Further observations on the effect of air ions on influenza in the mouse

Krueger, A. P.; Reed, E. J.; Day, M. B.; Brook, K. A.

doi:10.1007/bf01450664

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was the only study that was explicitly conducted under blinded conditions. Seven studies focused on the effects of air ions [38–43, 73]; these studies were included in this review because they also tested a static EF alone. An additional four studies investigated exposures to EF from a HVDC line [44, 45] or a simulated HVDC environment [46, 47].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Again, the results of these studies have not been replicated by independent investigators. Four studies focused on the effect of air ions [41–43, 73], the remaining ten studies examined whether the static EF itself affected these parameters [50, 69–72, 74–78]. The applied static EF field strengths varied between 0.04 kV/m and 340 kV/m and animals were exposed between 1 h and 30 weeks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of animals ranged from 5 to 60 per group. All but one study [73] reported variations in hematologic and/or immunologic parameters upon exposure of the animals to static EF. Direct and indirect mechanisms of the influences of static EF were considered to explain altered hematologic and immunologic parameters.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 weeks until end of life (in this article only first year reported)hematology/immunology:blood parameters (serotonin, glucose, cholesterol, urea nitrogen, globulin) every three monthsincreased mean glucose level in positive EF and decreased urea nitrogen in negative EF compared to overall mean valuesmain focus was on air ions; results for first year of a two year study, see [43] for second year; possibly mild vitamin deficiencyKellogg et al [43]see Kellogg et al [42]see Kellogg et al [42] (in this article only second year reported)hematology/immunology:blood parameters (serotonin, glucose, cholesterol, urea nitrogen, globulin); survival rateorgan parameters:organ parameters (weight, histologic changes)animals in static EF lived longer (no significance given) and increased mean glucose level in positive EF compared to overall mean value; no effect on organ weightsmain focus was on air ions; results for second year of a two year study, see [42] for first year; possibly mild vitamin deficiency. In second year, proteus vulgaris infection in all exposure groups caused severe gastroenteritis, splenic hypertrophy, occasional purulent salpingitis, and death.Krueger et al [73]NAMRU mice ( n = 90–220 mice per group, 12 groups)static EF of ca. 0.1 kV/m (ion depleted air or with 2.7-5*10 3 air ions) or static EF of 4–6 kV/m (ion depleted air or with 2.3-5*10 5 air ions) for up to 11 dayshematology/immunology:mortality after influenza infectionno significant effectmain focus was on air ionsLott and McCain [58]male Sprague–Dawley rats (in total, n = 60)surface electrodes measured EEG ( n = 30) electrodes implanted in the brain measured hypothalamic activity ( n = 30); 15 rats of each group were exposed to a pulsed EF and 15 to a static EF of 10 kV/m for 50 min during EEG recording; experiments were performed under anesthesiabrain/nervous system:brain activity and hypothalamic activityincreased brain activity measured with surface electrodes and decreased hypothalamic activity (implanted electrodes); when EF was turned off, brain activity returned back to baseline before exposureMarino et al [78]female Swiss Ha/ICR mice ( n = 5 per EF strength and exposure duration)2.7 kV/m and 10.7 kV/m (parallel to earth’s surface); 5.7 kV/m (perpendicular to the earth’s surface) for 7, 14, or 21 dayshematology/immunology:concentration of serum proteins (albumin, alpha-, beta-, gamma-protein)beta globulin increased under parallel and decreased under perpendicular exposure; albumin vice versa; gamma globulin increased under perpendicular exposureMarino et al [69]male Sprague–Dawley rats (7 different exposure groups with n = 12–20, corresponding control groups with n = 8–23); female Swiss Ha/ICR mice bearing Ehrlich ascites tumor cells ( n = 7 exposed, n = 6 control)rats: static vertical EF of 0.6, 2.8, 5.6, 19.7 kV/m and horizontal static EF of 0.3, 2.8, and 9.8 kV/m for 30 days; mice: horizontal static EF of 8–16 kV/m for 14 days…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHigh-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines are the technology of choice for the transport of large amounts of energy over long distances. The operation of these lines produces static electric fields (EF), but the data reviewed in previous assessments were not sufficient to assess the need for any environmental limit. The aim of this systematic review was to update the current state of research and to evaluate biological effects of static EF.MethodsUsing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations, we collected and evaluated experimental and epidemiological studies examining biological effects of exposure to static EF in humans (n = 8) and vertebrates (n = 40).ResultsThere is good evidence that humans and animals are able to perceive the presence of static EF at sufficiently high levels. Hair movements caused by electrostatic forces may play a major role in this perception. A large number of studies reported responses of animals (e.g., altered metabolic, immunologic or developmental parameters) to a broad range of static EF strengths as well, but these responses are likely secondary physiological responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, the quality of many of the studies reporting physiological responses is poor, which raises concerns about confounding. ConclusionThe weight of the evidence from the literature reviewed did not indicate that static EF have adverse biological effects in humans or animals. The evidence strongly supported the role of superficial sensory stimulation of hair and skin as the basis for perception of the field, as well as reported indirect behavioral and physiological responses. Physical considerations also preclude any direct effect of static EF on internal physiology, and reports that some physiological processes are affected in minor ways may be explained by other factors. While this literature does not support a level of concern about biological effects of exposure to static EF, the conditions that affect thresholds for human detection and possible annoyance at suprathreshold levels should be investigated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0248-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These criteria were chosen because in mice all three respond to minor shifts in the environment, e.g. changes in the charge and numbers of small air ions in the ambient atmosphere (Worden, 1953;Krueger, Andriese and Kotaka, 1966;Krueger, 1970Krueger, , 1974. Also, there is good evidence that: (1) atmospheric electrical imbalance -long considered to be of no biological significance-actually is capable of causing illness in weather sensitive individuals and (2) this effect may be due to air-ion-induced alterations in serotonin metabolism (Sulman, et al, 1974).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%