Research big data solustons
REVIEWS
Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants Malka N. Halgamuge
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
ABSTRACT Aim: The aim of this article was to explore the hypothesis that non-thermal, weak, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have an effect on living plants. Subject and methods: In this study, we performed an analysis of the data extracted from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1996–2016) describing 169 experimental observations to detect the physiological and morpho- logical changes in plants due to the non-thermal RF-EMF effects from mobile phone radiation. Twenty-nine different species of plants were considered in this work. Results: Our analysis demonstrates that the data from a substantial amount of the studies on RF-EMFs from mobile phones show physiological and/or morphological effects (89.9%, p < 0.001). Additionally, our analysis of the results from these reported studies demonstrates that the maize, roselle, pea, fenugreek, duckweeds, tomato, onions and mungbean plants seem to be very sensitive to RF- EMFs. Our findings also suggest that plants seem to be more responsive to certain frequencies, especially the frequencies between (i) 800 and 1500 MHz (p < 0.0001), (ii) 1500 and 2400 MHz (p < 0.0001) and (iii) 3500 and 8000 MHz (p = 0.0161). Conclusion: The available literature on the effect of RF-EMFs on plants to date observed the significant trend of radiofrequency radiation influence on plants. Hence, this study provides new evidence supporting our hypothesis. Nonetheless, this endorses the need for more experiments to observe the effects of RF-EMFs, especially for the longer exposure durations, using the whole organisms. The above observation agrees with our earlier study, in that it supported that it is not a well-grounded method to characterize biological effects without considering the exposure duration. Nevertheless, none of these findings can be directly associated with human; however, on the other hand, this cannot be excluded, as it can impact the human welfare and health, either directly or indirectly, due to their complexity and varied effects (calcium metabolism, stress proteins, etc.). This study should be useful as a reference for researchers conducting epidemiological studies and the long-term experiments, using whole organisms, to observe the effects of RF-EMFs.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 6 May 2016 Accepted 1 August 2016
KEYWORDS Base station; mobile phones; physiological and morphological changes; plant growth; plants; radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; RF-EMF
Introduction
The number of mobile phones users was increased from about 2.2 to 5.9 billion between 2005 and -2011 (Key global telecom indicators, 2012). Approximately four mobile phone service providers exist in a given geographical area (Hyland, 2005). Consequently, the number of base stations was also increased to support the tremendous growth of mobile phone users (World Health Organisation, 2006). According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), this leads to high concentrations of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) in the environment, besides high utilization of broadband technologies (International Telecommunication Union, 2012).
The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMFs from mobile phones as a “Possible
Human Carcinogen” (Group 2B) (World Health Organisation, 2011) (May 2011) based on scientific results presented in the literature. The Interphone study (INTERPHONE Study Group, 2010) (some evidence to suggest increased risk of glioma in heavy adult users > 1640 hours) and the study by Hardell et al. (2006) indicate the growing risk of malignant brain tumors for users of cellular and cordless phones. The results from these stu- dies have not been without controversy. The analysis presented in the another study by Swerdlow et al. (2011) proposes that there is no increase in risk, with accumulat- ing evidence suggesting the fact that mobile phone use is safe for adults. The International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) report (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 1998) indicates that many of the experiments
CONTACT Malka N. Halgamuge malka.nisha@unimelb.edu.au Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/iebm.
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 2017, VOL. 36, NO. 2, 213–235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2016.1220389
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
show effects have not been independently replicated and when replication has been attempted the results could not be reproduced.
The recommendations of standard bodies ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 1998), IEEE (IEEE C95.1-2005, 2005) and European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) (CENELEC, 1995) for exposure limits are based on measurements of the short-term and the immediate health effects due to elevated tissue temperatures on the absorption of energy during exposure. The aims of these guidelines are to minimize heating effects. The specific energy absorption rate (SAR) is a measure of the energy absorption of the body when exposed to RF-EMFs. The European Union (EU) has specified the SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg while in the United States this is specified at 1.6 W/kg (International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection, 1998). Besides these standard bodies, there are a group of members who have evaluated the published data from peer-reviewed scientific journals including European health risk assessment network (EHFRAN) (European health risk assessment network, 2010) and Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) (SCENIHR, 2015) and performed the risk assessment due to RF-EMF exposure.
Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation from the mobile communication systems may depend on the mean power level, frequency and modulation of the electromagnetic signal. Various studies interrogated issues about the safety of extended use of mobile phones; however, most of these findings develop from epidemiological, animal (in vivo) and cell (in vitro) studies. A few studies investigated effects of RF-EMF radiation on plants. In recent decades, a few researchers have reviewed RF-EMF effects on plants (Belyavskaya, 2004; Cucurachi et al., 2016; Panagopoulos et al., 2016; Senavirathna and Takashi, 2014; Vian et al., 2016) and observed the potential trend of RF-EMF influence on plants. On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity of plants will allow them to change their structure and function; hence, plants adapt to environmental changes (Nicotra et al., 2010). Plants are naturally affected by environmental stresses due to their immobility. The relationship between environmental stress and plant development is one of the important research fields dedicated by biologists and physicists (Xiujuan et al., 2003). Plants could respond to the environmental fac- tors of wind, rain, electric field and ultraviolet radiation and adjust its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment (Braam and Davis, 1990; Braam et al., 1996; Mary and Braam, 1997).
Apart from these opinions, there is still a lack of grounds for the observed biological effects of weak RF- EMF on plants. In the light of this ambiguity, in this article, we perform an analysis of data from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific journals (1996–2016) with 169 experimental observations carried out in the scientific literature that discussed the potential effects on plants exposed to the non-thermal weak RF-EMF exposure from the mobile phone radiation.
Material and methods
The investigated frequencies of operation and the mod- ulation signal used by the global system for mobile communications (GSM), continuous wave (CW), pulsed wave (PW) or pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF), time division multiple access (TDMA), code division multiple access (CDMA), frequency division multiple access (FDMA), Gaussian minimum shift key- ing (GMSK), GSM basic, GSM discontinuous transmis- sion (GSM DTX), GSM talk, GSM non-discontinuous transmission (GSM non-DTX), international mobile telecommunication-2000 (IMT-2000), wideband CDMA (WCDMA), enhanced data rate for GSM evo- lution signal (EDGE) and universal mobile telecommu- nication system (UMTS) systems were used in this analysis (Table 1).
Our analysis interrogated published experiments that considered the non-thermal RF-EMF on 29 differ- ent plants including broad bean, ligneous, soybean, maize, brassicaceae, roselle, pea, fenugreek, parrot feather, duckweeds, tomato, red bean, hyaciuth bean, mologabean, parsley, dill, celery, onions, rice plant, mung bean, lentil, common wheat, aspen, alfalfa, Plectranthus, woad, flax, spruce and beech to observe the effects. In this study, physiological or morphologi- cal effects of plants or plant response (changed or unchanged) due to exposure to weak radiofrequency radiation from a mobile phone is defined as the changes in (i) plant growth rate, (ii) seed germination rate (primary shoot and root length), (iii) thermo- graphic imaging, (iv) carbohydrate metabolism, (v) oxi- dative damage/stress, (vi) gene expression, (vii) DNA damage, (viii) reactive oxygen species (ROS), (ix) cell function, enzyme activities, (x) mitotic index and mito- tic abnormalities, (xi) mutation rates and genomic sta- bility, (xii) pigmentation (chlorophyll concentration) and (xiii) chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei.
Collection of raw data
This analysis was made to pool the data of the reported experimental observations (169 experiments) from the
214 M. N. HALGAMUGE
45 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Twenty-nine differ- ent plant types have been used for the published studies to examine the effect of weak radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones. The raw data presented in Tables 2–5 specify the variables and experimental protocols including exposure conditions.
Data inclusion criteria
In our analysis, we considered experiments from the reported studies for exposure conditions in the fre- quency ranging from 895 to 3500 MHz. Although cur- rent mobile phone communication providers use the frequencies from 895 to 3500 MHz, we included a few studies that used high frequencies, as prototypes of fourth-generation (4G) and fifth-generation (5G) mobile phone communication lines are currently being underdeveloped using very high frequencies. Selected 4G networks are utilizing 3.5 and 5.5 GHz frequencies (Lai and Wong, 2008).
SAR is used to observe how RF-EMF exposure could cause heating of biological matter. Hence, for our ana- lysis, we included the studies that used SAR for their experiments on plants. In our analysis, we included experiments that reported results when (i) SAR values are less than 50 W/kg, (ii) power flux densities are less than 50 W/m2 and (iii) electric field strengths are less than 100 V/m. We included the reported studies that used all exposure durations to observe the effects of the
short-term exposures as well as of the long-term expo- sures. Nonetheless, in our analysis, we excluded experi- ments that reported results when (i) no complete dosimetry is disclosed or (ii) if the publication is not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Analysis of raw data
The raw data presented in Tables 2–5 specify the vari- ables that were in the non-thermal RF-EMF exposure conditions and experimental protocols used in this study. Experimental protocols used by different labora- tories have considered a few variables including carrier frequency, SAR, modulation method and exposure time. However, no analysis was directly differentiated frequency, exposure duration and publication year to acquire the potential trend of experiments due to the RF exposure for their analysis.
We pooled and analyzed the reported studies based on the impact of variables that they used for their studies. The descriptive details of the study based on the publication year were analyzed to observe the impact of the technology from 1996 to 2016. Then the comparison of the exposure durations was investigated to detect the trend of the effect. Different exposure duration was observed by further analyzing it in smaller groups, separately: (i) entire exposure time, (ii) 0 < hour ≤ 2, (iii) 2 < hour ≤ 24, (iv) 1 < day ≤ 7, (v) 1 < week ≤ 13 and (vi) 0.25 < year ≤ 6.
Table 1. Frequency used by different mobile phone networks. Generation Frequency Technology Features
1G 800 MHz (824–849 MHz, 869–894 MHz) FDMA Based on analog system, 1G uses channel bandwidth of 30 kHz, data transmission up to 2.4 Kbps
2G 900 MHz (890–915 MHz), 1800 MHz (1850 –1910 MHz), 1930–1990 MHz
TDMA, CDMA 2G (GSM), GSM (each channel is split into eight 0.577us bursts), 2G uses channel bandwidth of 200 kHz for voice transmission. 2G allows multiple users on a single channel through multiplexing data with voice, data transmission up to 14–64 Kbps
2.5G 800 MHz CDMA Enhanced 2G, higher data rates, GPRS, EDGE, data transmission up to 64 Kbps
3G 850, 900, 1700, 1900 (1920–1980 MHz), 2100 MHz (2110– 2170 MHz)
CDMA2000 (1×RTT, EVDO), UMTS (WCDMA), TD-SCDMA
High-speed digital cellphones, 3G is based on WCDMA (wideband code division multiple access) technology, UMTS, 3G uses channel bandwidth of 1.25 MHz for voice transmission for 1×RTT and increases data rate using 3.75 MHz for 3×RTT, TD-SCDMA uses 1.6 MHz bandwidth. Provides high internet browsing speed, video streaming, video calling, data transmission 125 kbps to 2 Mbps
3.5G 850 MHz HSPA Next-G0—“Broadband” cellphones, 3G on steroids (3.5G), it introduces a high-speed downloading channel called HS- DSCH, rated up to 42 Mbps, evolved HSPA (HSPA+), dual carrier technology and 64QAM modulation
4G 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1805–1820 MHz (transmit) and 1710–1725 MHz (receive), 1900 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2300 MHz, 2500 MHz, 2600 MHz, 3500 MHz
WiMax, LTE Enhanced 3G, high-speed and IP-based networks, supports HD streaming, HD phones, data transmission up to 400 Mbps
5G 6–100 GHz CDMA mmWave frequency (next major phase of mobile phone communication will come to market in 2018), 4G + http:// WWWW, IP-based networks (internet of things), data transmission up to 1000 Mbps (gigabit speed)
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 215
Ta b le
2. W ea k RF -E M F ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts : ex p os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in p ub
lis h ed
ex p er im en ts .
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t
(s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
1 Br oa d b ea n
se ed lin g s (V ic ia
fa ba
L. )
91 5 M H z (C W ), SA
R 0. 4,
1, 1. 6 W /k g , p ow
er flu x
d en si ty :2 3, 35 .2 ,4 6 W /m
2 ,p
ow er
1. 5, 2. 3, 3 W
fo r 72
h ou
rs us in g TE M
ce ll
G en ot ox ic ef fe ct s: m ic ro n uc le i in
se co n d ar y ro ot
ti p s
Th e m ic ro n uc le us
fr eq ue n cy
w as
si g n ifi ca n tl y
in cr ea se d in
al l ex p os ur e g ro up
s co m p ar ed
to th e
co n tr ol
g ro up
. H en ce , th e ar ti cl e co n cl ud
es th at
ex p os ur e of
b ro ad
b ea n se ed lin g s (V ic ia fa ba ) to
EM F
co ul d h av e g en ot ox ic ef fe ct s.
C h an g ed
G us ta vi n o
et al . (2 01 6)
2 W h ol e sm
al l
lig n eo us
p la n ts
(R os a hy br id a)
90 0 M H z (G SM
), SA
R 0. 00 07 2, 1. 15
W /k g ,e le ct ri c fie ld
st re n g th
5, 20 0 V /m
fo r 30
m in ut es
in th re e ti m es
us in g a m od
e st ir re d re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er
(M SR C )
ac ti n g as
a Fa ra d ay
ca g e
Sh oo t le n g th
D el ay ed
an d si g n ifi ca n t re d uc ed
g ro w th
w er e
ob se rv ed
in p os t- fo rm
ed se co n d ar y b ud
s. H en ce , th e
ar ti cl e co n cl ud
es th at
ex p os ur e to
EM F on
ly af fe ct ed
in cr em
en t of
p os t- fo rm
ed or g an s.
