Zebrafish Larval Melanophores Respond to Electromagnetic Fields Exposure

PAPER manual 2023 Animal study Effect: harm Evidence: Low

Read original paper → DOI: 10.3390/app13084721 Evidence Lab

Abstract

Zebrafish Larval Melanophores Respond to Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Nassisi V, Mazzei A, Del Vecchio G, Calisi A, Velardi L, Alifano P, Verri T. Zebrafish Larval Melanophores Respond to Electromagnetic Fields Exposure. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(8):4721. doi.org. Abstract Groups of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos receive radiations of different frequencies and intensities by means of new prototype devices. They are exposed to static (B0, 0 Hz), extremely low-frequency (ELF, 0.2 Hz), low- frequency (LF, 270 kHz), very-high-frequency (VHF, 100 MHz), and ultra-high-frequency (UHF, 900 MHz) field irradiations. The applied magnetic field intensities are 40 mT at 0 Hz, 40 mT at 0.2 Hz, 470 μT at 270 kHz, 240 nT at 100 MHz, and 240 nT at 900 MHz. Such combinations are meant to cover environmental radiations from geomagnetic fields and cosmic magnetism to electromagnetic radiation of electronic instruments such as GSM and UMTS transmission-mode mobile systems. For each frequency, fish are monitored for up to 5 days. Unexposed embryos are used as controls. Notably, exposure to the different radiations brings alterations of body pigmentation in zebrafish embryos and larvae in terms of total number, area, and morphology of (black) melanophores. This research may contribute to evaluating the roles and effects of magnetic radiation on living matter. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Animal study

Effect direction

harm

Population

Zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos/larvae

Sample size

—

Exposure

ELF prototype devices (static/ELF/LF/VHF/UHF fields; includes GSM/UMTS-relevant frequencies) · monitored up to 5 days

Evidence strength

Low

Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Zebrafish embryos/larvae exposed to static (0 Hz), ELF (0.2 Hz), LF (270 kHz), VHF (100 MHz), and UHF (900 MHz) fields showed alterations in body pigmentation compared with unexposed controls, including changes in the total number, area, and morphology of melanophores.

Outcomes measured

Body pigmentation alterations
Melanophore total number
Melanophore area
Melanophore morphology

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata
No quantitative effect sizes or statistical details provided in the provided abstract/metadata
Exposure metrics are given as magnetic field intensities; SAR not reported
Details of exposure protocol (e.g., duration per day, timing during development) not provided in the provided abstract/metadata

Suggested hubs

5g-policy (0)
occupational-exposure (0)
smart-meters (0)
school-wi-fi (0)
who-icnirp (0)

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "animal",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "ELF",
        "source": "prototype devices (static/ELF/LF/VHF/UHF fields; includes GSM/UMTS-relevant frequencies)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "monitored up to 5 days"
    },
    "population": "Zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos/larvae",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Body pigmentation alterations",
        "Melanophore total number",
        "Melanophore area",
        "Melanophore morphology"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Zebrafish embryos/larvae exposed to static (0 Hz), ELF (0.2 Hz), LF (270 kHz), VHF (100 MHz), and UHF (900 MHz) fields showed alterations in body pigmentation compared with unexposed controls, including changes in the total number, area, and morphology of melanophores.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata",
        "No quantitative effect sizes or statistical details provided in the provided abstract/metadata",
        "Exposure metrics are given as magnetic field intensities; SAR not reported",
        "Details of exposure protocol (e.g., duration per day, timing during development) not provided in the provided abstract/metadata"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "zebrafish",
        "Danio rerio",
        "embryos",
        "larvae",
        "melanophores",
        "pigmentation",
        "static magnetic field",
        "ELF",
        "low frequency",
        "VHF",
        "UHF",
        "900 MHz",
        "GSM",
        "UMTS"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0,
            "reason": null
        },
        {
            "slug": "occupational-exposure",
            "weight": 0,
            "reason": null
        },
        {
            "slug": "smart-meters",
            "weight": 0,
            "reason": null
        },
        {
            "slug": "school-wi-fi",
            "weight": 0,
            "reason": null
        },
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0,
            "reason": null
        }
    ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

No comments yet.