Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2019, 248, 169-179

Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System

169

Review

Adverse Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Male Reproductive System:
A Systematic Review
Farah Hanan Fathihah Jaffar,1 Khairul Osman,2 Nur Hilwani Ismail,1,3
Kok-Yong Chin4 and Siti Fatimah Ibrahim1
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
3
School of Biology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Selangor, Malaysia
4
Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
1

Extensive use of Wi-Fi has contributed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) pollution inenvironment. Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi
transmitter on male reproduction health. However, there are conflicting findings between studies. Thus,
this review aims to elucidate the possible effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure on both animal and humanmale reproductive system. A computerized database search performed through MEDLINE via Ovid and
PUBMED with the following set of keywords: ‘Wi-Fi or WiFi or wireless fidelity or Wi-Fi router or WiFi routeror electromagnetic or radiofrequency radiation’ AND ‘sperm or spermatozoa or spermatogenesis or semenor seminal plasma or testes or testis or testosterone or male reproduction’ had returned 526 articles. Only
17 studies conformed to pre-set inclusion criterion. Additional records identified through Google Scholar
and reviewed article further revealed six eligible articles. A total of 23 articles were used for data extraction,
including 15 studies on rats, three studies on mice, and five studies on human health. Sperm count, motility
and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters when exposed to RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi
transmitter. Unfortunately, sperm viability and morphology were inconclusive. Structural and/or
physiological analyses of the testes showed degenerative changes, reduced testosterone level, increased
apoptotic cells, and DNA damage. These effects were mainly due to the elevation of testicular temperatureand oxidative stress activity. In conclusion, exposure towards 2.45 GHz RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi
transmitter is hazardous on the male reproductive system.
Keywords: oxidative stress; radiofrequency radiation; sperm quality; testes; Wi-Fi
Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2019 July, 248 (3), 169-179. © 2019 Tohoku University Medical Press
effects of Wi-Fi on human.
The RF-EMR emitted from Wi-Fi transmitter involves
whole body exposure (Wu et al. 2010; Banaceur et al. 2013)
while mobile phone involves localized RF-EMR exposure(Ozorak et al. 2013; Grell et al. 2016; Jamaludin et al.
2017). RF-EMR is classified as non-ionizing radiation andtheoretically is unable to induce ionization of cellular atoms
and molecules. Therefore, the putative damaging effects of
Wi-Fi on biological tissue could be attributable to the thermal mechanism (Coulton et al. 2004; Foster and Colombi2017). However, recent studies had expanded this hypothesis to further encompass non-thermal effects (Kibona 2013;
Adams et al. 2014). This latter effect is suspected to play amajor role in causing cell damage via the oxidative stresspathway (Nazıroğlu et al. 2013; Tök et al. 2014;

Introduction
Since several decades ago, the world had witnessed a
rapid evolution in communication technology. Wirelessfidelity (Wi-Fi) has emerged as the preferred route of internet communication and connectivity. Concurrently, Wi-Fi
signal operates in an unlicensed spectrum range of 2.45 to 5
GHz (Zhang et al. 2015) which minimizes its operation
cost. For this reason, Wi-Fi has become a daily necessity
and is widely used in various devices. Although it tremendously transforms human life for the better, the extensive
use of Wi-Fi has led to the proliferation of radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) in public spaces(Teixeira and Hasan 2016). This phenomenon consequently
has raised public concern regarding the potential healthReceived April 10, 2019; revised and accepted July 4, 2019. Published online July 26, 2019; doi: 10.1620/tjem.248.169.
Correspondence: Siti Fatimah Ibrahim, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Jalan
Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia.
e-mail: timi@ukm.edu.my

169

170

F.H.F. Jaffar et al.

Yakymenko et al. 2016).
The measurement of the rate energy absorbed in thepresence of an electromagnetic field over a volume of tissue
is represented as specific absorption rate (SAR) and is commonly expressed in Watts per kilogram (W/kg) (Hochwald
et al. 2014). According to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the whole body safe exposure to thisform of energy should never exceed 0.08 W/kg or 1.6 W/kg
for any body tissue (IEEE, The Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers 1991). Despite this recommendation,
the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended amuch higher SAR limit which is 4 W/kg (Wu et al. 2010).
Wi-Fi transmitter that emitting SAR below the aforementioned threshold is considered safe for use by the public in
an uncontrolled environment (IEEE 1991).
Studies have found that testes are the most sensitive
organ to RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi devices (Dasdag et al.
2015; Othman et al. 2017). The testes abnormality is
noticed through significant changes to sperm count, viability, motility, morphology and percentage of sperm withsevere DNA damage (Avendano et al. 2012; Shokri et al.
2015) when exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi frequency (Saygin
et al. 2016). Interestingly, some studies have reported that
only sperm count and motility were affected while othersperm parameters remained normal (Mahmoudi et al.
2015). Therefore, the effects of Wi-Fi on the male reproductive system remained elusive. This systematic review
aims to evaluate the effects of Wi-Fi on various aspects ofthe male reproductive system and to determine the sourceof discrepancies between previous studies.

Methods
Search strategy
A computerized literature search was conducted on the original
research articles reporting the effects of Wi-Fi exposure on the male
reproductive system. The literature research was conducted through
MEDLINE via Ovid and PUBMED databases with the following
keywords: ‘Wi-Fi or WiFi or wireless fidelity or Wi-Fi router or WiFi
router or electromagnetic or radiofrequency radiation’ AND ‘sperm or
spermatozoa or spermatogenesis or semen or seminal plasma or testes
or testis or testosterone or male reproduction’. Articles publishedbetween 1946 and November 2018 were included in the search. Inorder to search for additional literature that might have been missed
during the database search, additional records were identified through
Google Scholar using similar set of keywords and from the reference
list of review article retrieved from the initial search (Kesari et al.
2018).
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
The eligible articles were reviewed independently by two
authors (FHF and NHI) based on the following criteria: only fulllength original articles published in English were included; reported
the effects of Wi-Fi on sperm quality which include sperm count,motility, viability, morphology and/or DNA damage status in humanor in rodent; reported the changes of testes histology; pro- and antioxidant status of the testes and/or male reproductive hormone due to
Wi-Fi exposure; only studies which used the frequency of 2.45 GHz

Wi-Fi radiation from Wi-Fi devices or generated from a specializedchamber were considered; radiation from mobile phones is excluded
because similar topics were previously reviewed.
Data extraction and management
Selection of the study involved two steps. In the first step, thetitles and abstracts of the articles were screened. The studies that did
not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. In the second step, thefull text of the selected articles was retrieved and filtered based on thesame inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies of opinions
regarding the eligibility of an article between the two reviewers wereresolved by consulting two authors, S.F.I. and K.O.
The sample size, strain of animal, age of the human and animal
involved, duration of exposure and exposure setting were extracted.
Besides, inclusion and exclusion criteria for human semen sample,
movement restriction in the animal study as well as SAR and/or
power density value applied in the study were also recorded.

Results
Studies selected
The initial literature search retrieved 526 unique articles, of which 191 articles were from MEDLINE and 335
articles from PubMed. Another 191 articles were removed
due to duplication. Subsequently, 315 articles were
excluded after reviewing the titles and abstracts. Fullpapers were obtained for the remaining 20 articles and athorough reviewing process was conducted (Fig. 1). Threearticles were further excluded as the frequency of the
RF-EMR generator applied in the study was not mentioned.
On the other hand, six additional articles were retrieved
from Google Scholar and one was cited by a review article(Kesari et al. 2018). One article was excluded because it
was not written in English. In total, 23 eligible papers werereviewed for data extraction.
Study characteristics
Animal study: Of the 23 eligible articles, 18 reported
on the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation rodents of which
15 studies used Wistar Albino and Sprague Dawley rats
(Table 1) and another three used involved Swiss albino and
BALB/c mice (Table 2).
The age of the animal used in the studies varied, ranging from prenatal age (Ozorak et al. 2013), weanlings (14and 21 days for rats) (Simaiova et al. 2018), early adults,
i.e. 6 to 8 weeks for mice (Atasoy et al. 2013; Saygin et al.
2016; Delavarifar et al. 2018; Jonwal et al. 2018) and 10
weeks for rats (Kesari and Behari 2010; Kumar et al. 2011).
Other studies used adult mice and rats aged 12 to 24 weeks(Saygin et al. 2011; Shahin et al. 2014; Mahmoudi et al.
2015; Akdag et al. 2016; Bilgici et al. 2018).
The generator for the 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation were
derived from various sources which include horn antenna(Kesari and Behari 2010; Kumar et al. 2011; Shahin et al.
2014; Jonwal et al. 2018), monopole antenna (Saygin et al.
2016; Bilgici et al. 2018), half-wave dipole antenna (Saygin
et al. 2011; Ozorak et al. 2013; Oksay et al. 2014; Akdag etal. 2016), purpose design chamber (Almasiova et al. 2014,

Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System

171

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the literature search.

2018; Simaiova et al. 2018), Wi-Fi router (Mahmoudi et al.
2015; Delavarifar et al. 2018), Wi-Fi antenna (Dasdag et al.
2015; Shokri et al. 2015) and Wi-Fi gateway (Atasoy et al.
2013). The studies vary in terms of distance between samples and the generator and duration of exposure. The
shortest duration was 2 h/day for 4 days while the longest
was 24 h/day for 12 months. On the other hand, 2 m was
the furthest distance applied. Some studies described the
distance as ‘close contact’ but the actual distance for close
contact was not specifically mentioned in the study. Despite
the differences in the setting, all the studies reported SAR
values below recommendation limits by US FCC andWHO.
Most of the studies defined control or sham group as
the group that received no exposure of RF-EMR as the generator was switched off and only received cage restriction
stress (Kesari and Behari 2010; Saygin et al. 2011, 2016;
Kumar et al. 2011; Atasoy et al. 2013; Ozorak et al. 2013;
Almasiova et al. 2014, 2018; Oksay et al. 2014; Shahin etal. 2014; Shokri et al. 2015; Akdag et al. 2016; Bilgici et al.
2018; Jonwal et al. 2018; Simaiova et al. 2018). On theother hand, the sham group in the study done by Mahmoudi
et al. (2015) and Delavarifar et al. (2018) were exposed to
non-energizing Wi-Fi router which refers to a switched on
Wi-Fi router without any data exchange between the linked
devices.

Most of the literature consistently demonstrated various degrees of degenerative changes on testes histomorphometry with a parallel appearance of apoptotic cells(Kesari and Behari 2010; Kumar et al. 2011; Saygin et al.
2011; Almasiova et al. 2014, 2018; Shahin et al. 2014;
Dasdag et al. 2015; Shokri et al. 2015; Delavarifar et al.
2018; Jonwal et al. 2018; Simaiova et al. 2018) and more
prominent DNA damage compared to other organs following RF-EMR exposure (Akdag et al. 2016). Moreover, oxidative stress developed in the testes after RF-EMR exposure as evidenced by increased ROS level, decreased
enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant levels andincreased lipid and nucleic acid peroxidation products inthe testes (Kesari and Behari 2010; Atasoy et al. 2013;
Ozorak et al. 2013; Oksay et al. 2014; Shahin et al. 2014;
Saygin et al. 2016; Almasiova et al. 2018; Simaiova et al.
2018).
The weight of the testes and accessory sex organs was
not significantly affected by RF-EMR exposure (Mahmoudi
et al. 2015; Shokri et al. 2015) but the weight of epididymis
and seminal vesicle were significantly decreased (Dasdag etal. 2015; Shokri et al. 2015). The exposure also increased
testes temperature but did not affect body temperature(Almasiova et al. 2018). In addition, three studies reported
a significant decrease in testosterone level (Kumar et al.
2011; Shahin et al. 2014; Jonwal et al. 2018) while one

172

F.H.F. Jaffar et al.
Table 1. The effect of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi RF-EMR on male rat reproductive system.
Samplesize
n = 12;n=6

n = 8;
n=6

Animalstrain/age
WistarAlbino/10 weeks

WistarAlbino/12 weeks

Exposure setting
2 h/day for 35 days; anechoic chamber;2m from the horn antenna; no movement
restriction.

1 h/day for 28 days; cylindrical PVC
restrainer; in close contact to the monopole
antenna; exposure was generated by half-wave
dipole antenna system.

SAR and/orPower density
SAR:
0.11 W/kg

Significant increase:
Apoptotic cells, level of CAT enzyme.

Power density:
0.34 mW/cm2

Significant decrease:
Sperm count, SOD and GPx.

SAR: 3.21W/kg

Significant increase:level of caspase-8 and Bax gene.

Findings

References
Kesari and
Behari 2010

Saygin et al.
2011

Significant decrease:
number of Leydig cell, percentage of interstitial
tissue in the testicular parenchyma;
spermatogenesis assessed by using Johnsen score.
No significant changes:
seminiferous tubule diameter, number of
apoptotic cells, level of TNF-α, caspase-3 and
Bcl-2.

n = 5;
n=3

n = 10;n=5

WistarAlbino/10 weeks

2 h/day for 60 days; Plexiglas cage in exposure
chamber; no movement restriction; exposure
was performed through the horn antenna.

WistarAlbino/8 weeks

24 h/day for 20 weeks; at 25 cm distance fromthe Wi-Fi gateway; no movement restriction.

SAR:
0.014 W/kg

Significant increase:level of caspase-3 and creatine kinase.

Power density:
0.21 mW/cm2

Significant decrease:level of serum melatonin and testosterone.

SAR:
0.091 W/kg

Significant increase:level of 8-OHdG in serum and testis.

Kumar et al.
2011

Atasoy et al.
2013

Significant decrease:level of GPx and CAT.
Not significantly decrease
Level of MDA, SOD and XO.

n = 32;n=8

WistarAlbino/16 weeks

1 h/day for 30 days; movement restriction in
restrainer positioned in close contact to themonopole antenna; exposure was generated byhalf-wave dipole antenna system 1m from thetestis.

SAR:
0.14 W/kg

Significant increase:
Lipid peroxidation.

Oksay et al.
2014

Significant decrease:
Vitamin A and E.
Not significantly decrease
Level of GSH and GSH-Px.

n = 96;n = 24

WistarAlbino/Prenatal age
until 4, 5
and 6 weeks
postnatal.

1 h/day since prenatal until the age of 4, 5 & 6
weeks posnatal age; 25 cm distance; half-wave
dipole antenna; movement restriction.

SAR:
0.1 W/kg

Changes in the testis:
4 weeks of age: low level of lipid peroxidation
with the increased of the vitamin A and E.
5 weeks of age: no significant changes.
6 weeks of age: Increased in the level of lipid
peroxidation.

Ozorak et al.
2013

n = 40;n = 20

WistarAlbino/Notmentioned

3 h/day for 3 weeks; purposed design chamber;no movement restriction.

Power density:
2.8 mW/cm2

Irregular shape of seminiferous tubules withdegenerative features.
Necrotizing Sertoli cell and spermatogonia.
Enlarged intertubular space and the space
between Sertoli cells and spermatogonia.
The spermatocyte cytoplasm contained highnumber of vacuoles.

Almasiova
et al. 2014

n = 27;n=9

WistarAlbino/12 weeks

Exposure for 1h/day or 7h/day; 2 months;
chamber with two Wi-Fi antennas placed at thecenter of two sides of the chamber; no
movement restriction.

Not mentioned

Significant increase:
Apoptosis index and caspase-3 activity.

Shokri et al.
2015

Significant decrease:
Sperm concentration, motility and normal
morphology; weight of seminal vesicle; numberof germ cell layer.
No significant changes
Weight of the testis and other accessory sex
organ.

Notmentionedn = 48;n = 12

WistarAlbino/11-12 weeks

Sham exposed: 4h/day at 30 cm distance for 7
days.
2h/day exposure for 7 days at a distance of 30
cm and 60 cm.
4h/day expsoure for 7 days at distance of 30
cm and 60 cm.
Movement restriction. Wi-Fi router actively
exchanged data with a laptop placed 5 meters
away in another room for exposure group.
No data exchanged for sham group.

SAR:
0.091 W/kg

Sprague
Dawley/6 weeks

3 h/day for 30 days; positioned in close contact
to the monopole antenna; movement
restriction.

SAR: 3.21W/kg

Significant decrease:
Sperm concentration, sperm motility.

Mahmoudi
et al. 2015

No significant changes:
Weight of testis; sperm morphology and DNA
fragmentation.

Significant increase:
Level of MDA and TOS; PGE2 and CGRP in
Sertoli and Leydig cells.
Significant decrease:
Level of TAS; spermatid density in seminiferous
tubule; sperm concentration in cauda epididymis.
Not significantly decrease:
Level of testosterone and VEGF.

Saygin et al.
2016

Not
mentionedn = 48;n = 12

WistarAlbino/11-12 weeks

Sprague
Dawley/6 weeks

Sham exposed: 4h/day at 30 cm distance for 7
SAR:
Significant decrease:days.
0.091 W/kg
Sperm concentration, sperm motility.
2h/day exposure for 7 days at a distance of 30
cm and 60 cm.
No significant changes:
4h/day expsoure for 7 days at distance of 30
Weight of testis; sperm morphology and DNA
cm and 60 cm.
fragmentation.
Movement restriction. Wi-Fi router
actively
Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System
exchanged data with a laptop placed 5 meters
away in another room for exposure group.
No data exchanged for sham group.
Table 1. Continued.

Mahmoudi
et al. 2015

Significant increase:
Level of MDA and TOS; PGE2 and CGRP in
Sertoli and Leydig cells.

Saygin et al.
2016

3 h/day for 30 days; positioned in close contact
to the monopole antenna; movement
restriction.

SAR: 3.21W/kg

173

Significant decrease:
Level of TAS; spermatid density in seminiferous
tubule; sperm concentration in cauda epididymis.
Not significantly decrease:
Level of testosterone and VEGF.
WistarAlbino/Notmentioned
Note: Initial
weight =313g

24 h/day for 12 months; plexiglass cage; 50 cm
distance from the Wi-Fi antenna; no movement
restriction.

SAR:
4880 µW/kg(0.00488 W/kg)(organ point);
2420 µW/kg(0.00242 W/kg)(1g);1020 µW/kg(0.00102 W/kg)(10g)

Significant increase:
Sperm head abnormalities.

n = 16;n=8

WistarAlbino/12 weeks

24 h/day for 12 months; Plexiglas cage; 50 cm
distance; half wavelength dipole antenna; no
movement restriction.

SAR:
7127 μW/kg(0.007127
W/kg)

Testis showed significant increase in DNA
damage compared to other organ including brain,skin, kidney and liver.

Akdag et al.
2016

n = 20;n = 10

WistarAlbino/Sexuallymatured age

3 h/day for 3 weeks; purposed design chamber;no movement restriction.

Power density:
28 W/m2(2.8 mW/cm2)

Seminiferous tubule showed degenerativechanges but the Leydig cells still intact.
Numerous irregular small empty spaces between
the seminiferous epithelial cells and the tightjunctions between the adjacent Sertoli cells.
Dilated and congested blood vessel in the tunica
albuginea layer and interstitial space.

Almasiova
et al. 2018

n = 16;n=8

Dasdag etal. 2015

Significant decrease:
Weight of the epididymis and seminal vesicle,
diameter of seminiferous tubule and tunica
albuginea thickness.

Significant increase:
SOD1 positive cells; temperature of the testis.
Significant decrease:
Sperm motility parameters which include MOT,
DAP, DCL, VAP, VCL, PRO, DSL, VSL, STR,
LIN, ALH and BCF.
No significant changes:
Body temperature.
n = 24;n=6

WistarAlbino/14 and 21days

2 h/day for 3 weeks since the age of 14 daysand 21 days; sacrificed at the age of 5 weeks
and 6 weeks respectively; purposed designchamber; no movement restriction.

