European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 159–171 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Oxycon Mobile metabolic system against the Douglas bag method

  • Hans RosdahlEmail author
  • Lennart Gullstrand
  • Jane Salier-Eriksson
  • Patrik Johansson
  • Peter Schantz
Original Article


The aim of this study was to evaluate two versions of the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (OMPS1 and OMPS2) in a wide range of oxygen uptake, using the Douglas bag method (DBM) as criterion method. The metabolic variables \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} , \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} , \) respiratory exchange ratio and \( \dot{V}_{\text{E}} \) were measured during submaximal and maximal cycle ergometer exercise with sedentary, moderately trained individuals and athletes as participants. Test–retest reliability was investigated using the OMPS1. The coefficients of variation varied between 2 and 7% for the metabolic parameters measured at different work rates and resembled those obtained with the DBM. With the OMPS1, systematic errors were found in the determination of \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \) and \( \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} . \) At submaximal work rates \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \) was 6–14% and \( \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} \) 5–9% higher than with the DBM. At \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2\max } \) both \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \) and \( \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} \) were slightly lower as compared to DBM (−4.1 and −2.8% respectively). With OMPS2, \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \) was determined accurately within a wide measurement range (about 1–5.5 L min−1), while \( \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} \) was overestimated (3–7%). \( \dot{V}_{\text{E}} \) was accurate at submaximal work rates with both OMPS1 and OMPS2, whereas underestimations (4–8%) were noted at \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2\max } .\) The present study is the first to demonstrate that a wide range of \( \dot{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \) can be measured accurately with the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (second generation). Future investigations are suggested to clarify reasons for the small errors noted for \( \dot{V}_{\text{E}} \) and \( \dot{V}{\text{CO}}_{2} \) versus the Douglas bag measurements, and also to gain knowledge of the performance of the device under applied and non-laboratory conditions.


Oxygen consumption Ventilation Carbon dioxide production Validity Reliability Oxycon Mobile 



We thank the volunteers for their dedicated participation in the study. The study was supported by grants from the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), the Elite Sports Centre, Swedish Sports Confederation, the Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, the Swedish Centre for Sports Research, the Research Funds of the Swedish Road Administration and the Public Health Funds of the Stockholm County Council. Carefusion Germany 234 GmbH, Hoechberg, Germany is thanked for providing the portable equipment for the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest in any of the products or companies mentioned in the report. We thank Professors emeritus Björn Ekblom and Per-Olof Åstrand for valuable advice.


  1. Armstrong LE, Costill D (1985) Variability of respiration and metabolism: responses to submaximal cycling and running. Res Q Exerc Sport 56:93–96Google Scholar
  2. Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L (2007) Energy cost of physical activities in children: validation of SenseWear Armband. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:2076–2084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L (2009) Energy cost in children assessed by multisensor activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:603–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Åstrand PO, Rodahl K (1986) Textbook of work physiology. McGraw and Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson G, Davison RC, Nevill AM (2005) Performance characteristics of gas analysis systems: what we know and what we need to know. Int J Sports Med 26(Suppl 1):S2–S10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Attinger A, Tuller C, Souren T, Tamm M, Schindler C, Brutsche MH (2006) Feasibility of mobile cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Swiss Med Wkly 136:13–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassett DR Jr, Howley ET, Thompson DL, King GA, Strath SJ, McLaughlin JE, Parr BB (2001) Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system. J Appl Physiol 91:218–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brehm MA, Harlaar J, Groepenhof H (2004) Validation of the portable V maxST system for oxygen-uptake measurement. Gait Posture 20:67–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter J, Jeukendrup AE (2002) Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:435–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Casaburi R, Marciniuk D, Beck K, Zeballos J, Swanson G, Myers J, Sciurba F (2003) ATS/ACCP Statement on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing, III. Methodology. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 167:218–227Google Scholar
  12. Crouter SE, Antczak A, Hudak JR, DellaValle DM, Haas JD (2006) Accuracy and reliability of the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 and MedGraphics VO2000 metabolic systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 98:139–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Daviskas E, Gonda I, Anderson SD (1990) Mathematical modeling of heat and water transport in human respiratory tract. J Appl Physiol 69:362–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas CG (1911) A method for determining the total respiratory exchange in man. J Physiol 42:17–18Google Scholar
  15. Ekblom B (1970) Effect of physical training on circulation during prolonged severe exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 78:145–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekblom B, Hermansen L (1968) Cardiac output in athletes. J Appl Physiol 25:619–625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekblom B, Astrand PO, Saltin B, Stenberg J, Wallstrom B (1968) Effect of training on circulatory response to exercise. J Appl Physiol 24:518–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gore CJ (2000) Quality assurance in exercise physiology laboratories. In: Gore CJ (ed) Physiological testing for elite athletes (Australian Sports Comission). Human Kinetics, Champaign (IL), pp 3–11Google Scholar
  19. Gore CJ, Clark RJ, Shipp NJ, Van Der Ploeg GE, Withers RT (2003) CPX/D underestimates VO2 in athletes compared with an automated Douglas bag system. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:1341–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodges LD, Brodie DA, Bromley PD (2005) Validity and reliability of selected commercially available metabolic analyzer systems. Scand J Med Sci Sports 15:271–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jensen K, Johansen L (1998) Reproducibility and validity of physiological parameters measured in cyclists riding on racing bikes placed on a stationary magnetic brake. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen K, Jorgensen S, Johansen L (2002) A metabolic cart for measurement of oxygen uptake during human exercise using inspiratory flow rate. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:202–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Larsson PU, Wadell KM, Jakobsson EJ, Burlin LU, Henriksson-Larsen KB (2004) Validation of the MetaMax II portable metabolic measurement system. Int J Sports Med 25:115–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lothian F, Farrally MR, Mahoney C (1993) Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 to measure oxygen uptake. Can J Appl Physiol 18:197–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Macfarlane DJ (2001) Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review. Sports Med 31:841–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET, Bassett DR Jr, Ainsworth BE (2001) Validation of the COSMED K4b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 22:280–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Medbø JI, Mamen A, Welde B, von Heimburg E, Stokke R (2002) Examination of the Metamax I and II oxygen analysers during exercise studies in the laboratory. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 62:585–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer T, Davison RC, Kindermann W (2005) Ambulatory gas exchange measurements–current status and future options. Int J Sports Med 26(Suppl 1):S19–S27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Perret C, Mueller G (2006) Validation of a new portable ergospirometric device (Oxycon Mobile) during exercise. Int J Sports Med 27:363–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Verges S, Flore P, Laplaud D, Guinot M, Favre-Juvin A (2006) Laboratory running test vs. field roller skiing test in cross-country skiers: a longitudinal study. Int J Sports Med 27:307–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. von Döbeln W (1954) A simple bicycle ergometer. J Appl Physiol 7:222–224Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Rosdahl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lennart Gullstrand
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jane Salier-Eriksson
    • 1
  • Patrik Johansson
    • 1
  • Peter Schantz
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Elite Sports Centre, Swedish Sports ConfederationBosön, LidingöSweden
  3. 3.Section of Exercise Physiology, Department of Physiology and PharmacologyKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Health SciencesMid Sweden UniversityÖstersundSweden

Personalised recommendations