This clearly shows the same time-domain nonlinearity / early-worse than attenuation or recovery pattern, or comes very close to it. Exact matches are rare.
The strongest list is this:
- Jamaludin et al., 2025 — The Influence of 2.45 GHz Wi‑Fi Exposure Duration on Sperm Quality and Testicular Histopathology: An Exploration of Peroxidative Injury
This is the anchor paper and still the cleanest example. In rats exposed 4, 8, or 24 h/day for 8 weeks, the worst sperm-count, motility, viability, MDA, and histology changes were at 4 h, with improvement at 8 h and near-control levels by 24 h.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40002366/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11852241/ - Jamaludin et al., 2025 — Time-Dependence Effect of 2.45 GHz RF‑EMR Exposure on Male Reproductive Hormones and LHCGR
Same research line, same 0/4/8/24 h/day design, but focused on reproductive hormones and LHCGR. LH and testosterone did not significantly change, while LHCGR protein fell at shorter exposures and showed partial improvement at 24 h, which the authors explicitly describe as an adaptive/compensatory response rather than full restoration.
Article page: https://jpmsonline.com/article/time-dependence-effect-of-2-45-ghz-rf-emr-exposure-on-male-reproductive-hormones-and-lhcgr-906/
PDF: https://jpmsonline.com/article/download/906/ - Vijay et al., 2025 — Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi‑Fi
This is a close match, not as clean as the Antioxidants paper. Rats exposed 4 h/day vs 24 h/day for 8 weeks showed injury in both exposed groups, but sperm motility dropped significantly in the 4 h group, while the 24 h group showed a substantial increase in sperm viability despite persistent histologic injury. That makes it a genuine time-domain nonlinearity paper, even though not every endpoint “recovers.”
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40192818/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12023345/ - Dong et al., 2021 — Effects of 1.5-GHz high-power microwave exposure on the reproductive systems of male mice
Not Wi‑Fi and not the same chronic design, but definitely similar in concept. After 30 min whole-body microwave exposure, sperm motility-related parameters increased at 6 h, decreased at 1 day, and recovered at 3 days. The authors interpreted this as a transient stress response. It is a real time-domain fluctuation paper.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688776/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1891091 - Houston et al., 2019 — Whole-body exposures to radiofrequency-electromagnetic energy can cause DNA damage in mouse spermatozoa via an oxidative mechanism
This is one of the better “same idea, different time scale” papers. Sperm mitochondrial ROS was elevated after 1 and 3 weeks, then normalized by 5 weeks, but downstream DNA oxidation/fragmentation and motility losses persisted. That supports a transient oxidative spike followed by apparent biochemical normalization without true biological rescue.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31767903/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6877509/ - Houston et al., 2018 — Probing the Origins of 1,800 MHz Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation Induced Damage in Mouse Immortalized Germ Cells and Spermatozoa in vitro
This one is mechanistically useful. In germ cells, mitochondrial ROS rose after 2, 4, and 6 h without loss of vitality. In mature sperm, DNA fragmentation was significant at 3 h but no longer significant at 4 h, while oxidative DNA damage and reduced motility were evident at 4 h. That is not a neat recovery paper, but it absolutely shows a nonlinear timing window rather than simple “more time = more damage.”
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30298125/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6160547/ - Gorpinchenko et al., 2014 — The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality
This is not a recovery paper, but it is important because it shows the damage can be front-loaded in time. Human semen exposed for 5 h had significantly higher DNA fragmentation, and the authors state that the majority of DNA damage occurred during the first 2 h. That supports the “early peak damage” concept even without later rebound.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24982785/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4074720/ - Keskin et al., 2024 — Preliminary study on the impact of 900 MHz radiation on human sperm: An in vitro molecular approach
Borderline, but still worth keeping. Human sperm exposed for 30 min or 1 h showed reduced motility at 30 min, while p-AKT increased at 1 h, suggesting an early injury signal with later intracellular signaling adaptation. It is not as strong as the Jamaludin papers, but it points in the same direction.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39505052/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2024.108744
Two papers that are useful on time-course but do not really show the same rebound pattern:
- Shokri et al., 2015 — Effects of Wi‑Fi (2.45 GHz) Exposure on Apoptosis, Sperm Parameters and Testicular Histomorphometry in Rats: A Time Course Study
This one is often worth citing for duration dependence, but it is not a “4 h worst then 24 h recovery” paper. Their 1 h/day and 7 h/day groups both worsened relative to control, with a more time-dependent decrease in sperm parameters and increase in apoptosis.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26199911/
PMC full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503846/ - Jamaludin et al., 2017 — The Effect of Smartphone’s Radiation Frequency and Exposure Duration on NADPH Oxidase 5 (NOX5) Level in Sperm Parameters
Also not a rebound paper. It is a threshold-style duration paper: at 4200 MHz, 2 h was not significant, while 4 h and 6 h produced significant changes; the authors labeled 4 h the “optimal time” at which damage became significant. Useful for onset/threshold, not for recovery.
PDF: https://www.ukm.my/jsm/pdf_files/SM-PDF-46-9-2017/31%20Norazurashima.pdf
One citation I would not rely on until you have the full paper in hand:
- Yahyazadeh et al., 2020 — Biochemical, immunohistochemical and morphometrical investigation of the effect of thymoquinone on the rat testis following exposure to a 900-MHz electromagnetic field
The 2025 Antioxidants paper cites Yahyazadeh as if it showed a 2/4/6 h decline followed by an 8 h rise, but the PubMed record I verified describes 60 min/day for 28 days, not a 2–8 h duration series. So I would not use Yahyazadeh for that specific rebound claim unless you check the full text and confirm it yourself.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31784235/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acthis.2019.151467
My bottom line after the deep dive:
- The best exact-match evidence is still the 2025 Antioxidants sperm paper plus the 2025 LHCGR/hormone follow-up.
- The best close corroboration is Vijay 2025, Dong 2021, and Houston 2019.
- The best “front-loaded damage” support is Gorpinchenko 2014 and Houston 2018.
