ELISA reader does not interfere by mobile phone radiofrequency radiation

Authors
Seyyed Mohammad Javad Mortazavi 1
Hamid Reza Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi 2
Mohammad Reza Abdi 3
Milad Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi 4
Nayyer Sadat Mostafavi 5
Golshan Mahmoudi 6
Nafiseh Berenjkoub 5
Zahra Akmali 5
Fahimeh Hossein-Beigi 7
Vajiheh Arsang 8
1 Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2 Department of Molecular Medicine, Reproductive Endocrinology Research Center, Shahid Beheshty University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
4 Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Medical Students Research Center, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
6 Department of Medical Physics, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
7 Biosensor Research Center, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Department of Radiology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
8 Department of Telecommunication Engineering, School of Electrical Engineering, Ghiasodin Jamshid Kashani, Higher Education Institute, Abyek, Iran
Abstract
Background: The increasing number of mobile phones can physically cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) in medical environments; can also cause errors in immunoassays in laboratories. The ELISA readers are widely used as a useful diagnostic tool for Enzymun colorimetric assay in medicine. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the ELISA reader could be interfered by the exposure to the 900 MHz cell phones in the laboratory.
Materials and Methods: Human serum samples were collected from 14 healthy donors (9 women and 5 men) and each sample was divided into four aliquots and was placed into four batches for the in-vitro quantitative determination of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). During colorimetric reading of the first, second, and third batches, the ELISA reader (Stat Fax 2100, Awareness Technology, Inc., USA) was exposed to 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 W exposure of 900 MHz radiation, respectively. For the forth batch (control group), no radiation was applied. All experiments were performed comparing ELISA read out results of the I, II, and III batches with the control batch, using the Wilcoxon test with criterion level of P = 0.050.




Results: The final scores in the exposed batches I, II, and III were not statistically significant relative to the control batch (P > 0.05). The results showed that 900 MHz radiation exposure did not alter the ELISA measured levels of hCG hormone in I (P = 0.219), II (P = 0.909), and III (P = 0.056) batches compared to the control batch.
Conclusion: This study showed that ELISA reader does not interfere by mobile phone RF radiation at a closed contact (less than 5 cm distance). However, we recommend that medical institutions discuss these issues in the context of their specific use of technologies and frame a policy that is clear and straightforward to guide staff, patients, and visitors.

Keywords

1.
Tiikkaja M, Aro AL, Alanko T, Lindholm H, Sistonen H, Hartikainen JE, et al. Electromagnetic interference with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from low-frequency electromagnetic fields in vivo. Europace 2013;15:388-94.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Helhel S, Colak Z, Ozen S. Distance and location of both mobile phone and health care unit: Determines the interference level. Am J Biomed Eng 2011;1:78-82.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kti-Tang C, Chan KH, Fung LC, Leung SW. Electro-magnetic Interference Immunity Testing of Medical Equip-ment to Second and Third Generation Mobile Phones. IEEE Trans On Electromagnetic Compatibility 2009;51:659-64.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dang BP, Nel PR, Gjevre JA. Mobile communication devices causing interference in invasive and noninvasive ventilators. J Crit Care 2007;22:137-41.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Fattahi-asl J, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Karbalae M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi HR, Haghighizadeh MH. Diagnostic performance of the human serum ferritin level decreased due to mobile phone exposure. J Res Med Sci 2013;18 :84.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
6.
Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Mortazavi SM, Nasri H, Baradaran A, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi HR. Mobile phone radiation interferes laboratory immunoenzymometric assays: Example chorionic gonadotropin assays. Pathophysiology 2012;19:43-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Trigano A, Blandeau O, Dale C, Wong MF, Wiart J. Risk of cellular phone interference with an implantable loop recorder. Int J Card 2007;116:126-30.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Trigano AJ, Azoulay A, Rochdi M, Campillo A. Electromagnetic interference of external pacemakers by walkie-talkies and digital cellular phones: Experimental study. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999;22:588-93.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Electromagnetic compatibility of medical devices with mobile communications, in Medical Devices Bulletin DB9702: London, U.K 1999.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Hahn IH, Schnadower D, Dakin RJ, Nelson LS. Cellular phone interference as a cause of acute epinephrine poisoning. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46:298-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Lapinsky SE, Easty AC. Electromagnetic interference in critical care. J Crit Care 2006;21:267-70.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gibbs J. Selecting the Detection System-Colorimetric, Fluorescent, Luminescent Methods ELISA Technical Bulletin. Life Science Publications, 1996.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Flyckt S, Marmonier C. Photomultipier tubes. principles and applications. Brive, France: Photonis Publications, 2002.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Liu CK, Chou CY. RF interference effects on PIN photodiodes. Electromagnetic Compatibility, IEEE Transactions on. 1995;37:589-92.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Mount GH, Sanders RW, Brault JW. Interference effects in reticon photodiode array detectors. Appl Opt 1992;31:851-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup report: Base stations and wireless networks-radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:416-24.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Karbalae M, Moradi HA, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M. Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station antennae: A report from Isfahan, Iran. Electromagn Biol Med 2013 [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Elert G. Magnetic Field Near a Cellular Telephone. The Physics Factbook™, 2003. Available form: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/VietTran.shtml [Last accessed on 2013 May 11].  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Fattahi-asl J, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Karbalae M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi HR. Reply to the letter sent by Prof. Viroj Wiwanitkit entitled “radiofrequency radiation and human ferritin. J Med Signals Sens 2013;3;127-28.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fattahi-asl J, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Mojtaba Karbalae, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi M, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi HR. Effects of radiofrequency radiation on human ferritin: An in-vitro enzymun assay. J Med Signals and Sens 2012;2:102-17.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Federal Communications Commission. Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 1991. Available from: http://wwwfccgov/Bureaus/Engineering_ Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4pdf. [Last accessed on 2013 May 11].  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys 1998;74:494-522.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Cleveland R, Ulcek J. Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission; 1999.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Shaw CI, Kacmarek RM, Hampton RL, Riggi V, El Masry A, Cooper JB, et al. Cellular phone interference with the operation of mechanical ventilators. Crit Care Med 2004;32:928-31.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Mobile phone interference with medical equipment and its clinical relevance: A systematic review. Med J Aust 2004;181:145-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
American National Standard Recommended Practice for an On-Site, Ad Hoc Test Method for Estimating Radiated Elec-tromagnetic Immunity of Medical Devices to Specific Ra-dio-Frequency Transmitters: ANSI C63.181997.  Back to cited text no. 26
Advanced Biomedical Research
Volume 2016, june
June 2016
Pages 1-5