Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study

• Published in: Fertility and sterility Vol. 89; no. 1; pp. 124 - 128
• Main Authors: Agarwal, Ashok, Ph.D., H.C.L.D, Deepinder, Fnu, M.D, Sharma, Rakesh K., Ph.D, Ranga, Geetha, Ph.D, Li, Jianbo, Ph.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 2008; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Birth control; Cell Phone; Cell Size - radiation effects; Cell Survival - radiation effects; Electromagnetic Fields - adverse effects; electromagnetic radiations; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Infertility, Male - pathology; Internal Medicine; Male; male infertility; Medical sciences; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Population Surveillance; Semen - radiation effects; Sperm Count; Sperm Motility - radiation effects; sperm parameters; Spermatozoa - pathology; Spermatozoa - radiation effects; Sterility. Assisted procreation; Time Factors; Viscosity - radiation effects; electromagnetic radiations; male infertility; Cell phone; sperm parameters; Human; Semen; Gynecology; Radiation; Male; Obstetrics; Adult; Male sterility; Male genital diseases; Cell
• ISSN: 0015-0282; 1556-5653
• DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166

Objective To investigate the effect of cell phone use on various markers of semen quality. Design Observational study. Setting Infertility clinic. Patient(s) Three hundred sixty-one men undergoing infertility evaluation were divided into four groups according to their active cell phone use: group A: no use; group B: <2 h/day; group C: 2–4 h/day; and group D: >4 h/day. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Sperm parameters (volume, liquefaction time, pH, viscosity, sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology). Result(s) The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all four cell phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell phones increased. Conclusion(s) Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.