Glass wool column filtration versus mini-Percoll gradient for processing poor quality semen samples

D. E. Johnson*, E. Confino, R. S. Jeyendran

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations


Objective: To compare the quality and number of spermatozoa recovered from laboratory-induced severe oligozoospermic specimens processed by mini- Percoll gradient and glass wool column filtration. Design: Both sperm- processing procedures were compared in similar sperm samples adjusted to contain equal low numbers of motile spermatozoa using either dilution (oligozoospermia) or with the addition of killed sperm (oligoasthenozoospermia). The spermatozoa processed by both procedures samples were evaluated for motility, response to hypo-osmotic swelling test, and the hemizona assay. Patients: Five healthy fertile sperm donors. Setting: Private Andrology Laboratory and University Hospital. Main Outcome Measure: Sperm motility, hypo-osmotic swelling test, and hemizona assay results determined the efficacy of the sperm-processing procedures. Results: The concentration of sperm recovered after both procedures was not affected by either preparation or processing methods. Glass wool-processed sperm had higher motility in oligoasthenozoospermic samples, bound tightly to hemizonae in higher mean numbers, and demonstrated a higher percentage of membrane- intact spermatozoa in oligozoospermic samples. Conclusion: Laboratory- prepared oligozoospermic samples subjected to glass wool filtration yielded more functionally intact spermatozoa than mini-Percoll gradient processing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)459-462
Number of pages4
JournalFertility and Sterility
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1996


  • Sperm processing
  • glass wool filtration
  • hemizona assay
  • mini-Percoll

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Glass wool column filtration versus mini-Percoll gradient for processing poor quality semen samples'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this