Micronucleus assay and lymphocyte mitotic activity in risk assessment of occupational exposure to microwave radiation.

Chemosphere · 1999 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 6354

Compared to controls, occupationally exposed subjects showed an increased frequency of micronuclei and disturbances in the distribution of cells across the first, second, and third mitotic divisions.

Study snapshot

PublicationChemosphere · 1999
Study typecohort
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFR) on the cell kinetics and genome damages in peripheral blood lymphocytes were determined in lymphocytes of 12 subjects occupationally exposed to microwave radiation. Results showed an increase in frequency of micronuclei (MN) as well as disturbances in the distribution of cells over the first, second and third mitotic division in exposed subjects compared to controls. According to previous reports micronucleus assay can serve as a suitable indicator for the assessment of exposure to genotoxic agents (such as RFR) and the analysis of mitotic activity as an additional parameter for the efficient biomonitoring.

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 typecohort
Effect directionharm
PopulationPeripheral blood lymphocytes from 12 subjects occupationally exposed to microwave radiation (with controls)
Sample size12
ExposureRF
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 72% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Compared to controls, occupationally exposed subjects showed an increased frequency of micronuclei and disturbances in the distribution of cells across the first, second, and third mitotic divisions.

Outcomes measured

  • micronuclei frequency
  • lymphocyte mitotic activity / cell kinetics (distribution across 1st, 2nd, 3rd mitotic divisions)
  • genome damage (as assessed by micronucleus assay)

Limitations

  • Exposure characteristics (frequency, intensity/SAR, duration) not reported in abstract
  • Small exposed sample size (12 subjects)
  • Study design details (selection of controls, confounding control) not described in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "occupational",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Peripheral blood lymphocytes from 12 subjects occupationally exposed to microwave radiation (with controls)",
  "sample_size": 12,
  "outcomes": [
    "micronuclei frequency",
    "lymphocyte mitotic activity / cell kinetics (distribution across 1st, 2nd, 3rd mitotic divisions)",
    "genome damage (as assessed by micronucleus assay)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Compared to controls, occupationally exposed subjects showed an increased frequency of micronuclei and disturbances in the distribution of cells across the first, second, and third mitotic divisions.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure characteristics (frequency, intensity/SAR, duration) not reported in abstract",
    "Small exposed sample size (12 subjects)",
    "Study design details (selection of controls, confounding control) not described in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.72,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation",
    "microwave radiation",
    "occupational exposure",
    "micronucleus assay",
    "lymphocytes",
    "genotoxicity",
    "mitotic activity",
    "biomonitoring"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study evaluates biomarkers in workers occupationally exposed to microwave/RF radiation."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1016/s0045-6535(99)00139-3
PubMed: 10576101

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library