Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Published-Ahead-of-Print September 6, 2006, DOI:10.2164/jandrol.106.001297

This Article
Right arrow Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/1/1    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Overstreet, J. W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Overstreet, J. W

Ejaculate volume is seriously underestimated when semen is pipetted or decanted into cylinders from the collection vessel

Trevor G. Cooper *, Charlene Brazil , Shanna H Swan , and James W Overstreet

* 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






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2006 by The American Society of Andrology.