Table 1.

Experimental studies investigating low-level RF fields above 6 GHz and genotoxicity.

Reference	Biological system	Frequency range	Intensity	Exposure duration	Results	Quality
[26] Crouzier et al.	Bacteria & Yeast	9 GHz	0.5 to 16 W/kg	20 min	No change in ROS production at low exposure levels. SAR above the limit	No blinding
[18] De Amicis et al.	Cells in culture	100–150 GHz	4 W/m2	Up to 24 h	No DNA damage but an increased occurrence of micro-nucleation. SAR above limit	Inadequate dosimetry and no blinding
[19] Franchini et al.	Cells in culture	25 GHz	8 W/m2	Up to 24 h	No DNA damage but an increased occurrence of micro-nucleation. SAR above limit	No blinding
[32] Gapeyev et al.	Cells in culture	42 GHz	1 W/m²	20 min	MMW pre-exposure reduced DNA damage after x-ray exposure to leucocytes	Poor temperature control
[33] Gapeyev and Lukyanova	Cells in culture	42 GHz	1 W/m²	20 min	MMW pre-exposure reduced DNA damage after x-ray exposure to leucocytes	Poor temperature control
[12] Garaj-Vrhovac et al.	Cells in culture	7 GHz	5–300 W/m²	10–60 min	No statistically significant increase in chromosome aberrations	Inadequate dosimetry and no blinding
[13] Garaj-Vrhovac et al.	Cells in culture	7 GHz	5–300 W/m²	10–60 min	No statistically significant increase in chromosome aberrations	Inadequate dosimetry and no blinding
[30] Hintzsche et al.	Cells in culture	106 GHz	0.43–43 W/m²	5 h	Increase in spindle disturbances, but no indication of structural chromosome aberrations	Well designed
[15] Hintzsche et al.	Cells in culture	106 GHz	0.4–20 W/m²	2–24 h	No DNA strand breaks or chromosome damage. SAR above limit	Inadequate temperature and sham control
[29] Kalantaryan et al.	Miscellaneous	65 GHz	0.5 W/m²	Up to 120 min	Changes in DNA strand separation during artificial synthesis	Poor dosimetry and temperature control
[24] Kesari and Behari	In vivo	50 GHz	0.0086 W/m2	2 h/day for 45 days	Increase in DNA double-strand breaks and a decrease in the levels of Protein kinase C	Low animal numbers (6 exposed)
[14] Korenstein-Ilan et al.	Cells in culture	100 GHz	0.31 W/m²	1–24 h	Chromosomal changes and asynchronous centromeres replications. SAR above limit	No blinding
[16] Koyama et al.	Cells in culture	60 GHz	10 W/m²	24 h	No increase in DNA strand breaks or heat shock protein expression	Well designed
[17] Koyama et al.	Cells in culture	45 GHz	10 W/m²	24 h	No increase in mironucleation, DNA strand breaks or heat shock protein expression	No blinding
[25] Kumar et al.	In vivo	10 and 50 GHz	2.1 W/m2	2 h/day for 45 days	Increase in ROS and increases and decreases in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS	Low animal numbers (6 exposed) and no blinding
[28] Lukashevsky and Belyaev	Bacteria & Yeast	69–71 GHz	Up to 5 W/m²	30 min	Increase in indicators of DNA damage. SAR above limit	Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control
[23] Paulraj and Behari	In vivo	16.5 GHz	10 W/m2	2 h/day for 35 days	Increase in indicators of DNA damage. SAR above limit	Low animal numbers (6 exposed) and no blinding
[20] Shckorbatov et al.	Cells in culture	42 GHz	2 W/m²	1–60 s	Decreased nuclei electrical charge and increased chromatin condensation in the nuclei	No blinding, sham control not described
[21] Shckorbatov et al.	Cells in culture	35 GHz	0.3 W/m2	10 s	Increase in chromatin condensation as indicated by an increase in heterochromatin granule quantity	Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control
[22] Shckorbatov et al.	Cells in culture	36 GHz	0.01–1 W/m2	1–10 s	Increase in chromatin condensation as indicated by an increase in heterochromatin granule quantity. SAR above limit	Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control
[27] Smolyanskaya and Vilenskaya	Bacteria & Yeast	45–46 GHz	0.1–10 W/m2	0.5–2 h	Increase in indicator of DNA damage	Statistical methods and dosimetry were not described
[31] Zeni et al.	Cells in culture	120–130 GHz	0.5–2.3 W/m²	20 min	No indication of DNA damage or changes in cell cycle kinetics. SAR above limit	Inadequate temperature control