Ecodesign and Operational Strategies to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of MRI for Energy Cost Savings
Background Radiology is a major contributor to health care's climate footprint due to energy-intensive devices, particularly MRI, which uses the most energy. Purpose To determine the energy, cost, and carbon savings that could be achieved through different scanner power management strategies. Materials and Methods In this retrospective evaluation, four outpatient MRI scanners from three vendors were individually equipped with power meters (1-Hz sampling rate). Power measurement logs were extracted for 39 days. Data were segmented into off, idle, prepared-to-scan, scan, or power-save modes for each scanner. Energy, cost (assuming a mean cost of $0.14 per kilowatt hour), and carbon savings were calculated for the lowest scanner activity modes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and 95% CIs. Results Projected annual energy consumption per scanner ranged from 82.7 to 171.1 MW-hours, with 72%-91% defined as nonproductive. Power draws for each mode were measured as 6.4 kW ± 0.1 (SD; power-save mode), 7.3 kW ± 0.6 to 9.7 kW ± 0.2 (off), 9.5 kW ± 0.9 to 14.5 kW ± 0.5 (idle), 17.3 kW ± 0.5 to 25.6 kW ± 0.6 (prepared-to-scan mode), and 28.6 kW ± 8.6 to 48.3 kW ± 11.8 (scan mode). Switching MRI units from idle to off mode for 12 hours overnight reduced power consumption by 25%-33%, translating to a potential annual savings of 12.3-21.0 MW-hours, $1717-$2943, and 8.7-14.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MTCO2eq). The power-save mode further reduced consumption by 22%-28% compared with off mode, potentially saving an additional 8.8-11.4 MW-hours, $1226-$1594, and 6.2-8.1 MTCO2eq per year for 12 hours overnight. Implementation of a power-save mode for 12 hours overnight in all outpatient MRI units in the United States could save U.S. health care 58 863.2-76 288.2 MW-hours, $8.2-$10.7 million, and 41 606.4-54 088.3 MTCO2eq. Conclusion Powering down MRI units made radiology departments more energy efficient and showed substantial sustainability and cost benefits. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the article by Vosshenrich and Heye in this issue.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 May;307(4):e230874. - PMID 37097136 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:307 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Radiology - 307(2023), 4 vom: 25. Mai, Seite e230441 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Woolen, Sean A [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 24.05.2023 Date Revised 25.07.2023 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 May;307(4):e230874. - PMID 37097136 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1148/radiol.230441 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM356007960 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM356007960 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226065540.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1148/radiol.230441 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1186.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM356007960 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37097133 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Woolen, Sean A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Ecodesign and Operational Strategies to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of MRI for Energy Cost Savings |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 24.05.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.07.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 May;307(4):e230874. - PMID 37097136 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Background Radiology is a major contributor to health care's climate footprint due to energy-intensive devices, particularly MRI, which uses the most energy. Purpose To determine the energy, cost, and carbon savings that could be achieved through different scanner power management strategies. Materials and Methods In this retrospective evaluation, four outpatient MRI scanners from three vendors were individually equipped with power meters (1-Hz sampling rate). Power measurement logs were extracted for 39 days. Data were segmented into off, idle, prepared-to-scan, scan, or power-save modes for each scanner. Energy, cost (assuming a mean cost of $0.14 per kilowatt hour), and carbon savings were calculated for the lowest scanner activity modes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and 95% CIs. Results Projected annual energy consumption per scanner ranged from 82.7 to 171.1 MW-hours, with 72%-91% defined as nonproductive. Power draws for each mode were measured as 6.4 kW ± 0.1 (SD; power-save mode), 7.3 kW ± 0.6 to 9.7 kW ± 0.2 (off), 9.5 kW ± 0.9 to 14.5 kW ± 0.5 (idle), 17.3 kW ± 0.5 to 25.6 kW ± 0.6 (prepared-to-scan mode), and 28.6 kW ± 8.6 to 48.3 kW ± 11.8 (scan mode). Switching MRI units from idle to off mode for 12 hours overnight reduced power consumption by 25%-33%, translating to a potential annual savings of 12.3-21.0 MW-hours, $1717-$2943, and 8.7-14.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MTCO2eq). The power-save mode further reduced consumption by 22%-28% compared with off mode, potentially saving an additional 8.8-11.4 MW-hours, $1226-$1594, and 6.2-8.1 MTCO2eq per year for 12 hours overnight. Implementation of a power-save mode for 12 hours overnight in all outpatient MRI units in the United States could save U.S. health care 58 863.2-76 288.2 MW-hours, $8.2-$10.7 million, and 41 606.4-54 088.3 MTCO2eq. Conclusion Powering down MRI units made radiology departments more energy efficient and showed substantial sustainability and cost benefits. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the article by Vosshenrich and Heye in this issue | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Becker, Amy E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martin, Alastair J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Knoerl, Roland |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lam, Vincent |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Folsom, Jerry |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Eusemann, Christian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hess, Christopher P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Deshpande, Vibhas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Radiology |d 1945 |g 307(2023), 4 vom: 25. Mai, Seite e230441 |w (DE-627)NLM000054860 |x 1527-1315 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:307 |g year:2023 |g number:4 |g day:25 |g month:05 |g pages:e230441 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230441 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 307 |j 2023 |e 4 |b 25 |c 05 |h e230441 | ||