Power density:
2.8 mW/cm2

Irregular shape of seminiferous tubule, theseminiferous epithelium contained many irregularempty spaces, the basement membrane of several
seminiferous tubules showed an abnormal
undulation and the tunica propria contained
peritubular myoid cells.
Dilated and congested blood vessels andunchained Leydig cell in the interstitial tissue.
Sertoli cells appear with various vacuoles andSimaiova
et al. 2018

damaged organelles.
The cytoplasm of spermatocyte contained swollen
mitochondria.
Increased in the number of apoptotic cells.
Significant increase of Cu-Zn-SOD and Mn-SOD
positive cells.
n = 22;n = 11

WistarAlbino/20-24 weeks

1 h/day for 30 days; 6 cm from the monopole
antenna; movement restriction.

SAR:
0.0233W/kg

Significant increase:
Level of serum IL-6 and CRP; necrotic cells.

Bilgici et al.
2018

Significant decrease:
Spermatogenesis based on Johnsen score.
No significant changes:
Level of testicular IL-6, IL-10 and IL-32.

8-OHdG, 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine; ALH, amplitude of lateral head displacement; BCF, beat cross frequency; CAT,
catalase; Cu-Zn-SOD, copper-zinc-superoxide dismutase; CGRP, calcitonin gene-related peptide; CRP, C-reactive
protein; DAP, distance of average path; DCL, curvilinear distance; DSL, distance straight line; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; GSH, glutathione; GSH-Px, phospholipid hydroperoxide glutathione peroxidase; IL, interleukin; LIN, linearity;
MDA, malondialdehyde; Mn-SOD, manganase-superoxide dismutase; MOT, motility; PGE2, prostaglandin E2; PRO,
progressive; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; STR, straightness; TAS, total antioxidant
status; TOS, total oxidant status; VAP, average path velocity; VCL, curvilinear velocity; VEGF, vascular endothelial
growth factor; VSL, straight line velocity; XO, xanthine oxidase.

174

F.H.F. Jaffar et al.
Table 2. The effect of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi RF-EMR on male mice reproductive system.

Samplesize
n = 40;n = 20n = 30;n=6

n = 16;n=8Animalstrain/age
Swiss
Albino/12 weeks

BALB/c/
7-8
weeks

Swiss
Albino/6-8
weeks

Exposure setting
2 h/day for 30 days; partition cage; 25 cm
distance; horn antenna; movement
restriction.

Busulfan oligospermic induced micemodel. 2 h/day for 4 days at 100 cm or 150
cm from Wi-Fi router.
Wi-Fi router was actively exchanged datawith a laptop placed in the adjacent room.
Control sham received the exposure
without data exchanged between router andlaptop. No movement restriction.

2 h/day for 30 days; Plexiglas cage; hornantenna; no movement restriction.

SAR and/orPower density
SAR:
0.018 W/Kg
Power density:
0.029812
mW/cm2Findings

References

Significant increase:
Level of ROS and nitrosative stress in the testis;
lipid peroxidation.

Shahin et al.
2014

Significant decrease:
Diameter of seminiferous tubule with various
degenerative changes, distorted Leydig cells,
detachment of spermatogonia from the tunica
propria creating peripheral spaces within theseminiferous tubule; sperm count and viability;
antioxidant enzyme (SOD, CAT & GPx1 dan
GPx2); 3β HSD activity;
testosterone level; immunoreactivity of i-NOS in
spermatogonia and Leydig cells.

SAR:
30 mW/kg(0.03 W/kg)&
92 mW/kg(0.092 W/kg)
Power density:
3125 μW/m²(0.03125
mW/cm2)&1401 μW/m²(0.01401
mW/cm2)Significant increase:
Sperm concentration in control exposure group;
numerical density of the seminiferous tubule inoligospermic sham and exposure groupcompared to control group.

SAR:
0.09 W/kg

Abnormal spermatogenic cycle, irregularepithelial lining, detachment between theadjacent seminiferous tubules, occlusion of thelumen of seminiferous tubules, large vacuoles
and condensed nuclei.

Power density:
0.25 mW/cm2

Delavarifar
et al. 2018

Significant decrease:
Percentage of sperm motility and viability;
seminiferous tubule lumen diameter in 150 cm
compared to 100 cm group; lumen area in 150
cm compared to 100 cm group.
No significant difference:
Sperm concentration and spermatogenesis index
in 150 cm group compared to 100 cm group.
Jonwal et al.
2018

Significant increase:
ROS, MDA and CAT.
Significant decrease:
GPx; SOD; testosterone.

3β HSD, 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase; CAT, catalase; Cu-Zn-SOD, copper-zinc-superoxide dismutase; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; MDA, malondialdehyde; Mn-SOD, manganase-superoxide dismutase; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase.

study demonstrated a marginal decrease of testosterone
level (Saygin et al. 2016) following RF-EMR exposure
emitted by the Wi-Fi transmitter.
Evaluation on the sperm quality showed that thedecrease of sperm count, motility, viability and normal
morphology occurred following the RF-EMR exposure(Kesari and Behari 2010; Shahin et al. 2014; Dasdag et al.
2015; Shokri et al. 2015). However, Delavarifar et al.
(2018) reported an increase in sperm count. Furthermore, a
study by Mahmoudi et al. (2015) demonstrated that sperm
count and motility were decreased following the exposure
but sperm morphology and sperm DNA were not affected.
Their findings on the sperm morphology were not similar
with the other works of literature but it was noted that it
was the only study that had evaluated the effect of 2.45
GHz radiation on the sperm DNA (Mahmoudi et al. 2015).
Human study: Five articles reported the effects of
RF-EMR exposure on human subjects, whereby four wereexperimental studies (Oni et al. 2011; Avendano et al. 2012;
Kamali et al. 2017; Ding et al. 2018b) and one was a retrospective cohort study (Ding et al. 2018a). In the three ofthe experimental studies, semen ejaculates were placed a
few centimeters away from a laptop, which was actively
connected to Wi-Fi (Oni et al. 2011; Avendano et al. 2012;
Kamali et al. 2017; Ding et al. 2018b) while one study useda Wi-Fi modem (Kamali et al. 2017). The closest distancewas 3 to 5 cm while 60 cm was the farthest distance. The
length of exposure ranged from 45 minutes to 4 hours. Twostudies have clearly stated the characteristic of the samples
subjected to the exposure. They consisted of normozoospermia, teratozoospermia and low semen volume samples(Avendano et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2018b). Meanwhile,
three studies were distinctly characterized chronic diseases,
presence of infection and azoospermia as the exclusion criteria for the semen samples and were excluded from thestudy (Kamali et al. 2017; Ding et al. 2018a, b). One study,

175

Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System
Table 3. The effect of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi RF-EMR on human reproductive system.
Samplesize

Age of thesubject(years)n = 1020-30

n = 29n = 40

26-45

19-45

Inclusion/exclusion
criteria
Not stated.

