Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese] [PDF] 65 7
• Special Focus •
Energy consumption analysis of 1.5 T helium-free superconducting magnetic resonance imaging system
YANG Fan  ZHANG Wei  LI Ying  CAO Zhen  ZHANG Wei  GU Dalong  NI Xiaolong  LI Yani  SUN Mingke  YAN Dong  CHENG Xiaoguang 

DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.004.


[Abstract] Objective Preliminary energy consumption analysis of helium-free 1.5 T superconducting magnetic resonance based on water phantom simulated clinical scanning protocols.Materials and Methods This prospective observational cohort study was conducted from December 2024 to January 2025. Dynamic energy consumption monitoring was conducted for the hosts and cooling equipment of three groups of magnetic resonance imaging systems: the helium-free group consisted of 1.5 T helium-free superconducting MRI (MR1 group), and the helium-containing group included 1.5 T MRI cooled with helium (MR2 group) and 3.0 T MRI cooled with helium (MR3 group). By deploying an intelligent electricity meter monitoring system, real-time energy consumption data of three types of equipment were simultaneously collected under standardized environmental conditions [room temperature (22 ± 2) ℃, humidity 40% to 60%] during two preset operation durations (0.5 h, 1 h) and three typical operation modes (rest state, water model parameter variable state, water model parameter constant state).Results Across all three operational modes (resting state, water phantom parameter variable mode, water phantom parameter constant mode), the host energy consumption of MR1 was lower than that of MR2 and MR3 (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant difference was observed between MR2 and MR3. In the resting state, the refrigeration energy consumption of MR1 showed no significant difference compared to MR3, and total energy consumption across all three systems was comparable. Under the water phantom parameter constant mode, the total energy consumption of MR1 and MR2 was lower than that of MR3 (P < 0.05). All three MRI systems (MR1, MR2, MR3) exhibited lower host and total energy consumption in the resting state compared to water phantom parameter variable and constant modes (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in host or total energy consumption between the two water phantom modes (P > 0.05).Conclusions Compared with the 1.5 T liquid helium superconducting MRI, the total energy consumption of the 1.5 T helium-free superconducting MRI does not increase.
[Keywords] no liquid helium；magnetic resonance imaging；energy consumption；carbon emissions；radiation hygiene；sustainable development

YANG Fan1   ZHANG Wei1   LI Ying2   CAO Zhen1   ZHANG Wei1   GU Dalong1   NI Xiaolong1   LI Yani1   SUN Mingke1   YAN Dong1   CHENG Xiaoguang1*  

1 Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital,Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China

2 Department of General Affairs Office, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100035, China

Corresponding author: CHENG X G, E-mail: xiao65@263.net

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2025-01-05
Accepted  2025-10-10
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.004
DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.004.

