1. No category

Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 (2013) 778–782
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
journal homepage: www.mrijournal.com
Evaluation of MRI artifacts at 3 Tesla for 38 commonly used cosmetics
Kirin Escher a, Frank G. Shellock b,⁎
a
b
Biology Department, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA
University of Southern California, Los Angeles and Institute for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Education, and Research, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 July 2012
Accepted 4 November 2012
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging
MRI artifacts
MRI screening
a b s t r a c t
Purpose: To evaluate MRI artifacts at 3-Tesla for 38 commonly used cosmetics.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-eight cosmetics (16, nail polishes; 5, eyeliners; 3, mascaras; 10, eye shadows;
1, lip gloss; 1, body lotion; 1, body glitter, and 1, hair loss concealer) underwent evaluation for MRI artifacts
at 3-Tesla. The cosmetics were applied a copper-sulfate-filled, phantom and initially assessed using a
“screening” gradient echo (GRE) pulse sequence. Of the 38 different cosmetics, 14 (37%) exhibited artifacts.
For these 14 cosmetics, additional characterization of artifacts was performed using a GRE pulse sequence.
A qualitative scale was applied to characterize the artifact size.
Results: Artifacts were observed, as follows: 2, nail polishes; 5, eyeliners; 3, mascaras; 3, eye shadows; 1,
hair loss concealer. Artifact size ranged from small (eye shadow) to very large (hair loss concealer) and
tended to be associated with the presence of iron oxide or other metal-based ingredient.
Conclusions: Commonly used cosmetics caused artifacts that may create issues if the area of interest is the
same as where the cosmetic was applied or if its presence was unknown, thus, potentially causing it to
be construed as pathology. Therefore, these findings have important implications for patients referred for
MRI examinations.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
Cosmetics, including eye makeup, nail polishes, body lotions,
hair loss concealers and others, are frequently used to improve or
enhance the appearance of the human body, without altering or
affecting the body's structure or function [1]. Several reports have
indicated that certain cosmetics, especially those containing iron
oxide or “heavy metal particles”, can produce unwanted artifacts
on magnetic resonance (MR) images [2–5]. Unfortunately, this
information has been limited to eye makeup (e.g., mascara, eye
shadow, and eye liner) and restricted to MR systems operating at
1.5 Tesla or less. Many other types of cosmetics may contain
ingredients that cause artifacts on MR images and it is well known
that artifacts are inherently larger in association with 3-Tesla MR
systems [6–10]. Artifacts may create issues if the area of interest is
the same as where the cosmetic was applied or if its presence was
unknown to the interpreting radiologist, thus, potentially causing it
to be construed as pathology [6,7]. Therefore, the purpose of this
investigation was to evaluate MRI artifacts at 3 Tesla for a variety of
commonly used cosmetics.
2.1. Cosmetics samples
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 310 670 7095.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F.G. Shellock).
0730-725X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.11.002
Thirty-eight commonly used cosmetics were selected for
evaluation in this study. Table 1 summarizes the information
(cosmetic type, name, brand, etc.) for the cosmetics that underwent assessment for artifacts, which included: 16, nail polishes; 5,
eyeliners; 3, mascaras; 10, eye shadows; and 4, miscellaneous
items (lip gloss, body lotion, body glitter, and hair loss concealer).
An effort was made to select those readily available items that
appeared to have metal-related components or “glitter” (22/38,
58%; Table 1). For example, of the sixteen nail polishes that
underwent testing, 13 (81%) contained glitter. For the 10 eye
shadows, 7 (70%) contained glitter. Both the body lotion and body
glitter contained glitter.
2.2. Sample preparation
Since each cosmetic that underwent testing is used on the surface
of the body, this evaluation of artifacts involved applying a sample of
each item to the surface of a copper-sulfate-filled phantom. Each nail
polish was applied twice to a 2.54-cm × 2.54-cm removable adhesive
square (Scotch Wallsaver Removable Mounting Square; 3M, St. Paul,
K. Escher, F.G. Shellock / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 (2013) 778–782
779
Table 1
Thirty-eight commonly used cosmetics that underwent evaluation for artifacts at 3 Tesla.
