1. Alysa Brice, Michael Patrick, Jacob Radatz, Michael Messina
The Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure Duration on the Growth, Pupation, and Mortality Rates of Tenebrio Molitor Larvae
Alysa Brice, Michael Patrick, Jacob Radatz, Michael Messina

2. Purpose
Hypotheses exist that claim Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) affect health
Determine how EMF exposure affects mealworms:
Growth rate
Pupation
Death rate
There are hypotheses that exist that claim that EMFs can negatively affect health, so we wanted to witness a similar pattern firsthand; therefore, we decided to use mealworms to test how EMF exposure affects the growth and death rates, along with rates of pupation.

3. Background Information
Tenebrio molitor - Mealworm
Diet of grains, starches, scraps
Prefer dark environments
Similar research has been previously conducted
popular for use in research
similar research uses mealworms and using different types of radiation to prevent infestations in grain supplies
dark environments- cupboards, grain storage bins, under logs
(Gearhart)

4. Background Information
Dealt with larvae and pupa stages of life
cycle
here shown, mealworms about 1 month, pupae about 2 months, beetles almost 5

5. Background Information
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
Generated by current passing through a wire
Exists in all electronics, needed in many
Field proportional to Amperage
Measured in this experiment in Gauss
created by running a current through a wire, all electronics create emfs. the strength increases as amps increase, meaning as current flow increases the strength of the field increases. the field strength is measured in gauss

6. Background Information
Previous Research
Research has been conducted regarding Health effects of EMFs on organisms
Field effects on Tadpoles
MRI effects on Humans

7. Hypothesis As the Duration of EMF Exposure Increases,
Growth rate decreases
Death rate increases
Pupae formation decreases

8. Setup Modify Power supplies
Set timers to 6,12,18,24 hours respectively
Control gradient has no field exposure from experiment
5-quart feeding
containers

9. Setup
Modify Dell power supplies as shown:
wiring diagram/picture

12. Data Collection Randomly collect 30 mealworms per container
Record mass
Record number Pupae/death
Replace wheat germ and potato
Repeat every 3 Days

13. Mean±Standard Deviation
Results
Table 1: Average Mass
Exposure
Mean±Standard Deviation
24 Hours
2.8234±1.3011
18 Hours
2.8920±1.3599
12 Hours
2.7746±1.2210
6 Hours
2.8320±1.2667
Control (0 Hours)
2.8415±1.2958

14. Table 2: Percent Pupae by Day 55
Results
Table 2: Percent Pupae by Day 55
Exposure
% Pupae
24 Hours 24
18 Hours 25
12 Hours 4
6 Hours 6
Control (0 Hours) 12

15. Mean±Standard Deviation
Results
Table 3: Average Death
Exposure
Mean±Standard Deviation
24 Hours
9.1002±3.8095
18 Hours
±6.6210
12 Hours
9.5695±5.3834
6 Hours
±5.9538
Control (0 Hours)
8.6457±7.5183

16. Results use control to discuss “normal” distribution
mass increases as time increases until day 55,

17. Results
compare to control (less of a downward ending on curve)

18. Results
normal

19. Results
compare

20. Results
This graph shows the total percent death by day of the control gradient. It can be noted that the graph follows a parabolic trend.

21. Results
This graph of the 12 hour gradient’s % death differs heavily. The death trend shows a fast, steep incline during the first twenty days, and then slows down.

22. Table 4: Mass by Duration P-Values
Results
Table 4: Mass by Duration P-Values
Gradient
P-Value
'24-Hour' vs '18-Hour' Mass
0.875
'24-Hour' vs '12-Hour' Mass
0.906
'24-Hour' vs '6-Hour' Mass
0.984
'24-Hour' vs Control Mass
0.966
'18-Hour' vs '12-Hour' Mass
0.781
'18-Hour' vs '6-Hour' Mass
0.889
'18-Hour' vs Control Mass
0.907
'12-Hour' vs '6-Hour' Mass
0.888
'12-Hour' vs Control Mass
0.871
'6-Hour' vs Control Mass
0.982

23. Table 5: Percent Pupae Gradient P-Values
Results
Table 5: Percent Pupae Gradient P-Values
Gradient
P-Value
'24-Hour' vs '18-Hour'
0.721
'24-Hour' vs '12-Hour'
0.9625
'24-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.424
'24-Hour' vs Control
0.556
'18-Hour' vs '12-Hour'
0.439
'18-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.307
'18-Hour' vs Control
0.391
'12-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.748
'12-Hour' vs Control
0.941
'6-Hour' vs Control
0.778

24. Table 6: Percent Death Gradient P-Values
Results
Table 6: Percent Death Gradient P-Values
Gradient
P-Value
‘24-Hour' vs '18-Hour'
0.003
'24-Hour' vs '12-Hour'
0.765
'24-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.385
'24-Hour' vs Control
0.821
'18-Hour' vs '12-Hour'
0.011
'18-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.042
'18-Hour' vs Control
'12-Hour' vs '6-Hour'
0.6
'12-Hour' vs Control
0.675
'6-Hour' vs Control
0.401

25. Errors Locations in room Temperature of room Feeding Irregularities
Power Supply Damage
Some errors that affected the testing included inconsistent location of the gradient habitats in the room and the varying temperature of the locations. Food for the test subjects was typically limited to potatoes, but on occasion, potatoes would run out and corn would have to be used in place of potatoes. Also, on day 55, there was a power surge in the building that caused the power supplies to sustain damage, so the exposure did not exist after day 55.

26. Conclusions T-tests all returned high p-values, meaning:
We did not make a significant difference in any gradients overall
Any possible variance in the biological aspects were consistent across all gradients as well as control
The initial slope across gradients for death vs time suggest ‘artificial selection’

27. Conclusions Fields may have hindered pupation
Fields had little to no effect on mass

28. Future Research Stronger fields More population data Cellular Analysis
Multiple Generations

29. Questions?

30. Works Cited
Gearhart, Jamy. “#164 We Have Babies!” 365happythings.blogspot.com. Blogspot.com,n.d. Image. 2 May