Rats avoid exposure to HVdc electric fields: A dose response study

Creim, Jeffrey A.; Lovely, Richard H.; Weigel, R.J.; Forsythe, William C.; Anderson, Larry E.

doi:10.1002/bem.2250140406

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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]. In these studies, the animals were co-exposed to air ions and static EF.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further eight studies investigated behavioral responses of vertebrates to static EF exposure [39, 45–47, 49–52], but the results have not been clearly replicated by separate laboratories. Locomotor activity, avoidance behavior and food and water intake were mainly examined in mammals.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies investigated avoidance behavior in rats [46, 47]. Creim et al [47] showed that rats avoided static EF (between 55 and 80 kV/m for 1 h), regardless of the presence of air ions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Creim et al [47] showed that rats avoided static EF (between 55 and 80 kV/m for 1 h), regardless of the presence of air ions. This behavior was found to be dose dependent with higher field strengths inducing greater field avoidance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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%

“…Two studies investigated avoidance behavior in rats [46, 47]. Creim et al [47] showed that rats avoided static EF (between 55 and 80 kV/m for 1 h), regardless of the presence of air ions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

“…Therefore, biological effects of static EF is thought to be not worth studying [Repacholi and Greenebaum, 1999]. Given the current perspective which considers static EF biologically inert, static EF served mainly as a secondary control condition in this study, in order to eliminate the surface charges as a factor that may be felt by the animals, and hence change their walking behaviors [Creim et al, 1993]. The difference in TSR between Static EF and 50 Hz EF groups indicates that only behavioral changes that may occur due to surface charges can not account for the lower TSR in 50 Hz EF group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of continuous exposure to 50 Hz electric field on nerve regeneration in a rat peroneal nerve crush injury model

Aydın

Çömlekçi

Özgüner

et al. 2006

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of power frequency electric field (EF) on nerve regeneration was investigated on a rat peroneal nerve crush injury model. The animals were assigned to three groups: 50 Hz EF and Static EF groups were exposed at 10 kV/m. The sham group was kept in the same setting without any EF applications. EF was uninterruptedly applied for 21 days postoperatively. Repeated measures analysis of daily walking tracks during EF exposure demonstrated lower toe spread recovery (TSR) in the 50 Hz EF group. Significant difference across the groups was found only at days 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 when TSR was analyzed for each measurement time. Print length recovery and peroneal function index did not differ across the groups. Walking track parameters were found to recover to their baseline values by day 28 in all groups. Day 14 but not day 21 measurements revealed smaller nerve cross-sectional area, lower total regenerating axon area, and higher mean myelin debris area in 50 Hz EF group. Both day 14 and 21 measurements revealed higher total myelin debris area, lower EDL muscle weight, and lack of significant enlargement in nerve cross-section distal to the injury, compared to the normal counterpart in 50 Hz EF group. All differences were in keeping with lower rates of Wallerian degeneration and nerve regeneration in 50 Hz EF group. When walking track, histomorphometry and muscle weight are considered individually, their differences across the groups may appear to be subtle to derive a conclusion for a 50 Hz EF effect. However, their concordance with each other in direction of effect suggests that continuous 50 Hz EF exposure has a weak effect that is detrimental mostly to the rate of early nerve regeneration in this axonotmetic injury model. Recovery of walking tracks was not different between Static EF and Sham groups. This suggests that the surface charges that may indirectly affect walking behaviors of the rats, do not account for the lower recovery of TSR in 50 Hz EF group. Differences in nerve regeneration between 50 Hz EF and Static EF groups suggests that electric induction may be required for pure EF effects even though the estimated density of induced fields is not above the endogenous background level for the 50 Hz EF exposure in this study.

show abstract

Failure to produce taste‐aversion learning in rats exposed to static electric fields and air ions

Creim

Lovely

Weigel

et al. 1995

Bioelectromagnetics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taste-aversion (TA) learning was measured to determine whether exposure to high-voltage direct current (HVdc) static electric fields can produce TA learning in male Long Evans rats. Fifty-six rats were randomly distributed into four groups of 14 rats each. All rats were placed on a 20 min/day drinking schedule for 12 consecutive days prior to receiving five conditioning trials. During the conditioning trials, access to 0.1% sodium saccharin-flavored water was given for 20 min, followed 30 min later by one of four treatments. Two groups of 14 rats each were individually exposed to static electric fields and air ions, one group to +75 kV/m (+2 x 10(5) air ions/cm3) and the other group to -75 kV/m (-2 x 10(5) air ions/cm3). Two other groups of 14 rats each served as sham-exposed controls, with the following variation in one of the sham-exposed groups: This group was subdivided into two subsets of seven rats each, so that a positive control group could be included to validate the experimental design. The positive control group (n = 7) was injected with cyclophosphamide 25 mg/kg, i.p., 30 min after access to saccharin-flavored water on conditioning days, whereas the other subset of seven rats was similarly injected with an equivalent volume of saline. Access to saccharin-flavored water on conditioning days was followed by the treatments described above and was alternated daily with water "recovery" sessions in which the rats received access to water for 20 min in the home cage without further treatment. Following the last water-recovery session, a 20 min, two-bottle preference test (between water and saccharin-flavored water) was administered to each group. The positive control group did show TA learning, thus validating the experimental protocol. No saccharin-flavored water was consumed in the two-bottle preference test by the cyclophosphamide-injected, sham-exposed group compared to 74% consumed by the saline-injected sham-exposed controls (P < .0001). Saccharin-preference data for the static field-exposed groups showed no TA learning compared to data for sham-exposed controls. In summary, exposure to intense static electric fields and air ions did not produce TA learning as assessed by this particular design.

show abstract

Rats avoid exposure to HVdc electric fields: A dose response study

Cited by 12 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

The influence of continuous exposure to 50 Hz electric field on nerve regeneration in a rat peroneal nerve crush injury model

Failure to produce taste‐aversion learning in rats exposed to static electric fields and air ions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About