• Suttur S Malini



Objective: This study was aimed at to evaluate the possible risk of radiofrequency and electromagnetic waves of mobile phones on spermatogenic impairment and functional capacity of the spermatozoa along with oxidative stress, DNA damages, and hormone profile among mobile phone users.

Methods: Mobile phone users were classified into three groups are 1-5, 6-10, and above 10 hrs/day, respectively, based on the exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Blood and semen samples are collected with informed consent letter. The semen samples used to carry out to the physical examination such as volume, liquefaction time, color, odor, pH, and viscosity, and functional status of the spermatozoa was carried out such as nuclear chromatin decondensation test, hypo-osmotic swelling test, and acrosomal intactness test. Seminal plasma was used for to evaluate the oxidative stress markers superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, and total antioxidant capacity (TAC). Blood serum was used to estimate the level of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and testosterone. DNA collected from blood used for DNA ladder assay.

Results: In the present investigation, both physical and microscopic examinations were negatively correlated with mobile phone usage. No variation exists in functional status of spermatozoa. Oxidative stress markers such as the presence of ROS, enzymatic scavengers such as SOD and TAC showed no statistical variations between control group and mobile phone users and even no variations in hormone profile such as testosterone, FSH, and LH of users of mobile phone compared to normal reference values.  

Conclusion: In conclusion, though the literature has suggested that mobile phone use alters semen parameters, functional status of spermatozoa, increased oxidative stress, with subsequent sperm DNA damage in humans. The present study deviates from previous study stating nil impact of mobile phones on spermatogenetic impairment in humans.

Keywords: Association of mobile phone usage, Male infertility.


Download data is not yet available.


La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D’Agata R, Calogero AE.

Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: A

review of the literature. J Androl 2012;33(3):350-6.

Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR.

Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech 1994;27(6):535-42.

Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW.

Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900

MHZ electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res 1997;147(5):631-40.

Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, Campbell-Beachler M, Haggren W. DNA damage in molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1998;45:103-10.

Preece AW. Mobile phones and human heads. Neuro Report 2000;11(2):???.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol 2006;28(2):509-18.

Pesonen M, Hämäläinen H, Krause CM. Brain oscillatory 4-30 Hz responses during a visual n-back memory task with varying memory load. Brain Res 2007;1138:171-7.

Hillert L, Akerstedt T, Lowden A, Wiholm C, Kuster N, Ebert S, et al. The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on headache and other symptoms: An experimental provocation study. Bioelectromagnetics 2008;29:185-96.

Jungwirth A, Giwercman A, Tournaye H, Diemer T, Kopa Z, Dohle G, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on Male Infertility: The 2012 update. Eur Urol 2012;62(2):324-32.

Jørgensen N, Vierula M, Jacobsen R, Pukkala E, Perheentupa A, Virtanen HE, et al. Recent adverse trends in semen quality and testis cancer incidence among Finnish men. Int JAndrol 2011;34(4 Pt 2):e37-48.

Geoffroy-Siraudin C, Loundou AD, Romain F, Achard V, Courbière B, Perrard MH, et al. Decline of semen quality among

932 males consulting for couple infertility over a 20-year period in

Marseille, France. Asian J Androl 2012;14(4):584-90.

Burton A. Study suggests long-term decline in French sperm quality. Environ Health Perspect 2013;121(2):a46.

Davoudi M, Brossner C, Kuber W. The influence of lectromagnetic waves on sperm motility. J Urol Urogynakol 2002;19:18-22.

Fejes I, Závaczki Z, Szöllosi J, Koloszár S, Daru J, Kovács L, et al. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl 2005;51(5):385-93.

Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, et al. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: An in vitro study. Arch Med Res 2006;37(7):840-3.

Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: An observational study. Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):124-8.

Schulte RT, Ohl DA, Sigman M, Smith GD. Sperm DNA damage in male infertility: Etiologies, assays, and outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010;27(1):3-12.

De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One 2009;4(7):e6446.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 2009;16(2-3):113-22.

Deepinder F, Makker K, Agarwal A. Cell phones and male infertility: Dissecting the relationship. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15(3):266-70.

World Health Organization. Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 2010.

Gopalkrishnan K. Standardized procedures in human semen analysis. Curr Sci 1995;68:353-62.

Jeyendran RS, Van der Ven HH, Perez-Pelaez M, Crabo BG, Zaneveld LJ. Development of an assay to assess the functional integrity of the human sperm membrane and its relationship to other semen characteristics. J Reprod Fertil 1984;70(1):219-28.

Garg V, Garg SP. Role of nitric oxide in male infertility. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2011;33(1):65-8.

Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, et al. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: An in vitro study. Arch Med Res 2006;37(7):840-3.

Boulos V, Hassan H. Do cell phones affect semen quality? Eur Urol Suppl 2013;12:843-4.

Yildirim ME, Kaynar M, Badem H, Cavis M, Karatas OF, Cimentepe E. The effect of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on semen parameters. Eur Urol Suppl 2013;12:1113-5.

Gorpinchenko I, Nikitin O, Banyra O, Shulyak A. The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality. Cent European J Urol


Hussein Z, Al-Qaisi J. Effect of diabetes mellitus Type 2 on pituitary gland hormones (FSH, LH) in men and women in Iraq. J Al-Nahrain Univ 2012;15(3):57-79.

Elaine N, Marieb RN. The endocrine system. In: Anatomy Physiology. Vol. 15. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings; 2001. p. 512-8.



How to Cite

Malini, S. S. “RESOLVING THE ENIGMA OF EFFECT OF MOBILE PHONE USAGE ON SPERMATOGENESIS IN HUMANS IN SOUTH INDIAN POPULATION”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, vol. 10, no. 2, Feb. 2017, pp. 233-7, doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i2.15392.



Original Article(s)