A comparison between the technical absorbent and ventilated capsule methods for measuring local sweat rate

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.