No. Cosmetic type
Name
Nail Polish
1
Nail Polish
Revlon Color Stay
2
3
4
5
6
Brand, company
Revlon
New York, NY
Revlon.com
Nail Polish
Revlon Color Stay
Revlon
New York, NY
Revlon.com
Nail Polish (glitter) Revlon Color Stay
Revlon
(Revlon, Revlon.com)
New York, NY
Revlon.com
Nail Polish (glitter) Revlon Top Speed
Revlon
New York, NY
Revlon.com
Nail Polish
Shatter by OPI
O.P.I. Products, Inc.
North Hollywood, CA
Nail Polish (glitter) Confetti: Long Wearing Confetti
Nail Color
MBA Beauty Inc. Stuart, FL
7
Nail Polish (glitter) Milani: Jewel FX
Milani Cosmetics, USA
8
Nail Polish (glitter) O.P.I Nail Lacquer
9
Nail Polish (glitter) Layla Magneffect
O.P.I Products Inc. North
Hollywood, CA
Layla Cosmetics Milano, Italy
10
Nail Polish (glitter) O.P.I Nail Lacquer
OPI Products, Inc.
O.P.I Products Inc.
North Hollywood, CA
11
Nail Polish (glitter) Confetti: Long Wearing Confetti
Nail Color
MBA Beauty Inc. Stuart, FL
12
Nail Polish (glitter) Layla Mageneffect
Layla Cosmetics Milano, Italy
13
Nail Polish (glitter) Revlon
14
Nail Polish (glitter) SensatioNAIL Gel Nail
Polish
15
Nail Polish (glitter) SensatioNAIL Gel Nail
Polish
16
Nail Polish (glitter) Sally Hansen: GEM
Crush
Revlon
New York, NY
Revlon.com
Nailene
Pacific World Corp. Lake
Forest, CA
Nailene
Pacific World Corp. Lake
Forest, CA
Sally Hansen
Coty US LLC New York, NY
Eye Liner
1
Eyeliner- pencil
2
Eyeliner- crayon
3
Eyeliner- crayon
4
Eyeliner- pencil
5
Eyeliner- liquid
Mascara
1
Mascara
2
Mascara
Line Express Eyeliner
Maybelline LLC New York, NY
Perfect Point Plus eye
pencil
Covergirl
Proctor and Gamble Hunt
Valley, MD
Extra-Intense liquid
L'Oreal Paris
pencil eyeliner
L'Oreal USA Inc. New York, NY
Brow and Eyemakers
Covergirl
Proctor and Gamble Hunt
Valley, MD
Ultra Liner, Liquid Liner Maybelline LLC New York, NY
(waterproof)
Color
Artifact results
Coastal Surf
(170)
Aluminum calcium sodium silicate, Calcium
Aluminum. ⁎May contain: iron oxide,
titanium dioxide, ferric ferrocyanide
Fall Mood (140)
Aluminum calcium sodium silicate, Calcium
Aluminum. ⁎May contain: iron oxide,
titanium dioxide, ferric ferrocyanide
Amethyst (240)
Aluminum calcium sodium silicate, Calcium
Aluminum. ⁎May contain: iron oxide,
titanium dioxide, ferric ferrocyanide
Glitz and Glam
Ethyl Acetate, Butyl Acetate, Silica,
(530)
Dimethicone, and others. ⁎May contain:
Mica, Titanium Dioxide, Iron Oxides
Red Shatter
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride copolymer,
silica
Tahitian Turquoise
Ethyl Tosylamide. ⁎May contain: tin oxide,
(065)
titanium oxide, black iron oxide, red iron
oxide, red #34 Calcium Lake, aluminum
powder, yellow #5 Aluminum Lake
Lavender (581)
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride copolymer,
silica. ⁎May contain: ferric ferrocyanide,
iron oxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum
powder
Lemonade Stand By Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride copolymer,
Your Man (NL D22)
silica
Blue Grey Flow (03) Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride. ⁎May contain:
iron powder, paraffinum liquidum, iron
oxides, titanium dioxide
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride copolymer,
Rainbow
silica, triphenyl phosphate
Connection (HL
C09)
Ice Ice Baby (005)
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride copolymer,
triphenyl phosphate. ⁎May contain: tin
oxide, titanium oxide, black iron oxide,
red iron oxide, red #34 Calcium Lake,
aluminum powder, yellow #5
Aluminum Lake
Silver Galaxy
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride. ⁎May contain:
[11]
iron powder, paraffinum liquidum, iron
oxides, titanium dioxide
Radiant (441)
Aluminum calcium sodium silicate.
⁎May contain: iron oxide, titanium
dioxide, ferric ferrocyanide
Espresso Bean
Trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine
(71595)
oxide, carbon black, dimethacrylate
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Moderate
None
None
Large
None
None
Purple Orchid
(71597)
Trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine
oxide, carbon black, dimethacrylate
None
Cha-Ching (02)
Glycol/Trimellitic anhydride, triphenyl
phosphate
None
Ebony Black (901)
Methyl methacrylate crosspolymer, silica.
⁎May contain: iron oxides, titanium
dioxide, ferric ammonium ferrocyanide
Iron oxides. ⁎May contain: titanium
dioxide, chromium hydroxide and oxide,
ferric ferrocyanide
⁎May contain: iron oxides
Large
Black Onyx (200)
Carbon Black (799)
Midnight black
(500)
Black (301)
XXL Pro by EyeSTUDIO: Maybelline LLC New York, NY
24 Hour Bold Intensite
Very Black (581)
The Colossal Volum’
Express
Glam Black (240)
Maybelline LLC New York, NY
Ingredients
Large
Large
Moderate
Silica, iron oxides. ⁎May contain titanium
dioxide, ferric ammonium ferrocyanide,
chromium oxide greens
May contain: iron oxides, titanium dioxides, Moderate
chromium oxide greens, chromium oxide
Silica. ⁎May contain: iron oxides, titanium
dioxides, chromium oxide, ferric
ferrocyanide
Silica. ⁎May contain: iron oxides, titanium
dioxides, chromium oxide, ferric
ferrocyanide
Large
Large
(continued on next page)
780
K. Escher, F.G. Shellock / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 (2013) 778–782
Table 1 (continued)
No. Cosmetic type
Name
Brand, company
Ingredients
Artifact results
3
Organic Wear Jumbo
Lash Mascara
Organic Wear
Black Organics
Physician's Formula Inc. Azusa, CA
(7353)
Iron oxide, magnesium aluminum
silicate
Moderate
NYX Glitter Cream
Pallet
NYX
Los Angeles, Inc. Los Angeles, CA
Sweet Chocolate
Browns (09)
None
Mascara
Eye Shadow
1
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
Color
2
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
NYX Glitter Cream
Pallet
NYX
Los Angeles, Inc. Los Angeles, CA
Royal Violets (07)
3
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
NYX Glitter Cream
Pallet
NYX
Los Angeles, Inc. Los Angeles, CA
Fresh Greens (08)
4
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
e.l.f.: eye lips face.
Glitter eye
e.l.f. Cosmetics Dist. By JA
Cosmetics New York, NY
Multiple
5
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
Expert Wear:
Maybelline NY
Maybelline
New York, NY
Charcoal Smokes
(04Q)
6
Eye Shadow
(glitter)
EyeSTUDIO Maybelline Maybelline LLC New York, NY
New York
Blue Blowout (20)
7
Eye
Shadow(glitter)
Revlon Perle
Revlon
New York, NY
Black Galaxy (045)
8
Eye Shadow- eye
Medusa's Make-up
dust
Eye Shadow- eye
Medusa's Make-up
dust
Eye Shadow- liquid Milani: Crystal Eyez.
Sparkling Eye Shadow
Medusa's Make Up
Chicago, IL
Medusa's Make Up
Chicago, IL
Milani Dist.Los Angeles, CA
Penny Wise
Acrylic copolymer, aluminum,
amorphous silica. ⁎May contain: iron
oxide yellow, iron oxide red,
ferric ammonium ferrocyanide,
manganese violet, titanium dioxide,
chrome oxide green, iron oxide black
Acrylic copolymer, aluminum,
amorphous silica. ⁎May contain: iron
oxide yellow, iron oxide red,
ferric ammonium ferrocyanide,
manganese violet, titanium dioxide,
chrome oxide green, iron oxide black
Acrylic copolymer, aluminum,
amorphous silica. ⁎May contain: iron
oxide yellow, iron oxide red,
ferric ammonium ferrocyanide,
manganese violet, titanium dioxide,
chrome oxide green, iron oxide black
Talc, zinc stearate, kaolin, paraffinium
liquidum. ⁎May contain: iron oxides,
manganese violet, titanium oxide
Magnesium stearate, calcium sodium
borosilicate, calcium aluminum
borosilicate, tin oxide. ⁎May contain:
titanium oxide, iron oxides, manganese
violet, chromium hydroxide green,
aluminum powder, bronze powder,
ferric ammonium ferrocyanide
Magnesium stearate, calcium aluminum
borosilicate, paraffinum liquidum,
aluminum hydroxide, tin oxide.
⁎May contain: iron dioxides, titanium
dioxides, manganese violet,
chromium oxide green, aluminum
powder, copper powder, bronze powder
Boron nitride, ploymethyl methacrylate,
zinc stearate, silica. ⁎May contain:
titanium dioxide, chromium oxide
green, manganese violet
Titanium dioxide
Silverado
Titanium dioxide
Small
Beautifully Brilliant
(02)
⁎May contain: titanium dioxide, iron
oxides, chromium oxides green,
chromium hydroxides green,
aluminum powder, ferric ferrocyanide
None
Maybelline LLCNew York, NY
Cocoa Fever (50)
Unknown
None
Pure and Basics Products
Carson, CA
Zinc Color
(Unknown city and state)
TC Plus
Liminova Inc.
Rancho Santa Fe, CA
Opalescent Glitter
Titanium Dioxide
None
3D Silver
Unknown
None
Black
Copolymer, iron dioxides, silica
Large
9
10
Miscellaneous
1
Lip Gloss
2
3
4
ShineSensational: Lip
gloss/Brilliant
Body Lotion
Pure and Basic: Glitter(glitter)
Up Body Lotion
Body Glitter
Zinc Color Multi
(glitter)
Purpose Glitter
Hair Loss Concealer Top Coverage Plus Bald
Spot Eraser
None
None
None
None
None
Large
Small
⁎ Cosmetic ingredient information that states “May contain…” does not provide information regarding the specific ingredients that are listed.
MN) and attached to the surface of the phantom for the assessment
of artifacts. The mascara, eye liner, eye shadow, lip gloss, body lotion,
and body glitter were applied to a 2.54-cm × 2.54-cm square area of
paper tape (Micropore Tape; 3M, St. Paul, MN) and attached to the
surface of the same copper sulfate-filled phantom, as indicated
above. The hair loss concealer was sprayed on a 5-cm × 5-cm piece
of white printing paper and allowed to dry for 4 hours. This paper
was then attached to the surface of a copper-sulfate-filled phantom
for the assessment of artifacts.
2.3. Determination of artifacts
In order to efficiently determine which of the 38 cosmetic
samples created an artifact at 3-Tesla, the cosmetics were initially
assessed using a “screening” gradient echo pulse sequence. The
following parameters were used, based on previous publications
and the artifact document issued by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) International [8–11]: gradient echo
(GRE) pulse sequence; repetition time, 100-msec; echo time, 15-
K. Escher, F.G. Shellock / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 (2013) 778–782
msec; flip angle 30 o; matrix size, 256 × 256; section thickness, 10
mm; field of view, number of excitations, 2; bandwidth, 16 kHz.
The GRE pulse sequence was selected for this project because it
tends to have a great degree of artifact associated with it when MRI
is performed on a metallic object and, thus, it represents an
extreme MR imaging condition [8–11]. Section locations were
obtained through each cosmetic that were selected from multiple
“scout” MR images to identify possible artifacts as they were
presented in the largest or worst case situation.
For the cosmetics that showed artifacts, MRI was repeated using
the same pulse sequence as before (GRE; repetition time, 100 msec;
echo time, 15 msec; flip angle 30 o; matrix size, 256 × 256; section
thickness, 10-mm; number of excitations, 2; bandwidth, 16 kHz)
with the addition of selecting section locations through each cosmetic from multiple “scout” MR images to show the largest or
worst-case artifact size. The imaging planes were oriented to
encompass the long axis and short axis of each sample. The
frequency encoding direction was parallel to the plane of imaging.
The transmit/receive body RF coil (30-cm field of view) was utilized
for these MRI artifact assessments, with the exception of the hair
loss concealer, which used the transmit/receive head RF coil (26-cm
field of view). The transmit/receive head coil was used for the hair
loss concealer in order to simulate the conditions used if a patient
with this cosmetic was undergoing an MRI examination of the brain.
