FEA design
The desired single-sided magnet array has a sweet spot (homogeneous region) field strength of at least 0.2 T lifted at least 6mm above the surface of the magnet. COMSOL Multiphysics was used to perform finite element analysis. The permanent magnetic field was generated using the magnetic fields, no currents module which uses \(-\nabla \bullet \left({\mu }_{0}\nabla {V}_{m}-{\mu }_{0}\nabla {M}_{0}\right)=0\) to generate the field profile. Remanent flux density and relative permeability were determined by the values for N52 neodymium magnets (1.48 T and unity). An extra-fine physics defined mesh was applied to the geometry to solve Gauss’ Law. The magnet array geometry was placed inside a large rectangular prism with no magnetization and air to provide the simulation environment. Sweet spot volume (\(ϵ\)= 0.5%), strength (T), and depth (mm) were used as outcome measures. Magnet size, orientation, location, spacing, etc were input parameters. These were swept to determine optimal magnet array design.
Fabrication
The final magnet array design consists of 448 individual N52 (Nd1Fe14B) magnets. Each magnet is 12.7 mm cubed. One thousand serialized magnets (Viona Magnetics, Hicksville, NY) were individually flux tested with a hall probe and gauss meter (Lake Shore Cryotronics, Woburn, MA). Of those, the most homogeneous were selected for inclusion in the constructed array.
Each magnet was secured in a machined aluminum frame (Xometry, North Bethesda, MD). Two frame styles were designed, the center style holds 32 magnets arranged in 4 rows of 8, and the end style holds 48 magnets in 6 rows of 8. In total, 4 end and 8 center frames were machined. Cube magnets were placed in the aluminum frame and covered with a temporary aluminum cover slip. The cover slip prevented individual magnets from ejecting, due to repulsion, from the frame during subsequent magnet placement. All magnets in a frame are oriented in the same direction according to the figure. There is a 1mm gap between each of the magnets in the frame.
A temporary structure was made using three-foot aluminum rods secured in a 6 in \(\times\) 12 in aluminum block to align the magnet frames together. The bolt holes on each array frame were used to slide the frames along the rods without allowing for sideslipping in any direction due to the strong magnetic forces. The temporary cover slips over the magnets were removed once all 12 frames were aligned on the rods. The aluminum rods were removed one at a time and replaced with brass bolts. Machined Delrin (Xometry, North Bethesda, MD) is used to encase the aluminum magnet array and block stray magnetic fields.
A transceiver coil was constructed from AWG32 magnet wire (MWS Wire, Oxnard, CA) wound around a cylindrical Teflon former (McMaster Carr, Elmhurst, IL). The coil has 8 turns and is 16mm in diameter. The coil is connected to an ‘L’ impedance matching network with capacitances selected for our desired frequency range (8.2–8.5 MHz).
Phantom construction
Multi-phase tissue phantoms were fabricated according to the general protocols described in Bush et al.33 This emulsion phantom protocol allows for multi-component analysis and more accurate physiological features. The protocol was modified to fabricate phantoms for different tissue types by adjusting the percentage of oil and aqueous components. A 40 %oil fraction was used for muscle tissue and a 70 %oil fraction was used for adipose tissue.
The aqueous phase components consist of deionized (DI) water, sodium benzoate, Tween-20, and agar (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). To prepare 100 mL of the aqueous phase, 100 mL of DI water was added to a 400 mL beaker. The beaker was placed on a hotplate set at 90 ℃with a stir rate of 100 rpm. 0.1 g of sodium benzoate was measured and added to the water, followed by 0.2 mL of the water-soluble surfactant. Next, 3.0 g of agar was slowly added to the water beaker. Once added, the hotplate temperature was increased to 350 ℃and the stir bar speed increased to 1100 rpm for 5–10 min to melt the agar. The solution was removed from the hotplate to check for clear color, no dispersed air bubbles, and no clumps or streams of agar. The aqueous solution was tested to ensure the agar melted by placing about 5 mL of solution in a separate glass vial. If the solution set and was clear, then the solution was then placed back on the hotplate (50 ℃and 100 rpm) while the oil solution was prepared. If the separated solution did not set, the hotplate temperate was increased and the agar was given more time to melt before proceeding.
The oil solution consists of peanut oil and Span 80 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). To prepare 100 mL of the oil solution, 100 mL of peanut oil was measured and placed in a clean beaker with a clean stir bar. The beaker was placed on a hotplate set at 90 ℃with a stir rate of 100 rpm for 1 min. 1.0 mL of the oil-soluble surfactant was added dropwise to the beaker with peanut oil. The hotplate settings were increased to 150 ℃and 1100 rpm for 5 minutes to fully mix the oil solution.
To create the phantom emulsion, a clean stir bar was placed in a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. A volumetric pipette was used to add the appropriate amount of the aqueous solution to the flask (amount of solution added depends on oil fraction of phantom being created). For example, to create 100 ml of a 40% phantom, 60 ml of aqueous solution was added to the flask. The flask was placed on a hotplate set at 90 ℃and 1100 rpm. After 2 min of stirring, 40 ml of the oil solution was measured with a volumetric pipette and slowly added dropwise (around 1 drop per second for emulsions at a fat fraction of 35% or greater) to the aqueous solution in the flask. When streaks of oil were observed in the emulsion, no further oil was added until stirring had fully emulsified the separated oil. Once all the oil solution was added, the hotplate settings were adjusted to 300 ℃ and 1100 rpm and the emulsion was stirred for 5 min. The emulsion was white, with a creamy and smooth texture with no visible separated oil. The emulsion was then poured into glass vials to cool and set.
