论文部分内容阅读
目的 研究极低频电磁场 (ELFEMFs)对雄性小鼠生殖的影响。方法 94只昆明种清洁级雄性小鼠分别暴露于 5 0Hz,0 .2、3.2、6 .4mT电磁场下 ,持续 2周或 4周 ,观测小鼠睾丸重量、睾丸组织学变化 ,计量其精子数、精子活动率及精子头部畸形率 ,采用流式细胞术检测睾丸不同倍体细胞的百分比、DNA含量以及各时相的细胞百分比。结果 6 .4mT电磁场暴露 4周后 ,小鼠睾丸重量为( 76 .0 6± 32 .2 5 )mg ,比对照组 [( 111.4 4± 19.99)mg]明显下降 ,差异有显著性 (P <0 .0 5 ) ;电磁场暴露各组小鼠睾丸组织学无明显改变 ;电磁场暴露 4周组小鼠精子数量均下降 ,其中 0 .2mT和 6 .4mT暴露组分别为 ( 4 .87± 0 .94 )× 10 6 ml和 ( 4 .30± 1.89)× 10 6 ml,与对照组 [( 6 .6 7± 0 .70 )× 10 6 ml]比较 ,差异有显著性 (P <0 .0 5 ) ;电磁场暴露各组小鼠精子活动率均下降 ,0 .2、3.2、6 .4mT电磁场暴露组小鼠 2周和 4周的精子畸形率分别为 ( 7.4 16± 3.35 2 ) %、( 6 .86 2± 2 .94 7) %、( 8.112± 4 .6 15 ) %和 ( 10 .2 6 7±3.836 ) %、( 11.0 2 7± 7.0 5 9) %、( 8.814± 3.6 78) % ,与对照组 [( 4 .0 98± 2 .0 2 8) %、( 3.714± 1.830 ) % ]的差异有显著性 (P <0 .0 1) ;6 .4mT电磁场暴露 2周组小鼠
Objective To study the effects of ELFEMFs on the reproductive performance of male mice. Methods Totally 94 Kunming mice were exposed to 50 Hz, 0.2, 3.2, 6.4mT electromagnetic fields for 2 weeks or 4 weeks respectively to observe the testicular weight and testicular histological changes of mice and to measure the number of sperm , Sperm motility rate and sperm head deformity rate. The percentage of different ploidy cells, DNA content and percentage of cells in each phase were detected by flow cytometry. Results After 4 weeks exposure to 6.4 mT EMF, the testicular weight of mice was (76.0 ± 32.2) mg, which was significantly lower than that of the control group [(111.4 ± 4) ± 19.99 mg] (P < 0.05). There was no significant change in testis histology of mice exposed to electromagnetic field. The number of spermatozoa in mice exposed to electromagnetic field for 4 weeks decreased, with 0. 2mT and 6.4mT exposure groups (4.87 ± 0. 94) × 10 6 ml and (4.30 ± 1.89) × 10 6 ml, respectively, compared with the control group [(6.67 ± 0.70) × 10 6 ml], the difference was significant (P <0 .0 5). The sperm motility of mice in each group decreased after exposure to electromagnetic field. The rates of sperm deformity in the groups of 0.2, 3.2, 6.4mT EMF exposed at 2 and 4 weeks were (7.4 16 ± 3.35 2)%, ( 6 .86 2 ± 2 .94 7%, (8.112 ± 4 .6 15)% and (10.267 ± 3.836)%, (11.0 27 ± 7.05 9)%, (8.814 ± 3.678) %, Which was significantly different from the control group [(4.98 ± 2.08)%, (3.714 ± 1.830)%] (P <0.01) mouse