The image display parameters (i.e., window and level settings,
magnification, etc.) were carefully selected and used in a consistent
manner to provide valid representations of the artifact sizes [8–10].
While it is acknowledged that there are many possible MRI
parameters that may be used to evaluate artifacts, this particular methodology has been utilized in many previous reports involving the characterization of artifacts for implants, devices, and
materials [7–10].
A qualitative scale was applied to characterize the size of the
artifact associated with each cosmetic using a careful visual inspection by the investigator, as follows: (a) None, no artifact; (b) Small,
the artifact area was smaller than or the same size and shape of the
sample; (c) Moderate, the artifact area was 25 to 75% larger than
the size and shape of the sample; (d) Large, the artifact area was 76
to 100% larger than the size and shape of the sample; and (e) Very
Large, the artifact area was greater than 101% of the size and shape
of the sample.
3. Results
Table 1 summarizes the artifact findings for the cosmetics.
Artifacts were observed as areas of signal loss for 14 of the 38
Fig. 1. Artifacts associated with nail polishes (numbers correspond to the information
in Table 1), #9 (right) artifact size, moderate and #12 (left) artifact size, large.
781
Fig. 2. Artifacts associated with eyeliners (numbers correspond to the information in
Table 1)(bottom row, left to right): #5, artifact size, moderate; #4 artifact size,
moderate; #3, artifact size, large; #2, artifact size, large; and #1 artifact size, large.
Artifacts associated with mascaras (top row, left to right): #3, artifact size, moderate;
#2, artifact size, large; and #1, artifact size large.
cosmetics, as follows: 2, nail polishes (one with glitter); 5, eyeliners;
3, mascaras; 3, eye shadows (three with glitter); and 1, hair loss
concealer. Artifacts tended to be associated with the presence of iron
oxide or other metal-based ingredient. The artifact size ranged from
small (two eye shadows) to very large (baldness concealer). Figs. 1
and 2 show examples of MR images of the artifacts for the nail
polishes, eyeliners, and mascaras. Fig. 3 displays the MR image of the
artifact for the hair loss concealer, which exhibited the greatest
artifact size (i.e., very large) for the cosmetics that underwent
testing.
4. Discussion
Thirty-eight commonly used cosmetics were selected for evaluation in this study. An effort was made to select specific items that
appeared to have metal-related components or “glitter”. Although, it
should be noted that, glitter may be made from either small pieces of
metallic or nonmetallic materials including aluminum foil, iron
oxides, bismuth oxychloride, copolymer plastics, and other types of
materials. Interestingly, of the 22 cosmetics that contained glitter,
Fig. 3. Artifact associated with hair loss concealer: artifact size, very large. Note the
substantial signal loss that exists below the surface of the copper-sulfate-filled phantom.
782
K. Escher, F.G. Shellock / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 (2013) 778–782
only three (two nail polishes and one eye shadow) exhibited artifacts
on MRI.
Unfortunately, the information presented in the labeling of the
cosmetics with regard to the ingredients was somewhat problematic
insofar as there was often a statement that the particular makeup
“May contain….” certain compounds (e.g., iron oxide, iron dioxide,
titanium oxide, etc.) that may have been responsible for the artifacts
seen on MRI (Table 1). While every one of the cosmetics that showed
artifacts had a metal-related ingredient listed, we were unable to
obtain more accurate ingredient information that would have
otherwise permitted a prediction with regard to which cosmetic
was likely to cause artifacts.
4.1. Nail polishes
To our knowledge, this is the first description of MRI artifacts
found in association with nail polishes. Two out of 16 (12%) nail
polishes demonstrated artifacts that were moderate and large,
respectively. (Note: The nail polish that showed the large artifact
(Layla Magneffect) was designed to react to the magnet on the cap,
creating “three-dimensional designs in seconds”.) This information
is interesting because 13 of these were “glitter” nail polishes or
appeared to have a metallic appearance. Because the associated
artifact may disrupt the diagnostic use of MRI if the area of interest
is where the nail polish was applied (e.g., nail polish applied to toes
and an MRI is needed to evaluate the neuropathic foot in diabetes
mellitus), it would be prudent to thoroughly remove this cosmetic
prior to conducting the MRI examination.
