Human sleep EEG under the influence of pulsed radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Results from polysomnographies using submaximal high power flux densities.

Neuropsychobiology · 2000 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream
No effectLow evidencePaper 5333

In 20 healthy male subjects undergoing all-night polysomnography with and without exposure to a circularly polarized GSM-like RF EMF (900 MHz, pulsed at 217 Hz; power flux density 50 W/m^2), no significant effects were found on conventional sleep parameters o…

Study snapshot

PublicationNeuropsychobiology · 2000
Study typerandomized_trial
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Former exploratory investigations of sleep alterations due to global system for mobile communications (GSM) signals have shown a hypnotic and REM-suppressive effect under field exposure. This effect was observed in a first study using a power flux density of 0.5 W/m(2), and the same trend occurred in a second study with a power flux density of 0.2 W/m(2). For the present study, we applied a submaximal power flux density of 50 W/m(2). To investigate putative effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of cellular GSM phones on human sleep EEG pattern, all-night polysomnographies of 20 healthy male subjects both with and without exposure to a circularly polarized EMF (900 MHz, pulsed with a frequency of 217 Hz, pulse duration 577 microseconds) were recorded. The results showed no significant effect of the field application either on conventional sleep parameters or on sleep EEG power spectra.

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 typerandomized_trial
Effect directionno_effect
Population20 healthy male subjects
Sample size20
ExposureRF · 900 MHz · all-night (during polysomnography)
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 20 healthy male subjects undergoing all-night polysomnography with and without exposure to a circularly polarized GSM-like RF EMF (900 MHz, pulsed at 217 Hz; power flux density 50 W/m^2), no significant effects were found on conventional sleep parameters or sleep EEG power spectra.

Outcomes measured

  • Conventional sleep parameters
  • Sleep EEG power spectra
  • REM sleep (mentioned in background)

Limitations

  • Only healthy male subjects were studied
  • Small sample size (n=20)
  • Exposure metric reported as power flux density; SAR not reported
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 900,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "all-night (during polysomnography)"
  },
  "population": "20 healthy male subjects",
  "sample_size": 20,
  "outcomes": [
    "Conventional sleep parameters",
    "Sleep EEG power spectra",
    "REM sleep (mentioned in background)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 20 healthy male subjects undergoing all-night polysomnography with and without exposure to a circularly polarized GSM-like RF EMF (900 MHz, pulsed at 217 Hz; power flux density 50 W/m^2), no significant effects were found on conventional sleep parameters or sleep EEG power spectra.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Only healthy male subjects were studied",
    "Small sample size (n=20)",
    "Exposure metric reported as power flux density; SAR not reported"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "sleep",
    "EEG",
    "polysomnography",
    "GSM",
    "radiofrequency",
    "900 MHz",
    "pulsed",
    "217 Hz",
    "power flux density",
    "REM sleep"
  ],
  "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: 10.1159/000026695
PubMed: 11096337

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library