Diatom motility: the search for independent replication of biological effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields.

International journal of radiation biology · 1999 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 5371

Under the specified static and time-varying EMF “calcium resonance” conditions (B(V)=0 µT; B(H)=20.9 µT; B(AC)=41.8 µT peak-peak at 16 Hz), there was no significant difference in motility between EMF-exposed and control diatoms at each Ca2+ concentration test…

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of radiation biology · 1999

Study typeanimal

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the hypothesis that exposure to a certain combination of static and time-varying electromagnetic fields (EMF) results in an increase in motility of the marine diatom Amphora coffeaeformis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diatom motility on agar was positively correlated with calcium ion (Ca2+) concentration. In previous experiments extremely low frequency EMF (16 Hz) had the greatest effect on diatoms at suboptimal for movement Ca2+ concentrations. To ensure that the required suboptimal Ca2+ concentration and resultant cell motility were found, a number of low concentrations of Ca2+ were experimentally tested. The EMF exposure conditions were those at the calculated calcium resonances (B(V)=0 microT; B(H)=20.9 microT; B(AC)=41.8 microT peak-peak 16 Hz) previously found to cause enhanced motility. Diatom movement on agar plates under EMF and control exposures was recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in cell motility between control and EMF-exposed diatoms at each Ca2+ concentration tested. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that low-frequency EMF set at resonance conditions did not cause an increase in motility of the diatoms.

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

PopulationMarine diatom Amphora coffeaeformis (on agar plates)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 1.6e-05 MHz

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Diatom cell motility on agar (movement)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Exposure duration not reported in abstract
Outcome measurement details/statistical methods not described in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": 1.6e-05,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Marine diatom Amphora coffeaeformis (on agar plates)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Diatom cell motility on agar (movement)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Under the specified static and time-varying EMF “calcium resonance” conditions (B(V)=0 µT; B(H)=20.9 µT; B(AC)=41.8 µT peak-peak at 16 Hz), there was no significant difference in motility between EMF-exposed and control diatoms at each Ca2+ concentration tested.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure duration not reported in abstract",
    "Outcome measurement details/statistical methods not described in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low-frequency",
    "ELF",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "static magnetic field",
    "16 Hz",
    "microtesla",
    "calcium resonance",
    "diatom",
    "Amphora coffeaeformis",
    "motility",
    "replication"
  ],
  "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: 10.1080/095530099140564
PubMed: 10203189

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library