SAR
and/orPowerdensity

Experimental designn = 20

Sexually
active age

22-33

Significant decrease: Spermmotility.

Semen sample were place at 60 cm
from a laptop which actively
communicating with Wi-Fi for 1
hour.

Not stated

Inclusion criteria:
22 samples were
normozoospermia.
4 samples showed lower
semen volume.
3 samples wereteratozoospermia.

Exposure group: sample was place
3 cm under the laptop for 4 hours
and temperature was maintained at
25°C.

Power
density:1-1.2µW/cm2(0.0010.0012
mW/cm2)Significant increase:
Sperm DNA fragmentation.

Exclusion criteria:
Azoospermic andpyospermic sample.

Exposure group: sample wereplaced 10 cm from a Wi-Fi modem
inside another incubator. A laptop
was placed 50 cm from the
incubator and actively downloading
data from the modem for 50
minutes.

SAR:
1.3 W/kg

Significant increase:
Sperm motility in class D.

Control group: was placed in aroom that contained no computersor electronic devices at 25°C for 4
hours.

Exclusion criteria:
Sample from subject thathave chronic disease,genetic disease,
reproductive
endocrinology disease,urologic infection
history, urlogic tumor,
operation history,orchitis, varicocele,
consumption of tobaccoand alcohol, medicinetaking, or occupational
exposure to poison andirradiation.
Inclusion criteria:
Normal pH semen
samples, contained over
60% progressive sperm,
over 80% sperm
viability, and over 60 ×106/ml sperm
concentration.
Exclusion criteria:
Evidence of infection anda semen volume < 4 ml.

Restrospective cohort study.
Group 1: use Wi-Fi less than 30
minutes.

Oni et al.
2011

Avendano etal. 2012

Significant decrease:
Sperm motility.
No significant changes:
Sperm viability.
Kamali et al.
2017

Significant decrease:
Sperm motility in class C; VCL,
VSL, VAP, mean angulardisplacement, lateral displacement
and beat cross frequency.
No significant changes: sperm
count, sperm motility in class A andB.
SAR:
3.19 W/kg

With the extended of Wi-Fi
exposure duration:

Ding et al.
2018a

Significant increase:
Level of ROS; sperm 8-OHdG
expression; DNA fragmentation.

Group 2: use Wi-Fi for 31-120
minutes.
Group 3: use Wi-Fi more than 121
minutes.

A smart phone was set to connect tothe internet wirelessly in 1.5 m
radius. A laptop computer wasplaced 3–5 cm above the exposed
samples for 45 and 90 minutes.

References

No significant changes: Spermconcentration, viability andmorphology.

Control group: sample werecovered in 3 layers of aluminium
foil and placed in incubator at 37°C
for 50 minutes.
n = 270

Findings

Significant decrease:sperm count, motility and viability;
TAC, GSH-Px and superoxide level.

SAR:
1- 2.5W/kg

Significant increase:
Level of ROS; sperm DNA damage;
8‑OHdG expression; mitochondria
DNA damage

Ding et al.
2018b

Significant decrease:
Sperm motility and viability; levelof GSH-Px and SOD.

8-OHdG, 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine; GSH-Px, phospholipid hydroperoxide glutathione peroxidase; ROS, reactive oxygen
species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; TAC, total antioxidant capacity; VAP, average path velocity; VCL, curvilinear velocity; VSL,
straight line velocity.

however, failed to state the inclusion and exclusion criteriaof the semen samples (Oni et al. 2011). Similar to the animal studies, all the SAR value reported in human studies
conform to the recommended limits set by the US FCC andWHO.
In these human studies, sperm motility was signifi-

cantly affected by the exposure (Oni et al. 2011). Increase
in DNA fragmentation of the sperm was also observed(Avendano et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2018a, b). On the other
hand, changes in sperm count and sperm viability wereinconsistent between studies. Only one study reported alack of change in sperm morphology after the RF-EMR

176

F.H.F. Jaffar et al.

exposure (Oni et al. 2011). In addition, two studies demonstrated increased ROS level and nucleic acid damage
marker and decreased antioxidant enzyme in the semen,indicating that oxidative stress might increase with the
RF-EMR exposure (Ding et al. 2018a, b). The data for thehuman studies is depicted in Table 3.

Discussion
To date, Wi-Fi has become an essential component in
the internet of things. While consumers are aware that
Wi-Fi transmitters emit RF-EMR, controversy regarding
the possible detrimental health effect of RF-EMR emitted
from Wi-Fi transmitters endures. The findings of the
RF-EMR exposure emitted by the Wi-Fi transmitter on themale reproductive health based on the reviewed studies areelaborate as below:
Effect of the exposure on male reproductive organ andsperm parameters
The exposure to 2.45 GHz RF-EMR radiation emitted
from Wi-Fi transmitter caused a marked reduction in theweight of epididymis and seminal vesicle without affecting
the weight of the testes in rats. Interestingly, the weight of
cauda epididymis is positively related to sperm count (Maoet al. 2018), sperm maturation and reservoir (Sullivan and
Mieusset 2016). Therefore, a decreased epididymal weight
would reflect a reduction of sperm count. This assumption
is further confirmed by the finding of reduced sperm countin in vivo studies (Kesari and Behari 2010; Shahin et al.
2014; Mahmoudi et al. 2015; Shokri et al. 2015; Saygin etal. 2016).
While most studies reported a decrease in sperm count,
Delavarifar et al. (2018) reported a marginally significant
increase in sperm count in control group compared to shamgroup. The oligospermic rat which received exposure at
150 cm from the RF-EMR generator showed an increase insperm count as well though it was not statistically significant. This is an interesting finding requires further study.
Based on findings by Delavarifar et al. (2018), there are two
important research details that require attention; 1) Powerdensity: the power density applied in the study is the lowest
compared to other studies in this review. However, power
density provides insufficient information on the biologicalaftermath compared to SAR (Lai 2005). SAR applied by
Delavarifar et al. (2018) was not the lowest. Shahin et al.
(2014) and Dasdag et al. (2015) had applied lower SAR at
0.00488 W/kg and 0.018 W/kg respectively and both demonstrated negative association of RF-EMR emitted from
2.45 GHz Wi-Fi transmitters on male reproduction (Shahin
et al. 2014; Dasdag et al. 2015). 2) Duration of exposure:
Delavarifar et al. (2018) had exposed the animals to
RF-EMR for a duration of 2 h/day for four consecutive
days while Shahin et al. (2014) and Dasdag et al. (2015)
had longer exposure, i.e. for 24 h/day for 12 months and 2
h/day for 30 days respectively. Despite the differences in
SAR, the cumulative exposure in the study of Delavarifar etal. (2018) could still be lower than the other studies due tothe shorter exposure duration.
The evaluation of sperm counts in in vitro study using
human ejaculated semen may not be an appropriate measure of reproductive health as the ejaculated sperm countcould no longer be altered. Under normal physiology,
sperm count is dependent on the spermatogenesis whichtakes place in the testes. The retrospective cohort study
may reflect the effect of the RF-EMR exposure better
because it involves a direct association of the Wi-Fi usage
on the testes, in which spermatogenesis occurs (Ding et al.
2018a). In experimental studies involving manipulation of
the ejaculated semen, however, sperm motility and sperm
DNA were the most sensitive parameters apart from sperm
count. This is parallel with findings found in the animal
study. Other sperm parameters which are sperm morphology and viability were found to be inconsistent between
studies, both in vivo and in vitro.
The effect of the exposure on the testes microenvironment
The negative effect of RF-EMR exposure emitted by
Wi-Fi transmitter on the sperm parameters is a reflection of
impaired spermatogenesis which in turn, is a result of negative histomorphometry changes and inflammation of thetestes and apoptosis of testicular cells.
Histopathological evaluation on the testes had demonstrated various degenerative features, including irregularshape and a decrease in diameter of seminiferous tubule,thinning of tunica albuginea layer with dilated and congested blood vessel both in tunica albuginea and in theinterstitial space. Ample spaces between the Sertoli cells
and spermatogonia and the detachment of spermatogonia
from the tunica propria had creates peripheral spaces.
These peripheral spaces caused disconnection of Sertoli andspermatogonia interaction. Subsequently, this will cause adecrease in spermatogonia proliferation, leading to spermatid density depletion in the seminiferous tubule and therefore, reduced sperm count (Saygin et al. 2016).
Most of the studies reviewed also demonstrated that
Leydig cells were affected as evidenced by a reduced number of cells (Saygin et al. 2011) and abnormal irregularappearance (Shahin et al. 2014; Simaiova et al. 2018).
However, Almasiova et al. (2018) reported contradicting
result in which the Leydig cells remained intact. Yet, all of
the studies demonstrated a decrease in testosterone level
regardless of Leydig cell number (Kumar et al. 2011;
Shahin et al. 2014; Saygin et al. 2016; Jonwal et al. 2018).
Since testosterone is a very important hormone for spermatogenesis (Ramaswamy and Weinbauer 2014) as well as
for the maintenance of structural and physiological functionof seminiferous tubules (Walker 2010), decreased levels of
this hormone may further exaggerate spermatogenesis
impairment following the exposure. Furthermore it wasalso noted that, 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (3β-HSD)
activity was also decreased (Shahin et al. 2014). As thissteroidogenic enzyme is responsible to activate steroid

177

Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System

hormones including testosterone (McVey and Cooke 2003),
the depletion of 3β-HSD activity may further amplify thedecrease in testosterone level.
Inflammation may also significantly impact the microenvironment of the testes. It is evident that prostaglandin
E2 (PGE2) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)
activities are responsible for testicular inflammation following RF-EMR exposure (Saygin et al. 2016). However,inflammation marked by interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-10 and
IL-32 levels showed no significant changes in the testicular
tissue (Bilgici et al. 2018). Despite this, the presence oftesticular apoptotic cells and the expression of caspase-3,
caspase-8 and Bax-gene highlighted the possible involvement of low-grade inflammation (Kumar et al. 2011; Saygin
et al. 2011; Shokri et al. 2015; Simaiova et al. 2018).
Pathophysiological mechanism associated with RF-EMR
exposure
Initial assumption of RF-EMR pathological pathway isthat non-ionizing radiation emitted from the Wi-Fi transmitter would only cause damage through thermal effects(Almasiova et al. 2018). However, based on the findings ofthis review, it is evident that the non-thermal effect also

plays a vital role in creating damage to the male reproductive organs. The increase in lipid peroxidation (Ozorak et
al. 2013; Oksay et al. 2014; Shahin et al. 2014) and
8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) activity, a marker
of nucleic acid damage, in the testes (Atasoy et al. 2013)
and sperm (Ding et al. 2018a, b) hinted the involvement of
the non-thermal effect. In addition, oxidative and nitrosative stress, as well as total oxidant status (Wiesner et al.
2008), were reported to show an increment following exposure (Shahin et al. 2014; Saygin et al. 2016). This result iscongruent with a decrease in enzymatic antioxidant (SOD,
CAT, XO, GPx, GPH, GPH-Px) and non-enzymatic antioxidant (vitamin A and E) (Kesari and Behari 2010; Atasoy
et al. 2013; Oksay et al. 2014; Shahin et al. 2014; Saygin etal. 2016; Jonwal et al. 2018) as well as increase in SOD
positive cells and immunoreactivity of i-NOS in spermatogonia and Leydig cells (Shahin et al. 2014; Almasiova et al.
2018; Simaiova et al. 2018). Human studies also showedsimilar findings (Ding et al. 2018a, b). Therefore, oxidative
stress in male reproductive organs may be elevated following the exposure to RF-EMR emitted from Wi-Fi transmitters (Fig. 2).

RF-EMR emitted from 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi transmitter

Thermal effectNon-thermal effectOxidative stress:
Increase ROS, MDA, TOS,
8-OHdG and nitrosative
stressDecrease in TAS,
enzymatic (SOD, CAT,
GSH, GSH-Px, GPx &XO) and non-enzymatic(vitamin A & E)
antioxidant

TestesDecrease in sperm
count, motility andincrease in sperm
DNA damage

Decrease intestosterone leveland 3β HSD activity

Degenerative changesof the seminiferous
tubule, reduce
number of Leydig
cells, increase number
of apoptotic cells and
DNA damage

Inflammatory activity
increase through the
PGE2 and CGRP
activity

Fig. 2. Mechanisms of RF-EMR exposure emitted from 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi transmitter action on the testes.
3β HSD, 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase; 8-OHdG, 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine; CAT, catalase; CGRP, calcitonin
gene-related peptide; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; GSH, glutathione; GSH-Px, phospholipid hydroperoxide glutathione
peroxidase; MDA, malondialdehyde; PGE2, prostaglandin E2; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; TAS, total antioxidant status; TOS, total oxidant status; XO, xanthine oxidase.

178

F.H.F. Jaffar et al.

