| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: trevorg.cooper{at}ukmuenster.de.
The ejaculate volume ascertained by weighing the collection vessel, assuming semen density to be 1.0 g/ml, is seriously and significantly underestimated when the same sample is either measured by pipetting (mean 14% loss) or decanting into a measuring cylinder (mean 13 % loss), because of its retention on the base and walls of the collection vessel. It is recommended that the ejaculate volume be measured by weighing the sample in the collection vessel (and assuming a density of 1 g/ml) rather than pipetting or decanting the semen into a graduated cyclinder.
Key words: Fertility
Infertility
Semen
Semen Analysis
Sperm
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. P. Amann Evaluating Spermatogenesis Using Semen: The Biology of Emission Tells Why Reporting Total Sperm per Sample Is Important, and Why Reporting Only Number of Sperm per Milliliter Is Irrational J Androl, November 1, 2009; 30(6): 623 - 625. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |