ID Number		2407
Study Type		Human / Provocation
Model		Sperm quality and mobile phone use.
Details		AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Jurewicz et al. 2014 (IEEE #5730): Several studies have suggested that human semen quality has declined over past decades and some have associated decline with occupational exposures. Many studies have been conducted in occupational settings, where exposure to occupational pollutants is intense. Our objective was to examine the association between exposure to occupational factors based on an occupational exposure questionnaire, and semen quality parameters (sperm concentration, motility, sperm morphology) and sperm chromatin structure. The study population consisted of 336 men who were attending an infertility clinic for diagnostic purposes and who had a normal semen concentration of e15 mln/ml according to WHO criteria. All participants were interviewed and provided a semen sample. Additionally, a detailed questionnaire about the exposure to occupational factors was performed among the study participants. The results of the study suggest that occupational factors may affect semen quality. The exposure to noise during work was associated with decreased motility and increased DNA damage (p = 0.005 and p = 0.02, respectively). Exposure to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) decreased sperm concentration and motility (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively). Whereas exposure to high temperatures and sitting for more than 6 hours during work was positively associated with DNA fragmentation index (DFI) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.001, respectively). After applying the correction for multiple comparisons only the exposure to noise and sitting e6 hours during work was associated with poorer semen quality (decreased motility and increased DFI, respectively). This study showed associations between self-reported occupational exposures and impaired semen parameters. The occupational exposure questionnaire may be useful in clinical practice for patients and physicians to identify the work factors associated with poorer semen quality. [Note added: Data was collected on mobile phone use and exposure to EMF in the workplace.] AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Radwan et al. 2016 (IEEE #6373): The clinical significance of sperm DNA damage lies in its association with natural conception rates and also might have a serious consequence on developmental outcome of the newborn. The aim of the present study is to determine whether stress and everyday life factors are associated with sperm DNA damage in adult men. The study population consisted of 286 men who attended the infertility clinic for diagnostic purposes and who had normal semen concentration of 20-300 m ml-1 or with slight oligozoospermia (semen concentration of 15-20 m ml-1) (WHO, 1999). Participants were interviewed and provided a semen sample. The sperm chromatin structure assay was assessed using flow cytometry. In the present study, we found evidence for a relationship between sperm DNA damage parameters and everyday life factors. High and medium level of occupational stress and age increase DNA fragmentation index (P=0.03, P=0.004 and P=0.03, respectively). Other lifestyle factors that were positively associated with percentage of immature sperms (high DNA stainability index) included: obesity and cell phone use for more than 10 years (P=0.02 and P=0.04, respectively). Our findings indicate that stress and lifestyle factor may affect sperm DNA damage. Data from the present study showed a significant effect of age, obesity, mobile phone radiation and occupational stress on sperm DNA damage. As DNA fragmentation represents an extremely important parameter indicative of infertility and potential outcome of assisted reproduction treatment, and most of the lifestyle factors are easily modifiable, the information about factors that may affect DNA damage are important.
Findings		No Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		Nofer Inst of Occup Med, Lodz, Poland
Funding Agency		?????
Country		POLAND
References		Jurewicz, J et al. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine., (2014) 60:227-233 Radwan, M et al. Int J Impot Res., (2016) 28:148-154
Comments