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.

Keywords:
Gravimetrical measurement, Semen volume, Semen density, Male infertility, Semen analysis
1.
Bilius V, Verkauskas G, Dasevicius D, Kazlauskas V, Malcius D, Hadziselimovic F: Incidence of high infertility risk among unilateral cryptorchid boys. Urol Int 2015;95:142-145.
2.
Matson PL: Clinical value of tests for assessing male infertility. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1997;11:641-654.
3.
Cooper TG, Brazil C, Swan SH, Overstreet JW: Ejaculate volume is seriously underestimated when semen is pipetted or decanted into cylinders from the collection vessel. J Androl 2007;28:1-4.
4.
World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, ed 5. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2010.
5.
Belonoschkin B: Procreation in Humans (in German). Stockholm, Sjobergs, 1949.
6.
Huggins C, Scott WW, Heinen JH: Chemical composition of human semen and of the secretions of the prostate and seminal vesicles. Am J Physiol 1942;136:467-473.
7.
Eliasson R: Effect of frequent ejaculations on the composition of human seminal plasma. J Reprod Fertil 1965;9:331-336.
8.
Eliasson R, Lindholmer C: Distribution and properties of spermatozoa in different fractions of split ejaculates. Fertil Steril 1972;23:252-256.
9.
Lindholmer C, Thulin L, Eliasson R: Semen characteristics before and after ligation of the left internal spermatic veins in men with varicocele. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1975;9:177-180.
10.
Auger J, Kunstmann JM, Czyglik F, Jouannet P: Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N Engl J Med 1995;332:281-285.
11.
Eliasson R: Standards for investigation of human semen untersuchungsstandards für das menschliche sperma La standardisation de l'analyse du sperme humain. Andrologia 1971;3:49-64.
12.
Eliasson R: Basic semen analysis; in Matson P (ed): Current Topics in Andrology. Perth, Ladybrook Publishing, 2003, pp 35-89.
13.
Brazil C, Swan SH, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Wang C, et al; Study for Future Families Research Group: Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl 2004;25:635-644.
14.
Iwamoto T, Nozawa S, Yoshiike M, Hoshino T, Baba K, et al: Semen quality of 324 fertile Japanese men. Hum Reprod 2006;21:760-765.
15.
Andersen AG, Jensen TK, Carlsen E, Jorgensen N, Andersson AM, et al: High frequency of sub-optimal semen quality in an unselected population of young men. Hum Reprod 2000;15:366-372.
16.
Behre HM, Yeuing CH, Holstein AF, Weinbauer GF, Gassner P, et al: Diagnosis of male infertility and hypogonadism; in Nieschlag E, Behre HM (eds): Andrology, Male Reproductive Health and Dysfunction. Berlin, Springer, 2000, p 92.
17.
Mortimer D: Practical Laboratory Andrology. New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.
18.
Jorgensen N, Auger J, Giwercman A, Irvine DS, Jensen TK, et al: Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int J Androl 1997;20:201-208.
19.
Matson PL, Myssonski K, Yovich S, Morrison L, Irving J, et al: The density of human semen and the validation of weight as an indicator of volume: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol 2010;10:141-153.
20.
Zhang XZ, Yao KS, Xiong CL: [A combined method for weighing human semen volume]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2011;17:902-904.
21.
NPAAC: Requirements for the Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty. Canberra, National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2007. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-npaacdhaquality.htm (accessed December 1, 2014).
22.
NPAAC: Medical Laboratories - Particular Requirements for Quality and Competence. Canberra, National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing. Nsf/Content/health-npaacdhaquality.htm (accessed December 1, 2014).
23.
Schrader SM: Safety guidelines for the andrology laboratory. Fertil Steril 1989;51:387-389.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.