Male Reproductive Toxicity - SQU Home

popular press has sensationalized these reports. While there is evidence that sperm numbershave changed, one must be cautious, remembering that both andrology and laboratorymethodology have changed over the last half century. Are the observed changes a reflectionof study participants and/or methodology, and are they real? 100-102 Related to this currentcontroversy are reports that this decline is due to male offspring being exposed in utero toestrogenic compounds from our environment. While exposure to estrogenic (and otherhormonal) compounds in utero can have negative effects on sperm production, 103 a directcause and effect have not been shown between estrogenic compounds and a decline of spermnumbers in the human race. This is an interesting hypothesis that needs much more research.4 SUMMARYThe male reproductive system is susceptible to toxic insult that results in decreasedfecundity and/or an increase in adverse pregnancy. Each year, several hundred new compoundsare added to the 70 thousand compounds and 4 million mixtures already in commercialuse, 104 suggesting that there is a need to evaluate the effects that a man’s workplaceand environment has on his fecundity. There are several methods for evaluating male fecundity,often requiring a large research team and complex laboratory assessments. While the problemsin conducting such a study may seem unsurmountable, a team approach has allowed thisresearch to be successful. 91REFERENCES1. Sokol, R. Z., Endocrine evaluations in the assessment of male reproductive hazards, Reprod. Toxicol., 2,217–222, 1988.2. Schrader, S. M., Turner, T. W., Breitenstein, M. J., and Simon, S. D., Measurement of male reproductivehormones for field studies, J. Occup. Med., 35, 574–576, 1993.3. Bardin, C. W., Pituitary-testicular axis, in Reproductive Endocrinology, Yen, S. S. C. and Jaffe, R. B., Eds.,W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 177–199.4. Raid-Fahmy, D., Read, G. F., Walker, R. F., and Griffiths, K., Steroids in saliva for assessing endocrinefunction, Endocrinol. Rev., 3, 367–395, 1982.5. Apostoli, P., Romeo, L., Peroni, E., Ferioli, A., Ferrari, S., Pasini, F., and Aprili, F., Steroid hormone sulphationin lead workers, Br. J. Ind. Med., 46, 204–208, 1989.6. Plant, T. M., Puberty in primates, in The Physiology of Reproduction, Knobil, E. and Neill, J. D., Eds., RavenPress, New York, 1988, pp. 1763–1788.7. NIOSH, Collecting a Semen Sample, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH,1986.8. Eliasson, R. and Treichl, L., Supravital staining of human spermatozoa, Fertil. Steril., 22, 134–137, 1971.9. Jeyendran, R. S., Van den Ven, H. H., Perez-Palaez, M., Crabo, B. G., and Zaneveld, L. J. D., Developmentof an assay to assess the functional integrity of the human sperm membrane and its relationship to othersemen characteristics, J. Reprod. Fertil., 70, 219–228, 1984.10. Schrader, S. M., Platek, S. F., Zaneveld, L. J. D., Perez-Palaez, M., and Jeyendran, R. S., Sperm viability: acomparison of analytical methods, Andrologia, 18, 530–538, 1986.11. MacLeod, J., Semen quality in 1000 men of known fertility and in 800 cases of infertile marriage, Fertil.Steril., 2, 115–139, 1951.12. Freund, M., Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology, Int. J. Fertil., 11, 97–180, 1966.13. Fredricson, B., Morphologic evaluation of spermatozoa in different laboratories, Andrologia, 11, 57–61, 1979.14. Hanke, L. J., Comparison of Laboratories Conducting Sperm Morphology, Report TA78-28, National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1981.15. Schmassmann, A., Mikuz, G., Bartsch, G., and Rohr, H., Quantification of human sperm morphology andmotility by means of semi-automatic image analysis systems, Microscopica Acta, 82, 163–178, 1979.16. Katz, D. F., Overstreet, J. W., and Pelprey, R. J., Integrated assessment of the motility, morphology andmorphometry of human spermatozoa, INSERM, 103, 97–100, 1981.© 1999 by CRC Press LLC