Layered Phantoms:
Layered phantoms were constructed using the protocol outlined above. To mimic a human leg on a single-sided sensor, the phantom required an adipose layer closer to the surface of the magnet and a muscle layer above. Adipose tissue phantoms were constructed, poured into a vial with depths ranging between 1 and 8 mm, at 1 mm increments, and set overnight in a refrigerator. The following day, muscle phantom was created and poured in a layer immediately on top of the adipose phantom, and re-set in a refrigerator. Melting, phase separation, or mixing of the two phantoms layers was not observed. Layered phantoms were created for varying levels of subcutaneous adipose layer thickness from 1 to 8 mm.
Signal Acquisitions:
A Kea2 spectrometer (Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) is used to acquire signal. Prospa software (Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) provides the setup and analysis interface. The internal spectrometer RF amplifier is connected via coaxial cable to the matching network.
T2: T2 relaxometry data acquisition was accomplished with a CPMG sequence with 8192 echoes, 12 µs pulse length, 65 µs echo time, and 16 acquisition points.
Diffusion: T2-weighted diffusion measurements were performed with serial CPMG sequences with varying echo times ranging from 65 µs – 1020 µs. Changes in echo time of the CPMG sequence alter the signal attenuation due to differences in sample diffusivity, allowing for assessment of sample diffusivity without the use of gradients.
Mapping
The magnetic field profile of each individual magnet frame, and the final constructed array were characterized with a hall probe (HMMY-6J04-VR, Lake Shore Cryotronics, Woburn, MA) and gaussmeter (Model 475 DSP Gaussmeter, Lake Shore Cryotronics, Woburn, MA). A 16 \(\times\) 16 \(\times\) 32 mm area in the center of the array containing the array sweet spot was scanned at 1 mm intervals (Figure S3).
CuSO4 Sensitivity Profile
Profiles for signal sensitivity vs. depth from the surface of the magnet were performed to determine the optimal frequency for signal acquisition. A PEEK holder was machined with a 1 mm \(\times\) 16 mm \(\times\) 32 mm pocket. The pocket was filled with 1MCuSO4, secured to a robotic arm, and positioned directly above the top of a surface RF coil placed on the center of the magnet array.
The sensitivity profile was performed by scanning the CuSO4 sample along a perpendicular line at distances of 6-14mm above the surface of the magnet in 1mm increments. This process was repeated using B1 frequencies from 8.32–8.42 MHz in 0.01 MHz intervals.
Each scan was acquired with a Kea2 spectrometer (Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) using a CPMG pulse sequence with 8192 echoes, 65 µs echo time, 12 µs pulse duration.
Ex vivo
Muscle (gastrocnemius and soleus) and adipose (axillary and inguinal) tissue was excised from rats by a veterinary technician immediately following euthanasia. Excised tissue was wrapped in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) soaked gauze, placed on ice, and transported for immediate MR characterization. Ex-vivo murine tissue MR characterization was performed on a different SSMR than the one described in this manuscript. The sensor used, described in Colucci et al, functions at a different operating frequency. The same pulse sequence and data fitting methods were used on the two instruments10.
Signal from 26 different CuSO4 Phantoms at concentrations between 0.001M and 0.2M were acquired on the two SSMR sensors to compare the T2 relaxation times between the two sensors. The relation between the T2 times on each magnet array, Fig. S5, was used to perform a direct comparison between ex-vivo data captured on the existing magnet array and the in-vivo data captured on the magnet array described in this manuscript. We expect the shorter T2 times on the existing sensor due to greater influence from the less homogeneous field and T2*. T2 relaxation times of tissue acquired on the sensor described in Colucci et al. were offset using the equation of \(y=1.861+0.7377x+0.006527{x}^{2} ({R}^{2}=0.9996)\) where \(x\) is the relaxation time on the sensor reported by Colucci et al10. and \(y\) is the relaxation time on the sensor reported in this study. This allows for a direct comparison to the signal acquired on the sensor described in this manuscript.
In vivo
Human subjects are asked to sit and place one leg on the MR sensor and the other leg next to the sensor. For each human subject, the matching network is tuned to minimize impedance at our working frequency, and baseline noise with the human subject is recorded. A CPMG pulse sequence, described previously, is used to acquire T2 decay signals. Individual scans of 16 averages take approximately one minute to complete; each individual scan is repeated 10 times, for a total data collection time of nearly 10 minutes for each subject. (MIT IRB protocol 2002000099)
Fitting & Analysis
T2 decay curves obtained from each scan are modeled as bi-exponential signals. The T2 times and relative amplitudes of the signal components are determined by fitting the data to a bi-exponential decay curve with the highest R-squared value and subsequently analyzed. Echo integrals are computed as the sum of the points sampled for each echo during CPMG when more than one point was collected for each echo. A general multicomponent exponential decay signal is represented as:
$$y\left(t,A,\tau \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}{A}_{i}{e}^{-t/{\tau }_{2,i}}$$
where \(y\left(t\right)\) is the estimated signal, \(N\)is the number of components, \(A\) is a vector of amplitudes and \(\tau\) is a vector of corresponding relaxation times.