A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOTION ANALYSIS OF TWO-HANDED AND WAIST BELT PULLING BACKWARD EXERCISES IN ELITE TUG OF WAR ATHLETES

In order to find the benefits of the waist belt (WB) in Tug of War (TOW) sport, the purpose of this study was to compare kinematic differences between two-handed (TH) and WB pulling backward exercises. The team that holds the gold medal record for the World Indoor TOW Championships 2004 participated in this study (N=20). According to threedimensional video analysis procedures using the direct linear transformation analysis method, the mean body center of mass (CaM) displacement during TH and WB trials were 0.7m and 1.45m, respectively. Moreover, the mean CaM speed of WB was approximately 1.6 times faster than that of TH. These results suggest that the WB had the efficacy to accomplish a given task in the pulling backward exercise. Therefore it is concluded that WB might be one of useful equipmenls in the TOW sport

Assessment of combined exposure to intermediate-frequency electromagnetic fields and pulsed electromagnetic fields among library workers in Japan

ObjectiveTo assess exposure levels to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) among library workers in Japan, focusing on co-exposure to intermediate-frequency EMF (IF-EMF) and pulsed EMF, to propose a new epidemiological research methodology.MethodsThe evaluated exposure sources were an electromagnetic type-electronic article surveillance gate (EM-EAS, IF-EMF (operating frequency 220 Hz-14 kHz)) and an activator/deactivator of anti-theft tags termed as “book check unit” (BCU, pulsed EMF). Short-term exposures were: (E1) whole-body exposure from the EAS gate when sitting within 3 m; (E2) local exposure to transient IF-EMF while passing through or beside the EAS gate; and (E3) local exposure to a pulsed magnetic field on BCU use. E1–E3 were evaluated based on exposure levels relative to magnetic flux density at the occupational reference level (RL; E1) or as per occupational basic restrictions (BR; E2 and E3) delineated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2010 guidelines. Exposure indices based on mid-term exposure (D1–D3), assuming exposure according to employment on a weekly basis, were used to assess exposure in actual working conditions. D1 represents continuous exposure from an EAS gate when sitting within 3 m of the gate. D2 and D3 represent repeated transient exposures occurring during gate pass or on the operation of a BCU. A link to a web-based questionnaire was distributed to librarians working at all libraries where the authors had mailed institutional questionnaires (4,073 libraries). Four exposure patterns were defined according to various exposure scenarios.ResultsWe obtained information on exposure parameters and working conditions from the 548 completed questionnaires. The ICNIRP guideline levels were not exceeded in any of the E1–E3 scenarios. Median of the D1 (% ICNIRP RL × hour/week) was 1, and >85% respondents had values <10. However, the maximum value was 513. Altogether, these results indicate that continuous exposure was low in most cases. The same tendency was observed regarding repeated transient exposure from EM-EAS gates (i.e., the median value for D2 (% ICNIRP BR × gate pass) was 5). However, there were several cases in which D1 and D2 values were >10 times the median. The median of D3 (% ICNIRP BR × BCU operation) was 10, and most respondents' D3 values were greater than their D2 values, although the derived results depended on the assumptions made for the estimation.ConclusionWe conducted an assessment of combined exposures to IF-EMF and pulsed EMF among library workers in Japan by evaluating both short-term exposures (E1–E3) and exposure indices based on mid-term exposures (D1–D3) assuming actual working conditions per questionnaire results. These results provide useful information for future epidemiological studies

Personal exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields during MRI procedures in clinical practice in the UK

Background: MRI has developed into one of the most important medical diagnostic imaging modalities, but it exposes staff to static magnetic fields (SMF) when present in the vicinity of the MR system, and to radiofrequency and switched gradient electromagnetic fields if they are present during image acquisition. We measured exposure to SMF and motion-induced time-varying magnetic fields (TVMF) in MRI staff in clinical practice in the UK to enable extensive assessment of personal exposure levels and variability, which enables comparison to other countries. Methods: 8 MRI facilities across National Health Service sites in England, Wales and Scotland were included, and staff randomly selected during the days when measurements were performed were invited to wear a personal MRI-compatible dosimeter and keep a diary to record all procedures and tasks performed during the measured shift. Results: 98 participants, primarily radiographers (71%) but also other healthcare staff, anaesthetists and other medical staff were included, resulting in 149 measurements. Average geometric mean peak SMF and TVMF exposures were 448 mT (range 20–2891) and 1083 mT/s (9–12 355 mT/s), and were highest for radiographers (GM=559 mT and GM=734 mT/s). Time-weighted exposures to SMF and TVMF (GM=16 mT (range 5–64) and GM=14 mT/s (range 9–105)) and exposed-time-weighted exposures to SMF and TVMF (GM=27 mT (range 11–89) and GM=17 mT/s (range 9–124)) were overall relative low—primarily because staff were not in the MRI suite for most of their shifts—and did not differ significantly between occupations. Conclusions: These results are comparable to the few data available from the UK but they differ from recent data collected in the Netherlands, indicating that UK staff are exposed for shorter periods but to higher levels. These data indicate that exposure to SMF and TVMF from MRI scanners cannot be extrapolated across countries

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields from medical sources.

High exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) can occur near certain medical devices in the hospital environment. A systematic assessment of medical occupational EMF exposure could help to clarify where more attention to occupational safety may be needed. This paper seeks to identify sources of high exposure for hospital workers and compare the published exposure data to occupational limits in the European Union. A systematic search for peer-reviewed publications was conducted via PubMed and Scopus databases. Relevant grey literature was collected via a web search. For each publication, the highest measured magnetic flux density or internal electric field strength per device and main frequency component was extracted. For low frequency fields, high action levels may be exceeded for magnetic stimulation, MRI gradient fields and movement in MRI static fields. For radiofrequency fields, the action levels may be exceeded near devices for diathermy, electrosurgery and hyperthermia and in the radiofrequency field inside MRI scanners. The exposure limit values for internal electric field may be exceeded for MRI and magnetic stimulation. For MRI and magnetic stimulation, practical measures can limit worker exposure. For diathermy, electrosurgery and hyperthermia, additional calculations are necessary to determine if SAR limits may be exceeded in some scenarios

Evaluation of occupational exposure to static magnetic field in MRI sites based on body pose estimation and SMF analytical computation

International audienceThis paper tackles the problem of estimating exposure to static magnetic field (SMF) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sites using a non‐invasive approach. The proposed approach relies on a vision‐based system to detect people's body parts and on a mathematical model to compute SMF exposure. A multi‐view camera system was used to capture the MRI room, and a vision‐based system was applied to detect body parts. The detected localization was then fed into a mathematical model to compute SMF exposure. In this study, we focused on exposure at the neck due to two main reasons. First, according to regulations, the limit of exposure at head and trunk for MR workers is higher than that for the general public. Second, it was easier to attach a dosimeter at the neck to perform measurements, which allowed a quantitative evaluation of our approach. This approach was applied to two scenarios simulating the daily movements of medical workers for which dosimeter measurements were also recorded. The results indicated that the proposed approach predicted occupational SMF exposure with reasonable accuracy compared with the dosimeter measurements. The proposed approach is a simple safe working procedure to estimate the exposure of MR workers at different parts of the body without wearing any marker detection. It can be applied to reduce occupational SMF exposure, without changes in workers’ performances. For that reason, our non‐invasive proposed method can be used as a simple safety tool to estimate occupational SMF exposure in MR sites