Skip to main content
PMC home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2003 Apr;111(4):414–420. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5927

Geographic differences in semen quality of fertile U.S. males.

Shanna H Swan 1, Charlene Brazil 1, Erma Z Drobnis 1, Fan Liu 1, Robin L Kruse 1, Maureen Hatch 1, J Bruce Redmon 1, Christina Wang 1, James W Overstreet 1; Study For Future Families Research Group1
PMCID: PMC1241421  PMID: 12676592

Abstract

Although geographic variation in semen quality has been reported, this is the first study in the United States to compare semen quality among study centers using standardized methods and strict quality control. We evaluated semen specimens from partners of 512 pregnant women recruited through prenatal clinics in four U.S. cities during 1999-2001; 91% of men provided two specimens. Sperm concentration, semen volume, and motility were determined at the centers, and morphology was assessed at a central laboratory. Study protocols were identical across centers, and quality control was rigorously maintained. Sperm concentration was significantly lower in Columbia, Missouri, than in New York, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Los Angeles, California. Mean counts were 58.7, 102.9, 98.6, and 80.8 X 10(6)/mL (medians 53.5, 88.5, 81.8, and 64.8 X 10(6)/mL) in Missouri, New York, Minnesota, and California, respectively. The total number of motile sperm was also lower in Missouri than in other centers: 113, 196, 201, and 162 X 10(6) in Missouri, New York, Minnesota, and California, respectively. Semen volume and the percent morphologically normal sperm did not differ appreciably among centers. These between-center differences remained significant in multivariate models that controlled for abstinence time, semen analysis time, age, race, smoking, history of sexually transmitted disease, and recent fever (all p-values < 0.01). Confounding factors and differences in study methods are unlikely to account for the lower semen quality seen in this mid-Missouri population. These data suggest that sperm concentration and motility may be reduced in semirural and agricultural areas relative to more urban and less agriculturally exposed areas.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (154.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Auger J., Jouannet P. Evidence for regional differences of semen quality among fertile French men. Fédération Francaise des Centres d'Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et du Sperme humains. Hum Reprod. 1997 Apr;12(4):740–745. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.4.740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berman N. G., Wang C., Paulsen C. A. Methodological issues in the analysis of human sperm concentration data. J Androl. 1996 Jan-Feb;17(1):68–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brouwer A., Ahlborg U. G., van Leeuwen F. X., Feeley M. M. Report of the WHO working group on the assessment of health risks for human infants from exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs. Chemosphere. 1998 Oct-Nov;37(9-12):1627–1643. doi: 10.1016/s0045-6535(98)00230-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carlsen E., Giwercman A., Keiding N., Skakkebaek N. E. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. BMJ. 1992 Sep 12;305(6854):609–613. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6854.609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fenster L., Katz D. F., Wyrobek A. J., Pieper C., Rempel D. M., Oman D., Swan S. H. Effects of psychological stress on human semen quality. J Androl. 1997 Mar-Apr;18(2):194–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisch H., Goluboff E. T. Geographic variations in sperm counts: a potential cause of bias in studies of semen quality. Fertil Steril. 1996 May;65(5):1044–1046. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58284-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Guzick D. S., Overstreet J. W., Factor-Litvak P., Brazil C. K., Nakajima S. T., Coutifaris C., Carson S. A., Cisneros P., Steinkampf M. P., Hill J. A. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1388–1393. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa003005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jørgensen N., Andersen A. G., Eustache F., Irvine D. S., Suominen J., Petersen J. H., Andersen A. N., Auger J., Cawood E. H., Horte A. Regional differences in semen quality in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2001 May;16(5):1012–1019. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Laird N. M., Ware J. H. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics. 1982 Dec;38(4):963–974. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nelson C. M., Bunge R. G. Semen analysis: evidence for changing parameters of male fertility potential. Fertil Steril. 1974 Jun;25(6):503–507. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)40454-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Paulsen C. A., Berman N. G., 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 May;65(5):1015–1020. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Swan S. H., Elkin E. P., Fenster L. Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Nov;105(11):1228–1232. doi: 10.1289/ehp.971051228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wittmaack F. M., Shapiro S. S. Longitudinal study of semen quality in Wisconsin men over one decade. Wis Med J. 1992 Aug;91(8):477–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Zeger S. L., Liang K. Y. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986 Mar;42(1):121–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES