Lambert Bodewein1, Kristina Schmiedchen2, Dagmar Dechent3, Dominik Stunder4, David Graefrath5, Lukas Winter6, Thomas Kraus7, Sarah Driessen8. 1. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: bodewein@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 2. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: schmiedchen@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 3. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: dechent@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 4. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: stunder@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 5. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: graefrath@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 6. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: winter@femu.rwth-aachen.de. 7. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: tkraus@ukaachen.de. 8. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu) - Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: driessen@femu.rwth-aachen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many novel technologies, including induction cookers or wireless power transfer, produce electric fields (EF), magnetic fields (MF) or electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range. The effects of such fields on biological systems, however, have been poorly investigated. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the state of research and to evaluate the potential for adverse effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range (300 Hz to 1 MHz) on biological systems. METHODS: The review was prepared in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Methodical limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies exposing humans, animals or in vitro systems were eligible for this review. In these studies, many different endpoints were examined and most of the findings were obtained in studies with exposure to MF. For most endpoints, however, the reviewed studies yielded inconsistent results, with some studies indicating no effect and some linking IF exposure with adverse effects. In the majority of the included studies, the applied field strengths were above the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reference levels for the general public and the applied frequencies were mainly below 100 kHz. Furthermore, many of the reviewed studies suffered from methodical limitations which lowered the credibility of the reported results. CONCLUSION: Due to the large heterogeneity in study designs, endpoints and exposed systems, as well as the inconsistent results and methodical limitations in many studies, the quality of evidence for adverse effects remains inadequate for drawing a conclusion on investigated biological effects of IF fields for most endpoints. We recommend that in future studies, effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range should be investigated more systematically, i.e., studies should consider various frequencies to identify potential frequency-dependent effects and apply different field strengths, especially if threshold-dependent effects are expected. Priority should be given to the investigation of acute effects, like induction of phosphenes, perception, excitation of nerves or muscles and thermal effects. This would be an important step towards the validation of the reference levels recommended by ICNIRP. Furthermore, we recommend that any new studies aim at implementing high quality dosimetry and minimizing sources of risk of bias.
BACKGROUND: Many novel technologies, including induction cookers or wireless power transfer, produce electric fields (EF), magnetic fields (MF) or electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range. The effects of such fields on biological systems, however, have been poorly investigated. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the state of research and to evaluate the potential for adverse effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range (300 Hz to 1 MHz) on biological systems. METHODS: The review was prepared in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Methodical limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies exposing humans, animals or in vitro systems were eligible for this review. In these studies, many different endpoints were examined and most of the findings were obtained in studies with exposure to MF. For most endpoints, however, the reviewed studies yielded inconsistent results, with some studies indicating no effect and some linking IF exposure with adverse effects. In the majority of the included studies, the applied field strengths were above the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reference levels for the general public and the applied frequencies were mainly below 100 kHz. Furthermore, many of the reviewed studies suffered from methodical limitations which lowered the credibility of the reported results. CONCLUSION: Due to the large heterogeneity in study designs, endpoints and exposed systems, as well as the inconsistent results and methodical limitations in many studies, the quality of evidence for adverse effects remains inadequate for drawing a conclusion on investigated biological effects of IF fields for most endpoints. We recommend that in future studies, effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range should be investigated more systematically, i.e., studies should consider various frequencies to identify potential frequency-dependent effects and apply different field strengths, especially if threshold-dependent effects are expected. Priority should be given to the investigation of acute effects, like induction of phosphenes, perception, excitation of nerves or muscles and thermal effects. This would be an important step towards the validation of the reference levels recommended by ICNIRP. Furthermore, we recommend that any new studies aim at implementing high quality dosimetry and minimizing sources of risk of bias.
Authors: Valentina Hartwig; Giorgio Virgili; F Ederica Mattei; Cristiano Biagini; Stefania Romeo; Olga Zeni; Maria Rosaria Scarfì; Rita Massa; Francesco Campanella; Luigi Landini; Fabriziomaria Gobba; Alberto Modenese; Giulio Giovannetti Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Sarah Driessen; Lambert Bodewein; Dagmar Dechent; David Graefrath; Kristina Schmiedchen; Dominik Stunder; Thomas Kraus; Anne-Kathrin Petri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240