Conclusion
The experimental settings evaluated the effect of the
2.45 GHz Wi-Fi transmitters on the male reproductive system could affect the result of the studies. These settings
include the type of antenna, the distance between the sourceof radiation and the animals/samples, the exposure duration(short and long-term exposure) and the age of the animals/
subjects. Imitation of real human exposure remains challenging. For instance, distance from the Wi-Fi transmitterand the duration of exposure might vary throughout the day
as the users were performing their daily activities. On theother hand, binge Wi-Fi users may spend most of the timeclose to the transmitters but received inconsistent intensity
which could be interfered by multiple signals from the surrounding. The actual human exposure occurs in repetitive
pattern and in a long-term duration (Lai 2005). Even
though there is a putative negative association between
Wi-Fi and health, the evolvement of the technology willcontinue. With the knowledge that oxidative stress plays animportant role in mediating the effects of RF-EMR exposure on the male reproductive system, it is recommended tomaintain the antioxidant status quo for fertility perseverance in men.
Direction of future research
The Wi-Fi technology is evolving at a fast pace. Thus,
it is important for the researchers to validate its healtheffects in time. Although 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi frequency isprevalent currently, the market has introduced a double frequency Wi-Fi which emits 2.45 GHz and 5 GHz radiation
simultaneously. Alternative to Wi-Fi, Light Fidelity (Li-Fi)(Saini 2012) which claimed to be ‘greener’ as it uses common LED light bulbs (Lumoindong et al. 2018) yet provides 100 times faster speed than current Wi-Fi (up to 224
Gb/s) (Chakraborty et al. 2017) has been proposed. Healthsafety of these newer technologies should be determined to
avoid jeopardizing user’s health.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the financial support from National
University of Malaysia (UKM) Geran Galakan Penyelidikan(GGP-2017-001).

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Adams, J.A., Galloway, T.S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S.C. &Mathews, F. (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm
quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int.,70, 106-112.
Akdag, M.Z., Dasdag, S., Canturk, F., Karabulut, D., Caner, Y. &Adalier, N. (2016) Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation
emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various
tissues of rats? J. Chem. Neuroanat., 75, 116-122.
Almasiova, V., Holovska, K., Cigankova, V., Racekova, E.,
Fabianova, K. & Martoncikova, M. (2014) Structural andultrastructural study of rat testes influenced by electromagnetic

radiation. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A, 77, 747-750.
Almasiova, V., Holovska, K., Simaiova, V., Benova, K., Racek, A.,
Racekova, E., Martoncikova, M., Mihalik, J., Horvathova, F.
& Tarabova, L. (2018) The thermal effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation on rat testes. Acta Vet. Brno, 86, 413-419.
Atasoy, H.I., Gunal, M.Y., Atasoy, P., Elgun, S. & Bugdayci, G.
(2013) Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious
effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted
from conventional Wi-Fi devices. J. Pediatr. Urol., 9,223-229.
Avendano, C., Mata, A., Sanchez Sarmiento, C.A. & Doncel, G.F.
(2012) Use of laptop computers connected to internet through
Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm
DNA fragmentation. Fertil. Steril., 97, 39-45.e32.
Banaceur, S., Banasr, S., Sakly, M. & Abdelmelek, H. (2013)
Whole body exposure to 2.4 GHz WIFI signals: effects on
cognitive impairment in adult triple transgenic mouse modelsof Alzheimer’s disease (3xTg-AD). Behav. Brain Res., 240,
197-201.
Bilgici, B., Gun, S., Avci, B., Akar, A. & Engiz, B.K. (2018) Whatis adverse effect of wireless local area network, using 2.45
GHz, on the reproductive system? Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 94,1054-1061.
Chakraborty, A., Dutta, T., Mondal, S. & Nath, A. (2017) Latest
advancement in Light Fidelity (Li-Fi) technology. IJARCSMS,
5, 47-53.
Coulton, L.A., Harris, P.A., Barker, A.T. & Pockley, A.G. (2004)
Effect of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields on the induction ofheat-shock protein gene expression in human leukocytes.
Radiat. Res., 161, 430-434.
Dasdag, S., Taş, M., Akdag, M.Z. & Yegin, K. (2015) Effect oflong-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation
emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. Electromagn. Biol. Med., 34, 37-42.
Delavarifar, S., Razi, Z., Tamadon, A., Rahmanifar, F., Mehrabani,D., Owjfard, M., Koohi-Hoseinabadi, O. & Abasali, S.Z.
(2018) Low-power density radiations emitted from common
Wi-Fi routers influence sperm concentration and sperm histomorphometric parameters: a new horizon on male infertility
treatment. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng., doi: https://doi.org/10.
31661/jbpe.v0i0.581.
Ding, S.S., Ping, S. & Hong, T. (2018a) Association between daily
exposure to electromagnetic radiation from 4G smartphoneand 2.45-GHz wi-fi and oxidative damage to semen of males
attending a genetics clinic: a primary study. Int. J. Clin. Exp.
Med., 11, 2821-2830.
Ding, S.S., Sun, P., Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Tian, H., Huo, Y.W., Wang,
L.R., Han, Y. & Xing, J.P. (2018b) Moderate dose of trolox
preventing the deleterious effects of Wi-Fi radiation on spermatozoa in vitro through reduction of oxidative stress damage.
Chin. Med. J., 131, 402.
Foster, K. & Colombi, D. (2017) Thermal response of tissue to RF
exposure from canonical dipoles at frequencies for future
mobile communication systems. Electron. Lett., 53, 360-362.
Grell, K., Frederiksen, K., Schüz, J., Cardis, E., Armstrong, B.,
Siemiatycki, J., Krewski, D.R., McBride, M.L., Johansen, C.
& Auvinen, A. (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas
in relation to exposure from mobile phones: analyses from the
INTERPHONE study. Am. J. Epidemiol., 1-11.
Hochwald, B.M., Love, D.J., Yan, S., Fay, P. & Jin, J.M. (2014)
Incorporating specific absorption rate constraints into wirelesssignal design. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52, 126-133.
Jamaludin, N., Razak, S.S.A., Jaffar, F.H.F., Osman, K. & Ibrahim,
S.F. (2017) The effect of smartphone’s radiation frequency
and exposure duration on NADPH oxidase 5 (NOX5) level insperm parameters. Sains Malaysiana, 46, 1597-1602.
Jonwal, C., Sisodia, R., Saxena, V.K. & Kesari, K.K. (2018) Effectof 2.45 GHz microwave radiation on the fertility pattern inmale mice. Gen. Physiol. Biophys., 37, 453-460.

