The effect of the non ionizing radiation on exposed, laboratory cultivated upland cotton plants

2017 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 1358

After 21 days of exposure to 1882 MHz radiation from a DECT base unit, exposed cotton plants showed lower biomass production (above-ground and root) compared with matched controls. The study reports reduced photosynthetic pigments and severe damage to chlorop…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017
Study typeanimal
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The effect of the non ionizing radiation on exposed, laboratory cultivated upland cotton plants Aikaterina L. Stefi, Lukas H. Margaritis, Nikolaos S. Christodoulakis.The effect of the non ionizing radiation on exposed, laboratory cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. Flora - Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants. Volume 226:55-64. January 2017. dx.doi.org. Highlights • Upland cotton plants grow under long term microwave radiation. • They suffer significant biomass reduction of exposed plants. • Chloroplast structure is severely affected. • Photosynthetic pigment content reduces. • Roots do respond to radiation stress. Abstract A series of experiments was carried out to investigate possible structural or biochemical alterations in Gossypium hirsutum plants after a long term (21 days) exposure to non ionizing radiation (1882 MHz) emitted from the base unit of a cordless DECT system. Exposed plants, compared to the negative (matched) controls, seem to be seriously affected. Notably lower biomass production for the above ground part and the root was recorded. Reduction of the photosynthetic pigments and severe damage of the chloroplast structure were also observed. It seems that non ionizing radiation can be noxious for plant life functions. Excerpts In the middle of one of the two cages, the base unit of a DECT telephone apparatus (General, Model 123) was appropriately positioned. The DECT base was in a 24 h a day, 7 days a week, pulsed transmission mode, at 1882 MHz, as described elsewhere (Margaritis et al., 2014).... Supplementary, low precision measurements were made in the control cage; with a broadband field meter (TES- 92, 50 MHz-3.5 GHz, Electromagnetic radiation detector - TES Electrical Electronic Corp. Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.) at the value of 490.1 mV/m. In the nearby cage (exposed), radiation reached the value of 27.46 V/m (27.460 mV/m, at 1882 MHz) (55 fold higher). Conclusion The effect of the non-ionizing radiation at the microwave band, on the Gossypium hirsutum young plants, after a long term exposure, can be considered as significant. The disastrous effect on chloroplast structure, the reduction of the photosynthetic pigments and the suppression of the photosynthetic potential, are the main causes for the significant reduction of the primary productivity. Moreover, a serious effect on the underground part of the plant was recorded but this cannot be evaluated yet.

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 typeanimal
Effect directionharm
PopulationLaboratory cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) young plants
Sample sizeNot supplied
Exposuremicrowave · 1882 MHz · 21 days; 24 h/day, 7 days/week pulsed transmission
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

After 21 days of exposure to 1882 MHz radiation from a DECT base unit, exposed cotton plants showed lower biomass production (above-ground and root) compared with matched controls. The study reports reduced photosynthetic pigments and severe damage to chloroplast structure in exposed plants.

Outcomes measured

  • Biomass production (above-ground and root)
  • Photosynthetic pigment content
  • Chloroplast structure
  • Root response to radiation stress / underground part effects
  • Photosynthetic potential / primary productivity

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in provided abstract/excerpts
  • Exposure characterization includes field strength values but SAR not reported
  • Control-cage measurement described as 'supplementary, low precision'
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "microwave",
    "source": "cordless DECT base unit",
    "frequency_mhz": 1882,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "21 days; 24 h/day, 7 days/week pulsed transmission"
  },
  "population": "Laboratory cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) young plants",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Biomass production (above-ground and root)",
    "Photosynthetic pigment content",
    "Chloroplast structure",
    "Root response to radiation stress / underground part effects",
    "Photosynthetic potential / primary productivity"
  ],
  "main_findings": "After 21 days of exposure to 1882 MHz radiation from a DECT base unit, exposed cotton plants showed lower biomass production (above-ground and root) compared with matched controls. The study reports reduced photosynthetic pigments and severe damage to chloroplast structure in exposed plants.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in provided abstract/excerpts",
    "Exposure characterization includes field strength values but SAR not reported",
    "Control-cage measurement described as 'supplementary, low precision'"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "microwave",
    "DECT",
    "1882 MHz",
    "Gossypium hirsutum",
    "cotton",
    "biomass",
    "chloroplast",
    "photosynthetic pigments",
    "plant stress"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "smart-meters",
      "weight": 0.15,
      "reason": "Exposure source is a cordless DECT base unit (wireless device), but not a smart meter; hub match is weak."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1016/j.flora.2016.11.009
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library