Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review

2017 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 2287

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

- Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review Petri AK, Schmiedchen K, Stunder D, Dechent D, Kraus T, Bailey WH, Driessen S. Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review. Environ Health. 2017 Apr 17;16(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-0248-y. Abstract BACKGROUND: High-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines are the technology of choice for the transport of large amounts of energy over long distances. The operation of these lines produces static electric fields (EF), but the data reviewed in previous assessments were not sufficient to assess the need for any environmental limit. The aim of this systematic review was to update the current state of research and to evaluate biological effects of static EF. METHODS: Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations, we collected and evaluated experimental and epidemiological studies examining biological effects of exposure to static EF in humans (n = 8) and vertebrates (n = 40). RESULTS: There is good evidence that humans and animals are able to perceive the presence of static EF at sufficiently high levels. Hair movements caused by electrostatic forces may play a major role in this perception. A large number of studies reported responses of animals (e.g., altered metabolic, immunologic or developmental parameters) to a broad range of static EF strengths as well, but these responses are likely secondary physiological responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, the quality of many of the studies reporting physiological responses is poor, which raises concerns about confounding. CONCLUSION: The weight of the evidence from the literature reviewed did not indicate that static EF have adverse biological effects in humans or animals. The evidence strongly supported the role of superficial sensory stimulation of hair and skin as the basis for perception of the field, as well as reported indirect behavioral and physiological responses. Physical considerations also preclude any direct effect of static EF on internal physiology, and reports that some physiological processes are affected in minor ways may be explained by other factors. While this literature does not support a level of concern about biological effects of exposure to static EF, the conditions that affect thresholds for human detection and possible annoyance at suprathreshold levels should be investigated. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Excerpt The vast majority of the evaluated studies dealt with static EF influences on health and physiological functions in humans and animals. An experimental study in visual display unit users found indications that a combination of static EF exposure and high dust concentrations might induce external facial skin irritation [33]. Two other human studies reported that static EF did not induce facial skin symptoms [32] or impair cardiovascular, hematologic, or psychomotor functions [28]. Neither were adverse health effects reported upon long-term exposure to a HVDC power line [35]. A great many of the animal studies reported effects on metabolic activity [49, 56, 60, 62, 68], collagen synthesis [59, 63, 64, 65], bone density [61], expression of oxidative stress markers [66, 67, 70, 71, 76], hematologic and immunologic blood parameters [41, 42, 43, 50, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78], neurotransmitter concentrations [56], brain activity [58], litter number [52], genotoxicity [69, 79], and tumor regression [37]. However, the results regarding these parameters were not always consistent and partially contradictory. Some studies could not confirm static EF influences on metabolic functions [52], histological appearance of diverse organ systems [43, 50, 69], neurotransmitter concentrations in the brain [38, 40, 57], functions of the immune system [73] or reproductive and developmental parameters [44].

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 directionno_effect

PopulationHumans and vertebrates

Sample size48

Exposurestatic electric field

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The review found good evidence that humans and animals can perceive static electric fields at sufficiently high levels, likely via superficial sensory stimulation (hair/skin). Although many animal studies reported changes in various physiological parameters, these were described as likely secondary responses to sensory stimulation and study quality was often poor; overall, the weight of evidence did not indicate adverse biological effects in humans or animals.

Outcomes measured

Perception/detection of static electric fields
Hair movement/skin sensory stimulation
Behavioral responses
Physiological parameters (metabolic, immunologic, developmental)
Skin irritation/symptoms
Cardiovascular, hematologic, psychomotor functions
Long-term health effects near HVDC power line
Oxidative stress markers
Collagen synthesis
Bone density
Neurotransmitter concentrations
Brain activity
Reproductive/developmental parameters
Genotoxicity
Tumor regression

Limitations

Quality of many studies reporting physiological responses was poor, raising concerns about confounding
Reported physiological results across studies were not always consistent and were partially contradictory
Prior assessments noted data were insufficient to assess the need for an environmental limit (context for why review was conducted)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "static electric field",
    "source": "high-voltage direct current (HVDC) power line",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Humans and vertebrates",
  "sample_size": 48,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perception/detection of static electric fields",
    "Hair movement/skin sensory stimulation",
    "Behavioral responses",
    "Physiological parameters (metabolic, immunologic, developmental)",
    "Skin irritation/symptoms",
    "Cardiovascular, hematologic, psychomotor functions",
    "Long-term health effects near HVDC power line",
    "Oxidative stress markers",
    "Collagen synthesis",
    "Bone density",
    "Neurotransmitter concentrations",
    "Brain activity",
    "Reproductive/developmental parameters",
    "Genotoxicity",
    "Tumor regression"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The review found good evidence that humans and animals can perceive static electric fields at sufficiently high levels, likely via superficial sensory stimulation (hair/skin). Although many animal studies reported changes in various physiological parameters, these were described as likely secondary responses to sensory stimulation and study quality was often poor; overall, the weight of evidence did not indicate adverse biological effects in humans or animals.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Quality of many studies reporting physiological responses was poor, raising concerns about confounding",
    "Reported physiological results across studies were not always consistent and were partially contradictory",
    "Prior assessments noted data were insufficient to assess the need for an environmental limit (context for why review was conducted)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "static electric fields",
    "HVDC",
    "high-voltage direct current",
    "power lines",
    "perception",
    "sensory stimulation",
    "hair movement",
    "skin",
    "physiological responses",
    "systematic review",
    "PRISMA"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Review includes human experimental studies and exposure contexts related to HVDC/static electric fields, which can be occupational/environmental."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1186/s12940-017-0248-y
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library