Performance Evaluation of a Salivary Amylase Biosensor for Stress Assessment in Military Field Research

Abstract

The accuracy and consistency of the biosensors need to be improved when used to directly measure salivary amylase activity under the tongue for stress assessment in military medical training.

Factors affecting salivary α‐amylase levels measured with a handheld biosensor and a standard laboratory assay

“…On the other hand, sAA levels measured with an intraoral biosensor were less strongly but significantly correlated with the other two measurement methods (extraoral and EKA; range of correlation = 0.436‐0.475). This is in contrast with the other two studies that found nonsignificant correlations (range of correlation = 0.113‐0.30) between sAA levels measured intraorally with the collector strip placed under the tongue and measured extraorally from whole saliva (Peng et al, ; Robles et al, ). These results suggest that the saliva itself is responsible for the reading of a handheld biosensor since the readings were consistent with the same pool of saliva and less consistent with the different pool of saliva.…”

“…Our findings were in agreement with a previous study that compared sAA levels measured between a biosensor and an automated analyzer with correlations in the range of 0.971 to 0.99 (Shetty et al, ). Another study that compared sAA levels measured between a biosensor and an EKA also found strong correlations in the range of 0.889 to 0.951 (Peng et al, ). These confirm the validity of a handheld biosensor to measure sAA compared with standard laboratory methods.…”

“…In our pilot study, we found some strips to report error readings due to not enough saliva (dry strip) when the saliva collection time was 30 seconds. Indeed, Peng et al () reported error strips from no amylase activity. Yamaguchi, Kanemaru, Kanemori, and Mizuno () also found that the time it took to collect the same volume of saliva could vary greatly among individuals.…”

“…It was found that the flow rate of stimulated saliva could be 3 to 10 times higher than that of unstimulated saliva (Sreebny, ). In a study by Peng et al (), the participants chewed on the synthetic swab. Stimulation by chewing can greatly increase sAA levels compared with passive collection by placing the strip under the tongue (Beltzer et al, ).…”

Evaluation of an Integrated System of Wearable Physiological Sensors for Stress Monitoring in Working Environments by Using Biological Markers

“…For example, each year in the UK, work-related stress results in the loss of nearly 13 million working days at a cost of £12 billion [4]. This is especially true for physically and psychologically demanding working activities, such as in the transportation [5], medical [6], military [7], civil protection [8] and office [9] sectors. Another study showed that a significant percentage of people admit that they have never undertaken a strategy or activity to reduce and manage their stress [10].…”