The density of human semen and the validation of weight as an indicator of volume: a multicentre study

Matson, Phillip; Myssonski, Kim; Yovich, Steven John; Morrison, L.S.; Irving, Jacquelyn; Bakos, Hassan W.

doi:10.1016/s1642-431x(12)60056-4

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We measured seminal volume gravimetrically. Assuming that semen density is 1 g/mL, seminal volume measurement by weighing is a viable alternative, especially with viscous samples, where accurate pipetting is more difficult …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of semen characteristics and sperm cryopreservation in common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and black‐tufted‐ear marmoset (Callithrix penicillata)

Arakaki

Nichi

Monteiro

et al. 2018

J of Medical Primatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) is one of the most studied Neotropical primates regarding reproduction. However, little has been reported on the black‐tufted‐ear marmoset (Callithrix penicillata), which may produce fertile hybrids with other Callithrix. This is the first study to evaluate sperm freezing from black‐tufted‐ear marmoset. Methods Testicles from all animals were measured, and semen was collected by penile vibrostimulation. Samples were analyzed after collection, after chilling and addition of glycerol, and after thawing. Results and Conclusions Fresh semen from both species was similar in many aspects. Additionally, there is a relationship between total motility, plasma membrane integrity, and acrosome integrity observed in sperm samples from both species. We managed to evaluate fresh and thawed sperm with suitable methods for use under zoo or field conditions. However, TEST egg yolk with glycerol at 4% and 6% concentration was not effective for sperm protection in both species during cryopreservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of semen characteristics and sperm cryopreservation in common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and black‐tufted‐ear marmoset (Callithrix penicillata)

Arakaki

Nichi

Monteiro

et al. 2018

J of Medical Primatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, Matson et al [19] compared the semen volume results of gravimetric and volumetric methods in 60 semen samples. They showed that linear regression estimated that approximately 0.2 ml remained in the container after aspiration of the ejaculate but that there was an average difference of 0.4 ml when looking at the mean of individual samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been known that volumetric methods of measuring semen volume give errors [13,[18][19][20]] and yet such methods remain in common use. The absence of the shift of laboratories from volumetric to gravimetric methods may be due to the negligible clinical impact of the underestimated volume.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men

Dinçer

Küçükdurmaz²,

Salabaş³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference between gravimetrically and volumetrically measured semen samples and to assess the impact of semen volume, density, and sperm count on the discrepancy between gravimetric and volumetric methods. This study was designed in an andrology laboratory setting and performed on semen samples of 1,055 men receiving infertility treatment. Semen volume was calculated by gravimetric and volumetric methods. The total sperm count, semen density and sperm viability were also examined according to recent version of World Health Organization manual. The median values for gravimetric and volumetric measurements were 3.44 g and 2.96 ml respectively. The numeric difference in semen volume between 2 methods was 0.48. The mean density of samples was 1.01 ± 0.46 g/ml (range 0.90-2.0 g/ml). The numeric difference between 2 methods gets higher as semen volume increases (p < 0.001). Gravimetric and volumetric semen volume measurements were strongly correlated for all samples and for each subgroup of semen volume, semen density and sperm count, with minimum correlation coefficient of 0.895 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the gravimetric measurement provides higher results than volumetric one and numeric differences between 2 methods increase as semen volume increases. However, further studies are needed to offer the use of gravimetrical method, which was thought to minimize laboratory errors, particularly for a high amount of semen samples.

show abstract

“…There are many reports clearly indicating that methods of volume measurement utilizing aspiration or decanting the semen sample into scaled pipettes, syringes, tubes or cylinders result in the underestimation of results to an extent of between 0.3 and 0.9 ml. [25][26][27][28] However, both methods, decanting into a graduated cylinder, and aspiration into a wide-mouthed pipette, were only described in an outdated WHO manual from 1992. 20 Hence, the use of those methods by such a large group of our respondents suggests that in many laboratories the semen analysis procedure has been passed on through the years without any effort to modernize it, or with only some modernization of selected parts.…”

Section: Variations In Methods Of Semen Analysis In Poland R Walczak-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

Walczak-Jędrzejowska¹,

Marchlewska²,

Oszukowska³

et al. 2013

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to determine the degree of compliance of Polish laboratories with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, with regard to semen analysis methodology. A survey requesting information about methods of semen analysis was distributed to employees of 55 laboratories. Respondents who had participated in external seminological workshops (31%) were termed certified respondents (CR), the remaining (69%)-non-certified respondents (NCR). Only one laboratory (6%) in the CR group and none in the NCR were compliant with WHO guidelines for methods and equipment used to evaluate seminal volume, sperm motility, concentration, vitality and morphology. Most problems were of volume measurement (weighing method was reported by 17% of CR and 10% of NCR) and staining method for sperm morphology (Papanicolau or Diff-Quik were found in 33% of CR and 23% of NCR). A three-or four-point grading of sperm motility was used by the majority of respondents; however, 17% of CR and 37% of NCR did not use a laboratory counter to tally spermatozoa. Although a haemocytometer method was used by 80% of laboratories in each group, the improved Neubauer chamber was used only by 42% of CR and 19% of NCR. In each group, 24% of laboratories did not perform a vitality test. Procedural errors and the interchangeable utilization of two or even three methods to analyse a given parameter was observed in both groups. The results indicate a need for standardisation of the methods and continuous, unified training in semen analysis in Polish laboratories.

show abstract

The density of human semen and the validation of weight as an indicator of volume: a multicentre study

Cited by 13 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of semen characteristics and sperm cryopreservation in common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and black‐tufted‐ear marmoset (Callithrix penicillata)

Comparison of semen characteristics and sperm cryopreservation in common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and black‐tufted‐ear marmoset (Callithrix penicillata)

Comparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men

Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About