Thermal Ergonomics Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2013 Mar 15;114(6):816-23. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01088.2012. Epub 2013 Jan 10.
This study assessed the accuracy of the technical absorbent (TA) method for measuring local sweat rate (LSR) relative to the well-established ventilated capsule (VC) method during steady-state and nonsteady-state sweating using large and small sample surface areas on the forearm and midback. Forty participants (38 males and two females) cycled at 60% peak oxygen consumption for 75 min in either a temperate [22.3 ± 0.9°C, 32 ± 17% relative humidity (RH)] or warm (32.5 ± 0.8°C, 29 ± 7% RH) environment. Simultaneous bilateral comparisons of 5-min LSR measurements using the TA and VC methods were performed for the back and forearm after 10, 30, 50, and 70 min. LSR values, measured using the TA method, were highly correlated with the VC method at all time points, irrespective of sample surface area and body region (all P < 0.001). On average, ≈ 79% of the variability observed in LSR measured with the VC method was described by the TA method. The mean difference in absolute LSR using the TA method (TA-VC with 95% confidence intervals) was -0.23 [-0.30,-0.16], -0.11 [-0.21,0.00], -0.03 [-0.14,+0.08], and +0.02 [-0.07,+0.11] mg · cm(-2) · min(-1) after 10, 30, 50, and 70 min of exercise, respectively. Duplicate LSR measurements within each method during steady-state sweating were highly correlated (TA: r = 0.96, P < 0.001, n = 20; VC: r = 0.97, P < 0.001, n = 20) with a mean bias of +0.07 ± 0.14 and +0.01 ± 0.10 mg · cm(-2) · min(-1) for TA and VC methods, respectively. The mean smallest detectable difference in LSR was 0.12 and 0.05 mg · min(-1) · cm(-2) for TA and VC methods, respectively. These data support the TA method as a reliable alternative for measuring the rate of sweat appearance on the skin surface.
本研究评估了技术吸收（TA）法在使用前臂和中背部较大和较小的样本表面积测量稳态和非稳态出汗时，测量局部出汗率（LSR）的准确性，与成熟的通风胶囊（VC）法相比。40 名参与者（38 名男性和 2 名女性）以 60%的峰值耗氧量在温带[22.3±0.9°C，32±17%相对湿度（RH）]或温暖（32.5±0.8°C，29±7%RH）环境中循环 75 分钟。在 10、30、50 和 70 分钟后，同时使用 TA 和 VC 方法对背部和前臂进行 5 分钟 LSR 测量的双侧比较。使用 TA 方法测量的 LSR 值与 VC 方法在所有时间点均高度相关，无论样本表面积和身体区域如何（均 P<0.001）。平均而言，VC 方法测量的 LSR 中有 ≈79%的变异性可以用 TA 方法来描述。使用 TA 方法的绝对 LSR 平均差异（TA-VC，95%置信区间）分别为-0.23[-0.30，-0.16]、-0.11[-0.21，0.00]、-0.03[-0.14，+0.08]和+0.02[-0.07，+0.11]mg·cm-2·min-1，分别在运动后 10、30、50 和 70 分钟。在稳态出汗期间，每种方法的重复 LSR 测量高度相关（TA：r=0.96，P<0.001，n=20；VC：r=0.97，P<0.001，n=20），平均偏差为+0.07±0.14 和+0.01±0.10mg·cm-2·min-1，分别用于 TA 和 VC 方法。LSR 的平均最小可检测差异分别为 0.12 和 0.05mg·min-1·cm-2，用于 TA 和 VC 方法。这些数据支持 TA 方法作为测量皮肤表面出汗率的可靠替代方法。
