A preliminary report on effect of pulsed magnetic fields on fresh water fish (Labeo rohita) chromosomes.

Journal of environmental biology · 2004 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 3659

Fish exposed to a pulsed magnetic field (0.2 Gauss, 50 Hz sine wave) for 6 hours/day over 30 days showed no distinct karyological differences compared with control fish.

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of environmental biology · 2004

Study typeanimal

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Marine-life scientists around the world are already carrying out investigative trials to obtain higher yields under in-captive breeding conditions, on both edible varieties and ornamental fishes with optimal inputs. However, for such trials to succeed there is a need for genetic improvement. The idea that fish production can be enhanced by genetic manipulation is gaining acceptance, as there is a strong possibility that qualitative improvement of economically important traits can be achieved by identifying and utilizing more effective genotypes. In the present communication a tentative plan for genetic manipulation of fresh water fish using controlled, pulsed magnetic fields, is being discussed. Chromosome preparations of Labeo rohita were made using Colchicine-Methanol-Acetic acid air drying technique, using tissue from gills. The fish were exposed to Pulsed Magnetic Field (PMF)with intensity 0.2 Gauss, pulsing at 50 Hz frequency (sine wave) for 6 hours / day for a total period of 30 days inside specially designed magnetic field enclosures. The karyological investigations revealed no distinct difference between "test" and "control" groups.

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

PopulationFresh water fish (Labeo rohita)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 5e-05 MHz · 6 hours/day for 30 days

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Fish exposed to a pulsed magnetic field (0.2 Gauss, 50 Hz sine wave) for 6 hours/day over 30 days showed no distinct karyological differences compared with control fish.

Outcomes measured

Chromosomal/karyological differences between exposed and control fish

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Outcome description is qualitative ("no distinct difference") without quantitative metrics
Exposure described as pulsed magnetic field but waveform details beyond "sine wave" are limited

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": 5e-05,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "6 hours/day for 30 days"
  },
  "population": "Fresh water fish (Labeo rohita)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Chromosomal/karyological differences between exposed and control fish"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Fish exposed to a pulsed magnetic field (0.2 Gauss, 50 Hz sine wave) for 6 hours/day over 30 days showed no distinct karyological differences compared with control fish.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Outcome description is qualitative (\"no distinct difference\") without quantitative metrics",
    "Exposure described as pulsed magnetic field but waveform details beyond \"sine wave\" are limited"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed magnetic field",
    "PMF",
    "50 Hz",
    "0.2 Gauss",
    "ELF magnetic field",
    "Labeo rohita",
    "karyology",
    "chromosomes",
    "fish"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.1,
      "reason": "Uses controlled magnetic-field exposure setup; not clearly occupational but relates to exposure assessment concepts."
    }
  ]
}

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: Not supplied
PubMed: 15847344

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library