4.3 Article

What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: a systematic map

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-023-00304-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic map examines the available evidence on the effects of anthropogenic RF EMF on plants and animals in the environment, using ICNIRP guidelines as a basis for comparison. The majority of studies were conducted in laboratory settings and showed that exposure levels were mostly below the ICNIRP limits. Animal studies focused on insect and bird reproduction, development, and behavior, while plant studies focused on grain and legume germination and growth. However, the quality of studies was generally poor, highlighting the need for further research and improvement.
BackgroundExposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF), particularly from telecommunications sources, is one of the most common and fastest growing anthropogenic factors on the environment. In many countries, humans are protected from harmful RF EMF exposure by safety standards that are based on guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP guidelines are based on knowledge of how RF EMF affects the human body, however, there are currently no recognised international guidelines to specifically protect animals and plants. Whether the ICNIRP guidelines for humans are adequate to provide protection to the environment is a subject of active debate. There is some public concern that new telecommunications technologies, like the 5G mobile phone network may affect the natural environment. This systematic map presents a searchable database of all the available evidence on whether anthropogenic RF EMF has an effect on plants and animals in the environment. The map also identifies gaps in knowledge, recommends future research and informs environmental and radiation protection authorities.MethodsThe method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English with no time and geographic restrictions. The EMF-Portal, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched, and the resulting articles were screened in three stages: title, abstract and full text. Studies were included with a subject population of all animals and plants, with exposures to anthropogenic RF EMF (frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz) compared to no or lower-level exposure, and for any outcomes related to the studied populations. For each included study, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest that were used to represent the distribution of available evidence.Review findingsThe initial search, search update and supplementary searches produced 24,432 articles and of those 334 articles (237 on fauna and 97 on flora) that were relevant were included in the systematic map. The vast majority of studies were experiments conducted in a laboratory rather than observational studies of animals and plants in the natural environment. The majority of the studies investigated exposures with frequencies between 300 and 3000 MHz, and although the exposure level varied, it was mainly low and below the ICNIRP limits. Most of the animal studies investigated insects and birds, whereas grains and legumes were the most investigated plants. Reproduction, development and behaviour were the most investigated effects for animals, and germination and growth for plants. The vast majority of the studies employed poor quality methods.ConclusionThere are distinct evidence clusters: for fauna, on insect and bird reproduction, development and behaviour; and for flora, grain and legume germination and growth that would benefit from specific systematic reviews. The systematic map also highlights the clear need for investigating the effects of RF EMF on more species and more types of effects, and for an improvement in the quality of all studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available