Adverse effects of Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system: A systematic review

2019 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 1719

This systematic review included 23 eligible studies (15 rat, 3 mouse, 5 human). It reports that sperm count, motility, and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters with Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) RF-EMR exposure, while findings for sperm viability and morphology…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019
Study typesystematic_review
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Adverse effects of Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system: A systematic review Jaffar FHF, Osman K, Ismail NH, Chin KY, Ibrahim SF. Adverse Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Male Reproductive System: A Systematic Review. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;248(3): 169-179. doi: 10.1620/tjem.248.169. Abstract Extensive use of Wi-Fi has contributed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) pollution in environment. Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter on male reproduction health. However, there are conflicting findings between studies. Thus, this review aims to elucidate the possible effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure on both animal and human male reproductive system. A computerized database search performed through MEDLINE via Ovid and PUBMED with the following set of keywords: 'Wi-Fi or WiFi or wireless fidelity or Wi-Fi router or WiFi router or electromagnetic or radiofrequency radiation' AND 'sperm or spermatozoa or spermatogenesis or semen or seminal plasma or testes or testis or testosterone or male reproduction' had returned 526 articles. Only 17 studies conformed to pre-set inclusion criterion. Additional records identified through Google Scholar and reviewed article further revealed six eligible articles. A total of 23 articles were used for data extraction, including 15 studies on rats, three studies on mice, and five studies on human health. Sperm count, motility and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters when exposed to RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter. Unfortunately, sperm viability and morphology were inconclusive. Structural and/or physiological analyses of the testes showed degenerative changes, reduced testosterone level, increased apoptotic cells, and DNA damage. These effects were mainly due to the elevation of testicular temperature and oxidative stress activity. In conclusion, exposure towards 2.45 GHz RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter is hazardous on the male reproductive system. Open access paper: jstage.jst.go.jp

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 directionharm
PopulationMale animals (rats, mice) and humans (male reproductive health studies)
Sample size23
ExposureRF · 2450 MHz
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This systematic review included 23 eligible studies (15 rat, 3 mouse, 5 human). It reports that sperm count, motility, and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters with Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) RF-EMR exposure, while findings for sperm viability and morphology were inconclusive. Testicular analyses reportedly showed degenerative changes, reduced testosterone, increased apoptotic cells, and DNA damage; the authors conclude Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure is hazardous to the male reproductive system.

Outcomes measured

  • sperm count
  • sperm motility
  • sperm DNA integrity
  • sperm viability
  • sperm morphology
  • testes structural/physiological changes
  • testosterone level
  • apoptotic cells
  • DNA damage
  • testicular temperature
  • oxidative stress

Limitations

  • Conflicting findings between studies are noted in the abstract.
  • Sperm viability and morphology outcomes were inconclusive.
  • No quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) details are provided in the abstract.
  • Exposure metrics (e.g., SAR, duration) are not reported in the abstract.
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "wi-fi",
    "frequency_mhz": 2450,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Male animals (rats, mice) and humans (male reproductive health studies)",
  "sample_size": 23,
  "outcomes": [
    "sperm count",
    "sperm motility",
    "sperm DNA integrity",
    "sperm viability",
    "sperm morphology",
    "testes structural/physiological changes",
    "testosterone level",
    "apoptotic cells",
    "DNA damage",
    "testicular temperature",
    "oxidative stress"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This systematic review included 23 eligible studies (15 rat, 3 mouse, 5 human). It reports that sperm count, motility, and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters with Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) RF-EMR exposure, while findings for sperm viability and morphology were inconclusive. Testicular analyses reportedly showed degenerative changes, reduced testosterone, increased apoptotic cells, and DNA damage; the authors conclude Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure is hazardous to the male reproductive system.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Conflicting findings between studies are noted in the abstract.",
    "Sperm viability and morphology outcomes were inconclusive.",
    "No quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) details are provided in the abstract.",
    "Exposure metrics (e.g., SAR, duration) are not reported in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "Wi-Fi",
    "RF-EMR",
    "2.45 GHz",
    "male reproductive system",
    "sperm",
    "testes",
    "testosterone",
    "oxidative stress",
    "systematic review"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Focuses on health effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) RF exposure."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1620/tjem.248.169
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library