doubtedly be unwilling to divulge the use of this product and surely
not aware of the artifact issue. Accordingly, if an MRI technologist
or radiologist observes a large signal void in a patient without a
neurological metallic implant undergoing MRI of the brain, the
possibility of hair loss concealer as being responsible for the artifact
should be considered.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
MRI testing performed on 38 commonly used cosmetics indicated
that artifacts can be associated with certain types of makeup
including nail polishes, eyeliners, mascaras, eye shadows, and even
hair loss concealer. The extent of the artifact may impact the
diagnostic use of MRI if the area of interest is the same as where the
cosmetic was applied or if its presence was unknown to the
interpreting radiologist, thus, potentially causing it to be construed
as pathology. Therefore, as part of the pre-MRI screening procedure,
consideration should be given to patient management with regard to
this information and a procedure should be in place to prevent issues
related to cosmetics. This may include advising patients before they
arrive for MRI exams to thoroughly remove all cosmetics.
Alternatively, it may be necessary to have makeup removal items
available at the MRI facility to take off different types of cosmetics
(e.g., nail polish remover). In the case of hair loss concealer, it is
necessary for the patient to wash the area with shampoo in order
to remove this product. Metal-based cosmetics may theoretically
cause issues for patients due to the potential for MRI-related
heating, however, that possible problem was not investigated
during our study.
4.2. Eyeliners, mascaras, and eye shadows
In the present investigation, each eyeliner (5/5), each mascara
(3/3), and three of the 10 eye shadows created artifacts at 3 Tesla.
The sizes of the artifacts ranged from small to large, which may
impact MRI of the orbital area but are unlikely to interfere with
routine head examinations because signal losses were localized to
the respective cosmetic's application area. In previous studies,
various types of eye makeup were reported to pose issues related
to artifacts on MRI [2–5]. In some cases, as indicated by Weiss et al.
[3], artifacts caused by eye makeup may mimic ocular disease such
as ciliary body melanoma or cyst. Accordingly, a patient undergoing
assessment of ocular or orbital regions should remove all forms of
eye makeup (eyeliner, mascara, and eye shadow) to prevent impairing the diagnostic use of MRI [2–5,12].
4.3. Miscellaneous cosmetics
For the miscellaneous cosmetics, only the hair loss concealer
produced an artifact, which was scored as “very large” in relation to the
size of the sample that was evaluated (Fig. 3). This unexpectedly
substantial artifact (probably related to the ingredients, “iron dioxides”) could compromise an MRI procedure involving the brain
due to the “depth” of the associated signal loss. While it would
be beneficial to identify a patient using this hair loss concealer
before performing MRI of the brain, such a patient would un-
References
[1] Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Women's Health. http://
www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/cosmeticsyour-health.cfm#c.
[2] Smith FW, Crosher GA. Mascara–an unsuspected cause of magnetic resonance
imaging artifact. Magn Reson Imaging 1985;3:287-9.
[3] Weiss RA, Saint-Louis LA, Haik BG, McCord CD, Taveras JL. Mascara and eyelining tattoos: MRI artifacts. Ann Ophthalmol 1989;21:129-31.
[4] Wright RM, Swietek PA, Simmons ML. Eye artifacts from mascara in MRI. AJNR
Am J Neuroradiol 1985;6:652.
[5] Sacco D, Steiger DA, Bellon EM, Coleman PE, Haacke EM. Artifacts caused by
cosmetics in MR imaging of the head. Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:1001-4.
[6] Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Kock KM, Gold GE. Metalinduced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:547-55.
[7] Shellock FG. Reference Manual for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Implants, and
Devices: 2012 Edition. Los Angeles: Biomedical Research Publishing Group;
2012.
[8] Shellock FG, Bedwinek A, Oliver-Allen M, Wilson SF. Assessment of MRI issues for
a 3-Tesla “immune” programmable CSF shunt valve. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
2011;197:202-7.
[9] Weiland JD, Faraji B, Greenberg RJ, Humayun MS, Shellock FG. Assessment of
MRI issues for the Argus II retinal prosthesis. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:
382-9.
[10] Shellock FG, Valencerina S. In vitro evaluation of MR imaging issues at 3-T for
aneurysm clips made from MP35N: findings and information applied to 155
additional aneurysm clips. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:615-9.
[11] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Designation:
F2119-07, Standard Test Method for Evaluation of MR Image Artifacts from
Passive Implants. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2007.
[12] Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices:
2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1447-74.