No Decline in Semen Quality Among Potential Sperm Donors in Sydney, Australia, Between 1983 and 2001

  • Michael F. Costello
  • Peter Sjoblom
  • Youala Haddad
  • Stephen J. Steigrad
  • Edward G. Bosch
Article

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether the quality of semen has changed over time in men screened for semen donation.

Methods: All 448 men volunteering for semen donation between 1983 and 2001 at a donor insemination clinic in Sydney, Australia, were included in this longitudinal single centre observational analysis of semen parameters. There was no selection for fertility or marital status but all volunteers had to be aged between 18 and 40 years.

Results: There was no change in the total sperm count during the study period (r = 0.065, P = 0.17) using a linear regression model. The ejaculate volume did not change (r = 0.002, P = 0.97), while an increase in sperm motility was seen (Spearman R = 0.194, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The semen quality of volunteers for sperm donation presenting to our donor insemination clinic in Sydney between 1983 and 2001 has not declined.

Semen donation semen quality sperm count sperm motility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Macomber D, Saunders M: The spermatozoa count: Its value in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of sterility. Engl J Med 1929;200:981-984Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hammen R: Studies on Impaired Fertility in Man with Special Reference to the Male. Copenhagen, Einar Munksgaard, 1944Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacLeod J, Heim LM: Characteristics and variations in semen specimens in 100 normal young men. J Urol 1945;54:474-482Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebaek NE: Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. BMJ 1992;305:609-613Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharpe RM, Skakkebaek NE: Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract? Lancet 1993;341:1392-1396Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, DeRosa C: Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: A report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104(Suppl 4):715-740Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;332:281-285Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adamopoulos DA, Pappa A, Nicopoulou S, Andreou E, Karamertzanis M, Michopoulos J, Deligianni V, Simou M: Seminal volume and total sperm number trends in men attending subfertility clinics in the greater Athens area during the period 1977-1993. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1936-1941Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Irvine S, Cawood E, Richardson D, MacDonald E, Aitken J: Evidence of deteriorating semen quality in the United Kingdom: Birth cohort study in 577 men in Scotland over 11 years. BMJ 1996;312:467-471Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Waeleghem K, De Clercq N, Vermeulen L, Schoonjans F, Comhaire F: Deterioration of sperm quality in young healthy Belgian men. Hum Reprod 1996;11:325-329Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bujan L, Mansat A, Pontonnier F, Mieusset R: Time series analysis of sperm concentration in fertile men in Toulouse, France between 1977 and 1992. BMJ 1996;312:471-472Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisch H, Goluboff ET, Olson JH, Feldshuh J, Broder SJ, Barad DH: Semen analyses in 1283 men from the United States over a 25 year period: No decline in quality. Fertil Steril 1996;65:1009-1014Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paulsen C, Berman N, Wang C: Data from men in greater Seattle area reveals no downward trend in semen quality: Further evidence that deterioration of semen quality is not geographically uniform. Fertil Steril 1996;65:1015-1020Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benshushan A, Shoshani O, Paltiel O, Schenker JG, Lewin A: Is there really a decrease in sperm parameters among healthy young men? A survey of sperm donations during 15 years. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997;14:347-353Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Singapore, Press Concern, 1980Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    World Health Organization: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kidd SA, Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ: Effects of male age on semen quality and fertility: A review of the literarure. Fertil Steril 2001;75:237-248Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Handelsman DJ: Sperm output of healthy men in Australia: Magnitude of bias due to self-selected volunteers.HumReprod 1997;12:2701-2705Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hendelsman DJ, Conway AJ, Boylan LM, Turtle JR: Testicular function in potential sperm donors: Normal ranges and the effects of smoking and varicocele. Int J Androl 1984;7:369-382Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsen GW, Bodner KM, Ramlow JM, Ross CE, Lipshultz LI: Have sperm counts been reduced 50 percent in 50 years? A statistical model revisited. Fertil Steril 1995;63:887-893Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisch H, Goluboff ET: Geographic variations in sperm counts: Apotential cause of bias in studies of semen quality.Fertil Steril 1996;65:1044-1046Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larsen S, Abell A, Bonde JP: Selection bias in occupational sperm studies. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:681-685Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tummon IS, Mortimer D: Decreasing quality of semen. BMJ 1992;305:1228-1229Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ginsburg J, Okolo S, Prelevic G, Hardiman P: Residence in the London area and sperm density. Lancet 1994;343:230Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suominen J, Vierula M: Semen quality of Finnish men. BMJ 1993;306:1579Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vierula M, Niemi M, Keiski A, Saaranen M, Saarikoski S, Suominen J: High and unchanged sperm counts of Finnish men. Int J Androl 1996;19:11-17Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stewart TM, Brown EH, Venn A, Mbizvo MT, Farley TMM, Garrett C, Baker HWG: Feasibility of surveillance of changes in human fertility and semen quality. Hum Reprod 2001;16:177-187Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Setchell BP: Sperm counts in semen of farm animals 1932-1995. Int J Androl 1997;20:209-214Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Handelsman DJ, Dunn SM, Conway AJ, Boylan LM, Jansen RP: Psychological and attitudinal profiles in donors for artificial insemination. Fertil Steril 1985;43:95-101Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farkas GM, Sine LF, Evans IM: Personality, sexuality, and demographic differences between volunteers and nonvolunteers for a laboratory study of male sexual behaviour. Arch Sex Behav 1978;7:513-520Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strassberg DS, Lowe K: Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Arch Sex Behav 1995;24:369-382Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael F. Costello
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter Sjoblom
    • 2
  • Youala Haddad
    • 2
  • Stephen J. Steigrad
    • 2
  • Edward G. Bosch
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Women's and Children's Health, Division of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Reproductive MedicineRoyal Hospital for WomenSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations