Effect of 910-MHz electromagnetic field on rat bone marrow.

TheScientificWorldJournal · 2004 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 5212

Compared with sham-exposed animals, EMF-exposed rats showed an almost threefold increase in micronuclei in polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow after 30 days of exposure. Micronuclei induction was also observed in polymorphonuclear cells, and the increas…

Study snapshot

PublicationTheScientificWorldJournal · 2004
Study typeanimal
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Aiming to investigate the possibility of electromagnetic fields (EMF) developed by nonionizing radiation to be a noxious agent capable of inducing genotoxicity to humans, in the current study we have investigated the effect of 910-MHz EMF in rat bone marrow. Rats were exposed daily for 2 h over a period of 30 consecutive days. Studying bone marrow smears from EMF-exposed and sham-exposed animals, we observed an almost threefold increase of micronuclei (MN) in polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) after EMF exposure. An induction of MN was also observed in polymorphonuclear cells. The induction of MN in female rats was less than that in male rats. The results indicate that 910-MHz EMF could be considered as a noxious agent capable of producing genotoxic effects.

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 directionharm
PopulationRats (male and female)
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureRF · 910 MHz · 2 h/day for 30 consecutive days
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Compared with sham-exposed animals, EMF-exposed rats showed an almost threefold increase in micronuclei in polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow after 30 days of exposure. Micronuclei induction was also observed in polymorphonuclear cells, and the increase in female rats was less than in male rats.

Outcomes measured

  • Micronuclei (MN) in polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) in bone marrow
  • Micronuclei (MN) in polymorphonuclear cells
  • Sex differences in MN induction

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in abstract
  • Exposure source and dosimetry (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract
  • Genotoxicity endpoints limited to micronuclei measures in bone marrow smears
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": 910,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "2 h/day for 30 consecutive days"
  },
  "population": "Rats (male and female)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Micronuclei (MN) in polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) in bone marrow",
    "Micronuclei (MN) in polymorphonuclear cells",
    "Sex differences in MN induction"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Compared with sham-exposed animals, EMF-exposed rats showed an almost threefold increase in micronuclei in polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow after 30 days of exposure. Micronuclei induction was also observed in polymorphonuclear cells, and the increase in female rats was less than in male rats.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure source and dosimetry (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract",
    "Genotoxicity endpoints limited to micronuclei measures in bone marrow smears"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "910 MHz",
    "radiofrequency",
    "electromagnetic field",
    "nonionizing radiation",
    "rat",
    "bone marrow",
    "micronucleus",
    "genotoxicity",
    "polychromatic erythrocytes",
    "polymorphonuclear cells",
    "sex differences"
  ],
  "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: 10.1100/tsw.2004.178
PubMed: 15517102

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library