A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: Dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age

Abstract

The longitudinal (T1) and transverse (T2) hydrogen (1H) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation times of normal human and animal tissue in the frequency range 1-100 MHz are compiled and reviewed as a function of tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, in vivo versus in vitro status, time after excision, and age. The dominant observed factors affecting T1 are tissue type and NMR frequency (V). All tissue frequency dispersions can be fitted to the simple expression T1 = AVB in the range 1-100 MHz, with A and B tissue-dependent constants. This equation provides as good or better fit to the data as previous more complex formulas. T2 is found to be multicomponent, essentially independent of NMR frequency, and dependent mainly on tissue type. Mean and raw values of T1 and T2 for each tissue are tabulated and/or plotted versus frequency and the fitting parameters A, B and the standard deviations determined to establish the normal range of relaxation times applicable to NMR imaging. The mechanisms for tissue NMR relaxation are reviewed with reference to the fast exchange two state (FETS) model of water in biological systems, and an overview of the dynamic state of water and macromolecular hydrogen compatible with the frequency, temperature, and multicomponent data is postulated. This suggests that 1H tissue T1 is determined predominantly by intermolecular (possibly rotational) interactions between macromolecules and a single bound hydration layer, and the T2 is governed mainly by exchange diffusion of water between the bound layer and a free water phase. Deficiencies in measurement techniques are identified as major sources of data irreproducibility.

MRI-based volumetry of head compartments: Normative values of healthy adults

“…Especially, the ratio of the T 1 relaxation times of gray and white matter is higher at 1.5 vs. 3.0 T (Bottomley et al, 1984). Histograms of T 1 -weighted MRI data differ significantly when acquired at 1.5 vs. 3.0 T. With our T 1 -weighted MDEFT protocol, we find a ratio GMV/WMV that is in the lower range of published data (here, females: 1.062, males: 1.025) but close to data from autopsy studies (1.10, Blinkov and Glezer, 1968).…”

MR imaging of endometrial carcinoma for preoperative staging at 3.0 T: Comparison with imaging at 1.5 T

“…We used the same TEs of 90 msec for 3.0 T and 1.5 T imaging because there is controversy as to whether T2 relaxation times differ between 3.0 T and 1.5 T (13). One study concluded that T2 relaxation time is independent of the main magnetic field strength (29). However, a recent study suggested that T2 relaxation times differ between 3.0 T and 1.5 T (30).…”

High-Resolution Black-Blood MRI of the Carotid Vessel Wall Using Phased-Array Coils at 1.5 and 3 Tesla1

“…The known field strength dependence of relaxation times suggests that the spin-lattice relaxation times (T 1 ) for water in various tissues as well as blood increase and converge at higher fields [17][18][19]. Further, the induced inhomogeneous field caused by local susceptibility differences increases linearly with field strength and hence the spin-spin relaxation times (T 2 ) shorten (the likely mechanism being diffusion in local field gradients [20]).…”