[1]
MARIAMPILLAI J, ROCKALL A, MANUELLIAN C, et al. The green and sustainable radiology department[J/OL]. Radiologie (Heidelb), 2023, 63(Suppl 2): 21-26 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37721584/. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-023-01189-6.
[2]
ROLETTO A, ZANARDO M, BONFITTO G R, et al. The environmental impact of energy consumption and carbon emissions in radiology departments: a systematic review[J/OL]. Eur Radiol Exp, 2024, 8(1): 35 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38418763/. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-024-00424-6.
[3]
VOSSHENRICH J, HEYE T. Small steps toward a more sustainable and energy-efficient operation of MRI[J/OL]. Radiology, 2023, 307(4): e230874 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37097136/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230874.
[4]
HARRISON R, HINCHCLIFF R A, MANIAS E, et al. Can feedback approaches reduce unwarranted clinical variation? A systematic rapid evidence synthesis[J/OL]. BMC Health Serv Res, 2020, 20(1): 40 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31948447/. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4860-0.
[5]
FURLAN L, DI FRANCESCO P, TOBALDINI E, et al. The environmental cost of unwarranted variation in the use of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scans[J/OL]. Eur J Intern Med, 2023, 111: 47-53 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36759306/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2023.01.016.
[6]
SCHOEN J, MCGINTY G B, QUIRK C. Radiology in our changing climate: a call to action[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2021, 18(7): 1041-1043. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.02.009.
[7]
MAHESH M, BARKER P B. The MRI helium crisis: past and future[J/OL]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2016, 13(12Pt A): 1536-1537 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27916113/. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.038.
[8]
YU H X. The discussion of superconducting MRI magnet transformation without LHe[J]. Chin J Med Instrum, 2014, 38(1): 23-25. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-7104.2014.01.006.
[9]
MAJOROS M, SUMPTION M D, PARIZH M, et al. Magnetic, mechanical and thermal modeling of superconducting, whole-body, actively shielded, 3 T MRI magnets wound using MgB2 strands for liquid cryogen free operation[J/OL]. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond, 2022, 32(4): 4400104 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36245846/. DOI: 10.1109/tasc.2022.3147137.
[10]
PARK D, DONG F L, LEE W, et al. First-cut design of a benchtop cryogen-free 23.5-T/25-mm magnet for 1-GHz microcoil NMR[J/OL]. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond, 2023, 33(5): 4300104 [2025-01-04]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10058576. DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2023.3252487.
[11]
EOM B H, PENANEN K, HAHN I. A cryogen-free ultralow-field superconducting quantum interference device magnetic resonance imaging system[J/OL]. Rev Sci Instrum, 2014, 85(9): 094302 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25273745/. DOI: 10.1063/1.4895998.
[12]
CHOI Y H, LI Y, PARK D, et al. A tabletop persistent-mode, liquid helium-free 1.5MgB-T2 "finger" MRI magnet: construction and operation of a prototype magnet[J/OL]. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond, 2019, 29(5): 4400405 [2025-01-04]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8643781/. DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2019.2900057.
[13]
PATEL D, HOSSAIN M S AL, QIU W B, et al. Solid cryogen: a cooling system for future MgB2 MRI magnet[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 43444 [2025-01-04]. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43444. DOI: 10.1038/srep43444.
[14]
YU H X. Feasibility and technical essentials of developing MRI helium-free superconducting magnets[J]. Chin J Med Instrum, 2018, 42(5): 345-349. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-7104.2018.05.010.
[15]
ROLETTO A, CATANIA D, RAINFORD L, et al. Sustainable radiology departments: a European survey to explore radiographers' perceptions of environmental and energy sustainability issues[J/OL]. Radiography (Lond), 2024, 30(Suppl 1): 81-90 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38996669/. DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2024.06.022.
[16]
OHENE-BOTWE B, AMEDU C, ANTWI W K, et al. Promoting sustainability activities in clinical radiography practice and education in resource-limited countries: a discussion paper[J/OL]. Radiography, 2024, 30: 56-61 [2025-01-04]. https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(24)00155-X/fulltext. DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2024.06.007.
[17]
LIANG C L, CHEN X L, DI Q B. Path to pollution and carbon reduction synergy from the perspective of the digital economy: Fresh evidence from 292 prefecture-level cities in China[J/OL]. Environ Res, 2024, 252(Pt 4): 119050 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38729414/. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119050.
[18]
PILLAY L, WINKEL K D, KARIOTIS T. Developing the green operating room: exploring barriers and opportunities to reducing operating room waste[J]. Med J Aust, 2024, 221(5): 279-284. DOI: 10.5694/mja2.52394.
[19]
LENZEN M, MALIK A, LI M Y, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment[J/OL]. Lancet Planet Health, 2020, 4(7): e271-e279 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32681898/. DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30121-2.
[20]
ATWOLI L, BAQUI A H, BENFIELD T, et al. Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health: Wealthy nations must do much more, much faster[J]. BJOG, 2021, 128(11): 1715-1717. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16860.
[21]
ROMANELLO M, MCGUSHIN A, DI NAPOLI C, et al. The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future[J]. Lancet, 2021, 398(10311): 1619-1662. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01787-6.
[22]
KIZER K W, NADEAU K C. Confronting health care's climate crisis conundrum: the federal government as catalyst for change[J]. JAMA, 2022, 327(8): 715-716. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.0259.
[23]
HEYE T, KNOERL R, WEHRLE T, et al. The energy consumption of radiology: energy- and cost-saving opportunities for CT and MRI operation[J]. Radiology, 2020, 295(3): 593-605. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192084.
[24]
MINHAS A S, OLIVER R. Magnetic resonance imaging basics[J/OL]. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2022, 1380: 47-82 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36306094/. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-03873-0_3.
[25]
HENNIG J. An evolution of low-field strength MRI[J]. MAGMA, 2023, 36(3): 335-346. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-023-01104-z.
[26]
MANSO JIMENO M, VAUGHAN J T, GEETHANATH S. Superconducting magnet designs and MRI accessibility: a review[J/OL]. NMR Biomed, 2023: e4921 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36914280/. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4921.
[27]
MCALISTER S, BARRATT A, BELL K, et al. How many carbon emissions are saved by doing one less MRI?[J/OL]. Lancet Planet Health, 2024, 8(6): e350 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38849176/. DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00092-5.
[28]
BROWN M, SCHOEN J H, GROSS J, et al. Climate change and radiology: impetus for change and a toolkit for action[J/OL]. Radiology, 2023, 307(4): e230229 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37070994/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230229.
[29]
ZIGMUND B. Health care feels the heat: a primer for radiologists on climate change-related regulatory and policy trends[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2024, 21(2): 257-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.10.023.
[30]
WALTERS H, BOWDEN K, LIMPHAIBOOL N. Reducing the carbon footprint of radiology through automatic workstation shutdown protocols[J/OL]. Clin Radiol, 2024, 79(11): e1284-e1287 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39198110/. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2024.07.022.
[31]
WOOLEN S A, BECKER A E, MARTIN A J, et al. Ecodesign and operational strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of MRI for energy cost savings[J/OL]. Radiology, 2023, 307(4): e230441 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37097133/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230441.
[32]
IWASA Y. Towards liquid-helium-free, persistent-mode MgB2 MRI magnets: FBML experience[J/OL]. Supercond Sci Technol, 2017, 30: 053001 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29568161/. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6668/aa5fed.
[33]
KATHIRAVAN S, KANAKARAJ J. A review on potential issues and challenges in MR imaging[J/OL]. Sci World J, 2013, 2013: 783715 [2025-01-04]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381523/. DOI: 10.1155/2013/783715.

PREV Image quality evaluation of conventional brain MRI sequences on 1.5 T helium-free magnetic resonance imaging
NEXT Hemodynamic study of white matter hyperintensities using multi-delay arterial spin labeling
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn