Mobile phone EMF induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells

2018 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 2116

Across groups, Comet assay DNA damage indicators were higher in mobile phone RFR exposure groups than in controls, and DNA damage increased with greater daily duration of mobile phone use. The authors conclude that RFR emitted from mobile phones has potential…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018
Study typecross_sectional
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Mobile phone EMF induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells Akdag M, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Akdag MZ. Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells. Electromagn Biol Med. 2018 Apr 18:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2018.1463246. Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate effect of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from mobile phones on DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. The study was carried out on 56 men (age range: 30-60 years old) in four treatment groups with n = 14 in each group. The groups were defined as follows: people who did not use a mobile phone (Control), people use mobile phones for 0-30 min/day (second group), people use mobile phones for 30-60 min/day (third group) and people use mobile phones for more than 60 min/day (fourth group). Ear canal hair follicle cells taken from the subjects were analyzed by the Comet Assay to determine DNA damages. The Comet Assay parameters measured were head length, tail length, comet length, percentage of head DNA, tail DNA percentage, tail moment, and Olive tail moment. Results of the study showed that DNA damage indicators were higher in the RFR exposure groups than in the control subjects. In addition, DNA damage increased with the daily duration of exposure. In conclusion, RFR emitted from mobile phones has a potential to produce DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. Therefore, mobile phone users have to pay more attention when using wireless phones. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Excerpts Participants using smart phones with similar SAR values, were used. The head peak SAR values of the smart phones used by the participants, ranged between 0.45-0.97 W/kg. Comet Assay was performed by researchers who were unaware of which group the hair samples were from. In conclusion, the findings of the present study indicated that exposure to radiation from mobile phones can lead to DNA single-strand breaks, therefore, to DNA damage. The results of this study indicated a positive correlation between duration of exposure and DNA damage. We consider that the result of this study might be important in terms of the balance involved in DNA damage and repair mechanisms.

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 typecross_sectional
Effect directionharm
PopulationMen aged 30–60 years
Sample size56
ExposureRF · Self-reported mobile phone use grouped as 0 min/day (control), 0–30 min/day, 30–60 min/day, >60 min/day
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across groups, Comet assay DNA damage indicators were higher in mobile phone RFR exposure groups than in controls, and DNA damage increased with greater daily duration of mobile phone use. The authors conclude that RFR emitted from mobile phones has potential to produce DNA damage in ear canal hair follicle cells.

Outcomes measured

  • DNA damage in ear canal hair follicle cells (Comet assay parameters: head length, tail length, comet length, % head DNA, % tail DNA, tail moment, Olive tail moment)
  • DNA single-strand breaks (inferred from Comet assay interpretation in abstract)

Limitations

  • Observational group comparison based on phone-use duration; randomization not described
  • RF frequency not reported in abstract
  • SAR values reported as a range for phones used, but no per-participant SAR/exposure quantification provided
  • Potential confounding factors not described in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Self-reported mobile phone use grouped as 0 min/day (control), 0–30 min/day, 30–60 min/day, >60 min/day"
  },
  "population": "Men aged 30–60 years",
  "sample_size": 56,
  "outcomes": [
    "DNA damage in ear canal hair follicle cells (Comet assay parameters: head length, tail length, comet length, % head DNA, % tail DNA, tail moment, Olive tail moment)",
    "DNA single-strand breaks (inferred from Comet assay interpretation in abstract)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across groups, Comet assay DNA damage indicators were higher in mobile phone RFR exposure groups than in controls, and DNA damage increased with greater daily duration of mobile phone use. The authors conclude that RFR emitted from mobile phones has potential to produce DNA damage in ear canal hair follicle cells.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Observational group comparison based on phone-use duration; randomization not described",
    "RF frequency not reported in abstract",
    "SAR values reported as a range for phones used, but no per-participant SAR/exposure quantification provided",
    "Potential confounding factors not described in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "mobile phone",
    "ear canal",
    "hair follicle cells",
    "Comet assay",
    "DNA damage",
    "single-strand breaks",
    "SAR"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Study evaluates radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and biological effects."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1080/15368378.2018.1463246
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library