

Various
Experimental evaluation of the influence of various electromagnetic fields on biosystems
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) across a wide range of frequencies, from ELF to terahertz, exhibit significant biological effects, influencing cellular processes, tissue repair, and systemic regulation. This section synthesizes findings on diverse EMF applications, with sections focusing on ELF, microwave, terahertz, and combined frequency exposures. ...
Particular attention is given to mechanisms of action, experimental evidence, and emerging therapeutic applications, highlighting the versatility of EMFs in biophysics and medicine.
Electromagnetic fields impact biological systems in frequency-dependent ways, with different ranges eliciting unique responses. From low-frequency fields affecting ion cyclotron resonance to higher-frequency microwaves modulating protein interactions, EMFs are increasingly recognized as powerful tools in medicine. This section reviews the effects of various EMF frequencies, emphasizing their mechanisms, biological impacts, and potential therapeutic uses.
Mechanisms of Electromagnetic Field Interactions:
Frequency-Dependent Resonance:
EMFs induce resonance phenomena at molecular and cellular levels, enhancing energy transfer and bioelectric coherence (Scholkmann et al., 2024).
Resonances influence ion transport, membrane potentials, and intracellular signaling.
Thermal and Non-Thermal Effects:
While thermal effects dominate in high-intensity EMFs, non-thermal mechanisms, such as protein conformational changes and ion channel modulation, are critical in low-intensity exposures (Liboff, 2012).
Biological Effects Across Frequency Ranges:
Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF):
ELF-EMFs (3–300 Hz) support tissue repair, stem cell differentiation, and systemic coherence (Ross et al., 2019).
Frequencies like 7.8 Hz, corresponding to the Schumann resonance, align bioelectric fields and promote neurogenesis (Baek et al., 2014).
Microwave Frequencies:
Microwaves (300 MHz–30 GHz) enhance enzymatic activity, stabilize DNA-protein interactions, and support neural recovery (Zimmerman et al., 2012).
Frequencies such as 13.56 MHz modulate cellular signaling pathways in oncology (Freddolino and Tavazoie, 2012).
Terahertz Waves:
Terahertz EMFs (0.1–10 THz) interact with water structures, influencing hydration layers and protein dynamics. These frequencies show potential in imaging and targeted therapy (Poghosyan et al., 2023).
Combined Frequency Exposures:
Synergistic Effects:
Combining ELF with microwaves or terahertz frequencies enhances biological responses, such as increased protein stability and optimized ion transport (Martel et al., 2024).
Mixed frequencies improve bioelectric coherence and tissue repair by leveraging multi-scale interactions (Lewczuk et al., 2014).
Applications in Regenerative Medicine:
Mixed-frequency EMFs accelerate wound healing, with ELF modulations amplifying the effects of higher-frequency fields (García-Minguillán et al., 2021).
Therapeutic Applications:
Oncology:
EMFs disrupt tumor cell signaling through resonance effects, with specific frequencies inducing apoptosis and reducing proliferation (Mehdizadeh et al., 2023).
Combined ELF and microwave applications selectively target malignant cells while preserving healthy tissue integrity.
Neuroprotection and Cognitive Enhancement:
EMFs improve neuronal plasticity, with ELF fields supporting synaptic coherence and higher frequencies enhancing neurotransmitter release (Perez et al., 2021).
Tissue Repair and Regeneration:
Applications across frequency ranges optimize cellular recovery and collagen synthesis, providing non-invasive solutions for musculoskeletal injuries (Kaadan et al., 2024).
Experimental Evidence:
Frequency-Specific Outcomes:
ELF frequencies like 50 Hz enhance osteoblast activity, while terahertz waves improve hydration and protein alignment (Yan et al., 2015).
Mixed frequencies yield synergistic effects in neural recovery and metabolic regulation (Martel et al., 2024).
Low-Intensity Exposures:
Studies highlight significant biological responses at intensities below 0.01 mT, demonstrating the sensitivity of cellular systems to weak EMFs (Bouché et al., 2019).
Discussion: The integration of diverse EMF frequencies into medical applications highlights their versatility and efficacy in modulating biological systems. While specific ranges show distinct effects, combining frequencies offers a holistic approach to enhancing coherence and promoting regeneration. Future research should focus on optimizing parameters for therapeutic use and exploring quantum biological underpinnings.