Wi-Fi and Male Reproductive System
Kamali, K., Atarod, M., Sarhadi, S., Nikbakht, J., Emami, M.,
Maghsoudi, R., Salimi, H., Fallahpour, B., Kamali, N. &Momtazan, A. (2017) Effects of electromagnetic waves
emitted from 3G+ wi-fi modems on human semen analysis.
Urologia, 84, 209-214.
Kesari, K.K., Agarwal, A. & Henkel, R. (2018) Radiations andmale fertility. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol., 16, 118.
Kesari, K.K. & Behari, J. (2010) Effects of microwave at 2.45
GHz radiations on reproductive system of male rats. Toxicol.
Environ. Chem., 92, 1135-1147.
Kibona, L. (2013) Assessment of the impact of electromagnetic
radiations from mobile phone towers on male sperm infertility.
Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Merg. Eng. Res., 1, 80-85.
Kumar, S., Kesari, K.K. & Behari, J. (2011) The therapeutic effectof a pulsed electromagnetic field on the reproductive patterns
of male Wistar rats exposed to a 2.45-GHz microwave field.
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 66, 1237-1245.
Lai, H. (2005) Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical
Engineering, 10, 1-8.
Lumoindong, C.W.D., Muslim, A., Nasreddin, B.M. & Galina, M.
(2018) Performance and environmental impacts review of
Li-Fi and Wi-Fi technologies. J. Environ. Eng. Waste Manag.,
3, 68-75.
Mahmoudi, R., Mortazavi, S., Safari, S., Nikseresht, M.,
Mozdarani, H., Jafari, M., Zamani, A., Haghani, M., Davari,
M. & Tabatabaie, A. (2015) Effects of microwave electromagnetic radiations emitted from common Wi-Fi routers on rats’sperm count and motility. Int. J. Radiat. Res., 13, 363-368.
Mao, J., Pennington, K.A., Talton, O.O., Schulz, L.C., Sutovsky,
M., Lin, Y. & Sutovsky, P. (2018) In utero and postnatal exposure to high fat, high sucrose diet suppressed testis apoptosis
and reduced sperm count. Sci. Rep., 8, 7622.
McVey, M.J. & Cooke, G.M. (2003) Inhibition of rat testis microsomal 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity by tributyltin. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol., 86, 99-105.
Nazıroğlu, M., Yüksel, M., Köse, S.A. & Özkaya, M.O. (2013)
Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced radiationon oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways infemales and males. J. Membr. Biol., 246, 869-875.
Oksay, T., Naziroglu, M., Dogan, S., Guzel, A., Gumral, N. &Kosar, P.A. (2014) Protective effects of melatonin against
oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz)
devices. Andrologia, 46, 65-72.
Oni, O.M., Amuda, D.B. & Gilbert, C.E. (2011) Effects of radiofrequency radiation from WiFi devices on human ejaculated
semen. Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci., 9, 292-294.
Othman, H., Ammari, M., Sakly, M. & Abdelmelek, H. (2017)
Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45 GHz) on
postnatal development and behavior in rat: influence ofmaternal restraint. Behav. Brain Res., 326, 291-302.
Ozorak, A., Naziroglu, M., Celik, O., Yuksel, M., Ozcelik, D.,Ozkaya, M.O., Cetin, H., Kahya, M.C. & Kose, S.A. (2013)
Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)induced risks on oxidative stress and elements in kidney andtestis of rats during pregnancy and the development ofoffspring. Biol. Trace Elem. Res., 156, 221-229.
Ramaswamy, S. & Weinbauer, G.F. (2014) Endocrine control ofspermatogenesis: role of FSH and LH/testosterone. Spermatogenesis, 4, e996025.
Saini, H. (2012) Li-Fi (Light-Fidelity): the future technology in

179

wireless communication. Journal of Computer Application, 7,13-15.
Saygin, M., Asci, H., Ozmen, O., Cankara, F.N., Dincoglu, D. &Ilhan, I. (2016) Impact of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation on
the testicular inflammatory pathway biomarkers in young rats:
the role of gallic acid. Environ. Toxicol., 31, 1771-1784.
Saygin, M., Caliskan, S., Karahan, N., Koyu, A., Gumral, N. &Uguz, A. (2011) Testicular apoptosis and histopathologicalchanges induced by a 2.45 GHz electromagnetic field.
Toxicol. Ind. Health, 27, 455-463.
Shahin, S., Mishra, V., Singh, S.P. & Chaturvedi, C.M. (2014)
2.45-GHz microwave irradiation adversely affects reproductive function in male mouse, Mus musculus by inducing
oxidative and nitrosative stress. Free Radic. Res., 48, 511525.
Shokri, S., Soltani, A., Kazemi, M., Sardari, D. & Mofrad, F.B.
(2015) Effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposure on apoptosis,
sperm parameters and testicular histomorphometry in rats: atime course study. Cell J., 17, 322.
Simaiova, V., Almasiova, V., Holovska, K., Kiskova, T.,
Horvathova, F., Sevcikova, Z., Toth, S., Racek, A., Racekova,
E., Benova, K., Dvorak, P. & Cigankova, V. (2018) The effectof 2.45 GHz non-ionizing radiation on the structure and ultrastructure of the testis in juvenile rats. Histol. Histopathol.,18049.
Sullivan, R. & Mieusset, R. (2016) The human epididymis: its
function in sperm maturation. Hum. Reprod. Update, 22,574-587.
Teixeira, T. & Hasan, S.F. (2016) Assessing electromagnetic radiation in our environment. IEEE Potentials, 35, 22-25.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (1991)
IEEE C95.1-1991: IEEE standard for safety levels withrespect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields, 3kHz to 300 GHz.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/159488[Accessed: December 28, 2018].
Tök, L., Nazıroğlu, M., Doğan, S., Kahya, M.C. & Tök, Ö. (2014)
Effects of melatonin on Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in lensof rats. Indian J. Ophthalmol., 62, 12.
Walker, W.H. (2010) Non-classical actions of testosterone andspermatogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 365,
1557-1569.
Wiesner, C., Nabha, S.M., Bonfil, R.D., Dos Santos, E.B.,
Yamamoto, H., Meng, H., Melchior, S.W., Bittinger, F.,
Thüroff, J.W. & Vessella, R.L. (2008) C-kit and its ligand
stem cell factor: potential contribution to prostate cancer bonemetastasis. Neoplasia, 10, 996-1003.
Wu, T., Hadjem, A., Wong, M.F., Gati, A., Picon, O. & Wiart, J.
(2010) Whole-body new-born and young rats’ exposure
assessment in a reverberating chamber operating at 2.4 GHz.
Phys. Med. Biol., 55, 1619.
Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko,
O. & Kyrylenko, S. (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn. Biol. Med., 35, 186-202.
Zhang, H., Chu, X., Guo, W. & Wang, S. (2015) Coexistence of
Wi-Fi and heterogeneous small cell networks sharing unlicensed spectrum. IEEE Commun. Mag., 53, 158-164.