A preliminary study of oscillating electromagnetic field effects on human spermatozoon motility.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2007 · Mixed · Very low evidence

← Research stream
MixedVery low evidencePaper 5083

Exposure to a 50 Hz ELF-EMF with a 5 mT square waveform significantly increased sperm motility and other kinematic parameters. No significant effects on sperm motility were observed with a 5 mT sine wave (50 Hz) or a 2.5 mT square wave (50 Hz). Effects from 5…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2007
Study typein_vitro
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

Some effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) on human spermatozoa are reported. Significant increases in the values of the motility and of the other kinematic parameters have been observed when spermatozoa were exposed to an ELF-EMF with a square waveform of 5 mT amplitude and frequency of 50 Hz. By contrast, a 5 mT sine wave (50 Hz) and a 2.5 mT square wave (50 Hz) exposure did not produce any significant effect on sperm motility. The effects induced by ELF-EMF (50 Hz; 5 mT) during the first 3 h of exposure persisted for 21 h after the end of the treatment. These results indicate that ELF-EMF exposure can improve spermatozoa motility and that this effect depends on the field characteristics.

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 directionmixed
PopulationHuman spermatozoa
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureELF · 0.05 MHz · first 3 h of exposure; effects persisted for 21 h after end of treatment
Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Exposure to a 50 Hz ELF-EMF with a 5 mT square waveform significantly increased sperm motility and other kinematic parameters. No significant effects on sperm motility were observed with a 5 mT sine wave (50 Hz) or a 2.5 mT square wave (50 Hz). Effects from 50 Hz, 5 mT exposure during the first 3 h persisted for 21 h after treatment ended.

Outcomes measured

  • Spermatozoon motility
  • Kinematic parameters of sperm motility

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in abstract
  • Study described as preliminary
  • In vitro study on spermatozoa; generalizability to in vivo fertility outcomes not addressed in abstract
  • Exposure conditions varied by waveform and amplitude; not all conditions showed effects
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": 0.05,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "first 3 h of exposure; effects persisted for 21 h after end of treatment"
  },
  "population": "Human spermatozoa",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Spermatozoon motility",
    "Kinematic parameters of sperm motility"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Exposure to a 50 Hz ELF-EMF with a 5 mT square waveform significantly increased sperm motility and other kinematic parameters. No significant effects on sperm motility were observed with a 5 mT sine wave (50 Hz) or a 2.5 mT square wave (50 Hz). Effects from 50 Hz, 5 mT exposure during the first 3 h persisted for 21 h after treatment ended.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Study described as preliminary",
    "In vitro study on spermatozoa; generalizability to in vivo fertility outcomes not addressed in abstract",
    "Exposure conditions varied by waveform and amplitude; not all conditions showed effects"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low frequency",
    "ELF-EMF",
    "50 Hz",
    "millitesla",
    "square waveform",
    "sine wave",
    "human spermatozoa",
    "motility",
    "kinematic parameters"
  ],
  "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: 10.1002/bem.20278
PubMed: 17019728

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library