Investigating the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and

International Journal of Environmental Studies · 2024 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 110

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational Journal of Environmental Studies · 2024

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Investigating the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: analysis from a systematic map Brzozek C, Mate R, Bhatt CR, Loughran S, Wood AW, Karipidis K. (2024). Investigating the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: analysis from a systematic map. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/00207233.2024.2375861. Abstract Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) from anthropogenic sources have become ubiquitous in the environment. International guidelines have been set by expert scientific bodies to protect human health from excessive exposure. There are no specifically established exposure guidelines to protect plants and animals. A previous systematic map identified 334 studies investigating the effects of RF EMF exposure from anthropogenic sources on animals and plants. This study aimed to analyse the effect of RF EMF and its relationship to different exposure parameters and the quality of those studies. Statistically significant inverse relationships were found between effect size and exposure-level parameters for studies investigating effects in animals. The results indicated that quality score is more indicative of the magnitude of the effect size than exposure-level parameters or exposure duration. This highlights the need for further, high-quality research on the effects of RF EMF exposure on plants and animals. Quality score A risk of bias assessment for each study was not conducted as this is more appropriate for a systematic review rather than a systematic map [Citation22]. Instead an assessment of the quality of the studies included in the systematic map was conducted with separate methods used for assessing experimental and observational studies. This was considered important to describe the distribution of quality of evidence across the research in this field. For experimental studies, the method of Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda was used which assessed five quality criteria including adequate dosimetry, use of controls, use of positive controls, use of blinding, use of temperature monitoring [Citation24]. For observational studies, the five quality criteria used in the assessment were as follows: appropriate exposure assessment, appropriate subject selection/comparison groups, consideration of confounders, follow-up assessment, and appropriate outcome assessment. A quality score (QS) was given for each study by two assessors independently, with the final quality score being the average of the two scores. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the reliability and consistency between assessors. The QS was derived by scoring each of the five quality criteria; a score of 1 was awarded when the criterion was adequately addressed, 0.5 awarded when it was partially addressed and a score of 0 when the criterion was not addressed. This resulted in the QS for each study ranging between 0 and 5 with a higher value indicating higher quality for that study. The quality score results were further categorised as studies with QS ≤ 2 being ‘poor quality’, studies with QS > 2 - < 3.5 as ‘average quality’ and studies with QS ≥ 3.5 as ‘good quality’. Effect size Studies investigating the impact of RF EMF on animals and plants have reported a range in the magnitude of effects including no effect and from small effects to large effects. It is therefore important to map the distribution of the effect size (ES) across the different studies, noting that ES = 0 denotes no statistically significant effect and ES > 0 denotes an effect size with a larger number corresponding to a larger effect. We extracted the ES for every study in the systematic map where this could be gleaned from the information provided. The ES was estimated using a number of different methods available in Thalheimer and Cook and according to the type of data provided by each study [Citation23]. Thalheimer and Cook include calculating the effect size from t-test (with and without the standard deviation or standard error) and from F-tests (with and without the mean squared error). Studies that used other statistics did not receive an effect size score. In many of the included studies more than one frequency and exposure intensity was investigated, and in some studies, several endpoints were investigated (and occasionally, more than one animal/plant). In these cases, the largest statistically significant effect was selected to represent that study. For effects that were not statistically significant the ES was set to zero. Conclusion The analysis of the systematic map dataset has identified that quality score is more indicative of the magnitude of the effect size than exposure-level parameters or exposure duration in fauna. Similar trends are seen in flora studies; but, these results were not found to be statistically significant. This highlights the need for further, high-quality research. An investigation of the effect size in relation to different exposure characteristics, as well as the quality of the studies, raises doubts on whether animals and plants are truly affected at levels below human exposure limits. There are distinct evidence clusters on insect and bird reproduction, development and behaviour for animals, and grain and legume germination and growth for plants that would benefit from specific systematic reviews, with appropriate risk of bias assessments and pooling of the data in meta- analyses. Our review also highlights the need for studies of additional animal and plant species and additional effects that are yet to be investigated. Further, there is a particular need for more observational studies and for an improvement in the quality of all studies. Disclosure statement KK, CBr, CBh, RM and SL as part of their employment at ARPANSA provide advice to the Australian Government, Australian States and Territories and the general public on the effects and risks of exposure to ionising and non-ionising radiation. KK and SL are also members of the main commission and scientific expert group, respectively, of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection where they contribute in the development and dissemination of science-based advice on limiting exposure to non-ionising radiation. KK, AW and CBr are members of systematic review teams into the WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. SL is a member of the WHO Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks. No member of the mapping team screened or extracted data from any study in which he or she is an author. tandfonline.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typesystematic_review

Effect directionmixed

PopulationAnimals and plants in the environment (fauna and flora studies included in a prior systematic map)

Sample size334

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Using data from a prior systematic map of 334 studies, statistically significant inverse relationships were found between effect size and exposure-level parameters for studies investigating effects in animals. Quality score was reported as more indicative of effect size magnitude than exposure-level parameters or exposure duration in fauna; similar trends were noted for flora but were not statistically significant. The authors state that the analysis raises doubts about whether animals and plants are truly affected at levels below human exposure limits and highlight the need for higher-quality research and targeted systematic reviews in identified evidence clusters.

Outcomes measured

Effect size of reported impacts in animals and plants
Associations between effect size and exposure-level parameters (animals; flora mentioned)
Associations between effect size and exposure duration (animals; flora mentioned)
Associations between effect size and study quality score (experimental and observational studies)

Limitations

Risk of bias assessment for each study was not conducted (authors note this is more appropriate for a systematic review than a systematic map).
Effect size could not be extracted for all studies; studies using other statistics did not receive an effect size score.
When multiple frequencies/intensities/endpoints were reported, the largest statistically significant effect was selected to represent the study; non-significant effects were set to zero.
For flora, similar trends were observed but not statistically significant.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "anthropogenic sources",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Animals and plants in the environment (fauna and flora studies included in a prior systematic map)",
  "sample_size": 334,
  "outcomes": [
    "Effect size of reported impacts in animals and plants",
    "Associations between effect size and exposure-level parameters (animals; flora mentioned)",
    "Associations between effect size and exposure duration (animals; flora mentioned)",
    "Associations between effect size and study quality score (experimental and observational studies)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using data from a prior systematic map of 334 studies, statistically significant inverse relationships were found between effect size and exposure-level parameters for studies investigating effects in animals. Quality score was reported as more indicative of effect size magnitude than exposure-level parameters or exposure duration in fauna; similar trends were noted for flora but were not statistically significant. The authors state that the analysis raises doubts about whether animals and plants are truly affected at levels below human exposure limits and highlight the need for higher-quality research and targeted systematic reviews in identified evidence clusters.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Risk of bias assessment for each study was not conducted (authors note this is more appropriate for a systematic review than a systematic map).",
    "Effect size could not be extracted for all studies; studies using other statistics did not receive an effect size score.",
    "When multiple frequencies/intensities/endpoints were reported, the largest statistically significant effect was selected to represent the study; non-significant effects were set to zero.",
    "For flora, similar trends were observed but not statistically significant."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF EMF",
    "anthropogenic sources",
    "animals",
    "plants",
    "environment",
    "systematic map",
    "effect size",
    "quality score",
    "exposure parameters",
    "exposure duration"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Abstract/disclosure notes author involvement with ICNIRP and WHO RF EMF health risk assessment teams; paper discusses guidelines and exposure limits."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2024.2375861
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library