Does Electromagnetic Pollution in the ART Laboratory Affect Sperm Quality? A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

In recent years, the widespread use of mobile communication devices has raised questions about their potential impact on male fertility. These devices are also present in in vitro fertilization (IVF) laboratories, raising concerns about their potential impact on reproductive health, particularly sperm quality. There is ongoing scientific debate about this issue. It is important to note that many other electronic devices used in these laboratories also emit electromagnetic fields. This cross-sectional observational study examined the effects of different electromagnetic sources on the progressive motility of human sperm in vitro.

From a pool of 487 candidates, researchers selected 102 healthy men between 20 and 35 years of age according to strict inclusion criteria, which included a review of genital history, a Doppler ultrasound of the scrotum, a negative sperm culture, and normal hormonal test results. After an initial seminogram, the researchers divided each participant’s semen sample into seven aliquots. Six of these samples were exposed to common electromagnetic field (EMF) sources present in fertilization laboratories: (1) a PC monitor, (2) a time-lapse incubator, (3) an iPhone 12, (4) a Wi-Fi repeater, (5) an inverted microscope, and (6) a laptop. The remaining aliquot served as the unexposed control. The samples were placed 10 cm from each EMF source for one hour. Field strength was measured in mV/m. The mobile phone (peak 1,610.6 mV/m, mean 295 mV/m) and Wi-Fi repeater (peak 4,259.2 mV/m, mean 241.5 mV/m) generated the strongest fields. For the motility assessment (progressive, non-progressive, and immotile), the other exposed groups (PC monitor, inverted microscope, time-lapse incubator, and laptop) served as controls.

The average baseline motility in the unexposed samples was 45.1% progressive, 16.4% non-progressive, and 38.7% immotile sperm. Compared with the other exposed groups, progressive motility decreased significantly after exposure to the mobile phone and Wi-Fi repeater. The reduction amounted to 19.5%. Conversely, the proportion of non-progressive sperm increased by 9%, while the proportion of immotile sperm increased by 10%. Both changes were statistically significant.

The data suggest that electromagnetic fields from standard laboratory equipment do not significantly impair sperm motility. By contrast, wireless communication devices, specifically the iPhone 12 and a Ubiquiti UniFi 6 Wi-Fi repeater, significantly reduced motility. The decline in progressively motile (and thus fertile) sperm was nearly 20%. The authors note that potential confounders (e.g. lifestyle and genetic factors) were not controlled for in the regression analysis. In addition, the measurement system could only detect fields between 50 MHz and 3.5 GHz. Therefore, the intensity of the Wi-Fi repeater, which also operates at 5 GHz, may have been underestimated. Based on these findings, the authors strongly recommend excluding mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices from fertilization laboratories.

Editor's note:

A high-quality dataset was obtained through a systematic study design, stringent participant screening, standardized exposure conditions (uniform distance and temperature control), and an adequate sample size (n = 102). Since the tested Wi-Fi repeater was a commercial product, underestimation of field intensity is not a significant concern. Therefore, the authors’ recommendation to handle biological material only in the absence of mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices is appropriate and prudent. Although this was an in vitro study, the possible implications for the general population should not be underestimated. (RH)