF (2006) Impact of the physical agents (EMF) directive on medical magnetic resonance imaging. IET Semin. Phys. Agents Dir, London, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moore EA, Scurr ED (2007) British association of MR radiographers (BAMRR) safety survey 2005: potential impact of European union (EU) physical agents directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF). J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1303–1307. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Young I, McRobbie DW, Keevil SF, Taylor A (2006) Unintended consequences of an unwarrantedly cautious approach to safety. Br J Hosp Med 67(4):174–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    EU (2015) Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Volume 2: Case StudiesGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    EU (2015) Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Electromagnetic Fields Volume 1: Practical GuideGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    ICNIRP (2014) Guidelines for limiting exposure to electric fields induced by and by time-varying magnetic fields below 1 Hz. Health Phys 106(3):418–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration C (2014) Criteria for Significant Risk Investigations of Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration StaffGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    IEEE (2002) Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0–3 kHzGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    IEEE (2006) Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHzGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    International Electrotechnical Commision (2010) IEC 60601-2-33:2010 Medical electrical equipment—part 2–33: particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosisGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    IARC (2002) Sources, exposure and exposure assessment. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 80:51–93Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hand JW (2008) Modelling the interaction of electromagnetic fields (10 MHz – 10 GHz) with the human body: methods and applications. Phys Med Biol 53(16):R243–R246. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karpowicz J, Hietanen M, Gryz K (2007) Occupational risk from static magnetic fields of MRI scanners. Environmentalist 27(4):533–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bongers S, Christopher Y, Engels H et al (2013) Retrospective assessment of exposure to static magnetic fields during production and development of magnetic resonance imaging systems. Ann Occup Hyg 58:85–102. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Úbeda A, Martínez MA, Cid MA, Chacón L, Trillo MA, Leal J (2011) Assessment of occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields in hospital personnel. Bioelectromagnetics 32(5):378–387. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Andreuccetti D, Contessa GM, Falsaperla R, Lodato R, Pinto R, Zoppetti N, Rossi P (2013) Weighted-peak assessment of occupational exposure due to MRI gradient fields and movements in a nonhomogeneous static magnetic field. Med Phys 40(1):11910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gourzoulidis G, Karabetsos E, Skamnakis N et al (2015) Occupational electromagnetic fields exposure in magnetic resonance imaging systems—preliminary results for the RF harmonic content. Phys Med 31(7):757–762. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bonutti F, Tecchio M, Maieron M, Trevisan D, Negro C, Calligaris F (2016) Measurement of the weighted peak level for occupational exposure to gradient magnetic fields for 1.5 and 3 Tesla MRI body scanners. Radiat Prot Dosim 168:358–364. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Riches SF, Collins DJ, Scuffham JW, Leach MO (2007) EU Directive 2004/40: field measurements of a 1.5 T clinical MR scanner. Br J Radiol 80(954):483–487. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stralka JP, Bottomley PA (2007) A prototype RF dosimeter for independent measurement of the average specific absorption rate (SAR) during MRI. J Magn Reson 26(5):1296–1302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fatahi M, Karpowicz J, Gryz K, Fattahi A, Rose G, Speck O (2017) Evaluation of exposure to (ultra) high static magnetic fields during activities around human MRI scanners. MAGMA 30(3):255–264. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Crozier S, Wilson SJ, Gregg I (2011) US7936168B2 magnetic field dosimeterGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fuentes MA, Trakic A, Wilson SJ, Crozier S (2008) Analysis and measurements of magnetic field exposures for healthcare workers in selected MR environments. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(4):1355–1364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Crozier S et al (2014) Exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields from working in the static magnetic stray fields of MRI scanners: a comprehensive survey in the Netherlands. Ann Occup Hyg 58:1094–1110. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Batistatou E, Molter A, Kromhout H et al (2016) Personal exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields during MRI procedures in clinical practice in the UK. Occup Environ Med 73:779–786. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    De Vocht F, Muller F, Engels H, Kromhout H (2009) Personal exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields during MRI system test procedures. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(5):1223–1228. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kännälä S, Toivo T, Alanko T, Jokela K (2009) Occupational exposure measurements of static and pulsed gradient magnetic fields in the vicinity of MRI scanners. Phys Med Biol 54(7):2243–2257. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Groebner J, Umathum R, Bock M, Krafft AJ, Semmler W, Rauschenberg J (2011) MR safety: simultaneous B0, df/dt, and dB/dt measurements on MR-workers up to 7T. MAGMA 24(6):315–322. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Glover PM, Bowtell R (2008) Measurement of electric fields induced in a human subject due to natural movements in static magnetic fields or exposure to alternating magnetic field gradients. Phys Med Biol 53(2):361–373. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Acri G, Testagrossa B, Causa F, Tripepi MG, Vermiglio G, Novario R, Pozzi L, Quadrelli G (2014) Evaluation of occupational exposure in magnetic resonance sites. Radiol Med 119(3):208–213. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    De Vocht F, Van Drooge H, Engels H, Kromhout H (2006) Exposure, health complaints and cognitive performance among employees of an MRI scanners manufacturing department. J Magn Reson Imaging 23(2):197–204. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Crozier S, Trakic A, Wang H, Liu F (2007) Numerical study of currents in workers induced by body-motion around high-ultrahigh field MRI magnets. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1261–1277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chiampi M, Zilberti L (2011) Induction of electric field in human bodies moving near MRI: an efficient BEM computational procedure. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(10):2787–2793. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Wang H, Trakic A, Liu F, Crozier S (2008) Numerical field evaluation of healthcare workers when bending towards high-field MRI magnets. Magn Reson Med 59(2):410–422. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Cobos Sánchez C, Glover P, Power H, Bowtell R (2012) Calculation of the electric field resulting from human body rotation in a magnetic field. Phys Med Biol 57(15):4739–4753. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Laakso I, Kännälä S, Jokela K (2013) Computational dosimetry of induced electric fields during realistic movements in the vicinity of a 3 T MRI scanner. Phys Med Biol 58(8):2625–2640. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zilberti L, Bottauscio O, Chiampi M (2015) Biomagnetics motion-induced fields in magnetic resonance imaging : are the dielectric currents really negligible? IEEEE Magn Lett 6:1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zilberti L, Bottauscio O, Chiampi M (2016) Assessment of exposure to MRI motion-induced fields based on the international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. Magn Reson Med 76(4):1291–1300. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zradziński P (2015) Difficulties in applying numerical simulations to an evaluation of occupational hazards caused by electromagnetic fields. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 21(2):213–220. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Crozier S, Wang H, Trakic A, Liu F (2007) Exposure of workers to pulsed gradients in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1236–1254. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Li Y, Hand JW, Wills T, Hajnal JV (2007) Numerically-simulated induced electric field and current density within a human model located close to a z-gradient coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(5):1286–1295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Li Y, Hand J, Christ A, et al (2009) Modeling occupational exposure to RF and gradient fields associated with an interventional procedure in an open 1 T MR system. Proc 17th Sci Meet Int Soc Magn Reson Med Honolulu 3042Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hartwig V, Vanello N, Giovannetti G, Lombardi M, Landini L, Santarelli MF (2011) A novel tool for estimation of magnetic resonance occupational exposure to spatially varying magnetic fields. MAGMA 24(6):323–330. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hartwig V, Vanello N, Giovannetti G, Landini L, Santarelli MF (2014) Estimation of occupational exposure to static magnetic fields due to usual movements in magnetic resonance units. Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng 44(3):75–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Farrag SI (2015) Numerical simulation of the induced currents in occupational workers induced by body-motion around different MRI fields. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Softw Eng 5:66–71Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Farrag SI (2014) Numerical computation of specific absorption rate and induced current for workers exposed to static magnetic fields of MRI scanners. I.E. Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES):612–617Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Yamaguchi-Sekino S, Nakai T, Imai S, Izawa S, Okuno T (2014) Occupational exposure levels of static magnetic field during routine MRI examination in 3T MR system. Bioelectromagnetics 35(1):70–75. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Acri G, Testagrossa B, Vermiglio G (2015) Personal time-varying magnetic fields evaluation during activities in MRI sites. IFMBE Proc 51:741–744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Koeman T, Slottje P, Kromhout H, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA, Vermeulen R (2013) Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and cardiovascular disease mortality in a prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med 70(6):402–407. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zilberti L, Bottauscio O, Chiampi M (2016) A potential-based formulation for motion-induced electric fields in MRI. IEEE Trans Magn 52(3):1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Karpowicz J, Gryz K (2013) The pattern of exposure to static magnetic field of nurses involved in activities related to contrast administration into patients diagnosed in 1.5 T MRI scanners. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2):182–191. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kabil J, Belguerras L, Trattnig S, Pasquier C, Felblinger J, Missoffe A (2016) A review of numerical simulation and analytical modeling for medical devices safety in MRI. Yearb Med Inform 10(1):152–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Bottauscio O, Cassarà a M, Hand JW et al (2015) Assessment of computational tools for MRI RF dosimetry by comparison with measurements on a laboratory phantom. Phys Med Biol 60(14):5655–5680. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Italian National Research Council (CNR)Institute of Clinical Physiology (IFC)PisaItaly
  2. 2.Italian National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA)NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations