Comparing Whole Body Sweat Rate Estimates Between Commercial Sweat Patches And Body Mass Change Methods

PURPOSE: Hydration status impacts performance and safety during physical activity in the heat. However, sweat rate testing - to inform practice and mitigate the risks of hypohydration - is not common outside of high-performance or research settings. The purpose of this study was to compare sweat rate estimates during exercise in the heat between a commercially-available, sweat testing patch (PATCH) and a corrected, body mass loss estimate (SwR) - common in research. METHODS: Participants (n = 8; female = 4; aged 24 ± 3 y) completed exercise in an environmental chamber (35.9 ± 1.9 0C; 34.9 ± 3.1% RH) in fasted, euhydrated state (USG ≤ 1.020). The participants completed 20 minutes of walking at ≈ 6 METs (69.68 m·min-1 and 8.5% grade) followed by 10 minutes of seated recovery. Sweat rate was estimated two ways. PATCH required participants to wear a patch on their forearm and a photo of the patch was uploaded to a smart-phone application post-exercise. PATCH reported a sweat rate range from which an average was calculated. Second, SwR used participants’ post-exercise body mass subtracted from their pre-exercise body mass, adjusted for fluid consumed during exercise. The difference in mass was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg. Both methods required transforming data to L · h-1 to compare sweat rates. A paired-samples, t-Test (p ≤ 0.05) was used to investigate differences between SwR and PATCH; and Pearson’s correlation was used to explore their relationship. RESULTS: SwR (0.6 ± 0.3 L · h-1) was lower than the PATCH (1.2 ± 0.3 L · h-1; p < 0.001) but highly correlated (r = 0.76). Of note, SWR was less than PATCH for all observations (range = 28-78% lower). CONCLUSIONS: Sweat testing is logistically difficult. The benefits that can be gleaned from commercially-available, wearable technology is promising. However, within this design, a sweat patch overestimated sweat rate when compared to methods that use body-mass change during this short exercise session in the heat.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001159724.55771.94
Primary Topic
Textile materials and evaluations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Whole Body Sweat Rate Estimates Between Commercial Sweat Patches And Body Mass Change Methods

Emily L. Langford, Marissa L. Bello, Stacy H. Bishop, Robert L. Herron et al.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Textile materials and evaluations
article

Comparing Whole Body Sweat Rate Estimates Between Commercial Sweat Patches And Body Mass Change Methods

Emily L. Langford, Marissa L. Bello, Stacy H. Bishop, Robert L. Herron, Greg A. Ryan, Laura D. Jones, Peyton S. Higgins
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hydration status impacts performance and safety during physical activity in the heat. However, sweat rate testing - to inform practice and mitigate the risks of hypohydration - is not common outside of high-performance or research settings. The purpose of this study was to compare sweat rate estimates during exercise in the heat between a commercially-available, sweat testing patch (PATCH) and a corrected, body mass loss estimate (SwR) - common in research. METHODS: Participants (n = 8; female = 4; aged 24 ± 3 y) completed exercise in an environmental chamber (35.9 ± 1.9 0C; 34.9 ± 3.1% RH) in fasted, euhydrated state (USG ≤ 1.020). The participants completed 20 minutes of walking at ≈ 6 METs (69.68 m·min-1 and 8.5% grade) followed by 10 minutes of seated recovery. Sweat rate was estimated two ways. PATCH required participants to wear a patch on their forearm and a photo of the patch was uploaded to a smart-phone application post-exercise. PATCH reported a sweat rate range from which an average was calculated. Second, SwR used participants’ post-exercise body mass subtracted from their pre-exercise body mass, adjusted for fluid consumed during exercise. The difference in mass was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg. Both methods required transforming data to L · h-1 to compare sweat rates. A paired-samples, t-Test (p ≤ 0.05) was used to investigate differences between SwR and PATCH; and Pearson’s correlation was used to explore their relationship. RESULTS: SwR (0.6 ± 0.3 L · h-1) was lower than the PATCH (1.2 ± 0.3 L · h-1; p < 0.001) but highly correlated (r = 0.76). Of note, SWR was less than PATCH for all observations (range = 28-78% lower). CONCLUSIONS: Sweat testing is logistically difficult. The benefits that can be gleaned from commercially-available, wearable technology is promising. However, within this design, a sweat patch overestimated sweat rate when compared to methods that use body-mass change during this short exercise session in the heat.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 57(10S)
Georgia Southern University (US), University of Montevallo (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Textile materials and evaluations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.