employee
Moscow, Russian Federation
employee
Belarus
employee
Belarus
GRNTI 76.03 Медико-биологические дисциплины
GRNTI 76.33 Гигиена и эпидемиология
OKSO 14.04.02 Ядерные физика и технологии
OKSO 31.06.2001 Клиническая медицина
OKSO 32.08.12 Эпидемиология
OKSO 31.08.08 Радиология
BBK 51 Социальная гигиена и организация здравоохранения. Гигиена. Эпидемиология
BBK 534 Общая диагностика
TBK 5708 Гигиена и санитария. Эпидемиология. Медицинская экология
TBK 5712 Медицинская биология. Гистология
TBK 5734 Медицинская радиология и рентгенология
TBK 6212 Радиоактивные элементы и изотопы. Радиохимия
Purpose: To study the condition of the reproductive system of the male rats at three generations (F1–F3) received from irradiated parents and who were exposed daily to the mobile phone (1745 MHz, 8 hours/day) until reaching the age of 6 months. Material and methods: The white rats aged 52–54 days were subjected to electromagnetic exposure from the mobile phone (1745 MHz, 8 hours/day, power density 0.2–20 μW/cm2, x = 7.5±0.3 μW/cm2) for 90 days. The irradiated males and females were then mated in a 1:2 ratio. The females throughout the gestation period (20–21 days) and the offspring (F1) obtained from them continued to be irradiated under the above-mentioned regimen until reaching the age of 6 months. The animals of the 1st generation (males and females) at the age of 4 months mated for the generation of the second generation, and from them in the same way received the offspring of the third generation. The state of the reproductive system of male rats of 3 generations was evaluated at the age of 2, 4 and 6 months. Results: It is established that birth rate at the irradiated animals of three generations authentically falls. This posterity from 8 females makes 53, 86 and 45 % respectively in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of the control group. The electromagnetic effect affected the weight of the testicles and epididymis of rats of three generations, mainly at the age of 4 and 6 months. The mass of testicles increased at animals of the 3 generation at the age of 4 months and at animals of the 3rd generation at the age of 6 months. The mass of epididymis generally increases at animals of 4 months of the F1–F3, but at the age of 6 months in the 1st generation falls, and correlates with a decrease in the number of epididymal spermatozoa. There is also a decrease in the absolute and relative mass of seminal vesicles in irradiated animals of three generations at the age of 2 months. At exposed animals of 3 generations of 2 months there are no significant deviations in the process of spermatogenesis, however at the age of 4 and 6 months there are significant violations of the number of spermatids of different types. In male rats of the 1st generation at the age of 2 and 6 months exposed to EMP in the prenatal and postnatal periods and obtained from irradiated parents, a drop in the number of epididymal spermatozoa is observed, while in the irradiated animals of the 2nd and 3rd generation at the age of 2 months, there is a marked increase in the number of these cells. Their viability is reduced in all age groups (2, 4 and 6 months), which is statistically significant at the age of 2 and 4 months of animals of the 1st generation. In male rats of 1–3 generations at the age of 2 months and in 4 months 2nd generation, there was a significant decreased the concentration of testosterone in the blood serum by 65.8, 43.6, 82.8 and 93.4 %, respectively. Conclusions: The long-term effect of low-intensity electromagnetic radiation from the mobile phone on the body of rats of males and females, leads to a decrease in the birth rate of irradiated animals, which reaches 45 % in the third generation. Significant changes in the studied indicators of the reproductive system of male rats of three generations are revealed, which is reflected in a decrease in the number of epididymal spermatozoa in the 1st generation and in a significant increase in the 2nd and 3rd generation – early puberty, in the fall of their viability and the predominant decrease in the concentration of testosterone in the blood serum.
electromagnetic radiation, mobile phones, male rats, reproductive system, birth rate, organ weight, spermatogenesis, epididymal spermatozoa, viability, fragmentation of DNA (index DFI), testosterone
1. Grigoriev YuG, Grigoriev OA. Cellular communication and health problems: electromagnetic environment, radiobiological problems, hazard prediction. Moscow: Ekonomiks; 2016. 574 p. Russian
2. Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, et al. Nerve cell damage in mammalian mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003; 111: 881-3. DOI: 10.1289 / ehp.6039.
3. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones. Int j oncol. 2009; 35 (1): 5-17. DOI: 10.1093 / ije / dyq079.
4. Cardis E, Deltour I, Vrijheid M, et al. INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39 (3): 675-94.
5. Jakimenko IL, Sidorik EP, Cibulin OS. Metabolic changes in cells of mobile communication systems. Ukrainskij biohimicheskij zhurnal. 2011; 83 (2): 20-8. Russian
6. Priakhin EA. Adaptive reactions at the subcellular, cellular, systemic and organismal levels. Cheliabinsk: Avtoref. diss. 2007. 51 p. Russian
7. Grigoriev YuG. Electromagnetic fields (Situation Required Emergency Measures). Radiation biology. Radioecology. 2005; 45 (4): 442-50. Russian
8. Vereshhako GG. The reproductive system and the offspring. Minsk: Belaruskaya navuka; 2015. 186 p. Russian
9. Galimova JeF, Farhutdinov RR, Galimov ShN. The influence of extreme factors on the male reproductive system. Problem reprodukcii. 2010; (4): 60-6. Russian
10. Nikolaev AA, Loginov PV. Signs of spermatogenesis of men exposed to adverse environmental conditions. Urologija. 2015; (5): 60-5. Russian
11. Gathiram P, Kistnasamy B, Lalloo. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2009; 64 (2): 93-100.
12. Sommer AM, Grote K, Reinhardt T, et al. Effects of radiofrequency of the electromagnetic fields (UMTS): a multi-generation study. Radiat Res. 2009; 171 (1): 89-95. DOI: 10.1667 / RR1460.1.
13. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997; 18: 455-61.
14. Shibkova DZ, Shilkova TV, Ovchinnikova AV. The field of radiation of animals under the influence of the radio. Radiation biology. Radioecology. 2015; 55 (5): 514. Russian
15. Suresh R, Aravindan GR, Moudgal NR. Quantitation of spermatogenesis by DNA flow cytometry: Comparative study among six species of mammals. J. Biosci. 1992; 17 (4): 413-19.
16. Evdokimov VV, Kodentsova VM, Vrzhesinskaja OA, et al. Influence of radiation exposure to the vitamin status and spermatogenesis of rats. Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine. 1997; 123 (5): 524-7. Russian
17. World Health Organization. WHO semen - 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2010. 271 p.
18. Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure assay: Andrology. 2002; 23 (1): 25-43.
19. Saygin M, Caliskan S, Karahan N, et al. Testicular apoptosis and histopathological changes induced by a 2.45 GHz electromagnetic field. Toxicol. Ind. Health. 2011; 27 (5): 455-63. DOI: 10.1177 / 0748233710389851.
20. Kesari KK, Behari J. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012; 31 (3): 213-22. DOI: 10.3109 / 15368378.2012.700292.
21. Ma HR, Li YY, Luo YP, et al. Effects of Guilingji capsules on the cell phone. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2014; 34 (4): 475-9.
22. Balmori A. It is possible to control the white stork (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagn Biol Med. 2005; 24: 109-19. DOI: 10.1080 / 15368370500205472.
23. Hancı N, Odacı E, Kaya H. The 21-old-day rat testicle. Reprod Toxicol, 2013; 42: 203-9. DOI: 10.1016 / j.reprotox.2013.09.006.
24. Vereshchako GG, Chueshova NV, Gorokh GA, Naumov AD. It was received from the irradiated parents during the embryogenesis and postnatal development. Radiation biology. Radioecology. 2014; 54 (2): 186-92. Russian
25. Takahashi S, Imai N, Nabae K, et al. Backing out of the rat fetus. Radiat Res. 2010; 173 (3): 62-72. DOI: 10.1667 / RR1615.1.
26. Poulletier de Gannes F, Haro E, Hurtier A, et al. Effect of in utero Wi-Fi exposure on the pre-and postnatal development of rats. Birth Defects Res. B. Dev. Reprod Toxicol. 2012; 95 (2): 130-6. DOI: 10.1002 / bdrb.20346.
