Worker Safety in High-Field NMR Spectroscopy Laboratories: Challenges and Risk Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper cover the effects of the induced electric fields from moving through the fringing magnetic fields of an NMR magnetic. It does not cover the direct effects of the magnetic fields on chemical reaction rates in the human body, particularly for long term exposures. There are significant number of papers showing the effects long term .exposures to both static and low frequency magnetic fields that may well effect the health of those working around NMR machines. Radical pair theory is a likely explanation. The authors are correct that these effects are not included in the current safety standards. However, this reviewer believes that there are possible health effects for long term exposures that have not yet been incorporated in to the safety standards and that they might include such things as increases in head aches, sleep problems, cold feet and other relatively mild problems. Relatively few sentences in the discussion section or introduction could let the reader know that these direct effects of weak magnetic fields have been reliably reported but are not sufficiently understood to be included in the safety standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below along with the track changes incorporated into the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 1

This paper cover the effects of the induced electric fields from moving through the fringing magnetic fields of an NMR magnetic. It does not cover the direct effects of the magnetic fields on chemical reaction rates in the human body, particularly for long term exposures. There are significant number of papers showing the effects long term .exposures to both static and low frequency magnetic fields that may well effect the health of those working around NMR machines. Radical pair theory is a likely explanation. The authors are correct that these effects are not included in the current safety standards. However, this reviewer believes that there are possible health effects for long term exposures that have not yet been incorporated in to the safety standards and that they might include such things as increases in head aches, sleep problems, cold feet and other relatively mild problems. Relatively few sentences in the discussion section or introduction could let the reader know that these direct effects of weak magnetic fields have been reliably reported but are not sufficiently understood to be included in the safety standards.  

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for highlighting this matter. New sentences have been added in the introduction and conclusions to address the effect of exposure to magnetic fields, with particular reference to the direct effects of weak magnetic fields long-term exposure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have some comment on your manuscript:

1. Please provide more extended motivation and novelty of the current study to the Introduction and Conclusions sections. In its current state, I do not see enough actuality of the manuscript comparing to the previous studies.
2. Figures 1 and 2 do not provide any essential information for the scientific journal and, in my opinion, can be omitted.
3. The Authors declare no exposure to the RF field during the operation of the NMR. Nevertheless, I suppose this issue has to be considered in more detail. See, for example, 
   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28472522/
   or
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1064968921004815
4. The Conclusions section has to be introduced separately to the Discussion section.
5. In my opinion, Figure 5 is not necessary, at least, after the Conclusions, since the Environments is the scientific journal, but not, for example, an educational.
6. The references list contains too few newer papers and books (after 2022). Please add some if possible.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below along with the track changes incorporated into the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

I have some comment on your manuscript:

1. Please provide more extended motivation and novelty of the current study to the Introduction and Conclusions sections. In its current state, I do not see enough actuality of the manuscript comparing to the previous studies. 

A sentence was incorporated into the Introduction to elucidate the motivation behind the study, whilst a sentence was added to the Conclusions to detail the objective and the novelty of the work.

2. Figures 1 and 2 do not provide any essential information for the scientific journal and, in my opinion, can be omitted. 

We removed Figures 1 and 2.

3. The Authors declare no exposure to the RF field during the operation of the NMR. Nevertheless, I suppose this issue has to be considered in more detail. See, for example, 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28472522/  or
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1064968921004815 

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for this contribution. In response, a sentence has been included in section 2.2. This addition was made to provide a more thorough explanation of the potential hazards and specific critical points, with the aim of emphasising that the electromagnetic RF radiation generated by the NMR remained confined within the devices. In addition, we have incorporated the first reference that was proposed.

4. The Conclusions section has to be introduced separately to the Discussion section. 

We reported the Conclusions in a separate section.

5. In my opinion, Figure 5 is not necessary, at least, after the Conclusions, since the Environments is the scientific journal, but not, for example, an educational. 

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Nevertheless, Figure 5 (Figure 3 in the revised manuscript) provides a clear representation of the key points expressed in the article, thus functioning as a guideline for conducting a proper risk assessment procedure. The figure has been relocated to the Discussion section.

6. The references list contains too few newer papers and books (after 2022). Please add some if possible. 

The references have been updated to better reflect recent literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to highlight the critical issues in managing a preclinical MR laboratory equipped with a high-field NMR spectrometer. The discussion includes operator safety challenges and risk assessment data. The paper is interesting and could be published subject to several revisions as indicated below:
1. “2.1. High-Field NMR Spectroscopy Laboratory”
The discussion part and Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 refer to a classical FT NMR instrument (7T). The majority of new version ultra-high field instruments (above 500 MHz) are ultra-shielded, therefore, a comment should be provided about differences in terms of potential hazards and specific critical points. 
3. In the case of solid-state NMR instrumentation ultra-high field pulses and decoupling power is used. A general comment should be made. 
4. The Conclusion should be presented in a separate Section. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below along with the track changes incorporated into the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to highlight the critical issues in managing a preclinical MR laboratory equipped with a high-field NMR spectrometer. The discussion includes operator safety challenges and risk assessment data. The paper is interesting and could be published subject to several revisions as indicated below:

1. 
   “2.1. High-Field NMR Spectroscopy Laboratory”
   The discussion part and Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 refer to a classical FT NMR instrument (7T). The majority of new version ultra-high field instruments (above 500 MHz) are ultra-shielded, therefore, a comment should be provided about differences in terms of potential hazards and specific critical points. 

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for highlighting this matter. In response, a paragraph has been appended to the Discussion section, elucidating the intricacies of ultra-shielded new generation NMR and their differential characteristics with respect to potential hazards and critical points. In addition, we have removed Figures 1 and 2, as suggested by another reviewer.

3. 
   In the case of solid-state NMR instrumentation ultra-high field pulses and decoupling power is used. A general comment should be made. 

We added a brief comment regarding the solid-state NMR instrumentation in the section 2.1. High-Field NMR Spectroscopy Laboratory

4. 
   The Conclusion should be presented in a separate Section. 

We reported the Conclusions in a separate section.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully incorporated the majority of the requested additions and corrections, therefore, publication is recommended.