No evidence for collateral effects of electromagnetic fields used to increase dissolved oxygen levels on the behavior and physiology of freshwater fishes.

Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2022 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream
No effectLow evidencePaper 5738

Across 8-day exposures, there were no significant differences between EMF and control conditions in measured blood-based stress physiology biomarkers, behaviors, or putative aerobic capacities. Aerated mesocosms with activated EMFs had higher dissolved oxygen…

Study snapshot

PublicationWater environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2022
Study typeother
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Hypoxia in surface waters driven by warming climate and other anthropogenic stressors is a major conservation concern, and technological solutions for water quality remediation are sorely needed. One potential solution involves the use of low-intensity electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to increase dissolved oxygen levels, but potential collateral effects of the EMFs on aquatic animals have not been formally evaluated. We examined the effects of EMF exposure on wild-caught, captive sunfish (Lepomis spp.) over 8-day and 3-day exposures, with and without aeration in mesocosms and stock tanks (respectively). We also quantified ambient fish abundance in close proximity to EMF devices deployed in Opinicon Lake (ON). We found no significant differences in a suite of blood-based stress physiology biomarkers, behaviors, and putative aerobic capacities between EMF and control conditions over 8 days. Aerated mesocosms equipped with activated EMFs consistently had higher oxygen levels in the water than aerated controls. There were no differences in mortality during 3-day oxygen depletion trials under EMF or control conditions, and we detected no differences in fish abundance when the devices were activated in the lake. Our findings suggest that deploying EMF devices in field settings is not likely to exert negative effects on exposed fish populations. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Low-cost, low-energy technological solutions to remediate aquatic hypoxia are sorely needed Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can increase oxygen flux across air/water interfaces and increase dissolved oxygen levels We found no evidence of negative effects of EMFs on fish physiology or behavior and our results support their use in alleviating hypoxic conditions.

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 typeother
Effect directionno_effect
PopulationWild-caught, captive sunfish (Lepomis spp.); ambient fish in Opinicon Lake (ON) near deployed EMF devices
Sample sizeNot supplied
Exposure8-day and 3-day exposures
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across 8-day exposures, there were no significant differences between EMF and control conditions in measured blood-based stress physiology biomarkers, behaviors, or putative aerobic capacities. Aerated mesocosms with activated EMFs had higher dissolved oxygen levels than aerated controls. During 3-day oxygen depletion trials, mortality did not differ between EMF and control conditions, and fish abundance near devices in the lake did not differ when devices were activated.

Outcomes measured

  • Blood-based stress physiology biomarkers
  • Behavior
  • Putative aerobic capacities
  • Dissolved oxygen levels (oxygen flux / water oxygen levels)
  • Mortality during oxygen depletion trials
  • Ambient fish abundance near EMF devices in lake

Limitations

  • EMF parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength) not reported in the abstract
  • Sample sizes not reported in the abstract
  • Species limited to sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and one field site (Opinicon Lake, ON)
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "environmental/engineering EMF device to increase dissolved oxygen",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "8-day and 3-day exposures"
  },
  "population": "Wild-caught, captive sunfish (Lepomis spp.); ambient fish in Opinicon Lake (ON) near deployed EMF devices",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Blood-based stress physiology biomarkers",
    "Behavior",
    "Putative aerobic capacities",
    "Dissolved oxygen levels (oxygen flux / water oxygen levels)",
    "Mortality during oxygen depletion trials",
    "Ambient fish abundance near EMF devices in lake"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across 8-day exposures, there were no significant differences between EMF and control conditions in measured blood-based stress physiology biomarkers, behaviors, or putative aerobic capacities. Aerated mesocosms with activated EMFs had higher dissolved oxygen levels than aerated controls. During 3-day oxygen depletion trials, mortality did not differ between EMF and control conditions, and fish abundance near devices in the lake did not differ when devices were activated.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "EMF parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength) not reported in the abstract",
    "Sample sizes not reported in the abstract",
    "Species limited to sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and one field site (Opinicon Lake, ON)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "dissolved oxygen",
    "hypoxia remediation",
    "freshwater fish",
    "sunfish",
    "Lepomis",
    "stress physiology",
    "behavior",
    "mesocosm",
    "field deployment",
    "Opinicon Lake"
  ],
  "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/wer.10747
PubMed: 35686312

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library