C h an g ed
G re m ia ux
et al . (2 01 6)
3 So yb ea n p la n ts
se ed lin g s
(G ly ci ne
m ax )
90 0 M H z (G SM
– C W , PW
), SA
R 0. 48
μ W /k g , 0. 04 9,
0. 39 , 2. 6,
20 m W /k g , p ow
er flu x d en si ty : 0. 1,
11 , 86 ,
56 0, 44 00
m W /m
2 ,e le ct ri c fie ld
st re n g th :0 .5 6, 5. 7, 41
V /m
co n ti n uo
us fo r 2 h ou
rs an d co n ti n uo
us fo r 5 d ay s
us in g G TE M
ce ll
G ro w th
of so yb ea n se ed lin g s (g ro w th
of se ed lin g s 1
w ee k (o r in
Ex p er im en t 5 tw o d ay s) af te r ex p os ur e:
le n g th
of ep ic ot yl (i. e. b et w ee n le av es
an d
co ty le d on
), le n g th
of h yp oc ot yl (i. e. b et w ee n
co ty le d on
an d st ar t of
ro ot s) , le n g th
of ro ot s)
Se ed lin g s ex p os ed
to G SM
si g n al s w it h an
el ec tr ic
fie ld
st re n g th
of 41
V /m
ap p ea re d si g n ifi ca n tl y
sh or te r ep ic ot yl s. N o si g n ifi ca n t ch an g es
w er e
ob se rv ed
w h en
ex p os ed
to el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
of 5. 7 V /m
. H ow
ev er , ex p os ur e of
se ed lin g s to
a w ea k
el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
fo r 5 d ay s re su lt ed
in si g n ifi ca n tl y sh or te r ep ic ot yl s an d h yp oc ot yl s an d in
si g n ifi ca n tl y el on
g at ed
ro ot s. Th e ro ot s of
se ed lin g s
th at
w er e ex p os ed
to C W
w it h an
el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
of 41
V /m
w er e si g n ifi ca n tl y sh or te r, w h ile
in th e g ro up
ex p os ed
to C W
w it h an
el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
of 5. 7 V /m
, si g n ifi ca n tl y sh or te r h yp oc ot yl s
w er e ob
se rv ed .
C h an g ed
H al g am
ug e
et al . (2 01 5)
4 M ai ze
se ed lin g s
(Z ea
m ay s L. )
18 00
M H z (C W ), SA
R 1. 69
W /k g , p ow
er flu x d en si ty
33 2 m W /m
2 ,p ow
er 0. 1 W ,c on
ti n uo
us fo r 30
m in ut es ,
1, 2 an d 4 h ou
rs us in g an te n n a, ch am
b er , 5 p et ri
d is h es
w it h 10
se ed lin g s ea ch
Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts : g ro w th
an d ca rb oh
yd ra te
m et ab ol is m
(r oo ts , co le op
ti le s, ti ss ue
h om
og en at es
an d ex tr ac ts )
(i) Th e le n g th
of ro ot s an d co le op
ti le s as
w el l as
th e
ch lo ro p h yl l co n ce n tr at io n w as
si g n ifi ca n tl y re d uc ed .
(ii ) Th e ca rb oh
yd ra te
an d re d uc in g su g ar
co n te n ts
w er e si g n ifi ca n tl y in cr ea se d af te r 1 h ou
r of
ex p os ur e.
(ii i) Th e en zy m e ac ti vi ti es
an d in ve rt as e w er e
si g n ifi ca n tl y in cr ea se d , w h er ea s th e en zy m e ac ti vi ty
of th e st ar ch
p h os p h or yl at es
w as
si g n ifi ca n tl y
d ec re as ed
at th e sa m e ti m e. N o d is ti n ct
d ri ft w as
ob se rv ed
in th e en zy m e ac ti vi ti es
of th e
p h os p h at as es . In
al l p ar am
et er s, a su sc ep ti b ili ty
to w ar d g re at er
ef fe ct s w it h in cr ea si n g ex p os ur e
d ur at io n w as
ob se rv ed .
C h an g ed
Ku m ar
et al .
(2 01 5)
5 Br as si ca ce ae
(L ep id iu m
sa ti vu m )
90 0,
18 00
M H z, fie ld
in te n si ty
70 – 10 0 μ W /m
2 fo r 10
d ay s
Pl an t g er m in at io n
Pl an t g er m in at io n d id n ot
oc cu r un
d er
70 – 10 0 μ W /m
2 C h an g ed
C am
m ae rt s
et al . (2 01 5)
6 M ai ze
(Z ea
m ay s)
10 00
M H z, SA
R 0. 47
W /k g fo r 1– 8 h ou
rs us in g TE M
ce ll
G ro w th
ra te
Re d uc ed
g ro w th
w as
ob se rv ed
of p la n ts
(a b ou
t 50 %
af te r 8 h ou
rs of
ex p os ur e)
C h an g ed
Ra cu ci u et
al .
(2 01 5)
7 Ro se lle
p la n ts
(H ib is cu s
sa bd ar iff a)
90 0 M H z (G SM
), fie ld
st re n g h t 0. 8– 1. 12
V /m
fo r 30
d ay s
Fl ow
er b ud
ab sc is si on
O b se rv ed
th e re d uc ti on
of flo w er
b ud
p ro d uc ti on
an d
ab sc is si on
w it h th e in cr ea se d d is ta n ce s fr om
th e G SM
m as t
C h an g ed
O lu w aj ob
i et
al . (2 01 5)
8 Pe a (P is um
sa ti vu m ),
Fe n ug
re ek
(T ri go ne lla
fo en um
gr ae cu m )
90 0,
18 00
M H z, fo r 0. 5,
1, 2,
4, 8 h ou
rs G er m in at io n p er ce n ta g e, se ed lin g le n g th , p ro te in s,
lip id
an d g ua ia co l co n te n t
RF ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
e af fe ct ed
w it h b ot h
th e b io ch em
ic al an d m or p h ol og
ic al p ro ce ss es
an d
af fe ct ed
th e g ro w th
an d n od
ul e fo rm
at io n in
th e
p la n ts
C h an g ed
Sh ar m a et
al .
(2 01 4)
(C o n ti n u ed
)
216 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Ta b le
2. (C on
ti n ue d ).
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t
(s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
9 Pa rr ot
fe at h er
(M yr io ph yl lu m
aq ua ti cu m
Ve rd c. ) p la n ts
20 00
M H z (C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty : 0. 65 – 1. 42
W /m
2 ,
15 .6
V /m
fo r 60
m in ut es
us in g ex p os ur e ch am
b er
Th er m og
ra p h ic im ag in g : n an om
et ri c el on
g at io n ra te
flu ct ua ti on
(N ER F)
us in g a st at is ti ca l in te rf er om
et ry
te ch n iq ue
N an om
et er -s ca le
el on
g at io n ra te
flu ct ua ti on
s in
th e
p la n t st em
w er e al te re d an d st at is ti ca lly
si g n ifi ca n t
re d uc ti on
w as
ob se rv ed .
C h an g ed
Se n av ir at h n a
et al . (2 01 4a )
10 D uc kw
ee d s
(L em
na m in or )
20 00 , 25 00 , 35 00 , 55 00 , 80 00
M H z (C W ), p ow
er fie ld
in te n si ty
5. 3,
6. 6,
6. 5,
6. 5,
5. 4 W /m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
45 , 50 , 55 , 60
V /m
fo r 0. 5,
1 an d 24
h ou
rs us in g an ec h oi c ch am
b er s
In fr ar ed
th er m og
ra p h ic im ag es :N
on -p h ot oc h em
ic al
q ue n ch in g in d ar k ad ap ta ti on
(N PQ
D ), n on
- p h ot oc h em
ic al q ue n ch in g in st ea d y- st at e lig h t (N PQ
S)
(i) 2 G H z ex p os ur e: th e N PQ
S va lu e in cr ea se d in
al l
ex p os ur es . M or eo ve r, th e N PQ
D re d uc ed
b y af te r 30
m in ut es
an d 24 -h ou
r ex p os ur es , w h er ea s it in cr ea se d
af te r a 1- h ou
r ex p os ur e p er io d . (ii ) 2. 5 G H z EM
R ex p os ur e: th e N PQ
S re d uc ed
in th e 30 -m
in ut e,
1- h ou
r an d 24 -h ou
r ex p os ur e d ur at io n s. (ii i) N PQ
D re d uc ed
af te r 30
m in ut es
of ex p os ur e, in cr ea se d af te r
a 24 -h ou
r an d 1- h ou
r ex p os ur e d ur at io n s. (iv )
te m p er at ur e w as
n ot
ch an g ed
to p ro ve
th at
th e
ef fe ct
is n on
-t h er m al .
C h an g ed
Se n av ir at h n a
et al . (2 01 4b )
11 Pa rr ot
fe at h er
(M yr io ph yl lu m
aq ua ti cu m
V er d c. ) p la n ts
20 00 , 25 00 , 35 00 , 55 00
M H z (C W ), el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
23 , 25 , 30
V /m
fo r 60
m in ut es
us in g
an ec h oi c ch am
b er s
C h an g es
in th e el ec tr ic p ot en ti al (E P)
in si d e p la n ts
C h an g es
in th e el ec tr ic p ot en ti al w er e ob
se rv ed
(s ta ti st ic al ly si g n ifi ca n t) w it h 20 00 , 55 00
M H z
fr eq ue n ci es . Th e te m p er at ur e of
th e p la n ts
w as
n ot
al te re d d ue
to th e EM
R ex p os ur e. Th er ef or e, th is
st ud
y in d ic at es
th e su p p or t of
th e EM
R ef fe ct
on th e
el ec tr ic p ot en ti al in
p la n ts .
C h an g ed
Se n av ir at h n a
an d A sa ed a
(2 01 4)
12 To m at o
(S ol an um
Ly co pe rs ic on
es cu le nt um
M ill )
12 50
M H z, el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
6 V /m
fo r 10
d ay s
us in g p at ch
an te n n a
G ro w th
ra te
an d ce ll ac cu m ul at io n
O b se rv ed
th e in flu en ce
of th e g ro w th
an d th e
d iff er en ti at io n an d ev ok e an
in cr ea se
of p ro te in
ac cu m ul at io n in
th e ce ll
C h an g ed
Ra m m al et
al .
(2 01 4)
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 217
Ta b le
3. W ea k RF -E M F ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts : ex p os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in p ub
lis h ed
ex p er im en ts .
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t (s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
13 (i)
M un
g b ea n (V ig na ,F ab ac ea e) ,( ii) Re d b ea n
(V ig na , Fa bo id ea e) , (ii i) So yb ea n s (C ly ci ne ,
Fa ba ce ae ), (iv ) H ya ci ut h b ea n (L ab la b,
Fa ba ce ae ) an d (v ) M ol og
a b ea n (V ig na ,
Pa pi lio na ce ae )
18 00
0. 48 – 1. 45
m W /c m
2 , SA
R 1. 0– 7. 1 m W /K g fo r
4, 24
h ou
rs Pl an t g ro w th
Re d uc ti on
of h ei g h t an d fr es h w ei g h t w er e ob
se rv ed
C h an g ed
C h en
an d
C h en
(2 01 4)
14 (i)
Pa rs le y (P et ro se lin um
cr is pu m ), (ii ) D ill
(A ne th um
gr av eo le ns ), (ii i) C el er y (A pi um
gr av eo le ns )
86 0– 91 0 M H z (G SM
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
10 0 m W /
m 2 fo r co n ti n uo
us ex p os ur e fo r 3 w ee ks
us in g th e
an ec h oi c ch am
b er
Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts : (i)
le af
an at om
y, (ii ) et h er ic oi l
co n te n t an d (ii i) vo la ti le
em is si on
s
M ic ro w av e ir ra d ia ti on
es ta b lis h ed
a st re ss
to th e
p la n ts , (i)
ri si n g in
la rg er
em is si on
s of
g re en
le af
vo la ti le s, (ii ) up
re g ul at io n of
te rp en oi d em
is si on
s an d
(ii i) m od
ifi ca ti on
in es se n ti al oi l co n te n t an d fo lia g e
an at om
y. Th e au th or s co n cl ud
e th at
ex p os ur e of
d iff er en t ar om
at ic p la n ts to
an el ec tr om
ag n et ic fie ld
of 2. 4 G H z or
90 0 M H z (W
iF i or
G SM
) co ul d in flu en ce
le af
an at om
y as
w el l as
th e et h er ic oi l co n te n t an d
vo la ti le
em is si on
s, w h ic h m ig h t b e an
in d ic at io n fo r
st re ss .
C h an g ed
So ra n et
al .
(2 01 4)
15 O n io n s (A lli um
ce pa
– bu lb s)
89 0– 91 5 M H z (G SM
, PW
), SA
R 1. 4 W /k g , p ow
er d en si ty
4. 79
μ W /m
2 , 0. 00 05
W /m
2 fo r co n ti n uo
us fo r 3 h ou
rs /d ay
on 3 d ay s, fo r 1 h ou
r/ d ay
on 3
d ay s
(i) M it ot ic in d ex
an d
m it ot ic ab n or m al it ie s (ii )
C h ro m os om
al ab er ra ti on
s an d m ic ro n uc le i
G SM
90 0 m ob
ile p h on
e ra d ia ti on
in cr ea se d th e (i)
m it ot ic in d ex , (ii ) th e fr eq ue n cy
of m it ot ic an d (ii i)
ch ro m os om
e ab n or m al it ie s an d (iv ) th e m ic ro n uc le us
fr eq ue n cy
in a ti m e- d ep en d en t m an n er .
C h an g ed
Pe sn ya
an d
Ro m an ov sk y
(2 01 3)
16 M R 21 9 ri ce
va ri et y (O ry za
sa ti va
L. )
24 50
M H z (2 28 0– 24 90
M H z) (C W ), en er g y p ow
er 1. 58
m W
fo r 1,
4, 7,
10 h ou
rs us in g ex p os ur e
ch am
b er
w it h d ip ol e an te n n a
Se ed
g er m in at io n ra te
(p ri m ar y sh oo t an d ro ot
le n g th ), g er m in at io n
p er ce n ta g e an d m ea n
g er m in at io n ti m e
Th e m os t su cc es sf ul
in flu en ce s of
m ic ro w av e
fr eq ue n ci es
on th e se ed
g er m in at io n , sh oo t an d ro ot
g ro w th
sh ow
ed af te r 10
h ou
rs of
ex p os ur e ti m e in th e
p er io d of
5 d ay s w h ile
ot h er
ex p os ur e ti m es
sh ow
ed th e m od
er at e ef fe ct s on
g er m in at io n .
