ArticleEnvironmental evidence2023
What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: a systematic map.
Article in Environmental evidence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of medical gases in prevention and treatment of electromagnetic radiation injury.Medical gas research · 2027Review
- Conceptualization and Realization of a Vibrating Intrinsic Reverberation Chamber for Plant Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields.Bioelectromagnetics · 2025Article
- Towards a Planetary Health Impact Assessment Framework: Exploring Expert Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence for a RF-EMF Exposure Case-Study.Bioelectromagnetics · 2025Article
- Weak Radiofrequency Field Effects on Biological Systems Mediated through the Radical Pair Mechanism.Chemical reviews · 2025Review
- Short-Term In Vitro Exposure of Human Blood to 5G Network Frequencies: Do Sex and Frequency Additionally Affect Erythrocyte Morphometry?Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessingFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Flora and fauna: how nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- The Effects of mmW and THz Radiation on Dry Eyes: A Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) Computational Simulation Using XFdtd.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: a systematic map.Environmental evidence · 2023Article
- Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF), particularly from telecommunications sources, is one of the most common and fastest growing anthropogenic factors on the environment. In many countries, humans are protected from harmful RF EMF exposure by safety standards that are based on guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP guidelines are based on knowledge of how RF EMF affects the human body, however, there are currently no recognised international guidelines to specifically protect animals and plants. Whether the ICNIRP guidelines for humans are adequate to provide protection to the environment is a subject of active debate. There is some public concern that new telecommunications technologies, like the 5G mobile phone network may affect the natural environment. This systematic map presents a searchable database of all the available evidence on whether anthropogenic RF EMF has an effect on plants and animals in the environment. The map also identifies gaps in knowledge, recommends future research and informs environmental and radiation protection authorities.
methodsThe method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English with no time and geographic restrictions. The EMF-Portal, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched, and the resulting articles were screened in three stages: title, abstract and full text. Studies were included with a subject population of all animals and plants, with exposures to anthropogenic RF EMF (frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz) compared to no or lower-level exposure, and for any outcomes related to the studied populations. For each included study, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest that were used to represent the distribution of available evidence. REVIEW
findingsThe initial search, search update and supplementary searches produced 24,432 articles and of those 334 articles (237 on fauna and 97 on flora) that were relevant were included in the systematic map. The vast majority of studies were experiments conducted in a laboratory rather than observational studies of animals and plants in the natural environment. The majority of the studies investigated exposures with frequencies between 300 and 3000 MHz, and although the exposure level varied, it was mainly low and below the ICNIRP limits. Most of the animal studies investigated insects and birds, whereas grains and legumes were the most investigated plants. Reproduction, development and behaviour were the most investigated effects for animals, and germination and growth for plants. The vast majority of the studies employed poor quality methods.
conclusionThere are distinct evidence clusters: for fauna, on insect and bird reproduction, development and behaviour; and for flora, grain and legume germination and growth that would benefit from specific systematic reviews. The systematic map also highlights the clear need for investigating the effects of RF EMF on more species and more types of effects, and for an improvement in the quality of all studies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.