Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > Articles online first > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 Feb 10





A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology

Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111



The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 Feb 10

language: English

Portable open-circuit spirometry systems: a review

Brittany S. OVERSTREET 1, David R. BASSETT Jr. 1, Scott E. CROUTER 1, Brian C. RIDER 1, Brian PARR 2

1 Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, & Sport Studies, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; 2 Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC


AIM: The purpose of this review is to describe the evolution of portable open-circuit spirometry systems, and discuss their validity, reliability, and principles of operation.
METHODS: Eleven devices were selected for review: the Oxylog, Aerosport KB1-C, Cosmed K2, Cosmed K4RQ, Cosmed K4b2, MetaMax I, MetaMax II, Metamax3B/VmaxST, Medgraphics VO2000, Oxycon Mobile I and Oxycon Mobile II. The validity (compared to the Douglas bag method (DBM)) and reliability of each device for measuring VO2 was summarized.
RESULTS: Mean differences in resting measurements of VO2 were within ±0.05 L∙min-1 for all devices except one (difference of 0.17 L∙min-1). When compared to the DBM, VO2 differences for all devices ranged from 0.01 L∙min-1 to 0.29 L∙min-1 during submaximal intensity exercise and from 0.01 L∙min-1 to 0.36 L∙min-1 during vigorous/maximal intensity. During submaximal and maximal intensities, ICC ranged from 0.66-0.99 and CV ranged from 2.0-14.2%. Of these devices, four used breath-by-breath technology and six used micro-proportional sampling technology. Validity and reliability of devices did not seem to differ between methods of gas collection.
CONCLUSION: Of the three commercially available devices in 2015, all were found to be reliable. Two of the three systems (Cosmed K4b2 and Oxycon Mobile II) provided valid estimates of VO2 (mean values within ±0.10 L/min-1 of DBM) during rest, and submaximal and maximal intensities, while the MetaMax3B slightly overestimated VO2, particularly at maximal exercise.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail