Selecting skin temperature screening methods is difficult due to the wide variety of measurement techniques and equipment currently available. The hypothesis behind the various skin temperature measurement techniques is that contact methods can change the local skin temperature, whereas non-contact methods are sensitive to environmental elements and require consistent placement. The study aimed to compare contact and non-contact temperature sensors for measuring skin temperature in children’s lower limbs. An experimental study was conducted by utilising NTC thermistors and an infrared thermometer. Seventy children were recruited to participate in this study. Measurements were conducted during three separate trials, which spanned three experimental phases: before, during, and after exercise. The study protocol included 5 min of sitting and resting before the exercise, 5 min of standing in runner’s pose/single-leg march during the exercise, and 5 min of sitting and resting afterwards. Skin temperature data were collected over 20-min intervals for each test. Descriptive statistics and statistical differences among the three tests are illustrated. In three test trials, across all phases, scatter plots consistently revealed a robust, strong correlation between NCTS and CTS readings. NCTS systematically demonstrated higher mean temperature readings when compared to CTS under all conditions. Across all tests and phases, paired samples t-tests revealed that the mean differences between NCTS and CTS were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The greatest discrepancies and biggest effect sizes were detected in the after-exercise phase, which peaks in Test 3 (Mdiff = 2.78°C, ES = 1.46). CTS methods are more reliable and precise for tracking paediatric exercise.
ChenWZhangNJianW, et al. Experimental study on thermo-physiological differences between children and adults during indoor sedentary conditions. Build Environ2024; 255: 111439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111439
3.
van Marken LichtenbeltWDDaanenHAWoutersL, et al. Evaluation of wireless determination of skin temperature using iButtons. Physiol Behav2006; 88: 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.04.026
SmithCJ. Pediatric thermoregulation: considerations in the face of global climate change. Nutrients2019; 11(9): Article no. 2010. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092010
Fernández-PeñaCReimúndezAVianaF, et al. Sex differences in thermoregulation in mammals: Implications for energy homeostasis. Front Endocrinol2023; 14: 1093376. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1093376
9.
Mota-RojasDTittoCGOrihuelaA, et al. Physiological and behavioral mechanisms of thermoregulation in mammals. Animals2021; 11(6): Article 1733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061733
10.
PantelopoulosABourbakisNG. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C2010; 40: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660
11.
DiasDPaulo Silva CunhaJ. Wearable health devices-vital sign monitoring, systems and technologies. Sensors2018; 18(8): Article no. 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082414
12.
ZhangHArensEHuizengaC, et al. Thermal sensation and comfort models for non-uniform and transient environments, part II: local comfort of individual body parts. Build Environ2010; 45: 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.06.015
13.
EggenbergerPMacRaeBAKempS, et al. Prediction of core body temperature based on skin temperature, heat flux, and heart rate under different exercise and clothing conditions in the heat in young adult males. Front Physiol2018; 9: 1780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01780
14.
BachAJStewartIBMinettGM, et al. Does the technique employed for skin temperature assessment alter outcomes? A systematic review. Physiol Meas2015; 36: R27–R51. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/36/9/R27
15.
MorishimaSXuYUrashimaA, et al. Human body skin temperature prediction based on machine learning. Artif Life Robot2021; 26: 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10015-020-00632-4
16.
MacRaeBAAnnaheimSSpenglerCM, et al. Skin temperature measurement using contact thermometry: a systematic review of setup variables and their effects on measured values. Front Physiol2018; 9: 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00029
17.
BachAJStewartIBDisherAE, et al. A comparison between conductive and infrared devices for measuring mean skin temperature at rest, during exercise in the heat, and recovery. PLoS One2015; 10: e0117907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117907
18.
MacRaeBARossiRMPsikutaA, et al. Contact skin temperature measurements and associated effects of obstructing local sweat evaporation during mild exercise-induced heat stress. Physiol Meas2018; 39: 075003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/aaca85
McFarlinBVenableAWilliamsR, et al. Comparison of techniques for the measurement of skin temperature during exercise in a hot, humid environment. Biol Sport2014; 32: 11–14. https://doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1124569
21.
LiTZhangZFengG, et al. Improved measurement method of human skin temperature based on human skin-like gradient standard radiation source. Thermo2025; 5: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/thermo5040038
22.
BuonoMJUlrichRL. Comparison of mean skin temperature using ‘covered’ versus ‘uncovered’ contact thermistors. Physiol Meas1998; 19: 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/19/2/016
PsikutaANiedermannRRossiRM. Effect of ambient temperature and attachment method on surface temperature measurements. Int J Biometeorol2014; 58: 877–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0669-4
25.
WuJLiuJ. Review of the capacity to accurately detect the temperature of human skin tissue using the microwave radiation method. Biosensors2024; 14: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios14050221
26.
MacRaeBASpenglerCMPsikutaA, et al. A thermal skin model for comparing contact skin temperature sensors and assessing measurement errors. Sensors2021; 21: 4906. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144906
27.
MacRaeBAAnnaheimSStämpfliR, et al. Validity of contact skin temperature sensors under different environmental conditions with and without fabric coverage: characterisation and correction. Int J Biometeorol2018; 62: 1861–1872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1589-0
28.
MazdeyasnaSGhassemiPWangQ. Best practices for body temperature measurement with infrared thermography: external factors affecting accuracy. Sensors2023; 23: 8011. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23188011
29.
CosmaACSimhaR. Thermal comfort modeling in transient conditions using real-time local body temperature extraction with a thermographic camera. Build Environ2018; 143: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.06.052
30.
KapoorMVasdevVSinghRK, et al. Relationship between aerobic fitness and lower limb skin temperature during cycling exercise testing among well-trained athletes and nonathletes: a cross-sectional study. Med J Armed Forces India2023; 79: S165–S174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2022.04.017
31.
KrauseBF. Accuracy and response time comparisons of four skin temperature-monitoring devices. Nurse Anesth1993; 4: 55–61.
32.
JamesCARichardsonAJWattPW, et al. Reliability and validity of skin temperature measurement by telemetry thermistors and a thermal camera during exercise in the heat. J Therm Biol2014; 45: 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2014.08.010
33.
LanYYangSChenG, et al. Characteristics of a type of NTC thermistors for cryogenic applications. Adv Mater Phys Chem2020; 10: 167–177. https://doi.org/10.4236/ampc.2020.108012
34.
FernandesAAAmorimPRBritoCJ, et al. Measuring skin temperature before, during and after exercise: a comparison of thermocouples and infrared thermography. Physiol Meas2014; 35: 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/35/2/189
35.
PériardJDEijsvogelsTMHDaanenHAM. Exercise under heat stress: thermoregulation, hydration, performance implications, and mitigation strategies. Physiol Rev2021; 101: 1873–1979. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00038.2020
36.
EricksonRSWooTM. Accuracy of infrared ear thermometry and traditional temperature methods in young children. Heart Lung1994; 23: 181–195.
37.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
38.
ChenH-YChenAChenC. Investigation of the impact of infrared sensors on core body temperature monitoring by comparing measurement sites. Sensors (Basel)2020; 20: 2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20102885
39.
Van den BruelAVerbakelJWangK, et al. Non-contact infrared thermometers compared with current approaches in primary care for children aged 5 years and under: a method comparison study. Health Technol Assess2020; 24: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24530
40.
HaywardGVerbakelJYIsmailFA, et al. Non-contact infrared versus axillary and tympanic thermometers in children attending primary care: a mixed-methods study of accuracy and acceptability. Br J Gen Pract2020; 70: e236–e244. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X708845
HakanNOkumuşNAydınM, et al. The comparison of temporal temperature measurement method by non-contact infrared thermometer with other body temperature measurement methods. Journal of Dr Behcet Uz Children s Hospital2017; 7(2): 141–146. https://doi.org/10.5222/buchd.2017.141
43.
ZhaoYBergmannJHM. Non-Contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners for human body temperature monitoring: a systematic review. Sens2023; 23(17): Article no. 7439. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177439
44.
BuonoMJJechortAMarquesR, et al. Comparison of infrared versus contact thermometry for measuring skin temperature during exercise in the heat. Physiol Meas2007; 28: 855–859. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/28/8/008
45.
Dell’IsolaGBCosentiniECanaleL, et al. Noncontact body temperature measurement: uncertainty evaluation and screening decision rule to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Sensors2021; 21: 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020346
46.
FosterJLloydABHavenithG. Non-contact infrared assessment of human body temperature: the journal Temperature toolbox. Temperature2021; 8: 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2021.1899546
47.
BasakTAciksozSTosunB, et al. Comparison of three different thermometers in evaluating the body temperature of healthy young adult individuals. Int J Nurs Pract2013; 19: 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12097
48.
SmithADCrabtreeDRBilzonJL, et al. The validity of wireless iButtons and thermistors for human skin temperature measurement. Physiol Meas2010; 31: 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/31/1/007
