Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong LE, Costill D (1985) Variability of respiration and metabolism: responses to submaximal cycling and running. Res Q Exerc Sport 56:93–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L (2007) Energy cost of physical activities in children: validation of SenseWear Armband. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:2076–2084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L (2009) Energy cost in children assessed by multisensor activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:603–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Åstrand PO, Rodahl K (1986) Textbook of work physiology. McGraw and Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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–S10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Attinger A, Tuller C, Souren T, Tamm M, Schindler C, Brutsche MH (2006) Feasibility of mobile cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Swiss Med Wkly 136:13–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 91:218–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm MA, Harlaar J, Groepenhof H (2004) Validation of the portable V maxST system for oxygen-uptake measurement. Gait Posture 20:67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter J, Jeukendrup AE (2002) Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:435–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 167:218–227

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 98:139–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daviskas E, Gonda I, Anderson SD (1990) Mathematical modeling of heat and water transport in human respiratory tract. J Appl Physiol 69:362–372

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas CG (1911) A method for determining the total respiratory exchange in man. J Physiol 42:17–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekblom B (1970) Effect of physical training on circulation during prolonged severe exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 78:145–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekblom B, Hermansen L (1968) Cardiac output in athletes. J Appl Physiol 25:619–625

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekblom B, Astrand PO, Saltin B, Stenberg J, Wallstrom B (1968) Effect of training on circulatory response to exercise. J Appl Physiol 24:518–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:1341–1347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges LD, Brodie DA, Bromley PD (2005) Validity and reliability of selected commercially available metabolic analyzer systems. Scand J Med Sci Sports 15:271–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30:1–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:1–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 87:202–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:115–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lothian F, Farrally MR, Mahoney C (1993) Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 to measure oxygen uptake. Can J Appl Physiol 18:197–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane DJ (2001) Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review. Sports Med 31:841–861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET, Bassett DR Jr, Ainsworth BE (2001) Validation of the COSMED K4b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 22:280–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 62:585–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer T, Davison RC, Kindermann W (2005) Ambulatory gas exchange measurements–current status and future options. Int J Sports Med 26(Suppl 1):S19–S27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perret C, Mueller G (2006) Validation of a new portable ergospirometric device (Oxycon Mobile) during exercise. Int J Sports Med 27:363–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:307–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Döbeln W (1954) A simple bicycle ergometer. J Appl Physiol 7:222–224

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Rosdahl.

Additional information

Communicated by Susan Ward.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosdahl, H., Gullstrand, L., Salier-Eriksson, J. et al. Evaluation of the Oxycon Mobile metabolic system against the Douglas bag method. Eur J Appl Physiol 109, 159–171 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1326-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1326-9

Keywords

Navigation