Conclusion: Electromagnetic fields across a wide spectrum influence biological functions through frequency-specific and synergistic effects. By understanding these mechanisms and refining their applications, EMFs offer transformative potential in regenerative medicine, oncology, and neuroprotection.
Keywords: electromagnetic fields, mixed frequencies, tissue repair, neuroprotection, oncology, bioelectric coherence, regenerative medicine, non-thermal effects.
-Text generated by AI superficially, for more specific but also more surprising data check the tables below-Very related sections:
↑ text updated (AI generated): 31/12/2024
↓ tables updated (Human): 07/03/2025
Applied Fields - Experimental
Various
Reviews on various electromagnetic influences ║ Electroreception of weak external electric fields ║ Experiments with weak static magnetic field ║ Effects of combined exposures ║ Effects of the kHz range exposure ║ Exposure to other sources
| Author(s) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | ![]() | It is the Frequency that Matters --- Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Release and Content of Extracellular Vesicles (E.Field: 5 V/m) [preprint] | ![]() | 2023-(20) | Yihua Wang, Gregory A. Worrell, Hai-Long Wang |
F | ![]() | Effects of Varied Stimulation Parameters on Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Response to Low-Level Electrical Fields (E.Field: 20 V/m) | ![]() | 2021-(11) | Nora Hlavac, Deanna Bousalis, Raffae N. Ahmad, Emily Pallack, Angelique Vela, Yuan Li, Sahba Mobini, Erin Patrick, Christine E. Schmidt |
F | ![]() | The frequency-dependent effect of electrical fields on the mobility of intracellular vesicles in astrocytes (E.Field: 5 V/m) | ![]() | 2021-(7) | Yihua Wang, Thomas P. Burghardt, Gregory A. Worrell, Hai-Long Wang |
A | ![]() | Effects of the signal modulation on the response of human fibroblasts to in vitro stimulation with subthermal RF currents | ![]() | 2020-(1) | María Ángeles Trillo, María Antonia Martínez, Alejandro Úbeda |
A | ![]() | On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals | ![]() | 2020-(1) | Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Alfonso Balmori, George P. Chrousos |
F | ![]() | Neurogenesis-on-Chip: Electric field modulated transdifferentiation of human mesenchymal stem cell and mouse muscle precursor cell coculture (E.Field: 8 V/m) | ![]() | 2019-(19) | Sharmistha Naskar, Viswanathan Kumaran, Yogananda S.Markandeya, Bhupesh Mehta, Bikramjit Basu |
F | ![]() | Electric Fields Elicit Ballooning in Spiders | ![]() | 2018-(9) | Erica Morley, Daniel Robert |
F | ![]() | The bee, the flower, and the electric field: electric ecology and aerial electroreception | ![]() | 2017-(9) | Dominic Clarke, Erica Morley, Daniel Robert |
| Author(s) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SEE ALSO THIS! | |||||||
F | ![]() | Weak Static Magnetic Field: Actions on the Nervous System (review) | - | - | ![]() | 2023-(12) | E. A. Nikitina, S. A. Vasileva, B. F. Shchegolev, E. V. Savvateeva-Popova |
A | ![]() | Effects of weak static magnetic fields on the development of seedlings of Arabidopsis thaliana | static 0.00-0.12 mT | - | ![]() | 2022-(1) | Sunil Kumar Dhiman, Fan Wu, Paul Galland |
F | ![]() | A Brief Review of the Current State of Research on the Biological Effects of Weak Magnetic Fields (review) | - | - | ![]() | 2022-(7) | I. A. Shaev, V. V. Novikov, E. V. Yablokova, E. E. Fesenko |
F | ![]() | Swimming direction of the glass catfish is responsive to magnetic stimulation | static - 0.02 mT | - | ![]() | 2021-(10) | Ryan D. Hunt, Ryan C. Ashbaugh, Mark Reimers, Lalita Udpa, Gabriela Saldana De Jimenez, Michael Moore, Assaf A. Gilad, Galit Pelled |
F | ![]() | Strong Gradients in Weak Magnetic Fields Affect the Long-Term Biological Activity of Tap Water | static - 0.6 mT | 24h/6d | ![]() | 2021-(18) | Astrid H. Paulitsch-Fuchs, Natalia Stanulewicz, Bernhard Pollner, Nigel Dyer, Elmar C. Fuchs |
F | ![]() | HEK293 cell response to static magnetic fields via the radical pair mechanism may explain therapeutic effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields | static - 0.0002 mT, 0.5 mT, 2 mT | 10-180m/1d | ![]() | 2020-(11) | Marootpong Pooam, Nathalie Jourdan, Mohamed El Esawi, Rachel M. Sherrard, Margaret Ahmad |
F | ![]() | Effect of Low Intensity Magnetic Field Stimulation on Calcium-Mediated Cytotoxicity After Mild Spinal Cord Contusion Injury in Rats | static - 0.017 mT | 2h/21d | ![]() | 2020-(8) | Supti Bhattacharyya, Shivani Sahu, Sajeev Kaur, Suman Jain |
F | ![]() | Design, Fabrication and Evaluation of a Novel System for Magnetic Field Application to the Seeds- Case study of Onion Seed | static - 0.065-0.6 mT | 15-120m/1d | ![]() | 2019-(10) | S. Rezaei, M. Dowlati, R. Abbaszadeh |
F | ![]() | Effect of a low intensity static magnetic field on different biological parameters that characterize the cellular stress | static - 0.046-0.1 mT | 24h/4d | ![]() | 2019-(2) | Hakki Gurhan, Rodolfo Bruzón, Yanyu Xiong, Frank Barnes |
F | ![]() | Weak magnetic fields alter stem cell–mediated growth | static - 0.2 mT | various | ![]() | 2019-(7) | Alanna V. Van Huizen, Jacob M. Morton, Luke J. Kinsey, Donald G. Von Kannon, Marwa A. Saad, Taylor R. Birkholz, Jordan M. Czajka, Julian Cyrus, Frank S. Barnes, Wendy S. Beane |
A | ![]() | The Effects of Weak Static Magnetic Field on the Development of Organotypic Tissue Culture in Rats | static - 0.2 mT | - | ![]() | 2018-(1) | P. N. Ivanova, S. V. Surma, B. F. Shchegolev, N. I. Chalisova, G. A. Zakharov, E. A. Nikitina, A. D. Nozdrachev |
| Author(s) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | ![]() | Exposure to Static Magnetic and Electric Fields Treats Type 2 Diabetes | (static 0.5-5 mT) + (static electric field 5-10 kV/m) | 7h/3d | ![]() | 2020-(22) | Calvin S. Carter, Sunny C. Huang, Charles C. Searby, Benjamin Cassaidy, Michael J. Miller, Wojciech J. Grzesik, Ted B. Piorczynski, Thomas K. Pak, Susan A. Walsh, Michael Acevedo, Qihong Zhang, Kranti A. Mapuskar, Ginger L. Milne, Antentor O. Hinton, Jr., Deng-Fu Guo, Robert Weiss, Kyle Bradberry, Eric B. Taylor, Adam J. Rauckhorst, David W. Dick, Vamsidhar Akurathi, Kelly C. Falls-Hubert, Brett A. Wagner, Walter A. Carter, Kai Wang, Andrew W. Norris, Kamal Rahmouni, Garry R. Buettner, Jason M. Hansen, Douglas R. Spitz, E. Dale Abel, Val C. Sheffield |
F | ![]() | The Role of Water in the Effect of Weak Combined Magnetic Fields on Production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) by Neutrophils | (static 0.06 mT) + (0-48 Hz 0.0001 mT) | 40m/1d | ![]() | 2020-(18) | Vadim V. Novikov, Elena V. Yablokova, Evgeny E. Fesenko |
F | ![]() | A Decrease of the Respiratory Burst in Neutrophils after Exposure to Weak Combined Magnetic Fields of a Certain Duration | (static 0.06 mT) + (49.5 Hz 0.00006-0.00018 mT) | 40m/1d | ![]() | 2020-(6) | Vadim V. Novikov, Elena V. Yablokova, Evgeny E. Fesenko |
F | ![]() | Specifically Targeted Electromagnetic Fields Arrest Proliferation of Glioblastoma Multiforme U-87 Cells in Culture | (4Hz) + (2 kHz) | - | ![]() | 2018-(12) | Carmen J. Narvaez, Samantha K. Mall, Aaron Fountain, Brian A. Parr, Sridar V. Chittur, Boris I. Kokorin, Stephen F. Botsford, Joseph F. Startari |
