↓ Skip to main content

Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review
Published in
Environmental Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0248-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Kathrin Petri, Kristina Schmiedchen, Dominik Stunder, Dagmar Dechent, Thomas Kraus, William H. Bailey, Sarah Driessen

Abstract

High-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines are the technology of choice for the transport of large amounts of energy over long distances. The operation of these lines produces static electric fields (EF), but the data reviewed in previous assessments were not sufficient to assess the need for any environmental limit. The aim of this systematic review was to update the current state of research and to evaluate biological effects of static EF. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations, we collected and evaluated experimental and epidemiological studies examining biological effects of exposure to static EF in humans (n = 8) and vertebrates (n = 40). There is good evidence that humans and animals are able to perceive the presence of static EF at sufficiently high levels. Hair movements caused by electrostatic forces may play a major role in this perception. A large number of studies reported responses of animals (e.g., altered metabolic, immunologic or developmental parameters) to a broad range of static EF strengths as well, but these responses are likely secondary physiological responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, the quality of many of the studies reporting physiological responses is poor, which raises concerns about confounding. The weight of the evidence from the literature reviewed did not indicate that static EF have adverse biological effects in humans or animals. The evidence strongly supported the role of superficial sensory stimulation of hair and skin as the basis for perception of the field, as well as reported indirect behavioral and physiological responses. Physical considerations also preclude any direct effect of static EF on internal physiology, and reports that some physiological processes are affected in minor ways may be explained by other factors. While this literature does not support a level of concern about biological effects of exposure to static EF, the conditions that affect thresholds for human detection and possible annoyance at suprathreshold levels should be investigated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 22%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 12%
Engineering 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,217,754
of 23,063,209 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#258
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,152
of 310,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,063,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.