Effects of ELF EMF on B16F10 cancer cells

2019 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitLow evidencePaper 1871

B16F10 cancer cells exposed to ELF-EMFs showed reduced viability versus control. Reported inhibition was 17% at 7.83 Hz, and 26.4% with narrow sweep frequencies around 7.83 Hz (7.83 ± 0.1 Hz, step 0.05 Hz); inhibitory effects decreased as sweep intervals incr…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typein_vitro

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effects of ELF EMF on B16F10 cancer cells Tang JY, Yeh TW, Huang YT, Wang MH, Jang LS. Effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on B16F10 cancer cells. Electromagn Biol Med. 2019 Mar 20:1-9. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1591438. Abstract This paper presents a method to inhibit B16F10 cancer cells using extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) and to evaluate cell viability using MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay. The study examined the effect of a natural EMF resonance frequency (7.83 Hz) and a power line frequency (60 Hz) on B16F10 cancer cells for 24 and 48 h. The B16F10 cancer cells were also exposed to sweep frequencies in several sweep intervals to quantitatively analyze the viability of cancer cells. The results yielded a 17% inhibition rate under 7.83 Hz compared with that of the control group. Moreover, sweep frequencies in narrow intervals (7.83 ± 0.1 Hz for the step 0.05 Hz) caused an inhibition rate of 26.4%, and inhibitory effects decreased as frequency sweep intervals increased. These results indicate that a Schumann resonance frequency of 7.83 Hz can inhibit the growth of cancer cells and that using a specific frequency type can lead to more effective growth inhibition. 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 typein_vitro

Effect directionbenefit

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 24 and 48 h

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

B16F10 cancer cell viability (MTT assay)
Cancer cell growth inhibition rate

Limitations

In vitro study on a single cancer cell line (B16F10)
Exposure intensity/field strength not reported in the abstract
Sample size and replication details not reported in the abstract
Only short exposure durations (24 and 48 h) reported

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "24 and 48 h"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "B16F10 cancer cell viability (MTT assay)",
    "Cancer cell growth inhibition rate"
  ],
  "main_findings": "B16F10 cancer cells exposed to ELF-EMFs showed reduced viability versus control. Reported inhibition was 17% at 7.83 Hz, and 26.4% with narrow sweep frequencies around 7.83 Hz (7.83 ± 0.1 Hz, step 0.05 Hz); inhibitory effects decreased as sweep intervals increased.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "In vitro study on a single cancer cell line (B16F10)",
    "Exposure intensity/field strength not reported in the abstract",
    "Sample size and replication details not reported in the abstract",
    "Only short exposure durations (24 and 48 h) reported"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields",
    "ELF-EMF",
    "Schumann resonance",
    "7.83 Hz",
    "60 Hz",
    "B16F10",
    "MTT assay",
    "cell viability",
    "frequency sweep"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1591438
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library