F | ![]() | The Quantum Biology of Reactive Oxygen Species Partitioning Impacts Cellular Bioenergetics (orientation dependent effect) | (static 0.05 mT) + (1.4 MHz 0.02 mT) | - | ![]() | 2016-(6) | Robert J. Usselman, Cristina Chavarriaga, Pablo R. Castello, Maria Procopio, Thorsten Ritz, Edward A. Dratz, David J. Singel, Carlos F. Martino |
A | ![]() | Synergistic interactions between temporal coupling of complex light and magnetic pulses upon melanoma cell proliferation and planarian regeneration | (8-24 Hz 0.002-0.005 mT) + (light 470-680 nm) | 1h/5d | ![]() | 2016-(1) | Nirosha J. Murugan, Lukasz M. Karbowski, Michael A. Persinger |
F | ![]() | The magnetic orientation of the Antarctic amphipod Gondogeneia antarctica is cancelled by very weak radiofrequency fields | static 0.035 mT + 10 MHz 0.00002 mT | - | ![]() | 2016-(8) | K. Tomanova, M. Vacha |
F | ![]() | Non-Thermal Radio Frequency and Static Magnetic Fields Increase Rate of Hemoglobin Deoxygenation in a Cell-Free Preparation | (static 0.04 mT) + (27.12 MHz [5Hz modulated] 0.01 mT) | 10-30m/1d | ![]() | 2013-(7) | David Muehsam , Parviz Lalezari, Rukmani Lekhraj, Provvidenza Abruzzo, Alessandra Bolotta, Marina Marini, Ferdinando Bersani, Giorgio Aicardi, Arthur Pilla, Diana Casper |
| Author(s) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | ![]() | Evaluation of the EMulate Therapeutics Voyager’s ultra-low radiofrequency energy in murine model of glioblastoma | 0-22 kHz - 0.0025 mT | 19d | ![]() | 2024-(6) | Rajesh Mukthavaram, Pengfei Jiang, Sandra Pastorino, Natsuko Nomura, Feng Lin, Santosh Kesari |
F | ![]() | Effects of Ultra-Weak Fractal Electromagnetic Signals on Malassezia furfur | 0.2-20 kHz - 0.0012 mT | - | ![]() | 2023-(18) | Pierre Madl, Roberto Germano, Alberto Tedeschi, Herbert Lettner |
A | ![]() | Tumour treating fields therapy for glioblastoma: current advances and future directions (review) | 100-300 kHz - 1-3 V/cm | - | ![]() | 2020-(1) | Ola Rominiyi, Aurelie Vanderlinden, Susan Jane Clenton, Caroline Bridgewater, Yahia Al-Tamimi, Spencer James Collis |
F | ![]() | Effects of ultra-weak fractal electromagnetic signals on the aqueous phase in living systems: a test-case analysis of molecular rejuvenation markers in fibroblasts | 0.5-30 kHz - ~0.003 mT | 10m/1d | ![]() | 2020-(12) | Pierre Madl , Anna De Filippis, Alberto Tedeschi |
F | ![]() | Features of the application of electromagnetic bioresonant therapy of inflammatory infectious diseases (review) | 352-357 kHz | - | ![]() | 2019-(4) | Vladimir Grunskiy, Sergey Kalmykov, Yuliya Kalmykova |
F | ![]() | How far will the Voyager® take us? (review) | 0-22 kHz | - | ![]() | 2019-(4) | Victor A. Levin |
F | ![]() | A feasibility study of the Nativis Voyager® device in patients with recurrent glioblastoma in Australia | 0–22 kHz - 0.0025-0.0040 mT | 24h/weeks | ![]() | 2019-(10) | Michael Murphy, Anthony Dowling, Christopher Thien, Emma Priest, Donna Morgan Murray, Santosh Kesari |
F | ![]() | Tumor treating fields: a new approach to glioblastoma therapy (review) | 100-300 kHz | - | ![]() | 2018-(7) | Jonathan Rick, Ankush Chandra, Manish K. Aghi |
F | ![]() | On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by living organisms | ~10 kHz (0-30 Hz pulsed) | - | ![]() | 2017-(9) | Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Alfonso Balmori |
F | ![]() | An Overview of Sub-Cellular Mechanisms Involved in the Action of TTFields (review) (microtubules) | 100-300 kHz | - | ![]() | 2016-(23) | Jack A. Tuszynski, Cornelia Wenger, Douglas E. Friesen, Jordane Preto |
.
.