Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 293–297 | Cite as

Challenging cell phone impact on reproduction: A Review

  • Zaher O. MerhiEmail author
Gonadal Physiology and Disease



The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) produced by cell phones can enhance the excitability of the brain and has recently been classified as carcinogenic. The suggested use of hands-free kits lowers the exposure to the brain, but it might theoretically increase exposure to the reproductive organs. This report summarizes the potential effects of RF-EMR on reproductive potentials in both males and females.


A critical review of the literature pertaining to the impact of cell phone RF-EMR on reproduction in male and female animals and humans was performed, with a focus on gonad metabolism, apoptosis of reproductive cells, fertility status, and serum reproductive hormones.


While some animal and human studies revealed alterations in reproductive physiology in both males and females, others did not report any association. The in vitro and in vivo studies to date are highly diverse, very inconsistent in conduct and, in many cases, report different primary outcomes.


The increasing use of cell phone warrants well-designed studies to ascertain the effect of their RF-EMR on reproduction.


Cell phone Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation Reproduction Pregnancy Gonad Sperm Ovary Granulosa cell 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Baan R, Gross Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:624–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305:808–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuhn S, Cabot E, Christ A, Capstick M, Kuster N. Assessment of the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields induced in the human body from mobile phones used with hands-free kits. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:5493–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic wave exposure from cellular phones on the reproductive pattern in male wistar rats. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2011;164:546–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salama N, Kishimoto T, Kanayama HO. Effects of exposure to a mobile phone on testicular function and structure in adult rabbit. Int J Androl. 2010;33:88–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salama N, Kishimoto T, Kanayama HO, Kagawa S. The mobile phone decreases fructose but not citrate in rabbit semen: a longitudinal study. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2009;55:181–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from global system for mobile communication base stations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2010;84:51–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mailankot M, Kunnath AP, Jayalekshmi H, Koduru B, Valsalan R. Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from GSM (0.9/1.8 GHz) mobile phones induces oxidative stress and reduces sperm motility in rats. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64:561–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Mobile phone usage and male infertility in Wistar rats. Indian J Exp Biol. 2010;48:987–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1318–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutschi T, Mohamad Al-Ali B, Shamloul R, Pummer K, Trummer H. Impact of cell phone use on men’s semen parameters. Andrologia. 2011;43:312–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meo SA, Al-Drees AM, Husain S, Khan MM, Imran MB. Effects of mobile phone radiation on serum testosterone in Wistar albino rats. Saudi Med J. 2010;30:869–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Imai N, Kawabe M, Hikage T, Nojima T, Takahashi S, Shirai T. Effects on rat testis of 1.95-GHz W-CDMA for IMT-2000 cellular phones. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57:204–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falzone N, Huyser C, Franken DR, Leszczynski D. Mobile phone radiation does not induce pro-apoptosis effects in human spermatozoa. Radiat Res. 2010;174:169–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee HJ, Pack JK, Kim TH, et al. The lack of histological changes of CDMA cellular phone-based radio frequency on rat testis. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:528–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Seze R, Fabbro-Peray P, Miro L. GSM radiocellular telephones do not disturb the secretion of antepituitary hormones in humans. Bioelectromagnetics. 1998;19:271–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005;583:178–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Batellier F, Couty I, Picard D, Brillard JP. Effects of exposing chicken eggs to a cell phone in “call” position over the entire incubation period. Theriogenology. 2008;69:737–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zareen N, Khan MY, Minhas LA. Dose related shifts in the developmental progress of chick embryos exposed to mobile phone induced electromagnetic fields. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2009;21:130–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gul A, Celebi H, Ugras S. The effects of microwave emitted by cellular phones on ovarian follicles in rats. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:729–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oral B, Guney M, Ozguner F, et al. Endometrial apoptosis induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of vitamins E and C. Adv Ther. 2006;23:957–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rezk AY, Abdulqawi K, Mustafa RM, Abo El-Azm TM, Al-Inany H. Fetal and neonatal responses following maternal exposure to mobile phones. Saudi Med J. 2008;29:218–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogawa K, Nabae K, Wang J, et al. Effects of gestational exposure to 1.95-GHz W-CDMA signals for IMT-2000 cellular phones: Lack of embryotoxicity and teratogenicity in rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30:205–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Celik O, Hascalik S. Effect of electromagnetic field emitted by cellular phones on fetal heart rate patterns. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;112:55–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horwitz LI, Detsky AS. Physician communication in the 21st century: to talk or to text? JAMA. 2011;305:1128–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women’s Health, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityAlbert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations