Study of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields of telephony and Wi-Fi, using chicken embryo development as animal model

2017 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 1386

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typeanimal

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Study of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields of telephony and Wi-Fi, using chicken embryo development as animal model Woelders H, de Wit A, Lourens A, Stockhofe N, Engel B, Hulsegge I, Schokker D, van Heijningen P, Vossen S, Bekers D, Zwamborn P. Study of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields of telephony and Wi-Fi, using chicken embryo development as animal model.Bioelectromagnetics. 2017 Jan 16. doi: 10.1002/bem.22026. Abstract The objective of this study is to investigate possible biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as used in modern wireless telecommunication in a well-controlled experimental environment using chicken embryo development as animal model. Chicken eggs were incubated under continuous experimental exposure to GSM (1.8 GHz), DECT (1.88 GHz), UMTS (2.1 GHz), and WLAN (5.6 GHz) radiation, with the appropriate modulation protocol, using a homogeneous field distribution at a field strength of approximately 3 V/m, representing the maximum field level in a normal living environment. Radiation-shielded exposure units/egg incubators were operating in parallel for exposed and control eggs in a climatized homogeneous environment, using 450 eggs per treatment in three successive rounds per treatment. Dosimetry of the exposure (field characteristics and specific absorption rate) were studied. Biological parameters studied included embryo death during incubation, hatching percentage, and various morphological and histological parameters of embryos and chicks and their organs, and gene expression profiles of embryos on day 7 and day 18 of incubation by microarray and qPCR. No conclusive evidence was found for induced embryonic mortality or malformations by exposure to the used EMFs, or for effects on the other measured parameters. Estimated differences between treatment groups were always small and the effect of treatment was not significant. In a statistical model that ignored possible interaction between rounds and exposure units, some of the many pairwise comparisons of exposed versus control had P-values lower than 0.05, but were not significant after correction for multiple testing. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 directionno_effect

PopulationChicken embryos (incubated eggs)

Sample size450

ExposureRF · continuous exposure during egg incubation

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Chicken eggs were continuously exposed during incubation to GSM (1.8 GHz), DECT (1.88 GHz), UMTS (2.1 GHz), and WLAN (5.6 GHz) at ~3 V/m. The study reports no conclusive evidence for induced embryonic mortality, malformations, or effects on other measured parameters; estimated differences between exposed and control groups were small and not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing.

Outcomes measured

Embryo death during incubation
Hatching percentage
Morphological parameters of embryos and chicks and their organs
Histological parameters of embryos and chicks and their organs
Gene expression profiles (day 7 and day 18; microarray and qPCR)
Dosimetry (field characteristics and specific absorption rate)

Limitations

Some pairwise comparisons had P-values <0.05 in a model that ignored possible interaction between rounds and exposure units, but these did not remain significant after multiple-testing correction.
Specific absorption rate (SAR) values are not reported in the abstract.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile telephony and Wi-Fi",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "continuous exposure during egg incubation"
  },
  "population": "Chicken embryos (incubated eggs)",
  "sample_size": 450,
  "outcomes": [
    "Embryo death during incubation",
    "Hatching percentage",
    "Morphological parameters of embryos and chicks and their organs",
    "Histological parameters of embryos and chicks and their organs",
    "Gene expression profiles (day 7 and day 18; microarray and qPCR)",
    "Dosimetry (field characteristics and specific absorption rate)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Chicken eggs were continuously exposed during incubation to GSM (1.8 GHz), DECT (1.88 GHz), UMTS (2.1 GHz), and WLAN (5.6 GHz) at ~3 V/m. The study reports no conclusive evidence for induced embryonic mortality, malformations, or effects on other measured parameters; estimated differences between exposed and control groups were small and not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Some pairwise comparisons had P-values <0.05 in a model that ignored possible interaction between rounds and exposure units, but these did not remain significant after multiple-testing correction.",
    "Specific absorption rate (SAR) values are not reported in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "GSM",
    "DECT",
    "UMTS",
    "WLAN",
    "Wi-Fi",
    "chicken embryo",
    "incubation",
    "dosimetry",
    "gene expression",
    "microarray",
    "qPCR",
    "Bioelectromagnetics"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Includes WLAN (Wi‑Fi) exposure as one of the RF sources studied."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1002/bem.22026
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library