C h an g ed
Ta le i et
al .
(2 01 3)
17 To m at o (L yc op er si co n es cu le nt um
M ill )
90 0 M H z (P W ), 97 0 μ W /m
2 , 0. 6 V /m
fo r 6 ye ar s
G ro w th
ra te /b ur n le av es
of tr ee s
Tr ee s d am
ag ed
d ue
to m ob
ile p h on
e b as e st at io n s
C h an g ed
W al d m an n -
Se ls am
an d
Eg er
(2 01 3)
18 M un
g b ea n (( Vi gn a ra di at a) /W
ilc ze k) ,
h yp oc ot yl s
90 0 M H z (G SM
,P W — ta lk an d lis te n m od
e) ,p ow
er flu x d en si ty : 8. 54
μ W /c m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
5. 7 V /m
co n ti n uo
us fo r 0. 5,
1, 2 h ou
rs us in g
ch am
b er
w it h 2 m m
th ic k al um
in um
sh ee ts
sh ie ld ed
Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts : ro ot
g ro w th
an d ox id at iv e st re ss
Th e av er ag e ro ot
le n g th
an d th e n um
b er
of ro ot s p er
h yp oc ot yl w er e re d uc ed
an d th e in h ib it or y ef fe ct
in cr ea se d w it h th e in cr ea se d ex p os ur e d ur at io n . Th e
ex p os ur e en h an ce d th e en zy m e ac ti vi ti es
of p ro te as es ,
p ol yp h en ol
ox id as es
an d p er ox id as es
in p la n ts
an d
h yp oc ot yl s.
C h an g ed
Si n g h et
al .
(2 01 2)
19 Le n ti l, M ed ic se ed s (L en s cu lin ar is )
18 00
M H z (G SM
), p ow
er 1 m W ,S A R 0. 76
W /k g fo r
48 h ou
rs Pl an t g er m in at io n , ro ot
g ro w th
an d m it ot ic d iv is io n
of ro ot
ti p s
Re d uc ti on
of se ed lin g s ro ot
g ro w th
(6 0%
) an d m it ot ic
in d ex
(1 2%
). A b n or m al
m it os is in cr ea se d (5 2%
) C h an g ed
A kb al et
al .
(2 01 2a )
20 M un
g b ea n (V ig na
ra di at a) , C om
m on
w h ea t
La nd ol ti a pu nc ta ta
(T ri ti cu m
ae st iv um
)) 90 0 M H z fo r 72
h ou
rs Pr ot ei n m et ab ol is m :
p ro te in
an d an ti ox id an t
en zy m es
Pl an t g ro w th
re d uc ti on
w as
ob se rv ed
in V ig n a (2 1%
) an d Tr it ic um
(5 0%
) an d sh ow
ed th e in h ib it or y ef fe ct
on va ri ou
s m or p h ol og
ic al p ar am
et er s, w it h al te re d
b io ch em
ic al re sp on
se . Re as on
s fo r th is re d uc ti on
ar e
co rr el at ed
w it h re d uc ti on
in p ro te in
sy n th es is an d
im p ro ve d m em
b ra n e d am
ag e an d an ti ox id an t en zy m e
ac ti vi ty .
C h an g ed
A kb al et
al .
(2 01 2b )
21 D uc kw
ee d La nd ol ti a pu nc ta ta
(S pi ro de la
ol ig or rh iz a)
12 87
M H z, el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
1. 8,
7. 8 V /m
fo r
24 h ou
rs fr om
a tr an sm
it ti n g an te n n a
Bi ol og
ic al ce ll st re ss
A la n in e ac cu m ul at io n w as
su p p re ss ed
d ue
to th e
ex p os ur e fr om
RF ir ra d ia ti n g an te n n as
C h an g ed
M on
se lis e
et al . (2 01 1)
(C o n ti n u ed
)
218 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Ta b le
3. (C on
ti n ue d ).
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t (s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
22 M un
g b ea n (V ig na
ra di at a) /W
ilc ze k cv . M L- 5
90 0 M H z (G SM
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
8. 55
μ W /c m
2
co n ti n uo
us fo r 0. 5,
1, 2,
4 h ou
rs us in g sh ie ld ed
ch am
b er
ac ti n g as
Fa ra d ay
ca g e
Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts :
g er m in at io n an d g ro w th
Fo llo w in g ke y p oi n ts w er e ob
se rv ed
(i) g er m in at io n of
p la n ts
d ep en d s on
th e ex p os ur e ti m e, (ii ) 4- h ou
r ex p os ur e re d uc ed
th e g er m in at io n b y h al f, (ii i)
re d uc ed
th e le n g th
of th e se ed lin g s an d d ry
w ei g h t of
b ea n af te r ex p os ur e fo r 0. 5,
1, 2 an d 4 h ou
rs , (iv ) th e
co n te n ts
of p ro te in s an d ca rb oh
yd ra te s w er e
d ec re as ed .
C h an g ed
Sh ar m a et
al .
(2 01 0)
23 Pe as
(P is um
sa ti vu m
L. )
94 7. 5 M H z (G SM
,P W ,C
W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
4. 8
W /m
2 ,e le ct ri c fie ld st re n g th
42 .6 V /m
fo r 1, 12 ,1 4
h ou
rs
C h an g e in
ch lo ro p h yl l
flu or es ce n ce
co n ce n tr at io n
Ex ce p ti on
al ch an g e d ur in g th e d ay , p at te rn
of ch lo ro p h yl l flu or es ce n ce
p ar am
et er s w as
ob se rv ed . (i)
Lo n g er
ex p os ur e to
co n ti n uo
us G SM
90 0 EM
F si m ul at in g ra d ia ti on
fr om
b as e st at io n in ru sh
h ou
r fo r
14 d ay s, (ii ) 1 h ou
r/ d ay ,( iii ) 12
h ou
rs d id n ot
st im ul at e
st re ss
in p ea
p la n ts d et er m in ed
b y th e p ro m p t
ch lo ro p h yl l flu or es ce n ce
p ar am
et er s.
C h an g ed
Ko uz m an ov a
et al . (2 01 0)
24 A sp en
se ed lin g s (P op ul us )
10 00 – 30 00
M H z, fie ld
in te n si ty
11 7d Bm
to 87 d Bm
, p ow
er 1. 99 e– 15
to 1. 99 e– 12
W fo r 8
w ee ks
us in g Fa ra d ay
ca g e
G ro w th
ra te
G ro w th
ra te
re d uc ed
in as p en
se ed lin g s d ue
to am
b ie n t EM
R. C h an g ed
H ag g er ty
(2 01 0)
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 219
Ta b le
4. W ea k RF -E M F ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts : ex p os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in p ub
lis h ed
ex p er im en ts .
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t
(s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
25 Pl ec tr an th us
(L am
ia ce ae )
90 2 M H z (G SM
, PW
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
4. 8 W /
m 2 , p ow
er 2W
, fo r 60
m in ut es
in ch am
b er
A lt er at io n s in
en zy m e ac ti vi ti es
in Pl ec tr an th us
p la n t le av es
af te r ex p os ur e
A ft er
th e ex p os ur e, ac ti vi ti es
of th e th re e ex am
in ed
en zy m es
w er e re d uc ed , th ou
g h , th ey
in cr ea se d af te r 24
h ou
rs
C h an g ed
Ko uz m an ov a
et al . (2 00 9)
26 M un
g b ea n (V ig na
ra di at a)
90 0 M H z (G SM
, PW
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty : 8. 55
μ W /c m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
5. 7 V /m
co n ti n uo
us fo r 0. 5,
1, 2,
4 h ou
rs us in g sh ie ld ed
ch am
b er
ac ti n g as
Fa ra d ay
ca g e
Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts : ro ot
g ro w th
an d ox id at iv e
st re ss
RF -E M F ex p os ur e (i)
si g n ifi ca n tl y d ec re as es
ro ot
g ro w th
of m un
g b ea n b y in d uc in g RO
S- g en er at ed
ox id at iv e st re ss
re g ar d le ss
of in cr ea se d ac ti vi ti es
of an ti ox id an t en zy m es ,
(ii ) si g n ifi ca n t up
re g ul at io n in
th e ac ti vi ti es
of en zy m e
se ar ch in g en zy m es
in th e ro ot s an d (ii i) in cr ea se d ox id at iv e
st re ss
an d ce llu la r d am
ag e.
C h an g ed
Sh ar m a et
al .
(2 00 9a )
27 M un
g b ea n (P ha se ol us
au re us )
90 0 M H z (G SM
), fo r 1,
2, 4 h ou
rs Ra d ic le
an d p lu m ul e g ro w th
Re d uc ed
th e ra d ic le
an d p lu m ul e g ro w th
an d d ec re as ed
th e p ro te in
an d ca rb oh
yd ra te
am ou
n t in
ra d ic le s th ro ug
h in te rf er en ce
w it h as so ci at ed
b io ch em
ic al ch an g es .
C h an g ed
Sh ar m a et
al .
(2 00 9b )
28 C om
m on
w h ea t
(T ri ti cu m
ae st iv um
) 24 50
M H z, 12 6 m W /m
m 2 fo r 5– 25
se co n d s
O xi d at iv e m et ab ol is m
Re d uc ed
th e ox id at iv e re sp on
se of
p la n ts
to h ig h sa lt
tr ea tm
en t
C h an g ed
C h en
et al .
(2 00 9)
29 O n io n (A lli um
ce pa
L. )
90 0 M H z (G SM
), p ow
er d en si ty
0. 3, 1. 4, 4. 2 an d
38 .2 W /m
2 ,f ie ld
st re n g th s of
10 ,2 3, 41
an d 12 0
V /m
fo r 2,
4 h ou
rs us in g G TE M
ce ll
C yt og
en ic an d g en ot ox ic ef fe ct s in p la n ts an d
g ro w th
of p la n ts
(i) in cr ea se
in th e m it ot ic in d ex
in ro ot
ti p s w as
ob se rv ed
an d (ii ) m it ot ic an d ch ro m os om
al ab n or m al it ie s w er e
fo un
d ;n
ev er th el es s, ro ot
le n g th
an d g er m in at io n ra te s d id
n ot
al te r co n si d er ab ly .
C h an g ed
Tk al ec
et al .
(2 00 9)
30 C om
m on
w h ea t
(T ri ti cu m
ae st iv um
) 90 2 M H z (G SM
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
3. 9 W /m
2
fo r 60
m in ut es
H yd ro g en
p er ox id e (H
2 O 2 ) co n ce n tr at io n ,
ox id at iv e st re ss ,r ea ct iv e ox yg en
sp ec ie s, le ve l Re su lt s sh ow
th at
on e- h ou
r ex p os ur e to
90 0 M H z EM
F d id
n ot
st im ul at e ox id at iv e st re ss
in C om
m on
w h ea t at
in ve st ig at ed
p ar am
et er s.
U n ch an g ed
D ra g ol ov a
et al . (2 00 9)
31 M ai ze
(Z ea
m ay s L. )
93 5. 2– 96 0. 2 M H z (G SM
), p ow
er flu x d en si ty 0. 7–
1. 5 W /m
2 fo r 2- w ee k co n ti n uo
us fr om
b as e
st at io n
G er m in at io n ra te s
O b se rv ed
th e in cr ea se d g er m in at io n ra te s of
se ed
an d
p ig m en ta ti on
(c h lo ro p h yl l) an d se ed lin g g ro w th
ra te s.
G er m in at io n ra te
w as
fo un
d to
b e m ax im um
at 1. 5 W /m
2
an d th e ch lo ro p h yl lc on
ce n tr at io n w as
h ig h es t at 0. 7 W /m
2 .
C h an g ed
Kh al af al la h
an d Sa lla m
(2 00 9)
32 Br as si ca ce ae
(A ra bi do ps is th al ia na )
– p la n t ce ll su sp en si on
cu lt ur es
19 00
M H z (C W ), SA
R 0. 75
W /k g , p ow
er flu x
d en si ty : 8 m W /c m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th : 17 4
V /m
,c on
ti n uo
us fo r 24
h r us in g d ip ol e an te n n a,
fla sk
p la ce d in si d e a Fa ra d ay
ca g e
G en e ex p re ss io n , RT -P C R
RF -E M F (i)
h av e n o si g n ifi ca n t ef fe ct on
th e g en e ac ti vi ty
of p la n t ce lls .
U n ch an g ed
En g el m an n
et al . (2 00 8)
33 To m at o (L yc op er si co n
es cu le nt um
M ill ) /
V FN
8
90 0 M H z, p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06 6 W /m
2
el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
5 V /m
fo r 10
m in ut es
us in g m od
e st ir re d re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er
(M SR C )
A cc um
ul at io n of
st re ss -r el at ed
tr an sc ri p ts an d
ce llu la r en er g y st at e
W it h RF
ex p os ur e, st re ss -r el at ed
m RN
A (c al ci um
- d ep en d en t p ro te in
ki n as e, ca lm od
ul in , an d p ro te in as e
in h ib it or ) ac cu m ul at ed
in a fa st ,l ar g e an d 3- p h as e m an n er .
C h an g ed
Ro ux
et al .
(2 00 8a )
34 To m at o (L yc op er si co n
es cu le nt um
VF N 8)
90 0 M H z (C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06 6 W /m
2 ,
fie ld
st re n g th
5 V /m
fo r 10
m in ut es
us in g a
m od
e st ir re d re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er
(M SR C )
M ol ec ul ar
b io sy n th es is (a cc um
ul at io n of
st re ss -r el at ed
tr an sc ri p ts
an d ce llu la r en er g y
st at e)
In ad d it io n to
th e st re ss -r el at ed
m RN
A ac cu m ul at io n an d
it s d ep en d en cy
on th e se co n d m es se n g er
ca lc iu m , th is
ar ti cl e sp ot te d a st ro n g co rr el at io n b et w ee n to ta l an d
p ol ys om
al tr an sc ri p t ab un
d an ce , A TP
co n ce n tr at io n an d
ad en yl at e en er g y ch ar g e.
C h an g ed
Ro ux
et al .
(2 00 8b )
35 To m at o p la n ts
(S ol an um
Ly co pe rs ic on
es cu le nt um
, VF N -8 )
90 0 M H z (C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06 6 W /m
2 ,
fie ld
am p lit ud
e of
5 V /m
fo r 10
m in ut es
us in g a
m od
e st ir re d re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er
(M SR C )
ch am
b er
ac t as
a Fa ra d ay
ca g e
m RN
A ac cu m ul at io n , RT -q ua n ti ta ti ve
PC R
an al ys is
Re su lt s sh ow
th at
to m at o p la n ts co m p ri se
g re at
m od
el s to
st ud
y th e im p ac t of
H F- EM
F on
lif e, as
th ey
re sp on
d to
EM F.
C h an g ed
Be au b oi s
et al . (2 00 7)
36 M ai ze
(Z ea
m ay s L.
90 0 M H z (G SM
), SA
R 0. 95
m W /k g , p ow
er d en si ty
0. 05
W /m
2 fo r 0. 5,
1, 2,
4, 8,
12 , 24 , 36
h ou
rs U si n g TE M
ce ll
G er m in at io n s an d se ed lin g g ro w th ,
as si m ila to ry
p ig m en ts
an d av er ag e n uc le ic
ac id
So m e ex p os ur e d ur at io n s st im ul at ed
se ed
g er m in at io n s
an d se ed lin g g ro w th . Fu rt h er m or e, th e RN
A an d D N A of
se ed lin g s d ev el op
ed fr om
ex p os ed
se ed s w er e
tr em
en d ou
sl y in cr ea se d fo r sh or t ex p os ur e d ur at io n s.
C h an g ed
Ra cu ci u an d
M ic la us
(2 00 7)
(C o n ti n u ed
)
220 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Ta b le
4. (C on
ti n ue d ).
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t
(s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
37 D uc kw
ee d (L em
na m in or
L. )
90 0 M H z (C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 3,
1. 4,
4. 2,
38 .2 W /m
2 ,e le ct ri c fie ld st re n g th
10 ,2 3, 41 ,1 20
V /m
co n ti n uo
us fo r 2,
4 h ou
rs us in g G TE M
ce ll
O xi d at iv e st re ss
(li p id
p er ox id at io n ,h
yd ro g en
p er ox id e co n te n t; en zy m e ac ti vi ti es ,
is oe n zy m e p at te rn
of an ti ox id at iv e en zy m es ,
H SP 70
ex p re ss io n us in g W es te rn
b lo t)
N on
-t h er m al ex p os ur e to
in ve st ig at ed
RF fie ld s st im ul at ed
ox id at iv e st re ss
in d uc kw
ee d , in
al l ex p os ur e ac ti on
s th e
b el ow
w er e ob
se rv ed :( i) n o ch an g es
in is oe n zy m e p at te rn s
of an ti ox id at iv e en zy m es
or H SP 70
le ve l (ii ) as co rb at e
p er ox id as e ac ti vi ty
w as
si g n ifi ca n tl y d ec re as ed
af te r
ex p os ur e at
10 V /m
an d 23
V /m
(ii i) in cr ea se d p yr og
al lo l
an d ca ta la se
en zy m e ac ti vi ty
at 12 0 V /m
(iv ) th e ef fe ct s
d ep en d ed
on th e EM
Fs fr eq ue n ci es
ap p lie d , fie ld
st re n g th ,
m od
ul at io n an d ex p os ur e ti m e.
C h an g ed
Tk al ec
et al .
(2 00 7)
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 221
Ta b le
5. W ea k RF -E M F ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts : ex p os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in p ub
lis h ed
ex p er im en ts .
N o.
Ex p os ed
p la n t
(s ci en ti fic
n am
e) Ex p os ur e sy st em
A n al ys is
Re su lt s
Re sp on
se au th or s
38 To m at o
(L yc op er si co n
es cu le nt um
M ill .) /
VF N 8
90 0 M H z (C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06 6 W /
m 2 , fie ld
st re n g th
5 V /m
fo r 10
m in ut es
us in g
a m od
e st ir re d re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er
(M SR C )
M ol ec ul ar
b io sy n th es is (a cc um
ul at io n of
st re ss -r el at ed
tr an sc ri p ts (t ot al tr an sc ri p ts fo r n et
ac cu m ul at io n an d
p ol yr ib os om
e- aa so ci at ed
tr an sc ri p ts
fo r cu rr en t
tr an sl at io n ) an d ce llu la r en er g y st at e)
N ew
ev id en ce
to su p p or t th e h yp ot h es is th at
p la n ts
p er ce iv e an d re sp on
d to
m ic ro w av e ex p os ur e as
th ou
g h it
w as
an in ju ri ou
s tr ea tm
en t. A ut h or s n ot ic ed
a st ro n g
co rr el at io n b et w ee n al l th e p ar am
et er s m ea su re d (A TP
co n ce n tr at io n , to ta l an d p ol ys om
al tr an sc ri p t ab un
d an ce
an d ad en yl at e en er g y ch ar g e) .
C h an g ed
Ro ux
et al .
(2 00 7)
39 To m at o (S ol an um
Ly co pe rs ic on
es cu le nt um
M ill /
VF N 8)
90 0 M H z (U M TS , C D M A ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06
m W /c m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
3. 9 V /m
, fo r 10
m in ut es
us in g M SR C (m
od e st ir re d
re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er )
St re ss
re sp on
se of
to m at o,
m RN
A (q ua n ti ta ti ve
RT -
PC R)
Re su lt s sh ow
ed th at
(i) lo w
am p lit ud
e, sh or t d ur at io n , 90 0
M H z EM
F ev ok ed
th e ac cu m ul at io n of
th e st re ss -r el at ed
tr an sc ri p t (m
RN A ) (ii ) th is ac cu m ul at io n w as
ra p id — p ea ki n g
5– 15
m in ut es
af te r ex p os ur e, st ro n g — 3. 5- fo ld
an d w as
al ik e to
th at
ev ok ed
b y in ju ri ou
s st im ul i.
C h an g ed
V ia n et
al .
(2 00 6)
40 To m at o (S ol an um
Ly co pe rs ic on
es cu le nt um
M ill .)/
VF N 8
90 0 M H z (G SM
, C W ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 06 6
W /m
2 , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
5 V /m
, fo r 2,
10 m in ut es , us in g M SR C (m
od e st ir re d
re ve rb er at io n ch am
b er )
St re ss
re sp on
se of
to m at o,
q ua n ti ta ti ve
RT -P C R
Ex p os ur e to
th e RF -E M Fs : (i)
th e ki n et ic s an d am
p lit ud
es of
th e tr an sc ri p ts ex h ib it ed
ob vi ou
s si m ila ri ti es
w it h
p h ys io lo g ic re sp on
se s an d in ju ri ou
s tr ea tm
en ts . (ii ) in d uc ed
a b ip h as ic re sp on
se — th e le ve ls of
al l th re e tr an sc ri p ts
in cr ea se d
C h an g ed
Ro ux
et al .
(2 00 6)
41 A lfa lfa
(M ed ic ag o
sa ti va )
24 00 ,5 85 0 M H z, d en si ti es
of 5, 12
W /m
2 fo r 7
w ee ks
A lt er n at io n in
m or p h ol og
y, ch lo ro p h yl l
co n ce n tr at io n s, st em
le n g th s
N o al te ra ti on
w as
ob se rv ed
in m or p h ol og
y, ch lo ro p h yl l
co n ce n tr at io n s, st em
le n g th s or
th e d ry
or w et
w ei g h t.
U n ch an g ed
Sk ile s
(2 00 6)
42 Se ed lin g s of
W oa d
(Is at is in di go ti ca )
24 50
M H z, p ow
er flu x d en si ty
1. 26
m W /m
m 2
fo r 8 se co n d s
C el l fu n ct io n (i)
en zy m e ac ti vi ti es
of al p h a- am
yl as e,
(ii ) al an in e tr an sa m in as e, (ii i) g lu ta m ic ox al oa ce ti c
tr an sa m in as e
RF -E M Fs
w er e co n si d er ab ly im p ro ve d : (i)
Th e en zy m e
ac ti vi ti es
of am
yl as e, tr an sa m in as e an d p ro te in as e of
th e
co ty le d on
p re -t re at ed , (ii ) Th e b io -p h ot on
em is si on
w as
g re at er
fr om
se ed lin g s th an
fr om
th e se ed s.
C h an g ed
C h en
et al .
(2 00 5)
43 D uc kw
ee d (L em
na m in or
L. )
90 0,
19 00
M H z (C W , A M ), p ow
er flu x d en si ty
0. 26 ,1 .4 ,4 .4 5 W /m
2 ,e le ct ri c fie ld
st re n g th
10 ,
23 , 41
V /m
fo r 2,
4 an d 14
h ou
rs us in g G TE M
ce ll
Pl an t g ro w th
Pl an t g ro w th
ex p os ed
to th e 23
V /m
el ec tr ic fie ld s of
90 0
M H z fo r 2,
4 h ou
rs co n si d er ab ly d ec re as ed
in co m p ar is on
w it h th e co n tr ol . A m od
ul at ed
fie ld
at 90 0 M H z in h ib it ed
th e p la n t g ro w th . Ir ra d ia ti on
of p la n ts to
lo w er
fie ld
st re n g th
(1 0 V /m
) fo r 14
h ou
rs af fe ct ed
si g n ifi ca n t d ec re as e
at 19 00
M H z, w h ile
90 0 M H z d id
n ot
in flu en ce
th e g ro w th .
C h an g ed
Tk al ec
et al .
(2 00 5)
44 Fl ax
se ed lin g s
(L in um
us it at is si m um
L. va r
A ri an e)
90 0 M H z (G SM
,P W ), 1 m W /c m
2 ,p ow
er 2W
fo r
2 h ou
rs us in g ce llu la r p h on
e Ef fe ct s on
p la n ts , n um
b er
of m er is te m s
Th e si g n ifi ca n t ch an g es
w er e ob
se rv ed
in io n d is tr ib ut io n
fo r m ag n es iu m ,c al ci um
,p ot as si um
,a n d so d iu m
d ue
to th e
RF -E M F.
C h an g ed
Ta ff or ea u
et al .
(2 00 2)
45 Sp ru ce
(P ic ea
ab ie s
(L .) Ka rs t. ) an d
Be ec h (F ag us
sy lv at ic u L. )
se ed lin g s
24 50
M H z, p ow
er d en si ti es
of 0. 00 7– 30 0 W /
m 2 (G ro up
1: 0. 1– 0. 3 m W /c m
2 , G ro up
2: 1– 3
m W /c m
2 ,G
ro up
3: 10 – 30
m W /c m
2 ,G
ro up
4: <
0. 00 1 m W /c m
2 ,) fo r 3. 5 ye ar s
G ro w th
ra te
an d p h ot os yn th et ic ac ti vi ty
In b ot h p la n ts , th e fo lia r co n ce n tr at io n s of
ca lc iu m
an d
su lp h ur
d ec re as ed
w it h an
in cr ea se d RF -E M F th ro ug
h th e
se co n d ye ar ;h ow
ev er ,t h e ob
se rv at io n w as
n ot
p re se n te d in
th e th ir d ye ar .
U n ch an g ed
Sc h m ut z
et al .
(1 99 6)
222 M. N. HALGAMUGE
The 3G/UMTS uses 1885–2025 MHz and 2110–2200 MHz, on a worldwide basis, while GSM uses 900 and 1800 MHz. In UMTS, both the carrier frequency and the modulation method differ significantly from GSM, and thus different biological responses can be expected. As carrier frequency and modulation formats differ significantly across wireless standards, it is possible that different biological responses may be expected or observed. To incorporate this, we pool the experiment data, based on used frequencies and exposure dura- tions. Our analysis considered the effect of several sub- groups of frequency (f): (i) all frequencies, (ii) 800≤ f ≤ 1500 MHz, (iii) 1500< f ≤2400 MHz, (iv) 2400< f ≤2500 MHz, (v) 2500< f ≤3500 MHz and (vi) 3500< f ≤8000 MHz values.
Although there were Wi-Fi and other technologies that use 2.45 GHz frequencies, we did not consider this, as it is apart from the scope and aim of this analysis to observe the effect of such technologies.
Statistical analysis
We perform statistical analysis to organize the data and predict the trends based on the analysis. To complete this, we tested whether the probability of an effect (changed) being reported in the literature was statisti- cally different to no effect (unchanged) being reported. In statistics, the binomial distribution is the base for the common binomial test of statistical significance. This method is used to observe the importance of the “suc- cess–failure” experiments (in our case physiological or morphological effects on plants: “changed- unchanged”). Therefore, in this article, we used this knowledge to obtain the statistical significance of the analysis. The null hypothesis in our analysis is that the probability of an experiment showing effects or no effects (physiological or morphological effects on plants: changed or unchanged) is equal. The alternative hypothesis is that these probabilities are statistically different. To test for significance, a binomial probability density function was used,
pðkÞ ¼ n k
� � pkð1 � pÞn�k;
where p(k) is the probability of having k positive experiments (physiological or morphological effects on plants: changed) from the n reported experiments, p is equal to 0.5, and the null hypothesis is rejected if p(k) < 0.05, as used in (Halgamuge and Skafidas, 2016). The MATLAB (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) R2014b has been used to carry out analysis on a com- puter with an Intel Core Intel Core i7 CPU.
Results
The aim of this work was to investigate the hypothesis that non-thermal, weak, RF-EMFs have an effect on living organisms, in our case, on plants. Our analysis of the reported results demonstrates that RF-EMFs might impact on plants. In spite of that, it suggests a possible benefit of drawing attention to the significance of the exposure limits to weak RF-EMFs.
In our final analysis, we pooled the data, showing a statistically significant difference in various parameters (published year, exposure time, frequency and plant type) for different plants. This analysis showed a statis- tically significant difference in 29 different species plants from other species in Tables 2–5. Some of the important parameters considered for this analysis are: (i) name of the plant (including the scientific name), (ii) exposure system (SAR (W/kg), power flux density (W/m2), electric field strength (V/m), (iii) exposure duration, (iv) number of different exposures, (v) status of physiological effects (changed or unchanged) and (vi) year and authors.
Summary from all 45 studies of the detailed expo- sure conditions are shown in Tables 6 and 7. An over- view of the published year and the number of publications is analyzed in Table 8 to observe the potential trend by using the data from 1996 to 2016. A pattern of effect on plants due to the RF-EMFs over the years can be observed here. Besides the lack of significant studies on each year, the results show that plants seem to be responsive to the RF-EMFs. Our analysis of the reported results suggests that substantial studies on plants indicate physiological or morphologi- cal changes due to weak radiofrequency radiation in 52 studies (89.9%) and 17 studies (10.1%) show no such changes (p < 0.0001). Studies on plants that indicate physiological or morphological changes due to weak radiofrequency radiation, based on the publication year, can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 8. This observation should be further analyzed with more stu- dies in the future.
Table 9 presents physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) based on the exposure duration. We analyzed the data based on various subgroups of the exposure duration. A substantial amount of studies indicate plants have experienced physiological or morphological changes due to radiofrequency radiation and show statistically significant changes for the short-term exposure dura- tion: (i) less than 2 hours (92%, p < 0.001), (ii) between 2 and 24 hours (98%, p < 0.001), (iii) between 1 and 7 days (92%, p < 0.001) and (iv) between 1 and 13 weeks (100%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the results obtained from the
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 223
Ta b le 6.
W ea k ra d io fr eq ue n cy
ra d ia ti on
ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts :e xp os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in ou
r st ud
y— d at a fr om
th e 45
p ee r- re vi ew
ed sc ie n ti fic
ar ti cl es
p ub
lis h ed
in 19 96 – 20 16 .
Ph ys io lo g ic al ef fe ct s
N o.
Fr eq ue n cy
SA R,
p ow
er flu x d en si ty
p ow
er /e le ct ri c fie ld
st re n g th
Ex p os ur e d ur at io n
N um
b er
of ex p os ur es
C h an g ed
U n ch an g ed
Ye ar
A ut h or s
01 91 5 M H z
0. 4,
1, 1. 6 W /k g , 23 , 35 .2 , 46
W /m
2 72
h ou
rs 3
3 0
20 16
G us ta vi n o et
al . (2 01 6)
02 90 0 M H z (G SM
) 0. 00 07 2,
1. 15
W /k g , el ec tr ic fie ld
st re n g th
5, 20 0 V /m
90 m in ut es
2 2
0 20 16
G re m ia ux
et al . (2 01 6)
03 90 0 M H z (G SM
, PW
, C W )
0. 48
μ W /k g ,0 .0 49 ,0 .3 9, 2. 6, 20
m W /k g ,0 .1 ,1 1, 86 ,5 60 ,4 40 0 m W /m
2 ,
0. 56 , 5. 7,
41 V /m
10 h ou
rs 5
4 1
20 15
H al g am
ug e et
al . (2 01 5)
04 18 00
M H z (C W )
1. 69
W /k g , 33 2 m W /m
2 , 0. 1 W
30 m in ut es , 1, 2 an d 4
h ou
rs 4
4 0
20 15
Ku m ar
et al . (2 01 5)
05 90 0,
18 00
M H z (G SM
) 70 – 10 0 μ W /m
2 , 0. 16 2 V /m
10 d ay s
4 4
0 20 15
C am
m ae rt s et
al . (2 01 5)
06 10 00
M H z
0. 47
W /k g
1– 8 h ou
rs 2
2 0
20 15
Ra cu ci u et
al . (2 01 5)
07 90 0 M H z (G SM
) 0. 8– 1. 12
V /m
30 d ay s
12 12
0 20 15
O lu w aj ob
i et
al . (2 01 5)
08 90 0,
18 00
M H z (G SM
) –
0. 5,
1, 2,
4, 8 h ou
rs 20
20 0
20 14
Sh ar m a an d Pa ri h ar
(2 01 4)
09 20 00
M H z
0. 65
μ W /m
2 60
m in ut es
1 1
0 20 14 a
Se n av ir at h n a et
al . (2 01 4a )
10 20 00 ,2 50 0, 35 00 ,5 50 0, 80 00
M H z
(C W )
5. 3,
6. 6,
6. 5,
6. 5,
5. 4 W /m
2 , 45 , 50 , 55 , 60
V /m
0. 5,
1 an d 24
h ou
rs 15
15 0
20 14 b
Se n av ir at h n a et
al . (2 01 4b )
11 20 00 , 25 00 , 35 00 , 55 00
M H z (C W )
23 , 25 , 30
V /m
60 m in ut es
4 2
2 20 14 c
Se n av ir at h n a an d A sa ed a
(2 01 4)
12 12 50
M H z
6 V /m
10 d ay s
1 1
0 20 14
Ra m m al et
al . (2 01 4)
13 18 00
M H z (G SM
) 0. 48 – 1. 45
m W /c m
2 , SA
R 1. 0– 7. 1 m W /K g
4, 24
h ou
rs 10
10 2
20 14
C h en
an d C h en
(2 01 4)
14 86 0– 91 0 M H z (G SM
) 10 0 m W /m
2 3 w ee ks
3 3
0 20 14
So ra n et
al . (2 01 4)
15 89 0– 91 5 M H z
1. 4 W /k g , 4. 79
μ W /m
2 , 0. 00 05
W /m
2 3,
9 h ou
rs 2
2 0
20 13
Pe sn ya
an d Ro m an ov sk y
(2 01 3)
16 24 50
M H z (2 28 0– 24 90
M H z)
1. 58
m W
1, 4,
7, 10
h ou
rs 4
4 0
20 13
Ta le i et
al . (2 01 3)
17 fr eq
M H z (G SM
) 97 0 μ W /m
2 , 0. 6 V /m
6 ye ar s
1 1
0 20 13
W al d m an n -S el sa m
an d
Eg er
(2 01 3)
18 90 0 M H z (G SM
, PW
– ta lk an d
lis te n m od
e) 8. 54
μ W /c m
2 , 5. 7 V /m
0. 5,
1, 2 h ou
rs 3
3 0
20 12
Si n g h et
al . (2 01 2)
19 18 00
M H z (G SM
) 1 m W , 0. 76
W /k g
48 h rs
2 2
0 20 12
A kb al et
al . (2 01 2a )
20 90 0 M H z
– 72
h ou
rs 2
2 0
20 12
A kb al et
al . (2 01 2b )
21 12 87
M H z (G SM
) 1. 8,
7. 8 V /m
, 0. 00 7,
0. 16
W /m
2 24
h ou
rs 2
2 0
20 11
M on
se lis e et
al . (2 01 1)
22 90 0 M H z (G SM
) 8. 55
μ W /c m
2 0. 5,
1, 2,
4 h ou
rs 4
4 0
20 10
Sh ar m a et
al . (2 01 0)
23 94 7. 5 M H z (G SM
, PW
, C W )
4. 8 W /m
2 , 42 .6
V /m
1, 12 , 14
h ou
rs 3
2 1
20 10
Ko uz m an ov a et
al . (2 01 0)
24 10 00 – 30 00
M H z
11 7d Bm
to 87 d Bm
, 1. 99 e– 15
to 1. 99 e– 12
W 8 w ee ks
1 1
0 20 10
H ag g er ty
(2 01 0)
25 90 2 M H z (G SM
, PW
) 4. 8 W /m
2 , 2W
60 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 09
Ko uz m an ov a et
al . (2 00 9)
224 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Ta b le 7.
W ea k ra d io fr eq ue n cy
ra d ia ti on
ex p os ur e fr om
m ob
ile p h on
es on
p la n ts :e xp os ur e co n d it io n s us ed
in ou
r st ud
y – d at a fr om
th e 45
p ee r- re vi ew
ed sc ie n ti fic
ar ti cl es
p ub
lis h ed
in 19 96 – 20 16 .
Ph ys io lo g ic al ef fe ct s
N o.
Fr eq ue n cy
SA R,
p ow
er flu x d en si ty
p ow
er /e le ct ri c fie ld
st re n g th
Ex p os ur e d ur at io n
N um
b er
of ex p os ur es
C h an g ed
U n ch an g ed
Ye ar
A ut h or s
26 90 0 M H z (G SM
, PW
) 8. 55
μ W /c m
2 , 5. 7 V /m
0. 5,
1, 2,
4 h ou
rs 4
3 1
20 09 a
Sh ar m a et
al . (2 00 9a )
27 90 0 M H z (G SM
) SA
R 1,
2, 4 h ou
rs 3
3 0
20 09 b
Sh ar m a et
al . (2 00 9b )
28 24 50
M H z
12 6 m W /m
m 2
5– 25
se co n d
2 2
0 20 09
C h en
et al . (2 00 9)
29 90 0 M H z (G SM
) 0. 3,
1. 4,
4. 2 an d 38 .2
W /m
2 , 10 , 23 , 41
an d 12 0 V /m
2, 4 h ou
rs 6
6 0
20 09
Tk al ec
et al . (2 00 9)
30 90 2 M H z (G SM
) 3. 9 W /m
2 60
m in ut es
1 0
1 20 09
D ra g ol ov a et
al . (2 00 9)
31 93 5. 2– 96 0. 2 M H z (G SM
) 0. 7– 1. 5 W /m
2 2 w ee ks
3 3
0 20 09
Kh al af al la h et
al . (2 00 8)
32 19 00
M H z
0. 75
W /k g , 8 m W /c m
2 , 17 4 V /m
24 h ou
rs 1
0 1
20 08
En g el m an n et
al . (2 00 8)
33 90 0 M H z
0. 06 6 W /m
2 , 5 V /m
10 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 08 a
Ro ux
et al . (2 00 8a )
34 90 0 M H z
0. 06 6 W /m
2 , 5 V /m
10 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 08 b
Ro ux
et al . (2 00 8b )
35 90 0 M H z (C W )
0. 06 6 W /m
2 , 5 V /m
10 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 07
Be au b oi s et
al . (2 00 7)
36 90 0 M H z (G SM
) 0. 95
m W /k g , 0. 05
W /m
2 0. 5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 , 24 , 36
h ou
rs 8
8 0
20 07
Ra cu ci u an d M ic la us
(2 00 7)
37 90 0 M H z (C W )
0. 3,
1. 4,
4. 2,
38 .2
W /m
2 , 10 , 23 , 41 , 12 0 V /m
2, 4 h ou
rs 6
6 0
20 07
Tk al ec
et al . (2 00 7)
38 90 0 M H z (C W )
0. 06 6 W /m
2 , 5 V /m
10 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 07
Ro ux
et al . (2 00 7)
39 90 0 M H z (U M TS , C D M A )
0. 06
m W /c m
2 , 3. 9 V /m
10 m in ut es
1 1
0 20 06
V ia n et
al . (2 00 6)
40 90 0 M H z (G SM
, C W )
0. 00 66
m W /c m
2 , 5 V /m
2, 10
m in ut es
2 2
0 20 06
Ro ux
et al . (2 00 6)
41 24 00 , 58 50
M H z
5, 12
W /m
2 7 w ee ks
2 0
2 20 06
Sk ile s (2 00 6)
42 24 50
M H z
1. 26
m W /m
m 2
8 se co n d s
1 1
0 20 05
C h en
et al . (2 00 5)
43 90 0, 19 00
M H z (C W ,A
M )
0. 26 , 1. 4,
4. 45
W /m
2 , 10 , 23 , 41
V /m
2, 4 an d 14
h ou
rs 5
5 0
20 05
Tk al ec
et al . (2 00 5)
44 90 0 M H z (G SM
, PW
) 1 m W /c m
2 , 2W
2 h ou
rs 1
1 0
20 02
Ta ff or ea u et
al . (2 00 2)
45 24 50
M H z
0. 1– 0. 3 m W /c m
2 ,1 – 3 m W /c m
2 ,1 0– 30
m W /c m
2 ,<
0. 00 1 m W /c m
2 3. 5 ye ar s
8 0
8 19 96
Sc h m ut z et
al . (1 99 6)
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 225
long-term exposure studies (two publications using nine different exposures with exposure duration between 3 months to 6 years) support no physiological effects on plants when exposed to radiofrequency radiation (88.9%, p = 0.0176). Nonetheless, the cumulative effects
(a series of repeated exposure) are not considered in standards of exposure limits in non-ionizing radiation, as it deems only acute effects (Halgamuge, 2013).
We also examine the effects of different carrier fre- quency and the modulation formats (Table 10). This variation was observed by grouping the experimental data, based on the frequencies used in each experiment in 169 experimental observations. This shows effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) based on different frequency bands. The RF-EMFs with certain frequencies, especially the frequencies between: (i) 800< f ≤1500 MHz which show 94.1% (changed) and 5.9% (unchanged) (p < 0.0001), (ii) 1500< f ≤2400 MHz which show 94.6% (changed) and 5.4% (unchanged) (p < 0.0001), and (iii) 3500< f ≤8000 MHz which show 83.3% (changed) and 16.7% (unchanged) (p = 0.016), seem to be more responsive to plants. Moreover, Table 11 clearly shows that certain plants, especially, maize, roselle, pea, fenugreek, duckweeds, tomato, onions and mungbean plants are more sensi- tive to the RF-EMFs from a mobile phone.
Figure 2 shows the comparison of all parameters: (i) published year, (ii) type of plant (iii) frequency, (iv) SAR, (v) power flux density, (vi) electric field strength, (vii) exposure time and (viii) response (unchanged or changed). Figure 3 shows the values of power flux density (W/m2) for different frequencies. The results
Table 8. Overview of the published year: physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones—pooling the data from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in 1996–2016.
Physiological effects
Published year Number of publications Number of exposures Changed Unchanged p-Value
2016 2 5 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0312 2015 5 27 26 (96.3%) 1 (3.7%) <0.0001 2014 7 54 52 (96.3%) 2 (3.7%) <0.0001 2013 3 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0078 2012 3 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0078 2011 1 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 2010 3 8 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0.0313 2009 7 20 18 (90%) 2 (10%) <0.0001 2008 3 3 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0.375 2007 4 16 16 (100%) 0 (0%) <0.0001 2006 3 5 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 0.3750 2005 2 6 6 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0156 2002 1 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 1996 1 8 0 (0%) 8 (100%) 0.0039 Total 45 169 152 (89.9%) 17 (10.1%) <0.0001
Publication Year 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
P e
rc e
n ta
g e
( %
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Plants Response (Changed or Unchanged)
Unchanged Changed
Figure 1. Overview of the published year: physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones—pooling the data from the 45 peer- reviewed scientific articles published in 1996–2016.
Table 9. Different exposure duration: physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones—pooling the data from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in 1996–2016.
Physiological effects
Exposure duration Number of experiments Changed Unchanged p-Value
0 < hour ≤ 2 75 69 (92%) 6 (8%) <0.0001 2 < hour ≤ 24 50 49 (98%) 1 (2%) <0.0001 1 < day ≤ 7 9 9 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0020 1 < week ≤ 13 26 24 (92.3%) 2 (7.7%) <0.0001 0.25 < year ≤ 6 9 1 (11.1%) 8 (88.9%) 0.0176 Total 169 152 (89.9%) 17 (10.1%) <0.0001
226 M. N. HALGAMUGE
indicate that this comparison does not seem to be consistent as some studies showed that the physiologi- cal or morphological effects on plants could be changed with the lower power flux density values. Please note that due to identical exposure conditions there were overlaps of the data points in Figures 3–5. Moreover, Figure 4 shows the electric field strength values (V/m) at different frequencies. Similar to the power flux den- sity values (W/m2), the comparison does not seem to be stable with the electric field strength values. Figure 5 shows the exposure duration values at different frequencies.
Discussion
Changes in plant growth or other physiological or morphological effects on plants (changed or
unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones were observed. Our ana- lysis from the reported studies demonstrated the poten- tial impact of weak radiofrequency exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. This observation was also supported by other studies (Cucurachi et al., 2016; Panagopoulos et al., 2016; Senavirathna and Takashi, 2014); however, in contrast, Verschaeve (2014) study was not supported. Irrespective to this, Panagopoulos et al. (2016) criticized Verschaeve (2014) review study about his analysis.
The biological effects of RF-EMF radiation from mobile communication might vary on the mean power level, frequency and modulation of the electro- magnetic signal. Numerous studies questioned issues about the safety of the extended use of mobile phones; however, the most of these findings are obtained from
Table 11. Different plants: physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones—pooling the data from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in 1996–2016.
Physiological effects
Plant Scientific name Number of experiments Changed Unchanged p-Value
Broad bean Vicia faba L. 3 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.1250 Ligneous Rosa hybrida 2 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.2500 Soybean Glycine max 7 6 (85.7%) 1 (14.3%) 0.0547 Maize Zea mays L. 17 17 (100%) 0 (0%) <0.0001 Brassicaceae (Arabidopsis thaliana) 5 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0.1562 Roselle Hibiscus sabdariffa 12 12 (100%) 0 (0%) <0.0001 Pea Pisum sativum L. 13 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0.0016 Fenugreek Trigonella foenumgraecum 10 10 (100%) 0 (0%) <0.0001 Parrot feather Myriophyllum aquaticum Verdc. 5 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 0.3125 Duckweeds Lemna minor 28 28 (100%) 0 (0%) <0.0001 Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, VFN-8) 9 9 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0020 Red bean Vigna, Faboideae 2 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.2500 Hyaciuth bean Lablab, Fabaceae 2 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.2500 Mologabean Vigna, Papilionaceae 2 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.2500 Parsley Petroselinum crispum 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Dill Anethum graveolens 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Celery Apium graveolens 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Onions Allium cepa – bulbs 8 8 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0039 Rice plant Oryza sativa L. 4 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.0625 Mung bean Vigna radiata 17 16 (94.12%) 1 (5.88%) <0.0001 Lentil Lens culinaris 2 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.2500 Common wheat Triticum aestivum 4 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0.2500 Aspen Populus 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 2 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0.2500 Plectranthus Lamiaceae 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Woad Isatis indigotica 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Flax Linum usitatissimum L. var Ariane 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0.5000 Spruce Picea abies L. 4 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 0.0625 Beech Fagus sylvaticu L. 4 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 0.0625 Total 169 152 (89.9%) 17 (10.1%) <0.0001
Table 10. Different frequency levels: Physiological or morphological effects on plants responses (changed or unchanged) due to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones—pooling the data from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in 1996–2016.
Physiological effects
Frequency (f) (MHz) Number of experiments Changed Unchanged p-Value
800 ≤ f ≤ 1500 101 95 (94.1%) 6 (5.9%) <0.0001 1500 < f ≤ 2400 37 35 (94.6%) 2 (5.4%) <0.0001 2400 < f ≤ 2500 15 7 (46.6%) 8 (53.3%) 0.1964 2500 < f ≤ 3500 4 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.5%) 0.2500 3500 < f ≤ 8000 12 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0.0161 Total 169 152 (89.9%) 17 (10.1%) <0.0001
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 227
Frequency (MHz) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
P o w
e r
F lu
x D
e n si
ty (
W /m
2 )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 Power Flux Density (Changed) Power Flux Density (UnChanged)
Figure 3. Comparison of the power flux density values for different frequencies: plants exposed to RF radiation experi- ments that reported results (physiological or morphological effects changed or unchanged) for different frequency using data from the 45 studies (169 different exposures). Please note that due to identical exposure conditions there were overlaps of data points.
Frequency (MHz) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
E le
ct ri c
F ie
ld S
tr e n g th
( V
/m )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Electric Field Strength (Changed) Electric Field Strength (UnChanged)
Figure 4. Comparison of the electric field strength values for different frequencies: plants exposed to RF radiation experi- ments that reported results (physiological or morphological effects changed or unchanged) for different frequency data from the 45 studies (169 different exposures). Please note that due to identical exposure conditions there were overlaps of data points.
Figure 2. Comparison of all parameters: (i) published year, (ii) type of plant (broad bean, ligneous, soybean, maize, Brassicaceae, roselle, pea, fenugreek, parrot feather, duckweeds, tomato, red bean, hyaciuth bean, mologabean, parsley, dill, celery, onions, rice plant, mung bean, lentil, common wheat, aspen, alfalfa, Plectranthus, woad, flax, spruce, beech), (iii) frequency (MHz), (iv) SAR (W/ kg), (v) power flux density (W/m2), (vi) electric field strength (V/m), (vii) exposure time (minutes) and (viii) response (unchanged or changed): Plants exposed to RF radiation experiments that reported results (physiological or morphological effects changed or unchanged) for different frequency using the data from the 45 studies (169 different exposures). Please note that unchanged areas are in blue color and changed areas are in red color.
228 M. N. HALGAMUGE
epidemiological, animal (in vivo) or cell (in vitro) stu- dies. Only a few studies investigated the effects of RF- EMF radiation on plants. The RF-EMF radiation is identified to have a biological effect on living organ- isms, and research over the many years has shown that the biological processes in living organisms are more responsive to low-intensity radiation (Bolen, 1988). Investigations in the field of effects of the weak RF- EMFs and radiation have focused on animals (Eberhardt et al., 2008; Finnie et al., 2009; Gannes et al., 2009; Hirota et al., 2009; Masuda et al., 2009; Nittby et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2015), plants (Gremiaux et al., 2016; Gustavino et al., 2016; Halgamuge et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2015; Senavirathna et al., 2014a, b), epidemiological evidence (Benson et al., 2013; Hardell et al., 2005, 2009; Johansen et al., 2001; Linet et al., 2006; Schüz et al., 2006), children (Elliott et al., 2010; Li et al., 2012; Sudan et al., 2013a, b), human sleep research (Arnetz et al., 2007; Danker-Hopfe et al., 2010, 2015; Leitgeb et al., 2008; Loughran et al., 2012; Lowden et al., 2011; Regel et al., 2007) and cell cultures (Hook et al., 2004; Kazemi et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Koyama et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2015).
Many types of research used 900 MHz (Cucurachi et al., 2016; Senavirathna and Takashi, 2014) as 900
MHz frequencies are utilized in GSM technology. EMR frequencies between 2000 and 6000 MHz are being tested due to the expansion of UMTS technology for mobile phone communication (Senavirathna and Takashi, 2014). Besides, a study by Radic et al. (2007) found some effects on Lemna minor, 900 MHz, 2–4 hours, signal strength 10–120 V/m.
The frequency 156–162 MHz and intensity of 0.1–2.6 μW/cm2, on duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiea) (Magone, 1996), found a significant effect. Old stu- dies (1996) that used very lower band microwaves (frequency between 154 and 162 MHz) found the important effects on plants: (i) pine (Pinus sylves- tris) (Balodis et al., 1996), (ii) great duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza Schleiden), 156–162 MHz, 0.0018 mW/cm2 (Magone, 1996) and (iii) pine (Pinus sylvestris), 154–162 MHz, 16.57 mW/cm2
(Selga and Selga, 1996). A few studies used on lower band microwaves (fre-
quency frequency between 380 and 425 MHz) found the significant effects on plants: (i) mung bean plant (Vigna Radiate L.), 425 MHz, 0.1, 0.001 W/m2
(Jinapang et al., 2010), (ii) maize plant (Zea maize), 418 MHz, 6 W/m2 (Ursache et al., 2007), (iii) duckweed plant (Lemna minor), 400 MHz, 0.26 W/m2 (Tkalec et al., 2005), (iv) black locust plant (Robinia pseudoa- cacia L.), 400 MHz 2 W/m2 (Sandu et al., 2005) and (v) pine (Conifer needles plant), Pinus pumila, Abies alba, Abies grandis, 383 MHz (Lerchl et al., 1999), except one study on onion plant (Allium cepa plant), 400 MHz, 1.4 or 4.5 W/m2 (Tkalec et al., 2009).
More studies interrogated the effects from GHz fre- quencies besides the effect from weak RF-EMF on plants and found significant effects: (i) Tanner and Romero-Sierra (1974) on Mimosa plant, 10 GHz, 190 mW/cm2, 5–10 minute exposure, (ii) Scialabba and Tamburello (2002) on radish (Raphanus sativus) plant, 10.5 GHz, 14 mW, (iii) Tafforeau et al. (2004) on Linum usitatissimum, 105 GHz for 2 hours, (iv) Ragha et al. (2011) on Vigna radiata, Vigna aconitifolia, Cicer arietinum and Triticum aestivum plants, 9.6 GHz frequency.
Besides, a few other studies dealt with the long-term effects of radiation on plants and trees (Balmori, 2004, 2014; Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, 2013). The study by Murakami et al. (2001) with a frequency of 2.45 GHz and an intensity of between 1 and 15 mW/cm2 detected a slight plant growth rate increment even at the lowest intensity. In contrast, the study by Urech et al. (1996) shows reduced growth at the same frequency (2.45 GHz) intensities of 0.2, 5.0 and 50.0 μW/cm2 on the Hypogymnia physodes plants, although it was unable to
Frequency (MHz) 103
E xp
os ur
e D
ur at
io n
(m in
)
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
log (Exposure Duration (Changed)) log (Exposure Duration (UnChanged))
Figure 5. Comparison of the exposure duration time values for different frequencies: plants exposed to RF radiation experi- ments that reported results (physiological or morphological effects changed or unchanged) for different frequency data from the 45 studies (169 different exposures). Please note that due to the identical exposure conditions there were over- laps of the data points.
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 229
differentiate the effects of thermal and non-thermal behavior.
The effect of very low frequency (VLF) EMF (50 Hz, 15 μT) on thistle plants (Cynara cardunculus) and lentils (Lens culinaris) found (Picazo et al., 1999) significant difference decreased in both weight and length during the 3-week exposure period. In contrast, VLF EMFs (50 Hz, 100 μT) on cress seedlings (Lepidium sativum) found (Ruzic and Jerman, 2000) no such effect during the 40- minute exposure period. The study from Trebbi et al. (2007) using extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (10 Hz, 28.9 μT) show effects after 8- or 24-hour exposure. The study from Haider et al. (1994) using Spiderwort plants (Tradescantia) exposed to VLF EMFs (10–21 Hz, 0.43 mW/cm2) showed the clastogenic effect in all distances and levels of the electric field.
Several studies exposed biological matters to RF- EMF radiation at significantly high SARs of 200 W/kg (Koyama et al., 2004; Takashima et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2005, 2006), 104–200 W/kg (Lloyd et al., 1984, 1986), 100 W/kg (Cleary et al., 1997; Komatsubara et al., 2005; Koyama et al., 2003, 2004; Tian et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2005, 2006), 51.75 and 103.5 W/kg (Parker et al., 1988), 90 W/kg (d’Ambrosio et al., 1995), 75–79 W/kg (Cleary, 1995; Koyama et al., 2003; Maes et al., 1993) and 50 W/kg (Cleary, 1995; Komatsubara et al., 2005; Koyama et al., 2003, 2004; Rao et al., 2008; Tian et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2006, 2005). The reason for using these high SAR values from the experiments is to compare the potential effects with low SAR values.
The existing studies to date that investigate the effects of the long-term exposure of RF-EMFs on plants are too limited to obtain a viable conclusion on whether there is a significant effect or not. Nonetheless, our review shows that there is a substantial amount of studies which indi- cate that plants have experienced physiological or mor- phological changes due to radiofrequency radiation and show statistically significant changes for the short-term exposure duration (up to 13 weeks). In contrast, the results obtained from the long-term exposure studies (two publications using nine different exposures with exposure duration between 3 months to 6 years) support no physiological effects on plants when exposed to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone radiation. This would bring a remarkable point to the discussion about the apparent absence of response to the long-term exposure that may be interpreted as adaptations. On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity of plants will permit them to change their structure and function; hence, plants to adapt to environmental change (Nicotra et al., 2010). Plants are naturally affected by environmental stresses due to their immobility. Plants could respond to the environmental factors of wind, rain, electric field
and ultraviolet radiation and adjust its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment (Braam and Davis, 1990; Braam et al., 1996; Mary and Braam, 1997). Investigating this phenomenon could be an interesting avenue to explore in the future. More repetitive laboratory experiments and field studies are needed (Cucurachi et al., 2016; Halgamuge, 2013; Senavirathna and Takashi, 2014) for future studies to further observe relevant physical parameters that influ- ence biological effects of RF-EMF. To support this, our previous findings (Halgamuge et al., 2015) indicate that the biological effects considerably relied on field strength and amplitude modulation of the applied field.
It is emphasized that our statistical test shows parti- cularly whether there are effects (changed or unchanged) on plant responses being reported in the literature and if this difference is statistically significant. Nevertheless, this reinforces the need for more poten- tial experiments to observe RF-EMF effects with longer exposure durations using a whole organism.
Conclusion
In this review paper, we performed an analysis of the data obtained from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific pub- lications (1996–2016) describing 169 experimental observations carried out in the scientific literature, which discussed the potential effects on plants exposed to the non-thermal, weak, RF-EMFs from mobile phone radiation. Our observation of the data from the reported studies showed significant effects on plants that exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Hence, this study provides new evidence supporting our hypoth- esis. None of these findings can be directly associated with human; however, on the other hand, this cannot be excluded, as it can impact the human welfare and health, either directly or indirectly, due to their com- plexity and varied effects (calcium metabolism, stress proteins, etc.). This study should be useful as a refer- ence for researchers managing epidemiological studies and the long-term experiments, using whole organisms, to observe the effects of RF-EMFs.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Akbal, A., Kiran, Y., Sahin, A. (2012a). Effects of electromag- netic waves emitted by mobile phones on germination, root growth, and root tip cell mitotic division of lens culinaris medik. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 21:23–29.
230 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Akbal, A., Kiran, Y., Sahin, A., et al. (2012b). Effects of electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on germination, root growth, and root tip cell mitotic division of lens culinaris medik. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 21:23–29.
Arnetz, B. B., Akerstedt, T., Hillert, L., et al. (2007). The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on self-reported symptom and sleep (EEG) – An experi- mental provocation study. PIERS Online 3:1148–1150.
Balmori, A. (2004). pueden afectar las microondas pulsadas emitidas por las antenas de telefonía a los árboles y otros vegetales? Ecosistemas 13:79–87.
Balmori, A. (2014). Electrosmog and species conservationm. Sci. Total Environ. 496:314–316.
Balodis, V. G., Brumelis, K., Kalviskis, O., et al. (1996). Does the skrundra radio location station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? Sci. Total Environ. 180:57–64.
Beaubois, E., Girard, S., Lallechere, S., et al. (2007). Intercellular communication in plants: Evidence for two rapidly transmitted systemic signals generated in response to electromagnetic field stimulation in tomato. Plant Cell Environ. 30:834–844.
Belyavskaya, N. A. (2004). Biological effects due to weak magnetic field on plants. Adv. Space Res. 34:1566–1574.
Benson, V. S., Pirie, K., Schüz, J., et al. (2013). Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: Prospective study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42:792–802.
Bolen, S. M. (1988). Radiofrequency/microwave radiation biological effects and safety standards: A review. Rome Laboratory. Air Force Material Command. Tech. Rep. New York, NY: Griffiss Air Force Base.
Braam, J., Davis, R. (1990). Rain wind and touched expres- sion of camodulin-related genes in arabidopsis. Cell 60:359–364.
Braam, J., Sistrunk, M., Polisensky, D. (1996). Life in a chan- ging world: TCH gene regulation of expression and responses to environmental signals. Physiol. Plant 98:909–916.
Cammaerts, M., Claire, M., Johansson, O. (2015). Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common brassicaceae lepidium sativum (cress d’alinois) seed germination: A preliminary replication study. Phyton 84:132–137.
CENELEC (1995). Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, Field Frequency: 10 kHz-300 GHz. European Pre- Standard (prENV 50166-2). Brussels: CENELEC.
Chen, Y. C., Chen, C. (2014). Effects of mobile phone radia- tion on germination and early growth of different bean species. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 23:1949–1958.
Chen, Y. P., Liu, Y. J., Wang, X. L., et al. (2005). Effect of microwave and he-ne laser on enzyme activity and bio- photon emission of Isatis indigotica Fort. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 47:849–855.
Chen, Y. P., Jia, J. F., Wan, Y. J. (2009). Weak microwave can enhance tolerance of wheat seedlings to salt stress. J. Plant Growth Regul. 28:381–385.
Choi, J. (2012). Key global telecom indicators for the world telecommunication service sector. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Cleary, S., Cao, G., Liu, L., et al. (1997). Stress proteins are not induced in mammalian cells exposed to radiofre- quency or microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 18:499–505.
Cleary, S. F. (1995). Effects of Radio-Frequency Radiation on Mammalian Cells and Biomolecules In Vitro. Ser. Advances in Chemistry. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Vol. 250, ch. 26, pp. 467–477.
Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W. L., Vijver, M. G., et al. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electro- magnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ. Int. 51:116–140.
d’Ambrosio, G., Lioi, M. B., Massa, R., Zeni, O. (1995). Genotoxic effects of amplitude modulated microwaves on human lymphocytes exposed in vitro under controlled conditions. Electro. Magnetobiol. 14:157–164.
Danker-Hopfe, H., Dorn, H., Bornkessel, C., Sauter, C. (2010). Do mobile phone base stations affect sleep of residents? Results from an experimental double-blind sham-controlled field study. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 22:613–618.
Danker-Hopfe, H., Dorn, H., Bolz, T., et al. (2015). Effects of mobile phone exposure (GSM 900 and WCDMA/UMTS) on polysomnography based sleep quality: An intra- and inter-individual perspective. Environ. Res. 145:50–60.
Dragolova, D., Dimitrova, M., Kouzmanova, M. (2009). Does 900 MHz electromagnetic field induce oxidative stress in wheat plants? New Research in Biotechnology, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Bucharest, Romania.
Eberhardt, J. L., Persson, B., Brun, A. E., et al. (2008). Blood- brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 27:215–229.
Elliott, P., Toledano, M. B., Bennett, J., et al. (2010). Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: Case- control study. Br. Med. J. 22:1–7.
Engelmann, J. C., Deeken, R., Müller, T., et al. (2008). Is gene activity in plant cells affected by UMTS-irradiation? A whole genome approach. Comput. Biol. Chem.: Adv. Appl. 1:71–83.
European health risk assessment network (2010). Risk analy- sis of human exposure to electromagnetic fields. European health risk assessment network (EHFRAN), EU Commission EFHRAN Report. Tech. Rep. Milan, Italy: European Health Risk Assessment Network on Electromagnetic Fields Exposure.
Finnie, J. W., Blumbergs, P. C., Cai, Z., Manavis, J. (2009). Expression of the water channel protein, aquaporin-4, in mouse brains exposed to mobile telephone radiofrequency fields. Pathology 41:473–475.
Gannes, F. P., Billaudel, B., Taxile, M., et al. (2009). Effects of head-only exposure of rats to GSM-900 on blood-brain barrier permeability and neuronal degeneration. Radiat. Res. 172:359–367.
Gremiaux, A., Girard, S., Guerin, V., et al. (2016). Low- amplitude, high-frequency electromagnetic field exposure causes delayed and reduced growth in rosa hybrida. J. Plant Physiol. 190:44–53.
Gustavino, B., Carboni, G., Petrillo, R., et al. (2016). Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips. Mutagenesis 31:187–192.
Haggerty, K. (2010). Adverse influence of radio frequency background on trembling aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations. Int. J. For. Res. 171:1–7.
Haider, T., Knasmueller, S., Kundi, M., Haider, M. (1994). Clastogenic effects of radiofrequency radiations on chro- mosomes of Tradescantia. Mutat. Res. 324:65–68.
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 231
Halgamuge, M. N., Skafidas, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of data from 300 publications of 1127 in vitro exposures (1990–2015): Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, in press.
Halgamuge, M. N., Yak, S. K., Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station. Bioelectromagnetics 36:87–95.
Halgamuge, M. N. (2013). Pineal melatonin level disruption in humans due to electromagnetic fields and ICNIRP lim- its. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 154:405–416.
Halgamuge, M. N. (2013). Critical time delay of the pineal melatonin rhythm in humans. Indian J. Biochem. Biophys. 50:259–265.
Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Carlberg, M., et al. (2005). Use of cellular or cordless telephones and the risk for non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 78:625–632.
Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Mild, K. H. (2006). Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diag- nosed in 1997–2003. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 79:630–639.
Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Hansson, K. (2009). Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 16:113–122.
Hirota, S., Matsuura, M., Masuda, H., et al. (2009). Direct observation of microcirculatory parameters in rat brain after local exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic field. Environmentalist 29:186–189.
Hook, G. J., Zhang, P., LaGroye, I., et al. (2004). Measurement of DNA damage and apoptosis in Molt-4 cells after in vitro exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Radiat. Res. 161:193–200.
Hyland, G. (2005). How exposure to mobile phone base- station signals can adversely affect humans. Available from: http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/hyland-2005.pdf. (accessed April 2016)
IEEE C95.1-2005 (2005). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromag- netic fields, 3 khz to 300 GHz. Tech. Rep. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). ICNIRP (international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection), guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electro- magnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 74:494–522.
International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland (2012). Measuring the information society. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.
INTERPHONE Study Group (2010). Brain tumour risk in rela- tion to mobile telephone use: Results of the interphone inter- national case-control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39:675–694.
Jinapang, P., Prakob, P., Wongwattananard, P., et al. (2010). Growth characteristics of mung beans and water convol- vuluses exposed to 425-MHz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 31:519–527.
Johansen, C., Boice, J. D., McLaughlin, J., Olsen, J. (2001). Cellular telephones and cancer – A nationwide cohort study in Denmark. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93:203–207.
Kazemi, E., Mortazavi, S. M. J., Ali-Ghanbari, A., et al. (2015). Effect of 900 MHz electromagnetic radiation on the induction of ROS in human peripheral blood mono- nuclear cells. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng. 5:105–114.
Khalafallah, A., Sallam, S. (2009). Response of maize seedlings to microwaves at 945 MHz. Rom. J. Biophys. 19:49–62.
Kim, D. H., Kim, H. J., Gimm, Y. M., et al. (2015). Effects of a continuous electromagnetic field on wound healing in human airway. Laryngoscope 125:1588–1594.
Komatsubara, Y., Hirose, H., Sakurai, T., et al. (2005). Effect of high-frequency electromagnetic fields with a wide range of SARs on chromosomal aberrations in murine m5S cells. Mutat. Res. 587:114–119.
Kouzmanova, M., Dimitrova, M., Dragolova, D., et al. (2009). Alterations in enzyme activities in leaves after exposure of Plectranthus sp. plants to 900 MHz electromagnetic field. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. 23:611–615.
Kouzmanova, M., Gurmanova, M., Tincheva, S., et al. (2010). Effects of GSM 900 electromagnetic fields on some para- meters of chlorophyll fluorescence in crop plants wheat, maize and peas. Agrarni. Nauki. 2:101–108.
Koyama, S., Nakahara, T., Wake, K., et al. (2003). Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on micronucleus formation in CHO-K1 cells. Mutat. Res. 541:81–89.
Koyama, S., Isozumi, Y., Suzuki, Y., et al. (2004). Effects of 2.45-GHz electromagnetic fields with a wide range of SARs on micronucleus formation in CHO-K1 cells. Sci. World J. 4:29–40.
Koyama, S., Narita, E., Suzuki, Y., et al. (2015). Effect of a 2.45-GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic field on neutro- phil chemotaxis and phagocytosis in differentiated human HL-60 cells. J. Radiat. Res. 56:30–36.
Kumar, A., Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., et al. (2015). EMF radiations (1800 MHz)-inhibited early seedling growth of maize (Zea mays) involves alterations in starch and sucrose metabolism. Protoplasma. 253:1043–1049
Lai, P. Y., Wong, K. L. (2008). Capacitively FED hybrid monopole/slot chip antenna for 2.5/3.5/5.5 GHz WiMAX operation in the mobile phone. Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett. 50:2689–2694.
Leitgeb, N., Schröttner, J., Cech, R., Kerbl, R. (2008). EMF- protection sleep study near mobile phone base stations. Somnology 12:234–243.
Lerchl, D., Lerchl, A., Hantsch, P., et al. (1999). Studies on the effects of radio-frequency fields on conifers. Trans. Bioelectromagnetics 22:160
Li, C. Y., Liu, C. C., Chang, Y. H., et al. (2012). A population- based case-control study of radiofrequency exposure in relation to childhood neoplasm. Sci. Total Environ. 435:472–478.
Linet, M. S., Taggart, T., Severson, R., et al. (2006). Cellular telephones and non-hodgkin lymphoma. Int. J. Cancer 119:2382–2388.
Liu, Y. X., Li, G. Q., Fu, X. P., et al. (2015). Exposure to 3G mobile phone signals does not affect the biological features of brain tumor cells. BMC Public Health 15:1–12.
Lloyd, D. C., Saunders, R. D., Finnon, P., Kowalczuk, C. I. (1984). No clastogenic effect from in vitro microwave irradiation of G0 lymphocytes. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 46:135–141.
Lloyd, D. C., Saunders, R. D., Moquet, J. E., Kowalczuk, C. I. (1986). Absence of chromosomal damage in human
232 M. N. HALGAMUGE
lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation with hyperthermia. Bioelectromagnetics 7:235–237.
Loughran, S. P., McKenzie, R. J., Jackson, M. L., et al. (2012). Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone expo- sure on human sleep: Rethinking the problem. Bioelectromagnetics 33:86–93.
Lowden, A., Akerstedt, T., Ingre, M., et al. (2011). Sleep after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone- related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 32:4–14.
Maes, A., Verschaeve, L., Arroyo, A., et al. (1993). In vitro cytogenetic effects of 2450 MHz waves on human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Bioelectro magnetics 14:495–501.
Magone, I. (2007). The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the skrunda radio location station on Spirodela poly- rhiza (l.) schleiden cultures. Sci. Total Environ. 180:75–80.
Mary, M., Braam, J. (1997). The Arabidopsis TCH4 xyloglu- can endotransglyco-sylase. Plant Physiol. 115:181–190.
Masuda, H., Ushiyama, A., Takahashi, M., et al. (2009). Effects of 915 MHz electromagnetic-field radiation in TEM cell on the blood brain barrier and neurons in the rat brain. Radiat. Res. 172:66–73.
Monselise, E. B., Levkovitz, A., Gottlieb, H. E., Kost, D. (2011). Bioassay for assessing cell stress in the vicinity of radio-frequency irradiating antennas. J. Environ. Monit. 13:1890–1896.
Murakami, H., Komiyama, K., Kudo, I. (2001). Recent pro- gress in long-duration microwave exposure. 52nd International Astronautical Congress, Toulouse, France.
Nicotra, A., Atkin, O., Bonser, S., et al. (2010). Plant pheno- typic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci. 15:684–692.
Nittby, H., Brun, A., Strömblad, S., et al. (2011). Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability. Environmentalist 31:140–148.
Oluwajobi, A. O., Falusi, O. A., Zubbair, N. A. (2015). Flower bud abscission reduced in Hibiscus sabdariffa by radiation from GSM mast. Environ. Pollut. 4:53–58.
Panagopoulos, D. J., Cammaerts, M., Favre, D., Balmori, A. (2016). Comments on environmental impact of radiofre- quency fields from mobile phone base stations. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:885–903..
Parker, J. E., Kiel, J. L., Winters, W. D. (1988). Effect of radiofrequency radiation of mRNA expression in cultured rodent cells. Physiol. Chem. Phys. Med. NMR 20:129–134.
Pesnya, D. S., Romanovsky, A. V. (2013). Comparison of cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of plutonium-239 alpha particles and mobile phone GSM 900 radiation in the Allium cepa test. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 750:27–33.
Picazo, M., Martinez, E., Carbonell, M., et al. (1999). Inhibition in the growth of thistles (Cynara cardunculus L.) and lentils (Lens culinaris L.) due to chronic exposure to 50-Hz 15-uT electromagnetic fields. Electro- Magnetobiol. 18:147–156.
Racuciu, M., Miclaus, S. (2007). Low-level 900 MHz electro- magnetic field influence on vegetal tissue. Rom. J. Biophys. 17:149–156.
Racuciu, M., Iftode, C., Miclaus, S. (2015). Inhibitory effects of low thermal radiofrequency radiation on physiological parameters of zeamays seedlings growth. Rom. J. Phys. 60:603–612.
Radic, S., Cvjetko, P., Malaric, K., et al. (2007). Radio fre- quency electromagnetic field (900MHz) induces oxidative damage to DNA and biomembrane in tobacco shoot cells (Nicotiana tabacum). IEEE/MTT-S International Microwave Symposium. Honolulu, HI: IEEE. pp. 2213– 2216.
Ragha, L., Mishra, S., Ramachandran, V., Bhatia, M. S. (2011). Effects of low-power microwave fields on seed germination and growth rate. J. Electromagn. Anal. Appl. 3:165–171.
Rammal, M., Jebai, F., Rammal, H., Joumaa, W. H. (2014). Effects of long term exposure to RF/MW radiations on the expression of mRNA of stress proteins in Lycopersicon esculentum. Trans. Biol. Biomed. 11:10–14.
Rao, V. S., Titushkin, I. A., Moros, E. G., et al. (2008). Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: Elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat. Res. 169:319–329.
Regel, S. J., Tinguely, G., Schuderer, J., et al. (2007). Pulsed radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: Dose-dependent effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance. J. Sleep Res. 16:253–258.
Roux, D., Vian, A., Girard, S., et al. (2006). Electromagnetic fields (900 MHz) evoke consistent molecular responses in tomato plants. Physiol. Plant 128:283–288.
Roux, D., Vian, A., Girard, S., et al. (2007). High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5Vm-1) electromagnetic field: A genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcrip- tion, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato. Planta 227:883–891.
Roux, D., Vian, A., Girard, S., et al. (2008a). High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V/m) electromagnetic field: A genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato. Planta 227:883–891.
Roux, D., Faure, C., Bonnet, P., et al. (2008b). A possible role for extra-cellular ATP in plant responses to high fre- quency, low amplitude electromagnetic field. Plant Signal. Behav. 3:383–385.
Ruzic, R., Jerman, L. (2000). Weak magnetic field decreases heat stress in cress seedlings. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 21:69–80.
Sandu, D. D., Goiceanu, C., Ispas, A., et al. (2005). A pre- liminary study on ultra high frequency electromagnetic fields effect on black locust chlorophylls. Acta Biol. Hung. 56:109–117.
SCENIHR (2015). Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). SCENIHR, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Tech. Rep. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Schüz, J., Jacobsen, R., Olsen, J., et al. (2006). Cellular tele- phone use and cancer risk: Update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98:1707–1713.
Schmutz, P., Siegenthaler, J., Stager, C., et al. (1996). Long- term exposure of young spruce and beech trees to 2450- MHz microwave radiation. Sci. Total Environ. 180:43–48.
Scialabba, A., Tamburello, C. (2002). Microwave effects on germination and growth of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) seedlings. Acta Bot. Gall. 149:113–123.
Selga, T., Selga, M. (1996). Response of Pinus sylvestris L. Needles to electromagnetic fields: Cytological and ultra- structural aspects. Sci. Total Environ. 180:65–73.
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 233
Senavirathna, M., Asaeda, T. (2014). Radio-frequency elec- tromagnetic radiation alters the electric potential of Myriophyllum aquaticum. Biol. Plant 58:355–362.
Senavirathna, M. D., Takashi, A. (2014). The significance of microwaves in the environment and its effect on plants. Environ. Rev. 22:220–228.
Senavirathna, M. D., Asaeda, T., Thilakarathne, B. L., Kadono, H. (2014a). Nanometer-scale elongation rate fluc- tuations in the Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) stem were altered by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Plant Signal. Behav. 9: e28590.
Senavirathna, M. D., Takashi, A., Kimura, Y. (2014b). Short- duration exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation alters the chlorophyll fluorescence of duckweeds (Lemna minor). Electromagn. Biol. Med. 33:327–334.
Sharma, S., Parihar, L. (2014). Effect of mobile phone radia- tion on nodule formation in the leguminous plants. Curr. World Environ. J. 9:145–155.
Sharma, V. P., Singh, H. P., Kohli, R. K., Batish, D. R. (2009a). Mobile phone radiation inhibits vigna radiata (mung bean) root growth by inducing oxidative stress. Sci. Total Environ. 407:5543–5547.
Sharma, V. P., Singh, H. P., Kohli, R. K. (2009b). Effect of mobile phone EMF on biochemical changes in emerging seedlings of Phaseolus aureus Roxb. Ecoscan 3:211–214.
Sharma, V. P., Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., Kohli, R. K. (2010). Cell phone radiations affect early growth of vigna radiata (mung bean) through biochemical alterations. Z. Naturforsch. C 65:66–72.
Singh, H. P., Sharma, V. P., Batish, D. R., Kohli, R. K. (2012). Cell phone electromagnetic field radiations affect rhizo- genesis through impairment of biochemical processes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184:1813–1821.
Skiles, J. (2006). Plant response to microwaves at 2.45 GHz. Acta Astronaut. 58:258–263.
Soran, M. L., Stan, M., Niinemets, U., Copolovici, L. (2014). Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radia- tion on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants. J. Plant Physiol. 171:1436–1443.
Sudan, M., Kheifets, L., Arah, O. A., Olsen, J. (2013a). Cell phone exposures and hearing loss in children in the Danish national birth cohort. Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiol. 27:247–257.
Sudan, M., Kheifets, L., Arah, O. A., Olsen, J. (2013b). On the association of cell phone exposure with childhood beha- viour. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1:979.
Swerdlow, A. J., Feychting, M., Green, A. C., et al. (2011). Mobile phones, brain tumors, and the interphone study: Where are we now? Environ. Health Perspect. 119:1534– 1538.
Tafforeau, M., Verdus, M. C., Norris, V., et al. (2002). SIMS study of the calcium deprivation step related to epidermal meristem production induced in flax by cold shock or radiation from a GSM telephone. J. Trace Microprobe Tech. 20:611–623.
Tafforeau, M., Verdus, M. C., Norris, V., et al. (2004). Plant sensitivity to low intensity 105 GHz electromagnetic radia- tion. Bioelectromagnetics 25:403–407.
Takashima, Y., Hirose, H., Koyama, S., et al. (2006). Effects of continuous and intermittent exposure to rffields with a wide range of sars on cell growth, survival, and cell cycle distribution. Bioelectromagnetics 27:392–400.
Talei, D., Valdiani, A., Maziah, M., Mohsenkhah, M. (2013). Germination response of MR 219 rice variety to different exposure times and periods of 2450 MHz microwave fre- quency. Sci. World J. 2013:1–7.
Tang, J., Zhang, Y., Yang, L., et al. (2015). Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK path- way and causes blood–brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res. 19:92–101.
Tanner, J. A., Romero-Sierra, C. (1974). Beneficial and harm- ful growth induced by the action of nonionizing radiation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 238:1–5.
Tian, F., Nakahara, T., Wake, K., et al. (2002). Exposure to 2.45 GHz electromagnetic fields induces hsp70 at a high SAR of more than 20 W/kg but not at 5 w/kg in human glioma MO54 cells. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 78:433–440.
Tkalec, M., Malarić, K., Pevalek-Kozlina, B. (2005). Influence of 400, 900 and 1900 MHz electromagnetic fields on Lemna minor growth and peroxidase activity. Bioelectromagnetics 26:185–93.
Tkalec, M., Malari, K., Pevalek-Kozlina, B. (2007). Exposure to radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative stress in duckweed lemna minor l. Sci. Total Environ. 388:78–89.
Tkalec, M., Malarić, K., Pavlica, M., et al. (2009). Effects of radio- frequency electromagnetic fields on seed germination and root meristematic cells of Allium cepa L. Mutat. Res. 672:76–81.
Trebbi, G., Borghini, F., Lazzarato, L., et al. (2007). Extremely low-frequency weak magnetic fields enhance resistance of nn tobacco plants to tobacco mosaic virus and elicit stress-related biochemical activities. Bioelectromagnetics 28:214–223.
Urech, M., Eicher, B., Siegenthaler, J. (1996). Effects of microwave and radio frequency electromagnetic fields on lichens. Bioelectromagnetics 17:327–334.
Ursache, M., Mindru, G., Creanga, D. E., et al. (2007). The effects of high frequency electromagnetic waves on the vegetal organisms. Rom. J. Phys. 54:133–145.
Verschaeve, L. (2014). Environmental impact of radiofre- quency fields from mobile phone base stations. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:1313–1369.
Vian, A., Roux, D., Girard, S., et al. (2006). Microwave irradiation affects gene expression in plants. Plant Sign. Behav. 1:67–70.
Vian, A., Davies, E., Gendraud, M., Bonnet, P. (2016). Plant responses to high frequency electromagnetic fields. Biomed. Res. Int. doi:10.1155/2016/1830262.
Waldmann-Selsam, C., Eger, H. (2013). Baumschäden im umkreis von mobilfunksendeanlagen, umwelt medizin gesellschaft. Environ. Med. 26:198–208.
Wang, J., Sakurai, T., Koyama, S., et al. (2005). Effects of 2450 MHz electromagnetic fields with a wide range of SARs on methylcholanthrene-induced transformation in C3H10T1/ 2 cells. J. Radiat. Res. 3:351–361.
Wang, J., Koyama, S., Komatsubara, Y., et al. (2006). Effects of a 2450 MHz high-frequency electromagnetic field with a wide range of SARs on the induction of the induction of heat- shock proteins in A172 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 27:479–486.
World Health Organisation (2006). Electromagnetic fields and public health. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacen tre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html. (accessed April 2016)
World Health Organisation (2011). IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. Lyon: World Health Organisation. Press Release.
234 M. N. HALGAMUGE
Xiujuan, W., Bochu, W., Yi, J., et al. (2003). Effect of sound stimulation on cell cycle of chrysanthemum (Gerbera jamesonii). Colloids Surf. B 29:103–107.
Appendix
List of abbreviations
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), code division multiple access (CDMA), continuous wave (CW), Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), European health risk assessment network (EHFRAN), fifth-generation net- works (5G), first-generation networks (1G), frequency division multiple access (FDMA), frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW), fourth-generation networks (4G), Gaussian minimum shift keying (GMSK), global
system for mobile communications (GSM), GSM-DTX (hearing only), GSM-non DTX (speaking only), GSM- Talk (34% speaking and 66% hearing activity), high- speed downlink shared channel (HS-DSCH), high- speed downlink packet access (HSDPA), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), long-term evolution (LTE), pulsed wave (PW), pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF), radiofre- quency (RF), radiofrequency radiation (RFR), second- generation networks (2G), third-generation networks (3G), time division multiple access (TDMA), time divi- sion synchronous code division multiple access (TD- SCDMA), universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS), Wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA), World Health Organization (WHO), world wide wireless web (WWWW).
ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 235
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Material and methods
- Collection of raw data
- Data inclusion criteria
- Analysis of raw data
- Statistical analysis
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Declaration of interest
- References
- Appendix
- List of abbreviations