4.7 Article

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 92, Issue 4, Pages 1318-1325

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022

Keywords

Cell phone radiation; radiofrequency electromagnetic waves; sperm; fertility; reactive oxygen species; oxidative stress; EMW

Funding

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate effects of cellular phone radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) during talk mode on unprocessed (neat) ejaculated human semen. Design: Prospective pilot study. Setting: Center for reproductive medicine laboratory in tertiary hospital setting. Samples: Neat semen samples from normal healthy donors (n = 23) and infertile patients (n = 9). Intervention(S): After liquefaction, neat semen samples were divided into two aliquots. One aliquot (experimental) from each patient was exposed to cellular phone radiation (in talk mode) for I h, and the second aliquot (unexposed) served as the control sample under identical conditions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Evaluation of sperm parameters (motility, viability), reactive oxygen species (ROS), total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of semen, ROS-TAC score, and sperm DNA damage. Result(s): Samples exposed to RF-EMW showed a significant decrease in sperm motility and viability, increase in ROS level, and decrease in ROS-TAC score. Levels of TAC and DNA damage showed no significant differences from the unexposed group. Conclusion(s): Radiofrequency electromagnetic waves emitted from cell phones may lead to oxidative stress in human semen. We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;92:1318-25. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available